Ferious Thune wrote:
This seems to be the best solution to me.
I disagree. And its ok that we disagree on this. But honestly, this is a fantasy world with actual real deities that physically, mentally, psychologically, and magically impact the world. In front of their followers. In front of their enemies.
Requesting that your real world areligious choice be included in the game world doesn't make sense to me.
Because the game world, there is no real atheism. That's a rule of the world. A world in which any of the various archangels, prophets, or deities could jump down and thump you. In our world, its not likely that any religious figure or deity is going to physically manifest and thump you. And as far as actual proof, it just doesn't happen in our world. So being an atheist when there is no empirical proof of a deity makes a lot of actual sense. Being a true atheist (not the Rahadoumi version--where they just deny they are worthy of worship) in Golarian is insanity.
Right, but that comment was replying to someone's comment in what they thought a good new process should be.
I know what the wording of the process is trying to do, is both codify how its actually done, but also allow for some level of oversight. Unless they want to rewrite the guide to just trust players are going to do what they are supposed to do, with zero oversight (which is common practice, and not something I'm opposed to as I practiced that), then they have to write some level of oversight into the rule.
Writing so that a future GM doesn't have to sign a past GM's paperwork seems to be the best compromise between action practice and writing oversight into the rule.
I'm confused. I don't think I said what you think I said, but now I'm confused as to what you are actually saying I said or what you think things mean.
Andy Brown wrote:
This pretty much. You treat the "between session" purchases as purchases on the new chronicle sheet.
Alex Wreschnig wrote:
It is possible. I just pulled up my Season 6 and 7 guide to compare, and neither has the language I was looking for.
Alex Wreschnig wrote:
It sure looks like the intent and the text don't match. If there will be another version of the guide, maybe it's something the team can get fixed in that version.
They could fix it right now and republish it. It shouldn't take a bunch of time to do so, and would be worth maybe the hour or two it would take.
But I doubt we see another Guide for PFS1, since PFS2 starts in 2019.
No, I know I'm remembering correctly, because if you'll recall, I was the lead on redesigning the Guide for the Season 8 Guide. One of the things that I wanted to make sure happened, was the numbered explanation of how to fill out a chronicle sheet to be overhauled to reflect how things actually worked. And overhauled to be consistent with other sections of the guide. Essentially, that section of the guide was simply obsolete, not followed, and did not reflect the rules elsewhere in the guide. There was a paragraph elsewhere in the guide at the time, that explained that you could make purchases between scenarios and just show your ITS to your new GM. The new GM just had to make sure the numbers on your previous chronicle looked right and that purchases were legal, but they weren't required to actually fill out the GM section of the chronicle sheet and sign the entire sheet.
EDIT: And now I can't find it. So it may have been an FAQ or something. In any case, I am 100% positive that the rule for how to adjudicate, track, and handle purchases was allowed to happen once a player had gone home and all the new GM needed to do whats verify, but no initial or signature was really necessary.
I don't recall which season, but it was 6 or 7, where the rules for purchases were changed. You did not need to fill out the entire chronicle sheet before the end of a session. Purchases could be made between sessions, and you just had to show the new GM what purchases you made. No actual signature or initial was required.
This new change sounds bad. Really badly conceived and written.
I'm pretty sure those considered Chelish in PF1 were the people that colonized it during Taldor's Exploration of the world. So Chelish heritage is literally Taldan.
I believe that bolding or somehow letting the reader know that this word is a key word, with a quick comment at the beginning on where to find the key word descriptions would help.
Yes, bolding keywords would be fantastic. It immediately lets you know its a special word and has special meaning.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I loved the page references when you made them. But they are not included in every instance they should be.
For example, there are several feats or skill usages that refer to Leap, but that is not given a page reference, and I had to do a CTRL+F "Leap" in the PDF to find out that was listed in some of the way further back pages.
More Page References. Whenever there is a keyword being used, and it isn't immediately defined, give me a page reference.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Actually, historically, this is how long bows worked.
Hey Rysky, I don't want to digress from the original question too much as this is a PF2 question, so spoilers:
Scrolls in PF1:
Use minimum stats/level for DCs and all other variables. They do not use the stats of the person reading the scroll. There is either a cyphermage ability or a feat, I forget which, that allows you to read a scroll and use your own level and stats. The only way this would be different, is if whoever scribed the scroll had the same level and stats as you. But if you scribe a scroll with a 16 Int at level 7, those are the numbers that scroll is stuck with, even if you later read it at level 15 and a 24 Int.
Based on how many skill bumps you get through your career and the fact that by 14th level you could have several abilities at 16+, I'd say yes.
This entire system seems to be predicated on small bonuses being incredibly meaningful.
James Anderson wrote:
While the archetype lets you be, say a fighter with a bit of wizard (magus), I don't see anything that says you can no longer to traditional multiclassing if you want. I'll need to do more digging to see where the benefits of one vs the other lie.
The blog on multiclassing pretty much says the archetype is the way to do multiclassing. There also is not a paragraph detailing multiclassing the traditional way.
So sure, if you want to homebrew standard multiclassing... but not for anything involving PFS.
EDIT: And please don't answer any playtest surveys if you aren't going to play strictly by the playtest document (and any subsequent errata).
I agree with this. We shall see if the reset is too far the other direction or not through game play. If it feels like my super skilled character keeps failing more than I feel he should, that it feels useless to even try anymore, then I can report on that and let Paizo know.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I find it weird how often people say they hated the reliability of PF1 characters, it was a major draw for me. I like being good at what I spend resources on, IRL how often do we do something dangerous with only a 50/50 shot at it? I don't, I don't know anyone that does - why should professional adventurers?
Best of the best, going against Best of the Best in almost any professional sport are usually successful around 50% of the time or worse.
I'm not sure that it wasn't designed with the intention of making this 50% possible or worse. In other words, PF1's system of an initial attack or skills are virtually a lock for even creatures at AP+5 is something that it appears they decided was not a good design space.
This is all conjecture though.
James Krolak wrote:
I agree. I have several issues with the game. But I plan to play it true to what was presented and answer the surveys and post my feedback based on my game play. Some things that may theoretically look bad, might actually play well or vice versa. We shall see.
Jason Avery wrote:
The issue I saw with PF1 multiclassing, was that it allowed one to "dip" and horribly break the game in many unintended ways sometimes. This change solves that problem.
This is also really the only way to make the archetypes universal, which saves a ton of wordcount space, since they don't have to write an archetype for 7 or 8 different classes. Just one archetype that replaces class feats with its own set of class feats. Kinda elegant if you ask me.
I'm going to wager that $15.75 is a pretty standard shipping price for State-side shipments. But even so, without knowing whether Amazon was going to credit us the shipping cost for botching this, the store credit should have equaled or exceeded the shipping cost for every individual.
And regardless whether you think I'm being petty or not, it doesn't give you license to be a jerk about it. Just say, "hey, I think that quibbling over 75 cents is a bit petty," instead of being nasty about it.
Jason Avery wrote:
Yeah, some layout decisions were nice. They included page numbers when referencing other abilities, feats, rules found elsewhere in the book. But they missed a lot of references they should included. Like Leap isn't referenced to a page number anywhere, which boggled my mind.
Some of the layout decisions really boggled my mind. And this one you describe just makes no sense. They chose to put things in several different chapters (essentially, I assume, to save wordcount) and the flipping pages back and forth just for character creation is worse than PF1. But they included all the same information in a confusing way to the classes.
I honestly hope that layout issues like this are simply playtest issues, and when the official PF2 CRB comes out, it will not be so rough.
Is it necessary to have created multiclass archetypes? Could we not just let players multiclass as we always have?
I really like this change to be honest. I'm just not a fan of limiting a character to either multiclassing or taking a universal archetype until much later levels. I think to multiclass and then taken a universal archetype, you have to wait until level 8 to take the second option.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Yup, but Pathfinder Society leadership doesn't learn from past mistakes and continually write rulings that could be strictly read to be limiting.
I would argue however, that the above rule does actually allow class granted uncommon items. It just isn't worded explicitly so.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Mike Brock officially ruled cannibalism as evil.
The context of the conversation that Tonya weighed in on, was whether cultural situations that are more spiritual (like eating your enemy's heart, liver, spleen and/or kidneys to carry their power and give them ultimate respect) rather than specifically eating flesh for sustenance. There are several cases that could be made where it isn't evil. The context also included separate threads regarding things like slavery, necromancy, prostitution, etc.
They decided, in the new community guidelines, that its ok to be "edgy" as long as you make sure everyone at the table is ok with it. And if they aren't, or there are children, or you are in a particular public place, dial it back.
So no, she didn't rule that cannibalism wasn't evil. She ruled that it might not be in certain circumstances but regardless how the GM individually rules, keep your edgy stuff away from people that don't want to deal with it.
Thank you for being condescending.
Its the principle of the matter, not the cash.
Gary Teter wrote:
We've just granted $15 in store credit to everybody whose Pathfinder playtest preorder was sent to Amazon for shipping.
I think the offer of some sort of compensation was laudable. However, when my shipping costs were $15.75, why was I not given store credit equal to the higher shipping costs I paid by ordering it from Paizo?
The Rot Grub wrote:
I need to look into the Rulebook further to have an overall opinion, but my first reaction to the OP is that I'm willing to allow for some "disassociation" when legendary skills are involved. I think by "legendary" the developers are aiming at classic hero tales level of suspension of disbelief, from a time when folks who heard such tall tales did not have modern scientific thought getting in the way.
Historical heroes had legendary qualities:
Gilgamesh and Samson had legendary strength and I believe Gilgamesh was known to be immortal or invulnerable, I forget which.
Beowulf rips the arm off Grendel and slays a dragon 50 years later (so in his 70's or 80's he kills a dragon).
Many of the knights in Arthurian Legend perform some pretty awesome legendary feats.
I could go on.
The answer is, "Because they are Legendary."
Vic Wertz wrote:
I see, and I know it would be too much to ask that Paizo try to check the Amazon orders and see where they are and then email us individually. That sort of manual attention would likely kill your ability to do anything else customer service/shipping wise for a month.
Brother Fen wrote:
Some of you guys need to give it a rest. You're acting like you're waiting on a kickstarter project that's ten years old. So you won't have your book right away, you'll survive. There's a copy with your name that you'll get in time.
Its not that the timing bothers me, its the fact I payed more for shipping than I would have otherwise.
Signed up, and no packages are listed as coming. So either I'm not in the 30% shipped yet, or its not going USPS.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Wow, that didn't work as intended.
Additionally, I found there were several sessions that did not show GM Prestige. They were sessions I could not take a GM Chronicle for, so I did not fill out a character number. When I plugged 2 in the GM Prestige field, nothing showed up in the session. But if I plugged in Zero (0) for the character number, then the 2 Prestige showed up. But my total GM Credits did not increase, so this is not the error.
By looking through all my old events that I created, I noticed 8 such iterations of such an error.
I'm missing roughly 24 sessions since the last count, so there must be 16 other sessions missing that I can't see because they 1) don't show up on my GM Sessions page, and 2) Someone else created the event and I don't have access to them.