Davick's page

Davick wrote:

Not a false equivalence. And your declaration of such makes me hesitant to consider the rest of your post.

Okay, now you're just trolling. You seriously consider these two option equivalent:

You originally had access to just A.
"Hey, now you get to choose between A OR B"
and
"Hey, you get BOTH A AND B"?

If you fail to see a difference between increasing power directly by giving people -more- things without removing anything in exchange, and presenting people with new options with the cost of needing to trade something for them, I can't help you.

"I don't like being presented with facts so I'm not gonna read the rest of your post". XD

Except that all the options are still limited. If you get quickdraw and power attack, you still can't use them both at the same time. But by having both available to me I have increased the amount of FUN that I am having. That is good. This is a good thing. If you want to phrase that as a power increase, then explain why it is one detrimental to how the game is played given that these options are still gated. No one seems to be too bothered that spellcasters have more than one spell of a given level, but if a martial character ends up with another feat to use at a given level, that's just too far? I don't see it.

I will say that were PFS to adopt this option, it would have to start with re-evaluating ALL archetypes. As stated previously, these have not been evaluated for balance/etc with this option in mind.

Plus, it is clear that there are some very powerful CRB options available, such as Champion for free Lay on Hands, but I am sure there are other equally potent options for archetypes as well.

While some folks might use the free archetypes for color and to fill out holes in their characters' designs, it is my opinion (based on 10 years of Organized Play) that many, if not most, will choose power options.

Without this option in play, you can still use ALL of the sanctioned archetypes available (though some may require ACP to gain access). This option would not open up any new archetypes, as you could only choose those already available for play. But, as Blake's Tiger says:

Blake's Tiger wrote:

And we run the risk of losing access to sanctioned archetypes when they find an interaction they don’t like.

we would likely lose options, as there are choices that when taken together WILL create more powerful characters, without a doubt.

I am all for using Free Archetypes in home games (and do so in 2 APs that I am running). I just think that they are more of an "expert mode" option that requires more discussion with the GM than is possible in Organized Play.

I've yet to see any examples of any of these "power options" that are particularly powerful and especially not so that they counterbalance the improved experience of allowing it. Once again, everyone is saying "THere MIGHT be negatives, therefore we should discard all the documented positives."

Allow me to clarify my point: If OP were to repeat the sanctioning process on the X existing archetypes that are legal under the Core rule with Free Archetype now in mind, we might come out with X-Y archetypes being legal. All those people who were enjoying the archetypes included in subset Y lose access to those archetypes.

Why would that happen? Seems like unfounded paranoia.

Davick wrote:

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Up to 10 more class feats = more power.

That's pretty simple.

Davick wrote:

But when new books and classes come out, we won't forbid those in the name of balance will we? Much less preemptively because they MIGHT cause an issue.

They actually do. All the time. It's the sanctioning process. All those Limited and Restricted designations are things that are forbidden in the name of balance.

That at the very least everyone could add Lay on Hands to every single one of their characters without a trade-off (6 hp/2 levels healing and a 1 round +2 to the target's AC with no real limit) does not immediately make you realize that Free Archetype would fundamentally change the power dynamics within the PFS campaign, then I can't imagine an argument that would change your mind.

So you're saying they could do it and just put it through the sanctioning process to avoid these types of issues you bring up. Then everyone wins.

Of course they could do it. They said that they’re not going to fairly early in this thread.

However, let us hypothetically say that they change their stance on this and do repeat the sanctioning on every currently published archetype with free archetype interactions in mind. That will at a minimum postpone sanctioning of all future products because there are only so many hours in a day. Possibly increasing to time to sanction new books with archetypes as they need to run those combinations back through all the existing archetypes.

And we run the risk of losing access to sanctioned archetypes when they find an interaction they don’t like.

So you think it's a good idea to not do this thing because it could lead to broken combos but also because you don't want it to expose broken combos YOU like. Strange.

Davick wrote:

You're welcome to disagree with me but don't sit here and just tell me to shut my opinion up and stick to home games. Not cool. If you don't want to have this conversation, don't. How about that?

I think my point is better expressed as thus

I understand your point. I disagree that such a change would be for the better. I highly suspect your desired change will not happen. I would suggest not getting your hopes up. I present 'home' game an option so that you can enjoy the game, playing it your desired way.

Considering I entered this conversation at the head of OP saying it ain't gonna happen, I have no hopes whatsoever. I am however well aware of alternatives like home games, as I'm sure everyone is.

Davick wrote:

More books will be more stuff. Do you oppose allowing new material in PFS?

False equivalency: New books bring New stuff. Just because paizo published gunslingers, it doesn't mean all my characters suddenly became proficient with guns and gained them for free. If I want to get guns, my characters need to trade away something else, be it class feats, their own class, home region to another, gold that would have been used for something else, and so on. The new books didn't suddenly grant all my characters double the amount of anything, they merely granted new options, while free archetype would directly grant all of my characters double the amount of class feats (half of which must be spent on the archetype(s)).

It is true that new stuff brings new combos and power creep is always a thing, but 2e math is very tightly balanced - way more strictly controlled than in 1e, so new options are much closer in power to the old ones than they used to be in 1e - the comparisons and discussion on the gunslinger and whether or not guns are worth it, is a good example.

Also, Rarely do new books bring out something that's so fundamental in function/power that it's a "must" for PCs and completely overrides all previous options, but sometimes we do get stuff like that - for example, in Secrets of magic we got the Retrieval Prism. In 1e, having spring-loaded wrist-sheaths was nearly mandatory because the boost to action economy when you really needed it, was just massive. In 2e, now that we have the retrieval prism, I'm probably going to buy one or two on each and every character I have. However, at 12gp per use it's not exactly free, you can only use one at a time and it's tied to a specific item, and it takes up your armor's talisman slot. In the last adventure I played, each use would have cost me roughly 10% of the gold we gained as reward - not that cheap for a quick one-use boost to action economy.

EDIT: I mean, if we had the option of trading away our general...

Not a false equivalence. And your declaration of such makes me hesitant to consider the rest of your post.

The biggest issue, as pointed out earlier, is less of the cap of power being raised due to free archetype, it is the inevitable widening of the possible power gap between players at the same table. That was a big issue back in PF1 that could not be contained because of the mechanics. Now, with PF2, it is a lot easier to manage. One of the ways they do such, is by not using the free archetype system.

If you are so opposed to how OP runs things, you are always welcome to just play home games with your preferred rule sets. In fact, you can even play PFS scenarios with a home group without it counting for PFS credit. That way, you can follow along on the great story being produced while playing your way. The limitations placed on PFS don't work for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with that.

You're welcome to disagree with me but don't sit here and just tell me to shut my opinion up and stick to home games. Not cool. If you don't want to have this conversation, don't. How about that?

Up to 10 more class feats = more power.

That's pretty simple.

Davick wrote:

But when new books and classes come out, we won't forbid those in the name of balance will we? Much less preemptively because they MIGHT cause an issue.

They actually do. All the time. It's the sanctioning process. All those Limited and Restricted designations are things that are forbidden in the name of balance.

That at the very least everyone could add Lay on Hands to every single one of their characters without a trade-off (6 hp/2 levels healing and a 1 round +2 to the target's AC with no real limit) does not immediately make you realize that Free Archetype would fundamentally change the power dynamics within the PFS campaign, then I can't imagine an argument that would change your mind.

So you're saying they could do it and just put it through the sanctioning process to avoid these types of issues you bring up. Then everyone wins.

Davick wrote:

Seeing a lot of posts around the concept that free archetype makes stronger characters, and frankly, I've just not seen that. It seems like one of those things where the obvious outcome (more stuff = more power) just doesn't turn out to be true.

...

Just kinda feels like people are identifying a (potential) negative and completely failing to weigh it against the positive and instead discarding it.

Lol. More stuff = More power, plain and simple. That will -always- be true, especially in the case of free archetypes. It quite literally does not matter which archetype you pick as your free archetype, that character will -always- be more powerful than a character without free archetype.

Granted, sometimes that advantage will be laughably small (like in the case of Gladiator archetype - you get just 1 additional lore, and a small benefit if you're fighting in front of an audience) but sometimes it can be huge, for example in the case of my monk/Wizard:
I've spent all of my class feats from level 2+ to wizard dedication, picking basic spellcasting at 4, school spell at 6, and arcane breadth at 8. I have just one, a single monk feat from level 1: my style feat, and after spending level 3 general feat for adopted ancestry: Human and level 7 general feat on ancestral paragon to pick extra human ancestry feat for natural ambition to pick a 1st level monk feat to gain ki strike.
With free archetype, I could have also picked up stunning fist, Wholeness of body, stand still, and flurry of maneuvers, giving a substantial and direct boost to my combat performance. Or I could have used the free archetype to pick up rogue for more skills and damage increase from sneak attack.

All of my characters would greatly benefit from a free archetype, and a no-brainer option if you can't figure out a good combo would be to just pick the Blessed One archetype for every single one of your characters: Lay on Hands provides infinite off-combat healing, and can be used during combat if necessary....

More books will be more stuff. Do you oppose allowing new material in PFS?

Davick wrote:

Belafon wrote:

The difference between home games and Organized Play. (With archetypes in mind but really about anything that changes the Core expectations):

Home Game
-Player: "Hey, can we use the Free Archetype rules? I've got this really cool character idea, let me tell you about it."
-GM: "That does sound cool, and it's not going to substantially change the campaign I'm planning. Sure, you can have a free archetype."

Organized Play:
-Player: "Hey, can we use the Free Archetype rules? I've got this really cool character idea, let me tell you about it."
-OP Leadership: "That does sound cool, let me think about it."
-Player 2 (silently thinking): "Hehe, I hope they allow it. I've got this combo that you ordinarily have to be 10th level to pull off but with a free archetype I can manage it at 5."

The biggest difference is that if Player 2 does attempt that combo in a home game, the GM can immediately assess the impact and either allow, disallow, or modify based on that impact. In OP Leadership would have to retroactively react to such things, and can't modify prepublished scenarios. Home games are by their nature intimate and collaborative experiences.

What combo is that?

I don't know, and that's the point.

In my home game if I allow Player 1 to do something (use free archetypes) for a purpose that is fun and thematic but doesn't really affect the power level and Player 2 comes up with a use of the same thing (that does affect the power level) then I will be reacting in real time to Player 2. Maybe I tell him "that's out of scale with our campaign, what other archetypes do you like?" Maybe I let him use it but start throwing in deliberate counters or additional opponents to balance it out. Maybe it is powerful but isn't going to impact the campaign much so I let him use it with no modifications. Maybe I use his choice as a basis for a difficult role-playing encounter.

Organized Play doesn't have that flexibility. There's no way that...

But when new books and classes come out, we won't forbid those in the name of balance will we? Much less preemptively because they MIGHT cause an issue. If someone uncovered a powerful combo without free archetype would it get banned? The ubiquitous power gaming that goes on without free archetype shows me that it wouldn't. I don't see the difference. And so if the best counter is a hypothetical maybe one day it causes a problem downsides, that just doesn't justify to me right now opposing something with obvious and identifiable upsides.

It isn't that all characters will become more powerful by adding an archtype.

But rather that the more combinations, the greater the ability to find a combination that is excessively more powerful.

This means that rather than making all characters more powerful, the *range* between the strongest characters and the weakest characters will get *wider*.

Which in many ways is far, far worse.

To add to that, most (if not all?) archetypes come from books that are only legal for play if you own the source books.

Meaning there will two distinct tiers of power, and you only get to enter the higher tier if you pay money.

And that is the sort of situation OPF has always tried to avoid. (not always successfully, but still they try.)

Always tried to avoid? That does not match any experience I've encountered.

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

To add to that, most (if not all?) archetypes come from books that are only legal for play if you own the source books.

Most. There are 10 in the LO:WG. However, the really good ones are in the APG.

/end response to Jared

Others earlier in the thread:

What can you do at 8th that you can't do at 2nd? What about all the things you can't do without it?

You get a fighter with full access to fighter feats plus the Barbarian MC archetype on top of that. You get an investigator with full access to the investigator feats plus spellcasting from witch or wizard MC archetype. You can add Lay on Hands to any character while they still get to choose from their class feats.

While I think the free archetype is a great house rule for allowing characters that normally you would avoid (e.g., a fighter with the archeologist archetype or even a rogue with the acrobat archetype), it would throw a big wrench in PFS.

Thought this was a post about how it's a great idea right up until you said it wasn't. Why do we want less cool stuff in pfs?

The difference between home games and Organized Play. (With archetypes in mind but really about anything that changes the Core expectations):

Home Game
-Player: "Hey, can we use the Free Archetype rules? I've got this really cool character idea, let me tell you about it."
-GM: "That does sound cool, and it's not going to substantially change the campaign I'm planning. Sure, you can have a free archetype."

Organized Play:
-Player: "Hey, can we use the Free Archetype rules? I've got this really cool character idea, let me tell you about it."
-OP Leadership: "That does sound cool, let me think about it."
-Player 2 (silently thinking): "Hehe, I hope they allow it. I've got this combo that you ordinarily have to be 10th level to pull off but with a free archetype I can manage it at 5."

The biggest difference is that if Player 2 does attempt that combo in a home game, the GM can immediately assess the impact and either allow, disallow, or modify based on that impact. In OP Leadership would have to retroactively react to such things, and can't modify prepublished scenarios. Home games are by their nature intimate and collaborative experiences.

What combo is that?

Davick wrote:

Eric Nielsen wrote:

They'd have to, at a minimum, revisit all the sanctioning decisions. Everything was evaluated from the baseline w/out free archetypes. Which means that things that couldn't interact until level 8 or so, could start interacting at level 2, which is a drastic shift in what has the potential to cause problems at the current most common play levels.

What could you do at level 2 that you couldn't until level 8 before?

A wizard with toughness, heavy armor proficiency, and trained martial weapon proficiency.

Sounds like a big whoopity doo to me.

They'd have to, at a minimum, revisit all the sanctioning decisions. Everything was evaluated from the baseline w/out free archetypes. Which means that things that couldn't interact until level 8 or so, could start interacting at level 2, which is a drastic shift in what has the potential to cause problems at the current most common play levels.

What could you do at level 2 that you couldn't until level 8 before?

Seeing a lot of posts around the concept that free archetype makes stronger characters, and frankly, I've just not seen that. It seems like one of those things where the obvious outcome (more stuff = more power) just doesn't turn out to be true. Feats are all level gated so there's no way to get stuff before you're "supposed" so have it, and so many feats that do provide real power also come at action cost which makes them discrete choices. Choices are nice, but calling them powerful seems a stretch, and I'd argue that whatever power "imbalance" that creates is a fine trade for the significant increase in fun that it brings to the table.

The issue I would identify is that the core rulebook multiclass archetypes probably need to be punched up a bit to make them more viable but this idea that new players would "have to" use more than the core book didn't seem to mean much when 1e had reached 47 thousand books with tons of classes to the point that they later came out with a core only version.

Just kinda feels like people are identifying a (potential) negative and completely failing to weigh it against the positive and instead discarding it.

Thread Title wrote:

Any consideration about making Free Archetype the default for PFS2?

Nope.

Any chance of getting insight into the reasoning on that?

Davick wrote:

Cap'n Nemo wrote:

Jeff Alvarez wrote:

Accusations that I have used offensive slurs about members of the staff are categorically FALSE. Many LGBTQIA+ members of the Paizo staff are close friends of mine, and I would never talk that way about anyone on our staff or in our community.

Sir, the issue is no matter what, you are only bringing bad publicity to Paizo now. Your empty statement doesnt talk about any actionable steps you or the rest of Paizo are going to take, just what you have done, and one of the allegations is that of taking credit while pushing back on those same ideas. Even if the allegations are false, the doubt will linger in people's minds. When this happens the company needs some kind of change to restore faith. Whether that is an independent investigation of all the claims with transparent reporting of the findings, or a change in leadership that is considered problematic at this time by public perceptions.

Not that I think it's relevant in this situation, but the idea that someone needs to resign over accusations because doubt may linger is a really bad one.

What people are looking for with a resignation is accountability.

As Jeff's presented no plan of action or clarification, then the call for replacements and resignations won't go away quickly with a boiler plate denial and defaulting to "some of my friends are gay".

Like I said, I don't know that it applies here. Just that the idea that someone should resign just because there are accusations is bad.

Jeff Alvarez wrote:

Accusations that I have used offensive slurs about members of the staff are categorically FALSE. Many LGBTQIA+ members of the Paizo staff are close friends of mine, and I would never talk that way about anyone on our staff or in our community.

Sir, the issue is no matter what, you are only bringing bad publicity to Paizo now. Your empty statement doesnt talk about any actionable steps you or the rest of Paizo are going to take, just what you have done, and one of the allegations is that of taking credit while pushing back on those same ideas. Even if the allegations are false, the doubt will linger in people's minds. When this happens the company needs some kind of change to restore faith. Whether that is an independent investigation of all the claims with transparent reporting of the findings, or a change in leadership that is considered problematic at this time by public perceptions.

Not that I think it's relevant in this situation, but the idea that someone needs to resign over accusations because doubt may linger is a really bad one.

pauljathome wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Did you REALLY just call GMs who have a different GMing style than yours "Turds"?

No. Its the difference between no effort and effort. If that's a "style" than we have different systems of evaluation.

And for F#$K sake, you are missing the point.

Many of the GMs, the "Turd" GMs, are stepping in at the last minute because more people showed up than usual.

You are missing the point. The discussion is about GMs who signed up to run a specific game. Not, last-minute fill-ins.

That's not how the criteria he listed reads. It makes no such distinction. Which is pretty pertinent to a discussion on who should be rewarded. Do they want to set up a system where players rate the GM and then only reward high enough scores? Of course not. So no reason to insult or insinuate that GMs without "the proper minis" are turds since they can or cannot be a turd with or without them.

Hmm wrote:

I am very excited for this!

QUESTION ONE:

Will we be creating new gods for our new pantheons?

No. This is using existing PFS Legal Deities.

Does that include deities who are legal in 1e PFS but are not in 2e (yet)?

Seventh Seal wrote:

In the paragraph below the Tempest Sun Mage picture:

Did you mean Prerequisite?

Because a Perquisite is "a benefit which one enjoys or is entitled to on account of one's job or position.", i.e. a perk.

It is not "something that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist." (Which is a prerequisite, i.e. a requirement before one can enjoy the perks - as the case may be.)

It is called the Perquisite.

Why the Magaambya calls it the Perquisite and not the Prerequisite is, I'm sure, a matter of debate among initiates.

I'd say it makes perfect sense. The Perquisite isn't so much about earning your place as it is about finding it. It is the benefit one gains from being charitable. Which I think is exactly what they want their initiates to benefit and learn from.

Quick Shield gives you a reaction for shield block. Shield of Reckoning is not a Shield Block (even though a Shield Block is part of Shield of Reckoning).

So you can't use Quick Shield's reaction to perform a Shield of Reckoning.

Shield Block used on an ally and the Champion's Reactions have the same Trigger "an ally is damaged". You can't take two reactions for the same trigger.

you can use your Shield Block reaction

Davick wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Any activity requiring two actions per round is fatiguing per the exploration rules.

That is incorrect.

I mean, you can want what you want and I agree it shouldn't, but:

Page 329 wrote:

A fatiguing tactic is typically composed of actions at a quicker pace, such that the character takes roughly 20 actions per minute (for hustling, that’s 20 Stride actions). Any tactic involving spellcasting causes fatigue after 10 minutes even if it doesn’t take as many actions.

So yeah, 2 actions per round in exploration mode means fatigue.

Read the previous part of that very sentence in your bolded quote.

I tell them they missed. Depending, I describe how. Why would I want to penalize them further?

Any activity requiring two actions per round is fatiguing per the exploration rules.

That is incorrect.

Davick wrote:

Am I missing something? Where does it say that anytime you do two actions you're eventually fatigued? Because it really looks like that's a guideline and not a rule. Hence "typically" has no one noticed how many times the phrase "GM's discretion" is in this book?

The confusion arises because it is worded differently at different places in the book.

Quote:

p. 329

A fatiguing tactic, such as hustling, causes fatigue after
10 minutes. A fatiguing tactic is typically composed of
actions at a quicker pace, such that the character takes
roughly 20 actions per minute (for hustling, that’s 20
Stride actions). Any tactic involving spellcasting causes
fatigue after 10 minutes even if it doesn’t take as many
actions. Someone who’s Concentrating on a Spell but not
moving still gets fatigued.
You might find that a player wants to do something
equivalent to spending 3 actions every 6 seconds, just
like she would in combat. This is possible in combat
only because combat lasts such a short time, and is not
sustainable over the longer time frame of exploration. If
someone tries to do this in exploration, it’s best to say no.
If pressed, have the tactic cause fatigue after 2 minutes.

This is the passage the op is referring to, which relative clearly states that 20 actions a minute are fatiguing. Again there is a roughly involved however this is not clear enough if and how the gm can play with the rule. Page 316 gives the power to the DM, however in this case one would need to guess which one is the specific rule and I would go with p. 329. Still I would not apply such a ruling for riding in non dangerous terrain ever.

Yeah I read that. I see nothing in it that says riding is or must be fatiguing.

Yes. What other method of comparison between two hypothetical random amounts of damage would you propose?

I don't care what method is used. I want the method to be in the rulebook so it's balanced and uniform. That's the point of the rulebook.

It sounds like he really really wants to just roll every instance of persistent damage and take the best. While that's definitely not what it says, if it floats your boat, go for I guess. But it is a bunch of wasted time from unnecessary extra rolls so your players will hate it.

What I want is clarity in the rules. It's a playtest. That's the point. Why don't you quit making assumptions about me and actually talk about what the book says?

Davick wrote:

The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.

The false premise is yours, in that you assume people want to "lord it over everyone else". Players of arcane casters want to feel useful and so far the rules have been overnerfed so much that all the areas where arcane casters excelled are now either bad or mediocre.

I didn't assume. I deduced it from reading this thread and from playing this game.

When I've playtested casters I didn't feel bad or mediocre. And the people I've seen who have made those complaints have framed them as not being as overpowered as they were. To borrow a phrase "a loss of privilege is not discrimination". Casters were too good. Lowering their power level is not inherently over-nerfing them.

The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.

Davick wrote:

Except a d4 can roll better than a d6.

A d4 can roll better than 3d6, but I'd rather take 1d4 damage than 3d6 damage...

There are two choices here:
(1) Roll all the sources of same-type persistent damage separately, take the highest. So if two things give you 1d6 persistent damage, you'd roll two dice and use the highest number.

(2) Roll only the one with the highest average damage. On average 2d4 is higher than 1d8, so 2d4 would take precedence.

The rule is:

Quote:

You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.

It appears that the decision is made when you gain a new persistent damage condition, not every round. This suggests that interpretation 2 is intended. Which is easier to run, except in unusual situations where it's not obvious which is the biggest amount (eg, is 7 per round better or worse than 2d6 per round?) In which case, I'd suggest letting the attacker decide.

Except you're pulling average out of nowhere.

I quoted the relevant rules. The hierarchy I presented is based off the fact that obviously 1d6 is better than 1d4 (it can get a 5 or 6, the d4 can't). As for 1d8 vs. 2d4, the 2d4 is better: the 2d4 can't roll a 1.

Except a d4 can roll better than a d6. And the higher amount of damage is what determines which happens, so 2d4 not being able to roll a 1 is irrelevant.

Am I missing something? Where does it say that anytime you do two actions you're eventually fatigued? Because it really looks like that's a guideline and not a rule. Hence "typically" has no one noticed how many times the phrase "GM's discretion" is in this book?

That doesn't say that you roll the persistent damage immediately, it just says that if you don't do any damage, the persistent effect isn't applied at all.

Quote:

how would I determine the damage if I hit the enemy three times? Would I roll 3d4 and use the highest value? Or only roll 1d4 since that's the highest (variable) value from any given attack? If only 1d4 what would happen if I then dealt 1d6 bleed damage somehow? Would I roll 1d4 and 1d6 and deal the higher damage? Is 1d6 "higher" than 1d4? What about 2d4 vs 1d8?

Persistent damage doesn't stack (unless it deals a different kind of damage). 1d4 bleed followed by 1d4 bleed means... 1d4 bleed (not 2d4) rolled at the end of the target's turn.

page 323 wrote:

If you would gain more than one persistent

damage condition with the same damage type, the higher
amount of damage overrides the lower amount.

1 < 1d4 < 1d6 < 2d4 < 10

(where '<' means "is less than")

So there's no opportunity to roll a d4 and a d6 and see which one is higher? Why not and where does it say this? Where is this hierarchy presented? And what about 1d8 vs 2d4?

And it's not about stacking if it's applied immediately. Or if it is then it raises more questions. Would you just not roll the second d4 or only apply it if you rolled higher?

I'm saying from all the games I've played I would expect to take damage right away. But I do not think it says this in the rules, in fact it says the opposite.

Exactly! This is what I'm getting at.

Persistent damage happens immediately when it is imposed, in addition to the end of turn.

As for the current rules as written, 1d6 would overwrite the 1d4 as it is a higher die value, and I wager 2d4 would overwrite 1d8 as having a higher minimum and average. I've already expressed my displeasure with this elsewhere; multiple sources of persistent damage of the same type should stack. Getting a second bleeding wound doesn't just cause the first wound to magically close up and stop bleeding, getting multiple fire dots can easily represent several different parts of you catching on fire or the Flames getting more intense.

Can you explain the reasoning behind those conclusions? They're the same as I'd logically reach too, but I fear that's part 1e bleeding into my thoughts and part attempting to apply sense. But I'm struggling to discern if it's what the rules actually say.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

No edition of D&D supports a party of 3-7 holding off thousands or orcs, thank god.

It is my sincere hope that this one finally does. Plus this was pretty much possible in PF1 with mythic, my WotR character parried 10,000 arrows in a single round with "Cut from the air" and Mythic Combat Reflexes (so I could make as many AoOs as I could trigger, which was a lot in this case) because my attack bonus (buffed) was so high and I had the mythic path power that made natural 1s not autofail. It was like the Caligraphy scene in "Hero", and it was glorious.

For a mythological game sure, but 5 people fighting 10,000 people and winning is something you want in D&D? Does not support the genre.

But, it does. "The genre" isn't as limited as you want it to be.

Yes, I want taking on 20 guards, solo, to always be a problem, matches the fantasy fiction I am familiar with.

Have you played Pathfinder before? Do you think 20 guards vs a level 20 fighter was a problem in 1e?

Is there a general rule? No. But it does say NPCs at the GM's discretion are treated like PCs.

Specifically, I was looking at using a bird companion with a ranger. The bird allows the rangers attacks to "add 1d4 persistent bleed damage as an enhancement."

Persistent damage says,

"While affected by persistent damage, at

the end of your turn you take the specified amount and
type of damage... You roll
the damage dice anew each time you take the persistent
damage."

And,

"You can be simultaneously affected by multiple

persistent damage conditions so long as they have different
damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent
damage condition with the same damage type, the higher
amount of damage overrides the lower amount."

So, this raises a few questions for me. Does an enemy take an amount of damage equal to the bleed effect when the strike occurs or ONLY at the end of their turn? If only at the end of their turn, how would I determine the damage if I hit the enemy three times? Would I roll 3d4 and use the highest value? Or only roll 1d4 since that's the highest (variable) value from any given attack? If only 1d4 what would happen if I then dealt 1d6 bleed damage somehow? Would I roll 1d4 and 1d6 and deal the higher damage? Is 1d6 "higher" than 1d4? What about 2d4 vs 1d8?

Davick wrote:

The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:

Senjen wrote:

I'm an atheist myself and I think the OP has a point. There are so many religious assumptions built into the game that it does feel uncomfortable at times. The argument that there is evidence of the gods in Golarian feels very much like arguments I hear in favor of religion in the real world. I agree that the discrimination against atheists is not as severe as against other minorities but it definitely does exist. I live in the American South and believe me that it is very possible to lose a job if the wrong employer finds out you are atheist.

Emphasis mine.

Um... aside from the fact that Golarion’s gods talk to their worshippers, perform miracles, grant people magical powers, and have physical realms that you can go and visit?

Dude, have you heard the evidence believers in the real world would state too? I don't wanna get into this here, but they will argue all of those things. ALL of them.

Certainly. But there’s a difference between just claiming those things without evidence and being able to walk down to your neighborhood temple and pay a cleric to knit your flesh back together with the power of their deity.

There are non cleric ways to do that too though. No deity required. Accepting magic does not require accepting the divine.

And how many people can afford that anyway? I hear stories about pastors in the real world healing lost limbs too. Do you accept that as evidence?

You seem particularly obstinate in opposing this. I don't know why this is.

Atheism is a part of Golarion and has been from the start—our iconic wizard, Ezren, is an atheist, for example. The best and most up-to-date rules for how atheists interact with the afterlife and faith and that is currently found in Pathfinder RPG Planar Adventures, particularly on pages 64–69, where we discuss the nature of the soul and the cycle of the afterlife. This stuff won't be changing in the switch to the new edition.

It's important for us to be inclusive, obviously, and we're always on the lookout for ways to adjust and enhance the language we publish to be inclusive. For the Playtest, the langue for this isn't as clear as it should be for some things, obviously, and getting those elements more clear is as important (if not MORE so in some ways) as it is making sure the rules themselves work.

I for one have no difficulty in imagining an atheist in a world like Golarion. It's easier for me to imagine that, in fact, than "how can a creature as big as a dragon actually fly," and I pretty much accept that dragons can fly in Pathfinder without question.

Thanks! Given our other talks about religion in Golarion, I knew you'd get where I was coming from.

In hindsight, I feel like I should've mentioned alatrism somewhere sooner in this conversation. That seems like a good way to bridge the gap between being inclusive to real world atheists without needing to reorient or distort the setting of Golarion. Maybe. But using the term atheism a little more loosely than in the real world is fine too.

Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Atheism is a part of Golarion and has been from the start—our iconic wizard, Ezren, is an atheist, for example.

Misotheist, rather, but nonreligious all the same, which is what counts, I'd think. I'm just picking nits.

Tallow wrote:

Because the game world, there is no real atheism.

Eh, since when has evidence been a prerequisite for believing things?

Personally, I'd be very interested to see more 'false' religions in Golarion. Personality cults like Razmir's, but also very flawed cosmologies and such that are intrinsically tied to philosophies and social norms.

I can't remember the name of the one religious organization from Faerun, that believed that there was a set level of misery in the universe and by living a miserable life you could make someone else's life happier . . . but that religion fascinated me, because it was the sort of thing that humans would come up with.

Or antitheist, but yes, Ezren believes gods exist, but are not godly and should be actively opposed (from what I gather from his background).

Antitheism is more about the establishment of religion, which is a bit unintuitive. Misotheism is hatred of the gods themselves. In a world with verified deities, misotheism and antitheism would go hand in hand.

James Jacobs wrote:

Atheism is a part of Golarion and has been from the start—our iconic wizard, Ezren, is an atheist, for example.

Misotheist, rather, but nonreligious all the same, which is what counts, I'd think. I'm just picking nits.

Tallow wrote:

Because the game world, there is no real atheism.

Eh, since when has evidence been a prerequisite for believing things?

Personally, I'd be very interested to see more 'false' religions in Golarion. Personality cults like Razmir's, but also very flawed cosmologies and such that are intrinsically tied to philosophies and social norms.

I can't remember the name of the one religious organization from Faerun, that believed that there was a set level of misery in the universe and by living a miserable life you could make someone else's life happier . . . but that religion fascinated me, because it was the sort of thing that humans would come up with.

Alatrism actually, but misotheism could come up as well. James Sutter and I have already had this conversation. It was decided to call it atheism instead just due to ease of use for most people. Which is fine with me.

Senjen wrote:

I'm an atheist myself and I think the OP has a point. There are so many religious assumptions built into the game that it does feel uncomfortable at times. The argument that there is evidence of the gods in Golarian feels very much like arguments I hear in favor of religion in the real world. I agree that the discrimination against atheists is not as severe as against other minorities but it definitely does exist. I live in the American South and believe me that it is very possible to lose a job if the wrong employer finds out you are atheist.

Emphasis mine.

Um... aside from the fact that Golarion’s gods talk to their worshippers, perform miracles, grant people magical powers, and have physical realms that you can go and visit?

Dude, have you heard the evidence believers in the real world would state too? I don't wanna get into this here, but they will argue all of those things. ALL of them.

There shouldn't be any need to state this, but since you've already gone on two "you can't tell me how I should feel!" tirades, let's do it: nobody is trying to tell you what you should or shouldn't be bothered by.

Man, I'm not even going to read the rest of what you wrote. You don't get it/don't care/whatever. You're not the intended audience and at best don't understand what I'm trying to say so I don't particularly care.

Have a nice day.

Davick wrote:

Moro wrote:

Faith in the real world is quite a bit different than faith in a fantasy game where the deities have provable, measurable effects on the world. Religion in Golarion doesn't require much faith (by the definition of the word) at all. Non-religious people on Golarion are either ignorant of the gods, or willfully thumbing their noses at divine beings.

Right. And those are valid.

Definitely valid, and I don't see how the current text would imply that they are not. That's like trying to parse the old flavor text describing a person who ascribes to each possible alignment, and becoming upset because the adjectives for the LG example were better than those used for the CG. In my opinion. Which is another way of saying "this is how I feel about it."

By completely failing to mention them while going out of the way to mention other ways to play against social conventions.

Is it a minor thing? Yeah. Is it about feelings? Yes. One difference, is that alignment is made up, and atheism is real. And just like I'm sure you weren't trying to say atheism is silly like alignment, I don't think Paizo was trying to make a judgement statement on atheism either. But what's written is excluding towards nontheists by omission, whetehr with malice or not (probably not). And the fix is simple. So I suggested it.

Davick, to be honest, I don't think anybody is attacking you or your beliefs. They are just saying they disagree with your interpretation of the relevant passages, as you've laid it out. Perhaps restating a different way would help clear the matter up?

Are you essentially saying that maybe a passage saying the non-theists have just as happy an afterlife as theists would help?

Most people seem to think I'm saying something entirely different than I did. They're attacking either my experience, which makes no sense, or they're arguing about what atheism is in a fantasy setting, which is immaterial to my critique.

I don't even need them to say atheists die happily ever after. I just want the notion of a nonreligious character entertained next to the religious concepts they mention. Just like they made sure to do with the concept of characters challenging other social norms like gender. It seems more like an innocent oversight (probably due to the authors' personal opinion) than any attempt to be exclusive. But that could be easily misinterpreted. And being actively inclusive is better than being accidentally uninclusive.

You're dealing with a friendly company that's trying to make a game for you to enjoy. A company that bends over backwards to please pretty much every group of people. A company that will use the word "inclusive" fifty times in a five paragraph forum or blog post.

Yes, exactly. That's why I proffered the suggestion. Because I know Paizo is receptive to that sort of thing and concerned with being inclusive. The community however...

Maybe together we can try to defy the steriotype of the sensitive millennial.

No thanks. Despite your characterization, I wasn't portraying this as a great wrong. Just an opportunity for understanding, growth, and inclusion.

If anyone here honestly thinks Paizo is anti-secular, anti LGBTQ, racist or anything like that, I think they should just say it.

That's a borderline strawman there. No one did say that. If I thought that, I wouldn't be here. As we've established, Paizo is a progressive amazing company that consciously strives to be open to everyone. I saw an opportunity to improve and move towards that goal. So I said so. And yet every reply has been an explanation of how atheism works in Golarion (irrelevant) or an attempt to invalidate an opinion (impossible).

If Paizo doesn't want to add a few extra words to be more inclusive, it won't prevent me from playing their games. It'll make me a little sad, like when I go to a school and see an "In God We Trust" sign hanging up. It's not evil per se, but a note depressing. But randos on the internet not liking my suggestion, especially the few who seems obstinately opposed to being inclusive, won't sway me.