PF2 Character Sheet


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Also, those temporary HP are coming back every 4 rounds. That helps a lot, especially since those HP almost certainly scale too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Just curious, which numbers do we already know for which classes, when it comes to skills? Like, Fighter and Barbarian are 3+, Paladin is 4+(?), Etc. How many do we know?

Fighter and Barbarian are 3+. Druid is 4+, and Paladin appears to also be 4+ (though there might be an intervening variable there since that's from one specific character not a Class Descriprtion). Rogues have a really large number (math indicates 8-ish, but it's not super precise).

We don't really know the rest, but most seem to hit the 4+ mark except for Fighter and Barbarian. Which is annoying.

Dragon78 wrote:

Well martial classes should get 6+int skills.

Casters should get 4+int skills.

Skill monkeys should get 8+int skills.

I might not go quite this far, but I'm certainly not pleased that Barbarian gets fewer skills than Druid, and lacks Survival as a Signature Skill. That seems deeply wrong.

While I agree with the general sentiment that martials shouldn't get less skills than casters (and Barbarians not getting survival is weird) I will say Druids always struck me as kind of a weird exception. Not that they should get more from a balance perspective, especially when druids are one of the most versatile classes in the game. But they've got this weird identity that sort of requires them to be pretty skilled. Knowledge Nature, Arcana, Spellcraft, and Handle Animal all seem pretty important, and none ran on Wisdom so it was hard to keep them up without a lot of skill points. Tack on Survival and Perception onto this and the druid is pretty tapped out.

That said, PF2 already seems to be reducing this by removing Perception and condensing skills, plus making Nature wisdom based. So I question if the druid needs to 4+ still.

Also curious what this means for the wizard. Arcana absorbing UMD, Spellcraft, and at least one knowledge skill is very good for them, and I imagine they can rock the new crafting rules just fine. Their only iconic skill that seems costly is Lore, but Lores seem pretty cheap to get. So maybe wizards will only get 1+ INT.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Is signature skill like a class skill?

It's a Skill you can get to Master level or above, all others cap at Expert.

There are a variety of non-Class ways to get more of them (the Pirate Archetype Dedication gives Acrobatics, the Pickpocket Skill Feat gives Thievery, presumably etc. etc.), but they're still relevant. They also seem tied to the number of skills you get, which is interesting.

Do we know that the only thing signature skills do is raise the cap? It seems like they ought to make some difference even before you get high enough level to Master anything.


Each time you rage you refresh your temp HP pool right? I figure that's absolutely worth an action if "raising a shield" is.


There does seem to be a lot more emphesis placed on direct damage mitigation for martials through things like shields and the barbarian's temporary HP.


As a lover of telegeokineticists I am a huge fan of damage mitigation as a combat strategy and look forward to it being commonplace.

Also, emphasizing this as "a thing you can do" helps mitigate the amount of healing people are going to need.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
As a lover of telegeokineticists

Remote earth movers?

I really don't want to see the rule 34 material for that love affair.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Is signature skill like a class skill?

It's a Skill you can get to Master level or above, all others cap at Expert.

There are a variety of non-Class ways to get more of them (the Pirate Archetype Dedication gives Acrobatics, the Pickpocket Skill Feat gives Thievery, presumably etc. etc.), but they're still relevant. They also seem tied to the number of skills you get, which is interesting.

Do we know that the only thing signature skills do is raise the cap? It seems like they ought to make some difference even before you get high enough level to Master anything.

It appears that they do not do anything else...


I don't see anywhere on the Character Sheet to put the Ancestral abilities. (not feats) Such as the Elves Dim light vision or Elven "Magicalness", the Dwarves Dark vision or the Dwarven armour speed reduction. Where would those go because not everybody will remember these things...


Voss wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As a lover of telegeokineticists

Remote earth movers?

I really don't want to see the rule 34 material for that love affair.

Rock chuckers.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
While I agree with the general sentiment that martials shouldn't get less skills than casters (and Barbarians not getting survival is weird) I will say Druids always struck me as kind of a weird exception. Not that they should get more from a balance perspective, especially when druids are one of the most versatile classes in the game. But they've got this weird identity that sort of requires them to be pretty skilled. Knowledge Nature, Arcana, Spellcraft, and Handle Animal all seem pretty important, and none ran on Wisdom so it was hard to keep them up without a lot of skill points. Tack on Survival and Perception onto this and the druid is pretty tapped out.

In PF2, Handle Animal seems to be under Nature, as is Spellcraft for Primal (ie: Druid) spells. So Nature and Survival cover almost all of this.

Captain Morgan wrote:
That said, PF2 already seems to be reducing this by removing Perception and condensing skills, plus making Nature wisdom based. So I question if the druid needs to 4+ still.

Yeah, it doesn't seem necessary. I'm fine with it, and would rather raise Barbarian and Fighter than drop Druid, but it's not strictly necessary.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Also curious what this means for the wizard. Arcana absorbing UMD, Spellcraft, and at least one knowledge skill is very good for them, and I imagine they can rock the new crafting rules just fine. Their only iconic skill that seems costly is Lore, but Lores seem pretty cheap to get. So maybe wizards will only get 1+ INT.

I suspect Wizard will get Arcana, Crafting, and Occultism, plus maybe Society as Signature Skills and thus probably also get 3 or 4 + Int skills, which, again, I'm fine with as long as Fighters and Barbarians get at least 4.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Do we know that the only thing signature skills do is raise the cap? It seems like they ought to make some difference even before you get high enough level to Master anything.

The only thing they've been stated to do is raise the cap. Jason Bulmahn even said they matter 'later on' which does indeed imply they matter very little, if at all, before 7th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voss wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As a lover of telegeokineticists

Remote earth movers?

I really don't want to see the rule 34 material for that love affair.

"Did the earth move for you?"

"Not remotely."


Aratrok wrote:

Rage taking an action is baffling to me. Especially since it seems no more useful than the older versions (and has lost some of its utility in making Strength checks) of the ability and its downside is so much more severe this time around.

Also it's a little insulting that "drastically increases her damage" turned out to be a piddly +2. Come on.

Using 1 action to rage and then 2 actions to attack 2 times is more damage than attacking 3 times. Sounds pretty damn good to me.

The exception being AC 12 targets and below. So, basically no targets.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:
The exception being AC 12 targets and below. So, basically no targets.

This isn't quite true, zombies have AC 10 if I recall correctly.

Of course, if it's only one action for three rounds of Rage (which seems likely, given that Rage has a specific rather than variable duration) then you're giving up one attack at -10 for +2 damage on up to 8 others. And a free 2 HP. That's a pretty good trade.


A friend of mine pointed out that there isn't a section for fluff character info (backstory and appearance), but in all fairness it seems like a reasonable thing to leave out of a playtest-focused sheet.

It looks a little...busy though, although I might be biased because I really like the look of the PF1 (and D&D 5e) sheet, so layout-wise it looks kind of...awkward.
I'm guessing the design is subject to change, especially for the CRB release, though?


RiverMesa wrote:

A friend of mine pointed out that there isn't a section for fluff character info (backstory and appearance), but in all fairness it seems like a reasonable thing to leave out of a playtest-focused sheet.

Can't say I'd really look for that on any sort of character sheet. I tend to see the front page as a quick-look reference, 2nd for gear and spells and things. Background and appearance I'd expect people to write up themselves as a Word doc or something.


Voss wrote:
RiverMesa wrote:

A friend of mine pointed out that there isn't a section for fluff character info (backstory and appearance), but in all fairness it seems like a reasonable thing to leave out of a playtest-focused sheet.

Can't say I'd really look for that on any sort of character sheet. I tend to see the front page as a quick-look reference, 2nd for gear and spells and things. Background and appearance I'd expect people to write up themselves as a Word doc or something.

Agreed. I find in systems that provide that sort of thing, whatever space they provide seems hardly enough, as I tend to put a lot into my background. And it's not the sort of thing I feel I need to refer back to my character sheet to confirm.

I will say, I do enjoy certain systems which have mechanics based on "My character is passionate about [X], so I can spend a [some system specific, usually once per session, resource] to [do a thing, usually reroll, or something to that effect] on a thing that ties into my character's [x]" but I'm not sure pathfinder is the system for that.

Shadow Lodge

So.... this looks like an incredibly cluttered sheet. You know, one box labeled "Prof" instead of four boxes labeled different things would look much better in my opinion...


Dragonborn3 wrote:
So.... this looks like an incredibly cluttered sheet. You know, one box labeled "Prof" instead of four boxes labeled different things would look much better in my opinion...

It would. I'd suggest putting the weapon and armor proficiencies above skills*, left justify the word Skills and add an explanatory line to the empty space that reads:

SKILLS: U=-2, T=+1, E=+2, etc.

And then in the TEML space next to the PROF box, simply add a box that players can fill in with T,E,M or L, and shift the PROF text so it floats above both boxes. And a box for Sig under the skill name, rather than the wacky pentagram.
Stealth____DEX_____PROF___ITEM__ARMOR
[S]_+2_____[+2]__[T]:[+1]__[]___[-1]

*Weapon and armor proficiencies don't serve any purpose at the top. Good for reference, but much lower priority than the weapons and attacks themselves, which already contain the proficiency information (as does AC). They also eat up way too much space, both horizontally and vertically, and nothing else has that much white space under the header.

Actions and reactions, on the other hand, definitely need more space.


Voss wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
So.... this looks like an incredibly cluttered sheet. You know, one box labeled "Prof" instead of four boxes labeled different things would look much better in my opinion...

It would. I'd suggest putting the weapon and armor proficiencies above skills*, left justify the word Skills and add an explanatory line to the empty space that reads:

SKILLS: U=-2, T=+1, E=+2, etc.

And then in the TEML space next to the PROF box, simply add a box that players can fill in with T,E,M or L, and shift the PROF text so it floats above both boxes. And a box for Sig under the skill name, rather than the wacky pentagram.
Stealth____DEX_____PROF___ITEM__ARMOR
[S]_+2_____[+2]__[T]:[+1]__[]___[-1]

*Weapon and armor proficiencies don't serve any purpose at the top. Good for reference, but much lower priority than the weapons and attacks themselves, which already contain the proficiency information (as does AC). They also eat up way too much space, both horizontally and vertically, and nothing else has that much white space under the header.

Actions and reactions, on the other hand, definitely need more space.

I actually like the TEML icons. I find them visually appealing, and easy to see proficiencies in a quick glance.

I agree that the Weapon and Armour proficiencies should be moved down above Skills.
And I wholeheartedly agree that Actions and Reactions need more space and lines.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an old White Wolf games fan, I like checking the boxes (or filling them in, or whatever method you choose), it's immediately and visually obvious what level of ability people have, which is relevant to more things than the simple number (Feat Prerequisites, for example, or how good your Assurance is).

It's also helpful to visual thinkers/learners, which is a good thing, IMO.


So, this is another nemesis-character-sheet ("my eyes!"), though I haven not really dug any official D&D/PF character sheet for decades, now, I always just type up characters in the monster/NPC format of whatever edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As somebody who designs character sheets, I'm very interested to hear what people would like from a character sheet.

Any ideas you have, sky's the limit. What would your perfect character sheet be?

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if folks have mentioned it in this thread, but worth noting that when asked on the street Jason. said he's bothered by the ability scores' organization (left-right rather than top-bottom for a physical & a mental column), and that this was the result of a miscommunication with the folks doing the sheet layout. I was relieved to hear, since that was one of the first things I noticed and it was bugging the heck out of me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

As an old White Wolf games fan, I like checking the boxes (or filling them in, or whatever method you choose), it's immediately and visually obvious what level of ability people have, which is relevant to more things than the simple number (Feat Prerequisites, for example, or how good your Assurance is).

It's also helpful to visual thinkers/learners, which is a good thing, IMO.

While I think White Wolf games are way clunkier than baseline Pathfinder. In my years of teaching games its been far easier to get players making and using characters for them than in Pathfinder. I think the visual layout of the sheet is a super big part of that. They count the dots and roll that many dice.

Sadly for 2edition (while I do love the visual of the character sheet) it isn't as useful because the core system doesn't operate like that. Even the proficiency ranks don't map directly to pusses (2 boxes ticked only equals +1 for example) before taking into account the other maths that needs to be done.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Is signature skill like a class skill?

It's a Skill you can get to Master level or above, all others cap at Expert.

There are a variety of non-Class ways to get more of them (the Pirate Archetype Dedication gives Acrobatics, the Pickpocket Skill Feat gives Thievery, presumably etc. etc.), but they're still relevant. They also seem tied to the number of skills you get, which is interesting.

Do we know that the only thing signature skills do is raise the cap? It seems like they ought to make some difference even before you get high enough level to Master anything.

I'm pretty sure they are used as feat requirements too


sadie wrote:

As somebody who designs character sheets, I'm very interested to hear what people would like from a character sheet.

Any ideas you have, sky's the limit. What would your perfect character sheet be?

I wind up teaching new-to-TTRPGs players pretty often, and what I want most from a character sheet is to help me teach the game, communicate that we're about to do something fun, and ease the intimidation of a dense system.

I really liked a detail of a variant 5e character sheet where the skills were grouped next to the ability scores that they corresponded to, so new players would know right away that they could invest in dexterity to improve their stealth and acrobatics, or invest in charisma to improve their persuasion. It was near the upper left hand corner, so you would read it early on and it would make the whole system a little less daunting.

With PF2's sheet, I worry about things like the TEML bars being daunting to new players. The sheet gives no clue to what they mean and it'll be tricky to give a concise explanation.


IconicCatparent wrote:
I really liked a detail of a variant 5e character sheet where the skills were grouped next to the ability scores that they corresponded to, so new players would know right away that they could invest in dexterity to improve their stealth and acrobatics, or invest in charisma to improve their persuasion. It was near the upper left hand corner, so you would read it early on and it would make the whole system a little less daunting.

That's cool, but I am a big fan of substituting ability scores for Skills, like, Con for Athletics to perform an endurance stunt, also good for beginners and organic play-style.


I'm not so bothered by the revelation about Fighters having a lower number of starting skills in PF2. Short form of it is pretty simple.

In PF1, Fighters having a low number of skill ranks per level is basically crippling. Either you over specialize in key adventuring skills and be terrible at everything else or you don't specialize and you are just kinda bad at everything outside of combat.

In PF2, Fighters having a low number of Proficiency Ranks in skills isn't actually too terrible. Being untrained does hurt at low levels, but even Untrained skills get decent at basic tasks.

It feels like games without character classes. You want to play a fighter type, your highest skills are going to be in weapon use, but you should still have a rough competency at other tasks. You didn't get this in PF1, but we might be getting this in PF2. I think that Skill Feats are also General Feats, so if you wanted to make a Lore Warden type character, it could be fairly simple.

I guess what is going to solidify or crush this idea for me is when the playtest document lands and I make a few characters for testing, how many of those circles under Senses, Saving Throws, Proficiencies and Skills are going to wind up having Xs in them.

If the Fighter has at least as many actual Proficiency Ranks in all categories combined as other classes? I'm more likely to accept that.

If the Fighter is outclassed completely and has the least Proficiency Ranks in all categories combined? That I'll be less okay with.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
IconicCatparent wrote:
sadie wrote:

As somebody who designs character sheets, I'm very interested to hear what people would like from a character sheet.

Any ideas you have, sky's the limit. What would your perfect character sheet be?

I wind up teaching new-to-TTRPGs players pretty often, and what I want most from a character sheet is to help me teach the game, communicate that we're about to do something fun, and ease the intimidation of a dense system.

I really liked a detail of a variant 5e character sheet where the skills were grouped next to the ability scores that they corresponded to, so new players would know right away that they could invest in dexterity to improve their stealth and acrobatics, or invest in charisma to improve their persuasion. It was near the upper left hand corner, so you would read it early on and it would make the whole system a little less daunting.

With PF2's sheet, I worry about things like the TEML bars being daunting to new players. The sheet gives no clue to what they mean and it'll be tricky to give a concise explanation.

I think they could fit the full rules for what you need to fill out anywhere proficiency exists in one line of sub script at the bottom of the sheet. I actually liked in some variant White Wolf sheets that basically had the whole character creation process on the sheet without taking much extra space and think it is a good goal to achieve.

Onto the character sheet shown, I actually like the Attributes are pushed down into the corner. They are useful for deriving the other information on the character sheet, but during actual play it seems likely they will never or rarely be used and thus do not need to be front and center.


Stone Dog wrote:
I think that Skill Feats are also General Feats, so if you wanted to make a Lore Warden type character, it could be fairly simple.

I think it's been mentioned that Skill Feats can be taken as General Feats, but that wouldn't override the Skill Feat's prerequisites. And since as far as we (well, I at least) know you can only boost skills at the skill increase levels, having less starting skills at the start does still limit what skill feats you can take over-all.


Link for those of us who missed the live broadcast. Starts at around 9min mark.

Haven't fully watched it myself yet, so just going to comment on the posted sheets.

Kinda like the TEML checkboxes for proficiency. They may take up space, but it is nice to visually see when one thing has a higher proficiency than another.

Weapon Proficiencies seems to have a blank category in addition to simple/martial? I'm guessing this is for weapon groups being able to have a higher proficiency, which seems like a positive.

There doesn't seem to be any dedicated armor/shield section? For all the talk about how armor was going to have properties to prevent having a "best choice" of whatever gave the most AC... the sheet itself doesn't seem to have any way to express properties beyond AC and ACP.

Boxes for Actions and Activities seems way too small.

Items seem to be a bit of a mess. The box for total bulk isn't in the same column as the boxes listing bulk for items and actually appears in the middle of two sections which can add bulk. Would much prefer to see it directly at the bottom of a column so that its easy to total. Also really hate the designation of "L" in the midst of a bunch of number values.

I can't actually read what the it says above the circle next to bulk in the Magical and Alchemical items section. I assume it is something for resonance?

Very sad that we don't get a preview of the spells section of the character sheet. I know they've mentioned spellcasting proficiency before, and I personally am really hoping to see it broken down by school.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I started working on an editable character sheet if anyone is interested, I only have page one at the moment and I am sure as I learn the system I will need to make more changes. But it's a start.

Link


Bardarok wrote:

I started working on an editable character sheet if anyone is interested, I only have page one at the moment and I am sure as I learn the system I will need to make more changes. But it's a start.

Link

This is definitely appreciated and many thanks to your efforts in creating such a sheet for preparation purposes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here is version 2. That's about it until I get more information on the system. Drop down menus to choose proficiency level and a lot of things automatically calculated. Not sure about the font I wanted to go for fantasy but I'm worried it isn't fully legible. Oh well I'll work on this more once I get more information.

Link


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do we have any idea how many Lore skills there are? There's only two on the character sheet (and not much space for filling in the detail), but it implies there could be lots.


sadie wrote:
Do we have any idea how many Lore skills there are? There's only two on the character sheet (and not much space for filling in the detail), but it implies there could be lots.

I don't think there is a limit on how many lore skills there are in the same way profession was unlimited in PF1. Any idividual PC is unlikely to take more than the one granted by their background though. I can see a few taking a second if it is campaign relevant (Lore Sailing jumps to mind) but there are better places to spend skill ups for the most part.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the age of Jason's elf barbarian: He is only 54, which is less than half the minimum possible age for an elf barbarian in PF1. I wonder whether age/height/weight are being adjusted in general?

That would be a bigger lore change than just about any other rule change.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

David knott 242 wrote:

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the age of Jason's elf barbarian: He is only 54, which is less than half the minimum possible age for an elf barbarian in PF1. I wonder whether age/height/weight are being adjusted in general?

That would be a bigger lore change than just about any other rule change.

I feel as though they hinted at elves' starting age being lowered in one of the blogs where they mentioned an elf "at the ripe old age of 14."

I'm not sure how big a lore change this would really be, since most of the Golarion lore I've seen has been kind of ambiguous on how quickly elves mature. I don't recall any adventure featuring a 70-year-old elf as an adolescent, for example.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, Elf ages seem to be going down a tad, but not enough that it effects the actual published adventures or stories.

Other ages seem more or less the same, and there are no indications of shifted height or weight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anything that helps breaks the back of elf fetishism and brings them back down to just another race is good by me. :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is amusing that from the life expectancy of elves has dropped by about 400 years in the 25 years I've been playing elves. In another 25 years they won't live any longer than humans!
I blame the lack of trancing... sleep isn't haughty enough for elves.

Liberty's Edge

Cantriped wrote:

It is amusing that from the life expectancy of elves has dropped by about 400 years in the 25 years I've been playing elves. In another 25 years they won't live any longer than humans!

I blame the lack of trancing... sleep isn't haughty enough for elves.

Eh. By AD&D 2E it was down to a max of 750 or so for the most part, and they may well max out at around the same in PF2, with 600 more of an average.

It's really only 1e to 2e that had a big drop, with PF1 maintaining the same as 2e and earlier. PF2 may maintain this, we just don't know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
I'd put AC and HP along the top, speed, perception and class DC below that, stats in straight line down the left side, and saves next to them.

I agree with this. In addition, Speed should be listed in a little boot, hit points in a heart, and AC in a shield.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the age of Jason's elf barbarian: He is only 54, which is less than half the minimum possible age for an elf barbarian in PF1. I wonder whether age/height/weight are being adjusted in general?

That would be a bigger lore change than just about any other rule change.

I feel as though they hinted at elves' starting age being lowered in one of the blogs where they mentioned an elf "at the ripe old age of 14."

I'm not sure how big a lore change this would really be, since most of the Golarion lore I've seen has been kind of ambiguous on how quickly elves mature. I don't recall any adventure featuring a 70-year-old elf as an adolescent, for example.

I remember Erik mentioning that forlorn elves will be part of the lore mentioned in the playtest. I think the forlorn story fits better when the kids around you outgrow you.


One thing that has occurred to me is that PF2 will be easier to borrow the “investigative clues” system from Robin Laws’ Gumshoe game system. I have been doing this for a while with both PF1 and D&D5 - if you are “trained” (proficient or have one skill rank or higher) in a specific skill, then instead of pointless skill checks to find essential clues, you simple find them if you investigate a particular location. A skill check may uncover additional details, but the most essential information required to move a plot forward will be uncovered just by being trained and looking around.

Now, one may instead say, “if a character is trained in Lore(Nature), then they uncover that the trail has been used recently by something massive. With a Lore(Nature) check of 20, they uncover that the thing that used the trail had scales, based on both the patterns in the ground and a small green scale fragment they uncover.”

You may even go so far as to say, “trained uncovers first info, expert uncovers second info, and master uncovers third, very specific info.”


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

It is amusing that from the life expectancy of elves has dropped by about 400 years in the 25 years I've been playing elves. In another 25 years they won't live any longer than humans!

I blame the lack of trancing... sleep isn't haughty enough for elves.

I think it’s because as humans it’s almost impossible to relate to a species who can live for a thousand years - one cannot even fathom such a mindset, whereas for a few hundred years you can at least remotely conceive of the thoughts and problems of such a creature, it’s attitudes on shorter lived races etc.

Someone who lives for 2000 years or more, like Tolkien’s Elves? Why would you even TALK to a human or dwarf? Might as well go into business with a mayfly or a tadpole, or try to understand the feelings of a piece of burning kindling. How does one even perceive time in that frame of reference? More importantly, how does one live that long without going crazy, or being unable to respond to stimuli because of the sheer breadth of memories one must go through? Or do you just forget entire centuries because of necessity of action...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

It is amusing that from the life expectancy of elves has dropped by about 400 years in the 25 years I've been playing elves. In another 25 years they won't live any longer than humans!

I blame the lack of trancing... sleep isn't haughty enough for elves.
Or do you just forget entire centuries because of necessity of action...

Even with the shorter lifespans one of the Ancestry Feats for elves hints at that being the case in PF2E. If I remember correctly they can bring memories back in order to gain training in a skill once per day. This indicates that memories do indeed fade and it takes some sort of special training to bring them back even for fleeting moments.


Malk_Content wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

It is amusing that from the life expectancy of elves has dropped by about 400 years in the 25 years I've been playing elves. In another 25 years they won't live any longer than humans!

I blame the lack of trancing... sleep isn't haughty enough for elves.
Or do you just forget entire centuries because of necessity of action...
Even with the shorter lifespans one of the Ancestry Feats for elves hints at that being the case in PF2E. If I remember correctly they can bring memories back in order to gain training in a skill once per day. This indicates that memories do indeed fade and it takes some sort of special training to bring them back even for fleeting moments.
Elves Blog wrote:
An elf can live up to 600 years, an amount of time fit for appreciating the beauty of the natural world, of elegant arts, and of refined magic. Demons may haunt ancient elven lands, but you have plenty of time to plan their demise.

I'm kinda thinking that either the 54 is a mistake, or that Elves mature faster than before. It seems to me that their life span hasn't changed that much... Wasn't it 350+4d% in PF1e?

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / PF2 Character Sheet All Messageboards