dungeon_architect's page

The MMO Dark Age of Camelot dealt with the issue of color by supplementing colors with “+” and “-“ symbols. For example, if something was one level above you, it’s name would be in orange but would also have a “+” next to it. Two levels above you was red with a “++” and three or more was purple “+++”. Similarly, creatures lower level than you progressed from blue “-“ to green “- -“ and finally to grey “- - -“.

Using a symbol of your choice that can be interpreted by text parsers and easily recognized by the color blind seems the best choice.

Perhaps we could include the rarity word to address the accessibility concern? I don't see much need for symbols when we have "Rare and Legendary"

I agree, there are things i'm not a fan of in the new book... still lots of fiddly +1 circumstance bonuses.... but i'm glad to be able to take my group home...to Pathfinder and Golarion... We have been long in exile with 5e due to rules bloat and the weird inconsistencies of some systems from PF1 as it grew and evolved... hopefully the forums will become more positive as things move forward.

My only problem with this is that the red/orange are too similar, Another color should be chosen for one of them, perhaps green or golden?

There's one for every class. Barbarian is at top left of page 54, for example.

ohh...wow how did I miss that, thanks you just saved me a lot of frustration and note taking

Virellius wrote:

I find the lack of setting information in the CRB to be a bit sad actually.

We definitely want feedback on whether people think there's not enough, or too much, or just enough. (Admittedly, adding a LOT more would be challenging, as we can't let this become a 600-page book.)

While I would like more setting stuff in general...I also don't want my CRB to destroy itself from size.....looks over to raggedy falling about PF1 book.

In general what matters to me more is how early into 2e we get a new Inner Sea World Guide, and more content like that.

That said, unless its in there and i'm not seeing it, i'm sad that there is no Earthbreaker weapon

I can't seem to find a level progression table anywhere, I realize that its outlined in paragraphs at the start of each class, but saying "this feat at 1st level and every even there after" or similar for like 4-5 different kind of feats is just clunky and going to cause confusion and errors in leveling up. I would really appreciate PF1 style tables for every class in the final book to make things easy to keep track of.

This is a correction we're looking to make that is in many ways long overdue to the world.

Ethnically, Chelaxians are identical to Taldans and really always have been; they've been traditionally treated as their own ethnicity mostly due to the fact that their government is diabolic, which is a weird reason to do that. Especially since that didn't hold true for the nation pre-Age of Lost Omens. (Note that they don't even have their own ethnic language.) So with the new edition, we're adjusting that to include them under the umbrella of the Taldan ethnicity.

And the Nidalesse have been the "forgotten" ethnicity for a LONG time. There were people living in Nidal LONG before Cheliax or even Taldor was a thing, and they were not Varisian or Kellid or Shoanti (the other human ethnicities that were widespread in Avistan before Earthfall), nor were they Azlanti/Thassilonian. They were their own ethnicity, but it was never really clear what ethnicity that was—like smaller groups like the Erutaki or Ekujae or Jadwiga, the ethnicity kind of got glossed over. But as time has rolled on, Nidal has become more and more central to stuff we're doing in the setting, and so the edition change felt like a good place to make that official.

I'm quite happy with rolling them into Taldan

elvnsword wrote:

I do NOT like the new layout for the action economy. It feels too much like a visual layout you'd see in a video game. (Symbols etc) Additionally it seems like it may slow down combat, but having only read so far, and not tested I cannot confirm or deny that.

I really dislike this as well.

In addition, the visual layout of feats is over-engineered and causes the class section to feel like a collection of powers rather than a description of a class. This was a major thing that 4th edition D&D did that I learned to hate.

I feel like this is something the Core Rulebook for 1st edition Pathfinder nailed with it's simple text style with bold, italics, and indentation, but towards the later supplements (especially the Strategy Guide) really started getting ugly. To me, it feels cluttered, hard to follow, and makes it come of as a video game UI rather than a book. Worst of all, it takes away from immersion into the setting. I would much prefer the book to more closely emulate something you might see in the actual game world.

I know this may not matter to many people, but the UI-style presentation just doesn't work for me.

I have to disagree whole-heartedly , It may seem strange but Tabletop Games are games, and UX Design principles are drastically needed to make the game more approachable. One of my main complaints with 1st edition was how the information was formatted. I'm very glad to see some "Blocks" rather than just walls of text.

The formatting of the Wealth by Level tables are giving me eye cancer.

1 2nd, 2 1st
1 3rd, 2 2nd
2 4th, 3 3rd
....

gaaaahhhh

I second that, the table format is nearly unreadable when you do the whole ( 1 2nd, 2 1st ) Thing

I Love the Ancestry system, I'm imagining a world where subraces are just rolled into ancestry feat. But ya, maybe a 2nd ancestry at first level would be nice.

Going to run a on the fly conversion of Curse of The Crimson Throne for my playtest game, And I have a player wanting to play a Chelaxian Wizard. Would greatly appreciate some info on what to tell that player.

Option A: Chelaxian is left out of the playtest and coming with 2e
Option B: Chelaxian is now rolled into Taldan
Option C: ?

I'm generally happy with a lot of what I'm seeing. As a GM and player. I like a little limitation in choices. Over the last few years I have felt that 1e really required (Core + APG + one of your choice) for character creation, and it seems to me that the new way of doing things should help balance out the eventual content bloat.

My main complaint ATM, and I understand its a play-test, is some of the layout and formatting...Its kind of jumbled and too much basic stat info is mixed in with descriptive or even flavor text

I second the call for a printer friendly version, though I would prefer one in color w/o the background.