Its really the thing about magic really you can kind of define it however you want cause it lies almost entirely in the fantasy realm. If you want magic to only work on tuesdays hey It might sound weird but magic is suppose to be weird and occult and hard to understand.
Well that's all true but there are limits. When you are continuing a setting into a new version and say all the old lore works, then what you've defined for magic has already been defined. It's hard to say both 'it's magic so it doesn't have to make sense' and 'nothing changes in setting info so you can use your old knowledge and use your old books.'. Fantasy should have an internal consistency even if it hinges on the nonsensical.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Charisma for Resonance is equally nonsensical, but it's consistent with the past, and helps to balance out a stat that is otherwise mechanically weak for most classes.
I think you might have missed the start of this: someone said it MADE sense if you thought of it as tolerance and I disagreed. That's what the debate is/was. Then someone else tried to have it make sense by linking it to something in the past. THAT IMO at least has a slight link to the past but is IMO isn't greatly more sensical.
Meh, the old UMD was Charisma-based too. No different really.
For me, this doesn't track as the skill was how to NOT use items as they were meant which is exactly the opposite of resonance [how many items you can use as they are meant].
How about magical encumbrance, rather than tolerance? You wouldn't use Constitution for your mundane carrying capacity, nor Wisdom for magical capacity.
I'd say wisdom for mental fortitude/endurance. Charisma is force of personality not strength of will. I'd say Intelligence would have a better link to mental 'strength' than charisma.
Even if I could find an explanation for resonance that seemed to make sense, I doubt I could find one that also makes the least bit of sense attached to one use/charged items.
So charisma makes as much sense as anything to me.
I can agree if it's your own innate magic powering items: IMO, that at least has thematic links.
I think having a characters will save be based on wisdom or charisma has at least a decent logic behind it.
Charisma to saves is something you have to go out of your way to gain: you need something special. So, IMO, it doesn't have the save tradition and logic as it wasn't something every single living creature could do, unlike resonance.
PS: In od&d, ego was it's own score and it + brains were used vs intelligent items. 1e, it was the personality strength of a character = int + cha + level vs ego based on every mental stat, abilities, powers and plusses. in 3.5 was similar to 1e but vs a will save so it's used to set the attack DC, not a save. Pathfinder removed stats from the score completely. So Cha really isn't a standout here.
You can say that but it doesn't make any sense to me. Wisdom and intelligence are also "associated with magical aptitude" and only one is "cosmically associated" with mental fortitude: wisdom. If a spell takes a 'toll on mind/spirit', I don't expect charisma to help with the saving throw.
Flip it to Tolerance.
I know for myself, tolerance doesn't make better sense. If it's a 'toll on mind/spirit', I'd expect wisdom to help but it doesn't: how charming you are does... So I sweet talk the items into being less of a toll? Delude myself into ignoring the toll? I'm just not getting a satisfying connection between Charisma and tolerance.
Meanwhile, raising your Proficiency is a direct investment of a skill point which cannot be used for anything else.
It's a matter of perspective on what you think advancing the skill means. If you think of it as raising it's rank, that's no longer a thing as they all are raised the same. If you think of it as total modifiers, then proficiency counts.
Myself, I don't really have a dog in this fight yet: I'm leaning towards not liking it but it's got enough moving parts that I want to see the whole thing first. I can just understand where John Lynch is coming from.
'Some?' I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that PF1 has serious issues. The disagreements are in how well PF2 solves each person's particular problems.
I'm not going to talk in absolutes. There are always statistical anomalies and I'm sure I could find someone that had no major issues with pathfinder.
But yeah, PF2 not being to your specific tastes sucks. It's inevitable that it will happen to somebody because people have very different tastes in games, but it still really sucks.
it's a little more complicated than that. Since they started from whole cloth, there is plenty of room for both aspects to match your preference and some that don't. Even when something isn't bad, it can be annoying when it seems like it's trying to reinvent the wheel and you think the old wheel worked fine: change for change sake, like 'emoji' instead of letters, numbers or words...
This isn't my experience at all.
I think this boils down our difference in perspective. Maybe it's my playing almost exclusively online and you playing another way? Whatever the case, I don't think any amount of back and forth is going to get us on the same page.
For me it just seems to be something like bulk that adds a layer of extra complexity to fix something I never saw as an issue/problem. IMO, it's a fine optional rule for those that want/need that kind of rule. You feel different and that's fine.
"sigh" Always got to be in the middle of the battle. smh >.>
I'm opinionated and like what I like and hate what I hate. There are things I've liked [the majority of bards and rangers for instance] and things I don't [resonance, bulk, alignment still a thing, ect].
For most things I really don't have to try them to know my feelings on them. Take burn for instance. I hated it when I heard about it. I hated it when I read how it worked. I hated it when I tried it out. For me, it's rare to make a 180: I'll try out these things I dislike but I don't expect that to change my mind.
I strongly disagree and think this will be enormously helpful to many, if not most, GMs.
I noted that it might be useful to some: it's why I said it'd make a fine optional rule. I just don't think as a universal rule it's needed.
You will absolutely get people saying 'this is in the book so I get to have it' and having straightforward rules to shut them down is convenient and avoids argument and unpleasantness.
People that argue with the DM are going to do so no matter is there is a 'rule' or not. I don't see how this 'shuts them down' as that hasn't been my experience. Listing campaign restrictions for a game doesn't prevent those kind of people so why would rarity?
Additionally, and at least as importantly, some GMs, especially new ones, don't feel comfortable laying down the law like this, or may not even realize on an emotional level that they can, and having the rules back them up gives them a lot of help in realizing that they can and in some cases should do this.
That's like the pathfinder saying 'ask your DM' type options in pathfinder somehow fixed these issues. I don't think they did.
Having a language to talk about what things are restricted and how much is also immensely useful for calibrating expectations about both the game and the world.
I can see that. What I don't see is the advantage of noting said language for each and every item/feat/class/spell/ect in the game. Saying 'some things might be restricted by rarity' does that without being burdensome.
'The Inner Sea' is a setting, and one with pretty consistent rarity within it. In 90% or more of games set there I suspect that rarity will not shift at all, ever.
This flies in the face of comments like "Characters from a given region, ethnicity, religion, or other group in your world might gain access to uncommon options associated with it." If katana's and bladed scarves have the same rarity no matter where you come from, that's a detriment and bug not a feature and a boon.
If the rules say anyone can get Cool Thing #4 via Craft Wondrous Item or just adding the spell when you level (and in PF1 they mostly say precisely this), then giving it out as a reward feels pretty lackluster.
This requires a binary option at most. You can get it or not: so unique or not. Rare and uncommon aren't needed.
Given that it's often most useful in order to shut down entitled players and by new GMs who are still feeling out the system I strongly disagree.
I still disagree that this turn entitled players into compliant ones. Or changes doormat DM into empowered ones. If the player doesn't respect the DM, they aren't going to respect him with a rule that has inherent DM fiat built in. With the blog saying rating can vary, it puts the ball BACK in the DM's court making it as optional as if it's an official rule. The entitled player just goes from 'I should have it' to 'I should have it because I come from here and the rarity should be lower'.
Because you didn't say 'I want skills to work like PF1'? You said you want to choose which ones advance. Which is a thing that does exist in PF2.
That's not really true. All skills advance no matter what you want. Now you can advance the skills modifier, but that's not the same thing: it's like saying you advanced your diplomacy in pathfinder classic by taking a trait that gives a +1 bonus; you've improved the numbers but the skill hasn't been advanced.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Sounds like you just really love 1e. What exactly is the problem with that?
Some acknowledge that pathfinder had issues that could have used a rework: as such, a much more satisfying outcome for them is fixing the problems instead of throwing out the bad AND good and starting from scratch.
Artificial 20 wrote:
The answers have been provided. Some may not like the answers, or think this system will fail to achieve the goals it sets, but the question of intent "what purpose is it meant to serve?" was answered before asking.
For me, I read the reasons, scratched my head and can't see how they really do what they say in a meaningful useful way. SO I see "what purpose is it meant to serve?" as asking are there ways it DOES "achieve the goals it sets". When the stated problems solved aren't issues in your point of view, then they aren't really fixing anything to you.
In essence, does this meaningfully add something for people that have no issues now with worldbuilding, cognitive overload or making rewards special?
Really. I have to agree with Crayon: it seems like one of those 'solutions in search of a problem'. Lets look over those "many uses and benefits of mechanic".
Worldbuilding and Emulating Genres: More granulation than really needed. If you don't like/want gunslingers you don't need ANY of the ratings: they just don't exist. Spells you don't want players to have... is uncommon rare what you want? No. Healing items hard to find? Just limit what can be found. It's something that is easily done without an artificial rating system.
Mechanical Diversity without Cognitive Overload: For me, there is MORE Cognitive Overload in the shifting rarities of items over the game world than there ever would be with having every option because NOW you have every option but then add to them a variable rarity rating that shifts. So it's NOT just a wand of healing but a wand of healing from location x and location x means that it's a wand of healing rarity a while in area y it's a wand of healing b and someplace else it might be wand of healing c... SO in an effort to reduce overload you've cut the numbers then turn around and multiply to get numbers bigger than you started with.
Awesome Rewards: IMO, this makes little sense: much like the gunslingers I talked about above, if you want something special, just make it that way: there is no reason you need a label to make it so. [like they did with rare cantrips]
I can see a player who never GMs not seeing any benefit and how it is just going to get in the way - it is, in many respects, a GM campaign management tool. There aren't many benefits outside of that.
If this was presented as an optional DM tool, I'd be ll for it. If someone finds a benefit of using it, more power to them. I'm not seeing it as useful as an 'everyone has to use it' rule.
'Default' and 'Always' are not synonyms.
Did you miss what I said? "every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to". If they have a reason not to, then they don't. My issue is with having to come up with a reason to not use the default.
It's about to become a big problem because so many monsters will have weakness or resistance to different damage types. Establishing a default eliminates "I mean to do that" or "uh, why do you ask?" games between the GM and PC when it's relevant. Use your knowledge skills, take initiative to understand this mechanic and declare a default, or the book gives you a default.
I'm not sure how this solves backpedaling. And I'm not sure how asking for how you attack for THIS session informs as to which encounter there might be a weakness/resistance. You can show your hand if you only ask for one encounter, so don't do it for a single encounter.
I've certainly encountered it.
Cool. I assumed someone had but I just can't recall it ever being a thing.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. How does a enforced default alter this? What does 'versatile' enable that 'or' prevents? And again, you don't have to ask how the weapon is used RIGHT before the encounter that it matters in. There is no need to telegraph your moves as a DM to know that. Heck, you have to mark dents and such so how tough would it be to also have a checkbox for default damage type if a default is required?
This assumes that the default is always used by NPCs.
If it isn't the default then it isn't a default by definition. If how people attack with it isn't set in stone, then the point of the weapon trait is meaningless.
What I love about your PF2 criticisms, graystone, is the way you unfailingly zero in on the most important issues.
LOL Everyone is bothered by different things. If you want, I can rail some more on bulk, or resonance or alignment or...
which were historically stabbing weapons BTW
Not accurate unless every pathfinder dagger is a stiletto or a roundel dagger. For instance, a corvo, cinquedea, fascine knife or seax are all examples of knives/daggers what where traditionally used to slash more than stab.
Ahh yes, the age old 1000 commoner stab-fest dilemma. A philosopher's nightmare.
I'll admit, it's more an issue that pokes at my brain vs a balance one but it still irks me. Again, was it an issue that needed codification? Was it a widespread issue?
This is my thought pretty much. IMO, versatile just pads the letter/trait count without much usefulness to show for it.
You can always declare that you're slashing regardless of knowing whether it's a good choice.
No... you just have to declare it.
This is NO where close to my point guys. What I'm saying is that if you hand an NPC commoner a dagger, they will ALWAYS stab with it if they need to attack something: Now multiply that by a thousand. 1000 commoners that have never met each other will all independently pick up and use the dagger the exact same way even though there is a second equally viable way to attack. So as I said, every creature in the entire universe MUST stab with a dagger unless you give them a reason not to and I find that extremely odd.
What was the default if the player didn't announce a choice, the GM didn't ask (to avoid tipping him off), and the difference mattered?
It's not terribly hard: ask for a default well before an encounter and/or ask the characters to describe their attacks. It should be quite easy to tell stabbing from slashing. I find it a bit disturbing that the hivemind' only allows stabbing as a default, as everyone thinks 'stab' when they pick up that kind of weapon.
I have to admit, I've NEVER run into an issue with default damage types in my many years of play. Was this a big issue for some people?
Cantriped: Hurlbat, Flindbar, Chain spear, Shoanti bolas and 36 firearms/explosives.
As Xenocrat notes, it does also clearly establish which damage type is the default if you do not specialize.
I'm not sure that I like that everyone in the universe defaults to stabbing vs slashing with a dagger... So in a knife fight, no one thinks to slash unless they roll a check to find out stabbing isn't the best kind of attack? Odd...
That's what the OR was for vs an AND in pathfinder classic.
Bards started in original d&d, in The Strategic Review - Volume 2, Number 1. They treated 1/2 their levels as thieves and could cast up to 7th level magic user spells.
First World Bard wrote:
We've been told that you don't really need the casting stat to make an effective character so what options does the dwarf polymath with limited Cha have? You can't make the assumption that the class will have more or less Resonance. I don't see Resonance as the universal cure-all to fix any problem when I don't even know if I'll have enough to use the items I want or need.
Depends on the timeframe really and quality: We could get the 'shifter' of options right before pathfinder 3 comes out... If they make these type of options, I'd want them out sooner rather than later.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I fear it will end like in PF1: "spontaneous spellcaster have too few know spells, let's add a feat to get more"; ".... let's add a magic item to know more spells"; "... let's add a class option to add spells know" and after a time the spontaneous spellcaster will have so many options that the limitation disappear.
If I have a worry about this, I'm more worried that they might NOT add those things.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Oh. They can replace every component with an instrument? If we get any weapon that can be used as an instrument [or vice versa] that'll be pretty sweet. A mace maraca? A new version of a totem spear?
If you want to run a character that is so far out of he bounds of the average character in a given campaign that they would want to have 3+ uncommon options then I think it is reasonable that such a build requires a discussion with the GM.
I think my point got missed.
#1 'out of bounds' is about as arbitrary as you can be. Two wildly different uncommon options might be more 'out of bounds' than 4 that have a thematic link.
So, from my perspective, a hard limit of '2 uncommon or we go over everything with a fine tooth comb' isn't ideal.
Mark Seifter wrote:
There is one very neat skill trick the polymath can eventually take that might make the rogue a bit jealous in the situations where it comes up (the rogue can actually be better in some ways at that niche even then by spending tons of skill feats but probably wouldn't do that, and the polymath spends way less) . Meanwhile, in many other skillsy situations, the polymath is jealous of the rogue's faster proficiency rank and skill feat advancement...but of course, he also spells!
Hmmm... Now I wonder what a rogue/polymath bard would look like. Is he a bit jealous of himself? ;)
Mark Seifter wrote:
The part that is fairly accurate is "Rare stuff seems to require explicit interaction with the GM, rather than being something you can do on your own as part of a general rule." If you found those notes, then that would be a different story. But even if not, if you have explicit interaction with the GM who thumbs up the research of the rare spell, you can make it on your own. Maybe it requires some weird rare research that will lead to a cool adventure? (and maybe it's just rote Arcana and done, depends on the way you want to play it out!)
I was wondering/worrying how the base rules present it. Every spell research would "require explicit interaction with the GM" by default: I expect a new 'common' type cantrip to require it. As long as there isn't a 'rare spells require x' over non-rare spells, I'm good. If it's a DM call and it starts at the "rote Arcana and done" for all spells, then I have no complaints.
Myself, I wouldn't like it. If you have elements in your background that make sense, it shouldn't matter is they are uncommon or not: this is especially true if multiple uncommon things link to the same thing: If I'm part tian or drow, it seems pretty arbitrary that 1 or 2 things linked to that are ok but 3 or 4 are out of bounds.
For me, if the uncommon/rare are in the door and allowed, why limit it. It seems off to allow a merfolk for instance then have an issue if they want 2 merfolk items too.
Ok, this ranks up with the ranger preview. Two thumbs up.
My only minor complaint is that some of the text is worded in a way that's confusing: The quicken [no capitalization or italization] and the bit about "high-difficulty DC of a level equal to the highest-level target of your composition". One just blends in while the other reads like top grade legalese.
PS: I may have to blow off the dust from my didgeridoo, ocarina and rhombus for a new bard. ;)
How exactly does the system prevent this?
I was referring to this:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The implications seems to be that you can't get the idea on your own unless you come across someone else's idea first. I'm all for the way you suggested but it doesn't seem to be the way it's presented. If you in fact CAN do research on a spell without prior in game knowledge, I'll retract this.
For me this rule seems like the perfect thing for PF2 unchained... :P
For me, this seems like it'll just lead to a long list of 'mother may I' moments.
Like if you had no experience with Rise of the Runelords, there's no way you would know that Blood Money was not supposed to be a generally available spell, particularly if you found it by reading spell lists on some SRD somewhere.
IMO, wouldn't it be much easier to instead of marking EVERY item/spell in the game to instead note that spells/items like Blood Money are rare? They made a similar note for the 'lost' cantrips and the online sites note that.
This is listed in both d20 and nethys:
So is this going to reduce the number of Paladins who were abandoned in the woods and the number of Maguses who summered in Minata looking for spells?
So now they have to work their background to include those elements? Doesn't seem like a real limitation unless location doesn't change rarity.
I would expect the tag to be something like Mwangi: Common, elsewhere Uncommon.
I have to wonder is the rarity listing isn't going to be longer than the descriptions. IE :common in x, w, z. Uncommon in a, b, c, d and rare in r, t and q...
Just and example NPC wizard level 5 had a rare version of lightning bolt spell they came up with, let's say it works like the from times of old that bounced of things. Now we have a PC wizard level 20, he decides to research such a spell, nope can't do it.
There are instances of multiple discovery/simultaneous invention/Independent invention [whichever phrase you like]. The system prevents this for some reason. I guess no one can come up with idea anyone else has ever had...
I like this, but I want to know what sorcerers have to do to add an uncommon spell to their spells known. Hear about it? See someone cast it? Please don't say "be taught it."
Of course he has to find it in that ancient ruin and study the scroll/book because, you know, it's an innate ability. ;)
Myself I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think it might end up being a bit arbitrary, especially if you aren't following the 'built in fluff'. Even gaming out of the box a little seems like it'd cause the categories to shift wildly.
If it's a normal familiar, and not an improved one, it's "a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type." I don't think the dev's ruling on behavior falls under 'effects'. Also not sure how a koala gets hands. They fall under QUADRUPED (CLAWS) and those don't list "can grasp objects".
PS: I think we're wandering pretty far from the blog with this. ;)
I like Bulk, I have a much easier time estimating bulk for random objects without a stat block than I do weight, since I get bogged down thinking about density.
Myself, I have a FAR easier time with weight: A simple web search gives a weight of even the most esoteric items. For instance, in a second I found out an average beef carcass weighs about 600 pounds and a side usually weighs slightly over 300 lbs. An Antique Chinese Mah Jong set 7 pounds. A human skeleton [desiccated] around 11.
I understand you'd like to go back to weight.
I don't mind them adding bulk, I just don't want it to replace it. [much like some systems list both meter and feet or pounds and kilograms].
Me, I'd prefer neither, if that were possible!
*shrug* There should be something for those that want to track it: it's up there with rations and water as things some don't worry tracking.
I don't like keeping track of encumbrance, it's too boring for me.
I don't mind tracking: I don't find it exciting but I generally doesn't take long enough to be a drag. For me I want weight for visualizing what the item is like. IMO pounds are simple: I know how much a flour bag [5 and 10 pounds] feels like in heft. I know the same with a 50 pound bag of sand, 40 pound of salt, 30 pound bag of cat food, 25 pound bag of rice, ect. Bulk? My best bet is to convert it into a range of weights which is... unsatisfying. 'So this is 50-100 pounds? That's a big difference in how easy it is to move.'
Chest Rockwell wrote:
At least monkey knife-fights are within the realm of realism.
LOL That was kind of my point, as something possible but not allowed. The dev's have said animals use their natural weapons even if you give them proficiencies. Hence my sadness over no 'biker' monkey.
From the Dev's: "An intelligent gorilla could hold or wield a sword, but its inclination is to make slam attacks. No amount of training (including weapon proficiency feats) is going to make it fully comfortable attacking in any other way." From their point of view, no matter how smart they are or how much better the weapon is to their own attack, they will always default to the natural attack.
But it's not weight. It's *bulk*. The weight of the item is one factor. If we wanted to know the weight, we could go on using the standard encumbrance rules, but Bulk takes into consideration the perceived *bulk* of items. Which is also how large and unwieldy it is.
That's the theory but it doesn't follow even in the pre-playtest: a light shield and a smokestick do NOT have even close to the same bulk and unwieldiness by any realistic metric. There is no method for changing weight to bulk as there is no metric for 'unwieldiness'. SO if I bring an item from pathfinder classic into the new game, I'm basically just guessing at bulk.
I think weights might be in some items' descriptions both in the gear section of the rules and in an adventure's notes, plus in the actual bulk section probably, telling you the weight of some common benchmarks... but I wouldn't bet that every item will have a definite stated weight - that's not what this set of rules is about.
Myself, I'd prefer EVERYTHING list a weight even if it's just in a quick listing in the back of the book in microscopic print. Or, heck, even in a FAQ, supplemental PDF, blog, ect. Bulk may be 'what the game is about', but it really doesn't do it for me.
I noticed the bolded, I just disagree as there is a variance of 50% for bulk and 81.25% for light. It seems misleading to not mention that. Your 'around' is my 'varies wildly'.
Maybe. A set amount would be nice but seems unlikely. A "light wooden shield", a smokestick and a elixir are all light. If we use pathfinder classics weights, that's .5 pounds to 5 pounds.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Not even there. The 'man' has said you can't train animals to use weapons. So even if you have #1 a boat in international waters #2 a pair of drunk monkeys and #3 several knives you still can't have monkey knife fight.
I have long wanted a monkey animal companion wearing a leather jacket and weilding a switchblade. ;)
It means "39 lbs. worth of encumbrance". 1 bulk is about 10 lbs; and 1 light is about 1 lb.
If the system works like starfinder, then that's not quite right: the weight is actually a variable number. Bulk = 5-10 pounds while light are 'a few ounces'.
That makes “3 bulk, 9 light” anywhere from 16 pounds 2 ounces to 31 pounds 2 ounces[assuming 'few is 3].
On to the sheet... What reason could there be for a power that uses spell points to have a rarity?
EDIT: also, after only seeing one caster sheet I'm already tired of seeing the word Casting... Add that to my still not being sure I see any benefit to those symbols over a simple and I'm mystified why the layout doesn't read 'Casting  somatic, verbal' instead of 'casting [funky chevron/diamond thing] somatic casting [funky chevron/diamond thing] verbal casting'.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Are you saying that you have hunted boar with a spear?
Heck NO. I personally don't find hunting enjoyable and I prefer not to be in close range of angry and wounded animals... :P
That said, I like weapons and know how to use/wield quite a few. I've gotten to use both a modern and an older type boar spear. A friend of a friend hunts boars with a spear and hog dogs and I got to try out his spears.
The closest I ever came to hunting with a spear was gigging fish when I was quite young.
My point was that a simple to read character sheet doesn't mean that the behind the scenes work to make it is also simple or that every character made will be as easy to use: It may be, but the sheets aren't going to give us enough info to say one way or the other.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
For me I can't really put much stock in the pregens: we don't see what it takes to get to those sheets behind the scenes and they likely picked abilities that are the easiest for them. I doubt they pick the most complex things for them.
It's not hard to make just about any 1st level class look easy if you try. It'll take getting in there and playing around with the options to see.
Captain Morgan: "it is confusing", this seems like a valid complaint for the preview posts. It might not be in play but causing confusion now is something to be concerned with.
I'm pretty sure they went bite because it makes the most sense with the Temp HP
*shrug* vampiric touch drains hps fine without biting anyone, plus rage just hands them out, so I'm not sure biting makes more contextual sense.
I think the thing i like most potentially is that a sorcerer with a celestial bloodline will get some divine action.
Some hot, sexy divine action? You have my attention! ;)
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
I wasn't saying the favored enemy changed in 3.5
They did. 3.0 was MUCH easier to work with: 2 required a specific creature from your terrain: so say bronze dragons vs 3.0's entire dragon type. It was a substantial upgrade.
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
3.0 had that thing where if you took one level of ranger you automatically gained all the two weapon feats
Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting. Yep, 3.5 changed that to 2nd level for Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting. 3.5 fixed alot of 3.0's issues.
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
1 level of bard would give you all the performances too.
True, but uses was level based so that's 1 use per day.
When someone does something against the rules, we've been asked to flag and move on. It would have been one thing if it was a warning in the hour window for editing: that would allow for a change and the moderator might not have to do anything. At the point you posted, a moderator would already have to do something and in doing so, would say the same thing you did. it just adds more background noise to the thread.
To be honest, I only posted myself because I though it wasn't the profanity filter. Since I did mistakenly think that and post, I'm passing on what has been posted before about policing the threads. I've got nothing against you or the dev's. *sigh* I really meant to not post anymore on this but I don't want it to seem like i have an agenda or anything.