Dr. Zerom Brandercook's page

Is a greatsword normally used to make thrusting attacks? Kinda hard to imagine a greatsword having a fine enough point to do piercing damage.

Also, while we are at it, can someone please explain to me what it is about the light mace that makes it better at shoving people than other weapons like the club or morningstar?

Is it really easier to hit multiple targets with a hatchet?

How is it possible to hit someone with a morningstar and not do piercing damage?

The Volley trait on longbows bothered me at first, but I have actually come around to it. It reinforces the weapon's intended use as a battlefield weapon, and is somewhat justifiable because of the weapon's height.

It may seem like nit-picking, but stuff like this can be immersion breaking for me.

If anyone's interested, I can post a link to the word file, to facilitate inserting a character portrait.

Yes please!

Honestly I like the art much better than the PF1 1,000 pockets anime iconics. This is much more my style.

Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:

You know, I think it is totally bizarre. I may just remove both the flexible and the noisy traits from both armors and call it a day. This satisfies me, but hopefully there aren't any other rules repercussions I am missing.

I was also looking for the actual penalty "noisy" gives, but after reading your post: I think I get what they might have gone for:

Flexible - you don't apply the armour check penalty to Acrobatics and Athletics.

Noisy - Apply armour check penalty to stealth, even if you have enough strength to negate it.

Thoughts?

You may be right...but I just don't think it changes much if I just ignore both qualities.

I'm just not sure that chain armor should be louder than plate armor, I mean half plate and the like often have chain armor involved. I'm no expert, but steel plates banging and sliding together makes noise and I don't see how its any easier to pad than chain. I would love to have an expert chime in on this.

One thing I am liking about 2e is I can houserule things like this much easier. It just makes chain armor slightly cheaper than the equal protection breastplate and a bit more boring than it was, but the possible crit resistance is cool.

You know, I think it is totally bizarre. I may just remove both the flexible and the noisy traits from both armors and call it a day. This satisfies me, but hopefully there aren't any other rules repercussions I am missing.

Those people were told by a variety of different people and over a variety of different times that the only way they had a chance to get PF2 to match what they wanted was to stick around and fill out the playtest surveys. If they did not do so, that's pretty much on them.

Hey man, I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that the self-selection bias is real. Not much you can do about it in the end.

I am happy they are open to bigger changes, I just wish they gave more time for playtesting instead of making the changes after it has closed. What if one of their new changes ends up being really controversial? This is how you get super early errata.

I wonder how that 4% takes into account people who gave up on the playtest to the point that they didn't take the surveys. (whether that be 'gave up after playtesting' or 'didn't even bother')

The problem with this sort of things is that there's bound to be a self-selection bias toward those in favour of the rules.

How would they even go about getting that statistic anyway? I'm guessing its 4% of the people who actually took the surveys.

It seems to me that they are just considering those people "lost" and are aiming to serve those that are self selecting here.

But then again, what are they even supposed to do about this? Other than maybe just guessing at what would have a broader appeal and designing for that, they would have to find a way to get a really broad representation of opinion, which I don't think they could do from gathering data from only this site, and in this short of a period of time.

I feel like they have an idea of what the want to do already, and just wanted some outside opinions to shape it a little. A lot different than the 5e playtest which went through many iterations and gathered data from a much wider audience. If this was a bad or good thing remains to be seen.

Also, in the AD&D PHB, it states the DM may omit, augment, diminish, or add new spells. That is wonderful.

One of my favorite sections of the ad&d2e DMG is in a section that lists various ways to handle spell acquisition.

However characters acquire new spells, always remember that you are in charge. You have complete control over what spells the player characters get.

If a player character has a spell you don't like or one that severely disrupts or unbalances your game, it is not the player's fault. Who gave the character the spell? Who allowed it in the game? Controlling spell acquisition is an important responsibility. Consider your choices carefully.

By keeping the selection of spells limited, you automatically increase their importance and value to the wizards in your campaign. A simple scroll with a single spell becomes a real treasure if it has a spell on it the wizard has never seen. This gives the player a touch of choice. Should he cast the scroll during an adventure where it might be useful? Should he save it until he can take the time to research the spell for his spell books?

When the characters overcome a hostile mage, the first concern of the wizard will be for his spell book. Where is it? What spells does it have in it? Even a nonmagical item like a spell book becomes very important. Knowing their value, NPC wizards will go to great pains to protect their own spell books, hiding them carefully, locking them in trapped chests, and scattering magical traps throughout the pages.

Fantastic advice, even if it doesn't exactly apply to newer editions.

Magic is also way, way more restricted in AD&D, especially 1st Ed; what spells you could know, your chance to learn them, even if the opportunity, interrupting during casting, dangerous outcomes to some blasting spells, and much more. It could be risky. A bit naughty, freaky-naughty.

3rd Ed removed most of that, hence the whining about caster vs. martial disparity.

Also, in the AD&D PHB, it states the DM may omit, augment, diminish, or add new spells. That is wonderful.

I love how magic is handled in ad&d! It's sad we've lost so much of that charm! Also the monsters write ups are probably my favorite of any edition.

Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:

For me, its mainly the amount of things that get level added. That, and the table of skill DCs. You should be progressing yes, but it gets really weird with all skills auto progressing.

Its just too much scaling for my taste, I'm not a fan of high level PF1 play either for similar reasons, and to me this is actually worse.

First off I feel like a lot of people interpreted the DC chart very differently than how I did. I saw it as defined by the level of the antagonist or obstacle, rather than the level of the party. Unlike PF1 where people were regularly fighting CRs above their level, it appears that "right at your level" is a serious challenge in PF1, which is fine.

So you're going to be seeing a lot of obstacles of lower level than you, so those are going to have lower DCs. It just makes sense that more difficult opposition would have higher DCs- some locks are harder to pick than other locks, say.

Regarding the number of things that get added to I think this is largely to redress an issue in PF1 where a player would say "Okay, I get 6 skills per level, so I'm going to pick 5-6 things and be as good at them as I possibly could be, and then be terrible at almost everything else." So you're either artificially organizing up skills between the party ("I've got Nature and Survival, you take Arcana and Planes, everybody take Stealth") or you end up with a lot of challenges that either can be handled by one person or could not be attempted because only one person has the requisite skill. I found this pretty unfun in practice.

Yeah, this makes sense. I'm not really trying to over-harp on the + level thing, it is just one of several things that I'm not comfortable with.

I hope the final product is better for me than what I am seeing, and they could win me over in the end, but I will reserve final judgement until then.

I can't find anyone who wants to play this anyway, so I am not in a position to deeply debate the system. I know that the way things look on paper can be quite different then how they play.

So what I'm unsure about is whether people are mad at "adding level to things" so that the high level character can more reliably hit low level orcs than the low level character -or- are people mad that we're adding level to *everything*?

Since the former was how it worked in PF1, and the latter is mostly about "making saving throws a difficulty class like AC" and "you are not automatically incapable of succeeding at a skill you have not invested in."

I buy "perhaps you should not necessarily get better at *everything* as you level up" since potentially there's value in defining a character as specifically bad at something (though often this might have been a post hoc justification for not investing in it), but I'm not going to buy "a 20th level fighter with the same stats and gear as a 1st level fighter should not be *much* better at hitting things" since we've had that since AD&D (in AD&D a 17th level fighter hits an AC 0 opponent on a 4, whereas a 1st level fighter hits that same opponent on a 20; lower AC used to be better than higher AC.)

For me, its mainly the amount of things that get level added. That, and the table of skill DCs. You should be progressing yes, but it gets really weird with all skills auto progressing.

Its just too much scaling for my taste, I'm not a fan of high level PF1 play either for similar reasons, and to me this is actually worse.

That's because 5e has bounded accuracy. The difference in bonus to a roll between a level 1 character and a level 20 character in that system is 4 to a given check, + or - a few. A DC25 check at level 1 is nearly impossible, and only has about a 30% chance of success at level 20 (barring, for example, item bonuses). Do you feel that you get more powerful as a character in that system?

Re: the treadmill, the game is always a treadmill. Or it's static. Or it's ever easier. Pick one:
- Treadmill: As the party faces challenges and gets stronger, they're (in general) put up against even stronger challenges that match them.
- Static: As the party faces challenges, they grow stronger, though only marginally. Their challenges, not needing to rise much to meet their new power, stay more or less the same forever.
- Easier: As the party faces challenges and gets stronger, they're put up against...the same challenges. The stronger party starts to walk over everything they're faced with with minimal effort.

I'm not going to say any are right or wrong, but I know which one I'd most prefer to play.

A treadmill is when your chance of success and your target number both automatically increase by the same rate. When you use a progression of +1 to +20 you create huge gaps in power and narrow the range of useful threats. Being lower level is to be totally irrelevant and to be higher level is to be completely dominant in every way.

Hit points go up in 5e, along with potential damage and overall utility (more things you can do). So, yes I do feel like you progress in that system, and obviously so do many other people. I should note btw that 5e is not my favorite system, it is just a relevant example.

You are implying I don't want progression, that's not true.

You can have a slower progression rate that keeps a larger part of the game more relevant for longer, 5e went with one extreme, and PF2 with another. I would prefer something in the middle myself.

A growth of 20 points is huge and it makes many silly scenarios, like a mid level mage easily besting the captain of the guard in a sword duel. Or the mid level barbarian impressing the local nobles with his knowledge of etiquette, because his + level bonus gives him such a huge advantage.

In addition, you have to deal with silly high numbers. Some of my players have problems with simple math as it is.

I understand what you are saying here, and you are right. That's why I've said that it isn't that simple. However, I am trying really hard to see the point of doing this. I get that maybe fighting a whole army and leaving unscaved might give a feeling of power, but is it really a compelling encounter when you can have five, ten or one billion of a monster and none of them are going to even touch you? From what I have seen and tested so far, the only practical effect of that is limiting what creatures you can effectively use in encounters to a very narrow interval.

It leaves the GM with a narrow band of relevant threats to use when writing adventures. Having less scaling opens up the playing field greatly. It's the same with skills.

Why should I play a game where I have to modify nearly all the math? Why not just play PF1, or another current edition of a game then?

It's just removing the level scaling revealing a very solid bound system. The modification is very straightforward and easy to accomplish.

Why? Well because P1 is not a bound system and is something I personall loath, nearly as much as 3.5. If you look for a bound alternative, that leave the stripped down overly simplistic 5e that is in need of more modification in the form of depth.

Well, I quite liked 3.5 actually, at low level it is a great game. Problem comes at high level with feat and magic bloat, which PF actually made worse for some reason.

Having a chart of DCs is a step backward. Everyone during the 3x era liked to complain about ad&d 1e attack matrices, or having 5 saves, or 2e thaco, or weapon vs armor charts, or whatever, yet this big bloated DC chart is the same thing basically. You should not have to reference the book to set a DC like this, it undoes a lot of what has been done to streamline the game.

And I agree 5e is oversimplified, but honestly that leaves a lot of room for the GM to apply his style to the game, and also for PCs to use their damn imaginations! Depth comes in the form of storytelling and roleplay. I do wish they had a more in depth skill system, but when it comes down to actually playing the game, it just doesn't matter that much. It's also noob friendly, and that's part of the reason is spread like wildfire. playability is really important.

Bounded accuracy wasn't just about using the same proficiency bonus across the board, it was about having LESS scaling in the game, so that the power gap is more narrow and you can use lower level threats longer, or even use higher level threats than normal if you want to. Of course, the gap between different level players is also lessened. In this sense, PF is NOT bounded.

if we exchange + level for everything, then we can also kick off critical successes on 10+

this game is not to be a copy of 5.ed.

I don't want a copy of 5e, I really wanted PF2 to be a better system. That was just an example of an elegant solution to what I perceive as a problem in 2e.

+ level is codified into the system to a degree that I don't think they can easily remove it. I'm unhappy with how obtuse the system is as a whole. I wanted a streamlined PF1, this is far from that.

We should get it as an official variant rule at some point. Mark told me doing so was a "no-brainer" in a supplement dealing with grittier realism rules. Doubt we'll see it in the rulebook, but hopefully in one of supplements and gamemaster guides that comes out within a reasonable timeframe. Cross our fingers. The underlying game is a solid bound framework, itd be a shame to not take official advantage of that.

Luckily, it is quite easy to houserule, and I'm already running a homegame without +level and loving it. Only really pain in the ass part is modifying all the relevant values. I've already modified the entire playtest pdf to run without +level, adjust the things it really breaks, and printed it off for the group. I've modified all the monsters int he bestiary I'll need in the foreseeable future, and will wait for that entire project until the official game is released, especially considering monster skills and perception are still a mess due to their poor assumptions and the problematic item bonus.

Why should I play a game where I have to modify nearly all the math? Why not just play PF1, or another current edition of a game then?

Having actually played now (RL finally cooperated), my lvl 9 competent but not super optimized char has a difference of 10 between her best (+15 without armor) and her worst skill (+5). That's a whole crit range. Should she regularly use her worst skill? Probably not, but she also probably won't instantly explode if she tries, which I like. I'm fine with that amount of variance, tbh.

So, my opinion on the whole +1 lvl... it doesn't make me scream I LOVE IT at the top of my lungs, but I consider it a perfectly valid way to build the game, and so far it has worked. So yeah.

Edit: To clarify, if someone comes up with a better Skill system I'm down with trying it out. But if the current system is the system that comes out with PF2 I' won't cry either.

The variance you mention sounds fine to me too, but my problem with the add level advancement isn't this.

It's partly aesthetic, with +52 perception or whatever just not feeling or looking right (no edition or clone of d&d has had so many modifiers this high). It's just big numbers with no real justifiable reason behind them. Cumbersome. Bloated.

With the way all skills increase it becomes preposterous pretty quickly when a high level barbarian is so diplomatic, and a high level mage is so deadly with a mundane weapon compared to a low level fighter, and so on.

Inflated DCs are a problem. You have this bloated chart, that you basically HAVE to reference or memorize, when it could be so much simpler. For example, 5e DC table: very easy DC 5, easy DC 10, medium DC 15, hard DC 20, very hard DC 25, nearly impossible DC 30. That's it. That's all you need to know from level 1 to level 20. Pretty elegant.

As a DM you need to justify increasingly massive DC numbers just to have a challenge. This then becomes a wash, because as you increase the DCs, everyone's skills also increase, so really it's just similar odds with bigger numbers. Treadmill effect.

This applies basically to every value in the game that adds + level. It's the most treadmilled edition yet (even worse than 4e in this respect). While there needs to be progression obviously, it doesn't need to be so extreme, and not everything needs to automatically increase.

MaxAstro wrote:

In fact, if you pop over to the "top three positives/top three negatives" thread, you will see that more than one person has listed +1/level in their top three positives of PF2e.

how reliable is that thread to mirror the larger group of gamers? does it include people too frustrated with the PF2 playtest to post on a regular basis anymore? or those so frustrated that they dropped out completely? what about those that would love to post in the thread, but can't find three positive things to post? because I know I love maybe three for ideas of PF2 as iodeas, but find the implementations of those ideas lacking enough that I wouldn't exactly describe my current feeling towards them as 'positive' but as 'meh' at best.

This is the problem. Most of the people who strongly dislike the way the game is going probably gave up left already. They have better things to do, like play games they like.

The voices you hear the most on the forums are either from people who are in favor of the direction the game is heading, or people who are quite dissatisfied, but haven't quite given up hope yet. I think within the group of those who dislike PF2e, not many are bothering with it anymore, so largely they are underrepresented on the forums, and in the surveys.

Some people here praise almost everything Paizo does, and they are some of the loudest voices, and they carry a lot of weight because they participate. The end result may be a game that largely caters to this bias, and unfortunately, not to the likely even larger group of casual players, who are less likely to participate.

Notice is the most powerful skill in Savage Worlds and i have never seen a PC who didn't buy at least a d6 in some point in their career. other valuable skills include fighting and shooting, which let you make attacks without penalties.

the savage worlds tables i played at pretty much buy notice, fighting and shooting on every character so they could not only make a lot of attacks at a variety of ranges but also avoid ambushes,

backgrounds weren't a thing in 4e core, but 4e campaign settings introduced backgrounds intended for organized play. the 2 most powerful Faerun backgrounds are Durpar, which gives +2 to perception, and Algorond which lets you train perception at +1 even if it isn't on your class skill list.

and 5e lets you swap background skills and there are races that get free skills. so i see most 5e characters swap a more useless background skill like performance just to get perception and spend a feat on prodigy to get expertise in perception. of course most characters i have seen have either been humans, half human or warforged envoys to get free perception.

OK, this adds a bit more clarity to the previous statements. Again, I just never experienced Notice being overly powerful, but really I think it mostly comes down to the type of game being run, and there is a very wide range of genres SW can be used for.

In 5e I haven't had any players go out of their way to get any particular skill really, so this just hasn't been a problem in any of the games I've been in. Also, don't forget about the Investigation skill, some people overlook it and use Perception when Investigation is a better fit.

As a DM I don't rely heavily on the Perception skill anyway, I describe things and expect my players to describe what they are doing, and not just roll Perception every time there is something noticeable nearby, and besides Stealth, Perception just isn't always needed.

Skills are one area where the GM can assert some control over how the game is played, seeing as skills are only rolled when asked for. So if Perception is overtaking the game as the #1 skill, I think some of the blame is on the GM.

Edit: I should add that I think Perception IS pretty powerful in PF1, because it is baked into more rules overall.

Perception is a Broken Skill in any system that has it as a skill. look at Notice in Savage Worlds or Perception in D&D 4e and 5e. having to spend skill points on the ability to notice things was literally a skill tax and in 5e, entire choices were made in race and background to get free perception much like 4e.

Savage Worlds characters always spent at least 2 skill points on notice and skill points in Savage Worlds increased the die value from untrained to d4. d6. d8, d10 then d12 at the top with exploding dice, and it was always better to buy a d6 notice with 2 of your 15 starting skill points to ignore the -2 untrained penalty on not spending points on notice, because a d6 notice and your d6 wild die gave you 2 50% chances to notice most things and a decent chance of one of them exploding to spot an ambusher plus alertness was an edge that could be taken in Savage Worlds where +2 is extremely massive for even a legendary character because a thief with the edge only gets +2 to stealth and only inside an urban environment while alertness always applied.

I need to address a couple things here.

There are no skill points in 5e, you either have a skill or don't, and proficiency bonus only goes from +2 to +6, so the difference between untrained and trained is not massive, assuming the same Wisdom score.

There were no backgrounds in 4e, the skills increased automatically as you level, and being trained gives you an initial bonus, there is a 5 point difference between trained and untrained, but again the gap isn't massive like it can be in PF1.

In Savage Worlds this was not my experience at all. I have only seen people choose skills that fit their character idea, and none of them were a "skill tax", but more of something special their character could do. I don't think this game plays like d&d, nor is it meant to.

I think people who make this argument are just overusing Perception. The assumption in 5e is that you either notice something, or you don't, otherwise let the dice decide. You don't roll perception everytime you turn a corner!

The power of various skills is largely up to how the DM runs their games. I think the whole perception is OP thing is largely overblown.

Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:

+1/level was a BIG complaint from detractors of 4e.

4th Ed is +1/2 level.

I don't have the books anymore are you sure? Because I remember the complaints and being annoyed updating the sheets all the time. That's funny then, so + level would actually be worse.

I did just wake up so forgive me if I'm being insane.

EDIT: Oh yeah, you are right. Well I remember hating how everything just automatically advanced for no reason, so the point still stands. Auto-scaling skills is bad. To me d&d (and most great fantasy stories) has always been about overcoming weaknesses, this makes that much less of a thing and it makes me sad.

+1/level was a BIG complaint from detractors of 4e. I played it for about a year or so, then switched to Pathfinder. Complaints were also about sloggy combats (difficult battles easily lasting 3-4 hours), disassociated mechanics, required magic items, amongst other things.

PF2e has a few of the same problems. Resonance (or whatever its called nowadays) somewhat reminds me of healing surges (which actually worked pretty well). Required magic items, combat slog, hp bloat, class homogeneity, it all smacks of a similar approach, to me.

*NOTE: I am not trying to start a another discussion about editions, please.

What I want to say is that +1/level just bloated everything, and made the skill DC system very meta, where you had to increase DCs to keep them level appropriate, and assign increasingly wonky explanations for the increase in difficulty (but of course the difficulty relative to the players doesn't actually increase with "level appropriate challenges", so the whole +level thing is a wash most of the time).

How many greased, smooth-glass walls in a rainstorm, during an earthquake with a DC50 climb check are in your world? +level to everything is possibly the biggest deal breaker for me, I hated it then, and I hate it now. Some people like it obviously, but watch as all the same old complaints come rolling in when this game reaches the masses.

I like +1/2 level, that is much more reasonable and you don't have to update your whole character sheet every single level (was annoying in 4e too, and that game is a lot simpler). I actually wished 5e went with +1/2 level over the +2 to +6 they went with.

Edge93: That is exactly why PF2e's Magic system is as broken as D&D 5e's system. Given this I don't understand why spontaneous casters can't scale their spell's spontaneously.

Well to be fair 5e definitely errs on the side of simplicity, and it sometimes comes at a cost. Not everything is tediously balanced and tightly wound, some things are legacy, and some things are situational, or niche. Nothing wrong with that when the whole system is a bit loose anyway.

They have even stated that some spells are better than others of the same level (I think fireball was one of them actually...), and that this was intentional.

5e spells may actually resemble PF1e spells more than PF2e spells do, which is...weird.

But in the end, I think we are comparing two overall pretty different approaches to game design in my opinion.

The example that always comes to my mind is 5e Burning Hands vs. Fireball. Both are fire blasts, one hits a 15 foot cone while the other hits a 20 foot burst centered pretty much anywhere you darn well please within the space of a battlefield. Burning Hands starts as a level 1 spell with 3d6 damage and gains 1d6 per spell level. Fireball starts as a level 3 spell with 8d6 and gains 1d6 per spell level.

There is some nuance to this comparison, for one burning hands does not require a material component (kind of a non issue, I know), and for another a fireball is really hard to use with allies on the battlefield, it's quite impractical in small spaces.

I can see many situations where you would either not want to spend a 3rd level spell slot right now, or not want to blow everyone up. I agree some of the spell scaling in 5e isn't perfect, but isn't burning hands 1d4/level, maxing at 5d4 in PF1? I kinda think its ok that the damage is a little less.

I can also see that if you were more of a melee mage, burning hands might actually be superior.

Not trying to take things too far off subject, just wanted to interject since I currently play 5e.

The ones posting are the ones dedicated to making THIS system work, not the ones that think that THIS system will end in broken glass, tears, and spilled scotch.

Most people dropping out of the playtest AREN'T posting.

This is true, I am completely revolted by the core rulebook and the direction the game is going, and know no one else with even slight interest after looking at the actual rules. I have abstained posting on these boards until now (I have a few posts on reddit, basically all saying no thanks PF 2e). I feel like the ship has sailed on this one and I am gonna stay here with PF1, D&D5e, AD&D 2e, and LotFP as my favored d&d type games.

+ level to everything is the one thing I hated the most about 4e (honestly its not too bad of a system over all), and the PF2 rules are just a chore to read and I can't deal with the abstract nature of all the conditions and terms vomited throughout the book. I mean it just sucks to read. I have DMnd and played in many different systems, and read many more rulebooks that I haven't played. I have partook in a few playtests, and this is the first book I have ever came across that just completely turns me off. I struggled with Shadowrun rules, but that game is cool as hell, PF2e just sucks all around.

This will probably be my only post here, just felt like throwing out my opinion somewhere on these boards. I want it to be known that many of us are not active in the community because we have no interest in the direction this game is going and can't be bothered to participate in something we find distasteful.

Thanks for reading.

Another Hollander here!

OH BOY, here we go....YeeHoo!

Here are some new questions that have developed:

1. If the collapse of planes created the apocalypse, how would that effect deities and religions? Would some gods die or be created?

2. The city where the adventure starts is cut off from the rest of the fallen world and is mostly human, trying to keep 'mutations' out, what are some good ways to create this barrier? A magical force/wall/soldiers?

3. If I want to create a change in the environmental atmosphere, what might be easiest to roleplay, reduces sunlight or increase heat/sun?

Good questions... Can't say I have good answers for them, but I'll do my best: (at least you get a bump)

1. However you want. You can orchestrate any number of conflicts and battles between deities, like traditional mythology.

2. Well, either could work. Depending on the nature of the threat, you may or may not need something beyond mundane walls and soldiers.

3. I favor the increase in sun, a hot barren wasteland of epic proportions with horrid beasts stalking the twisted landscape. Still possible to have the occasional oasis or atmospheric anomaly, or "point of light".

For a radically simpler approach, why don't you just consider backing off a little on the technology thing?

Have the ancient technology be a completely lost art the likes of which only exists in legend or strange structure. Like how constructs are powered by magic, there were once technologies infused with magic (or steam) that brought them to life, such as airships, trains, and other such. Just no computers/cell-phones/machine-guns.

I guess this is more in the direction of some of the Final Fantasy games or Myazaki (or steam-punk, or ebberon), but you could more easily bridge the anime feel with a more low-technology setting like PF. It's more of an alternate universe thing, ancient technology infused with a modern sensibility, the anime/manga style really lets you pull off clashing concepts like this easier.

Anyway, sounds awesome and the imagery is very evocative of rich role-playing... Good Luck!