Culach's page

magnuskn wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)

I know - it's shocking that it's been done that way ever since 3rd Edition debuted. Incredible, isn't it?

At the very least 3.X had tag for each spell which class could cast them.

Weird. I'm looking at my PF1 corebook right now, and I don't see "magus" anyway near the Shield spell.

Weird, I didn't know that Magus could time travel to the release of the CRB and insert themselves into that book. Oh, wait, they can't.

But good to know that you are on the side of terribly organized books.

Given the fact that we now have four traditions of magic, and all classes reference one of those traditions, this is kind of future-proofed - you can add as many arcane casters as you want, a 5th-level Arcane spell is a 5th-level Arcane spell for everyone who uses Arcane spells. There's no good reason to exclude this info from the spell entry.

I agree with Sherlock, we have those Keyword blocks right there so the type of magics that can use it should be listed in there too. I would also recommend that it list Material/Mental/Spiritual/Vital so we can see WHY it is on that list.

Oh, I agree, it definitely needs to be clarified.

Because it wouldn't let me edit my previous response:

1) Can you use Arcana to identify alchemical items?

No. As I stated previously, I think that is a typo and should have said Crafting. All the other feats around Alchemy seem to refer to Crafting leading me to that conclusion.

2) Can you use Crafting to identify alchemical items?

Yes, the crafting ability specifically has the Identify Alchemy.

3) Does using Crafting to do so require the Alchemist tools

Identify Alchemy specifically requires the tools, and I rather imagine them like a geologist's field kit in this regard. It has the items needed to make that quick identification.

4) Does the Alchemical Savant feat ineract with questions 2 and 3?

I would say that was the intent. I suspect we will see that in an errata.

5) If using Crafting, can you just spend another 10 minutes to try again or do you have to wait a day?

I would say yes, but only to INT mod number of attempts/day. After that you would have to wait 24 hours.

6) If the answer to 1 and 2 is yes, and the answer to 5 is no, does that mean the only real use of the alchemist tools in this scenario is to lower the identify time from 1 hour to 10 minutes?

In this scenario, yes, that is what it is doing. Otherwise the person identifying the item is really just guessing at what it might be.

7) If the answer to 6 is yes, does even that become redundant with Alchemical Savant?

No, Alchemical Savant reduces it to a single action to make the Identification, but it requires the Alchemist Tools to do so. I imagine it is more like the alchemist is making and educated guess and reaches for the items that will allow the quickest identification. Also, remember that Alchemical Savant adds a +2 to the identification attempt if you have the item formula in your formula book, so you may need to show the GM what formulas you have.

I actually think it is a typo in Alchemical Savant, but yeah, that needs clearing up.

Creating a character before reading most of the book seems like an exercise in frustration, I'm suprised so many do it that way. Then again, this is the first core rulebook I've actually had to read in order to play a game...in previous games there was always someone around to define the basics and online resources to quickly search for the rest.

For those calling for bold keywords, did you notice game terms are already called out by being Capitalized?

Yes, I DID notice the bold Keywords. I also noticed that they were inconsistent in doing so. Calling it out here in the forums so that they can correct it is not a bad thing. It is kinda what the whole playtest is about.

Not mentioning things that we feel could be done better is how the game will come out poorly. We have become part of the editing staff. It is now our job to help them create the best game we can with the mechanics they have given us.

If we spot something that can be done better, we should point it out, and that is what I did.

According to the Twitch Stream they may get rid of Volley from Longbows and rebalance bows in a different way.

Culach wrote:

Bombs: Should never cost resonance, these are the Alchemists primary weapons and the equivalent of Wizard cantrips which also do not cost resonance. If you want to charge resonance for Bombs, put a limit on Cantrips too.

I believe bombs don't cost resonance to use. They don't have the "Operate Activation" which require RP like other magic items and alchemical items do.

Both Quick Alchemy and Quick Bomber refer to crafting bombs during combat requiring resonance. Even Advanced Alchemy refers to creating Alchemical Items as requiring 1 resonance.

Once the bomb is MADE it costs no resonance to use. Unfortunately the fact that MAKING them costs a resonance is one of the things putting Alchemists so far behind the spell-casting classes.

As some have said, I think resonance has a place, but the implementation has gone off the rails. In another thread I posted some of what I thought were some good possible changes to how resonance is used.

Here they are in essence:

Bombs: Should never cost resonance, these are the Alchemists primary weapons and the equivalent of Wizard cantrips which also do not cost resonance. If you want to charge resonance for Bombs, put a limit on Cantrips too.

Potions & Scrolls: No resonance to use, these are one and done items that become prohibitively expensive to buy too many.

Wands: I think charging resonance for the use of a wand is ok, as long as you remove the charges and make it a permanent item. You are powering the spell inside with your own magic, all that is in the wand is a spell matrix.

Magic Items: Should cost 1 resonance to invest at the beginning of the day, and only cost extra if they have a special extra (ex: the invisibility function on the cloak of elvenkind). Items that are typically inert and only have an effect when activated, such as the ring of the ram, should use the rules for wands.

Armor: Should require the investment at the beginning of the day to activate the Potency and the constant functions (ex: Ghost touch) and only requires a resonance to activate a special, non-constant, ability (ex: Ethereal).

Weapons: Should not require investment to use Potency and constant functions (ex: ghost touch again) but require a resonance for a special function (ex: Dancing).

Staves: Staves should require investment that activates any potency or constant effects, but use charges that regenerate every day to power spell effects the staff produces.

I think that something like that would cover most of the issues that people have with Resonance, while still limiting the overuse of items like happened with Cure Light Wounds.

To quote from my original version:

I understand limiting certain body slots (I have never been able to wear two pair of boots at the same time and two pair of gloves makes fine manipulation a pointless endeavor) but Rings and Amulets should not be limited in the same way.

I can also see not having a real limit on belts. In my life I have seen people wearing FAR more belts than would ever be practical. And hey, if you want to play a 1990's super-hero in a fantasy setting, be my guest. (sooo many belts.)

As for chest and torso slots, I am willing to bet that most players wear two shirts on a regular basis (undershirt and over-shirt), and in winter, how many folks layer. And let us not forget our friend the Tuxedo (particularly the old-time Tuxedo) with an undershirt, overshirt, vest, and coat, and possibly an overcoat.

With cloaks: two cloaks in late fall through early spring is not-bad to great, the rest of the year it can blow. So yeah, you CAN wear multiple cloaks, but if you do it in the Summer (or a Desert/Jungle environment) you had better have more than one waterskin buddy.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

*I have several threads for all of my thoughts, but they are also collected--with a statement of the aims of my analysis--here in this Google Doc.*

- Paizo-specific classes (the ones that really make it Pathfinder and not DnD 3.5) all come late to the party.
Partially addressed! The alchemist is included, which is rad, and a perfect choice, if they had to include only 1 “new” base class. But they don’t. They don’t at all have to include only 1 new base class. And they don’t have to stick to the original DnD3e set. They could have done a lot that would have made this PAIZO’S Pathfinder 2, like including the magus or summoner or witch in place of the wizard, or including the oracle instead of the cleric, or one of the occult classes in for the paladin.

I doubt there will be an Oracle, except possibly as an Archetype, since the Sorcerer is now the all-magic spontaneous caster.

I disagree, I think the Oracle has a pretty unique design space that the Sorcerer is unable to fill.

Curses and their affects are interesting enough that they on their own could be worth bringing in Oracles. Imagine that the Blackened Curse still penalizes combat (maybe limiting them to untrained in any weapon proficiency) but they still get a +2 when working with Fire based spells.

Most gods would grant access to the Divine list, but other gods would probably grant access to other lists (Erastil = Primal, Nethys = Arcane, Pharasma = Occult) leading to a different flavor of caster entirely when combined with their curses.

*Edited for clarity

Overall, I like the new version.

Does it need some adjusting to get things balanced correctly?

Oh my yes. That doesn't mean it is BAD, it just means that the open beta version we are reading needs some work and input from us.

The Sidhe of Celtic Myths (Elves by a different name, and conforming to most of the tropes, but also the depowered descendants of the Celtic Gods after Christianity reached the British Isles) were described as intelligent, cunning, fast and nimble, with humans only able to catch them through trickery (except in the case of certain Heros).

Svartalves (literally "sword-elves") are one of the inspirations for Tolkiens Elves and always seemed to be pretty fast and agile in Norse Mythology. They just weren't enough to overcome the Aesir/Vanir Gods.

Finnish Mythology, yet again another source of inspiration regarding the race for Mr. Tolkien, also has fast and elusive Elves.

Tolkien has been mentioned a great deal but his influence on modern literature, particularly concerning Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings cannot be understated. Many authors of fantasy literature since Tolkien have used his layout to define these races in their own stories.

In Roleplaying, Gary Gygax pretty much lifted the races wholesale from Tolkien's stories, only changing the name of the race of Hobbits due to legal reasons. The game mechanic didn't really support the higher speed, but the improved DEX was supposed to allude to the fact.

Shadowrun has been mentioned, and many other games have also followed the tradition.

The recent movie "Bright" on Netflix also ran with the trope, showing how ingrained the idea is in pop culture today as well.

I know that there are traditions of Elves I am forgetting, but I do feel that the bulk of historical mythology and literature support fast elves.

If there is no magic involved I would say 1 hr is a decent amount of time for potions. Maybe even too short, but for game purposes it should not be any longer.

Stop watching variuos CSI shows, you do not put a sample in a machine and get printout spectogram in 2 minutes.

Some analysis take days!

I would say that if you have better lab, it could be little shorter and you could do multiple samples at once.

Personally, I might agree with you on a potion if it weren't for the fact that there is a pretty significant dearth of alchemical potions in the book. An Alchemist who comes across one should have a pretty good idea where to start and should be able to get through the process pretty rapidly.

"Hmm...this potion smells of cinnamon and ash. Only a couple of potions have similar smells, let me start with the most common one. Yup, this is a Heal Potion."

For other magic items, the various classes have both Detect Magic and Read Auras (2 separate spells to do 1 thing, they should be combined, but that is another thread) which should give them an indication of which school of magic an item is from and help to rapidly narrow those options.

"Look at this wand. It has a low level Abjuration Aura on it. There only a couple of low level abjuration spells commonly placed in wands, so I suspect it will be one of those. Let's start there. Yup, it's a Wand of Mage Armor."

Now I could buy into the idea of a Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, or Rogue having this issue, but not the core magic and alchemy classes.

What the current rules have is something akin to a geologist walking up to a rock formation and saying, "It is going to take me an hour to figure out what kind of rock this is guys. Go take a break while I do this." When in fact, they can usually figure out what it is just by looking at it, and the test is to confirm their hypothesis. And even then, it usually only takes, at most, a few minutes. 10 minutes is a long time except in special circumstances.

Also, one reason it takes so long in real life for actual identification is that there are not as many crime labs as one would suspect from watching TV and most departments actually have to share or send out to labs that are overwhelmed with a backlog. However, once the scientists actually get their hands on the evidence it tends to go pretty fast because they generally have a pretty good idea where to begin due to familiarity with the kinds of things they specialize in.

for example:
Detective finds a thread and sends it to the lab.
Scientist looks and says to themselves, "this is some form of polymer thread."
Knowing that it is a polymer thread, they run tests to confirm which polymer.
Knowing which polymer they the cross reference materials books they have that could tell them what uses that kind of polymer thread.

Now, if the Identification in-game worked on a similarly tiered system I could get behind an hour to figure something out completely.
Tier 1: figure out the base item you are looking at
Tier 2: in depth info on how it works
Tier 3: traditions or schools that use the techniques and materials used to create the item in question
Tier 4: the specific individual that created the item. (This might require a slightly higher DC)

Unique items I would also understand taking more time. In fact, I would say that a breakdown for the Tier 1 above should look more like this:
Common Items = 10 min
Uncommon Items = 30 min
Rare Items = 1 hour
Unique Items = 1 day

This makes the rarity of the item play better into the timing of identification and makes more sense within the game.

But that is my feeling on it.

YMMV

The problem is, bulk addresses not only weight but the size of the item in question. This makes giving hard numbers a lot trickier than just saying that 2.5lbs (the average weight of a real-world arming sword (Longsword in-game) is 1 bulk.

That said, I prefer the older weight system and just handwaving the issue of bulk to haversacks, bags of holding, efficient quivers and other similar items.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I mean, if we're carrying or dragging Bob the 200 lb Fighter...is that 20 Bulk or 40?

20, since people have handles in the shoulders, on the ankles. Also because "when in doubt, go with what benefits the party".

100% agreed on both "trained in 3 skills" is too few for martial classes and "signature skills are overly limiting."

Sorry if someone had already answered this,

On page 323:

Petrified
You have been turned to stone. You can’t act and you have the blinded and deafened conditions. You become an object with a Bulk equal to twice your normal Bulk (typically 16 for a petrified Medium creature or 8 for a petrified Small creature)...

According to this Medium creatures are Bulk 8 and small are Bulk 4.

I'm always a bit surprised to see people railing against "Vancian magic" by saying that's not how magic works in fiction. Really we rarely see the same spell or effect repeated in multiple instances in most works. How do we know that Vancian magic is not at work? We don't. It's just an assumption that smart players make because they don't like the term for whatever reason. How many spells does Gandolph cast? How many are cast in infinite progression? Doctor Strange? Harry Dresden?

Gandalf channels his magic more than he casts it in any fashion similar to Vancian. In fact, from the books and movies, he is more like the next two. (With the added bonus of being an angel)

Doctor Strange (in the comics) goes and checks his tomes to make sure he doesn't mess up a spell, or to try and figure out how to cast them, not because he forgets them. He is often seen casting spells like "the Crimson Bands of Cytorak" multiple times. In the movies he just keeps moving energy around (which is exactly what the Ancient One described magic as).

Harry Dresden's magic is EXPLICITLY described as not being Vancian. It actually drains the caster and can actually cause them to pass out if they put too much power into it, unless they can draw from a different source (like in Storm Front). In fact, casting a couple of powerful spells has nearly killed Harry.

Personally, I think Playtest HAS a better magic system already built in. Two of them actually. Powers could EASILY be expanded to cover ALL spells that a mage would use on a regular basis. Rituals would cover those spells that are EPIC in nature (Wish, Miracle).

How would it work in practice?

I would say that Bards would add their Stat Mod each level. Druids and Paladins could probably do the same. Clerics and Wizards might add their mod+1 each level. Sorcerers would likely add their stat mod+5.

Reasoning: Bards, Paladins and Druids have a great deal more going on than just spells, but I could see Druids being moved to the same category as Clerics. Clerics and Wizards get a great deal of flexibility in spells, being able to have more spells they would have access to. They just don't have as much raw power to keep casting them ad nauseum. Sorcerers have a limited number of spells they know, but they are power houses able to keep casting when other casters can't, unfortunately, that spell they can cast may not be the one they need.

Rituals are great, read up on them if you haven't. I would say that Bards, Clerics, and Wizards should have greater access to these based on the nature of the three classes.

Those are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree.

Edit: Dang it, zer0darkfire snuck in and said what I wanted to in a slightly more succinct fashion.

'Padded Armor' should be renamed to 'Gambeson' in my opinion. But then we get back into the same issues we had over in our discussion about the various swords. I do think it would be a far simpler fix in this case as I feel fewer people are as invested in the name 'Padded Armor' as in the sword names.

I think that 'Leather Lammellar' would better fit the design space of 'Studded Leather', and be more authentic to boot.

Drop the Splint Mail and go with 'Iron Lamellar'.

And yes, please drop Mail (properly 'Maille') and call it Scale Armor.

I can actually see PCs using this in several scenarios.

Any scenario where they are in the wild and being chased by enemies. Cover Tracks will make it slightly more difficult for the enemies to find them.

Similarly, in a babysitter mission, where you have to get "Important NPC" from Point A to Point B while traveling through hostile territory, I could see using this to make it more difficult for enemies to find you and hit your failure condition.

Scouting scenarios. These are scenarios where you are trying to gather valuable intel on what the other side is doing, but you don't want them to know you were there. (More explicitly: sending a PC to scout an enemy encampment.)

In each case it is about making sure the other side has difficulty finding you and/or your party.

From page 175 in the Playtest Rulebook:

If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage. Some magical or especially sturdy items can take more than 1 Dent before becoming broken, as noted in their descriptions.

The bolded text is what I actually experienced at PaizoCon when playing Valeros. That was ONE hit.

Also note that it says that if it takes another Dent after becoming broken it is now destroyed beyond salvage.

In another thread I also suggested that the higher the quality the more Dents it should be able to take. I would suggest something like this:

Expert = +2 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 5/Dents 4)
Master = +4 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 7/Dents 6; Mithral Shield = Hardness 5/ Dents 6; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 6)
Legendary = +6 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 8; Mithral Shield = Hardness 8/ Dents 8; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 13/Dents 8; Orichalcum Shield = Hardness 16/Dents 8)

I would also have the level of potency on a shield (if it can have potency, the rules on runes only say armor, so it's unclear) add an extra dent for each '+' the rune grants (if it added an extra '+2' hardness per potency level that would be great and make magic shields far more useful).

At higher levels it is still possible to blow through the shield completely, but it is less likely to happen on any single hit.

I would also have AT LEAST this apply to weapons too. It should be difficult to destroy a Legendary magic sword.

On a side note: I would love to have the Hardness listed for weapons and armor on their tables, and for special/magical weapons and armor in at least the Item Description (if not also on their tables).

I kinda like the idea of rarity dictating the amount of time needed to identify the item.

Or you could do it by level:
It takes 10 minutes to identify an item of your level, 10 min per level above you, and subtract minutes for each level below you. Rarity could add 10 minutes each for Uncommon and Rare. But that is a lot of math and probably not much fun at the table.

The way it was explained to me:

Arcane = Nuts and bolts magic. Types: Mental/Material
Divine = Faith-based magic. Types: Spiritual/Vital
Nature = magic springing from life. Types: Material/Vital
Occult = things man was not meant to know. Types: Mental/Spiritual.

So:
Wizards = Technicians of magic.
Clerics = Save you body & Soul.
Druids = Draw power from the world around.
Bards = Getting into things they really shouldn't, Cthulu is waiting right around that corner.

The types of armor most likely the cause of this confusion was Brigandine.

Grave Knight wrote:

I'm not sure why they decided bastard swords are giant rapiers (or why they think they need to continue the bastard sword, longsword, greatsword trope when in real life all three of these weapons are the same weapon).

Sorry to degrade into a pedantic rant, but I've got to disagree with the second statement. They most certainly were separate things, although names can be debated and can confuse things. Longsword covers all the straight, one handed swords that aren't really short (such as medieval European arming swords but also ones from other cultures like the straight middle eastern blades, African swords like the kaskara and takoba, Asian swords like the jian, as well as earlier swords like the Viking and migration era swords and Roman spatha etc). Bastard swords cover the intermediate length swords popular in the later medieval period that were mostly used two-handed but perfectly capable of being used one handed (HEMA practitioners and I believe weapon historians normally use the term Longsword to refer to these, sometimes bastard sword is used to refer to a sub-type with a shorter hilt). Greatsword represents the really big purely two-handed swords of the Renaissance like the Spanish Montante, German Zweihander and Italian Spadone. These were bigger, up to 7 feet long total and often had a secondary guard on the blade for half-swording. There were also purely ceremonial Bearing Swords that were just big oversized and overweight swords that are sometimes mistaken for these, but weren't intended for combat.

Actually, I have several period texts on my shelf and stored on my computer that say otherwise. What is called the longsword in game was often called an "arming sword" or just "sword" (or "sward" depending on the text, Germans often used "swart"). It was occasionally refered to as a longsword, but the swords that fell between the arming sword and true two-handers (called by the Germans "zweihand") were the weapons most commonly called longswords (references being period (read Medieval & Renaissance) sword masters: Ringeck, dei Liberi, Marrozzo, Silver, Tallhoffer, and others).

In fact, Ewart Oakeshott, when he was trying to classify the various types of swords he was comming across, found that period texts were incredibly useless for classifying the various types of sword depicted and the wide variation found within the range of weapons they referred to as "longswords". It was so bad that he had to create his own typology, which is better at defining the type of longsword you have, but is itself incredibly confusing for the layperson.

Much of the confusion surrounding sword terminology can be traced to the 1800s and early museum curators. They were more interested in pleasing their patrons than with historical accuracy. Longsword became used for the arming swords because they were longer than the small-sword which their patrons were familiar with from gentleman duels. The term bastard-sword shows up when they couldn't figure out how to describe the actual longswords, but they saw them as a bastardization between the "longswords" and the "greatswords". Richard F. Burton's book "The Book of the Sword" (1884) helped to spread the misinformation to the masses with the help of fencers of the time (predecessors to today's Olympic Fencers). They also helped to spread to confusion about HOW these weapons were used (all the swords I have mentioned are Slashing/Piercing(through thrusting and half-swording)/Bashing (through use of the murder-stroke) weapons).

Sorry about my rant, but with too much time on my hands, I spend WAY too many hours researching swords in particular, armor, and other medieval aspects of life.

All of that said, I do NOT see the terminology changing with this iteration of the game.

All Lore subskills are signature skills, except Bardic Lore which specifically calls out a special condition to reach master.

Additional Lore does something else, you get your new Lore subset, but in addition, you get extra skill level ups that you can use to raise ONLY Lore skills to Master or Legendary.

This means that you can basically raise a Lore skill to legendary for a feat, and you can use your other skill level ups to raise something that isn't Lore to legendary.

Powers are there because they follow all of the same rules for spells except for the resource expended. Powers costs spell points, spells cost spell slots. In all other ways they operate identically.

This is true.

The problem is, most of the powers are unique to a class (Clerics and Paladins Share) and their mention in the class lacks a page number to reference meaning that the reader has to try and find the power.

Second, for new players who don't know that powers and spells are almost identical, they may not realize they need to look in spells. It isn't necessarily intuitive.

My recommendation would be to have a power listed with the Bloodline/Domain/School that it is associated with in order to simplify locating it. Barring that, powers should have their own section separate from spells for easier location.

Right now it just isn't intuitive.

Joe Mucchiello wrote:

If Culach is right, at high level, why would anyone ever carry a shield? The very first encounter, you raise it, it blocks 5 hp, and is destroyed. So shields are basically one use, mundane items that for 10 sp or so give 5 temporary hp. Only at very low level do you get a few uses out of them.

Why would anyone spend the money to make a +1 shield? or a +5 shield? By the time you can afford it, monsters are doing enough damage to destroy it in one shot.

From the bestiary, this is (randomly) from the Harpy, a level 5 creature:
Melee morningstar +13 (versatile P), Damage 2d8+4 bludgeoning
Melee talon +13 (agile), Damage 2d6+4 slashing

Those attacks average 13 and 11 damage.

Crafting: Seriously, I'm going to go into a dungeon and face a dozen encounters. After the first one, maybe two, I'm going to carry around this broken shield the rest of the way, including into the boss fight so I can repair it. Rather than just spending another 10-20 sp when I get back to town?

More annoying. Light shields have a bulk of L. I can just see some fighter saying he has 20 shields in his backpack that only take up 2 bulk. Each fight, he just keep swapping out shield after shield. (Not a first level, of course, but eventually 200 sp is not a lot of money.)

Actually, Hardness 5 means 13 damage only gives 1 dent.

13-5=8 damage. How many times does 5 go into 8, once (also, you the character take 8 but that isn't important to discussion).
So one dent.

That is how simple it is.
Now if the creature Crits Shield is breaking but eh.

Shields are temp DR. +1 X increases Hardness by 2 I think. Type of Shield matters as well (Legendary Shield also increases Hardness by 3)
So a +5 Legendary Shield has around 30 DR.
There is also the weaker but never denting Living Shield with only DR 23 but never dents.

Actually you are wrong here.

Each multiple of 5 by which the Hardness is exceeded counts as another dent.

Example: incoming 13 damage, Shield has a hardness of 5, this means it takes 2 dents and is broken (2x5=10, 10<13=Broken shield).

From the book page 175:

ITEM DAMAGE

An item can be destroyed if it takes damage enough times.
An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness.
The Hardness of various materials is explained in the
Materials section on page 354. If an item takes damage
equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes
a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than
twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance,
a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would
take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without
becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become
broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would
take a Dent or become broken while already broken is
destroyed beyond salvage. Some magical or especially
sturdy items can take more than 1 Dent before becoming
broken, as noted in their descriptions.

Same example with differing numbers but the same result.

I think that part of the problem is that the ability to pick up new languages is hidden in the Society Skill, and needs a feat. Making harder for those who want to play linguistic characters to realize their potential.

Part of me believes that the intent is that Society be the Social Studies default, and new culture knowledge equals new languages. The problem I have with it is that not everyone who learns about a new culture learns the language, and not everyone who learns a new language learns about the culture (putting a kind of cap on how good someone can really be at each).

How I would deal with this:

Each level of Society (Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary) allows the ability to add 2 new languages (because everything else is based on 2s where this stuff is involved) and feats can increase these numbers. I might also make it so that Multilingual adds 2 to each of the level ups. This would allow the linguistically inclined to feel like they are getting something out of a skill they might otherwise not take.

What I want to know is why Paizo nerfed the quality of life spells. My guess is "genre considerations," i.e., trying to be more sword & sorcery. Never mind that today's demographic is likely going to think about at least cleanliness first thing...

So...what's your take on the matter, Paizo?

Even if using genre considerations and trying to be more 'sword & sorcery' they still got it wrong. Aragorn, Conan, and most others CLEANED UP, including a bath, before going to meet people. It was usually one of the first things they did on reaching a new town or village. Using this spell to speed that up for the party and myself was part of the fun, nerfing it the way it was makes it less so. Still useful, just not as magical feeling.

I do note that, the way it is worded, the character with this spell can become the alchemist's best friend by supplying an unlimited number of alchemical vials for bombs. The vial isn't the weapon, the concoction inside is, and the fragility of the vial makes it good for this purpose.

I think it breaks down to, at some point, someone thought "If you don't have a class that is based around knowing things, you don't."

The problem is that it really underplays how skilled martials could be.

In real life, soldiers and warriors have had to develop many skills and learn a large number of things in order to do their jobs. Skills like Nature, Stealth, Medicine, Diplomacy, and Survival are all necessary to do the job well.

This is borne out in fantasy literature with such characters of Aragorn and Conan, among others, who were knowledgeable about many things beyond just "BEAT UP BAD GUY!"

In short, yeah, I would love to see more skills for martial characters.

I think I might houserule it that without the specialized lore you can only repair items, not create.

In fact, while the text doesn't indicate that directly, the table for item creation implies it, as there is NO column for untrained.

Telekinetic Projectile dealing more damage soon gets outpaced by it not targeting TAC.

Ray of Frost actually has fairly good damage on top of its range; that makes it the bread-and-butter option for instant damage, now.

Cantrip access is fairly simple given ancestry feats, and ancestry feats generally are not that strong anyway, so you are not missing out on much.

The thing to remember is that everyone is now a Full BAB unlike before, so I don't think you will find it falling off as fast as you think. You lose out on some Criticals, but with the new crit rules, I don't think you will lose as many as you might think.

Also, thanks to everyone for the corrections on Acid Splash.

So now it looks like:

-Acid Splash: Best for dealing with swarms, persistent damage, best for gear breaking. Ranged Touch. Neutralized by Acid Resistance.
-Electric Arc: Multiple targets, no attack roll. Reduced by saving throw, neutralized by Electricity Resistance.
-Produce Flame: highest persistent damage. Ranged Touch. Neutralized by Fire Resistance.
-Ray of Frost: Best Range. Ranged Touch. Neutralized by Cold Resistance.
-Telekinetic Projectile: Highest Damage, most flexible damage type, most options for getting around DR. Ranged Attack. Neutralized by DR.

here is how range and damage stacks up:

Acid Splash- 30' - 1d4 (1 persist)/1d4+mod (2 persist)/2d4+mod (3 persist)/3d4+mod (4 persist)/4d4+mod (5 persist)
Electric Arc- 30' - 1d6/1d6+mod/2d6+mod/3d6+mod/4d6+mod
Produce Flame- 30' - 1d4 (1d4 persist)/1d6+mod (1d4 persist)/2d6+mod (2d4 persist)/3d6+mod (3d4 persist)/4d6+mod (4d4 persist)
Ray of Frost- 60' - 1d8/1d8+mod/2d8+mod/3d8+mod/4d8+mod
Telekinetic Projectile-30' - 1d10/1d8+mod/2d10+mod/3d10+mod/4d10+mod

Looking at it now, I think they all have their uses and a wizard that lacks them is foolish, and I now see that neither Acid Splash nor Telekinetic Projectile is pointless, they just have different uses.

• Why are Bastard Swords only piercing damage? Are they a giant rapier? What?
  
• What is this? I'll let it slide that Katana are listed as a 1 handed weapon even though they aren't. However, Versatile P is absurd. They're a single edged sword. Oh also they're just a longsword that costs twice a much.
  
• There are too many polearms and too many knives. There are 6 different knives that deal 1d4 P damage. I understand that weapon traits make them different, but I don't care.
  
• In an edition where you want to simplify the game, having 31 weapon traits and 13 critical effects to consider for your weapon choice in addition to damage and cost and bulk maybe

...

-I had the same thoughts about the Bastard Sword, especially when other swords of similar shape and use (Shortsword, Longsword, Greatsword) were all listed with versatility. Hopefully this was an oversight, especially since it costs more than buying a longsword and a greatsword combined. Also of note, but confirmed excluded due to balance issues, is the lack of versatility B, but I hope that a feat is added that allows for that (like the old weapon versatility).

-Katanas make no sense here, either for being one-handed (though I have seen them used like this it is not the way they are supposed to be used), or the piercing when almost every other single-edge sword (falchions and scmitars for example)lacks the versatility trait. The cost is a kicker too, just buy a longsword and handwave it. Added up, it is the opposite problem of the bastard sword above.

-I agree on the polearms and knives. Another issue, as someone else pointed out, the Kukri should have Deadly or Fatal, NOT Trip. Gurkhas don't use them to trip anyone; hack them dead in one blow yes, trip no.

-Agree on the simplification of the traits. Deadly and Fatal, seen above, have almost identical applications. Roll the redundant traits into one trait and get rid of the chaff.

-Costs I can live with, unless they don't make sense (see Bastard Sword and Katana above).

-Longspear = Pike, ok...I can buy that...

I was interested in the Arcanist before, mainly because none of the existing classes quite hit the right spot for my imaginings of one of my characters.

NOW you have gone and made the concept EXACTLY what I was looking for.

And for the Riftwar fans, the scene that popped immediately to my head when I read the description was when Macros took the little magic hammer and used its magic power to enchant Arutha's sword.