theservantsllcleanitup's page

39 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


I feel like the real point here is... does it matter how fast people are in real life? Your character isn't chasing actual nfl runningbacks, they are chasing monsters that use the same movement rules they use. The balance between things in the game is what matters.

I think historically speaking, medicine was not particularly scientific or rigorous. Think the shamanistic type of healing, herbs, salves, healing rituals. We hadn't invented the scientific method yet. I mean even into more modern times we had doctors going to the bathroom and then performing surgery without washing their hands. If you haven't invented germ theory, no amount of intelligence will tell a young doctor to wash their hands, but maybe a lot of experience will tell you that washing your hands produces better outcomes (for some reason.... but why? That's where int comes in).

Anyway, I think finding a balance between wis and int for medicine is the correct route. Default wisdom and a feat for int or vice versa, I'm not sure. Or maybe even just a class feature for certain classes, like how alchemists use int for resonance.

Lady Melo wrote:
Especially because the entire party would become bolstered against any further attempts.

Just to be clear, on a crit fail it only bolsters against your Treat Wounds, not anyone else's.

Gorbacz wrote:
I generally interpret creatures as vicious enough to indeed focus on helpless foes
Rysky wrote:
It’s not really that nebulous.

Apparently it is

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Avalon Reln wrote:
graystone wrote:


There is chum in the water and the natives are getting restless... There's going to be talk of storming the castle at this rate. ;)

*sigh* I'll get the torches and pitchforks.
Have fun storming the castle!

Think it'll work?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to point out for posterity that 3gp is 30sp and you start at level 1 with 150sp, enough for 5 healing potions (not advisable of course lol). But having one or two in your party at level 1 is certainly not out of the question.

I thought of a simple way to make shield block feel like it has real utility without turning it into some crazy damage soak or redesigning it completely. I haven't done any number crunching or anything, so I figure I'll just set the idea free here and see if it has any legs.

One of the best things shield block can do is prevent effects from getting to you if the damage is low. What if that became a built in effect of the shield regardless of the damage? IE everything behaves as it does now, but if the hit carries a rider, regardless of the damage, the shield could potentially stop it, say a flat DC11 check.

You still take the spillover damage, but this would represent the fact that the damage is being taken *through* the shield and isn't physically connecting with the hero. And the other side of the coin would be the shield deflecting the majority of the attack, but there's still enough grazing contact to make it count.

Real cost/benefit analysis is required in certain situations, like "hmm do I take my chances with the fort save or dent my shield for a chance to avoid it completely?" (additional calculus required when e.g. your fort save is being reduced), and those types of tactical decisions are what this game is all about. I think it adds a lot of value for the skill, but it's also somewhat situational value so it isn't just jacked all the time.

What does the hive mind think?

I never would have thought of that but now that you point it out it seems very obvious. I assume that it's a holdover from the Haste/Slow spell paradigm. IE changing it would be hella confusing. But I would support it. In the name of progress, pull the bandaid right off!

Also, yeah, bolstered is not a particularly illustrative term, but the problem is it's quite a game-mechaniccy concept. So I'm not sure any word will really do it justice.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems to be quite a bit of hand wringing over page flipping with this change... I mean I agree that there is a considerable amount of referencing and cross referencing to be found in PF2, but in this case, what's the big deal? You look it up once, 2X, X, .5X, 0. That's it. You learned it.

Also, just to toss into the cacophony of people saying this, Standard is a far superior term. This is a standardized save, that's exactly what it is. Use standard. Please.

+1 for Spell List(s) in description
+1 for Type of save in description (or at least bold it in the text for heck's sake)

I don't know, I mean "Open" and "Press" attacks are kind of a big thing for the fighter, depending on how you build it. I think it's primarily on the player to know how their abilities work rather than on the GM. Especially since, as you said, there is that large text box of Key Terms (which appears in every class description, I might add) that explains what open, press, enhancement, and stance are. If he doesn't actually read the whole class entry, idk what to tell him. This is one of those "meet me halfway" situations. The GM can't, to your point, literally know every little thing. If he blew right past the key terms, what method would have actually worked? Would he have noticed that some traits were bolded? Maybe.

Anyway, this is the type of thing that with practice will become second nature, as new classes come out, people will go right to the "Key terms" to familiarize themselves with the unique or unusual mechanics. That's why the text box is there.

Now of course, press isn't the only example. But overall my stance is that figuring out what information is important and what is secondary is a huge part of learning such complicated systems. It's the blessing and the curse of PF... but again, there is always room for improvement in formatting, layout of the book, etc. Perhaps bolding any trait that appears in the Key Terms text box could be one measure to take, to alert you that that trait is unique to this class (or at least, unusually prominent for it).

I think much of this has to do with the newness of the system as PossibleCabbage said, though it would help to really drive home the significance of traits; that they aren't just there as colorful descriptors. Codifying and unifying all these terms will be a massive benefit in the long run in my opinion (especially when people are using the glossary by reflex, which they seem to not do so much judging by the index thread), and it will take some time to adjust to the convention of reading a new spell or ability and going straight to the trait list to get a sense of how it works.

If you see something new (like Press, in this example) your reaction will be "oh! a new trait! what does that mean?" rather than a vague sense of "oh, huh, press, don't know what that means but it probably doesn't matter". Which is basically what you did in this case. And that's ok because I've done it too, many times, and I think many others have as well. It's all part of the process.

Usain bolt's record speed of 27 mph would translate to 80 feet. PER ACTION. Yeah, Usain bolt could potentially run 240 feet in one round. For my first action, I stride 16 squares.

Your math was off mate.

Also, this occurred to me but just so we are all on the same page, universal dex2dam would still require a finesse weapon, yes? You're not running in there with a maul getting a Dex bonus to damage I'm assuming

You make good points datalorerpg but I still don't see why universal Dex to damage would be an autoselect for most play styles? Your argument is predicated on the assumption that if dex2dam was available everyone would take it, and the game would be boring homogeneous mess, if I'm understanding correctly?

If so, then I would point out that you yourself brought up the fact that most weapons can't use Dex to hit as most weapons are not finesse weapons. If using dex2dam with a non finesse weapons is MAD, then doesn't that problem kind of solve itself?

Would it help if finesse weapons required using Dex to hit? Or would that hurt? Just trying to brainstorm here. I feel like trying to use a rapier as a strength weapon just wouldn't work anyway. Like I can brute force whap you as hard as I want with it, it will never be as effective as using it properly

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Factoring in magical weapons makes the gap bigger if finesse weapons have smaller dice...

What confuses me about this argument is that if everyone agrees that the damage bonus from your ability modifier, be it strength or dexterity, is not that meaningful for 80% of the game's progression, then what is even the debate? Why does it matter either way?

It seems evident that, even with +Dex to damage, strength-based builds will outdamage Dex based builds as the game progresses simply due to the outsized influence of die size. If that's the case, any player looking to min max their damage will this NOT be inclined to roll a Dex based melee character, even if there is an appreciable advantage at low levels. No min maxer wants to slowly become less effective as they level up.

So, on the one side, giving this feature to everyone won't bring Dex martials up to the level of str martials, but will merely allow them to compete in the early levels.

On the other, the paradigm of "str is the damage stat, end of story" won't be affected, so why change it anyway.

In conclusion I have no idea what I'm talking about and no strong opinion either way. Thanks for your time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I "[X] Strongly Agree" with the Degrees of success suggestion. They should always be in numerical order, I don't know why you would ever want to mix up the results into another order. Why would it be


It should be

Or vice versa, as you said, depending on what outcome I am looking for. Best outcome first, worst outcome last.

edit: You just reminded me that many of the spells could benefit from being combined. Lesser, Normal, Greater etc can all be in one entry much of the time. Only print the info that changes

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Couple points: Point Blank Shot removes the Volley penalty, it's a level one.... wait for it.... fighter feat. I'm SURE that something like this will be available for rangers in the end too, but for now that's what we got >< Seems insane for a ranger to archetype fighter so he can use his longbow better LOL


As for Breast plate, if you read the description of clumsy closely you will see that it's not so bad after all:

Rulebook wrote:
This armor’s Dexterity modifier cap also applies to Reflex saves and to all Dexterity-based skill and ability checks that don’t have the attack trait.

So it's not applying a penalty, it's just capping how much reflex can add to reflex/dex checks (NOT attacks). Not nearly so bad.


+1,000 for One Line Descriptions of things. I'm sure that the formatting is (understandably, but regrettably) pretty low on their priority list for the playtest, but it's still worth bringing up

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Which is a completely fair comparison. PF2 has to convince players its better than PF1. It's coming out of the gate with the ability to make far fewer characters than PF1's Core Rulebook much less the expansions people have bought over the year.

I'd like to point out that this is clearly not a fair comparison. PF1 CRB is a completed, fully featured document which costs money to obtain. PF2 Playtest Rulebook is is a partially completed document that is free for any and all who care to get it. It hasn't "come out of the gate" until it's finished and on sale. Then it will be an apples to apples comparison.

If you've never seen TOS+... Let's just say Hercules would look at that thing and say HOLY COW that's alot of work!

Looks good. Right off the bat I'd say abbreviating the traits would save a ton of space. Maybe just the most common ones at least, I don't think it needs to say Alchemical, Consumable, Elixir, Bomb 8000 times. Perhaps abbreviating the activation as well could work.

In both cases, a simple comment at the top of the column with the key would more than suffice. Alternatively, leave them fully written but remove Alchemical, Consumable and add a comment at the top that says "All Alchemical items have "Alchemical, Consumable". Or both! Either would probably save enough room for a page column.

Or add links to the SRD when that comes out. More annoying, but it adds functionality without needing an additional column, if there is a way to replace the name once typed with a link. Though truthfully, when you start adding the poisons I think you might find that you need that space for them. But there are a lot of repeated words in the poison entries so abbreviations might serve well there too.

As for total formulas, I don't think there is a hard limit for anyone, but a formula book can hold 100 max. And N.B. that also includes formulas for any other non mundane stuff that you can craft like runes and snares.

Edit: I wrote this right after waking up and somehow I managed to read you post up to the link, inspect the image, and then come back to your post AFTER the breakdown of your thought process, so that's why my post reads like I had no idea you already thought of abbreviations LOL. But anyway, it still applies. Cheers

Well (ignoring how insane it is that someone could pull off a 12 foot vertical leap and not be literally The Hulk) according to the text box on page 145,

Rulebook wrote:


When you jump or fall more than 5 feet, upon landing you
take falling damage, which is bludgeoning damage equal to
half the distance you fell.

The actual falling rules on page 310 don't mention jumping though, so I think this one might be in need of a little clarification.

Themetricsystem wrote:
Problem solved - Everyone is happy!

Well, everyone except the people who thought that shield block would be a fighter's bread and butter.

I think we now just see what they intended shield block to be: the "oh heck!" button that you press when things are getting hairy and every last HP counts.

Also, time to get those backup mithral heavy shields ready (L bulk, oh yea)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well not get too ridiculous, but when america declared independence and started minting its own currency, yeah, I'll bet it got real funky. Altering a currency system is not a walk in the park, but sometimes you have to just rip the bandaid off.

But as an additional parallel, if you are buying a piece of gum or something, the price is usually listen in cents. Occasionally it would be e.g. $0.15, but I would imagine that seeing 15¢ on a price tag doesn't see you huffing and puffing to the manager about how confusing it is?

If you have multiple party members with assurance: medicine and legendary medicine... go for it honestly.

4. Admittedly I hadn't fully noticed that the armor check penalty applied to con checks... but at the same time there are no con based skills and I'm struggling to think of any other con checks you are likely to come across, though my knowledge is far from encyclopedic

I think replacing conditional is cutting off the nose to spite the face. Conditional bonuses or penalties are ONLY associated with conditions. That one has a much more concrete, rules-based reason to exist than circumstance. I would change circumstance to effect if anything.

Personally I think "conditional" should just be "condition". It makes it much more obvious that it's a bonus/penalty that you have due to a condition. Since that's all it is.

Circumstance on the other hand, is a little trickier. Looking up every occurrence of "circumstance" in the book, it's used primarily for feats, then for skill based boni, then for other random stuff that only lasts a short time. I thought "temporary", but that's not very fun, plus conditional boni/penalties are also temporary.

If I look up synonyms for "circumstance" some candidates could be "incidental bonus", "happenstance bonus" or "advantage bonus" (though advantage might be a dirty word in this part of town).

Anyway, I think you are right that one can get a little tripped up with the similarity in those terms. There must be a better option somewhere out there.

I'd like to point out that here in the real world, we have the penny, and the $100 bill. The bill is 10,000 times more valuable than the penny. In europe, there's a €500 note and a penny. The note is 50,000(!) times the value of a penny.

Is that a problem? No, of course not. You use whichever denomination is appropriate. If you buy or sell something to or from a store, however much the price, they should have the appropriate denominations to make change. This is called having a float in the register, and it's part of running a cash business 101 (though if you were to attempt to buy a coffee with a €500 note... well... prepare to get mugged).

I don't see why this system would be any different. A merchant who sells regular longswords that cost 10sp and also magical weapons that run into the thousands will have different denominations to deal with those different situations because its in their best business interest to facilitate doing business. If someone comes in and says "I want to sell you this magic sword" and he says "Ok here's 70,000 silver coins lemme get my wheelbarrow".... well he's just an idiot. But that's on the GM so I really think it's a non issue anyway. Use the tools that are available to you, it's not that hard.

As for all the talk of mineral rarity, save it. The rarity disparity between silver and gold is already baked into the system, it's a factor of 10. Maybe that means gold coins are an alloy, maybe not, who knows? And who cares. It's a fantasy world. Maybe gold mines are more prevalent in Golarion. Why is this even a topic of conversation?

PS and for the love of gosh, no 100x conversion rates. 10x is far easier to calculate mentally, especially between more than one tier. Multiplying by 1,000,000 anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Naoki00 wrote:
Maybe say that "characters literally stop being regular adventurers at 10th level" and having specific challenges and flavor for being larger than life heroes and such

Harkening quite closely back to the normal paragon epic tiers of 4e, interestingly enough

I'd also just like to point out for the record that you can only use battle medic once per day per party member, as your target is bolstered to it, pass or fail.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am firmly in the Shield Block RAW camp. It says it takes damage up to its hardness. Period. That's how much damage it takes. The page 175 example is a red herring. The hardness damage reduction line was literally errata'd out of existence. This case is closed, shield block can only cause one dent at a time until further errata changes that.

The Only Sheet wrote:


I am currently working on a 'TOS+' version for the Playtest rules (Called TOS 2nd) and I am having a problem with the Alchemist.

Is there a chart that shows HOW many formulas the Alchemist knows versus his level? Sure he knows 4 with the Alchemical Crafting feat but is that it? Where is the progression for a higher level Alchemist?

What am I missing (and what page is it listed on!!) - THANKS!!!

Hey! Longtime TOS user, would have gone insane long ago without it. Thank you for your hard work (and I've subscribed many times so it's not just an empty thank you ;)

Anyway, in the alchemist class description on page 46 under the heading "Formula Book", it reads

Rulebook wrote:
You start with a standard formula book worth 10 sp or less (as detailed on page 186) for free. The formula book contains formulas for your choice of 4 common 1st-level alchemical items. The list of alchemical items begins on page 360. Each time you gain a new level, you can add formulas for two alchemical items to your formula book. These can be of any level of item you can create. You learn these formulas automatically, but it’s also possible to find or buy other formulas, or to invent them with the Inventor feat (see page 167).

This, however, has already been errata'd to the tune of

1.1 Errata wrote:
Page 46— In the Formula Book section, change “The formula book contains formulas for your choice of 4 common 1st level alchemical items.” to “The formula book contains the formulas for four common 1st-level alchemical items of your choice, in addition to those you gained from Alchemical Crafting.”

Thanks again! Happy spreadsheetin'!

David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

Shield block specifically says the shield takes up to its hardness, end.

Damaging an object notes you can cause two dents.

These two work together just fine. The shield can only take up to its hardness. This causes a dent. The shield can never take two dents from shield blocking.

If a creature has an ability to target the shield specifically, 9 damage will wreck your 3 hardness shield. Other than that, shield blocking, your shield is getting 1 dent at most.

I find your explanation compelling, if a little disappointing. And if it is the case, putting an example in the book where someone *attacks a shield that's sitting unused* to demonstrate breaking items is probably the red herring of the year.

Themetricsystem wrote:

Page 309. Shield Block / Reaction

You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items.

This is the SPECIFIC Action here and the rules that apply, the only reason Dented and Broken Rules are refrenced is to indicate what Dents and the Broken Condition are. The Shield can only EVER take damage up to it own Hardness, it's spelled out VERY clearly right here.

ALSO NOTE: It mentions NOTHING here about a Shield Block destroying a Shield.

You can still shield block with a shield that has one dent. The example in the book talks about a shield taking two dents in one hit. How can that not result in a shield being destroyed?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Wait a minute I just thought of something.

So if an Item becomes Broken it cannot be used anymore, right? Also, there are no rules for Sundering Equipment, right?

Also, based on the above interpretations; Shields can only ever take 1 Dent at a time, right?

Doesn't that mean Shields are basically indestructible in combat because a Broken Shield cannot be used to Shield Block and therefore will no longer take any more Dents?

Voila, Shields cannot be Destroyed if they are "Attended Items" (Eg. In a PCs Inventory), only Broken. You spend the Hour/10 Minutes it takes to repair the Shield during Downtime and you're good to go.

The interpretation that a shield can only take one dent at a time is quite explicitly contradicted on page 175: If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents.

I think the problem here is that when it says "a wooden shield that takes ten damage", what it should say is "a wooden shield that is hit for 13 damage takes 10, and thus receives 2 dents. This is what they missed in the twitch video. The amount of damage "taken" is not the same as the amount dealt, also corroborated by this from the same page: An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness.

I think all this confusion is simply stemming from shield block's wording: "Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken." This is confusing, because it is saying the the shield is taking the damage that it reduced due to hardness, which is false.

This should instead read "You shield negates an amount of damage equal to its hardness. Any damage in excess of that is dealt to both you and your shield, possibly resulting in one more more dents.

Prethen wrote:
I think the index in general needs to be quite comprehensive and error on the side of too many entries than too few. That said, shouldn't virtually every noun and verb that's associated with specifically with core playing in PF2 be in the index? And, yes, I mean that literally, but please note I'm trying to emphasize those words that would be directly associated with PF2.

I said basically the same thing. Too many entries isn't really possible when it comes to an index.

But again, if you aren't checking the glossary as well, you should be. It would also be a good idea to put the page reference into the glossary. Not as essential of course, but it would be a big help if someone wants additional context about a term.

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Spell Rolls and Spell DCs. The index says pages 290-291 is the place that we should turn to have it explained. But, as far as I can tell, 290 and 291 do not explain Spell Rolls or Spell DCs. It'd be nice to have the pages listed that actually explain those topics.

It seems as though the index's page reference is indeed correct for that entry. Spell rolls and DC fall under the umbrella of making rolls based on proficiency, which Spell rolls and Spell DC are (they appear on the larger table on page 291 at the bottom). However, I agree that it would be helpful if it was a bit more explicit.

Also, for the record, both items appear and are explained in the glossary.

Trying to figure out how precision damage works.

Looked up "precision", "damage, precision", nada.

Found it (with the search function) in the damage section with its own little bold-headed paragraph. I'm sure its omission was a simple oversight. The description could be a bit more clear, however.

In general I have found the index to be pretty good, but I would simply say that adding as many different cross references as possible is best. When I go to the index, I'm not going to browse; the presence of many extra irrelevant entries doesn't matter in the slightest as long as the one I am looking for is there. So erring on the side of a very long but potentially redundant index is preferable.