Igor Horvat's page

For instance, say an elf is holding a lantern with a 30' light radius (low light vision means she can see 60') and a human is standing 50' away from the elf, the elf can see the human but the human cannot see the elf?

But anybody knows you can see a light source for literally miles. So I would assume the human cant see any details, maybe not even see the elf, but surely they CAN see the lantern?

Is there a rule for this? Because it sounds incredibly daft if not the case.

in 3.5 book the Underdark,is stated that light source can be seen at 20×radius with DC20 spot(perception) and auto detected at half that (10×)

so lantern(30ft bright illumination) is
DC 20 at 600ft
DC 10 at 500ft
DC 0 at 400ft
DC-10 at 300ft

maybe double that distance for someone who has low-light vision?

thejeff wrote:

BellyBeard wrote:

Igor Horvat wrote:

that should be quite a big mob of mooks, even with +0 per level, your proficiency will go from +0 to +6(or +8), both attack and AC.

As with 20×HPs, it should be enough of a buffer for handling 30 or so 1st level mooks.

To take some examples from video games, some people want their heroes to be like the heroes of Dynasty Warriors, or Batman in Arkham Asylum, wading through literal armies of enemies. Or like the heroes of lord of the rings movies, who killed hundreds of orcs with all of them getting barely a single scratch (well, except boromir...) Or the protagonist of any martial arts movie. This is what a high level character is to many people. So a mob of 30 1st level enemies should be a joke to them, more of a role playing opportunity than an actual combat, something they can dance through and stylishly slay instead of having to turn tail and flee.

Some people prefer a more realistic approach, where no matter how strong of a fighter you are 30 guys with knives and bats are more than enough to take you down. But typically these tales don't involve dragons and giants and stuff like that. Think of it, a first level character is only like 20% less likely to grapple and pin a giant than a 14th level character. A master acrobat can never reliably walk across a tight rope, failing once every 5-10 times or so, or if they can do it reliably then an average Joe probably has close to even odds of doing it too. The gap between hero and Joe is too low for me in these games (no offense meant to those named Joe, or those whose characters are named Joe).

It also means you're better off sending 30 of the town militia to deal with the dragon than our band of 4 skilled heroes. Which doesn't seem really optimal as far as a game goes.

That's the part that always bothers me. If low level creatures in enough numbers are always a threat wtf is the point of adventuring?

A town should never need you to kill a dragon...

problem is that one breath weapon can and will kill anyone cought in it's AoE if it hits 1st level characters.

As mentioned, village needs adventurers or 90% of village will be gone before the dragon is dead.

But, without +level modifiers, it atleast gives the "last stand" chance to the villagers.

I don't mind lower level mooks remaining threatening to people higher level than they are, but eventually a line has to be made. Can't say I'd enjoy my character that can battle a Godzilla sized creature head on, trade blows, and possibly even overpower it, only for that character to get mobbed and killed by a group of mooks next week or something.

that should be quite a big mob of mooks, even with +0 per level, your proficiency will go from +0 to +6(or +8), both attack and AC.

As with 20×HPs, it should be enough of a buffer for handling 30 or so 1st level mooks.

Igor Horvat wrote:

personally, I prefer the 0 bonus from level.

I like the danger of low level mobs.

"A highly trained navy SEAL with 20 years of training still gets killed by some dumbass lowlife that barely knows which end of AK47 to point at his direction"

Oh, there are fantasy RPGs that take this approach, D&D/Pathfinder never was one of them.

I know, World of darkness is close to that.

D&D/PF will never be it because of HP/damage ratio.

But low power creep of attack bonuses/DCs does not make high level character nigh-invulnerable against low level mooks

personally, I prefer the 0 bonus from level.

I like the danger of low level mobs.

"A highly trained navy SEAL with 20 years of training still gets killed by some dumbass lowlife that barely knows which end of AK47 to point at his direction"

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Sauce987654321 wrote:

Imo, ruling that bows can't fire while prone because it's too difficult in real life is a "Guy at the Gym Fallacy."

I understand where some people are coming from, but I don't really think it's necessary to include this in a game were you can go toe to toe with beings 10x your height and trade blows with each other.

I just think it's strange that it's okay for some areas of the game to be completely unrealistic on a comic book level, only to get pulled back into realism when determining if it's possible to fire your bow at a certain position. I also really doubt that anyone would complain if Hawkeye or even Legolas fired their bow while prone.

I don't think anyone is actually saying that this should be implemented, it is just a part of the discussion of what penalties are applied, why and how it is justified.

I don't know if it was intentionally, but tonally your post came across far more agressive than necessary in my opinion.

There are a few posts that do suggest that firing a bow in this position should be or next to impossible.

It's probably far from the first time where someone thinks I'm being aggressive. I'm not, I'm just used to being rather blunt since I've found it to be the best way to make my point clear.

Maybe I'm just not good with people :p

Well, since my last post I have actually tried it.

With my somewhat weak recurve bow(36lb),

yes, it's possible. barely. And with a weak bow for wartime usage.

only position that is workable is to lay on your back and shoot down your left side with arrow on right(wrong) side of the bow.

If you have to aim a little high you lose power due to shortening your draw length as your right elbow is hitting ground before full draw.

So, yeah, doable. But as I said if you allow it, I would say -20 penalty to attack.

I have to chuckle at people saying it is impossible to fire a bow while prone, as if the bow staff has to be perpendicular to the ground to function.

Let's ignore the entire class of "foot bows" that were designed specifically to be fired while laying on the shooter's back using the feet to brace the bow staff and both hands to draw back the string.

Imagine a right handed bowman. Picture him drawing back the bow as normal, but placing the arrow on the right side of the staff instead of the left. Then imagine that person laying on his left side rather than standing vertically. This would function perfectly well for firing. The mechanics of the bow are completely unaffected by fact that the staff is parallel to the ground, and the arrow is laying on what is now the top of the staff, so it won't fall off.

Also, the bow can be fired from a half-sit-up position with the bow parallel to the ground.

In either of these cases, it is an atypical method of firing the bow, which would sensibly make the shot more difficult than normal (hence a to-hit penalty), but it's kind of silly to say that it's impossible to do.

(For the doubters, just google search "prone archery" to find discussion of the topic. It's something bow hunters use from time to time.)

With respect sir, but you have never used a longbow in your life.

Or you used some kids bow with 10b draw weight.

And reasonable longbow that is made for war is 70-80lb of draw weight MINIMUM, and many go to 150+bl

You do not have strength to draw the bow as you have inoptimal stance, you biomechanics are all wrong and I wont even start on aiming problems.

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.

@OP

Whoever asked you this question;

Give him a shield,
ask him to raise the shield as ready to block incoming weapon swings.
Take a picture of him/her.
Apply blood choke on his neck. If you Know how to do it he will be "out" in 4-5 seconds.
After he drops to the floor take the picture again.
Slap him across the face to wake him up.
Ask if those 2 pictures are the same.

Megistone wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ubertron_X wrote:

Gaterie wrote:

...waterskin (L)...

And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)

IMO, that's the biggest 'sleight of hand' done in the Bulk system: you look at the bulk totals of the pregens and some don't LOOK too bad until you think 'who goes out with an empty waterskin?' Once you correctly change that 1L to 1B, the numbers look a LOT less good. IMO, the waterskin should list the bulk as 1B and then make a note that if emptied it counts as L. The way it is now, it's just begging for intentional and unintentional miscounting of bulk totals.

Keep your waterskin almost full, so that it doesn't go to 1B and stays L.

Do that and it's worthless as a FULL one contains the water you need for the day: As far as I can tell, drinking an almost full waterskin and not drinking are the same thing by the rules for Starvation and Thirst.

Secondly, unless you went out of our way to have a full bulk number without any extra L items, it'll round up to a bulk anyway.

this is where common sense should come into play.

almost full should be enough for one day and should be worth 1 Bulk of bulk.

Igor Horvat wrote:

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.

Considering survival rations would be less complete then proper modern rations with a good delivery system I would say you can cut those in half and have the person expected to burn body fat as part of there daily calories, with the intent to binge/feast when they return to civilization or when they find something large and edible (A common eating habit before modern ease). This is kind of supported by them being around 1 lb each for PF1e.

However I'm certain it's a mistake and is supposed to be 1 Bulk each week. Since Starfinder uses the exact same bulk system and there rations are sci-fantasy dense nutrient bars and are 1 B/week.

rations are considered to give you enough food for a day. Not to put you on starvation diet.

If you are losing 0,5kg per day that is extreme diet and considered unhealthy for more than a week or so.

If they are mostly fat with some carbs and proteins then 3500 calories can be in 0,5kg(1 lb)

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.

James Jacobs wrote:

It's also worth keeping in mind that the players don't know the exact stats of the foes they're facing. Adding Attack of Opportunity to a creature is a great and easy way to model a bodyguard type or defensive type foe, but you don't even have to do that. Since the players don't know the stats, they won't know if something can attack them with an opportunity until they take the risk, and in many cases, players won't risk that.

I must admit it puzzles me. If I have a fighter, the monster has no reason to know I can make an attack of opportunity. So, every fight, the DM is supposed to move a monster and discover I have it. It's even worse with stupid monster, this monster is supposed to trigger an attack of opportunity at each and every round if its attack sequence uses a move or manipulate action.

So, I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity will generate arguments if a monster makes an action that doesn't trigger one without valid reasons. For example, if a spellcaster makes a 5-foot step before casting a spell. As it is metagaming...

In my opinion, there should be a way to know that an enemy has a specific trigger set on a specific action. And enemies should know if a character has a specific trigger on a specific action.

There is a way to Know that for sure.

Take the action and find out :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mE6ba3qj8

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,

This seems to benefit both martial classes (especially fighters) and casters. It would be nice to hit an enemy with a Shocking Grasp and run away without having to worry about AoO.

if you have to use shocking grasp as a wizard and you are not some kind of gish character you are in the wrong place.

I liked the mechanics where squishy classes get mauled on if they cannot keep distance.

Theoretically, being designed for someone with Point Blankshot could be the counter argument.

All weapons required explicit training based on the style of the weapon, it's not super outlandish to assume that may come in the form of training, or even compensated by ability scores.

point blank shot would not be a problem if it does not make longbow still worse at close range.

It give +2 attack bonus to longbow only(somehow) and give every weapon except longbow +2 damage(somehow).

it would be better as they did on 5E.
Longbow cannot be used by small characters.

Igor Horvat wrote:

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Those are flat out ridiculous.

I mean, the thread should be renamed as "What house rule will make me do ridiculous ranged damage?"

At this point it has little to do with volley being "unrealistic" and more to do with "I want more damage".

If you want to house rule d12 ranged weapons with 0 reload and minimal investment, be my guest.

But they are nowhere near balanced in the context of the rest weapons in the game.

You have to keep in mind that die increases scale with striking runes, while propulsive doesn't.

Deadly also isn't worth a full die increase on its own, and giving free "50% range increases"

It will turn the game in a ranged fiesta.

Maybe str requirement is a bit low. It could be raised by 2 for each bow.

then 16 str would be 1d12. Now longbow with 18 str deals 1d8+2.

1d8+2 is more reliable than 1d12.

When you drop Extra crit damage and extra range seems as a nice addon.
Not to mention that 90% of ranged combat is between 10 and 100ft

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Can we get for once a mana point system by default??

What about the proposed change I made to attacking multiple targets, which thematically makes sense since changing targets with a longbow is harder due to the needed repositioning.

I.e. “If you make more than one strike in a round with this weapon and the subsequent strike is a different target than your previous strike, you receive a -2 to the attack roll”

That’s the same incentive with a selective enforcement that thematically fits the weapon.

Want to take down multiple targets? Perhaps dish out hinderances to more than one enemy? Short bow is better.

Want to shoot down Smaug from a billion yards away? Want to plug three arrows straight into the cyclops? Longbows the way to go.

Bulky is just there because it makes sense. As far as the point on mounts, that’s not really a universal thing you can say. Especially in an edition where full attack five foot step is no longer king, but you’re welcome to the opinion.

The above is more than enough to grant incentive to different choices.

This could be a good solution to the problem.

If longbow is larger and clumsier to move around then -2 cumulative penalty per extra target in a single round is a good negative trait.

Ad in that already it cannot be used while mounted and that is enough to balance it vs shortbow.

Or remove Volley trait and give shortbow Agile.

The main problem becomes the spontaneous versus prepared casting, in 5e Sorcerer is just a inferior to Wizard with less spells know and fixed list.

I think that in the internal playtesting of PF2 they tried that method and if it had gone forward Sorcerer would not have been a class.

We just made sorcery points recharge on a short rest.

That way sorcerer knows less spells but can cast more or have them heavily influenced by metamagic skills.

Just my opinion, but I think a reason why they choose to say you cannot poison ammunition is to prevent someone from claiming they could poison 10 objects at a time, since all ammunition comes in batches of 10.

well, if you had a jar of poison like Nutella 1kg, then yes, you could apply poison to all 10 arrows.

But, that is a clumsy situation so I would say that you spend 10+2d12 doses of poison due to spilling, dripping, etc...

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.

human feat Unconventional Weaponry wrote:

You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.

If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can choose an uncommon advanced weapon with such a trait. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a martial weapon.

Say a human monk wants a long-range option. If they want the halfling sling staff (uncommon martial weapon with the halfling trait), they can use Unconventional Weaponry to gain access to it and treat it like a simple weapon for proficiency purposes, which means they'll get to expert at 5th and master at 13th. OTOH, if they want a longbow then Unconventional Weaponry can't help them, because it's a common martial weapon and U.W. only lets you choose uncommon weapons.

Does this seem wacky and maybe even unintended to anyone else? Being able to select uncommon but not common options strikes me as like being proficient in martial weapons but not simple weapons---it shouldn't happen. But maybe I'm biased by my desire to build a monk with a bow who gets past trained reasonably quickly (elven weapon familiarity + elven weapon expertise will do it, but not til 13th).

Yeah, it's kind of weird.

They should have moved away from simple/martial/uncommon/superior categories and give all classes Access to all weapons.

Then the skill with weapons would be determined with untrained/trained/expert/master/legendary bonuses to proficiency.

Same goes for all armour, just have it based on str if it can be used.

I.E.
Wizard would be untrained in weapons and armor at lvl 1, they would get trained in armour and weapons at lvl 3 and expert at lvl 13.

Fighters would start as expert in weapons and trained with armor at lvl3.

Fighter would get expert/master/legendary with weapons at levels 3/9/15
and with armours at levels 5/11/17

All other classes would be somewhere in-between.

Specifically this is mentioned.

If you retrieve a two-handed item with only one hand, you still need to change your grip before you can wield or use it.

So it's probably a good idea when you retrieve your weapon to use both hands.

Igor Horvat wrote:

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.

I just want to see a 2handed draw of a sword from a scabbard. Hahaha!!

It does not work together.

But if you want to make Elf step work in any situation, you can house rule it:

Any time you make Step move, increase that move distance by 5ft.

Lightwire wrote:

In the one case where the cost of consistent consumable use isn’t money, the alchemist, they are still using up their core class feature instead. They could use them themselves and get some boost to damage, bringing them more inline with the classes that consider martial damage a priority, or they could use them to enhance their allies, biffing them like may others classes already can. In either case their abilities are not out of line with the rest of the classes.

A level 8 archer with 14 Strength and weapon specialization does 2d6+3 damage with a shortbow. A wyvern poison does between 5d6 and 8d6 damage if the enemy fails the save. If the enemy fails 2 saves, damage is doubled after one round. So, if you can add that at each and every arrow... Even if the enemy makes half of its saves, we are speaking of doubling to tripling damage at no action cost as it's prebuff. It's overwhelmingly powerful in a game where buffs have been reduced a lot.

Yes, and 5th level wizard can deal 300d6 of damage with fireball in one round... but it won't happen every day

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.

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.

Igor Horvat wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Igor Horvat wrote:

Unless you are using heal potion that you will smash against your target's forehead, I would say that medicine should require 2 hands.

Drops arms-free action
Medicine-how many it takes,
Pick up arms from the floor- 1 action

Correction: 1 action per dropped item.

Suddenly your Battle Medic feat became actively worse than a 3-action Heal spell.

you can't pick up 2 item at the same time with both hands?

No more than you can strike with two items at the same time with both hands using only one action.

Of course there are class feats to allow just that, so maybe in the future you can take a class feat called Double Retrieval to help you out.

how is that in any way relevant to each other?

You cannot attack at the same time while dualwielding as one attack draws away the momentum on another attack. You have to do it in sequence.

There is no momentum needed for drawing two shortswords at the same time.

not to mention that you need to spend 2 actions to draw a 2handed weapon :D

Igor Horvat wrote:

Unless you are using heal potion that you will smash against your target's forehead, I would say that medicine should require 2 hands.

Drops arms-free action
Medicine-how many it takes,
Pick up arms from the floor- 1 action

Correction: 1 action per dropped item.

Suddenly your Battle Medic feat became actively worse than a 3-action Heal spell.

you can't pick up 2 item at the same time with both hands?

Far too many gamers want to eat the cake and have it too.

They want Fireballs. They want dragons. They want poison that simply adds damage, to allow them to kill foes in seconds.

At the same time, they complain over timing issues.

If they banned magic and monsters, I could take their criticism against the Interact action seriously.

As it is, however, they basically ignore game balance as long as it suits them, but cry "unrealistic" whenever it doesn't.

That simply isn't credible.

Pathfinder 2 is a game. Hand usage is a rource to be managed. It's made richer by your hand choice having a real game impact.

Saying you should be able to change hand usage freely simply means some configurations are invalidated, resulting in less choice and a poorer game.

Magic does not exist so we have to invent what is "realistic" and "balanced" for magic.

We could say that fireball is sor of RPG-like weapon and Dragons are more or less attack helicopters, but that is not the issue.

Issue is with actions that can be made by any of us.

And we know how those actions are complicated.

Is standing up worth 2 seconds of your time?
Yes, as most people need a second or two to stand up from lying down.

Does drawing a sword takes 2 seconds? No, if it is not a 2hander strapped across your back. 1 second might be better. Half an action?

Re-gripping a sword handle with your free hand? 1/10 of an action?

Also, there is a topic for hand usage for Medicine. I would be 1st to say that you need BOTH! hands free to do that.
Drop any weapons/shields; free action
Medicine; as many as it takes
Picking up weapons from floor; 1 action

If drinking a potion is 1 action then administrating it to knockedout ally is 3 actions(maybe 2 if generous).

Maybe if they went with 6 actions instead of 3, (For 6 seconds round) things could be made more realistic.

Then we could have:
attack; 2 actions
move; 2 actions
step: 1 action
stand up: 2 actions: 1 if trained or better in both acrobatics and athletics
spellcasting: base 4 actions, 5,3,2,1 for some spells
draw weapon: 1 action

I would not give 2 sets of 4 ability boosts every 5 levels

rather a boost to each ability score every 5 levels.
That will still cover any possible MAD problem but prevent abilities going over 22/20.

Point of gestalt is versatility not pure power.

Also for HPs, I would use average HP per level from 2 classes.

But as Corvo stated, nice way is Extra class feats for multiclass every even level.

Igor Horvat wrote:

balance must not collide with common sense.

For me, we lost that battle when we got told it take 2 seconds to put a second hand on a weapon... Or use mundane healing in 2 seconds. Or that 20 shortswords held loosely in my arms is just as unwieldy as 20 shortswords carefully packed into a backpack. or... So if we're arguing common sense, this is WAY, WAY, WAY far down on the list IMO. I wouldn't call this 'pathfinder: the common sense version' by any means.

I am not going into that discussion again. LoL. Same goes for Volley.

There simply too much balance features for balance only sake.

Seem that no devs ever held a weapon of any kind.

Maybe if they made 6 actions per round instead of 3, things would be more fluid.

Battle Medicine is vaguer than that, but it's hard to visualise a form that requires zero hands.

Telekinesis?

You don't understand the point.

Ammunitions are no weapons. There is not a single line stating that, and clearly you can't just say they are on the same chart to prove it.
The fact that you can't poison ammunitions per the rules is there for balance. Being able to apply poison at every attack would double a bow ranger damage output, putting it way ahead of everything else.
Poisoning a "bow" is of course poisoning it's ammunitions. Just, RAW, you'll apply poison only once. That's all.

balance must not collide with common sense.

Find other ways to balance:

Chance to poison yourself, higher cost of poisons, poisons being illegal by default and carrying risk for owning them,

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

This is something that desperately needs some developer commentary. I built a whole character concept on a sword and shield battle medic. If I have to use two hands to heal he will be dead in the water. Dropping or sheathing my sword I can buy but surely it is not intended to need two hands.

Seems like there are two valid ways to interpret it which isn’t great.

Unless you are using heal potion that you will smash against your target's forehead, I would say that medicine should require 2 hands.

Drops arms-free action
Medicine-how many it takes,
Pick up arms from the floor- 1 action

3 Ancestry feats at 1st level.
Ancestry feats and general feats share the same pool
Extra class feat at every odd level, but use your level/2 round up for the choice of extra class feats:
at lvl1 you can take level 1 class feat,
at lvl3 take lvl 1 or 2 class feat
at lvl5 take lvl 1 or 2 class feat
at lvl7 take lvl 4 or lower class feat
...
at lvl19 take lvl 10 or lower class feat

Igor Horvat wrote:

JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?

There is no differentiation whatsoever based on character size. Small characters can use every single weapon a medium character can use (they use smaller weapons that just so happen to achieve the same damage/reach, or they use the same weapons and just never have an issue with how wide the grip is, or weapons in P2E just magically resize themselves (even if not magical) to make it all make more visual sense).

haha. I just had an image of 3' halfling with a 6' bow.

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?

Igor Horvat wrote:

Or if longbow has it, ALL projectile weapons MUST have it.
As there is some inherent problem with aiming at a very close target.

But it's easier to maneuver a smaller weapon than a larger one in close quarters.

Which is why Longbows have an explicit penalty while the more compact shortbow does not.

Depends how you define close quarters:

Is it in melee reach of an enemy? Yes, I agree that shortbow is better then.

Is it in cramped conditions? Low ceiling, narrow corridor, climbing?
Yes, shorbow is better for that.

Is it some arbitrary distance outside any melee reach and independent of a terrain situation? There is no difference in aiming with either weapon.

Igor Horvat wrote:

All armor should be based on strength to use

all classes should have level+2 bonus to AC with some classes getting improved proficiency; +4/+6/+8

You kinda just described the Armour system in PF2

not quite, but almost.

Not all classes are proficient with all armour.

And str requirement is only to negate/lessen penalties from armour

Igor,

feel free to come up with any house rules you want around the bow, but just be careful about the effects some of them will have on ranged combat as a whole, which is pretty powerful by default with a reload 0 weapon that can be fired 3 times in a round. Adding reload 1 to your longbow and upping the damage dice is fine for your table and probably not going to break the game as badly as taking volley away and adding agile to short bow as originally proposed.

However, it is not something I would do, because I prefer the design space of mid to long range weapon, than a martial version of the crossbow.

I will do that.

I was just explaining how nonsensical is Volley penalty for longbow.

Or if longbow has it, ALL projectile weapons MUST have it.
As there is some inherent problem with aiming at a very close target.

Then for balance reasons, longbow can have the LONGEST volley range penalty(30ft) and hand crossbow can have shortest(15ft).

But if you are just shooting at someone, there is no difference between shortbow and longbow except strength required and power transferred to the arrow and then target. Described in mechanics as damage and range.

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.

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.

Campbell 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 is probably a Fighter.

I disagree. Legolas scouted ahead of the Fellowship when they were trying to take the pass of Caradhras. And he helped Aragorn track the Uruk-hai when the ‘three hunters’ were trying to rescue Merry and Pippin. Tolkien mentioned more than once that Legolas left next to no tracks when he was traveling in the wilderness. Sure sounds like a Ranger to me...

I agree that Legolas is a fighter.

All his abilities are tied to Elves being far superior to Men.

Better eyesight and so graceful that they can walk on loose snow.

Legolas didn't display any major skills with animals or herbalism or deciphering tracks.

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.

All armor should be based on strength to use

all classes should have level+2 bonus to AC with some classes getting improved proficiency; +4/+6/+8