I'm Disappointed after reading LOWG and LOCG.


Lost Omens Products

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a Meta game feat really. The player forgets outside the game so their character gets to automatically remember, but only the last 24 hours. You can say most characters that would take this feat either have a pretty high Intelligence or Wisdom, if they have a 16 or 18 Wisdom I'd hope they'd be able to remember crucial elements to a mission told to them in the last 24 hours, and if they have a high Intelligence I'd hope the character is smart enough to write it down. It'd be different if this gave to photographic memory, or a bonus to Recalling Knowledge of all types cause you might have seen it in a book somewhere.

As for Joana's example that's a house rule, what I'm talking about is generally just being a good player and keeping notes about important details even if it's a quick scribble in your note book.

To Rysky there's a difference between trying to memorizing the Bestiary stat blocks and take notes so you don't forget important campaign related topics or names. One is trying to cheat the system and the other is information I've already freely given to you.

Scroll Master Dedication is a terrible feat. It does what a Skill feat could do, not what a Class feat should do which it is replacing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Strill wrote:
Remembering things that happened 24 hours ago should cost a skill feat, not a class feat.

If that was all it did you would have a point.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sin_Dark wrote:
To Rysky there's a difference between trying to memorizing the Bestiary stat blocks and take notes so you don't forget important campaign related topics or names. One is trying to cheat the system and the other is information I've already freely given to you.

How is it cheating if the GM freely gives them the book to read for it?

My point, as Joana pointed out, is that the usefulness of the feat is entirely reliant on how the table works. If you’re playing PBP on here and can just go back a page to reread something, it’s not really useful. But that can change with the table and play setup.

Just like how if your group runs group initiative taking anything that boosts your initiative would be of little use to you. That doesn’t make initiative boosters useless. Improved Initiative and that trait (Reactionary?) were really popular in P1.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is pretty weird feat in sense that nothing in rules implies there even existed recall knowledge check for information you had learned in same day or mechanics for forgetting stuff in character and presence of feat implies that is actually a thing mechanically.

Like, what is dc for players or pcs wanting to remember stuff they forgot?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ancient Elf

The interesting thing is that an Ancient Elf has no age requirement... Nothing in the heritage prevents you being 20... "In your long life" isn't quantifiable.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I really don't think them being Uncommon matters much outside possibly PFS.
For me, it's one more thing that has to be specifically allowed in my online games: the list of banned/unbanned items just keeps growing...

just allow everything from paizo, keeps it simple

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sin_Dark wrote:

Ok Worthless may have been a tad harsh I mean after all they still do something. So I'll rephrase it to terrible feats.

Masked Casting, Signifer's Sight (lvl 10 is a little late in the game to get darkvision, the other benefit will rarely come into play), Fear No Law, Fear no One (It's fighters bravery, fighter's are probably the most common Hellknights next to champions), Mask Familiar (At this point anyone that wants a familiar will have one, yes they can retrain but this is a 4th level feat that feat can be better used elsewhere), Adaptive Mask Familiar (It's improved Familiar but at a 6th level feat cost, this could be worth it if it stacks with improved familiar but that's a hefty investment), Rain-Scribe Sustenance (Super Situational), All Uzunjati Feats (Though they are Skill feats so there's some leeway), Every Single Scroll Master Feat but Lore Seeker, Swordmaster Dedication (Disarming is aweful and I doubt many NPC's or Monster would take the time to do it).

I didn't touch the lack luster Heritages and some questionable Ancestry Feats.

If this was a 20 door soft cover I could maybe see it, but it's not. Many options in these book are uninspired and just plain boring. However as previously said the Art, Writing of the Fluff, and few fantasy provoking and just cool sounding feats are good.

thing is a lot of these are dependent on what you want to do, for example my wife loves masked familiar and is tempted to change her class "well make a new character" in order to get it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:
It's a Meta game feat really. The player forgets outside the game so their character gets to automatically remember, but only the last 24 hours. You can say most characters that would take this feat either have a pretty high Intelligence or Wisdom, if they have a 16 or 18 Wisdom I'd hope they'd be able to remember crucial elements to a mission told to them in the last 24 hours, and if they have a high Intelligence I'd hope the character is smart enough to write it down. It'd be different if this gave to photographic memory, or a bonus to Recalling Knowledge of all types cause you might have seen it in a book somewhere.

What if it was an important fact, but the players didn't realize it and didn't write it down? What then?

This happens to even my note taking players a lot, not even mentioning the rest of them.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it's that important of a fact for my players to know I'm not gonna risk it on a random roll, if some one has a decently high Int or Wis I'll just share it with them to prevent a derailment, or if it's not that important it can be fun for the fact to pop up later.

As for the Mask Familiar thematically it's amazing. Who doesn't want a cool talking Tiki or Animal mask. Thinking Crash Bandicoot here. How ever that's all it really is, is a thematic familiar. When you take it off it still takes the form of an animal. So people who take it litterly wasted a feat so their familiar can look like a mask. That's not worth a class feat, and as a DM if someone really wanted a mask familiar I'd give it to them, but that's me.

Rysky once again your comparing it to a House rule, there is noting in the rules that says you can't take notes, it's not a house rule. Like I said I could be a bit more understanding if it was a Skill feat, but it's not.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also wanted to thank everyone for a good back and forth discussion.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

We just ignoring all the good options? It's especially criminal that Magaambyan Attendant and Halcyon Speaker haven't been mentioned yet, considering how great their feats are in general. And all the Knights of Lastwall feats and archetypes look good too. Hellknight Signifier is a bit of a mixed bag, sure, and the Scrollmaster is clearly suited for a specific type of campaign (or perhaps for PFS). But most of the options in this book are pretty good, or at least comparable to existing feats, heritages, etc. Now please excuse me while I build a Cascade-Bearer with access to every spell list up to Level 7.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sin_Dark wrote:

If it's that important of a fact for my players to know I'm not gonna risk it on a random roll, if some one has a decently high Int or Wis I'll just share it with them to prevent a derailment, or if it's not that important it can be fun for the fact to pop up later.

As for the Mask Familiar thematically it's amazing. Who doesn't want a cool talking Tiki or Animal mask. Thinking Crash Bandicoot here. How ever that's all it really is, is a thematic familiar. When you take it off it still takes the form of an animal. So people who take it litterly wasted a feat so their familiar can look like a mask. That's not worth a class feat, and as a DM if someone really wanted a mask familiar I'd give it to them, but that's me.

Rysky once again your comparing it to a House rule, there is noting in the rules that says you can't take notes, it's not a house rule. Like I said I could be a bit more understanding if it was a Skill feat, but it's not.

But what if you didn’t take a note on it?

Example: You go to a party, plenty of people there, you don’t get names.

Later on you meet someone while exploring a dungeon.

“Wait a second, were they at the party?”

Basically this feat lets you catch stuff you the player might miss.

If the GM just gives said info out when you weren’t actively taking it down then it’s just the same as them giving you the Bestiary info.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:

If it's that important of a fact for my players to know I'm not gonna risk it on a random roll, if some one has a decently high Int or Wis I'll just share it with them to prevent a derailment, or if it's not that important it can be fun for the fact to pop up later.

As for the Mask Familiar thematically it's amazing. Who doesn't want a cool talking Tiki or Animal mask. Thinking Crash Bandicoot here. How ever that's all it really is, is a thematic familiar. When you take it off it still takes the form of an animal. So people who take it litterly wasted a feat so their familiar can look like a mask. That's not worth a class feat, and as a DM if someone really wanted a mask familiar I'd give it to them, but that's me.

Rysky once again your comparing it to a House rule, there is noting in the rules that says you can't take notes, it's not a house rule. Like I said I could be a bit more understanding if it was a Skill feat, but it's not.

But what if you didn’t take a note on it?

Example: You go to a party, plenty of people there, you don’t get names.

Later on you meet someone while exploring a dungeon.

“Wait a second, were they at the party?”

Basically this feat lets you catch stuff you the player might miss.

If the GM just gives said info out when you weren’t actively taking it down then it’s just the same as them giving you the Bestiary info.

What's the difference between "I the player am not particularly good at phrasing things in a persuasive manner even though my character is" and "I the player might need to take notes to remember everything my character would know, even though my character still remembers it all"? And for that matter, what if I personally am physically weak while my Barbarian character is about as strong as can be?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.

But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.
But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.

How can your character take notes on something the GM didn't describe?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, let's say I give you a list of 10 people at a party and their occupations. For the next 24 hours, you can instantly recall all of that information without trying.

Or let's say I give you a list of rumours about a city. Again, you can instantly recall all the details of each rumour if you need to head to a related place.

It can remember every important fact instantly within 24 hours and give you a bonus afterwards, whether you knew it was important at the time or not, as long as it's related to the current adventure. Doesn't matter if it happened months ago in game or in real life. That is its power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.
But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.
How can your character take notes on something the GM didn't describe?

There is no "taking notes on things the GM didn't describe". There is, however, the GM describing things to you the player because your character was witness to those things and then you the player maybe taking notes on what your character witnesses or you the player maybe not taking notes on what your character witnesses. The commonality is still "your character witnesses and remembers these things"; independent of the note-taking of you the player. Just like I may be physically strong like my character is strong or I may not be physically strong unlike my character who is strong; the commonality there is "my character is strong".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Joana wrote:

I think Rysky is saying that if the players keep detailed notes, Scrollmaster Dedication is probably not a good feat choice, just like Cyouni said it wouldn't be if the GM automatically prompts the players with details they've forgotten. It's also not a good feat for play-by-post, because you can always just page back and re-read.

That healing feat from P1e that lets you reroll 1s would be a worthless feat in my group because we've had a house rule to reroll 1s for healing and hit points since AD&D. At another tsble, someone probably loves it.

This.

Okay. Thank you. I understand that. As I said, I figured I was misinterpreting, but appreciated the clarification how.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sin_Dark wrote:
As for the Mask Familiar thematically it's amazing. Who doesn't want a cool talking Tiki or Animal mask. Thinking Crash Bandicoot here. How ever that's all it really is, is a thematic familiar. When you take it off it still takes the form of an animal. So people who take it litterly wasted a feat so their familiar can look like a mask. That's not worth a class feat, and as a DM if someone really wanted a mask familiar I'd give it to them, but that's me.

Everyone but gnomes needs to spend a class feat to get a familiar. Well, gnomes and wizards, but the wizard investment is bigger if they don't use a feat. Mask Familiar is great if you A) want a familiar, B) aren't a class that gets familiars, and C) aren't a gnome. Just as fast as multicasting for a familiar, but an RP prerequisite instead of an ability score prerequisite. It is no more of a wasted feat than Basic Arcana (Familiar).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.
But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.
How can your character take notes on something the GM didn't describe?
There is no "taking notes on things the GM didn't describe".
Precisely my point.
Quote:
There is, however, the GM describing things to you the player because your character was witness to those things and then you the player maybe taking notes on what your character witnesses or you the player maybe not taking notes on what your character witnesses.
And the GM might not describe every single guest at a party.
Quote:
The commonality is still "your character witnesses and remembers these things"; independent of the note-taking of you the player.

Which is what this feat is for. If you have just stated vaguely “My character remembers absolutely everything about this party and every guest there” that wouldn’t really have flown. Now you can do stuff like that with this feat as Cyouni eloquently points out.


Conversely if your GM is the sort that requires feats and stuff to remember things, AND the same sort that doesn't let you refer to notes.

Couldn't your -character- take notes? Carry a notebook and pencil(Charcoal whatever) and jot down important things IC?

"Well Gunthar the barbarian knows he's not the brightest torch in the bunch, and sometimes things are important, and he knows he won't remember them, so he writes the important stuff down and keeps the notes in his hip pouch"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.
But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.
How can your character take notes on something the GM didn't describe?
There is no "taking notes on things the GM didn't describe".
Precisely my point.

So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

I ask because that instead appears to be the equivalence you're drawing here:

Rysky wrote:
If the GM just gives said info out when you weren’t actively taking it down then it’s just the same as them giving you the Bestiary info.

and here:

Rysky wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:
To Rysky there's a difference between trying to memorizing the Bestiary stat blocks and take notes so you don't forget important campaign related topics or names. One is trying to cheat the system and the other is information I've already freely given to you.
How is it cheating if the GM freely gives them the book to read for it?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

No.

The player can takes notes on what they think is important, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get everything that’s described or showcased. And they’ll get nothing that isn’t described.

The feats lets them tap into the latter and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

No.

The player can takes notes on what they think is important, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get everything that’s described or showcased. And they’ll get nothing that isn’t described.

The feats lets them tap into the latter and such.

So are we or are we not agreed that a player taking notes on the things that their character is witness to AND that they the player think is important AND that they the player directly hear from the GM (so, everything that IS described or showcased so long as they think it's important but not including anything that they the player do not hear from the GM) is not equivalent to a player having their character act on information from the Bestiary that they the player read but that their character has not yet become aware of?

Because you say "no" and then don't actually say anything that disagrees with that position.

Unless you think there is some arbitrary limit to the amount of note-taking under those parameters that can happen. If so, how much? 50%? 70%? What if the player has an eidetic memory and can retain 100% of the information directly given him by the GM with any physical notes involved? What's the threshold for "sorry, player, you're naturally remembering too much; you need to take this feat to justify all that"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why would you be able to tap into things that weren't described? Isn't that a GM failing at that point?

"Oh well I didn't tell you everything, if you want to know EVERYTHING take a feat to know the stuff I didn't feel important enough to tell you at the time"

??

How's that work?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

No.

The player can takes notes on what they think is important, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get everything that’s described or showcased. And they’ll get nothing that isn’t described.

The feats lets them tap into the latter and such.

So are we or are we not agreed that a player taking notes on the things that their character is witness to AND that they the player think is important AND that they the player directly hear from the GM (so, everything that IS described or showcased so long as they think it's important but not including anything that they the player do not hear from the GM) is not equivalent to a player having their character act on information from the Bestiary that they the player read but that their character has not yet become aware of?

Because you say "no" and then don't actually say anything that disagrees with that position.

Unless you think there is some arbitrary limit to the amount of note-taking under those parameters that can happen. If so, how much? 50%? 70%? What if the player has an eidetic memory and can retain 100% of the information directly given him by the GM with any physical notes involved? What's the threshold for "sorry, player, you're naturally remembering too much; you need to take this feat to justify all that"?

I think we’re talking about two different things cause I don’t really know what you’re talking about at this point.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Why would you be able to tap into things that weren't described? Isn't that a GM failing at that point?

"Oh well I didn't tell you everything, if you want to know EVERYTHING take a feat to know the stuff I didn't feel important enough to tell you at the time"

??

How's that work?

If your character goes to a party with a 100 people attending do you expect your GM to describe all 100 people? Or just the ones you interact with or make a scene?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

No.

The player can takes notes on what they think is important, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get everything that’s described or showcased. And they’ll get nothing that isn’t described.

The feats lets them tap into the latter and such.

So are we or are we not agreed that a player taking notes on the things that their character is witness to AND that they the player think is important AND that they the player directly hear from the GM (so, everything that IS described or showcased so long as they think it's important but not including anything that they the player do not hear from the GM) is not equivalent to a player having their character act on information from the Bestiary that they the player read but that their character has not yet become aware of?

Because you say "no" and then don't actually say anything that disagrees with that position.

Unless you think there is some arbitrary limit to the amount of note-taking under those parameters that can happen. If so, how much? 50%? 70%? What if the player has an eidetic memory and can retain 100% of the information directly given him by the GM with any physical notes involved? What's the threshold for "sorry, player, you're naturally remembering too much; you need to take this feat to justify all that"?

I think we’re talking about two different things cause I don’t really know what you’re talking about at this point.

GM: "So who remembers where we're up to so far?"

Player at the table: "Well, you had us meet the Venture-Captain Lord (checks notes) Cromwell with the missing eye about his wife and fellow Pathfinder who went missing two weeks ago up near (checks notes) Ustalav. After we got there, we were attacked by a trio of werewolves. Not a random encounter because one had a ring with Lord Cromwell's insignia on it. We also (checks notes) DID check just in case the werewolf was somehow Lady Cromwell and it wasn't, so we then-"

GM: "Hold on, hold on. Do you have that Scrollmaster feat?"

"Player: "No, what would I be using it for?"

GM: "I can't just let remember all that without you having that feat. If I did, it'd be just like you reading the Bestiary about monsters you haven't even encountered. You want to try again?"

Player: "The dude sent us to the spooky place about some werewolves, and I learned I needed a feat to justify paying attention to the plot."

GM: "Much better."

That is the equivalence you were making and that I find ridiculous as illustrated above.

Rysky wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Why would you be able to tap into things that weren't described? Isn't that a GM failing at that point?

"Oh well I didn't tell you everything, if you want to know EVERYTHING take a feat to know the stuff I didn't feel important enough to tell you at the time"

??

How's that work?

If your character goes to a party with a 100 people attending do you expect your GM to describe all 100 people? Or just the ones you interact with or make a scene?

If my character goes to a party with a 100 people attending and the GM describes my interaction with 3 of them, I expect to be able to take notes if necessary on those three and that THAT note-taking is not the same as me flipping through the Bestiary and gaining information that my character was never exposed to. If the GM describes 7 party-attenders, I expect to be able to take notes on those 7, and that THAT note-taking not be the same as reading a Bestiary.


I actually rather like the Scrollmaster archetype. The dedication would be useful for my groups, we do often have someone taking notes in character but we take low-quality notes IRL so having a feat that lets us quiz the GM for a bit is nice. And a bonus to remember clues that could have happened 6 months ago IRL and anywhere between two weeks and several years in-game is nice. We are a forgetful bunch. Later on, Lore Seeker provides rather useful spells, Unravel Mysteries I suspect won't come up much for my groups because we tend to decipher when we have time rather than mid-dungeon, and Font of Knowledge is my favorite bard feat, but for anyone. Overall, I like it but I can see why some groups wouldn't benefit much from it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
That is the equivalence you were making and that I find ridiculous as illustrated above.

That is not the equivalence I was making in the slightest.

Quote:
If my character goes to a party with a 100 people attending and the GM describes my interaction with 3 of them, I expect to be able to take notes if necessary on those three and that THAT note-taking is not the same as me flipping through the Bestiary and gaining information that my character was never exposed to. If the GM describes 7 party-attenders, I expect to be able to take notes on those 7, and that THAT note-taking not be the same as reading a Bestiary.

You’re hung up on the “GM lets you read the Bestiary” example and applying it to everything when that was not the case. It was an example of how specific table rules makes certain game options redundant, such as if you use group initiative instead of individual then initiative boosting abilities aren’t of any use to you. If the GM just lets you read the Bestiary every encounter then monster identifying abilities won’t be of any use to you.

For your above example, the Feat would would let you possibly recall info about the 93 partygoers you didn’t interact with but still could reasonably seen but you the player chose not to focus on them at the time.


Paradozen wrote:
LOWG seemed pretty in line with the player companion and campaign setting lines IMO. Amazing art, amazing lore, a mixed bag of player options. Pretty thoroughly in line with the player companion line, with the exception of being more expensive and more durable. When I get the LOCG and time to process it I'll see if it seems different, but from what I've seen from pictures and spoilers it looks about the same. Amazing art, amazing lore, a mixed bag of player options.

I have my LOCG now, I've been going through it and I think I slightly underestimated it in this initial assessment. The LOWG and LOCG are, in my opinion, slightly better than the Player Companions and Campaign Settings for PF1e. LOCG has several feats and features that I would base an entire character around and very few feats that I don't think were worth the page space, normally I'm used to the other lines having maybe 1-2 options I would base a character around and 3-4 options I wouldn't consider interacting with (generally traits). LOCG has substantially more defining options than that, and not substantially more duds.

That isn't to say the book isn't amazing art/lore and a mixed bag of rules, it definitely is. I just think these bags have a better mix than the former options. I hope these books are the standard for the Lost Omens line and not above the par.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
That is the equivalence you were making and that I find ridiculous as illustrated above.
That is not the equivalence I was making in the slightest.

I quoted above two instances from your own posts that say otherwise. This post is on the same page as that, so any who care to see can just scroll up.

Quote:
Quote:
If my character goes to a party with a 100 people attending and the GM describes my interaction with 3 of them, I expect to be able to take notes if necessary on those three and that THAT note-taking is not the same as me flipping through the Bestiary and gaining information that my character was never exposed to. If the GM describes 7 party-attenders, I expect to be able to take notes on those 7, and that THAT note-taking not be the same as reading a Bestiary.

You’re hung up on the “GM lets you read the Bestiary” example and applying it to everything when that was not the case. It was an example of how specific table rules makes certain game options redundant, such as if you use group initiative instead of individual then initiative boosting abilities aren’t of any use to you. If the GM just lets you read the Bestiary every encounter then monster identifying abilities won’t be of any use to you.

For your above example, the Feat would would let you possibly recall info about the 93 partygoers you didn’t interact with but still could reasonably seen but you the player chose not to focus on them at the time.

The specific kind of example doesn't matter so much as what it's an example of. As Sin_Dark noted, you made the comparison between this note-taking of information that the GM gave you because your character became privy to it and outright house-rules such as group initiative or meta-gaming/cheating such as reading game information that your character didn't learn in-game (such as the Bestiary or reading ahead in an AP).

I mean, sure, lots of the typical aspects of gameplay would change or even get invalidated if all of my players had had individual copies of the Tomb of Horrors open and in front of them when I was running it yesterday. Ditto in the case of houserules being introduced. Recording the information that is presented to you by the GM (whether by remembering it or by taking notes or by looking back on the PbP posts) is neither of those.

Heck, I'd've much preferred it if the Scrollmaster feat in question that does other things besides allow the players to pay attention to the plot ONLY did those other things. As is, this is Ultimate Wilderness's Animal Call all over again, a feat validating itself by, by mere virtue of existing, rendering something illegal just so you can go back to doing the thing you were doing anyway by paying the feat tax.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
I quoted above two instances from your own posts that say otherwise. This post is on the same page as that, so any who care to see can just scroll up.
That is not what those posts are saying.
Quote:

The specific kind of example doesn't matter so much as what it's an example of. As Sin_Dark noted, you made the comparison between this note-taking of information that the GM gave you because your character became privy to it and outright house-rules such as group initiative or meta-gaming/cheating such as reading game information that your character didn't learn in-game (such as the Bestiary or reading ahead in an AP).

I mean, sure, lots of the typical aspects of gameplay would change or even get invalidated if all of my players had had individual copies of the Tomb of Horrors open and in front of them when I was running it yesterday. Ditto in the case of houserules being introduced. Recording the information that is presented to you by the GM (whether by remembering it or by taking notes or by looking back on the PbP posts) is neither of those.

And you seem to not see that I’m talking about information that the GM didn’t give out, not because of maliciousness on their part, but because of the scope of it.

There’s 100 people at the party. You interact with 7 of them so you the player can take notes on them. You can then use this feat to recall information on the other 93 guests.

Quote:
Heck, I'd've much preferred it if the Scrollmaster feat in question that does other things besides allow the players to pay attention to the plot ONLY did those other things. As is, this is Ultimate Wilderness's Animal Call all over again, a feat validating itself by, by mere virtue of existing, rendering something illegal just so you can go back to doing the thing you were doing anyway by paying the feat tax.

*reads feat*

Did this render actual rules illegal, or just house rules of which there’s no consensus?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically the assertion is that players are guaranteed to take notes on literally 100% of possible relevant facts. Let's have a test. I have here a summary of the Odyssey. (I had a different example before, but given there doesn't appear to be a guaranteed easy way to access Doomsday Dawn for people, I abandoned it. I'm pretty sure my Odyssey summary is shorter.)

Take notes, and see how many of my easy questions you can get right. By the assertions that have been made, every single person should be able to answer every single question correctly.

Spoiler:
Ten years have passed since the fall of Troy, and the Greek hero Odysseus still has not returned to his kingdom in Ithaca. A large and rowdy mob of suitors who have overrun Odysseus’s palace and pillaged his land continue to court his wife, Penelope. She has remained faithful to Odysseus. Prince Telemachus, Odysseus’s son, wants desperately to throw them out but does not have the confidence or experience to fight them. One of the suitors, Antinous, plans to assassinate the young prince, eliminating the only opposition to their dominion over the palace.

Unknown to the suitors, Odysseus is still alive. The beautiful nymph Calypso, possessed by love for him, has imprisoned him on her island, Ogygia. He longs to return to his wife and son, but he has no ship or crew to help him escape. While the gods and goddesses of Mount Olympus debate Odysseus’s future, Athena, Odysseus’s strongest supporter among the gods, resolves to help Telemachus. Disguised as a friend of the prince’s grandfather, Laertes, she convinces the prince to call a meeting of the assembly at which he reproaches the suitors. Athena also prepares him for a great journey to Pylos and Sparta, where the kings Nestor and Menelaus, Odysseus’s companions during the war, inform him that Odysseus is alive and trapped on Calypso’s island. Telemachus makes plans to return home, while, back in Ithaca, Antinous and the other suitors prepare an ambush to kill him when he reaches port.

On Mount Olympus, Zeus sends Hermes to rescue Odysseus from Calypso. Hermes persuades Calypso to let Odysseus build a ship and leave. The homesick hero sets sail, but when Poseidon, god of the sea, finds him sailing home, he sends a storm to wreck Odysseus’s ship. Poseidon has harbored a bitter grudge against Odysseus since the hero blinded his son, the Cyclops Polyphemus, earlier in his travels. Athena intervenes to save Odysseus from Poseidon’s wrath, and the beleaguered king lands at Scheria, home of the Phaeacians. Nausicaa, the Phaeacian princess, shows him to the royal palace, and Odysseus receives a warm welcome from the king and queen. When he identifies himself as Odysseus, his hosts, who have heard of his exploits at Troy, are stunned. They promise to give him safe passage to Ithaca, but first they beg to hear the story of his adventures.

Odysseus spends the night describing the fantastic chain of events leading up to his arrival on Calypso’s island. He recounts his trip to the Land of the Lotus Eaters, his battle with Polyphemus the Cyclops, his love affair with the witch-goddess Circe, his temptation by the deadly Sirens, his journey into Hades to consult the prophet Tiresias, and his fight with the sea monster Scylla. When he finishes his story, the Phaeacians return Odysseus to Ithaca, where he seeks out the hut of his faithful swineherd, Eumaeus. Though Athena has disguised Odysseus as a beggar, Eumaeus warmly receives and nourishes him in the hut. He soon encounters Telemachus, who has returned from Pylos and Sparta despite the suitors’ ambush, and reveals to him his true identity. Odysseus and Telemachus devise a plan to massacre the suitors and regain control of Ithaca.

When Odysseus arrives at the palace the next day, still disguised as a beggar, he endures abuse and insults from the suitors. The only person who recognizes him is his old nurse, Eurycleia, but she swears not to disclose his secret. Penelope takes an interest in this strange beggar, suspecting that he might be her long-lost husband. Quite crafty herself, Penelope organizes an archery contest the following day and promises to marry any man who can string Odysseus’s great bow and fire an arrow through a row of twelve axes—a feat that only Odysseus has ever been able to accomplish. At the contest, each suitor tries to string the bow and fails. Odysseus steps up to the bow and, with little effort, fires an arrow through all twelve axes. He then turns the bow on the suitors. He and Telemachus, assisted by a few faithful servants, kill every last suitor.

Odysseus reveals himself to the entire palace and reunites with his loving Penelope. He travels to the outskirts of Ithaca to see his aging father, Laertes. They come under attack from the vengeful family members of the dead suitors, but Laertes, reinvigorated by his son’s return, successfully kills Antinous’s father and puts a stop to the attack. Zeus dispatches Athena to restore peace. With his power secure and his family reunited, Odysseus’s long ordeal comes to an end.

Name the order of the encounters of Odysseus's trip, as narrated by him.
What were the terms of Penelope's archery contest?
Who is the one person to identify Odysseus?
Why does Poseidon harbour a grudge against Odysseus?
How long has it been since the fall of Troy?
Which god is Odysseus's greatest supporter?
Who plans to assassinate Odysseus's son?
Who is Poseidon's son, and what is his name?
Who imprisoned Odysseus, preventing him from returning home?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I was pretty unimpressed with both of these books, tbh.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
I quoted above two instances from your own posts that say otherwise. This post is on the same page as that, so any who care to see can just scroll up.
That is not what those posts are saying.
Rysky wrote:
If the GM just gives said info out when you weren’t actively taking it down then it’s just the same as them giving you the Bestiary info.

So the GM is narrating these events to the players, giving out all of these details during gameplay due to the players' characters interacting however they need to be in order to be exposed to these plot elements, and yet, dare he to remind them of any of this later without one of them having this feat, it's the same as handing them the Bestiary.

Rysky wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:
To Rysky there's a difference between trying to memorizing the Bestiary stat blocks and take notes so you don't forget important campaign related topics or names. One is trying to cheat the system and the other is information I've already freely given to you.
How is it cheating if the GM freely gives them the book to read for it?

I'm saying you're treating them as equivalent because you're treating them as equivalent. Right up there. Where you say that neither are cheating if the GM just hands the book over.

Get how that works?

"One is cheating the system and the other is information already acquired through gameplay."
Placing a distinction between the two actions means you're saying they are NOT THE SAME.

"But if we change how we define how 'acquired through gameplay' is accomplished, then neither is cheating."
Eliminating a distinction between the two actions means you're saying they are THE SAME.

That's... what those words mean. So yes, that is what those posts are saying.

Quote:
Quote:

The specific kind of example doesn't matter so much as what it's an example of. As Sin_Dark noted, you made the comparison between this note-taking of information that the GM gave you because your character became privy to it and outright house-rules such as group initiative or meta-gaming/cheating such as reading game information that your character didn't learn in-game (such as the Bestiary or reading ahead in an AP).

I mean, sure, lots of the typical aspects of gameplay would change or even get invalidated if all of my players had had individual copies of the Tomb of Horrors open and in front of them when I was running it yesterday. Ditto in the case of houserules being introduced. Recording the information that is presented to you by the GM (whether by remembering it or by taking notes or by looking back on the PbP posts) is neither of those.

And you seem to not see that I’m talking about information that the GM didn’t give out, not because of maliciousness on their part, but because of the scope of it.

There’s 100 people at the party. You interact with 7 of them so you the player can take notes on them. You can then use this feat to recall information on the other 93 guests.

See above. This is not what your posts were saying.

Quote:
Quote:
Heck, I'd've much preferred it if the Scrollmaster feat in question that does other things besides allow the players to pay attention to the plot ONLY did those other things. As is, this is Ultimate Wilderness's Animal Call all over again, a feat validating itself by, by mere virtue of existing, rendering something illegal just so you can go back to doing the thing you were doing anyway by paying the feat tax.

*reads feat*

Did this render actual rules illegal, or just house rules of which there’s no consensus?

If you're talking about UW's Animal Call, there's a difference between "we don't have a consensus on which already-existing rules this activity should fall under, just that this should already be an application of existing rules", and "we don't even have a consensus on whether any character during P1E's entire pre-UW run should have been able to attempt this activity at all". I recall the debut of UI and UW. I don't recall the rug-yanking that Animal Call and similar feats did getting any fanfare.

If you're talking about the Scrollmaster feat, I would have had no idea that being reminded of already-given information might be a houserule.

"And finally, Lord Cromwell tells you that his missing wife may be identified by her distinctive ring."

"I'm sorry, I write slow. Did you say 'ring'?"

"Do you have that Scrollmaster feat?"

"No..."

"Then I can't tell you. And no one else tell him either, lest I just hand out the Bestiary."

Cyouni wrote:
Basically the assertion is that players are guaranteed to take notes on literally 100% of possible relevant facts.

Almost. The assertion is (1) that IF a player does not bother taking this feat and nevertheless DOES take notes on some, most, or even all of the facts the player thinks are pertinent, and that some, most, or even all of those assumed-pertinent facts DO, in fact, end up being pertinent, that this note-taking is not the same thing as a player saying their character doesn't stick their head into the Sphere of Annihilation in the green devil's face only because he has the Tomb of Horrors in front of him and reads what it was. And (2), that even if the players don't show such diligence in their note-taking or memory and the GM nevertheless just tells them something like "The 'dude with the wife' was Lord Cromwell, who sent you on this adventure in the first place" (i.e., information that was given during gameplay and that the characters would know independent of their players, similarly to how my character's Str is independent of mine), that this is also not the same as "You haven't encountered any dracolichs yet, read up on them anyway", and not something that should be gated behind a feat.


Tectorman wrote:
Almost. The assertion is (1) that IF a player does not bother taking this feat and nevertheless DOES take notes on some, most, or even all of the facts the player thinks are pertinent, and that some, most, or even all of those assumed-pertinent facts DO, in fact, end up being pertinent, that this note-taking is not the same thing as a player saying their character doesn't stick their head into the Sphere of Annihilation in the green devil's face only because he has the Tomb of Horrors in front of him and reads what it was. And (2), that even if the players don't show such diligence in their note-taking or memory and the GM nevertheless just tells them something like "The 'dude with the wife' was Lord Cromwell, who sent you on this adventure in the first place" (i.e., information that was given during gameplay and that the characters would know independent of their players, similarly to how my character's Str is independent of mine), that this is also not the same as "You haven't encountered any dracolichs yet, read up on them anyway", and not something that should be gated behind a feat.

I mean, how do you know "what the characters would know independent of players", especially in these examples?

Should "my character has 20+ Int, assume I memorized literally everything that has been said near me in the past 24 hours" be a thing? What about if a player just pays literally no attention during the entire mission briefing - do you just give them the relevant conclusions that they'd have gotten had they asked the right questions, because the character would have been paying attention to ask those?

If you give the player/character information that they theoretically could have known but don't, that's no different than handing them the Bestiary of monster info that they theoretically know.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
So the GM is narrating these events to the players, giving out all of these details during gameplay due to the players' characters interacting however they need to be in order to be exposed to these plot elements, and yet, dare he to remind them of any of this later without one of them having this feat, it's the same as handing them the Bestiary.

No, it would be if it was info not given/not accessible at the time.

This is similar to your werewolf example above where you’re not only hung up on an example I used, you’re hung up on something I didn’t actually say or argue for.

Quote:

I'm saying you're treating them as equivalent because you're treating them as equivalent. Right up there. Where you say that neither are cheating if the GM just hands the book over.

Get how that works?

No because you’re misreading the example I gave. Taking the Bestiary out at the beginning of the fight without permission or memorizing the stat block before hand would be cheating.

GM: [Monster] appears!

Player: What’s that?!

GM: *hands player the Bestiary open to the page with said monster*

Would not be cheating.

Quote:

One is cheating the system and the other is information already acquired through gameplay."

Placing a distinction between the two actions means you're saying they are NOT THE SAME.

"But if we change how we define how 'acquired through gameplay' is accomplished, then neither is cheating."
Eliminating a distinction between the two actions means you're saying they are THE SAME.

That's... what those words mean. So yes, that is what those posts are saying.

Except that’s not what I said.

Quote:
If you're talking about UW's Animal Call, there's a difference between "we don't have a consensus on which already-existing rules this activity should fall under, just that this should already be an application of existing rules", and "we don't even have a consensus on whether any character during P1E's entire pre-UW run should have been able to attempt this activity at all". I recall the debut of UI and UW. I don't recall the rug-yanking that Animal Call and similar feats did getting any fanfare.

In other words it introduced mechanics when previously there was none and a couple of people didn’t like that it conflicted with house rules they had been using.

Quote:
If you're talking about the Scrollmaster feat, I would have had no idea that being reminded of already-given information might be a houserule.

It was very clear that I was talking about Animal Call.

Quote:

"And finally, Lord Cromwell tells you that his missing wife may be identified by her distinctive ring."

"I'm sorry, I write slow. Did you say 'ring'?"

"Do you have that Scrollmaster feat?"

"No..."

"Then I can't tell you. And no one else tell him either, lest I just hand out the Bestiary."

You might want to take a break from this debate if you’re getting this testy over it.

Going off this example no that’s not Scrollmaster intention. A legitimate use of Scrollmaster would be “what women at the party near Lord Cromwell had distinctive rings?”


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I mean, how do you know "what the characters would know independent of players", especially in these examples?

I have to ask the same thing: without the feat, how much memorizing can a character legally do before it invalidates that part of the feat? 20%? 50%? Does the GM need to arrange for a test like your Odysseus example and require a minimum amount of wrong answers? If the player gets them all right, does the GM determine at random which questions the player mandatorily got wrong?

Quote:
Should "my character has 20+ Int, assume I memorized literally everything that has been said near me in the past 24 hours" be a thing? What about if a player just pays literally no attention during the entire mission briefing - do you just give them the relevant conclusions that they'd have gotten had they asked the right questions, because the character would have been paying attention to ask those?

Exploration mode already has "assume I'm doing (detect magic, readying a shield, searching for traps) unless I say otherwise, so I don't see why not? I would agree that "everything", and "near me" might need some specification, but should at least include what the GM is telling the players (since that definitionally is something their characters are paying attention to and interacting with).

To answer your second question, though, I would equate it to the character being in a combat and the player not paying attention or caring about his character, and then ask what happens there. Independent of the player, the character still has a survival instinct of his own. Does he get the attack rolls he would be making had the player cared about the combat?

Quote:
If you give the player/character information that they theoretically could have known but don't, that's no different than handing them the Bestiary of monster info that they theoretically know.

Agreed regarding the theoretical information. I disagree that "information the GM directly told the players because that is what their characters definitionally paid attention to and interacted with" can fall under that parameter. Meaning that the GM reminding the player of what he already said, which is outside the information they theoretically could have known because they definitionally did know it, is NOT the same as handing over the Bestiary.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kinda crazy to me the lengths some will go to to justify a terrible feat. Say Rysky and Cyouni are right and it has some value. That value is extremely niche and does not compare to other dedication feats. So honestly it feels like a feat tax to access some of the semi interesting feats within the Scroll Master Archetype. Looking at the Archetype I can think of dozens of other things it could have done and the Scroll Master Dedication feat could have been a ribbon tacked on to them.

After reading the comments here I'm extremely worried that this is just the same old song and dance and nothing has improved. People say it's better then the Player Companions, but just barely. The developers have to do better, challenge them selves and creating exciting options for players to take. Cause being able to remember something from the past 24 hours without making a roll isn't exciting in the least.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Being niche doesn’t mean terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
I have to ask the same thing: without the feat, how much memorizing can a character legally do before it invalidates that part of the feat? 20%? 50%? Does the GM need to arrange for a test like your Odysseus example and require a minimum amount of wrong answers? If the player gets them all right, does the GM determine at random which questions the player mandatorily got wrong?

Well, that's my point. While theoretically it's not amazing, the whole point of the Odysseus example was to note that players won't necessarily know which points are important, and thus won't know what they need to remember. Something that they think might be innocuous, and thus don't bother to remember or write down, might come back up later as a thing.

Scrollmaster Dedication avoids that whole problem.

While theoretically an eidetic memory would also avoid that problem, that's not really something you can assume.

Quote:


Exploration mode already has "assume I'm doing (detect magic, readying a shield, searching for traps) unless I say otherwise, so I don't see why not? I would agree that "everything", and "near me" might need some specification, but should at least include what the GM is telling the players (since that definitionally is something their characters are paying attention to and interacting with).

This is certainly a thing that can happen (as an exploration tactic, for example, and it'd slow you down), but I don't think it should be an assumed standard.

Quote:
To answer your second question, though, I would equate it to the character being in a combat and the player not paying attention or caring about his character, and then ask what happens there. Independent of the player, the character still has a survival instinct of his own. Does he get the attack rolls he would be making had the player cared about the combat?

This is also an interesting question (especially if we consider animal companions and such in there).

Quote:
Agreed regarding the theoretical information. I disagree that "information the GM directly told the players because that is what their characters definitionally paid attention to and interacted with" can fall under that parameter. Meaning that the GM reminding the player of what he already said, which is outside the information they theoretically could have known because they definitionally did know it, is NOT the same as handing over the Bestiary.

Well, that's the thing. Say the players make a Recall Knowledge check against an enemy. They then come up against the same type of enemy a little later, but have forgotten what the exact details they received are. Should they get the free benefits of the Recall Knowledge even though they didn't bother to write it down or remember it, simply because it happened in the past?


So... did Paizo release the Armored Skirt again, with exactly the same problems it had in PF1 that made it never worth using in any combination of gear? It still bumps up the proficiency requirement of the armor, and it still has the same +1/-1 trade off. Which means that medium armor with an armored skirt will always be worse than heavy armor (Breastplate+Armored Skirt being functionally identical to Halfplate except without a dex bonus, for example).

Given how heavily the +1 AC/-5 spd trade off is codified the skirt should really just have the +1 ac/-1 dex cap change and nothing else. If breastplate+skirt was 5 AC/0 Dex medium armor then it would have some purpose to existing.


Arachnofiend wrote:

So... did Paizo release the Armored Skirt again, with exactly the same problems it had in PF1 that made it never worth using in any combination of gear? It still bumps up the proficiency requirement of the armor, and it still has the same +1/-1 trade off. Which means that medium armor with an armored skirt will always be worse than heavy armor (Breastplate+Armored Skirt being functionally identical to Halfplate except without a dex bonus, for example).

Given how heavily the +1 AC/-5 spd trade off is codified the skirt should really just have the +1 ac/-1 dex cap change and nothing else. If breastplate+skirt was 5 AC/0 Dex medium armor then it would have some purpose to existing.

The thing you might want to consider is that it does shift some stuff around.

Breastplate + Skirt is 5 AC, 0 Dex, -3 ACP, -5 Speed, 18 Str req, 2 Bulk, noisy.
Half Plate is 5 AC, 1 Dex, -3 ACP, -10 Speed, 16 Str req, 3 Bulk.

So breastplate is 5 feet faster and lighter, but probably wants a little more Str. However, it doesn't have the +1 AC of natural heavy armour.

It also does mean that say, Half Plate + Skirt heavy armour is a little more usable for Dex people, requiring only 14 Str in exchange for +4 armour, +2 Dex mod, -2 ACP. Full Plate modded with Skirt lets you have a bit more Dex mod for the early time before you get Full Plate without feeling bad later on.

Similarly Chain Shirt + Skirt vs Scale Mail:
Shirt+Skirt is 3 AC, +2 Dex, -2 ACP, 14 Str req, 1 Bulk, flexible + noisy.
Scale Mail is 3 AC, +2 Dex, -2 ACP, -5 Speed, 14 Str req, 2 Bulk.

So the Shirt/Skirt combo is quite good if you don't care about Thievery or Stealth, and have only 12 Str. Alternately, if you have 14+ Str and want a little more speed, it's also solid. (Though this also depends on what Noisy ends up doing post-errata.)


The fact that it doesn't change your speed is what I was missing; that does give Breastplate+Skirt an argument over Full Plate. Not a winning argument, but I think that's mostly a problem with how good Bulwark is than Breastplate+Skirt actually being bad.


I will need to take a look at the armored skirt again.


graystone wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:
I also can't understand the Goblin feat Scalding Spit, you have to take persistent Fire damage enable to use it, and it does a pitiful 1D6 damage at lvl 9. At that point why would you ever use it over say a Produce Flame?
Because it's a one action Ranged Unarmed Attack, not a two action Spell Attack. It's basically a Sling you don't need to take an action to reload, that benefits from your Handwraps. It's a solid option for the likes of Animal Barbarians, who otherwise have a hard time attacking at range when Raging.
It's an action to start up the fire so the first attack requires 2 actions: that said, it's an interesting attack for monks and those with unarmed attacks. A ranged attack that works with flurry is a good thing. The downside is that it could be fiddly to keep up, with wind, rain, snow, ect threatening to put put the fire and environments, like a library, where being on fire is a bad thing.

Emphasis mine... So, at 9th level, a “solid option” for an Animal instinct Barbarian to attack at range is to:

A): be on fire, taking damage and
B): be a goblin to
C): do 1d6 damage, maybe 3 times in one round.

Solid. Unless...you aren’t a goblin. Or as graystone says...it’s raining. Or you wish you might do a little more damage. At 9th level. It seems...underwhelming. And it interacts with...”your” handwraps. Should you have them. Hope they aren’t an auto-assumption... Because you’re spitting. From your ha....mouth. Yep.


OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:
I also can't understand the Goblin feat Scalding Spit, you have to take persistent Fire damage enable to use it, and it does a pitiful 1D6 damage at lvl 9. At that point why would you ever use it over say a Produce Flame?
Because it's a one action Ranged Unarmed Attack, not a two action Spell Attack. It's basically a Sling you don't need to take an action to reload, that benefits from your Handwraps. It's a solid option for the likes of Animal Barbarians, who otherwise have a hard time attacking at range when Raging.
It's an action to start up the fire so the first attack requires 2 actions: that said, it's an interesting attack for monks and those with unarmed attacks. A ranged attack that works with flurry is a good thing. The downside is that it could be fiddly to keep up, with wind, rain, snow, ect threatening to put put the fire and environments, like a library, where being on fire is a bad thing.

Emphasis mine... So, at 9th level, a “solid option” for an Animal instinct Barbarian to attack at range is to:

A): be on fire, taking damage and
B): be a goblin to
C): do 1d6 damage, maybe 3 times in one round.

Solid. Unless...you aren’t a goblin. Or as graystone says...it’s raining. Or you wish you might do a little more damage. At 9th level. It seems...underwhelming. And it interacts with...”your” handwraps. Should you have them. Hope they aren’t an auto-assumption... Because you’re spitting. From your ha....mouth. Yep.

If you aren't a goblin the entire discussion doesn't matter, the feat is charhide-goblin only. Pretty sure handwraps are supposed to apply as well, unless they don't apply to the animal totem bite attack either. Since you bite with your mouth too. And the damage you take when you opt for scalding spit should never be more than 2 points. You have resist 4 fire or you don't qualify for the feat.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Calling it 1d6 damage is definitely misleading. It's an unarmed attack and thus gets extra damage from Rage and Specialization (though, in the case of Animal, not the Specialization Ability) as well as Handwraps of Mighty Blows.

That's 2d6+4 at 9th level, or thereabouts, and eventually hits 4d6+8 or so. That's not stellar damage, but it's a lot more than you're implying.

A Dragon Instinct Barbarian makes better use of it for attacks of 2d6+10, and eventually 4d6+22, assuming they went unarmed (perhaps multiclassing Monk for Dragon Style) and grabbed the handwraps.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So you have to take a certain Heritage, A 5th level Ancestry Feat, and a 9th level Ancestry feat just to get a mediocre attack, sounds like a terrible chain to me. It feels like they are being overly cautious. Monsters have these cool, amazing, and interesting abilities but man my goblin gets to spit a 1D6 damage that depends heavily if I built for it, and even then its meh.

If people keep defending these bland and uninspired feats and choices then the developers are never gonna try something exciting or inventive. They said multiply times they wanna make new options and make each choice you make important, this is not that design.

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / Lost Omens Products / I'm Disappointed after reading LOWG and LOCG. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.