Dracoknight's page

I have to ask why Favored Enemy is so glorified? It was borderline useless most of the time until you got the 4th level spell that let you pick a favored enemy, and in some cases you had to beg the DM to tell you what was most likely enemy to meet in the campagin.

Otherwise you just pick the most common types like Humanoid or Undead, where is the so-called "Flavor" of the class here? If anything its a dead feature, or is it just that dead features and traits are "Oh so flavorful" in just that they are in fact useless?

I for one dont mourn the current loss of Spellcasting and Favored enemy, for the spellcasting might return later in form of other class feats, and favored enemy have effectively been replaced by something that lets a ranger act like a ranger, always found it weird a ranger only knew how to track down this one particular creature, or know that "maybe the head is a fine place to apply a hammer?"...

All of this doom and gloom on this forum is aggrivating.

I am actually holding the same opinion as the OP here, i feel like the forums is holding a extremly negative attitude for something that is just being read about and not even tested yet. I can understand the negativity for something that is new, but we have yet to see the whole picture on how it plays through and all of the preconceptions so far is based on PF1 mindset.

Its okay be be skeptical and maybe negative, but some of the reactions i have seen is way too extreme to be a more disagreement.

For the design of PF2 itself, i am rather optimistic, and i really look forward to it. However i have a few bugbears here and there, but i wait and see until the playtest to see if it makes more sense in context.

I think we have gotten to the point where the argument of immersion doesnt mean anything anymore.

Plus when it comes to names of weapons and historical accuracy the "weapon classes" as our dear weapon expert talk so much about were not even used during the times before the catagorization and naming schemes were applied by historians way past its time. So in all reality its a fruitless effort to make it "accurate" as it was never accurate to begin with.

Argument of immersion is fruitless in general as there is always something that takes you out of it, but the game have never claimed to be more than a game which simulate a adventure in a fantasy setting. Having historical accuracy to real life counterparts or its handling of magic within the laws of thermodynamics is way out of the scope of the game to begin with.

So what we have here is history VS established fantasy tropes, and considering this is a fantasy game you can take a guess which one wins out in terms of relevancy.

Franz the Barbarian was a weird fellow, he have such belief in his own strenght that it by hard work and absurdity managed to manifest itself. Even if you were to see it as a delusion it serves him well, and he likes to test his limits against almost any challenge, though unreachable goals he just blows off as "fairytales and drunkard stories".

However some days Franz feels weak, worried that his strenght has left him, constantly shivering and and lost his confidence in even the simplest of challenges. These is the times he lock himself in seclusion and trains until he once again feel his strenght has returned.

- Saga of Franz, the man of giants.

This is just a mere 1min write-up of how i would think a barbarian could handle a "totem" without it even being refered or known to the user themselves. These "totems" seems to be vague in the sense you could technically make them anything you like, a personality trait, a physical mutation, a magical blessing, a tribal totem patron... its actually pretty interesting.

Well at least it says "Encounter" when it comes to stances, meaning its not completely locked to combat. Though i would question the idea of going into a combat stance under a social encounter.

Personally i would prefer that Ki-strike alone didnt unlock Ki, but ANY Ki power regardless of level and previous feats would unlock the Ki pool. ( Choose a power, get the pool )

I guess its something about the choices in character progression that some things needs to be learned before you can expand, negatively known as "feat tax"... but honestly some people call any requirement a "tax" in this game regardless... the term have nearly lost its meaning.

However i do wish Ki had more entrance "side-grades" than just the strike.

Hmm, for me as a MTG player this system is just extremly familiar and easy to get your head around even without knowing the condition itself.
Then again we had this "Ability/Condition X" for ages now, here you have one character with First Strike and Scry 2, or this thing has hit with infect/wither and have now 4x -1/-1 etc. etc.

So i really look forward to the consistency, and what rules and designspace this will open up for the entire system.

I do not have much against the totems for Barbarian actually, they seem to be reasonable in their "requests", and even those which sound scary like the Giant totem, it still have the "safety" that you cannot be challenged into suicide, and if you do not accept a challenge it is not a "attonement spell and be on your way" but rather a small ritual to regain your center type of deal.

My opinion is that it adds flavor and the mechanical bit is not a big turn off, especially since my tables can easily just rule it out, and yet its not even that big of a deal than just one or two things you need to consider appeasing your totem.

Honestly the only problem i have seen when it comes to codes in a tabletop is the Paladin due to its "Incorruptable" or "meme" status, and some DM/GMs just love the idea to corrupt the "stick-in-the-mud" paladins or "lawful stupid" and see them fall. From my experience i had 4 of these DM/GMs, mostly out of pure Bias against the paladin.

On the opposite end i never seen a DM/GM make a Monk or Barbarian "fall" due to alignment shifts, never have i seen a Cleric being stripped of his or her powers, never have i seen a samurai or cavalier disgraced... i actually never seen a situation that require the spell attonement that was not on a Paladin.

The point i am trying to make is that these "Malicious" DM/GMs that want to drain your characters powers by exploiting geas/codes is portrayed as a bigger problem that it actually is. With the exception of the paladin, plus if a DM/GM is of "that guy" caliber he would find a way to mess you up regardless of class mechanics.

Also look up the definition of "Anathama" and most of the meanings go for a "curse" or "loathed" often by "higher beings". When they added this to Cleric was a bit skeptical to this word, then Paladin got that AND the code, and now that barbarian got it too i finally understood why Paizo picked this.

Its not a code, its a restriction, its a curse, its a requirement. The flavor is very loose so you can choose "why" of the Anathama. Like the anti-magic Barbarian it can be that the curse of Totem of anti-magic just outright make the barbarian feel sickend, it doesnt work, etc etc. you can put soo much flavor into this and the "only" negative is that you dont *willingly* take the benefit of Spells cast onto yourself.

I think a lot of the issues around the "Legendary aspect" could be a little in that people have their own notion of what kind equivalicy there is in power and levels.

However in PF2E the ruleset is of Golarion Bias, meaning that the default core setting of the rules is set to be of Golarion instead of a setting neutral ruleset. From there you have to realize the powerlevels of characters. 1-4 is basically your "everyday man" from newbies to just average worker. 5-9 is where you have your experts and specialists. 10-14 is when you have the ground breakers, the foundation makers that have reached the pinnacle of man. 15-20 is where you find demigods, god-likes and legendary heroes of yesteryear.

I for one actually like that the PF2 ruleset would take a bias to the Golarion setting as it make it so that the rules have a point of reference in a setting and from there people can thus convert it to their setting. Here you will have a established power structure and people can adjust for their own need.

So those who dont like the legendary system, there is already several suggestions given to you so far, so either take those suggestions or stop making Pathfinder what it never was.

I feel like i should chime in after reader several pages of comments before i went with the prediction that "uh-oh, someone is going to champion their anti-legendary mindset".

Seriously though legendary skills are what does you over? Your 30+ Strenght Barbarian that can cleave deamons and titans alike, Your rogue that can sneak past a beholder, a bard that can sing the gods to tears, and you now feel like the game is getting out of hand because the Acrobat now inherently can do at lvl 15+ what you could do with a 1k gp item? (Abeit it reduced all fall damage die to 1, but after you get 26 HP this is a non-issue really)

Still i dont see the argument why legendary skill-feats would be so immersion breaking after Level 15 that litterally everyone in the party can single-handly wipe out several lower tier devils, Challenge demi-gods to fisticuffs and threaten cities and gods alike.

Even after several suggestions to how you can limit this in your own game i see the comments is still on-going and i just have to ask: What are you actually trying to champion here?

Look up what they mean with "Legendary", and see now that you now actually can be a legend on the par with Hercules, Beowulf, Conan, Carmen Sandiego and Dora the Explorer. And here we are complaining about realism in a game where you basically walk hand-in-hand with gods already from Level 1.

This is a concern for me, so many moving parts, but hopefully at each level it is not overwhelming.

From what i have had the impression of is that there is a lot of sub-catagories. So in every catagory you may have only like 5-7 choices to begin with and slowly expand as you level up.

Stuff like Ancestry Feats, Skill Feats, General Feats and Class Feats might sound daunting if you think of all of them at once, but as soon as you just decide to see them in their own catagory and what you actually have the requirements for the list might not be so wide anymore.

For the Legendary being gated behind a Class' signature skills, I agree that it sounds bad. But maybe for actual characters signature skills are enough. After all Legendary is gated behind high level AND limited number of rank increase

What are the chances that one of the few skills you want to take all the way to Legendary is NOT one of your Class' signature skills ?

One of the devs were saying there was a way to gain legendary skills with other means, but in general the legendary skills is normally limited to your signature skills.

So maybe it also ties to ancestry, general feats, or other means?

Sounds like Diego should limit his intake of alochol when eating a sheet of paper around a pineapple is considered a good idea, but then i remembered that he got sad over a pun... so he should have doubled his intake at that point, or until its funny.

I find it ironic that there is complaints of a "gamey" term in a game... There is already terms in the system that is most likely not awknowledged by the setting, but we stick to it as it makes the game more comprehensible to deal with.

So shall we make away with Hit Points, Caster Level, Classes, Spell Slots, CR, DR, Spell Likes etc.?

I would like to see some clearifications on how spells manifests aswell, i dont mind how it looks like spesifically, but rather in how spells are observed. Observing spells in how visual the somantics are, how firm the vocals have to be, the visual manifestation of the spell, etc.

Just having a proper structure around the basics on how magic is observed can allow any table to basically have the magic they want, and yet have proper mechanics around it.

Wouldnt the aspect that is more Lawful than Good be the Inquisitor?

WillDM4food wrote:

"Lawful Stupid", as some people call it, is part of the Paladin's schtick.

It is not and has never been.

Agreed, the term "lawful stupid" have been a degoratory for players playing the paladin as a "stick-in-the-mud" due to the confusion over the paladin code and alignment system for ages.

Why do we defend this bad practice? As if the Paladin class havent already got a bad enough reputation?

I suppose the point we are trying to make is that even poisons isnt as black and white as claimed. The intent matters more than the tool when it comes to the quest of paladins, be it using poison, intimidating someone or seek the help of your shady companion.

Honestly the use of controlled poison used to gain the most combat efficiency to not drag out a combat will make sense as time is a factor in combat.

Poisoning your blade before combat to make sure you, your allies or further innocents dont get hurt or lose their lives because of your tardines would be a VERY Paladin thing to do.

I would suspect a Paladin would have problem justifying poisoning a person before a duel, or poisoning them beforehand to make them easier to kill in a future combat. This would be considered "dishonorable" as long as the question of honor goes, however with the new Paladin code working with priorities you could have scenarios such as:

Poisoning the food of a guard to allow for prisoners to escape, even if the guard himself is innocent then technically poisoning him to make him sleep or easier to subdue would be a VERY Paladin thing to do.

Pretend: The Game

The biggest issue i had with Paladin of PF1 was because of the aspect of alignment being a big part of their mechanics in that if they broke the rule they would lose their powers. Same issue with Clerics, but they were a lot more tolerant in that aspect.

In PF2 it seems like the hard coding of the "tiers of importance" in the code is a big step in the right direction from this squabble so i have my concern already answered.

Step two was just wondering why the "Heavy armored martial class with 4th level spells" were locked down to LG and CE only, though we got Bloodrager further down the line, its still not a divine class. So mechanically this was something i wished for all alignments/deities as to have more interesting aspects that was "Paladin-like" and yet unique.

Step three is that i think alignment is a obsolete system that does not quite work in the current state, its kind of a mechanic and yet its too wague to even be mechanically significant. I am not saying that it should be more heavily enforced, but have clearer guidelines to what it is and is not.

From these 3 points, all 3 of them kind of have been spoken about in this preview, and i like to see where they take it. And yet i am worried as i have seen Paizo done weird decisions in the past (Like some of the FAQs/Erratas), but now some of their shackles have been loosend from 3.5 to become their own thing i am actually rather positive to this edition.

How about a Locus swarm? The swarm is driven over large areas to feed to sustain itself destroying wast areas of land and upset the ecosystem until it sorts itself out. Would mindless swarms then we considered evil?

Its been stated by JJ and some devs that casting a evil spell is considered evil, and in some situation even do a dent in the characters alignment. Theres a spell that could summon evil and yet is not considered so is summon creature, or the gate spell. Both have potensial from evil, and from what i reckon they dont change their spell descriptor to evil even if a "Fiendish" or demonic entity is summoned.

It shouldn't be that confusing people hate breaking tradition.

Well personally never been the one to understand the draw to tradition, so i might just lack that human aspect entirely i suppose?

It still confuses me how people are so protective of the paladin alignment that it has to be LG, its merely a chassis for a martial with some divine powers with a name that invoke the "good old days" of D&D.

Lets see on to the points that i do like: I like that the code have a proper wording and mechanical explaination on how to enforce them, now the players and GM both new and old will get a better idea on how it works instead of having a philospohical argument that last for decades.

I hope to see more varied paladins at the table now instead of the default "Goodie Two-shoes" or "Lawful-Stupid" that way too many players fall into, its up there with the "Dick-Rogue" and "Half-Wit Barbarian". Its still a wonder how a Role Playing Game and its mechanics lead to the same character traits over and over again.

Well considering how much this have caused arguments through the decades just states how this system works/not works. Personally the benefits of having defined codes is that it will be consistent from table to table when it comes to different GMs.

Like Wei is saying thats a danger that someone will "circumvent the rule" is solved in that its not a rule and thus all those excuses are in all technicallity valid. A Paladin that doesnt know that poison is Immoral or Illegal is a sign that his order obviously dont have a negative stance or even a stance at all for this usage.

I had issues with Undeath and its alignment implications before, but putting that to the side theres another issue i do have around this: The Negative energy is *not* evil, but apparently everything created out with it or uses it is considered as evil. From what the positive energy and negative energy have pretty much been defined as "Pro-Life" and "Anti-Life" respectively.

There is a lack of consistency or clearification around this, and the entire aspect of mindless undeath hinges on its "instinct", but so does animals. Would predatory animals then be considered evil as they eat the living? Intelligence among undead that weer them towards evil have its own issue in that is that they are given a personality that is against life due to corruption from the negative energy? Or is that based entirely on the goal/personality implanted by the caster?

The easiest clarification would just be stating outright that Negative energy is evil, but we know where that discussion goes now do we?

Graystone is rapidly becomming one of my favorite people... though my standard is "Same vision on the alignment system" but hey! You go you glorious person!

Still i must say i like the idea of a more consistent code for all believers than just vague wishwash. As a VERY important aspect of this discussion that people forget is that not everyone play with friends, not everyone have that close knit group, not everyone have played on years on end.

For me that is one of those "game wanderers" would like to have consistency in the game where this vague stuff is more solidfied (more like a half-solid than a mere gas). I dont mind houserules, but for what is not accounted for it is better to have rules being consistent until otherwise notified. (Edited: The usage of the "Royal we" might draw the wrong impression on my statement here)

Alignment talk is pure opinions and views, and basing a mechanic on it will likely make it a very controversial topic whenever it does pop up. And i for one would like to play with a group on a whim and not "accidentally" lose my class features because my GM decide my god is in a bad mood that particular moment.

Neriathale wrote:

I know Pathfinder isn't meant to be realistic, but I would love to see some of the stupider weapons purged from the tables... scythes for starters

War scythes are a real thing. Are they the best polearm? Probably not, but people definitely used them as very effective weapons.

While we are on flails, even the standard ones appear to be quite a rare weapon.

Well you have the actual scythe (with a horizonal blade, not the warscythe that have its blade adjusted into a vertical position) which is the one that Neriathale is talking.

However i do not have a issue with "silly weapons" per say, and i feel the argument of realism is a bit wasted on a game of high fantasy. However when it comes to logic, thats a entire different story...

Regardless of how silly the Scythe is as a weapon, it is a staple of fantasy weaponry. Especially with how characters in videogames (Magus in Chrono Trigger) or characters in mythos (Death himself) or in series (Ruby in RWBY). The Scythe albeit silly as hell is very iconic in its form rather than its use.

Well if we are talking about action types i dont know if it has reduced that much, if we are taking about action "currencies" its reduced quite a bit.

The point is that you still have the types move, attack, spell cast, interact. However you have simplified currencies like standard, move, swift, immidiate, free, etc. down to Action, Reaction, Swift, etc. and from here you can make types that cost a X Currency.

Its streamlined, but you have moved the complexity to another stage of your turn, but maybe something more people are familiar with: "Buying your action, with X currency" instead of "Indentify action type, identify situation, select action, execute action".

Ofcourse its a matter of getting used to it, and veteran players might be a bit resistant due to the "investment bias" of the old system and might forget that new players will find it extremly confusing.

I dont mind the term "Exotic" as it doesnt need to reflect a exotic origin, but relate more to a exotic or "Unorthodox" fighting style that is more advanced than the other catagories.

Also on a personal preference "exotic" sound less "game-y" than "advanced"... but on the other hand, i always prefered clear and CONSISTENT game terms over vague utterings at the whim of the author.

*Sigh*

Dracoknight, please, PLEASE, read my posts thoroughly. I have never stated that you shoud lose your entire turn or harm yourself due to a critcial failure. I do believe that you should suffer a minor penailty for 1 round only due to bad luck. I don't consider this a catastrophic "Out to Get Martials" wish because you do extra damage on a crit. Now if all a crit did was confirm a hit then I would agree with you there would be no reason to penalize a roll of a 1 either. There should always be a balance between risk and reward

The enemies have the same chances as you do, thats the balance to the risk.

Also from Post 1:

A) A critical failure results in the loss of one action. If no other actions are available this round, this missed action carries over to the next round.

B) A critical fumble results in the fumblerer exposing herself to extreme danger and risk. The next single attack roll against her is a critical hit if it succeedes. If the attack misses or no attacks are made against the fumbler then the effects of the critical fumble expire at the start of the next round.

Loses actions, chances of extreme risks, a auto counter-crit. Plus with how criticals works in PF2 you basically risk at critical failing yourself on every hit as you have the "fail with 10 or more" mechanic in.

You did not suggest for anything "minor" here. You and i may disagree one the importance of actions, but i do not see this "balance" other than reducing character agency just because "s$%* happens".

Drunken Master/Paladin builds here we go! :P

"Minimal risk" is an argument? I mean as if getting into combat isnt bad enough already? If combat is not a risk then the encounters you are meeting then i would argue your encounters are too easy to the point you feel to add even another step of risk. Also Talek & Luna: even if its PF1 or PF2 the fumbles i am accustomed to make you lose the entire turn, not merely an action. The PF2 action system does not change this.

Honestly missing your target is bad enough in the most of situations, having your enemy live another round is devestating enough considering a combat encounter normally last around 3 turns.

Then we could look at the standard fumbles like losing your weapon or hitting yourself. The case of losing your weapon lose your turn, next turn you have to spend action to pick it up again, same case with the fumbles that put you prone, both of these cause attacks of oppertunity. Then hitting yourself is basically giving the enemy a free hit at your expense.

Yay 5% chance that you will inflict the player debuffs that normally takes 2 turns to cause if used by an enemy! Fumble rules sure are fun guys, i mean look at all of this epic roleplay of me playing the role of a legendary fighter accidentally my magical sword into the aether.

How about you stick that to your own games then Talek & Luna? The general dislike for the fumbles seems to outweight those who likes it, and its to a far minority to the point you might be better off just houseruling it rather than making it a general rule.

Martials in general is already F'd by the power balance wastly favoring casters to the point they can easily be replaced by either summons or Gishes. You dont see any martial end a encounter with a single action, unless its a single enemy standing wide open, and the Barbarian runs in and crit it with his battleaxe. To drag the favor into the martials shall we then also enforce the wild magic rules onto every caster? We might aswell play 40k at this point.

I am positive to the changes of the Cleric, especially sinceh the 1E variant was dry of features by level 8 as they got the last of the domain power. And the ability to pick up to 3 domains is interesting, especially if they make domain feels more like bloodlines with steady progression of features.

I must admit i have been a aggressor against Alignment being a large part of characters in general as i see them more limiting than "role-play-y", however my major irk about alignment as a mechanic is that it was not consistent between games. Hopefully this cleric feature and with other religious based classes will have a proper mechanic to the divine nature instead of GM "Make-them-fall Bait".

Consistency in rules have been my idea, i see the "GM decides" as utterly lazy as a design. Even if i see the point that you cant cover every situation, i feel you can at least cover the basic framework instead of just handing me a IKEA box with no instructions.

Even though i admit to that i am in general liking most of the PF2 material released, i just cant see why the Goblins is now a core race and why they got the stat bonuses they get.

Its a confusing step as i cant honestly tell who even asked for Goblins as a core race, i know some people played them, but often as a small character with a large dex mod in chaotic themed games. Is Paizo rolling a Retcon on their previous Goblins? Just what the hell is going on?

For me the Alignment system is just a holy cow that nobody want to touch, it have some flavor, but thats all there is to it. For a mechanic that is so extremly vague that after 5 decades of arguing we still havent agreed the slightest on how this system is supposed to work is enough to me that the system is in need of a dire rewamp or removal.

I cant even pretend that i understand the argument of why this vague morality system is so critical to the game to the point some people would find it otherwise unplayable, but i do see how the alignment on a grand divine basis does set up the balance between the divine powers. For me the alignment system have just become a weird thing which allow GMs to control players beyond having the world react: "Your character wouldnt do that" and then you have the other side of the argument "My character would do that" from the player side.

The concept of Law and Chaos more more sense than the axis of Good and Evil, i would even argue that the linear "Mass Effect Alignment" is better than what D&D currently have to offer both mechanically and roleplaywise in its current incarnation. Way too many times we see the basic stereotypes: The Stick-in-the-mud Lawful Stupid Paladin, the Dick-rogue that steals and sabotage their allies, the Cartoony Villian that is the Chaotic Evil, and the totally spastic that is Chaotic Neutral.

The stereotypes exist for a reason, and i blame the vagueness that is the alignment system. You might not have seen them in your games, but i have seen them a lot (At least one of these stereotypes in every new group i encounter).

Spellcasters VS Martials have always been a hot topic in D&D aswell, and the fumble rules is just yet another part of a larger discussion. I have seen some weird suggestions to add realism or simulation into the game like maintainance or chances of failure and in almost all of them just stacks to the spellcasters advantage.

The most useful spells in the Spellcasters arsenal is autohits and some of them does not even require a save. Like the fireball, even despite being a save its also on one of the lesser saves (reflex) and even then its for half damage. Only classes with evasion have much of a benefit.

On the note of actions: Action loss is always going to be devestating, even if PF2 is increasing the actions it actually does not make it less devestating to lose actions but more so as everyone else around you is going to utilize all of theirs. Being unable to use actions in D&D in general is considered a major debuff (Daze, Paralyze, Slowed, Facinated, Stunned, etc.).

So the fumble rules to me beyond the automatic miss even if your bonus would allow you to hit, is just a roulette of which random debuff i am going to get today. "Lose a action" Welp, here we get dazed for no reason. Missing is enough of a punishment in itself, why do we argue to add salt to a wound?

Dracoknight wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Nope. We still label people who play differently from us “immature”.

Saying that the Tabletop gamers is more mature than your standard videogamer is at best a pretentious statement from my experience.

I’m really struggling to see how that relates to my post. Did you quote me by mistake maybe? Video gamers weren’t anywhere in my mind when I made that remark. :/

My apologies, it should have been accopanied by the 2nd line, and a continuation of the snarkiness around "People who dont agree with me are immature", and that its pretty much the same mindset you see in videogames. ( or any opinionated community for that matter )

Nope. We still label people who play differently from us “immature”.

Saying that the Tabletop gamers is more mature than your standard videogamer is at best a pretentious statement from my experience. Oh the time wasted on endless arguments about game mechanics in a game of pretend.

Still one of the things of why there is discussion around whats going in the rules is basically trying to have things work consistent from one game to another. With your established groups the rulings can be lightend and twisted for the need of the group, but if you are a "group hopper" or have multiply groups i can understand the need for consitency between games.

So for a mechanic that is a part of the "default" package of D&D i find it weird its so heavily enforced compared to how vague the entire concept is.

The advice i have always given to people playing D&D or other games with alignment: "Play the character not the alignment" from there you can give the character a more fitting alignment depending on the actions of that character.

The issue i have with this system is that people think a character have to "maintain" a alignment, when in reality this alignment is merely a descriptor of their natural reactions and morals to the world around them. Ofcourse you may have to "maintain" the alignment with certian classes for their deities, but in essence is that just following the code and morals of this god is enough to keep that alignment, and if the character start acting against their alignment it could be used as a character arch about losing their faith.

Alignment at worst is when its being enforced, alignment at its best is when its changes around the character. So again: "Play the character, not the alignment, change the alignment and not the character."

Fuzzypaws wrote:

if at some point job offers and such resulted in a table reset, it'd be nice to do something more flavorful than the by-the-book default of my years as a 2E player in the 90s.

Then play under a GM who likes that type of game?

I'm okay if core rules say some people like reflavouring, some people don't, do whatever makes your table the most happy (not individual players, the table as a whole. If one particular player's tastes are drastically different then chances are that player isn't going to be very compatible with that table). I'm not okay with the core rules saying "GMs should let players flavour stuff however they want so long as it has no rule change".

Thats why this thread ask for the core book to give a blessing to this OPTION, as in you can add it if you want to. Explain what the concept is, and that not everything is set in stone IF you want it to.

The point of adding these optional rules and mentions in the rulebook is to inform (as mention earlier) and lay the groundwork for what newbie players and GMs can work with to make their game more theirs and less "Adventure#4553".

However what this does NOT do by adding it in the book is for players to demand this option, but its so players can know about it and ask their GM if they can do so. Be it spell manifestations, fighting style, the look of a sword, the prayer of a deity, the look of a potion, the taste of a potion. Neither of these have anything to do with mechanics, and it opens up options not only for players but GMs aswell.

After years of arguing i did manage to get my GM to stop using fumble rules. It was just bad, you could lose your weapon, drop prone, cause a attack of oppertunity and the like and a lot of these situations have the potensial to be outright deadly or make you useless as you waste your actions and turns.

Especially for martials that have a lot more attack rolls to deal with, just higher the chance of you getting yourself killed just for doing the most basic of actions. We did have confirmation rolls, but you still lost your turn. Losing turns as a martials is worse than losing turns as a spellcaster. So in the end, why make spellcasters even more overpowering over martials than they already are?

Death to all fumbles!

Personally i have always fluffed my spells at will, though a lot of the time kinda dries away as the narrative of merely casting a spell can slog down our already precious time ^^;

Though i see your point that Paizo should include a note that not all spells need to see the same, but still keep the same mechanic in the sense that a wizard or anyone with spellcraft will recognize a spell even though the effect looks different.

Forexample not all clerics uses the same prayer as a somatic, not all manifestations of these prayers looks the same. Would a Cure Light Wounds from a good god look like the same as a evil god? While the good gods healing lights the wound and blind your eyes in a ray of goodness and painless reconstruction, while the evil version would be painful as your flesh and veins warps back into exsistance as it closes the wound.

How about we DONT punish every playing for merely playing the game? How the hell is a game that punishes you for the most basic action in D&D going to be fun?

What purpose does this even serve? Punish players for combat in a combat heavy system? Making encounters more dramatic?...

I dont see it at all, and honestly fumbles have never been a fun mechanic to play, its just slogging down a already slow combat phase.