Knight of Whispers's page

This blows mine out of the water, as expected! Way more polished and extensive!

My feedback though:

1. I think it's a mistake to tie Feat/Features to level by default. I can think of several instances where some boxes would be unused unless the user redoes the level boxes. Level should be entered by the user, in my opinion.
2. There's no way to use rolled Ability Scores instead of the boost system. I prefer the boost system, but still.
3. The spellcasting tab could use some work. As far as I know, only spontaneous spellcasters need "Spells Known," and even then, Spells Known=Spell Slots. And not sure if the preparation works well, since a single spell can be prepared many times in many spell levels. Maybe there should also be a place to add where the spell comes from, to note if it's a class spell that would benefit from a higher proficiency.
4. I can see a Wizard or Alchemist needing extra room for languages.

Things I REALLY like:

1. Multiple class proficiencies. Lots of 'em. Gonna make me a Wizard/Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Bard! (not really)
2. Probably enough room for weapon profs if one adds their class weapons as "Class" and add a note for what weapons the class has.
3. Lots of bonus feat slots. Still worry there not being enough for a Rogue that also gets a lot of bonuses feats.
4. The Background tab looks FANTASTIC!

Thanks a whole bunch for this!

Unless someone's streaming their game, you'll never know if someone who's planning out their character with mechanics in mind are roleplaying their character less or not caring about their character's backstory or personality.

Are there people who use PF or D&D as simple math games? Sure. I played with quite a few back in my 3.5 days. Are there people who play these games as narratives first and don't care one bit about their damage output? Yes! I kinda lean that way myself. But I've also played with a lot of people who could be seen as "minmaxers" but care very much about their character's story. They are 100% not mutually exclusive. Good ol' Stormwind's Fallacy.

If you're baffled by players discussing and arguing about the minutia of damage output and AC deficiencies, I'm kinda there with you. As far I can tell, PF2e can be completely functional if you don't minmax as long as you try to make something competent. But we should not assume they're not roleplayers just because they have a different philosophy on character creation. And really, that's all it is. A different philosophy on character creation, not really on play.

I would say that some of the critiques and discussions on the rules are legit people worrying that certain things might not even be bad rules that make the game less fun and make character ideas less viable.

You should also know the difference between making a viable character and minmaxing for power. The first still requires a discussion on rules and builds, as this is still a new system, and some people are worried some stuff might not work. The second is baffling to me as well.

But we all have our ways of play, and we should always keep that in mind.

/my 2cp

Thanks a lot for putting this together! I've been using the first version of the sheet ever since I first saw it, nice to see that there's an updated version.

Thank you! Glad it's been getting use!

Here's the link to my dedicated thread for mine.

Here it is!

There are a lot of things I was not fond of with the official sheet. Not just the kinda ugly color scheme for non-printer friendly version, but also the lack of space for certain things. Languages, weapon proficiencies, bonus feats, spell preparation. I've added all of these to my sheet.

Let me know if you have any feedback for it! Thank you!

You're using an old version of mine! Thank you, either way.

Here is the newer one.

Note that I'm still tinkering a lot with it. And I'm always looking for any and all feedback!

EDIT: Also, it's missing the name? "Knight of Whispers' Character Sheet" would be just fine.

I really dig 5e's bounded accuracy, as PCs feel less like superheros and more like "realistic" fantasy novel characters that keep tension when even fighting mooks.

I also really like PF2e's system, BECAUSE the PCs feel like superheroes, mowing down the riff-raff while casually humming a jaunty tune.

There is kind of a problem with bounded accuracy, in my opinion: even a commoner can break free of a charm effect from a tenth level PC if they roll well enough. With PF2e's system, that's much less of an issue, since there's not even the chance of a nat 20 being an auto-succeed (although there are no rules in 5e that say nat 20's are auto-succeeds in anything but attacks, but most DMs add it. I want lower level threats to still be threats, yes, but I also want lower level threats to be weak in comparison. It's always a balance, and PF2e leans heavily towards lower level threats being basically worthless.

And the higher numbers just make my eyes swim. It's harder to get a bead on how good something is if they get a bonus just from level.

Maybe a new system could work? Bonuses and penalties versus lower or higher enemies, but with no added level bonus. Like, for every five levels a PC has over an enemy, they get an extra +2 to all attacks and DCs, likewise the enemy gets a penalty.

Just my two copper on the subject.

Having the most common coinage in fantasy settings be straight-up gold always felt extremely off to me. A lot of my DMs just decided to get rid of silver and copper altogether because they felt it was pointless. There was almost never a transaction costing less than a gold where the player just gave them a gold piece because nobody gave a flying flip about silver.

This change to a silver-standard feels way more realistic to me (and I normally don't care about realism), and it'll make me feel like I'm actually participating in a medieval-style economy (or at least an idealized version of it), rather than feeling like I'm using Gil to buy 5 Hi-Potions.

@cartmanbeck

No problem! Keep in mind, that sheet's for the Playtest. If you modify it enough, it should work for the final version, but Charon's gonna make a version for it anyway.

In the meantime, I've modified my own sheet.

Gonna make a couple test characters with it.

@Charon Onozuka

Your Playtest sheet is absolutely fantastic! Only thing I'd say is that the extra weapon proficiency section is *way* too tiny. Other than that, I'd imagine you could just change the math and remove and add a few things to your sheet for the final version and you'd be golden.

But, if you're gonna do it from the ground up, that'll be great too! Looking forward to it!

Is anyone else making a Google Sheets or Excel character sheet?

I'm gonna be redoing how you put in Proficiency in my sheet. The way I have it is more compact, but the check boxes are just way more visually appealing.

The sheet I made.

Because I'm kinda iffy on a lot of things, I won't bother making it's own thread for right now.

No Companion tab yet because that's gonna take *work*. But, I've made it, so I might as well show. If there's any feedback I can have on it, I'd be happy to hear.

The Spellcasting and Equip are the things I'm most iffy on.

However, I also see that Charon Onozuka might be releasing their within the month, and I really liked their Playtest version, so once that's out, I might just retire mine. Mostly, I just had a lot of time on my hands ^^;

EDIT: Don't ya just love finding mistakes on something right after releasing it?

@cartmanbeck

I used this one: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcscSM74XOAI7-6XCzYCtJKbv4l7g8tsPoh wItMlKQ8/edit#gid=700969085

to make a few Playtest characters. The original creator might make an updated version for PF2e, but it could be a while.

In the meantime, I'm making my own sheet, although it's likely not going to be *nearly* as good. Although, one thing I want to do differently than most others is the spell sheet. I'm not a fan of how it is now. Makes showing prepared spells a little difficult. People making the PDF sheets seem to think the Prep note should be a check box like in 5e. It'd be much better as a text box to show amount prepared.