KATYA OF VARISIAN's page

Well this looks like the developers are trying to make pathfinder/clerics into starfinder/mystics. In starfinder anyone can heal if they have a healer's kit. Just like anyone can treat wounds. Go Figure. Why don't we just play starfinder?

Will there be an electronic (PDF or HTML) version for purchase. I will definitely buy that!

As GM of the group I am playtesting with, I always build characters so that I can answer questions that come up. For Arclord's envy, I built a elf, nomad, cleric with ranger dedication/quick draw. I found it easy to achieve a well balanced character that is fun to play, and more importantly survive against the monsters at 5-7 lvls. I really think that the new system of multi-classing is very good. And, it allows for inventive characters - you just have to have a plan from the very beginning. It is a little difficult to switch horses in the middle of a stream.

Where is the ring of protection? Where is the amulet of natural armor? Where is the cloak of resistance?

Slippers of spider climbing was 4,800 gp now is 215 gp, 6th level and the usable time is way different. Why have the developers taken the fun out of magic items.

Those two yardsticks aren't meant to be compared.

PF1 had a host of items that increase your ability scores wildly, the Playtest does have potent items, but they only increase one ability to a maximum of +2.

The power level of class features in the playtest seems to be (much?) lower than the power levels in PF1 (see the "nerfing of magic in general"), and those now higher ability scores in the playtest don't have that huge an impact compared to PF1.

I think a number of people on this board complained about how weak characters seem compared to Pathfinder.

All in all, don't compare the numbers. The Playtest rule system is quite different from Pathfinder.

Thank you. I'm satisfied with this response. I will look into the "nerfing" issue.

as the OP, I think that many people are now missing the boat. The point is not that there are exceptional people out there. ALL OF THEM are not FIRST level. The athletes you mention, the political persons, and the scientists ALL are way above 1st level professionals.

Take a look at a standard build ( Human Cleric ):
Str 14. Dex 10, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 14

In PF1 that is a point build of 29 -- That is 9 points above High Fantasy which is used by organized play.

And after your first ability jump (4 x 2) you get:
Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 16

or you could sacrifice one upgrade to make Wis 19

These are astronomical numbers compared to PF1 especially at 5th level.

Forget about real world comparisons. This just does not feel right. And of course all of the monsters are jacked as well.

Does anyone see what I am trying to point out?

As the OP, I see that many of you understand what I was saying. A firefighter with training in how to carry a wounded person down a flight of stairs, CAN only do that upon demand and is winded after a few minutes. But any PC fighter with a strength greater than 13, can carry a wounded person for HOURS. This is my point.

A PC with a charisma of 15 can pretty much intimidate anyone with just a small help from the dice - that is totally unrealistic.

And I realize that Fantasy Role Playing Games are just that Fantasy. BUT, it should not be so EASY to max out at first level.

That was my point of the original post.

a medium load for 18 strength in pf1 is 101-200 lbs. This is ridiculous - when I was a cavalry scout in the US Army, our heaviest load was usually 70 lbs. a medium load was around 35 lbs. and everyone in my platoon was in the finest physical shape. That makes the best of the US army an average strength of 11 - nowhere near 18.

CARRYING 160 LBS IS GODLIKE!!!

The other day my wife said to me "I have a 16 wisdom". I believe that she honestly believed this because she is a librarian with two masters degrees, one from NYU.

If you make any character under the current rules you will always have an 18 in one stat at first level. This is just insane.

The strongest man on earth cannot lift 3x his weight or drag 5x his weight. The most beautiful actress/model barely rates a 15 in charisma. No one with a wisdom above 14 would ever enter the political arena because s/he would be wise enough to see the pitfalls. The smartest rocket-scientest at MIT probably has a 16 intelligence.

I don't see the need for such exaggerated scores.

Why do we make the rules so that only the GODLIKE can survive?

Just want to say: I get it! This release, while it needs fine tuning, is a REALLY BIG step in the right direction for RPGs. I am glad to be part of the playtyest, and i will try to GM each scenario to the best of my ability. We should all make our players (characters) have fun and enjoyment. I think that this new platform will bring much success to the world of RPGs, and it will also bring new players to the joys of fantasy gaming!

I'll concede the speed of play issue. And, I'll grant the martial dynamism bit. But then I would say if you have spent an action to "raise a shield" it should be doing its job. You should not have to use your ONE reaction to "shield block". What is a shield for, sitting on? A shield blocks, thats its job.

I am certain that none of the developers have actually fought in melee combat. As a knight's-marshal and many years of SCA combat, I can attest that my armor was banged up far more seriously than my shield. If fact, I would have to repair my armor several times in a weekend long tourney. Where I might have to "fix" my shield once every three tournaments. The shield was meant to be bashed, the armor is meant to protect when the shield misses. The role of the opponent it to make maneuvers that bypass the shield. Therefore, the armor needs to be the first line of defense not the shield.

Exactly my point. If armor can be dented, then it can take damage away from the wearer. Exactly as I pointed out in my initial post. It's an all or nothing. You can't have shields take damage and be dented if armor can't absorb damage, because they can be dented as well...

Quote from the book pg. 175 section Item Damage subsection Broken:

"broken armor is an exception. It still grants its item bonuses, but ..."

How in the heck does armor get broken if it does not take DENTS?

If it does not function as an item that takes damage then why have a call out "Materials" on pg. 177 and a hardness guide on pg. 354

If shields can take dents so can armor. You are going to have to address this.

Any other way would be inconsistent game mechanics.

It is unclear how damage is assigned with a fighter wearing metal armor and a raised shield.

The character has a light steel shield (hardness 5) and half plate armor (hardness 9).

an attack does 4 points of damage - character takes no damage and no equipment takes any dents.

an attack does 7 points of damage - character takes no damage and the shield takes 1 dent, the armor absorbs 2.

an attack does 13 points of damage - character takes no damage, the shield takes 2 dents and is broken, the armor absorbs 8.

an attack does 15 points of damage - character takes 1 point of damage, shield takes 2 dents and is broken and the half plate takes 1 dent.

an attack does 29 points of damage - character takes 15 points of damage, shield takes 2 dents and is broken, armor takes 2 dents and is broken.

IS THIS RIGHT?

It is very UNCLEAR wether an expert quality longsword with a +1 weapon potency rune needs to be invested.

It is clear that an expert quality longsword with a void rune must be invested if the user wants to activate the weapon. But according to everything that I read the user gets the void bonus without activation - just not the activated part.

It seems that there has been a lot of controversy over resonance points. If what I am reading is true, a character can have the use of worn rune enhanced weapons and armor that do not have activation costs without investing any of them, and consequently not using any resonance points.

As a DM/GM for over 36 years, I have TPK'd only one party, and only because they were totally stupid and ignored my "hints & suggestions". In two sessions of PF play testing, I have brought 2 characters to "0" hps neither died. I could have killed a character by hitting him when he was down, but I chose to hit another character. I believe that if you have an evil GM you will have more character deaths. I believe that the GM is not the Monsters he plays and that "playing in character" often leads to a game that is NO FUN!

In the old rules (table 8-2, pg. 183) Draw a weapon does not provoke an AoO. In the new rules drawing a weapon is an interact action and (no matter how I read the material provided) it has the manipulate trait which provokes AoO. Since Attacks of Opportunity are pretty much limited to fighters, it's not such a big deal. BUT while playing our first Scenario "The Rose Street Revenge", we waisted a WHOLE bunch of time looking this up and figuring out if drawing a weapon does indeed trigger an AoO. This is a change from the previous edition and really needs a clarification.