Arlindil

Igor Horvat's page

Organized Play Member. 396 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There should be no attack penalty for crossbows while proned.

Reloading should cost one action extra as it is more difficult to do it prone. If possible at all.

Bows should be impossible to shoot while prone or with -20 attack penalty atleast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
orphias wrote:

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !

If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least.

That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb.

If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day.

So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp.

I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
I liked the mechanics where squishy classes get mauled on if they cannot keep distance.

Good look keeping your distance in a 6x6 room. Well, if you manage to hurl your fireball from three rooms back and around two corners you are welcome.

/irony

Close quarters combat was always limiting factor with ranged characters,

but even then if you had 3 or 4 melee characters infront of you, enemy melee had to suck up a few AoO's to get to you, softening them in the proces.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Retraining should not be possible at all.

This just give option to exchange a feature that you took because of lack of knowing how mechanics for your class Works.

It is pretty generous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
There is no momentum needed for drawing two shortswords at the same time.

There's no momentum required to thrust two swords forward at the same time either.

Unless Pathfinder 2 takes place in place where there's no friction, so you have to throw one arm behind you and one in front of you with each attack...

Oh and you can't swing your arms around when you move, either, as there's no friction, so your arms are busy jabbing your weapon into the ground in order to push against something.

Obviously.

(Less sarcastically its because the action is called "Manipulate an Item")

OK, since you didn't do much swordmanship:

If you attack with your right hand, you twist the torso in that direction to generate power in the swing.

If you attack with left hand in the SAME time, you remove power from your left hand swing as your torso is moving against the direction of attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was just being sarcastic due to the rule that grasping a 2hander with your offhand cost an action.

By that same logic, you draw the sword from the scabbard with your main hand then you have to grasp it with your off hand to make a proper 2handed grip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a GM tells me that I cannot put poison on arrows/bots and that poison must be put on bow/crossbow and that during the attack poison transfers from bow/crossbow to it's ammunition, I would leave the table and never return :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

the ONE thing i totally agree and it still baffles me since it was mentioned plenty of times in the playtest as well....:

why tf did they named it/kept the name "volley" for the trait.

"volley" has absolutely nothing to do with what the trait in question is trying to achieve.

i mean, if the trait alone was named "unwieldy" or such, there would be much less such threats cropping up imo...

I think the intent was for any weapon that is supposedly used to fire a volley, which is usually done via indirect aiming, to have the trait that makes it not great at short-range shots that have to be directly aimed.

The name then being more about the why than the what of the mechanics of the trait itself. I even hypothesize the reason for the naming was that it was viewed as being intuitive withing context.

any projectile weapon can be used to fire a volley or to be used to fire at an arc.

shooting at 45°degree angle gives you best range, with any projectile weapon. Longbow is nothing special in this regard.

Problem is that shortbow and longbow are the SAME weapon.

Difference is only in amount of power that a weapon can project towards a target. And strength required to use it.

Stance is the same, aiming is the same, draw length is the same.

They wanted something to distinguish one from another so in addition to not being able to shoot it mounted(100% good call) and better usage in cramped spaces for shortbow(DMs call), they added an arbitrary penalty for longbow that has no explanation except that is a balance trait because of balance itself.

Problem is, that if longbow has that penalty, shortbow must have it also.

not really.

shortbow is much more maneuverable and "managable".

there's a reason that scouts, skirmishers, and mounted archers all used shorter bows than the traditional English longbow.

And that is exactly my point.

Better at mounted combat or climbing or cramped conditions.

But nothing about longbow says that it sucks at aiming at 30ft or less.

If it sucks in aiming because of some conditions in comparison to shorbows, it sucks at all ranges.

If you cant get in a position to aim it does not matter if you aim at 10ft or 510ft. Base penalty for bad aim is the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity.

Elements are, most other elements aren't imo. For instance if a creature's weight is simply size+GM adjustment. Then that is objectively easier to figure out on the fly (when it would be needed) than if you were calculating each race's specific size/weight and adjusting for their equipment in a straight weight system.

And if the GM was just arbitrarily giving weights to things then there is no difference in the scenario realistically, just mental metrics used to set the weight/bulk figure.

I would say that size shifts are just as easy to calculate for with both.

It becomes more complex if people try to insert verisimilitude into it that the system wasn't designed for though. Square peg circular hole conundrum.
The challenge for a designer is trying to decide what elements the average user would like to have simulated and what elements would be better approximate

Igor Horvat wrote:
And a DM with a bit of common sense to tell you that you cannot walk around like Crazy Ivan

That is going back to handwavium though, which seems to be one of the bigger complaints people have about bulk, except with even more GM fiat.

Be aware that I am not intending to post this as a "value what I value" statement, I just like discussing elements like this.

Well as weight goes, we write up all gear on character sheet and out own weight.

Also if medium creature is lets say 5 Bulk, is every one 5 Bulk?

Last time in 5E i played 20 str half orc fighter. And as str comes from BIG muscles he had 280lb. Is that same Bulk as 100bl 8 str She-Elf Sorceress?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:

To answer the OP, I definitely don’t think it’s the dumbest rule ever. There have been far dumber rules.

I digress. While I have no practical knowledge on the matter, based on some brief research I can find multiple sources citing longbows were less effective at shorter range than shortbows. Some of the comments (not my thoughts) were 1) the stance and draw would give a close target more time to react as the proper stance requirement is more involved and the draw is longer and more difficult, 2) longbow arrows travel slower (but are more wind resistant and powerful on impact because they were longer, heavier and gravity), 3) longbows were designed to fire at a 45+ degree angle - using a lower angle for a close target interferes with accuracy because it’s not being fired as intended.

I can’t say how that should be accurately reflected in the simulation that is PF2E, but I don’t think it sounds dumb and I’m ok with their interpretation. I like it from a balance and practical perspective. Honestly I’ve always thought the idea of wandering a close quarter dungeon with a longbow as being the optimal range option in prior editions was very weird.

1. Yes, maybe. If you use a bow that is to "heavy" for you then you would have problem of drawing a bow to a full draw and it would be slower.

2. No. Most of the time. If they used broadheads or hunting tips that are heavy and wide for blood vessel laceration then that extra weight could slow down an arrow.
But most of the time arrow were made for maximum penetration and speed adds more than mass to energy of an arrow.
Arrow were made as light as possible for surviving the bow shot.

3. Hell no!
That was only used if shooting at beyond maximum effective range, more of a display of skill than a major military value.
Arrow were expensive to make and you could only carry so much of them and you wanted to make every shot count.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

I have no problem if longbow is restricted by cramped quarters or other penalties for its size.

I.E. ceiling is too low and walls are too close. -2/-4 attack. or unable to attack at all

You can't use longbow while mounted or with a -5 penalty.

You have -2 penalty on resisting disarm as it is too large for a single hand grip.

Volley is a simplification of all that. You can have 20 rules, or just one, which isn't perfect, but get to the point: Longbows are hard to use in most short range situations.

Simplification is not always good, especially if it's a nonsense.

Imagine if you give a longbow, a proper 100lb english longbow with some blunt arrows and you stand 30ft away from an archer and 100ft away.

Where are you going to feel safer?

You can even run around at that distance as a moving target.

Or take that same longbow at 4 targets 15ft, 30ft, 60ft and 120ft
20 arrows each target and mark points.

I do not think that 60ft will be your best score. Ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

I kind of like this rule. And I find it quite logical. Just try to use a longbow inside a tavern with table and chairs everywhere. In real life if you are under 30ft. pistols beat assault rifles.

And in terms of gameplay, it's fine. You have a real choice between longbows and shortbows, which wasn't really the case in PF1, as shortbows were just dumbed down longbows.

I have no problem if longbow is restricted by cramped quarters or other penalties for its size.

I.E. ceiling is too low and walls are too close. -2/-4 attack. or unable to attack at all

You can't use longbow while mounted or with a -5 penalty.

You have -2 penalty on resisting disarm as it is too large for a single hand grip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Rysky wrote:

It was probably influenced by the Tueller Drill, and taking into account nocking and firing an arrow as opposed to drawing and firing a handgun.

Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.

I don't think that Tueller Drill had much to do with it.

If you have required strength for your specific bow the speed of knocking and drawing is the same.
A bow as long as you.

Does not matter, draw length is to your cheek.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity.

And a DM with a bit of common sense to tell you that you cannot walk around like Crazy Ivan

https://images.app.goo.gl/D8Bi97FBfBsyp43E7


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
The logic is that the longbow is large and unwieldy so it's harder to set up and aim at something that's really close. The closer something is, the more you have to move the bow to keep it aimed at a moving target.

30ft is not really close from that perspective, if they said 10ft then maybe.

And it's a lot easier to "lead" a target that is closer and moving.

And what if the target is not moving? We ignore the Volley trait?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it just me, but the more I read the rules the less sense Volley trait makes.

Penalty to accuracy for closer target?

How did they logic their way out of that one?

If they needed to balance shortbow to longbow, then give shortbow Agile and reduce it's Deadly value to d8 or remove it.

being less precise at 30ft than 100ft and having same accuracy at less that 30ft and at 200ft has no sense what-so-ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:


And one thing to those above who admit that something might be racist but want to do it anway...

Take a moment to consider the implication of that position and ask yourself: Do you really want to do that?

Yes!

it's fantasy, so who cares?

Racism can be a great plot device in campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
People are in a hurry to defend this right up until racial Int modifiers exist. It's racist, and I like your easy fix, OP.

well, it isn't racist if it's true.

In most fantasy Elves, are described far superior to Men.

It is same thing to give elves bonus to intelligence or give humans penalty to intelligence,

but it looks nicer to give bonuses rather to give penalties.

but in a system that gives only bonuses to various things, not having a bonus IS a penalty that is very nicely packed into not having a bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my expirience 4E runs better without +1/2/lvl than with it.

So for me PF2 will also run better without it.

I would just like for bestiary to have parentheses for bonuses without the threadmill.

I.E. some random 6th level orc

attack: +13(+7)
damage: 1d12+5
fort: +10(+4)
ref: +8(+2)
will: +5(-1)
perception: +6(+0)
init: +9(+3)
Spell DC: 17(11)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5E did pretty good job in balancing "stiff" Vancian casting and "free flow" mana point usage.

While I would prefer full mana point system with fixed number of prepared/known spells(depending on class), it has only problem of forcing 5min work day even more as you can burn ALL mana on highest level spells, so instead of having 30 or so spells across 10 levels(PF2 current) you would just have 3-5 10th level spells to cast.

That is why I like 5E casting, it gives lots of freedom of multiple variations of spells in the same level and across different spell levels by means of auto-hightening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is all problem of d20, it's very existance.

Having a tool(d20) that gives same chance for best/worst(20/1) performance and an average one(10) is a bad tool. As that is not how things work.

If we have 3d6 instead of d20 +1/level or lack of it, and proficiency going from +0 to +3 would have some meaning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pillars of Eternity has Mechanics.

It is used for picking locks, making and disablind traps and also findig traps

So it could be;

Mechanics:
Finding, making, repairing and opening locks.
Finding, making, repairing and disabling traps.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having things grow faster or slower based on proficiency is a non-starter for me, since that's going to break combat (a fighter's accuraccy advantage over barbarians becomes massive instead of like +1-2). I like how the proficiency bonus being calculated is the same for skills as it is for attacks, saves, ACs, etc.- this is practically my favorite thing about PF2.

I would much rather enforce proficiency gates so that the only checks one can attempt untrained are things that basically anyone will have some idea how to do (like dog paddle if dropped in water, even if you spent your entire life in a desert being thirsty, or "be careful where you step to avoid making noise".)

Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.

it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thflame wrote:
A rogue, who survived on being a pickpocket all his life, and received formal training from the local Thieves Guild, is worse at picking pockets than a level 10 cleric who hasn't stolen anything since before he became a cleric.

So the way we fix this is by gating things with proficiency and skill feats, as is the case here. Picking pockets literally requires the "Pickpocket" skill feat, because Palm and Steal Object requires the item to be "loosely guarded".

So the level 10 cleric who can pick pockets at all either chose to take the Pickpocket feat with one of their skill feats(a deliberate investment, requiring them to also be trained in thievery), or who took the "Urchin" background in which case they aren't that different from the level 1 rogue in question, just further along in life.

Or remove passive or "welfare" bonus to EVERYTHING so bonuses has to be earned.

Payed with general feats, or racial feats, or skill feats, or class feats, or just by having one class be better at attack by levels with cost to defese or spell DC, or better at will at cost of perception.

Numbers should rise with levels, but at a slower rate and at a different rate depending on class and on resources spent while leveling.

Also AC should rise slower than attack as damage progresses more slowly than HPs


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:
Helmic wrote:
Meanwhile, Rogues have trouble picking locks in hide armor because of... reasons? Does hide armor not feature fingerless gloves or something? Can it not be assumed that it's trivial for a rogue to take off their gloves for a second to do something that requires fine motor skills?

No, armor comes in a set, you can't remove pieces willy nilly. The rogue has to take those penalties.

What next? Fighters removing their plate mail boots to improve their sneak skill?

What?

So in winter, istead of removing one of your gloves to open your house or car, you strip butt naked so you can pull out keys from your pocket and unlock a lock?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

One problem is that skill feats are terrible and 99% of them should be in core mechanics of the skills.

Also difference in +0 to +3 would mean a lot in 3d6 system but in d20 it is terrible to describe difference in training.

Also as mentioned ACP is too high,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Helmic;

true,

Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP,

But I would add more effect to damage from abilities.

1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage

1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage

2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage

2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage

Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage

Bows: str+dex+wis


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Basically, attacks should scale faster than AC, skills should scale faster than skill DCs(but only for skills you want), and saves should scale faster than save DCs. What number constitutes an successful roll on the d20 should get lower as levels increase.

Skill DCs should NOT SCALE AT ALL.

A legendary lock has the same DC no matter who picks it.

But, I do agree that AC should scale much slower, if at all.

HPs are your virtual scaling AC


2 people marked this as a favorite.

making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic)

I.E.

Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
shortsword, 1d6, min str 8
sabre, 1d8, min str 12,
longsword, 1d10, min str 16
battle-ax, 1d12, min str 20,

2handers.

spear, no min str, 1d8
bastard sword, min str 8, 1d10
great sword, min str 12, 1d12,
great axe, min str 14, 2d6
maul, min str 18, 2d8
mercurial greatsword, min str 22, 3d6

bows
str 6, 1d4
str 8, 1d6
str 12, 1d8
str 16, 1d10
str 20, 1d12
str 22, 2d6

now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


Nat 20s on a d20 offer all the "chance to succeed" I want for people who aren't trained in a skill. If you don't invest in a skill, you should be bad at it.

As it stands now, unless the particular check you are attempting is gated behind a proficiency tier, everyone and their dog just attempts the check. If your specialist rolls sub par, but the complete novice rolls decent, he beats your character.

43% of the time, a Trained individual will beat an Expert, an Expert will beat a Master, and a Master will beat a Legendary, assuming their relevant attribute scores are the same.

24% of the time, an Untrained character will beat a Legendary character, assuming their attribute scores are the same.

That is mainly the problem of d20.

Run the math in 3d6 and you will have better consistency, even with only +1 difference.

d20 is Legacy and I understand that, but ironically, d20 is biggest "ball and chain" on d20 system.

We invent advantage/disadvantage, assurance feats, minimum d20 effective rolls, anything to tame the d20, but in the end all those are makeshift band-aids trying to fix what is unfixable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:


I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.

If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.

Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle?

My only issue is that it trivializes CRs below your level really fast 2 or 3 levels max, and makes higher level CRs completely out of reach not matter how much preparation, tactics, or numbers you put in the fight.

A 20 str Orc with a huge ax, even if he is CR1 encounter should be a threat somewhat to higher level character, especially if he brings few friends along you you don't have any AoE or you are ambushed by them.

That's where I disagree completely. High level characters shouldn't have any problem dealing with low level orcs. Like at all. The fighter should laugh at them as he easily deflects all their blows and then slice through them like butter.

10th level fighter already has 10×HPs or similar over 1st level orc and 2 or 3 times more damage, and without +1/lvl +2 or +3 in attack and AC. Do you really need 10 more attack or AC over them?

If you could beat 1 at 1st level, now you can 15 or 20, without any +level bonuses, if you are careful not to be cornered/flanked/grappled.

beating 100 seems dumb.

But to each his own. Everyone of us has different view how fantasy should work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:


I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.

If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.

Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle?

My only issue is that it trivializes CRs below your level really fast 2 or 3 levels max, and makes higher level CRs completely out of reach not matter how much preparation, tactics, or numbers you put in the fight.

A 20 str Orc with a huge ax, even if he is CR1 encounter should be a threat somewhat to higher level character, especially if he brings few friends along you you don't have any AoE or you are ambushed by them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing.

If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point?

If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.

Because the characters are not fighting each other. THey fight enemies of many different levels.
and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.
Yes but you aren't going to fight something of equal level over and over. At level 4 you might fight a large group of goblins of varying levels. The lowest ones should be easy cannon fodder, the specialists should be fairly easy, but still a slight challenge, the captains should be equal level challenges, and then the big boss should be higher level than you guys. Without + to level then how would these goblins be differentiated?

I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.

If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing.

If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point?

If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.

Because the characters are not fighting each other. THey fight enemies of many different levels.

and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing.

If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point?

If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also,

Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength.

Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am all for dex to damage, being able to aim better with high dex and ranged/finesse weapons does not mean just hitting the target wherever, it means also hitting more precise into more vulnerable areas.

Personally I would get rid of weapon categories and give each weapon minimum str to use.

And made all melee weapons dex or str for attack and damage.

With minimum str score required str could not be a dump stat unless you want to be sentenced to eternity for 1d4 dagger damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also for removal of ability scores.

They serve nothing in the game except "legacy".

And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Life of an adventurer is cheap and seldom long.

Have 2 or 3 back-up character sheets.

DM should be the one that imports new character as soon as possible.

Later on, if reversal of condition is possible, player can return(if he wishes) to old character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
So basically it's there to punish newbie players and/or veterans who don't metagame and make the game less fun for them?

Yes, if you are unpreparad and without any info of what you are fighting, you should be killed/permanently disabled.

And it is not "permanent" as there is a cure for any condition.

Even death.

Also lvl12 characters, if there is 4 to 6 of them in a group should between themselves have atleast one copy of any antidote available from lvl1 to atleast lvl7 spell levels.

In any game that I played at around that level I had 100 or so potions/scrolls on me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:

I think Scythia brings up a good point: you can "improve" a stat by giving it a universal benefit or by making it more useful for more classes. Posts on the forums about how to add universal benefits to strength or intelligence have been pretty underwhelming in my opinion.

It seems like Paizo isn't doing any better than the forum goers in this regard, so maybe they should focus on providing specific benefits for classes that don't normally use int or str to use them. It seems like that would be a more manageable goal.

Strength:

Remove weapon and armor proficiency categories.

Every melee weapon can have str or dex as attack and damage stat.
Ranged is dex as normal

Add minimum str for every weapon. Without it you are unproficient with weapon(-4) and deal minimum damage.

Add minimum str for armor. Without it you are unproficient(-4 AC) and take extra 5ft speed penalty.
Add ACP to spell attacks and DCs.
For every 2 str above minimum reduce one ACP. max reduction 2 with 4 extra str.

Intelligence should add both skills and extra language on one-on-one basis(like 1e).

Add option for perception to be either int or wis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:

My house rules for a silver standard in 1e:

1 gp = 50 sp = 250 cp

Silver and copper are 200 to the pound, but gold is only 100 to the pound. (So it's worth 25 times as much as silver by weight)

And for converting prices, if the price is a large number listed in gold, divide by 25. If the price is a small number listed in gold, double the number and change the unit to silver. If the price is listed in silver, change it to copper. And if it was already listed in copper, just handwave it.

This all makes the currency reasonable historically accurate, as well as giving gold a decent amount of purchasing power that seeing someone pay for something with a single gold coin is suddenly a momentous occasion. (At low levels) Also, new silver pieces are close enough in size to dimes and the same weight that I literally have a bag of $5 in dimes as a prop.

Also, interesting gaming history lesson- the urban legend for why Gygax made a gold standard with 0.1-pound coins was to make Smaug-sized hoards remotely possible.

why complicate as 1:100:10000 in nice, metric and intuitive?

And easy to calculate back and forth between copper:silver:gold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They should kill the sacred cow of 6 abilities and go with 4.

Str: current str+con, fort saves, melee&thrown attack and damage, HPs, carry capacity, str skills,

Dex: dex, reflex saves, AC, +init, range/finesse attack and damage, dex skills,

Will: will saves, magic attack, damage and DCs, channel energy etc...

Cunning: bonus skills and languages, +init, int,wis and cha skills,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good solution would similar to attunement form 5e but with charisma added.

I.E. you can attune to 1+cha mod items. Min 2.

And every item that is more powerful than simple +X to something would require attunement.

Also some feats could "key" from charisma, leadership like: providing bonuses to attack, temp HPs, bonus damage, vs. fear/mind control rolls, etc...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Please no AoO. We finally have gameplay where people aren't just five foot stepping every single turn. It's vastly superior to pf1 in that regard.

Yes, and now that everyone ignores melee and just waltz through is sooo much better.

AoO makes closing in with melee more rewarding as it punishes ranged attackers for bad positioning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E,
I think that is intentional, and smart in some ways, but trying too hard not to be like it, could be a detriment. I find 5th Ed closer to PF, than the Playtest, so far.

Problem is that PF2 playtest does not know what it want's to be, that is devs, do not know how to proceed?

Little like PF1?

Little like 5E?

Something new?

They took spell scaling from 5E but kept PF1/3.5e slot preparation,

They took 4E "level gives bonus to everything" and then tackled on pretty badly 5E proficiency progress -4 to +3 in comparison to 0 to +6(+12 in some cases).

They took multiclassing via feats, atleast they did it better than 4E tried that subject, so one plus there.

They don't want to be 5.5e but 5E mechanics creep in the back door.

Either do PF2 like PF1 and do a nice upgrade and pay respect to the source or do your own thing right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So the issue is that biggest flaw of any d20 system is in the d20.

3d6 describes thing 10× more real, just like arm wrestling match you described.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerers should get autohightening by default for all spells.

It should be their strength due to lack of flexibility in spells known.

1 to 50 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>