| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
special fontI've been pretty quiet on the whole PF2 topic, lurking through all the previews but this is one I feel worth commenting on.
It probably won't happen, but if Paizo is dead-set on using symbols/icons instead of words, I really, really think they should release a public-domain font with those symbols/icons.
My groups use standard statblocks as character sheets. Having to improvise our own equivalent to Paizo's typography means we can't ever produce proper statblocks. The same goes for 3rd-party publisher support. If non-Paizo publishers have to invent their own icons, then they're really not icons.
Using existing Unicode icons instead of inventing their own would solve this, as well as my qualms about reader technology (which I believe can generally handle Unicode).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anguish makes a valid point. If the symbols are in any way copyrighted, then Paizo will need to update their Community Use Policy and the third-party publisher contacts to cover them. Otherwise they'd be denying them part of the ruleset, which is arguably against the terms of the OGL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're all determined to fight about this.
I don't find the previewed picture of the icons so far particularly intuitive or informative. Hopefully when I see the full set, it might be better, but right now I can see issues with having to count little diamonds slowing down my play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the purpose of the symbols exactly? I could see them being used to keep pages formatted clearly so that you don't need to waste space on justifying to the same edge for every differently sized action name word, but they appear to be just tossed into the text. Even in the monster page where they are given enough space to serve as indentation and identifier they aren't being used for that purpose.
I get that someone thought having symbols would be cool and fun, but this is one of those babies you really need to kill. It just looks like clutter. Either use it, or don't, don't just put it there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the purpose of the symbols exactly? I could see them being used to keep pages formatted clearly so that you don't need to waste space on justifying to the same edge for every differently sized action name word, but they appear to be just tossed into the text. Even in the monster page where they are given enough space to serve as indentation and identifier they aren't being used for that purpose.
I get that someone thought having symbols would be cool and fun, but this is one of those babies you really need to kill. It just looks like clutter. Either use it, or don't, don't just put it there.
One of the major benefits is that in a 500 page book, replacing every instance of a "as a standard action you may..." with "[A]:" saves a whole lot of space.
After all these books need to be physically printed so there's a limit on how many pages the binding can handle. So any time you can replace a common phrase with intelligible shorthand you open up space for more interesting things like more feats, items, archetypes, spells, etc.
I mean the string "AAA" used in context to mean "three separate actions" is essentially a symbol anyway.
So we're essentially just trying to figure out "which shorthand is more intelligible or pleasing to the eye."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the purpose of the symbols exactly? I could see them being used to keep pages formatted clearly so that you don't need to waste space on justifying to the same edge for every differently sized action name word, but they appear to be just tossed into the text. Even in the monster page where they are given enough space to serve as indentation and identifier they aren't being used for that purpose.
I get that someone thought having symbols would be cool and fun, but this is one of those babies you really need to kill. It just looks like clutter. Either use it, or don't, don't just put it there.
One of the major benefits is that in a 500 page book, replacing every instance of a "as a standard action you may..." with "[A]:" saves a whole lot of space.
It saves a little space, in exchange for clarity and readability, particularly since the symbol isn't replacing 'as a standard action you may,' but rather 'action' (see the trap blog, the symbol place holders are just 'action' and 'reaction,' NOT a long string.
Also, not sure how paizo's printer handles things, but traditionally, printers usually charge more for special symbols and layouts.
I mean the string "AAA" used in context to mean "three separate actions" is essentially a symbol anyway.
So we're essentially just trying to figure out "which shorthand is more intelligible or pleasing to the eye."
Right now how things are written out we have.
Activation [action symbol] command activationIf we're trying to shorten this we have a number of options. My preference is:
Action: 1 Command
We don't need to re-reference that an action is being taken, we already have number symbols, the only additional information we need is the type of command.
We also have variable activation amounts written like:
Activation [action symbol] operate activation or [double symbol] operate activation.
My preference here is:
Action: 1 Operate. (description of all 1 point activated abilities)
Action: 2 Operate. (description of all 2 point activated abilities)
Action: 1-2 Operate. (description of ability that isn't distinct between the one and two point cost and only increases in potency relative to the cost.)
It saves space and saves on the confusion of what ability goes with which cost.
If someone were married to the symbol idea, then it can stand on its own. People would see the symbol and know that everything after that was related to an action being taken, otherwise the symbol is just a word replacement. You'd just use:
[action symbol] 1 Operate
We're already adding something to increment the action tally, there isn't much purpose in using a chevron over a number. Putting the number inside the symbol would make it harder to read, but putting it outside is more readable than multiple chevrons. This lets us use the symbol as a marker and an indent to help readability rather than just swapping out letters like a decoder ring. Using it as the indent is nice as it lets us use some of the necessary empty space from formatting to supply information without crowding the text.
With casting it's a bit weird. We have "casting" as the headline, then we go on to actions as an extra step. The symbol version would require a casting symbol to remain consistent, or you'd just use "Cast: 1 Somatic and 1 material".
So when I look at the symbol in the text and see it supplying none of the advantages available to symbol use, I wonder why it's there.
I mean the string "AAA" used in context to mean "three separate actions" is essentially a symbol anyway.
So we're essentially just trying to figure out "which shorthand is more intelligible or pleasing to the eye."
The difference is that an 'A' gives a hint what it stands for. Anyone that reads it up is going to guess it stands for something that starts with an a. What does a diamond stand for? Jewelry? Baseball? Cards? A pleasing symbol is less useful that an easily understandable one IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that an 'A' gives a hint what it stands for. Anyone that reads it up is going to guess it stands for something that starts with an a. What does a diamond stand for? Jewelry? Baseball? Cards? A pleasing symbol is less useful that an easily understandable one IMO.I mean the string "AAA" used in context to mean "three separate actions" is essentially a symbol anyway.
So we're essentially just trying to figure out "which shorthand is more intelligible or pleasing to the eye."
You just gotta go deeper. Single diamond -> ace of diamonds -> letter A -> action!
You just gotta go deeper. Single diamond -> ace of diamonds -> letter A -> action!The difference is that an 'A' gives a hint what it stands for. Anyone that reads it up is going to guess it stands for something that starts with an a. What does a diamond stand for? Jewelry? Baseball? Cards? A pleasing symbol is less useful that an easily understandable one IMO.I mean the string "AAA" used in context to mean "three separate actions" is essentially a symbol anyway.
So we're essentially just trying to figure out "which shorthand is more intelligible or pleasing to the eye."
You need an extension ladder and a 20' pole to reach THAT far for a conection...
|
|
When you start trying to denote kinds of action (Power Attack? Stride? Hunt Target?), you start needing a decoder ring to figure out the symbols.
◆ Ready Shield
rules for readying your shield
◆◆ Power Attack
rules describing how Power Attack works
You can see that using power attack takes two of your three actions.
How many different symbols are we gonna have? Is it just the three for "Action", "Reaction" and "Free Action"? I figure those are easy enough to keep straight just from context. Are we gonna do them for "Operate", "Focus", etc? I'm not sure that's a great idea.
How many different symbols are we gonna have? Is it just the three for "Action", "Reaction" and "Free Action"? I figure those are easy enough to keep straight just from context. Are we gonna do them for "Operate", "Focus", etc? I'm not sure that's a great idea.
They haven't mentioned doing them for anything but Action, Reaction, & Free Action. And if the playtest did so they'd be using [[focus]] and [[operate]] in blogs instead of "Focus" and "Operate".
Isn't the symbol for "2 actions" just the symbol for one action twice? Or at least highly evocative of such (concatenating the symbols instead of standard kerning, say).
There's the diamond with one two or three chevrons for actions. Then there's a diamond that has a hole cut out the center which I think is a reaction. Then there's one that looks like the symbol for a single action, but inverted, which comes up in things that I would expect to take no actions.
We could interpret the action symbol as a symbol stacked(a diamond with a little diamond inside to the left with additional diamond squares pushed underneath), but it's easier to call it what it is than what it's supposed to call to mind. It's obviously supposed to be a diamond with a little diamond inside though, otherwise their free action symbol would just be that little diamond.
It's easy enough just to type >, >>, >>>, 0 for forum chat on the topic. You lose the little diamond, but it isn't doing anything anyway.
No. They are quick and dirty recreations.
|
Those are my impressions of the proposed symbols, filtered via my AMAZING graphic design skills and proficiency in Powerpoint. The basic gist is right, a small diamond with 1-3 chevrons, evoking the image of overlapping diamonds.Are those the proposed symbols? If so, they seem kinda ugly to me...Isn't the symbol for "2 actions" just the symbol for one action twice? Or at least highly evocative of such (concatenating the symbols instead of standard kerning, say).Pretty much. Something like this: https://imgur.com/EXhTHmi
I do like those, certainly easily to write down on paper :3