graeme mcdougall's page

What stat generation did you use? Most APs are designed for 4 adventurers with a 15 point buy, so if you have 3 PCs with 20 point buys they'll probably cope fairly well.

The main things for smaller parties are save-or-suck effects and grapples. If you paralyze/grapple/etc someone in a 4 person party then they still have 3 allies to get them out. Take 2 of them and there are still w up and fighting. With a 3 person party a single person going out of the fight is a big hit to their effectiveness, and taking 2 of them out means the remaining person has to solo the rest of the encounter.

All 3 of your players should have good fort-saves and phenomenal will saves, so tbe save-or-suck part may not come up much, but be aware of it anyway.

I gave them each the Heroic NPC array, plus the racial bonuses & penalties. Ire of the Storm is quite generous with headbands of alluring charisma, intelligance, belts of giant strength, amulets of protection etc, so by now they each have an 18 in their main stat & a 16 elsewhere & some kind of AC or save buff (as well as a Gutstone, which is a funny item ! It went to whoever's character was prepared to swallow it)

Wow, thank you everyone, so many great responses !
The inquisitor gets quite a few skill ranks & has tended to spend most of them on the different knowledges (especially for monster lore). I've gently nudged the players into covering all the knowledges between them.
So far the party has seemed well balanced in & out of combat.
I guess I was mostly worried about higher level monsters having specific resistances & immunities that might need arcane to overcome. That or certain conditions/ afflictions, but perhaps there aren't any that need arcane.
I'm running them 1 level higher than the adventure/ AP, in line with the CRB encounter guidlines & that seems to be working out well (if anything, they had started to cruise a bit, then they started encountering incorporal creatures...).
Combat-wise the Paladin is pretty straightforward greatsword frontliner, the inquisitor is specialised in ranged, using point-blank shot, rapid shot, bane, judgment of destruction, flames of the faithful etc. He struggled for damage due to the small size longbow until bane came online & now he does great. The druid concentrates on spell-casting in combat, using wildshape more for out of combat scouting stuff. He has a badger companion who seems very swingy - some fights he gets almost killed & has to run away, but certain enemies he wrecks.

So I'm Gming my quite casual group through the excellent 'Ire of the storm' module. They are in the final dungeon, level 5, about to turn level 6. Then I'm planning to run 'Eulogy to Rossler's coffer' from the Tyrant's grasp.
Anyway, it's a party of 3 PCs: Half-Elf Druid, Aasimar Paladin & Grippli Inquisitor. Obviously, these are all Divine casters. So far, there haven't been any real problems with the complete lack of arcane spellcasting. This is our 1st time playing really, having graduated from the beginners box rules. As they move into the level 5-10 range & beyond - is lack of Arcane spellcasting going to be a probem - are there things I will need to do as a GM to compensate or 'patch' this lack ?
Or will it be OK, 'as is' ?

I'm hoping for Grippli & expecting to be disappointed. I have a Griplli Inquisitor in my campaign & couldn't contemplate a conversion to 2E until those building blocks are in place. (though will definitely start any new campaign in 2E)
Anyway, I'll be buying this anyway, can't get enough of new races & sure the crunch/ fluff balance here will be to my liking, as it was in the 1st half of Character Guide.

So obviously they are enough for a CRPG (Classic RPG) which is party-based a la Pathfinder Kingmaker or Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous.

But I'm talking about computer RPGs where turn-based battle is the main focus, like Shining Force, Final Fantasy Tactics & Fire Emblem.

The reason I ask is that I recently completed Fire Emblem 3 Houses. It was a fun game & I enjoyed it. But all the way through I was thinking:

- The action system is basically this: You get 1 standard action & 1 move. But your turn ends as soon as you do the standard action. If you want to move, you have to do it first.

And it struck me how antiquated & limited this is compared to PF2's 3-action system. Or even PF1's system.

I think there's enough in the PF2 rules to make a great Tactical RPG & I hope it's obvious that in terms of lore, items etc Pathfindr as a brand easily has what it takes.

Of course, there might not be any money in tactical RPGs, but I was just thinking out loud.

Yep, doesn't work on Windows 10, Firefox, either. It's possible to go to the individual pages for adventures, if you can find a direct link.
I can reach the page you linked, Crystal Seas, but if I hit 'Standalone Adventures (6)' it's straight to a broken page.

There is also an option intermediate between 3-level modules like Fall of Plaguestone and the three-part adventure path, that being the 6-level modules like the upcoming 128-page Dead God's Hand, or previously, Ire of the Storm (I just checked and it's 5 levels, but only 64 pages, which is some high-density adventure). These are effectively two-part APs. I quite like these, as it is long enough to feel worthwhile to really get invested in a character, while short enough to hopefully get through it before life dissolves the group, as so often happens.

Paizo seems unsure about trying more 3-part APs (understandably so: if it ain't broke don't fix it, especially when it's your bread and butter), but are demonstrably okay adding these 6-level adventures on the side. I just hope they do some mid-level ones, instead of always starting at 1st.

Ire of the Storm is also a truly excellent adventure - absolutely perfect mix of RP, combat, hexcrawl, sub-systems woven together.

I feel like D&D in general has always worked better with maps. ToTM games are fine, but they tend to distort space compared to playing with minis.

I agree. I wouldn't even play 5e without a grid for combat, let alone PF1/ PF2/ SF. If I wanted to play D20 with no grid, I'd use 13th age that has proper rules for abstracting the combat flow. Otherwise, you rob players & characters of loads of subtleties of their abilities.

I suspect they'll slow down after this initial year.
See, one of their main USPs against 5th (or any other game) is being the game with many more options. That doesn't work until they actually have many more options.
Once they've laid claim to that core area, I think they'll be a bit more measured & come back round to tidy up some questions.

I'd imagine this is more for the 'Lost Omens' line, being more story-specific - they don't want the thing with PF1 where every mechanical option ever released was immediately stripped of all context & thrown into one giant optimisation blender.
I'm guessing that the Advanced PLayers Guide, for example, will have less rairity - restricted stuff than the very region/ organisation -specific Lost Omens line.
Additonally, don't forget that 'access' gives you a bypass to GM permission for Uncommon, only requiring that you be the class/ nationality etc that the option was designed for.

graeme mcdougall wrote:

Kyrone wrote:

18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 if human.

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if anything else, with the 8 being the flaw.

What's your reasoning for baking in the difference between human & non-human, out of interest ?

I know it comes out the same at the end, is it just for simplicity, to eliminate the flaw ?

Because I wanted to preserve the 'flavour' of the ancestry flaws but let them use the boosts to 'buy' out of the Ancestry Flaw.
Or, in other words, I don't want to let them choose the ability their Flaw is in.

The difference between Human and non Human is because Human gets 2 floating boosts, ancestry gets two fixed boosts, a floating boost, and a fixed flaw. So unless you used the floating boost to cancel the flaw you end up with a different array.

Ah, I see. I specifically want to allow the Floating Boost to be used to cancel the Flaw, if the player wants. So I'll probably keep the array the same for human & non-human.

Watching this live, what a great idea. This could be THE promotional tool for PF2, you can imagine as they release more & more options making crazier characters every week, you couldn't highlight the USP of Pathfinder better.

18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 if human.

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if anything else, with the 8 being the flaw.

What's your reasoning for baking in the difference between human & non-human, out of interest ?

I know it comes out the same at the end, is it just for simplicity, to eliminate the flaw ?

Because I wanted to preserve the 'flavour' of the ancestry flaws but let them use the boosts to 'buy' out of the Ancestry Flaw.
Or, in other words, I don't want to let them choose the ability their Flaw is in.

I don't find the ABC method convoluted at all, but YMMV.

Let's see...

+2 for class, Two +2's for Background, 4+2's for level...

16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10. They can get an 18 in their primary stat if they wish, or they can round out their other stats.

I agree, in itself it's not too convoluted but as part of the character creation process with 1st time players (and probably via e-mail) it's just some complexity I can skip. I'm basically going to give them that great summary page in the core rulebook & let them pick Class & Ancestry, then move straight onto Background (minus the boosts).

Plus I've always preferred standard array, even in PF1, it's just how I like to do things. (Heroic NPC is what I always used)

Anyway, thanks, that looks like a good array to use, they will end up being able to make any Class/ Ancestry combo.

I like most things about PF2 but for the beginner players I'll be running it for, the 'life path' style ability scores are too convoluted & back & forth. Nor do I want the randomness of rolling ability scores.
So I'm after a standard array that evens out to exactly what you'd expect from the default method. I'm going to exclude all the Boosts & flaws EXCEPT the ancestry ones. I'd like to allow players to play against type with Ancestries ie Gnome Fighter etc.
I'm going to give the same array to all players, then let them use the Boosts & Flaws from their ancestry.
What do you recommend ?

This x1000.
Needs to be in the CRB. Saves so much time & hassle for so little space.

I think I also prefer Starfinder's Hitpoints / StaminaPoints/ ResolvePoints to Playtest's HitPoints/ TreatWounds/ Hero Points.
Although I think both are decent & functional.

But more broadly, I find myself asking : Why isn't there more Starfinder in this ? If you took Starfinder, added 3-Action economy, sprinkled with some of Playtest's other ideas, trimmed here, expanded there, you'd have a pretty great system, I think. Starfinder seems to solve a lot of the traditional 3.x problems without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Some comments from 1 or more of the design team, seem convinced that the type of stories you tell in Fantasy & Science Fantasy are different enough that the same mechanics often can't work & I....I just don't see it myself.

I even think they should have considered Starfinder's route of making all spellcasters spontaneous & finding other ways to differentiate the spellcasting classes. Although I accept that might be a bridge too far for some people.

Thanks for doing this. I've enjoyed the 1st episode, about to listem to the 2nd.
I expect the final PF2 to differ quite a lot from the playtest (& my hunch is it will be more conservative towards PF1 direction).
But anyway, assuming you like the final PF2 & decide to keep going, I think you're off to a great start at establishing yourselves early.

For me it's Armour, especially heavy Armour.

I know this might be controversial but for me, unarmoured or lightly armoured characters should NEVER be able to equal heavily armoured characters in AC (given the same level of investment).

Instead, the lightly armoured characters should make up the difference elsewhere.

But at the very least, medium & heavy armour shouldn't be activly worse than light/ unarmoured.

They have done so well with all the cool weapon qualities that really make weapons visceral & meaty - let armour be the same, not just a series of punishments for using it.

Count me in for 'make snares good'.
It's a strong idea conceptually & if Rangers tend towards the battlefield control/ enemy movement denial niche that would be a cool niche.
But they need to be massively imporoved in every way: I want to see rangers able to toss snares down as they move to deny enemies space. I'd like to see some area of effect snares as well.
This idea has a lot of pootential - so set it free !

Also PF2 is using them as part of a 'degrees of success' system, so for save or die spells & the like, they actually smooth out the spikiness, allowing for more inbetween results between the previous extremes.
Now I'm not sure I like them being quite as universally applied throughout the system as they are but in spell results its hard to argue against them being an improvement, I think.

I find the Condition cards in PF1 & Starfinder are very useful, easy to make your own if you want to save money.
I think it's worth printing out action cards for the most common actions & giving them to the players as well.
Add to that some post it notes/ print outs of other common things & it should help out a lot.

I think some people are being a bit harsh on Colette here.
That style of extremely deadly, coldly adversarial game certainly isn't my preferred style but it IS a legitimate style that has a right to be considered. ESPECIALLY in the context of a Playtest where we're being asked to push the game to it's limits & break it.

Now, I don't think this kind of playstyle should be the main determining factor in the game design but it at least deserves a place in the discussions.

I think it will probably take until the 1st player-focused hardback in the real release for Characters to start to really have the versitility of PF1 characters but it's a decent goal.

And I don't see any reason to label people a 'dick GM' - their players are presumably more or less down with this style of game or they wouldn't be playing.

What is the over/under chance on getting Paizo to add another 50 or so Pages to the Core Rulebook for a price hike?

I'd gladly pay another $10 for a bigger book with the NPC/Monster Building Rules & another Chapter dedicated to Uncommon Class Feats.

They've said that the hard limit is the 575 pages of the original core-rulebook.

I actually like this section - it gives some extra ideas for a player to create their character.
Example: I knew I wanted to make a human sorcerer, I chose 'Aberrant' bloodline. When I read that Kellids are supersticous & distrustful of magic , it fell into place - the character had been exiled for their abilities - I picked the 'nomad' background & the ethnicities section helped guide the character concept.

So while I'd be happy to see the ethnicities expanded to include non-humans & maybe seperated from specific ancestries to be more general (ie a Taldan halfling sahres most of the cultural touchstones of a Taldan human)I am in favour of it & I do think the 'Ancestries chapter is the right place for it.
But it should probably be at the end of the chapter & applied to all ancestries by region, trather than one ancestry.

'Sword & Sorcery' is only a narrow, well-defined genre to a niche audience of Fantasy Literature fans.
For the rest of the world 'Swords & Sorcery' means everything from Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, King Arthur, Game of Thrones, Skyrim, Dark Souls - literally almost any Fantasy story.
Paizo are writing for a mainstream audience, so they're using it in the general sense.

PF2 may or may not end up being to a given person's taste but I don't think this throw-away phrase is telling us anything about any change of direction or tone for the game.

A common problem.

The spell roll is actually explained much better in the glossary section on pg 423; but that page isn't referenced in the index & they don't bother to explain there that the spell DC is just the same modifier but with a flat value of 10 in place of the roll.

Obviously they are very happy with the consistant way that attacks & DCs are calculated throughout the game but that's no excuse for not spelling things out explicitly & in a sensible place.

They should explain Ranged & Melee Touch Attacks, Spell Rolls & Spell DCs all together, at the start of the 'spells' chapter and point out the differences between them.

You shouldn't give new players a bunch of general rules spread throughout the book & leave them to piece together what they actually need to do at the table from the general rules - you should give them the specific rules in the correct chapter & let them see the underlying similarity in their own time as they learn.

Doonamis wrote:

How about something more like:

Effect: Damage 6d6 (Fire)
Save: Reflex (Double/Normal/Half/None)
Heightened (+1): +2d6 (Fire)

That way you can use that same format regardless of Basic saves vs Complex saves.

I agree with this! This is an excellent way to read it.

Agreed! This works perfectly & keeps the stat-block self-contained.

If it were a choice between the orignal or the new suggestion in the blog, I prefer the original: I really hate when a stat-block doesn't contain all the info but assumes that you know where to look for the missing information.

Why are we still using aligment ?

Because it's a really useful tool for character & NPC building, a very intuitive & elegant 1st approximation/ rule of thumb for quickly fleshing out a character's motivation.

Just asking a player why they chose their alignment for their character often results in lots of great info.

I really think the anti-alignment sentiment some people have is just an inability to deal with ambiguity.
They can't stand that there are several different ways to be Lawful Neutral, or that a particular character might fall almost exactly between Chaotic Good & Neutral Good.
It's like they can't take the system for the flexible, approximate tool it is. If it isn't capable of unambiguously catagorising every character in existance then it has to be killed with fire.
I don't agree.

And I would defend Alignment as mechanics as well, as long as it doesn't become too overbearing. It's good to have limits sometimes. It helps to give classes & creatures an identity instead of just a bland anything can be anything mush.

Anyway, that was my 'in defence of alignment'

This bit actually has me the most concerned - some of the changes seem easy enough to make, but I'm not sure how we get a guarantee that they'll change in the way that many of us might want them to. (after all, I'm not sure how to determine which layout changes were oversight and which were intentional)

e.g., Erik Mona specifically said that they're changing rarity indicator from color to something else. But I'm eager to hear confirmation that other large-scale layout changes will also occur, such as separating powers and spells, sorting arcane spells by school, indication which list a spell is part of, etc...

I look at it like this - this book has evolved from what was probably just a document with a few long lists of feats, spells, etc in it. Where we are now is really just a stage on the road to a fully polished book. The devs are getting loads of feedback about layout & I've read many a well-laid out Paizo book, so I'd be surprised if they didn't come up with something pretty useable by the end.

I much prefer the PF1 sheets. Because you had enough space to actually summarise the rules for your abilities. It's like the new sheet is designed to provide an overview of your character's whole career with little detail, where old one was to provide a snapshot of your character at current level.
I do like that both sheets shows all the workings though. It makes them good tools for learning.

@Micheal Smith - I tried to reply to you some days ago but the website problems ate my response. Hopefully I have better luck this time !

I agree with you the sub-chapter markers from the Starfinder CRB are definitely worth bringing over.

It's not that I'm opposed to the traits & the little box is a good way of presenting them. It's just that there are too many overall in my opinion & some of them are used to tag extra rules onto a statblock, which means that if you don't lookup/ know by heart what they mean, then the statblock doesn't give you all the info you need to use it (I'm using statblock here to mean feats, items etc).
I don't mind traits that provide a hook for other rules to reference but not keen on ones that add extra rules to the statblock.

@Pedro Sampaio - I agree with most of what you say too. I get what they're trying to do with the exploration mode - they're trying to tell a GM who only has the CRB & no experience how they can run the non-combat parts of the game. And it's probably better than previous attempts at teaching them this. It just feels a little too rigid & codified.
I think they got it right on downtime mode- a more conversational tone & not trying to pin too much down. It feels they want a more defined structure for exploration mode so that tactical decisions can carry over into encounter mode in a balanced way - I'm not quite sure that really matters but time will tell.

There's been loads of feedback on this stuff already but it does seem to get lumped together, when really I think these are seperate issues.

1) Layout: This is just where things are located, how they're referenced & organised.
I agree with the majority; it's proper rough right now.
Location of powers, organisation of feats, lack of feat effect summary in the feat summary table.
I'm not really worried about this at all. It's a playtest document, with all the problems I expect. I'm confident Paizo know how to organise a rulebook come the final.

2) Graphic Design: I actually think this is a big step forward, even in it's rough state. It's finally incorporating some of the Beginner's Box presentation.
The way you go to a class & everything is there at a glance - you can see what's for level 1 & what's for later.
Much better than the 'giant wall of text' paradigm of PF1 CRB.
Action icons work really well in practice - I don't mean that these particular icons are especially great vs any of the other possible alternatives but that action icons generally work great.
Again, I have a lot of confidence in Paizo about this.

3) Tone/Language: This is my biggest worry for the book & in fact for the whole PF2 project.
A huge amount of people have remarked how dry, technical & clunky the book is right now.
The excess of traits & keywords is a huge problem. It's a manual that feels like it prioritises machine-readability so much that it actively obstructs human-readability.
The final version of this book will be the 1st & for many, only point of contact with the game for the next 10 years to come - it MUST be instantly inspiring & readable.
I kind of feel like after a decade of putting up with all the inherited jank of 3.5, the designers are trying to pin down & pre-empt all the possible future stesses on the chassis, at any cost.
Right now all the scaffold is showing on this game.
I just think that a good system (and I think this IS a good system, at it's core) WILL fail if it's presentation is so far off what is comfortable for the ordinary punter.

TLDR:
Layout - They'll sort it by final
Graphic Design - Good & will get better
Tone/ Language - Pretty worried

I think you're completely right, Tamago.
When traits are used to append additional rules to a rules structure like an action or feat, they act as a barrier to comprehension & understanding.

The aim should be for these types of rules blocks to be free-standing as much as possible.

When it's the other way round & it's a way for more general rules & spells to refer back to the rule block, it's much better.

And if they're going to use traits to parachute in rules, they need to be a lot less than the 150-170 they have now.

Yeah, 'adventurer's kit' etc definitely need to be in the final CRB, with the total cost & bulk pre-calculated.
I can JUST ABOUT be bothered to buy all the bedrolls, pup tents, flint & steel etc but it's unreasonable to ask that of a beginner who just wants to get in & play.
1 kit per class would be great - with thieves tools for the thieves, alchemist's kit for the alchemists etc.

'Overall, I'm pretty happy with the playtest. This is the direction I want to see Paizo go. It's still going to have more rules than D&D, but to some degree, Pathfinder needed to be slimmed down to grab other players as well. '

Agreed with the overall impression. There are many, many things to be fixed & tweaked but this is the basis of a good system, in my opinion.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yes. It has it's problems but many more merits.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

No.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

Never tried 4th.
I Read 5th before I tried Pathfinder, it seemed good, even clever in many ways but also kind of bland & conservative (just rehearsing old tropes). For whatever reason, it just didn't interest me like Pathfinder did.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Class balance, options & ease of use. High level play is not a big concern.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

It's perhaps the most important thing in PF2

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Only a little. There's a balance to be struck here.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Of course, I view this as the 1st proposal for PF2

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I'd like to see the weaker feats of all types (Ancestry, General & Class) brought up to scratch, a somewhat wider range of feats, a simpler version of Resonance if it's to survive, a 'free' signiture skill for all classes. Beyond that, I haven't even finished absorbing the Playtest rules yet.

OP, I agree with your case against Charisma, although I could live with it.
Since we accept they need a mental stat boost, I would also vote for Int. I see it as a combination of 'low cunning', 'mechanical ingenuity' & 'diabolical imagination', rather than academic intelligence.

Jason Bulhman confirmed on one of their Gencon panels (I watched the twitch video after the fact) that it was an oversight - all classes should be 'Trained' in 'Unarmoured' by default.
Said it's #1 on their errata list.

1:54:00 in this stream:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/293043872

Perfect,that's what I missed, Thank you !
It would be great if the formula were explicitly explained like it was in Starfinder CRB.
The section on page 291 doesn't give a spell example,

As far as I can tell, nowhere is it actually spelled out how to calculate spell DCs.
We are left to infer it from more general information scattered through the book.
I want to see if I have it right, for example for a wizard :

10 + Character Level + Int Modifier

I get this from :

- page 8 'Your Difficulty Class'
- page 136 'Arcane Spellcasting'
- Page 291 'Determine the difficulty Class'

What confuses me, is you normally add proficiency level as well.

The Wizard, on pg 135, in the sidebar has 'Spells' - Trained in Arcane Spell rolls and DCs & in attack rolls for Arcane spells.

So this is +0 for trained. But can the wizrd ever be more than trained in Arcane spell rolls & DCs ?

And if so, does he do it by adding ranks to the 'Arcana' skill ?

And if so, would the formula be ? :

10 + Character Level + Arcana Proficiency + Int Modifier

They could really do with explaining spell DC calculation at the beginning of the spells chapter, with a specific example.

There should be nothing stopping you from using the weapon. The feat is simply for classes outside of fighter and for fighters that want to use an exotic goblin weapon. Those are not in the game yet but might be when the game releases for real.

Thanks Senkon, that make sense.

No, you don't need the Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) feat to unlock the weapons for a Goblin Fighter. On p. 181 Dogslicers and Horsechoppers are Uncommon Martial Melee weapons with the Goblin trait. P. 182 defines the trait as:

Goblin People of the goblin ancestry craft and use these weapons.

The weapon familiarity feat goes further by stating that all Goblin Martial weapons are treated as Simple weapons when you possess the feat, meaning Goblin Alchemists with the feat can use those (formerly) martial weapons, but Goblin Wizards (no simple weapon feat) cannot. IF this feat was required to unlock those weapons, then why bother listing them as martial and then reducing them to simple? Why wouldn't you just list them as simple weapons, and require the feat to unlock them?

However, for any goblin with martial training, this turns Weapon Familiarity into a feat tax. If you are already martially trained, you get NO bonus from taking Weapon Familiarity. Except that it is a requirement for Weapon Frenzy which IS useful.

Thanks Mach5RR, I should have picked up that extra text on the Goblin trait, I think that does settle it.

So, my Hardcover Rulebook & Softcover Doomsday Dawn arrived today in the UK & I finally had the chance to sit down, have a skim & make a character.

For all the rough edges & niggles, I think the presentation, overall, is significantly easier to use & learn.

I'm basing this mainly off the Class Descriptions, Skill Descriptions & Weapons section.

In the PF1 CRB, which I have grown to like & navigate fairly comfortably over time, you are still mostly faced with dense walls of text with little formatting.
Very refreshing to turn to fighter & get some concise flavour texts, followed by a menu of choices, where I could tell at a glance what mattered now & what I could come back to at later levels.
The sidebars & summary tables were spot on.

The action formatting for skills is also much more user-freindly IMO & better for reference.

Overall, I like the new format, it brings some of that beginner box clarity that I hoped we would see more of in the Starfinder CRB. Overall, I liked Starfinder but I was disappointed in how it was much closer in presentation to PF1 with regards to big wall of text entries.

I admit 'Anathema' is a bit unfriendly for non-europeans. It does have the advantage of being quite flavourful, in my opinion. And it is still in use in English today, though it's 'Uncommon'.

I think they should swap 'Somatic' which means absolutlely nothing to anyone outside of D&D for 'Gesture', which is instantly self-explanatory.

I like the change a lot.
In PF1, silver & Copper were basically pointless - now at least silver is real money.
Additionally, I think that the wealth of adventurers vs commoners stays a bit more under control, at least for the first few levels.

The wording in Weapon Familiarity seems to suggest that you have to take it in order to be for it to be considered a Simple and Martial weapon for Proficiencies. So it seems Uncommon items will usually be locked behind a feat or maybe a class ability?

BUT under Uncommon in the glossary it does say that "the GM
can allow access for anyone she chooses." Which I would say if you're a Goblin Fighter from a goblin place why wouldn't goblin weapons be considered common for YOU.

To me there needs to be a little more information on uncommon and weapon familiarity feats and how they work with everything else.

Thanks, I agree we seem to need a little more info to settle the matter. I think you're right that strict RAW, I would probably need to take it, just seems that being a fighter, he's getting a lot less value from that Ancestry Feat than a class that didn't already have martial weapon proficiencies.

Just watching Paizo's gencon video on Twitch - there's going to be a Starfinder Beginner box, following the same format as the Pathfinder one.
Very welcome.

Yes, it's from the 'Uncommon Martial Melee Weapons' catagory.

My point is just that I don't need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) to be trained in it, because as a Martial weapon, I'm already expert from fighter.
It's got the 'Goblin' trait & I'm already a Goblin, so I don't need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) for that.

So the only reason I need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin)(If indeed I do need it), is because it's an Uncommon weapon.

If so, it's not the end of the world, just pondering what RAI is.

Thanks for your reply, Voss.
It's inconclusive so far, isn't it ?

I kind of think Weapon Familiarity (Goblin)is probably intended as a cheap option for non-martial Goblins to get access to a couple of specific weapon proficiencies.
But I might be wrong.

It will take me a while to absorb the document, my system mastery is not as high as some people.
I think it's genuinely A LOT easier to explain to new players - a lot of vets don't see that, because they've long since internalised all the complication & weirdness of the 3.5 chassis, to the point it's become invisible to them.
Also, it may be a bit premature, but I think the fighter is genuinely good out of the gate - probably should have 4+ Int skill ranks though.