graystone's page

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'.

Unicore wrote:

I also don’t think the class is as anti 2 handed weapon as it first appears if you take one with trip or shove.

I like to imagine a daredevil Pole Vault feat that allows the daredevil to jump higher or farther if they are holding a pole such as a staff or a polearm. Or maybe that should be an Athletics skill feat.

That sounds like a Daredevil that takes the Staff Acrobat archetype. The dedication gets you +2 bonus on Athletics to Jumps/Leaps, add 5' to Jumps/Leaps, allows Shoves/Trips without a free hand [while wielding your 'staff'] and Balance successes get upgraded to critical success instead.

The Raven Black wrote:

Errenor wrote:

shroudb wrote:

As for it being weaker than Reach Spell, it also costs (at maximum) half of what Reach spell costs (a full class feat for Reach vs 1 out of the 2 familiar abilities granted by the Familiar feat).

Apart from rounding corners it's also 50! ft at the base compared to Reach's 30. Or 80!! ft for just another ability.

Well, unless you count move and touch as two different actions which I won't. There's a Stride action, there's no Touch action. And Interact demands much more manipulation. But here more clarity in the rule would be actually welcome.
__
Also, yes, Command for Spell Delivery does take an action as normal.

The Spell Delivery explicitly states that you Command your Familiar and it then uses its 2 actions to move and touch. Not that it will Stride twice and touch.

It very explicitly does not state that it uses its 1 action to move and 1 action to touch. And touching does not take an action, not even for PCs. What I'm saying is more in line with the rules and the ability than assuming that touching demands an action now.

IMO, it'd have a specific callout if it could move twice. For instance, Sudden Charge calls out that you can stride twice in the activity and that's just not what we have in Spell Delivery: it doesn't say 'the familiar uses its 2 actions for the round to move twice to a target of your choice and touch that target'. Move, IMO, isn't open ended to allow any number of move actions.

graystone wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Also, I am not sure Kip up alone is worth racing for over getting athletics to master, so it might be more like level 10, or 8 levels of not having it before it solves that one response.

Taking Acrobat Dedication gets you scaling Acrobatics. I imagine it'd be quite popular way to get both athletics and acrobatics increases as soon as they are available for a single 2nd level feat [especially in free archetype games].

Acrobat as an archetype is pretty terrible for daredevil beyond getting scaling acrobatics. The rest of the feats do not synergize with your play style at all, not being press abilities and doing things you have class feats to do better already. It seems like it would be a pretty bad FA as you’d be stuck taking multiple feats you will basically never use to get out of it, to get a skill feat two levels early. If it is that important to the player to Kip up, they should just probably prioritize acrobatics first, especially if they are never using any maneuvers and just wanting to throw rocks and caroming charge.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Even if the ONLY thing it gives is scaling Acrobatics, it opens up another skill you can take to legendary which is more than enough for a 2nd level feat. Add to that that there is only a single attack in the archetype so it doesn't seem like that not having synergy is an issue; Heck, there is a skill feat in it too so you can get out of the archetype without needing 3 class feats. My point was never about rushing to get to Kip Up, but on you saying you had to pick either Athletics or Acrobatics to race to Master for: you can easily get both for a 2nd level feat.

Also, I am not sure Kip up alone is worth racing for over getting athletics to master, so it might be more like level 10, or 8 levels of not having it before it solves that one response.

Taking Acrobat Dedication gets you scaling Acrobatics. I imagine it'd be quite popular way to get both athletics and acrobatics increases as soon as they are available for a single 2nd level feat [especially in free archetype games].

Is the rest of the Paizo website not showing up for anyone else? Only the forums seem to be be working right now. When does the playtest end? And are folks able to access and find the surveys right now?

Everything is working fine. The blog says "Luckily, you have until April 10th to test out the daredevil and the slayer and then take the surveys." Here are the survey links.

Class Survey

Open Response

Two-Hand
Player Core pg. 283
This weapon can be wielded with two hands to change its weapon damage die to the indicated value. This change applies to all the weapon’s damage dice.

Strike, Breathe, Rend: "The target of the Strike takes spirit damage equal to the noble branch’s weapon damage dice."

If you're wielding it in 2 hands, your weapon damage die is 1d8.

I think the mistake was forgetting bombs are a thrown weapon, not a ranged weapon.

This would be quite odd as this errata specifically noted that bombs have the Thrown trait. :P

Depends on whether bombs count as thrown weapons - they don’t have the trait, but are stated to be thrown. Regardless this is a pretty big issue as there’s an entire investigator subclass based in large part on having bombs and it’s neutered without devise a stratagem accesses.

“Bombs have the bomb trait, and have the thrown trait even though it isn’t listed.”

the 2026 spring errata for the GM core.

I'm not the type of player that chooses the best-in-class obvious picks. I tend to go for weird utility spells like Magic Mailbox or Create Tool that aren't really all that useful to constantly have in your toolbox, vs the 'obvious choices' like... I dunno, fireball? Magic Missile? Needle Darts?

Well, I think that might be why you aren't as effective as you'd want to be. If you don't pick good spells, you don't do as well. If you pick a good selection of evergreen spells, you'd have a much better chance of doing well.

'Ignore all situational spells' is sort of counter to the idea of playing a character that's 'cool and interesting' over 'optimized'. And also ignoring all situational spells tends to require carefully weighing options to pick out which spells are going to be useful in the most situations, and which of the most useful spells to pick over the other most useful spells.

You don't have to ignore them, you just don't LEARN them. That spell you might cast one in a blue moon is what scrolls are for [especially once they are a few levels under your max spell rank]. Or a wand/staff/spellheart/ect. And you're going to be looking though and weighing options no matter what, so that really isn't a consideration IMO. After all, you have no way of knowing what spells are cool and interesting if you haven't carefully weighed all the spells: picking cool spells takes as long as it takes to pick powerful ones.

Except this isn't true. The ranger and rogue add their 3d8s and 4d6s to their weapon damage. The daredevil only deals 5d6+7 and if there's a prop.

This is without even taking into account the guardian’s Punishing Shove and the fighter’s Brutish Shove, both low-level feats that individually deal damage comparable to the daredevil’s Stunt Damage. However, the issue becomes clear when you consider that a guardian or fighter can have both feats by 4th level and, unlike the daredevil, do not require any props to use them. And the problem of daredevils potentially having both by 10th level as well.

That's going to become the new magus psychic dip if it isn't fixed on release.

Except it is true as they brought up extra damage. If the complaint was that the basic feats don't do enough damage, I'd agree. Punishing Shove/Practiced Brawn seems required as does Caroming Charge. Just using the in class feats leaves you lacking for sure. SO less that the stunt damage isn't enough but that the feat actions don't do enough.

On props, again I don't see that as an issue as your own party can count. No one complains flanking is too hard afterall.

I think stunt damage has a lot of work it could be doing for this class, but the limitations on it are pretty brutal.

1. It is nonmagical physical damage not connected to an attack. Resistances will reduce it quickly.

2. It is not going to double on critical effects all that often, so it is significantly less than many other martial damage bonuses.

3. It is often dependent on something that can be pretty situational.

1: you add your str bonus to the Stunt damage so you're more likely to get through resistance than, say an Elemental Instinct Barbarians elemental bonus. And as an extra attack, it triggers weakness again [no matter how instance of damage shakes out].

As to magical, other than Incorporeal, what do you need it for? Not really offbrand that smacking a ghost into a wall isn't very effective. Maybe add a line that magic props, like a PC wearing magic armor, count as Magical attacks.

2: compare to a 19th ranger [3d8], rogue [4d6] and Daredevil [5d6+7]. Sure others might do more on a crit, but daredevils do more on normal attacks. Adding Str to our regular attack makes them beefier.

3: Since your own party can count as props, it doesn't have to be any more situational than flanking.

IMO, the hard locked one size over your for several feats are a bigger issue. managing your size vs props and enemies is the core issue IMO.

What do you have to archetype in to get winter bolt and fire ray?

Cleric of Yamatsumi archetype. Cleric Dedication, Basic Dogma (Domain initiate [cold]), Advanced Dogma (Domain Initiate[fire]).

Dragonchess Player wrote:

What you can do is have someone cast runic body on the animal companion.

I mean... technically you can do that, but it won't do anything. It gives item bonuses that animal companions cannot benefit from, so it does absolutely nothing.

Player Core wrote:

The following are the base statistics for a young animal companion, the first animal companion most characters get. You adjust these statistics depending on the type of animal you choose. Animal companions calculate their modifiers and DCs just as you do with one difference: the only item bonuses they can benefit from are to Speed and AC (their maximum item bonus to AC is +3). As you gain levels, you might be able to make your companion stronger by advancing it.

I was about to say the same but after some thought, it would make the attack magical and could improve the number of damage dice. So it would do something, just not add to the to hit numbers.

Against a lower level enemy though:

Level 8: DC 24 -> 22
2/20 crit fail, 9/20 success

Perfectly reasonable odds for an independent action we weren’t otherwise gonna use. Gotta treat it with a grain of salt but it’s reasonable to trust i.e. weak save off that.

Then you adjust the DC for rarity and you'll likely get be looking at similar numbers to the first example. Characters focused in Recall Knowledge skills can have a hard time making the DC's, let alone familiars lacking skill proficiency bonuses.

For RK it comes back to the classic question of "can you get the lower DC for coming up with the name of a specific lore that you don't actually have?" I don't think there's consensus about whether you should be able to do that.

Yes, that can make the case for using familiars to make those checks even worse.

I think most people know familiars can do this, it's just normally a bad action.

Demoralize benefits from the speech ability but doesn't require it, and RK probably needs speech to tell you anything useful about the enemy (as funny as it is for your familiar to know the enemy's weak save and have no way to convey this).

Without speech, Demoralize is a level-4 roll so... not worth drawing attention to your familiar. Even with speech, a level roll is a bad action: better to take cover to avoid possible area attacks.

For RK, it's best off rolling lores for the DC reduction, and can be... ok at it? Better than a character with no investment at all in RK, which is extremely funny.

With crit fails giving incorrect info, a check with bad chances is better off not being rolled IMO.

Spellcasters can also select the Skilled ability to add their spellcasting attribute modifier and level to the familiar's Demoralize or Recall Knowledge skill proficiency. Spellcasting attribute modifier is generally at least +3 and usually higher.

You're better off using Snoop, Second Opinion, Partner in Crime or Ambassador to giving your familiar the ability to Aid you to boost your own roll. It's a free +1-4 on your rolls which is means it's at least on par with what the familiar can roll and the character can benefit from speech and items what can buff the rolls that the familiar can't.

The Daredevil's size doesn't change (at least not often).

Enlarge is a rank 2 spell for large and 4th rank for huge. It's not hard for the Daredevil to jump sizes regularly when needed. Taking into account several ancestries/heritages have feats that grant enlarge as an innate spell, the daredevil can change sizes without needing a buddy to do it. Add to that, you can get Size-Changing on your armor, Dinosaur Boots, Applereed Mutagen [w/ Collar of the Shifting Spider], wands of enlarge, ect.

Well Air Walk still works for aerial combat even though it's legacy since a same name replacement wasn't made. And for aerial combat, Trip would be the way to go and once close enough to the ground, I'd say the ground counts as a prop for flying/airborne creatures.

Swimming though is an issue. Honestly, I don't know why they don't make all the feats work like Daring Stunt.

You could go Haft Striker Stance and swap between a 1d10 weapon with a maneuver trait and maybe reach and a 'club'. Or is you plan to go mostly shove, a good old Maul gets you a 1d12 weapon and an agile 'club' all in one weapon.

Fair enough- I guess my approach would be either building around the other feats, or swapping weapons once you have Rushing Strike. The only maneuver trait on a d12 weapon is Shove, and that would require a blocking prop to not shove them out of your reach for Daring Reversal.

You can add Disarm, Trip and Grapple with the Inventors Weapon Innovation: Entangling Form. You'd have to wait until 8th but you can have a Maul that's 1d12 B Disarm, Grapple, Shove and Trip. [or add Sweep, change damage to 1d12 S and Advanced weapon if you change a Butchering Axe instead]

The mechanics worry me more than the name... :P

graystone wrote:

shroudb wrote:

I can't in good faith agree to the ground being a prop.

Every single "you are next to a prop" requirement becomes meaningless if so.

I think it should work for a flying character. 3D movement opens up the floor and ceiling IMO.

that's why I said "in good faith".

Permanent flying is something that comes way later in the game progression, imagining that the whole class design from level 1 is based upon a limitation that only may arise at some point around level 12+ and enven that as a very drawn out maaaaaybe, is not realistic.

I meant when they were flying they could use the floor as a prop, not that the existence of flying opened it up from 1st.

I can't in good faith agree to the ground being a prop.

Every single "you are next to a prop" requirement becomes meaningless if so.

I think it should work for a flying character. 3D movement opens up the floor and ceiling IMO.

Yeah stuff like this makes me kinda think this is going to get some errata or a look at. Just seems kinda weird and underwhelming like why would I even try to shoot these out of a crossbow at those levels why not just shoot the crossbow and do more damage. Unless you knew a target had a massive weakness to holy/unholy and at low levels that just isn't common enough to warrant all of this.

The weapon is still a thrown weapon so you add Str damage so at first, you could be doing 1d4+3 [vs 1d8 for normal crossbow] and that's not bad and it can trigger S and P weaknesses [and Holy]. At 4th, you can pick up the upgrade feat and add 1d6+4 B, so able to trigger all the physical weaknesses + you can add silver or cold iron. And if the target has none of those weaknesses, you can always fire the crossbow normally.

An interesting character would be to pick up both Bloodseeking Blade [Sukgung] and Consecrated Panoply.

I feel slayer right now doesn't give me anything that the thaumaturge didn't before

It doesn't force you to take Dubious Knowledge, which makes it a better class just for that. :P