KuniUjito's page

KuniUjito wrote:

This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.

If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.

I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

RafaelBraga wrote:

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Forget the fact you can't increase above 18 by level 1 normally anyway unless you're rolling. That would be... acceptable. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept it.

Saying flat-out "you can never have an ability score above 18 at level 1" just feels like a slap in the face to players like me. There's a reason I don't play 5e, and stated hard caps is a very large part of that reason.

What in the playtest is the mechanic reason you need start with a stat higher than an 18? Just curious....

The problem is not when the 3rd level paladin found an ancient holy avenger in some lost temple...

The problem is when a 14lv paladin is penalized for using a normal sword or even "just a +1 sword" cause some story relation and he perform even worse than a PF1 character in the same situation (wich is already bad).

The magic weapon dependancy grew exponentially in this ruleset... and i am very shocked that people that were complained of a +2 damage diferential on a rogue having or having not dex to damage are simple mute.

I guess people just have trouble with math when it is a variable number.

My question then becomes why hasn't the 14th level paladin purchased a magic weapon to wield? Even with tithing and giving to the poor he could still certainly afford one.

I was thinking to give it a try until...

Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!

So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!

Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.

If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/

Why does a lvl 4 fighter have a legendary weapon? in order for it to be +4 to damage it has to be enchanted by a legendary enchanter and also has to be crafted as +4 to hit by a legendary crafter which is 65,000 silver plus 65,000 silver, so how did a 4th level character get such an item? That is bad adventure or treasure design not bad game design.

The alignment restrictions for clerics of Gorum seem weird to me. CN or CE only.

Yes, he's the god of War and about smashing things, but there's also bits in his anathema about not being underhand and not killing prisoners out of hand. That comes across as more CG than CE (and there's information in the PF1 Planar Handbook that supports thatlore) but I'd prefer seeing all three alignments as options.

Just occured to me that CG warriors would probably gravitate more towards Caiden Caylien generally.

The alignment choices for all the gods feel more constrained than before. I believe this was a design choice to motivate roleplaying of clerics to be more diety based than before. Just my sense of how things feel. I mean ONLY LE for asmodeus? I know you could be LN or NE before. As I said I think the tightening up of alignment choices are there to help impress upon the roleplaying aspect of your choice of Deity

Rapier deadly 1d8, but example for deadly trait then states master quality rapier deals 2d6 on crit. I imagine the example should say 2d8.

A concern of mine...well not a concern more of a curiosity, with the AP's that I have played/run there is an ingrained sense of urgency in the adventures usually designed to keep the characters (or players) focused on the main plot. With downtime now being in the core rule set and therefore becoming more a part of the game as a whole I will be interested to see how they handle that change in the coming AP'S