I think you have good/honest intentions with this thread but there is no way this doesn't get wildly derailed/closed eventually lol
It's not a comparison to power, it's a comparison to failed execution. Both editions have exactly one class that a lot of people feel missed the mark, whereas all the others are (generally) agreed to be complete and sufficient.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I think that the cleaning activities count five people working for a day as 5 days' work, but the later repair and improvement projects require organized labor so an entire group of people working for a day is just one day's work.
I see - but then the question just becomes when PCs organize labor do they do it as a group or individually? Can you have X upgrade/repair projects going at the same time if you have X players? All X players organizing and contributing labor to the same upgrade/repair project?
Are the repairing/building downtime activities outlined in the Age of Ashes adventure path group activities or solo activities? For example:
If building a structure is said to require 10 days to complete, and I have 5 people in my party do they each contribute to 1 "day" of work? In which case it would only take 2 days to complete?
Or is it assumed that the entire group takes part in the activity and thus it would take 10 days?
This is a speculative proposal for what a repeating crossbow would look like in terms of game mechanics/rules/features. This should be an uncontroversial proposal, but given the nature of forums I'm sure there will be at least one dissenter. The statistics were created by mirroring the PF1e rules as closely as possible through the interpretative lends of PF2e. From a simulations perspective, the proficiency required to wield a repeating crossbow should not be different from a standard crossbow. Rather, the Repeating Crossbow ought to be significantly more expensive to represent the more intricate work necessary to create one. However, this is not a valid consideration as without some sort of relevant cost, (which gold rarely is for non-magical equipment), there is no reason one would ever use a standard crossbow over a repeating version. Thus, the requirement that a feat be used balances the benefit of the improved weapon.
Repeating Crossbow, Light
James Jacobs wrote:
Nah. The five current colors are it. There might be exceptions now and then, like the weirdo purple kobold from Kingmaker, but I'd rather not have kobold versions of every dragon.
So, hopefully you check back in to read this because this is a real design question that has always puzzled me.
As Paizo actively moves away from the potentially racist/sexist tropes that have plagued Drow since their inception I am incredibly surprised we even still have dragons split into good and evil camps that are completely defined by their "race" as it were.
Would it make a lot more sense, from a world building perspective, and from a 'staying away from problematic concepts' perspective, to just say:
"There are only chromatic dragons. A dragons ethical outlook varies from individual to individual"?
The problem, even when discussing this spell at hand, is that no one is wrong. Most of these interpretations are internally consistent and valid because we don't have concrete metric to weigh them against.
Pirate Rob wrote:
I would agree as Pathfinder/3.x legacy of terms has never used flowery adjectives. There is no such thing as a "simple crossbow" - but there is a crossbow that has the "simple" type.
Since I'm not going to comb through that entire thread, I only have one question for you: For those that concluded that it did not refer to crossbows that are simple weapons... wouldn't that mean that the feat does literally nothing, (at least at the moment)?
You're right, but I'm impatient and get a faster response when I put questions in the general forum >:'3
So, this seems pretty uncontroversial and I'm happy to decide on this issue:
- PF2e offers a great alternative to D&D 5e for people who don't want to leave the D20 system/tradition but want more crunchy options than 5e currently provides.
If you don't like min-maxers don't play with them.
I don't follow your reasoning. There is a solution for applying enchantments to all of your unarmed attacks, and the distinction definitely affects what feats work together.
Unarmed strikes and daggers are not, in my opinion, relevantly different but they are treated differently. That's what I mean.
A "weapon" is a thing you use to attack people with - in this case your fist. It doesn't necessarily need to be an object. The reason for the distinction has everything, and only, to do with the way objects are enchanted by magic.
It's punitive because it's basically a flavor-ban.
As much as I love 3.5 this is such a pointless hold over from that era. The advantage of having a "weapon" (your hand) that can't be disarmed does not warrant so many punishing rules.
I think what I'm going to do, so that I don't have to inject my game with any loathsome house rules, is direct her toward rogue instead. The shtick she wants to accomplish is using unarmed/claw attacks that are dex to hit and dex to damage. That can be done with using the monk archetype feats.
THEN I'd just need them to release an official catfolk ancestry.
So you min max but if there is a hard choice to that then I guess you just hand waive it away. Never seen hard and soft attitudes to mechanics so plainly clash but you do you. If you want your player to get everything they want with 0 drawbacks and make any rogues feel like they've lost a class feature, go ahead.
If there was a way to get dexterity to damage through archetype feats I wouldn't need to do any hand waiving.
As the DM I'm just going to give all agile and finesse weapons dex to damage and call it a day.
And as to "Yeah why not? She can invest in Dex, Con, Wis and then either Int or Cha."
We min-max in my house, sir. No one is dumping their damage stat.
I really wish Pathfinder had taken a page out of D&D 5e's book when it came to strength and dexterity damage. I have a player who wants to make a monk but is really bummed out that they don't have dexterity to their damage. She wants to play a human reflavored as a nekomata/catfolk and the Tiger Stance makes her theme super easy to pull off... she just doesn't want to have to be a beef cake to do it.
I have actually written other game books... On the whole, I probably have more gaming experience in general than most of the PF2e writers, and a vast array of experience with a very wide variety of game systems.
I'd love to see some of your best selling RPG systems in print, can you link me??
You're awfully spicy, aren't you? I started the thread to ask a single question - whether or not we'd be seeing the gunslinger class - and it got answered right away.
1.) The moment you decide to die on the hill of absolute realism is when PF/D&D break down completely. It's a toally arbitrary standard that is selectively enforced. It's not "believable" that someone can fall 300ft off a cliff and survive, and yet we still hand waive it.2.) The point is that you're making a claim about the genre "fantasy" as if it is limited to your personal definition.
Definitely. Emphasis on "perception". If I had to choose between getting shot or struck with a sword it would definitely be the former.
That rule, implies IMO, a PC or sentient creature using demoralize. Just find a way for the bear to have trained intimidate and hand waive that part.
I tell you what, when I implement this in my game and it works flawlessly because I know how to DM/gauge power/what the PCs can and can't handle I'll let you know.
You may also start to run into issues where you're dealing with enemies that you could handle by the math, except that they have high level abilities you don't yet have counters for.
Ya none of these really stand out as being daunting to me. That's not to say they aren't good points, because they are, I'm just confident in my GMery.
Edit: The point at which PCs get abilities doesn't change just because you remove the level bonus from proficiency. So the abilities that creatures/PCs have available to them are exactly the same regardless.
David knott 242 wrote:
That all makes sense - but I don't think it's beyond what a reasonably invested GM can handle on their own. Probably not wise for a 1st timer, but it's not like you have to do calculus.