theCopper's page

theCopper wrote:

I have to ask, Erik, are you planning on having the stat blocks more self-contained, with more kinds of special abilities described in them instead of in the corresponding appendix?

For me, at least, it would be a lot better this way.

I don't think we've fully committed one way or the other yet. The playtest monster book is going to be mega stat block dump without a lot of description of what, say, a skeleton looks like or eats. :)

As for special abilities and how they're formatted, while I know the design team has been hard at work on this stuff, I haven't interacted with it too much yet (I just finished going through magic items last night!).

I see, thanks for answering.

theCopper wrote:

Kerrilyn wrote:

theCopper wrote:

I voted for the second way, SF-style. I don't consider it inferior and I like that it requires no book-keeping.

SF still requires that you track hit points. It's *less* book-keeping, not no book-keeping...

I haven't seen SF, and obviously I misunderstood the OP's description of how it works there. I'm confused. Of course you track hit points, I was referring to the need to track lethal damage and nonlethal damage separately. The OP's description implied, to me, that this is not the case. What am I missing??

You're not missing anything. Damage is damage, it all goes to HP rather than separate tracks. But if the hit that brought the enemy to 0 HP was declared (before actually rolling the attack) as nonlethal, then the enemy goes unconscious instead of dead...

Thanks, that's what I figured. I admit I didn't phrase it right in the post Kerrilyn referred to, though; it should have been "less" instead of "no". It happens to me sometimes, heh...

theCopper wrote:

I voted for the second way, SF-style. I don't consider it inferior and I like that it requires no book-keeping.

SF still requires that you track hit points. It's *less* book-keeping, not no book-keeping...

I haven't seen SF, and obviously I misunderstood the OP's description of how it works there. I'm confused. Of course you track hit points, I was referring to the need to track lethal damage and nonlethal damage separately. The OP's description implied, to me, that this is not the case. What am I missing??

I voted for the second way, SF-style. I don't consider it inferior and I like that it requires no book-keeping.

About the Inner Sea region... Personally I would much prefer a complete book for it to come out again eventually. It's an opportunity to present things more efficiently while conveniently including the historical updates.

Personal preferences: I'd like the new maps to include the major roads (no harm to those who don't need them, useful to others like me), and the use of hexes on the maps (especially useful for users of the PDF).

Just my 2 cp.

I believe this rule needs fixing. It's more complicated than it needs to be.

I have to ask, Erik, are you planning on having the stat blocks more self-contained, with more kinds of special abilities described in them instead of in the corresponding appendix?

For me, at least, it would be a lot better this way.

I too suggest resonance should not apply to single-use items, such as potions. Other than that, I have no objection to it.

Something I'd like to add to what I wrote in my previous post... Please have stat blocks with more kinds of special abilities explained there (where applicable), instead of us needing to do page flipping too often to see what a monster can do with a given ability. (I'm not talking basics like resistances or the effects of certain speed types, and I can understand exceptions to non-basics too.)

I just think this is one of the things 5e did right with its monster manual. It's even worth saving page room by not including stat blocks for some variants of creatures.

ulgulanoth wrote:

I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.

I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.

Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?

I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.

So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.

I'd be delighted to have the first bestiary be like this! My answer is YES! (Except I'll take the PDF only, so I'll pay less.)

Personally I don't need much more lore, though that's welcome if there's room for it. Something I'd like is inclusion of stat blocks for a few basic "elite" or "special" versions of some monsters (mainly typical leader types for humanoids and variants such as desert ankhegs or greater sea serpents).

Also, IMO the first bestiary should definitely include all sorts of mundane animals (and any giant varieties) and most primary outsider races.

I agree with Wheldrake, tradition is a big thing. And PF2 could easily work with just the modifiers, but having the scores as well allows for increased versatility in the use of the rules. And I've never seen players struggle with scores vs. modifiers.

Thanks CrystalSeas and QuidEst, I'll consider it. Though I doubt it; it's not my style and all. Be well!

Hello, new guy here! Just wanted to drop by and say I'm excited about PF2 and wish the best to Paizo.

Pity I won't be playtesting, not having a group currently and all...

I'll have some suggestions to make when the time comes to discuss the setting book though. Be well!