|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bit about Prestige classes no longer being a thing fits with multiclassing being archetypes now. Your character belongs to a class and that's it.
I hope fervently that it will be possible to retrain in a new class though. It was missing in the playtest.
Your choice of class at 1st level should not become a hindrance to your character's later story.
The bit about Prestige classes no longer being a thing fits with multiclassing being archetypes now. Your character belongs to a class and that's it.
I hope fervently that it will be possible to retrain in a new class though. It was missing in the playtest.
Your choice of class at 1st level should not become a hindrance to your character's later story.
It was four years before you could retrain your class in PF1 via official rules, and it was generally better handled by GM fiat.
In PF2, I'd do something like, "change to the new class, starting with all class feats multiclassing the old class, and retrain from there".
We might get something before too long, of course; class retraining is rare enough that I wouldn't really expect it in the playtest.
|
|
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.
Wait, what? This is a pretty weird statement on the face of it. The 'combat maneuvers' in the PF2 playtest are Grapple, Shove, Trip, Disarm, and Feint.
The PF1 Combat Maneuvers in the core rulebook are Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, and Trip. Feinting is also a thing, but mechanically distinct from combat maneuvers. Of those, Shove covers Bull Rush quite well, Overrun has been subsumed by using Acrobatics to move through someone's square (and was almost never used in the first place), and the rest except for Sunder are covered directly.
So, of maneuvers in the core rulebook, only Sunder is not represented. That's...not reducing the number of combat maneuvers much. And, to my knowledge, there's no Feat enabling Sunder, it's just not a listed rules option (something that may even be playtest specific if they just didn't want to deal with it there).
Now, in PF1, additional maneuvers were added post corebook...but they can easily do that in PF2 as well, if they so choose.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.Wait, what? This is a pretty weird statement on the face of it.
I think the poster you're responding to might have mischaracterized that bit.
I don't think Jason spoke about combat maneuvers, but just made the point that the PF2 structure of making choices within different groups if feats, and only having to know the character options you pick out of each group, reduces the demand on new players compared to PF1, where you kind of need to master the whole system to know what you're doing with any one choice.
But I may be misremembering! Here's the link to the podcast again if anyone wants to check.
EDIT: I'm thinking of what Jason says starting around 24:45. Not sure if there's something elsewhere that dmerceless was talking about but it doesn't ring a bell for me.
EDITx2: It's the passage starting around 7:55. Yes, it has to do with, you only have to learn complexity when you get options from your own choices. It's not about combat maneuvers in the grapple etc. sense.
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too much....it seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?
Just for clarification, this is not meant to express any change from the Playtest to the final version. This was just Jason explaining why they did stuff like turning Sudden Charge into a feat instead of keeping a default Charge action, for instance. Things that already happened in the Playtest. I may have used the term combat maneuvers incorrectly because I haven't played Pathfinder 1 in like 7 years, sorry for that one.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah! Okay, we're all just dealing with a terminology confusion. Cool.
But yeah, for the record, I think (aside from Sunder) you can do everything you could do sans Feats in PF1 sans Feats in PF2 as well (for example, you can move twice and then attack...which is basically a charge).
Feats can make you better at it (Sudden Charge lets you move twice and attack, and still have one more action left over), but the thing he's talking about is more like why Sudden Charge is a Fighter Feat than a General Feat, IMO.
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too much....it seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?
Would you try to Disarm someone in P1 without Improved Disarm? Most likely no, you'd take the feat so you can avoid the AoO.
Same here, but without the punishment if you try without.That said I'm pretty sure these required to invest in skill points, not feats, and the actual quote referred to something else.
edit: YEP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a huge fan of "combat maneuver effectiveness is governed by the same skill which manages climbing and swimming" FWIW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you try to Disarm someone in P1 without Improved Disarm?Can and have, successfully even.
Not against a dangerous melee opponent of course, but disarming an archer or caster without a melee weapon is well within acceptable possibilities.
Not even just that. Reach Advantage - including Lunge. Flatfooted i.e. they haven't acted yet. Them already using AoO for something else.
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too much....it seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?Would you try to Disarm someone in P1 without Improved Disarm? Most likely no, you'd take the feat so you can avoid the AoO.
Same here, but without the punishment if you try without.That said I'm pretty sure these required to invest in skill points, not feats, and the actual quote referred to something else.
edit: YEP.
To be real, the disarm provoking an AoO isn't the actual problem. Sure, it's strictly worse than not having the feat, but the killer is taking the damage from the AoO as a penalty on the disarm roll. That's the ridiculous part of it.
Though to be perfectly fair, the AoO was plenty discouraging even not knowing about the penalty.
As for longer combats, especially at lower levels, I'd be very happy with that. The quoted 3-4 rounds quoted feels underwhelming however. I'm always astounded by the concept that a quick combat is a good combat - I prefer setting up for synergies, overcoming smackdowns, regrouping etc.... Granted, I play mostly at the lower levels and am not cognizant of long drudgy drawn out slugfests...The main thing (at least coming from the playtest) is that those rounds are denser than they were in PF1. Starting from level 1 everyone has more that they could do (about a third extra for most but some classes have economy improvers out that gate which add even more) so it feels like you are doing more and making more choices in the same round span.
That's a good point. And I am a fan of the greater number of actions, not so sure about any iterative penalties to later attacks tho'. I can definitely see that more agency will give the PC's a good chance to at least hit something every round at level 1, as much as I like low-level play, missing with your only Standard Action attack can be quite demoralising...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically it reduces the size of the rules chapter you have to read before starting to play. Now I'm not sure I agree with the approach of gating them but that depends which ones are no longer default. Regardless I prefer it to the PF1 approach of "here are a bunch of things you think you can do but without several feats you are actually shooting yourself in the foot to even try."- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too much....it seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?
Yes, I see that, although that hasn't seemed to stop me nor has it others apparently. I guess I lament the added complexity that makes such maneuvers such a process-fest. Reading the makes my brain bleed through my earballs. I'm sure it doesn't have to be that complicated, and what I read of my Playtest book seemed simpler. Here's hoping.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bit about Prestige classes no longer being a thing fits with multiclassing being archetypes now. Your character belongs to a class and that's it.
I hope fervently that it will be possible to retrain in a new class though. It was missing in the playtest.
Your choice of class at 1st level should not become a hindrance to your character's later story.
It was four years before you could retrain your class in PF1 via official rules, and it was generally better handled by GM fiat.
In PF2, I'd do something like, "change to the new class, starting with all class feats multiclassing the old class, and retrain from there".
We might get something before too long, of course; class retraining is rare enough that I wouldn't really expect it in the playtest.
In PF1, deciding to change your character's focus was handled through multiclassing, which was available from the start.
In PF2, or at least in the playtest, once you belong to a class (ie when starting the game), that's it. Multiclassing opens your options but does not alter your basic chassis and especially your progression.
If your character starts as a wizard and later decides to reject all magic and spend their life mastering the sword, they still end up with 9-th level casting and worse skill at weapons than the character who started as Fighter and later on spent all their time mastering the arcane arts. And vice versa of course.
Retraining your class is the only way in PF2 to tell this kind of character stories. I think we need it available from the start. Not 4 years later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been playing these sorts of games for like 30 years now, and I have yet to encounter a character like something who wants to tell a character who completely rejects magic and becomes a swordsperson or whatever.
Like almost all of the "narrative driven multi-classing" was sort of like "I found religion" or "I want to dabble in this neat thing I found."
It feel like if you want to tell stories about, like, a cleric that kills their own god you can just do ad hoc retraining. "Rebuild your character from level 1" isn't exactly complicated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your character starts as a wizard and later decides to reject all magic and spend their life mastering the sword, they still end up with 9-th level casting and worse skill at weapons than the character who started as Fighter and later on spent all their time mastering the arcane arts. And vice versa of course.
If it's the intention to completely reject magic from a narrative perspective, starting a mage nonetheless will always take you in a disadvantegous position.
If, as you described, want to reject a class completely, well, start the character from scratch at level 1.Personally I love the opportunity to multiclass and still be able to reap the benefits from the primary class, for instance as you mentioned multiclassing into fighter and still later be able to cast 9th level spells.
As I see it, the primary class is not a class, you spontaneously start at level 1 at the beginning of your adventuring career without any experience and learning before. You rather have had to train for years as a wizard apprentice or a military conscript to start as a level 1 wizard or a level 1 fighter. To me a level 1 character is not one that decided to spontaneously be a 1st wizard without having a decent amount of training to back it up.
If you later choose to multiclass into a completely new career, you cannot expect to gain all the advantages of the new class from the minute you choose to delve into unlike those who trained for years to reach level 1 in that class.
So it is just logical that a char who chooses to change profession later in life will always be in disatvantage to those who chose it as the primary class from the start. And this disadvantge is simply the lack of years long training.
Just my 2 cents.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bit about Prestige classes no longer being a thing fits with multiclassing being archetypes now. Your character belongs to a class and that's it.
I hope fervently that it will be possible to retrain in a new class though. It was missing in the playtest.
Your choice of class at 1st level should not become a hindrance to your character's later story.
It was four years before you could retrain your class in PF1 via official rules, and it was generally better handled by GM fiat.
In PF2, I'd do something like, "change to the new class, starting with all class feats multiclassing the old class, and retrain from there".
We might get something before too long, of course; class retraining is rare enough that I wouldn't really expect it in the playtest.
In PF1, deciding to change your character's focus was handled through multiclassing, which was available from the start.
In PF2, or at least in the playtest, once you belong to a class (ie when starting the game), that's it. Multiclassing opens your options but does not alter your basic chassis and especially your progression.
If your character starts as a wizard and later decides to reject all magic and spend their life mastering the sword, they still end up with 9-th level casting and worse skill at weapons than the character who started as Fighter and later on spent all their time mastering the arcane arts. And vice versa of course.
Retraining your class is the only way in PF2 to tell this kind of character stories. I think we need it available from the start. Not 4 years later.
It was not handled well by multiclassing in PF1, though. If I start as a Wizard and get a couple levels in, my options are "stay a Wizard", "take a spellcasting prestige class that's basically Wizard", or "be a weak character". Multiclassing into Fighter didn't fix your stats, and multiclassing into something like Witch or Psychic is going to result in having a lot of low-level spells with bad DCs and some poorly-scaled class features.
The story "I reject my chosen path" is exceptional and fairly uncommon. It can be handled like a lot of exceptional cases: by talking to the GM. That's what I'd recommend in PF1 as well.
I do figure we'll get class retraining rules- if not in the core rule book, probably before four years. After all, PF1 took four years to get rules about retraining feats, skills, and all those other choices while PF2 had that in the playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a story like that with my Reign of Winter character; I started as an Aegis, and then spontaneously rebuilt to a Witch - complete with a Dark City-type moment where my character's entire memories of her life history were rewritten (we needed to complete a coven or the world was doomed, so drastic measures were taken).
It was handled as GM fiat, and I'd expect the same thing in 2e if anything of the sort came up.
|
|
I get your points and I admit I really like how PF2 multiclass archetypes allow so many more previously unsustainable concepts while also curtailing powermongering.
Still I would prefer we get an official rule to cover this so that it will be based on the devs sense of balanced design (and not mine).
Also some venues such as PFS will not accept anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't PF1e PFS have its own rules for retraining that are different from the book anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder Unchained, retraining costs time and money. In PFS, an indefinite period of time passes between game sessions, so they have to do something else -- so retraining instead costs money and either Fame or Prestige (whichever of the two can be spent).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder Unchained, retraining costs time and money. In PFS, an indefinite period of time passes between game sessions, so they have to do something else -- so retraining instead costs money and either Fame or Prestige (whichever of the two can be spent).
Whereas, in PF2 (per the playtest) retraining costs nothing upfront except downtime, though it has the opportunity cost of preventing you from doing other things with that downtime (dayjobs, crafting, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually we don't know. The concept of Bulk is staying, but he did say the numbers have been adjusted. And the numbers were the part that didn't make sense.So does Bulk make sense now?nope.
I'm not completely sold on the concept, but not against it. Ironically, by trying to make things easier, it's actually a bit more complicated when doing any kind of automation. But yeah, it's the numbers that were kooky. The 8 bulk snare kit was the worst offender, I figure that must have been a mistake. But there are a lot of other ones too like 1 bulk items that probably should be L, like Spell and Formula books and daggers. A good hard editing pass should help a lot. Also, 5 + STR mod might be a bit too low for unencumbered carrying capacity. While 5 is a nice number, 6, 7 or even 8 might make more sense and give a bit more leeway. None of this is really all that hard to do. It does mean they probably need to set a good guideline for bulk values going forward and keep to it.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most egregious example IMO was the longbow being 2 Bulk while a quarterstaff and 10 foot pole are both 1 Bulk.
But yes, a lot of the numbers were terrible, and would strongly benefit from a more codified analysis of what 1 Bulk actually means. Hopefully we'll get that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adult humans weighing 40-80 pounds...
I do feel like "the party will sometimes need to carry each other around" is why we shouldn't drill down too much on "how much weight a bulk is" and indeed should err on the side of "he/she/they ain't heavy they're my brother/sister/etc."
Like I don't want to have to differentiate between how difficult it is to haul your 7'7" 320 lb Nagaji out of danger versus a 4'7" 95 lb kitsune. I want the PCs to be able to carry each other and have it be minimally inconvenient.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adult humans weighing 40-80 pounds...I do feel like "the party will sometimes need to carry each other around" is why we shouldn't drill down too much on "how much weight a bulk is" and indeed should err on the side of "he/she/they ain't heavy they're my brother/sister/etc."
Like I don't want to have to differentiate between how difficult it is to haul your 7'7" 320 lb Nagaji out of danger versus a 4'7" 95 lb kitsune. I want the PCs to be able to carry each other and have it be minimally inconvenient.
Exactly. PC bulk is significantly discounted for just this reason; if you go by weight, the big strong heavy character carrying a good amount for her is always going to be a big problem for the other party members if you need to carry her off, when you add her gear to her own weight, it's probably impossible. When Logan and I looked at petrified and normal humans, I first did some physics research for the realistic Bulk and presented it to Logan (it had a muuuuch higher Bulk), and he concluded that while it was realistic to be really hard to move a big adventurer (and certainly a solid stone version of an adventurer), it also doesn't really match the stories people usually told in PF1 involving moving or carrying allies, so based on his parameters, we were able to calculate a value where you can basically stumble around with an ally in a fireman carry, encumbered and slowed down unless your Strength is enormous or you have basically nothing else to carry, including the ally's gear. We checked for several common configurations to see how likely it would be that your ally's armor plus your gear plus the ally would make it untenable such that you can't take them with you if you don't have time to remove the armor. That's actually one of the things about Bulk, the pound conversion rule of thumb is useful when you need a quick ruling, but it's not the way you have to adjudicate. And of course, if you like weight, you can always just convert the PC bulk limit to pounds (call light bulk "1 pound" so each bulk the PC can carry means they can carry 10 pounds) and then use the object weights from PF1 (or your own weights).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. PC bulk is significantly discounted for just this reason; if you go by weight, the big strong heavy character carrying a good amount for her is always going to be a big problem for the other party members if you need to carry her off, when you add her gear to her own weight, it's probably impossible. When Logan and I looked at petrified and normal humans, I first did some physics research for the realistic Bulk and presented it to Logan (it had a muuuuch higher Bulk), and he concluded that while it was realistic to be really hard to move a big adventurer (and certainly a solid stone version of an adventurer), it also doesn't really match the stories people usually told in PF1 involving moving or carrying allies, so based on his parameters, we were able to calculate a value where you can basically stumble around with an ally in a fireman carry, encumbered and slowed down unless your Strength is enormous or you have basically nothing else to carry, including the ally's gear. We checked for several common configurations to see how likely it would be that your ally's armor plus your gear plus the ally would make it untenable such that you can't take them with you if you don't have time to remove the armor. That's actually one of the things about Bulk, the pound conversion rule of thumb is useful when you need a quick ruling, but it's not the way you have to adjudicate. And of course, if you like weight, you can always just convert the PC...Adult humans weighing 40-80 pounds...I do feel like "the party will sometimes need to carry each other around" is why we shouldn't drill down too much on "how much weight a bulk is" and indeed should err on the side of "he/she/they ain't heavy they're my brother/sister/etc."
Like I don't want to have to differentiate between how difficult it is to haul your 7'7" 320 lb Nagaji out of danger versus a 4'7" 95 lb kitsune. I want the PCs to be able to carry each other and have it be minimally inconvenient.
That's exactly what I like with Bulk, and I was one of the rare crazies the was still calculating my load even if the DM was saying to ignore it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for longer combats, especially at lower levels, I'd be very happy with that. The quoted 3-4 rounds quoted feels underwhelming however. I'm always astounded by the concept that a quick combat is a good combat - I prefer setting up for synergies, overcoming smackdowns, regrouping etc.... Granted, I play mostly at the lower levels and am not cognizant of long drudgy drawn out slugfests...
IMO, it's alright to have long combats as long as each individual round doesn't take much time. PF1 was really bad about that, from characters and creatures that made lots of attacks per turn to casters that tossed out multiple spells per turn with complicated effects, even including buffs and debuffs where my GM eventually just gave us whiteboards to keep track of everything. Cut down how long it takes to resolve a turn and the game runs much smoother.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I especially do not want "to figure out how many bulk it is to carry your character, divide their weight by n". Since that creates a situation where there is a mechanical disincentive to play a large character. If I want to tell the story of "the continuing adventures of Fat Monk" that doesn't seem like something the rules should be opposed to. I mean, those young Sammo Hung movies are awesome.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also stops things like "I should write down the lowest weight for my race possible because that is mechanically superior."
Weird story, in a 3.5 AP, I played a halfling archivist who considered herself to be basically a human and didn't really trust other halflings (it didn't help that the other halfling in the party was an incredibly questionable CN mountebank of Graz'zt). To play up the disparity, I put her at minimum height and weight. Then the first dungeon was full of traps with pressure plates that triggered on a very specific weight that Alcyone was under due to being a minimum weight female halfling with very little gear, so it wound up being even more mechanically superior for that adventure!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. PC bulk is significantly discounted for just this reason; if you go by weight, the big strong heavy character carrying a good amount for her is always going to be a big problem for the other party members if you need to carry her off, when you add her gear to her own weight, it's probably impossible. When Logan and I looked at petrified and normal humans, I first did some physics research for the realistic Bulk and presented it to Logan (it had a muuuuch higher Bulk), and he concluded that while it was realistic to be really hard to move a big adventurer (and certainly a solid stone version of an adventurer), it also doesn't really match the stories people usually told in PF1 involving moving or carrying allies, so based on his parameters, we were able to calculate a value where you can basically stumble around with an ally in a fireman carry, encumbered and slowed down unless your Strength is enormous or you have basically nothing else to carry, including the ally's gear. We checked for several common configurations to see how likely it would be that your ally's armor plus your gear plus the ally would make it untenable such that you can't take them with you if you don't have time to remove the armor. That's actually one of the things about Bulk, the pound conversion rule of thumb is useful when you need a quick ruling, but it's not the way you have to adjudicate. And of course, if you like weight, you can always just convert the PC...Adult humans weighing 40-80 pounds...I do feel like "the party will sometimes need to carry each other around" is why we shouldn't drill down too much on "how much weight a bulk is" and indeed should err on the side of "he/she/they ain't heavy they're my brother/sister/etc."
Like I don't want to have to differentiate between how difficult it is to haul your 7'7" 320 lb Nagaji out of danger versus a 4'7" 95 lb kitsune. I want the PCs to be able to carry each other and have it be minimally inconvenient.
Thankies for the explanation and insight, I appreciate it a lot.
While abstractions such as this is why I don't like Bulk (it's just not clicking for me), I'll try to hold off my biases when I see the final rules ^w^
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk has worked fine for me in Starfinder, so far. However, my super miniaturized datapad (iWatch) with negligible ('-') bulk does a lot of the work that you'd technically need tools for in Pathfinder (journals, quill and ink, compass, maps, scroll cases, torches/lanterns/light source, etc).
So I hope that PF2 is generous with the 'L' and '-' bulk assignments on adventuring gear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While abstractions such as this is why I don't like Bulk (it's just not clicking for me), I'll try to hold off my biases when I see the final rules ^w^
What made Bulk click for me was realizing it is not a measurement of weight, it is a measurement of "how hard something is to carry". A couch, and an evenly weighted Cube with handles that weighs the same as the couch are not equally easy to carry up a flight of stairs- I could manage the 150 lb cube by myself but not the 3-seat sofa.
So when it comes to "carrying your friends to safety" being comparatively easy I'm just viewing this as "you are extremely motivated to not let your buddy die" in a way that you aren't equally motivated to haul away extra treasure.
I personally would prefer Bulk have even a wider range of weights that it corresponds to since like a 100'long steel rod of 3/8" diameter weighs about 41 lbs- it is also *incredibly* difficult to carry.
Exactly. PC bulk is significantly discounted for just this reason; if you go by weight, the big strong heavy character carrying a good amount for her is always going to be a big problem for the other party members if you need to carry her off, when you add her gear to her own weight, it's probably impossible. When Logan and I looked at petrified and normal humans, I first did some physics research for the realistic Bulk and presented it to Logan (it had a muuuuch higher Bulk), and he concluded that while it was realistic to be really hard to move a big adventurer (and certainly a solid stone version of an adventurer), it also doesn't really match the stories people usually told in PF1 involving moving or carrying allies, so based on his parameters, we were able to calculate a value where you can basically stumble around with an ally in a fireman carry, encumbered and slowed down unless your Strength is enormous or you have basically nothing else to carry, including the ally's gear. We checked for several common configurations to see how likely it would be that your ally's armor plus your gear plus the ally would make it untenable such that you can't take them with you if you don't have time to remove the armor. That's actually one of the things about Bulk, the pound conversion rule of thumb is useful when you need a quick ruling, but it's not the way you have to adjudicate. And of course, if you like weight, you can always just convert the PC...Adult humans weighing 40-80 pounds...I do feel like "the party will sometimes need to carry each other around" is why we shouldn't drill down too much on "how much weight a bulk is" and indeed should err on the side of "he/she/they ain't heavy they're my brother/sister/etc."
Like I don't want to have to differentiate between how difficult it is to haul your 7'7" 320 lb Nagaji out of danger versus a 4'7" 95 lb kitsune. I want the PCs to be able to carry each other and have it be minimally inconvenient.
The 8 bulk includes the ally's armor and other gear, correct?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when it comes to "carrying your friends to safety" being comparatively easy I'm just viewing this as "you are extremely motivated to not let your buddy die" in a way that you aren't equally motivated to haul away extra treasure.
That idea could, in theory, create neat little future traits for feats. "Greedy" would do whatever it does plus allows the character to carry an additional 1 bulk of valuables (whatever word they're going to use to describe gens, jewelery, and works of art) because they're just that motivated. :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What made Bulk click for me was realizing it is not a measurement of weight, it is a measurement of "how hard something is to carry".
I'm fine with Bulk being this if it's applied consistently.
If an unconscious human is 8 Bulk (which is fine), things should not be 1 Bulk unless carrying 8 of them is around as difficult as carrying an unconscious person, and 1 Bulk should definitely not be listed as '5 to 10 lbs' since that's actively contradictory and thus worse than useless.
I'd actually be perfectly happy with a note like 'Bulk doubles at each level, with an object weighing up to 5 lbs being 1 Bulk, an object up to 10 lbs being 2 Bulk, an object of 20 lbs being 3 Bulk, an object of 40 lbs being 4 Bulk, and so on (this would put most people at about 6-7 Bulk to carry, plus gear)'. Or something like that, anyway. This would make multiple small items more awkward to carry than one big one...but let's face it, that's accurate.
The important part for me is that the measures are consistent and the rules don't imply most people weigh between 40 and 80 lbs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exponents will always stab you in the back eventually. I don't want my 1st level fighter able to bench 20+ tons either, which is what Bulk 14 would be under a doubling scheme...
Sure. Doubling is a problem, but I wasn't necessarily suggesting you continue doubling infinitely, just that having some specific criteria.
So earlier on in this thread Mark was describing his experience in running War for the Crown with the latest rules.
I'm very interested in this. I'm running Wrath of the Righteous and we're loving it, but the 1e rules aren't helping =/ We've even tried different systems, but we really would like to continue the campaign with 2e, even if it will take months to get there.
How hard could it be to convert WotR to the new edition? I know we'll have a lot of monsters in the first Bestiary, which is great. How fast will we get non-common ancestries though? And most of all, does anyone know when (and if!) we'll get Mythic mechanics?
These are just some of the questions we're having. It's a truly great campaign and we're having a boatload of fun, but it would be so much better using 2e, we're quite sure...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So earlier on in this thread Mark was describing his experience in running War for the Crown with the latest rules.
I'm very interested in this. I'm running Wrath of the Righteous and we're loving it, but the 1e rules aren't helping =/ We've even tried different systems, but we really would like to continue the campaign with 2e, even if it will take months to get there.
How hard could it be to convert WotR to the new edition? I know we'll have a lot of monsters in the first Bestiary, which is great. How fast will we get non-common ancestries though? And most of all, does anyone know when (and if!) we'll get Mythic mechanics?
These are just some of the questions we're having. It's a truly great campaign and we're having a boatload of fun, but it would be so much better using 2e, we're quite sure...
I’ve got some notes on doing this on my own War for the Crown thread? Warning, spoilers for book 1. There’s a podcast currently running Kingmaker, and I know of someone else playing Iron Gods and a few others. It’s not particularly hard, but you need a bit of system mastery.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very interested in this. I'm running Wrath of the Righteous and we're loving it, but the 1e rules aren't helping =/ We've even tried different systems, but we really would like to continue the campaign with 2e, even if it will take months to get there.
I feel your pain. I'm about to finish Curse of the Crimson Throne as GM (lvl 16) and the system is taking the best of me. I dont even have fun anymore. Most of the encounters are not challenging as written, so I try to step up and making them more fun, but everything seems to be rocket taggish. I don't find fun in 2 hours combat. To prepare a 4 hours session, I have to spend at least twice the amount of time.
I love how you can do anything with Pathfinder. I hate how you can do anything with Pathfinder.
I’ve got some notes on doing this on my own War for the Crown thread? Warning, spoilers for book 1. There’s a podcast currently running Kingmaker, and I know of someone else playing Iron Gods and a few others. It’s not particularly hard, but you need a bit of system mastery.
Bookmarked, and thank you so much.
Goshdarnit, system mastery... I'm the last person who has system mastery with PF. Crossing fingers that your notes and perhaps some instructions in the coming products and/or future threads will help out.
Btw, when we have the core books I could start a thread aiming to collaboratively convert some of the tougher stuff, if people will prove amenable. That'd make my job a lot easier, I think.
Thank you again, Ediwir (curtsies).
Almost ninjaed by Leafar Cathal: I hear you, friend. I suggest taking a break if needed, or also, if 1e is really wearing you down, switching to another system like I did, while waiting for 2e. Although considering you're at the very end of CotCT it probably wouldn't be worth it.
At least we can be happy we'll be able to play 2e in a few months. I'm really crossing fingers for this one, I can assure you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an Ironfang Invasion conversion thread over in the playtest's running trenchant section that I can't link to from my phone. But it has been working very well.
Wrath of the Righteous might be hard if you use mythic, but that is largely because mythic is already broken.
I have an Ironfang Invasion conversion thread over in the playtest's running trenchant section that I can't link to from my phone. But it has been working very well.
Wrath of the Righteous might be hard if you use mythic, but that is largely because mythic is already broken.
Yep, it is. Ideally we could try to fix it for 2e, at least partially. But I know it won't be easy...
I'm checking the playtest section for your conversion thread. Thanks!