Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

mixitwithblop posted:

I'm not saying that the GSL is unreasonable, especially in the context of copyright issues in the pre WoTC days... But leaving the OGL for the GSL is like getting married to that hot chick that already used to give up the goods everyday. It's all cool at first cause man, YOU BAGGED HER YEAH, but then she's all "you can never look at porn again" and one day, it's "Oh, by the way, no more blowjobs, ever."

This is probably the dumbest analogy I've ever seen, hth

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Cpt_Obvious posted:


As for skills, you can take ANY skill you want without penalty, you just get a +3 bonus on class skills. Not only that, they consolidated redundant skills like spot/listen, hide/move silently, tumble/jump etc. Concentration checks are no longer a skill at all, but are based entirely off caster level.

4e skills are retarded. They basically returned to the 2nd edition NWP crap of "well, I know that the master smith dwarf has been practicing his craft for decades, but since my intelligence is higher than his I am better at that same skill I picked up last week."

I just love this part, because most of the stuff you're saying Pathfinder "fixed" was actually fixed better in 4e, and all the skills are actually useful in 4e. It's laughable to say that stat modifiers overriding skill ranks in 4e didn't happen in 3.5e as well, and especially laughable in the specific example you mentioned because the wizard could just take Craft if he wanted; thanks to skill points being Intelligence based he could have a giant pile and no real need for them.

As far as disrupting spells by standing adjacent... how do you stand next to the flying invisible wizard raining spells on you from the air?

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Note that all of these problems become infinitely worse when you remember about things like wands and scrolls which only wizards and some rogues can really use effectively.

Also druids and clerics which are even better than wizards and sorcerers because they have the same awesome destructive power, better hit dice and saves, better armor, healing spells, and insane special abilities (wild shape or domains/divine feats)

Zarick fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Mar 22, 2010

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

It sort of depends on how much magic you want. You need at least the dedication and basic spellcasting to have any non-cantrips at all. That would only get you one cast each of 1st/2nd/3rd-level spells. If you're just looking for a little dip, that might be enough for you. This probably won't be very good if you want to use any spells that affect enemies, however, since your proficiency will stay at trained.

The most you can get is dedication/basic/expert/master/breadth, which is five feats, but gets you two casts each of levels 1-8. This might be a hard sell, because champion feats are generally pretty good in my opinion.

I'd say if you're going to bother at all you should at least get dedication/basic/breadth, which gives you two casts of 1st-3rd. This means you can use them for buff/utility spells. If you want to be a full on spellcaster/martial hybrid, go for the full package. You may even want to pick up Bespell Weapon (which makes you do a bit of extra elemental damage when you cast a non-cantrip spell), but this again might be tough because the champion feats are pretty good.

If you want to be more caster and less champion you might consider going the other way (a sorcerer who gets the champion dedication). With just the dedication this makes you a full spellcaster who can wear heavy armor. However, you won't be terribly good at fighting in this case; this would be best if you have another way of getting trained or higher in a decent weapon (like some racial feats that give you access to weapons).

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Ryuujin posted:

Well trying to look on the Paizo forums for some discussion of the book, came across a build thread. And it came out Investigator Assassin. Just laying in wait, watching a target, and every round while setting up your Assassinate, you Devise a Strategem until you get a 20. Then use that 20 for a crit.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but this doesn't really seem to work. You could fish for a crit which would make the initial attack hurt a lot, but the bonus damage and death effect are linked to the enemy making a separate basic Fortitude save. So you getting a 20 can't cause them to critically fail that.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

It seems like dhampir wasn't thought out that well.

It definitely seems like they're intended to still be treated as living creatures -- it doesn't say you lose that trait, just that you're damaged by positive and healed by negative. This creates a lot of weird rules interactions.

For instance, I haven't been able to find any language that you can fail a save on purpose. So if your ally wants to cast massacre on you, you as far as I can tell must attempt a save. If you're a fighter, you might succeed and thus critically succeed, and so take no damage. Similarly if you drink a healing potion on accident for whatever reason there's no attempt to reduce the damage or anything like there most likely would be if it were a normally harmful item.

However, with the interpretation floated above it seems way too powerful. You lose out on positive healing, sure, but there are several other non-negative means of healing that you don't get excluded from (soothe, treat wounds, elixir of life).

In addition to this, and the biggest one that makes this seem way too strong, is chill touch. You still count as a living creature, so you can heal yourself for 1d4+mod per spell level at-will at any time. Sure, if you critically fail you'll be enfeebled for a round, but that's a small price to pay for the strongest unlimited healing there is. For a quick comparison, starting bare at level 1 here are non-consumable sources of healing:

quote:

  • Treat Wounds: 2d8 on a DC 15 skill check where the highest mod you can have at this level is +7. Takes 10 minutes, has an hour cooldown unless you have Continual Recovery. (avg. 9 hp per 10min, though has an hour cooldown)
  • Lay on Hands: 6 as a focus spell, so you have to rest for 10 minutes after use. (6 hp per 10m)
  • Heal: 1d8+8, potentially 4d8 if spread over an average-sized 4 person party. Limited in usage, the most per day you can have at 1st level is 6 (3 + Cha from Divine Font, 2 spell slots with Heal. Anyone else gets way less than cleric.) So you could output a lot faster than the other sources but you'll run out quick. (avg. 75 hp per 10min if you expend all 6 on one person)
  • Elixirs of life from an alchemist: A 1st-level alchemist with 18 Int can make ten of these at 1d6 a pop. Limited and not super powerful, but does work on undead. (avg. 35 hp per 10min if you expend all 10 on one person)
  • Soothe: 1d10+4 healing, so pretty beefy, but no one gets these for free, so the most you could possibly have is 3 (an occult bloodline sorcerer). (avg. 28.5 hp per 10min if you expend all 3)

You'll notice I listed the healing per ten minutes. That's because Chill Touch puts these all directly in the garbage in terms of sustaining your undead party. 1d4+4 (avg 6.5) hp every 6 seconds adds up to 650 hp per 10 minutes. Now, this assumes you fail all of the saves, but even every save being a success only reduces it to 325, which is still over 4x more than the cleric expending an entire day's worth of heal (or harm) spells. All of the above things scale, but so does chill touch.

Out-of-combat healing is pretty readily available, but this means a party of dhampir who have access to one member with chill touch can probably heal all of their party's wounds in a minute, not ten, while expending no resources other than keeping their spellcasting attribute high which they'd want to do anyway.

My first gut reaction was to just say that dhampir count as undead, which seems like it honestly nips most of the weird stuff in the bud, but there are a few spells that only work on living creatures currently that seem like it'd be weird to make them immune to: hideous laughter, status, touch of idiocy. It also makes it so you basically can't resurrect them, I think, but I'm not sure how I feel about that anyway.

Even ignoring the low-level chill touch problem, treating them as living creates weird problems with vampiric touch/exsanguination (so they get healed, but does the caster get healed? does it do a Final Fantasy-style reverse healing damage?) and some other similar spells. It also just seems way stronger than any other ancestry benefit. You give up a few normal healing methods, unlock a few more (one of which is way too effective), and in exchange you get healed by any attacks that do negative damage. You don't gain any actual vulnerability to positive damage, so even if enemies use healing spells on you they are most likely less effective than damage spells of their level. You don't actually count as undead, so effects that really roast undead (divine spells like searing ray) don't affect you any more strongly than they do your living allies.

This is more words than I'd intended, so I'm glad my player who was going to play a dhampir decided not to, because I feel like after examining them at this point I just wouldn't allow my players to be one.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Well, that does unravel a lot of that and make it a lot more reasonable. However, it's extremely dumb that this rule is explained in the Bestiary 2 of all places, since a lot of creatures in the first bestiary have it (I had to look it up on Archives of Nethys). Looking at the release schedule, Bestiary 2 came out right before APG, so it almost feels like they realized this would cause weird stuff and added a clarification, when in the past it was intended to work the other way.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Red Metal posted:

or maybe paizo consciously chose to break from the 1st edition rules, and simply forgot to include the updated description in the bestiary? not everything has to be a conspiracy

What? If anything my guess (I'm not sure how "it almost feels like" is speaking authoritatively) feels more charitable to Paizo, since they realized there was a problem when they started making a player race with negative healing. Your explanation means that they always intended it to be different and printed a whole book full of monsters with that ability without explaining that, which would be poor editing instead of realizing they wanted to change something and putting it in a book at that point.

Especially since the rules text goes against a) established precedent in their previous game and its sources of inspiration and b) an intuitive deduction of what "negative healing" means, aka you get healed by negative.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Cyouni posted:

A healing potion also doesn't damage them. It heals them as normal.
This is incorrect, they don't get healing from positive healing effects and healing potions have the positive keyword. Elixirs of life do not, so those work on them.

Cyouni posted:

That said, it's still a lot more trouble than you'd think. In-combat healing is a lot rougher on them, for example, since you need to prep Harm (or a negative font). Either way, that makes it harder for both you and the rest of the party to be healed at once, because any Heal is hard to use at 3-action without damaging you, and people prepping Harm means it's only really useful on you. While this isn't a problem for something like an all-dhampir party with a negative font cleric, you don't get that many additional benefits compared to a standard party.
Since you quoted the person clarifying, 3-action Heal does not harm you, it just doesn't heal you. Maybe I'm just biased because my party does most of its healing with Treat Wounds (which is not positive). It's only really a problem if your main source of healing is a cleric (or other primal/divine spellcaster using Heal).

But yeah, it doesn't have the crazy benefits I thought it does because I wasn't aware of the definition of this ability tucked away in the Bestiary 2. Now I am, and I think this way makes it more consistent, even if I also think it's a little unintuitive if you didn't know that in the first place. It still feels a little stronger than the other racial benefits; after all, you're still immune to negative damage, it just doesn't necessarily heal you.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Epi Lepi posted:

A VTT question. My group will be starting Age of Ashes soon. We did Plaguestone in roll20 because it had a plug and play module available and it was okay. There is no such module for roll20. Should I go Foundry or Fantasy Grounds or something else going forward? What are the pros and cons? I don’t think I care overly about macros, the only automation I did in roll20 was health and initiative tracking. I and half my party roll real dice and the rest just did /roll in chat. We used hangouts video calling for voice so that’s not a priority too.

I want what’s easiest to use with pre set up maps and tokens. I don’t mind spending money and it seems like either way I’m should buy all the PDFs from paizo’s site to start but I don’t want to go super nuts if what I’m paying for I don’t really need.

If you have the official PDFs from Paizo of the Age of Ashes modules, there's a FoundryVTT module that will essentially import all of the assets into the program for you. You still have to set up the positions of the monsters, but it does most of the pain in the rear end map work for you, which was the part I found the most difficult.

https://foundryvtt.com/

Normally it's $50 but it's on sale for $37.50 right now, and only one person needs to buy it. You do have to host locally (or pay for external hosting), but I've found that easy enough. The PF2e system for Foundry works really well in my experience (with a few bugs here and there).

https://foundryvtt.com/packages/pdftofoundry/

This is the module that will import the assets. If you don't have the PDFs it might be a bit tougher, but even without them nearly all of the feats/spells/classes/items/monsters are in the system so you can mostly drag and drop things.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Epi Lepi posted:

I don't know about about directly converting from Roll20 but if you have the pdf of the adventure the module to import pdfs to foundry works pretty well, you just need to see how supported that particular adventure is.

With Age of Ashes, I did book one so far. The maps came through good, the dungeon is all set up with walls and doors and stuff which is really neat. Only some of the monster stat blocks showed up in my "actor" tab but everything is in the compendium so it's effectively the same thing.

None of the monsters seem to be placed on the map, and none of the monsters have their own tokens but the stat sheets are all there.

My prep so far has just been adding tokens and placing enemies with their correct visibility on the map and that's honestly it so far. I haven't had to gently caress with anything else on the VTT end.

Tokens haven't been bad because someone on reddit already did the first books worth. If they haven't added more by the time my group gets to the next book then I may have to put in some extra work.

I'm halfway through book 3, and while it's mostly good on the walls, there are a few places where it's worth double-checking them. You may have already seen this near the end of book one in the cave with Voz and skeletons, where the walls aren't set up right so the players can easily see around them from far away. It's still insanely helpful though.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Is the divine spell list in 2e just really bad? From what I can tell it has ~60 less spells than the second-lowest spell list. Basically all of their offensive spells are situational, and their buffs don't seem considerably better than the others. Basically the only unique thing it gets is resurrection, which to be fair is not nothing, but it's also something that is again situational.

It feels like I can't recommend the divine spell list to anyone except specifically someone doing a very undead-heavy campaign OR as an evil cleric in an evil campaign (since you're less likely to fight undead and can just use tons of negative spells). Can't even necessarily recommend it for fiend-heavy, since most of the holy spells also do fire damage, which is a frequent resistance/immunity for them.

It also feels like the warpriest cleric gives up legendary proficiency in spellcasting and doesn't get much in return. They do get expert proficiency earlier, but not considerably. They get martial weapon proficiency, but that may be worthless in the end, since a) you get Deadly Simplicity, which can make many simple weapons roughly equal to martial ones and b) as either cleric, you get expert proficiency in your deity's favored weapon, martial or not. I understand that obviously getting these things earlier does make the warpriest better at fighting for a while, but it feels very wrong that the cloistered cleric and the warpriest top out at the same martial capability (and not even very late, at 11th level).

It feels like the warpriest should be getting master proficiency in their deity's favored weapon, obviously not at 13 when martials get it, but maybe at 15 (keeping them two levels behind martials, like with expert) or 19 (when they get master spellcasting much later than other spellcasters). This does seem pretty powerful because this is what martials top out at, but clerics are limited to only using a single weapon type and don't have a bunch of special martial attacks to make.

I'm curious how others feel. I do like that thanks to the Medicine skill, divine healing isn't always necessary (though many conditions can't be removed by mundane medicine), but it does almost feel that's all the cleric is really good at.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

The main issue I've found with lacking a magical healer is actually removing some of the worse conditions with long/unlimited durations.

This tends to be more of an issue at higher levels than low, but some stuff like paralyzed, blinded, and petrified can be applied with infinite duration and mostly only removed with magic.

For pure HP healing, Medicine is definitely enough, which is one of my favorite things in this system.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

I don't think it would be overpowered at all to have Evil Eye just automatically work at the Frightened 1 level. Dirge of Doom is admittedly a higher level bard feat, but bards can spend 1 action to give the entire party a +1 bonus (effectively the same as a -1 penalty to enemies) and does so in an area. Hell, I'm not certain it'd be overpowered to make Evil Eye just 1/turn, no immunity, frightened 1 with no save.

It definitely seems like the Witch really gets the short end of the stick though. They get 6 hp/level, which previously only Sorcerer and Wizard got, but Sorcerer and Wizard also get more spells than all of the other spellcasters (through Sorcerer's just getting more and Wizard's school specialization or generalist bonded item recall). They get the same crappy save and no additional class features distribution as Sor/Wiz (max expert in anything, only gets master Will at 17 and only one "evasion", which most classes get two of, except Sor/Wiz, the most powerful spellcasters). They get to choose their tradition, but so does Sorcerer. They get a good familiar, but are heavily penalized if it dies (unlike the Wizard, who can also get this progression I'm pretty sure, and loses just the familiar if it dies). They get a good familiar, but so can the Wizard who also gets other stuff. Their feats are littered with thematic but not very useful "witch" things like having claw or hair(?) weapons that they don't want to use because of lack of weapon proficiency and the aforementioned 6 hp/level.

I never really played 1e Pathfinder so I don't know much about the Witch class from there. But in my opinion it should basically be the "offensive" version of the bard. Bump them up to 8 hp/level, give them some extra goodies when levelling (bard gets master will at 9th and legendary will at 17th, plus is slightly better than the "full" casters at fighting). Make their hexes better as things that are one-action abilities that automatically apply minor penalties to all enemies in range.

Non-specific to Witch, spellcasters also can feel a little worse than melee because you only get one "big" action a turn, the spell you cast, and while spells are frequently a bit less binary than melee attacks, a) not all of them are and b) you get a limited number of them. Also, while I do think having non-straight attack actions is a strong point of the system (like demoralize, feint, etc, and the multiple attack penalty incentivizing them), I also think they're super heavily weighted into Charisma. All Intelligence really gets is Recall Knowledge, and even then they don't get all of it, and it only gives you really good info on a critical success. (Wisdom would have a similar problem if it weren't for Medicine, probably objectively the best skill to have in PF2e, even if its combat use is pretty strictly limited.)

My group is actually starting the final book of Age of Ashes next, and we've had a good time with it. But I think at bare minimum I'll wait a while for a few more books to run this game again because I do feel like it needs more options and more sanding around the edges to make it a really good game instead of just a good one.

EDIT: struck incorrect info about Witch being penalized overly for familiar loss, which was wrong

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

sugar free jazz posted:

Witch in 1E is a very high power full progression spellcaster that is on the level of a Wizard, and is generally much stronger than most Sorcerers due to 1E mechanics. Remaking them to be more similar to a Bard would be a really big change for the Witch class.

I will also say that Evil Eye is pretty dang good. It costs 1 action and you can still spam Electric Arc as usual while using Evil Eye.

I will also also say that I was super bored in combat on Wizard until level 5, so it could just take a minute for the class to open up.

I don't really want them to be thematically like a Bard, but right now they are pretty much like a Bard mechanically... just worse. Basically I just mean they should get more features than Sor/Wiz (like Bard does, since it doesn't get the 4 spells/level), and that hexes should be 1-action minor offensive effects that always work, like Bard songs (even the offensive one).

Evil Eye is definitely just flat out worse than any of the Bard songs which are also 1-action effects, the first of which every Bard gets for free: Inspire Courage, which gives +1 attack/damage and +1 to saves vs fear for every ally within 60'. (Bard gets a better version of Evil Eye as a level 8 feat, Dirge of Doom, that applies frightened 1 and the "can't reduce below 1" to every enemy within 30'.)

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Also, totally unprompted since I have some experience now and am reaching the end of a full adventure path, here's what I feel are the pros/cons of PF2e for me:

Pros:
  • The three action system. I definitely like how the scaling cost of some actions and the simplicity of this is very easy to grasp and it makes the game flow a lot smoother than "wait, do I have a move action or a minor action or a bonus action left?" You just have x actions left. This also interacts really well with the quickened/slowed/stunned conditions in a way that feels natural and most of the time, my players don't get really bummed out like getting dazed in 4e since the most typical value is stunned/slowed 1 and two actions is still enough to cast a spell or move and attack. I wish they had done more things with scaling action costs (Magic Missile is a neat example of this, as is Ki Blast), but the potential is there for more and that's still a pro for me.
  • The critical success/failure +10/-10 system. Again, it's mimicing something that's been in previous editions but in a way that's super easy to grasp and works consistently across things. It also gives you a way to make players feel really powerful (when they're fighting lower level enemies, they critically succeed more) and monsters feel dangerous (when fighting higher level enemies, the enemy critically succeeds more). This lets you get pretty granular with the effects in a way that just seems like it works really well.
  • Giving basically every class some kind of "evasion". Nothing makes my players feel better than seeing the save their class is good at come up, rolling a regular success and proclaiming that the wail of the banshee didn't affect them at all. It also lets them make some classes tougher than others in ways other than just boosting hit points. (For example, the fighter gets at least a limited version of this for all three saves, monks' previous extreme save proficiency is represented by them getting to pick one legendary and one master.)
  • The fact that the Medicine skill is a viable method of healing, and you could totally play a whole campaign with no divine spellcaster. My party's healer is a Wizard with a decent Wisdom score, and aside from scary long-term magical effects as I mentioned in my post above, he does an excellent job of keeping the party healthy.
  • The proficiency system. I was suspicious of it at first, but since small bonuses have decent effects due to the +10/-10 thing, the proficiencies for attacks/defenses makes some classes feel pretty different. The fighter hits more than even the other martials because of his starting expert proficiency, and the high-level champion or monk gets hit less than anyone else can. Skill proficiency levels offer a good way to gate feats and other things that is easier to remember than "level x" or "skill rank x".
  • Everyone gets Perception at varying levels based on class. This way you don't always have to make the "decision" to pick the obviously most important skill, you just get it.
  • The Foundry integration people mentioned above is really great and saved me a ton of prep time -- I basically just imported the PDF, set up monster tokens, and then added them to maps. Sometimes I had to do little corrections but for an entire book of Age of Ashes I typically had to do 2-4 hours of prep time, which is nothing compared to what it would take to do it all myself (especially the maps, that's always a pain in the rear end).
  • This is pretty minor but I like that all of the combinations of armor potency + resilient and weapon potency + striking add up to nice, even, easy to remember numbers for prices.

Cons:
  • Skill feats are one of the biggest ones for my group. You get a decent amount of them, and while some of them are very good (Athletics, Intimidation, Medicine), there are many skills that don't have any interesting skill feats worth writing home about (most of the magic skills are the biggest culprits). Also, some gate things that feel annoying to be behind skill feats or feel like "feat tax" just there to justify having something to use a skill feat on (like Intimidating Glare or Group Impression). Skill feats are probably overall the thing my players liked the least, even though some specific skill feats (Scare to Death, Cat Fall) they love. They definitely needed less of these with more impact.
  • The Divine spell list I've complained about previously here, so I won't repost it all here. But the short version is that it is very focused and way less versatile than the others, and many levels don't have very many "fun" spells. Two of my players tried playing a Divine spellcaster and didn't like it, and I also looked at it and thought it didn't seem great.
  • A lot of the martial classes have pretty dull feats in terms of not having effects that aren't "attack, but better" or "attack, but more times". They have plenty of mechanically useful feats, but it still feels like the (non-4e) D&D fighter problem is intact. The wizard gets tons of agency and neat, weird things he can do, and the fighter just swings a sword really hard. At least in some cases here you have some decent mechanical effects, but I'm still disappointed by it.
  • I found it a bit weird that the Rogue is the only base class that gets any extra skills and they get a ton of them. (Investigator also gets these, but I'm going to focus on Rogue because the Investigator is pretty much entirely devoted to skills and so it makes more sense there; the Rogue is more effective in combat.) Other classes get varying amounts of starting trained skills, but every non-Rogue gets the same number of skill increases. It makes it hard for some classes you'd expect to be "skilled" (I'm mostly thinking of Ranger here but there could be other examples) to keep up. With the base number of skill increases you can get a max of three skills to Legendary, which if you go with the classic Ranger you pretty much have to have only Nature/Survival/one other skill. I think Rangers are probably either on par with Rogue combat-wise, or very slightly ahead, so about half as many extra skill boosts as the Rogue seems like it'd be appropriate. The Swashbuckler also doesn't get any extra skill boosts even though their skills are tied heavily into their combat gameplay (though they do get extra skill feats).
  • There are a few classes that just feel like they're not as effective as others to me. I mentioned the Witch above, but the Alchemist is also another example of this. The alchemist is around as limited as spellcasters are in terms of how much they can use their main class feature, but their effects are weaker. (Later on, when they are higher level they can afford to be a bit more freeform with their reagents and so have a bit more flexibility, but only a bit, and it still leaves their effects much weaker.) They also have some weirdness in that they can't ever really attack with their main stat (since they're either using Dex to throw bombs or Str to hit people with mutagens). I think they did a reasonable job balancing most of the classes, but there are a few not great standouts. Cleric also I feel like fits in this because if you stray away much from their "niche" it doesn't feel like it works very well.
  • Ancestry feats are a pretty mixed bag. Some of them have great thematics and cool mechanical effects (elf, aasimar/tiefling, dwarf) while the rest are a bit wimpier.

Here's some Age of Ashes specific ones, that I'll put in spoiler tags:

Pros:
  • (general, all books) I feel like they do a pretty good job with the story as long as you like generic high-fantasy stuff which my party does. The "scale" of the conflict in the book feels like it scales really nicely from clearing skeletons out of a fort in Book 1 to convincing a gold dragon to let you help prevent the end of the world in Book 6.
  • (general, all books) There were a decent amount of breakouts from the normal "explore a dungeon" experience, even though there is also a lot of that, and I'll call out some favorites after this. Not all of them worked, but some of them did.
  • (book 2) My players enjoyed the hex crawl and gaining influence with the Ekujae, as well as finding and deactivating the dragon pillars around the jungle.
  • (book 5) My players really enjoyed this chapter, with the various events to influence the guilds and the heist here in particular was greatly enjoyed by my rogue player.
  • (book 6) We haven't played this one out yet, but I know they're going to like it because it gets suitably extreme for the end of the world and feels like a pretty good conclusion.

Cons:
  • (general, all books) Fire immunity seems way too over-represented in this. I know it's called Age of Ashes, but there are very few ways around total immunity and so if you choose anything based on fire (I'd hate to be a red dragon barbarian, for instance) you're probably going to have a bad time. Very many of the "boss" enemies in this are immune or resistant to fire; the Book 4 and Book 6 "final bosses" are immune to it. This kind of exacerbates the Cleric problems I pointed out since a lot of their offensive spells use fire (or negative, another common immunity).
  • (general, all books) Similar to the above, the players fight way too many golems. The Golem Antimagic is a neat gimmick a few times, but offhand I can remember at least three encounters with stone golems, a clay golem, at least two encounters with alchemical golems, one with iron golems, and one adamantine golem (who can only be killed by very specific things -- hope your players have vorpal adamantine weapons or have a 9th-level dispel magic available!). They're not horrifically bad but they do get a bit dull after a while.
  • (general, all books) Sometimes the adventure gives great guidance on what to do with encounters that are close together and how they interact (like saying "if x hears combat, they'll do this"), but sometimes they put encounters really close together without any DM guidance on what happens if your players initiate loud combat nearby.
  • (book 1) My players didn't like the opening "fight fire" thing at all, I just let them redo it as fighting a few mephits instead. They also weren't a huge fan of the castle rebuilding minigame.
  • (book 4) The players were okay with influencing the various dwarf guilds here, but in my opinion this was done similarly (and better) in Book 5, so it's a minor con because it was a bit repetitive.

This is already super long so I won't add any more to it. We've had a lot of fun with this and I do think it is a pretty good game. I like it better than 5e, but there are a lot of ways that I feel like it could be better.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

ZenMasterBullshit posted:

Fighters are way way more dynamic than wizards while being the martial equivalent of them. Give a fighter a day and he's coming back with a whole new set of skills and tactics and several new weapons with unique was to gently caress you up.

And since the fundamental runes are so cheap it's easy to keep an armory of slightly weaker than your main weapon. Fighter whip rear end in PF2E.

It's very odd that the way in which you picked fighters being better than wizards is the thing wizard is explicitly good at? A wizard can change literally his entire toolset, top to bottom, every day (assuming his pockets and/or spellbook are deep enough).

Fighters get one flexible feat at 9th level, another at 14th, and another at 20th if you take a feat (and 20th level feats are valuable).

There's five general "feat chains" fighters have: weapon and shield, weapon and open hand, two-handed weapon, two weapon, and ranged weapon. Most of these don't play nice together. Fighters don't get Quick Draw.

I really like the idea of the flexible fighter, and I don't think that the wizard is better because of flavor. Some of the martials do have good and flavorful options (I think monk, swashbuckler, and barbarian are probably the best in this regard).

I looked through the fighter feats in the PHB from 20 down to find one that does something that isn't giving extra attacks, slightly more effective attacks, or defense bonuses. It takes getting down to level 14, so no feats in the top three tiers of feat that don't just basically add more attacks. At least monks can turn ethereal and do a death fist attack, and barbarians can cause earthquakes or turn into a dragon.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Toshimo posted:

No lie, this is one of my biggest concerns. Foundry is the newest shiniest thing, but if they are so heavily leaning on community labor, what happens when the next new shiny thing comes out? How many modules lose support when their devs wander off to their new bauble?

Someone else picks it up? This can easily also happen with Roll20 or FG. Roll20 has definitely started on features and abandoned them in the past.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

If you want to focus more on the bird I'd suggest going ranger with the Sentinel dedication. This gets you heavy armor, and you can focus on the pet more. The bird is one of the better animal companions for its support benefit, which is Dazzled on any enemy you hit. You can go with a two-handed hammer and the precision ranger, or two one-handed ones (or a one-handed one and a shield w/ shield boss) for dual wielding/flurry ranger. It works pretty well.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Mark me down as another person who played PF2e in Foundry and had it work great, especially compared to Roll20.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Toshimo posted:

But, again, for all it's warts (and they are numerous), one of the things R20 got right, and imo Foundry should have learned from, is that 90% of the buttons that you need to push and numbers you need to reference are on the first page (and spell page for casters). Like I mentioned, that's a big deal for speeding up play, especially for new players. You could throw out all the big piles of ~fancy afornment~ of the Foundry sheet and just give me a compact first page with Saves/AC/Skills/Attacks/Common Actions on it and I'd leap at it. That's really what I want from a VTT character sheet.

I'm going to strongly disagree with this -- one of my players has had trouble in the past with parsing parts of character sheets and had no issues, and I personally find that having the different bits segmented into different pages makes it easy to quickly access what you need. The utility menu addon that someone else mentioned makes this even faster.

quote:

I mean, I'm playing in a weekly game in Foundry, and doing my best to work within its limitations, and help the other players. I don't have an objection to people preferring Foundry or recommending it. I just get very annoyed that there's a lot of misinformation about both of the big VTTs and how to use them and when they might be a better option for players. Foundry definitely has a lot of nice features, and I like a lot of things about it, but it does feel, even from the player side, that it offloads a lot more on the GM and requires a lot more time and energy invested to get a working product out. Sure, if your GM pours themselves into it, it's got a world of features that do a lot of cool things, but that's a bar above which a lot of folks are likely to bounce off.

As someone who just finished running Age of Ashes in Foundry, I can't disagree more with this statement. Just the PDF importer (which is admittedly a third-party module) saved me so much time it's incredible, and having basically everything in the compendiums saved me tons of time setting things up.

I'm also not sure what's so complicated about Treat Wounds, and I'm echoing what the other poster said about the utility belt macro working well. But even before that I don't remember having issues.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

boxen posted:

What's the basic process for bringing in a published Pathfinder adventure (say, one book of an adventure path) into Foundry VTT? I installed it to check it out, started a world, got PDF to foundry and maps look like they came in, but do all the tokens need to be placed and that sort of thing? Or is there a better/more complete import tool I should be using?

The tokens do need to placed -- probably because the books don't typically tell you exactly where to put them (I think there's a technical reason also, but this is the reason I thought it might be).

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

I like PF2e but I definitely wouldn't describe it as 4.5e. There are definitely some things that do imitate 4e, like the keywords.

But one of the most important things in 4e they definitely do not do, which is parity of options between classes, particularly spellcasters/martials.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

Megazver posted:

I haven't had the chance to play it at a high level yet, but from what I hear, they're pretty balanced for the most part. All the classes don't develop along the exact same structure like pre-Essentials 4e, but to me having variety in that is a plus.

In terms of damage effectiveness the martials definitely do really well, so that's not my problem, just many of the martial classes' high level options are really boring.

Also, a lot is made by the PF2e community about how the attack penalty forces you to do things other than just attack and how just attacking is ineffective, but my party's martial characters had better luck with just attacking repeatedly (especially since most of the extra combat options that aren't attacking are Charisma-based).

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

HidaO-Win posted:

It depends, there are funky high level options in there, fighters getting an extra reaction on every creatures turn sorta sounds boring, but it’s actually incredible and just lets you punish the opposition. Monks get to go Super Saiyan, Rangers get six attacks, Barbarians can stomp for earthquakes. They all play into the power fantasy of the class.


The big trick in PF2 is that you need to find useful things you can do on a third action. Raise a Shield is great but even using your third action to stride away from a melee opponent can be worth it for some martials. I’d wholeheartedly recommend the Free Archetype rule as that’s great for grabbing an extra trick or two without having to agonise over giving up lots of your class feats.

Two of those big powers are just "attack more". Monks and barbarians do make out better in interesting powers than other martials, I will admit that.

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

I'd also recommend with the Free Archetype letting people ignore the "you must take x feats before moving on", mostly because it makes some archetypes a lot harder to take at all: there are a few with a level 2 feat then the next one is later. Though you'll definitely want to do what the Free Archetype thing says about keeping a restriction on the feats that give you extra HP from the "fighting" classes.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zarick
Dec 28, 2004

CaptainPsyko posted:

It’s a perfectly good and usable core class in 1e;

The decision to remove the spell-like alchemy and replace it purely with enhanced access to crafted items that any character can access and use is a neat idea that ultimately hamstrings the balance of the class itself though, because it becomes really hard to give alchemists anything where you don’t have to ask the question “isn’t it better to just have a fighter with a bunch of gold buy a bunch of these items?”

Honestly I feel like it kind of works for the bomber because the admixtures you can do with bombs are pretty good, but there's nothing comparable for the other builds, at least not past one or two feats that interact well. I think if there were more of that it could work. Where you use a lower level item and add a special effect.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply