Blog format suggestion


Prerelease Discussion


After reading all of the blogs now and reading some of the commentary I get the feeling that the whole marketing promotion targets the wrong focus group. The people on the forum, regularly visiting the side are already all big nerds (no hard feelings) and read those blogs with a sharp eye.

Several blogs vaguely mention concepts and so much so that often clarification is needed in the comments. To the point that clarification is given by the author. While, by subjective feeling of course, a big part of the comments beneath a blog are first moment reactions, another big part of the comments ponders the ramifications of the things stated. Often without a big enough base of data to truly make any of it.

"We will see when playtest releases." is often stated and is often needed.

Of course I'm aware of the "space" given, a blog can hardly cover a concept which may take up to several pages in the rulebook. Also I see the need for promotion. But by now I feel its hardly the point of it all.

For some example, I already catch myself thinking "How to homebrew this, so it actually works." without even knowing if such a step would be neccessary.

For example the latest blog stated that changing the grip on a weapon is by now an action which changes a lot. I'm not fooled into believe that the designers already have some solution for this and that situation that may arise from this. But the negative reaction "Now that may be true, so this won't work." isn't always covered by a dutiful designer in the comments and even if. Living in europe, working, when I get to make the time to read a blog the comment section already spans over several pages.

I'd like to suggest to make some time up, to well "FAQ" blog posts. A designer commenting on his blog, could easily copy and paste his answers beneath a blog post, after writing an answer. Sometimes this would cover half the comments. For example on domain spells, by what spellslot they are cast and so on. Which came up several times even after Mark Seifter stated they would use normal spell slots.

Of course those things are all work in progress at this point. Which also requires some things to be vague, which I get. For myself and from what I have read those who read those blogs have a pracitcal point of view thats more rule and fact based. The tone of "and this part of the rule might be awesome" hardly excites me and makes me more sceptical.

Please don't get me wrong I feel that the designers are excited to preview their work and that they invest a lot of time into formulating tidbits of information and additionally spent time to talk to the playerbase. And I'm aware that the whole WIP, "will be covered in another blog", promotion part makes it so that only some information is given. I don't ask for more information, but simply formatting the information already given in a way that avoids confusion.

TL;DR: I feel blogs are not exciting but confusing. I ask for a more clearer tone in the post and wonder if others feel the same?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think a lot of it is people not reading properly to be honest. The changing grip situation for example. People read ", changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed" to mean "I have to spend an action to let go of my weapon" for some bizzare reason. Yes a dev came in and clarified that no you don't have to spend an action to let go with one hand and thus opening a door with a two handed weapon is not a full round action.

Similarily a bunch of the clarification happened, several times, in the Cleric blog. Despite it being abundantly clear that Gods give Domains and additional spells learned, but numerous folks didn't get that.

I am not a good reader but a lot of the questions are already answered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I think a lot of it is people not reading properly to be honest. The changing grip situation for example. People read ", changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed" to mean "I have to spend an action to let go of my weapon" for some bizzare reason. Yes a dev came in and clarified that no you don't have to spend an action to let go with one hand and thus opening a door with a two handed weapon is not a full round action.

What he said is that

Logan Bonner wrote:
If, as in the example upthread, you were releasing your weapon to open a door, releasing your grip should be part of that first Interact action

Which can easily be interpreted (and often is being interpreted) as in some cases it can be done as part of another action. Which for one, doesn't always mean that it can be rolled into whatever other action you're trying to do. And even if it is part of another action, that still means you have to burn a second action to re-grip your weapon, meaning that (for instance) opening a door now takes 2/3 of your turn, and if you're casting a 2-action spell it takes your entire turn just to cast and re-ready. If it's a 3-action spell you literally cannot ready your weapon again. And again, that's *if* you can roll it into any action. If Somatics (for instance) aren't one you can roll it into that means it'll take two turns for a caster with a two-handed weapon to cast a three-action spell, since you have to burn an action to change your grip and it's been said you can't split activities across multiple turns.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Even then people jumped from moving one handed to two handed taking an action meaning that the opposite is true and start complaining from there. So yeah it might sorta suck a bit to have to take an in optimal turn to open a door carefully (although for lots of doors I imagine kicking it down while holding onto your weapons will work just fine.) Doors aren't just to keep the wind out of the hole you use to enter a building they are also meant to be a physical barrier for things you don't want coming in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Even then people jumped from moving one handed to two handed taking an action meaning that the opposite is true and start complaining from there. So yeah it might sorta suck a bit to have to take an in optimal turn to open a door carefully (although for lots of doors I imagine kicking it down while holding onto your weapons will work just fine.) Doors aren't just to keep the wind out of the hole you use to enter a building they are also meant to be a physical barrier for things you don't want coming in.

To be totally fair, right before the sentence about one-handed to two-handed it did specifically mention codifying grip-changing in general, it's not *that* big a leap to assume the reverse uses the same rules. As for the doors thing, do note this also applies to more than just doors. Any class that has any abilities that involve using a hand will pretty much be forced to avoid two-handed weapons. Gonna suck for Clerics who's deities favor a two-hander, having to burn an extra action (or maybe even two) every time they want to cast a spell. Or Paladins, who now have to burn an extra action (or two) to use their lay on hands. A melee Alchemist trying to chug a mutagen to get into combat? You're losing an entire round even if they're already in reach as you pull it out, chug it, and then put your hand back on. This really hurts the viability of the two-handed weapon, having to burn an extra action (or two) to do what a one-handed weapon can do without. Or else just leads to the Two-Hand quality becoming king because you can still get that really good damage when you need it, but *aren't* left defenseless if you can't spend the spare action to re-ready your weapon.


Malk_Content wrote:

I think a lot of it is people not reading properly to be honest. The changing grip situation for example. People read ", changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed" to mean "I have to spend an action to let go of my weapon" for some bizzare reason. Yes a dev came in and clarified that no you don't have to spend an action to let go with one hand and thus opening a door with a two handed weapon is not a full round action.

Similarily a bunch of the clarification happened, several times, in the Cleric blog. Despite it being abundantly clear that Gods give Domains and additional spells learned, but numerous folks didn't get that.

I am not a good reader but a lot of the questions are already answered.

While this is true, using rule parts into a normal text will always lead to that and the rule behind it will always be interpreted and sometimes wrong. So I applaud the author of the last blog to insert the whole rule, as unclear as its ramifications might be.

Also its not always about clarifications sometimes the designers (and excue me for not putting forth an example) add in some additional information not mentioned before into the comments. While this a boon given, it still might be useful to add it there so its not buried on page 3+ where it might not be found and furthermore always halfway quoted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do agree that it'd be nice if, when a dev gives clarifications in the comments, they also add it into a FAQ footer at the end of the article. That would certainly help avoid the situation I keep seeing where people keep asking the same questions based on the blog even after they've already been answered pages earlier. Not everyone has the free time to dive through 10 page threads every time they have a question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
To be totally fair, right before the sentence about one-handed to two-handed it did specifically mention codifying grip-changing in general, it's not *that* big a leap to assume the reverse uses the same rules. As for the doors thing, do note this also applies to more than just doors. Any class that has any abilities that involve using a hand will pretty much be forced to avoid two-handed weapons. Gonna suck for Clerics who's deities favor a two-hander, having to burn an extra action (or maybe even two) every time they want to cast a spell. Or Paladins, who now have to burn an extra action (or two) to use their lay on hands. A melee Alchemist trying to chug a mutagen to get into combat? You're losing an entire round even if they're already in reach as you pull it out, chug it, and then put your hand back on. This really hurts the viability of the two-handed weapon, having to burn an extra action (or two) to do what a one-handed weapon can do without. Or else just leads to the Two-Hand quality becoming king because you can still get that really good damage when you need it, but *aren't* left defenseless if you can't spend the spare action to re-ready your weapon.

You mean there might be a downside to using the weapons that have tended to have the largest damage in the game? Oh, the humanity...

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Blog format suggestion All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion