Oh, right. I forgot Cleric doesn’t get a starting class feat. That makes sense- their features correlate pretty well with Wizard, but then they start with weapon and armor proficiencies as well.
I think "Spell Roll" is what sets your spell DC. Level + Modifier. Or in Kyra's case, +5 for a DC of 15.
Also, we know Bless requires an action to mantain each round, is that what "Concentration" means? Which would mean Forbidding Ward is on the same boat? Long live buff spells, I suppose.Assurance grants a flat 10, no bonuses, no penalties (she's wearing chain mail).
Uh, I think you quoted the wrong part of my post, but even then, the Chainmail ACP has to be -3 or worse for Assurance to be equal to Kyra using the old Take 10. And since we don't know what her Athletics modifier actually is, we can't work out what the ACP is just that Chainmail is either +5 AC/ +2 TAC with +0 DEX; or it's +4/+1 with +1 or better DEX.
Considering that armor itself got slashed down across the board I wouldn't be surprised if ACP is in the same situation. Which means that, yes, Assurance is a poor man's Take 10.
I'll note chainmail almost certainly has an ACP of at least +2, so her athletics score is probably 1 at most. Assurance is actually pretty great because it can be used in situations where you couldn't take 10 before, like combat. Climbing a wall in the GC playtest was only DC 10, but because they were doing it while a character was dying at the bottom of a pit taking 10 wouldn't have been an option. As such, Assurance may have saved not one but two characters' lives
Lore also can be used like a knowledge check, just for a very narrow and less relevant field. However, if you find yourself needing to roll a knowledge check that could pertain to either Narure or Farming, Farming will probably have the lower DC.
See above for the armor thing. As long as the ACP is -3 or worse, Assurance is just a worse Take 10 (numerically speaking). While I will concede that you can now use it during combat, there were plenty of ways to do that in PF1 as well. The second example depends entirely on GM; I wouldn't consider someone dying at the bottom of a pit to be enough to rule out a Take 10 for someone climbing down, the same way climbing a mountain isn't enough even though you're in "immediate danger".
Actually... I think she's untrained in athletics. If she is, and even if she isn't, it would mean that cleric has an absurd number of skills 5-6 even. She's apparently trained in religion, medicine, performance, diplomacy, and survival already.
I don't think you can have Assurance in a skill without being Trained. The Proficiency blog states you need to be Trained in a skill to take Skill Feats, and the Skill Feats blog specifies Assurance gives you a flat result depending on your level of training (10, 15, 20, 30; for Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary).
Now, maybe she got it from somewhere else, but it all points to you needing to be Trained to get Assurance. As for how her skills work out, no idea. Maybe because she's human? She also only has 1 Skill Feat, while Fumbus has 2. Maybe she used one for Skill Training? I don't really know.
Man I'd have thought they'd do away with Vancian spellcasting and move on Arcanist style stuff. Surprised.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with Kyra's left leg?
All left legs have something not right about them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with Kyra's left leg?
Her sandals have raised tips so perspective makes her left foot look smaller.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, we know Bless requires an action to mantain each round, is that what "Concentration" means? Which would mean Forbidding Ward is on the same boat? Long live buff spells, I suppose.Assurance grants a flat 10, no bonuses, no penalties (she's wearing chain mail).Uh, I think you quoted the wrong part of my post, but even then, the Chainmail ACP has to be -3 or worse for Assurance to be equal to Kyra using the old Take 10. And since we don't know what her Athletics modifier actually is, we can't work out what the ACP is just that Chainmail is either +5 AC/ +2 TAC with +0 DEX; or it's +4/+1 with +1 or better DEX.
Considering that armor itself got slashed down across the board I wouldn't be surprised if ACP is in the same situation. Which means that, yes, Assurance is a poor man's Take 10.
See above for the armor thing. As long as the ACP is -3 or worse, Assurance is just a worse Take 10 (numerically speaking). While I will concede that you can now use it during combat, there were plenty of ways to do that in PF1 as well. The second example depends entirely on GM; I wouldn't consider someone dying at the bottom of a pit to be enough to rule out a Take 10 for someone climbing down, the same way climbing a...I'll note chainmail almost certainly has an ACP of at least +2, so her athletics score is probably 1 at most. Assurance is actually pretty great because it can be used in situations where you couldn't take 10 before, like combat. Climbing a wall in the GC playtest was only DC 10, but because they were doing it while a character was dying at the bottom of a pit taking 10 wouldn't have been an option. As such, Assurance may have saved not one but two characters' lives
Lore also can be used like a knowledge check, just for a very narrow and less relevant field. However, if you find yourself needing to roll a knowledge check that could pertain to either Narure or Farming, Farming will probably have the lower DC.
Assurance athletics is from her background as a farmhand, so she probably got it for free without needing to meet the requirements. Fumbus has his background feat and alchemical crafter from being an alchemist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only thing I dislike on the second preview -- "Propulsive?" Yuck. Really bad concept, for all the reasons Mad Comrade said, plus I would really like it if they did away with all the "half or one and a half" bonuses.
A sling, specifically, however, doesn't need a debuff - it's already a sling, with crappy range and reloading properties. If they wanted to debuff it, take it back to 1d4 and drop the 1/2 STR thing. Heck it sounds like composite bows are receiving a boost by eliminating the silly "+ specific rating" thing in favor of just "Composite bow = add your STR bonus to damage", so why do this to the poor sling?
If I had a .sig right now, it would probably say, "shoot Propulsive out the door'. "
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people concerned with how complicated spells are? Each spell has multiple variable (#actions to cast, up to 4 different results depending on saves, roll using touch or regular AC, and probably more stuff). I worry about a 10th level version of Kyra.
I suppose it may be easier if your group uses electronic assistance, but our group is all pencil, paper, and rule books. I just wonder if it is worth it. I think I like PF1 version of spells in a lot of ways. I am not trying to bash PF2, just a concerned player.
re: kyra
Wish they would have spiced up her spell selection some and pick some new spells or spells with new changes.That is a painful stat array, even with the new stat generation system.
Why are we keeping the cleric so MAD when other classes are staying SAD?
Stats seem fine to me. Its everything else- this once again paints the cleric as a passive, boring healbot, with nothing really worth doing. Even the feat choices are passive, just to emphasize the feel.
Its hard to get excited for a second string fighter waiting for clean-up duty.
So on Kyra, the cantrip Stabilize says range 30feet. But the spell description says "a single TOUCH shuts deaths door". So do you have to touch them or is it cool if they are only within 30ft?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a painful stat array, even with the new stat generation system.I disagree. The array is pretty solid. You could theoretically have Str 16, Cha 12 and be a better combatant...but worse at healing and with less Resonance. That's a choice some people would make, but I'm not sure it's strictly better.
Ya, i don't have a problem with the array of numbers themselves ;)
Just that it is going to be tough to build a combat focused cleric without neglecting charisma and losing out on that class feature. Just like in PF1.
At least my dwarf combat cleric will still have 2 channels to work with and won't have issues with selective channeling, but will have issues with resonance.
But i still look at that alchemist stat array and get a little jealous...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does “3 bulk, 9 light” mean after bulk?
It means "39 lbs. worth of encumbrance". 1 bulk is about 10 lbs; and 1 light is about 1 lb.
I assume bulk is used instead because some things (notably realistic armor) is quite heavy on a scale, but not so encumbering when worn properly. So in theory we should be adjusting Bulk values based on where/how the object/entity is carried. However I've yet to see a table of Bulk modifying conditions... so it feels like an under-utilized game mechanic.
In PF1, even Light Armor takes up a huge percentage of your encumbrance at 1st level unless you have a fairly high Str.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, I think you quoted the wrong part of my post,I did, my bad >_<
Back to Assurance, If my bonus is only +1 but I have to roll than I'd say it's great since you can use it in stressful situations, which with Take 10 you could not.
I understand that, but his new mechanic basically creates a host of other problems. Here's a simple one:
You have a 1st level PF1 party. Lets call it, The Iconics: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. They're all first level, and they come to a cliff. Not a very hard one to climb (DC 15). The first thing to note is that there's PF1 characters that can make this DC by taking 10, while PF2 characters can't, AFAIK (no idea if someone can get Expert at 1st level in a Skill).
But lets assume nobody can do it. But they're smart, and they have a grappling hook. They throw it, success! Now the DC to climb is only 5.
At this point, basically everyone can climb by Taking 10. Even with a literal 1 in a stat you can make it. You'd need a combination of Str and ACP that gave you -6 to the roll, or some other conditional penalties.
In PF2, even with the rope, everyone without Assurance has to roll. There's no mechanic available for easily solving this kind of stuff. In PF2, you either have Assurance, or you roll. And keep in mind, in PF2, a Natural 1 is, at the very least a failure. So even if you've the mod to automatically pass, without Assurance, you always have a 5% chance to just fail.
So hopefully that explains while I dislike Assurance and call it a poor man's Take 10. Not just from a numerical standpoint, but also from a narrative standpoint.
And don't even get me started about my beloved Take 20 ;(
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have all bows add str to damage from the get go, I doubt it will break level 1, I asume that the sling is a simple weapon and as such should be weaker than a bow which is why it has the reload property, Im just disapointed because I wanted to try an urban rogue that favored a sling not because I dont understand the design choice. That said I still think that most range weapons should add str to damage from the get go, slings included
That's not how bows work. You can't pull the bow with more strength than what it was made to tolerate, you'll break it. Essentially, each bow already has its own strength. Same for x-bows.
In PF2 this could work out several ways, but I think they'll just give you different bows and x-bows, with different ranges and damage ranges, and have you add your dex to damage. They might keep composites doing also half strength, but it wouldn't make it any more realistic.
Also, before giving up on possible character concepts, give it a minute. Let's see what feats we can get in the playtest document. Perhaps you'll find stuff that will make you a really devastating ranged character even with slings. At least don't try that concept with a cleric, I'm sure other classes will work better (rangers and rogues?). Let's have a bit of patience.
Other things:
I think Lore is an interesting bit of customization, not just a way to get money. It reminds you of your roots, of your actual background. I see it as a win. It's not like anyone is giving up a skill rank for it, it's automatic.
Her athletics isn't listed because she's not trained, the feat comes from her background. Also one supposes the GM might know the rules for skill checks, even if they're not exhaustively written down on a pre-made character's sheet.
Her skill array is great for a 1st level character.
I think with 3 actions every single round even arrows will need 1 action to be retrieved from their quiver and nocked. Unless feats. Which could work for slingstones as well, by the way.
I also think spells are pretty straightforward and since anyways casters will be getting a little fewer of them it's still pretty simple.
Finally, just saying, but it would be nice, perhaps, if everytime Paizo reveals some new part of the rules, or EN World unveils a new iconic, people wouldn't immediately rush to declare in no uncertain terms how horrible this new edition is and what a terrible mistake Paizo is doing. Okay folks, we got it, you'll keep playing 1e. Have fun. Please don't be always so angry at the world, and maybe try for some *constructive* criticism, instead of just bashing on things you don't like.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, i don't have a problem with the array of numbers themselves ;)
Just that it is going to be tough to build a combat focused cleric without neglecting charisma and losing out on that class feature. Just like in PF1.
At least my dwarf combat cleric will still have 2 channels to work with and won't have issues with selective channeling, but will have issues with resonance.
But i still look at that alchemist stat array and get a little jealous...
Eh. Kyra has higher AC than the Alchemist (it's due to armor...but I bet Alchemists don't even get Medium Armor Proficiency), and does more damage to boot (Fumbus does about 2/3 of her damage absent flanking or the like), he has +1 to hit, but that's about it advantage-wise from stats.
In PF2, even with the rope, everyone without Assurance has to roll. There's no mechanic available for easily solving this kind of stuff.
This is actually not true. Mark Seifter has specifically stated that there's a 'Take X' mechanic even for people without the Assurance Feat.
It's less generous than Assurance is (which is why Assurance is good), but it exists, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it solves this problem for a lot of people (Untrained people may be in trouble...we really don't know).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, i don't have a problem with the array of numbers themselves ;)
Just that it is going to be tough to build a combat focused cleric without neglecting charisma and losing out on that class feature. Just like in PF1.
At least my dwarf combat cleric will still have 2 channels to work with and won't have issues with selective channeling, but will have issues with resonance.
But i still look at that alchemist stat array and get a little jealous...
Eh. Kyra has higher AC than the Alchemist (it's due to armor...but I bet Alchemists don't even get Medium Armor Proficiency), and does more damage to boot (Fumbus does about 2/3 of her damage absent flanking or the like), he has +1 to hit, but that's about it advantage-wise from stats.
In PF2, even with the rope, everyone without Assurance has to roll. There's no mechanic available for easily solving this kind of stuff.This is actually not true. Mark Seifter has specifically stated that there's a 'Take X' mechanic even for people without the Assurance Feat.
It's less generous than Assurance is (which is why Assurance is good), but it exists, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it solves this problem for a lot of people (Untrained people may be in trouble...we really don't know).
Yeah, the main reason assurance is a thing is that it's always take X, even in horrendous situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, just saying, but it would be nice, perhaps, if everytime Paizo reveals some new part of the rules, or EN World unveils a new iconic, people wouldn't immediately rush to declare in no uncertain terms how horrible this new edition is and what a terrible mistake Paizo is doing. Okay folks, we got it, you'll keep playing 1e. Have fun. Please don't be always so angry at the world, and maybe try for some *constructive* criticism, instead of just bashing on things you don't like.
Doom & Gloom forever! PF2 will destroy us all! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doom & Gloom forever! PF2 will destroy us all! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Haha, joke's on you!
The sky already broke and fell in the setting I run.If anything I relish having to work out how the sky can possibly fall twice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doom & Gloom forever! PF2 will destroy us all! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Haha, joke's on you!
The sky already broke and fell in the setting I run.If anything I relish having to work out how the sky can possibly fall twice.
... Not derailing thread to comment on how awesome Elleth's games are... not doing it... we've already been there, Ros...
This is actually not true. Mark Seifter has specifically stated that there's a 'Take X' mechanic even for people without the Assurance Feat.It's less generous than Assurance is (which is why Assurance is good), but it exists, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it solves this problem for a lot of people (Untrained people may be in trouble...we really don't know).
I have trouble seeing how this would work without making Assurance basically worthless unless:
- The bonus is so small as to be laughable
- The situations where you can use it are so restricted as to be basically useless.
Keep in mind if the bonus isn't small, people that will focus on a skill will almost never sink a Feat in Assurance. It'd be basically a waste of a Feat, unless it's a requirement for other, better Skill Feats (can you say Feat Tax?)
Take a Rogue with Thievery. Level 15, Legendary in Thievery. That's a modifier of +18. At this point, as long as their DEX modifier is +2 or better, Assurance is basically Take 10, with some caveats. Any better in their mod and Assurance adds less, making it worth less. If the Rogue really invested in DEX (sans items), they'll have 21 DEX at 15 (18 starting, +1 5th, +1 10th, +1 15th) for a +5. In that case, Assurance is a Take 7.
(If you're wondering why I picked Legendary, it's because it's the one with the biggest gap between what Assurance gives you and what you could get with your modifiers. The other levels of Assurance fare worse)
The problem with having a Take X mechanic AND Assurance is that if the Take X mechanic is good enough to allow poorly trained people to succeed, it is also good enough that it will help well trained people succeed even better, and they'll never bother with Assurance.
I honestly see no point in this change. I can understand taking away Take 20 with the new DoS rules (though I've an entire rant about doing the whole "1s auto fail, 20s auto succeed" on skills). But Take 10? Take 10 worked perfectly well. You could use it out of combat, and if you wanted to use it in combat there were ways to do it for the skills you'd want to. It generally cost Feats or Class Features (Rogue Talents, Rage Powers, that sort of thing). You could do that in PF2, instead of this whole Assurance kerfuffle.
But anyway, sorry, I've already derailed this thread enough. I'll stop now, and to end in a positive note: I actually like that weapons have more distinct traits.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take a Rogue with Thievery. Level 15, Legendary in Thievery. That's a modifier of +18. At this point, as long as their DEX modifier is +2 or better, Assurance is basically Take 10, with some caveats. Any better in their mod and Assurance adds less, making it worth less. If the Rogue really invested in DEX (sans items), they'll have 21 DEX at 15 (18 starting, +1 5th, +1 10th, +1 15th) for a +5. In that case, Assurance is a Take 7.
I like that a lot. PF1's take 10 rules really limited the challenge space. If you could succeed on a 10 or less, you just succeeded. So the biggest bonus matters, and there was little incentive for cross-archetype training. A fighter taking Disable Device, for instance.
In PF2, a fighter going for heavy armor isn't going to invest as much into Dex as his Rogue friend. The Assurance feat lets him take 12 in Thievery at level 15, rewarding him for investing skill ranks and a feat into the skill, if not his ability score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It means "39 lbs. worth of encumbrance". 1 bulk is about 10 lbs; and 1 light is about 1 lb.
If the system works like starfinder, then that's not quite right: the weight is actually a variable number. Bulk = 5-10 pounds while light are 'a few ounces'.
That makes “3 bulk, 9 light” anywhere from 16 pounds 2 ounces to 31 pounds 2 ounces[assuming 'few is 3].
On to the sheet... What reason could there be for a power that uses spell points to have a rarity?
EDIT: also, after only seeing one caster sheet I'm already tired of seeing the word Casting... Add that to my still not being sure I see any benefit to those symbols over a simple and I'm mystified why the layout doesn't read 'Casting [2] somatic, verbal' instead of 'casting [funky chevron/diamond thing] somatic casting [funky chevron/diamond thing] verbal casting'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See above for the armor thing. As long as the ACP is -3 or worse, Assurance is just a worse Take 10 (numerically speaking). While I will concede that you can now use it during combat, there were plenty of ways to do that in PF1 as well. The second example depends entirely on GM; I wouldn't consider someone dying at the bottom of a pit to be enough to rule out a Take 10 for someone climbing down, the same way climbing a mountain isn't enough even though you're in "immediate danger".
IMO, any time you are measuring time in rounds (like they were when the character was dying; he was 2 or 3 rounds away from perishing and everyone was getting turns to do stuff about it) you shouldn't be able to use take 10. I've never heard of anyone ruling it otherwise. The whole concept is that you don't have anything immediately pressing and can take your time and focus to do it carefully. Climbing a mountain with no real time constraint is one thing. Climbing a mountain while racing the clock because your friend will die any second is another.
Plus, Athletics checks happen in combat too. Say Kyra falls in that pit trap, which turns out to be part of a larger encounter and enemies attack, the Assurance feat is going to probably pay off.
Also, Assurance values actually scale with proficiency and can get as high as 30... Which seems rather good for most things you attempt. I do think it works better for people with a lesser focus on the skill, which Kyra is a good example of. She has ACP and mediocre strength. A high strength monk who bothered to get a climber's kit will probably not need Assurance.
Your rogue in that example is probably a bad candidate, but I think Assurance can probably still come in handy for picking pockets and what not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take a Rogue with Thievery. Level 15, Legendary in Thievery. That's a modifier of +18. At this point, as long as their DEX modifier is +2 or better, Assurance is basically Take 10, with some caveats. Any better in their mod and Assurance adds less, making it worth less. If the Rogue really invested in DEX (sans items), they'll have 21 DEX at 15 (18 starting, +1 5th, +1 10th, +1 15th) for a +5. In that case, Assurance is a Take 7.I like that a lot. PF1's take 10 rules really limited the challenge space. If you could succeed on a 10 or less, you just succeeded. So the biggest bonus matters, and there was little incentive for cross-archetype training. A fighter taking Disable Device, for instance.
In PF2, a fighter going for heavy armor isn't going to invest as much into Dex as his Rogue friend. The Assurance feat lets him take 12 in Thievery at level 15, rewarding him for investing skill ranks and a feat into the skill, if not his ability score.
Seela would probably be a great candidate for Thievery Assurance, actually. I am pretty sure she gets pickpocketing from her background but will almost certainly have low dex and the worst ACP possible.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have trouble seeing how this would work without making Assurance basically worthless unless:
- The bonus is so small as to be laughable
- The situations where you can use it are so restricted as to be basically useless.
This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Assurance, like Skill Mastery in PF1, can be used at absolutely any time, and scales pretty decently.
Say that the non-Assurance version only works in 'non-stressful' situations ala Taking 10 in PF1. Assurance is then very useful in combat and the like.
It could also be a flat five points lower and it's still relevant. I mean, that's 'Take 5' at 1st level, and solves the 'climbing a rope' problem, 'Take 10' as early as 2nd or 3rd (when you hit Expert), and eventually a 'Take 25' (though, at 15th level, that's not outrageously impressive...it's still not bad as an option, though) when you hit Legendary.
Those only come up on easy checks, but they do allow you to avoid auto-failing on a 1 on such checks, which seems a good usage of such a mechanic.
The problem with having a Take X mechanic AND Assurance is that if the Take X mechanic is good enough to allow poorly trained people to succeed, it is also good enough that it will help well trained people succeed even better, and they'll never bother with Assurance.
By 'Take X' I meant 'take a flat number' like Assurance does. Which is how I assume such a mechanic would work.
It means "39 lbs. worth of encumbrance". 1 bulk is about 10 lbs; and 1 light is about 1 lb.If the system works like starfinder, then that's not quite right: the weight is actually a variable number. Bulk = 5-10 pounds while light are 'a few ounces'.
That makes “3 bulk, 9 light” anywhere from 16 pounds 2 ounces to 31 pounds 2 ounces[assuming 'few is 3].
Yes ergo the qualifiers bolded for emphesis.
I've played Starfinder, and in practice there is no guidance given for adjudicating the possible variance in the Mass to Bulk conversion, so GMs are hard-pressed to actually use it. Especially given that whether or not a 120 lb human like myself (a very thin man) is considered to be anywhere from 12-24 bulk based on... what exactly?No, in practice 1 Bulk is about (read as within a 50% margin of) 10 lbs, and 1 Light is functionally anything less than 5 lbs (which would round to 1 Bulk instead); with any rounding being done per object... so a 25 lbs suit of armor is most likely going to convert into 2 Bulk (rather than 2 Bulk, 5 Light), and a 3 lb sword would* convert to 1 L.
*Except that weapons and shields will likely have inflated Bulks (i.e. minimum 1 Bulk) as a "balancing factor".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is actually not true. Mark Seifter has specifically stated that there's a 'Take X' mechanic even for people without the Assurance Feat.It's less generous than Assurance is (which is why Assurance is good), but it exists, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it solves this problem for a lot of people (Untrained people may be in trouble...we really don't know).
I have trouble seeing how this would work without making Assurance basically worthless unless:
- The bonus is so small as to be laughable
- The situations where you can use it are so restricted as to be basically useless.Keep in mind if the bonus isn't small, people that will focus on a skill will almost never sink a Feat in Assurance. It'd be basically a waste of a Feat, unless it's a requirement for other, better Skill Feats (can you say Feat Tax?)
Take a Rogue with Thievery. Level 15, Legendary in Thievery. That's a modifier of +18. At this point, as long as their DEX modifier is +2 or better, Assurance is basically Take 10, with some caveats. Any better in their mod and Assurance adds less, making it worth less. If the Rogue really invested in DEX (sans items), they'll have 21 DEX at 15 (18 starting, +1 5th, +1 10th, +1 15th) for a +5. In that case, Assurance is a Take 7.
(If you're wondering why I picked Legendary, it's because it's the one with the biggest gap between what Assurance gives you and what you could get with your modifiers. The other levels of Assurance fare worse)
The problem with having a Take X mechanic AND Assurance is that if the Take X mechanic is good enough to allow poorly trained people to succeed, it is also good enough that it will help well trained people succeed even better, and they'll never bother with Assurance.
What you're missing is that Assurance lets you ignore all penalties, not just ACP. Climbing in nonproficient heavy armor in the dark while cursed, sickened, encumbered, exhausted, and shaken (or equivalent PF2 conditions)? Assurance doesn't care, you just get that minimal result and you autosucceed at basic tasks.
Will bows also be half STR bonus to damage, is this an attempt to balance archery with other combat styles?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're missing is that Assurance lets you ignore all penalties, not just ACP. Climbing in nonproficient heavy armor in the dark while cursed, sickened, encumbered, exhausted, and shaken (or equivalent...
Or trying to work out how to activate an obscure plane-shifting device while falling out of a plane. On fire. While blind. Into what suspiciously sounds and smells like the maw of a ravenous dragon. With a bad case of food poisoning and a hangover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a good point, yeah.
Also, I'm not sure if we really need take 10 this time around. Kinda feels like it might not serve the same purpose with the tighter math. At a certain point the basic stuff like climbing a rope is going to become an autosuccess for everyone anyway, you know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or trying to work out how to activate an obscure plane-shifting device while falling out of a plane. On fire. While blind. Into what suspiciously sounds and smells like the maw of a ravenous dragon. With a bad case of food poisoning and a hangover.
What you're missing is that Assurance lets you ignore all penalties, not just ACP. Climbing in nonproficient heavy armor in the dark while cursed, sickened, encumbered, exhausted, and shaken (or equivalent...
The unknown is when conditions are increases in the DC (Assurance doesn't help) or penalties to your check (Assurance helps).
I am not that familiar with the iconics. Any reason Kyra doesn’t use a shield? Is sword + shield + casting still a bit of a nightmare in regards to having a free hand for somatic components?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The unknown is when conditions are increases in the DC (Assurance doesn't help) or penalties to your check (Assurance helps).Or trying to work out how to activate an obscure plane-shifting device while falling out of a plane. On fire. While blind. Into what suspiciously sounds and smells like the maw of a ravenous dragon. With a bad case of food poisoning and a hangover.
What you're missing is that Assurance lets you ignore all penalties, not just ACP. Climbing in nonproficient heavy armor in the dark while cursed, sickened, encumbered, exhausted, and shaken (or equivalent...
Yeah, that's why I went with item activation as I figured that was one of the more likely things to have a fixed DC. I might be wrong though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
She needs the hand free to use somatic and/or material casting actions.
I am not that familiar with the iconics. Any reason Kyra doesn’t use a shield? Is sword + shield + casting still a bit of a nightmare in regards to having a free hand for somatic components?
Basically, yeah. Some Divine spells don't actually have Somatic components, but they almost always still requires a Divine Focus, which still needs a free hand (kinda like how Material components need a free hand to reach into the pouch.).
Later on in the game some options came out that let you have your Shield (or was it your armor? Maybe both) as your Divine Focus, so you could do the whole casting thing. You still needed a free hand for somatic but it helped.
EDIT: This is talking about PF1 Kyra. I assume the same restrictions apply to PF2 Kyra, since Paizo has shown they've no problem changing the Iconics' gear.
Yes ergo the qualifiers bolded for emphesis.It means "39 lbs. worth of encumbrance". 1 bulk is about 10 lbs; and 1 light is about 1 lb.If the system works like starfinder, then that's not quite right: the weight is actually a variable number. Bulk = 5-10 pounds while light are 'a few ounces'.
That makes “3 bulk, 9 light” anywhere from 16 pounds 2 ounces to 31 pounds 2 ounces[assuming 'few is 3].
I noticed the bolded, I just disagree as there is a variance of 50% for bulk and 81.25% for light. It seems misleading to not mention that. Your 'around' is my 'varies wildly'.
We actually don't know how much 1 Bulk weighs in PF2. It's probably around 10 lbs...but the actual number is speculative.
I do hope it's 'around 10 pounds' rather than a too-variable metric like the 5-10 in Starfinder.
Maybe. A set amount would be nice but seems unlikely. A "light wooden shield", a smokestick and a elixir are all light. If we use pathfinder classics weights, that's .5 pounds to 5 pounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe. A set amount would be nice but seems unlikely. A "light wooden shield", a smokestick and a elixir are all light. If we use pathfinder classics weights, that's .5 pounds to 5 pounds.We actually don't know how much 1 Bulk weighs in PF2. It's probably around 10 lbs...but the actual number is speculative.
I do hope it's 'around 10 pounds' rather than a too-variable metric like the 5-10 in Starfinder.
But it's not weight. It's *bulk*. The weight of the item is one factor. If we wanted to know the weight, we could go on using the standard encumbrance rules, but Bulk takes into consideration the perceived *bulk* of items. Which is also how large and unwieldy it is.
I think weights might be in some items' descriptions both in the gear section of the rules and in an adventure's notes, plus in the actual bulk section probably, telling you the weight of some common benchmarks... but I wouldn't bet that every item will have a definite stated weight - that's not what this set of rules is about.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always saw Bulk as a measure of how "difficult" something is to carry rather that the actual Mass of a thing.
Example:
A Ladder, Skis, and Portable Ram all weigh 20 lbs
A Folding Table, 1 Unit of Firewood, and a Portable Alchemist Lab also all weigh 20 lbs
In Bulk, I imagine ALL of these items having wildly different Bulk Scores but I doubt any of them would exceed 2 Bulk at Maximum, and others would likely be considered L Bulk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does “3 bulk, 9 light” mean after bulk?It means "39 lbs. worth of encumbrance". 1 bulk is about 10 lbs; and 1 light is about 1 lb.
I assume bulk is used instead because some things (notably realistic armor) is quite heavy on a scale, but not so encumbering when worn properly. So in theory we should be adjusting Bulk values based on where/how the object/entity is carried. However I've yet to see a table of Bulk modifying conditions... so it feels like an under-utilized game mechanic.
In PF1, even Light Armor takes up a huge percentage of your encumbrance at 1st level unless you have a fairly high Str.
Reminds me of Fantasy Flights star wars game. They used an encumbrance system that was likewise an extrapolation of weight and awkwardness. heavy armor in particular was very high bulk when carried in a pack but much lower bulk when worn. Backpacks also had no bulk and instead increased your capacity by 4 I think. I liked the way it worked in that game. I played a particularly low Brawn (Str+Con in that game) Twi'lek and ended up running into bulk constraints a lot so I got pretty familiar with the system.
But it's not weight. It's *bulk*. The weight of the item is one factor. If we wanted to know the weight, we could go on using the standard encumbrance rules, but Bulk takes into consideration the perceived *bulk* of items. Which is also how large and unwieldy it is.
That's the theory but it doesn't follow even in the pre-playtest: a light shield and a smokestick do NOT have even close to the same bulk and unwieldiness by any realistic metric. There is no method for changing weight to bulk as there is no metric for 'unwieldiness'. SO if I bring an item from pathfinder classic into the new game, I'm basically just guessing at bulk.
I think weights might be in some items' descriptions both in the gear section of the rules and in an adventure's notes, plus in the actual bulk section probably, telling you the weight of some common benchmarks... but I wouldn't bet that every item will have a definite stated weight - that's not what this set of rules is about.
Myself, I'd prefer EVERYTHING list a weight even if it's just in a quick listing in the back of the book in microscopic print. Or, heck, even in a FAQ, supplemental PDF, blog, ect. Bulk may be 'what the game is about', but it really doesn't do it for me.
Maybe. A set amount would be nice but seems unlikely. A "light wooden shield", a smokestick and a elixir are all light. If we use pathfinder classics weights, that's .5 pounds to 5 pounds.We actually don't know how much 1 Bulk weighs in PF2. It's probably around 10 lbs...but the actual number is speculative.
I do hope it's 'around 10 pounds' rather than a too-variable metric like the 5-10 in Starfinder.
But it's not weight. It's *bulk*. The weight of the item is one factor. If we wanted to know the weight, we could go on using the standard encumbrance rules, but Bulk takes into consideration the perceived *bulk* of items. Which is also how large and unwieldy it is.
I think weights might be in some items' descriptions both in the gear section of the rules and in an adventure's notes, plus in the actual bulk section probably, telling you the weight of some common benchmarks... but I wouldn't bet that every item will have a definite stated weight - that's not what this set of rules is about.
And yet, weight seems to be the definitive factor. After all, what regulates how much Bulk you get? Strength. How does Strength allow you to carry more unwieldy items? It doesn't, except for the weight aspect. A thirty foot ladder is gonna be equally uncomfortable to carry for everyone, the strong guy can just carry more of them because he can lift them.
Reminds me of Fantasy Flights star wars game. They used an encumbrance system that was likewise an extrapolation of weight and awkwardness. heavy armor in particular was very high bulk when carried in a pack but much lower bulk when worn. Backpacks also had no bulk and instead increased your capacity by 4 I think. I liked the way it worked in that game. I played a particularly low Brawn (Str+Con in that game) Twi'lek and ended up running into bulk constraints a lot so I got pretty familiar with the system.
Yep, it's exactly the same, I'd imagine. Except of course the Encumbrance limit in SW was trivially ignored by just picking good items.
And it still ran into the same issue of conflating weight and awkwardness by just letting stronger guys carry more things period which just makes no sense. Like, for example, Grenades being the same Encumbrance as a Blaster Pistol, even though they both weigh far less and you can carry multiples far easier.
But it's not weight. It's *bulk*. The weight of the item is one factor. If we wanted to know the weight, we could go on using the standard encumbrance rules, but Bulk takes into consideration the perceived *bulk* of items. Which is also how large and unwieldy it is.That's the theory but it doesn't follow even in the pre-playtest: a light shield and a smokestick do NOT have even close to the same bulk and unwieldiness by any realistic metric. There is no method for changing weight to bulk as there is no metric for 'unwieldiness'. SO if I bring an item from pathfinder classic into the new game, I'm basically just guessing at bulk.
I think weights might be in some items' descriptions both in the gear section of the rules and in an adventure's notes, plus in the actual bulk section probably, telling you the weight of some common benchmarks... but I wouldn't bet that every item will have a definite stated weight - that's not what this set of rules is about.Myself, I'd prefer EVERYTHING list a weight even if it's just in a quick listing in the back of the book in microscopic print. Or, heck, even in a FAQ, supplemental PDF, blog, ect. Bulk may be 'what the game is about', but it really doesn't do it for me.
I don't know, graystone, perhaps the light shield is more of a buckler? I should have a look at the actual rules to give you my opinion on the coherence of the bulk rules.
I understand you'd like to go back to weight. Me, I'd prefer neither, if that were possible! I don't like keeping track of encumbrance, it's too boring for me. But hey, anyways, if you're running the playtest and it's not a complete waste of time for you, do give your feedback. If enough people find bulk absurd the devs might very well change it back to actual weight.
I have trouble seeing how this would work without making Assurance basically worthless unless:
- The bonus is so small as to be laughable
- The situations where you can use it are so restricted as to be basically useless.
Not necessarily; remember that DCs may scale differently than in PF1, we haven't seen those yet. In fact, we're almost assured (no pun intended) that the DCs will scale differently because of the progression.
Also, Assurance means you can take it even while in danger or facing distractions, which you cannot do taking 10; therefore even if taking 10 were still the same, including bonuses, if you are not in danger you could take 10 as normal, and use assurance to take 10 when cicrumstances are more dire, like if you were climbing the cliff while someone was shooting at you, or if the cliff face is crumbling below you...
By the time you get to the expert or higher ones (15, 20, etc.) I know it's something that would still be worth having.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like Bulk either. I would prefer to just use mass for encumbrance instead.
However it would be an interesting mechanic if objects listed both their mass and bulk (in common conditions), and the book also included a table of guidelines for determining the bulk of unlisted objects/entities.
For example:
Creature (Consious Enemy or Unconsious Ally): 1 Light if less than 5 lbs, or 1 Bulk per 5 lbs if 5 lbs or more. Plus total Bulk and Light of Possessions (if any).
Creature (Unconsious Enemy or Consious Ally): 1 Light if less than 10 lbs, or 1 Bulk per 10 lbs if 10 lbs or more. Plus total Bulk and Light of Possessions (if any).
Weapon (or similarly held object): 1 Light if less than 5 lbs, or 1 Bulk per 5 lbs if 5 lbs or more.
Suit of Armor (Worn): 1 Light if less than 15 lbs, or 1 Bulk per 15 lbs if 15 lbs or more.
Suit of Armor (Held): 1 Light if less than 5 lbs, or 1 Bulk per 5 lbs if 5 lbs or more.