Catfolk

Tectorman's page

1,238 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I mean, how do you know "what the characters would know independent of players", especially in these examples?

I have to ask the same thing: without the feat, how much memorizing can a character legally do before it invalidates that part of the feat? 20%? 50%? Does the GM need to arrange for a test like your Odysseus example and require a minimum amount of wrong answers? If the player gets them all right, does the GM determine at random which questions the player mandatorily got wrong?

Quote:
Should "my character has 20+ Int, assume I memorized literally everything that has been said near me in the past 24 hours" be a thing? What about if a player just pays literally no attention during the entire mission briefing - do you just give them the relevant conclusions that they'd have gotten had they asked the right questions, because the character would have been paying attention to ask those?

Exploration mode already has "assume I'm doing (detect magic, readying a shield, searching for traps) unless I say otherwise, so I don't see why not? I would agree that "everything", and "near me" might need some specification, but should at least include what the GM is telling the players (since that definitionally is something their characters are paying attention to and interacting with).

To answer your second question, though, I would equate it to the character being in a combat and the player not paying attention or caring about his character, and then ask what happens there. Independent of the player, the character still has a survival instinct of his own. Does he get the attack rolls he would be making had the player cared about the combat?

Quote:
If you give the player/character information that they theoretically could have known but don't, that's no different than handing them the Bestiary of monster info that they theoretically know.

Agreed regarding the theoretical information. I disagree that "information the GM directly told the players because that is what their characters definitionally paid attention to and interacted with" can fall under that parameter. Meaning that the GM reminding the player of what he already said, which is outside the information they theoretically could have known because they definitionally did know it, is NOT the same as handing over the Bestiary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
I quoted above two instances from your own posts that say otherwise. This post is on the same page as that, so any who care to see can just scroll up.
That is not what those posts are saying.
Rysky wrote:
If the GM just gives said info out when you weren’t actively taking it down then it’s just the same as them giving you the Bestiary info.

So the GM is narrating these events to the players, giving out all of these details during gameplay due to the players' characters interacting however they need to be in order to be exposed to these plot elements, and yet, dare he to remind them of any of this later without one of them having this feat, it's the same as handing them the Bestiary.

Rysky wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:
To Rysky there's a difference between trying to memorizing the Bestiary stat blocks and take notes so you don't forget important campaign related topics or names. One is trying to cheat the system and the other is information I've already freely given to you.
How is it cheating if the GM freely gives them the book to read for it?

I'm saying you're treating them as equivalent because you're treating them as equivalent. Right up there. Where you say that neither are cheating if the GM just hands the book over.

Get how that works?

"One is cheating the system and the other is information already acquired through gameplay."
Placing a distinction between the two actions means you're saying they are NOT THE SAME.

"But if we change how we define how 'acquired through gameplay' is accomplished, then neither is cheating."
Eliminating a distinction between the two actions means you're saying they are THE SAME.

That's... what those words mean. So yes, that is what those posts are saying.

Quote:
Quote:

The specific kind of example doesn't matter so much as what it's an example of. As Sin_Dark noted, you made the comparison between this note-taking of information that the GM gave you because your character became privy to it and outright house-rules such as group initiative or meta-gaming/cheating such as reading game information that your character didn't learn in-game (such as the Bestiary or reading ahead in an AP).

I mean, sure, lots of the typical aspects of gameplay would change or even get invalidated if all of my players had had individual copies of the Tomb of Horrors open and in front of them when I was running it yesterday. Ditto in the case of houserules being introduced. Recording the information that is presented to you by the GM (whether by remembering it or by taking notes or by looking back on the PbP posts) is neither of those.

And you seem to not see that I’m talking about information that the GM didn’t give out, not because of maliciousness on their part, but because of the scope of it.

There’s 100 people at the party. You interact with 7 of them so you the player can take notes on them. You can then use this feat to recall information on the other 93 guests.

See above. This is not what your posts were saying.

Quote:
Quote:
Heck, I'd've much preferred it if the Scrollmaster feat in question that does other things besides allow the players to pay attention to the plot ONLY did those other things. As is, this is Ultimate Wilderness's Animal Call all over again, a feat validating itself by, by mere virtue of existing, rendering something illegal just so you can go back to doing the thing you were doing anyway by paying the feat tax.

*reads feat*

Did this render actual rules illegal, or just house rules of which there’s no consensus?

If you're talking about UW's Animal Call, there's a difference between "we don't have a consensus on which already-existing rules this activity should fall under, just that this should already be an application of existing rules", and "we don't even have a consensus on whether any character during P1E's entire pre-UW run should have been able to attempt this activity at all". I recall the debut of UI and UW. I don't recall the rug-yanking that Animal Call and similar feats did getting any fanfare.

If you're talking about the Scrollmaster feat, I would have had no idea that being reminded of already-given information might be a houserule.

"And finally, Lord Cromwell tells you that his missing wife may be identified by her distinctive ring."

"I'm sorry, I write slow. Did you say 'ring'?"

"Do you have that Scrollmaster feat?"

"No..."

"Then I can't tell you. And no one else tell him either, lest I just hand out the Bestiary."

Cyouni wrote:
Basically the assertion is that players are guaranteed to take notes on literally 100% of possible relevant facts.

Almost. The assertion is (1) that IF a player does not bother taking this feat and nevertheless DOES take notes on some, most, or even all of the facts the player thinks are pertinent, and that some, most, or even all of those assumed-pertinent facts DO, in fact, end up being pertinent, that this note-taking is not the same thing as a player saying their character doesn't stick their head into the Sphere of Annihilation in the green devil's face only because he has the Tomb of Horrors in front of him and reads what it was. And (2), that even if the players don't show such diligence in their note-taking or memory and the GM nevertheless just tells them something like "The 'dude with the wife' was Lord Cromwell, who sent you on this adventure in the first place" (i.e., information that was given during gameplay and that the characters would know independent of their players, similarly to how my character's Str is independent of mine), that this is also not the same as "You haven't encountered any dracolichs yet, read up on them anyway", and not something that should be gated behind a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
That is the equivalence you were making and that I find ridiculous as illustrated above.
That is not the equivalence I was making in the slightest.

I quoted above two instances from your own posts that say otherwise. This post is on the same page as that, so any who care to see can just scroll up.

Quote:
Quote:
If my character goes to a party with a 100 people attending and the GM describes my interaction with 3 of them, I expect to be able to take notes if necessary on those three and that THAT note-taking is not the same as me flipping through the Bestiary and gaining information that my character was never exposed to. If the GM describes 7 party-attenders, I expect to be able to take notes on those 7, and that THAT note-taking not be the same as reading a Bestiary.

You’re hung up on the “GM lets you read the Bestiary” example and applying it to everything when that was not the case. It was an example of how specific table rules makes certain game options redundant, such as if you use group initiative instead of individual then initiative boosting abilities aren’t of any use to you. If the GM just lets you read the Bestiary every encounter then monster identifying abilities won’t be of any use to you.

For your above example, the Feat would would let you possibly recall info about the 93 partygoers you didn’t interact with but still could reasonably seen but you the player chose not to focus on them at the time.

The specific kind of example doesn't matter so much as what it's an example of. As Sin_Dark noted, you made the comparison between this note-taking of information that the GM gave you because your character became privy to it and outright house-rules such as group initiative or meta-gaming/cheating such as reading game information that your character didn't learn in-game (such as the Bestiary or reading ahead in an AP).

I mean, sure, lots of the typical aspects of gameplay would change or even get invalidated if all of my players had had individual copies of the Tomb of Horrors open and in front of them when I was running it yesterday. Ditto in the case of houserules being introduced. Recording the information that is presented to you by the GM (whether by remembering it or by taking notes or by looking back on the PbP posts) is neither of those.

Heck, I'd've much preferred it if the Scrollmaster feat in question that does other things besides allow the players to pay attention to the plot ONLY did those other things. As is, this is Ultimate Wilderness's Animal Call all over again, a feat validating itself by, by mere virtue of existing, rendering something illegal just so you can go back to doing the thing you were doing anyway by paying the feat tax.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

No.

The player can takes notes on what they think is important, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get everything that’s described or showcased. And they’ll get nothing that isn’t described.

The feats lets them tap into the latter and such.

So are we or are we not agreed that a player taking notes on the things that their character is witness to AND that they the player think is important AND that they the player directly hear from the GM (so, everything that IS described or showcased so long as they think it's important but not including anything that they the player do not hear from the GM) is not equivalent to a player having their character act on information from the Bestiary that they the player read but that their character has not yet become aware of?

Because you say "no" and then don't actually say anything that disagrees with that position.

Unless you think there is some arbitrary limit to the amount of note-taking under those parameters that can happen. If so, how much? 50%? 70%? What if the player has an eidetic memory and can retain 100% of the information directly given him by the GM with any physical notes involved? What's the threshold for "sorry, player, you're naturally remembering too much; you need to take this feat to justify all that"?

I think we’re talking about two different things cause I don’t really know what you’re talking about at this point.

GM: "So who remembers where we're up to so far?"

Player at the table: "Well, you had us meet the Venture-Captain Lord (checks notes) Cromwell with the missing eye about his wife and fellow Pathfinder who went missing two weeks ago up near (checks notes) Ustalav. After we got there, we were attacked by a trio of werewolves. Not a random encounter because one had a ring with Lord Cromwell's insignia on it. We also (checks notes) DID check just in case the werewolf was somehow Lady Cromwell and it wasn't, so we then-"

GM: "Hold on, hold on. Do you have that Scrollmaster feat?"

"Player: "No, what would I be using it for?"

GM: "I can't just let remember all that without you having that feat. If I did, it'd be just like you reading the Bestiary about monsters you haven't even encountered. You want to try again?"

Player: "The dude sent us to the spooky place about some werewolves, and I learned I needed a feat to justify paying attention to the plot."

GM: "Much better."

That is the equivalence you were making and that I find ridiculous as illustrated above.

Rysky wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Why would you be able to tap into things that weren't described? Isn't that a GM failing at that point?

"Oh well I didn't tell you everything, if you want to know EVERYTHING take a feat to know the stuff I didn't feel important enough to tell you at the time"

??

How's that work?

If your character goes to a party with a 100 people attending do you expect your GM to describe all 100 people? Or just the ones you interact with or make a scene?

If my character goes to a party with a 100 people attending and the GM describes my interaction with 3 of them, I expect to be able to take notes if necessary on those three and that THAT note-taking is not the same as me flipping through the Bestiary and gaining information that my character was never exposed to. If the GM describes 7 party-attenders, I expect to be able to take notes on those 7, and that THAT note-taking not be the same as reading a Bestiary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

No.

The player can takes notes on what they think is important, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get everything that’s described or showcased. And they’ll get nothing that isn’t described.

The feats lets them tap into the latter and such.

So are we or are we not agreed that a player taking notes on the things that their character is witness to AND that they the player think is important AND that they the player directly hear from the GM (so, everything that IS described or showcased so long as they think it's important but not including anything that they the player do not hear from the GM) is not equivalent to a player having their character act on information from the Bestiary that they the player read but that their character has not yet become aware of?

Because you say "no" and then don't actually say anything that disagrees with that position.

Unless you think there is some arbitrary limit to the amount of note-taking under those parameters that can happen. If so, how much? 50%? 70%? What if the player has an eidetic memory and can retain 100% of the information directly given him by the GM with any physical notes involved? What's the threshold for "sorry, player, you're naturally remembering too much; you need to take this feat to justify all that"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.
But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.
How can your character take notes on something the GM didn't describe?
There is no "taking notes on things the GM didn't describe".
Precisely my point.

So we agree that a player can take notes on what information their character IS privy to and that they the player did get from the GM and that this note-taking, at least, is NOT the equivalent of a player looking up an entry out of the Bestiary and having their character act on that knowledge that they the character were not privy to.

I ask because that instead appears to be the equivalence you're drawing here:

Rysky wrote:
If the GM just gives said info out when you weren’t actively taking it down then it’s just the same as them giving you the Bestiary info.

and here:

Rysky wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:
To Rysky there's a difference between trying to memorizing the Bestiary stat blocks and take notes so you don't forget important campaign related topics or names. One is trying to cheat the system and the other is information I've already freely given to you.
How is it cheating if the GM freely gives them the book to read for it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.
But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.
How can your character take notes on something the GM didn't describe?

There is no "taking notes on things the GM didn't describe". There is, however, the GM describing things to you the player because your character was witness to those things and then you the player maybe taking notes on what your character witnesses or you the player maybe not taking notes on what your character witnesses. The commonality is still "your character witnesses and remembers these things"; independent of the note-taking of you the player. Just like I may be physically strong like my character is strong or I may not be physically strong unlike my character who is strong; the commonality there is "my character is strong".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Playing a 18 strength Barbarian when you're not that strong is completely different than being able to remember/realize on cue something you might have had the barest of interactions with, something the GM might not have even described at the time.

But if you the player are taking notes on what your character directly experienced, then your character definitionally had some manner of interaction with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Sin_Dark wrote:

If it's that important of a fact for my players to know I'm not gonna risk it on a random roll, if some one has a decently high Int or Wis I'll just share it with them to prevent a derailment, or if it's not that important it can be fun for the fact to pop up later.

As for the Mask Familiar thematically it's amazing. Who doesn't want a cool talking Tiki or Animal mask. Thinking Crash Bandicoot here. How ever that's all it really is, is a thematic familiar. When you take it off it still takes the form of an animal. So people who take it litterly wasted a feat so their familiar can look like a mask. That's not worth a class feat, and as a DM if someone really wanted a mask familiar I'd give it to them, but that's me.

Rysky once again your comparing it to a House rule, there is noting in the rules that says you can't take notes, it's not a house rule. Like I said I could be a bit more understanding if it was a Skill feat, but it's not.

But what if you didn’t take a note on it?

Example: You go to a party, plenty of people there, you don’t get names.

Later on you meet someone while exploring a dungeon.

“Wait a second, were they at the party?”

Basically this feat lets you catch stuff you the player might miss.

If the GM just gives said info out when you weren’t actively taking it down then it’s just the same as them giving you the Bestiary info.

What's the difference between "I the player am not particularly good at phrasing things in a persuasive manner even though my character is" and "I the player might need to take notes to remember everything my character would know, even though my character still remembers it all"? And for that matter, what if I personally am physically weak while my Barbarian character is about as strong as can be?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

So much salt from the "I want it all and I want it NOW!" crowd lately.

Seriously, if you aren't equipped/mature enough to have a conversation with your GM about what are appropriate Ancestry, Spell, and Feat options for the game you'll be playing, you're not ready to Role/Rollplay.

Spare me. The only difference between the player who wants to play an elf and can't deal with it maturely if elves aren't deemed appropriate and the player who wants to play a so-called "uncommon" race, can't, and similarly doesn't handle it maturely is that the elf player will likely never have to face that scenario and have his immaturity called out.

Themetricsystem wrote:
Are you saying that all players should by default never have to run their character options past their GM before play? I simply cannot fathom your attitude as a player if you feel entitled to play literally anything and everything ever printed at an actual game-table without communicating with the person actually running the game.

Are you suggesting that a player seeking to play an elf or a human should have precisely the same reasonable expectation of having to negotiate with the GM for his character as another player seeking a so-called "uncommon" race? Because if there's one thing I can't fathom, it's the mentality of "all fantasy races are equal, but some fantasy races are more equal than others".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Jib916 wrote:

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

When Paizo publishes a rule that a significant number of customers don't like, you will see a near endless series of threads telling them exactly that. In those threads, you will see the inevitable response of those that do like the rules, telling the original posters they're wrong.

Rise, repeat.

This is a divisive topic, and it won't go away until and unless it goes away. Which it won't.

This isn't a matter of educating those who don't like the rule. It's not a matter of educating those who do. It's like McDonald's deciding to add mushrooms on the Big Mac. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. And there will be an endless stream of feedback from those who don't, asking that the burger recipe be reverted, mixed with people saying "just pick the mushrooms off." Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's just human nature to want to express one's self.

So it is just a way to say

"Rules say they are common, so i can take it"

It is just a reason you can Pick to argue with a DM who would not let you play specific stuff.

Or else, seriously, feel free to propose a real scenario when a common/uncommon request could not be decided with a discussion between players and DM.

If you want to play an elf, do you feel like it should just be expected that you should have to negotiate for it and potentially wear out your welcome each and every time? Because I for one know that I'm not signing up for that hassle just because I have what is somehow the unmitigated gall to prefer a so-called "uncommon" race over the something in the CRB.

In a game all about the imagination, why are measures that lead to "you're thinking too far outside the box, so let's correct your bad-wrong imagination" so celebrated?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think every single ancestry to a one shouldn't have any more hoops to jump through just to play as than any other. Justifying "playing a kobold" or "playing a catfolk" should be just as difficult as justifying "playing an elf" (read: not at all). I mean, why and how does one ancestry just manufacture out of nowhere a fine print clause saying "for being interested in this ancestry rather than another, you automatically agree to an uphill battle to play your character that other players just never have to put up with, ever"?

Sometimes we're just dead tired of the only acceptable ancestries being "elf-dwarf-human-halfling" (and precious few others) time after time after time after time, as though human imagination just cannot expand beyond those few choices. I know I'm still waiting on an ancestry to see print that I might actually care about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Campbell wrote:

Here's what the Lost Omens character Guide has to say on Uncommon Ancestries:

Lost Omens Character Guide wrote:


While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.
Basically it just signifies an ancestry that might not be appropriate for every campaign and might not be part of "civilized" society. It's basically a matter of your GM making them available by default based on where the game takes place or asking your GM.

I shudder to think of the precedent this sets. When the Advanced Players Guide comes out next year with yet more races and the new classes, are those going to be uncommon too?


graystone wrote:
I'll echo what some of the others have said in this thread: the book is pretty and the lore sections are well written But this just makes the contrast that much more stark when you look at the actual rules parts: rules are either very situational or have something questionable about them. For instance seedpod sounds cool but how do you use a ranged ability that gives you no range? I will say the 'race' section seems better than the archetype one: between archetypes that seem to work against the lore, rare feats with no explanation of how you access them and ones you have to ask yourself how often it's come up and the section is much less exciting. Add to that that the 3 new 'races' are uncommon and even the majority of that section are of questionable usefulness.

How does that even work? Uncommon is supposed to require a special story justification (either background or achieved in play) to become available. But doesn't the mere fact of being a lizardfolk or whatever, just picking the race at character creation, automatically meet that requirement before it could ever possibly be an issue?

Or is the expectation that all uncommon races start out as dwarves or goblins and then somehow later transmogrify into what the player wanted to play in the first place?


Angel Hunter D wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.
That would be seriously cool.
Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.

We already know what the Swashbuckler version of that would look like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodySpecial wrote:
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.

Wands went from "that thing that eventually gets permanently exhausted (contrary to how wands work in practically ALL depictions in media)" to "something that can (if not overused) last the character's ENTIRE career and thusly be an iconic part of their equipment roster". Nothing but a step in the right direction, though maybe the number of reliable uses per day could be dialed up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Man, Hideous Laughter was always a terrifying spell to me. There was nothing funny about it at our tables, and every time it was described it was with a haunting horror to it.

There are other ways to magically disable an opponent, but forcing them to cackle uncontrollably seemed like psychological warfare on the rest of the party.

TIL that it had those silly material components.

Of course it would be terrifying. It's essentially Joker Toxin the Spell.


The Great Rinaldo! wrote:

I'm drawn to the indefinite article here:

Quote:
You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level.
If the intent was to use only spells of the exactly level, the sentence should have said "the appropriate spell level". The fact that it says "an" leads me to believe that there is more than one appropriate level for a given spell, ie the spells actual level or higher.

The rule is talking about all of the spells (with all their various levels) in your repertoire. From that, I can see the argument that "an" is in reference to the totality of your spells known rather than a particular spell.

For example, a sorcerer might know Burning Hands as a 1st-level spell (non-signature), Invisibility as a 2nd-level spell (also non-signature), and Lightning Bolt as a 3rd-level spell (also non-signature). He can cast any of those spells by using a spell slot of AN (there's that word) appropriate spell level, but that may just boil down to "3rd-level slots only for Lightning Bolt, 2nd-level (and not 3rd-level or higher) slots for Invisibility, and 1st-level (and not 2nd-, 3rd-, or higher level) slots for Burning Hands".

That's not to say it's an open-and-shut case. Certainly it's ambiguous, certainly spontaneous casters SHOULD be able to trade down higher level slots for lower level slots (or however the language needs to be cleaned up), and certainly "an" is a beacon of hope, just not a definitive one.


The Raven Black wrote:

Sweet. A little bittersweet, but yes, sweet.

Nice last panel. Let's give them some space and time.

The warrior departing from his hearth.

Completely agreed. The dialogue in the last panel was exactly what needed to be said (yes, I'm referring to both the "no words whatsoever" and the volumes spoken by Durkon's smile).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Speaking of Catfolk, is their facial look permanently finalized to be more bestial than human-like? Or do both instances exist in canon?

Both instances DID exist in canon, to the point that even a Khajiit-looking catfolk could have Thundercats-looking parents. I'm waiting to see if that remains the case in this edition.


Tender Tendrils wrote:

Or,

Do something similar to the 5e warlock - only the spells and slots between levels 1 and 5 use mana points, while 6-10th level spells and slots remain as spell slots. This means flexible casting for spells of level 1-5 and spells of level 6+ being slotted normally.

Conceptually at least, I could go for a combination of this and the floating prep slots from P1E Unchained (the variant that keeps your highest level prepped slots normal, but trades the sheer number of your lower level slots for only a few that you no longer have to prep). In this case, I would have casters have their highest level spells (maybe even five highest, the way you have it here) as slots, but after a certain point, your slots become points.

I.e., a 7th level caster would have all of his spells as slots, an 11th level caster would use slots for everything but his 1st level spells, a 15th level caster would use points for his 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells (and slots for everything above), and so on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

While it would be cool to have it, do you really have much use for detailed map without countries and borders and locations marked on it?

Like sure, you could see where mountains, rivers, deserts, etc are, but do you really have much use for it before they have all the offscreen nation borders figured out?

Also, if you checked the link, they were planning to reprint the world map from core book and not at larger size. So you would have gotten the same map either way :p

I did check the link. Before that (and reiterated by Mr. Jacobs above), it was going to be more detailed than the map in the CRB ("detailing the regions on the map", which he says would have had to come at the cost of cramping something else, because you can't just make a book with 137 pages instead of 135). So it would have been mountains, rivers, deserts, etc., AND offscreen nation borders.

And even if it wouldn't have had that, just the act of putting the names of those offscreen nations in their approximate places would have been a massive step forward. The Bestiary reveals the existence of a nation in Garund called Murraseth. Even without giving it distinct borders or a specific size, putting its name just underneath the city of Mechitar or just under Vidrian or all the way at Garund's southernmost edge is remarkably informative about who these people have relationships with and what issues in the Inner Sea region the would care about due to proximity. As opposed to:

"So you're an Amurrun?"
"Yep. From Murraseth. Nya."
"Is that way down in Garund? Where?"
*Shrugs* *Shrugs-nya*
"O... kay... Well, we've hired you because our sages are getting hints that wind surges from the Eye of Abendego are building up and threatening the Kaava lands, and possibly even further south. We believe we know how this is being accomplished, but we need you and others to corroborate our suspicions and quickly, before your own homeland is endangered. That is, unless it's on the opposite side, in which case, do it for simple altruism instead?"
"Look, I don't know if I have a vested personal interest or not. All I know is that Murraseth is in the same state as Springfield, with all the yellow-skinned humans. Nyow."

A map that left off specific borders but went far enough to put names down in approximate places avoids all that.

In any event, it would be progress towards further world-building. Even if teleporting isn't commonly available, it's still common enough that over the course of centuries or millenia, scholarly denizens in-universe would have world maps beyond the Inner Sea. Shipping and pirating most assuredly wouldn't stop at the Inner Sea just because our IRL maps do. Heck, Qadira is a major nation, but we're supposed to buy that everyone's in-universe maps stop at the little sliver of land that touches the Obari Ocean?

After ten years, I wanted to be able to finally see the world of Golarion the way denizens of Golarion can.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
That is very disappointing. A fully detailed global map was a solid 50% of my entire interest in this book. After only having the world map in the ISWG for a decade and an entire edition, I was really hoping for some forward progress on that front. Exactly what future book do they have in mind that will be as appropriate a venue for such a global map as this was? Also, "cut for space"? The whole book is only 135 pages. They easily had room for this.

It's more than a map; it's detailing the regions on the map. We didn't have the space to give it the detail it deserved without cramping something else.

And just because we didn't do anything with the world map here doesn't mean we won't do anything with it ever. We'll get to it eventually.

Ya'll were going to get to it eventually ten years ago. Ten years from now, will you still be getting to it eventually?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
We WILL finally have a detailed global map though, which I'm very excited and relieved about! :P
Me too. Heck, I'd probably buy an actual globe, if you made one.
We don't have the expertise to make globes, and I have no idea how much it would cost to make one and thus how much it would cost for a customer to buy... but the map we have now gives us an image we can use to decorate a globe with ease so this is now possible. I have an animated GIF version of said map on said globe here that I hope to some day show off.
So, I finally got my copy of LOWG today. I've thumbed through the entire thing from cover to cover and page by page. There is an Inner Sea map on page 11. There is an expanded fold-out map (still only of the Inner Sea) included with two sides, one more realistic, the other more stylized. I don't see a single "detailed global map". Was this not the book that was supposed to include it?

It was going to be included but it had to be cut for space. The map in the CRB is the only world map currently available (and this book was going to have a reprint of that one it wasn’t going to be enhanced or show greater detail or anything).

Ugh. The website isn’t linking that properly. The linked post is from James Jacobs, about halfway down the page.

That is very disappointing. A fully detailed global map was a solid 50% of my entire interest in this book. After only having the world map in the ISWG for a decade and an entire edition, I was really hoping for some forward progress on that front. Exactly what future book do they have in mind that will be as appropriate a venue for such a global map as this was? Also, "cut for space"? The whole book is only 135 pages. They easily had room for this.


James Jacobs wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
We WILL finally have a detailed global map though, which I'm very excited and relieved about! :P
Me too. Heck, I'd probably buy an actual globe, if you made one.
We don't have the expertise to make globes, and I have no idea how much it would cost to make one and thus how much it would cost for a customer to buy... but the map we have now gives us an image we can use to decorate a globe with ease so this is now possible. I have an animated GIF version of said map on said globe here that I hope to some day show off.

So, I finally got my copy of LOWG today. I've thumbed through the entire thing from cover to cover and page by page. There is an Inner Sea map on page 11. There is an expanded fold-out map (still only of the Inner Sea) included with two sides, one more realistic, the other more stylized. I don't see a single "detailed global map". Was this not the book that was supposed to include it?


Aberzombie wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
….the route of Heavy Metal Batmen...
And now I have a picture in my head of Batman playing a flamethrower guitar while riding on a platform built onto the front of the Batmobile.

They've already done that. It was the opening fight sequence in Lego Batman and it was awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.
It’s in the opening of the Spells chapter under the heading “Heightening”. What more do you want?

How about a general heightening entry like for "spells with additional benefits", but instead of "Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6" it reads "Heightened (+1) The spell level increases by 1.

Would such an entry be redundant. Yes it would. Would such an entry be helpful. Yes it would.

In every spell? It would be a colossal waste of space and word count.

The rule section on Heightening already says what you’re asking.

Reminds me of the Golden Rule of 3.P Psionics: "Thou shalt not spend more power points on a given manifestation than your manifestor level (no, not even with a Wild Surge or the Overchannel feat, since those work by first increasing your ML)". It too was clearly stated (once... somewhere) in the XPH, and because it wasn't visible enough, players often kept breaking psionics where it wasn't actually broken, just suffering from poor optics.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Can we get for once a mana point system by default??

If I recall, the answer to that will likely be a resounding "no", due to some combination of the developers thinking that that much freedom of choice leads to choice paralysis on the part of the players and them thinking that players of casters should HAVE to use a variety of spells as opposed to using whatever spell fits the situation, even if the caster has been using that spell over and over again already (a gameplay style that spell slots can impose far better than a mana point system).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Wow. Is it just me or did the sorcerer class go from being one of the more versatile spellcasting classes of 1st Edition to one of the most restricted spellcasting classes of 2nd Edition?

It's not just you. Prep casters by default have a specific load out of spells that they can change the next day. Spont casters by default can only change theirs upon retraining or when leveling up. That that is further cut down to "you can only spont cast off of a few spells known per given spell level with only the signature spells breaking out" is just salt in the wound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I have only the fact that Thor 4 had better have Beta Ray Bill and some way of fixing Mjonlir like they did in the comics from War of the Realms.
I think you may have posted in the wrong thread ...
OR just hear me out.. The star wars movies are about to get a lot more interesting.

Normally, I'd find the idea of a Star Wars/Marvel crossover appealing, but I just really don't want to see Rey pick up Mjolnir like it's nothing.

On the other hand, if Palpatine somehow used the Force to fool the hammer into thinking he was worthy...


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Whether Classes are in-world entities with names varies a lot depending on the Class, IMO.

The four types of magic (Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult) are clearly an in-world distinction, and so 'spontaneous Occult caster' or 'prepared Arcane caster' are clearly measurable and observable things in-universe, which makes Wizard a thing people can notice and talk about very directly...though the distinction between, say, a Bard and an Occult Sorcerer may be less well defined and understood.

So anyone with spells probably has a clear in-universe thing they are and can be defined to be, even if it's occasionally blurry around the edges. This includes Champions, and those Monks with spells. It also includes some kinds of Barbarians with more overtly supernatural stuff, though not the class as a whole. Alchemist also falls into this category, though in most cases as a mundane profession rather than something magical.

Non-spellcasters other than Alchemists are much less well defined in-world, though. The difference between a Rogue, a Ranger, and a Fighter is much blurrier in-universe, to the point where I doubt those are even in-world terms. Indeed, a Fighter with Wizard or Champion Multiclassing would probably be referred to in-universe as a Wizard or Champion (okay, the latter only if he gets Lay on Hands or something like that), basically ignoring his primary Class beyond noting him as unusually skilled at fighting for a Wizard.

Oh, I'll agree that type of magic/spell-list is something observable in-universe, as is spontaneous vs prepared. But as you note, one can still cast Occult spontaneously and that isn't enough to pin down their class (they can be a Sorcerer or a Bard). In the other direction, Hag, Draconic, and Angelic Sorcerers all use separate types of magic/spell-lists and those distinctions do not result in separate classes. So Mr. In-Universe still has nothing to go on besides being lucky with his guesswork.


Bandw2 wrote:

you're completely misunderstanding this, especially since i'm saying the original asker was wrong. :/

your responses weren't answering the question other than saying "well if classes are actually in a classless system, then everyone would have to be the same class", which is obviously not the way he was asking the question.

he was saying, that all barbarian's know they're "barbarians" and can identify other "barbarians", so you bringing up a classless system is a non sequitur. he tried showing how MMA, etc, know they're MMA fighters, but likewise gave no proof that MMA was a class in the same way barbarian was a class.

saying that MMA fighters could be if we were comparing it to a system where there's only 1 class (which is a classless system), then they could be. this is a non sequitur (irrelevant to the truth) of the original question, which is whether a barbarian knows he's a barbarian.

I was saying his real world analogy doesn't hold up against in-game classes, and you responded by saying, well what about other games? we're not talking about other games, we're asking with pathfinder character's intrinsically understand they have a in-game class.

I disagree that he established that as a premise, though (or more to the point, that that is establish-able as a premise by anyone). He was identifying the real-world phenomenon wherein we can identify boxers as "boxers", MMA fighters as "MMA fighters", wrestlers as "wrestlers", etc., and from that, suggesting class identities as a concept would emerge in-universe (no, not as something set forth in the question but as an in-universe concept that would be suggested and somehow confirmed as fact in-universe). I.e., Golarionians (name?) have Wizards and Clerics as things that can be identified in-universe, ergo, there must be classes and those two identifiable things must be "not the same class". This isn't something set forth as a premise in the question but answered by the question (and then, somehow, taken as something that must exist by necessity in the first place).

It doesn't hold up because Evokers and Transmuters are also things identifiable in-universe, and yet they're not separate classes. So it also does not hold that Clerics and Wizards are self-evidently separate classes. I mean, they are, and someone in-universe could guess as much, but they're only right by accident. Nothing in-universe exists to tell them that the difference between Evokers and Transmuters is not enough to have to be two separate classes, but the difference between Clerics and Wizards for some reason is. Just like there could be one "Martial" class (with boxer, MMA fighter, and wrestler, as well as rogue, fighter, ranger, and cavalier just being different paths within that overall class), OR boxer, MMA fighter, wrestler, etc., could be separate classes, OR there could be multiple "Boxer" classes (the Out-Boxer class, the Slugger class, the Swarmer class), as well as multiple MMA fighter classes, multiple wrestler classes, and on and on.

And in all of these cases, it is just guesswork that some amount of difference is enough to require a separate class while some other amount of difference somehow isn't. In-universe characters have no way of knowing. So my point of contention is that if all the rest is so subject to arbitrary distinction, why is the fact of there being more than one class such a solid and obvious fact?

To put it another way:
"Can we identify different things as different?"
"Yes," says the denizen in-universe.

"Do those differences result in different classes?"
"Sometimes," says we who exist outside (since the in-universe people have no idea).

"Is there an identifiable amount of difference that stands between a different archetype or an alternate class and a fully separate class?"
The in-universe denizen is shrugging.

"So how do you know that there even are at least two classes, Mr. In-Universe Denizen?"
"I have no idea what is telling me this, but it's an undisputable fact, so obviously we have to move forward based on that premise that just sprang out of nowhere, so stop with the Equivocation Fallacy."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.

there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.

the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.

I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.

Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?

I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.

first paragraph... what is the ACTUAL question, regardless of language. we're trying to figure out whether people in universe would KNOW who is also their class or of other classes. classes in relation to this forum are not single classes, you can assume not all people use the same class, bare minimum, as the classes cover specializations and not general abilities. for an answer to logically answer a question you must use the same definitions as the one asking the question, otherwise you're changing the goal
...

So you're telling me that I can fairly ask the question: "Under the premise that I am always right, why am I always right?" and then call "equivocation fallacy" if someone tries to address my question but does not follow from the original premise? Hard disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's other convenience issues. For example, P1E was the game where one could have the encumbrance capacity necessary to carry multiple weapons, but the game otherwise rewarded limiting yourself to one (Weapon Focus et al, the way magic enhancements are permanent and can't be switched out). Conversely, P2E otherwise seems to all but beg players to broaden their horizons and use more than one specific weapon (you cannot hyper-specialize in one weapon (at most, one category), and magic enhancements are designed to be rotated around). I think we can also look at the Monk and his various stances here. The Monk has one kind of primary attack (his unarmed strike) with a specific list of weapon traits, but he is meant to be easily able to switch to other versions of unarmed strike with other lists of weapon traits. Almost as though the P2E designers wanted players to be able to enjoy the whole list of weapon traits they put so much effort into designing and more often than once per character. But put Bulk into the mix and you are heavily punished for wanting to do what the game and the designers otherwise seem to also want you to do (that is, use more than one weapon).

Another kind of convenience: the game has dungeon-delving at its core roots. Going in, fighting monsters, and taking their loot. If the novels or the comics come back, I want to see Seoni or Valeros or Lem go into a dungeon with multiple hired hands or donkeys to carry the loot out. That is what has been suggested as the workaround that we're supposed to use to have Bulk but still be able to take loot out of a dungeon, so I want to see exemplar characters in this universe and of this game have to jump through the same logistic hoops as we the players. Otherwise, it means the iconic characters get to ignore Bulk (whereas in P1E, they could do all of these things, without obligatory beasts of burden/hired hands, and still be using weight).


Bandw2 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.

there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.

the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.

I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.

Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?

I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.

first paragraph... what is the ACTUAL question, regardless of language. we're trying to figure out whether people in universe would KNOW who is also their class or of other classes. classes in relation to this forum are not single classes, you can assume not all people use the same class, bare minimum, as the classes cover specializations and not general abilities. for an answer to logically answer a question you must use the same definitions as the one asking the question, otherwise you're changing the goal post or using equivocation.

second... i suppose...

I suppose I'm disagreeing that the questioner just gets to impose his own premise and that premise be indisputable, then. That is, if he defined "flying" wrong (as "mobility sans touching solid ground"), you can both agree that what a whale does meets the definition while disagreeing that the whale's action and the definition meet the term chosen. Otherwise, loaded questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?" would be fair to ask. If I get to dispute at the outset the premise that any wife-beating occurred in the first place, then I get to dispute at the outset the premise that "flying" must be the term used for the act of "mobility sans touching solid ground", and I get to dispute at the outset the premise that for some reason we must assume "classes" as a starting point.


Bandw2 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


"Michael Sayre wrote:


Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.
But we do call boxers.."boxers." We use a label that provides a category of information. People who know martial arts would have more distinctions, boxer, MMA, Kickboxer, WWA, etc.
sure and why do you assume they're all the same class?
Or in reverse, why assume that they're different classes? Say you have a game universe expressed in two different mechanical ways, one with several classes (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Druid, etc.) and one where every single character is the same class ("Adventurer"), with distinctions entering into the game through choices of class features or build points or what-have-you inside that class. Both versions still express the same information to characters in-universe, that there is a distinction between ability sets. But those distinguishable ability sets do not necessitate different classes (any more than Cloistered Clerics and Warpriest Clerics need to be different classes).

that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.

there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.

the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.

I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.

Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?

I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


"Michael Sayre wrote:


Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.
But we do call boxers.."boxers." We use a label that provides a category of information. People who know martial arts would have more distinctions, boxer, MMA, Kickboxer, WWA, etc.
sure and why do you assume they're all the same class?

Or in reverse, why assume that they're different classes? Say you have a game universe expressed in two different mechanical ways, one with several classes (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Druid, etc.) and one where every single character is the same class ("Adventurer"), with distinctions entering into the game through choices of class features or build points or what-have-you inside that class. Both versions still express the same information to characters in-universe, that there is a distinction between ability sets. But those distinguishable ability sets do not necessitate different classes (any more than Cloistered Clerics and Warpriest Clerics need to be different classes).


Igor Horvat wrote:
JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?

There is no differentiation whatsoever based on character size. Small characters can use every single weapon a medium character can use (they use smaller weapons that just so happen to achieve the same damage/reach, or they use the same weapons and just never have an issue with how wide the grip is, or weapons in P2E just magically resize themselves (even if not magical) to make it all make more visual sense).


Well, if Star Wars and Star Trek have taught me anything about maintaining a continuity without consistent momentum, this film will be dead on arrival.


Oh, boo! He's finally in the hands of good writers. Don't take that away!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Tectorman wrote:


Where does it say that Explorer's clothes don't allow talismans? Furthermore, would it even matter (i.e., can't you just have Explorer's clothes with all the runes, and then buy the cheapest Bracers of Armor, just to let them house your talismans)?
Well, it specifically notes that Explorer's Clothes aren't armour. Talismans note "affixed to armour".

I don't think that's the whole story.

Look at what the section on Runes says. It makes no mention of "runes can be etched onto armor and also Explorer's clothes" or even "fundamental runes can be etched onto armor and also Explorer's clothes". And then look at the description for Explorer's clothes. It doesn't say "despite not being armor, Explorer's clothes can be etched with armor runes" or even just armor fundamental runes.

The specific text is "it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes". So either we take that to mean that Explorer's clothes can only receive one kind of upgrade (armor potency runes) and that's it (no talismans, no property runes, not even Resilient fundamental runes).

Or we accept that Explorer's clothes ARE supposed to qualify as armor for the purposes of being upgradeable. And if they are implicitly allowed to have Resilient fundamental runes and armor property runes, why would they not also implicitly be allowed to have talismans?

In the latter case, the text "though it's not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency" would only apply to what it does without taking the upgrades into account (not inherently provide a bonus to AC on its own and fall under the unarmored category, rather than light, medium, or heavy).


Cyouni wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

It's going to be very, very difficult to have more than a +5 DEX mod without magical assistance. I'm curious how you can get there before level 20.

For all intents and purposes, having a cap at +5 DEX is the same as saying there is no max dex cap.

That's not actually true - Crane Stance can use 24 Dex perfectly well at level 20, and hits 22 at around level 17 if fully invested.

I'd probably say Dex cap is intended. Explanatory text has proven to have some errors - see the focus pool one for another example.

From my understanding of bracers, it lets you use talismans, but not property runes. However, the explorer's clothes let you use property runes, but not talismans. That's the value difference between them, making it a choice as to which is valuable to you.

Where does it say that Explorer's clothes don't allow talismans? Furthermore, would it even matter (i.e., can't you just have Explorer's clothes with all the runes, and then buy the cheapest Bracers of Armor, just to let them house your talismans)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Claxon wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I find that "what I want to RP" usually keeps people away from TN. It is a very-specific choice, and probably the most difficult alignment to do justice to.

Really?

I find true neutral is probably the easiest alignment to be. Everything else requires a commitment to some sort of ideology. True neutral basically is just "I'm just gonna do whatever" lacking a commitment to do good, or evil, or law, or chaos.

Yep. For me, if I'm TN I can just do what I think my character would do without having to give a second thought to the alignment mechanic. You start having other alignments and you start running into things that make sense for the character to do that don't match with your alignment since no multifaceted character is monolithic enough in their thinking to be meaningfully captured in a 9 point alignment grid.

PS:
Neutrality
Neutrality
Neutrality
Neutrality

Completely agreed. I find that TN is the easiest way to duck out from under alignment and otherwise get to playing the game itself, by simple virtue of being broad enough that practically every other alignment can fit into it and still be passed off as "within the standard expected variation of TN".

I've only played a few characters that I would characterize as
TN/
what I think the book means by TN/
what I think the GM means by TN/
what I think the GM thinks the book means by TN,
but I label them all as TN. Why? Because if I play what I would call NG (according to someone's definition) and LABEL it NG, then that is me inviting a whole buttload of unwanted and unwarranted scrutiny. But if I play that NG character as a NG character but LABEL it TN, then nothing changes as far as the gameplay goes, but the scrutiny pretty much disappears. Because it's all within the standard expected deviation.

So certain Divine spell list Sorcerers can't use some of their focus spells because of alignment? Sounds like as good an argument as any that alignment, if it has to exist at all, shouldn't have any game mechanics attached to it (no, not even one).

And TN characters are safest from alignment-based effects (and can even use them against other characters)? Engaging with the alignment system as minimally as possible is rewarded? That's called justice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It should be noted that the paradigm of "your backup weapons not having the runes (and therefore, the expected accuracy and damage output) of your primary weapon" is only an artifact of the default system. The GMG is supposed to have alternate rules, including an automatic bonus progression. Presumably, under such a system, ALL of your expected accuracy and damage comes from you, not the runes on one specific weapon. So, that 19th level Fighter class feature would be more worthwhile in such a ruleset.


I would break the whole list of equipment proficiencies down twofold: what you're proficient in (which weapons and which types of armor), and how proficient you are (this being a class derived mechanism). And then have the general feats for armor and weapon proficiency simply add their equipment onto those class lists.

Spoiler:
Advanced weapons might carry a provision saying that class-granted proficiency in them can be a minimum of trained, but must otherwise remain one proficiency step behind. I'm still iffy about where they're broadly supposed to be in terms of expected proficiency.)

So, a Cleric starts out with trained in simple, unarmed, and their deity's favored weapon, as well as unarmored. At 7th or 11th level (depending on doctrine) your weapon proficiency goes up to Expert, and at 13th level, your armor proficiency goes up to Expert. If you're a Warpriest or have otherwise added light and medium armors to your list of armor proficiencies (or even heavy armor), then they automatically go to Expert at 13th, too (meaning that a Cloistered Cleric who took Armor Proficiency in light armor as a general feat has it go up at 13th, just like what a Warpriest in light armor would be doing). This also means that every weapon you're proficient with goes up to Expert, not just your deity's favored weapon. Adding any weapon via any means to your list of weapon proficiencies means they go up at 7th or 11th level as well.

In the case of a Rogue, it would mean that their Weapon Tricks and Master Tricks class features (the ones that increase their weapon proficiencies) would innately improve their use of simple weapons, rapiers, saps, shortbows, and shortswords due to those weapons being on their list of class-granted weapons, not because those class features specifically call them out. Meaning that a Rogue's unarmed attacks also go up to Master at 13th. And meaning that a Rogue that went out of their way to take Weapon Proficiency to use a greatsword is swinging it at Master proficiency, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's basically what Mark said on Arcane Mark tonight: the ways to get non-standard proficiencies in weapons/armor should involve a lot more interesting character expression than "taking a general feat."

General feats are the least interesting way to give anyone anything. Sohei is a much more interesting thing to attach to my "armor monk" than "I kept taking that armor feat."

That is disappointing.

How interesting this or that general feat is should be irrelevant to whether picking it and paying a feat slot for a benefit allows you to gain said benefit and without a hidden cutoff date. That's... just simple transactional honesty.

Also, this is a design philosophy that seems dependant on heaping more baggage on the player, rather than less. We don't want to have to multiclass Champion just for armor, we didn't want to have to have our characters be female just to qualify for Gray Maiden in the playtest, and trading RP baggage for other RP baggage isn't an improvement.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What I want to know is why there aren't more threads in the opposite direction. If casters getting the same Expert proficiency in the weapons or armor they spent a feat or two for that they already have in their class-granted weapons or armor is such a dire infringement of what the martial classes are supposed to be about, then why aren't there more threads about how broken the early part of the game is? Why aren't there threads about how pointless it is to play a martial prior to high level, where they finally get to stretch their class-granted proficiencies further than casters can keep up (but only with the weapons and armor that the casters spent feats on; the weapons and armor that casters get as a part of their class apparently don't infringe on martial territory... somehow)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Just for any simple weapon in general, rather than crossbows in particular, they are not going to be as powerful as a martial weapon. If they were, what's the point of having simple and martial weapons as a distinguishing feature between characters? When comparing them to bows, as in the OP, they are supposed to be weaker on the net; they are a category down.
To me, that sounds like a very good argument against the existence of a simple/martial distinction, since without it, the two weapons could be as mechanically equivalent as a player would be conceiving them to be.

That doesn't really follow. You can make a simple weapon with feat investment equal to a martial weapon with feat investment, you just need to balance the feats right.

If crossbows are normally a 4 and shortbows an 8, a crossbow ranger feat can raise that by 6 while a shortbow feat can raise it by 2. Both wind up with a result of 10, while still leaving the baseline simple weapon a worse option for non-martials to have access to.

No, you're not following me.

Starting with the premises that weapons must be divided into simple and martial weapons, that simple weapons have to be worse than martial weapons, and that crossbows have to be the former while bows are the latter, your conclusion does indeed logically follow.

I'm disputing the premises in the first place. Who says weapons needed to be so categorized? Prior to the game introducing this expectation, the player is thinking of both choices as equivalent (i.e., crossbows AND shortbows are normally an 8 and taking a feat raises them to a 10). "Crossbows are a 4 and shortbows are an 8" is a complication the game insists on.

To put it another way, glaives are not categorized as "martial" (and therefore 8) while longswords are categorized as "martial-plus" (so, 10). They are distinct from each other without being required to be in separate categories of effectiveness. Crossbows and bows could also have been so distinguished (that is, without requiring weapons to be categorized as simple versus martial). As is, the simple/martial distinction reminds me of this sign, existing just to insist on itself.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Just for any simple weapon in general, rather than crossbows in particular, they are not going to be as powerful as a martial weapon. If they were, what's the point of having simple and martial weapons as a distinguishing feature between characters? When comparing them to bows, as in the OP, they are supposed to be weaker on the net; they are a category down.

To me, that sounds like a very good argument against the existence of a simple/martial distinction, since without it, the two weapons could be as mechanically equivalent as a player would be conceiving them to be.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
One effect is that they're not common knowledge. For example, the Recognize Spell feat lets you use your reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast, and if the spell is a common spell of 2nd level or lower you automatically succeed. Since focus spells aren't common, they can still fail at recognizing them (and the DC is probably a little higher).

This. The "uncommon" designation does two things: it designates options that are not automatically available for selection (which so far doesn't seem to apply to any focus spells, since they become available through class feats and all such class feats are common), and it designates how commonly familiar such elements are within the fiction of the game (this is what "uncommon" is referring to in the case of focus spells).

And if some future product were to release an uncommon class feat that grants an uncommon focus spell, then that is when "uncommon" would mean both.

1 to 50 of 1,238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>