BlueJay64's page

For me its the Monk. I love their versatility and power. But most of all I love the concept: specifically of a particular build of a non-magical but naturally enhanced, excessively brawny but really elderly dude. Like, I’m picturing Mishima Heihachi from Tekken (a super buff Japanese man who can literally demolish a tank with his bare hands because apparently that’s how karate works in that setting).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.