ApexCarnie's page

I don't understand your complaint.

Including *only* the pronouns lets me know what to call you, which involves no subjective view of themselves, and is the thing about someone's identity that will come up from other people perspective much more than anything else.

Like the reason we have names on character sheets is so we have something for other people to call you, so why not pronouns for the exact same reason? A character's inner life is something that we generally explore (if at all) through play not through how we fill in fields, and "what is your name/what are your pronouns" is pretty much a surface level part of identity.

So, no it's not. Pronouns are actually objective language tools used to describe people based on sex or number. To say it has to do with they're inner life means it has to do with subjective perception, not objective observation. However, relating back to the game; way too niche for a playtest

CrystalSeas wrote:

I'd also like to see the "Gender" designation removed from the character sheet.

Better option than "Gender" on a character sheet? Pronouns.

Because what societal role someone is expected to fill, or what's in your pants matter much less than "how people should refer to you", since that one is going to come up a whole lot.

Since "how do you pee" won't come up, and you can wear your hair or dress any way you can summon with your imagination, but people are going to want to slip a "she" or "him" in there from time to time since referring to people with names and titles exclusively becomes awkward.

Your concern seems way too niche for a fantasy game with an already niche fan-base let alone a playtest Of a new system. The, why include it at all, portion is probably because someone felt under represented, so Paizo being a bunch of decent people tried to be as inclusive as possible.

Besides if we're being honest about the setting of this game, where you can die at a moment's notice, a character's societal role is much more important than a character's subjective view of themselves. The statement made about gender, was more than likely an inclusive one to let fans know it's cool rather than a 'we're going to dedicate resources to make this a mechanical function of the game'.

Double Slice requires two weapon fighting and its strong for the actions, at 14th level a fighter can get two-weapon flurry(also requiring 2 weapons) to gain 2 swings with both weapons in 1 press action. Combined with Graceful Poise Fighter style at level 16 they can use Double slice for their first two actions, take no multiattack penalties than use Two-weapon flurry for 4 attacks all at max attack bonus if i'm interpreting it correctly, and thats without haste. You can also then get the ability desperate finisher to do two-weapon flurry again for another two attacks at the end of your turn forgoing reactions, but im not sure if multi-attack penalties apply to that or not.

Graceful Poise negates the "counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. Meaning normally attacks would be, no penalty/-5/-10. Double slice makes it look like this: no penalty(-2 if off-hand isn't agile trait)/-10/-10. two-weapon flurry you get: -8/-5/-10. DS+TWF= no penalty(-2 circumstance)/-10/-10. GP+DS+TWF= no penalty/-8/-10. GP+DS+DS+TWF= no penalty/-5/-10

I haven't been through the whole book yet, but if I come across more I'll post it.

ApexCarnie wrote:

There is a working mechanic for gender so I have to disagree with all of you.

Page? Quotation?

Or are you just pointing out that this feat exists?

Chapter 8 page 281. Gray Maiden a prestige class specifically for women.

There is a working mechanic for gender so I have to disagree with all of you. Not to mention just because you challenge gender tropes doesn't mean people see you as you see yourself, so the close match has validity.

It looks like two-weapon fighting is more an assumption, than a feat. As in 'if you can hold it in one hand why not have two?' kind of thing. It also looks like rules for dual wielding are indirectly given in double slice. -2 circumstance on weapons not of the agile trait for the weapon being off-handed. If not using double slice it's probably an action to use the other weapon.

sorry *'deific weapon'* in the first paragraph.

Hello paizo,

I've noticed somethings in the playtest, that don't make sense to me, and was wondering if you could elaborate.

First is the Paladin, a notice that the class feature, specific weapon doesn't seem to do much. It gives you access to a city's favored weapon if it's uncommon, or increases the damage die if it's a simple weapon. This means it's only good for one deity, Abadar. It I might make a suggestion to the problem. It might be a good idea to give Paladins the expert proficiency with the favored weapon instead. Or to expand the damage die upgrade to martial weapons as well.

The next mechanic is the spells. For spellcasters that use material components that can be substituted with a focus, I haven't met a GM that cares too much about your material components, or a wizard that doesn't have a familiar, so I struggle with comprehending the logic of the system. Also was there ever talk in the initial development phase for a change in the spells per day system if favor of a mana system? I can understand a spells/day system for clerymen who use a divine source that might arbitrarily decide the power the cleric has access to, but for the master of the arcane arts (I.e. wizard) or the descendent of magic (sorcerer) I can't see the same explanation working. A wizard is a variety caster that should be prepared for any situation, however with the current system, wizards seem less like wise men and more like fools, often saying 'oh I wish I hadn't used the spell that I prepared for a situation like this on that very similar situation' or 'oh I have the perfect spell for this, I wish I had prepared for this situation I didn't know I needed it for'. How does Paizo justisify this mechanic, as far as if a wizard were to explain it in Golarian?