Is there any info out yet how many skills made the cut?


Second Edition

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

"graystone” wrote:
There was all the cleric domain powers [and Bloodline Powers/druid order power/wizard school power] dumped into spells what made making an informed pick even if you knew what god you wanted. JUST making hyperlinks to power/keyword descriptions could have shaved off a 1/2 hour of digging.

I’m sorry but you just described a flaw in your method of engaging with the material not the material itself. Plenty of us didn’t spend 1/2 hour digging through things looking for what we needed because we were using a physical book and not a pdf. It reads fine and flipping through pages physically to build a cleric did not take some of us as long as it took you.

Quote:
I wasn't timing it but it was at least a very painful hour

It caused you no pain. The continued hyperbole mixed into the arguments about how bad the writing is remains absolutely hysterical to me.

Quote:
Now can you just grab things randomly and get started in a few minutes? Sure you can, but if you don't care about making informed choices then you might as well just take a premade iconic...

No because it’s not a binary proposition. It’s not “pencil whip in minutes cause you don’t care” or “ spend hours deliberating over all your options” with no middle ground in between. I made conscious, deliberate, informed choices throughout the playtest - and yet none of my builds took more than 45 minutes and the majority hovered at about a half an hour.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Also pdfs are searchable and you can multiple open at once. We had no trouble referencing powers or spells because the magic of ctrl f means you can find their entries in moments.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wouldn't call it painful, but I did find it annoying that Powers exclusive to one class feat were buried in the Spells chapter, rather than being in the feat description. What made it worse was that there was no reference in the Power as to what granted it, so there was no way to find a cool power and then figure out what kind of character you should build to get it.

Hopefully they've solved this issue in the finished book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shadram wrote:

I wouldn't call it painful, but I did find it annoying that Powers exclusive to one class feat were buried in the Spells chapter, rather than being in the feat description. What made it worse was that there was no reference in the Power as to what granted it, so there was no way to find a cool power and then figure out what kind of character you should build to get it.

Hopefully they've solved this issue in the finished book.

I think that is a bit of future proofing. If a later option let's you gain a previously printed power they can just use a symbol to indicate what book it is in and you know you can find it in the powers section. If it was right along the feat if it gets referenced again they have to fully write out where it is, or have a massive list of convuluted symbols to indicate the previous book and specific source to find the power.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

Also pdfs are searchable and you can multiple open at once. We had no trouble referencing powers or spells because the magic of ctrl f means you can find their entries in moments.

Yeah, I used the search function... want to know how many times bolstered showed up when you looked it up? I know it was a LOT. As for powers, just domains is 38 open PDF's...

dirtypool: I have to say you had a FAR different experience than i did or really anyone I played with.

Secondly, you talk about my complaints about writing and that isn't the case: it's about ORGANIZATION and layout and they were awful IMO.

Third, you yourself said "none of my builds took more than 45 minutes and the majority hovered at about a half an hour" so what is your issue when I said it took me an hour? Just that it wasn't enjoyable to me? How can my opinion of the experience be wrong? As to hyperbole, it was frustrating enough to cause a headache so yes, it was LITERALLY painful to go through. It didn't help that it was virtually impossible to identify rarity by sight [I'm color blind] and the 'easy' to use symbol/color based system slowed me down more than it helped.


graystone wrote:


dirtypool: I have to say you had a FAR different experience than i did or really anyone I played with.

Just as you seem to have had a FAR different experience than I or any of the people in my playtest group. The difference is you’re saying it to somehow say my experience is less valid than yours.

Quote:
Secondly, you talk about my complaints about writing and that isn't the case: it's about ORGANIZATION and layout and they were awful IMO.

Except I asked you to give examples of your issues with organization, Mathmuse threw down three examples - two of which are issues directly from PF1 that didn’t change in PF2 and the third is that he didn’t like something being defined broadly then explained narrowly later. Mathmuse then moved the goalpost to be about the book being badly written. You then replied to my request by saying that Mathmuse had answered in a way that provided your answer and thus you didn’t need to give examples. You tacitly signed on to the argument being about the writing.

When you finally did address an issue with the organization it wasn’t an issue with the text itself, but that the pdf wasn’t organized to be indexed/searchable in a way you liked. That way the ONLY example you gave.

Quote:
Third, you yourself said "none of my builds took more than 45 minutes and the majority hovered at about a half an hour" so what is your issue when I said it took me an hour?

I have no issue with it taking you AN hour. This little convo has been about you saying that the person who said it took everyone he played with MULTIPLE hours was perfectly accurate because of the “terrible” setup/organization of the book - which in most cases is like PF1 and in the cases where it differs it is easier to navigate

Quote:
Just that it wasn't enjoyable to me? How can my opinion of the experience be wrong?

You were implying that mine was wrong earlier in this post.

Quote:
As to hyperbole, it was frustrating enough to cause a headache so yes, it was LITERALLY painful to go through.

If you were so frustrated looking through a book that was largely structured like its predecessor that you became increasingly frustrated to the point where you gave yourself a headache - the fault does not belong to a book.

Quote:
It didn't help that it was virtually impossible to identify rarity by sight [I'm color blind] and the 'easy' to use symbol/color based system slowed me down more than it helped.

And now an actual complaint, but one that isn’t a question of design or layout but if accessibility. I hope you put that in a playtest survey, because that is a legitimate issue. Color coding needs to function in a way that the color blind and visual impaired are able to access the information in the same manner.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

dirtypool:
#1 I never said your experience was invalid: I found the layout abominable.
#2 I gave other examples: look at cleric domains. PF1 has it's own section while playtest has them hidden throughout the spells.
#3 structure: I'll have to agree to disagree that PF1 and PF2 are structured in a similar way. For instance, I don't have a static scores until the ABC is over, powers [the old SLA] are tossed in with spells, general lack of pg# references...

PS: I don't think this back and forth is going anywhere. I think I'm done. My final point is this: I found the layout very, very bad and it contributed to my taking longer making a character than I feel it would if it was better thought out with links, reference page numbers and segregated powers/spells/ect.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

My group got making characters down to an hour a piece or so at high levels, excepting spells. It was far from impossible to do so.

That said, defending the layout of the playtest is ridiculous. That layout was awful in several important ways. I don't agree with all Mathmuse's criticisms of it, but the fact that Powers were mixed in with spells, not defined in the class chapter, and had no page citation in said chapter either, was desperately awful. As was the Alchemical items having no chart of their own, necessitating Alchemists to look through the alphabetical list desperately searching for items of the right level.

There were numerous other smaller issues as well.

Personally, I didn't find the 'Pick X + Int Skills' thing in the Classes to be a problem, though. You can just note down X, finish determining your stats, then look at the Skill Chapter.

Or, if you're picking them based on theme, do so right then based on that, and remember to add another if you add to Int in the final stage of chargen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:


I gave an example in this thread 4 weeks ago in comment #54.
You give in example a feat write up that mentions a trait and the trait is not indexed and requires looking paging through to find. I submit if that is “poor writing” that turns you off from a game - you shouldn’t even be here debating it because that issue existed in PF1 and should have driven you away a decade ago.

I made my first post in the Paizo forum in March 2011 and have been a regular here since then. I have been playing the Dungeons & Dragons line of games, of which I consider Pathfinder a successor, since 1979. Obviously, I was not driven away a decade ago.

Instead, I had mentioned in comment #54 that I was serving as a human index to the Playtest Rulebook for my players. I had read the paperback rulebook and remembered 70% of the rules from that one reading. That is one way to handle a rulebook that scatters necessary information across several chapters.

Nevertheless, Paizo wants to reach out to a bigger market than people who can read and absorb a 430-page rulebook.

dirtypool wrote:
graystone wrote:
Secondly, you talk about my complaints about writing and that isn't the case: it's about ORGANIZATION and layout and they were awful IMO.

Except I asked you to give examples of your issues with organization, Mathmuse threw down three examples - two of which are issues directly from PF1 that didn’t change in PF2 and the third is that he didn’t like something being defined broadly then explained narrowly later. Mathmuse then moved the goalpost to be about the book being badly written. You then replied to my request by saying that Mathmuse had answered in a way that provided your answer and thus you didn’t need to give examples. You tacitly signed on to the argument being about the writing.

When you finally did address an issue with the organization it wasn’t an issue with the text itself, but that the pdf wasn’t organized to be indexed/searchable in a way you liked. That way the ONLY example you gave.

I and other posters set up those goalposts a month ago. We are allowed to revisit our old concerns despite topic drift (I didn't mind the drift to Exalted. My wife likes Exalted.), especially when those old concerns relate to the new topic. That the problems existed in PF1 does not mean that they are not problems. Shouldn't we fix them in PF2?

Organization of material is part of technical writing. I used to write technical documentation for software.

I don't see the point in addressing dirtypool's other arguments. He or she appears more concerned about the layout of arguments than their content.

Rather, I would like to bring up some broader topics:
1) Writing a roleplaying rulebook is hard.
2) Inventing descriptive names is hard, too, especially when dealing with legacy names.

The Pathfinder 1st Edition Rulebook had the chapters in the order: 1 Getting Started, 2 Races, 3 Classes, 4 Skills, 5 Feats, 6 Equipment, 7 Additional Rules, 8 Combat, 9 Magic, 10 Spells, 11 Prestige Classes, 12 Gamemastering, 13 Environment, 14 Creating NPCs, 15 Magic Items, Appendices. The Playtest Rulebook has chapters in the order: 1 Overview, 2 Ancestries and Backgrounds, 3 Classes, 4 Skills, 5 General Feats, 6 Equipment, 7 Spells, 8 Advancement and Options, 9 Playing the Game, 10 Game Mastering, 11 Treasure, Appendices. Both arrangements reflect the priorities of the players. The players want to create their characters and get playing.

But in order to play a champion (formerly paladin) who can lay on hands, the player needs to understand that characters get injured, some characters have magical healing abilities to fix that injury, and using those abilities in combat is risky. Does the rulebook explain that before the Champion section, during the Champion section, or after the Champion section?

Hit points are so basic that injuries need to be explained early, before the Champion section. Magical healing abilities are class features, so they are best explained with the class (the Playtest Rulebook misplaced the lay on hands power into the Spells chapter). And that explanation had best be short, aided by descriptive names. Finally, the technical details of risk in combat are best reserved for a Combat section, but the Champion section needs a clear warning of the risk.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition tries a keyword approach to names. I like keywords in card games such as Magic: The Gathering, where space for text is precious. And they are an improvement over stilted phrases from D&D 3rd Edition adopted into Pathfinder 1st Edition, such as "denied a Dex bonus to AC" and "provokes an attack of opportunity."

"Manipulate" as a trait keyword seems good at first glance. A manipulate action means that the character is manipulating objects, such as loading a crossbow.

Playtest Rulebook, Appendix 1 Traits, page 416 wrote:

Manipulate You must physically manipulate an item or make

gestures to use this type of action. Creatures without a suitable
appendage cannot perform actions with this trait. Manipulate
actions often trigger reactions.

Hm, "Manipulate actions often trigger reactions," means that the description of what manipulate actions trigger reactions is elsewhere. That's bad organization. And searching the PDF for "manipulate" to find that description is time-consuming, because lots of actions are labeled "manipulate." Of course, the triggered reaction is the Attack of Opportunity reaction, a fighter class feature and a champion feat. Also, the "suitable appendadge" part is handled by the Method of Use section on actions, so 'manipulate" is not needed for that.

Thus, the importance of manipulate is not that an object is manipulated, but that some manipulative actions provoke an attack of opportunity. Drawing a sword requires the maniplate Interact action, so drawing a sword provokes. Swing the same sword requires the non-manipulate Strike action, so swinging a sword does not provoke. The degree of actual manipulation of the sword can be irrelevant. The Manipulate keyword is not descriptive after all.

Since this thread is about the skill list, let me draw your attention to some playtest threads, Skills Terms Suggestions - Because Words have Meanings... and Please Don't Call it "Thievery". The Words Have Meanings thread points out that Lore covers the old Profession skill, but Lore does not suggest profession. The Thievery thread points out that calling the skill Thievery means that only thieves ought to use it. If a paladin (lawful good champion) uses Thievery to disable a trap, because that is the only skill that can disable a trap, then the paladin has become a thief and falls from grace. I seriously expect to see this argument in the Paizo forums next year.

Consider high jump and long jump. They are named after athletic events and were put under the Athletics skill. But are they Strength-based? Don't they seem more like Dexterity-based abilities that should be under Acrobatics, like they were in PF1?

I expect that Paizo has responded to the playtest feedback and improved the organization of the rulebook. However, fixing the skill names and non-descriptive keywords is not as likely.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well searching for terms like Bolstered instead of looking in the glossary or index is a bit silly if I'm honest. For stuff like named Feats, Powers, Spells or Items it is really quite adequate. As for having open pdfs, you are obviously being facetious. We had two open, one at the thing we were building (i.e the Cleric class page) and one for looking up things like Powers.


Malk_Content wrote:
Well searching for terms like Bolstered instead of looking in the glossary or index is a bit silly if I'm honest. For stuff like named Feats, Powers, Spells or Items it is really quite adequate. As for having open pdfs, you are obviously being facetious. We had two open, one at the thing we were building (i.e the Cleric class page) and one for looking up things like Powers.

My PDF reader--the free Acrobat Reader DC--won't let me open two copies of the same file. Later, I copied the rulebook file to have two separate files, but I did not think of that at first.

Thus, I had to scroll away from the original page to the index, look up the reference in the index, go to the reference, and then return to the original page. While dealing with the minor annoyance that the PDF page numbers were one off from the rulebook page numbers. The Search function often arrived at the right description in one or two page jumps from clicking the Next button, and returned to the original page by clicking the Previous button. Alas, the easy Search fails for "manipulate" or "bolstered" or other common words.

I also had both the paperpack rulebook and the PDF. But usually a player was reading the paperback and I was reluctant to borrow it back.

Bolstered is a non-descriptive keyword when applied to a beneficial effect, as in bolstered against Treat Wounds.


Mathmuse wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Well searching for terms like Bolstered instead of looking in the glossary or index is a bit silly if I'm honest. For stuff like named Feats, Powers, Spells or Items it is really quite adequate. As for having open pdfs, you are obviously being facetious. We had two open, one at the thing we were building (i.e the Cleric class page) and one for looking up things like Powers.

My PDF reader--the free Acrobat Reader DC--won't let me open two copies of the same file. Later, I copied the rulebook file to have two separate files, but I did not think of that at first.

Thus, I had to scroll away from the original page to the index, look up the reference in the index, go to the reference, and then return to the original page. While dealing with the minor annoyance that the PDF page numbers were one off from the rulebook page numbers. The Search function often arrived at the right description in one or two page jumps from clicking the Next button, and returned to the original page by clicking the Previous button. Alas, the easy Search fails for "manipulate" or "bolstered" or other common words.

I also had both the paperpack rulebook and the PDF. But usually a player was reading the paperback and I was reluctant to borrow it back.

Bolstered is a non-descriptive keyword when applied to a beneficial effect, as in bolstered against Treat Wounds.

To be fair, while it takes a while to internalize all of the "tags", they add a lot of future proofing since you only have to do it once and they'll apply consistently throughout the life of the game. Now that you know about manipulate, you'll never question whether an action will provoke an AOO or not if you have access to the tags. I still sometimes check the PF1 chart for provoking after many years and I was surprised to learn that drawing a weapon didn't provoke, but sheathing did (unfortunately it's different now).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
I made my first post in the Paizo forum in March 2011 and have been a regular here since then. I have been playing the Dungeons & Dragons line of games, of which I consider Pathfinder a successor, since 1979. Obviously, I was not driven away a decade ago.

Oh my thank you for the CV, if I’d known you were THE Mathmuse with all those years of experience I would never have dared challenge your authority. Thanks again.

You’ve been playing for 40 years, I’ve been playing for 20 years. The issue you use and example of bad writing in this book has been a problem for almost 20 years.

Quote:
Nevertheless, Paizo wants to reach out to a bigger market than people who can read and absorb a 430-page rulebook.

They do want to reach a broader audience with the book you aren’t critiquing because you haven’t seen. The playtest served a different purpose.

Quote:
I and other posters set up those goalposts a month ago. We are allowed to revisit our old concerns despite topic drift

Not according to Grayson who was upset that I answered your charge of bad writing rather than his charge of bad organization

Quote:
That the problems existed in PF1 does not mean that they are not problems. Shouldn't we fix them in PF2?

Or should you instead recognize that four teams of designers across four editions have dismissed your concerns for nearly two decades and just let it go? Further should you continue to define it as a problem with PF2 if it is an endemic issue that has existed since 3.0. It disingenuously assigns faults to people who didn’t create them.

Quote:
Organization of material is part of technical writing. I used to write technical documentation for software.

An RPG rulebook is not strictly a technical document and judging it on those terms is again disingenuous, it’s more aptly compared with a curricular textbook as it is primarily didactic.

Quote:
I don't see the point in addressing dirtypool's other arguments. He or she appears more concerned about the layout of arguments than their content.

Well thanks for just deciding that because I disagree with your consensus I’m not worth communicating with before spewing a pedantic wall of complaint text. That’s certainly a mature response to a disagreement.

I feel that the layout of the Playtest was fine, so did the group I played with. That doesn’t make me wrong or you wrong. Regardless of your need for binary correctness

Good day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's rare to say that the Playtest rulebook layout was completely fine, but it was certainly usable without needing hours.

Mathmuse wrote:


Hm, "Manipulate actions often trigger reactions," means that the description of what manipulate actions trigger reactions is elsewhere. That's bad organization. And searching the PDF for "manipulate" to find that description is time-consuming, because lots of actions are labeled "manipulate." Of course, the triggered reaction is the Attack of Opportunity reaction, a fighter class feature and a champion feat. Also, the "suitable appendadge" part is handled by the Method of Use section on actions, so 'manipulate" is not needed for that.

Thus, the importance of manipulate is not that an object is manipulated, but that some manipulative actions provoke an attack of opportunity. Drawing a sword requires the maniplate Interact action, so drawing a sword provokes. Swing the same sword requires the non-manipulate Strike action, so swinging a sword does not provoke. The degree of actual manipulation of the sword can be irrelevant. The Manipulate keyword is not descriptive after all.

The thing is: you don't need to know exactly what reactions Manipulate provokes. Will it help you to know exactly what reactions are triggered, especially if bestiary-specific versions begin to come into play? Does it help to list out that being grappled makes it harder? Or all of the other interactions? No - that's all extra complexity you're opting into in advance.

The keyword tells you the basics that you require: that it requires a free hand/handlike appendage, and that it often provokes reactions. In the same fashion, you don't need to know all the arcane spells and what they do before you can gain a bonus to saves against arcane spells.

Now, one that was spectacularly unhelpful was Warded Touch, that allowed you to use Lay on Hands without the manipulate trait. However, because Somatic Spellcasting also listed that it required a hand (theoretically unconnected to the trait), did it require a hand or not? It wasn't immediately clear, and thus was an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

Hm, "Manipulate actions often trigger reactions," means that the description of what manipulate actions trigger reactions is elsewhere. That's bad organization. And searching the PDF for "manipulate" to find that description is time-consuming, because lots of actions are labeled "manipulate." Of course, the triggered reaction is the Attack of Opportunity reaction, a fighter class feature and a champion feat. Also, the "suitable appendadge" part is handled by the Method of Use section on actions, so 'manipulate" is not needed for that.

Thus, the importance of manipulate is not that an object is manipulated, but that some manipulative actions provoke an attack of opportunity. Drawing a sword requires the maniplate Interact action, so drawing a sword provokes. Swing the same sword requires the non-manipulate Strike action, so swinging a sword does not provoke. The degree of actual manipulation of the sword can be irrelevant. The Manipulate keyword is not descriptive after all.

The thing is: you don't need to know exactly what reactions Manipulate provokes. Will it help you to know exactly what reactions are triggered, especially if bestiary-specific versions begin to come into play? Does it help to list out that being grappled makes it harder? Or all of the other interactions? No - that's all extra complexity you're opting into in advance.

The keyword tells you the basics that you require: that it requires a free hand/handlike appendage, and that it often provokes reactions. In the same fashion, you don't need to know all the arcane spells and what they do before you can gain a bonus to saves against arcane spells.

Oops, I forgot that manipulate also interacted with grabbed condition, "If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; attempt the check after using it but before any effects are applied." And I am the GM, the person who has to know exactly what reactions Manipulate provokes. I wish that the trait gave me more clues to remember its interactions, because that was not mentioned in the Manipulate entry.

By the way, to quote that piece of the rules, I checked the index under Grapple, which sent me to Athletics on page 146, where it mentioned the grabbed condition, so I went to the Conditions on page 322. If a player told me, "I am Grappling the goblin," I would have to look up both Grapple and Grabbed to see what happens with the goblin. One day I will have both memorized, but today is not yet that day. That is the key problem with the organization of the playtest rulebook. We will see whether Paizo fixed it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

dirtypool, if you think the layout of the Playtest was acceptable, just do me this favor.

Working with the assumption you know nothing about the rules and starting from the spell entry, tell me how the spell Dispel Magic works.

If going down that rabbit hole doesn't convince you the playtest book has organization issues, then, frankly, you have vastly different organizational standards than the average person.


MaxAstro wrote:

dirtypool, if you think the layout of the Playtest was acceptable, just do me this favor.

Working with the assumption you know nothing about the rules and starting from the spell entry, tell me how the spell Dispel Magic works.

If going down that rabbit hole doesn't convince you the playtest book has organization issues, then, frankly, you have vastly different organizational standards than the average person.

Better still how about you work from the assumption that my opinion is not some failing on my part that the ever genius and long term forum posters must correct so that I understand the game as fully as they do. Move past the arrogance of trying to correct people you don’t agree with.

I found no issue with the bulk of the organization in that book. Are there issues that need addressing? Sure. The kinds of issues that made me take multiple hours to build a character on day one of the playtest as others said surely must be the case for anyone who cares enough to weigh their options? No. Were the issues mostly in the magic chapter? Yes. Does that mean the whole creation section is terribly organized? No.

It’s disingenuous to present my argument as being that the book is perfect, because I’ve not said anything of the kind. Just that it is not as endemically flawed as has been asserted in this thread.


One issue I had with the playtest regarding organization is that I'm simply not used to using PDFs for "core rulebooks" in tabletop games, and I wasn't about to pay for (or print out and bind) a dead tree version of temporary, fluid rules. If I had the real book I might have had less issues with it since I can just stick post-it notes as flags so I can easily flip back and forth between relevant sections, something I found cumbersome with the PDF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

Hm, "Manipulate actions often trigger reactions," means that the description of what manipulate actions trigger reactions is elsewhere. That's bad organization. And searching the PDF for "manipulate" to find that description is time-consuming, because lots of actions are labeled "manipulate." Of course, the triggered reaction is the Attack of Opportunity reaction, a fighter class feature and a champion feat. Also, the "suitable appendadge" part is handled by the Method of Use section on actions, so 'manipulate" is not needed for that.

Thus, the importance of manipulate is not that an object is manipulated, but that some manipulative actions provoke an attack of opportunity. Drawing a sword requires the maniplate Interact action, so drawing a sword provokes. Swing the same sword requires the non-manipulate Strike action, so swinging a sword does not provoke. The degree of actual manipulation of the sword can be irrelevant. The Manipulate keyword is not descriptive after all.

The thing is: you don't need to know exactly what reactions Manipulate provokes. Will it help you to know exactly what reactions are triggered, especially if bestiary-specific versions begin to come into play? Does it help to list out that being grappled makes it harder? Or all of the other interactions? No - that's all extra complexity you're opting into in advance.

The keyword tells you the basics that you require: that it requires a free hand/handlike appendage, and that it often provokes reactions. In the same fashion, you don't need to know all the arcane spells and what they do before you can gain a bonus to saves against arcane spells.

Oops, I forgot that manipulate also interacted with grabbed condition, "If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; attempt the check after using it but before any effects are applied." And I am the GM, the person who has to know exactly...

While I'm on the subject, I clicked through manipulate in the Playtest rulebook. It also is stopped by things like Animal Form and Dragon Form, isn't stopped by free-hand weapons like cestuses and gauntlets, loses you more air underwater, and is hampered by entangled, grappled, and restrained.

You don't need to know any of this by default.


Malk_Content wrote:
As for having open pdfs, you are obviously being facetious.

Not in the least: trying to pick out alchemy items and cleric domains required multiple open pages to compare. You can't glance down a simple list and compare the descriptions since nothing is placed with like items. Even spells required several pages open to see what everything did. It's sad, but opening up 30+ pdf's was easier than diving head first into the domain list then the spell section then back to the domain list, then the spell list... THIRTY SEVEN TIMES and then trying to recall all THIRTY SEVEN entries. :P


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
As for having open pdfs, you are obviously being facetious.
Not in the least: trying to pick out alchemy items and cleric domains required multiple open pages to compare. You can't glance down a simple list and compare the descriptions since nothing is placed with like items. Even spells required several pages open to see what everything did. It's sad, but opening up 30+ pdf's was easier than diving head first into the domain list then the spell section then back to the domain list, then the spell list... THIRTY SEVEN TIMES and then trying to recall all THIRTY SEVEN entries. :P

I guess that a difference in character creation style. I don't go "I'm making a cleric, must find the strongest domain possible!" I go "I'm making a cleric of x god, I'll look at the three domains they have and see which I like best."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
As for having open pdfs, you are obviously being facetious.
Not in the least: trying to pick out alchemy items and cleric domains required multiple open pages to compare. You can't glance down a simple list and compare the descriptions since nothing is placed with like items. Even spells required several pages open to see what everything did. It's sad, but opening up 30+ pdf's was easier than diving head first into the domain list then the spell section then back to the domain list, then the spell list... THIRTY SEVEN TIMES and then trying to recall all THIRTY SEVEN entries. :P
I guess that a difference in character creation style. I don't go "I'm making a cleric, must find the strongest domain possible!" I go "I'm making a cleric of x god, I'll look at the three domains they have and see which I like best."

Not the strongest, but the power I like the most. I want a useful and likable ability, so I look though the abilities and see which god gives that domain... Add to that the existence of Expanded Domain[Advanced Domain] and it's not just picking ONE domain I like but three[6] I might want to take. For myself, I'm not going to pick a random god and hope it has assume it has one domain power I like/want [let alone 3{or 6}].

In the future, don't assume that just because someone doesn't build a character like you that they are doing so for the pure power of it all. If all I wanted was power I could have stopped at Healing [Healer's Blessing, Healing Font, healing hands]... 1/2 wis + cha + 4 channels to use that heal 3d8 + wis in a 30' radius at 4th.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I still think needing to look through them all shows a mechanics first approach that is different from my concept first approach, whether or not power plays into it all. Even if narrowed done to playing a certain alignment would cut the amount of referencing needed hugely. I'm not saying this isn't valid, but it does show why we would have different needs from a book.

I hope with the seperation of the Powers chapter from Spells that you've gained a bit more usability. But I'm glad thats as far as they are going because putting them right next to where they are first referenced will actually make those entries horrible to read (adding 74 power entries to the Cleric chapter would make it horrible to reference, gone would that nice neat little table of domains be) and make future books god awful to read/use.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have been playing PF1 from the start and 3.0/3.5 before. I love building characters with wonky combinations min maxing not so useful numbers.
I had approximately 6 build concepts I wanted to create with the playtest rules. After spending too much time flipping through pages trying to figure out the best way to build the first one : a Barbarian/Cleric multiclass, I just gave up on playtest character creation. Forever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
Since we're talking about heaps of dice, I suggest you ask your Amazon Echo... "Alexa, roll 1,000 dice." ;)
What sort of dice is she rolling o.o she gave me 54 and 690. For 1000 dice.
Alexa sucks, in my experience.

Yeh, the last time I asked her to roll 1,000 dice, she read off the results of each die individually... 2,6,3,4,4,1, etc.


Malk_Content wrote:
I still think needing to look through them all shows a mechanics first approach that is different from my concept first approach, whether or not power plays into it all.

For me, it's concept too but not the same type: I'm looking for a cleric that can do x,y,z and I see what mechanics/god fits that need as opposed to you that seems to pick a cleric of god x and works within those confines. I personally like to make sure my character can actually do what my concept is because a cool/interesting concept doesn't always translate well into mechanics. Both are valid ways, but you of course need to look up less.

However, as it is a new game system and a playtest I'd have wanted to look through those options anyway: I might want to try something I didn't think of to start that I thought needing testing [seemed too strong/weak, odd mechanics, ect].

Malk_Content wrote:
I hope with the seperation of the Powers chapter from Spells

*nods*

Malk_Content wrote:
because putting them right next to where they are first referenced will actually make those entries horrible to read

I don't really agree with this. I didn't find class feats being with the class an issue so I don't see an issue with powers too.

Malk_Content wrote:
gone would that nice neat little table of domains

I don't see why you can't have both.


Cyouni wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Oops, I forgot that manipulate also interacted with grabbed condition, "If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; attempt the check after using it but before any effects are applied." And I am the GM, the person who has to know exactly...

While I'm on the subject, I clicked through manipulate in the Playtest rulebook. It also is stopped by things like Animal Form and Dragon Form, isn't stopped by free-hand weapons like cestuses and gauntlets, loses you more air underwater, and is hampered by entangled, grappled, and restrained.

You don't need to know any of this by default.

That was a fascinating list of places where I did not remember that manipulate mattered. I decided to search for that word myself and find more.

For example, page 358 declares that Strike actions made with alchemical bombs gain manipulate. This also applies to throwing magical acorn bombs created by the primal Fire Seeds spell on page 224, though throwing them is not said to be an attack.

Fifteen transformations--2 by barbarian feats and 13 by spells--warn that the GM determines whether they prevent some manipulate activities. One transformation, Gaseous Form, definitely prevents manipulate activities.

Retrained condition outright prevents attacks and manipulate activities except for Break Grapple and Escape. However, neither Break Grapple nor Escape are attacks or manipulate activities. I guess that might matter if someone is trying to escape by some means that adds a manipulate trait, but I don't see a way to add manipulate to Break Grapple or Escape. They don't involve throwing bombs or playing a musical instrument.

The Strike from an Attack of Opportunity disrupts a manipulate action. Drop has manipulate trait. Thus, we see why Valeros in the Iconic Encounter Hold My Beer, did not drop his beer tankard, even after it was empty. Not only would dropping it have triggered an Attack of Opportunity from his foes, but it would have also remained in his hand when the Attack of Opportunity disrupted the Drop free action. (Or maybe not: the trigger says "manipulate action" not "manipulate free action." But if that logic applies, then a two-action manipulate activity would not trigger an Attack of Opportunity either.)

A regular Strike has no text that says it disrupts a manipulate action. Disrupting Spells on page 196 and Disrupting Activations on page 277 have additional rules that a reaction can disrupt spellcasting or activating, but only if enough damage is dealt. Concentrating on a Spell, page 197, can also be disrupted by damage. Attacks of Opportunity have no damage requirement to disrupt. Remember that when someone readies a Strike to try to disrupt something besides spellcasting, spell concentration, or activation, such as loading a crossbow or disabling a trap: it won't work. Page 297 mentions that a Leap or item transfer can be disrupted, but the rules allow that only with an Attack of Opportunity, not a Readied reaction.

I found 62 separate entries that involved manipulate trait. This overlooks spells that have manipulate hidden in Material Casting or Somatic Casting and feats that have manipulate hidden in a Interact action. For example, Quick Draw says, "You draw a weapon with the Interact action, then Strike with the weapon you just drew," so it has manipulate for the draw part of it.

A few activities were surprising in that they lacked manipulate. Striking with a bow, which involves drawing an arrow, notching the arrow, pulling back the bowstring, and shooting, is not manipulate. It does trigger an Attack of Opportunity as a ranged attack, but it not disrupted by the Attack of Opportunity. Climbing is not manipulate, though it occupies hands and might involve gripping rope.

1. page 48, Alchemical Savant, alchemist feat 1, enables identifying with manipulate.
2. page 50, Revivifying Mutagen, alchemits feat 10, enables healing with manipulate.
3. page 57, Animal Rage, barbarian feat 8, transformation might impede manipulate.
4. page 60-61, Dragon Transformation, barbarian feat 16, transformation might impede manipulate.
5. page 61, Quaking Stomp, barbarian feat 20, manipulate action.
** page 73, Dream domain--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 83, Woodland Stride--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
6. page 87, Attack of Opportunity, fighter class feature, reaction triggered by manipulate.
7. page 109, Warded Touch, paladin feat 1, lay on hands loses manipulate.
8. page 111, Attack of Opportunity, paladin feat 6, reaction triggered by manipulate.
9. page 122, Poison Weapon, rogue feat 4, manipulate action.
10. page 124, Reactive Distraction, rogue feat 20, manipulate reaction.
** page 138, Enchantment--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
11. page 144, Grap Edge, Acrobatics, manipulate reaction.
12. page 147, Repair, Crafting, manipulate activity.
13. page 148, Craft, Crafting, manipulate activity.
14. page 148, Create a Diversion, Deception, action that might be manipulate.
15. page 149, Impersonate, Deception, manipulate activity.
16. page 152, Administer First Aid, Medicine, manipulate action.
17. page 152, Treat Disease, Medicine, manipulate activity.
18. page 152, Treat Poison, Medicine, manipulate activity.
19. page 155, Performance Traits, Performance, playing an instruments gives an activity manipulate.
20. page 158, Conceal an Object, Stealth, manipulate action.
21. page 159, Palm an Object, Thievery, manipulate action.
22. page 159, Steal an Object, Thievery, manipulate action.
23. page 159, Disable a Device, Thievery, manipulate action.
24. page 159, Pick a Lock, Thievery, manipulate action.
** page 160-162, Table of General and Skill feats lists traits, such as manipulate.
25. page 163, Battle Medic, skill feat 1, manipulate action.
26. page 169, Pickpocket, skill feat 1, enables 2 manipulate actions to steal in combat.
27. page 171, Scribe Scroll, skill feat 1, manipulate activity.
28. page 173, Train Animal, skill feat 1, manipulate activity.
29. page 173, Trick Magic Item, skill feat 1, manipulate action.
30. page 182, Free-Hand, Weapon Trait, allows manipulating with hand using weapon.
31. page 186, Manacles, Adventuring Gear, impedes manipulate.
32. page 195, Material Casting, Spellcasting Actions, manipulate action.
33. page 196, Somatic Casting, Spellcasting Actions, manipulate action.
** page 198, Walls--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
34. page 203, Aerial Form, spell 4, transformation might impede manipulate.
** page 204, Alter Reality, spell 10--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
35. page 204-205, Animal Form, spell 3, transformation might impede manipulate.
36. page 206, Avatar, spell 10, transformation might impede manipulate.
37. page 216, Dinosaur Form, spell 4, transformation might impede manipulate.
38. page 218, Dragon Form, spell 6, transformation might impede manipulate.
39. page 220, Elemental Form, spell 5, transformation might impede manipulate.
40. page 224, Fire Seeds, spell 6, enables throwing a fire-seed bomb as a manipulate action.
41. page 226, Gaseous Form, spell 4, transformation definitely impedes manipulate.
42. page 232, Insect Form, spell 3, transformation might impede manipulate.
43. page 239-240, Monstrosity Form, spell 8, transformation might impede manipulate.
44. page 240-241, Nature Incarnate, spell 10, transformation might impede manipulate.
45. page 242-243, Overwhelming Presence, spell 9, enables paying tribute as a manipulate or move action.
46. page 244, Pest Form, spell 2, transformation might impede manipulate.
47. page 245, Plant Form, spell 5, transformation might impede manipulate.
** page 245, Possession, spell 7--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
48. page 246, Primal Herd, spell 10, transformation might impede manipulate.
49. page 252-253, Righteous Might, spell 6, transformation might impede manipulate.
** page 306, Turns--quotes Attack of Opportunity as an example.
50. page 307, Drop, Basic Action, manipulate free action.
51. page 307, Interact, Basic Action, manipulate action. (Hey, this action is 100% manipulate.)
52. page 308, Point Out, Basic Action, manipulate action.
53. page 315, Drowning and Suffocation, Aquatic Combat, attacks and manipulate cost twice as much air.
54. page 321, Entangled, Conditions, manipulate requires DC 5 flat check.
55. page 322, Grabbed, Conditions, manipulate requires DC 5 flat check.
56. page 324, Restrained, Conditions, cannot attack or manipulate except Break Grapple or Escape (which are not attacks nor manipulate).
** page 327, Adjudicating the Rules, Running a Game Session--manipulate as example of necessary trait for a made-up action.
** page 333, Checks, Downtime--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 341, Triggering a Hazard, Hazards--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
57. page 358, Alchemical Bombs, Alchemical Items, "Strikes made to throw alchemical bombs gain the manipulate trait."
58. page 376, Operate Activation, Activating Magic Items, manipulate action.
59. page 377, Invest an Item, Investing Magic Items, manipulate action.
60. page 390, Fighter's Fork, item 5, can be shortened as an manipulate Interact action.
61. page 411, Third Eye, item 19--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 414, Air, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 414, Chaotic, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 415, Earth, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 415, Evil, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 415, Fire, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 415, Free-Hand, Appendix 1 Traits--repeat of Free-Hand weapon trait from page 182.
** page 416, Good, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 416, Lawful, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
62. page 416, Manipulate, Appendix 1 Traits, official definition of manipulate trait.
** page 417, Negative, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 417, Plant, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 418, Positive, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 418, Shadow, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.
** page 419, Water, Appendix 1 Traits--uses "manipulate" as English word, not keyword.


I will add on that Drop doesn't provoke reactions, explicitly in its description.

But yes, manipulate is very heavily seeded into massive sections of the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I will add on that Drop doesn't provoke reactions, explicitly in its description.

I wonder why Drop was given manipulate trait and then made immune to its most common interaction. I can understand the champion's lay on hands having manipulate but being given immunity through Warded Touch, because it is a focus spell so naturally gains manipulate through Somatic Casting. But Drop?

Fortunately, I now have a list of what manipulate does:
Attack of Opportunity triggered by and disrupts manipulate actions - Drop had special immunity.
Transformation could prevent manipulate actions - GM would likely rule that Drop is still enabled.
Gaseous Form prevents manipulate actions - This affects Drop but seems trival.
Manipulating underwater uses more air - Drop is a free action, so this has no effect.
Entangle and Grabbed condition and Manacles force DC 5 flat check on manipulate - This affects Drop but seems unrealistic.
Restrained condition prevents manipulate - This affects Drop but seems unrealistic.
Action literally manipulates an item - Drop barely touches the item.

So Gaseous Form, Entangled, Grabbed, Restrained, and shackled by manacles are the only differences from granting manipulate trait to Drop. I guess it stops a gaseous enemy from releasing a bomb, but that could have been more clearly written as Gaseous Form prevents throwing and dropping items, too.

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Is there any info out yet how many skills made the cut? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.