Dragonstriker's page

It seems that maybe we have a different definition of 'need'.

edit: There is not a class yet that I have seen that requires more than 1 focused stat to function.

I don’t mean to sound dickish, but it sounds like @squiggit feels that being unable to optimise for STR & DEX with skills based on other stats simultaneously is a system flaw. I feel that it’s a system perk.

Is this a complicated way of saying regain one focus per action?
This is completely at odds with all other focus pool mechanics.
Nobody can refocus in combat, for a reason.
There are no focus spells or powers that cost more than 1 fp.
How would this interact with MC dedications that have focus pools & focus spells? Either into or out of psychic, this is game breaking.
I don’t see how your proposal aligns with the playtest class concept for the psychic; it seems to instead rewrite the focus pool mechanics and how a class interacts with the core rules.

Actually, the "After combat" is one of the bigger similarities. In particular, the Oracle's Curse is tied to your focus points. It goes up as you spend focus points and it goes away when you refocus. This one increases to Awakening based on stress, Unleashes for a specific reason that's tied to the psyche in question, and then dies down pretty naturally once the fight is over... and then you have to refocus in order to charge it up so you can do it *again*.

If the party has two fights in quick succession with no chance to rest in between, the Oracle will be in full cursemode at the beginnign of the second. The Psychic will have spent their unleash and focus points and won't have access to either.

It's an interesting point - the psychic in general has real issues if for whatever reason they don't get a chance to refocus between fights.

True, but isn’t that a problem that is avoided by deciding that two encounters with less than 10 minutes between are effectively a 2 phase single encounter?

Manifestations are after casting; they’re properties of the spell, not verbal or somatic components of the Cast A Spell activity. I just thought it was important to note that, as I’ve seen people be confused about the distinction.
Silent Spell affects the Verbal component not the auditory manifestation - the spell sound effect.

Goblins should be playable, but not a core ancestry.

Because kobolds should be core.

The Birth of a Roleplaying Game

To tell the truth, this story actually starts in October 2007. With the announcement of 4th Edition, most of my freelance work for Wizards quickly began to dry up. I was not on the list to get an early look at the rules, and there were few remaining 3.5 hardcover books that needed work. With a bunch of idle time on my hands, I was looking for something to keep myself occupied. It occurred to me that there might be a fair number of people who would stick with the 3.5 rules and that maybe I could put together an easy PDF document with some rules revisions, just for fun. My first document had the title "3.75 Rules Set" in the margin.

From:

Monks get the only 1d8 finesse agile forceful weapons in the game (wolf or tiger stance, diamond fists). Dex to damage on top would be going too far; those stances are already very strong compared to the Str stances.

My own way to do retraining is that you have to

a) first multiclass and have more class feats spend on dedication than own class feats.

b) then retrain once, rebuilding your character as a core class of your previous multiclass with a multiclass in your old core class. This character must have the same ratio of class feats as prior. E.G a Fighter/Druid who had 2 fighter feats and 3 druid would become a Druid/Fighter with 3 Druid feats and 2 fighter.

c) you can then retrain away your old classes feats as per normal retraining rules.

That’s awesome and totally in keeping with the vibe of the multiclassing and retraining rules. Your process feels like organic character growth to me.

Why is naginata even a thing? It’s just a glaive. (Okay, they’re considered nihonto because of the method of forging and mounting to the haft by pinning through the tang, rather than the haft into a socket. In game terms, that’s irrelevant.)

CRB p239 wrote:

You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill.

Am I attempting to remember a particular piece of knowlege, i.e. asking a specific question of the GM? Or am I hoping to recall any old piece of knowledge, i.e. the GM tells me what he thinks is useful? That sentence supports both readings, so let’s keep going and see what else we can figure out.

...
So my reading is that the rules support both methods. With that in mind, I’ll probably let my players choose on a check-by-check basis whether to ask a specific question or to have me pick something I think is useful.

The GM advice chapter on pp505 & 506 explicitly tells the GM how to adjudicate Recall Knowledge for Creature Identification.

RECALL KNOWLEDGE
On most topics, you can use simple DCs for checks to Recall Knowledge. For a check about a specific creature, trap, or other subject with a level, use a level-based DC (adjusting for rarity as needed). You might adjust the difficulty down, maybe even drastically, if the subject is especially notorious or famed. Knowing simple tales about an infamous dragon’s exploits, for example, might be incredibly easy for the dragon’s level, or even just a simple trained DC.
...
ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject.
CREATURE IDENTIFICATION
A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.
The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature’s trait, as shown on Table 10–7, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment, while Society is harder. Lore skills can also be used to identify their specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

thenobledrake wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Agency doesn't mean all your choices will be good ones, just that you have real choices.

The choice between getting a die roll that provides useful information if successful and getting a die roll that will not provide you useful information no matter how it goes is not a real choice.

I really don't understand what you're talking about here. Are you saying the GM takes away the player's agency by respecting the player's choice to ask a question that turns out to be a poor one?

Yes.

You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply.
Critical Success You recall the knowledge accurately and gain
additional information or context.
Success You recall the knowledge accurately or gain a useful
clue about your current situation.
Critical Failure You recall incorrect information or gain an
erroneous or misleading clue.

&

A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.
The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature’s trait, as shown on Table 10–7, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment, while Society is harder. Lore skills can also be used to identify their specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

Why are you trying to rip off your players? Why are you devaluing their choices in building characters and choosing how to spend resources? THAT’S why it’s removing player agency.

thenobledrake wrote:

Categorical questions can still be bad questions to ask because if the GM answers them you've not gained useful information about the creature.

And "you can spend an action, succeed at a skill roll, and still get nothing" - which is what happens if a player asks a bad question and it gets answered - is pretty much the definition of reducing player agency.

How do you define agency? The base rules have agency only in deciding whether or not to Recall Knowledge. The GM tries to offer the player more agency by letting the player choose what kind of knowledge he might recall. The player exercised their agency by making a poor choice - but that's still agency. Agency doesn't mean all your choices will be good ones, just that you have real choices. The player could have also said "no I don't want to ask a specific question, just tell me what you think would be useful". The player chose not to do that, and that happened to be a poor choice. But it was a real choice.

I don’t define player agency as “roll a success but get nothing because I didn’t guess what the GM thought was important to ask”. Do you?

That's why it is not Wise to set up a team before knowing all the members.

A one shot adventure would have helped you not get in this situation.

Try print him a sheet with all the actions explained. Also print for him an overall of the rules and how his class features work.

Something like a card where he can check by himself if what he would like to do is ok or not.

It sounds like that’s exactly what has already happened, according to the OP.

My advice is to tell the GM how his behaviour is affecting your enjoyment of the game and request that the player be asked to stop the argumentative behaviour. If you are the GM, warn the player and notify the VO.
When the warning is ignored, exclude the player from the game. It sounds harsh but if he wants to dispute it he’ll need to argue his case in accordance with the PFS community behaviour policy.

For the record I feel that his behaviour is breaching this section:

We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences. To this end, we reserve the right to refuse participation to any person for inappropriate or illegal conduct. All refusals of participation must be accompanied by a reason, duration of refusal, and the criteria for rejoining PFS or SFS activities.

...
Participants asked to stop any problematic behavior are expected to comply immediately or will be asked to leave the table.
It is our intention that everybody participating in Pathfinder Society or Starfinder Society organized play enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment.
...
We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences. Once again, the intention of PFS org play is to provide a safe and fun environment. The above guidelines reference how we may achieve our goals. By sitting at a PFS or SFS table, participants are agreeing to the terms and conditions of Pathfinder Society and Starfinder Society organized play.

James Jacobs wrote:

The official new look for hobgoblins is that they look more like Medium size goblins. Now and then, stragglers will slip through the cracks as we adjust our style for them, which we'll get better at not doing as the edition goes on.

Is there anything we can say to change your mind? The medium-sized goblin look is terrible.

In your opinion.

Dragonstriker wrote:

I’d just like to point out that kineticists are not psychic casters (unless using the overwhelming soul archetype) and are absolutely not psionics. Several of the concerns raised above appear to be based on the misapprehension that they are psionics.

I read about the class on the web SRD. If that source is accurate then it appears that you are correct. The Psychokineticist is an archetype of the Kineticists that is apparently distinct for being an actual psion with similar powers. I think that's the one you mentioned.

In any case, my mistake. I do have a deep-seated apprehension towards psions for various reasons, and that bias shouldn't extend to Keneticists as they are a fundamentally different concept. In fact, it's a rather cool concept (except for the weird Power of DARKNESS variety which still makes absolutely no sense to me unless the character chose to always don dark leather hooded longcoats with too many zippers).

To be fair though, if you take away the cool elemental aspect it's about as close to psionics as you can get. Unless you include telepathy, phase-shifting, and clairvoyance into the mix. I also didn't read up on the Psychic class so I may be way off base here.

The psychic class is more or less equivalent to the psion of AD&D & 3e, however the class casts “psychic” spells in the same way as arcane and divine prepared casters; essentially the psychic is a prepared caster with “thought” and “emotion” components replacing verbal and somatic, drawing from their own spell list and with a different flavour.

I’d just like to point out that kineticists are not psychic casters (unless using the overwhelming soul archetype) and are absolutely not psionics. Several of the concerns raised above appear to be based on the misapprehension that they are psionics.

I was firmly in support of goblin ancestry as core and really didn’t get the kobold appeal.
That was then, this is now.
These guys (and presumably girls, because non-mammalian humanoids probably really oughtn’t have mammalian mammary glands) are awesome; cute yet competent looking, full of character and without child eating baggage.
Kobold ancestry ASAP, please.

Yeah, big bonus to damage characters seem to have gone by the wayside in favor of bigger dice pools. My paladin ot level 20 who with smite and a buff or two was adding around 50 to each hit but rolled only a d8. Meant I was reliable in damage. I feel like that's nearly gone on pf2 unless I've missed something

It’s gone, on purpose.

To that point, the location bar at the right of the Playtest book that lets you flip right to "Classes" or "Feats" was very helpful. I wish all books had those.

Quoting to add my appreciation for this layout decision. I do hope this feature has carried over to the PF2 CRB and will continue in the rest of the rules line at least.

Cyouni wrote:

This doesn't satisfy the same conditions as the original rule.

I really cannot tell what the original rules would actually do in this case though:

I roll a natural 20 on a DC 30 skill check, and due to my modifier of +0, the final result is 20. Is this a critical failure, a failure, a success, or a critical success?

Success. Rolled a 20 but didn’t beat the DC. Didn’t fail and miss DC by 10, so not critical failure. Didn’t roll a 1, so not downgraded to failure or critical failure.

If the books are already printed... and the pdfs will be free... everything is ready, why not release it already?

Many people have free time in July, more time to play, playtest and read.

If changes were still being made, ok, i can understand that every single day counts toward making a better product. But since nothing wil be changed until the playtest itself start, seems to me like some sort of deadline that is there just for the sake of deadline.

Your post could be rephrased as:

Put like that, doesn’t it sound a bit impatient?

Slim Jim wrote:

For what's it worth, I never cared for dinosaurs in Tolkienesque fantasy. Better idea: make more dragons.

Good thing then that Pathfinder isn't really tolkienesque at all.

By the way, I think Tolkien's books had just one more dragon than they had dinosaurs.

Only if you limit Tolkien’s books to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. If you include all his works, there are plenty of dragons. The First Age dragons make Smaug look like an amateur.

Quandary wrote:

IMHO Paizo isn't trying to make D&D anymore

And this is my biggest concern. I actually like playing D&D, and to the degree that PF2e is not D&D, I don't have much interest in it.

No offence intended, but why are you here then?

Captain Morgan, I think that the ability to take Actions in exploration mode will be limited, so Jason was correct in making Joe spend an action to raise once the encounter started. It seems the solution in this case would have been to start the encounter with the door closed - roll initiative, raise shields, open door all “on the clock” so to speak.

I really liked the way Diablo 3 flavoured the monk but kept it essentially wuxia. The wuxia monk doesn’t have to be at odds with a Eurocentric fantasy milieu, even if Golarion was that.

Dragonstriker wrote:

it’s becoming tiresome to constantly hear the same few posters ...

To those posters, I say; you’ve said your piece, we know your opinions and your feelings... Surely that’s better than insisting on changes to PF2 to make it into PF1 from a position of incomplete information?

Now, I generally try and avoid personal comments, but this attitude of "don't talk about what I don't agree with" - especially from someone who walked away from Pathfinder in 2008 after Paizo refused to convert to 4e - stinks of hypocrisy.

I’m sorry that you’ve interpreted my expression of frustration as a demand for silence. The frustration arises from the *repetition* by particular posters - people are absolutely entitled to their opinions but after expressing the same opinion on every thread, everyone is clear on what that opinion is.

I’m also sorry that comparing this post with the single post I made a decade ago saying why I wouldn’t be continuing with pathfinder makes me a hypocrite in your eyes. I feel that it is, if anything the opposite, since that was my last post until February this year.
Starfinder and PF2 brought me back to the fold after years of not playing anything.

Dragonstriker wrote:

BPorter wrote:

Combat Monster wrote:

I keep seeing complaints that some don't want martials to have cool powers. That is fine. Don't use them at your tables.

Some of us would prefer to be more Thor than Conan or Aragorn. I'm all for more stuff. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it.

So, you'd appreciate it if your likes are met and mine are discarded? So you're opinion is more valid/valuable than mine? Got it.

Here is your membership card to the "You're doing it wrong, having bad/wrongfun Enforcer Club."

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

And on general principle of your "do it my way or shut up", eff no.

1. Don’t be a hypocrite. Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.

2. Mark Seifter has already told you the exact house rule to achieve your desire, so you’re objectively incorrect in your statement above.

BS. I never told anyone not to tell Paizo what they wanted. Try again

Huh? Where did I say you did? Don’t try and strawman me.

Combat Monster wrote:

I keep seeing complaints that some don't want martials to have cool powers. That is fine. Don't use them at your tables.

Some of us would prefer to be more Thor than Conan or Aragorn. I'm all for more stuff. I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it.

So, you'd appreciate it if your likes are met and mine are discarded? So you're opinion is more valid/valuable than mine? Got it.

Here is your membership card to the "You're doing it wrong, having bad/wrongfun Enforcer Club."

Additionally...No. As almost every game can show, it's easier to add to a game than subtract from it.

And on general principle of your "do it my way or shut up", eff no.

1. Don’t be a hypocrite. Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.

I feel you've been holding on to that and it kind of bubbled over eh? I admittedly feel that way about a few posters on the forums and there arguments. I haven't necessarily noticed malthraz making a nuance of himself so that might have been a bit of an over the top reaction but I can relate.

I think there is a place for the discussion of there rules changes but some people tend to make to many uneducated guesses or try to hard to press there opinion (like making multiple threads arguing the same point.) And of course my favorite if they do X I will burn my books etc.

I don't think malth was being that unreasonable however. He even used I statements and gave praise while giving criticism which is about the best you can expect. so to sum it up I think you were being a bit harsh on him.

Yeah, I think upon rereading my post it ended up being more directly targeted at Malthruz than I intended. Only the first two sentences were a direct response to him, the rest was a much more general statement.

In my opinion, the “+1 to everything problem” is not a problem. It’s a feature which is a component of a deliberate design direction, one that I wholeheartedly embrace. To be blunt, it’s becoming tiresome to constantly hear the same few posters saying “it’s too like 4e for my group” or “that’s not what pathfinder is supposed to be” or “I want to be bad at skills mechanically without roleplaying so everyone has to be bad at skills because if they aren’t they’re playing wrong” or “I can’t enjoy the game if paladins aren’t super-duper-special-lawful-best-only because any filthy casual who wants to play a non LG paladin is ruining it.”
To those posters, I say; you’ve said your piece, we know your opinions and your feelings, so check your sense of entitlement and let Paizo tell us about the changes they’re making and why they’ve decided to make them. I’m excited by the direction the game appears to be going. If you listen with an open mind, you might feel that way too. If after play testing you decide it’s not for you, well, there’s masses of PF1 content available still. Surely that’s better than insisting on changes to PF2 to make it into PF1 from a position of incomplete information?

Personally I don't think the issue with all day stances is whether or not you can hold horse stance for eight hours, but rather that dropping your weight to 3/4 back leg, front leg forward slightly, back leg at a right angle, knees slightly bent and hands up is all a single fluid motion to enter my standard fight stance. This happens so quickly I've found myself in it when someone walked around a corner when I wasn't expecting it (I'm wound tight as a drum, it's very unhealthy).

I don't think entering a stance at the start of combat should be an action, at all. Changing stances sure, but a default stance you -know- you go to when startled is a reaction so quick I don't feel it to be unreasonable.

Whereas to me that sounds *exactly* like the first action you took on your initiative count was to enter a stance.

Malk_Content wrote:

Perhaps Stamina can be a smaller but quickly regenerating resource? As such a dedicated martial can hold a physically demanding stance for a period of time less arbitrary than "encounter length" can do this many encounters a day but can't walk around constantly tensed and ready to go.

That'd be a much better solution. But with Paizo's effort to move towards everything being the same I'm not convinced they'd do that.

Weather Report wrote:

The good news, for those that feel that way, is stances started in 3rd Ed (ToB). 4th Ed brought them back with the latter day Essentials line.

I have nothing wrong with stances. My issue is solely with "encounter" powers making a comeback. Paizo's said we're effectively getting spells with encounter length durations, but they're doing that by calculating what the average encounter duration will be and making the spells last that amount of time. I'm okay with that. Actual "until the end of the encounter" durations are what the problem is. And it isn't because it's 4e-allergies. It's because you've taken what could be represented within the in-game framework and make it a "gamist" ability. If you like gamist powers, that's great. Other people (and one of the selling points of PF1e) prefer a more narrativistic framework for mechanics.

Having one preference over another when we're playing a game of dress up elves is hardly more mature than the other and it's ridiculous to try to imply otherwise.

PF1 is not in the slightest narrativist. It’s approximately simulationist, except for the gamist mechanics; e.g. AC, HP, rounds... Actually, it’s gamist, in simulation drag.

Dragonstriker wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

Please DO NOT post comments in this thread!

Because you want the thread to agree with your foregone conclusion?

The poll is invalid without seeing the example iconography. Attempting to shut down comments to that effect is dishonest.
As Mark already explained, prior to you deciding to post the poll anyway, these polls correlate only to the OPs opinion. Just make a thread that states your opinion and be done with it, it’s just as valid.

Not at all! I thought it would remain more impartial if people didn’t post opinions and try to sway others. I was just looking for folks thoughts on the idea of icons in the statblocks. I really don’t mind what the numbers end up showing either way.

Sorry, I was only attempting to challenge your perceived restriction on valid commentary that a sample icon set is needed for meaningful voting. The tone of my comment was not meant to be accusatory. It appears that I failed to communicate there. My apologies.

I certainly appreciate your willingness to jump in and make decrees and blanket assumption though.

You’re welcome. ; )

I posted this poll and then gave a link to it over in the main blog thread BEFORE Mark posted his comments, not after, so I think you have some facts skewed

If folks want to post here as well as vote, then so be it

It seems I misinterpreted your response to Mark in the other thread - I read it as saying you’d post it anyway, rather than you had and would let it continue. My error, and again my apologies.

Please DO NOT post comments in this thread!

Because you want the thread to agree with your foregone conclusion?

What I dislike:

Quite a bit....
• Y'all went overboard with the simplification. BAB, Ability Scores, AC breakdown, HP breakdown (including HD) are all majorly important things that you just completely left blank.
• HD is used in so many abilities and whatnot and can be critical for a lot of things.
• Ability Scores are important. Taking 3 con dmg is much different at a 12 con, and a 13 con (both would be listed as +2). Same with adding new things that would give a +1 on stats.
• AC. From flavour of wording, to non-stacking abilities, understanding where your AC is coming from (Natural, Dodge, Deflection) is so important.
• BAB. If you add in a new weapon, or the monster has to pick one up off the ground we need to know where we are starting at for adding its modifiers to attack!
• Type/subtype! Favored enemy, bane, etc. This info is needed.

It appears that all your dislikes are based on assumptions that the system is the same as pathfinder 1.

Ultimately, PF2 is not PF1. Criticism of part of the new system on the assumption that it is the same as PF1 and thus must meet the expectations of PF1 is flawed.

Dragon78 wrote:

Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.

I also really really don't like WAR's style of drawing, and one of the reasons I don't like getting Paizo hardcovers is his art everywhere.

That’s really unfortunate. I, on the other hand, really like WAR’s art style and one thing that I’m excited about is that he’s the sole artist for the PF2 CRB.

In Vampiric Exsanguination your success/fail block appears like this:

Success Half damage.
Critical Success No damage.
Failure Full damage.
Critical Failure Double damage.

I get the order of success then failure, but it screws me up to read success then critical success in the context of the entire block.

Realizing that I do not know your requirements for publication and what not. The following is a suggestion that changes the order of items in your block, but does not change the layout of the block as a whole but improves the readability.

Critical Success No damage.
Success Half damage.
Failure Full damage.
Critical Failure Double damage.

Mark has already addressed this.

calling all magical powers "spells" would be an effective way to get rid of "spell-like abilities" and "supernatural abilities". This unification of language fits with an important design goal.

I don’t remember the reference (GCN podcast maybe?) but it has been stated by a developer that SLA (and presumably SU by extension) are now all just spells. One reason that was explicitly stated was for consistency of interactions between abilities.

So are we getting more feats at different levels and they are just feat locked, or are we getting more feat options that have to compete with a similar number of slots like we did before? Has Paizo piped up much about any of this?

So far it seems that it is the first. There are 4 types of feats, which are awarded at different stages in the character’s advancement. Some levels may give more than one type of feat, some levels may not give any.

octopi are intelligent

Octopuses.

we are stuck with them, more people know them as the names for things than people who know they are the wrong names. More confusion fixing things than just going with it. (as an aside Brigandine is NOT studded leather, it's steel plates between layers of leather, padding and cloth, it LOOKS like a studded shirt but really isn't, it's part of a type of plate armour..)

Studded leather is fetish gear, not armour. “Studded Leather” armour is a misinterpretation of images of Brigandine in medieval art is the point being made.

Um, Fuzzypaws, where in the world are you coming up with that kind of weight for real-world ammunition? Bullets are tiny, man.

Just this morning I placed an order for 1,000 rounds of .223 Remington 75 grain JHP... 75 grain is approximately 0.011 pounds, the cardboard boxes that the ammo is in has negligible weight, so all one-thousand rounds will work out to be just shy of eleven pounds. Ten rounds is less than a tenth of a pound.

Something like the much heaver 230 grain .45 ACP or 158 grain .357 Magnum that I use in my preferred handguns are a whooping 0.033 lbs. and 0.023 lbs. respectively per round. Ten rounds of each is well under a half pound. The Smith & Wesson Model 649 that I carry weighs a mere 1.4 lbs, fully loaded with all five rounds its 1.5 lbs. Believe me, I'd notice if the ammunition weighed more than the firearm!

The massively huge .50 BMG used by heavy weapons like the M2 Browning machine gun or anti-materiel rifles is usually 650 grains (0.09 lbs), so basically ten rounds per pound.

Now, the grain weight of ammunition can vary. Gun geeks will spend countless hours debating the pro's and con's of 125 grain Brand X versus 130 grain Brand Y versus 132 grain Brand Z... But for the most part, we're talking pedantic technical details of only a few dozen grains (so less than tenths of an ounce) at the most.

The weights you are quoting are for projectiles only Batgirl, cases and propellant add much more mass. The mass of each .223 cartridge is on the order of 12.3 grams. 1000 rd would be 12.3 kg, about 27lb.

Oxygen thief?

Do you mean KAC? CMD is not used in Starfinder.

Combat Maneuver Bonus and Defense
Starfinder doesn’t employ combat maneuver bonuses or Combat Maneuver Defense, so you can simply ignore them when converting a Pathfinder RPG monster and use the Starfinder rules for bull rush, disarm, and other combat maneuvers. If a monster has a combat maneuver feat (such as Improved Disarm) or a special ability related to a combat maneuver (such as grab), use the Starfinder version of that feat or apply any bonus it provides directly to the appropriate type of attack. Immunities to combat maneuvers (such as “can’t be tripped”) still apply, and bonuses against specific combat maneuvers simply apply to AC instead of CMD.
P502 CRB

The curve blade, dimensional slice (listed in Table 7.2, p173 CRB) is Powered (capacity 40, usage 2). It appears that this is a duplication of the Special entry for the curve blade, buzzblade (in the same table) as all other dimensional slice and dimensional edge weapons have the Analog property.

I can assure you that the primary reasons for our decision are 1) that we genuinely believe that the 3.5 system is the best rules set available to tell stories set in our world,

Oh, thanks Vic for clearing that up. Obviously I've been approaching this all wrong - I thought I bought pathfinder to play my game and novels for the author to tell a story. Glad that misunderstanding is out of the way. I am much happier now that I'm not doing things the wrong way anymore. Paizo be praised. Oh, that's right - I cancelled my subscription and all my orders. Oops.

I'm keeping my word. I cancelled all my orders for paizo products.

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

Yes.

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

I will resubscribe to Pathfinder and continue to buy Pathfinder minis and other products I find interesting.

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

I will not resubscribe to Pathfinder, will buy edition-transparent products I find interesting and continue to buy Pathfinder minis.