Second Ed vs First Ed.

[Temperans]

I know that a lot of people complained about solo bosses not being difficult enough. Which makes sense people like fighting the big strong enemy that stands in the way.

But Conservation of Ninjitsu cuts both ways. While it exponentially makes solo enemies stronger, it make a multitude of enemies weaker. Which some people also find bad.

After all, there is supposed to be strength in numbers.

[Captain Morgan]

Temperans wrote:

I know that a lot of people complained about solo bosses not being difficult enough. Which makes sense people like fighting the big strong enemy that stands in the way.

But Conservation of Ninjitsu cuts both ways. While it exponentially makes solo enemies stronger, it make a multitude of enemies weaker. Which some people also find bad.

After all, there is supposed to be strength in numbers.

Conservation of Ninjutsu doesn't really make sense here. The idea behind that trope is that the same type of opponent becomes more dangerous as a solo threat. A purple worm doesn't become less threatening when it is part of a group. It becomes less threatening the higher your level is compared to it.

[Ubertron_X]

After you get used to getting beaten up a lot more in PF2 and your HP going up and down like a yo-yo during most combats, especially if you have a Cleric or other Heal capable character in your party, I am more concerned about the placement of those L+2 or L+3 encounters rather than the raw difficulty of the encounters themselves.

And the additional difficulty of having to fight an L+3 opponent after a lengthy dungeon crawl or out of the blue versus knowing that such a fight is about to come up (and maybe even have the chance to prepare for it) with it possibly being your first and only fight of the day is huge.

[Captain Morgan]

Cyouni wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Magnus Arcanus wrote:

Based on guidance on the CRB, L+3 bosses aren't necessarily supposed to be final boss monsters. Certainly a major threat, but not THE boss.

The CRB says Level +3 can be either a severe or extreme threat, and both categories are for final boss. Severe quite specifically uses the phrase "final boss", and extreme is "for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign".

Yeah, for a book end you might expect to see a solo L+3, or a L+2 with some minions.

Yep. And the problem with the early PF2 published adventures seems to largely be this idea not having fully sunk in with the folks writing the adventures. Severe encounters are packed back to back with each other. They are often not connected to the story in anyway, but instead are blocking off the only direction to the plot and have zero warning.

I've found running converted PF1 adventures in PF2 to be a less frustrating difficulty curve. The extra conversion work is a drag, but is still easier than trying to actually calibrate a Age of Ashes or a PF1 game to a desired difficulty.

[Arakasius]

As a DM I somehow like it that I don’t have to tweak every fight and monster anymore to not make the game a joke/pushover. Now sure if you played 1e vanilla and liked that then yeah you’re going to have to do the opposite and put in time similar to what I had to in 1e. But I think the base default being challenging is more fun than the base challenge being no challenge.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Personally, I feel like fighting L+3s are heroic, when I think of Heroic, I think of clinching desperate struggles against impossibly powerful creatures. Sometimes encounters are easy stomp where the PCs smash away orcs left in right, but that's the last thing solo bosses should be.

[AnimatedPaper]

Temperans wrote:

I know that a lot of people complained about solo bosses not being difficult enough. Which makes sense people like fighting the big strong enemy that stands in the way.

But Conservation of Ninjitsu cuts both ways. While it exponentially makes solo enemies stronger, it make a multitude of enemies weaker. Which some people also find bad.

After all, there is supposed to be strength in numbers.

5e is better set up for that playstyle, IMO, with their legendary actions, saves, and lair actions beefing up solo monsters while their proficiency scaling keeping lower level monsters a threat for a lot longer.

I generally prefer PF2 though. It is more work for the 5e DM though to make any creature a legendary encounter, where in PF2 you just use the creature as is. And I like knocking lowbie creatures down like dominos.

All that said, the Mob rules next month should assist with what you're talking about.

[Ed Reppert]

My first encounter with D&D, in 1977 or so, went like this: the party of six first level characters is trapped in a walled town surrounded by an army of 100,000 orcs.

GM: Okay, what do you do?
Party: Open the gates and attack!
GM: <rolls dice a couple of times> Okay, you win. The orcs are dead or scattered, and you're now third level.
<game ends>

:-)

[Arakasius]

Yeah I don’t really love 5e and it’s legendary actions. It always feels so arbitrary. So I’ve been fighting monsters and they do this when hit and they act mostly like players. Then you fight a boss and whamo you’re seeing enemies act twice or more a turn, have them trigger reactions on things like going to half health and so on. The only thing that really does something similar in PF is contingency, which is far more limited. Anyway put me down as someone who likes all the monsters to be built with similar rules.

[Malk_Content]

Yeah the "this monster is tagged as a boss so it has special rules" rather than "the core mathematics of the game allows any monster of sufficient level to act as a boss" was something that made me stop playing 4e, that it was functionally continued into 5e was one of the reasons I didn't go far in that either (also going several level ups with no choice whatsoever.)

[TheWayofPie]

I couldn’t agree less. Different monster rules for bosses were incredibly useful in having them deal with action economy without giving the boss bikes. Then again I have 0 issues with gameist rules. Also with Rogues and Rangers and other DRP classes of 4e getting minor action attacks and free action attacks up the wazzoo a solo getting a ton of actions when they act and powerful opportunity actions when it’s not their isn’t really out of this world.

Pathfinder 2e does it well enough with +3 but the threat range has to be very exponential to compensate action economy issues. And it doesn’t take much tinkering to give the party a challenge. Lord knows 4e solos were straight up jokes before Monster Manual 3 came out.

I like both styles well enough.

[Ubertron_X]

The problem that I do have with the boss fights in the PF2 is, that it ain't no boss fight if you don't know that you are fighing a boss (apart from meta-gaming reasoning i.e. one enemy equals boss). And as per my own experiences there are a couple of L+2 or L+3 fights in some of the earlier modules that a) seem totally unrelated to the main story (that the players can perceive) and b) may even be more difficult that the modules final confrontation. And while a couple of genres sucessfully do this, for example in the James Bond series usually the prime henchman / bodyguard is the much tougher fight than the evil mastermind himself, all those are usually sufficiently telegraphed. So surprise boss fights and usage of boss monsters in non-climatic encounters should be the exception, not the norm.

[Fumarole]

Arakasius wrote:

Yeah I don’t really love 5e and it’s legendary actions. It always feels so arbitrary.

Is there a worse feeling in RPGs than the GM saying the boss failed its save versus your spell, but then uses a legendary action to succeed? Ugh.

[Taçin]

Having encounters in adventures that underestimate the power of Lvl+1/+2 creatures may just be one of those early edition hurdles where the designers still aren't completely familiar with the system (AoA is a prime example), but as a general rule it feels very liberating to be able to whip out a miniboss/boss level encounter simply by choosing a creature of appropriate level instead of digging the monster books for pre-written bosses and then still needing to beef them up with legendary/lair actions or resistances (that are a band-aid fix to the gamebreaking power of save-or-suck abilities, that 2e heavily limits with the incapacitation trait); having viable solo bosses that feel strong by their overwhelming presence instead of literal cheaters (as legendary res./actions can sometimes feel) that play by a different set of rules is a huge boon.

[Claxon]

The biggest thing that makes solo bosses feasible in PF2 is the tightly controlled math.

A CR+3 enemy isn't just better, they're better in every way. They probably have an attack bonus 6 points higher than an equal level enemy. And an equal level enemy already had a good chance to hit you. Now there is a strong chance the boss is critically hitting you. Meanwhile you probably have less than a 50% chance to hit the boss (probably in the 35%-40% range) without taking steps to debuff them.

It is a struggle to hit them, and to avoid being hit. The "best" spells don't work against them because of incapacitation, and the boss is still pretty likely to successfully save against your spell anyways.

It's a brutal encounter, and because the PCs are pretty rigidly confined to a range of bonus at a certain level, there is not a lot PCs can do to get out of the expected bounds.

[Unicore]

There is still a fair bit of fluctuation between a level +3 undead brute monster, vs a fast dragon, vs a humanoid NPC caster, all all 3 will be very different challenges, but the range of abilities is less swingy and even bad tactics have a chance of working with incredible luck, while strong tactics still have a chance of failure with some bad luck. The big difference is that each level difference, positive or negative is going to be a bigger deal than it was in PF1

[Arakasius]

Yeah basically 5e has it that an ancient dragon is basically not much better stat wise than a player with magic items. (Maybe 1 bonus in a couple stats) but they have a three times a day “no you fail player” button. I don’t think that’s fun to have a boss who is really no better than a player but has multiple “I win” abilities. It feels like that DM in PF who fights a group and rolls a save (behind screen) for the save or die spell and is wondering what to do when he rolls a 3 and now has to just let his boss die.

I prefer my bosses to be threatening and that is something that PF1 and 5e have more in common then they do with PF2. In the former case you either had monsters with multiple get out of jail free cards or in PF1 you had to either give them that or turn them into PF2 bosses by cranking their stats up to the point where they could reliably make that save. PF2 is nice to know that if you give the party a +3 level enemy it’s going to be a tough and brutal fight. Now I do agree with whomever said it’s the DMs job to let the players know that, whether that be through narrative or by having dice rolls be public for attacks which will show how high the monsters to hit bonus is.

[Agrafell]

I had put together a document showing the equivalencies between 1e and 2e skills that helped me wrap my own head around the differences. I mainly did this because of 1e campaign that I am converting over to 2e. I thought I'd post a link just in case anyone else found it helpful. Please let me know if you see anything that isn't quite right.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m1-rMaEjKSu0cp2QRvbGiDNSQJ7pFMEr/view?usp= sharing

[Kasoh]

So, I ran some players through the beginner box and that ended with a player saying "They took everything I liked about Pathfinder, and made it worse." Major offenders include: AoOs not being for everyone, the 3 action economy system, the proficiency system, and how useless magic has become. Also, finds the text of the game to be practically unreadable given how dry and technical it gets.

So, its been an uphill battle. On the premise that play experience might improve with more levels, we're running the abomination vaults now with the caveat that if they become too miserable, they can walk away.

[dirtypool]

Your players didn't like the 3-action economy? That's interesting. It seems even the people who are critical of almost everything else seem to at least approve of the action economy.

[Kasoh]

dirtypool wrote:

Your players didn't like the 3-action economy? That's interesting. It seems even the people who are critical of almost everything else seem to at least approve of the action economy.

I asked specifically about it because of that, actually. I don't know if I pressed for reasons, but some conjecture is that part of it might be that having to take actions for five foot steps, drawing weapons, or sustaining certain spells wasn't fun and ate into them actually doing stuff.

I also got an earful about how magic got nerfed to make martials better. At level 1, when a player has to stride twice (the 25 foot move speed also comes up) to get into position to cast next turn and the fighter just kills the target happened more than once. I find these to be typical low level problems across many systems, but especially since low level foes have 6-8 hp and are well in one shot range by a number of characters, but trying to reply to an emotional response with logic has not worked out for me traditionally.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Not saying that your players preferences aren't valid because they totally are, but some of that seems to be them projecting their initial resistance onto the system. Especially if they're ranting about magic being nerfed when they've only actually played level 1.

[The Raven Black]

Veteran PF1 players who have negative impressions of PF2 before ever playing are the most difficult audience to convert IMO.

Often because they try PF1 successful tactics, which are usually PF2's easiest way to get killed.

[Kasoh]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Not saying that your players preferences aren't valid because they totally are, but some of that seems to be them projecting their initial resistance onto the system. Especially if they're ranting about magic being nerfed when they've only actually played level 1.

All it took was trying detect magic, really. Detect magic got slammed hard with the nerf bat.

edit: And as a caveat I agree that magic got thrashed too hard in PF2. And all the good utility, fun magic too. 10 minute unseen servants, 5 minute cleaning on Prestidigitation, create water. There isn't much to appreciate about what they did to the conjuration and transmutation schools either.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Kasoh wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Not saying that your players preferences aren't valid because they totally are, but some of that seems to be them projecting their initial resistance onto the system. Especially if they're ranting about magic being nerfed when they've only actually played level 1.

All it took was trying detect magic, really. Detect magic got slammed hard with the nerf bat.

I'm not actually super familiar with pf1e, was it a cantrip there too?

[Kasoh]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Not saying that your players preferences aren't valid because they totally are, but some of that seems to be them projecting their initial resistance onto the system. Especially if they're ranting about magic being nerfed when they've only actually played level 1.

All it took was trying detect magic, really. Detect magic got slammed hard with the nerf bat.

I'm not actually super familiar with pf1e, was it a cantrip there too?

Yes. In PF1 it detected the presence or absence of magic in a 60 foot cone and if you concentrated it would detect the number, power, and schools of magic within 3 rounds.

In pf2, I think it got split into detect magic with its various heightened effects and read aura

[Lightning Raven]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Not saying that your players preferences aren't valid because they totally are, but some of that seems to be them projecting their initial resistance onto the system. Especially if they're ranting about magic being nerfed when they've only actually played level 1.

This complaint is actually objectively wrong, since magic has been buffed at earlier stages. Not only bigger dice on base level of spells, but also the existence of Cantrips, that let's them cast without resource expenditure.

There's no way that someone's argument to convince me that under the Vancian Casting framework spells weren't buffed in PF2e. Because they were and that's visible for anyone that played PF1e or 3.5.

[Kasoh]

Lightning Raven wrote:

This complaint is actually objectively wrong, since magic has been buffed at earlier stages. Not only bigger dice on base level of spells, but also the existence of Cantrips, that let's them cast without resource expenditure.

There's no way that someone's argument to convince me that under the Vancian Casting framework spells weren't buffed in PF2e. Because they were and that's visible for anyone that played PF1e or 3.5.

Magic was rebalanced for the new system, certainly. The math doesn't allow so much buff stacking anymore so one has to expect some of this to change, but still.

Spells do less for higher spell levels. Hey Silence, Haste, Fly, Resist Energy, Teleport, Protection from Alignment, etc.

The number of buffs was reduced. Divine Favor, Divine Power, Animal Adjective spells,

Durations were crushed.

But damage numbers went up. Yay. Who cares about damage, that's what the fighter is for. (People who want to play blaster casters care, that's who.)

I'm not saying that all the hits were undeserving or that I don't understand why some of the changes had to be made, but compared to PF1, the game my entire table has been playing for years, it appears to be lacking on several levels. (Which is why I want the table to give it a longer try, to see if that pans out)

There's only so much you can do to sell the 4 degrees of success as paradigm shift. And I am actively dreading the moment I have to explain counteract rules.

To be fair, my table never had a problem with the kinds of caster shenanigans the internet talks about, so the magic user/warrior problem was never one we needed solved. I'm sure that colors the player's perceptions as well. Admittedly, there's individual baggage that everyone brings to the table with their gaming preferences. I like a lot of things about 2e, but magic and what they did to skills are not among them.

(I wasn't going to mention this at all, but I saw the thread pop back up and figured I'd update since I mentioned the Beginner box game earlier in thread)

[dirtypool]

Kasoh wrote:

I don't know if I pressed for reasons, but some conjecture is that part of it might be that having to take actions for five foot steps, drawing weapons, or sustaining certain spells wasn't fun and ate into them actually doing stuff.

So they were really more hoping it was a Three + Free + Interact Action Economy that would allow them to do as many as 5-6 things in a round?

Kasoh wrote:

In PF1 it detected the presence or absence of magic in a 60 foot cone and if you concentrated it would detect the number, power, and schools of magic within 3 rounds.

It didn't give you all that within 3 rounds. It allowed you the opportunity to make the individual Knowledge and or Spellcrafting checks for each and every spell, spell effect or magic item in the area. There was still the chance of failing that roll and learning nothing.

Heightened 2e Detect does give you the School of the most powerful aura in your emanation without requiring a roll.

[Kasoh]

dirtypool wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

I don't know if I pressed for reasons, but some conjecture is that part of it might be that having to take actions for five foot steps, drawing weapons, or sustaining certain spells wasn't fun and ate into them actually doing stuff.

So they were really more hoping it was a Three + Free + Interact Action Economy that would allow them to do as many as 5-6 things in a round?

I mean, I think it was expected to be at least as good as PF1s. I have found there to be fewer free actions in PF2 overall. Perhaps I oversold PF2 as an improvement.

dirtypool wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

In PF1 it detected the presence or absence of magic in a 60 foot cone and if you concentrated it would detect the number, power, and schools of magic within 3 rounds.

It didn't give you all that within 3 rounds. It allowed you the opportunity to make the individual Knowledge and or Spellcrafting checks for each and every spell, spell effect or magic item in the area. There was still the chance of failing that roll and learning nothing.

Heightened 2e Detect does give you the School of the most powerful aura in your emanation without requiring a roll.

In my experience, anyone interested in that utility of Detect Magic wouldn't fail those skill checks to begin with. Either way out of the box, 1st edition detect magic does more than 2e's and that was a shocking disappointment to the player.

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

Yup, God Wizard's now just plain folks. Boo. Hoo.

[Kasoh]

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

Yup, God Wizard's now just plain folks. Boo. Hoo.

Yeah. Its a problem.

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

Kasoh wrote:

Yeah. Its a problem.

No, no it's not.

[dirtypool]

Kasoh wrote:

I mean, I think it was expected to be at least as good as PF1s. I have found there to be fewer free actions in PF2 overall. Perhaps I oversold PF2 as an improvement.

I know my table thinks it is a lot better than PF1's action economy, and more comprehensible. We certainly have less table talk explaining what constitutes each action type than we did in PF1, and a lot less examples of people trying to wheedle a little more out of free actions than was intended RAW.

[TOZ]

Kasoh wrote:

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

Yup, God Wizard's now just plain folks. Boo. Hoo.

Yeah. Its a problem.

It’s different. Not a problem. Plenty of people might have a problem with it.

[Arachnofiend]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Not saying that your players preferences aren't valid because they totally are, but some of that seems to be them projecting their initial resistance onto the system. Especially if they're ranting about magic being nerfed when they've only actually played level 1.

All it took was trying detect magic, really. Detect magic got slammed hard with the nerf bat.

I'm not actually super familiar with pf1e, was it a cantrip there too?

Detect Magic was ludicrously powerful in PF1; you could concentrate to know what school the aura was and magic that was supposed to be hidden like illusions had zero protection against it, making them completely pointless since this was a spammable cantrip.

Yeah, Detect Magic is nerfed, but it's one of the spells that really needed to be. Anyone who wants PF2 spellcasters to be as powerful as they were in PF1 is a lost cause.

[Ed Reppert]

For some reason this series of posts reminds me of the story I just heard about the woman who was upset because a guy who knew what he was doing with wifi moved in next door, installed new and better wifi, and wouldn't give her the password to it, so she could no longer steal bandwidth from her neighbor - to which she was of course entitled because she'd been stealing it for years. :-)

[Kasoh]

dirtypool wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

I mean, I think it was expected to be at least as good as PF1s. I have found there to be fewer free actions in PF2 overall. Perhaps I oversold PF2 as an improvement.

I know my table thinks it is a lot better than PF1's action economy, and more comprehensible. We certainly have less table talk explaining what constitutes each action type than we did in PF1, and a lot less examples of people trying to wheedle a little more out of free actions than was intended RAW.

Yeah. I've been wondering if the consolidation of everything to 'an action' is part of the issue for a particular player where the separation of action types was helpful to them. I mean, if you use your move action to move, you haven't lost on any other opportunities for that action really.

That's just musings off the top of my head though.

TOZ wrote:

It’s different. Not a problem. Plenty of people might have a problem with it.

That's a more accurate and less divisive way to say it yes.

[Kasoh]

Ed Reppert wrote:

For some reason this series of posts reminds me of the story I just heard about the woman who was upset because a guy who knew what he was doing with wifi moved in next door, installed new and better wifi, and wouldn't give her the password to it, so she could no longer steal bandwidth from her neighbor - to which she was of course entitled because she'd been stealing it for years. :-)

I don't see a connection between being upset at not being able to steal internet anymore and someone not enjoying the mechanical changes to a tabletop rpg, but I'd prefer people not infer anything as to quality of character of my players.

I mean, I come off as a colossal tool, but I'm arguing about games on the internet.

[TriOmegaZero]

I still think the school powers should have been unlimited while cantrips were still expended on casting. Solves some of the problems of constant detect magic.

[dirtypool]

Kasoh wrote:

Yeah. I've been wondering if the consolidation of everything to 'an action' is part of the issue for a particular player where the separation of action types was helpful to them. I mean, if you use your move action to move, you haven't lost on any other opportunities for that action really.

Is it that, or is it that since we are talking about people whose primary beef seems to be with magic that the old action economy was more easily manipulated for maximum effect by casters and the new system presents a more equal playing field for everyone?

[Lightning Raven]

dirtypool wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

I mean, I think it was expected to be at least as good as PF1s. I have found there to be fewer free actions in PF2 overall. Perhaps I oversold PF2 as an improvement.

I know my table thinks it is a lot better than PF1's action economy, and more comprehensible. We certainly have less table talk explaining what constitutes each action type than we did in PF1, and a lot less examples of people trying to wheedle a little more out of free actions than was intended RAW.

I gave up on the older sister when I found out about the Immediate/Swift action interaction. After that, I was done.

Not because I couldn't understand, mind you, but how convoluted, borderline useless and ANTI-FUN it was.

[Kasoh]

dirtypool wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

Yeah. I've been wondering if the consolidation of everything to 'an action' is part of the issue for a particular player where the separation of action types was helpful to them. I mean, if you use your move action to move, you haven't lost on any other opportunities for that action really.

Is it that, or is it that since we are talking about people whose primary beef seems to be with magic that the old action economy was more easily manipulated for maximum effect by casters and the new system presents a more equal playing field for everyone?

I don't know. I'm the only person in my group who enjoys playing prepared casters.(hashtag foreverDM) And all the problematic builds in my group tend to be martial blenders. The person who offered that particular complaint has played a Constructed Pugilist Brawler/VMC Barbarian|Champion, Slayer/Vigilante, and a Divine Herbalist Life Oracle (Which they ended up hating.) Last time they played a big caster was an Arcanist/Harrower, like, six years ago. I was a little surprised at the complaint and that they felt that strongly about how powerful magic should be.

Some of my players haven't voiced an opinion on the matter of course. I have my own feelings on it, but overall I like the 3 action system and how it interacts with the casting system is fine.

It might just end up being a 'This game is not for everyone' thing. PF1 offers a certain experience that some people may prefer. I just really wanted to have a lengthy experience playing PF2 with this group so we could have informed conversations about it, like we did when 5e came out and the amount of pushback I got was surprising.

[Unicore]

Forever players who live extremely complex builds that best utilize every possible action type and bonus type are always going to love 1st edition. If those players love it so much, they should at least offer to rotate through GMs, because it is much more complicated to run a full 20 level AP in PF1 than it is in PF2. Maybe being on the other side of the GM screen will also help them appreciate the Elegance of PF2, and they might even start enjoy running games occasional to give you a break.

[Ravingdork]

Arachnofiend wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Not saying that your players preferences aren't valid because they totally are, but some of that seems to be them projecting their initial resistance onto the system. Especially if they're ranting about magic being nerfed when they've only actually played level 1.

All it took was trying detect magic, really. Detect magic got slammed hard with the nerf bat.

I'm not actually super familiar with pf1e, was it a cantrip there too?

Detect Magic was ludicrously powerful in PF1; you could concentrate to know what school the aura was and magic that was supposed to be hidden like illusions had zero protection against it, making them completely pointless since this was a spammable cantrip.

Yeah, Detect Magic is nerfed, but it's one of the spells that really needed to be. Anyone who wants PF2 spellcasters to be as powerful as they were in PF1 is a lost cause.

To say nothing of how 1E detect magic could detect through WALLS.

[NECR0G1ANT]

I'm not surprised that a group that really enjoys 1E doesn't necessarily like 2E, as they are very different games. I do agree that spellcasting was nerfed, although martial/caster imbalance was the largest problem of 1E, so overall it's for the best.

My problem(s) with spellcasting in 2E is that it doesn't take advantage of the three-action economy the way martials do. It also causes problems when some classes run on depletable daily resources (casters, alchemists) when others don't (most other martials). It'd be great if Secrets of Magic had some variant rules I could use for home games; the ones in the Gamemastery Guide were great!

[TriOmegaZero]

Ravingdork wrote:

To say nothing of how 1E detect magic could detect through WALLS.

Depending on how thick they were. Lead is a useful building material in Pathfinder.

[dirtypool]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

To say nothing of how 1E detect magic could detect through WALLS.

Depending on how thick they were. Lead is a useful building material in Pathfinder.

Yep, gotta love a cantrip that can only be stopped by things that stop radiation and Superman.

[TriOmegaZero]

Or stone walls of at least one foot. Which could be pretty common.

[Ravingdork]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

To say nothing of how 1E detect magic could detect through WALLS.

Depending on how thick they were. Lead is a useful building material in Pathfinder.

Makes you wonder if lead-poisoning was why everyone is said lead-lined castles turned crazy evil ('cause they went crazy...from the lead).