|
Verbal and somatic spell components are up there with encumbrance as one of the most overlooked rules in RPGs, so I'd be fine with a player reflavoring their components given that I largely don't care about them to begin with.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Serf posted:Verbal and somatic spell components are up there with encumbrance as one of the most overlooked rules in RPGs, so I'd be fine with a player reflavoring their components given that I largely don't care about them to begin with. They can occasionally matter but if the balance of your games hinge on it what are you even doing
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Reflavoring is fine. Changing the mechanics and ability scores seems stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Andrast posted:They can occasionally matter but if the balance of your games hinge on it what are you even doing Yeah my general rule is that if you're doing magic, unless you have something that says otherwise, people know you're doing magic. My brain has no limit on the VFX budget, so magic is always gonna default to being over the top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Serf posted:Yeah my general rule is that if you're doing magic, unless you have something that says otherwise, people know you're doing magic. My brain has no limit on the VFX budget, so magic is always gonna default to being over the top. It's actually RAW that magic shows "magical effects" of the magic gathering whenever a spell is cast. I asked awhile back about share lore which has no components at all but would still show magic around the wizard. The encumbrance rules aren't bad in 2e though. They are relevant at lower levels or if you don't have bags of holding. Scrolls being "L" bulk is kind of keeping my scroll hoarding under control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Serf posted:Yeah my general rule is that if you're doing magic, unless you have something that says otherwise, people know you're doing magic. My brain has no limit on the VFX budget, so magic is always gonna default to being over the top. One of my favorite versions of this was in Crown of Candy Dimension 20 and whenever the Warlock cast spells everyone smelled Sugar Plums.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
ngl i have never looked at the encumbrance rules for pf2 and i have been running games for like two years now
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
If you want to cast your hard spells via interpretive dance, that’s just fine. But that doesn’t require any balance or mechanical changes and you’re just as affected by silence because the sounds of your feet stomping and hands clapping are integral to the mechanics of the spell, either as “verbal” triggers, or because you are unable to properly execute the complex movements without relying on your own self produced audio cues to keep your movements coordinated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
What sort of cheat sheets do y'all use for new to PF players? I've got one of most (all?) actions that can be, and the cardboard things from the beginner's box that also has actions and a visual reminder of how many actions they have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Andrast posted:ngl i have never looked at the encumbrance rules for pf2 and i have been running games for like two years now I think they work pretty well with how easy it is to get consumables in pf2e. Like I would be kitted out like crazy if I had no limit. Even so, with a backpack you get 2 free bulk so thats basically 20 consumables almost at the ready.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:What sort of cheat sheets do y'all use for new to PF players? I've got one of most (all?) actions that can be, and the cardboard things from the beginner's box that also has actions and a visual reminder of how many actions they have. The big one is a good Conditions List.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:The big one is a good Conditions List. Oh right, I bought the condition card deck too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Oh right, I bought the condition card deck too. Sleeve them (penny sleeves or clear inner sleeves are good), and then manually hand them to players as they get the conditions to remind them is how I did it. Also, if you're running in person the wipe-clean/magnetic initiative tracker is worth its weight in gold. In any other system it's whatever, but in PF2e people move around initiative order a lot and it's an excellent way to keep things straight. e: also if you're homebrewing stuff i think the chase cards are a must-have too, since that way you can lay out the chase on the play surface for everyone to see. Arivia fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
Arivia posted:if you're looking for options for shopping, I'd pick up the grand bazaar first - it also has a lot of items, but it's got them packaged as fun shops with shopkeeper npcs to interact with, so it's more immediately gameable than the treasure vault. on the other hand treasure vault fixes alchemists apparently, so Ended up getting the Grand Bazaar, and I love Morhen's Mobility Apparel so much (and I bet they stock the voicebox)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:Ended up getting the Grand Bazaar, and I love Morhen's Mobility Apparel so much (and I bet they stock the voicebox) I bet they do! Also keeping track of spell components matters a lot in PF2e, since that generally determines the actions needed to cast a spell. The encumbrance system is fine, it's general enough to be okay without being super stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
The other thing is that components actually do matter in 2e, because there's a lot of spells that are verbal-only or somatic-only. And having/not having the manipulate trait does matter quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:The other thing is that components actually do matter in 2e, because there's a lot of spells that are verbal-only or somatic-only. And having/not having the manipulate trait does matter quite a bit. Unless you're a sorcerer, and then all your material components become somatic components and you don't need a free hand for any of your spells. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
That one's also relevant! You can use somatic components with a hand full, but not material, so that's a bit of a restriction on casters with two hands full.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
If your spell has some components that matter for a mechanical reason, I leave it to the players to tell me so. I'm not reading every spell and referencing them every time one comes up in play looking for gotchas. There's enough to keep track of as is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Since no one else has brought it up yet, Paizo's come out with a whole plan for late 2023-2024 centered on Tian Xia The art rules and I'm excited to see them re-do the location in the same way they did the mwangi expanse Check it out here! I'm guessing the interesting AP structure is so that they can make AP #200 something special (and probably another Runelord thing)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Jen X posted:Since no one else has brought it up yet, Paizo's come out with a whole plan for late 2023-2024 centered on Tian Xia That looks insanely cool. And oh no, a new magus subclass
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:AI art is so terrible because it's being discussed in every thread I read. Especially in the Pathfinder 2e thread where Paizo just released the awesome Treasure Vault book. Nonverbal means exactly what it says on the tin, a character who cannot currently express themselves verbally, whether that's for a physical, physiological, or psychological reason. It's a real world term usually used for cases where it's a psychological cause and often temporary. Taciturn Tactician fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
Usually but not exclusively. A significant number of autistic people are nonverbal, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 09:38
|
|
|
Has anyone tried running a PF campaign with the optional "Proficiency without level"? Clearly, it wouldn't mesh with published adventure paths or modules, but I'm wondering if it would be a good fit for a homebrew sandbox-ish campaign where I want challenges to be a little bit more homogenized. Meaning, if the PCs are interacting with a Duke (either socially or through combat) I want them to have a moderate chance of success even if they are under-leveled, and I want them to have a threat of failure even if they are over-leveled. On paper, the variant rule in the GMG looks like it should work as intended, but curious if anyone has real world experience that exposed major pitfalls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:09
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:Has anyone tried running a PF campaign with the optional "Proficiency without level"? Clearly, it wouldn't mesh with published adventure paths or modules, but I'm wondering if it would be a good fit for a homebrew sandbox-ish campaign where I want challenges to be a little bit more homogenized. Meaning, if the PCs are interacting with a Duke (either socially or through combat) I want them to have a moderate chance of success even if they are under-leveled, and I want them to have a threat of failure even if they are over-leveled. On paper, the variant rule in the GMG looks like it should work as intended, but curious if anyone has real world experience that exposed major pitfalls. The biggest thing that stuck out in the one shot I played using it a while back was that a lot of fixed DC stuff that players tend to take for granted suddenly doesn’t work the same - the biggest examples being Medicine and Assurance. Expect to need a lot more downtime and/or magical healing. Even with the adjustments to simple DC’s, those checks are going to be a lot more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:23
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:On paper, the variant rule in the GMG looks like it should work as intended, but curious if anyone has real world experience that exposed major pitfalls. There are a few oversights that will probably come up. One is that anything with flat DCs, like the Treat Wounds or Aid actions, will require you to cross-reference a few tables to find an appropriate equivalent every time. That seems like a simple enough fix at first, but according to the numbers given in the book a DC 20 check would stay at DC 20 even with level removed from proficiency bonuses, so Aid is going to become way less effective as a result. Another is that a number of features, like the investigator's Keen Recollection, add your level to things that you aren't proficient in instead of nothing. In the proficiency without level variant these features now do literally nothing, so that's obviously going to be a little awkward if someone runs into it. The variant probably would've meshed a little better with things like that if it were "proficiency with level = 2" rather than "proficiency without level".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
Hmm, those issues make sense. I'm also thinking the Assurance feat ends up being way more valuable, maybe even straight up OP?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
I'm not sure how Assurance would wind up anywhere even close to something someone would consider OP. It could literally only give you results of 12, 14, 16, or 18 depending on how many ranks of proficiency you have. 18 at legendary isn't even enough to successfully Aid, and if you're trying to use it to Grapple or Trip something you would no longer have a significant number advantage from level to exploit against lower-level targets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:38
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:Hmm, those issues make sense. I'm also thinking the Assurance feat ends up being way more valuable, maybe even straight up OP? The opposite typically. Getting the level factored in is a significant portion of Assurance's potency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:The opposite typically. Getting the level factored in is a significant portion of Assurance's potency. Oh wait, I'm misunderstanding Assurance, maybe. I was thinking Assurance only gave you 10 + the skill training, not the level bonus. Yeah, I see what you guys are saying there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:47
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:Oh wait, I'm misunderstanding Assurance, maybe. I was thinking Assurance only gave you 10 + the skill training, not the level bonus. Yeah, I see what you guys are saying there. Yeah, Assurance gives you "10 + proficiency bonus," and proficiency bonus is "your level + 2/4/6/8."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Remember that this conversation is about the variant rule where level is detached from proficiency bonus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
Iron Heart posted:Remember that this conversation is about the variant rule where level is detached from proficiency bonus. Yeah, that's why I was wondering if Assurance gets a de facto bump in utility under that variant. Seems like it would?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:Has anyone tried running a PF campaign with the optional "Proficiency without level"? Clearly, it wouldn't mesh with published adventure paths or modules, but I'm wondering if it would be a good fit for a homebrew sandbox-ish campaign where I want challenges to be a little bit more homogenized. Meaning, if the PCs are interacting with a Duke (either socially or through combat) I want them to have a moderate chance of success even if they are under-leveled, and I want them to have a threat of failure even if they are over-leveled. On paper, the variant rule in the GMG looks like it should work as intended, but curious if anyone has real world experience that exposed major pitfalls. I'm not sure I understand why this needs to be a separate optional rule. Don't you just set the DC's of these itneractations appropriately anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm not sure I understand why this needs to be a separate optional rule. Don't you just set the DC's of these itneractations appropriately anyway? Proficiency without level removes level from EVERYWHERE proficiency is involved. So it also reduces AC, saves, attack rolls, etc. It changes easily 75% of rolls in the game. It's more than just setting DCs for skill checks. e: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1370
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
I've been running Beginner Box -> Trouble in Otari for two players recently and I had a sloggy session today. They came up against the Shadow from the Leadbuster Lads chapter, which has some all encompassing immunities that you can partially get around with magical attacks or those which cast light. The fight dragged on for a very long time and I am really not sure if I should have intervened - the party has an alchemist who absolutely could have decided to retreat and come back with some bottled lightning and alchemist's fire, which they correctly guessed I would have ruled as a hard yes on its pseudo-weakness to light, but they decided to brute force and have the ranger fish for big hits through the resistance using the hunted prey ability. Basically the party had a clear path to solving the problem, but chose not to do it. I'm not sure if they made that decision because it would have cost them time (and the scenario makes it clear somebody is in danger), or whether they just wanted to win anyway without changing tack. They did 0 damage many many times and ended the fight with very little HP left, and even then only because I decided the creature eventually retreated to its sarcophagus with its very stubborn final hit point. Nobody's really upset, especially because it turned into a cool thing where they leveraged the threat they clearly posed to essentially trade gold for its loot and then seal its tomb shut, and the loot was right up the players' alley. I'm just not sure whether I should have relented just because nobody was really having fun after a while, despite that they were being stubborn and un-tactical. PastaBakeWizard fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Mar 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
I think the most important thing at the table is to make sure everyone is having fun not to play right. I remember doing a puzzle in a 5e campaign that was taking hours and our fighter tried to remove a piece off the wall. This was not the right solution at all but our fighter was a new player so we let her try it out and she rolled a Nat 20 strength check. Our Dm just started laughing and said she put her fist through the wall and when she pulled the piece out she destroyed the entire wall letting us proceed. It was a cool character moment the new player loved it and everyone was happy we where moving on. I am certain that wasn’t how the ap was written haha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
I agree with that. Even though it was part of feeling out the system and people tell me to trust PF2E's encounter math, I definitely should have been more proactive in designing the problem out at the table - that challenge clearly wasn't meant for that team!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
If you’re GMing for two players you’re already breaking the encounter design. There’s a fine line between being flexible, which is good, and GMng a world without possibility of failure where it doesn’t matter what the players do, which is bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
I think hand waving a long-term repetitive statistical encounter is a fine idea. Fleeing at at 1 HP is reasonable too In age of ashes we had our first fight against a flying boss/elite type enemy and attempted to bring a wild dinosaur to fight against it. It turns out terrain was difficult for the dinosaur so it didn't end up being any help. Instead we beat this ridiculously strong monster and now had to face a giant dinosaur that was basically trapped in quicksand. My GM let me hand wave soloing it as a ranged striker who did not have difficult terrain because he didn't feel like piling on more random encounters and there's no other reason to do the rolling
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:27
|
|