graystone's page

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:

If you feel battle oracle is too weak (which it is), you can homebrew any number of things, and of course you can allow sure strike not to have a cooldown for battle oracles - you don't have to find a loophole based on the limitations of natural speech for that.

Ah yes the loophole of the feature directly saying immunity doesn’t apply to spells that would affect you, straightforwardly printed right in the text. That loophole.

You know, natural language is so limited, it couldn't say 'immunity to [harmful] spells' or 'immunity to [damaging] spells' but had to only state "immunity to spells" that allows loopholes... :P

Then why did Paizo specifically added the immunity ?

Why fix something if it was not broken to begin with ?

They often 'fix' things I wouldn't call broken, are overly conservative and have a tendency to overcorrect IMO.

Spamming Sure Strike on a Magus, Fighter or Gunslinger build seems pretty strong and those are just the cases that spring to my mind.

Are these classes that tend to have the actions and resources to do it? Non-ranged magus have issues spellstriking as much as they want to do to action constraints, so burning through Studious Spells and then drawing scrolls for extra actions? doesn't seem overpowered. Fighters and gunslingers have less slots to use and often have both hands occupied so more actions to use a scroll, so how much spam is there? And don't forget they have to spend feats in the archetype dedication [needing a +2 cha that none of those classes need] and more for more slots. This seems much to do about nothing.

Come to think of it, spamming it on a Fortissimo Warrior muse Bard feels pretty excellent too.

Not sure what Fortissimo or Warrior muse particularly gains from the spam: at low levels when courageous anthem is still useful, you don't have a meaningful number of slot/scrolls to spam enough to change anything and once you can, a +1 status bonus is pretty much useless.

Me, I like the idea that the intent is indeed immunity to spell damage only, just badly worded.

I'd disagree. I think it's intended to work on harmful spells. Seems off brand that they keep immunities to spells as long as it doesn't deal damage. I'd agree the removal of immunity for beneficial spells is likely not intended.

If the RAW is ambiguous and broken, and we have to pick one of the options, I'm still going with the option that the immunity is only to the spell damage (or resistance to spell damage).

You're equating unintended with broken. It may very well be unintended but I haven't really seen anything broken or even it be ambiguous. I think you can play "Any immunity or resistance you have to spells is suppressed" as/is and nothing would go off the rails. If there is something that's actually broken, I'd like to see someone post it.

It is not huge mental gymnastics to conclude that this does not mean that it also bypasses the cooldown 'temporary immunity' that some spells have to prevent them from being spammed and overused.

The issue is that there are harmful spells, like blindness, that also have temporary immunity built in, so it's not such an open and shut case as you make it out to be. I can 100% see it being intended for the curse to bypass the temporary immunity of such spells. The issue becomes that they use the same mechanic to prevent useful spell spam as they do harmful spell spam.

They need more than what they've printed if they want to make it clear what's meant to be bypassed, as trying to link it to 'damage' doesn't cut it as there are harmful damage spells that can have temporarily immune [say Touch of Death, Siphon Life, Fatal Aria, Buzzing Bites, Power Word Kill, ect]. It needs to say 'Any immunity or resistance you have to [harmful] spells is suppressed' for it to work the way you think it does.

There might be a case for not allowing it if Reloading a weapon required wielding the weapon to begin with.

The argument would be "You can draw, pick up, or hold an item that needs two hands using only one hand, but you need to subsequently change your grip to hold it in two hands if you want to wield or use it." IMO, reloading would fall under using it. The counter argument would be that "Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon" is a more specific rule.

Rituals can be preformed repeatedly and take hours days to prepare. It is narratively useful to have something like a wish that can only be cast once and do things way beyond cast any xyz spell.

I don't really see the narrative difference between a ritual that requires a McGuffin to use [so it can't be used repeatedly] and a spell McGuffin that can't be used repeatedly.

Basically 1 round cast time versions of what would be ritual effects is what I expect. The kind of thing that will have narrative impact and some mechanical one.

Most rituals wouldn't be meaningfully impacted by a time reduction in casting; most are out of combat utility or require more time after use.

So, a character wants an otter as her familiar. Otters are playful, fun-loving swimmers. However, they can NOT breathe underwater.

The familiar ability "amphibious" would be mostly correct for an otter, EXCEPT for the part about breathing underwater.

I can not find any other familiar ability that would be more appropriate. (I've been using the Archives of Nethys for 2nd edition.)

Please advise.

Thanks!
Franklin

Amphibious is the closest you're going to find. As a familiar, it's not hard to imagine familiars getting a little boost, like breathing underwater instead of being able to hold their breath like IRL. Familiars can take magical abilities like Levitator, so breathing water seems fine.

Probably easiest to just homebrew a new familiar ability that only gives a swim speed.

It would be strictly worse than the already existing Amphibious ability, so there is no risk that it is going to be too powerful.

Lol They also have Gills, which just lets you breath underwater. Who picks that when you can take Amphibious?

For example, I would not call DEX a god stat in PF2.

Dex covers 2 saves [AC and Reflex], several skills, To Hits with ranged and Finesse attacks and a common Initiative roll [stealth]; just by sheer volume, Dex covers more ground that other stats. I'd say it's the easiest stat to max out and build around.

graystone, why are you cherry-picking the text of torch to imply that it's "always an improvised weapon" or something. Here, let me quote its FULL text for context, emphasis on the improvised weapon bit

"A torch sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius (and dim light to the next 20 feet) for 1 hour. It can be used as an improvised weapon that deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage plus 1 fire damage."

I explained; there is no rules or text for how one uses it as an improvised weapon other than improvised weapon ARE simple weapons. IE, always improvised as they are always a simple weapon. Also no rules/text exists for a way to use an item as an improvised weapon other than to wield it and the exact same requirements exist for using an item and wielding a weapon: holding it in the number of hands requires to use it. Please point out anything I've said that incorrect or misleading.

Saying that it CAN be used as an improvised weapon isn't what makes it special. ALL objects can be used as improvised weapons, even fruit, as mentioned "for inspiration" in the text for the Weapon Improvisor archetype. But their damage, or even IF they do damage, is usually up to the GM. From Improvised Weapons, "The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits that the improvised weapon should have." What the text for torch does is define exactly how much and what types of damage it does instead of leave it to GM prerogative. So it's not saying the torch is as an "always on" improvised weapon unlike other objects. It's specifying its damage and setting a potential precedent for similar improvised weapons

Everyone's arguing "when" an object is an improvised weapon as if we can't know for sure. But there is a rule for it, again in the text for Improvised Weapons, "If you attack with something that wasn’t built to be a weapon, such as a chair or a vase, you’re making an attack with an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons are simple weapons. You take a –2 item penalty to attack rolls with an improvised weapon."

"If you attack..., you're making an attack with an improvised weapon."

Let me point out the important part that disproves what you're saying: "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Not acts as one for the attack, but are simple weapons:IE always a weapon. It seems to me that you've tried to do what you claimed I did; cherry picking sections of the text that seems to prove your point while ignoring the parts that don't. There is NO text saying improvised weapon are at some point not treated as simple weapons, only that the ARE simple weapons. As such, I stand by my statement "that a torch is always an improvised weapon" as there is no mechanism in the game to wield/use it as not a weapon but use it as an item and the text plainly calls it out as a weapon as it can be used as an improvised weapon. If it was meant to only be a weapon while attacking, they'd have to word it like shield bash ["shield bash is not actually a weapon"], but then it doesn't work with things that require a weapon like stances.

Should a Weapon Improvisor not benefit from such spells just because what they're "wielding" isn't technically a weapon?

As pointed out, they are 100% simple weapon. Second, they already can use handwraps of mighty blows, so I don't see any reason they can't use those spells. Heck, as simple weapon you could just put the runes on the improvised weapons, though it's a bad idea on an archetype that breaks their weapons.

These rogue and ranger feats still do not fix the issue of making a Str character needing to invest into Dex for a backup weapon.

It helps with the issue you had with the 20' range of the ranged trip weapons: you can get it up to 60' if you invest enough.

This is exactly what I described earlier as "limits the encounter design by not allowing GMs to make encounters with flying enemies because they can potentially alienate most members in the party". Why would a flying enemy remain not further than 20 ft (the range of all the weapons you describe here) when they likely could have moved further away to avoid being tripped at range? Out of 1096 creatures that have a flying speed, only 62 have a flying speed lower than 20 ft (thanks AoN). This means that your "Str option for short ranged combat" only affect between 5-6% of flying enemies.

A shocking number of encounters in AP's are in fairly enclosed areas from my experience. Add to that that there's a lot of flying options as you level and you can extend that 20' range with a few feats [Rogue and Ranger can increase range increment]. If all that fails, Ready can be used if the flyers are using melee. I've found that a Bola came in handy chasing those flyers with a speed faster than you but within 20' speed of yourself.

graystone, very reasonable. So, returning to the case, does it follow from your stance that any abilities which don't work with weapons in hand just always turn off when you have things that are explicitly improvised weapons? Do they turn off when you hold an item because most items could be used as improvised weapons?

It wouldn't need an explicit callout. When looking at the Weapon Improviser archetype, things as innocuous as fruit, thorns and mushrooms are listed as improvised weapon options. When a banana can be an improvised weapon, a RAW answer would be that almost nothing qualifies to be used with something worded like the buckler.

Switching is actually an attempt to be permissive while trying to follow 'no weapons' requirements.

I understand but, IMO, it's the wrong way to go when so many other objects that have dual uses and do not need to use such an action and the ones that do are weapons that require reloading.

I'd go with 'You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light or negligible object that's not a weapon in that hand. Light or negligible improvised weapons count as objects instead of weapons for this.'

PS: it should be noted that the buckler is so poorly worded that you are unable to hold a negligible bulk item in your hand and raise your buckler: only a Light bulk item qualifies. :P

I don't think you're getting your point across.

Str thrown weapons (and Dex finesse thrown) would, in your opinion, contribute to Str supremacy? If that's the case, how isn't Dex weapons contributing to Dex supremacy when it already applies to both melee finesse and ranged? Str thrown weapons is a QoL improvement that changes nearly nothing about how Str and Dex characters work, with the exception that characters that didn't have a way to contribute to ranged character now have a (subpar) option to do so.

I find Aklys, Bola, Combat Fishing Pole, Flying Talon and Wrecker to be a Str option for short ranged combat. Ranged Trip doesn't cause damage on it's own, but a successful trip causes a fall.

I don't know that a torch is always an improvised weapon.

It says it can be used as an improvised weapon and there is nothing to say when or if that turns off. It's like the crossbow with a bayonet: Can you say when or in what circumstances it stops being a melee weapon or a ranged weapon? Would there ever be a circumstance that a stance that requires a melee or ranged weapon ever stop working if you're holding it?

And I'm doubtful the intention was to break people being able to hold torches.

Flip that around once. Do you think the intent is that a stance that requires a weapon would continually turn off when you're using an improvised weapon? After all, "Improvised weapons are simple weapons" and not 'improvised weapons are simple weapons while attacking with them' or 'act as weapons for an attack but are otherwise held items.' With them simply simple weapons, there isn't a situation they aren't that: you are holding then in the required hands to use them, the very definition of wielding as a weapon and using them as an item with nothing indicating it's a binary state between them. It's both a weapon and an item.

Now on the other side, do you think that using a torch turns off it's 'item' use, IE the, light goes out? What does stopping using it as a torch do? Or in the case of a fan, does t stop being able to fan things as a weapon? Doesn't seem like that's the intent or in the rules.

Similar to the whole fan thing (as I've been discussing/ruling) the fan or torch functions as its base item or as a weapon, and you choose when you draw it which mode it's in. And it stays in that mode until you spend an action. The torch just also happens to remain a burning torch emitting light when you use it as a weapon.

You can houserule that, but it's no where in the rules that you can't simultaneously wield/hold multiple things at once when they are built in: for instance, do you force someone with a shield to take an action to switch to a shield spike attack from using a shield for defence? Use an action to use a reinforced stock after a crossbow attack? A Gauntlet Bow spends an action between gauntlet and bow attacks? You're inventing an action that isn't there: when they WANTED an action to switch, they made it very clear in Combination and there's nothing equivalent for improvised weapons.

I wouldnt say its a shrödingers weapon situation

while I get where it comes from, it seems pretty clear to me

a fan is a fan and a fighting fan is a fighting fan

while the last one can fulfill the functions of the first, it is always a weapon

and the regular fan is usually mad eof light materials that are just not made to whack ot slice people with

Look at a torch. it is always an item for lighting up a space and is also always always an improvised weapons. The same applies to the fan, as the archetype notes you can use them as improvised weapons. The item never turns off [you're still holding a light source]and the improvised weapon never turns on [you always can hit someone with it]: they are simultaneously both. To wield or use them, you use the same hand and nothing indicates they use a different grip. Hence, shrödingers weapon as it is both weapon or item depending on the moment.

Squiggit wrote:

I feel like trying to define a hard rule here is just going to break something somewhere else and it's better to just tell a player to please not try to make something like this a thing.

The rules already do that by saying you can't raise a buckler while wielding a weapon, but the question persisted.

While that is a rule, it doesn't seem to have been made with improvised weapons in mind: carrying a torch in your buckler hand seems 100% on brand but it's one of the items that the game calls out as always being an improvised weapon. IMO, that's why the question comes up as they keep making improvised weapon content without addressing that virtually every item can be an improvised weapon meaning that they'd be incompatible with 'hold item but not weapon' abilities. As is, it's a Schrodinger's weapon situation where it's both an item and a weapon simultaneously.

On a different note, I'd like to pose the question of whether it's even worth it to use a regular fan as an improvised weapon.

It's only worth it if you have abilities that make it ok. For instance, Exemplar has Humble Strikes [+1 die size for simple weapons and improvised are simple weapons] or Weapon Improviser archetype [no -2, minimum damage 1d6 or 1d4 if agile] or a Shoony's Improvisational Defender [no -2] and Improvisational Warrior [gain Brawling crit specialization].

EDITED to add: as an open-ended question for anybody to answer, what damage type/amount and weapon abilities would YOU rule an ordinary fan being used as an improvised weapon should have?

Depends on size and construction. Materials could range from paper and thin wood to completely metal, while the end could come to a point, edge or a blunted one. As such, damage type and size would vary IMO.

From Weapon Improviser
"GM Advice: For a GM setting damage, typically a one-handed improvised weapon's damage is 1d4, 1d6, or 1d8; one that needs two hands is 1d8, 1d10, or occasionally 1d12, and an extremely ineffective one might deal 1 damage."

The way damage dice work, damage jumps from 1 to 1d4 so the fan would be 1d4. As to worrying about that being the same damage as a fighting fan, you have to remember it's -2 to hit and missing Agile, Backstabber, Deadly d6, Finesse, Monk and Knife crit specialization: so it loses a LOT [the DM might allow some traits to stay; myself, I'd allow Agile or Finesse to stay]. I might even bump up damage to 1d6 with no traits for a particularly large metal fan.

Errenor wrote:

If you are using fans as weapons, you have weapons in your hands, improvised or not. I would be very annoyed as a GM if you tried 'switching' trick with me 'now weapon-now not'.

Agreed. Wielding an item and simply holding that item are different things.

So if some abilities prevent wielding (but allow holding) an item, and other abilities require wielding that same item, then the two sets of abilities cannot be used at the same time.

I would require an Interact: Change Grip action to switch between holding the fan and wielding the fan. Similar to the Interact action needed to switch between ranged and melee usage modes of a Combination weapon.

The thing is, switching from melee to ranged action cost changes based on the weapon. For instance, a crossbow with a bayonet doesn't require a different grip and doesn't need an action to switch between melee and ranged. With this, IMO, I don't see the "shenanigans" of swapping melee to non-melee when I could melee to ranged with a more complicated weapon at will. The game poorly covers use/wield as you can in effect wield multiple 'items' at the same time in the same hands. The hands to wield a torch is the same hands needed to use one: same with a crossbow and a reinforced stock using the same hands to wield them simultaneously.

I think the only thing that'd mess thing up, IMO, is if the fan in question was actually used as a weapon: at that point, you wouldn't keep your raised shield.

There are still a few people around from the Dragon/Dungeon magazine days... Before even the Pathfinder APs, let alone PF1e.

And still a Charter Subscriber.

I still have all my dragon/dungeon magazines around here someplace. ;)

In the Remaster Triangle Shot in PC2 had its Flourish trait replaced with the Fortune trait. Not only does the feat/ability not involve rerolling at all, but the change now allows it to stack with Flurry of Blows for a wild number of attacks per turn which doesn’t seem to have been the original intention.

I'm not sure that the ability to make Flurry of Blows at a -10 is an issue or something that requires 'fixing'. The bigger issue is what happens if you have a misfortune affect and try using Triangle Shot: what gets canceled?

For an absurd example, "Anatidaephobia" is literally from a Far Side comic based on a linguistic construction. It's (probably) not common enough to be recognized outside that context, but maybe someone has severe anxiety about it. This is absolutely not something Paizo should take pains to avoid.\

That said, a community-driven spreadsheet like this for GMs who are concerned about which products have what triggers is a pretty interesting idea. Not one we have the time or resources to create and maintain, alas, but something like the webiste "Does the Dog Die?" for movies but for RPGs?

This sounds about the best option to be honest. Anything past a having trigger warnings for the most common phobias is impractical on your end.

Aside from "why should we fix something obviously wrong" the fact is that a fix would not be that difficult. A simple rule that creatures being hauled as cargo have 4x the bulk they have when being carried would suffice. Not like it needs a whole new system.

Why fix something that 99.999999999999999999999% of people playing the game would never notice? When, in a game you've played, has this come up AND it mattered to that game? I'd rather not have them try to make room in the page layout for that new simple rule when there are actual rules that are needed IMO. I have yet to be in a game where exactly how many pounds are in a ship or wagon mattered, especially when vehicle carry is given in "typical" amounts and and vehicles have passenger counts listed. I think this is more a you problem than a problem with the vehicle system.

PS: also look at the Automated Cycles sidecars once. "Each of the two sidecars can hold 1 passenger or 10 Bulk." Here, 1 PC takes up the room of 10 bulk.

So that in 3 years there won't be jokes all over the internet about pathfinder physics the way there is about D&D physics.

Bulk numbers where intentionally borked from inception. For instance, the bulk of creatures was intentionally MUCH lower than they should be so PC's could move other PC's. It's not going to see any changes like you're talking about unless there's a new edition.

Yeah, same with the useless comments about Fear/Emotion always being a Mental effect. There is ambiguity in Scare to Death and it's Paizo's decision to rectify that or not, but this is not the place to insert your "very important opinion".

I find it a bit ironic that you're making a non-errata post to complain about non-errata posts in the errata thread... ;)

Once again, graystone, encumbrance for an eight hour hike in the real world is a meaningless comparison, since a person hiking for 8 hours naked in the real world will become exhausted.

No it's quite meaningful as that's the base standard for pathfinder: you're trying to tie real world examples to pathfinder examples so how it works in both worlds matters. You're trying to compare what a person can do in the real world that causes exhaustion and trying to say that that compares 1 to 1 for an activity in pathfinder that doesn't do so: since it's NOT a 1 to 1, it's a pretty meaningless endeavor without an actual conversion from exhausting activities to non-exhausting ones. 'But a real life person can carry X weight and get tired' is a meaningless statement when the guideline in pathfinder is 'you can carry X without getting tired.'

If you wanted to compare weights where someone IS encumbered, we'd be closer to what you're talking about: EI, numbers where the weight is actually affecting you're abilities. That is where your "117 pounds" meets the 10+Str mod numbers. That means the numbers for starting characters could go from 130 pounds max to 180 pounds. Again, the numbers don't seem out of place ot "utter nonsense".

Super Zero wrote:

The entire point of explorer's clothing is that you can put armor runes on it.

But not shadow, which is limited you certain types of armor.

That's what I thought. Can you help me find the source for the rule?

It's noted under both Explorer's Clothing and in Runes that that they can take runes.

The Gi and Scroll Robes have no such mention in the books. However, Nethys has a note that says "Clothing isn't armor, but if it has a Dex cap it can accept fundamental and property runes." Just scroll all the way to the bottom of the item description to find the note.

The fact is hat anyone moving as fast as they could with nothing on for several hours will get tired. Nobody finishes a marathon as fresh as a daisy, and nobody runs a marathon at the same speed they do a 50 yard dash. Even walking 8 hours carrying nothing without a break will leave someone tired, so your basis of comparison makes no sense.

Which makes a comparison difficult as in pathfinder you go from unaffected to encumbered with no inbetween.

I use weights for two reasons- first they are a pretty clear about how hard they are to carry, and they are generally made of the same material (iron) as medieval weaponry.

I've already pointed out that you've overestimated the weight of medieval weaponry.

Also considering that the range for strength is from -1 to 4 without hitting the exceptional range I don't think Str:1 would be average- more like str: 1.5, maybe Str:1

IMO, Strength +0 is average, as you've neither added or subtracted from the base value. [lots of people dump stat strength]. Of course, the average will trend higher with level.

Which means a medium person (bulk 6) is light encumbrance. How long an average person can carry another human being seems like a better measure of what that means than what they can run with for hours.

There is no such thing as "light encumbrance" in pathfinder: it's a binary condition. This means the test IS both can they pick up another person AND can they do so all day while doing other things unimpaired because they are carrying that other person.

Though I have never seen a person climb a rope while carrying another person either.

And that's the crux of the issue: in pathfinder, you can do such things, like climb ladders, long jump and swim without hindrance while under that Bulk limit.

Now I was just basing my estimation of hat a marine carried based on my dad's experiences in Vietnam, but looking it up a marine's load for combat ranges from 60-100 pounds on average topping out at 117 pounds, https://www.mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Paying-for-Weight-in-Blood.p df lists data for casualty rates amongst marines carrying 120 pounds- you might also note on that sight that while they list a fighting load of 65 pounds they compare this to actual load of 117 pounds.

Did you actually READ what you linked?

It notes it was about teams that "engaged with a fire team-sized element (in a defensive position) from 100 meters carrying various loads.": that's a far cry from an 8 hour hike.
"Studies show that increasing load decreases physical performance from 0.36 to 0.68 percent per pound for tactical combat movements."
"An increase in only 15 pounds, from 65 to 80 (fighting to assault load), results in approximately one additional casualty on average, per engagement. Even more profound, the difference in casualties between the fighting load (65 pounds)and the average actual combat load (117 pounds) is nearly 3 Marines."
"From the warfighter’s perspective, every piece of gear added to the load without the removal of another only makes the load heavier, which reduces physical performance."

This clearly shows that going above the optimal 65 pounds reduces physical performance: this fits well with pathfinder, as a Str +0 can cover that weight [remember, a backpack carries 2 bulk that do not count against the limit]. If anything, pathfinder people carry more, not less the real life since they can start off carrying 130 pounds without Encumbered at 1st level: str +4, 2 from backpack, 2 from hefty hauler [several backgrounds offer it].

So fundamentally your numbers are wrong.

No, they are 100% right. Again, I don't think you read your own material.

That said given the descriptions of what load means, it seems like there are a lot of bad numbers involved, since in game people can do things carrying these loads that people cannot actually d unencumbered, and the creature loads look even more unrealistic.

Bulk is a vague guesstimate of the amount of gear you can carry and is made to be as easy as possible. I have a lot of issues with it, but the general bulk to weight values vs real life actually aren't far off for 'human' sized creatures.

I was talking about day laborers tossing around 45 pounds, not 100.

Moving around with 45 pounds falls under strength +0 using bulk [25-50 pounds, as it's 5 + modifier]. Seems fine to me.

On the other hand I have watched 14 year old boys haul 50 pound bags of dirt or other supplies for 4 hours straight.

I seriously doubt you've watched them carry it non-stop for multiple hours without rest, moving as fast as they would without that much weight and not have any sign of fatigue or tiredness afterwards. In pathfinder, you can climb ladders, ropes, ect without any extra effort carrying 5+mod bulk. Have you seen those day laborers doing that for instance? We're talking about 100% unaffected by the weight.

A guideline of 25 pounds per bulk "or more" for objects that are just unwieldy not only fits the real world better but it makes the medium size definition fit the guidelines.

So you expect me to believe that the average person [str +0] can carry 125 pounds around for 8 hours without any impairment or fatigue while hiking... Not buying it. Even physically fit people that can pick up and carry another person can't do so for extended periods of time without slowing down or pacing themselves. You seem to be conflating what the max is that a person can move around with and what they can "comfortably carry" for hours on end and perform the same as if they weren't carrying it.

And as I pointed out last post, studies indicate that weight beyond roughly 30–45% of a marine's body weight significantly reduces effectiveness. This is with people at the best fitness levels. With the average weight of a US marine at around 175, this puts the weight they can "comfortably carry" at 52.5-78.75 pounds. If we go by your quite unrealistic numbers, that would put the average marine at a Str of -2 to -3... So 25 pounds per bulk seems wildly out of line with the real world.

A str 4 character is supposed to be at the high end of human normal strength. Giving a maximum level for encumbered that is lower than what an actual human in that strength range can curl seems a bit off.

I may have used the wrong term, but I stand by the observation that 5-10 pounds per bulk is way too low.
Marines routinely hike 30 miles with over 100 pounds of gear, and are not slowed by it.

What you're saying just isn't true.

Since you're posting the exact same thing in multiple threads, I'll just link to my posts in the original thread. reply in first thread

Actually a 5 pound weapon is pretty small.

A historical European longsword typically weighs between 2.5 and 3.5 pounds. You have to get into something like a traditional Scottish two-handed claymore to hit around the 5 pound weight [typically 5-6 pounds]. Same with axes, where battle axes weigh between 1 and 4 pounds and larger, two-handed Danish axes or poleaxes typically range from 4 to 7 pounds. Your heaviest melee weapon, zweihänder/creatswords, only weigh 9–18 lbs. So, no, 5 pound weapon aren't small.

PS: arbalests tie greatswords at 10 to 18 pounds.

Marines carry 100 pounds of gear over day long hikes without difficulty, and they are not all weightlifting musclemen.

Studies indicate that weight beyond roughly 30–45% of a Marine's body weight significantly reduces effectiveness. This is why the Fighting/Assault loadout is roughly 50–70 pounds, including body armor, helmet, rifle, ammo, and water. Loads above ~60 lb have markedly increase fatigue and decreased mobility; above ~80–100 lb increase risk of injury and reduce operational tempo. This is why only heavy dismounted assaults or sustained operations will carry 80–100 lb and generally not for extended periods [ammo used, extra water consumed, forward base set up, ect].

The idea that the maximum unencumbered load is the same as what day laborers pick up and toss around one handed is frankly absurd.

WOW, where you live, day laborers are walking 8 hr while carrying 100+ weight and can move full speed while fighting? All while having no fatigue or impairment? Do they have a super soldier program there?

Giving this some thought it sems to me that he bulk system as written has two major flaws:

1st, the equation of 5 lbs=1 bulk. This means that with a maximum bulk of 5+str and beefy starting character can only carry 45 pounds. I have worked jobs where the minimum requirement for physical capability was the ability to lift 40 pounds with a single hand. This is a far cry from the "epic heroes" the system is supposed to model, and bulk 1=25 pounds would make much more sense, which also then would put a bulk:6 human at 150 lbs, which comes out about right. The other point is that bulk for larger creatures should multiply by 4 per level instead of two- so a small character would be bulk 2, a tiny would be L, a large creature (like a horse) would be bulk:24 and so on.

1 bulk is 5-10 pounds, meaning 45-90 pounds. This is also for carrying around all day without ANY penalties. Being able to lift and move a 40 pound item is far different than picking it up and being unaffected by that weight after an 8 hour hike, fighting, ect.

Secondly, try factoring in the reduces Bulk of items for Large and bigger creatures. Doubling their bulk would be overkill.

As for bulk of humans making sense... well, that's never going to happen. I can only guess it's that bulk so people can be dragged away, not for realism.

I would suggest the following errata for the rules on loads:

1) base weight to load conversion should be 25 pounds per load, not 5.Someone with Str:4 should be able to carry more that 45 pounds without being encumbered.
2) creature load should be x4 difference by size category, not x2. so a large creature (horse) would be load:12, a small creature would be load:2, and so forth.

#1 pathfinder doesn't use load.

#2 a str 4 character can 'generally' carry 5-10 pounds/bulk, so they could carry 45-90 pounds without encumbered.

#3 You also need to factor in reduced bulk of items for those sizes. A large creature treats 1 Bulk items as Light [they treat 5-10 pound items as 1-4 pound items] and Light items as negligible [treat 1-4 pound items as one that's a few ounces]. They don't also need to carry twice as much of top of that.

You assess a foe's weaknesses in combat and use them to formulate a plan of attack. Choose a creature you can see. You can Devise a Stratagem as a free action if you're aware that creature could help answer the question at the heart of one of your active investigations. Roll a d20, then decide on an attack stratagem or skill stratagem.

"Attack Stratagem: If you Strike the chosen creature before the start of your next turn, your Strike gains the fortune trait and you must use the result of the d20 roll for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling. You make this substitution only for the first Strike you make against the creature this round, not any subsequent ones. When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. If you Strike with a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon, it must have the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution."

If my Investigator (or a PC with an Investigator Archetype and Devise a Stratagem) were to get an out of turn Reaction that grants me a Strike, it seems like I would have to use the result of the d20 roll gained from Devise a Stratagem on the out of turn Reaction.

But what happens if I use a melee weapon without the finesse or agile traits? Would I still be required to use the substituted d20 roll, even if I cannot benefit from the substitution?

#1 an out of turn Reaction would only happen if you Devise a Stratagem and then do not strike, leaving an strike unused. this seems unlikely.

#2 The D20 substitution and the stat substitution are 2 distinct things: Since you've picked Attack Stratagem, "you must use the result of the d20 roll for your Strike's attack roll. No ifs, and or buts. The stat substitution says "When you make this substitution, you [b]can[/] add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier." this means it's completely optional but is conditional on the d20 substitution to work.

Tridus wrote:

The Contrarian wrote:

Tridus wrote:

They understand it just fine: they didn't implement it because one part of it contradicts another part of it. If you actually follow through with both tables, you don't get the stated outcome of a creature of a given size should be able to carry the equivalent gear in equivalent bulk as a creature of another size.

And to that I say "So what?" There's nothing stopping them from implementing it other than themselves.

Not incompetence; just a lamentable choice.

"The rules contradict themselves so we're not implementing the contradiction" is a pretty good reason to stop.

I can't tell if you're serious and just don't understand the problem or if you're being deliberately obtuse.

I just don't see it as a problem. Contradiction or no, it could be implemented as is without impacting gameplay negatively.

I think their comment said it all. They concluded that having tiny and large creatures not carrying about the same amount of appropriately sized gear as a Medium creature to affect gameplay in a negative way and would be against the stated intent of the statement "Because the way that a creature treats Bulk and the Bulk of gear sized for it scale the same way, Tiny or Large (or larger) creatures can usually wear and carry about the same amount of gear as a Medium creature."

graystone wrote:

Without a common understanding of what a "modern" game is, I have no way to determine what might be on or not in your eyes. Since I haven't the slightest idea what Crucible is, it wasn't overly helpful in narrowing what cut-off date you think a game stops being modern. A quick look just brings up the video game Crucible which doesn't seem applicable.

EDIT: by modern, do you mean a rules lite system?

Not at all, Rules lite has always existed and thrived on the nordic and european scenes. if anything "rules-medium" is becoming the new trend since the pandemic forced everyone to adopt the digital in some capacity. Its more that the design principles visibly change over time, even OSR games have moved on from many of the 80s design principles despite being inspired by that time.

If you want a cutoff point, Then I have a hard time believing anyone would consider 3.5e,4e or pathfinder 1st edition as modern so after 2010s.

And since then we have had 5e, Critical Role, The OSR explosion, The indie and crowdfunding golden age, the pandemic forcing even the largest publishers into the online domain which then led into hybrid play. All of these have visibly affected how games are currently designed. So I would put the cutoff in the late 2010s, but even then theres games from earlier than 2015 that I would consider modern simply because they were ahead of their time.

as for Crucible, It's still in development by the FoundryVTT team. But it highlights the digital thats becoming increasingly common and how that allows for deeper rules without the tedium.

... all this and I still don't know what you define a 'modern' RPG as. :P

graystone wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

I'd say considering it's an optional rule, 'normal' is a bit suspect. Because it's an optional rule, including it at all is a house rule, and all iterations of it, whether as written or with modifiers, are also house rules.

I'd call it a house rule because is someone said 'we're using Free Archetype', that would not include any 'might' restrictions. You'd have to mention additional alterations as an addition to the rule that's in the book. I can't look up 'Bob's' version of the Free Archetype in the book, but I CAN look up the base Free Archetype. Optional/Variant Rule vs House Rule IMO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a complete reversal from pre-remaster, where the default assumption was restrictions and the optional rule was without restrictions?

Gamemastery Guide: "The only difference between a normal character and a free-archetype character is that the character receives an extra class feat at 2nd level and every even level thereafter that they can use only for archetype feats. Depending on the needs of the group and the theme of the game, you might restrict the free feats to those of a single archetype each character in the group has (for a shared backstory), those of archetypes fitting a certain theme (such as only ones from magical archetypes in a game set in a magic school), or entirely unrestricted if you just want a higher-powered game."

So, nope the default was the same it just made it more explicit with the "These feats are normally unrestricted" added in for the remaster. The restrictions are still behind the "you might restrict the free feats", meaning that they would normally not be restricted. It DOES say "you should place a limit on the number of feats that scale based on a character’s number of archetype feats (mainly multiclass Resiliency feats)", so you might be thinking of that.

By disagreeing, that kind of reinforces the point that different GMs have different interpretations. You have yours, and I have mine. That's the way it goes.

lol It more means that I'm not interested enough to continue debating it, not that I see a different way you can look at it. It seems a lot clearer than some other 'normal' rules in the system. ;P

Because if you ask two GMs their definition of what free archetype entails, you'll get different interpretations.

We'll have agree to disagree. I see a clear base rule with a mention that the DM could add restrictions in. I've joined games before that stated 'Free Archetype' and never had an issue with additional things added on since it's pretty clear what the base rule is.

This entire thread exists, because these questions are not even laid out under the Free Archetype rules.

If it doesn't mention a restriction, it's not there... seems simple. The OP asked if DM's restricted feat access [not if there is, isn't or should be access] but didn't mention any issue understanding the rules. It's a 'hey, do you add on to the rule' not 'does the rule say this or that'.

graystone wrote:

I'm not sure what the age of the product is meant to illustrate. You mentioned not knowing a modern RPG that uses weight [and 5.5 JUST updated], so I mentioned one.

Revisions don't change the core edition, Just as I don't consider DCC to be new despite its latest 2021 printing, or the revised Gurps basic set to be a different system. I also did mention a modern system that had abstract but precise weight in Crucible.

Without a common understanding of what a "modern" game is, I have no way to determine what might be on or not in your eyes. Since I haven't the slightest idea what Crucible is, it wasn't overly helpful in narrowing what cut-off date you think a game stops being modern. A quick look just brings up the video game Crucible which doesn't seem applicable.

EDIT: by modern, do you mean a rules lite system?

I'd say considering it's an optional rule, 'normal' is a bit suspect. Because it's an optional rule, including it at all is a house rule, and all iterations of it, whether as written or with modifiers, are also house rules.

I'd call it a house rule because is someone said 'we're using Free Archetype', that would not include any 'might' restrictions. You'd have to mention additional alterations as an addition to the rule that's in the book. I can't look up 'Bob's' version of the Free Archetype in the book, but I CAN look up the base Free Archetype. Optional/Variant Rule vs House Rule IMO.

Claxon wrote:

You might restrict the free feats to those of a single archetype each character in the group has (for a shared backstory), those of archetypes fitting a certain theme (such as only ones from magical archetypes in a game set in a magic school), or entirely unrestricted if you just want a higher-powered game.

As that is exactly the passage I would have quoted to support my earlier statement, I find myself rather confused.

Yes, you MIGHT add restrictions, meaning that that would diverge from the 'normal' rule. A rule specific to your game, is a house rule and that fits the bill with adding additional restrictions to the base rule.

I generally think of Bulk as a subsystem like Vehicles, Hexploration, or Chases. If it is useful to the story, use it. If not, don't worry too much about it.

Well, there is an issue with that: they integrated it into other mechanics. There are spells, items, feats and even ancestries involving bulk and if you're just have waving it a lot of the time, you're also hand waving those investments. Even if you're ignoring it part of the time, you ignoring those investments too. If handles before the game starts, players can mitigate now less useful mechanics, but they could still end up they [say they want to play a centaur].

And if players are carrying three sacks of 999 coins each and claiming that this results in no Bulk, then that is indeed a different problem.

But it 100% IS an issue with the system. Coins get their negligible items, nothing is added to bulk. If you pick up a negligible bulk item and 999 coins, you add no bulk. If I pick up 1 coin and 999 coins, somehow that adds an entire bulk. Then is you pick up 100 more coins, it adds no more bulk [even when the basics of the bulk system is that 10 L = 1 Bulk. I don't think any explanation would get me to think coins isn't an issue with the bulk system: they just don't follow the system that made for other items.

Another question comes to my mind.

IF you are giving a free Archetype allowing the feats when the level is met. I assume that is how it works. What if instead of doubling up on a feat from the same archetype the character takes feats from another archetype.

Would that be wrong somehow.

So I am a wizard and I take the Witch feat as a free archetype getting primal magic and then a sorcerer archetype getting divine magic, etc. Just to have a character casting spells from three lists, etc.

Nothing restricts you to a single archetype for your free archetype slots [other than the DM houseruling some limit]: they just have to be archetype feats. You could literally take a feat from a different archetype every time a free archetype feat slot comes up assuming you can juggle the feats so you could get 3 feats by then.

Wait, I'm sorry, Crossbow slayer does not... interact with the crossbow's reload or any other stats. At all. Really?!

It works when you load/reload the weapon. Relentless actions[reloading and Hunting Spike] gets you quickened for an extra action. This means a heavy crossbow can Hunting Spike, Reload, Hunting Spike, Reload.

What other thrown weapon synergies & effects would be nice here?

Better off with a Sukgung IMO. It bumps range to 200' and it can be used 1 handed. It also doesn't run into the issue of having to reload a magazines[3 actions, 2 with repeater bandoliers].

Picking up the Crossbow Infiltrator archetype can allow for a Hand Repeating Crossbow for 60' range and a 0 action reload, which would allow for 3 Hunting Spikes which combos nicely with Vicious Spike. Access to
repeater bandoliers also drops reloading magazines to 2 rounds.

5.5e is a revision of a 12 year old product, As a comparison in the same timespan we saw TSR bought out by wizards and the release of both 3e and 4e. Not to mention just how little of the world actually uses pounds and thus cannot inherently visualize it.

I'm not sure what the age of the product is meant to illustrate. You mentioned not knowing a modern RPG that uses weight [and 5.5 JUST updated], so I mentioned one. D&D 5.5 uses the best of both worlds IMO. "Carrying Objects: You can usually carry your gear and treasure without worrying about the weight of those objects. If you try to haul an unusually heavy object or a massive number of lighter objects, the DM might require you to abide by the rules for carrying capacity in the rules glossary.": So only checking extreme cases meaning the default is ignoring carry altogether.

As to people not knowing pounds, they can do what I do with metric numbers : Ask the same thing I was going to use to get weights for items: google. It tells me 1 pound = .45 kilograms. The 5lb bag of potatoes is ~2.27kg. So an extra step for them but still far superior to not having a step to get a number that has real life examples you can use and understand. In an age where computers, tablets, phones, ect are ubiquitous, adding numbers together isn't a big hurdle: adding 15 numbers that go from .1-4 [round down] and adding 15 numbers that use larger numbers isn't a big difference IMO. This especially true when the numbers shift for PC size. For D&D 5.5 you use the same formula but Large have x2 and huge have x4 capacity, so nothing changes on the equipment end: for PF2, each bulk category shifts, making some items count as 1/10th, some not be counted anymore and some not changing... So you just lost whatever ease of use you potentially gained for lower numbers.

If anything, i don't think i've seen a recent system utilize weight as a carrying capacity system outside Crucible which was made to be a digital system first and foremost.

D&D 5.5 uses lbs for carry capacity.

I think it is easy to criticize the bulk system and find edge cases it does not handle well while forgetting that it handles a lot of defaults quite good.

I'd argue that is does poorly at everything. For instance, if I need to know how many pounds something in, google can tell me weights while it has no idea on bulk. For instance, people can easily visualize what 5 lbs is, like a 5 lb bag of potatoes from the grocery store, but bulk is much more nebulous with no IRL comparison. The edge cases aren't the issue, they just magnify the them.

And what would you propose as an alternative? Just having a x pound carry limit has other issues.

Both ignoring carry for non-vast amounts of equipment and weight based are far, far superior options IMO.

I like my abstractions, i don't want to play a packing simulator.

IMO, if you're going for abstractions, you don't need to quantify it with mechanics. You ARE playing packing simulator with Bulk, just one ever so slightly less complicated one than the old weight one.

99 potions are still 99 light bulk even if you separate them in stacks of 9 its not like the rounding is per stack you carry.

But that's not really true. You hand those stacks of 9 potions to people that have a bulk total without any L items over an even bulk number [say exactly 5 bulk], giving them those stacks changed their bulk from 5 to 5. It's just like taking a pile of coins and dividing it up so everyone has less than 1000.

Secondly, if you make containers that weigh 9L and put them on a horse, they become 0 bulk. This makes both logical sense AND RAW sense as you could place 9 un-contained items and they are 0 bulk so having them neatly wrapped shouldn't change that. Much the same with coins: if a coin purse with 100 coins isn't a bulk and you toss them on a horse, why treat it differently than a shortsword when you put multiple of those items on it and the entire bunch is no bulk? It simply makes no sense when one item can be carried in non-vast amounts while a much, much smaller item hits a non-vast limit that increases it's a bulk.

And to throw a wrench into this, we now have large PC's, so you can replace the horse with one of those in the examples. It really makes "99 potions are still 99 light bulk" an untennible statement. Light objects aren't always light objects... Does it make sense that a large PC could carry 10 potions and they be 0 bulk but if you put them in a container [1 bulk total] they'd be light bulk?

Rule simplifications are there to provide simplified rules, not new opportunities to game said rules.

If you really have players that put their coins in 999 stacks to avoid bulk that otherwise would count, you have a whole other issue than the bulk rules.

It's no more of an exploit than putting all your L bulk items on your horse so they magically turn into no bulk items. The Bulk system makes no sense so why complain when someone uses it to their advantage. It's not the players fault that a single coin changes a bag from no bulk to 1 bulk: that's the bulk systems fault. PF2 is what makes how you pack affect your Bulk.

Just going to have to respectfully disagree. I have actually used bulk in PF2 when in PF1 I wholly ignored weight, and everything was wishy washy, hand-wavy, and any mechanic referencing weight was pretty much useless because I couldn't be bothered. The proof is in the pudding for my games.

This is the opposite of my experience. I had 0% issues with PF1 weights and found Bulk "wishy washy, hand-wavy, and any mechanic referencing was pretty much useless because I couldn't be bothered'. In PF1, people either liked the bookwork or ignored it. Now people I've played with have also mostly ignored Bulk as they've found it either has too much or too little mechanics. It's united both side in hating it. I have yet to find someone that I've played with that's said they like the mechanic. In PF2, there is no reference for anything outside character equipment and no real way to extrapolate other things. If I have to wing things when a rule is working as expected, I can't be bothered with it.

And this on top of how 9L vs. 10L leads to some absurdities.

My favorite is making sure everyone maxes out their coin bags at 999 so no one has to add it to bulk. ;P

Bulk is vastly preferable to whatever nitty gritty weights and measures systems most armchair game devs have got cooking up.

I wind it worse in just about any metric. If I'm with people that care about tracking all equipment it's vastly preferable to track weight. if I'm with people that don't care about tracking, we just don't do anything unless it's clearly out of bounds. Bulk is a 1/2 measure that doesn't really meet either sides needs IMO.

Also, I am super happy to no longer have to google the weights of random crap in-world all the time.

Given that doing so takes very little time, I can't see where it takes much longer than trying to guesstimate what you think the bulk of an unknown item is. It's FAR easier to just ignore bulk and just say 'you can move it' or 'it's too heavy to lug around'.