Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Here's the feat. The OP is trying to be funny about the fact that the feat saves you having to buy a 1sp crafting book, but misses the part where it frees you up from buying and carrying the 2gp Bulk 1 repair kit to put your shield back together. EOT.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
And yet, between this and the agonisingly crippling Incapacitation trait, you play it. Just how much pain more will you bear? :)
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
hyphz wrote:
You need to play with more GMs :) On a more serious note: I'd likely run it that without the feat, you need Expert or Master to quickly read upside-down text. With this feat, you need Trained. For me, the intention for a lot of skill feats is more "you can do it easier/with lower proficiency threshold" rather than "you can only do it with the feat".
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
voideternal wrote:
I assume the game is balanced as it is, if you buff casters - fine, go ahead, but what about making sure martials don't lag behind?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Striking runes were in since the very beginning of the playtest, so their inclusion is not a mistake. The whole math of the game is designed around martial classes getting more dmg due to striking runes while casters get that through heightening. Removing striking runes would have the same effect as taking PF1 weapons and eliminating + to dmg from +X weapons and kicking any other damage enchants (flaming, holy etc) away. Meaning: weapon-based damage output would fall off drastically and no sane person would play a non-caster.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ekaczmarek wrote:
Correct, US+CAN is 80% of D&D/Pathfinder market.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Samurai wrote:
How do you compensate the martials, then? I expect an extensive array of well-playtested houserules to balance this out. Let us know your design chops.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The1Ryu wrote:
Well, page 183 of the Core Rulebook tells me that 5 foot step is "No Action". The book contradicts itself. We're not going to come to a conclusion and honestly, I think you can't make a 5fs after a teleport, because that makes SENSE. But the point was that the PF1 action system is dense, exception-based, self-contradictory and leads to repeated arguments (the "what is an attack/attack action/standard action used to make an attack" argument is right next door).
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The1Ryu wrote:
You haven't addressed the question. Is 5-foot step an action? The book says no, it isn't. It doesn't fall into any action type. The spell says you can't take an action after it. So, you can take a 5-foot step, because it's not an action. Of course, there are lots of actually intelligent counter-arguments, starting with one that teleporting could be considered "movement", so you shouldn't be able to take a 5fs after it. Or the argument that it would be really weird if ddoor prevented you from taking a free action to talk (as much as GM allows you) but not prevented you from taking a 5-foot step. But there's no clear answer in the rules and we can argue until the end of days.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jhaeman wrote: If a core gameplay element like action economy can be a "burning mess" and an "obtuse mess" but plenty of fun can still be had playing the game, the edition must not be quite so awful. Perhaps it'd be useful for multiple posters on all sides to cool down the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the original post? Why don't you tell us a bit about what PF1 games you're playing? I'm sure people are curious. Sure, I'm running Hell's Rebels, currently book 5, for a party whom I ran Skulls and Shackles for. I'm also running Strange Aeons, book 3, for another group. I have also ran the entire Rise of the Runelords and Reign of Winter for two groups that fell apart because Real Life. Are we having fun? Yes. Is PF1 a fun game? Yes. Is the system getting in the way of fun? Yes, especially at higher levels. Will we switch to PF2? Yes, once the APG drops.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote: 4) The numbers crunch is a little to tight for our liking. Most relevant challenges (hazzards, skill checks and sometimes also combat) seem to assume that there is a maxed out specialist in the party (or has the correct spell selection available), which a) not always is the case and b) makes you feel bad if you for any reason did not max your relevant skills or attributes, especially during character creation (and which also can't be retrained). I knew this will happen. Playtest: Why is +level to everything! Why can't we be abysmally bad at something! Why is everyone at least competent at everything! Paizo: OK, untrained doesn't give +level. Full rules: Why do we need specialists in everything! Why is the game assuming somebody will be trained in something! Why can't we all be at least competent in everything! Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jhaeman wrote: I don’t take all this sturm und drang seriously. A couple of posters who will rant and rave about how PF2 is utter nirvana and the best game ever will also, when asked why they spend all their time posting endlessly in PF1 threads, say it’s because they’re in multiple PF1 campaigns. Make of the irony what you will. Trolls just gonna troll, and edition warring is easy grist for the mill. There's no irony in that at all. I'm in one Call of Cthulhu campaign despite the fact that I vastly prefer Trail of Cthulhu for my horror RPGing, but perhaps shockingly to some, playing in an RPG campaign is not just because of the ruleset, but also because of what's the story, who runs the game, who plays it and how much fun you're having despite the rules being not your first pick. Yes, I can play both PF1 and PF2 games at the same time despite preferring PF2. If you think that's verboten or that I'm breaking some basement law on edition purity, heh, I can't feel but sorry for you.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The1Ryu wrote:
Why not? Sure, the spell is clear, it says you can't take any actions after ddoring. But what action is 5ft step? Is it even an action? The game has move, standard, swift, immediate, free and full-round actions and in the very "Action Types in Combat" table in the Core Rulebook, it says under "No Action", there's the 5-foot step. So is it an action, or isn't it one? There've been massive threads where people would argue back and forth about this. Both interpretations are valid. Both could be correct if ever Paizo would issue a FAQ/errata on this (they won't). But the entire problem arises from the action system in PF1 being an obtuse mess that it is. Unlike, erm, the PF2 one.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The1Ryu wrote:
So, can you take a 5-foot step after a teleport/ddoor in PF1?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The best explanation of how PF1 action system was a burning mess compared to PF2 system, by LuniasM (shamelessly stealing instead of linking): LuniasM wrote:
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The devs intent with magic item identification was likely to give space for both those GMs who ask you do make a check, those GMs who require you to visit the Wizard's Tower, those who require you to cast some spell to identify and those GMs who just handwave and tell you everything right away unless it's an artefact. I've played with all these approaches and PF2 gets least in the way of them - I still have nightmares from "Identify Nights" of 3/3.5ed yore when you would spend an entire day casting Identify 30 times. Ugh.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
The only thing odd is that you really should play more non-D&D games, especially newer ones - more perspective is always better for a fresh look at your favourite game, not to mention seeing layouts and book organisation that's totally different from default D&D one :P As for anticipating PF2BB, that's totally on the spot, I can't wait myself.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Odraude wrote: So if this is the final bestary, I'd love to see some of the older robots and tech stuff in here. I love my robots and lasers and it would actually fit my friend's current campaign. He's using Starfinder stats for the lasers and other tech stuff. It's been four days, something is clearly broken. Maybe let's try again: I HOPE FOR LOTZ OF ROBOTZ WITH LAZORS IN THIS BOOK! *primes the claymore mine, draws the kukri*
|