Persuader9494

@Persuader9494@kbin.social

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Remaster Core Preview now available⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, sorry, I was saying that I wish that they had fixed that when they reworked focus points.

  Taking random focus spells that you don't need because you had to boost your pool was an issue before the rewrite, and it's arguably even worse now post rewrite, because you benefit by taking them earlier.

  Previously you just needed a second focus point by 12 and a third by 18 (since the once - a-day extra points weren't that big a deal). Now if your party has time to rest longer you can get more focus spells per encounter as soon as you can take more spells.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Remaster Core Preview now available⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:
  • I'm very happy to see they're keeping the "Anyspell" version of Wish as a ranked spell. That was an important component of Wish and was my biggest concern about moving Wish to a ritual. Making the gamebreaking side of Wish a ritual makes a lot of sense.
  • I also like that the "monkey's paw" aspect of Wish is now tied into the ritual check. Crit-succeeding a level 18 ritual is not trivial so it's probably not going to break anything, and it adds some more chaos into world development instead of kicking it to the DM.
  • I kind of wish the focus pool scaled independently of spells known, because now we still have the issue of a character that really only wants to do one thing with his focus pool having to spend extra feats on things he won't use just to expand the pool. I think maybe the game just needs more focus spell options, especially utility stuff, and it will be easier to fill out the pool now that every spell expands the pool, but it'd be nice to not just have to take filler. A feat that just pushes the pool to 3 and nothing else would be neat.
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How to make players more averse to fights?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Another approach you can take is simply making it so a violent resolution does not lead the players to accomplish their goals as well.

  Trying to get information about a big nasty with a cult, and the players decide to just murder all the cult members? Well, the players might be able to beat the cult in a fight but not fast enough to prevent the cult from burning their sacred texts, and now you have to piece info together out of the ashes.

  This is a difficult line to walk: you have to plausibly present that the outcome would have been better if they had negotiated or infiltrated, versus just "well the DM was never going to give us the text anyway". You also have to make sure you don't just lock off the plot because they fought.

  You need a clear backup plan that's just annoying enough to make it clear putting a little more thought into your first approach could have saved a lot of time., and maybe a slight downgrade of the end result of the plot (time is classic here, maybe a couple people the party was expecting to save got sacrificed while the party was messing around).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How to make players more averse to fights?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Not every fight has to end in death: have an encounter with enemies motivated to capture PCs (ransom, perhaps, or simply averse to killing), and have them do so when a PC goes down.

  If it's a TPK then they have to break out of captivity, or possibly negotiate their release in exchange for solving a problem for their captors. If only one or two PCs go down then the remaining members might have to find a way to pay the ransom, or find a way to break them out. If it's mixed, then maybe it's a coordinated jailbreak with PCs working together from inside and outside.

  Fun scenario, but a giant pain in the butt for whatever other goals they had in the campaign, and a great wakeup to "hey, maybe I shouldn't just be bulling into every fight". You can steer towards a solution that doesn't involve fighting as well, to give them a forced crash course in their characters' nonviolent capabilities.