GreyMagus's page

What I don't like about Pathfinder as opposed to D&D 3.5 is that the Concentration skill is now a spellcaster ability. While I agree that it lessens the number of skills that one has to build, the problem is that if you're a multi-classed character with two spellcasting classes the concentration ability bonus doesn't stack. If I'm 15th level and 6 of those levels are Sorcerer, 5 are Cleric, and 4 are Mystic Theurge, then I see no reason why they shouldn't stack and make my Concentration checks at 15th level instead of 10 and 9 depending on which class the spell belongs to. Of course, it's even worse if you're not a Mystic Theurge.

Michael

Wait, why is it M/DF if it's not a spell a divine caster can learn?

Divine spellcasters can learn it. It's part of the Air domain.

M/DF means Material/Divine Focus. In other words, when a cleric casts it, he can use his holy symbol instead of the material component.

Michael

Although I have yet to see the latest version, I really appreciate the one you sent me, GreyMagus. The only two problems I had with the form-filling version are that the text is often very small and thus hard to read, and the "kerning" of your font (or more properly, your typeface) tends to "squeeze" the letters too close together, so that, under Alignment, for example, CN looks more like a dipthong, O combined with N. If you can adjust the kerning a bit wider, you'll probably solve that problem!

Remember to zoom in a bit on Acrobat. Acrobat tends to default to something below 100% when you open files. If you zoom in to 100%, it will not look like that. In any case, there should be sufficient room to type in "Chaotic Neutral" instead of CN. I tested all the variations on alignment in the block and they all fit. I've since fixed the text size problem in the skills section. They were way too small. In fact, I did that last night. Thanks for 'play-testing' it for me, by the way.

Michael

So me and my wife are going to be playing in a friends game soon and I had the thought of playing a husband and wife duo, fighter and wizard. We are still talking about it but I wanted to see what others thought about this idea.

Not at all a bad idea. Very good actually for a couple to play. My suggestion would be to go for a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard. It's more "portable" and might complement a battle-oriented campaign. Also, there used to be a battle sorcerer concept in D&D 3.0/3.5, which I played for a while. It might work even better. It might strengthen the team idea because you could learn from each other, i.e. a thinking man's fighter and a battle-hardened sorcerer.

Michael

I really like this. I'm going to adapt it as my primary sheet. Great work!

Thank you so much Jeremiziah!

It looks very practical, but it is so busy and uniform that I would find it difficult to quickly retrieve vital information. A little colour and embellishment could go a long way, especially if you don't want to drop any elements of calculation off the sheet.

Personally, I think that the greyscale blocking and bold lines have the effect of clearly delineating the different sections of the form, making it easier to retrieve information. I realize people respond differently to visual cues however. For me, it's was a celebration of monochrome. Besides color would require a color printer and some people are already complaining about toner costs. You really can't please everyone! ;)

Also (and this is a pet peeve of mine), feats always appear on the back page of a character sheet but (especially combat related feats) really ought to be on the same side as attack bonus and other combat info.

I know what you mean. I just don't think anything can be done about it. It's all pretty much jammed in there as it is. I don't think I could move anything else to the front without deleting something else. Mostly, I think people don't refer to their feats as much as skills and etc. They tend to plug in the bonuses related to them and almost forget that they have them.

[edit] despite the harsh criticism, I still prefer it to the default Pathfinder sheet.

Oh, it's not all that harsh. Gamers are often a picky and pedantic lot. Believe me, I'm used to it. And I'm a little bit that way myself, otherwise I wouldn't be spending hours designing and programming character sheets for an RPG! :) I'm probably getting off easy.

Thanks for your kind comments!

Michael

One thing that I would suggest, is assuming that you are looking to make this a form fillable pdf is that you separate the skills into trained only and those that anyone can use.

Personally I'd just assume have all the trained only skills be editable one way or the other. Is it possible to have the .pdf start out as 'partially filled' and then you can remove such as it merits the individual PC?

I think you will be very pleased with the end result in the programming. It does not actually tabulate the trained-only skills until you put at least one rank into it. However, on the skills that can be used untrained, it gives a total regardless of whether you have ranks. I'm rather proud of that bit of savvy programming. Still working on everything though.

Michael

GreyMagus wrote:

Look again. Changes have been made.

When I click it, nothing opens. It just goes to a blank page. Is there a different link?

I'm sorry Drogon. I didn't see this comment at first. No, the link appears to be fine as of a few seconds ago. Try again, and make sure you have the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Michael

Hi GreyMagus

My interest in such a thing? High.
I like the clean look of your sheet. It's pretty heavy on ink though, so I'd probably only use it for PCs (and not the ton of NPCs I stat-up as a GM).
I love the ammunition count beside every weapon block.

Thanks Ketherian! That's my favorite part too. I remember having that idea as a stroke of inspiration. Now, I can't imagine it without that part.

Michael

However, in the Character description, skill, language, campaign, feats, special abilities, treasure, and spells sections, you forgo this professional, outlined look with a very sloppy "white box, no outline" look.

Actually, they're not sloppy at all. They are all exactly the same size except for the Character Name field which is a little larger. Also, I suggest you zoom in a little bit and you will see that each box is underlined with a black line. This is to structurally differentiate between character descriptions, etc. and the ability scores and skills. I resent the word "sloppy". There is nothing sloppy about my work. All of the boxes were precisely sized because they needed to be that way to be form-filled.

First, the point of my statement was that it feels constricting. It feels like you have 8 "cells" in which to put languages. The paizo sheet, on the other hand, has 3 long, open lines. It feels like you can fit more in the paizo sheet's language section with simple commas. On yours, I feel like I have 8 languages, and that's it. No more, no less.

Don't feel that way, it's not true.

And as for the feats/special abilities sections, you again go for the "cell" design, and your "cells" are half as wide as paizo's lines. You might have 22 of them, but that's 22 feats without descriptions (16 special abilities, also without descriptions) compared to 12 lines on the paizo sheet, each twice as wide to allow for descriptions or multiple feats per line. And the special ability section is the same way, you have 16 "cells" whereas paizo placed a whopping 20 double-wide lines for special abilities.

Yes, and you have to understand that all this is meant to be form-filled. I have to structure everything so that it works with and looks good with form fills. I tested this out last night, and you could easily type three languages per line without any problem, and 2-3 abilities or feats per line. I think if you saw it typed out with the form fills you would appreciate the look of it much more.

Look. I don't mean to be an ass here, but I am one. I want this sheet to be the best that it can be, and, as it stands, it isn't. I could nitpick further (like how the HD and Skill Points Per level sections are pointless because people multiclass, or that PF has no synergy skills any more), but right now I'm just trying to point out what I see to be glaring errors.

There is good, though. For instance, the ammunition boxes are a nice touch over each weapon. And, overall, the weapon section is really well done. It's appealing and efficient, even including weight and size. I also like that you put in 3 separate perform sections (as I like to train in many as a bard), and still had room for 4 extra skills at the bottom (though all the blocky white space there is a unappealing).

I also like that you added in a second column for equipment, and your treasure section is well done, adding in the blocks for gems, jewelery, and miscellaneous valuable stuff.

As stated above, I do like it. But there are some major errors that need to be addressed if you really want it to be taken seriously.

I don't think you're being an ass for stating your opinion but I hope you realize that you're stating your opinion as if it were inviolable. There are no "errors" in the sheet and certainly not "major" ones. It just isn't quite the way you want it. There's a difference. I've already taken it very seriously, and I think many other people have. I don't think I need to adjust it for your opinion in order to be taken seriously. I suggest you try to think outside the box and look at the sheet for what it is - a broadly different interpretation on the traditional format, which is, in my opinion, stale.

Thank you for the compliments however. I think the weapons ammunition part is my favorite contribution. You would not use it for every weapon but it's there if needed.

Michael

I like it. It's not great, and needs improvement, but I like it.

Thanks so much, I do so adore faint praise! ;)

1) The grayscale really is unappealing to my eye. I understand that it allows the white sections (where you'll be writing things) to pop, but overall it's not pretty. Also, not necessarily printer-friendly.

If I could pin down any particular reason why I chose greyscale blocking, I would say that it was the antithesis of the standard bland white sheet broken up by thin black print. Also, it was designed to really separate the different sections by playing with reversing the shades back and forth. It's the film noir of character sheets - a subtle harmony of lights and darks.

2) It feels awkward to have CMD be considered "dex-based" when it's not. It's a defense, like AC, and I think it should either be placed with AC or with CMB, not alongside Ranged Attack Bonus.

Perhaps. That was my impression based on my limited experience with the new system. I'm somewhat new to Pathfinder, although I played D&D 3.0/3.5 for years and it's mostly similar to that. I could of course change it, but I feel it would lack something if I did.

3) The Languages, Feats, and Special abilities sections are a little disconcerting. I look at them and feel restrained, like "wow. Only room for 8 languages?"

Very odd that you would say that since I increased the number of lines by more than double over the sheet included with the book. You can also always double up per line, which is presumably what was intended with the original sheet, what with their mere three lines (as opposed to my eight).

Michael

My 2cp here but I like the sheet.. its awesome. Changes aside, we all apreciate your sharing this with us. Just wanted to say that.

Thanks Shoga! That's nice of you to say. I'm actually fine with the changes. That's why I asked for the feedback.

However, it is a tremendous amount of work to move around all the form fills whenever a change is made. And I'm not sure I want to make all my efforts in programming the sheet available if people do not like the basic design. That was the whole point.

Michael

There is a difference between having a character sheet with area's not applicable to the character being played, and having a character sheet with area's that are not applicable to the game the sheet was designed for.

No sense arguing. I'm here to please. Look again. Changes have been made.

In other words, no I will not use this sheet & that is one of the primary reasons why.

Then don't. No need to explain why.

I also personally do not enjoy the block layout of the sheet, & the grayscale shading.

There's no accounting for taste! :)

The ascetic design of the character sheet included in the Pathfinder core rulebook actually looks excellent;

No, it's very bland and looks like it was designed as an afterthought.

Personally, I would much rather have seen an improved version of that sheet.

In my opinion, that's what you got.

As for your knowledge additions, why exactly would you introduce 5 redundant new knowledge skills?

Actually, I didn't. They were introduced by my former GM. His reasoning was that he wanted to make it a little harder to acquire highly specialized knowledge about rare magical creatures and realms because in his world they were much less common than in most other campaigns. His campaign was much less high-magic than most. I was considering still using them, but I've now removed them and created a generic version because I'd rather it not be a sticking point with those that might otherwise want to use the sheet. Previously, I had not expected anyone to be so opposed to it.

Michael

Yeah, I agree that the custom Knowledge skills aren't needed. They are kind of redundant actually, since the skills in the Core cover those areas.

For example, Faerie Lore is covered with Knowledge: Nature.

Dragon Lore is covered by Knowledge: Arcana.

To each his own, but I can't use this sheet.

So you're saying you won't use a sheet that has knowledge skills on it that you don't need? Couldn't you just, say, not use them?

Michael

You may be house-ruling this, but in Pathfinder you do not take a double armor check penalty for Swim checks. :D

Thanks! Actually I had overlooked that one, although it might be a good house rule. I can certainly imagine someone in platemail foundering in water much more than they would struggle with Sleight of Hand. For the time being though, I'm going to take it off.

Any other feedback?

Michael

Ok, here's the non-programmed version. I've removed the Pathfinder logo and replaced it with simple text. The design is an elegant celebration of monochrome! I originally designed the structure of it for Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 but it has been updated for Pathfinder with new design. I have left a few things as before, like some extra Knowledge skills we used in our old campaign and the skill synergy fields which I plan to make a 'house rule' since I think they make a lot of sense. However, any Pathfinder player can simply ignore those boxes if they wish, or use them for something else.

Click the link to download the character sheet: Deluxe Pathfinder Character Sheet

Enjoy!

Michael

Re: what character classes do you find yourself tending to play

I find myself gravitating towards three basic types with variations:

1. The Sorcerer (or Wizard)/Priest character, typically human.
2. The Wizard (or Sorcerer)/Rogue character, usually gnomish.
3. The Sorcerer (or Wizard)/Fighter, usually an elf. I actually prefer the sorcerer concept over wizard for a fighter multi-class. It just seems more portable.

I almost never go for high strength. Depending on the character classes, I'll go for higher Charisma and either Wisdom or Intelligence, and then beef up one of the physical scores, either Con or Dex, depending again on the character concept.

Michael

So long as you comply with the CUP, you should be fine. Essentially, as long as you don't use any Paizo art or reference any Golarion-specific text (no idea why you would do either of these things on a character sheet) you should be okay to share.

The full text of the CUP is found here.

Oops! I painstakingly recreated the Pathfinder logo as a vector graphic in the character sheet, so I guess I can't use that. Oh well, maybe I can leave it blank for the meantime. I'll see if I can take the logo out and then post the sheet.

Michael

Hi Folks,

I'm a graphics designer (and gamer, of course) and I've created my own custom-designed character sheet for Pathfinder. I wanted to share it on here but I wasn't sure what the rules were for that sort of thing.

Is that appropriate or no?

Also, I'm working on a fully Javascript-programmed PDF of the character sheet that automatically tabulates everything for the player - skills, melee and ranged attacks, saving throws, etc.

I just wanted to gauge the level of interest before I went any further.

Michael