The Play's the Thing

The description for the "dread blindfold" states that a DC 37 Will save has to be made.

The description for the "stormflash" just says that the save DC is 33, but not what kind of save has to be made.

The format of the two items is also different:
The "stormflash" item has it's price given at the bottom, the "dread blindfold" has the price at the top of it's stat block.

I really hope that these inconsistancies are not in the final book.

Its because it's two diffrent items with the same basic stat block (storm flash and greater storm flash). It's easier and more space efficent to list the two togther and as price is one if the things that varies between the two its listed at the bottom; PF1 had a similar set up IIRC.

As for the dread blindfold its a unique item and so only has the one price which is up the top.

The DC thing is also a space thing probably; the type of save would be listed with the spell lightning flash which you would need anyway to use the item; the DC isn't in the spell because that depends on your class DC as a spellcaster (which you don't have because it's an item). It looks like this is how they're going to present spell like effects now; which is good IMHO as the otherway (with treat CL as nth and the rest of it) takes up space and is less clear.

EDIT: Ninja'd

I wonder what the differences in cause, effect and healing for the big amount of "you can't move" conditions are to justify them.

I mean "grabbed", "immobilized", "paralyzed", "restrained", "petrified" and "stunned" read all similar.
I know there is a big difference between grabbed and petrified - but that's a lot "no movement for you" conditions.

well, most of them seem to be quite different in the effect

grabbed -> the opponent also can't move
immobilized -> something prevents you from moving around, but not acting per se
paralyzed -> your whole body cant move, you are still able to think (concentration spells would still work)
restrained -> bound in some way, you might be still able to move and act to a certain degree (but barely in a way that helps in fights)
petrified -> turnt to stone, not sure if players are still aware of themselves or are de facto dead till reversed
stunned -> short term condition that prevents you from acting and clear though

sounds like there is plenty of reason to split all of them up, not to mention the vastly different methods in 'curing' people

I would say it is more than optics shift. It has fairly dramatic effects on what certain party comps can achieve. You can't for example have the expert climb the difficult cliff to get behind the enemy while to untrained party takes the easier but still requiring rolls frontal route. If the level 5 wizard falls into the calm river, some one has to go and get them.

Not to say I dislike the change, it seems a good compromise and let's Expert+ characters feel more important.

Good point. I am 100% okay with that. If those sorts of tactics are commonly used your wizard could either expend resources OR you could have two expert climbers. Assuming no extra resources are given (and I’d be surprised if that was the case), the classic four party team could easily have a fighter and rogue with expert athletics. Rogue scouts ahead and the fighter stays behind.

Hm. So, is "temporarily immune" the replacement for "bolstered"? If so I approve.

Agreed. The play test was way too jargon heavy.

still not completely sold on the icons-as-actions (or is it the other way around?) but I think that horse has sailed.

4th ed’s Symbol heavy stat blocks get a new lease of life :P

I don't know. From watching Oblivion Oath, it seems exploration mode — despite the name — is just the same as PF1 between encounters, just with a new name and some new rules of what/when to roll for some specific actions.

Conversing

This tactic isn’t necessary for banter during exploration, but if a character wants to attempt verbal Deception, Diplomacy, or Intimidation checks, she needs to use this tactic. Conversing usually involves staying in one location. In circumstances where it is warranted, however, conversing can be combined with wandering to converse on the go, although the conversation takes twice as long.

My understanding of the Playtest 'tone' was intentionally regimented to test the framework (ie how sturdy are the poles of this pavilion we are erecting) and a bit less about how nice the cloth is that we will mostly see and notice when we're done. I went into reading it with the expectation that the final would be a bit more 'conversational' in tone, though when they tried to make it a 'common sense' read in the original Core, we learned that a sufficiently large audience is going to be all over the map on 'intention' of rules. :) So there does need to be a bit more mapping this time, and the 'overdone technical manual' of the Playtest was a starting point they could then pull back from; how much to pull was part of what the surveys were for.

I am hopeful that a good balance ended up being struck, because I have become very tired of the 'RAW vs RAI' battlefields I've been thrown into... I love Pathfinder, and I love the diversity of people and ideas, but the original ruleset (and its attendant tack-ons due to the source of the river) did leave a bit too much room for accidental and intentional misreading.

A once per minute one action Phantasmal Killer? YEESH. I was worried magic items were going to have either their power or their frequency cut back with resonance gone, but clearly that fear was misplaced.

gwynfrid wrote:

The list of conditions isn't much shorter than in the playtest (1 less if my count is right) but it's been greatly clarified, by removing redundancy and unclear language. Well done.

Examples:
- The playtest had Drained and Enervated, now down to Drained.
- The playtest had Accelerated and Quick, now down to Quickened.
- The playtest had Entangled, Hampered, Slowed and Sluggish. This is now just Clumsy and Slowed.
- The playtest had Asleep and Unconscious, this was simplified to just Unconscious.
- The language used for degrees of concealment (Hidden, Unnoticed, etc) is also more clear than the playtest's (Sensed, Unseen).

Huh, I'm a little bummed we lost Hampered and Accelerated, as those never felt hard to track. In general, the PF2 rulebook seems to be cutting back on the playtest traits and keywords in favor of redundant text that is easier to understand. But I mourn the page count loss these concession cost for new content. Hopefully little things like "basic saving throws" make up for it.

I'm also curious what happened to Enervated. That was a complicated condition, but also a pretty iconic one between the spell and creatures that inflicted it.

Guess we're back to losing a full level of experience :p Then you don't need Enervated.

I am hopeful that a good balance ended up being struck, because I have become very tired of the 'RAW vs RAI' battlefields I've been thrown into... I love Pathfinder, and I love the diversity of people and ideas, but the original ruleset (and its attendant tack-ons due to the source of the river) did leave a bit too much room for accidental and intentional misreading.

This is one reason why I loved the trait boxes next to spells, abilities and such in the Playtest. It removed the question as to whether or not an effect was mental or something like that. They were very easy to reference quickly during a game and it looks like they're staying in now in the form of those boxes at the top of descriptions.

DOOMED!

I'm disappointed no one has said that yet ;-)

That's a beautiful picture of Kyra praying to Sarenrae (presumably the scene is at dawn?)!
And Lem looks pretty chilled playing on his flute!

(^_^)=b

Carry on,

--C.

Looks very interesting, another great blog from Mark!

But it does bring up some questions about magic items that I hope the rulebook covers, like the blindfold for example, does it trigger the moment someone sees you regardless of anything else? Only in encounter mode? I can see an 'auto trigger on sight' causing tons of problems, both in that every town and shop you go into normal people are terrified of you all the time and also that if an encounter begins with conversation and then combat breaks out the effect will likely have worn off making it less than useful. Also, given that you can only see through it using Darkvision... does it make you blind during the day?

In case it's not clear I really do like it, as an old WoW player it brings me visions of Illidans glowing green eyes behind his blindfold and it's a great thematic item that I really want to see in use but... if it's a good example of the prebuilt items with special effects, I'm worried that for Organised Play we'll be starting with having to use the dreaded "table variation" phrase too much and this seems like the perfect time to ensure the language for rules is plain (and yes, I know PF isn't written specifically for PFS but there is an awful lot of PFS and it is effectively the marketing arm of the brand to a large degree so it would really help if things were made as clear as possible within reason).

Captain Morgan wrote:

A once per minute one action Phantasmal Killer? YEESH. I was worried magic items were going to have either their power or their frequency cut back with resonance gone, but clearly that fear was misplaced.

gwynfrid wrote:

The list of conditions isn't much shorter than in the playtest (1 less if my count is right) but it's been greatly clarified, by removing redundancy and unclear language. Well done.

Examples:
- The playtest had Drained and Enervated, now down to Drained.
- The playtest had Accelerated and Quick, now down to Quickened.
- The playtest had Entangled, Hampered, Slowed and Sluggish. This is now just Clumsy and Slowed.
- The playtest had Asleep and Unconscious, this was simplified to just Unconscious.
- The language used for degrees of concealment (Hidden, Unnoticed, etc) is also more clear than the playtest's (Sensed, Unseen).

Huh, I'm a little bummed we lost Hampered and Accelerated, as those never felt hard to track. In general, the PF2 rulebook seems to be cutting back on the playtest traits and keywords in favor of redundant text that is easier to understand. But I mourn the page count loss these concession cost for new content. Hopefully little things like "basic saving throws" make up for it.

I'm also curious what happened to Enervated. That was a complicated condition, but also a pretty iconic one between the spell and creatures that inflicted it.

Guess we're back to losing a full level of experience :p Then you don't need Enervated.

I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world if Enervated just vanished. It was a condition that affected PCs more than NPCs, and not necessarily in a fun way. Losing options isn't especially fun.

Still, we could probably use a "Take X penalty to all checks and DCs" thing that isn't as easy to get rid of as Sick or Frightened.

But it does bring up some questions about magic items that I hope the rulebook covers, like the blindfold for example, does it trigger the moment someone sees you regardless of anything else? Only in encounter mode?

Seems pretty clear to me it triggers outside of encounter mode, too.

I can see an 'auto trigger on sight' causing tons of problems, both in that every town and shop you go into normal people are terrified of you all the time

Yes, that would be a thing, but for many characters that would be a feature, not a bug. And you can always take it off when you go into town.

and also that if an encounter begins with conversation and then combat breaks out the effect will likely have worn off making it less than useful.

This is also true, but that's not much of a drawback. "Oh, I won't get this awesome bonus EVERY combat, just most of them."

Also, given that you can only see through it using Darkvision... does it make you blind during the day?

What? No, why would it? Light blindness and darkvision are too completely different abilities. Usually creatures with light blindness as a weakness also have darkvision, but plenty of creature have darkvision but no light blindness.

The only downside to seeing through dark vision is you see everything in black and white.

In case it's not clear I really do like it, as an old WoW player it brings me visions of Illidans glowing green eyes behind his blindfold and it's a great thematic item that I really want to see in use but... if it's a good example of the prebuilt items with special effects, I'm worried that for Organised Play we'll be starting with having to use the dreaded "table variation" phrase too much and this seems like the perfect time to ensure the language for rules is plain (and yes, I know PF isn't written specifically for PFS but there is an awful lot of PFS and it is effectively the marketing arm of the brand to a large degree so it would really help if things were made as clear as possible within reason).

Seems perfectly plain to me. It does what it says, nothing more, nothing less. You seem to be inferring consequences for what it does as unintended or assuming it does things it doesn't, but there's nothing supporting that in the text.

MaxAstro wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So we can build magic items by just etching runes into things, but are effects like "it casts lightning bolt" available with bespoke items (it's inherent to the shock rune, perhaps) through means other than "GM fiat"?

You can upgrade the fundamentals of a bespoke item, but it has no slots for property runes. In essence, the unique bespoke abilities are in lieu of property runes.

I think Cabbage meant the other way around - is there a non-fiat way for a player to get "shoots lightning bolts" on a custom crafted weapon?

It's not any more directly stated than if you wanted the dread blindfold to be like a cloak with scary eyes on it, but it shouldn't be too hard to build it or a different weapon if you like!

So the Eye of Robes IS in the game! Sweet!

I legit am counting the days till GenCon. I Want to play so effing bad! :D

I'm counting down too. I'll be in Maryland for a convention at that time so I literally have the preorder sending to where I'm staying up there. XD

MaxAstro wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So we can build magic items by just etching runes into things, but are effects like "it casts lightning bolt" available with bespoke items (it's inherent to the shock rune, perhaps) through means other than "GM fiat"?

You can upgrade the fundamentals of a bespoke item, but it has no slots for property runes. In essence, the unique bespoke abilities are in lieu of property runes.

I think Cabbage meant the other way around - is there a non-fiat way for a player to get "shoots lightning bolts" on a custom crafted weapon?

It's not any more directly stated than if you wanted the dread blindfold to be like a cloak with scary eyes on it, but it shouldn't be too hard to build it or a different weapon if you like!

This is a little disappointing to me, because to me this reads "If you want to reskin Stormflash as a different weapon, that's fine, but there aren't rules for giving specific special abilities to custom weapons".

So for example, if I wanted to make a magic storm-themed quarterstaff that has Stormflash's "summon lightning bolt" ability but not the electricity absorb ability, and instead give it a wind-themed special ability inspired by some other magic item, it sounds like much like PF1e there's no way to do that other than GM fiat.

I really hope at some point we get a book entirely dedicated to rules for creating custom magic items with the complexity of Stormflash - or at least has a full chapter for it. Such a book would be very useful both for crafter PCs and also for GMs who want inspiration to introduce unique, appropriately-scaled magic items to their game. Something with the depth that ARG gave to custom races, but applied to custom magic items.

Because inevitably, one of my PCs is going to see Stormflash and say "Oh! I want to make a flaming scythe that absorbs fire damage that way!" and I will have to answer "well, there aren't really rules for that..."

Mark Seifter wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So we can build magic items by just etching runes into things, but are effects like "it casts lightning bolt" available with bespoke items (it's inherent to the shock rune, perhaps) through means other than "GM fiat"?

You can upgrade the fundamentals of a bespoke item, but it has no slots for property runes. In essence, the unique bespoke abilities are in lieu of property runes.

I think Cabbage meant the other way around - is there a non-fiat way for a player to get "shoots lightning bolts" on a custom crafted weapon?

It's not any more directly stated than if you wanted the dread blindfold to be like a cloak with scary eyes on it, but it shouldn't be too hard to build it or a different weapon if you like!

This is a little disappointing to me, because to me this reads "If you want to reskin Stormflash as a different weapon, that's fine, but there aren't rules for giving specific special abilities to custom weapons".

So for example, if I wanted to make a magic storm-themed quarterstaff that has Stormflash's "summon lightning bolt" ability but not the electricity absorb ability, and instead give it a wind-themed special ability inspired by some other magic item, it sounds like much like PF1e there's no way to do that other than GM fiat.

I really hope at some point we get a book entirely dedicated to rules for creating custom magic items with the complexity of Stormflash - or at least has a full chapter for it. Such a book would be very useful both for crafter PCs and also for GMs who want inspiration to introduce unique, appropriately-scaled magic items to their game. Something with the depth that ARG gave to custom races, but applied to custom magic items.

Because inevitably, one of my PCs is going to see Stormflash and say "Oh! I want to make a flaming scythe that absorbs fire damage that way!" and I will have to answer "well, there aren't really rules for that..."

IMO there shouldn't be "rules" for creating custom items, or even guidelines written such that some people think are rules, or you wind up with people thinking "constant true strike item for 4,000 gp" might be a good idea in PF1. As for guidelines to build your own custom content, with the caveat that it's guidelines and so is less for crafter PCs than GMs, we're with you, but like you said it needs to be lengthy. You should expect guidelines for building your own brand new items to live with guidelines for building your own brand new monsters, etc, in the big book of modding the game, GMG.

No need for "Creating one-use wondrous item is better than a scroll" jank to happen again. I agree with Mark that codifying this too much makes it almost impossible to future-proof.

A scythe that's identical to the storm rapier except it's fire instead of electricity will probably have identical cost, give or take a few SP. I would be happy to just get a lot of crazy magic items published and extrapolate from the data.

No need for "Creating one-use wondrous item is better than a scroll" jank to happen again. I agree with Mark that codifying this too much makes it almost impossible to future-proof.

A scythe that's identical to the storm rapier except it's fire instead of electricity will probably have identical cost, give or take a few SP. I would be happy to just get a lot of crazy magic items published and extrapolate from the data.

I tend to agree with Chibi.

42 conditions? Good lord. Would've liked to have seen that streamlined. I can easily see ways to get it down to less than 20 by combining existing conditions.

Richard Lowe wrote:

But it does bring up some questions about magic items that I hope the rulebook covers, like the blindfold for example, does it trigger the moment someone sees you regardless of anything else? Only in encounter mode?

Seems pretty clear to me it triggers outside of encounter mode, too.

Quote:

I can see an 'auto trigger on sight' causing tons of problems, both in that every town and shop you go into normal people are terrified of you all the time

Yes, that would be a thing, but for many characters that would be a feature, not a bug. And you can always take it off when you go into town.

It is indeed a feature. Here is a fun thing to do.

1. Be a Bard, borrow your Barbarian friend's Dread Blindfold.

2. Be Legendary in Performance, have Fascinating Performance and Legendary Performer. You are headlining Woodstock at this point, everyone loves you.

3. At the climax to one of your hit records you put on the Dread Blindfold

4. ???

5. Profit

(Maybe not profit, it's possible someone might get hurt)

Looks very interesting, another great blog from Mark!

But it does bring up some questions about magic items that I hope the rulebook covers, like the blindfold for example, does it trigger the moment someone sees you regardless of anything else? Only in encounter mode? I can see an 'auto trigger on sight' causing tons of problems, both in that every town and shop you go into normal people are terrified of you all the time and also that if an encounter begins with conversation and then combat breaks out the effect will likely have worn off making it less than useful. Also, given that you can only see through it using Darkvision... does it make you blind during the day?

In case it's not clear I really do like it, as an old WoW player it brings me visions of Illidans glowing green eyes behind his blindfold and it's a great thematic item that I really want to see in use but... if it's a good example of the prebuilt items with special effects, I'm worried that for Organised Play we'll be starting with having to use the dreaded "table variation" phrase too much and this seems like the perfect time to ensure the language for rules is plain (and yes, I know PF isn't written specifically for PFS but there is an awful lot of PFS and it is effectively the marketing arm of the brand to a large degree so it would really help if things were made as clear as possible within reason).

I very much agree and I am currently playing WOW, and blindfolds are still a thing (also played Nier Automata which had quite the impact), blindfolds and getting darkvision are neat... but frightened 1 is something I am not too keen about.

This will either immediately trigger some encounters the group might have wanted to solve through diplomacy, it actually forces anyone that sees you to make a roll, which could be unpleasant if the group is in a social setting (even more so if only some of those NPCs have stats).

That allies become immune to it is not terrible, but since you are likely seeing your allies before things start to get hairy, the one round debuff (if I remember the condition from the playtest) is pretty much a non-issue for the group.. until someone starts to summon something and those summonses will have to save.

Not sure if this ability falls under "friendly fire" or "attack" and I really hope that I do not have to fake making a lot of will saves for everyone when a character with this walks down the street.

I am hoping for a lower level version of this item without the fear aspect.

I am hoping for a lower level version of this item without the fear aspect.

I mean, it's not a darkvision item with a secondary intimidation effect, though, it's an intimidate item with a secondary darkvision effect. There is almost definitely a separate, much cheaper darkvision item available, which could easily be a blindfold if you wanted.

42 conditions? Good lord. Would've liked to have seen that streamlined. I can easily see ways to get it down to less than 20 by combining existing conditions.

How much do you lose by making them binary conditions rather than continuums?

IMO there shouldn't be "rules" for creating custom items, or even guidelines written such that some people think are rules, or you wind up with people thinking "constant true strike item for 4,000 gp" might be a good idea in PF1. As for guidelines to build your own custom content, with the caveat that it's guidelines and so is less for crafter PCs than GMs, we're with you, but like you said it needs to be lengthy. You should expect guidelines for building your own brand new items to live with guidelines for building your own brand new monsters, etc, in the big book of modding the game, GMG.

As usual you make excellent points. :)

I certainly see the risk in trying to codify a full modular item creation system, and it's easy to look at things like GURPS and see how that sort of thing can go pear-shaped when optimizers get their hands on it. That is exactly what happened with the ARG race creation rules to an extent, after all.

It's just kind of a shame, because I am personally a huge fan of modular item creation systems. :) Very much looking forward to seeing what guidelines are in the GMG; I'm hoping at least that they will be a little more concrete than what 1e offered.

And I'm definitely also hoping that we get new property runes at a more regular pace than 1e got new special qualities. A lot of my concerns would be answered just by that, really, since property runes are a lot more flexible than the old special qualities. Especially if some of the unique item powers, like Stormflash's energy absorption, showed up as property runes at some point.

Could we not have vague language in rules text going forward?
The dread blindfold says your allies become immune to it after about a week. How long is that? 5 days? 8 days?

As for Storm Flash I like the absorbing ability, and I hope many more abilities of that style end up on the books. 1/day spell use will more likely than not ending up unused. At my table there's a nearly paranoid need to save 1/day abilities to use at the crucial moment, which is why I was happy to read that PF2 would have less of those abilities.

A week is seven days. A "work week" is five days. I have never heard of an eight day week; I'm almost certain that's not a thing.

The week in Golarion at least has 7 days, different names but basically the same

A week is seven days. A "work week" is five days. I have never heard of an eight day week; I'm almost certain that's not a thing.

If it takes seven days it should say a week, not about a week.

Actually, I really like the about a week bit. About a week makes it feel more organic rather than saying everyone becomes immune to it after exactly 168 hours of exposure. This creates some leeway for the brave barbarian to adjusts a little sooner.

Richard Lowe wrote:

Looks very interesting, another great blog from Mark!

But it does bring up some questions about magic items that I hope the rulebook covers, like the blindfold for example, does it trigger the moment someone sees you regardless of anything else? Only in encounter mode? I can see an 'auto trigger on sight' causing tons of problems, both in that every town and shop you go into normal people are terrified of you all the time and also that if an encounter begins with conversation and then combat breaks out the effect will likely have worn off making it less than useful. Also, given that you can only see through it using Darkvision... does it make you blind during the day?

In case it's not clear I really do like it, as an old WoW player it brings me visions of Illidans glowing green eyes behind his blindfold and it's a great thematic item that I really want to see in use but... if it's a good example of the prebuilt items with special effects, I'm worried that for Organised Play we'll be starting with having to use the dreaded "table variation" phrase too much and this seems like the perfect time to ensure the language for rules is plain (and yes, I know PF isn't written specifically for PFS but there is an awful lot of PFS and it is effectively the marketing arm of the brand to a large degree so it would really help if things were made as clear as possible within reason).

I very much agree and I am currently playing WOW, and blindfolds are still a thing (also played Nier Automata which had quite the impact), blindfolds and getting darkvision are neat... but frightened 1 is something I am not too keen about.

This will either immediately trigger some encounters the group might have wanted to solve through diplomacy, it actually forces anyone that sees you to make a roll, which could be unpleasant if the group is in a social setting (even more so if only some of those NPCs have stats).

That allies become immune to it is not terrible, but since you are...

Just because something scares you doesn't mean you have to fight it.

In general... neat.

In specific, this jumped out at me:
"When tied over your eyes, this ragged strip of black linen gives you a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks and darkvision."

This didn't get written as "When tied over your eyes, this ragged strip of black linen gives you darkvision and a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks." There were two ways to write this sentence, one of which implies that the item's owner gets a +3 item bonus to darkvision, requiring more cogitation of good-sense to parse correctly than the other way does.

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

While at it, let's make it precisely sure that we don't get into any arguments on what "tied over" means, because some people will argue that any knot will do, while others will suggest that the strip needs to be tied using at least two loops. We don't want THAT sort of argument between common-sense challenged playerbase. Seriously, Paizo should have learned that this sort of undefined terms and ambiguity has no place in a serious game.

In general... neat.

In specific, this jumped out at me:
"When tied over your eyes, this ragged strip of black linen gives you a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks and darkvision."

This didn't get written as "When tied over your eyes, this ragged strip of black linen gives you darkvision and a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks." There were two ways to write this sentence, one of which implies that the item's owner gets a +3 item bonus to darkvision, requiring more cogitation of good-sense to parse correctly than the other way does.

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

What other possible interpretation is there? Darkvision isn't a check, so I can't see how this could possibly start a RAW vs RAI debate. It parsed for me immediately, I'm not sure why it would cause any confusion.

42 conditions? Good lord. Would've liked to have seen that streamlined. I can easily see ways to get it down to less than 20 by combining existing conditions.

I emphatically agree. This is a real shame. Add in the "levels" of conditions (if thats still a thing) and it gets a bit much, IMO.

I mean how sure are we that darkvision isn't going to involve a check? who doesn't want a +3 to their darkvision checks?

Is it just me, or does the image at the top use the old iconic art and not the new stuff?

Anguish wrote:

In general... neat.

In specific, this jumped out at me:
"When tied over your eyes, this ragged strip of black linen gives you a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks and darkvision."

This didn't get written as "When tied over your eyes, this ragged strip of black linen gives you darkvision and a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks." There were two ways to write this sentence, one of which implies that the item's owner gets a +3 item bonus to darkvision, requiring more cogitation of good-sense to parse correctly than the other way does.

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

What other possible interpretation is there? Darkvision isn't a check, so I can't see how this could possibly start a RAW vs RAI debate. It parsed for me immediately, I'm not sure why it would cause any confusion.

Wasn't a huge selling-point for PF2 that it would be accessible to new players? You and I already know how darkvision works and how skills work and how bonuses work. The sentence's construction requires that knowledge in order to avoid confusion. That's my complaint. It's minor, and I don't mean to blow it out of proportion, but I'm a huge fan of tightly written rules language. It's just something that jumped out at me as a missed opportunity.

Harles wrote:

42 conditions? Good lord. Would've liked to have seen that streamlined. I can easily see ways to get it down to less than 20 by combining existing conditions.

I emphatically agree. This is a real shame. Add in the "levels" of conditions (if thats still a thing) and it gets a bit much, IMO.

In fairness, I believe 11 of those are not generally applicable in the way you're thinking (6 are just how observed you are, so everyone has one at all times, 5 are how an NPC feels about you), while 4 are the 'ability damage' ones.

That leaves 27, which is a less difficult number to work with.

Could we not have vague language in rules text going forward?

The dread blindfold says your allies become immune to it after about a week. How long is that? 5 days? 8 days?

This is why I find PFS so unsatisfactory. Do you have a human being adjudicating your games? If so, the GM decides how long "about a week" is.

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

IMHO you get good GMs not by hardcoding every aspect of the universe, but by teaching them how to make good rulings. This sort of nitpicking is going to create something akin to the playtest which was jargon heavy and not in any way easy to approach.

I've had a decade of good gaming. I hope Paizo doesn't stop that run by creating a textbook that requires a 3 year degree in RPG Rules to understand and implement.

In general, we want to give you the sense that even for wizards, the worlds' magical scientists, magic isn't this thing that's so much more reliable than even our real world science and technology that you can be sure a 1 hour spell lasts precisely 3,600,000,000,000 nanoseconds. It might last a little bit longer or shorter, not enough to set your watch and be certain. While wizards can quantify it very well, it's still a mystical and mysterious art that is special and otherworldly. We'll give you guidelines, of course, rather than say something like "eventually your allies are immune" with no idea of when, but it's something that might vary from case to case. Maybe one of the PCs with legendary Will becomes immune a little sooner. Maybe your fiance can handle it even quicker because of your deep connection...or maybe your fiance takes the longest and that's a hint you should go have a talk!

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Could we not have vague language in rules text going forward?

The dread blindfold says your allies become immune to it after about a week. How long is that? 5 days? 8 days?

This is why I find PFS so unsatisfactory. Do you have a human being adjudicating your games? If so, the GM decides how long "about a week" is.

Anguish wrote:

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

IMHO you get good GMs not by hardcoding every aspect of the universe, but by teaching them how to make good rulings. This sort of nitpicking is going to create something akin to the playtest which was jargon heavy and not in any way easy to approach.

I've had a decade of good gaming. I hope Paizo doesn't stop that run by creating a textbook that requires a 3 year degree in RPG Rules to understand and implement.

Yeah, this is the big reason I've honestly barely even considered trying to do PFS, and especially potentially GM it. I just can't do with the lack of allowing basic adjucation that I hear about, if it is indeed the case.

That said, maybe PF2S will be different.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Could we not have vague language in rules text going forward?

The dread blindfold says your allies become immune to it after about a week. How long is that? 5 days? 8 days?

This is why I find PFS so unsatisfactory. Do you have a human being adjudicating your games? If so, the GM decides how long "about a week" is.

Anguish wrote:

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

IMHO you get good GMs not by hardcoding every aspect of the universe, but by teaching them how to make good rulings. This sort of nitpicking is going to create something akin to the playtest which was jargon heavy and not in any way easy to approach.

I've had a decade of good gaming. I hope Paizo doesn't stop that run by creating a textbook that requires a 3 year degree in RPG Rules to understand and implement.

Yeah, this is the big reason I've honestly barely even considered trying to do PFS, and especially potentially GM it. I just can't do with the lack of allowing basic adjucation that I hear about, if it is indeed the case.

That said, maybe PF2S will be different.

PFS and OrgPlay in general still grant the GM fairly broad discretion to handle corner cases and adjudication of ambiguous rules or situations. But if it goes beyond that to a full houserule, there's a line. Like in PF1 even if the gunslinger is making the game no fun for anyone else at the table going first and killing the entire encounter on that first turn, you wouldn't be able to just say the attacks don't hit touch AC any more, even if that would make that particular table more fun for the other players.

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Could we not have vague language in rules text going forward?

The dread blindfold says your allies become immune to it after about a week. How long is that? 5 days? 8 days?

This is why I find PFS so unsatisfactory. Do you have a human being adjudicating your games? If so, the GM decides how long "about a week" is.

Anguish wrote:

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

IMHO you get good GMs not by hardcoding every aspect of the universe, but by teaching them how to make good rulings. This sort of nitpicking is going to create something akin to the playtest which was jargon heavy and not in any way easy to approach.

I've had a decade of good gaming. I hope Paizo doesn't stop that run by creating a textbook that requires a 3 year degree in RPG Rules to understand and implement.

As someone who does a fair amount of org play, that is not the case, and looking at this item it is absolutely and completely irrelevant since you are usually seeing your group before you are in any sort of danger.

The reason why some of those from the org play environment are unhappy about imprecise writing is that some of us had to argue with players trying to abuse it.
I had discussions with players taking archetypes and base their characters on corner case interpretations and while you can usually go with "Sorry I am the GM I have a different interpretation" those discussions take time away from actually enjoying the game.

I'd prefer not having a textbook thrown at me and the Core Rulebook actually be approachable. We'll have to see how jargon heavy it is and whether that makes PFSers happy and/or me unhappy. I expect they'll probably go somewhere in the middle and we'll both be unhappy to one degree or another ;)

I'd prefer not having a textbook thrown at me and the Core Rulebook actually be approachable.

I'll take the textbook every time as I'd like as little table variation as possible. I can get used to an unapproachable book but imprecision doesn't get better over time. I'd want a rule book to do it's best to make sure everyone is on the same page and if it loses some readability because of that, it's a small price to pay IMO.

And for myself, I'm neither PFS or a home gamer with a single DM.

I'll take the textbook every time as I'd like as little table variation as possible.

I don't habitually game with strangers* but instead game with the same group (my Pathfinder group also had multiple GMs). So I don't need precision in a book that is so unapproachable that it scares new players away. I just need people willing to give it a chance.

As I said. I doubt we're both going to be satisfied completely.

*In an ideal world

I'm ok with complicated I will learn it myself then teach it to my players. If I can teach myself the exalted fairfok and sidreal books I can handle anything pf can throw at me.

I'd prefer not having a textbook thrown at me and the Core Rulebook actually be approachable. We'll have to see how jargon heavy it is and whether that makes PFSers happy and/or me unhappy. I expect they'll probably go somewhere in the middle and we'll both be unhappy to one degree or another ;)

I'm puzzled how a comment about wanting specific end times for magical effects becomes a 'jargon heavy textbook' I don't get the connection at all, nor with PFS, to be honest.

A useless chart of 'heres 40+ game terms, but the rules are in another castle' seems more in line with what you don't want than 'this sample magical item has clear rules'

John Lynch 106 wrote:

I'd prefer not having a textbook thrown at me and the Core Rulebook actually be approachable. We'll have to see how jargon heavy it is and whether that makes PFSers happy and/or me unhappy. I expect they'll probably go somewhere in the middle and we'll both be unhappy to one degree or another ;)

I'm puzzled how a comment about wanting specific end times for magical effects becomes a 'jargon heavy textbook' I don't get the connection at all, nor with PFS, to be honest.

A useless chart of 'heres 40+ game terms, but the rules are in another castle' seems more in line with what you don't want than 'this sample magical item has clear rules'

Codifying everything so there’s no wiggle room is often desirable because it means large groups of players will get identical experiences (an ideal most often sought by organised play). The playtest had pretty specific language by being very jargon heavy. If people were upset by 1 magic item I’d say change the magic item. But they’re not. They’re upset by the ambiguity that magic item represents. I’d rather have ambiguous language rather than precise language when the outcome is the playtest Rules which had so much jargon it made my head spin.

Again. Precise language and 'lots of jargon' aren't the same thing. They aren't even tangentially related.

If you plan a game for three in the afternoon, that's precise, but no jargon is involved. Nor is organized play.

Precise language and jargon are both useful in their own ways, but overusing one isn't a flaw of the other. The playtest, IMO, overused jargon (and symbols) instead of precise language, when language would have been significantly better.

Again. Precise language and 'lots of jargon' aren't the same thing. They aren't even tangentially related.

If you plan a game for three in the afternoon, that's precise, but no jargon is involved. Nor is organized play.

Precise language and jargon are both useful in their own ways, but overusing one isn't a flaw of the other.

Ok.