| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I don't think has been discussed yet: Ancestry feats are stronger and more flavorful. There's a feat every ancestry probably has a variation of that grants training in two skills plus (That Ancestry's) Lore. Frankly, Lore in your ancestry seemed like a weird thing to be lacking, so I'm glad to see it tacked onto an already strong feat. Seer Elf not only grants a cantrip like in the playtest, but a +1 circumstance bonus to some of the most commonly rolled checks in the game. Goblins can replicate what was a master level stealth feat. Elf Atavism lets you poach a heritage from Elves, granting them access to darkvision at bare-minimum and putting them on even footing with half-orcs. I reckon we might also see a "mixed heritage" feat that can only be taken at level 1 but lets you reap the benefits of two different heritages. Maybe your mom was a Barrow Warden and your dad was a Rock Dwarf, for example.
Speaking of heritages, those look better as well. Chameleon Gnome and Hillock Halfling are both fun, flavorful, and provide a bonus you can use often. Unbreakable Goblin's only getting 4 extra HP at level 1 doesn't seem like it will scale well, but halving fall damage probably will. The only one I'm not really jazzed on is Rock Dwarf, but I'm intrigued to learn more about whatever that Barrow Warden heritage Karina Whisperbane has on Oblivion Oath is. (Think I got the name of the heritage wrong, too lazy to look it up.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, Lore in your ancestry seemed like a weird thing to be lacking, so I'm glad to see it tacked onto an already strong feat.
I dunno. I figure the common stuff is easy enough to cover with an untrained check, and there's a difference between the common stuff and really knowing the ins & outs of the lore. (Maybe grant characters a circumstance bonus on making checks about their own ancestry for a little extra flavor.)
E.g., consider the difference between folks whose hobby is reading books about history, say, and someone who gets by with whatever they picked up in grade school and in their daily life.
But I certainly agree on your main point: ancestry and heritage options look much more robust than they felt in the playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Totally ignoring that different people might have very valid reasons for preferring a different weapon.
If those reasons are valid, that would be awesome, but weapon balance and usability has been a persistent problem for Paizo across PF1 and even in their newer game, Starfinder. So I don't think it's an unfair thing to be a little concerned about especially when some of the new mechanics look like they might exacerbate issues instead of alleviating them.
Frankly, Lore in your ancestry seemed like a weird thing to be lacking, so I'm glad to see it tacked onto an already strong feat.I dunno. I figure the common stuff is easy enough to cover with an untrained check, and there's a difference between the common stuff and really knowing the ins & outs of the lore. (Maybe grant characters a circumstance bonus on making checks about their own ancestry for a little extra flavor.)
E.g., consider the difference between folks whose hobby is reading books about history, say, and someone who gets by with whatever they picked up in grade school and in their daily life.
But I certainly agree on your main point: ancestry and heritage options look much more robust than they felt in the playtest.
I agree there are certainly plenty of folks who aren't versed in the lore of their people, and don't think it should become something every character gets or anything. But at the same time the only way to get it in the playtest was,to spend the additional lore feat, and that is too high a cost for something that is almost certainly going to be a flavor choice with little chance of game relevance. As opposed to, say, taking (Villains of the AP) Lore.
I feel good about bundling it into a broader feat, and think that has interesting potential in general. Taking a totem feat could grant a Lore skill for whatever the barbarian treats as their totem, like dragons or giants.
Totally ignoring that different people might have very valid reasons for preferring a different weapon.If those reasons are valid, that would be awesome, but weapon balance and usability has been a persistent problem for Paizo across PF1 and even in their newer game, Starfinder. So I don't think it's an unfair thing to be a little concerned about especially when some of the new mechanics look like they might exacerbate issues instead of alleviating them.
Some weapons compliment certain builds better, more damage isn't necessarily always the best thing. If I wanna play a crowd control/tripping build for example, a Guisarme is a better weapon for that build than a Greatsword. Even though the Guisarme does less damage, the Reach and Tripping qualities serve my purposes better. Stuff like that, there are other examples as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, Lore in your ancestry seemed like a weird thing to be lacking, so I'm glad to see it tacked onto an already strong feat.I dunno. I figure the common stuff is easy enough to cover with an untrained check, and there's a difference between the common stuff and really knowing the ins & outs of the lore. (Maybe grant characters a circumstance bonus on making checks about their own ancestry for a little extra flavor.)
E.g., consider the difference between folks whose hobby is reading books about history, say, and someone who gets by with whatever they picked up in grade school and in their daily life.
But I certainly agree on your main point: ancestry and heritage options look much more robust than they felt in the playtest.
I agree there are certainly plenty of folks who aren't versed in the lore of their people, and don't think it should become something every character gets or anything. But at the same time the only way to get it in the playtest was,to spend the additional lore feat, and that is too high a cost for something that is almost certainly going to be a flavor choice with little chance of game relevance. As opposed to, say, taking (Villains of the AP) Lore.
I feel good about bundling it into a broader feat, and think that has interesting potential in general. Taking a totem feat could grant a Lore skill for whatever the barbarian treats as their totem, like dragons or giants.
Yes to all of this
Frankly, Lore in your ancestry seemed like a weird thing to be lacking, so I'm glad to see it tacked onto an already strong feat.I dunno. I figure the common stuff is easy enough to cover with an untrained check, and there's a difference between the common stuff and really knowing the ins & outs of the lore. (Maybe grant characters a circumstance bonus on making checks about their own ancestry for a little extra flavor.)
As well as distinguishing Common/Untrained VS Trained-Only checks within your own community lore, this seems good area to distinguish your actual community VS farther flung wings of Race-cough-Ancestry, like Kyonin VS Ekujae. No real reason to include them in EVERYBODY'S Common/Untrained access just for being related within same general Ancestry. Obviously Kyonin are aware of Elves who stayed on Golarion, but the detailed nuances of those groups might not be obvious info for every single Elf, albeit available if they want to be well-informed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm inclined to just let everyone be trained in the lore of whichever community they grew up in provided people don't start trying to game this.
But it would be like Absalom Lore or Kyonin Lore not "Human Lore" or "Elf Lore."
BTW, have we learned anything about final approach to regional/ancestral/"common" language access?
If anything, now with full INT bonus granting more languages, the details of that will matter to alot more people.
Have the "regions" grouping "nations" together had specific languages revealed? Is specific nation what is used, or something different?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm inclined to just let everyone be trained in the lore of whichever community they grew up in provided people don't start trying to game this.
But it would be like Absalom Lore or Kyonin Lore not "Human Lore" or "Elf Lore."
Isn't that basically what your Background is supposed to cover?
AFAIK languages haven't changed. The regions haven't brought any changes there.
Something similar I remember from the playtest: I remember that Chelaxians weren't mentioned as an ethnicity, while Nidalese had been added... does anyone know whether this was still the case by the end of the playtest, what was said about it, et cetera?
AFAIK languages haven't changed. The regions haven't brought any changes there.
Something similar I remember from the playtest: I remember that Chelaxians weren't mentioned as an ethnicity, while Nidalese had been added... does anyone know whether this was still the case by the end of the playtest, what was said about it, et cetera?
IIRC Chelaxians are really just an offshoot of Taldans.
All they did was clearly delineate language-as-ethnicity from nationality.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting.
So... Chelaxian culture. Their love of order and hierarchy, their aversion to open rebellion, their ambition, their dark humor, their love of theater and opera... gone? Mentioned in the Cheliax entry of Lost Omens? Something else?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting.
So... Chelaxian culture. Their love of order and hierarchy, their aversion to open rebellion, their ambition, their dark humor, their love of theater and opera... gone? Mentioned in the Cheliax entry of Lost Omens? Something else?
Well, certainly not gone any more than Ustalav's cultural peculiarities were remotely the same as other Varisians, but the 'Chelish' ethnicity was always a little dubious as a separate ethnicity from being Taldan in any sense but culturally (and a very recent cultural divergence at that), and culture alone doesn't seem to be the benchmark they're using for ethnicities.
I'm not sure about its removal even so, but I'm very pleased by the inclusion of the Nidalese who are an insular and entirely separate ethnic group in just about every way going back many millennia to the Age of Darkness.
Nidal has been largely isolated since Earthfall, whereas Cheliax is a former part of Taldor and has been independent for a comparatively short 600ish years. While certainly there has been cultural drift between Cheliax and its former master in 6 centuries, I don't think that's enough time for a new ethnicity to form.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but the 'Chelish' ethnicity was always a little dubious as a separate ethnicity from being Taldan in any sense but culturally
Isn't that kind of the definition of an ethnicity though? A social group united by a common national or cultural tradition?
Six hundred years isn't exactly a short period of time, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big reason Cheliax does not have its own ethnicity is that they all still speak Taldane.
Like Sweden and Denmark have been separate countries for 400ish years, and though they speak different languages they are mutually intelligible. Ethnographers, however, just treat "Scandinavians" as a single ethnic group, even though there are clearly intragroup cultural differences.
One thing to keep in mind is that Avistan is really small on a global scale.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Sweden and Denmark have been separate countries for 400ish years, and though they speak different languages they are mutually intelligible. Ethnographers, however, just treat "Scandinavians" as a single ethnic group, even though there are clearly intragroup cultural differences.
Uh, can you quote your sources on that? As person living in country next to scandinavia(Finland) I've never really heard of Sweden and Denmark being treated as single ethnic group :P I mean, Scandinavian ethnic groups are descended from Norse so they are related ethic groups, but still.
That said, I'm agreeing that Cheliax's timescale definitely doesn't really lead to them being separate ethnic group. Especially if you take it in account that Pathfinder follows the strange fantasy setting timescale thing where in few thousand years they make less progress than real life cultures
That said, Cheliaxians are supposed to be descended from Azlanti and Ulfen and Taldans are supposed to be descended from Azlanti and Keleshite, so you could make argument that Cheliaxians shouldn't be Taldanese even if Cheliax used to be part of Taldor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure why people don't see the clear benefit when the cultural distinction they see within language
is exactly correlated to nationality, which continues to be separately valid cultural distinction.
Since that info still exists, why conflate the two categories, what distinct benefit does that actually convey?
I don't even see this as real change,
I already called the language and broader ethnicity "Chelaxo-Taldane" in 1E to acknowledge shared heritage.
(I assumed it might be reasonably common in-world thing for Chelish and Taldanes to bicker over proper name and whose version is superior, Chelish maybe pointing to more satellite regions once affiliated to Cheliax as why Chelish is the true core of common language, Taldans only holding shreds of embellished history etc. But that is just banter and doesn't detract from common ethnolinguistic group, really it reinforces it.)
I mean, at a certain level it is weird there isn't more linguistic divergence, but since system doesn't bother to model "related" and "partially intelligible" language "families" etc, and there is always "magic" to explain why they didn't diverge as much, I don't see huge problem there or really any surprise given Paizo's approach to game world. And ultimately, nothing really changed. I don't know who could have understood world in 1E without seeing Chelish and Taldane within shared ethnolinguistic cultural milieu divided mostly by politics, and likewise it was clear Nidalese was also distinct ethnolinguistic group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Sweden and Denmark have been separate countries for 400ish years, and though they speak different languages they are mutually intelligible.I beg to differ. I can read Danish, but understanding spoken Danish is nigh-impossible for most Swedes. Particularly if they start talking numbers.
And the Danish can hardly even understand their own language.
I was so hoping this is what you linked. Kamelasa!
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds fair, whenever I'm up North I just wave my hands in the air (pretending to be an Italian or Spaniard, that scares Scandinavians silly) and gibber some Swedish chef-style nonsense. It works every time.
Except in Finland. There I just stand in the shadows and stare depressingly at people. Also works every time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds fair, whenever I'm up North I just wave my hands in the air (pretending to be an Italian or Spaniard, that scares Scandinavians silly) and gibber some Swedish chef-style nonsense. It works every time.
Except in Finland. There I just stand in the shadows and stare depressingly at people. Also works every time.
I mean, honestly you just need to stare into distance and avoid eye contact with strangers :p And keep an arms distance away from people or you are in their personal space
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone else not entirely in love with Treat Wounds making the player choose how hard a check they want to try? That's a weird choice that just begs to crunch probabilities and doesn't make a ton of sense in fiction. Especially for, say, a master of medicine with Battle Medic. I'm kind of thinking I'll probably just use the different DCs as a sliding scale of success. Instead of asking the player if they are rolling the, trained, expert or master level check, I'll just have them roll. If they beat the expert level DC but not the master check, they will heal expert level damage.
The critical success thresholds make this a little wonky, but it only adding 2d8 makes me not care that much. That's less on average than the trained to expert bump, and the master bump is way more. So I'll probably just say "a critical success is whatever your highest possible check is +10, or a natural 20."
Treat Wounds? I think that makes sense, the first DC would be like doing a simple first aid, while a legendary would be like a cirurgy, both are capable of curing people but the methods and risks are different.
Treat Wounds? I think that makes sense, the first DC would be like doing a simple first aid, while a legendary would be like a cirurgy, both are capable of curing people but the methods and risks are different.
You're not wrong. It is mostly just overly fiddly. Asking which level my players want to attempt and explaining the different DCs and results just seems... lame.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a fan of systems that ask players to take risks; "do you want to go for the sure thing, or take a larger risk/reward?" creates interesting stories, in my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it can be explained by the player as what they want to try. "I'll do first aid (trained)", "I'll burn out the wound with gunpowder. (master)" or "I'll go for open heart surgery (legend)".
I'll try it with letting the player choose. Especially since I think they'll enjoy it. If it's too fiddly, I'll use Captain Morgans version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Treat Wounds? I think that makes sense, the first DC would be like doing a simple first aid, while a legendary would be like a cirurgy, both are capable of curing people but the methods and risks are different.You're not wrong. It is mostly just overly fiddly. Asking which level my players want to attempt and explaining the different DCs and results just seems... lame.
Making a shorthand should be fine. Just use a brief explanation of ‘Trained is good and easy, Expert is harder and more rewarding.’ Then tack on Mater and Legendary when applicable. If they want a detailed explanation maybe one time would be fine, but after a while they should be able to look it up or have it written down if they really want to get invested into it. I can see how this could detract if a group jumps straight into a higher level game session though before being familiar with the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a fan of systems that ask players to take risks; "do you want to go for the sure thing, or take a larger risk/reward?" creates interesting stories, in my opinion.
I like those as a concept as well, but I like it when the risks/rewards aren't so hard to decipher. I like the Wounded Condition a lot, for example. I like the Furious Finish barbarian feat. Those have interesting and clear narrative hooks.
I don't like things where those risks/rewards are best handled by someone with a masters in statistics. I'm reminded of the how climbing in PF1 let you add 5 to the DC to move faster. I much prefer moving faster on a critical success just being baked in. The Treat Wounds model seems like it is going to call for someone to calculate what your best HP per roll odds are for any given bonus. Kind of like how people crunched the numbers to figure out you should pretty much always be power attacking in PF1.
I've already run into this issue a couple of times with Battle Medic. Maybe it will be less of an issue when all Treat Wounds start using that model, and people get more used to it.
I'm a fan of systems that ask players to take risks; "do you want to go for the sure thing, or take a larger risk/reward?" creates interesting stories, in my opinion.I like those as a concept as well, but I like it when the risks/rewards aren't so hard to decipher. I like the Wounded Condition a lot, for example. I like the Furious Finish barbarian feat. Those have interesting and clear narrative hooks.
I don't like things where those risks/rewards are best handled by someone with a masters in statistics. I'm reminded of the how climbing in PF1 let you add 5 to the DC to move faster. I much prefer moving faster on a critical success just being baked in. The Treat Wounds model seems like it is going to call for someone to calculate what your best HP per roll odds are for any given bonus. Kind of like how people crunched the numbers to figure out you should pretty much always be power attacking in PF1.
I've already run into this issue a couple of times with Battle Medic. Maybe it will be less of an issue when all Treat Wounds start using that model, and people get more used to it.
I feel like the different tiers of DC are different levels of care, like wrapping bandages (trained), stitches (expert), setting a broken arm (master), or cutting open their chest to fix a broken rip (legendary). I do enjoy the "try for Y, and if you can't make it but make X, you get X" feel, but if they have/add a feat that changes the time scale on the lower level ones when you can try for the higher level ones, that kinda goes out the window. But that's just my 2cp. Personally, I'll do the "try for Y, you didn't make it, so sad", but you do you Morgan, Rule #1! Rule #1!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the issue with having the invasiveness of the procedure determine the difficulty of the check is that hit point scaling breaks apart any reasonable concept of anatomy and injury. 2d8 can easily cover all of the hit points of a random commoner, for example, no matter how intense the injury is or how difficult the surgery. By comparison, the playtest version of Treat Wounds scaled both the DC and amount of HP healed to the level of the target. This made a lot of sense to me, because I thought of a high level character as becoming increasingly superhuman, down to their flesh becoming more durable and therefore harder to work.
I may consider using the "pick your DC" method for Battle Medic, because trying to patch a wound in seconds seems more prone to failure and a more interesting than doing it over the course of 10 minutes out of combat. I dunno, will have to see what feels right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"An injury that does not kill a patient outright may still have serious effects. Bleeding, infection, and shock are more likely to kill a patient than a thrust through the heart or sudden decapitation. Injuries that fail to heal properly may also permanently impair their victims." -- Harnmaster Gold Player Edition, v. 2.1.
"BLEEDING WOUNDS continue to generate blood loss until headed. Treatment must be continued until the bleeding has been stopped." -- ibid.
"CLEAN & DRESS Takes: 2d6 + IP/2 minutes. Requires water and bandages. Needle & thread required for 11+ IP open wounds (and treatment generates an E1 shock roll)." -- ibid.
IP is Injury Points - HM doesn't use hit points in the way PF does. You get one healing roll per day to reduce IP by 1 or 2, if successful. When all the IP are gone, the wound is healed.
An injury up to about 10 IP is minor. 11 to 20 is serious, over 20 is grievous. Most injuries are minor, and will heal on their own in a few days. Wounds can become infected (critical failure on a healing roll), which is most definitely [b]not[/I] a good thing.