graystone's page

HWalsh wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

"PC's? Are you joking! Hire some NPC's! They have a cheaper wage and we don't have to spend hardly anything to equip them. Can you believe the last PC asked for a MAGIC weapon? What, he couldn't use the same weapons my guards use?"

The Alternative is to go back to 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

As in:
"Oh you don't have a magic weapon? You can't hurt it. No matter what."

Not DR, not resist, you just lose.

That doesn't sound all that different from PF2 ...

Yep and it sure doesn't make me go "wow that's magical!" but more "Wow, that's bad isn't it?".

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

"PC's? Are you joking! Hire some NPC's! They have a cheaper wage and we don't have to spend hardly anything to equip them. Can you believe the last PC asked for a MAGIC weapon? What, he couldn't use the same weapons my guards use?"

The Alternative is to go back to 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

As in:
"Oh you don't have a magic weapon? You can't hurt it. No matter what."

Not DR, not resist, you just lose.

And... this has to do with what exactly in pathfinder? What does 'it worked this way in d&d2' have to do with what feels magical in pathfinder? Nothing as far as I can tell. :P

As we are now, is I have to use a normal special material weapon to bypass DR, I could be losing 5d12 damage to do so... That better be a LOT of DR...

It seems to me that the NPC blacksmith who spends most of his waking hours working at the smithy should probably be better at it than the PC

You can really compare them as a PC only gets skilled by gaining experience: it has 100% nothing to do with actual practice of the skill. NPC's gain skill bonuses out of the blue for the sole purpose of challenging the PC's. As such, the local blacksmith would not even have a total unless they were expected to roll vs a PC. So it's kind of an apple/orange situation.

PS: I'm also curious who makes weapons better than +1? No NPC gets ANY use out of them so is it for the extremely few PC's to use?

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

"PC's? Are you joking! Hire some NPC's! They have a cheaper wage and we don't have to spend hardly anything to equip them. Can you believe the last PC asked for a MAGIC weapon? What, he couldn't use the same weapons my guards use?"

graystone wrote:

Boojumbunn wrote:

Please, if you are going to have Focus, please remove Charges and times per day.

And if they do that, there is no reason to care about the number of items equipped as there is NOTHING to abuse: swapping gains you nothing as there aren't any free uses.

It's worth noting that the equipment limits are still useful even if all activations happen through Focus, because passive items do (or at least should) still be a thing that happens. Stuff like armor, the stat-boosters, things like that where you put it on and just have the bonus. Unless you want those to all burn the same (exceedingly small right now, even if we do manage to divorce it from class features) resource as active-use magic items in which case... why would you want that?

How is that an issue with so few bonus types? When you can only have 3 types of bonuses, you can max the bonuses with any number of items over 2... And is getting bonuses on different activities REALLY an issue when you need to max out your bonuses to get to 50% chances of success? I'm not seeing how this can be seen as anything close to 'abuse'.

Paradozen wrote:

Quintessentially Me wrote:

So now that commoner picks up Graymere, a longsword +4... and gains +4 accuracy and no bonus damage because said commoner is wielding it like a pitchfork.

But Gonzo the Great, level 20 fighter with Legendary expertise in longswords, picks up said weapon... and not only gains +4 accuracy but also gains +4d8 damage.

Meanwhile, Gonzo's younger cousin, Gimpy the Good, level 10 fighter, with only Master expertise, borrows said sword and... gains +4 accuracy but only gains +3d8 damage.

Etc..
<snip>

Now the sword is more swordy, but I can only unlock its swordiest potential by being the best with swords. Still doesn't really add much to the magic half of the magic sword.

Disagree entirely. The sword is magic for whoever possesses it, but in order to unlock the full potential, you have to be worthy of the weapon. It's better than a plain old sword for anyone who picks it up. That's magic. But the weapon's amazing balance, magically-sharp edge, and the slight way it guides your stroke as you swing it... It takes the best of swordsmen to realize that and implement it to the full potential. The combination of a master warrior and master weapon should always yield a better result from each than if they were paired with other less powerful counterparts.

See for me it makes it more 'mathy', not more magical: it's numbers thrown at the character to keep up with the systems expectations of what a PC needs to do in combat.

To illustrate how 'unmagical' it seems, an npc can have a sword with all the same traits that is 100% non-magical/mundane... Somehow NPC deal damage based on their 'level' while it's an impossible task for PC that have to find a magic item to do it for them. It's a crutch, not a wondrous item legends are made of... :P

@Gorbacz: True enough but then Paizo also made us prone to version comparisons by saying they want to be able to "tell the same stories" in the new version as in the old.

LOL They make statements like 'a caster can go to sleep in 1e, wake up in 2e and not notice the difference...' It seems even the Devs themselves are comparing what you can do in 1e to what you can do in 2e, so why shouldn't the playtesters?

I always imagined it to be vor as in vortex + pal as in impale, to the sense of producing a devastating wound by way of rotating.

Carroll himself explained that many of the poem's words were portmanteau words playfully combining existing words from English, such that "frumious" meant "fuming and furious", "mimsy" meant "flimsy and miserable" and "slithy" meant "lithe and slimy".

On "vorpal" he wrote "I am afraid I can't explain 'vorpal blade' for you—nor yet 'tulgey wood'".

graystone wrote:

Having everything come from the weapon makes it feel like you're playing a magic weapon that equips a peasant to carry them around because class adds so little to it. Class, say wizard vs a fighter of the same level and same strength, is far less important than the plus of the weapon. :P

This isn't true though.

The weapon provides damage.

The user provides accuracy.

It amounts to a pitiful amount of difference IMO.

Level 10 Paladin, 20 Strength

vs a level 10 wizard, 20 strength... Class has almost NO effect. 'skill' is almost a non-factor. You're a glorified weapon holder and not a paragon of weapon skill... it's ALL about the weapon.

The weapon just provides damage.

'magic' does, not the weapon and that's the issue: a non-magic weapon is doing 1d8 and IMO that's not right: level/class/ect doesn't matter as you ALWAYS deal the same damage and are, in essence, quite useless compared to how magical your weapon is.

Some people hate the idea that magical weapons are actually magical

I think that's a misrepresentation IMO. I don't find adding numbers 'magical': so adding +3 or adding 3d8 are as equally non-magical and are instead mathematical. I want a magic weapon to be MAGIC: I want it to burst into flame, grow a hand and grapple a foe or walk over and hit someone by itself.

As to the bonus dice, I'd rather see it come from the person instead of the weapon: I don't want someone to deal almost no damage with a 'normal' sword as I see being a master swordsman a far more important factor in the equation. Having everything come from the weapon makes it feel like you're playing a magic weapon that equips a peasant to carry them around because class adds so little to it. Class, say wizard vs a fighter of the same level and same strength, is far less important than the plus of the weapon. :P

I feel like one free use per day, additional uses cost resonance is pretty easy to track, since literally all you have to remember is "have I used this already today?".

Sure if you have a single item maybe... Now imagine if you have a per day affect on each of your 10 items and you have 5 wands... Was it item #5 or #6 you used the free use of or was that yesterday? Did you use wand #2 or #3? You have 15 individual pools to track on top of focus. Now if you're the DM and every player has similar items, you have 60 items to track 'did you use that today' with. :P

This is of course taken to the extreme but it illustrates that "have I used this already today?" is looking at the issue in a vacuum.

Please, if you are going to have Focus, please remove Charges and times per day.

And if they do that, there is no reason to care about the number of items equipped as there is NOTHING to abuse: swapping gains you nothing as there aren't any free uses.

LOL I vote for hel your enemy! ;P

To be fair, Marc, the new form of Resonance has nothing to do with limiting consumables and instead achieves a much more laudable goal of mitigating abuse of permanent magic items.

What possible 'abuse' is there for items that aren't per day items that use focus? If you toss 1/day uses and/or free uses, you just use focus and resonance serves no purpose and can be gotten rid of. Win/win of less to track and no 'abuse'.

Part of the design goals seem to be "Nerf Magic Items"

All magic in general IMO.

there's the old faq/errata questions thread, and mankind's oldest method: prayer

Witchcraft and a sacrificial chicken?

The problem is, you can NEVER eliminate Jerk DMs through "sufficiently tight rules." There is no such thing.

There are varying degrees of 'jerk', bad or inexperienced that might be helped by a rewording.

There is a separate issue that the handwave-um is treating the roll as unfailable when the actual one still fails even if you exceed the minimum roll by +9...

Just can't say you like that idea eh?

:P :P :P

LOL It's a fine idea: I'm just focused on the destination, not how we get there. Sorry if that bummed you out. :)

That's because you can't make a simple, general rule without having corner cases where it becomes absurd.

A thinking human is necessary to adjudicate the rules, unless you stick to very typical, straightforward situations.

Well you can make that simple, general rule by turning it around 'you don't roll except for corner cases where the dm thinks it's required.' That way, it's only called for if the DM goes out of his way to do so.

About the 5% chances of failure, I hate them too. It's too high of a number when you beat the DC by far, but that's the best we can have with a d20

As I said to Vidmaster7, 0 is lower than 5. ;) Trivial tasks shouldn't be one that fail 5% of the time: if the implication is that you shouldn't have to roll for them, that in essence is treating them as if they had a 100% success rate and since that's the case why not take out the middleman and remove the auto fail on a 1 instead of handwave-um...?

I wholly disagree and find your argument unreasonable. 5% is completely and totally realistic for people in a medieval society.

I couldn't disagree more, both in conclusion or that pathfinder is "a medieval society".

To be blunt - I don't want the days of PF1 "I don't ever fail because my bonuses are twinked through the roof" to come back and it's the main reason I stopped frequently playing 1e.

To be blunt, I don't want people that specialize in a task to fail 50-30% of the time on skills of their level and have the ability to fail at the simplest tasks.

assurance

Yeah, no. I'm not paying for something that should be part of the skill system itself,. That and the ONLY use it has is that, to patch the system to allow you to not fail tasks SO far below your level that they are 'trivial'. That's not a feat IMO.

So would you prefer it to just give extra charges or only empower certain items or not empower at all?

I don't know that it fits for any item to be honest: it's all somehow adding and altering something that's already made and finished. Every creature with focus now can fiddle with items that require feats and skill to make, somehow without ANY effort, background or skill but 'just cuz'. It basically requires everyone to have innate knowledge of how each and every item is made, how it works and the personal magic to tweak it all on the fly: that can work but that's not pathfinder/Golarion to me. It's something that would stick out like a sore thumb in the 'go to sleep in PF1 and wake up in PF2' test.

EDIT: it would be slightly better if it was limited to things affecting YOU as it could be seen as you affecting a change on yourself and not the item. With it working on bombs and such though, it's clearly a change in the innate functions of the items themselves and not the person using them.

So wait for those of you talking about the potions is it just the empowering you have a problem with? You would prefer not to be able to empower an item my adding your own magic energy?

For myself, it's more of an optics issue for me. I think it can work mechanically, but the average person powering up a potion just doesn't fit into my idea of pathfinder/Golarion: even classes, like an alchemist, power up their creations when they create them and not later. Even an occultist isn't dealing with consumables. It just doesn't jive for me and I'm the type of person that's fine with 'anime' type fighters. :P

Just to remember that the book states that trivial checks shouldn't be rolled...

It actually DOESN'T. "Some" tasks don't need to be rolled but that totally up to the DM to figure out. The ONLY task listed as not needing a roll is "climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances": every other task is at the discretion of the DM. It offers a suggestion that "these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters" but doesn't state that those task aren't rolled for [and in fact the rules show that even trivial tasks ALWAYS have a failure chance].

Grey doesn't believe in not absolute rules she assume they will end in A-hole DMs screwing one over with abusing the wiggle room. (and some probably do I just feed them to my pet owlbear when I met them.)

It's a numbers game really. You have enough DM's, you'll have one that reads these rules and want a roll for those nails... What's worse is that the game actually allows for a failure in a task so trivial that's it's require a "A-hole DM" to ask for it: that failure chance bothers me more than the possibility of a DM asking for it to be honest. :P

No no I already fixed that.

*shrug* I can see various ways to fix it and I think they'd work equally well. As long as the end result is getting rid of 1 = auto-failure, I'll not quibble over the how too much.

Concerning the nails and legendary blacksmiths...

You'd not make a skill check for every. individual. nail. You would make them for a group of nails.

My point would be if that blacksmith wanted to make only ONE nail, they have a 5% failure rate... You aren't forced to use batch rules after all.

And given that I've had screws, which are manufactured using automation so humans don't actually get involved at all and the chance of error should be 0%, actually end up being broken or otherwise defective... yes. Even a legendary blacksmith should occasionally screw up on making a nail. You could consider it as "I'm so good at this task that I'm not paying any attention at all and let an error slip in as a result."

All I've agreed with: failure is a possibility, but not 5%. IMO, that legendary blacksmith should fail when the conditions are bad that produce penalties large enough to produce an actual failure chance by the dice.

For instance, if you're using inferior materials, you're sick, in the rain, during a earthquake and cursed... Sure, THEN maybe you've got a 5% failure chance.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Wouldn't a Quick Runner's Shirt just be an item you have one of, and spend a Focus each time you activate it? I mean that is the thrust of one of the points made in my post at the top of the page. Get rid of the free 1/day, because doing so both prevents abuse as well as simplifying tracking. Meanwhile, increase the base amount of Focus you get so you don't even need the 1/day kludge.

While that's a whole other discussion, Resonance is still important to prevent weirdness like carrying around ten different skill boosters and swapping them out whenever you need to make the relevant skill check, which you could do with a simple "item slots" implementation.

I can't say I see any issue if someone would/could swap skill items. What actually breaks? What items AREN'T they using if they spent all their money of those skill items?

I mean I feel the DM always has the option of throwing out rules they don't like and changing the game to how it works for them. Of course they should also let people know that stuff at the beginning too. Not make changes mid game but rather at the beginning.

If I felt that way I would preface people signing up for(or however online games works) my game by saying I reserve the right to deny take 10 whenever suits me.

Oh, I totally agree with you: it's why I hated the non-FAQ so much. When given an opportunity to clear up take ten, they went for having it be MORE ambiguous instead of less.

Rather then just find a new GM the idea is to make the rule book more complete and less open to bad interpretations.

*nods* I'm 100% cool with DM fiat. I just hate it when the rule in question IS DM fiat instead of an actual rule with a right and wrong answer. I'd rather see 'it's this way but if the Dm wished they can do it this way'. So for the rule in question, I'd rather see "These rolls are automatic successes unless the DM requests a roll." Opt in to requiring a roll instead of opting out of the required roll.

ELH: I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Thats weird what program do you use?: web site actually. Players CAN contact each other if they wish and exchange their site names and it's not that uncommon for me to get an invite to fill in if someone drops or a new game is starting.

you can all agree on the rules: Generally the DM lists everything when requesting players: books allowed, restrictions, levels, ect. Anyone interested sends a request to join, usually with a character and you have a back and forth with the DM if needed over specifics. Most times you don't see who the other players are until the game starts up unless the DM gets the players together to make up characters together but that's rare.

That's somewhat reasonable. I think your removing a few old D&D staples that way. The excitement of seeing a 20 or a 1 which is probably a hard sell but I can see where your coming from.

As/is, you have to wait for your 'excitement' to see if the number hit or missed as that affects it's being a crit. You have to 'math' it out anyway.

Random curiosity: how often if ever do you play with the same group?

Same group? Almost never: that only happens if the DM recruits from a current game to a future game but that's kind of a perfect storm to get all the players and DM willing and available at the same time. Add to that, the way the system is set up, only the DM[s] know your name so the other players only know your game name so I might play the next game with some of the players from this game and not know without guessing.

With the turnover and popularity of pathfinder games combined with real life and online play, it's always a mix of people you've played with before and people you haven't. ;)

graystone wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Er...

Page 337 wrote:

Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

Doesn't this handle a legendary blacksmith making nails, or a legendary scholar doing simple math?

That's a rule 0 type DM's fiat. As such, there is never a guarantee that a DM that I play with will or will not ask for a roll. So, it's kind of worthless as I don't have the same DM from adventure to adventure.

I think if "identify a monarch" is trivial at level 5, and "identify a minor noble" trivial at level 8, I'd be giving a pretty massive side-eye at a DM who makes "craft nails as a legendary blacksmith" a roll-required task.

We had the old 'not a FAQ' reply to take ten for PF that pretty much said that the Dm was encouraged to throw out the rules and not allow take tens because of pacing if they wished. If the devs think the Dm should be able to arbitrarily disallow a basic tactic in the game because it's more 'exciting' to roll dice, I don't see why it'd be different with this...

Er...

Page 337 wrote:

Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

Doesn't this handle a legendary blacksmith making nails, or a legendary scholar doing simple math?

That's a rule 0 type DM's fiat. As such, there is never a guarantee that a DM that I play with will or will not ask for a roll. So, it's kind of worthless as I don't have the same DM from adventure to adventure.

Don't say no one there is always someone. Heck not to long ago there was a post wanting to remove the d20 form the game.

I have seen no one in this thread say that, or any of the playtest threads: I'll happily retract my statement if you have a quote from someone that's said that. ;)

But anyways whats your suggested fix for it? Keep the take 10 rule or just 1 not being an auto failure?

Both. Assurance is... well, it's just awful in any situation you'd actually want to use it in. AS for as auto fail, we have a nifty +/-10 crit rule, so why do we need 20/1 to affect the dice at all?

I would say the best way would be Proficiency making rolls under a certain point not be fail-able? but then figuring out the exact numbers is tricky.

This works itself out if we ditch the 1 = fail rule: auto-make rolls naturally are those that equal your bonuses+1.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the assurance feat pretty much what you want? (without the actual taking of a feat cause believe you me I know how much you hate that.)

Oh I wish assurance was worth taking but it only lets you make rolls FAR under rolls you'd actually be rolling. AS such, it's only use seems to be for those static 'climb a rope against this 5' wall' task you'll never see after 1st...

Now if the numbers were actually high enough to be relevant for actual challenges you'd meet, it might be workable but as/is it's just a feat tax to get rid of the chance to fail on a 1 for simple tasks you shouldn't, IMO, have a chance to fail on in the first place.

EDIT:

Also Grey you do realize you can't roll a 0 on a d20 right?

You were talking about 5% failure: if no number is an auto failure, that's a 0. It's kind of the point that it's not on the die.

Also did you really say one failed check is to many? You don't believe you should fail checks?

"for that kind of check": we were talking about nails and basic math remember. If you fail just one "for that kind of check", it too many as you should NEVER fail that kind of check IMO. That has 0% impact on other types of rolls that pose an actual challenge.

How many is your character going to realistically make?

If he makes one and fails, that's too many for that kind of check.

Also D&D has never been perfect as simulation.

Agreed... So why try to force a chance of failure into the game if we accept that?

Its a d20 5% is as low as you get.

Last time I checked, 0 is less than 5.

Are you suggesting we start using a different die?

Nope, just the auto-fail on a one. WE agreed it wasn't "perfect as simulation", so why force a miniscule percentage all the way up to 5% JUST for realism in an imperfect simulation of a fantasy world?

Yeah if you have a 0% chance of failure then might as well remove the dice from the game.

This is a false equivalency IMO. No one wants every roll to have no failure. What I want is for my characters to have the ability to specialize in a skill and get good enough that some tasks don't realistically have a failure chance. I don't want to fail an athletics check to climb some stairs. if I make the best tightrope walker in the world, I don't want to have a 5% of falling to my death every time I try to use my skill...

Its 5% or 0% there not really an in between.

Yep, and when the chance of failure should be far, far closer to the 0% than the 5%, I say go with the 0%.

Except a Legendary Blacksmith has a 5% chance of failure, not 30%.

I was specifically commenting on the 0% comment.

Also, even the best blacksmiths occasionally screw up.

5%? 1 out of every 20 nails made by a legendary blacksmith is expected to be a failure? That's FAR, FAR, FAR more than often than I'd expect s0omeone THAT skilled to "occasionally" do.

The best scholars make mistakes.

5% of the time? Again, one out of 20 questions are answered wrong by the best of the best on the easiest questions like simple math [like what's' 1+1?]. I think the guy at the burger joint has a better percentage of successful burgers made than a 5% failure rate. The best scholars shouldn't be stumped by 'is water wet?'

So having a 0% chance of failure is unrealistic even in a setting of myth and legend.

5% failure rate no matter how skilled andor how simple the task is FAR, FAR more unrealistic IMO than an effective 0% failure rate. IMO, the reason for a failure chance should be because of either lack of skill or difficulty of the skill and not a 'just cuz' failure rate.

Those alignment spells are uncommon due to a goal of making it easier for groups that want to deemphasize (or remove) alignment in the game. In general uncommon means the characters can probably eventually find it if they are willing to look around for it, but groups that want to deemphasize alignment can do so whereas groups that want heavier alignment impact could even choose to make it common if they wish.

I think a descriptor [alignment] would do the job better and be much clearer in the intent: it's MUCH easier to sort out spells with [alignment] in them than it is to sort through each and every uncommon spell to see if they involve alignment.

Look - We're being very dishonest with the hyperbole on skills - average level 1 skill DC is 12 TWELVE in the playtest BEFORE they lowered them.

Not dishonest at all. What's the average DC needed for saves, to hits, skills, ect throughout the game? NOT just skills at 1st but throughout all your levels on all kinds of checks? If anything seems "very dishonest with the hyperbole", it's taking a single skill DC to try to disprove the entirety of checks in the game. :P

I'll take a 70% chance to succeed vs a 0% chance to fail.

Personally, I'll take the 0%. I like the fact that you can actually get good at simple tasks and at a certain point you can do them consistently. Nothing breaks my immersion in the game when a legendary blacksmith fails to make a horseshoe or a nail because someone doesn't like to see a "0% chance to fail" even when that makes total sense. A 30% failure rate IMO isn't exactly being good at a task as you fail 1/3 of the time...

A lot of the complaints I see are about heavily hanky or broken things that people enjoyed from PF1 being polished out.

Very few things actually seem polished out but more ground into a fine powder IMO. Just look at casters: quintuple nerfed into the ground isn't exactly "polished out"... Then add to that that the game has an entire different set of expectations on success: in the playtest, 50% means you're doing good and have put significant resources into something while in PF! it means it's something you don't focus on and didn't put resources towards. Or the fact that you go from making know checks automatically to not only failing but giving false info...

There is a lot to complain about that has nothing to do with "heavily hanky or broken things"... Take ten for instance. :P

I'll take the middle ground and say that failing SO often sucks both in and out of combat. :P

I think "failing at a skill check you will eventually succeed at" is a good model for those moments in fiction where our hero suffers a setback to create drama

That might be true if we didn't have crit failures that prevent more checks. Drama's all fine and good but if you break your lockpicks before you open the lock, you lost the drama as the barbarian has to chop down the door...

Zi Mishkal wrote:

It does not feel like 1E to me or a lot of other people.

It does to me and a lot of other people.

I'm with Zi Mishkal on this. I'd feel a lot better about the playtest if this was generic fantasy game x that was meant to stand on its own. I can't see it as any kind of continuation of the old game or even close for that matter. we've been told that a PC should be able to go to sleep in PF1 and after waking up in PF2 not notice the difference... So far, my PC's would have to search long and hard to find the similarities [and sadly, only have a 50% chance to notice them with the game's DC's].

So if you can see the pathfinder in the playtest, that's great for you. Some of us though are seeing it like one of those cheap knock off electronics like a Somy DVD player: it looks like the old game if you glance at it, but once you give it a close look, you notice it's a Pathfunder brand game. Sure it plays DVD's, it just doesn't have the features you expect in the actual brand. :P

Does anyone see what I am trying to point out?

I see it, I just don't agree with it though.

On the Human Cleric, it's a 22 point buy [humans get a +2 so only has to buy a 16 wisdom].

astronomical numbers compared to PF1

To be quite honest, the very last thing I'm worried about being different than PF1 is stat totals. If all of those "astronomical numbers" actually MEANT anything that would be one thing, but when they are unlikely to get you all the way up to a coin flip chance of making a roll, it seems like a non-issue.

At this stage, I'm going to buy PF2 for a year

As/is, I'm not planning on spending cash on the game. I know someone that works at a bookstore, so I'll check out the book when to comes out: I think they'd need a complete rehaul to get me on board at this point.

If something is supposed to indicate "this is not an exact percentage" it is best to not use a precise fraction to describe it.

That cat is already out of the bag: the lore isn't meant to change and the lore has it that '1/2' means a human plus an undetermined amount of another race. 1/2 is a shorthand and not an exacting percentage: its whatever mix ends up giving you the abilities of that race as presented.

Like I don't want a half-elf to have any combination of parents other than "an elf and a human" or "two half-elves" if we want to have "your grandparents were 2 humans, an elf, and a half-elf then we should say "elf-kin" or "elf-blooded human" or something.

In Golarion, those are called humans with distant heritages: humans that manifest traits of their non-human ancestor. Again, it's all about how much influence the blood has on your race and not the exact percentages.

Matthew Downie wrote:

WizardoftheNorth wrote:

I like that the characters cant swing with their 2 handed sword and cast fireball while simultaneously quaffing a potion and running across the battlefield all while doing cartwheels to get a dodge bonus to AC.

Now I want to play as that guy.

I wouldn't. Playing as a character who can do everything is a one-man army and not really group friendly. I'd have no reason to be in a party, and there would be no challenge to my character presented, which is what the Pathfinder game is all about; overcoming obstacles as a group. Here, it's trivializing storylines as Rambo. "Cool" as a movie, horrible as a game.

LOL There is one thing you glossed over: no one ever said how GOOD he was at doing any of those things. You assumed he succeeded at all those things while I'd be happy if I could try even if I failed at some or all of the tasks.

Yeah, I was just having some fun myself... Maximum solidarity on the Anti-Goblin Front ;-)

Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble!!!

I'd pull out my torches but they'd LIKE that. :P

We have some evolving standards going on here, regarding some of our terminology usage, and this thread is no place to debate them.

IS there a place on the threads to debate them [or to ask what the new 'terms' are]? If previously used terms are now off limits, what is the preferred process for us users to find that out and to find out what the new prefered terms are?

So I don't know why we're continuing the nomenclature discussion but using "half-" terminology for folks who are not actually half of something always bugged me.

Like Changelings are 50% Hag, sure, but an Aasimar might be 1/256th Angel and their celestial blood might go a dozen generations before it manifests again.

So for accuracy alone, we need another term.

I took a direct quote from a Golarion specific product: they are counted as a 1/2 race. Being a 1/2 has little to do with the exact percentages. For instance Orc Atavism [1/2 orc trait] says "much stronger orc blood than human blood". Or look at the 1/2 elf trait Round Ears "Sometimes half-elves are born with no obvious elven features. Their parents may even be humans with only faint traces of elven blood." 1/2 for races in no way means a 50/50 split in racial backgrounds as for as accuracy goes.

Regardless I think this does illuminate how these groups are NOT equivalent "halfs"

Bastards of Golarion, page 28-29. "Each of the following entries describes another half-human race."

I think people over-reacted to setting changes supporting Goblin-as-Core PC race,

Myself, I don't think they are reacting enough...

if Drow, Duergar, Svirfneblin and more are all now Core PC options, Goblin is really a side show...

That's a big IF. Right now we ONLY have Svirfneblin and they aren't exactly disruptive as a race, just unusual. We don't have drow, just elves with darkvision and none of the dwarves seems like the Duergar. And even if we did get them, I'd just see them as a sideshow to goblins. :P

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

It reminds me of the old 3rd edition racial paragon classes being made core.

It's also an alternative to Level Adjustment that opens the door to some fun Ancestries (Minotaur, Centaur, etc).

I'd have gone with half dragon myself. But sure.

1/2 medusa, harpy, cyclops... I can think of a lot of fun 1/2 races. ;)

I mean isn't the term suppose to bring out negative connotations lore wise?

Disclaimer! Not meant as a derail but as an explanation! I don't intend to post anymore of this on this thread. ;)

It actually is used in neutral tones in places. For instance, "Aasimars are considered blessed in good-aligned societies" and the term is used for them, geniekin and the like.

graystone wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, but I don't think having all scores being 16+ necessarily makes one more heroic. I would prefer if the rate of advancement was just toned down a notch.

Myself, I'm happy with pathfinder classic's 20 starting max. For me, seeing 14's and 16's for max makes the character feel more mundane and 'normal'.

Right on, but I never said a max of 14 or 16 (14 was never mentioned at all). I was talking about starting scores; getting an 18 - 20 eventually in your main score (or two) is great, but I was saying I don't think all of one's score need to be 16+ to be heroic.

I was talking starting scores too: "I'm happy with pathfinder classic's 20 starting max". While I didn't put the word 'starting' in front of 'max' in the second sentence, I'd illustrated which 'max' I was referring to in the first: starting.

14's: as you mentioned everything shouldn't be a 16+, that means you expect to see 14 and lower stats and still be seen as heroic, hence my adding 14.

As to all stats: I'd prefer a more staggered method that let you boost more often to less stats. I'd rather see your best stats hit the max then you turn to secondary or tertiary stats max than stats you've never used raising just because the whole floor got raised.

The Katana was a pain in the ass because it is very long.

It doesn't fit in the bag, and if you put it anyway it prevents you from putting a lot of other things inside it.
The short katana could just be put altogether inside and no problem.

But right there you proves why it DOESN'T work for encumbrance: with bulk it DOESN'T matter if the short swords are in the bag OR held in your hands without a container: they have the same bulk.

So the correct question is which was easier to carry around WITHOUT the bag? If the answer was the katana, then bulk isn't working as it should. Only if the answer was the 5 individual swords would that be the case.

The key here to remember that in the bulk system, containers actually do 100% NOTHING, other than add the containers own bulk to the total: really, they don't. You have to view the system as if everything is held in your hands to see if it makes sense as bulk doesn't CARE if how well or even if an object is carefully stowed/balanced. A carefully packed and balanced backpack and a loose pile of equipment on the floor have the exact same bulk.

WizardoftheNorth wrote:

I like that the characters cant swing with their 2 handed sword and cast fireball while simultaneously quaffing a potion and running across the battlefield all while doing cartwheels to get a dodge bonus to AC.

Now I want to play as that guy.

Agreed. I'd play that character all day. ;)

Well... to sum it up PF 2e combat ends when the players collectively roll over 10-to-12 (depending on class and weapon used) on their attack die.

Magic only exist to lower that roll threshold by 2 points.

Well, magic can heal too: a cleric can heal better than any other two healing classes combined while doing other stuff too. :P

Sara Marie wrote:

Removed some posts and replies:

The term "half-breed" has some pretty negative real world connotations, so please find another way to talk about half-elves and half-orcs, etc.

I understand but Paizo's own PRD uses the term to refer to half-orcs. Maybe thats where folks got it from? I guess maybe go with half-blood then?

It's a term also used MULTIPLE times in the inner sea races book to refer to 1/2 orcs so I'm unsurprised people would use Paizo's own words to refer to them that way. That book was printed just 3 years ago so it's not like it happened a long time ago...

PS: Bastards of Golarion also uses the term 4-5 times to refer to partial human's. It also comes up 5 times in the official online resource, the archives of nethys. [NPC codex x2, blood of shadows x2 [March 2016], ARG]. So in a quick look, we have maybe a dozen or 2 instances of Pathfinder's continued use of it.