| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like PF2E, except, speaking of character concepts, that I think it will be difficult to create Hosteen Storm, who to my mind is the original Beastmaster, from André Norton's eponymous novel published in 1959. The reason is that his team of animal companions consisted of an African Black Eagle, a Sandcat, two Meerkats, and later an Appaloosa stallion. That's a lot of feats per current rules just to get them. Also they were genetically engineered for increased intelligence and probably other things. And Storm communicated with them, iirc, via telepathy. So RAW probably not quite doable.
I like PF2E, except, speaking of character concepts, that I think it will be difficult to create Hosteen Storm, who to my mind is the original Beastmaster, from André Norton's eponymous novel published in 1959. The reason is that his team of animal companions consisted of an African Black Eagle, a Sandcat, two Meerkats, and later an Appaloosa stallion. That's a lot of feats per current rules just to get them. Also they were genetically engineered for increased intelligence and probably other things. And Storm communicated with them, iirc, via telepathy. So RAW probably not quite doable.
GM could easily let a character train up animals outside of their class' kit. You can buy a guard dog, for example. No one would want to play in a group with that character though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that's the kind of character that was made unplayable in PF2 because being in a party with them was unfun for everyone else. The turns... so long...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't PF2 literally have a "Beastmaster" archetype that solves the "you control 5 different bodies" by requiring you to choose which of your animal buddies are actively traveling with you, with the others being a minute away doing animal stuff?
A major distinction between a thing like Pathfinder and "fantasy novels" is that PF is explicitly about 3-6 people each of whom (ideally) share the spotlight, whereas books are oftentimes just about Conan or Elric with other people achieving relevance by "being in the orbit of the person whose name is in the title."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.Have you tried playing it without 5+ pages of houserule/homebrew?
Yes, I wasn't the GM when we played, but the actual GM, after saying he didn't want to use any house rules, still made one of his own on day 1 because he felt the shield rules were broken. He made a few more before the game fell apart at level 3, but it was mostly RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like PF2E, except...To be fair, its not really meaningful to judge an entire game system on its ability to reproduce a single character or even a small group of them especially when those characters would be considered OP within terms of most game systems.
Do you mean that I can't have Devil May Cry's Dante as my character with all his powers, weapons and immortality? The system is awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like PF2E, except...To be fair, its not really meaningful to judge an entire game system on its ability to reproduce a single character or even a small group of them especially when those characters would be considered OP within terms of most game systems.
To be fair, the first thing I said was "I like PF2E". If you infer from the rest of my post that I'm judging the entire system on the basis that I don't see how to build Hosteen Storm in that system, you need to think again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was Batman ever level one?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was Batman ever level one?
In a world with the likes of Superman, Darkseid, and Mr. Mxyzptlk, Batman has always been level 1.
He's also the GM's broody SO though, so it's something of a moot point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I wasn't the GM when we played, but the actual GM, after saying he didn't want to use any house rules, still made one of his own on day 1 because he felt the shield rules were broken. He made a few more before the game fell apart at level 3, but it was mostly RAW.So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.Have you tried playing it without 5+ pages of houserule/homebrew?
So... Basically you have never played system without houserules because you assumed your GM knew what they were talking about?
You statement about 2e needing lot of houserule fixes sounds absurd when that description is what 1e is like(5e is so simple that house rules won't fix it, you'd need to actually write completely new rules :P). Though granted, not lot of house rules for 1e are "necessary to fix broken system", making power attack free feat is more of quality of life ;P
Meanwhile I've run stuff on levels 1-7(no single continous campaign unfortunately, just Plaguestone and Slithering and various PFS scenarios) and your experience of system so broken that gm "had" to house rule it sounds alien to me.
|
|
Anyhoo, I think I add this thread to my hidden thread list.
"1e vs 2e" topic has become to me like alignment or paladin debates, they have good debates that are interesting to read, but raise my blood pressure too much.
(just to clarify, I don't mind people not liking 2e or preferring 1e. I do mind people claiming that 2e is too similar to 4e and that makes it bad(I haven't played 4e so I don't have clue on that), them making claims about 2e that are false, but are true in 1e or saying stuff like "I know game is bad and its not opinion".
Like I haven't played PFS2e level 1-20 yet so there is lot I still don't know, but I know enough that each time someone tries to compare 2e negatively to 4e, it starts makes me wonder if 4e is actually good system that was popular to hate :P)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is more often peoples perception of the rules, more than the actual rules. Most of the time if you find something wierd it is because you haven't read everything or just don't understand everything about the system. It doesn't matter, just come up with something reasonable and move on. Fix it later. That is the right approach.
However the rules in PF2 can be hard to understand in places. There are a few genuinely unclear spells/feats. That is what the community is here for.
All I'm doing for house rules are the minorist of rules. I've got one for using charisma/social skills against PCs (applying a smalp penalty to defying the request if a successful roll), The Flanking bonus applying to every attacker and not just the flankers, and Will being powered by Charisma.
The problem is more often peoples perception of the rules, more than the actual rules. Most of the time if you find something wierd it is because you haven't read everything or just don't understand everything about the system. It doesn't matter, just come up with something reasonable and move on. Fix it later. That is the right approach.
However the rules in PF2 can be hard to understand in places. There are a few genuinely unclear spells/feats. That is what the community is here for.
At least the developers are on top of this stuff and willing to make changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know I expected people to adamantly disagree with me, partly because 4E is the edition everyone hates (except me, it’s still my favorite) and doubly so because the reason Pathfinder exists at all is due to people hating 4E so much they wanted 3.x to go on forever seemingly. Yet here we are agreeing and everyone being like “yeah it IS the 4E spiritual successor and it is very great” :oIt's not that suprising that after years of wrestling with the 3.x framework, Paizo devs and WotC devs came to many similar conclusions.True, but I think they would have been MUCH better served if they instead decided to create a "successor" for the far more popular 5e rather than the failed 4e. Unlike 3.5, where fans clamored for someone to keep publishing for it (which Paizo did successfully), very few gamers have fond, loving memories of 4e games and are asking for more...
So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.
I know some disagree, but PF2 doesn't feel or play like 4E to me at all.
The PF2 chassis is a very good chassis for a DM. But it still off the mark by a bit. I think that can be fixed with some modification.
I think with additional feedback by people who can analyze the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the game, PF2 can become a very, very good game.
The default balance setting is a bit harsh right now I think. I liken it to it's easier to loosen than tighten once the game is in play. Tightening always looks like a nerf, where as loosening is usually looked at as a positive boost.
Some things I think they need to do for sure:
1. Loosen some of the casting restrictions. They are too tight right now. They went a bit too far limiting casters, especially wizards and sorcerers to a lesser degree.
2. Work on better tables for skill use. Skill tests that require Legendary should be extremely limited. The default for 50/50 skill use should be based on Expert or even trained for Knowledge Skills people barely build up.
Skill used should be based less on the module to provide some artificial feeling of challenge, but based on what the challenge actually is to give a more baseline feel of what is considered Legendary versus Expert or Trained ability.
PF2 needs some tweaks. And review wonky mechanics to see if they are truly necessary for classes. Any additional added classes should be on par with the Core RB baseline classes. Not addons for those looking for some wonky different thing that is too limiting.
2. Work on better tables for skill use. Skill tests that require Legendary should be extremely limited. The default for 50/50 skill use should be based on Expert or even trained for Knowledge Skills people barely build up.Skill used should be based less on the module to provide some artificial feeling of challenge, but based on what the challenge actually is to give a more baseline feel of what is considered Legendary versus Expert or Trained ability.
I agree some example of legendary actions in absolute terms would be good. Just so we can pitch the skill level. When you get to be legendary in a skill, you should be legendary - not failing half the time. Outside of your legendary opponents that is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Basically you have never played system without houserules because you assumed your GM knew what they were talking about?Yes, I wasn't the GM when we played, but the actual GM, after saying he didn't want to use any house rules, still made one of his own on day 1 because he felt the shield rules were broken. He made a few more before the game fell apart at level 3, but it was mostly RAW.So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.Have you tried playing it without 5+ pages of houserule/homebrew?
No, that's not the reason. I didn't assume anything, my GM assumed that Paizo had created a well-thought out set of game rules for the second edition. He had read the rules, but had never run or played before our game, and he didn't understand the 2e shield rules as written. He thought that you first subtract Hardness, and then divide the remaining damage between the shield and user. When he learned that, no, both the shield AND user take the remaining damage, he didn't agree with that. He also didn't like the fact that the attack hits and the damage is rolled before you must choose whether or not to shield block.
However, those rules didn't affect me personally. I didn't use a shield, my character was an Ancient Elf Ranger/Wizard. The change was for our party Champion. So my character was played RAW.
You statement about 2e needing lot of houserule fixes sounds absurd when that description is what 1e is like(5e is so simple that house rules won't fix it, you'd need to actually write completely new rules :P). Though granted, not lot of house rules for 1e are "necessary to fix broken system", making power attack free feat is more of quality of life ;PMeanwhile I've run stuff on levels 1-7(no single continous campaign unfortunately, just Plaguestone and Slithering and various PFS scenarios) and your experience of system so broken that gm "had" to house rule it sounds alien to me.
We very seldom used house rules in our long-running Pathfinder 1e campaigns. (The most I can think of was that you got a minimum of half your die type in new HP when you leveled up, so if your class gets 1d8 HP, you instead got 1d4+4).
I have a few house rules for D&D5e, but not NEARLY as many as PF2e, and they are mostly optional additions that the players are free to choose if they want to use them, like new backgrounds, new sub-class options, racial ability tweaks, etc. That is vastly different from a ream of rules fixes needed to play the game. The list of "changes that affect everyone" is small, such as "If you drop to 0HP/dying and you are brought back, you suffer 1 temporary level of Exhaustion each time from that experience (each level requires a nights sleep/long rest to get rid of)." That's to help prevent the "up/down/up/down/up" comedy of errors that some players have talked about in 5e. You can do that, but you are hurt a bit more each time it happens, and after a while you will actually die at Exhaustion level 6, so it's never been a problem in any game I've run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With respect, the fact that you disagree with the rules doesn't make them wrong. In this case, dividing the damage between user/shield is mathematically incredibly strong, to the point where everyone should be running a shield-user. For example, a level 1 shield vs a level 4 High-damage enemy will take 3 hits to destroy, saving the user 27 HP on average. You might note that's worth more than their entire health pool, and absolutely nothing stops the player from just pulling out another shield.
(PS: Warpriest with this ruleset is functionally unkillable.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With respect, the fact that you disagree with the rules doesn't make them wrong. In this case, dividing the damage between user/shield is mathematically incredibly strong, to the point where everyone should be running a shield-user. For example, a level 1 shield vs a level 4 High-damage enemy will take 3 hits to destroy, saving the user 15 HP on average. You might note that's worth their entire health pool, and absolutely nothing stops the player from just pulling out another shield.
(PS: Warpriest with this ruleset is functionally unkillable.)
True, my disagreement with some/many of the rules in 2e doesn't make me "correct" and the game "wrong". It's mostly a matter of opinion. But the entire game is a matter of opinion, as is "which game/RPG should we play tonight?" But if "too many" people have "too many" issues with the rules and decide to just play a different game instead, that's a problem, and it's why Paizo tried to get feedback on 2e before it was finalized.
I ordered a copy of the playtest rules, planning to give plenty of feedback for it. Unfortunately, for much of that year I was in the hospital after a major heart attack and stroke that left me in a coma and very nearly killed me. I had to relearn a lot of things, including how to walk again (still not where I used to be, but I'm getting better slowly.)
So the playtest book arrived and just sat in my apartment instead of being read, played, and analyzed. By the time I came home from the hospital, the playtest was over and the actual book was on it's way to me. So, in a lot of ways, I looked at my "house rules doc" as the changes I would have made to PF2e, had I the opportunity to do so.
As far as shields, I personally would not have made them destructible at all, any more than armor is (yeah, in downtime you can melt it in a forge, but in battle, no damage is suffered from blows). I gave my "Indestructible Shields" optional rule in my house rules doc too, as a choice for others that may feel similarly.
Again, not saying my way is the only correct way, just "the version I prefer..."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, lot of that sounds like more homebrew than house rules to me. Though granted, 1e has kinda skewed my definition of house rules from "variant rules used in this table" to "fan patches" <_<; So I do admit I was overly grumpy last night.
(just to note to cast exaggeration aside, my 1e houserule list isn't actually that "long" as in most of it is just list of variant rules we use and flavor stuff like "god specific paladin code replaces normal one unless code specifies it is addendum to normal one"
But it does have stuff like our interpretation of wall of thorns :'D Aka lot of extremely narrow "well this single thing caused us headache so we had to figure out how to interpret it for our table" dealios and few archetype fixes even though none of us in party have used those archetypes)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im fine with shields being broken but not destroyed. I houserule no destroyed shields as well. Otherwise they're too expensive for their secondary use in my mind. My on level sturdy shield is a bit too much money to replace on a regular basis for my fighter that's gonna play his play style. He blocks heavy hits regularly in battle. And I think that should regularly render his shield inoperable.............,..in battle. However, I don't think it should be a money sink
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im fine with shields being broken but not destroyed. I houserule no destroyed shields as well. Otherwise they're too expensive for their secondary use in my mind. My on level sturdy shield is a bit too much money to replace on a regular basis for my fighter that's gonna play his play style. He blocks heavy hits regularly in battle. And I think that should regularly render his shield inoperable.............,..in battle. However, I don't think it should be a money sink
Are you aware that players get to decide if they shield block after they know how much damage it would deal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im fine with shields being broken but not destroyed. I houserule no destroyed shields as well. Otherwise they're too expensive for their secondary use in my mind. My on level sturdy shield is a bit too much money to replace on a regular basis for my fighter that's gonna play his play style. He blocks heavy hits regularly in battle. And I think that should regularly render his shield inoperable.............,..in battle. However, I don't think it should be a money sinkAre you aware that players get to decide if they shield block after they know how much damage it would deal?
I honestly forgot that part. That does help. I'll still keep the houserule at my table just from the standpoint of not wanting such expensive items being quasi consumables. It also let's shield players squeeze one more near half health block out of their shield, even if it's a crit.
I honestly forgot that part. That does help. I'll still keep the houserule at my table just from the standpoint of not wanting such expensive items being quasi consumables. It also let's shield players squeeze one more near half health block out of their shield, even if it's a crit.Im fine with shields being broken but not destroyed. I houserule no destroyed shields as well. Otherwise they're too expensive for their secondary use in my mind. My on level sturdy shield is a bit too much money to replace on a regular basis for my fighter that's gonna play his play style. He blocks heavy hits regularly in battle. And I think that should regularly render his shield inoperable.............,..in battle. However, I don't think it should be a money sinkAre you aware that players get to decide if they shield block after they know how much damage it would deal?
Fair enough. I am surprised you think there's any danger of a sturdy shield being destroyed though. Other shields, sure, but I've barely seen a relatively on level sturdy shield be broken and have never seen one destroyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PS: Reminder that the Repair activity exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Samurai, I wonder what you'd think of the Harnmaster Gold ruleset, or Columbia Games' Harnmaster 3 ruleset (I'd link the latter, but the website seems to be broken at the moment).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I am surprised you think there's any danger of a sturdy shield being destroyed though. Other shields, sure, but I've barely seen a relatively on level sturdy shield be broken and have never seen one destroyed.Are you aware that players get to decide if they shield block after they know how much damage it would deal?I honestly forgot that part. That does help. I'll still keep the houserule at my table just from the standpoint of not wanting such expensive items being quasi consumables. It also let's shield players squeeze one more near half health block out of their shield, even if it's a crit.
There's not really any risk for other shields either, with the amount of damage always known before the block. Even a non-Sturdy Lion Shield (Level 6) can Block an AVERAGE Level 18 attack without being Destroyed (only Broken, i.e. Repairable AKA Refocus for Shields). Although the focus on average damage seen in online discourse is itself dubious, considering P2E's tendency for more dice instead of flat damage bonuses means plenty of attacks will be "below average damage". So even low-mid level non-sturdy shields CAN successfully block high level attacks without immediately being broken, never mind destroyed... even if only vs. lower damage rolls.
That isn't even a fundamental shift vs. low level, where max damage rolls and especially crits can even threaten maximally tough on-level shields. At Level 4 with Sturdy Shield of that level, it's fully possible for plausible enemies (<=Level 6) to one-hit Destroy it on a Crit: Striking d12 with Deadly/Fatal-> 60 + 12 from extra dice/flat bonus = Break HP + Resistance. Of course, that is choice of the shield wielder to block such an attack at cost of their shield. The value and role of the item/ability just doesn't hinge on or assume "always using it at every opportunity", it's a tactic to use situationally like many other parts of the game. Sure, not "keeping up" with on-level Sturdy Shield means one tends to Block less frequently if you don't want to treat Shield as "consumable" (or immediately lose AC value if it's broken), but nobody is Blocking every single attack anyways, between limited Reactions and damage stacking up from multiple Blocked attacks.
You don't need advanced theoretical system analysis to use that, anybody naievely picking up the rules can take advantage of that. It's only people insisting their own (or borrowed) limited tunnel vision analysis is absolutely valid, who preclude themselves from using those options because they convinced themselves it isn't worth it.
Waiting for something to swap out Raise Shield with for Fighter and Champion...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Samurai, I wonder what you'd think of the Harnmaster Gold ruleset, or Columbia Games' Harnmaster 3 ruleset (I'd link the latter, but the website seems to be broken at the moment).
I've played and read a ton of RPGs in my 40 years as a gamer, but I've never read or played Harnmaster. I've only vaguely heard about it, it's not something I've ever seen on store shelves in my area. Looking up Columbia Games online , it seems they focus more on miniature wargaming, and while I know D&D grew from that base, I've always preferred creating and playing unique and interesting character with personalities rather than strategically maneuvering armies around a battlefield. It's 1 reason I didn't care so much for D&D 4e, where position was very important, and moving an enemy or ally 1 square could make a big difference (Which is a similarity I also see with PF2e btw, where you may have to spend 1 of your 3 actions just to step 1 square in order to attack in melee. That 5' adjust used to be a free action back in 1e.)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule "You always know how much damage a hit does before deciding whether to block or not" is another strange aspect of this system.
Weapons and armor are effectively indestructible (no sundering rules or real damage to them), but shields can very easily be broken or destroyed in a hit. To preserve your shield, you must choose to take the most deadly and painful hits to your face instead. And to do that, you must know how damaging the hit will be before deciding whether or not to block!
That just seems wrong to me... characters should have to decide whether to block or not as soon as they are hit, not after all the damage is rolled and they then have to ret-con whether they blocked or not (with the answer being a yes on only relatively weak hits, and a no on the hardest hits, which is counter-intuitive IMHO).
Here are the basics of my homebrew rule (No Endgame-level time jumps needed here): If you are wielding a shield, you can use the Raise a Shield action to increase your AC by it’s AC bonus until the start of your next round. If you have the Shield Block class ability or feat, you can also use the raised shield to try to prevent some damage if an attack hits you. Make a Fortitude save vs a DC of 10 + the foe’s attack bonus. If the shield has any special abilities, the Fort save activates them on a Success or better roll. For the Shield spell, the caster makes a Will save instead of Fort, using the same results below.
Crit Fail: Block ½ the Shield’s Hardness in dmg, loose the shield bonus to AC until Raised again
Fail: Block the Shield’s Hardness in damage, loose the shield bonus to AC until Raised again
Success: Block the Shield’s Hardness in damage, shield remains Raised
Crit Success: Block the Shield’s Hardness x2 in damage, shield remains Raised
There are a few other notes for specific feats and cases, but that is the general idea. The character decides whether to try blocking the instant he's hit. It is a contest as to how much damage he can block, and whether or not the shield remains raised or the bonus is lost until next round, but the shield isn't broken or destroyed any more than his armor is. He doesn't get to wait to see if the attack only does 1 or 2 points of damage (thus it may be better not to risk loosing his shield bonus for it on a bad dice roll) or a devastating hit where he needs the shield to survive.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's why I don't like the current paradigm:
Why add a system that makes things more realistic by modeling shields taking damage and breaking, but then remove the realism by having shield users regularly decide to take damage to their face instead of their shield, thus also greatly reducing the likelihood of shields ever breaking in play?
Sure, shields work mechanically, but as-is they run counter to faithful roleplaying of a character in life or death combat.
Removing the ability for shields to ever be permanently destroyed in normal use, rather being rendered temporarily unusable but fixable, solves all of these problems.
1. The player never has to weigh blocking a few damage against potentially thousands of gold.
2. Since there's less at stake, they're more likely to accept a full shield break now and again.
3. Since shield breaks would happen, the shield breakage rules actually have a reason to exist.
4. Players who never want to lose access to their shields can still block hits to their shield with their faces if they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Samurai, I wonder what you'd think of the Harnmaster Gold ruleset, or Columbia Games' Harnmaster 3 ruleset (I'd link the latter, but the website seems to be broken at the moment).I've played and read a ton of RPGs in my 40 years as a gamer, but I've never read or played Harnmaster. I've only vaguely heard about it, it's not something I've ever seen on store shelves in my area. Looking up Columbia Games online , it seems they focus more on miniature wargaming, and while I know D&D grew from that base, I've always preferred creating and playing unique and interesting character with personalities rather than strategically maneuvering armies around a battlefield. It's 1 reason I didn't care so much for D&D 4e, where position was very important, and moving an enemy or ally 1 square could make a big difference (Which is a similarity I also see with PF2e btw, where you may have to spend 1 of your 3 actions just to step 1 square in order to attack in melee. That 5' adjust used to be a free action back in 1e.)
No three action economy in HM. One action per turn, plus optional, possibly unlimited, "tactical advantages" for both combatants. No classes, everything is a skill. Every creature has an engagement zone (hex map, 5' hexes) which is the six hexes adjacent to the one the creature's in, and a reaction zone that ranges 3 hexes out from the creature. Clearly based on miniature wargaming, but so was D&D. No hit points, specific injuries (serious cut to the arm, for example).
The CG website does give the "miniatures gaming" impression, and Harnmaster is very much a niche game, but it is definitely a bona fide TTRPG. Its creator, N. Robin Crossby, an expat Brit living in British Columbia, had the idea to provide a fantasy world where he could simulate tenth century England, but with fantasy elements. So he created "Harnworld" (the world's actual name is Kethira) and Harnmaster to go with it. He made a deal with Columbia Games to publish his brainchild. Later on CGI wanted to change the Harnmaster ruleset in ways with which Robin did not agree, so they split up. I don't know the details of their post-split agreement, but Robin founded Kelestia games and published the Harnmaster Gold ruleset I linked earlier. CGI still publishes their own version of the rules (I like HMGold better) and the setting on the island of Harn. Kelestia publishes HMG and setting information for the rest of the planet (mostly Northwest Lythia, the "Europe" analog, and the Venarian Sea (Mediterranean analog) with some information about other parts of the world. Kelestia's stuff is almost all pdf. Columbia does both pdf and hard copy. Crossby passed away a few years ago, but his family and friends have kept Kelestia games going.
I could go on and on because I love Harnworld and Harnmaster, but this is Paizo's website, and I'm not trying to steal people away to another game (though I think many here might like it if they gave it a try, though some would surely not). Anyway, I'll leave you with a couple of points: none of the published material goes past 720 TR (Tuzyn Reckoning, never mind), the idea being that every GM's "p-Harn" starts from the same place, the HMG ruleset in particular is based on "common sense". As the author says in HMG, the Players' Edition "HârnMaster is, after all, not a complex set of rules. It is a common sense set of rules." Many of which are optional (there are checkmarks by optional rules so you can mark the ones you're using). Oh, and the maps. My gods, the maps! Best in the business!
If you've read this far, I urge you to check out Hârnmaster and Hârnworld.
PS: might also check out lythia.com, a fan website with a lot of good stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removing the ability for shields to ever be permanently destroyed in normal use, rather being rendered temporarily unusable but fixable, solves all of these problems.
I recall Dents technically accomplished that function, but people basically revolted survey-wise against that - they wanted it to be possible for their shield to be destroyed in a single hit. If I'm correct, it was cited that no matter how big a hit your shield took, it was unrealistic that it couldn't be destroyed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing the ability for shields to ever be permanently destroyed in normal use, rather being rendered temporarily unusable but fixable, solves all of these problems.I recall Dents technically accomplished that function, but people basically revolted survey-wise against that - they wanted it to be possible for their shield to be destroyed in a single hit. If I'm correct, it was cited that no matter how big a hit your shield took, it was unrealistic that it couldn't be destroyed.
And that feedback out-weighed 'Why are we over-complicating this one thing when nearly everything else was simplified?'
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shield destruction is the game giving you an option it's not prepared for you to take. Generally, I think its bad that the game lets you potentially break your character's economy for a temporary advantage. At best, it basically never gets used.
Has anyone tried playing a character with the bastion archetype's level 12 feat (basically "your shield survives at 1HP no matter how much damage it took", but this one's done for the day). I wonder how much that changes things.