BlueJay64's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 16 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know this is unlikely to happen but I kinda hope that they make the Swashbuckler's extra damage from panache work with weapons that aren't agile/finesse. Mainly because I want to be able to play a Dragoon (no, not the mounted warrior, I'm talking about those crazy gymnast knights from a certain franchise that wield pole-arms and like to dive bomb their foes). Also, in general I find it weird that they are proficient with all weapons but they can't capitalize off of most of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It may have something to do with fey creatures' general aversion to iron. I think that all (or most) druids are associated with fey, or maybe their powers are derived from such forces (the Feywilds, for example). So perhaps certain metals interfere with their powers?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So I've looked at the column for the spells trying to figure out how to make space for the focus spells and the FP pool and the Spell Attack/DC proficiency. Without scrunching the actual list too much. And I'm wondering, would it be better to just make another page for all the magic stuff?

I mean, I tried to make it resemble the original 1e sheet as much as possible without adding too much, and I liked that you only needed two sheets ever. That that'd still be true for classes that don't use magic (roughly half of them). Would it be a big deal if I increased the number to three and made more room for the feats and items? Maybe even add an entry for formulae and such?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:


I really like the retro sheet, probably because I'm so used to the old PF1 sheet. Aside from familiarity issues, it just feels clearer and easier to read than the new sheets.

A few remarks:

The AC box should specify AC = 10 + Armor Bonus + DEX + Proficiency

I'd rather see the spell attack DCs at the top of the magic collumn than mixed in with weapon and armor proficiencies.
There should also be a spot to track focus spells and focus points near the top of the spell collumn.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to mix perception with the other skills, since that will encourage unknowing new players to select it as a skill at character creation.

Thanks so much for the feedback!

"Armor Bonus" is actually a term I made up for this sheet, meant to mirror "Attack Bonus" because you calculate it the exact same way as Attack Bonus (Prof + Dex + Item Bonus). I used that further down in the rows for weapons and armor. But I can see how that can be confusing now.
I'll change the note for the AC field to say: 10 + Prof + Dexterity Mod + Item Bonus. And I'll remove the one for for the armor rows.

I can put the spell DCs at the top of the column for spells. That makes a lot of sense, actually. I was actually using the "Class Technique" proficiency as a stand-in for Spellcasting and Martial techniques, both to be used with Class DC or Spell DC as applicable. But that can be a bit tricky when you get into multiclassing (as you have multiples of those).

I had my doubts about Perception as well. Personally, considering Perception as anything OTHER than a skill is a head-scratcher. But I understand that the mechanics are different and folks might be confused. I figured that putting an annotation would be sufficient. I'll have to figure out if I can do something else with it. Perhaps move it somewhere else.

Thanks again! I'll make adjustments and update soon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys. About a couple weeks ago I decided to jump on the modified Character Sheet bandwagon, and I made some modifications to the original sheet from first edition. I'm almost done, I'm just combing through the entire book for anything that I missed before I try my hand at a form-fillable version.

Here's a link to the updated version if you are interested. Please let me know if it doesn't work for you.

Also, let me know if there are any mistakes or any changes I should make. I'm trying to keep it all as compact as the originals were, and retain its simplicity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:


Not really- more that backgrounds are class related at all. I'm more annoyed by the way stat bonuses stack up in character creation and that influences what Backgrounds are allowed to fit in the backstory of the character.

Its a meaningless mechanical straightjacket. To me, it gets in the way of a good backstory without offering anything in return.

For example, I'd like to do a barbarian or sorcerer as my first pf2 character, preferably a Kellie from up north. Nomad (play test) would fit perfectly well, but does nothing for the character mechanically. Scout works better, but is more specific and limited than I'd like. And while others might fit the character better mechanically, conceptually they're even further afield. Its a probably I had frequently during the playtest- background choices generally involved the least bad fit, never a good one.

It sounds like you are thinking that you are locked into a set of backgrounds based on your choice of class. But that isn't the case at all. If you are a Fighter, there is literally nothing stopping you from taking, say, some kind of performer as a background. Yes, Fighters with more militant backgrounds are better fighters than those without (in the short term, and only slightly) but that's to be expected.

If I'm wrong and you're actually saying that your concepts never match up with your desired playstyle because you cannot divorce the bonuses that you need from the background descriptors then I dunno. That's probably something you can work out with your DM. But I wouldn't think that it'd make that much difference. Or at least I hope so. The only thing that's forced on you is a specific boost, a couple skills, and a free skill feat. You still get a free boost out of it, so you can still raise your class's key attribute to 18 no matter which background you pick. One skill feat and training in a couple skills shouldn't make that much of a difference (IMO).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:

Mm. I'm with necromental on backgrounds. Its purely a stat/skill feat choice.

The only time origins matter is when the system tells me I can't be X background because it has to take Int or Cha (or Str/Con) or whatever pair, and those aren't useful for the class at hand.

Its more a negative choice to me, as the stats I need for the character to function the way I want are dictating what I -can't- be. Which is annoying.

I'd rather have stats be completely independent of background (and ancestry) and not impign on my ability to make an interesting character background.

Just so I'm clear, you are annoyed that it isn't optimal to choose a background that is related to the class that you want to select?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:


You might want to repeat that post in this thread if you haven't already done so.

I don't know if it's appropriate, given that the thread is about the official sheet. Maybe it'd feel like walking into Burger King telling folks about a new recipe for hotdogs I invented (I'm among the minority in my area who still likes that restaurant, by the way).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So, the official sheet is out. But there was mention of custom sheets created by the community and I want to throw in a design that I stole from the first edition character sheet; particularly because I'm proud of how much space it saves.

This is a link to the pdf on Google Drive. Let me know if you cannot open it. It's missing a few things, like spell DC and focus points (I've no clue where to put those yet). And I changed one of the sections for the listed gear to "Armor" so that players can list out all the traits their armor provides. I'm going to be using something like this for online games and I plan to make this a fill-able form later on. Any suggestions on improvements?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Agreed. I have to curb the murderhobo mentality as much as possible, after all. Killing things that are helpless nets 0xp. Picking unnecessary fights grants 0xp. Defeating enemies that are so trivial that they are barely a nuisance grants 0xp.

Rescuing a cat from a tree grants you... 10xp. Just for putting forth the effort. Not for killing the tree in the process.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Do they have encounter tables that sort encounters by terrain or creature type?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Also, the half-elf and half-orc heritages can already be applied to the other races. It's not explicitly stated in the core book, but the devs mentioned that the adjustments are very minor. You literally just replace every mention of "human" in the description with whatever other ancestry you want to apply.

Half orc half dwarf? Apply the half-orc heritage to dwarf and gain access to the orc and half-orc feats.

I'm not sure, but I think you can mix and match just about any race this way with a bit more effort. Half-dwarf? Apply a made-up ancestry that gives access to both human and dwarf feats. Dwarf/Gnome? Apply an ancestry that gives access to both dwarf and gnome feats.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm personally not a fan of assuming that you get a set amount of money from defeating monsters. That would make the game seem too grindy (although it is already grindy as you still get EXP from monster encounters) and also rather unrealistic. Sure, it makes sense for goblins and dragons to have gold on them, but not so much for undead or specters (unless they were formally nobles and their corpses have loot on them). And even then, rationing out gold amongst party members is always a tricky subject.

That said, I absolutely am interested in an alternative method of leveling and I've explored a few methods in other systems. My tentative suggestion for your system would be to offer XP for in-game accomplishments as well as for *any* downtime activities. So if PCs spend a month doing something that is related to their background or class (practicing a craft, inventing new spells, retraining their skills, or even carousing) then they would gain XP proportional to the amount of time they spent in their downtime, as well as the regular benefits of their activities. The requirement here, then, would be that they would have to invest actual money in these activities. This is a given for most PCs that aren't nomadic, because they require money to cover their living expenses anyway (I'm not sure how this would work for characters that can live off the land so you may have to improvise).

Of course, the scaling would still come into play here. I propose that rather than scale by the amount of gold or XP, you scale by amount of time instead. Establish benchmarks for duration of time spent adventuring, training, or doing downtime. So for instance, the first month gets you to level two, the next two months gets you to level three, the following four months gets you to level four, and so on.

The problem with that sort of scaling, though, is that it would take your characters years (maybe around 10 or 15) before they can reach the high level tiers. That sort of thing would be appropriate for a campaign that you intend to last multiple in-game generations, but not so with a game with a relatively slower pace, so you'd have to adjust accordingly (weeks instead of months, or even days).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Keep in mind that the average person pays for healthcare, utilities, social security/retirement, transportation, internet (a usually more expensive utility), loans, and property that they don't own. They don't have any of that in DnD (unless you're a wizard, but they're basically college graduates so they don't count). So I'd assume (hope) that if you factor all that out your are left with a fraction of the total you got before.

...Unless you have kids. Yes, kids are expensive.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Fair point, regarding the farmer's earnings and standards of living. I suppose that's a workable model.

Regarding the bandits, your assuming that they'd spend the gold they steal on expensive weapons and equipment. If I were a group of bandits, I'd rather just steal it. But I guess there are some exceptions. (Even goblins collect coins, for some reason.)

I guess it helps to liken 1gp to $100. But I'd like to think that the cost of living in the real world for the average person isn't $100 per day (it's 1gp/day in DnD 5e if you aren't poor). But then again I spend $25 on food everyday and I think I'm being frugal (I'm not, apparently).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Insight wrote:

In 5e, a single mundane meal is around 5 sp and subsistence costs are measured in gold pieces. Clearly, gold in these magical medieval societies isn’t as rare as we think it is (kind of reminds me of that 1,001 Ways to Die in the West scene where all the farmers are astonished to see a man with a real life dollar bill). In my campaign, even the poorest turnip farmer averages a gold a day in wages, so 300 to 400 gp a year. And most everyone else makes far more than that. So a guard’s equipment, even for a well equipped one, is *not* far more than he sees in salary for a year, let alone a lifetime.

The all in cost to be a simple farmer is 100s of gold once you account for animals, tools, equipment, feed, etc. They must be familiar with gold pieces. Of course, in PF 2 the standard has dropped a tier, so silver becomes the equivalent of the old gold and gold pieces are now more like platinum, which is something that an average peasant very rarely (but not never) interacts with.

I'll have to disagree with that, regarding how expenses are tracked in 5e. Firstly, you are probably correct that a humble wage might consist of GP a day (going by the hirelings table for unskilled labor). But assuming that the same person lives a modest and comfortable lifestyle, that would also mean that their expenses amount to approximately 1 gold piece a day (there's a table somewhere that lists lifestyle expenses but I only recall the ones for modest lifestyle; the one above that tier is probably ten times as much). If you disregard taxes and other expenses, one can assume that their wages barely covers their living expenses, and their net savings still only amount to literal pennies. They would likely never see a single gold piece unless they drastically downgrade their lifestyle and save up as much silver as they can (and that option is probably out of the question for reasons that are speculative).

So yeah, the cost of probably NOT living in poverty for an entire year is 360gp, not including tax and other expenses. A guard who earns 400gp a year may be able to save up a few gold to upgrade his equipment, but that might be measured in silver as he won't earn that all at once (unless he asks to be paid in gold, which is awkward because then how would he pay for his meals and other minor expenses). And unless these people sell their property I can't imagine that much gold will be exchanged, as they will frequently be left with just enough to sustain their lifestyles (measured in silver).

Skilled laborers are different. Apparently they tend to make ten times as much and their lifestyles are one tier higher (wealthy?). In which case, assuming that they don't personally handle their own finances, housing, and food purchases (because I can't imagine that its wise to exchange that much gold on a daily basis, unless you WANT to advertise how wealthy you are) the situation would be the same for them. They would earn just enough to support their lifestyles and bank the excess if any, still measured in silver, unless they downgrade their lifestyle in order to save (which is still improbable).

And the reason I speculate that living below the tier of the lifestyle one can afford is because, in many systems, maintaining a certain lifestyle is a requirement for certain careers. You cannot be a local noble or a diplomat if you live in poverty. Hell, you can't be a farmer if you pretend that you cannot afford a farm, as no one will want to do business with you.