I am guilty of at least 3 of these myself. No shame. 😅 Check out the Nonat1s Patreon here to get access to unique homebrew, get your name in the credits, and more! www.patreon.com/Nonat1s
@@K.J.Saunders Yeah, $20 and up gets in the credits, but I see you! Pledged since February and I sincerely appreciate it. Hope you've enjoyed the homebrew!
Just a little pet peeve: wolves actually would use that sort of combat strategy which makes them such efficient hunters. My problem I have with how many GMs play wolves is that they are not strategic enough. Most predators only enter fights they think that they are going to win and when they face serious resistance, they typically retreat. Way too often, GMs forget that mooks value their life like any other living being.
Yeah, when he said wolves don't flank, I had to disagree they do flank as they are pack hunters and know to get around behind and surround a prey and get to their flank. I understand the mechanic exists, but they are smart enough to flank.
I actually had my party fight 3 wolves in the last session. The idea was to use the pack ability, but the party fought the wolves near their den and they had pups, so one wolf stayed slightly behind to 'defend'. But the party managed to bring one wolf down to half health in one hit, so the 3rd wolf entered the fray. The party was super lucky and manage to crit twice on the wolves, basically taking them out of the fight in one go. There was no option for the wolves to run away, as they had to defend their pups. Will throw more wolves at them in the future and make use of the pack feat more.
What could have also happened is them grabbing the pups and attempting to run, but I agree in that scenario they would not have run to defend the pups. Only a select few mammals value their own lives over that of their young, at least speaking of the female side of a species.
@@MrReaperHand players set out to not kill the wolves, but just knock them out. They crit twice on two wolves and kill one outright, while the second is knocked out. Then they discover the pups, drag the two knocked out wolves to the lair and leave. Don't know what the mechanics will be for this, bit unlike some birds, I don't think the wolves will shun their pups, just because they smell of adventurers.
@@Pecomica I am agreeing with your statement about the wolves. I only added that a very small amount of MAMMALS abandon their young for self preservation. Cool, group chose something other than lethal, you mentioned they didn't know about the pups. That begs to question why they would have been nonlethal when just defending themselves when the encounter first happened. Regardless it worked out.
You don't even need to give out an upgrade of the character's exact weapon. Since you can transfer runes, you can just give out a weapon with the appropriate rune and have the PCs transfer it over. So, they can find a +2 dwarven clan dagger and transfer the rune over to the elven glaive. :)
Yeah, in my homebrew setting because of how the rune system has developed, magical merchants essentially no longer sell pre-made magic weapons aside from specific ones. They just have a large selection of runes and you can have your weapon tailor made for you in minutes.
This.. I believe RAW the intention is that you don't need special skills to transfer runes either. If it's not.. that's how I'm homebrewing it.. Flavor is that the rune's sink into metal and tune with the weapons auto-magically. Just takes 10 minutes.
Kinda weird that wolves are built around not flanking when real wolves use a combat strategy built around flanking and it would be the most realistic way to DM them.
Also additional rule. GIVE OUT HERO POINTS. I try to be on top of this and give 1 out every hour or so but even I'm not immune to getting caught up in the game and forgetting to reward them
Newbie here. Having heard about everyone forgetting about hero points, I was reminded of Inspiration in Dungeons & Dragons 5e. Looking at the DMG, it seems that there is a lot of guidance for potential ways to handle inspiration. It mentions using them as rewards for Roleplaying, Heroism, Genre Emulation, reinforcing desirable player behavior, etc. The one that stuck out to me was using them as a Reward for Victory, an approach for impartial DMs who would rather not leave whether someone deserves Inspiration to their own judgement. This form of Inspiration is generally given to the entire party at once as a reward for overcoming a powerful foe or some other daunting obstacle. Many groups in 5e refuse to finish an entire dungeon crawl without taking a long rest in the middle of it. I could imagine dishing out Hero Points to parties who clear multiple encounters in a row in between rests as an incentive to keep them from rest spamming more than Jigglypuff.
@@SuperParkourio P2E actually doesn't have short rests; there's some 10 minute activities you can do, or you can take a long rest. Generally it's balanced around you being able to take 10 minute breaks between most combats, as those breaks will allow the players to heal a little and use abilities they have that are specifically for those breaks; for example, a character trained in medicine can Treat Wounds for one person in 10 minutes and basically make a DC 15 medicine check to heal one person for 2d8. A medium level character that takes several feats to enhance this might be able to instead use Treat Wounds on 4 people, making a DC 30 check to heal them for 2d8+30 each. You can spec further into it to be even better, but it's just an example of one of the most common activities, which will mostly just get the party back on their feet for you to challenge again when they move on. Chaining multiple combats together without breaks can work, but often times that might lead to players running out of resources really quickly, ramping up encounter difficulty beyond what's expected. Long resting usually takes about 8 hours, with another hour of daily preparations, but is limited to once every 24 hours. In addition, while a spellcaster would regain spell slots and the party would have time to heal up, resting by itself only heals for your constitution modifier multiplied by your level. In general resting in P2E is harder to abuse, and if your players do try to take long rests halfway through every dungeon, it's easy to manage if it becomes a problem. You can talk to the players about it, or if you want a more in-game solution you can have the occasional interruption, such that resting in dangerous places is actually risky. I don't mean to overwhelm or attack you, just trying to inform to the best of my knowledge. Thanks for reading and have a lovely day!
I say wolves are smart enough to flank. Circaling their prey is how pack hunters generally go about it. That's one reason why pack hunting is so effective.
Many so-called "beasts" are actually pretty smart and use quite intelligent tactics to deal with prey or foes. Pack hunters do not just flank a non-fleeing prey. They also surround fleeing prey, set ambushes, drive a prey towards ambushes or hazards, scout for weaker targets before attacking, and so on. So flanking too much is definitely not an error. It's just how things go in nature.
Only a single creature won't flank. Everything else should always do, unless it is mindless or brainless. So wolves would flank, zombies would not, but the latters would mass attack for sure, eventually surrounding their target and ending up flanking it anyways.
Yeah, in my current campaign we acquired a mace inscribed with a +1 potency rune, but we dont have 10 free minutes (in the middle of a dungeon) for the champion to make a craft check to move the tine to the fighter's sword
@@BoltGamr aren’t most pf2e adventures planned around the expectation that heroes take 10 mins between each encounter to use medicine checks to heal wounds? You don’t have an hour (or 8), but unless there’s a story driven time crunch, 10 minutes for a craft check, some medicine checks, some focus point restoration is pretty standard.
Apparently it takes a whole day to transfer a rune oops. The DC of the Crafting check to transfer a rune is determined by the item level of the rune being transferred, and the Price of the transfer is 10% of the rune’s Price, unless transferring from a runestone, which is free. If you’re swapping, use the higher level and higher Price between the two runes to determine these values. It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft) to transfer a rune or swap a pair of runes, and you can continue to work over additional days to get a discount, as usual with Craft.
Number 5 kept me from GMing Pathfinder 2e for two years. I read and read and re-read and studied and tried to cram the rules into my head over and over and over because I'd seen a lot of people in posts seem to side with keeping to rules exactly as written all the time without deviation. It kept me from trying, the stress was too big. At least hearing one other voice say "It's ok to wing it sometimes" is REALLY helpful.
Paizo puts a lot of great advice through out the Core and GMG books that I think a lot of new GMs overlook in their effort to learn the rules. These sections can answer so many questions for new GMs on how to handle difficult players, encounters, adjudicate player actions, and more.
Yeah, must pack animals legit will go for flanking irl, but in the same vein, most hunting animals will run away if their prey gives them enough licks. I typically make predators retreat at 1/2 hp, or after losing 1/3 of their hp to a single hit (the animals don't really know what their hp is, but they sure understand "ow, this isn't going well" or "this guy hits REALLY hard, I overestimated myself"), unless the party is like, threatening their teritory or young. Also worth noting that they also won't kill more than they can eat. If the wolves kill your pack mule, they won't chase you if you flee so long as they have their meal
@@nicholasromero238 predators kill more than they eat if it’s easy, for example fox gets into hen house. But in your example it would be better for wolves to eat big, tasty mule before bear or similar rival comes and steals it than waste time and energy running after people who have less meat, may hit or kick, and smell and taste bad.
With PF2Es reliance on runes for equipment, I have implemented a new thing in my PF2E games... Runewrights. Runewrights (or Spellmongers as they can also be known in my games) create runes for items and create talismans. In my larger towns and cities PCs can seek out the services of a Runewright, either at a Runewright Shop or if they can find a Magic Curio Shop or Blacksmith that can also provide this service just like they can seek out an Apothecary, Blacksmith, or other service. In smaller towns, if they are lucky, the village Blacksmith, Priest, or Spellmonger (a local village small-time, low-level spellcaster that casts utility spells, creates talismans, crafts scrolls, and and conducts rituals for a fee to the local villagers and farmers) can provide this service since Runewrights typically only have their own dedicated shops in cities or other large settlements.
Also for the upgrade weapons, to avoid the "coincidental" factor you can give out rune stones with the upgraded rune son it. It'll only cost a bit of gold to transfer the rune on their weapon. Plus, this allows a character to get attached to their heirloom sword and whatnot.
Or that elven glaive may not be in a chest but could be on the body of another elf that previously came to the dwarven ruins to try their hand at plundering the ruins for its valuables!!! This also helps to make the world feel alive and more real.
I usually pick based on how immediate the need for the weapon is. The chest at the end of the dungeon will probably have runestones, as will the enchanter's workshop. If they ding in the middle of the dungeon, I'm giving them a weapon that matches their style as a drop. 2e doesn't have too much reqirement for exact matches, so I don't feel bad giving the dwarf and orc necksplitter vs a dwarven war axe for one or two major fights before they can pry the runes off, though I'll always make sure to match weapon families, give the finesse user a finesse weapon, one hand user a one hand weapon, etc
My plan is to give enemies magical weapons that players can then loot. It will probably not always be a weapon that matches anyone's fighting style, but the runes on it might come in handy.
@@Dharengo That's more or less what's expected, a lot of ennemies will have magic weapons of them own that can be looted (it's often in their statblock "+2 Striking Greataxe" for example)
Speaking of GM mistakes, could you do a video on Staves? I recently brought them up on reddit after discovering how big a deal they are in this edition compared to 1e, and apparently the fact most people didn't pay much attention to staves in 1e caused many redditors and their GMs to accidentally ignore a critical tool of casters. Staves help with two of the most common complaints about casters: quantity of spells and variety of them per day, which staves address by giving you free charges to cast levels of spells that are in the staff without even needing to know them. This also helps characters that multiclass casters. There's even a cool interaction if you are a caster of one type (prepared or spontaneous) that multiclasses into the other because each casting style uses staves differently so if you can do both (one more than the other of course), you can be quite powerful from their synergy. There's even some merit in a caster of one list multi-ing into another and using a staff of their lesser to get more of that side. There's just so much they add to the game and they are seemingly overlooked. Which is in turn making some people think casters are way weaker than they are because they aren't seeing them actually properly equipped. They are instead seeing the mage equivalent of a warrior with no magic weapon.
In regards to combat strategy - don't forget flight/climb speeds! With 3 actions, it's fun to swoop down with a flight speed, hit once, and fly away. It makes the party think outside the box when it comes to these kinds of encounters. Grappling hooks, preparing/readying actions and using previously unused spells are some of the things that I've managed to get my party to do when I've made them face these challenges.
In a game like Pathfinder I feel like it's okay to be slow the first few games. However, let your players know that you plan on looking up rules and hopefully one of them will work with you in looking the rules up. After the 2nd or 3rd game of this you should have enough material known that looking up mid-game isn't needed. Starting in the 4th game, I find a post game review of errors helpful, and I post those errors in the group chat / forum for all of the players to see and ask about.
Wolf in 2e: Pack Attack The wolf's Strikes deal 1d4 extra damage to creatures within reach of at least two of the wolf's allies. What I see reading this is that these guys want to flank. You have to remember that many creatures, both human and animal, want to do the optimal thing that will keep them alive, and make the enemy/potential food dead. So I would flank all day with wolves. Wolves flank. That's how they hunt. Is it dangerous and hurt the heroes and makes the wolves scary? Well it should. Wolves are scary, primarily because they are pack hunters and rarely hunt prey they can't take down. That's the thing. Animals rarely engage in combat they know they will lose.
Number 6: giving too many magic items. I do this sometimes. I see something cool in the book and I want to see it in game. It can sometimes make players too powerful.
it depends on the magic item... I have a personal favorite of mine, the "Rod of many uses" - a third party item that I handed freely in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e, and that is quite easy to port over to 2e. Basically, it's a VERY low power Rod of Lordly Might - it's a magic rod that can shapeshift into a plethora of useful items, including a handful of weapons, none of which is inherently magical. Need a ladder? Twist knob to 7, push activation button, BOOM, a ladder. Need a shortsword? Knob to 18, button, shortsword. Need a lantern? Knob to 1, button, you got a lantern (oil not included, sorry). My players loved it. It wasn't overpowered by any means, it just saved space. LOTS of space. Oh, and one could enchant it - although a +1 striking shovel (knob to 12) sounds kinda silly.
I feel the monty haul is a lot less dangerous in 2e. Items have levels, so as long as you give the party only items level their level or lower, you won't overpower them in any appreciable way. The only thing you have to beware is the party selling the excess loot to buy items above their level, but the DM is in control what players can and cant buy.
@@nicholasromero238 "I want to buy a +3 Greater Striking Vorpal Blade of Annihilation!" "the blacksmith of the little village looks at you puzzled, then says "You want a what what of what?"..." ...yep, it works.
@@alarkhar "Fine! I'll ask the ancient dwarven smith!" "Vorpal blades are not meant for the hands of mortals. I crafted one once, and the wielder turned it against his own kind. My hands will never again make such an abomination"
@@nicholasromero238 "Ah, whatever! I'll just ask the crazy mage of the western tower!" "Sure, there you go!" (hands the character a saxophone) DM: "What part of "crazy" didn't you get?"
Disagree with 5, or at least, once you (GM) are confident with the rules P2E is a pretty cool and balanced system to follow. Also rule of cool is always imbalanced in favor of the most extroverse player...
Totally agree, but the players should be able to at least try. Maybe that Arcane recall knowledge on trolls won't tell them something exact like "they hate fire and acid" but something like "the Belt of Regeneration is crafted from troll hide" then someone can roll a Craft check on the activate property of that belt which would mention the regeneration effect is not active on rounds you take acid or fire damage. That leaping attack maneuver won't get the extra distance and might take all 3 actions to pull off (instead of the benefits that come with the feat), but they should be able to at least try. If players don't feel like they can try anything, the game becomes a computer or card game with set action choices instead of the immersion and free form of a tabletop game. The GM sets the DCs anyway - you could just require a higher DC for the jump distance than normal since they are messing with their balance to set up the strike.
With regards to flanking, I'd even argue that not all bandits or thugs would know to flank. Some might be in a panic and not think clearly. And, even then, I think a decent houserule might be to make it so you can't flank if you're being flanked. It's harder to exploit openings when your own are actively being exploited. it'd basically remove flank conga lines and force both players and NPCs to reposition more if they want to flank.
That's a super fair point. Part of me wishes it was a feat or feature that creatures/players needed to learn how to do. Flanking is a fairly specific warfare maneuver, and taking advantage of openings like that requires at least some training. Also, super down for the "Flanking cancels flanking" rule. I think that makes perfect sense and would make movement even more vital in the heat of combat.
i played an investigator tonight for my first pfs session and i didnt know about all the cool debuffs you can apply with skills. mostly stratagem then move then attack, i think im going to try a different class for the next session. now that i own the book (found out about the new version coming out after i bought my copy) i will be diving in. ty for your content, i will be binging it over the following week
Rule 5 is the most difficult to get right, imo. It takes a lot of experience to know just how much is ok to flex the rules before making the mistake of creating a precedent. That's when the second time around, a player tells you: "well you allowed that, so you should allow this now", where the "this" is a bit of a leap from what you have allowed in the past. That said, I agree that you should try to implement rule 5, but with caution. Also, make use of the very quick and simple DC creation guidelines that the game teaches you!
Exactly, that's the scariest part when getting into a new system. While I don't like saying "no" to my players unless they are way off base, in my experience giving a player an inch results in them taking a mile. But I suppose a way to remedy that is to say that I'll likely come up with rulings on the spot to keep the game flowing, but if that heat-of-the-moment decision results in something breaking, we'll roll that ruling back.
What I do is say "I will allow it now. I may not allow it again in the future" whenever I know I am going to bend the rules (such as letting my party's champion replace the spell his deity would give him access to).
Like Rules Lawyer has said, you should understand why rule is as it is before you change or discard rule, or you may end up destroying balance and causing problems, maybe even destroying game.
With the ability to move runes you don't need to find exact copies of a weapon. You can give them other weapons that are more powerful and then they can transfer the runes themselves if they have crafting or take to local blacksmith who can transfer but not skilled enough to craft from scratch.
Mostly agree with #5. But I do draw the line when players try to obviously and 'knowingly' break the rules in order to win. There's a difference between bending the rules cause you want the game to keep moving and deceivingly breaking the rules in order to 'win'. If I have a player wanting to swing up a chandelier onto a giant's back, then run up a giant's back and attack it using an triple sow cow hammer blow, fine - it's an acrobatics check and a strike action and the player can describe it however they want. Buuuutt......if that same player is trying to fish trying to get any of the bonuses that a feat would offer doing the same thing....no. They don't get to do it with a +2 bonus or using one less action or making the giant flat footed or anything else that they wouldn't already be able to do. If a player wants to 'try' anything....sure. But they probably aren't getting a bonus/penalty unless the rules or a feat allows it
I love your #5 tip here, I do that as a GM myself & my players have always really enjoyed that we've rolled with their ideas - I've also been a player with GM's that do this and it just feels that much more rewarding when you think outside of the box. For me games like Pathfinder can get stale if every combat action is "I swing my sword" or "I shoot my bow" etc. Tumble, dive, use that wall just have fun - afterall isn't that the real reason we all play these rpg's, to have fun ;)
As many have already mentioned, wolves specifically, but other social predators I'm sure as well, are fully capable of grasping the benefit of encircling their prey, keeping them distracted while the others go for the kill etc. You don't give animals enough credit here I feel like. But I agree with the overall point, especially with the mindless thralls.
"Unlike other systems, Pathfinder second edition is actually balanced around your characters gaining magic items" Pathfinder first edition and its big 5/WBL chart:
I feel number 2 is better advice for players than GMs. GMs playing pathfinder monsters to their fullest will very often turn lethal, as you point out with wolves later on. On that note, there is an argument to be made that wolves are likely of the few "beastly" animals that have it on instinct to flank! (Mostly if they are hunting, a magically crazed pack of wolves might not! and that could be an interesting narrative hook.)
Wolf's aren't unintelligent, they can use some tactics, like having one wolf in front so their packmate can attack you from behind. Avoiding scenarios where they're outnumbered. Not attacking substantially larger creatures unless they have a pack size that could scare off the thing. I can see experienced wolves seeing magic as dangerous and avoiding magic users for their own safety while their more inexperienced packmates recklessly attack what appears to be helpless prey. But I do agree that wolves circling in a perfect box around someone is unrealistic, however 1-3 wolves in front to distract you from the one wolf in the back feels like something I could see a pack of wolves doing.
On the point of using Hazards, I cannot recommend the old Grimtooth's Traps books enough for inspiration. Some of them are kinda unfair or just a joke, but these books have some really fun and dynamic trap ideas that just need some translation into PF2E.
Just wanna say but it's actually *wayyy* more believable that wolves would flank someone because they're communal predators in nature, often separating and surrounding larger prey in a flanking behaviour. So in that case saying they *wouldn't* do that is actually playing them a lot less intelligent than their actual counterparts. In fact the reason *why* wolves are designed the way they are is because they're meant to be incredibly difficult early game encounters, and the puzzle around fighting them is separating them in such a way that they can't take advantage of their pack behaviour (such as standing back to back in the middle of four of them or shoving wolves out of flanking position if they start to surround a player, or taking advantage of that behaviour and telling whoever is surrounded to get out of dodge/apologize to them for what you're about to do and drop a fireball on them.)
If a player wants to do something that is cool to do, I'll let them do it, but if it's something that's already an existing feat and they don't have that, I'm going to make it so it's not easier than the feat method. So I'll increase the DC. Otherwise, what's the point of taking feats if you can do it anyways.
i think you missed one, building the perfect counter enemy NPC for each PC ..I know I've done this a few time because thinking that make the encounter more interesting and maybe the PC's will figure out that a way around it...but it generally leads to frustrated player and long combat.
hazards are very fun and memorable when used right. In the old days of the hobby when dungeons were all there was to it they were a lot more common imo but there are still some pretty nifty traps in pathfinder and 2e aswell. An 1e starting module I never got to use had a cool room that I lifted for my current game that had a magnetic spire in the middle, when triggered everything made from metal got yoinked directly to it, a super fun encounter that can throw an unprepared party for a loop. In an oldschool d&d Greyhawk game I play in there was a dungeon just filled with secret doors and traps etc but one part that stood out was a mage's laboratory that was secured by a corridor of (and I'm not kidding here) about 20 doors, each like 10ft apart and the latter part of those doors were trapped with firebolts. The cool thing about this was that at some point all of them were trapped which is alluded to by ash and burn marks along the corridor that suddenly stop at the first door that still carries a trap because other creatures and adventurers just never got beyond this part so there is a bit of history packed into that hazard. Now, is a corridor of 20 doors with firebolts slightly unrealistic, maybe, but it's a world of magic and I can absolutely see some mad mage put up ridiculous defenses. The point is you can do a lot, mechanically and narratively with hazards so whenever it makes sense to use them do so, not to a point where it gets tedious of course (and the 20 doors are close to that breaking point dont get me wrong) but every now and then. Use them like spices and your meal won't get stale.
My personal three extra to keep in mind: 1) GIVE. OUT. HERO POINTS. That plot armor for rad roleplay moments or taking in awesome consequences or character decisions together should make the game always feel rewarding, even when it’s not specifically treasure or XP. Just like the game has three pillars of play, think of it as the third pillar of rewards. 2) Look at Ability Challenge / Victory Point rules. They are a fun way to engage character capabilities and settle conflicts without entering combat mode. 3) If planning on making multiple encounters in the same day or dungeon, consider giving some enemies repeated types but with variations in level, flavor, or weapon. It makes them feel like they’ve learned or figured out a foe and can take on twists more, and it really amplifies the reward for Recall Knowledge or preparing.
8:15 Again what's the problem? An avarage level 1 character is barely more than your avarage member of their race and four wolves would tear a avarage human (or similar) into shreds in a fight.
I had my first GMing experience last week(second session is today) and i am guilty of attacking too much, but what I do (and believe is the best way to play in my opinion) is bend the rules a bit to let my players do cool stuff. I did and still plan to just let my players roll what they want and determine the outcome depending on how big I think the number is
Number 6: Relying too much on rolls. You don't need to roll to detect traps. You should encourage players to interact with their environment and try to understand their surroundings. It's a lot more interesting a player finds a pressure plate by asking what he sees on those tiles than simply rolling perception.
Right, but then we might as well not have stats or skills. What if my character is way smarter than myself and far more aware of their surroundings. I might not know what to look for, but my experienced dungeon crawling character does.
@@harrisonhurst6480 it is not like these things weren't something you could learn. Besides, the point is that some GMs have a tendency to ask for too many rolls, instead of teaching/encouraging their players to paint a scene and, you know, roleplay. It is a roleplaying game after all. A good GM will pick up on your limitations as a player and ask for a roll if needed. Sometimes, no roll is even needed, if your character is that competent
I will steal your idea of the Necromancer behind "smart" zombies. Or maybe I'll add some faster/smarter zombies for my party to focus on to make the combat spicer. Im guilty of 2 of these mistakes and in the next session I will try to make some changes. Thanks a lot for your content Nonat!
From Wolf Haven International: "When hunting large game, the wolf pack separates out and surrounds its prey. Wolves usually bite the shoulders and flanks. While some pack members approach the prey from the rear, other wolves seize the prey by the nose." That sounds exactly like flanking to me. Your best bet is to go back-to-back with allies and make loud intimidation checks while throwing stuff. Hunting animals don't want a fair fight; an injury survived today may still kill them later. The GM should keep that in mind and have them run at if the partty looks like it's offering significant resistance. Of course if the predators are desperate, they will risk dying in battle before starving.
From the beginning of my GM journey, i've always had the soft rule of never opening a rule book while in session unless a player specifically asks me to reference something. If i don't know something because i havent prepared for it or i havent memorized that specific rule, then i just make up a ruling on the spot and maybe talk to my player about it later.
This is a good way to not grind the gane to a halt while u search and search and search and search and finally find the rule in the crafting section 2 hours later.
I don't agree with rule 5 personally. Because it devalues builds that do take the feats. But also because while it rewards creative thinking, by the same logic is 'punishes' people who are less creative. And I don't want that say my table. So I would argue that rule 5 is more a per table optional house rule then a fundamental gm mistake. As it won't work for each group.
Or you could use TTRPGs to allow your players to explore their creativity and maybe become better at it. You are assuming only PCs improve with each session. If you do not see games as a medium for self-improvement, you are not looking at it the right way, I'd say.
@@18ps3anos The analogy that comes to mind is to test everyone equally. But then testing a fish on how good he can climb will end up leaving him depressed. It is very reasonable to be at a table where not everyone is equally ont the stop creative. If you then reward person A for his creativity, but B is uncapable of keeping up with that then you are doing a disservice to person B. For the simple reason that you are giving extra power to person B. Also don't tell me how to play my games. I am fine with you playing differently but it comes off pretty arrogant to say the way I play is wrong.
@@RekijanGaming You can encourage your players to be creative and still determine different ways to test them, while teaching them along the way. It just depends on how you apply those concepts. It's not mutually exclusive. It's far more nuanced than you are willing to give it credit and certainly it's not as fun-shattering as you are saying. I'd argue the opposite. Introverted players tend to relax more and detach themselves from the restrictions and limitations of game rules and mechanics. I mostly play and run original dungeons & dragons, like people did in the 70s and early 80s, and even though it's fairly easy to play, it's not that easy to run because of these things that matter beyond the rules. It becomes the GM responsability to guide the players and teach them how to play TTRPGs, encouraging them to be creative, while giving them situations to apply what they've learned. Trust your players, they will pick it up! 5e and PF (1e or 2e) are not systems that encourage this style by default, so you gotta go a bit outside of the box to know how to apply these ideas in your games and how to convey these principles to your players. I'm not telling you how to play your games. I'm giving you an opinion on an opinion you gave, related to the video's topic and context. It's up to you to determine if it's useful or not. Also, to clarify - I did not say you ran your games the wrong way, I said that if you don't see games as a medium for self-improvement, you are seeing games the wrong way.
@@18ps3anos On the spot creativity however is not something you can train. At least not to everyone or at least not in equal matter compared to others.
@@RekijanGaming you can give them examples of certain things that work and do not need over-relience on the rules. Usually those things are what makes sessions more interesting and dynamic Then they have more tools to use and inspire them. Over time you will notice big differences in playstyles.
Thank you for #5 especially. I’m a new GM coming from 5e and was concerned that so many feats seemed to be things I’d normally just allow players to do for flavour. Feel a bit better about that now!
Going to be running a game starting next month. These are all things I need to keep in mind. Though I am guilty of not using enough traps/hazards in my 1e games, so I'll give the like just in case it counts.
Perfect as I transition from the old traditional TTRPG to Pathfinder 2e. Thank you!!! I 100% agree with the last one - if nothing else I will take away from that ruleset, it's the principle that you can always allow the player to try anything. Success is a completely different item. But a spectacular success against all odds? Memories of a fantastic game forever.
I have yet to GM Pathfinder so I left a like just in case. I have to encourage making players roll for a chance to succeed at cool stuff, too. Even if there's a feat for it, the feat won't lose value if you have to succeed at a difficult roll to succeed at what the feat lets you just do without a roll.
I have a GM which has inherited a reluctance to hand out magic items from DMing in 5e. So I grabbed the "Magical Crafting" feat so I can attempt to counteract that.
Flavor can be used to cover Rule of Cool stuff without actually breaking the rules. "I run up the troll's leg and throw dirt in his eye." This could be the Create a Diversion action, but the GM might allow Dexterity to be used for the Deception check instead of Charisma. Succeeding the check means putting some dirt in the troll's eye, diverting its attention and causing you to be hidden temporarily. Of course, this only works if you already know about the Create the Diversion action. Sometimes a ruling is needed to get the game moving.
Considering monster morale is a great practice to get into regardless of system. Most animals in most situations will be willing to run, though there are a few exceptions (IRL boars famously tend to fight not only "to the death" but until roughly 1 round AFTER death, which has resulted in the goring of many a hunter), and most intelligent species will (whether or not their motives can be trusted at all) attempt to beg mercy if combat goes super-heavily against them all of a sudden. There are a lot of encounters with buckets-of-hp monsters that really don't have to be boring, because about the time they'd start to get there the monster can just decide it's had enough and book it.
I think my hardest one to gauge is using diplomacy to end encounters. On the one hand: legendary negociator is made specifically for that, and is rightfully a powerful feat on its own requiring legendary diplomacy! Because talking down a horde of ravening daemons from murdering you and stealing your soul IS legendary! On the other hand: Being able, at low level, to negotiate a group of kobolds into a parley after you've fought for 8 exhausting rounds and both sides are battered and bloody makes a lot of sense... but rule wise it's not permitted... I often allow it despite it not being permitted, and I make the request DC on the spot with the modifiers as a guideline. (usually vs a hard will dc check of the highest level opponent in the opposing party)... Even if sometimes it robs me of my enjoyment, such as when the bard in my party managed to convince the three luskas they were about to fight to go eat the several dead bodies in the water a few meters off instead of them.... I really wanted to control some three headed sharktopuses with lightning powers in a spinning maelstrom ok!!!
Bro, this video helps me much more than you might expected! Ironically, 2 of the mistakes I haven't done yet are the using hazards and stick with the rules, I tend to use hazards and use the rules as I want. And yeah, I'm guilty on making a lot of brainless creature using flank just to make them feel unsafe lol. Again, thanks a lot, I'm going to GMing again after 2 years tomorrow. This video really helps me.
I think rule of cool is better followed by "You can try" than a no. The feat implies training behind doing something, so roleplaying that cool manuever could make for inspiration for that character to go and train for that feat.
Wolves can be very smart and flank, I imagine a group of wolves circling the party as the poke at their defences to test their odds of felling the party. When 1 or 2 of them are killed by the party they then flee to hunt easier prey. If the party fails to frighten the wolves off maybe then pack tactics comes into play and the fight becomes a desperate fight for survival against the wolf pack.
I have an idea for a campaign for Pathfinder 2e where they have to fight Evil Gods, but they will be given fragments of starstones, giving them temporary godly power for the battle, but once they get to the final one, they'll be able to finish the Starstone and become full fledged Gods
Part 5 reminds me of a house rule I use for almost any TTRPG that has a ton of rules and skills that need to be bought to be used. To put it bluntly: "If you want to do something that you don't have a feat/skill/ability for, I will allow you to do it... ONCE. Wanna make a jump attack or some quick reload manouver that you would normally need to get on your sheet? Make a compelling description, sometimes you might have to pay a price, and then I will consider letting you do it ONCE. Once that happens and you wanna do it again, sorry, you gotta get that thing at the next possible time." This is of course very vague, but that's on purpose. Tell me a compelling argument why your Burning Hands should hit one additional opponent just slightly outside of the range, maybe take some damage from straining yourself, and sure, you can do it. It makes for a better story than "I wanted to be a cool wizard but DM said no". There are things that are impossible and I, as a DM, am the final arbiter.
My main thing about the last point, and this is how I've done things since 3.5: If there is a feat that stops them from doing the Something Cool (TM), if it's not something that's just pure numbers, like Power Attack, they can do that feat, but they do it to a lesser effect or it's a little hard to do. Haven't playe enough PF2E to know how that'd work, but seems like a system that's perfect for that same application.
Re 5: If you can look up the rule fast, a quick check is good to do when learning the rules. If not, you can say "I can't recall the specifics, but to keep things moving (enter stop-gap solution here)." And then add a note to yourself to look up the official rule after the game is done. This way you're more knowledgeable next time to do things "the right way immediately." I've been GMing PF1E for years now. I think I have a better grip on part of quantum mechanics than some sections of the rules. (What's the checks for casting defensively again?) The one thing to remember with TTRPG is that the game doesn't break if you don't follow the rules to the letter. If you want to play a game like that, then there is no need for a GM. You want a video game. View yourself more as a conductor to an orchestra rather than the composer of the musical piece. (It's free-form jazz anyway.)
For the last one, I think rather than saying no, compare the player's roll to some monster roll. E.g.: The gnome rogue wants to run up the troll's leg and throw dirt in his eye. Opposed rolls: Gnome rolls athletics. Troll rolls acrobatics. The gnome's roll is higher than the troll's roll. Gnome rolls a ranged attack to throw the dirt. Misses. But since the gnome rolled higher on athletics, how about the troll falls onto one knee. The troll is prone. Sure, the gnome rogue didn't do what he was trying to do. However! The troll has a condition now. To me, something like this allows for rule of cool but still a chance of failure. And even in the case of partial failure, something cool happens.
5 is the most important one you named besides 1 which is odd as a D&D 5e dm looking into the system. Sounds a bit like 4e which i never got to play but always wanted to. Great video.
Wolves flanking is probably the worst example you could have used x.x Wolves are pack animals, known to communicate and strategize during hunts, INCLUDING FLANKING. It honestly makes sense they would use this tactic in game, especially if you're looking for immersion.
For the rule of cool, allow the players the use of hero points. 1 or 2 points to use a feat. they don't have unlocked, 1 for of their level or lower and two for of a higher level, and if the action is impactful give them the points back. It allows player to try different thing gives limitation and lets them try out different feats that they may be thinking about leveling into all while keeping some limits to how often the rule of cool takes over.
If I may: regarding feats; perhaps if a player wants to do something that requires a feat, you could allow them to perform the action at some chance of failure but when they reach a level to acquire said feat; it now feels like they put in the effort to obtain that specific feat.
If it's locked behind a feat I would still allow them to attempt it, it would just be more difficult. For instance, rhe feat that allows fighters to hit and grab an opponent in two actions with one attack roll could simply be two attack rolls the 1st being a weapon attack and the 2nd being An Athletics role for grapple at -5.
@Mirekluk an athletics role to grapple does have the attack trait. I simply spelled out the multiple attack penalty to demonstrate why the feat would still be worth it. [Turning two rolls that must be passed (including one with a penalty) into one penalty free roll.]
I use Hero Points for rule-of-cooling purposes. Player wants to do something usually locked behind a feat? If it sounds cool enough he can use a Hero Point to just do it, no extra roll needed. Everyone's happy with it and they use points way more often instead of clinging onto them for the free death saves.
I think Brennan Lee Mulligan has my favourite description of how he runs his games for the last mistake on this list. to sort of paraphrase he says that he tries to never say no to his players, he will usually say yes and then if it's not SUPPOSED to work, he'll throw in a stipulation. There are certainly times when you just have to say "no I'm not gonna let you roll for that" or what have you, but when a player comes up with something that is actually feasible, just find a way to say yes.
Only idiot monsters will attack three times. But that's a statement, too. One time I had a fresh created vampire boy. (The party failed to rescued him) He was raged by hunger, so all in the attacks was feeling right.
That's the big-brain play. If you just write out a massive backstory behind simple encounters, you don't have to worry about thinking too hard.........wait...
@@Nonat1s No no, just like, why are these bears so good at combat maneuvers? Necromancer. Is this giant worm really smart enough to hit and run like that? Necromancer. Why are those monkeys fighting like a Spartan phalanx? Nec. Ro. Mancer.
"Wolves would not flank." That's literally how wolves hunt in the wild. Pack attack is meant as an *additional* bonus for when more than two are able to surround a creature, to represent the fact that wolf packs generally hunt by surrounding their prey. As for fighting four wolves as level 1 characters, that's more about a GM not paying attention to how encounters work. Four level 1 creatures against a party of 4 level 1 characters is an Extreme encounter, literally the maximum difficulty you're supposed to ever use. If you're throwing that at your party, it's *supposed* to be an incredibly deadly fight. If you don't want a high chance of somebody dying, don't throw an Extreme encounter at a first level party.
You get a like and a sub because I just realized I let my players go through every door on the first floor of the gauntlight without perception checks. Time to look up how hazards work!
“These kids these days!” (Putting on my grandpa voice!) Back in the 80’s, there weren’t rules for ANYTHING (or Skill bonuses, for that matter!) It was always just: Player: “I wanna do THIS!” GM: (shrugs) “Roll a d20!”
Had a GM who controlled some stuffed dogs being controlled by their ghosts. In one turn I was put in prone, the GM moved the dogs so they can flake my character, and knocked him out of combat with two hits. Mind you, we had no healer. Yeah it was a bit unfair but we got past it. Then when we tried to use our brains to "cheese" (The GM put it that way) the encounter he seemed upset that we made it unfair for the monsters. This was the first encounter as we were level 1 too. I found out that sometimes the GMs don't like it when players use the tools the game gives the player for the encounters.
On rule 5, in a PF1e game, my Drow Sorcerer had to do a bit of sneaking, and he cast the cantrip Penumbra, which RAW has no effect on any stealth-based checks, however the DM liked the idea and behind the scenes gave me a +1 or +2 modifier for thinking on my feet, it sounded cool, or he thought it would/should actually do something
Generally when it comes to the "rule of cool" as in abusing it to get around feats. If it is something I know is behind a feat. I say absolutely yeah, the character is just not trained enough to get the necessary mechanical benefit but absolutely useful for the flavor. If I know the feat really well and I can think of a way off the top of my head I may give them the capability but either make additional requirements to pull it off or they receive a "lessened" benefit. This is also one of the reason why I love the Cortex Prime RPG system the whole thing is about rule of cool, and players are incentivized heavily for thinking outside of the box. It is a *very* different type of game, much more narrative than "simulation". It falls somewhere between Fate and Savage Worlds in terms of crunch vs narrative.
The first and last part got me. Great vid! Thanks for reminding me about these things. Sometimes you just loose track of them - that's for being human. Keep it up 💜
Regarding the third point I agree that a pack of wolves manoeuvring to flank is maybe unbalanced for an encounter difficulty as their rule design already incorporate a bonus to represent their pack hunting behaviour, but on the other hand it wouldn't be immersion breaking as the tactically intelligent mindless undead horde because it's exactly what wolves would do: using number and mobility to harass their prey.
My only problem with the last one is what happens when your player that got to do something cool that should have been locked behind a feat ends up finding the feat that would have let them do it. Do they take the feat so they can do it again or do they ignore the feat since you let them do it without it before and should let them do it again for consistency?
My GM: "It looks like none of the vendors have the crafting skill." Me: "If only there was someone wise, and gracious enough, with the power to teach them...."
I am guilty of at least 3 of these myself. No shame. 😅 Check out the Nonat1s Patreon here to get access to unique homebrew, get your name in the credits, and more! www.patreon.com/Nonat1s
I wonder if my name is in there yet?
Oops I'm in the wrong tier
I wish I wasn't a broke college student lol. Though I would be lying if I said that homebrew content doesn't look enticing...
@@poke_onix9235 Trust me, bro. I was there not 4 years ago. I FEEL those struggles lol. Gotta save those pennies for pizza and gummy worms.
@@K.J.Saunders Yeah, $20 and up gets in the credits, but I see you! Pledged since February and I sincerely appreciate it. Hope you've enjoyed the homebrew!
Just a little pet peeve: wolves actually would use that sort of combat strategy which makes them such efficient hunters. My problem I have with how many GMs play wolves is that they are not strategic enough. Most predators only enter fights they think that they are going to win and when they face serious resistance, they typically retreat. Way too often, GMs forget that mooks value their life like any other living being.
Yeah, when he said wolves don't flank, I had to disagree they do flank as they are pack hunters and know to get around behind and surround a prey and get to their flank. I understand the mechanic exists, but they are smart enough to flank.
I actually had my party fight 3 wolves in the last session. The idea was to use the pack ability, but the party fought the wolves near their den and they had pups, so one wolf stayed slightly behind to 'defend'. But the party managed to bring one wolf down to half health in one hit, so the 3rd wolf entered the fray. The party was super lucky and manage to crit twice on the wolves, basically taking them out of the fight in one go. There was no option for the wolves to run away, as they had to defend their pups.
Will throw more wolves at them in the future and make use of the pack feat more.
What could have also happened is them grabbing the pups and attempting to run, but I agree in that scenario they would not have run to defend the pups. Only a select few mammals value their own lives over that of their young, at least speaking of the female side of a species.
@@MrReaperHand players set out to not kill the wolves, but just knock them out. They crit twice on two wolves and kill one outright, while the second is knocked out. Then they discover the pups, drag the two knocked out wolves to the lair and leave.
Don't know what the mechanics will be for this, bit unlike some birds, I don't think the wolves will shun their pups, just because they smell of adventurers.
@@Pecomica I am agreeing with your statement about the wolves. I only added that a very small amount of MAMMALS abandon their young for self preservation.
Cool, group chose something other than lethal, you mentioned they didn't know about the pups. That begs to question why they would have been nonlethal when just defending themselves when the encounter first happened. Regardless it worked out.
Flanking is the prime strategy of wolves in real life
was just about to comment this myself
Not the entire pack though that's what he was talking about
And Raptors as we all know
Don't forget about cows. They're flanking masters.
@@thebrutallyhonestdm dude I made that comment a year ago I'll have to rewatch the video to get the context of why I said what I said
You don't even need to give out an upgrade of the character's exact weapon. Since you can transfer runes, you can just give out a weapon with the appropriate rune and have the PCs transfer it over. So, they can find a +2 dwarven clan dagger and transfer the rune over to the elven glaive. :)
Y'know, I totally forgot that feature existed. I gotta start doing that more often lol.
@@Nonat1s Time for a video all about runes!
@@Nonat1s there are also runestones to consider.
Yeah, in my homebrew setting because of how the rune system has developed, magical merchants essentially no longer sell pre-made magic weapons aside from specific ones. They just have a large selection of runes and you can have your weapon tailor made for you in minutes.
This.. I believe RAW the intention is that you don't need special skills to transfer runes either. If it's not.. that's how I'm homebrewing it.. Flavor is that the rune's sink into metal and tune with the weapons auto-magically. Just takes 10 minutes.
Kinda weird that wolves are built around not flanking when real wolves use a combat strategy built around flanking and it would be the most realistic way to DM them.
Yeah, wolves would definitely flank. Sometimes instict leads to good combat tactics.
Yes
What do you mean they are not built around flanking? What gave you that impression? They are better at flanking even because of their Pack Attack.
@@18ps3anos they are ambushes and flushing
Yeah, having wolves flank isn't a GM mistake. Building wolves around not flanking is a game design mistake.
Also additional rule. GIVE OUT HERO POINTS.
I try to be on top of this and give 1 out every hour or so but even I'm not immune to getting caught up in the game and forgetting to reward them
I also recommend giving out Hero points on Nat 20s. That way you feel like you earned them
@@StarbornCthulhu I wouldn't call a random chance earning but aight
Newbie here. Having heard about everyone forgetting about hero points, I was reminded of Inspiration in Dungeons & Dragons 5e. Looking at the DMG, it seems that there is a lot of guidance for potential ways to handle inspiration. It mentions using them as rewards for Roleplaying, Heroism, Genre Emulation, reinforcing desirable player behavior, etc. The one that stuck out to me was using them as a Reward for Victory, an approach for impartial DMs who would rather not leave whether someone deserves Inspiration to their own judgement. This form of Inspiration is generally given to the entire party at once as a reward for overcoming a powerful foe or some other daunting obstacle. Many groups in 5e refuse to finish an entire dungeon crawl without taking a long rest in the middle of it. I could imagine dishing out Hero Points to parties who clear multiple encounters in a row in between rests as an incentive to keep them from rest spamming more than Jigglypuff.
@@SuperParkourio P2E actually doesn't have short rests; there's some 10 minute activities you can do, or you can take a long rest. Generally it's balanced around you being able to take 10 minute breaks between most combats, as those breaks will allow the players to heal a little and use abilities they have that are specifically for those breaks; for example, a character trained in medicine can Treat Wounds for one person in 10 minutes and basically make a DC 15 medicine check to heal one person for 2d8. A medium level character that takes several feats to enhance this might be able to instead use Treat Wounds on 4 people, making a DC 30 check to heal them for 2d8+30 each.
You can spec further into it to be even better, but it's just an example of one of the most common activities, which will mostly just get the party back on their feet for you to challenge again when they move on. Chaining multiple combats together without breaks can work, but often times that might lead to players running out of resources really quickly, ramping up encounter difficulty beyond what's expected. Long resting usually takes about 8 hours, with another hour of daily preparations, but is limited to once every 24 hours. In addition, while a spellcaster would regain spell slots and the party would have time to heal up, resting by itself only heals for your constitution modifier multiplied by your level.
In general resting in P2E is harder to abuse, and if your players do try to take long rests halfway through every dungeon, it's easy to manage if it becomes a problem. You can talk to the players about it, or if you want a more in-game solution you can have the occasional interruption, such that resting in dangerous places is actually risky. I don't mean to overwhelm or attack you, just trying to inform to the best of my knowledge. Thanks for reading and have a lovely day!
Yes, thank you. This is a common mistake in both Pathfinder and the d20 superhero game Mutants & Masterminds.
I say wolves are smart enough to flank. Circaling their prey is how pack hunters generally go about it. That's one reason why pack hunting is so effective.
I agree, it wouldn't break immersion at all if a pack of wolves started flanking my character
Many so-called "beasts" are actually pretty smart and use quite intelligent tactics to deal with prey or foes. Pack hunters do not just flank a non-fleeing prey. They also surround fleeing prey, set ambushes, drive a prey towards ambushes or hazards, scout for weaker targets before attacking, and so on. So flanking too much is definitely not an error. It's just how things go in nature.
Only a single creature won't flank. Everything else should always do, unless it is mindless or brainless. So wolves would flank, zombies would not, but the latters would mass attack for sure, eventually surrounding their target and ending up flanking it anyways.
Actually, real wolves do flank their prey.
About not giving enough magic items:
I found that staves/wands are as important as magic weapons, because magic users are not Busted anymore
Well about rule 1, with runes being transferable you don't even need to drop exact weapons and armour
My first thought exactly; give either another weapon with the run or the rune itself inscribed on a transfer stone.
Yeah, in my current campaign we acquired a mace inscribed with a +1 potency rune, but we dont have 10 free minutes (in the middle of a dungeon) for the champion to make a craft check to move the tine to the fighter's sword
@@BoltGamr aren’t most pf2e adventures planned around the expectation that heroes take 10 mins between each encounter to use medicine checks to heal wounds?
You don’t have an hour (or 8), but unless there’s a story driven time crunch, 10 minutes for a craft check, some medicine checks, some focus point restoration is pretty standard.
Apparently it takes a whole day to transfer a rune oops.
The DC of the Crafting check to transfer a rune is determined by the item level of the rune being transferred, and the Price of the transfer is 10% of the rune’s Price, unless transferring from a runestone, which is free. If you’re swapping, use the higher level and higher Price between the two runes to determine these values. It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft) to transfer a rune or swap a pair of runes, and you can continue to work over additional days to get a discount, as usual with Craft.
Number 5 kept me from GMing Pathfinder 2e for two years. I read and read and re-read and studied and tried to cram the rules into my head over and over and over because I'd seen a lot of people in posts seem to side with keeping to rules exactly as written all the time without deviation. It kept me from trying, the stress was too big. At least hearing one other voice say "It's ok to wing it sometimes" is REALLY helpful.
Paizo puts a lot of great advice through out the Core and GMG books that I think a lot of new GMs overlook in their effort to learn the rules. These sections can answer so many questions for new GMs on how to handle difficult players, encounters, adjudicate player actions, and more.
Dig the video. Though, IRL, wolves will 100% flank you. Watch your backs out in the woods, guys.
Do they really? I guess they surround their prey in a circle and that's technically flanking...bad example I suppose lol.
Yeah, must pack animals legit will go for flanking irl, but in the same vein, most hunting animals will run away if their prey gives them enough licks.
I typically make predators retreat at 1/2 hp, or after losing 1/3 of their hp to a single hit (the animals don't really know what their hp is, but they sure understand "ow, this isn't going well" or "this guy hits REALLY hard, I overestimated myself"), unless the party is like, threatening their teritory or young.
Also worth noting that they also won't kill more than they can eat. If the wolves kill your pack mule, they won't chase you if you flee so long as they have their meal
@@Nonat1s Even just two wolves will flank their prey. It's how their instincts tell them to hunt and fight prey.
@@nicholasromero238 predators kill more than they eat if it’s easy, for example fox gets into hen house. But in your example it would be better for wolves to eat big, tasty mule before bear or similar rival comes and steals it than waste time and energy running after people who have less meat, may hit or kick, and smell and taste bad.
With PF2Es reliance on runes for equipment, I have implemented a new thing in my PF2E games... Runewrights. Runewrights (or Spellmongers as they can also be known in my games) create runes for items and create talismans. In my larger towns and cities PCs can seek out the services of a Runewright, either at a Runewright Shop or if they can find a Magic Curio Shop or Blacksmith that can also provide this service just like they can seek out an Apothecary, Blacksmith, or other service. In smaller towns, if they are lucky, the village Blacksmith, Priest, or Spellmonger (a local village small-time, low-level spellcaster that casts utility spells, creates talismans, crafts scrolls, and and conducts rituals for a fee to the local villagers and farmers) can provide this service since Runewrights typically only have their own dedicated shops in cities or other large settlements.
Also for the upgrade weapons, to avoid the "coincidental" factor you can give out rune stones with the upgraded rune son it. It'll only cost a bit of gold to transfer the rune on their weapon.
Plus, this allows a character to get attached to their heirloom sword and whatnot.
Or that elven glaive may not be in a chest but could be on the body of another elf that previously came to the dwarven ruins to try their hand at plundering the ruins for its valuables!!!
This also helps to make the world feel alive and more real.
I usually pick based on how immediate the need for the weapon is. The chest at the end of the dungeon will probably have runestones, as will the enchanter's workshop. If they ding in the middle of the dungeon, I'm giving them a weapon that matches their style as a drop. 2e doesn't have too much reqirement for exact matches, so I don't feel bad giving the dwarf and orc necksplitter vs a dwarven war axe for one or two major fights before they can pry the runes off, though I'll always make sure to match weapon families, give the finesse user a finesse weapon, one hand user a one hand weapon, etc
@@nicholasromero238 Yeah, having something similar but not an exact match can be fun too for some rp stuff too.
My plan is to give enemies magical weapons that players can then loot. It will probably not always be a weapon that matches anyone's fighting style, but the runes on it might come in handy.
@@Dharengo That's more or less what's expected, a lot of ennemies will have magic weapons of them own that can be looted (it's often in their statblock "+2 Striking Greataxe" for example)
Speaking of GM mistakes, could you do a video on Staves? I recently brought them up on reddit after discovering how big a deal they are in this edition compared to 1e, and apparently the fact most people didn't pay much attention to staves in 1e caused many redditors and their GMs to accidentally ignore a critical tool of casters. Staves help with two of the most common complaints about casters: quantity of spells and variety of them per day, which staves address by giving you free charges to cast levels of spells that are in the staff without even needing to know them. This also helps characters that multiclass casters. There's even a cool interaction if you are a caster of one type (prepared or spontaneous) that multiclasses into the other because each casting style uses staves differently so if you can do both (one more than the other of course), you can be quite powerful from their synergy. There's even some merit in a caster of one list multi-ing into another and using a staff of their lesser to get more of that side. There's just so much they add to the game and they are seemingly overlooked. Which is in turn making some people think casters are way weaker than they are because they aren't seeing them actually properly equipped. They are instead seeing the mage equivalent of a warrior with no magic weapon.
Oh yeah, staves are super important! I think I saw the same post the other day and I was like 'oh shiiiit'
In regards to combat strategy - don't forget flight/climb speeds! With 3 actions, it's fun to swoop down with a flight speed, hit once, and fly away. It makes the party think outside the box when it comes to these kinds of encounters. Grappling hooks, preparing/readying actions and using previously unused spells are some of the things that I've managed to get my party to do when I've made them face these challenges.
In a game like Pathfinder I feel like it's okay to be slow the first few games. However, let your players know that you plan on looking up rules and hopefully one of them will work with you in looking the rules up. After the 2nd or 3rd game of this you should have enough material known that looking up mid-game isn't needed. Starting in the 4th game, I find a post game review of errors helpful, and I post those errors in the group chat / forum for all of the players to see and ask about.
Wolf in 2e:
Pack Attack The wolf's Strikes deal 1d4 extra damage to creatures within reach of at least two of the wolf's allies.
What I see reading this is that these guys want to flank. You have to remember that many creatures, both human and animal, want to do the optimal thing that will keep them alive, and make the enemy/potential food dead. So I would flank all day with wolves. Wolves flank. That's how they hunt. Is it dangerous and hurt the heroes and makes the wolves scary? Well it should. Wolves are scary, primarily because they are pack hunters and rarely hunt prey they can't take down. That's the thing. Animals rarely engage in combat they know they will lose.
Number 6: giving too many magic items. I do this sometimes. I see something cool in the book and I want to see it in game. It can sometimes make players too powerful.
it depends on the magic item... I have a personal favorite of mine, the "Rod of many uses" - a third party item that I handed freely in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e, and that is quite easy to port over to 2e. Basically, it's a VERY low power Rod of Lordly Might - it's a magic rod that can shapeshift into a plethora of useful items, including a handful of weapons, none of which is inherently magical. Need a ladder? Twist knob to 7, push activation button, BOOM, a ladder. Need a shortsword? Knob to 18, button, shortsword. Need a lantern? Knob to 1, button, you got a lantern (oil not included, sorry). My players loved it. It wasn't overpowered by any means, it just saved space. LOTS of space. Oh, and one could enchant it - although a +1 striking shovel (knob to 12) sounds kinda silly.
I feel the monty haul is a lot less dangerous in 2e. Items have levels, so as long as you give the party only items level their level or lower, you won't overpower them in any appreciable way.
The only thing you have to beware is the party selling the excess loot to buy items above their level, but the DM is in control what players can and cant buy.
@@nicholasromero238 "I want to buy a +3 Greater Striking Vorpal Blade of Annihilation!" "the blacksmith of the little village looks at you puzzled, then says "You want a what what of what?"..."
...yep, it works.
@@alarkhar "Fine! I'll ask the ancient dwarven smith!"
"Vorpal blades are not meant for the hands of mortals. I crafted one once, and the wielder turned it against his own kind. My hands will never again make such an abomination"
@@nicholasromero238 "Ah, whatever! I'll just ask the crazy mage of the western tower!"
"Sure, there you go!" (hands the character a saxophone)
DM: "What part of "crazy" didn't you get?"
Disagree with 5, or at least, once you (GM) are confident with the rules P2E is a pretty cool and balanced system to follow. Also rule of cool is always imbalanced in favor of the most extroverse player...
Totally agree, but the players should be able to at least try. Maybe that Arcane recall knowledge on trolls won't tell them something exact like "they hate fire and acid" but something like "the Belt of Regeneration is crafted from troll hide" then someone can roll a Craft check on the activate property of that belt which would mention the regeneration effect is not active on rounds you take acid or fire damage. That leaping attack maneuver won't get the extra distance and might take all 3 actions to pull off (instead of the benefits that come with the feat), but they should be able to at least try. If players don't feel like they can try anything, the game becomes a computer or card game with set action choices instead of the immersion and free form of a tabletop game. The GM sets the DCs anyway - you could just require a higher DC for the jump distance than normal since they are messing with their balance to set up the strike.
With regards to flanking, I'd even argue that not all bandits or thugs would know to flank. Some might be in a panic and not think clearly.
And, even then, I think a decent houserule might be to make it so you can't flank if you're being flanked. It's harder to exploit openings when your own are actively being exploited. it'd basically remove flank conga lines and force both players and NPCs to reposition more if they want to flank.
That's a super fair point. Part of me wishes it was a feat or feature that creatures/players needed to learn how to do. Flanking is a fairly specific warfare maneuver, and taking advantage of openings like that requires at least some training.
Also, super down for the "Flanking cancels flanking" rule. I think that makes perfect sense and would make movement even more vital in the heat of combat.
i played an investigator tonight for my first pfs session and i didnt know about all the cool debuffs you can apply with skills. mostly stratagem then move then attack, i think im going to try a different class for the next session. now that i own the book (found out about the new version coming out after i bought my copy) i will be diving in.
ty for your content, i will be binging it over the following week
Rule 5 is the most difficult to get right, imo. It takes a lot of experience to know just how much is ok to flex the rules before making the mistake of creating a precedent. That's when the second time around, a player tells you: "well you allowed that, so you should allow this now", where the "this" is a bit of a leap from what you have allowed in the past. That said, I agree that you should try to implement rule 5, but with caution. Also, make use of the very quick and simple DC creation guidelines that the game teaches you!
Exactly, that's the scariest part when getting into a new system.
While I don't like saying "no" to my players unless they are way off base, in my experience giving a player an inch results in them taking a mile.
But I suppose a way to remedy that is to say that I'll likely come up with rulings on the spot to keep the game flowing, but if that heat-of-the-moment decision results in something breaking, we'll roll that ruling back.
What I do is say "I will allow it now. I may not allow it again in the future" whenever I know I am going to bend the rules (such as letting my party's champion replace the spell his deity would give him access to).
Like Rules Lawyer has said, you should understand why rule is as it is before you change or discard rule, or you may end up destroying balance and causing problems, maybe even destroying game.
With the ability to move runes you don't need to find exact copies of a weapon. You can give them other weapons that are more powerful and then they can transfer the runes themselves if they have crafting or take to local blacksmith who can transfer but not skilled enough to craft from scratch.
I have made these mistakes as a DM for 5e. Then I started to bend from RAW to RAI to Rule of Cool. It doesn't hurt to let your players have fun.
its a game before anything else. Fun should always be the first rule
Mostly agree with #5. But I do draw the line when players try to obviously and 'knowingly' break the rules in order to win. There's a difference between bending the rules cause you want the game to keep moving and deceivingly breaking the rules in order to 'win'. If I have a player wanting to swing up a chandelier onto a giant's back, then run up a giant's back and attack it using an triple sow cow hammer blow, fine - it's an acrobatics check and a strike action and the player can describe it however they want. Buuuutt......if that same player is trying to fish trying to get any of the bonuses that a feat would offer doing the same thing....no. They don't get to do it with a +2 bonus or using one less action or making the giant flat footed or anything else that they wouldn't already be able to do. If a player wants to 'try' anything....sure. But they probably aren't getting a bonus/penalty unless the rules or a feat allows it
I love your #5 tip here, I do that as a GM myself & my players have always really enjoyed that we've rolled with their ideas - I've also been a player with GM's that do this and it just feels that much more rewarding when you think outside of the box. For me games like Pathfinder can get stale if every combat action is "I swing my sword" or "I shoot my bow" etc. Tumble, dive, use that wall just have fun - afterall isn't that the real reason we all play these rpg's, to have fun ;)
As I'm gming 2E for the first time tomorrow this is very welcome
That's awesome! I hope you enjoy the experience! Don't worry about getting things perfect on the first try. Just have fun with it!
@@Nonat1s thanks lot, both for the support and all the content
Have fun! :)
As many have already mentioned, wolves specifically, but other social predators I'm sure as well, are fully capable of grasping the benefit of encircling their prey, keeping them distracted while the others go for the kill etc. You don't give animals enough credit here I feel like. But I agree with the overall point, especially with the mindless thralls.
"Unlike other systems, Pathfinder second edition is actually balanced around your characters gaining magic items"
Pathfinder first edition and its big 5/WBL chart:
I feel number 2 is better advice for players than GMs. GMs playing pathfinder monsters to their fullest will very often turn lethal, as you point out with wolves later on. On that note, there is an argument to be made that wolves are likely of the few "beastly" animals that have it on instinct to flank! (Mostly if they are hunting, a magically crazed pack of wolves might not! and that could be an interesting narrative hook.)
Wolf's aren't unintelligent, they can use some tactics, like having one wolf in front so their packmate can attack you from behind. Avoiding scenarios where they're outnumbered. Not attacking substantially larger creatures unless they have a pack size that could scare off the thing. I can see experienced wolves seeing magic as dangerous and avoiding magic users for their own safety while their more inexperienced packmates recklessly attack what appears to be helpless prey. But I do agree that wolves circling in a perfect box around someone is unrealistic, however 1-3 wolves in front to distract you from the one wolf in the back feels like something I could see a pack of wolves doing.
On the point of using Hazards, I cannot recommend the old Grimtooth's Traps books enough for inspiration. Some of them are kinda unfair or just a joke, but these books have some really fun and dynamic trap ideas that just need some translation into PF2E.
Just wanna say but it's actually *wayyy* more believable that wolves would flank someone because they're communal predators in nature, often separating and surrounding larger prey in a flanking behaviour. So in that case saying they *wouldn't* do that is actually playing them a lot less intelligent than their actual counterparts. In fact the reason *why* wolves are designed the way they are is because they're meant to be incredibly difficult early game encounters, and the puzzle around fighting them is separating them in such a way that they can't take advantage of their pack behaviour (such as standing back to back in the middle of four of them or shoving wolves out of flanking position if they start to surround a player, or taking advantage of that behaviour and telling whoever is surrounded to get out of dodge/apologize to them for what you're about to do and drop a fireball on them.)
If a player wants to do something that is cool to do, I'll let them do it, but if it's something that's already an existing feat and they don't have that, I'm going to make it so it's not easier than the feat method. So I'll increase the DC. Otherwise, what's the point of taking feats if you can do it anyways.
i think you missed one, building the perfect counter enemy NPC for each PC ..I know I've done this a few time because thinking that make the encounter more interesting and maybe the PC's will figure out that a way around it...but it generally leads to frustrated player and long combat.
NoNat: If you made any of these Mistakes you need to leave a like
Me whose never played Pathfinder:
hazards are very fun and memorable when used right. In the old days of the hobby when dungeons were all there was to it they were a lot more common imo but there are still some pretty nifty traps in pathfinder and 2e aswell. An 1e starting module I never got to use had a cool room that I lifted for my current game that had a magnetic spire in the middle, when triggered everything made from metal got yoinked directly to it, a super fun encounter that can throw an unprepared party for a loop.
In an oldschool d&d Greyhawk game I play in there was a dungeon just filled with secret doors and traps etc but one part that stood out was a mage's laboratory that was secured by a corridor of (and I'm not kidding here) about 20 doors, each like 10ft apart and the latter part of those doors were trapped with firebolts. The cool thing about this was that at some point all of them were trapped which is alluded to by ash and burn marks along the corridor that suddenly stop at the first door that still carries a trap because other creatures and adventurers just never got beyond this part so there is a bit of history packed into that hazard. Now, is a corridor of 20 doors with firebolts slightly unrealistic, maybe, but it's a world of magic and I can absolutely see some mad mage put up ridiculous defenses. The point is you can do a lot, mechanically and narratively with hazards so whenever it makes sense to use them do so, not to a point where it gets tedious of course (and the 20 doors are close to that breaking point dont get me wrong) but every now and then. Use them like spices and your meal won't get stale.
My personal three extra to keep in mind:
1) GIVE. OUT. HERO POINTS. That plot armor for rad roleplay moments or taking in awesome consequences or character decisions together should make the game always feel rewarding, even when it’s not specifically treasure or XP. Just like the game has three pillars of play, think of it as the third pillar of rewards.
2) Look at Ability Challenge / Victory Point rules. They are a fun way to engage character capabilities and settle conflicts without entering combat mode.
3) If planning on making multiple encounters in the same day or dungeon, consider giving some enemies repeated types but with variations in level, flavor, or weapon. It makes them feel like they’ve learned or figured out a foe and can take on twists more, and it really amplifies the reward for Recall Knowledge or preparing.
8:15 Again what's the problem? An avarage level 1 character is barely more than your avarage member of their race and four wolves would tear a avarage human (or similar) into shreds in a fight.
Also one of the worst things you could ever do is create STAT CHECK boss monsters..
Wolves will flank in real life, btw.
I had my first GMing experience last week(second session is today) and i am guilty of attacking too much, but what I do (and believe is the best way to play in my opinion) is bend the rules a bit to let my players do cool stuff. I did and still plan to just let my players roll what they want and determine the outcome depending on how big I think the number is
Number 6: Relying too much on rolls. You don't need to roll to detect traps. You should encourage players to interact with their environment and try to understand their surroundings. It's a lot more interesting a player finds a pressure plate by asking what he sees on those tiles than simply rolling perception.
Right, but then we might as well not have stats or skills. What if my character is way smarter than myself and far more aware of their surroundings. I might not know what to look for, but my experienced dungeon crawling character does.
@@harrisonhurst6480 it is not like these things weren't something you could learn. Besides, the point is that some GMs have a tendency to ask for too many rolls, instead of teaching/encouraging their players to paint a scene and, you know, roleplay. It is a roleplaying game after all. A good GM will pick up on your limitations as a player and ask for a roll if needed. Sometimes, no roll is even needed, if your character is that competent
I will steal your idea of the Necromancer behind "smart" zombies. Or maybe I'll add some faster/smarter zombies for my party to focus on to make the combat spicer.
Im guilty of 2 of these mistakes and in the next session I will try to make some changes.
Thanks a lot for your content Nonat!
Thanks so much for watching! I hope your next session goes well and your players enjoy "Fast Zombies" 😂
That would be cool, especially if you build up to it and let them get complacent with the default ones.
From Wolf Haven International:
"When hunting large game, the wolf pack separates out and surrounds its prey. Wolves usually bite the shoulders and flanks. While some pack members approach the prey from the rear, other wolves seize the prey by the nose."
That sounds exactly like flanking to me. Your best bet is to go back-to-back with allies and make loud intimidation checks while throwing stuff. Hunting animals don't want a fair fight; an injury survived today may still kill them later. The GM should keep that in mind and have them run at if the partty looks like it's offering significant resistance. Of course if the predators are desperate, they will risk dying in battle before starving.
There's not a lot of PF2e content compared to DnD, but boy do I love the pathfinder content that I'm finding.
7:42 you apparently have never seen wolves/dogs fight
From the beginning of my GM journey, i've always had the soft rule of never opening a rule book while in session unless a player specifically asks me to reference something. If i don't know something because i havent prepared for it or i havent memorized that specific rule, then i just make up a ruling on the spot and maybe talk to my player about it later.
This is a good way to not grind the gane to a halt while u search and search and search and search and finally find the rule in the crafting section 2 hours later.
Looking to start a campaign in the fall, feel like your vids are gonna be a great help!🤠
I don't agree with rule 5 personally. Because it devalues builds that do take the feats. But also because while it rewards creative thinking, by the same logic is 'punishes' people who are less creative. And I don't want that say my table. So I would argue that rule 5 is more a per table optional house rule then a fundamental gm mistake. As it won't work for each group.
Or you could use TTRPGs to allow your players to explore their creativity and maybe become better at it. You are assuming only PCs improve with each session. If you do not see games as a medium for self-improvement, you are not looking at it the right way, I'd say.
@@18ps3anos The analogy that comes to mind is to test everyone equally. But then testing a fish on how good he can climb will end up leaving him depressed. It is very reasonable to be at a table where not everyone is equally ont the stop creative. If you then reward person A for his creativity, but B is uncapable of keeping up with that then you are doing a disservice to person B. For the simple reason that you are giving extra power to person B.
Also don't tell me how to play my games. I am fine with you playing differently but it comes off pretty arrogant to say the way I play is wrong.
@@RekijanGaming You can encourage your players to be creative and still determine different ways to test them, while teaching them along the way. It just depends on how you apply those concepts. It's not mutually exclusive. It's far more nuanced than you are willing to give it credit and certainly it's not as fun-shattering as you are saying. I'd argue the opposite. Introverted players tend to relax more and detach themselves from the restrictions and limitations of game rules and mechanics.
I mostly play and run original dungeons & dragons, like people did in the 70s and early 80s, and even though it's fairly easy to play, it's not that easy to run because of these things that matter beyond the rules. It becomes the GM responsability to guide the players and teach them how to play TTRPGs, encouraging them to be creative, while giving them situations to apply what they've learned. Trust your players, they will pick it up!
5e and PF (1e or 2e) are not systems that encourage this style by default, so you gotta go a bit outside of the box to know how to apply these ideas in your games and how to convey these principles to your players.
I'm not telling you how to play your games. I'm giving you an opinion on an opinion you gave, related to the video's topic and context. It's up to you to determine if it's useful or not.
Also, to clarify - I did not say you ran your games the wrong way, I said that if you don't see games as a medium for self-improvement, you are seeing games the wrong way.
@@18ps3anos On the spot creativity however is not something you can train. At least not to everyone or at least not in equal matter compared to others.
@@RekijanGaming you can give them examples of certain things that work and do not need over-relience on the rules. Usually those things are what makes sessions more interesting and dynamic Then they have more tools to use and inspire them. Over time you will notice big differences in playstyles.
Thank you for #5 especially. I’m a new GM coming from 5e and was concerned that so many feats seemed to be things I’d normally just allow players to do for flavour. Feel a bit better about that now!
Going to be running a game starting next month. These are all things I need to keep in mind. Though I am guilty of not using enough traps/hazards in my 1e games, so I'll give the like just in case it counts.
I don't know how to give out of combat hazards weight. They just slow down the party, they're not a threat.
that bit about #5 is so important. game mechanics mean nothing if the table isn't having fun.
Perfect as I transition from the old traditional TTRPG to Pathfinder 2e. Thank you!!!
I 100% agree with the last one - if nothing else I will take away from that ruleset, it's the principle that you can always allow the player to try anything. Success is a completely different item. But a spectacular success against all odds? Memories of a fantastic game forever.
I have yet to GM Pathfinder so I left a like just in case.
I have to encourage making players roll for a chance to succeed at cool stuff, too.
Even if there's a feat for it, the feat won't lose value if you have to succeed at a difficult roll to succeed at what the feat lets you just do without a roll.
Haha, don't worry. You'll make these mistakes when you get around to it 😂
I have a GM which has inherited a reluctance to hand out magic items from DMing in 5e. So I grabbed the "Magical Crafting" feat so I can attempt to counteract that.
Flavor can be used to cover Rule of Cool stuff without actually breaking the rules.
"I run up the troll's leg and throw dirt in his eye."
This could be the Create a Diversion action, but the GM might allow Dexterity to be used for the Deception check instead of Charisma. Succeeding the check means putting some dirt in the troll's eye, diverting its attention and causing you to be hidden temporarily.
Of course, this only works if you already know about the Create the Diversion action. Sometimes a ruling is needed to get the game moving.
Considering monster morale is a great practice to get into regardless of system. Most animals in most situations will be willing to run, though there are a few exceptions (IRL boars famously tend to fight not only "to the death" but until roughly 1 round AFTER death, which has resulted in the goring of many a hunter), and most intelligent species will (whether or not their motives can be trusted at all) attempt to beg mercy if combat goes super-heavily against them all of a sudden.
There are a lot of encounters with buckets-of-hp monsters that really don't have to be boring, because about the time they'd start to get there the monster can just decide it's had enough and book it.
I think my hardest one to gauge is using diplomacy to end encounters.
On the one hand: legendary negociator is made specifically for that, and is rightfully a powerful feat on its own requiring legendary diplomacy! Because talking down a horde of ravening daemons from murdering you and stealing your soul IS legendary!
On the other hand: Being able, at low level, to negotiate a group of kobolds into a parley after you've fought for 8 exhausting rounds and both sides are battered and bloody makes a lot of sense... but rule wise it's not permitted...
I often allow it despite it not being permitted, and I make the request DC on the spot with the modifiers as a guideline. (usually vs a hard will dc check of the highest level opponent in the opposing party)...
Even if sometimes it robs me of my enjoyment, such as when the bard in my party managed to convince the three luskas they were about to fight to go eat the several dead bodies in the water a few meters off instead of them....
I really wanted to control some three headed sharktopuses with lightning powers in a spinning maelstrom ok!!!
Bro, this video helps me much more than you might expected!
Ironically, 2 of the mistakes I haven't done yet are the using hazards and stick with the rules, I tend to use hazards and use the rules as I want.
And yeah, I'm guilty on making a lot of brainless creature using flank just to make them feel unsafe lol.
Again, thanks a lot, I'm going to GMing again after 2 years tomorrow. This video really helps me.
That's awesome! I'm really happy to have helped! I hope your game goes awesome.
I think rule of cool is better followed by "You can try" than a no. The feat implies training behind doing something, so roleplaying that cool manuever could make for inspiration for that character to go and train for that feat.
Wolves can be very smart and flank, I imagine a group of wolves circling the party as the poke at their defences to test their odds of felling the party. When 1 or 2 of them are killed by the party they then flee to hunt easier prey.
If the party fails to frighten the wolves off maybe then pack tactics comes into play and the fight becomes a desperate fight for survival against the wolf pack.
I have an idea for a campaign for Pathfinder 2e where they have to fight Evil Gods, but they will be given fragments of starstones, giving them temporary godly power for the battle, but once they get to the final one, they'll be able to finish the Starstone and become full fledged Gods
Do you know the image of your cam is inversed? There's a hidden clue that gives it away
oh, you witty bastard! 😂
@@Sombre_gd I see someone found the clue.
Part 5 reminds me of a house rule I use for almost any TTRPG that has a ton of rules and skills that need to be bought to be used. To put it bluntly:
"If you want to do something that you don't have a feat/skill/ability for, I will allow you to do it... ONCE. Wanna make a jump attack or some quick reload manouver that you would normally need to get on your sheet? Make a compelling description, sometimes you might have to pay a price, and then I will consider letting you do it ONCE. Once that happens and you wanna do it again, sorry, you gotta get that thing at the next possible time."
This is of course very vague, but that's on purpose. Tell me a compelling argument why your Burning Hands should hit one additional opponent just slightly outside of the range, maybe take some damage from straining yourself, and sure, you can do it. It makes for a better story than "I wanted to be a cool wizard but DM said no".
There are things that are impossible and I, as a DM, am the final arbiter.
Rule 5 was not what I was expecting, but it is exactly how I play my games and I think my players like it a lot. Great list overall.
My main thing about the last point, and this is how I've done things since 3.5: If there is a feat that stops them from doing the Something Cool (TM), if it's not something that's just pure numbers, like Power Attack, they can do that feat, but they do it to a lesser effect or it's a little hard to do. Haven't playe enough PF2E to know how that'd work, but seems like a system that's perfect for that same application.
Re 5: If you can look up the rule fast, a quick check is good to do when learning the rules. If not, you can say "I can't recall the specifics, but to keep things moving (enter stop-gap solution here)." And then add a note to yourself to look up the official rule after the game is done. This way you're more knowledgeable next time to do things "the right way immediately." I've been GMing PF1E for years now. I think I have a better grip on part of quantum mechanics than some sections of the rules. (What's the checks for casting defensively again?)
The one thing to remember with TTRPG is that the game doesn't break if you don't follow the rules to the letter. If you want to play a game like that, then there is no need for a GM. You want a video game. View yourself more as a conductor to an orchestra rather than the composer of the musical piece. (It's free-form jazz anyway.)
For the last one, I think rather than saying no, compare the player's roll to some monster roll.
E.g.: The gnome rogue wants to run up the troll's leg and throw dirt in his eye.
Opposed rolls:
Gnome rolls athletics. Troll rolls acrobatics.
The gnome's roll is higher than the troll's roll.
Gnome rolls a ranged attack to throw the dirt. Misses.
But since the gnome rolled higher on athletics, how about the troll falls onto one knee. The troll is prone.
Sure, the gnome rogue didn't do what he was trying to do. However! The troll has a condition now.
To me, something like this allows for rule of cool but still a chance of failure. And even in the case of partial failure, something cool happens.
5 is the most important one you named besides 1 which is odd as a D&D 5e dm looking into the system. Sounds a bit like 4e which i never got to play but always wanted to. Great video.
Wolves flanking is probably the worst example you could have used x.x Wolves are pack animals, known to communicate and strategize during hunts, INCLUDING FLANKING. It honestly makes sense they would use this tactic in game, especially if you're looking for immersion.
For the rule of cool, allow the players the use of hero points. 1 or 2 points to use a feat. they don't have unlocked, 1 for of their level or lower and two for of a higher level, and if the action is impactful give them the points back. It allows player to try different thing gives limitation and lets them try out different feats that they may be thinking about leveling into all while keeping some limits to how often the rule of cool takes over.
That's a great way to balance those rule of cool moments! I'm definitely gonna be trying that at my tables
Your videos bring me joy homie, thank you for doing what you do
If I may: regarding feats; perhaps if a player wants to do something that requires a feat, you could allow them to perform the action at some chance of failure but when they reach a level to acquire said feat; it now feels like they put in the effort to obtain that specific feat.
If it's locked behind a feat I would still allow them to attempt it, it would just be more difficult. For instance, rhe feat that allows fighters to hit and grab an opponent in two actions with one attack roll could simply be two attack rolls the 1st being a weapon attack and the 2nd being An Athletics role for grapple at -5.
well... I think that specifically you can do with two different actions with attack trait. With exactly this result.
@Mirekluk an athletics role to grapple does have the attack trait. I simply spelled out the multiple attack penalty to demonstrate why the feat would still be worth it. [Turning two rolls that must be passed (including one with a penalty) into one penalty free roll.]
Love the reminder of Hazards, especially using runes. Reminds me of OOTS "I prepared explosive Ru-"
I use Hero Points for rule-of-cooling purposes. Player wants to do something usually locked behind a feat? If it sounds cool enough he can use a Hero Point to just do it, no extra roll needed. Everyone's happy with it and they use points way more often instead of clinging onto them for the free death saves.
I think Brennan Lee Mulligan has my favourite description of how he runs his games for the last mistake on this list. to sort of paraphrase he says that he tries to never say no to his players, he will usually say yes and then if it's not SUPPOSED to work, he'll throw in a stipulation. There are certainly times when you just have to say "no I'm not gonna let you roll for that" or what have you, but when a player comes up with something that is actually feasible, just find a way to say yes.
Only idiot monsters will attack three times. But that's a statement, too. One time I had a fresh created vampire boy. (The party failed to rescued him) He was raged by hunger, so all in the attacks was feeling right.
Every single one of my encounters from now on is going to have a necromancer pulling the strings so I don't have to worry about being too smart.
That's the big-brain play. If you just write out a massive backstory behind simple encounters, you don't have to worry about thinking too hard.........wait...
@@Nonat1s No no, just like, why are these bears so good at combat maneuvers? Necromancer. Is this giant worm really smart enough to hit and run like that? Necromancer. Why are those monkeys fighting like a Spartan phalanx? Nec. Ro. Mancer.
"Wolves would not flank."
That's literally how wolves hunt in the wild. Pack attack is meant as an *additional* bonus for when more than two are able to surround a creature, to represent the fact that wolf packs generally hunt by surrounding their prey.
As for fighting four wolves as level 1 characters, that's more about a GM not paying attention to how encounters work. Four level 1 creatures against a party of 4 level 1 characters is an Extreme encounter, literally the maximum difficulty you're supposed to ever use. If you're throwing that at your party, it's *supposed* to be an incredibly deadly fight. If you don't want a high chance of somebody dying, don't throw an Extreme encounter at a first level party.
Just watched the player video super helpful. Now I am watching the GM video, excited to start playing Pathfinder 2nd edition.
You get a like and a sub because I just realized I let my players go through every door on the first floor of the gauntlight without perception checks. Time to look up how hazards work!
“These kids these days!” (Putting on my grandpa voice!)
Back in the 80’s, there weren’t rules for ANYTHING (or Skill bonuses, for that matter!)
It was always just:
Player: “I wanna do THIS!”
GM: (shrugs) “Roll a d20!”
Had a GM who controlled some stuffed dogs being controlled by their ghosts. In one turn I was put in prone, the GM moved the dogs so they can flake my character, and knocked him out of combat with two hits. Mind you, we had no healer. Yeah it was a bit unfair but we got past it. Then when we tried to use our brains to "cheese" (The GM put it that way) the encounter he seemed upset that we made it unfair for the monsters. This was the first encounter as we were level 1 too.
I found out that sometimes the GMs don't like it when players use the tools the game gives the player for the encounters.
On rule 5, in a PF1e game, my Drow Sorcerer had to do a bit of sneaking, and he cast the cantrip Penumbra, which RAW has no effect on any stealth-based checks, however the DM liked the idea and behind the scenes gave me a +1 or +2 modifier for thinking on my feet, it sounded cool, or he thought it would/should actually do something
Generally when it comes to the "rule of cool" as in abusing it to get around feats. If it is something I know is behind a feat. I say absolutely yeah, the character is just not trained enough to get the necessary mechanical benefit but absolutely useful for the flavor. If I know the feat really well and I can think of a way off the top of my head I may give them the capability but either make additional requirements to pull it off or they receive a "lessened" benefit.
This is also one of the reason why I love the Cortex Prime RPG system the whole thing is about rule of cool, and players are incentivized heavily for thinking outside of the box. It is a *very* different type of game, much more narrative than "simulation". It falls somewhere between Fate and Savage Worlds in terms of crunch vs narrative.
Plenty of good advice for any system in here. I'll probably give this another listen before I run my Wrath & Glory game this week.
7:45 Yes they very much would. Going for the back of your legs is exactly how wolves fight.
As far as flanking goes, the idea of 'surrounding your opponent' isn't one that requires a particular tactical acumen.
The first and last part got me. Great vid! Thanks for reminding me about these things. Sometimes you just loose track of them - that's for being human. Keep it up 💜
Everyone's human! There will never be a session of a game without at least one mistake. The important part is just that you learn from them!
@@Nonat1s thank you ☺️. Another note: also having fun 🧡
Regarding the third point I agree that a pack of wolves manoeuvring to flank is maybe unbalanced for an encounter difficulty as their rule design already incorporate a bonus to represent their pack hunting behaviour, but on the other hand it wouldn't be immersion breaking as the tactically intelligent mindless undead horde because it's exactly what wolves would do: using number and mobility to harass their prey.
My only problem with the last one is what happens when your player that got to do something cool that should have been locked behind a feat ends up finding the feat that would have let them do it. Do they take the feat so they can do it again or do they ignore the feat since you let them do it without it before and should let them do it again for consistency?
I'll always say it this way. If they do it without the feat, it will be more difficult. If they have the feat, then it will be far easier.
Im new to Pathfinder 2e and I make these mistakes. I have to catch myself when doing this. Great Video
I am ruined... I can no longer hear common without thinking of comon
My GM: "It looks like none of the vendors have the crafting skill."
Me: "If only there was someone wise, and gracious enough, with the power to teach them...."
Another great video as always!!