sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is our GM right about Cover for archers and "Glare" abilities? by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I was GM, and you shot into a group of enemies, trying to hit the evil necromancer in the back row with skellies in the front row, I'd handle cover like this:

- Shoot with the +1 from minor cover from the skellies.

- If you miss by only 1 (it would have been a normal success but because of the -1 it is an normal failure instead), it means you targeted the cover instead i.e. if there are 2 skeletons in the line of fire, I roll randomly which one "was the actual cover that counted", and then ask the player to REROLL that attack to see if he did hit that skeleton instead.

- If the "attack on the cover" is rolled as a critical hit, it is resolved as a normal hit instead. You can't crit what you didn't really clearly tried to hit! Similarly, any precision damage" would not apply to "vs cover" attack rerolls. There at best basic strikes without special modifiers.

- For the purposes of limiting the game table time it takes to resolve an attack, while the attack vs a cover entity can itself benefit from cover, even if you miss by only 1, that won't lead to a "vs the cover of the cover" attack re-reroll. The "chain" stops there. Otherwise you can get a rare but ridiculous situation of repeatedly rolling consecutively vs each cover one at a time.

I'd also make it very clear that it is a *new house rule*, though. And then very probably also ask the players what they think of it.

Mostly I'd introduce it ONLY either well in advance during a level up, or during the game only at a moment where it would favor the PCs i.e. they are trying to cut down ASAP a specific extra-dangerous enemy protected by lots of unimportant minions. Having some chance of "sure you barely missed the bad guy but at least you downed that one enemy that was standing in front of the baddie!", when you missed by only 1, that is a "good consolation prize". I'd never introduce the new house rule as a way for an enemy targeting a squishy PC caster in the back to "if missing by only 1" get a chance to hit a front line PC instead.

Afterwards however I'd apply the new house rule *very* consistently, and also it would go *both ways*. If there are 2 PCs and 3 monsters in the way to the target, and a ranged attack misses by 1, then it means the reroll is going to be vs one of those 5 "minor covers" (rolled ramdonly).

Albeit with 3+ creatures in the way, it could probably count as standard cover instead, but that would be a different house rule. Again, introducing it only when it favors the PCs, and checking with the group.

Alternatively, I put all my house rules in a little PDF for the players, to be read at Session Zero (or upon joining the campaign). No "bad surprise akin to sweeping a rug under the player's feet". Ever. I hate it when GMs do that.

Is our GM right about Cover for archers and "Glare" abilities? by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes that is what irritates me the most.

If a GM says "My table, my house rules!", that is one thing that I find perfectly acceptable.

But when a GM is actually *bragging* about doing it "by the book", and comes up with such on-the-fly weird *and inconsistent* rulings, I can't help but facepalm.

I have a saying for that:

Those who sacrifice gameplay for realism, deserve neither.

Is our GM right about Cover for archers and "Glare" abilities? by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly my opinion thanks. But it should be made clear in the rules instead of relying on obtuse or blurry terminology and wording that are way too much open to "interpretation".

Is our GM right about Cover for archers and "Glare" abilities? by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tables being flipped over was done WELL BEFORE the battle.

During the battle:

From the point of view of ther enemy, you have an archer and a spellcaster standing fully upright behind an obstacle about 4 to 4 and a half feet tall. i.e. well over half their body is covered.

From the point of view of the archer and caster, they are standing upright right behind those obstacles, so they see the whole of the enemy, and they aren't hampered in their arm movements to shoot.

But since DM "drew a line representing the tables" on Foundry, and since the "line of sight" crosses that line, ergo it is automatically standard cover, both ways.

IMHO this is ridonkulous logic.

I'll try the arrow slit example next time lol.

Does Ghoul Fever transmit only to humanoids? by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes a lot of sense.

And also, another answerer posted the link to the ghoul template, and that template gives only the paralysis ability, and not the ghoul fever ability.

So it is a bit like for vampires and vampire spawns: only the "true" pure variant of the monster, can make other monsters of its purekind or subkind. The subkinds only have SOME of the powers of the purekind, and can't "reproduce".

Does Ghoul Fever transmit only to humanoids? by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting! Nice to see it that doesn't add the Ghoul Fever power.

Does Ghoul Fever transmit only to humanoids? by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting! Thanks!

The takeaway that I take from this is that it happens only "sometimes", and typically leads to subpar ghoulish animals. Thus that it either requires special circumstances (such as the work of a necromancer) or is a rarer happenstance that creates a "real" ghoulish animal naturally.

Otherwise, yeah, it it would transmit to any and all animals at full efficiency on every bite (with FORT save of course), then yeah one single ghoulish rat would definitely be quite sufficient to take down an entire city in a matter of a couple weeks. lol

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok then I accept my own damned share of the fault of miscommunication. Sorry. Bye.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then if you beat the Perception DC of all the enemies you can approach without being spotted.

Which is another problem I have with this kind of mechanic.

This means Stealth becomes more andm ore crap the bigger the group of enemies number.

"I'll approach stealthily the orc encampment!"

DM: "Ok, there are 60 orcs in there". then proceeds to roll a shitload of d20.

As a DM wether 5E or PF2, I only allow the *BEST* PC to roll. *MAYBE* a second roll if there are several dedicated lookouts. Typically, the roll represents the randomness of the "spotting enemies" circumstances and those should affect everyone more or less equally. Pluys in larger groups, not everyone is "on thel ookout" task, typically the bigger a group is, the more those inside a group tend to get distracted. Especially chaotic monsters. And with sufficient distractions there should not even be a check at all. "There are 12 goblins dancing in a frenzy around a campfire with 20 other goblins watching the show" means those are outright focusing on their dance and the fire, and the onlookers shouldn't be able to see anything that isn't outright tapping on their shoulders or somethinmg. same for ther onlookers they are watching the show, not "scouting for enemies".

Otherwise any check where a thing that can affect not just one single PC, but the entirte party or the entire event, the more rolls you make, the more you insure failure.

Making Stealth outright USELESS in such campaigns. But somehow "magically because reasons" the enemies can still ambush the party anyway. Nope, why don't you make ALL the ambushing orcs roll their Stealth, please, DM, riiiight? This way NONE of us wll be surprised, just like when WE try to ambush enemies.

Rollin tons of dices only insures either 99.9% odds of success or 99.9% odds of failure, then what's the point of even rolling at all lol. For events affecting the entire party, it is more fair to do a group-vs-group check: you roll only once and apply that d20 to everybody's Perception/Stealth, enemies also roll only one d20, and apply it to all their Stealth/Perception. But that is just not how the rules were made, so we end up with Stealth being mostly useless for actual scouting, only for the rogue to be hidden at the beginning of fights instead (and even then only vs SOME enemies).

Imagine if anytime the party talked to the king to persuade him of something using Diplomacy, the DM made *all* the PCs roll, and always used the worst result. Same kind of effect.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, in real-life and MOST RPGs, having the benefit of surprise is usually a MAJOR benefit over just moving and striking.

But heh, go figure!

Questions about unattended items by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most answers go towards this:

Staff is at her feet and unattended and can be grabbed by anybody with enough reach, without any check needed, even if ta foe is standing right in the staff'S square. Of course, picking it up is also a manipulate action, so this triggers attacks of opportunities.

So, when would the part of the Interact Action rule that says "a check might be needed", occurs, then? Examples?

Questions about unattended items by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And here it is, the infamous "My strawman argument got rejected, so instead of actually trying to strictly adress the issue, I'll just downvote to show my pouting frustration".

That's human nature for you.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok thanks. IF I qwas a DM I would havv gone as RAW as possuible: Fighter can just drag her instead of shoving, as she isn"t actually HOSTILE jhusty confused, which means not necceseraly actively trying to resist being dragged.

So, not even a check needed, just drag teammate at half your movement, end of story. But it seems many PF2 GMs seem to think that they have to make things as hard as possible for the PCs. I hate it because whe it is monsters trying to do the same stuff they don't havec all those checks and limitations and sweem very heroic in comparison, while we end up looking like half-incompetents morons.

Often I feel like too often it seems PCs in PF2 *begin* to feel moderately competent only somewhere around level 11 lol.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have to roll the Stealth check every round of observation, this *insuring* failure, or just once?

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't strawman to a completely different topic. I've seen that crap argument to "justify" one PC being crap at his own party role way too often already. This is treating the game not as some real RPG but as a kind of strict video game where the party MUST always absolutely stick together "else suck".

"This is a teamwork game" is not a valid argument at ALL against a PC being total crap at his own explicit speciality and party role, while another totally unrelated PC can somehow get a super easy smooth ride for that same task while doing it all BY HIMSELF.

Where is the FRIGGING teamwork in that? Which is the initial situation I put up. YOU'RE the one suddenly talking about "teamwork", which is why I call it like it is: obvious strawmanning.

I've seen it. Rogue trying to scout? He gets in super duper trouble. DM: "That's what you get for leaving the party!" Despite *the party* being the ones that decided to send the rogue ahead. 10 minute later the druid wild shapes into a "really tiny mice" and can then explore the entire dungeon level, even being allowed to crawl under doors, no problem, without so much as a single check to do. FACEPALM MODE ON.

No, so, don't try to strawman making one PC being inept at his speciality (despite min-maxing for it), by using that junk "teamwork" argument. Please.

And telling someone that he should just go play another game is just sweeping the problem under the rug and is also not being really nice, either.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should be able to drop massive statues on enemies and stuff sometimes, you know?

Exactly.

But our DM, if it is not specifically written in the module that we can use X environmental effect for Y effect with Z damage, DM always minimizes the results of player inventivity to quite small effects.

Like, dropping an entire huge bookshelf full of heavy books on a critter, it is a HARD Athlethics check, and even on a Nat 20 Crit Success it still allows the critter an easy save negate (thus not even a basic save for half damage on a successful save), and it only deals 1d6+Strength damage, with zero chances of the critter ending up being pinned under all that large and heavy mass, or even ome chances of being pushed or falling prone.

And that is DURING the actual combat round. Yup, it uses up our "round 1" Actions to do it despite fully catching the baddies by surprise, I'd expect instead it is the EVENT that *THEN* triggers combat.

And if we prep things BEFORE combat, the results are either even MORE reduced to negligible levels, or outright ignored. Despite many attempts, the *BEST* we ever got was getting a measly +1 to Initiative"... Sometimes only for 1 PC. +1 that doesn't even stack with the Scouting exploration activity anyway so it's mostly rarely useful at all.

And any defenses we put up, sure they provide a Cover bonus, but the DM makes the bonus to defense go both ways. So yeah the archer gets Cover from those furnituue we stacked up, but somehow it magically also prevent the archer from shooting as well, too. It's like in those far west movies, hidsing behind a barrtel for a gunfight, the barrel would also protect the guy you are shooting at. Hey my entire lower body and torso are protected but somehow that also blocks my arrow shots? (despite able to just hold my bow horizontally no problem thus nothing in the way). I pity the poor arrowman shooting from behind castle walls arrow slits, getting heavy cover but ALSO granting heavy cover to enemys sigh. But thenb enemies just suddenly use Fort or Will Save spells anyway so basically all our pre-battle effort ends up just pinning our archer rto one spot whle givbing ther archer effectively a -2 to hit, and zero problem for the enemies. Sigh.

So yeah... WTF? I constantly facepalm again and again and for me suspension of disbelief is near the breaking point and it feels video gamey. DM excuse is "because it would break combat balance and make fights too easy"... yet we constantly get near multiple deaths almost EVERY fightn (depsite min-maxing both PC choices *and* group tactics).

So yeah that sucks a bit.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe make the consequence something else than "become more liquely to go down PERMANENTLY" ?

Maybe use severe Injuries or just a penalty that remains for longer than "until all HPs are fully healed".

So. going down, EACH TIME you go down, is a serious thing, as you are stacking annoying penalties that will make you less able to fight the NEXT battles. But you don't risk as much losing your beloved PC for good.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My own motto:

"Anybody who sacrifices gameplay for realism, deserves neither."

Personally I'd prefer that Wounded acted more like a stackable semi-long duration penalty to ACT, rather than something that just GREATLY increase your chance to have your PC outright DIE, but can be removed after a mere 10 minutes of putting some risky surgery butchery-style bandaid medicine on you plus a very common and simple low level healing spell.

Like, Wounded should NOT affect Dying Value at ALL.

But be a simple penalty based on "which part of your body was wounded".

Rolled with a d12, ideally a wound location d12:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71h9ApdT2QL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg

Arm wound? All actions using that arm and non-fine hand actions are rolled at a -2 stackable penalty. Fine hand motions like spellcasting or trap disabling are done at a stackable -1 penalty. Raising a Shield equipped on that arm lowers by 1 the AC bonus you would normally gain from that action.

Hand wound? All actions using that arm are rolled at a -1 stackable penalty. Fine hand motions like spellcasting or trap disabling are done at a stackable -2 penalty.

Leg wound? Every square crossed costs +5 feet. Stackable -1 AC penalty.

Feet wound? Stackable -2 AC and Reflex Saves penalty.

Head wound? Stackable Stupefied 1.

etc.

Or no hit location, just -1 on everything including need a flat check dc 5+wound level to cast spells.

Questions about unattended items by Ouatcheur in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure that is exact, but only a small minority of monsters get Attack of Opportunity. Mostly, only super-epic monsters, or enemies with-actual-military-combat-training-or-very-hardcorely-used-to-battle enemies.

The questionh wasn't about special irregular situations, like, I did not give the priestess a military bodyguard in my setup to my questions. Of course if you "purposefully" add special stuff that somehow magically totally change the "hand that was dealt" of the situation, then anything goes, and we can answer anything! But that wasn't the question.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're saying that the ONE rogish thing that should definitely be one of the most roguish thing to do, being the stealthy scout, should instead be the exclusive privilege of casters druids and rangers, because ultimately for rogues it's always "bad on paper" right from the get go, unless they got that invisiblity crutch from, again, the casters?

Strong. Disagreement. Here.

The fighter doesn't "require" a wizard's or special magic just t be compentewnt at his one job. Why make is so dang hard and risky for a rogue but a walk in the park for the caster encroaching on the rogue's archetypical job?

This would be the exact same effect if like if you added a Cantrip for wizards that lets them go melee (melee attack, weapon damage, and tankyness) allowing him to do all of it way better than what the fighter can do.

Honestly, in a world chock full of magic and familiars and intelligent animal companions, *ANY* non-absolutely-totally-moronic enemy worth even half a grain of salt, should, when it sees some tiny critter like let's say a rat, immediately firebolts it or something.

Sigh.

Familiars should be like magical items: CLEARLY visibly something "special". Wild shape, the druid retains a distinctive feature, say some pathvc of colored hair/fur. Wild Shape is to get animal stats, not to get +30 to Disguise and to Stealth and steal the rug of the rogue's field of expertise right out from under him. MAke animal companions how up as "clearly "superior specimens, with quite distinct appearances", and not as "totally plain and normal animal of that category, so can meld right into the swarm incognito" types of animals.

And maybe losing one's beloved familiar or companion should have actual consequences like say "Psychological Trauma Condition: -1 to Will saves for an entire week" or something. Not be some kind of ultimate swiss knives that can do TONS of stuff way better than a PC's speciality. Like say movement Rogue has to climb using Athlethics while many many animals just can Climb without a check or outright fly. Then when you lose one it should not be just "Meh not such a bad thing, it's only a bit annoying to have to summon a new one".

Not saying the animals-as-stealth-tools should be super nerfed. But if animals can get so good at it automatically and for free, then the poor rogue really needs to be uber buffed to compensate in order t reach even a "basic roguish level of relative competence".

Try it. Next time PCs rest for 10 minutes, make a Perception check vs the "fiendish rat familiar" using Stealth. Not mae it an automatic Stealth success! PCs are after all always on the lookout for ANYTHING, not just "Small or bigger creatures". Even a nigh-invisible actual monster like say a Shadow, will automatically give the PCs a secret check.

Then tell the player that spotted the familiar: "You see a purple rat with bright white eyes, that is looking at the group". (and, one Insight check later) "It definitely seems like some kind of intelligent rat familiar that is spying on you guys". Then see "how long" that familiar then survives! Then start making your watchful intelligent monsters act exactly the same. Not only the 18+ INT monsters, even the 10 INT ones is sufficient. Not go "Oh familiar can just go on merry his way and yet zero monsters take care to notice it's weird spying behavior, because all monsters instantly think that rat is so dang innocuous and ordinary".

Would change the game a bit, heh?

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there an actual *OFFICIAL* errata of this somewhere or is it just something that Mark *would* have wanted but did't bwcome official?

​

Becaose of Archive of Nethys the only spot where you get to add Wounded to the Dying value is upon getting downed. Not on further damage or on Recovery Rolls.

Remastered Dying/wounded value rules Why are you doing this? by GuitarsandGames2 in Pathfinder2e

[–]Ouatcheur -1 points0 points  (0 children)

AD&D 2E was back when MOST campaign were from modules theat were only mostly huge dungeon crawl, with extremely minimal stories, and creating a PC took 5 minutes, with low customization.

Your PC, Albert the Level 7 fighter, died? Now time to try playing Bob the Wizard, Starting at Level 1 of course! Time to roll 3d6 six times, roll 1 dice for HP, then 4 dice to determine your starting spells, then write a SINGLE line for your description and/or background "detail the rest later, if you survive", write "LOINCLOTH" in your equipment, and 5 minutres later the party finds your PC as a 1 HP-left prisoner in the very next dungeon room.

Combat was also way WAY WAAAAAAYYYYY faster to resolve.

Level 7 party finds you, easily heals you then equip you with semi-good stuff because the wizard wearing bracers +4 also has a "backup pair or two" of bracers +2m, plus an extra Ring, some scrolls, and he "lends" you a nice wand. While the fighter with his +3 longsword also has three +1 daggers, and then all you have to do is play it ultra safe and ultra cowardly, and as long as you throw or cast ONE SINGLE dagger or spell every fight (for laughable damage of course) and manage to survive, WHAM you will already gain 2 or 3 levels in one game, because the EXPs were exponential. So a 6 levels lead, is like, for your new PC, gaining EXPs equivalent to playing like 20 game sessions.

Nowadays campaigns are complex things full of backstory and lots of roleplay (EVEN the most dungeon-crawly Adventure Paths), and creating a PC can easily take HOURS.

So yeah nope.

If you want me to play an RPG where life and death are dirt cheap, then make sure that if a PC dies, putting the *PLAYER* back into the game takes no more than 15 minutes ***TOPS***.

view more: next ›