Feats of Skill

If calling it Mythic fixes the issue for you, why not simply think of Legendary as Mythic?

Exactly ("...why not make 10 your highest number?"), and it looks like Legendary in PF2 is truly epic, mythic, all of that, barbarians ripping down walls of force, nice.

Cyouni wrote:

BPorter wrote:

The mundane (as in non-magical) effect of leveling up shouldn't facilitate reality-altering effects the way magic does. It's that simple.

And this is why CMD has been a thing for the longest time - because martials can't have cool things or people complain.

...or...

A) don't ramp up casters at the rate they've been ramped up
B) Provide an in-world explanation for why these things are suddenly possible so that if we don't want to play a beer-n-pretzels game where such things are handwaved away there is an explanation beyond "you leveled up".

and the tangential one:

C) those that complain that martials can't have cool things really would be better off playing a straight up four-color superhero RPG instead.

A) Casters are also getting reined in. The two are meeting in the middle.

B) Tons of ways to justify it in narrative have been floated in here. You're pretty much just ignoring all of them.

C) those that complain that martials are now getting cool things would be better off playing a system like 5e, OR simply not playing into the high levels, OR simply not using the Legendary skills per Mark's suggestion.

And if it was possible to do something broken or ridiculous in PF1, that doesn't really address the issue for me because we're talking about a new edition where, presumably, you're looking to fix/address problem areas (like things that don't make any sense).

But I don't consider things like "a fighter can knock boulders out of the air with a flimsy weapon like a whip or a rapier" to actually be a problem. Nor, that a 20th level wizard with 10 strength and 0 combat feats has an even chance to grapple a hippopotamus. I feel these are just cool things that heroes in high fantasy (particularly high level ones) should be able to manage.

If anything, Legendary skills in Pathfinder is just spreading out the awesomeness so you don't have pockets of "incredible feats" someone can do because there are only so many things that support those options. It's less weird when everybody in the party is doing these great heroic acts, rather than just the one person who has the right feat.

How to keep the game grounded in plausibility has not really change- just stop the game before one gets too high of a level. But perhaps a game based on a 1-20 leveling progression in which people at high levels can be over twenty times better at something than they were when they started is not the best place for realism.

BPorter, I highly suggest you take a look at my list of impossible things you can do without magic I made earlier on in this discussion.

Legendary Skill Feats (at least the ones we've seen) are not allowing PCs to do anything more impossible than what can already be done in PF1 without magic.

Now it's perfectly fine to want more realism in your game and to dislike them because of that. But it's simply not true that these legendary skill feats are suddenly making the impossible possible in the setting. The impossible in our world has been possible without magic throughout PF1.

I'm kind of hoping that feats are more powerful than their conterpart spells.

Mostly because a feat is a heavy and permanent investment, where as spells can be swapped out with ease for most casting classes. Need this ability? Wait a little bit and get the spell, and then set it aside and get a different spell when you don't need it anymore.

But for a feat? Levels and levels of training to finally be able to do it, and once you get it, you have it forever. Don't need it? Too bad, you still have it. The consolidation prize of always having it available when you do need it isn't enough for the spells to be of equal or greater power.

I'm kind of hoping that feats are more powerful than their conterpart spells.

Mostly because a feat is a heavy and permanent investment, where as spells can be swapped out with ease for most casting classes. Need this ability? Wait a little bit and get the spell, and then set it aside and get a different spell when you don't need it anymore.

But for a feat? Levels and levels of training to finally be able to do it, and once you get it, you have it forever. Don't need it? Too bad, you still have it. The consolidation prize of always having it available when you do need it isn't enough for the spells to be of equal or greater power.

I suspect Retraining will help significantly on this.

bookrat wrote:

I'm kind of hoping that feats are more powerful than their conterpart spells.

Mostly because a feat is a heavy and permanent investment, where as spells can be swapped out with ease for most casting classes. Need this ability? Wait a little bit and get the spell, and then set it aside and get a different spell when you don't need it anymore.

But for a feat? Levels and levels of training to finally be able to do it, and once you get it, you have it forever. Don't need it? Too bad, you still have it. The consolidation prize of always having it available when you do need it isn't enough for the spells to be of equal or greater power.

I suspect Retraining will help significantly on this.

I'm kind of wary about retraining being core. I'm perfectly happy with someone who made their character, and realized only while playing that something didn't fit, or someone who realized that there's a perfect prestige class that would be thematic for their character, but didn't pick the right feats, being able to retrain to help their character better match their concept, mechanically, but I don't like the idea that you can just spend some downtime to meet whatever challenge you expect to come up.

I suspect Retraining will help significantly on this.

Depends on the cost (time and money).

Retraining doesn't count for much if it takes 1000 gp per level and a months worth of time - especially when "retraining" for a different spell takes a night's sleep.

It helps beginners. They can try things out, and be able to change things that don't work for them. One of the goals is for the game to be easier for beginners.

The way I've always houseruled retraining for years is:

* Got an ability which you've never had a chance to use? You can just swap it out for free at level up or after a day of downtime, no questions asked.

* Have you actually used the ability? You can still retrain it, but it takes a week of downtime and access to a sparring partner / debate partner / tutor.

I've never charged money for it, except for the token fee of "expert NPC services for 1 week" when the tutor is an NPC instead of a PC. Just like I don't charge money to get a familiar back when they die.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I suspect Retraining will help significantly on this.

Depends on the cost (time and money).

Retraining doesn't count for much if it takes 1000 gp per level and a months worth of time - especially when "retraining" for a different spell takes a night's sleep.

Isn't Retraining simply a matter of opportunity cost in PF2? As in, you're not crafting, or working a job to earn money, you're working on self-improvement.

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

bookrat wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I suspect Retraining will help significantly on this.

Depends on the cost (time and money).

Retraining doesn't count for much if it takes 1000 gp per level and a months worth of time - especially when "retraining" for a different spell takes a night's sleep.

Isn't Retraining simply a matter of opportunity cost in PF2? As in, you're not crafting, or working a job to earn money, you're working on self-improvement.

I honestly don't know. If they've included that information somewhere, I've missed it or forgotten about it.

nogoodscallywag wrote:

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

Yes, what is the Standard Model for PF, can a character's fart provide enough propulsion to move though the atmosphere of Golarian?

BPorter, I highly suggest you take a look at my list of impossible things you can do without magic I made earlier on in this discussion.

Legendary Skill Feats (at least the ones we've seen) are not allowing PCs to do anything more impossible than what can already be done in PF1 without magic.

Now it's perfectly fine to want more realism in your game and to dislike them because of that. But it's simply not true that these legendary skill feats are suddenly making the impossible possible in the setting. The impossible in our world has been possible without magic throughout PF1.

I suspect your post has been purposefully ignored. Martials can already do crazy things without magic, just by leveling up.

I'm not sure if I can really consider levels to be mundane.

nogoodscallywag wrote:

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.

Dragons could have a chemical reaction in their bodies that fill bladders within them with ultra light gas that enables them to fly. It could even help fuel their breath weapons hence their extraordinary description.

Physics maintained.

Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.

The issue with giants is not one of absolute size (there have been much larger creatures), it's of bodily construction. You can't have something human shaped that big. The legs won't support the weight.

Their bodies need to be made of materials that simply don't exist in nature in order to support them.

Now, that could be exactly what's happening in Golarion...but it remains really and notably odd and impossible without things that don't physically exist in the real world.

graystone wrote:

nogoodscallywag wrote:

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.

Dragons could have a chemical reaction in their bodies that fill bladders within them with ultra light gas that enables them to fly. It could even help fuel their breath weapons hence their extraordinary description.

Physics maintained.

Giants can’t stand without magic bones.

graystone wrote:

nogoodscallywag wrote:

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.

Dragons could have a chemical reaction in their bodies that fill bladders within them with ultra light gas that enables them to fly. It could even help fuel their breath weapons hence their extraordinary description.

Physics maintained.

Then how about giant insects? We know their exoskeletons couldn't hold their weight and they can fly [and we KNOW a praying mantis doesn't have an air bladder filled with gas]. SO the giant praying mantis by itself shows that pathfinder physics is different.

Their bodies need to be made of materials that simply don't exist in nature in order to support them.

I'd count that as a different set of physics when humanoids are created with exotic materials...

I'd count that as a different set of physics when humanoids are created with exotic materials...

That is rather where I was going with that, yes. :)

C) those that complain that martials can't have cool things really would be better off playing a straight up four-color superhero RPG instead.

I do play 4-Color superhero RPGs.

However my group also plays pathfinder and you shouldn’t feel regret for playing a fighter in Pathfinder just because you’ve hit levels 10+ and apart from killing stuff you don’t have anything interesting to do that you weren’t doing at level 1.

Also why do wizards get more magical other than “leveling up”, I mean you could give them a level 9 spell scroll of wish at level one and they just can’t cast it but at level 17 it’s no problem. They’re just more powerful because the game says so. A wizard gets new spells in their spellbook just for levelling up. You can be a level 20 wizard who has never even heard of a library.

A fighter being legendarily good at medicine because they spent their downtime learning how to sew their fellow adventurers back together seems reasonable to me by the same logic that wizards being able to cast level 9 spells because they’ve been casting spells for 17 levels.

Let martial characters do dope stuff 2k18!

master_marshmallow wrote:

graystone wrote:

nogoodscallywag wrote:

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.

Dragons could have a chemical reaction in their bodies that fill bladders within them with ultra light gas that enables them to fly. It could even help fuel their breath weapons hence their extraordinary description.

Physics maintained.

Then how about giant insects? We know their exoskeletons couldn't hold their weight and they can fly [and we KNOW a praying mantis doesn't have an air bladder filled with gas]. SO the giant praying mantis by itself shows that pathfinder physics is different.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Their bodies need to be made of materials that simply don't exist in nature in order to support them.

I'd count that as a different set of physics when humanoids are created with exotic materials...

Early on in Earth's history we had actual giant insects like you describe because we had a much more reactive oxygen rich atmosphere. None of us could survive a climate like that.

In my own setting, I describe magic as a natural phenomenon based upon stellar radiation from stars brighter than the sun. I use an A classification star (blue star about twice the mass of the sun) to explain where magic comes from. I'm still doing the math on how exactly I want my planet to work, length of a year, time slippage, seasons, etc. I also use it to explain the lens flare gleam effect you see in fantasy movies.

Early on in Earth's history we had actual giant insects like you describe because we had a much more reactive oxygen rich atmosphere. None of us could survive a climate like that.

In my own setting, I describe magic as a natural phenomenon based upon stellar radiation from stars brighter than the sun. I use an A classification star (blue star about twice the mass of the sun) to explain where magic comes from. I'm still doing the math on how exactly I want my planet to work, length of a year, time slippage, seasons, etc. I also use it to explain the lens flare gleam effect you see in fantasy movies.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I posted.

Square–cube law and Biomechanics:
If an animal were isometrically scaled up by a considerable amount, its relative muscular strength would be severely reduced, since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while its mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular and respiratory functions would be severely burdened.

In the case of flying animals, the wing loading would be increased if they were isometrically scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. Air resistance per unit mass is also higher for smaller animals, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot be seriously injured from impact with the ground after being dropped from any height.

As was elucidated by J. B. S. Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. Haldane illustrates this in his seminal 1928 essay On Being the Right Size in referring to allegorical giants: "...consider a man 60 feet high...Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim's Progress: ...These monsters...weighed 1000 times as much as Christian. Every square inch of a giant bone had to support 10 times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. As the average human thigh-bone breaks under about 10 times the human weight, Pope and Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step." Consequently, most animals show allometric scaling with increased size, both among species and within a species. The giant creatures seen in monster movies (e.g., Godzilla or King Kong) are also unrealistic, as their sheer size would force them to collapse.

SO, NO there where NOT 650 lbs insects floating around that could fly: it's impossible as their body could not handle their weight AND they also couldn't gain enough speed to fly. The largest known insect is the dragonfly-like bugs of the order Protodonata, sometimes referred to as griffinflies. They had wingspans of nearly 2.5 feet across and huge mandibles, making them formidable predators. They where NOT 7 feet tall and 15 feet long, and weighs 650 pounds like the giant praying mantis...

master_marshmallow wrote:

Early on in Earth's history we had actual giant insects like you describe because we had a much more reactive oxygen rich atmosphere. None of us could survive a climate like that.

In my own setting, I describe magic as a natural phenomenon based upon stellar radiation from stars brighter than the sun. I use an A classification star (blue star about twice the mass of the sun) to explain where magic comes from. I'm still doing the math on how exactly I want my planet to work, length of a year, time slippage, seasons, etc. I also use it to explain the lens flare gleam effect you see in fantasy movies.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I posted.

Square–cube law and Biomechanics:
If an animal were isometrically scaled up by a considerable amount, its relative muscular strength would be severely reduced, since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while its mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular and respiratory functions would be severely burdened.

In the case of flying animals, the wing loading would be increased if they were isometrically scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. Air resistance per unit mass is also higher for smaller animals, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot be seriously injured from impact with the ground after being dropped from any height.

As was elucidated by J. B. S. Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. Haldane illustrates this in his seminal 1928 essay On Being the Right Size in referring to allegorical giants: "...consider a man 60 feet high...Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim's Progress:...

You're missing the point, their environments come from a much more reactive climate which means they have a lot more energy per calorie and thus have to have much higher metabolisms and larger bodies to handle it.

Pathfinder is an abstraction to be sure, but actual giant insects existed when we had a lot more oxygen, heat, and radiation going on on our little rock here.

The rules for what determined their physiology were different as they actually had access to higher temperatures (and thus speeds).

Putting these two things next to each other is for damn sure impossible, but saying one could not exist is not in line with physics, unless you are establishing a domain within which it is impossible (which I negated by describing pre-historic Earth).

Also, I imagine magic is more than likely some form of energy intrinsic to matter in the Pathfinder universe, which may or may not counter base physiology of non-magical bodies.

Hell, giants may only exist because of millenia of exposure to magic which caused them to adapt to having this extra source of energy. In my setting, magical beasts are natural evolutions of creatures exposed to magic over generations.

Hell, giants may only exist because of millenia of exposure to magic which caused them to adapt to having this extra source of energy. In my setting, magical beasts are natural evolutions of creatures exposed to magic over generations.

Giants aren't magical beasts though. They're just humanoids. Also, there's nothing in the PF lore of giants even beginning to suggest that magic is what makes them big.

I support legendary skills! We demand cool physics breaking stuff!

graystone wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Early on in Earth's history we had actual giant insects like you describe because we had a much more reactive oxygen rich atmosphere. None of us could survive a climate like that.

In my own setting, I describe magic as a natural phenomenon based upon stellar radiation from stars brighter than the sun. I use an A classification star (blue star about twice the mass of the sun) to explain where magic comes from. I'm still doing the math on how exactly I want my planet to work, length of a year, time slippage, seasons, etc. I also use it to explain the lens flare gleam effect you see in fantasy movies.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I posted.

Square–cube law and Biomechanics:
If an animal were isometrically scaled up by a considerable amount, its relative muscular strength would be severely reduced, since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while its mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular and respiratory functions would be severely burdened.

In the case of flying animals, the wing loading would be increased if they were isometrically scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. Air resistance per unit mass is also higher for smaller animals, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot be seriously injured from impact with the ground after being dropped from any height.

As was elucidated by J. B. S. Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. Haldane illustrates this in his seminal 1928 essay On Being the Right Size in referring to allegorical giants: "...consider a man 60 feet high...Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the

...

I think at the point that you are describing vastly different atmospheres, ambient magic directing evolution, and physical adaptations on the level you are describing... Why would anyone assume humans on Golarion have the same limitations as humans on earth?

You guys have gone down the rabbit hole with the square cube law and such, but the only reason physics was brought up in the first place was to demonstrate that creatures of Golarion aren't limited by the sort of things creatures on Earth are. Your posts reinforce that idea whether you use the label of physics or not.

I'm sure if you applied that level of creative analysis to how Legendary Skills are performed you could come up with some interesting answers.

I always find it funny when people demand in-game explanation for PCs doing crazy stuff without magic but have no problem with, say, a jungle populated by T-Rexes, giant animals and other non-magical apex predators who somehow don't starve to death while occupying the same ecosystem.

Or how 3.5/PF rules for suffocation are, heh, well let's just pretend they don't exist for sanity's sake.

The problem does not lie in physics IMO but rather in the image that people have in mind for what makes sense in a fantasy setting. Which is heavily based on cultural examples and myths

And while Giants and Dragons have had a strong presence in fantasy and myths for a very long time and are de facto seen as perfectly normal, mortals surviving the void of space not so much :-)

The problem does not lie in physics IMO but rather in the image that people have in mind for what makes sense in a fantasy setting. Which is heavily based on cultural examples and myths

And while Giants and Dragons have had a strong presence in fantasy and myths for a very long time and are de facto seen as perfectly normal, mortals surviving the void of space not so much :-)

I don't know that I would call 15+ characters mortals anymore.

Few demigods in myth have been stated as surviving into the void of space AFAIK ;-)

I do not see it as a matter of plausibility, but of habits grounded in a rather specific cultural background

How often do demigods even make it into space in mythology? did they even know that lack of oxygen was a worry at the point in time? That is ok my world will adapt. If one character can create an earthquake summon demons and teleport across the globe I'm ok with letting the others do crazy stuff too. Its only fair.

How often do demigods even make it into space in mythology? did they even know that lack of oxygen was a worry at the point in time? That is ok my world will adapt. If one character can create an earthquake summon demons and teleport across the globe I'm ok with letting the others do crazy stuff too. Its only fair.

That was precisely my point. I think people build their headcanon about what is realistic in a fantasy setting based on what they saw and read about fantasy and its sources and if something strays too far from that they consider it unrealistic no matter its plausibility, nor the impossibility of things they accept as realistic

But we all have different headcanons of what realism means in a fantasy setting because we have not all seen or read the same things or we have not internally tagged them as fantasy

To be fair, demigods (or well, actual gods even) in most settings don't reach the full power of a Pathfinder caster either. Zeus's big schtick is chucking lightning bolts and turning into animals. So that's what, a 10th level Druid to get to the point you can do those things as much as he does?

Few demigods in myth have been stated as surviving into the void of space AFAIK ;-)

I do not see it as a matter of plausibility, but of habits grounded in a rather specific cultural background

Thats because the Greeks etc weren't really aware of what space was. And there are many demi-god level entities that live in places like the moon. Chang-e for example lives there in exile with her rabbit.

To be fair, demigods (or well, actual gods even) in most settings don't reach the full power of a Pathfinder caster either. Zeus's big schtick is chucking lightning bolts and turning into animals. So that's what, a 10th level Druid to get to the point you can do those things as much as he does?

That is an excellent counterpoint to the argument that Gandalf cannot be used as an example for what Wizards should be just because he is actually a divine being

well Gandalf wasn't much of a wizard anyways he used his sword way more then his staff. (metaphorically I mean). He seemed more like a druid to me really.

I always find it funny when people demand in-game explanation for PCs doing crazy stuff without magic but have no problem with, say, a jungle populated by T-Rexes, giant animals and other non-magical apex predators who somehow don't starve to death while occupying the same ecosystem.

We actually don't have a lot of evidence that non-magical apex predators are super common compared to their prey animals. Golarion's got ridiculous biodiversity, but then farms also make out kind of indecently well in terms of the amount of food they must create, so I just tend to assume Golarion is super fertile by Earth standards and go from there.

I think a lot of the issues around the "Legendary aspect" could be a little in that people have their own notion of what kind equivalicy there is in power and levels.

However in PF2E the ruleset is of Golarion Bias, meaning that the default core setting of the rules is set to be of Golarion instead of a setting neutral ruleset. From there you have to realize the powerlevels of characters. 1-4 is basically your "everyday man" from newbies to just average worker. 5-9 is where you have your experts and specialists. 10-14 is when you have the ground breakers, the foundation makers that have reached the pinnacle of man. 15-20 is where you find demigods, god-likes and legendary heroes of yesteryear.

I for one actually like that the PF2 ruleset would take a bias to the Golarion setting as it make it so that the rules have a point of reference in a setting and from there people can thus convert it to their setting. Here you will have a established power structure and people can adjust for their own need.

So those who dont like the legendary system, there is already several suggestions given to you so far, so either take those suggestions or stop making Pathfinder what it never was.

Gorbacz wrote:

I always find it funny when people demand in-game explanation for PCs doing crazy stuff without magic but have no problem with, say, a jungle populated by T-Rexes, giant animals and other non-magical apex predators who somehow don't starve to death while occupying the same ecosystem.

We actually don't have a lot of evidence that non-magical apex predators are super common compared to their prey animals. Golarion's got ridiculous biodiversity, but then farms also make out kind of indecently well in terms of the amount of food they must create, so I just tend to assume Golarion is super fertile by Earth standards and go from there.

By the calculations I did years ago, the Inner Sea region is about x2 the surface of europe and the lands bordering the Mediterran with about half the population of that area after the the XIV century Black Death.

Most of that land seem to be on par with the more fertile of the European lands, not with some US states like Arizona that are semi-arid, so it is acceptable for tat part of Golarion at least to have plenty of creatures.

By the calculations I did years ago, the Inner Sea region is about x2 the surface of europe and the lands bordering the Mediterran with about half the population of that area after the the XIV century Black Death.

Plenty of space to have dangerous creatures not living near settlements and for the average farmer to cultivate a lot of land.

That all sounds more or less correct, yes.

Most of that land seem to be on par with the more fertile of the European lands, not with some US states like Arizona that are semi-arid, so it is acceptable for tat part of Golarion at least to have plenty of creatures.

How are you figuring how fertile it is? I'm curious because I've never come up with a good measure.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

bookrat wrote:

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

There's no way anyone's finishing an AP in six months - well, I guess if you played all weekend you could get it done, but not with any form of normal play density. 2-3 years seems more likely.

I got that time frame stuck in my head because when Starfinder came out, they announced the first AP would be released once every two months. And man, were there complaints on the forums over that. "What will we play while we're waiting for the next book?! Two months is way too long!"

And yet, if the average game took one year, two months would be the perfect release schedule. But it seemed that was not the case for quite a few people, as they complained that two months was too long.

I still remember one guy saying his group completed Book 1 in a single weekend, playing both Saturday and Sunday.

I walked away from that thread feeling like my own group, usually giving up on an AP after a year, were the slow players of Paizo customers.

Two days, from 10 AM to midnight, with some pause for eating? About 24 hours. That is 6 weekends, even more if you consider the time needed to recap where you where, prepare the map if needed and so on.

My group do that sometime, we did the second half of the last adventure in CoTCT in two days, with the time to drive about 200 km back and forth and two short mountain trips.

On the other hand when we play during a normal week end there is always some time spent chatting about our family, recent events and other stuff, so the almost 4 hours generally become more like 3 and a half.

I am not surprised at all that someone was able to finish an AP module in two days of continuous gaming. I would be surprised if they are able to do that every month for an year.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Exactly this, given the example of Mark about Legendary Medicine being the best option I quite sure that several spell got nerfed.

Whether, and how, that effects things like condition removal spells we'll need to wait and see,

My prediction: Removing things like Curses will come down to the level of the spell cast. A 3rd level Remove Curse (or its equivalent, see 2nd prediction) will auto-remove a curse from a 1st or 2nd level slot, but will need to roll a check to remove a 4th level curse.

This is consistent with Mark's specific comments comparing Legendary Medic to high level condition removal spells IIRC, and with how spells like Detect Magic interacts with illusions of different spell levels or Dispel Magic auto-succeeding on lower level spells. How this will interact with non-spell conditions like poison, but since items also now have levels it may be something similar.

A prediction I'm less sure about: while spells will have a tougher time removing conditions than they used to, there will be less specific spells to do it with. So Remove Curse will be gone, and Dispel Magic will now be able to effect curses. This is consistent with different versions of the same spell getting collapsed into each other, there seeming to be a smaller number of conditions, and no mention of clerics being able to leave slots open for later in the day.

If I'm right, this is very good news for spontaneous casters being able to fill the healer role.

In PF1 Remove curse has a 55% chance of success against a spell cast by a same level caster (and i question how is that some people speak of a 55% chance as if that was an automatic success). I doubt that PF2 spells will have a higher chance against same spell level spells.

Probably it will be a 50-55% chance against curses that use the same spell level of the "remove curse" spell, with something like a +/-10% for each spell slot above/below the target curse.

Why are you guys arguing PF1 CMD on the play test forums?

Because some guy use that as an argument to say that any caster is Always excessively powerful ant that the only way to balance that is removing the casters or making the legendary abilities too powerful and so unfun for them.

As an example:

In pf1 at lv 15, you had 3 choices for fall dmg: Survive due to a class ability (ex: be a ninja or paladin), that most classes lack;b] Be a caster, aka free pass[/b]; Or, straight up die (classes without anti-fall abilities).

Free pass = being capable to cast Feather fall, having it memorized, cast it while falling and using a swift action, make a concentration check at 21 without combat reflex (generally easy for a level 15 caster, but not so easy in the earlier game)

And option 4 is totally absent: "having enough hp that 20d6 don't kill you.

Diego Rossi wrote:

By the calculations I did years ago, the Inner Sea region is about x2 the surface of europe and the lands bordering the Mediterran with about half the population of that area after the the XIV century Black Death.

Plenty of space to have dangerous creatures not living near settlements and for the average farmer to cultivate a lot of land.

That all sounds more or less correct, yes.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Most of that land seem to be on par with the more fertile of the European lands, not with some US states like Arizona that are semi-arid, so it is acceptable for tat part of Golarion at least to have plenty of creatures.

How are you figuring how fertile it is? I'm curious because I've never come up with a good measure.

The area is somewhat similar to (an enlarged) Europe and the Mediterranean area, most of it has plenty of fresh water and there are few zones described as steppe or semi-arid, so I assume that fertility is reasonably similar.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

bookrat wrote:

Crayon wrote:

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

They are? I thought they were supposed to take six months to complete, and my group was just slow.

Release of one book per month seems to suggest they expect people to finish each book in a month (or at least within 4ish session of play).

I'm fine with being wrong on that, it's just the assumption I've always had.

When my playing group and I where younger and we played 5-8 ore or more every week we would have been able to finish an AP in 6 months. Now that we play 3-4 hours every week it take about 2 years.

It also matters how much of a tendency a group has to insert their own side plots into an AP rather than just move only where prompted.

Or just interact more with existing things not really relevant to the plot. I've had games that crawled forward because players spend tons of time role-playing with random NPCs they liked.

Or spending a session to develop tactics that seem on par with Wile E. Coyote plans. ;-)

When we where younger we had a player that after 10 minutes of discussion would charge ahead, redy or not.
Today we spend hours discussing plans.

The area is somewhat similar to (an enlarged) Europe and the Mediterranean area, most of it has plenty of fresh water and there are few zones described as steppe or semi-arid, so I assume that fertility is reasonably similar.

Given the existence of magic, I don't know if that necessarily follows. The number of larger creatures and increased biodiversity argues for a higher level of fertility, IMO.

I have absolutely no proof of this theory, of course. And it's a bit off topic, so I'll drop it now, but I thought I should clarify my opinion.

Cyouni wrote:

Again, people have been able to catch bullets, slash lasers out of the air, fight things triple their height with swords, use alive enemies as a weapon, fall 1000 feet as long as there's a wall near the bottom, and run 825 feet in 6 seconds, all non-magically...

And this is what you have a problem with?

Yeah, let's ignore all the world bending done by those with spells and focus on some mundane abilities like not taking falling damage. Something a level 1 wizard can do.

The only thing I can think of is that they want make sure the only people with cool world changing abilities are the spell casters because they don't want the rogue to show them up.

Let's correct your statement: "something that a level 1 wizard has a 30% chance to do if he has used 1 of his 2 slots to memorize Feather fall and the fall is 60' or less". That completly change the value of your rant, right?

(30% chance because you need to cast the spell while falling, that is a concentration check against 21. Int 20+level 1 give a bonus to 6 to the roll, so he succeed with a 15+)