Mark Seifter wrote:
Let me guess, it will likely be like SF where it's practically useless unless you want something customized or need to make something that you can't get at the moment?
Out of combat and in an abstract sense the tier of the computer determines how powerful it is. Last session one of the people in my group had an argument with the GM because the GM said that the basic comm unit, something analogous to a modern tablet with vid-com capabilities, didn't have a forward-facing camera to take some pictures for data preservation because it was tier 0.
You. I like you.
While the devs can say that "theorycrafting takes a backseat to in-game data" all they like, a group of several hundred players doing number-crunching is much more likely to find errors in the system's basic math than the roughly dozen people they have working on this book, assuming everyone is devoted to the crunchy number bits. Sure, you're going to get people who are going to use theorycrafting to try and say a class is over-or-underpowered, but that's a good chance for someone like Mark Seifter to pop up and explain a class's math and why the previous claim is either correct or incorrect.
Shar Tahl wrote:
1. Shirren-eye rifles are sniper rifles and require the Sniper Weapon Proficiency feat to not take the -4 penalty for nonproficiency. Sniper rifles are not longarms in this setting.
2. The Special Weapon Proficiency feat literally states that you select one type of weapon with this and only gain proficiency with that type, although you gain proficiency with different models of the same weapon. It's basically exactly like Exotic Weapon Proficiency from Pathfinder.
Are there any plans to make printable errata? It would be nice to have printable errata to stick in my hard copies.
Errata is usually released in three forms: A separate PDF that you can print at your leisure, an updated version of the book's PDF with the errata incorporated, and a reprint of the physical book with the errata incorporated.
The trouble is, the physical book selling out is required for a reprint. I believe the SF core rulebook already sold out once and is on its second printing with no errata, so who knows how long a third printing will take.
Yes, technically. It's basically the resource document for PFS; if it's up there, you don't need to bring a book for it.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Batman is at the youngest in his late 30s, if not early 40s. Dick Grayson and Jason Todd are both in their early-mid 20s.
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.
Hey, I'd love to do away with "studded leather", rename it "brigandine", and make it obvious that the metal plates are the main protective component and not the leather. :v
The other ones really are kind of pedantic, especially the dagger one; what, did you want the dagger to be 2d6, x4 crit just because people used to finish others off with it?
Yeah, it sounds like they're trying to enforce simplicity by saying "No magic item healing after a certain times per day." I hope that this gets absolutely shredded in the playtest, because I don't want to see a repeat of SF's "You can only have so many magic items on you at a time" deal.
If anything, likely Evocation, 5e style. Raise Dead and that line of spells should be Necromancy, though.
2 & 3: No. Nononononononono.
We're not going back to the days where you couldn't multiclass out of monk and paladin. They got rid of those rules in 3.5 by the end anyway, once you took a feat you could multiclass out of paladin into specific other classes.
The "one chance" thing is a flavor thing; it literally only matters for 1st level characters since there are no multiclassing paladins in your theoretical campaign.
Do all of this in your home games if you like. Don't make it canon.
I know what you meant. In any setting like this, there will always be times where the devs will say, "We're professionals, we know better than you, this isn't a problem" and lo and behold it's actually kind of a problem later on.
Then again, a fair amount of devs who worked on the original Pathfinder beta don't work for the company anymore.
Honestly, if there's another thing that I'd like Paizo to take notes on from 5e, it's "Use errata as clarifications/fixes, not balance passes." I get that PFS is a thing, but please, PF2e should let the practice of nerfing things into the ground for no reason die, especially when errata itself is so rare because of the book reprint requirement.
Really, I just hope that this isn't Pathfinder: Starfinder Edition and that the devs actually take note of complaints in the playtest, as long as those complaints are conveyed respectfully and positively.
The last playtest we had, toxicity aside, we had devs basically tell us, "We don't need you to crunch numbers for us, we don't need armchair devs." Well, considering this is a new system (If it isn't SF-based), that's exactly what's going to happen. A few thousand of us fans crunching numbers compared to a few dozen devs is liable to catch something someone missed.
Mark Seifter wrote:
See, I knew that math degree would count for more than being an SF guy. ;)
I guess saying "Pay the full cost + 10% extra" would have been too much wordage.
I only saw one major thread for this about five months ago, so I figure I'd give this a shot once the dust had settled for the Core Rulebook being out.
The rulebook states:
A personal comm unit is pocket-sized device that combines a minor portable computer (treat as a tier-0 computer with no upgrades or modules) and a cellular communication device, allowing wireless communication with other comm units in both audio- and text-based formats at planetary range (see page 272). A personal comm unit also includes a calculator, a flashlight (increases the light level one step in a 15-foot cone), and several entertainment options (including games and access to any local infospheres). You can upgrade a personal comm unit to function as some other devices (such as full computers and scanners) by spending credits equal to 110% of the additional device’s price.
Now, normally, upgrading your computer makes the thing bulky and hard to transport, but doesn't cost anything more than what the table for tier costs says it does.
To upgrade a comm unit however, you have to pay over double the cost of the tier AND presumably it still makes your comm unit bigger so you basically have to pay for the miniaturization upgrade to transport it anywhere? Is there a reason for price hike?
Also, are upgrades subject to the 110% umbrella?