thenobledrake's page

1,147 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Strill wrote:
Maybe you're looking at a different book than me, but the stats on the magic shields in my book don't scale with their item level.

This statement confuses me, as all the shields in the book which have more than one level of item they exist as have improved stats at higher levels.

Are you referring to the examples of magical shields which have other magical traits? If so, you're talking about something that is roughly equivalent to the statement "the stats on antimagic armor in my book don't scale with their item level." Because in both cases the stats you are talking about are scaled via another source (potency runes for armor, and special materials for shields).

Strill wrote:
So unless you're suggesting the DM send level 1 enemies against the players for the whole campaign...

Back away from the extremes, they don't help anybody.

I was talking about the difference in damage output potential when comparing one campaign that trends toward lower-damage enemies (such as via trending toward low-difficulty encounters) where even a "fragile" shield can find opportunities to block attacks without being destroyed, and another campaign that trends towards higher-damage enemies (such as via trending toward high-difficulty encounters) where even the sturdiest of shield is likely to be pushed to its limits.

K1 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

In any case of evaluating the "worth it" value of shields, it is important to remind everyone that by RAW the choice to use shield block comes after damage has been rolled.

That might not sound like much, but it means it is always the player's choice to grab those few extra HP at the cost of their shield or not.

Oh, that's great.

I was a little disappointing about having to blindly choose between using a block or orc ferocity.

Do you remember the Page?

Shield block (p. 266) trigger + the steps for damage (p. 450).

Strill wrote:
... it's relevant to every campaign I've ever heard of.

What you have missed is that a campaign can use enemies with heavy-hitting strikes that will destroy your shield if you block them, or it can use enemies with lighter-hitting strikes that your shield will only break if you block.

Strill wrote:
... shows that you're here to troll us, and not take this thread seriously.

I believe that it's against the rules around here to call someone a troll, and even if that isn't the case resorting to this kind of name-calling undercuts the points you are trying to make. More so even than the straw man you've built by putting words in my mouth does.

Correct. Just like a potion of fly might be used to wonderful effect in one campaign and left unused in another because of the particulars that make up challenges within that campaign, so too might a particular shield not be used for blocking in one campaign but be used for shield block and repaired numerous times in another.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In any case of evaluating the "worth it" value of shields, it is important to remind everyone that by RAW the choice to use shield block comes after damage has been rolled.

That might not sound like much, but it means it is always the player's choice to grab those few extra HP at the cost of their shield or not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Friendly reminder that the table on pg. 272 is accompanied by the text "The table that follows lists the typical Bulk of a creature based on its size, but the GM might adjust this number."

Mellack wrote:
Some of us make our own so would like some sort of guidance on how much a character of certain strength should be expected to lift.

See my earlier comment about "you can lift X pounds" being irrelevant unless the GM's goal is to say "if you have strength X or higher, you automatically succeed, otherwise you automatically fail."

And a GM doesn't actually need any chart in the book interfering in that determination - much quicker to just decide what strength score is good enough and move on, and with no chance of the GM wanting an 18+ to be good enough but some chart says otherwise so now they've got a rule to complain about not making sense and house-rule or hand-waive back out of their way.

Mellack wrote:
Other games, including PF1, had this because it comes up fairly often. It is especially useful for if you want to try to block doors.

The frequency of this kind of thing coming up has nothing to do with it.

The majority of games out there on the market have solutions just like can be used with PF2 where the point of the rule can be put into place (read: "how difficult is it to move this object?" being answered) without bringing a specific weight value into the mix.

In fact, whenever you aren't just saying "if you have at least X strength you succeed, otherwise you fail" having a weight measurement doesn't actually help; a die result that determines success will still have to be devised.

So why not just skip to that step?

If you have the PDF, you can go to file>properties to view a list of fonts used within a document. Process of elimination from there shouldn't be too hard.

I am of the opinion that the only reason you're even looking for a weight suggestion is because that's how other d20 games handled "can you move this object?" challenges.

Setting a DC to the challenge is a way to set the odds to something that will feel worth a die roll - you can scale the DC to the party level if you want to minimize the impact of proficiency level on the roll. PF2 doesn't seem to do many non-skill-related ability checks though, so a strength-only check might be trickier to pick a DC for.

As for level 10 10 strength character vs. 20 strength character... the rules are not the laws of physics, and are not a simulation of the in-game world. As such they are only meant to be applied when their application actually makes sense - in this case, the lifting "contest" being resolved by saying "The 20 strength character clearly wins" instead of trying to roll athletics is a viable option. As is whichever one is a PC rolling against a DC to try and best their opponent, if you want there to be a chance that the opponent could actually win the contest at least.

Why PF2 "omitted" a lifting rule likely comes down to A) bulk including the awkwardness of a thing's size and shape doesn't mesh well with lifting because a large object often only needs to be tipped rather than completely lifted off the ground and B) coming up with a rule for just picking something up would likely end up being a waste of space for most groups because published adventures are going to list DCs to lift important to lift heavy objects (like portcullis or debris), not calculate how much force you need to apply to produce the appropriate height of lifting for a particular thing.

Even if they said something like how much a statue weighs or how much bulk the statue counts as, if said statue falls over and pins a character it doesn't have to be 100% of that measure counteracted in order for the character to get unpinned.

A tag could be a workable solution, since that wouldn't take away space that is currently occupied by rules as a necessity of adding it.

However, tags aren't a master solution for everything. For example, the entire question "a fireball doesn't have the Attack tag, so does it make an invisible caster visible again?" isn't a question that would be solved by a tag - because the attack tag has no direct relationship to what ends invisibility (using a "hostile action"), and the root of the question (that being "what is or is not a hostile action?") would still remain.

...unless you re-write the invisibility spells so that they directly call tags into mention, then re-write everything else so that every action that can result in the loss of invisibility by being used in a hostile way always results in the loss of invisibility because it's got the right tag.

"Anything with the Attack tag will make you visible. Period, end of story. Epilogue: So will other actions that aren't attacks and aren't inherently hostile but you are using in a hostile manner in these specific circumstances."

I'm not sure that 'could have been clearer' is a useful benchmark, since something could theoretically always be clearer right up until we can sync up our brains with the writers' and know exactly what they were thinking.

'clear enough' seems like a good benchmark though - but it is one of a subjective nature, so no matter what someone is going to find something unclear. See this thread as evidence where plainly labelled, repeated when relevant, and properly indexed (heightening, found under spell, lists only the page that fully explains the rules with a nice big bold title) are being accused of a lack of clarity.

The rule-book says "as long as you can precisely sense the area (as described in Perception on page 464) and it is not blocked by a solid barrier (as described in Cover on pages 476-477), you have line of sight" so no, there is no prevention of a non-sight precise sense filling in for sight in spell casting.

There's also a sidebar that mentions things like being concealed in a noisy room if what is looking for you is relying on a precise sense of hearing to find you.

So I think the choice of target wording in magic missile is deliberate - and deliberately lacks language to prevent concealment from applying.

roll twice take best, then add +1 to it - but you have to decide that you will be using the guidance bonus before you roll.

The effects of these spells don't interfere or even really interact with each other, so I think the confusion is resulting from over-thinking.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm shocked that a campaign that somehow survived the absolute nonsense that was the rules changes from D&D 2nd edition to 3rd edition is having difficulty finding a way forward into PF2.

Perhaps after the Lost Omens Character Guide (that's the title, right? not sure I'm remembering correctly) there will be enough examples of various rules elements to make home-brewing any fill-ins needed a less daunting task?

I'm banking on feeling fully equipped to confidently home-brew my own world once I've got the additional examples from that book.

Administer first aid: you are not an adjacent creature, can't use it on yourself.

Treat disease: no limitations presented for who or where the diseased creature must be. You can use it on yourself.

Treat poison: no limitations presented for who or where the patient must be. You can use it on yourself.

Treat wounds: explicit (and redundant) mention of using it on yourself.

Battle medicine: explicit (but not redundant) mention of using it on yourself.

So there's really only one point of inconsistency here, and it's the treat wounds action specifying that "one injured living creature" is a definition that could also include the creature using the action. There is zero reason to treat that as an implication that something has to explicitly say "you" in order for the target options to include you.

Zapp wrote:
(Hint: If people agreed with your personal sentiment "it is clear as day", this thread would not have existed.)

Show me someone that finds it unclear and isn't also possessing of knowledge of how the spell of the same name works in a different game/version.

Because the text in this book is clear in regards to magic missile not specifically exempting itself from concealment applying for the target - it's "...but that's not how it used to work" that people in this thread have been "confused" by.

Wheldrake has a point about a real lack of clarity, though: the rules text doesn't have a wording that gives a confident answer as to what happens when a spell is foiled by concealment preventing targeting - because the text about your target not working out only speaks to the specifics of thinking your target is a valid type of target but it isn't (vampire isn't living creature, so living creature-specific spell doesn't work) and what happens if a spell is in effect on a target and then the target becomes no longer a valid target. The eventuality of "...and then concealment makes it so you can't target them" seems it could prevent the casting of a spell entirely, or could have it cast but "shot wide"

graystone wrote:
Nothing insulting at all

I said vaguely insulting. I'm sure the intent wasn't to insult - but saying what was said other than the 'I didn't know people did this that way' makes it read as insulting.

graystone wrote:
As to "least amount of erasing and re-writing"... The game has hp, focus and all kinds of other things that'd need "erasing and re-writing". It seems the minor boon to avoid "erasing and re-writing" a single number is far outweighed by the increased chance you'll miss that variable L and instead count it as 1 L.

If you approach the entire sheet from the perspective of minimizing erasing and re-writing, it's not a "single number."

The chance of miss counting encumbrance is almost non-existent too, when talking about a player that is used to tracking things this way. And the minimal re-writing method helps reduce the impact of the, in my experience very common, "I must have forgotten to change that" errors that players make over the course of a campaign

graystone wrote:
Now, if it works for you that's great. If I had to look at your sheet regularly, like I was your DM, I'd ask you to fill in the numbers.

And if you asked me to change how I keep my own character sheet, I'd tell you to get back in your lane.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
When you change a forty year old tradition (that Magic Missiles cannot miss), be explicit about the change.

I for one hate this idea entirely.

Changing the rules text should be enough. There should not be an expectation that not only does the rule text have to be different for a rule to be different than some prior edition (or other game) but also extra text has to be included to say "yes, these words aren't the same words as they used to be and it's not an accident." or else "it's confusing."

No. It's not confusing. It's clear as day. Anyone confused because "that's not how it used to be" is confusing them self, and that's on them, not the book, to fix.

Stop expecting things to be the same and actually read what the book says like you did with whatever was the first game you read.

Wow... didn't expect to get vaguely insulted for writing down inventory lists in a way that requires the least amount of erasing and re-writing when adjusting quantities of carried items.

Good job, guys.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The flat check for concealment is not to determine whether or not an incoming attack does or does not hit - it's determining whether the target can or can not be seen well enough to be attacked.

Because picking your target is what concealment interferes with, and magic missile doesn't specifically exempt itself from such interference, concealment appears to still apply against it.

Ubertron_X wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
For some people, seeing how many lines say "L" (literally just counting) is easier than doing the simple math of most of those just being "L" but some of them counting multiple times.

While I acknowledge that pattern recognition really is a thing with us humans would anybody really write down 3 individual lines if your character is carrying 3 torches?

Or would it be more like:

Torches #3 -------> 3L

It would be "Torches x3 ------> L", but the point stands they would have to count that particular line multiple times.

They still wouldn't have a line that reads "<item> x3 -----> 3L" that they'd not only have to count multiple times, but be counting by 3s when doing so, which the proposed change to varying degrees of L bulk would introduce.

Ubertron_X wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
That takes it away from being math at a glance and makes scale conversions more complex. So yeah it is antithetical to the goals of bulk and would result in the system being widely ignored again.

Again, what is the difference in adding 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 or adding 3+1+1+2+5+1?

Both is math at a glance, at least if you ever advanced from counting with your fingers...

For some people, seeing how many lines say "L" (literally just counting) is easier than doing the simple math of most of those just being "L" but some of them counting multiple times.

Maybe that's not the case for you, but there's no reason to be insulting about it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not saying that rations being L bulk is correct - but it could be.

Bulk isn't just about weight, or even just weight and "awkwardness" of carrying a particular item - how the item needs to be stored/carried in order to be used as expected also plays a role. That is why some things change their bulk based on what you do with them (example: wearing a backpack versus carrying one)

That factor could make rations which are heavier and probably take up similar physical space easier to carry because you can bundle them up tight and stuff them into your pack and that's no problem because you only need to get access to them a few times each day and are assumed to be not otherwise occupied when doing so, while your waterskin is something you are assumed to carry in a way that is easy to frequently access throughout the day so you can stay hydrated.

...and if rations are things like raisins, nuts, and jerky, a days worth is only a few handfuls (I don't know if that's the case).

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I am missing something here... but what is actually the problem?

Being fatigued meaning your not much use until you get rest seems fine a concept; is the issue that it's "not realistic"? is fatigued a condition thrown around too frequently by the rules? or is it just that a negative condition is so negative you don't want to push on while under its effects?

Draco18s wrote:
It's stealing in the sense that the mechanic went unused for an edition (or two) and then was added back in again.

That is a very odd reasoning for using a word with as much negative connotation as "stealing" has.

I'm not going to engage in the off-topic debate that your comment about the pools of old and edge of new has sparked though... maybe if I ever remember my credentials for a Shadowrun-focused message board and see that kind of talk there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The upcoming Lost Omens Character Guide includes "nearly 100 new ancestry feats" according to its blurb - odds are that some of those will be higher level, though as has already been pointed out not every level that a feat can be taken needs to have feats assigned to specifically that level.

...and since it's pretty hard (for me, at least) to think of much that makes sense as an ancestry-based feature but also shouldn't be able to come into play prior to 13th or 17th level, I'm glad there are only a few ancestry feats gated to those levels.

Draco18s wrote:

I still think PF2, despite the issues we keep finding, is in better shape than Shadowrun 6E. Which publicly posted the first errata a month before the core book was even out and the errata itself was riddled with typos and other errors.

(And that's ignoring that the system itself is a garbage fire attempting to get older edition players on board by stealing mechanics from older editions and then making a complete mess with things)

Shadowrun 6th edition is actually in better shape, both error- and playability-wise, than the game has ever been.

And while putting out an errata before the street date of the book is strange timing, it makes sense for errors to be caught between sending the book to the printer and the books arriving on shelves to be bought...

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a long-term fan of Shadowrun that doesn't get how a new edition of a game can "steal" from prior editions of the same game. Did Pathfinder 2nd "steal" rolling against DCs?

Zapp wrote:
Featuring humanoid NPCs, however, is something I would argue every GM does.

You can argue it... but that doesn't make it true.

It also doesn't make it as relevant as it sounds to be at first because not every humanoid NPC in a campaign will actually need to have stats in order to fully serve their purpose, and those that do need stats to serve their purpose are often easily approximated via existing monsters.

Guards & knights are easily replaced with hobgoblin soldier stats, cultists could vary depending on what their particular cult is about (but using goblins would be my go-to), and druids... that one is a whole kettle of fish because there isn't really a clear fill-in monster that works regardless of level, but also there's a lot less call in the "typical" campaign for the GM to know more about an NPC druid's stats than which level of spells they can cast to help the party, which is covered by the core rules.

Since there's only 5 skills necessary to be able to identify all creature types, an Alchemist with a +2 Intelligence modifier can be trained in all of them (or you could rely on Crafting for your construct knowledge and drop Arcana, losing nothing but knowledge of dragons in the process)

I think most tables would find "this lore is relevant literally every time we encounter a creature" to be out of line though.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What you're pretending is that someone looking at dispel magic will...

have read the general rules on spells in advance of seeing what individual spells do, or be capable of self-awareness that because they didn't read the whole book they may have missed something important.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I envy your confidence that newcomers always read material slowly and carefully, missing nothing.

Newcomers aren't going to always read material slowly, carefully, or without missing anything... they're just going to be a lot more open to the idea that they missed something than the "old hat" folks my post you quoted was referring to.

Those folks are going to read quick, dirty, and with numerous missed details - and then assume they know everything anyways, and blame "rules visibility" if confronted with their errors.

I mean, seriously, there are repeated mentions that spells can be heightened - note that none of those mentions say "some spells" - and because the spell chapter isn't crammed full of repeating the general rule people are accusing the writing of being unclear? That's nonsensical.

Why not also have ever spell that's a cone repeat the general rules about how cone areas work? That's the same level of rules visibility people are talking about with making the spell heightening rules more visible.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
...the rule "you can heighten any spell" is briefly mentioned once...

For quantities of "briefly mentioned" including roughly half a page of text with a nice bold heading, and values of "once" including in each of the spellcasting classes and in the spells chapter.

Let's not pretend that a rule-set that includes the sentence "In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage." isn't doing everything within reason to communicate that's it's not just spells that have specifics mentioned that can be heightened.

The reality here is that when learning a new edition of a game you are already familiar with, it takes deliberate effort to actually read the new material instead of skimming it and assuming you're going to be right about how the rest of it works - and a whole heap of people just don't make that deliberate effort.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure this is only going to be a stumbling point for people approaching PF2 with presuppositions about how the game works.

Folks strolling in to try out the game with no prior Pathfinder experience (for example: someone that's only played Shadowrun, or D&D 5th edition before) are probably going to realize all spells can be heightened even though only a few of them have special alterations beyond the spell level being changed when doing so.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

From my perspective... it looks like sorcerer went from one of the middle-of-the-road on the versatility scale casters in PF1 to debatebly the most versatile caster in PF2.

...but then I've never been privy to one of these allegedly supremely common campaigns in which a prepared caster didn't ever not prepare the exact right load out of spells for a particular day of adventure, so maybe I'm not properly equipped to judge?

Neo2151 wrote:

I'm curious - why is the idea of resurrection magic any more or less fantastical than any other magic in the setting, in that it needs to be so much more rare or restricted?

Or is it actually just the unpleasant thought that you think players popping up again and again from death eliminates tension?
Can your players' party actually afford that? Why are you showering them in diamonds, etc?

Is this a legit problem at tables or is it armchair math gone crazy?

It's not about the player characters at all for me. No matter how "ultra rare and super special" I make coming back from the dead from the perspective of the setting and the NPCs within that setting, the only thing stopping a player's dead character returning to life in my campaigns is that player choosing to play a different character instead.

It's all about the stories being told, both in the history of the setting world and in the campaign itself - and not wanting a "The King has been assassinated" story to play out with a simple "you grab a diamond, I'll go get the priest" resolution or be required to involve some particular method of death that is specifically and conspicuously preventing the quick resolution effects from applying (i.e. the King wasn't just assassinated... he was decapitated, his body dropped in a vat of acid, his head stolen away as proof/trophy, but also with the mandible ripped off and thrown into a ravine).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like that the mechanics now default to supporting the reality I have presented in my campaigns for years; coming back from the dead isn't something that "normal" people consider a realistic possibility - the rich and powerful work hard on avoiding death in the first place, rather than being able to just buy-up a return trip from the afterlife.

But rare and special people with the power to bring the dead back to life are known to exist (and PCs often are, or meet, them)

Do any of the publishers that release PDF products in advance of their print versions still stock their books on the shelves of game stores?

I'm not familiar with any that don't do print-on-demand and limited kick-started print runs.

Where is that "clicking once" happening, though? Didn't you have to get a particular part of the PDF before making that happen, much like you can click on the "spell descriptions" bookmark before doing the ctrl+F for whichever spell and typically find it as the first result?

Note: I'm not saying it's perfect as-is or that hyper-links aren't useful... just that the "difficulty" of navigating a PDF without hyper-links is being exaggerated.

FunkamusPrime wrote:
If a player wished to hide a 1-bulk sword Highlander-style, how would you rule?

I would need specifics as to what is being hidden, where it is being hidden, and how. With those specifics would come the ruling... for example, hiding a sword Highlander-style is easier if you have a long flowing coat to tuck it under than if you're wearing a painted-on body suit.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A massive book full of concrete rules elements that cover the vast majority of circumstances that will come up in play... but a few strategically-placed "this is what the GM is for" rules and suddenly it's "lazy game design" and "incomplete rule-set"

And the real hilarity of this situation to me: Any time there is a concrete ruling presented that doesn't cover all the circumstances that a particular forum-using-GM thinks might come up, or handles such circumstances in a way that is viewed as "silly" there goes a post (or dozens) either saying the writer should have just wrote "the GM decides" or talking about house-rules... while peppering in "the writers suck" implications.

It's a real damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation.

Many magic items look like "good quality" items, so they might stand out visually from "run of the mill" items of the same type. As a result, you could respond to a positive ping of Detect Magic by grabbing anything nearby that looks well made, then check it out with Read Aura at your leisure.

Either the items will be magical as suspected, or they might be worth a decent amount in trade.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that it comes down to GM fiat prevents the rules potentially being completely sensible for 1 sort of circumstance, but absolutely ludicrous for another sort of circumstance.

Better to leave it to the GM, acknowledging not being able to consider literally every possible circumstance and write appropriate rules for each into the book, than to have rules that work right up until a player does something a writer hadn't considered - since that happens basically all the time.

The wording for line of effect in the new edition is a little vague in regards to something like a sack blocking it.

"You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier."

One could read that in such a way that line of effect literally only affects a spell when you are targeting a creature with it, but also it seems like it's talking about a particular thing when it says "a solid physical barrier" that excludes certain things... like the creature you are trying to target being inside a full-coverage suit of armor, or in a sack.

The next section of rules (line of sight) invokes the cover rules when it mentions "solid barrier", so perhaps the intent is to apply those to defining what is or isn't a solid barrier for the purposes of line of effect too?

Ravingdork wrote:
I've played quite a few sorcerers and wizards. I think my ability to measure them is just fine.

And interesting thing to consider: the more familiar and practiced with having to select specific spells to fill your slots with in advance a person is, the less of an advantage it appears to be to cast like a spontaneous caster does.

Because a player can get very very good at picking out the right spells... but "I have developed a special skill" and "this other tool isn't actually easier to use to maximum effect" aren't synonymous.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Why would anyone ever play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard? Seems like they're just being given table scraps.

Not being locked-in to what spells you can cast with each of your spell slots is worth a lot more than most people theorycrafting about the differences between wizards and arcane sorcerers give it credit for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are mixing up what I call "lowercase good" and "capital Good" as concepts; a character can be good and do good things and have good intentions, but that doesn't guarantee they are backed by Good.

It takes particular and strong tie to the powers of Good to have the Good damage type kick in.

Like how there is "I'm a selfish jerk" evil, and "I'm literally a demon" Evil.

Contrasting the paragraph "The Etching Process" and the paragraph "Transferring Runes", one lays out all of the requirements needing to be met and the other uses significantly different language.

So to me it seems clear that transferring runes doesn't require meeting the requirements that etching the rune would require. And that makes sense because the rune is already "made", it just needs to be attached - and you don't have to be artist to apply a decal.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice! We went from "maybe they should slow down" to "they are aren't working fast enough" in only 4 replies. That's a new record, folks!

Sarcasm aside, no, I don't particularly think the current PF2 release schedule is too ambitious since it seems to technically be slowing down from the PF1 release schedule by a little bit.

And yeah, there are some significant errors in the book at current... but the unfortunate truth is that the ease of making those errors and the ones that people are much more accepting of is identical; it's not that a significant error resulted from lack of effort - it's just luck of the draw that small piece of text that went unnoticed had a more significant impact than most small pieces of text would have.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What led you to believe that there were going to be goblins on the cards?

citricking wrote:
Well they give the example of the you not being able to take a feat of a different level, which is obvious.

It's kinda not though... yes, it might seem obvious given your particular familiarity with this and/or other games, but for someone who has never read an RPG before coming in and reading the retraining rules, other than providing the example using level as they do, there is nothing in the text that explicitly says you can't retrain all your options based on the level your character currently happens to be - which is a thing that could seem to line up with the general rule of being able to select an option of your current level or lower every time you are picking out a new option.

That said, after reading the feat in question again and seeing that I was remembering their being a clear split between the mechanical requirements and the story requirements... I can propose what I view as a fix: anything mechanical in nature required goes in the requirements section. Any story requirement gets moved over to the "acess" section with the other story requirements already present there.

1 to 50 of 1,147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>