Bruno Mares's page

Organized Play Member. 239 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't wait for it! Now I'm dreaming about all 1st Edition APs in CRPG! Haha!

(And please let us create por our own magic items now.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We have Oracle now!!!!! <3

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's awesome! As a 95%-time GM: thanks, Paizo! :D

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Just loving all about Second Edition! *.*

5 people marked this as a favorite.
User69 wrote:
Congratulations to Brazilian friends! Last year, with an enormous effort, we were able to release the Playtest in Italian only in November. This time we decided to take more time and go out in April 2020. So again congratulations to Brazilian friends, they must have spent several sleepless nights to be able to reach such goal!

We certainly did not sleep well in May and the same will happen until August 1st...

But every minute worth it!

We're big fans of the game and all the team is working hard!

7 people marked this as a favorite.

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I really want that items' DC should not be fixed by the item, but for the user power/level.

Just as a sword is more effective in the hands of a higher level character, also should all other items.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Liked the Flat recovery check.

It's simple and avoid the use of a DC table and have the same final result (maybe a little more dangerous, what I like), and also make all character more "heroics".

Keep this 1.5 way.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that ancestries are all lacking something that they use to have.

The feeling is that Paizo just scattered their old racial traits from PF1 in higher level feats with few not interesting additions.

And my expectation was just:

1) Ancestries receive the same/similar amount of their old racial traits (with some game balance in rules)

2) Ancestries receive NEW very interesting feats to choose in their higher levels that give the sensation that our characters evolution (and options) is different from all other ancestries with some exclusive/good/fun choices.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shorter APs is a great thing!

Keep innovating!

And please, dare to write shorter Pathfinder APs later, specially higher level APs to achieve level 20! I'd love it!

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Seems like a reasonable change, as you would just need one good description (with an example please) in the magic chapter for "basic saving throws", though if possible I would like to request, that every spell should also mention the spellcasting types that can access it. A symbol (not unlike the solution for Starfinder) would be enough, but make it so much easier to read and look for options.

If the players find a scroll of Fireball, I can't just look up Fireball I need to go to the various pages of spell lists to find out if the characters in the party can identify the scroll in a very short time or not, and who can use it.

And kinda linked to that, I have gotten a very strong feedback from my players that actually having to flip between the class chapter and the spells is very annoying, so if at all possible, I would like to request to put all those powers into their respective class entries. While it will not be that bad for Paladins, this will swell the size of the cleric chapter quite a bit, but personally, it would be a very welcome change.

Man, you fully read my thoughts (and the same thoughts of the two parties I'm playing the Playtest).

Please, Mark (whom reads all the blogs posts haha) and the entire devs team, listen to this guy! The powers scattered among spells is indisputably the worst thing in the book.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's really good!

Please do something similar to Dedication feats. They all show a special entry with the exact SAME text. Please turn this into a standard rule, because there is no need to say the same thing multiple times and because we can gain more archetypes using the new free space.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's odd and bizarre that an expert (or better) character can't take 10 to climb a wall or something like that...

You SHOULD bring back take 10 and take 20 as standard rules. It's entirely necessary to keep the pace of the game.

And I doubt that someone will choose those Assurance feats forfeiting the other cool skill feats available.

At minimum, all characters should gain assurance for free at ALL skills in which they're expert or better.

An expert character having to buy a FEAT to receive something like a medium 5 on the D20? Didn't convince me...

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Assurance is really terrible and we need take 10 (or take 20) back!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

This seems very reasonable to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Nice to hear that!

If possible, also keep in mind that the gear selection is hard to new players and boring/annoying to experienced players (beyond armor and weapons, everything is boring to have to choose). Since I can remember, this is the worst part ever in character creation.

Since the beggining of PF1 beta (actually, since D&D 3.0), as a GM I always had to create "basic kits" that cost a predefined amout of gp, with a predefined weight, with "all the basic, needy items to survive" to my players buy and "just write down" in their sheets. Otherwise, the character sheets always resulted with a big blank, empty items section.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just passing by to ask for Orcs as a core race! (not in place of goblins, but WITH them!)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My biggest concern about Hero Points: game sessions are not a fix mechanical measure. In some groups, game sessions last between 6 to 8 hours, in others, game sessions last at maximum 2 or 3 hours.

The "fix" Hero Points concession should be based on some game mechanic, not something as random as "game session". Maybe 1 Hero Point per level, plus extra Hero Points per heroic deeds and the like, just like it was in APG. APG's way to give players hero points is very good so there is no need to change it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a big issue.

Think about a fighter wielding a shield that have to choose to spend his reaction to raise a shield (and receive DR) or to make an attack of opportunity is ok, but USING AN ACTION AND A REACTION to MAYBE use your shield is not so good and hamper the character fun and utility.

My suggestion is that the AC circumstance bonus from shield should be a passive bonus.

Maybe, just maybe, Shield Paragon should be a 1st level feat, at maximum.

But my real thought is that the ability to wield a shield and use it to gain AC bonus should be part of the basic shield proficiency.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just hoping that in the final CRB there are higher level options for ancestry feats.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just passing by to beg for orcs in CRB again. :D

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking about the wording/layout improvement:

For what I saw so far, ALL dedication feats have the same special where You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from this archetype, so why not just make this a common rule and eliminate the need of writing this same special in each dedication feat?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just totally want ORCS as a playable ancestry in the final rulebook.

PLEASE, make room for them! (Even if you have to remove goblins, haha.)

Mark, Jason, is there any possibility for that?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...
They are a nice/interesting option. They are not a fixed class feature.

I'm glad to know this! It wasn't clear in the blog post. Thanks for that! (And for the relief! Haha!)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also criticize a lot that archetypes should allow a character to change its class features.

IMO, you're getting the best thing that made Pathfinder Pathfinder and changing/twisting it in a bad way. The new idea is a good one, but those are not archetypes like we're used to see. The problem isn't that they are changing, is that we'll not be alowed to do the same customization like we always did.

What about a rogue without uncanny dodge? Ir a ranger without favored terrain? A fighter without armor training? And an alchemist without bomba/mutagen? Or even a druid without wild shape? That's what bothers me...

Hope you guys change it with the playtest.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graeme mcdougall wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Paizo Blog wrote:
A potion requires you to spend an Operate Activation action to drink it. A necklace of fireballs requires you to spend 2 Operate Activation actions


It's possible that I'll get used to this sort of phrasing, but right now it just seems... no.

The wording definitely cast Induce Greater Headache on me, yeah. >.>

Seriously, what's wrong with saying "A potion requires 1 action to drink" or "A necklace of fireballs requires a total of 2 actions to use: 1 to pull a bead loose and 1 to throw it."

Do we seriously have to overdefine every single possible action in the game? This isn't a computer program which requires that sort of thing for the machine to understand your intent.

If you really really have to define the actions, say Use Action or Operate Action instead of Operate Activation Action. Say Focus Action instead of Focus Activation Action. Etc

100% agree. It's really destroying the elegance of the 3-action economy. If Resonance requires this over-definition, then it's Resonance that should go.
The wording is completely unrelated to resonance, it's all a question of style and clarity. We originally had it as Operate, Focus, and Command, but Activation was added during editing to make it clearer. If people think it doesn't make it clearer, that's good feedback and it's easy enough to change if that's widespread.

That excess of overdefine all actions in game make me miss the days of swift, move and standard actions...

100% agree with Fuzzypaws. Please stop naming each action!!! You're just unnecessary broking the three-action system.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark, the only real reason I saw to call a prestige archetype a prestige archetype is because 3.5 Legacy. Any thoughts about that?

Why not just call it an archetype, since the rules looks exactly the same? (To identify heavy prerequisites we need just to read the prerequisites).

Also, the Special text is totally unnecessary. You should just say in the general/standard archetype rules that one can't select a new dedication feat until he have choosen three feats of the same archetype.

You'd save a lot of space to give us more new archetypes in the final corebook (and in future, new books).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
My suspicion is that such a monk will still have Dex second, so 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, and so on, meaning they're behind by 1 or 0 in AC at most levels. A monk like this will probably want Con third for sure. We'll see how it fares in playtest!

Please don't say that ability increases will be similar to Starfinder regarding 2 points to lower than 18 score and 1 point to higher... This is super confusing and not player-friendly...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest hype: Amiri is carrying a bow.

If I can use the standard barbarian to build a bow-user barbarian, I'm willingly enough to change editions. :D

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

I am very concerned about this issue and am looking into ways we can ensure that our visually impaired players have the same access to the game information as everyone else. As Erik mentioned, the book has gone to print using icons in a lot of places and color coding in a few (these are fortunately not as critical to play as the icons).

Using icons (and there are only 3 in the book, although one of them has a bit of variation to it) really helped us to be able to locate and use rules text in play, but I do not want this utility to come at the cost of the visually impaired.

I am not sure what the answer is right now. I am still doing some research into what we can do within pdfs to resolve this problem. Outside that, we will be keeping an eye out on feedback throughout the playtest to ensure that the final version of the game is usable by everybody.

We have three players with three different type of colour blindness in our table. They just can't figure out the content of most images in PF1 books. Please do not make icons that will hinder their gaming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
So weaknesses now give a flat bonus damage? That seems... abusable. If you could find a way to repeatedly hit a monster for 1 point of damage, and they take 5 points of bonus damage, that could add up very quickly. I guess it depends on what options are available to ping monsters for small amounts of damage.

I have the same concern here...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very nice! Specially the unique name to DR and energy resistance. Finally!

Also, I'm wondering curious about the weakness fixed damage... We really need to see more higher-level monsters to say if it's functional or not...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuàn wrote:
About the Code. If a god adds to the Paladin Code, where do the tenets fit in the order? Are they added at the bottom or elsewhere? Does it vary per tenet/god?

I have the same doubt.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if in the playtest the shield/armor proficiency will always be the same, the "lower proficiency applies" exists only because you can't add your level twice to your AC to keep the game balanced?

Can't you just find another better way to write it? Looks a lot confusing the way it is. Think about a character that bought armor proficiency feats, reached master at armor proficiency, and then raise a shield being untrained. His AC bonus will drop by 2 (+2 from master will be -2 from untrained, then adds +2 from the shield). The way it look is: I'm good with my armor, but when I grab a shield, I can he hitted easier. Just makes NO sense.

Maybe giving characters a standard "defense proficiency" regardless of armor and shield being used and then applying the item bonuses would be easier. (And also would help spellcasters without armors and shields to be less hitable.) Of course there are some problems in that idea, like everyone being able to wear an armor and hold a shield, but can he helpful somewhat.

Or maybe just saying your armor and shield proficiency both gives you a defense bonus that do not stack and only the better applies (as in the standard bonuses rules), and locking new abilities under armor/shield proficiency ranks? This way, someone trained in armor but not in shields would benefits from the defense proficiency bonus from his armor training and still able to raise a shield (a common action that doesn't need any training) being untrained. He would still benefits from the armor proficiency ranks without being hampered by using a shield, would benefits from the shield item bonus, but would not be able to use specially/advanced shield actions/abilities because he isn't trained in shields.

Something like that.

Also, I'm TOTALLY disappointed that shields bonuses can't be upgraded. Unless they give abilities that are always improving and giving some combat useful tactics that can be used ALL the time, this will make shield users dissapear from the game...

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?
We actually don't know yet that it goes the other way. The blog says "Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed,..." so it's possible that only increasing your handedness requires an action while releasing your grip could be a free action.

I hope you're right!

Because in Starfinder, any grip change is an action. And that gives you no benefits at all...

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Still not happy with spell points for powers activation...

Why not power points?!?

For what I saw, powers are spell-like, not exactly totally spells. Will obviously create confusions, it's not player-friendly.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

"Spell Points" that you use for everything but actual spells is gonna be the most confusing term ever...

You REALLY NEED to rethink this term. Seriously, you just REALLY NEED.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So we finally got saving throws with the same/similar scaling numbers than other mathematical progressions in the game. Glad to see this! :D

However, the spell proficiency to touch attacks indicates that we'll have greater touch AC to monsters...
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not make standard/physical AC and touch AC having the same difference/mechanic than in Starfinder... This is awful... :(

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Okay. I'm actually going to jump on the bandwagon here for asking for "Spell Level" to be renamed "Spell Circle" or "Spell Sphere" or something similar to that. There is a legitimate reason for this suggestion.
How about something like Spell Level and Caster Power?
That still have the problem of "well I'm 7th level, why can't I cast 7th level spells?" That's why I suggested Spell Circle or the like. A 4th circle spell can be cast by a 7th level cleric or wizard - you don't confuse folk with multiple incarnations of "level" - and while I didn't have an issue, I've also been playing AD&D and its descendants for nearly 40 years so....
There are definitely those at Paizo who agree with this, since everything else that is done by level is on that 0-20+ scale. On the other hand, certain deeply entrenched terminology being changed has a risk of dramatically changing the feel of the game, and I can see both sides on that topic. This is one of a few places. One other that springs to mind for me is that we don't change saving throws and attack rolls to be called saving checks and attack checks in PF1 or PF2, even though everything else is called check, and checks are d20 rolls against a DC, so they both are checks. But imagine how it would sound to call for a saving check?

Can you change spell level to spell circle? :D

Just look like everything being called level is a little messy...

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:


Can you confirm that for Heal the schools are Healing, Necromancy and Positive? Or am I reading the schools wrong.

If this is true, do you need access to just one school to have the spell on your list?

Necromancy is the school, whereas healing and positive are other traits of the spell (basically "descriptors" like you're familiar with, but not as wordy).

So why not have a different line for school and a different line for descriptors/traits?

If you put the school among all other descriptors/traits, you'll just make confusion in the head of new players or just make more slow to find the spell's school. I think that is really important to segregate them in the mechanic text block.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Notice how Mark didn't say that spell lists weren't divided up based on the essences. I'm gonna take that as a 100% confirmation that I'm correct in my prediction. There's no other possible interpretation of that.
The spell lists are certainly based on the essences in some way. Is it exactly what you guys predicted in this thread? Well, now's not the time to confirm or unconfirm; we have more tricks up our sleeves to share with you in future blogs. I predict if you liked the essences bit in this blog, you will really like a few more of the things to come!

I'm betting more in the four spell lists being something like Arcane, Divine, Nature and Psychic and then each class has access to some specific traditions and/or schools/descriptors of each list.

For instance: wizards have access to Arcane spell list with material/mental essences, with all schools/descriptors; in the other hand, a "eldritch knight/magus/whateverlikeit" would have access to Arcane spells list with material/mental essences, but only to Abjuration, Transmutation and some other specific schools/descriptors.

I guess that, this way, they can build have a more modular core rule to create spell lists to new classes without having to create/think/write all those spell lists and thinking about each spell individually. This way, they will have to think more about concepts, lore, and ideas; and less nitpicking about minor spells, letting the rules do rest by itself. Also this prevents some unbalanced classes' spells list.

Basically, I guess paladins, for example, will have a spell list very similar to clerics, but with some "attacking/offensive" descriptor open to them.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
current format wrote:


Critical Success
Critical Failure

I believe there's a very good reason for this format!

If there is nothing listed for Critical Success, you use the entry above. If there's nothing listed for Critical Failure, you use the entry above.

The best-to-worst method isn't as intuitive for the missing entries. So, while aesthetically less pleasing, I think it's more practical.

There are 24 different ways you can order these entries (though some of those 24 are patently absurd, like Critical Success, Failure, Critical Failure, Success in that order). We've actually tried 5 or 6 different orders over the years of alpha testing, weirdly enough. This current one stuck from a combination of the reason you state (that you will often omit a critical entry), the fact that critical results are less likely to happen than non-critical results in most cases, and the fact that critical results often liked to refer to the non-critical version, a la :

Success You throw a big party for everyone with cupcakes.
Critical Success As success, and the party also has ice cream.

I'd go for

Critical Success
Critical Failure


Critical Failure
Critical Success

I know that maybe the way you did is more intuitional since you'll have more Successes than Critical Successes, but the Failure line will lost the intuitional need the same way...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark, please give some spoilers here:

1) Since there is no indication/denotation of saving throws here, will saves now be a specific, special defense like the suggestion in Active Spellcasting (Spell Attack Roll) of Pathfinder Unchained? If you guys are doing it, I'll be very happy. Until today, I just don't know why in spells the active character who's casting it don't make any effort (roll a dice to attack) and instead the defender need to. Why this do not use the same logic/reasoning of physical attacks and Armor Class?

2) Also, will the type of save be indicated by any of the spell descriptors?

3) For what I saw, there will be no more spell schools, and now, are they divided/segregated only by descriptors? If they still here, please, create a different line describing the spell school in the spell text block.

4) In the Casting line of the spell text block, I just can't see why there is a need to write "Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting, Material Casting".

Will there be another different, new spell action to add here or can you delete the Casting word being repeated a lot of times?

Looks like you don't need to repeat it a lot of times, and since they're already in the Casting line, you can save a lot of lines in the spell chapter and use it to add more content in this or another chapter. (Also, when translating it to latin languages, it'll probably occupy 2 lines of text, since many times we use more than one word to translate casting in this context.)

5) And the last one, about design: the SPELL X indication in the title line gives me goosebumps remembering the 4e ability blocks. Do not forget to verify if this gives the same goosebumps to another readers and can make any unworthy harm to the game presentation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We all know that Skittermanders are the best people in all Starfinder setting, but we're wondering what is the real meaning of their names? What do you mean with skitter (I know it's kind of a slang)?

I'm trying to translate their names to portuguese and wanna keep the meaning intent, so any tip is very welcome :D

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not so exciting post, since it just bring disappointing teasers instead of some interesting things. But there are some considerations:

1) So, if I get a small character, I *need to be* charismatic? Also, if I get a "essentialy/naturally" charismatic character I "need to be" small (please, don't come again with the floating ability boost justification...)?

That's not a good ideia. Please, please, please (I never asked you anything haha), give half-elves a Charisma (and Dex) boost. (And Str/Wis to half-orcs.)

2) All small characters having a Charisma boost? That's the most disappointing thing I've seen here (and remember: I really dislike the raise a shield action to get AC bonus...)!

I was really hoping some change here. Specially after goblins splashing with Dex and Cha boosts.

For me, if goblins (that IMO shouldn't be in the corebook due to their rarity as heroes in Golarion/any other game world...) have a Dex and Cha, you really should then get different races with different ability boosts.

However, that is how I think this should be:

*Goblins are not charismatic by themself (except for those like in RL hyping them). They look much more instinctive creatures than leaders or strong will people; so, I guess they should get a Wisdom boost instead of Charisma. (Also, maybe you should consider if there is a real crunch/rules need to get a boost in physical and mental scores, specially with the floating ability boost. I think there are a need, but maybe you can think something innovative and different.) For me, goblins show get +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Str.

*Halflings are really charismatic (who in the entire Middle-earth dislike Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin and even Golum?!?!?) and able to handle with all kind of people, so they should get the Cha boost. I guess they should keep the +2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Str.

*Gnomes TRY TO be charismatic, but they aren't really pleasant to everyone. In fact, they usually are inconvenient and kind of obnoxious to many other races. However, they ALWAYS are smart, always have quick thinking and use to be wizards, alchemist and crafters. This clearly made them intelligent. So, I'd go with +2 Con, +2 Int, -2 Str. (Gnomes are my preferred race since ever and half my character are gnomes, just for information).

If the intention is to give each ancestry it's own personality, you're failing here. The ability scores of each ancestry is a very important part of them. Even that you give the floating boost to help this, remember: the first thing everyone looks when start reading a race is its ability scores changes. This can make unaware players think (and claim/affirm) that halflings, goblins and gnomes are all "equals", with only different WAR's sketchs.

3) Since now all Small and Medium weapons cause the same damage (as confirmed by Mark), all the Small ancestries receiving a Strenght flaw looks just reasonable. They ARE weaker than Medium people, so they should cause lesser damage. Also: you will not need to make efforts to create crazy/outlandish/stupidy in-game ideas to justify a crunch need.

If there are some Small one that is really strong for its size/people, "matching the strength of the 'tall people'", you can use the floating boost to represent it. For me, just don't make sense to affirm that goblins are stronger than halflings or gnomes and have the same strenght of a human, elf and dwarf.

4) I'd be really happy if you still remain the differentiation to the not-standard (Small/Medium) sizes. Please, don't flat it and make sizes unimportant as you did in Starfinder. This was the worse of all decisions you guys made in Starfinder. Seriously: bad idea ever. (I know it's a different design team, but I guess is my role to alert you of this bad decision.)

5) So, halflings are more sturdy than elves? This look not real to me.

6) I'd preferably go with small characters having a 25 ft speed, Medium (and goblins, blargh!) having a 30 ft speed and fast characters (as elves) having a 35 ft speed. The possibility to walk 3 times in a given round will not happen all the time. Probably, this will occur only in the first round. In the rest of combat, you'll be dumping Medium characters. We don't want the characters to be dumped.

7) The halfling art remember me Hey Arnold! and his football head. Not a cool art... WAR can make it better :P (Except for the anime-ish eyebrows, the gnome one is good.)

8) Bleaching is a bad idea. No one (that since ever liked gnomes) that I know like it. This will not make players choose gnomes more often. Instead, it will probably make players choose gnomes less than now.

9) Discerning Smell gave me the idea of an "Aragorn-style" ranger/tracker gnome. Nice idea!

6 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

so it's entirely possible that the foe's touch AC is based on metagaming nonsense like its CR rather than the fact that it's a lumbering beast the size of a house.

Please, Paizo, don't do that.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>