Tectorman's page

Welp, time to break out the kazoo again: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tm_WYRkZvYk

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm so happy to have alignment gone.

For my thoughts on alignment, I quote another movie: "Nuke the entire site alignment from orbit--it's the only way to be sure"

1. Purge it with fire and brimstone.

Nothing less than Total Existence Failure will do.

Outside of PFS if a GM would not let you play a Centaur cause they’re Uncommon they probably weren’t going to let you play a Centaur even without Rarity.

"Probably" still leaves room open for GMs who would otherwise be perfectly fine with allowing uncommon or rare ancestries deciding not to allow it because of the rarity. I'm glad for all the players not fussed over this. For some of us, it's still a roadblock that takes away from fully enjoying the game.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Tarrasque is based on a French monster

Actually, It'd be kind of cool to get a Tarrasque based off that one: a lion-like head, a body protected by turtle-like carapace(s), six feet with bear-like claws, and a scaly tail like a serpent's tail that was long and ringed and looked considerably like that of the scorpion, and issued poison breath. "A huge dragon, half animal, half fish... fatter than a bull, longer than a horse, it had the face and head of a lion, teeth sharp as swords, the mane of a horse, a back that was hatchet-sharp with bristly scales keen as augers, six feet with bear-like claws, the tail of a serpent, and a double shield/carapace, like a tortoise's, on each side."

So, Aang learned Spirit-Bending from a Tarrasque?

No more alignment? At long freaking last!!! Huzzah and hurray!!! Finally, it's being taken out behind the woodshed and given the "Old Yeller" treatment it deserves!

And hey, even if they don't fully pull the trigger on nixing the hateful thing, it's still a step in the right direction. Much kudos and accolades to whoever is responsible for this.

Seriously, put in a page saying "No more alignment!", get whoever the person or team responsible to sign the page, and release it as a special edition. You will make millions. It will dwarf the selling of months worth of materials in a matter of weeks.

...

One thing I'm wondering is whether the additional ancestries in the two Player Core books will stay uncommon or worse, or if Paizo will be nixing that with this new updated format. As in, will players who bought Player Core 2 (or even Player Core 1, since it has two more ancestries than 2E started with) with the reasonable expectation that they can play as the things advertised on the back of the book? And I mean without needing to negotiate, bribe, cajole, catch the GM on a good day, etc (at least no more needing to negotiate for a catfolk or an orc than an elf or a human).

Apparently I didn't make it clear, but the idea is that the runewords last until your next daily prep and you don't expend them when you activate them. When you write your runewords for the day you are selecting which magical effects you have and where they will come from, similar to a prepared caster working with cantrips.

So, the 3.5 Binder? He summons and binds his vestiges at the beginning of the day, and he can only bind so many at a time, but while they're bound, the abilities they grant him are mostly inexhaustible (a few have per-day abilities, others had 5-round recharge times, but most were "you do this all day long").

Like that, but with rune-based fluff?

I always feel like superhero shows like this would work so much better if the writers team consisted of at least 1 actual comic book writer, 1 gamer, and 1 five year old. The 5 year old will find any plot loophole the others overlook.

Evil Overlord Rule #12: One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

Lore does not state what a class does.

There were already Priests in PF1 that were not Clerics, and PF2 NPCs have titles that have little to do with existing classes.

A spear fighter does not have to be a Swashbuckler. Just ask all the Barbarians, Champions and Fighters who already fight with polearms.

But lore and mechanics do go hand in hand on the broader level. If a game has a game mechanic, especially one gated behind worshipping one of the setting's deities, then it exists in some form in the world's lore. In like and equal fashion, something existing in the world's lore may not have its corresponding mechanics under the same name or format, but it exists* in some way (those P1E Priests weren't Clerics but they were SOMETHING; they didn't just exist in the game as uninteractable collections of "hp error 404 not found").

*

All of this to dispute the notion that "flashy polearm warrior" isn't a concept that needs to be expressed or even exist.

You even agree with me when you suggest that fans of the concept should just settle for Barbarians, Champions, and Fighters, which is not the same thing as saying "you shouldn't even look for a means to express that concept and just have your polearm warrior be not-flashy like God intended".

And yes, that is technically true. And it's just as true to say that players who want a Barbarian should have just settled for Fighter. That players who wanted a Champion should have just settled for a Fighter with a Cleric dedication.

Happily, they didn't get invalidated. We're not all so lucky.

Tectorman wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.

I would be extremely wary of allowing a PF1 feat in PF2. They are totally different rules system.

I brought up the P1E feat as an example of that design space (a swashbuckler with a polearm) having already been expressed in this world. Of course the P2E expression of that concept would be different, so long as the concept itself still gets to be expressed.

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.

aobst128 wrote:

I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.

I don't think there is any need for clarification. The Core Rulebook does not specify that you can do this, so you can't. The fact that it was possible in an older edition of the game has no bearing on the issue.

Not just an older edition of the game, but almost all of them in recent memory (3rd, 3.5, P1E, Starfinder, and 5E), but that's beside the point. It's allowed or not allowed based on hyper-specific parsings of such phrases as "a slot of AN appropriate level" (rather than "of THE appropriate level"). Also, some spells gain no benefit from being heightened other than being more difficult to counteract and so forth. BUT, a spell is heightened based on the spell slot used to fuel it, rather than what level you know it at. So either there needs to be such language as "you can lower a higher spell slot for a lower level slot, which you can then use for your lower level spell", or it becomes possible to circumvent your cap on signature spells known (but this only becomes apparent via a roundabout reading of the rules). And a clear rule wouldn't need this much interpretation to figure out how it's supposed to go, in either direction.

So I disagree that this didn't need clarification; especially since I and others were asking about this since Day One.

Also we have this, which might (but, granted, due to not being specific enough, might not) be asking the same question that Jason Bulmahn is answering in the affirmative (with a very short answer that doesn't ensure that his response to that question is applicable to this one, even though it might be). Hence why I asked about an UNambiguous clarification.

But thanks everyone for letting me know. I asked because of this thread, where it was suggested that Dark Archives might be an opportunity to refine/clarify Recall Knowledge. I was initially going to lament that Paizo had such an opportunity with SoM and passed on it, but I knew I didn't know for sure whether SoM had clarified if you could spend a higher level slot on a non-signature lower level spell. And now I do, even though I remain disappointed that this hasn't been addressed yet, years later (unambiguously anyway, wish though I do that we could just go with Jason's reddit post).

I've skimmed Secrets of Magic, but I haven't had the chance to read through it in-depth. Did this book include a clear, unambiguous answer as to whether you can use a higher-level spell slot for a lower-level spell when you're casting spontaneously? And I don't mean heightening spells or signature spells; I'm talking about being in the situation where you need to use a low-level spell (say, 1st-level Feather Fall) that you DON'T know as a signature spell and you are (for whatever reason) out of 1st-level slots and you still have plenty of higher level slots.

I think I am more pumped for this than anything else in Phase 4.

Now all we need is a What The--?! series. ;)

Drax: "I've got a better suggestion: a "Why The--?!" series!

Verdyn wrote:

Rules balance aside, shouldn't the stronger, more dexterous, smarter, ect. person always just be better than the equally skilled person when using that skill? How do you logically square the circle and suspend your disbelief when something like this comes up?

Well, it doesn't make sense. But does that matter? The question was "is assurance bad" (and by extension "what uses are there for it") not "does assurance make sense".

It matters if it not making sense is the reason why it's considered bad.

Not to mention balancing a one-action activity around a fixed number that you can scale is just insane and completely against the design philosophy.

Like... Okay, you can use your ability modifier with Assurance. Now it's a must have ability and it's getting used for everything.

Or, perhaps as Tectorman suggested, you lower the "base" to something like 6. Well now Assurance is only for people who fully invest in the ability score and at higher levels it returns to being so good that it's a must-take feat again.

This isn't Taking 10 or Taking 20 from PF1, as they were for activities that took a long amount of time and represented attempting everything. Assurance is doing the activity the same way as always, in a practiced, rote manner.

Firstly, Taking 20 is what you meant; it's the mechanic that represents making attempt after attempt until you succeed. Taking 10 is not the same thing, it's one attempt just like a rolled check is, except you take the average of what would be your luck component (the rolled d20). You trade not being able to uber-succeed for the benefit of not failing abysmally.

Second, your criticism in the third paragraph is, in fact, fair, and something we can talk about. Maybe make it "Take 10" for characters without an ability mod and "Take some lesser number" for other characters, BUT ALSO adding in some other benefit. Arrange it to NOT break the math but still acknowledge that one character has more invested into the skill (whether he pumped up his ability mod exclusively for the skill or not is irrelevant; he did pump up his ability modifier and this skill is one of the things it applies to). Off the top of my head: "A number of times per day equal to the ability mod in question, you may apply a +1 to your Assurance result with this skill."

Just some damned thing so no one gets screwed over.

Let me put it this way:

Say a longsword costs 10 sp.

That is 10% of the total wealth of a player character with 100 sp, and it's 0.5% of the total wealth of a player character with 2000 sp.

And regardless of which player is buying it, it better cost 10 sp, never mind whether it's a larger or smaller chunk out of the buying player character's budget (or someone is getting screwed in this deal).

Tectorman wrote:

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

What is the point of comparing something that provides bonuses to something that negates having to roll? They don't do the same thing.

A player with an ability modifier and a player without an ability modifier are both conveyed the same exact benefit of not having to make the check. It's not "dishonest," it's not the player with the modifier "getting fleeced."

No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.

Contrastly,

Tectorman wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.

Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.

Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.

Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?

Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.

"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."

So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.

Right?

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

Toughness provides a lower relative benefit the higher your class HP and Con is. If you're a level 15 Barbarian with 20 Con, it provides a 5% HP increase, whereas a Wizard with 10 Con gets a 13% HP increase.

So by this line of logic, Toughness is a trap for anyone with higher base HP. That Barbarian isn't getting equal value to the Wizard, and is "getting fleeced".

Toughness gives you your level in hp. It does this if you have no Con mod whatsoever, it does this if you have some Con mod, and it does this if you sank an ability score increase into Con at every opportunity.

The Wizard gets his level in hp, regardless of class-granted hp or Con mod. The Barbarian definitely has more of the former and probably more of that latter, and yet, he still gets his level in hp. THAT is "not getting fleeced".

Tectorman wrote:

And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.

Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.

Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.

Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?

Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.

"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."

So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.

Right?

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

Definitely gotta agree with Darksol here. Assurance is definitely one of the more "feels bad" things in the game. You spend a feat for what was "Take 10" previously, except no ability modifier. So a +4 Str mod Barbarian with Expert in Athletics and a +0 Str mod Rogue with Expert in Athletics get the same outcome with Assurance. I.e., the Rogue spends a whole feat on "Take 10", while the Barbarian, spending the same amount (one feat), only gets "Take 6". What is that, besides the Barbarian getting fleeced?

And even the whole "but you also get to ignore penalties" doesn't make it any better. If you have a modifer to a skill you have Assurance for, then you ALWAYS pay the price of not getting that modifier. You will not, however, always be facing a penalty you then get to ignore. And frankly, it feels dishonest that you could, even on a theoretical basis, get slapped with every single penalty in the game and ignore it on what feels like a technicality. Like drown-healing from 3.5; yes, Assurance doing all of that is in the rules, and may even be intentional (unlike drown-healing), but it still feels cheesy as heck.

I'd have much rather they left all the mods and all the penalties in there, and just had Assurance switch a rolled d20 for a static 10.

OCD appears to not be one of the attributes Paizo is respectful of.

Yet.

Now that it's mentioned, I imagine this sort of silliness will cease. I should've mentioned it a decade ago, when Rise of the Runelords ended and AP 7 was released, with a black spine instead of white.

I've been known to give away various books and import foreign printings to get matching artwork styles. I grudgingly accept when change happens, but I can't stand "the UK printing still has the old style and the North American printing has a newer cover style that matches bloody nothing."

I doubt they'll do anything. Do you remember the novel line? They started out in mass market paperback, but switched to trade paperback about two-thirds of the way through. Making my bookshelf look awful.

Unicore wrote:

What I do want to get better at myself, is making it more clear to the players that if they do hoard it and sell it off eventually, they are not going to end up with more wealth than if they used the consumable in play.

For myself, that wouldn't be a game I'd enjoy: if a person that thoughtfully manages their resources ends up with the exact same wealth as someone that always blows through their money by making it rain consumables, it seems quite unfair to keep tossing free money to one and not the other.

This is where I'm at, too. If I blow all of my Focus points, I don't expect to run across a MacGuffin item or weird environmental effect that just fills me all the way to full; I expect to have to use my class's "recharge more than one Focus point" feats, or make do with not having taken said feats. And I would not look favorably on being responsible and frugal with my Focus point expenditures while a fellow player splurges all of his Focus points and gets them back (unless of course, he used a feat on being able to do that).

Ditto spells, but even more so.

So why would I expect wealth to fall out of the sky when it otherwise wouldn't have, just because I went out of my way to spend more, when that's not how it works with spells or Focus points?

To be clear, this is also why I look unfavorably on the automatic fire mechanic for weapons in Starfinder (expend ALL of your weapon's remaining ammo, no matter how much it is) and the mechanic for spending ALL your hero points to avoid death in P2E. I.e., avoiding death costs only 1 hero point just like a reroll IF you've connived to have spent all but 1 of your hero points beforehand.

Definitely a "feels bad" mechanic that I don't want to be engaging in or validating. One that doesn't apply to other resources in the game (Focus, spells), and that I'd hate to see implemented with wealth.

Or Sturdy Shield is the magic item for those who want to use shield block and the other magic shields are for all the other shield users.

Considering that every shield in the playtest could be competently used to block whether Sturdy or not, I'd have to call that an accidental artifact of the final draft of the rules over anything intentional.

Albatoonoe wrote:

I think the monk, rogue, Swashbuckler, and Investigator could use a feat that lets them use their abilities with more weapons. I think something like this would be a bit more useful than having a new weapon trait.

Yes and no. I think it would be nice to have more options, but they generally shouldn't be able to use their abilities with weapons dealing a lot of damage. For example, the rogue is balanced around sneak attack adding 1d6 at low levels, and increasing by 1d6 at levels 5, 11, and 17 (which is generally around the same time as Striking weapons come online, give or take a level or two). So the fighter gets to deal d8, d10 or d12 damage with heavy weapons, while the rogue gets 2d6 or d4+d6. Letting the rogue go up to d8+d6, d10+d6 or d12+d6 would be out of line.

But letting the rogue get added proficiency to use agile/finesse martial weapons with full proficiency? Yeah, I can get behind that. Possibly add a qualifier about one-handed weapons as well, to prevent them from using elven curve blades and spiked chains.

Alternatively, let Rogues use class feats and features with everything and qualify the extra damage of Sneak Attack based on the weapon used. +1d6 (or more at higher levels) with all the currently allowed weapons, and +1 (going up to eventually +4) with everything using a higher base damage die. Or something in between (call it a d2).

Too much damage is a valid concern, but "no coloring outside the lines" is not how to address that.

Tectorman wrote:

I miss the good old days of 3.5/P1E, where you were at most one proficiency feat away from being able to use any weapon you thought looked cool for a Rogue. Then 4E made it only Light or Ranged weapons, and 5E, SF, and P2E had to follow that same unfortunate trend,

The weapon proficiency feat really should make your training with the weapon scale with your class based progression.

While I completely agree, I was more getting at the whole "sure, you're... allowed... to use a feat to become proficient with, say, a glaive or a greatsword, but you're still not allowed to sneak attack with it (or use various other class feats or features). Maybe that'll teach you not to color outside the lines".

I miss the good old days of 3.5/P1E, where you were at most one proficiency feat away from being able to use any weapon you thought looked cool for a Rogue. Then 4E made it only Light or Ranged weapons, and 5E, SF, and P2E had to follow that same unfortunate trend,

Is is really so difficult to imagine that 1 form 5 is less complex than 10 from 89, or 6 from 18 being less than 145 from 240, even when the figures are in front of you? Or that doing those same calculations on the fly 4 or 5 times a round is different than having to even remember what the rules and capacities are for the rare moments when you do need to use them?

No. But it IS really so difficult to imagine how 29 lbs added to 138 lbs is more complex than 29 hp added to 138 hp. Would it be better if I said "pretend the pounds are hit points first"? Is that extra step sufficient for a person to go from "How do I even do this?" to "167, easy!"?

And yes! One calculation towards the beginning of play IS different than doing multiple such calculations on the fly 4 of 5 times a round. By being done far less often (so, easier), not being done on the fly (so, easier), or multiple times in quick succession (so, easier).

Tectorman wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Ubertron_X wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Graystone, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to listen or, frankly, believe anything you're being told. You may as well stop asking me anything.

Believe it or not I would have asked the same question but he was faster. Where is the difference subtracting the hit for 29 damage from your 121 HP or taking your 10lb rope out of your 89lb backpack?

That, nothing. Like I said, the problems of additional and subtraction don't start arriving until you start adding and subtracting triple digits, like when you're dragging something or figuring out how much capacity your new strength score gives you, and how that alters other statistics.

1 bulk from 5 is still easier than 10 from 89 though, even if both are well within people's capabiltiies.

How often are you adding or subtracting triple digits with weight, though? When you have to drag or carry someone? Which is how often?

And even if it's above some subjective value of "often enough", that's still not some onerous calculation or even a calculation at all (at least, not one that has to be done in the moment).

When you're figuring out your weight encumbrance (waaayyy back at character creation of the beginning of the adventure), figure out your max, what you're carrying, and what you have left over. I.e., I can carry 240 total, I'm currently carrying 95, so I have 145 left.

Now it's the middle of combat and I have to carry someone. They're 138 total.

138. 145. Which one is bigger?

That's not a calculation; it's just a comparison. You do more calculating with your hit points on a vastly far more regular basis. Even at 1st level.

Where did the 145 come from though? Are you able to glance at your sheet and get that? Because most people can't.

I got it at the beginning (at character creation/start of the adventure). I took my total carry value, figured out how much I'm carrying so far, subtracted one from the other, and got 145. Then I wrote all three on my sheet.

So now that it's an encounter and I'm in the rare circumstance where I care about triple-digit values, I literally can glance at my sheet and get that (actually, I probably could either way, so it's more accurate to say that literally anyone else could, too).

Ubertron_X wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Graystone, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to listen or, frankly, believe anything you're being told. You may as well stop asking me anything.

Believe it or not I would have asked the same question but he was faster. Where is the difference subtracting the hit for 29 damage from your 121 HP or taking your 10lb rope out of your 89lb backpack?

That, nothing. Like I said, the problems of additional and subtraction don't start arriving until you start adding and subtracting triple digits, like when you're dragging something or figuring out how much capacity your new strength score gives you, and how that alters other statistics.

1 bulk from 5 is still easier than 10 from 89 though, even if both are well within people's capabiltiies.

How often are you adding or subtracting triple digits with weight, though? When you have to drag or carry someone? Which is how often?

And even if it's above some subjective value of "often enough", that's still not some onerous calculation or even a calculation at all (at least, not one that has to be done in the moment).

When you're figuring out your weight encumbrance (waaayyy back at character creation of the beginning of the adventure), figure out your max, what you're carrying, and what you have left over. I.e., I can carry 240 total, I'm currently carrying 95, so I have 145 left.

Now it's the middle of combat and I have to carry someone. They're 138 total.

138. 145. Which one is bigger?

That's not a calculation; it's just a comparison. You do more calculating with your hit points on a vastly far more regular basis. Even at 1st level.

What's the difference between the simple addition and subtraction that goes into tracking hit point totals (something that occurs often and regularly in an encounter) and the same addition and subtraction behind tracking weight (which is much less dynamic)? Why didn't the game go to damage expressed as "2 wounds, 1 wound, 1 light wound (10 of which become a wound, but with absolutely no gradiation between a light wound and wound (i.e., swords can deal 1 wound, 2 wounds, 3 wounds and so on, but a dagger can either deal a light wound or a wound, no in-between)), and negligible wounds"?

To clarify my point above, this is an issue about whether the thought on play is mostly during character generation and advancement or in play. D&D3 (and presumably PF1e) leaned into the first; PF2e leans into the second.

You can see the same dynamic in card games. A game like Yugioh is all about the pre-game, where you collect cards, build various decks, work out strategies to achieve win conditions or interfere with your various opponents, all before sitting down to play. Conversely, a game like Ascension starts every player with the exact same 10 cards, and as the players react to the various monsters, heroes, and constructs that pop up in the center row, their decks get built as the game progresses.

Tectorman wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").

Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.

I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.

They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).

I mean, the playtest isn't the place for this. But I'm not giving my opinion on what the rarity tag is, I'm explaining how it is being applied and used in the system. If you have an issue with that, I'd probably get a separate thread for that (which could be G&G playtest related if you like).

Of course it is. We're supposed to playtest everything as presented. One of the things being presented is the rarity tag newly being applied to classes where it previously wasn't. If we assume that all cases of "I'd like to play a gunslinger" result in "okay, go ahead and play a gunslinger", then that's ignoring the alternative result of "No, you can't, they're uncommon". That's tailoring and cherry-picking the data, and it's dishonest.

Therefore, playtest feedback of "couldn't do any playtesting whatsoever of either the gunslinger or the inventor due to the rarity tag getting in the way; maybe next time, don't have a rarity tag on a class" is not just valid, it's necessary.

Tectorman wrote:

Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").

Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.

I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.

They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).

Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").

Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.

Tectorman wrote:

I just want to know why they went so far as to have Chris Pint in the movie, and visiting the Smithsonian, and the Air and Space Museum...

...and didn't have Captain Kirk checking out the model of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Come on, movie! This was handed to you on a silver platter!

Depends on the relationship between Paramount & Warner.

Still wouldn't be an issue.

"Oh, hey, what's that?"
"That? Oh, it's a spaceship from a science fiction show that was really influential a couple of decades ago. No one's built it for real."
"Huh? Shame, I could see myself in charge ov something like that."

Legal deniability established, and we would all know what they're alluding to.

I just want to know why they went so far as to have Chris Pint in the movie, and visiting the Smithsonian, and the Air and Space Museum...

...and didn't have Captain Kirk checking out the model of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Come on, movie! This was handed to you on a silver platter!

There's also the question of whether the teleport wards lead to the same false dungeon each time or to one out of a rotating set.

Also, I'm wondering (though it's probably unlikely) if every single entrance in the side of the cliff leads to the same true dungeon (i.e., Roy & Co. go deeper, look back after a while, and see dozens of tunnels join up with their's).

The Raven Black wrote:

SandersonTavares wrote:

If Spontaneous casters can use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, that is NOT a signature spell and that they DO NOT know at the higher level, but without gaining any heightening benefits.

From the Sorcerer class :

"You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level."

So, no you cannot use 2nd-level spell slots to cast 1st-level spells.

I know we've had other "DEV SAID THIS" comments, but I want to point out two things:

- Appropriate does not mean "the same", appropriate simply means "allowed" so the above text doesn't disqualify below level spells so I dont think the quoted text disqualifies it as simply as you make it out

- Jason actually commented on a Reddit thread that Downcasting was legal (and I'd wager most GM's, myself included, would allow Downcasting).

The argument against downcasting is silly anyways, since it's an arbitrary restriction for Spontaneous casters that non-Spontaneous casters don't even have to deal with.

** spoiler omitted **

"An appropriate" CAN be read in a way that allows downcasting, but since it also CAN be read in a way that disallows it, it's not definitive and needs an unambiguous determination. Also, I've read Jason's comment on the reddit thread and (besides the fact that it's not on this website or in an errata or FAQ here) IMO, it doesn't qualify as unambiguous, simply due to how abbreviated it is. We can make assumptions (read: engage in wishful thinking) about how Jason interpreted what the question was asking (and that he was giving the okay on downcasting), but as long as it's at all possible that he interpreted it differently, then it's not good enough.

We need a clear and unambiguous answer to this and we've needed it since this edition launched.

The 80's would like to say hello. A land before time, Dragon slayer, Indiana Jones and the temple of doom, The never ending story, Poltergeist, etc. We used to have very dark stories involving children and teens as main characters or sidekicks.

The 90's also wants to chime in with Goosebumps, Ghostwriter (yes, seriously, those kids had more than a few "adult fear" situations), and topping them all, the Animorphs.

Caralene wrote:

I've seen this mindset consistently grow bigger in the community and I find it very concerning.

Having to take risky and meaningful decisions in an RPG is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I love the high risk high reward feel of deciding its worth risking destroying a shield to block the damage that could otherwise down me.

Oh no one disagrees with you.

The problem is the degree of risk. How much money are you willing to risk in order to save yourself 6-8 damage?

Or in the case of Encumbrance rules, you should feel the pressure to decide what's most important to carry around when you're trying to haul out the entire contents of a dungeon raid, just not before you even go in.

Tectorman wrote:

Thing is, there's a wide spectrum between "it takes freaking Saitama to destroy even a regular shield in one punch" and "an on-level bad guy can forcefully blink his eyelids in the general direction of a shield and it'll snap in two". There was middle ground; too bad we didn't...

Sure, if you're fighting an enemy on-level with a low-level shield. But if you attack them with a weapon that's the same level as that shield, it's also not particularly effective either.

Not really pertinent to my point, but it's my fault because I left out a word.

"An on-level bad guy can forcefully blink his eyelids in the general direction of (an) on-level shield and it'll snap in two."

Mea culpa.

And no, I'm not saying that shields in P2E are at that point, just that they're closer to that point and further away from the happy medium than I think those of us dissatisfied with shields would like.

I do use the ABP for Striking and Resiliency runes and crafting quality for Potency.

Krispy, the reason I have an issue is that shields DONT scale. Except sturdy. And Medusa's Scream for some reason. When you get them, they can block x attacks. That's core to their function. In a handful of levels they can no longer do that reliably (or at all in many cases), but there are no improved versions of that shield. Not to make it better, or even as good as, the Sturdy Shield, but just to keep part of the function of the shield relevant.

Yes, weapons and armor can/have to be upgraded, but you can literally use the weapon you start the game with from levels 1-20 and keep its designed functionality all the way through, PLUS add some wangy s#+#e to customize it further (property runes). You have no such options with shields.

I can but fave this once, alas!

It's worth noting that none of the magic shields in the playtest had extra abilities so potent that their ability to block had to be sacrificed to keep things fair. If a mundane shield had X ability to block, then a magic shield (any magic shield, including Spellguard) had X ability to block plus its magic effect. Ergo, blocking was not some niche activity warranting a limit in the blocker's choice of viable shields but indeed core to the function of every shield.

People didn't like dents IIRC for two reasons, the poor explanation for how it worked (mentioned above) and the way that even a mundane shield could survive at least one hit no matter what (since they could only take two dents from one attack and needed three to be broken. I.e., a 1st-level Fighter with a simple wooden shield could get hit by the Tarrasque and his shield would survive.

Thing is, there's a wide spectrum between "it takes freaking Saitama to destroy even a regular shield in one punch" and "an on-level bad guy can forcefully blink his eyelids in the general direction of a shield and it'll snap in two". There was middle ground; too bad we didn't go there.

I know this question has been asked since Day One. The pertinent text of the CRB seems to leave room for multiple interpretations. I didn't see this addressed in the new errata, though I'll look a second time. In the meantime, though, is there any chance we can get an answer here?

Consider the following scenarios:
I'm a P1E Sorcerer. I know Feather Fall. I am completely out of 1st-level spell slots (never mind why), though I still have all my higher level slots. I'm falling to my doom. What do I do? I accept the slight inefficiency of using a 2nd-level slot to cast a 1st-level spell (since all I need is a spell slot of AT LEAST the spell's level), avoid dying, and go about my day.

I'm a P2E Sorcerer. I know Feather Fall as a 1st-level spell and not as a signature spell. I'm completely out of 1st-level spell slots (never mind why here as well) and also have plenty of higher level slots. I'm falling to my doom, too. What do I do? Is the only appropriate spell slot for a 1st-level, NON-signature spell a 1st-level slot (and therefore I'm going SPLAT)? Or is it a spell slot of AT LEAST 1st-level (therefore allowing 2nd-level, 3rd-level, and so on slots to also be used, albeit with the caveat that the resulting 1st-level Feather Fall counts in ALL ways as a 1st-level spell, including ease of dispelling, despite being fueled by a higher level slot)?

Also, I'm aware of a one-word maybe-it's-an-answer response from a developer to a similar question on another website. Given its brevity, it's no more definitive an answer than the CRB's text, assuming it's even answering the question at hand (an assumption due to, again, the response's brevity). So if this question is answered here, can we please get a FULL and unambiguous answer?

Thanks!

I think Magic missile is an interesting test case for whether or not players want one action damage spells. It is already present in the game, it can't miss, which makes it a pretty reliable 3rd action spell, and yet the vast majority of players don't use it this way, instead just holding off from using it until they can cast it as a three action spell. This suggests to me that players are not really as interested in the one action damage spell as the boards would have people believe. Unless it is a cantrip, players seem incredibly resistant to filling spell slots with damage spells that don't do a lot of damage, even when that damage is automatic.

Using (or not bothering to use) a one-action Magic Missile isn't the same thing. Magic Missile has the option to be cast with one, two, or three actions, but you've expended a spell slot regardless. I.e., there's no way to spend only a third of a slot for a one-action Magic Missile. It behooves you then to get the most hurt for your spell slot, since you're spending a complete spell slot anyway.

In contrast, a one action damage spell that only ever had its one-action output as its maximum setting would see more use (since you're not wasting any resources by only spending one action). Alternatively, a cantrip with a one, two, or three action version would also see more use (since, being a cantrip, it can't be used up anyway).