Pathfinder Unchained: Alternate Profession Rules clarifications and questions (they seem very broken?)
Colette Brunel wrote:
I am very much on the autistic spectrum.
So am I. I don't see how that's relevant.
If Pathfinder 2e crumbles apart just because a GM opts for that...
Literally any game with a GM can fall apart if you aim to kill your players at any opportunity, because you always have that power. As such, any anecdote that starts with "I killed all their characters, therefore X is bad" is automatically suspect if every session is "I actively try to kill all their characters and usually succeed".
(Frankly, if you couldn't kill all their characters when you're the GM despite trying to, you're not just trying hard enough.)
Colette Brunel wrote:
While I appreciate removing the slowed condition from the dying rules, I cannot help but think that the wounded condition will make it even easier for a gang of determined enemies to beat down on a massively-AC-debuffed, dying PC in order to finish them off once and for all. That is a tactic I have been using in my playtest games to force TPKs, and the new wounded condition will make it even easier.
You've literally been "forcing" TPKs and then wonder why why you have a 100% TPK rate??
Honestly, a lot of americans get annoyed with efforts to get them to convert to metric. As such, I think more people would dislike seeing metric in their pathfinder than there are metric uses that'd be happy to see the conversions.
That is certainly the lamest excuse presented so far.
As it is, many people, including me, like magic being both impressive and useful in their FANTASY rpg. If Paizo goes forward with anything approaching the current level of "nerfing", I expect a drop off in Pathfinder players, approaching what happened between 3.0/3.5 and 4th edition. Which means Paizo is out of business, just like WOTC got taken over (and then released 5th edition - which PF2 is going to have to compete with...).
Hasbro bought out WotC nearly 20 years ago. What influence Hasbro had on 4th Edition is unclear.
Aiken Frost wrote:
You'd want to add extra feats to gain additional weapon proficiencies, once that TEML is much more meaningful for weapons, and maybe even grant a slight damage boost for using a magic weapon as well.
I think that we're a little bit off-topic now, but a class points system of course. It's one of the things Pathfinder is most notable for, after all.
Well, as Bulk is already stated to be 5-10 lbs, picking half a stone (7 lbs) as a fixed point actually seems like a good idea.
My point about temperatures was that they only appear in that one section on temperature, hence an extra line or two would not make a big difference, especially as even just one of the near-full-page artwork just sitting around in the play-test can be adjusted if necessary.
What is the formula for bulk to kilograms? Pounds?
5-10 for lbs; roughly 10-20 for kg. That one was easy.
I can recall that some use the metric system and respect their choice but I don't see how that translates into HAVING to go to the trouble of printing dual stats OR requiring other material to be removed to make room for it.
How much content do you think would have to be removed by adding one to two lines in the temperature section and maybe a sidebar on common Imperial-Metric conversions? The answer is almost certainly far less than you think.
Indeed. That was my conclusion too.
This doesn't seem hard to me. We, as players, have obviously done this over the course of a little over a weekend. Yes, it was a collected effort, but that can also be done with editors. Have individual editors assigned to the various sections and have them do reads just of those sections, maybe skipping to relevant details where appropriate.
Whilst that's certainly possible, of course, you can take it as a matter of fact from a long-term worker in the field that proofreading is never easy and that something will always slip through, no matter how hard you try.
T(°C) = (T(°F) - 32) / 1.8
I'm well aware of what the formula is, thanks. I do wonder though, if some people are complaining that they can't work with Bulk because it's abstract or too imprecise or it (allegedly) allows spears to be fitted into belt-pouches, why should they be expected to work with mental arithmetic on the fly? Surely the latter is far more difficult.
The latter is a exactly what I would have suggested, bring in one last freelance (or otherwise previously uninvolved) editor to look the whole thing over with 'clean-eyes' and catch the obvious things.
By the time said fresh eyes got even halfway through the entire play-test, they would no longer be fresh eyes at all. These things happen.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Well, that works fine for linear measurements, as has been pointed out, but not for Fahrenheit into Celsius. Given that there appear to be only eight specific temperatures mentioned throughout the playtest (all in section on Temperature), it can't be that difficult to include eight conversions into Celsius. It would take up one extra line, two at most.