Thanks! My secret weapon is this searchable database of Unicode characters. I searched for "diamond", and then "arrow", to find these symbols. Other interesting diamonds are: ❖ ⬖ ⬗ ⬘ ⬙.
Jester David wrote:
For homebrew stuff, you could use unicode symbols to approximate:◈ Single Action
◈◈ Two-Action Activity
◈◈◈ Three-Action Activity
⟐ Free Action
One thing I find confusing about the black-and-white version: In the "Melee Strikes" and "Ranged Strikes" sections of page 1, there is no visible separator between each strike. But there IS a visible separator WITHIN each strike. So the grouping reads wrong; it looks as though each "Damage" secion is associated with the "Weapon" section below it, rather than the one above it.
This is something I've seen on the web as well, and it always bugs me: sections separated by nothing but whitespace, but visible separators within a section, so it's easy to mis-read which subsections are grouped together. I've most often seen this in web forums, where one could mistakenly associate the wrong user info line with the wrong post.
...Hey, come to think of it, this web forum does that very thing! And not too long ago, it caused me to "flag" the wrong post, because I mistook the "FLAG | LIST | REPLY" controls as being attached to the post above them, rather than the one below, thanks to the separator line.
In summary, sections should have MORE prominent separators between them than the sub-section separators within them.
In Rise of the Runelords,
we got to a part where there's a hallway of mirrors, from which doppelgangers of the party members emerge and attack. If your PC dies, the corresponding doppelganger disappears. We were getting beaten badly, and had to retreat. One of our PCs was fairly low on HP, while her double was still quite healthy, and was a really tough opponent.
So I decided that the most expedient course of action was for me to kill the PC, in order to remove the threat, so we could escape. We of course resurrected her later.
Even when 1E was first released, players weren't limited to just the contents of the CRB, because it was designed to be compatible with existing 3.5 material. So PF2E will actually be the first edition that doesn't have a bunch of supplimentary material available right out of the gate.
Lewis Carroll's poem Jabberwocky played with words to introduce both the deadly Jabberwock and the vorpal blade that beheaded it with a snicker-snack.
No. Just... no.
Sorry for the off-topic rant, but you hit a major pet peeve of mine. The poem Jabberwocky uses a bunch of nonsense words whose meanings are to be inferred by context. When I first read the poem, my impression was that "vorpal" simply meant "trusty". I've always imagined the boy's sword as a simple peasant weapon, nothing special. When he fought the creature, he simply struck several good blows (snicker-snack!) with a decent weapon. He then severed the head and took it back to show his dad.
Later I found out that D&D had co-opted the term "vorpal" to mean some powerful magical quality, and have since always felt that they totally missed the point.
Just like stealing a Wizard's spellbooks cripples them. Yet the "but your spelllbook might get stolen/destroyed!" doesn't really figure into discussion about design and balance. And rightfully so, going after spellbooks is a cheap move, just as is going after weapons.
Apples and oranges. It's not about the fighter having a weapon vs. not having one, it's about having a magic weapon vs. a mundane one. Wizards don't need to replace their "mundane" spellbook with some kind of special one at higher levels to stay relevant.
I think "Class X", "Ancestral Y", and "Skill Z" is useful, even if X, Y, and Z are all different, because the modifier indicates what the ability relates to. But "General W" is not useful, and should just be "W".
I would go with Class Ability, Feat, Ancestral Trait, and Skill Trick. Other than "trick", these terms tie back into their PF1e meanings.
The first one, because I don't have to then flip to Fireball to learn the rest of the rules for the spell.
For the sake of argument, let's take this to the opposite extreme. Suppose that the spell description for Fireball looked like this:
Fireball Spell 3
Now you don't have to reread the parts that multiple spells have in common! In addition to knowing what "basic saving throw" means, you only have to learn once that:
If all of your PCS had 1 RP exactly, then all of them dumped Charisma to 10. In this game, it is a decision about just as smart as dumping Constitution.
I don't consider a 10 a "dump"; it's just something you haven't particularly invested in. If you're saying that ALL characters have to raise both their CON and CHA, in addition to whatever other attribute(s) their signature class abilities may depend on, then that effectively makes every character MAD in this game. Which is not a good thing.
OP, as you're seeing from this discussion, the actual reason we're still using alignment is that it's a sacred cow. It's tradition, and no tabletop RPG is steeped in so much tradition as D&D. For the same reason, you won't see Vancian magic or the six ability scores disappear, even if developers thought they could replace them with something better. When you play D&D, you either deal with it as it is or you house rule it. Expecting official changes to the sacred cows will result in disappointment.
That's a good point, but it only applies to RPGs called "D&D". This is Pathfinder. PF1E had to maintain compatibility with D&D 3.x, so it wasn't going to get rid of any sacred cows, but PF2E has no such restriction. So I'd hope that the designers would be willing to rethink any and all aspects of the game.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Finally, as for calling things feats, we have decided to use that term to help new players understand "feat means I get to pick a new rule to add to my character", much as it did in the past.
Maybe it's just me, but I never liked the way 3.X/PFRPG used the word "feat", because this usage is different from the common meaning in English. The word "feat" generally refers to a specific instance of a difficult/impressive achievement, rather than the ability to perform the achievement. For example, if a person were to lift an automobile over their head, one might say, "Wow, what an incredible feat of strength!" The word "feat" would refer to this individual action, rather than the great strength required to lift cars in general.
So I feel it's more confusing to new players when a game term is a common English word, but its meaning is different from the common one. When I first read the 3.0 rulebook and learned about "feats", my first thought was, "How is this a feat? This is actually the ability to perform feats." But again, maybe it's just me.
But this is confusing and inconsistent. Suppose a wizard learns heal. If he prepares it in a level 2 slot, it is cast as a level 2 heal. If he prepares it in a level 3 slot, it is cast as a level 3 heal.
In contrast, suppose a sorcerer learns heal 2. Then, one day, when she's out of level 2 spell slots, she decides to cast it in a level 3 slot (assuming PF2 still allows casting lower level spells in higher slots). This means it will cast as a level 2 heal from a level 3 slot?
So, you say that there is only one heal spell, but this is not entirely true. For the wizard, there is only one heal spell to learn, which auto-heightens to the slot it is cast from. For the sorcerer, there are a bunch of heal spells at different levels to learn, which are cast at their respective spell levels, regardless of spell slot used. Just like in PF1.
The problem is that poster enjoys survivalism type challenges and wants to be immersed in Roughing It, but their GM is handwaving something they enjoy.
It's not even that I want to be immersed in hard-core survivalism type challenges; it's the fact that the issues of food and comfortable rest are ignored to the point that I can completely neglect to equip my character for such necessities and never be called out on it, which breaks the verisimilitude. I want to play a role-playing game, not a video-gamey series of combats or dungeon crawls, and I feel that these types of real-world practical concerns should at least come up and have to be addressed.
I don't see the issue with Ring of Sustenance, as I'm not really interested in playing "Eating Simulator 2nd Edition".
Honestly, I kind of am. There was a time when, whenever I created a new character, his starting equipment would include items such as a waterskin, a week or two of trail rations, a tent, a sleeping bag, etc. After many years of playing (in the same group, mostly with the same GM), I stopped bothering. Because I noticed that these issues literally NEVER come up in game. When and what does my character eat? I have no idea. How does he sleep comfortably? I dunno, magic I guess. Sleeping generally consists of, "You rest for the night. The next morning..."
These days, my starting equipment consists of nothing more than clothing, weapons, armor, and a coin purse. And spell components if a caster. Oh, and a backpack, but that's mostly just to put loot into, because it starts out empty.
Actually, in the case of Sacred Geometry, here's what I think happened: A developer wrote a feat, and then submitted it. An editor looked at it, but didn't notice that it was submitted on April 1st, and thought the developer was actually being serious.
Egil Firehair wrote:
Spell resistance doesn't apply against physical blasts, such as Air, Earth, or Water.
The rules for the rogue's Trapfinding ability state:
Rogue: Trapfinding wrote:
A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1).
Note that it doesn't say "1/2 her rogue level". So, does this mean that she adds 1/2 her total character level as a bonus? I'm thinking of doing a 1 level dip into Rogue for my 12th level character, which would give me a +6 bonus.
I'm not trying to cheat or be overly rules-lawyery; class abilities usually explicitly state when they rely on class level instead of character level. For example, the Barbarian's Trap Sense ability states:
Barbarian: Trap Sense wrote:
These bonuses increase by +1 every three barbarian levels thereafter...
I found nothing in the FAQ about this, and if this hasn't been errata'd by now, I have to assume that the intent is character level, rather than rogue level. Is that correct?
Having to search 10'/round or traps are undetectable especially in overland travel... 10' open pits are invisible if you move overland speeds... :P
Eh, I would argue that anything that could reasonably be called a "trap" would be concealed in some way. A 10' open pit is more of a terrain feature.
Here's the thing, though: a paladin's powers are granted to her by the diety that she worships. If an evil god wants to grant paladin powers to one of his followers, what's to stop him?
Likewise, a paladin doesn't simply "lose" her powers somehow if she breaks her code of conduct or performs an evil act. Rather, the deity chooses to take her powers away as punishment. An evil god isn't going to take away one of his paladin's powers because she did evil.
So yes, by RAI, the class called "Paladin" was included to describe a character archetype who is a paragon of good. But IMHO (and by rule 0), a GM could conceivably decide that the powers and abilities of the class may be granted to a worshipper of an evil deity by that deity.
>Sigh< YES YOU CAN.Sorry, I just find it exaspirating that people keep getting the Take 10/20 rules wrong. Especially my own GM, so I need to keep correcting him. :-)
You can't take 20 if there would be a penalty for failure, because taking 20 simulates trying over and over again until you roll a 20. So you can't use it in situations where you couldn't just try again. This is also why it is considered to take longer than a single skill check; you are assumed to be making many checks.
Taking 10 has no such restriction. You are making a single check, and getting an average result. The only restriction is that you can't take 10 when you are under time pressure or distracted, because it represents doing your average in a normal, no-stress situation. So you CAN take 10 when there would be a penalty for failure; you make an average attempt, and if you fail, you suffer the penalty.
You left out one possibility. Remember, Pathfinder is every bit as OGL as 3.X was; WotC could have 5E be based on Pathfinder! :-)
Wizards are so broken that they overpower the Paizo messageboards. One way to fix this would be to allow Fighters to be discussed in Wizard threads.
If a wizard is trying to cast a spell when someone is next to them, you should make it an attack of opportunity unless they cast a special way, maybe call it cast on the defensive. This should be pretty hard to do at low levels, something like a caster level + ability score modifier vs maybe 15 + the spell level. And if they don't make it they lose the spell.
Too easy. Make the DC 15 + twice the spell level, and you're onto something.
Why does everyone always look to GURPS when it comes to non-classed systems? It's not the only one, it wasn't the first, and I damn sure don't consider the the best.
It's probably the most popular/well-known. It's certainly the only one I've played, for example.
BRP >>> GURPS
See? I had to google BRP. :-)
If Vancian were replaced, it could be replaced with a skill based system. Once that's done, it'd be easy to reduce the class system to one class modifiable by feats and skills.
I've always felt that class-based RPGs, such as D&D, were arbitrarily restrictive in the types of characters that one can create, and that skill/trait-based systems, such as GURPS, allow a much broader range of possibilities. Whenever I'm creating a new character for a D&D/Pathfinder game, I think "what class do I want to play?", and then build a character of that class. When creating a new character for GURPS, I think "what do I want my charachter to be like?", and then choose the traits that define the character I envision.
That said, I think that if a system is fundamentally class-based, then it should embrace its nature, not try to circumvent it. D&D (and Pathfinder by extension) has always been class-based, and those who want to create trait-based characters should choose a different system to play. There are plenty out there. Let's not mutate this 30+ year old game too far from its fundamental core.
Gary Teter wrote:
But Marcus wasn't a monk, he was a ranger.
Brother Theo, on the other hand, was a monk. But all he and his monk friends ever did was scan through hours of security camera footage looking for a suspect.
Todd Stewart wrote:
I sold my Apple IIe back in the mid 90s, and now I'm hating that I did because I'm crazy nostalgic for Oregon Trail and a bunch of text-based adventure games from the 80s I played as a kid. I'll be splurging at some point on Ebay to snag a working vintage Apple IIe I think.
If you like text adventures, it might interest you to know that there is a very active community of authors creating new text adventures all the time. The correct term for these games is now "interactive fiction"; this site is a good place to start if you're interested in getting back into playing them.
I tried playing Linus once, but the GM made sure that every other encounter had a Sally in it, so I always ended up getting turned and fleeing from battle by round 2.
After finally moving out of DC and into the midwest after graduate school, I found myself in a smallish town, a new job where I'm legally only allowed to work 80 hours a week (though I often wind up having to work more), and knowing absolutely nobody.
"only" 80 hours per week!? 8-0