Jeffrey..
I poked fun of you, but you've apologized. We're cool. You're off the hook. Sorry the first time through the 'neighborhood' had to be a rough one.
I'm glad Kvantum was able to help you.
Yeah, well, the one thing said about backpack carrying capacity in the book is just plain wrong. Page 159, footnote 1: "These items weigh one-quarter this amount when made for Small characters. Containers for Small characters also carry one-quarter the normal amount."
Um, no. Assume a backpack with dimensions of 2' x 2' x 2'. That's going to have a surface area of 24 square feet and hold a volume of 8 cubic feet. Shrink the dimensions by half and you'll have a 1' x 1' x 1' backpack with a surface area of 6 square feet, but a volume of only 1 square foot. That's the square/cube law.
Gnomes and halflings should not get free handy haversacks.
Thankfully, the error in the square/cube law was fixed for the Enlarge Person spell (it was there in 1st edition AD&D) but it really should be fixed for the containers footnote for the second printing for Pathfinder.
And there's enough white space at the bottom of page 159 to fit in a table of volumes.
If you shrink the dimensions by half, the weight and capacity are 1/8. If you shrink the dimension by less than half, the weight and capacity can be 1/4. Gnome and halfling backbacks are proportionally larger than human backpacks, which is strange, but they do not necessarily break the laws of geometry.
Regarding the capacity tables, I never used capacities for most items (and I am more interested in encumbrance rules than just about anyone). I did use capacities for waterskins because it was useful for figuring out how much water a party could carry. However, I have since allowed players to pick the size of their waterskin; so capacity rules would be useless to me, and take up valuable real estate in the book. I'm glad they are not in there.
(For the record, I thought the OP came off as a jerk in the original post, but has showed class since then. I'm a fan.)
Yeah, well, the one thing said about backpack carrying capacity in the book is just plain wrong. Page 159, footnote 1: "These items weigh one-quarter this amount when made for Small characters. Containers for Small characters also carry one-quarter the normal amount."
Um, no. Assume a backpack with dimensions of 2' x 2' x 2'. That's going to have a surface area of 24 square feet and hold a volume of 8 cubic feet. Shrink the dimensions by half and you'll have a 1' x 1' x 1' backpack with a surface area of 6 square feet, but a volume of only 1 square foot. That's the square/cube law.
Gnomes and halflings should not get free handy haversacks.
Thankfully, the error in the square/cube law was fixed for the Enlarge Person spell (it was there in 1st edition AD&D) but it really should be fixed for the containers footnote for the second printing for Pathfinder.
And there's enough white space at the bottom of page 159 to fit in a table of volumes.
If you shrink the dimensions by half, the weight and capacity are 1/8. If you shrink the dimension by less than half, the weight and capacity can be 1/4. Gnome and halfling backbacks are proportionally larger than human backpacks, which is strange, but they do not necessarily break the laws of geometry.
Regarding the capacity tables, I never used capacities for most items (and I am more interested in encumbrance rules than just about anyone). I did use capacities for waterskins because it was useful for figuring out how much water a party could carry. However, I have since allowed players to pick the size of their waterskin; so capacity rules would be useless to me, and take up valuable real estate in the book. I'm glad they are not in there.
(For the record, I thought the OP came off as a jerk in the original post, but has showed class since then. I'm a fan.)
I'm sorry, no. If you shrink the dimensions by half, the capacity is 1/8th, but the weight is still 1/4, assuming you are using the same materials with the same thickness. It's the square/cube law, and you can't argue your way around it.
Even if halflings have oversized backpacks, the volume is still going to follow the same ratios. Even if you go with 1/4 the volume, you're not going to have 1/4 the weight.
I'm all for a little handwaving here and there, but non-Euclidean geometry makes baby Cthulhu cry.
Do you think that sarcasm and derision makes you intelligent?
As someone who didn't pile on, I'd have to say from my unbiased viewpoint no, the sarcasm and derision doesn't make them more intelligent. But it certainly makes them more entertaining. Step back for a moment and with the perspective that your original post drew incorrect conclusions while being inflammatory, tell me some of the sarcastic responses weren't riotously funny.
Come on.
Not even the fictitious exchange where someone tries to buy a barrel, gives up and changes his mind for a backpack, then bedroll, then bedpan? Bedpan, man, that's just comedy genius.
No matter what else happens in this thread, nobody can take away the results of the inspiration you gave. Thank you.
Oh, and for an entirely on-topic followup: I personally expect enough variance in the volumes of various containers such as barrels and backpacks that a table isn't worth the space in the book. The day one of my PCs asks how many dead orc heads he can stuff in his backpack is the day that I'll make up a reasonable number. Maybe the number someone else picks will be different. I guess the maker of that backpack didn't use the same seamstress pattern. Go figure.
Its carpenters but was latter changed to plumbers so should i watch out for both?but what happens if i want to make a pc that throws nothing but barrels at people?Watch out for plumbers.
To play it safe, I'd steer clear of all Italian laborers.
|
Do you think that sarcasm and derision makes you intelligent?As someone who didn't pile on, I'd have to say from my unbiased viewpoint no, the sarcasm and derision doesn't make them more intelligent. But it certainly makes them more entertaining. Step back for a moment and with the perspective that your original post drew incorrect conclusions while being inflammatory, tell me some of the sarcastic responses weren't riotously funny.
Come on.
Not even the fictitious exchange where someone tries to buy a barrel, gives up and changes his mind for a backpack, then bedroll, then bedpan? Bedpan, man, that's just comedy genius.
No matter what else happens in this thread, nobody can take away the results of the inspiration you gave. Thank you.
Oh, and for an entirely on-topic followup: I personally expect enough variance in the volumes of various containers such as barrels and backpacks that a table isn't worth the space in the book. The day one of my PCs asks how many dead orc heads he can stuff in his backpack is the day that I'll make up a reasonable number. Maybe the number someone else picks will be different. I guess the maker of that backpack didn't use the same seamstress pattern. Go figure.
I will admit, I was initially overreacting, and a number of the responses which made light of my reaction were pretty darned funny, and helped put things in perspective for me. Only a few sarcastic comments obviously weren't in the spirit of humor.
Jeffrey, you're a class act!
You know, I have to say that I'm disappointed in some of you. Yes, I didn't pay attention to the one sentence which implied that not every item listed would be described. However, I still think I have a point about needing to know (approximately) how much a backpack or a waterskin can hold. Even if I'm completely wrong...the way some of you have treated me genuinely sucks.
Pathfinder isn't perfect, nor is Paizo, because nothing can be perfect. However, what makes them both great is how Paizo actually listened, improved the game, continues to improve the game, and continues to improve itself.
Do you think that sarcasm and derision makes you intelligent? Superior to me? Do you think that heckling another player instead of listening to them is the attitude that will help Pathfinder continue to evolve? I think not. If you honestly want Pathfinder to improve, then drop the bad attitude and actually listen to what I'm saying. If you're more interested in being snarky, or just in protecting your brand new sacred cow, then here's your Kool Aid, now go away.
Well, given that their is no such thing as a standardised backpack or water skin, produced by adventure corp(TM); for all your adventuring needs, their isn't a standardised responce. The answer as to how much space a backpack contains is based upon the individual backpack. The price is a guideline for what a variaty of such bags might cost and it is upto a DM to use a little intelligence and initialtive, or if those fail, wikipedia to figure out what any given back might be able to hold. Seriously, this is such a non-problem.
I will admit, I was initially overreacting, and a number of the responses which made light of my reaction were pretty darned funny, and helped put things in perspective for me. Only a few sarcastic comments obviously weren't in the spirit of humor.
Jeffrey, you're a class act!
I'll jump on that bandwagon. A very decent, honest, and accurate response he's given above.
Well, given that their is no such thing as a standardised backpack or water skin, produced by adventure corp(TM); for all your adventuring needs, their isn't a standardised responce. The answer as to how much space a backpack contains is based upon the individual backpack. The price is a guideline for what a variaty of such bags might cost and it is upto a DM to use a little intelligence and initialtive, or if those fail, wikipedia to figure out what any given back might be able to hold. Seriously, this is such a non-problem.
Well, actually, there are standardized bottle and barrel sizes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_bottle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel
In my experience, a wineskin holds a liter.
|
Well, there's two things. First, I thought the idea of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook was to avoid having to refer to other documents in order to play the basic game. And second, I find it oddly out of place for a system which has traditionally explicitly detailed everything, including character carrying capacity, to handwave the capacity of a backpack (or other container).Well, if I remember correctly, they cut most of the miscellanous gear and there are very few items besides weapons and armor mentioned in the book. My point being, in relation to that, Jason has included quite a lot of item descriptions in PF RPG. And, anyone can probably estimate more or less correctly how much gear a backpack or a sack can hold -- even if someone can't, the numbers can be found in 3.5 SRD, right?Jeffrey, if you want to complain about the lack of equipment descriptions, check the 4E PHB first...I assume that the 4E equipment descriptions are nonexistent? I made a point of not purchasing any 4E material.
I don't have the PF RPG yet (my copy arrives at my FLGS on wednesday), so I assume that these numbers were cut due to issues with space and/or because this rarely comes up during game play (and, likely, because everyone has some sort of mental image of what fits in a backpack and what doesn't). 4E, to my knowledge, *does* have encumbrance rules, but I can't recall if it has any kind of stats for containers (beyond mentioning "you can carry any stuff you find in a backpack"); even then, it's often mentioned on the WoTC boards that 4E DMs don't really enforce the encumbrance rules as long as nobody doesn't try carrying statues or altars to sell them back in town.
It's not a major issue for me, as I own the previous edition books, but you have a point there; if there are rules and/or references related to encumbrance (e.g. cubic volumes mentioned in magic item or spell descriptions), these numbers should be in the book.
Well, given that their is no such thing as a standardised backpack or water skin, produced by adventure corp(TM); for all your adventuring needs, their isn't a standardised responce. The answer as to how much space a backpack contains is based upon the individual backpack. The price is a guideline for what a variaty of such bags might cost and it is upto a DM to use a little intelligence and initialtive, or if those fail, wikipedia to figure out what any given back might be able to hold. Seriously, this is such a non-problem.
Well, actually, there are standardized bottle and barrel sizes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_bottle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel
In my experience, a wineskin holds a liter.
These are standardised now. There is a difference between a heavily industrialised world where bottles can be made by the thosand to industry standard sizes and sword and sorcery settings where trade wars could potentially be fort over different measurements system.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, given that their is no such thing as a standardised backpack or water skin, produced by adventure corp(TM); for all your adventuring needs, their isn't a standardised responce. The answer as to how much space a backpack contains is based upon the individual backpack.
With respect, ZN, while you're right about the actual medieval period, this is a game, and the game stats reflect "official" rules for the length of wagons, the weight of horses, the prices of cloth, and the carrying capacities of caravels. Excepting barbarians, monks, and people who've taken special feats, a footrace among all the medium-sized inhabitants of a town would end in a dead heat.
. Seriously, this is such a non-problem.
Agreed.
What I find curious is: does a character receive some sort of encumbrance break if she carries all her stuff stored in a backpack, as opposed to hanging all over her belt or something?
With respect, ZN, while you're right about the actual medieval period, this is a game, and the game stats reflect "official" rules for the length of wagons, the weight of horses, the prices of cloth, and the carrying capacities of caravels. Excepting barbarians, monks, and people who've taken special feats, a footrace among all the medium-sized inhabitants of a town would end in a dead heat.
Well, given that their is no such thing as a standardised backpack or water skin, produced by adventure corp(TM); for all your adventuring needs, their isn't a standardised responce. The answer as to how much space a backpack contains is based upon the individual backpack.
There is a certain amount of truth to that, and i would say that is one of the weaknesses of pathfinder as a roleplaying systems, and one of it's strengths as a game.
But lets face it, the volume of a waterskin is less likely to be a problem for someone with very strong gamist or narrativist leanings. Anyone two whom the volume will truely matter, should probably be giving consideration to the fact that such containers vary.
. Seriously, this is such a non-problem.Agreed.
What I find curious is: does a character receive some sort of encumbrance break if she carries all her stuff stored in a backpack, as opposed to hanging all over her belt or something?
I house rule that anything not carries in a container has its weight double or more if not in a container.
Swear to God this happened in my game yesterday:
A PC was looting a supply tent and asked me how many of various items he could fit in his bag. Bedrolls were prominently mentioned. (And, no, he's not on these boards.)
I rolled a d6 and told him that's how many.
|
Well, given that their is no such thing as a standardised backpack or water skin, produced by adventure corp(TM); for all your adventuring needs, their isn't a standardised responce. The answer as to how much space a backpack contains is based upon the individual backpack.With respect, ZN, while you're right about the actual medieval period, this is a game, and the game stats reflect "official" rules for the length of wagons, the weight of horses, the prices of cloth, and the carrying capacities of caravels. Excepting barbarians, monks, and people who've taken special feats, a footrace among all the medium-sized inhabitants of a town would end in a dead heat.
That's not true, 1st place will go to highest initiative, 2nd to the second highest initiative till everyone in the initiative track has gone and placed ;-P
These are standardised now. There is a difference between a heavily industrialised world where bottles can be made by the thosand to industry standard sizes and sword and sorcery settings where trade wars could potentially be fort over different measurements system.
Standardized measures have been around an exceedingly long time and are equally simple to make. With liquids, all you need to do is pour the contents of one container into another and mark a fill line.
I'm not saying that different lands shouldn't have different measures. But after reading the alchemist's manuscript which calls for "as much vinegar as will fill a goblin's skull," rather than look for the nearest goblin to decapitate, most wizards will check around and find that a "goblin's skull" has about the same volume as an "orcish firkin" or even the standard Imperial Pint.
|
containers have never (3.x) been defined with a useful measure.
In 3.x they were defined as capable of carrying a certain volume. Okay makes sense, except there are NO items in the game defined as having a volume.
I think I remember a backpack could carry 1 cubic foot, or something like that. That's nice... how many cubic feet does a rope take up, or a pen, or whatever. Useless.
I have always ruled that a backpack and other containers a character might have carry exactly enough for his carrying capacity. Convenient and completely unrealistic, just like D&D is, so no problem.
containers have never (3.x) been defined with a useful measure.
In 3.x they were defined as capable of carrying a certain volume. Okay makes sense, except there are NO items in the game defined as having a volume.
I think I remember a backpack could carry 1 cubic foot, or something like that. That's nice... how many cubic feet does a rope take up, or a pen, or whatever. Useless.
I have always ruled that a backpack and other containers a character might have carry exactly enough for his carrying capacity. Convenient and completely unrealistic, just like D&D is, so no problem.
Actually incorrect. On page 159, Ale is sold by the gallon and the mug. A gallon of ale weighs 8 pounds (in reality, a US gallon of water weighs 8.35 pounds, so reasonably on track) so a Pathfinder "mug" weighing 1 pound is equivalent to a US pint also weighing 1 pound (or slightly more, given that a gallon is 8.35). And wine bottles hold 1.5 pounds of wine, so assuming the same weight as water or ale, Pathfinder winebottles hold 3 cups, which is 0.70965 liters, which is pretty close to the current earth standard of .75 liters for a modern winebottle.
So, yeah, Pathfinder mugs are pint glasses and Pathfinder bottles are modern winebottles.
Also note that flasks of acid, alchemist's fire and holy water all also weigh 1 pound, so Pathfinder flasks are pint bottles.
Note also that Pathfinder potters make some heavy mucking stoneware, since a clay pitcher weighs 5 pounds and holds 6 pounds. The 5 pound pitcher weighs more than the 4 pound iron pot.
The book is 576 or so pages, im sure the draft was larger. I can live without a description of a backpack.
Not snarky, but doubt the backpack is of too much importance compared to ther things. :)
Smurf On.....
These are standardised now. There is a difference between a heavily industrialised world where bottles can be made by the thosand to industry standard sizes and sword and sorcery settings where trade wars could potentially be fort over different measurements system.
Standardized measures have been around an exceedingly long time and are equally simple to make. With liquids, all you need to do is pour the contents of one container into another and mark a fill line.
I'm not saying that different lands shouldn't have different measures. But after reading the alchemist's manuscript which calls for "as much vinegar as will fill a goblin's skull," rather than look for the nearest goblin to decapitate, most wizards will check around and find that a "goblin's skull" has about the same volume as an "orcish firkin" or even the standard Imperial Pint.
I think you may have slightly misunderstood. While, there may be a standardised measure across a region, industry, or nation. A game world, will have literally hundreds of different style, sizes, of varying materials. As such, all it is practical to do is put in a guide price for such items.
On the alchemy topic, to be honest, such an instruction in an alchemicial formula would almost certainly demand the use of an actual goblin skull, atleast, in any setting that has done it's research on alchemy.
|
|
I have to say, I'd be annoyed if they wasted my American dollars on the word count to explain to me what a bucket was.
Or a bell.
Or a basket.
All joking aside, are you looking for some game mechanics to explain the carrying capacity? They seem otherwise pretty self-explanatory.
I've actually gone to d20 Modern's backpack = 3 lb and 60 lb carrying capacity. It's described for the gamer. Practical.
Here is some detailed information from the wizard's site. As a special note to our non-American friends, it has the metric measurements as well. The capacities are at the bottom.
Meh......I give anybody a pass what apologizes.
Most motherf#*!ers keep running their mouths.
He apologized.
Give him a pass.
I also directly grok the wallet crit hit, so......
Is there a flag for highlighting ideal forum behavior?
You just managed to be a good forumite by keeping the peace while swearing.
I truly respect this.
You know, I have to say that I'm disappointed in some of you. Yes, I didn't pay attention to the one sentence which implied that not every item listed would be described. However, I still think I have a point about needing to know (approximately) how much a backpack or a waterskin can hold. Even if I'm completely wrong...the way some of you have treated me genuinely sucks.
Pathfinder isn't perfect, nor is Paizo, because nothing can be perfect. However, what makes them both great is how Paizo actually listened, improved the game, continues to improve the game, and continues to improve itself.
Do you think that sarcasm and derision makes you intelligent? Superior to me? Do you think that heckling another player instead of listening to them is the attitude that will help Pathfinder continue to evolve? I think not. If you honestly want Pathfinder to improve, then drop the bad attitude and actually listen to what I'm saying. If you're more interested in being snarky, or just in protecting your brand new sacred cow, then here's your Kool Aid, now go away.
Jeffrey, I'm with you. Many of the responses have been uncharacteristically sarcastic and uncalled for. I really apologize for the way your question has been responded to. Most people on the Paizo boards are (usually) not so rude.
Creative Director
|
Judging by the size of some of the backpacks I saw this year at Gen Con, I think it's fair to say that they can hold up to 400 square feet or 6,600 pounds without a problem.
On a more serious note... welcome to the boards, Jeffrey! And I'm glad this thread seems to have stabalized in a relatively friendly way. We're going to have a LOT of new posters here, and they're all just friends we haven't met yet so let's all make sure to treat them all as such.
As for WHY those items were omitted from the text... space reasons. The equipment chapter was running way over word count, and this was AFTER we'd already blasted out of our initial page count and increased to 576 pages; since we'd already done that once we couldn't do it again so we had to make some cuts. Trimming a lot of the more obvious equipment descriptions seemed like a good place to do it.
Actual carrying capacities for bags and backpacks and stuff take the encumbrance rules one step too far for our tastes, in any event. With the current rules, you only have to track total weight; you don't have to micromanage where each piece of equipment is on your person. That works well in video games (and indeed is kind of fun managing inventories like that), but in a tabletop RPG it quickly gets to be way too much detail work. By simply tracking your carrying capacity as one static number, there's less work and less hassle.
We make an exception for magic items like bags of holding and the like only because they bypass this built-in number for carrying capacity for a character; they have their own capacity, and that's why we list values for them in the magic item chapter.
On the alchemy topic, to be honest, such an instruction in an alchemicial formula would almost certainly demand the use of an actual goblin skull, atleast, in any setting that has done it's research on alchemy.
Ah, point! I'm certain the vinegar would leech calcium and various trace minerals as well as magic from the goblin's skull, and substituting an orcish firkin of vinegar would hardly have the same properties.
This is what happens when you fail your spellcraft check.
I disagree. The square/cube law applies to geometric spaces with no surface thickness. A smaller backpack can have thinner surfaces because it has less risk of breaking. So, if we decided to make a 1/4 capacity backpack from a 2x2x2 backpack with 1/8" thickness, you could cut the thickness in half (1/16"), and two dimensions of the pack in half. I really don't want to argue about geometry, but I am pretty confident that the "hand-waving" is not making baby Cthulhu cry.
If you shrink the dimensions by half, the weight and capacity are 1/8. If you shrink the dimension by less than half, the weight and capacity can be 1/4. Gnome and halfling backbacks are proportionally larger than human backpacks, which is strange, but they do not necessarily break the laws of geometry.
Regarding the capacity tables, I never used capacities for most items (and I am more interested in encumbrance rules than just about anyone). I did use capacities for waterskins because it was useful for figuring out how much water a party could carry. However, I have since allowed players to pick the size of their waterskin; so capacity rules would be useless to me, and take up valuable real estate in the book. I'm glad they are not in there.
(For the record, I thought the OP came off as a jerk in the original post, but has showed class since then. I'm a fan.)
I'm sorry, no. If you shrink the dimensions by half, the capacity is 1/8th, but the weight is still 1/4, assuming you are using the same materials with the same thickness. It's the square/cube law, and you can't argue your way around it.
Even if halflings have oversized backpacks, the volume is still going to follow the same ratios. Even if you go with 1/4 the volume, you're not going to have 1/4 the weight.
I'm all for a little handwaving here and there, but non-Euclidean geometry makes baby Cthulhu cry.
On the alchemy topic, to be honest, such an instruction in an alchemicial formula would almost certainly demand the use of an actual goblin skull, atleast, in any setting that has done it's research on alchemy.Ah, point! I'm certain the vinegar would leech calcium and various trace minerals as well as magic from the goblin's skull, and substituting an orcish firkin of vinegar would hardly have the same properties.
This is what happens when you fail your spellcraft check.
Your thinking of alchemy as though it is medieval chemistry. It isn't (though it is often treated as such by DnD.)
Alchemy is a form of ritual magic. It isn't a magical property of the skull it self, or a chemical, but rather the symbolism that is the source of power within this idea.
I disagree. The square/cube law applies to geometric spaces with no surface thickness. A smaller backpack can have thinner surfaces because it has less risk of breaking. So, if we decided to make a 1/4 capacity backpack from a 2x2x2 backpack with 1/8" thickness, you could cut the thickness in half (1/16"), and two dimensions of the pack in half. I really don't want to argue about geometry, but I am pretty confident that the "hand-waving" is not making baby Cthulhu cry.
If you look at children's clothes and adult clothes, they're generally made out of the same fabrics, just less of them.
And since a lot of what a backpack has to deal with is friction, it makes little sense to make the smaller pack of weaker materials.
Your thinking of alchemy as though it is medieval chemistry. It isn't (though it is often treated as such by DnD.)Alchemy is a form of ritual magic. It isn't a magical property of the skull it self, or a chemical, but rather the symbolism that is the source of power within this idea.
Ummm...no. If you read Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, Paracelsus or any of the medieval alchemists or occult philosophers, they're pretty clear about alchemy (or at least a lot of it) being concerned with natural magic, that being the intrinsic properties of objects and substances. That includes magical substances. Agrippa has a simple recipe for a resurrection with no symbolism or ritual magic involved. Unfortunately, it requires that you have phoenix ashes.
The higher form of the Great Work, whereby the alchemist purifies his own spirit while purifying the base matter, can be looked upon as ritual magic.
But, anyway, natural magic. Here's something from Agrippa:
Polybius the historian, makes mention? And those things which Pausanius wrote concerning the Singing Stones? All these are effects of Occult Virtues. So the ostrich concocts cold and most hard iron, and digests it into nourishment for his body; whose stomach, they also report, cannot be hurt with red-hot iron. So that little fish, call echeneis, doth so curb the violence of the winds, and appease the rage of the sea, that, let the tempests be never so imperious and raging, the sails also bearing a full gale, it doth notwithstanding by its mere touch stay the ships and makes them stand still, that by no means they can be moved. So salamanders and crickets live in the fire; although they seem sometimes to burn, yet they are not hurt. The like is said of a kind of bitumen, with which the weapons of the Amazons were said to be smeared over, by which means they could be spoiled neither with sword nor fire; with which also the gates of Caspia, made of brass, are reported to be smeared over by Alexander the Great. We read also that Noah's Ark -vas joined together with this bitumen, and that it endured some thousands of years upon the Mountains of Armenia. There are many such kind of wonderful things, scarce credible, which notwithstanding are known by experience. Amongst which Antiquity makes mention of Satyrs, which were animals, in shape half men and half brutes, yet capable of speech and reason; one whereof St. Hierome reporteth, spake once unto holy Antonius the Hermit, and condemned the error of the Gentiles in worshiping such poor creatures as they were, and desired him that he would pray unto the true God for him; also he affirms that there was one of these Satyrs shewed openly alive, and afterwards sent to Constantine the Emperor.
That's from Chapter X "Of the Occult Virtues of Things". That's actual medieval occult philosophy, and it's not just symbolism.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/pnm/pnm19.htm
I see paizo reason, and it's ok, but what you think to reintegrate this "cutting" on next print (with the inclusion of errata), or at least on PRD?