Nelroy's page

I would love to see a thread that just includes direct feedback to Paizo and doesn't get drowned with spats, complaints and unnecessary reply chains. Perhaps this can be it!

My main constructive criticism here: The guts of the rulebook are solid, but there is an abundance of confusing and contradictory language throughout the rulebook and it needs fixing. I understand we are in playtest, but the rulebook is riddled with confusing language, discrepancies, and conflicting information. We are also given a lot of specific mechanics in great detail, but also areas where specific care really needed and not at all present.

Difficult to playtest if mechanics to be tested are not clear.

Ground rules that i think will help keep this useful:
- Keep it constructive... leave emotions out please.
- Site your sources - Include Page Numbers/Book being referenced
- Be as specific as you can without getting too lost in minutia... cut to the heart of the issue you are presenting.
- Let Paizo editors find misspellings/grammar mistakes, but let's point out confusing verbage that makes a game rule/mechanic unclear or able to be interpreted in multiple ways.
- If you feel the rulebook is missing something; i.e. - a specific mechanic/or mechanic that appear broken, a useful table, etc. feel free to present that.
- Limit replies. And certainly only reply if you have a specific answer you can back up with sited reference (Book, Page Number, Official Errata, etc.)
- No RAI battles. We need specific fixes/answers to specific issues/questions. And the Specific overrides General convention (Rulebook 299) Paizo has supplied us should also apply to them as game developers. Let's challenge Paizo to get both clear and specific with their product and push them to make a great product.

I’ll post a few below to get it started.

Please post and (to the best of your ability) be specific, clear and concise (admittedly not one of my strengths).

Paizo friends - feel free to post replies / answers if you have them. I have really enjoyed your past products and would like to see PF2.0 be a success.

Crits Page 306 - “Add double any circumstance and conditional bonuses and penalties to damage.”

Wanted to see how folks are reading this? Or if there has been clarification from Paizo.

It reads to me that we should double penalty as well as the bonuses. Doubling a negative number would net in a larger negative... which doesn't feel very crit like... why should a debuff double in power in this situation?

If anything, it seems like we should zero out the penalty on a crit or apply the penalty as normal.