If you've got a character concept that relies on stat dumps, I'm sure your GM would be happy to let you set them as low as you like (whether that be 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, etc.). We just wanted to remove the mechanical incentive for it.
The stat modifier is basically a replacement for "racial ability modifiers" from PF1, so it's no more inherently complicated than picking a race that would give you the stat bonus you want for your character. Essentially, for the purpose of racial stat mods, everyone works like a human (PF1 style), with an option to trade a flaw for two +1's. Don't want to do that because you think it's too complicated? Easy solution: just don't do it. Use the standard +2 to whichever stat you like and call it a day.
Well, Corefinder could offer voluntary additional flaws, with no mechanical benefits. That would make more players consider them, and they wouldn't have to ask their GM - who might turn it down since they worry about encounter balance, intra-party balance or whatever.
Thanks for the context about racial ability modifiers being replaced. The "don't want to bother? just ignore it" attitude works for some players, sure - but there are enough who think they have to squeeze the most out of anything, so they will bother, and for them the rules will be more complicated. And a dominant strategy might become known quickly, like: Keep two semi-important stats at a cheap 13, increment them to a 14 each thanks to the flaw, saving yourself 4 score points and getting +2 on each modifier.
Speaking of racial mods, I would love for humans to have +2 to any two stats, races with the +2/+2/-2 racial mod range get rid of the -2 stat penalty but have the option to get -2 to any stat(even one they get +2) to gain a +2 to any other stat. Half-Elves would get +2 to Dex and a +2 to any other stat and Half-Orcs would get +2 to Str and +2 to any other stat. Races with +2 to two stats with no penalty would stay the same. Kobolds should be +2 to Dex with no penalties....unless you want the penalties.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And finally, speaking of actions, the first preview of action types is up: CFF #10: So Full... (part 1)So I read that the full-round attack has gone the way of the dodo...and no one is disappointed...
This is only part 1 of the blog on full actions....so full attacks still could be coming in part 2. Oooh, the suspense!
(I'm betting they still exist, both for backwards compatibility with PF1, and because Jason mentioned that martials have options in how they attack, including one big attack. If full attacks with iteratives didn't exist, one big attack wouldn't make as much sense. But it does sound like the vital strike feat chain is just a regular combat option now.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jason - I read the Action piece - I note that Corefinder
I using the original action economy and not Unchained’s three
action system. I understand that you are attempting to stay true to PF1e, and the three action system is a PF2e thing.How are you navigating martial agency and narrative breadth? I’m thinking of one of the chief shortcomings of the original system which was the martial’s reliance on a Full Attack to dish out iterative attacks at the cost of movement.
Is this a concern and how will you manage it? If not, why?
Apologies ahead of time if it’s right there in the post and I missed it!
Martials definitely will have more options on actions, including more variation in how they can attack and deal damage (including one big attack, dual wielding, and full attacks, all of which are standard actions in Corefinder).
All classes also have things they can do both inside and outside of combat.
Ok, that sounds promising. Will wait to see what the Corefinder definition of “full attack” is given the recent posts here about iteratives.
Just read the latest designer post, Patrol as a Full Action option looks great, much better than being a Feat tax with three prereqs...
So the issue with items like this is how they influence the math.PF has issues with the math requiring these items, the math being designed with them in mind. It stifles creativity in item design since you can't make an item that conflicts with those, and they're among the most boring magic items you can get.
We can give them other effects, but the only compromise I could see is just making all of these bonuses inherent and just give different items other unique things they can do. We could just make them tattoos or something like that, so you can still 'get stronger', but don't have the mechanical baggage of it.
An idea would be to make those items similar to the Circlet of Persuasion, i.e. they give bonuses to stat checks and skill checks of that certain attribute, but not directly to the the relevant physical / mental score. That way, we have items which provide boosts to stats, but not in a way which impacts their numerical performance for combat critical tasks, i.e. DC's and to hit / damage numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I just found this project and of course it sounds very interesting. Since PF2 was too radical a change for me, an improved version of PF1E would be much more to my liking.
Since I am a bit busy today, I've skipped reading most of the preceding thread, so bear with me if I am just repeating stuff others said. I'll probably pop into the Discord in the next days as well, to see what the discussion is over there.
My items of interest:
- A version of the ABP OR a numerical rework which replaces the need for the big six. I have been working with the ABP for several AP's by now and it has worked out very well. I personally would prefer a rework of the system which completely eliminates the need for stat booster items and deflection rings / resistance cloaks / +1 arms and armors, but since there is the consideration of backwards compatibility, a version of the ABP seems more realistic. In terms of weapon and armor special abilities, we just increased their price by 50% and did not implement the strange "exchance enhancement bonuses for special abilities" solution the ABP used. That also worked out very well, since WBL is cut by 50%.
- In the same vein of reworking some base mathematical assumptions of the game, saving throw progression would benefit from making the "bad save" progression into a 3/4 progression, instead of a 1/2 progression (i.e. end with a +9 bonus), so that the situation where one character can always save vs. his good save and almost never against his bad save doesn't come up as often.
- Also, the Swashbuckler needs to get a good fortitude save, because it seriously needed one already when released.
- 4 skill points per Level for all classes which have 2 skill points per level should be a given. That is a terrible restriction for playing Clerics and the like and should be remedied.
- In the same vein, background skills from Pathfinder Unchained have been a great success in my games. Also the introduction of Artistry as a new skill was a great idea from that book.
- One of the biggest problems Pathfinder 1E has in the late game is stat inflation and bonus stacking. A solution to that should be a priority to make high level gaming less onerous on GM's and players. For the former, because runaway player characters necessitate big stat adjustments to opponents (the things I had to do in the Shattered Star campaign, eugggh...) and for players because it leads to action paralysis and long "wait, did I add all the bonuses correctly" situations in combat. Which takes long enough as it is. Hence, buff stacking should be limited (I use a "three buffs from other players max, except class abilities like Inspire Courage, then as much buffs from yourself as you want" system and it works out okay, if not perfectly) AND buff spells like Heroism, Blessing of Fervor and Haste should either be removed or nerfed in a way that the buffs they provide are not as dominant anymore.
- Climb, Swim and Jump (taken out of Acrobatics) should be combined into a new Athletics skill. That was done in 5E, SF and PF2E and it makes total sense, since it makes the skill actually attractive for players, instead of being something very reluctantly taken individually.
- Magic item crafting should be nerfed in its effectiveness to break the WBL standard. The system from Ultimate Campaign (one feat: 25% more WBL, two feats: 50% more WBL and only for yourself, craft as much as you want at full market value for others) was a good solution, which then could be combined with faster item crafting. I like the "you can craft anything you want in 4 days maximum" from Starfinder in that regard, as well as the idea that you can craft as many scrolls or potions you can fit into 1000 gp per day. As long as the financial gain is under control, there is little reason to restrict the speed of item crafting too much, since it is such an abstract process, anyway.
- In the same vein, some item crafting feats should probably be merged, like crafting rods and staves (maybe even rings, though those skew towards being very powerful in many cases) and potions, scrolls and wands. The latter is more of a personal things, since I so seldomly see those feats being taken.
- The staggered progression for spontaneous full casters over prepared casters is kinda antiquated and should go, IMO.
- Classes with an overreliance of swift actions (the Swashbucker and Warpriest, mostly) need a rework to lessen that aspect, since it makes many of their less powerful options almost never used in actual play.
Well, those are my initial ideas, although I am sure there are tons of other things I could come up with given enough time. But those are my biggest bugbears, especially overreliance on stat boosters, bonus stacking and a much needed nerf to magic item craftings effectiveness in breaking WBL.
As soon as I get some time in the next days, I'll try to contribute a bit to the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Climb, Swim and Jump (taken out of Acrobatics) should be combined into a new Athletics skill. That was done in 5E, SF and PF2E and it makes total sense, since it makes the skill actually attractive for players, instead of being something very reluctantly taken individually.
Also the Porphyra RPG (which could, like Corefinder, be seen as an attempt to “clean up” PF1e) combined Climb and Swim into Athletics. I found endzeitgeist’s review of the Porphyra RPG just today, and it is an interesting read in light of Corefinder’s stated aims.
- A version of the ABP OR a numerical rework which replaces the need for the big six. I have been working with the ABP for several AP's by now and it has worked out very well. I personally would prefer a rework of the system which completely eliminates the need for stat booster items and deflection rings / resistance cloaks / +1 arms and armors, but since there is the consideration of backwards compatibility, a version of the ABP seems more realistic. In terms of weapon and armor special abilities, we just increased their price by 50% and did not implement the strange "exchance enhancement bonuses for special abilities" solution the ABP used. That also worked out very well, since WBL is cut by 50%.
- In the same vein of reworking some base mathematical assumptions of the game...
[Emphasis mine] I would absolutely like to see any numerical/base mathematical rework that does NOT see any form of ABP necessary. Having played under the tyranny of ABP in a number of games I can only disagree with it on principle - it is a ham fisted approach to a greater problem with the game’s math. In prior years I might have chosen a treasure mound of implacable refusal to budge on which to die, but I’ve clearly mellowed. (“tyranny”, “disagree on principle”, “absolutely...does not”). Yep. So...
I don’t mind if automatic bonuses, if the math definitely is too much of a problem (a sad indictment, but nevertheless...) need to be attributed to characters as they level to keep them both relevant and avoid the Big Six for Christmas Tree-looking-likes. BUT, for the love of all the deities in all the multiverses that folks decide to believe in...please, please don’t make them sacrifice their odd little shiny treasures, trinkets and major bloody magical items!!! Nothing kills my ardor than a treasure box full of “[redacted] coz you got shiny boring ABP instead”. I want my +1 half handled hypercapitated seax of summoning, +2 vs leshies, +3 vs kitsune that gives a +1 bonus to Intelligence checks, Knowledge: Special Snowflakes and Craft: Grim Fetishes.
ABP should not make meaningful equipment mutually exclusive from relevance through a reskinning of tight math that can’t escape certain necessary data points. It kills verisimilitude and diversity all in one cruel blow. With a +2 numerical bonus of relevance.
See? Totally mellow these days.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, thinking on magnuskn’s point about onerous math in higher level games, and I know you guys are clearly going to fit a lot into your Core Corefinder book - given your intention to make Corefinder able to manage a variety of themes (modern, sci-fi etc) it occurs to me that it might be useful to look at existing P6/E6 variants as a means to accommodating some/one of these genres - specifically the “low magic” or at the very least “ultra-non-mythic”.
Just a thought. Maybe not in the Core book, but when/if you head out into the wilds of genre splat, E6 could be useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with that sentiment. APB is dreadfully boring to play under. I love magic items and it's always been a big part of the game, regardless of edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
APB actually provides for interesting magic items, since it removes the boring +stat items from consideration.
There is nothing inherently interesting in a +6 Belt of Giant Strength, it's just a stat adjustment, which lets you hit better and harder. A Greater Belt of Mighty Hurling gives you several interesting effects, which can actually change the way you play your character up quite a bit.
Also, since the GM applies the ABP to NPC's as well, it has the very interesting side effect of vastly increasing the effectiveness of NPC's with class levels, which is quite helpful to a GM to keep things spicy, I can tell you. One of the longest running problems in building NPC's as opponents for adventuring groups is that, if you gave them too much expensive equipment, it belonged to the party after the fight. The ABP solves that problem neatly and you can actually concentrate on giving those opponents some cool magic items (and, yeah, they then drop some masterwork equipment as well, yippididee) for their NPC WBL.
APB actually provides for interesting magic items, since it removes the boring +stat items from consideration.
There is nothing inherently interesting in a +6 Belt of Giant Strength, it's just a stat adjustment, which lets you hit better and harder. A Greater Belt of Mighty Hurling gives you several interesting effects, which can actually change the way you play your character up quite a bit.
Well, true, the +6 belt is not inherently interesting. But if it's in the game, you can turn it into something interesting: Give it a different name, a different description or an interesting way to acquire it, and the generic item might get some emotional response.
Now with ABP a GM only has half the wealth to distribute, meaning less chance to hand out something memorable. Without ABP you give the player a generic belt and something else, with it you only provide the mighty hurling belt.
There are groups that can profit from ABP greatly (like veteran players or explorative ones), but others might be better off without (like newbies or people who want / need to keep it simple). I like that we have the choice whether to add it to a campaign.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An idea would be to make those items similar to the Circlet of Persuasion, i.e. they give bonuses to stat checks and skill checks of that certain attribute, but not directly to the the relevant physical / mental score. That way, we have items which provide boosts to stats, but not in a way which impacts their numerical performance for combat critical tasks, i.e. DC's and to hit / damage numbers.So the issue with items like this is how they influence the math.PF has issues with the math requiring these items, the math being designed with them in mind. It stifles creativity in item design since you can't make an item that conflicts with those, and they're among the most boring magic items you can get.
We can give them other effects, but the only compromise I could see is just making all of these bonuses inherent and just give different items other unique things they can do. We could just make them tattoos or something like that, so you can still 'get stronger', but don't have the mechanical baggage of it.
This is very likely the direction we'll be going in Corefinder Alpha version.
I love spells like haste, blessing of fever, heroism, etc. and they are fine the way they are. The spells I have problems with are spells that are needlessly complicated or just broken like wish, limited wish. Also can't stand anti-magic shell, that spell should be a 8th or 9th level spell.
A belt of giant strength that makes Str lower then 18-20 automatically become 18-20 and anything equal to or higher then those stats would get a +2. Also the belt granting the rock throwing and rock catching abilities of a large giant would be cool as well.
I do agree that Swashbucklers should get a good fort save. Also like the idea of base saves having a better progression so you don't need cloaks of resistances.
I love spells like haste, blessing of fever, heroism, etc. and they are fine the way they are. The spells I have problems with are spells that are needlessly complicated or just broken like wish, limited wish. Also can't stand anti-magic shell, that spell should be a 8th or 9th level spell.
A belt of giant strength that makes Str lower then 18-20 automatically become 18-20 and anything equal to or higher then those stats would get a +2. Also the belt granting the rock throwing and rock catching abilities of a large giant would be cool as well.
I do agree that Swashbucklers should get a good fort save. Also like the idea of base saves having a better progression so you don't need cloaks of resistances.
No, I can most certainly say that without a doubt Haste, Blessing of Fervor, Heroism are not "fine the way they are". Stacking those bonuses (which is pretty easy to do) skews the math immensely towards the player characters, making many otherwise halfway balanced encounters completely trivial, especially at higher levels, when to-hit and damage numbers are high enough as it is. Increasing your likelyhood to hit by a 25% (Haste, Heroism, BoF) is huge against normally balanced encounters. Then add some good tactics in positioning, debuffs and other things like that and it turns encounters into an actual waste of time, because the outcome is already 95% predetermined by the numbers skewing so strongly towards the players.
One of the solutions would be to lessen the bonus stacking, i.e. nerf the buff spells. It would still keep them in the game, but lessen their impact in a way which keeps them useful but not so very dominant as they are now. There's a reason they were removed completely or nerfed into the ground in SF and PF2E.
There are groups that can profit from ABP greatly (like veteran players or explorative ones), but others might be better off without (like newbies or people who want / need to keep it simple).
The way I understand it, that should be the exact opposite. Veteran players know exactly what equipment they need to make their characters scale as they level up. Explorative ones will likely find the items that have functional equivalents.
Newbies and people wanting to keep things as simple as possible probably don't want to be given a bunch of gold and told to buy stuff from a massive list. That is way more overwhelming than "Add these bonuses to your sheet."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More info on full actions is up in CFF #11: ... Still Full (part 2)
There are groups that can profit from ABP greatly (like veteran players or explorative ones), but others might be better off without (like newbies or people who want / need to keep it simple).The way I understand it, that should be the exact opposite. Veteran players know exactly what equipment they need to make their characters scale as they level up. Explorative ones will likely find the items that have functional equivalents.
Newbies and people wanting to keep things as simple as possible probably don't want to be given a bunch of gold and told to buy stuff from a massive list. That is way more overwhelming than "Add these bonuses to your sheet."
Sure, but that assumes a shopping mart style of campaign. Newbies may well be confused and a little disappointed if not actually overwhelmed by “wait, wut, do I have the item or don’t I?”
As for NPC’s having items the GM doesn’t want to fall into enemy hands, well the game should be able to cater for that by merely improving the math/abilities of the NPCs sans equipment. NPCs and “monsters” should not necessarily have different approaches, much like NPCs don’t need to be built the same way as PCs, a system PF2e uses to great effect.
I understand that people in this thread might find that anathematic to their simulationist approach, but then the ABP is exactly that kind of anathema to my enjoyment playing my character. It’s definitely a balancing act, but if multiple playstyles are supported, not just Corefinder CRB rules doused with “apply liberal amounts of handwavium and adjust as needed for your campaign” it would be a broader approach.
Hmm.
Last digest we started talking about the full actions available to characters as a universal set of encounter options in Corefinder, having renamed "full-round" actions (which happen all within the space of your turn) to avoid any conclusion with things that take or last for "1 full round" (which until the beginning of your next turn).
I’m scratching my head. I...don’t actually understand this sentence.
And reading back to #10 I’m even more confused, What is the definition of a full action? Does it take all of your turn? Escape From Restraints still refers to “multiple full-round actions”.
We've revised the terminology just a bit from "full-round" actions in PFRPG, just to shave off any potential confusing terminology for things in PF1 that take "a full round" (extending past your turn until right before the beginning of your next turn) vs. being "full-round actions" (things that are entirely contained within your current turn).
Does this really mean that you’ve changed [“full round” actions] to becoming [“full round actions”] or have you just changed the definiton (from extending past to being entirely contained within)?
I’m sorry, maybe it’s simple for other people but I actually cannot understand what is being relayed.
There are groups that can profit from ABP greatly (like veteran players or explorative ones), but others might be better off without (like newbies or people who want / need to keep it simple).The way I understand it, that should be the exact opposite. Veteran players know exactly what equipment they need to make their characters scale as they level up. Explorative ones will likely find the items that have functional equivalents.
Newbies and people wanting to keep things as simple as possible probably don't want to be given a bunch of gold and told to buy stuff from a massive list. That is way more overwhelming than "Add these bonuses to your sheet."
Sure, but that assumes a shopping mart style of campaign. Newbies may well be confused and a little disappointed if not actually overwhelmed by “wait, wut, do I have the item or don’t I?”
As for NPC’s having items the GM doesn’t want to fall into enemy hands, well the game should be able to cater for that by merely improving the math/abilities of the NPCs sans equipment. NPCs and “monsters” should not necessarily have different approaches, much like NPCs don’t need to be built the same way as PCs, a system PF2e uses to great effect.
I understand that people in this thread might find that anathematic to their simulationist approach, but then the ABP is exactly that kind of anathema to my enjoyment playing my character. It’s definitely a balancing act, but if multiple playstyles are supported, not just Corefinder CRB rules doused with “apply liberal amounts of handwavium and adjust as needed for your campaign” it would be a broader approach.
To clarify, I don't think ABP should completely replace wealth and I run ABP+2 games. My home games run ABP+2 roughly* 50% wealth and I run APs at ABP+2 with no changes to the treasure aside from replacing enhancement bonuses with special qualities.
ABP shouldn't completely replace rewards you get.
*In my games, wealth only counts against you if it appreciably increases the strength of your character in combat. So utility items and whatnot are pretty freely given and expended consumables only count against your wealth until the end of the adventure.
@Scavion - yep, that’s all I’m trying to avoid - the restriction of interesting items, that can also be powerful. I just don’t have any good experiences with ABP so that definitely colors my comments. And I’m not a fan of magic shoppes, so that makes things difficult given some of the base assumptions of the game. It puts the onus on the GM to provide interesting and meaningful treasure/rewards and removes the facility of easy reliance on Adventure Paths/official published modules to provide same.
Given that Corefinder using groups will necessarily be making some conversion, that last point may be moot.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Hmm.
Last digest we started talking about the full actions available to characters as a universal set of encounter options in Corefinder, having renamed "full-round" actions (which happen all within the space of your turn) to avoid any conclusion with things that take or last for "1 full round" (which until the beginning of your next turn).I’m scratching my head. I...don’t actually understand this sentence.
And reading back to #10 I’m even more confused, What is the definition of a full action? Does it take all of your turn? Escape From Restraints still refers to “multiple full-round actions”.
We've revised the terminology just a bit from "full-round" actions in PFRPG, just to shave off any potential confusing terminology for things in PF1 that take "a full round" (extending past your turn until right before the beginning of your next turn) vs. being "full-round actions" (things that are entirely contained within your current turn).Does this really mean that you’ve changed [“full round” actions] to becoming [“full round actions”] or have you just changed the definiton (from extending past to being entirely contained within)?
I’m sorry, maybe it’s simple for other people but I actually cannot understand what is being relayed.
I believe it's simply saying that the PF1 term "full round action" is now going to be called "full action" in CF, to help avoid confusion with spells which have a casting time of "1 full round" and continue until the beginning of your next turn, such as summon monster, etc.
Ah. Ok. Thanks. I think in order for me to grok it simply I’d prefer just have the presentation of the types of actions, and to not have the discussion of what the new system replaces, as that just adds to my confusion, especially as it is quite similar, though a seemingly important distinction!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, looking at the discussion so far, I see that joining the Discord and participating in the fast-moving discussions there would be the only way to really influence the design. And... I can't do that, my personal schedule doesn't really allow me to spend large amounts of time. I also have tried to move away from the pretty acrimonious discussions common to Paizo board threads I've been in over the years. So, I'll leave my suggestions from yesterday as to how I'd like to see the game go and see what comes out on the other end. Best of luck, guys, I'll be sure to check out the final product at least in PDF form (if not priced too high).
ABP was fun and all but would prefer having better base stuff then a level based template.
If AC was 10 +1/2 level +armor(and shields) you wouldn't need amulets of natural armor and rings of protection.
If you get better base saves you wouldn't need cloaks of resistance.
If you have better stat progression(which they have) you don't need stat increasing belts and headbands. Though you could still have them to some degree.
I am fine with magical weapons and armor/shields as is. Though I do think all magical weapons and armor should have at least some magical ability even if minor like light at will(weapon), endure elements(armor), +1 AC vs ranged attacks(shields), etc. Maybe call them minor magical properties or something like that.
Would love for Brawlers, Monks, and Shifters(and other classes/archetypes that focus on natural attacks or unarmed strikes) to get a level based enhancement bonus(+1 at level 3, additional +1 for every 4 levels after) with their unarmed strike/natural attacks built into the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Mostly during the playtest for 2E, because it was not what I had expected and didn't go where I wanted it to. We'll see where this goes.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@magnuskn
Seems like the Corefinder developers are following this thread on the Paizo forums, and it's much slower paced than Discord. I haven't seen much acrimonious fighting here, so you might want to follow this and share ongoing thoughts...sounds like there's lots of time yet for CF to adapt to feedback.
Well, I already put in my thoughts. I'll check back for the thread to see if anything new comes up every now and then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do really like the patrol option.
Will there be an option to "be on the lookout" as a full action to get a perception bonus?
Playing catch-up a bit...
@magnuskn, we're definitely paying attention here, and I really appreciate the points you have raised upthread - while I definitely can't promise that we're going to give you your dream system, I think you'll be pleased with the direction we're going with a lot of the things you've brought up.
Please keep checking here for updates and the design digests, and if you want to have a slower-paced discussion about anything, post here, or hit me up with a private message. If you do PM me, please leave a note here so I can see it on my everyday Paizo account (I don't check this one all that often, and Paizo were nice enough to agree to keep my accounts separate).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another fun idea for a full action would be to "guard", to protect someone or something, to improve the targets AC/take the hits for them/it.
Playing catch-up a bit...
@magnuskn, we're definitely paying attention here, and I really appreciate the points you have raised upthread - while I definitely can't promise that we're going to give you your dream system, I think you'll be pleased with the direction we're going with a lot of the things you've brought up.
Please keep checking here for updates and the design digests, and if you want to have a slower-paced discussion about anything, post here, or hit me up with a private message. If you do PM me, please leave a note here so I can see it on my everyday Paizo account (I don't check this one all that often, and Paizo were nice enough to agree to keep my accounts separate).
Thanks for the mention and feedback to the points I brought up. I'll definitely check in from time to time and I keep being interested in the project. I don't know if I have anything really that big to send in a PM, but if I come up with something more, I'll be sure to do that and notify you here. Cheers and thank you!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
Last digest we started talking about the full actions available to characters as a universal set of encounter options in Corefinder, having renamed "full-round" actions (which happen all within the space of your turn) to avoid any conclusion with things that take or last for "1 full round" (which until the beginning of your next turn).I’m scratching my head. I...don’t actually understand this sentence.
And reading back to #10 I’m even more confused, What is the definition of a full action? Does it take all of your turn?
A full action in CF (just like a full-round action in PF) takes all of your turn (setting aside swift/free actions, or 5-foot step in PF), but it doesn't last in between your turns.
Things that last or take "1 full round" (like casting a spell with a 1-round casting time) take your full turn and keep going until the beginning of your next turn.
I think PF's use of "full-round action" and "1 full round" meaning two different things is inherently a bit confusing; hence, the switch to just "full action."
Escape From Restraints still refers to “multiple full-round actions”.
Any remaining instances of "full-round actions" are a late copy-paste error that shouldn't be there. They all should be full actions.
We've revised the terminology just a bit from "full-round" actions in PFRPG, just to shave off any potential confusing terminology for things in PF1 that take "a full round" (extending past your turn until right before the beginning of your next turn) vs. being "full-round actions" (things that are entirely contained within your current turn).
Does this really mean that you’ve changed [“full round” actions] to becoming [“full round actions”] or have you just changed the definiton (from extending past to being entirely contained within)?
I’m sorry, maybe it’s simple for other people but I actually cannot understand what is being relayed.
We've just changed the name of "full-round actions" (without changing anything about how they work) to "full actions." Full stop.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@magnuskn
Seems like the Corefinder developers are following this thread on the Paizo forums, and it's much slower paced than Discord. I haven't seen much acrimonious fighting here, so you might want to follow this and share ongoing thoughts...sounds like there's lots of time yet for CF to adapt to feedback.
We're following discussion on Discord, on here, and of course in replies to comments directly on our Patreon blog. Patrons get access a week early to all Corefinder posts, and those at the higher tiers get a dedicated Discord channel that is just for them to directly connect with the devs. They also get priority playtest access, poll voting on things, and more... on top of getting discounts on all LG stuff, free products, and more! Lots of levels, as low as $1 a month for the basics.
Just sayin' :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Jason. I think your change In action economy nomenclature does make things simpler.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hoping that the playtests will have some pregens, if in fact
the changes from PF to CF merit new pregens...
The player-side stuff with classes will be different, because that's an area where players can do their own things and be kind of the "expert on their character" without needing to get into the weeds of system-wide changes.
You could still play a standard PF1 character in most respects in CF, though with some tweaking.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Get all the latest updates on the Corefinder project right here!
Info on free actions in CDD #12: It's FREE!
And on swift actions in CDD #13: Yes, that's a swift!
And a whole new action type, the use action, in CDD #14: The Two Use (Actions)
And even more uses for the use action, in CDD #15: Use, Part Twos
Didn't loaded a bow used to be part of an attack action?
Eh, it doesn’t seem like it is too much damage, and really brings the HP-as-abstract-damage concept - as it says - wearing them down. You could always houserule something like that it can’t end/knock someone completely out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having said that, I don’t understand why it is an Action, and not an effect, which may be where the feat dysphoria is coming in...
So people getting into very rapid fire (rapid shot + many shot or haste, never mind all 3) can't reload fast enough? I guess that puts a limit on the effectiveness of archery builds.
To clarify with the ability score and leveling, every level after first you get +1 any one ability score but at first level you get a +2 to any one ability score, correct?
You mention different bonus progressions of +6, +10, +15, and +20 but no +12, does this mean we will get different save progressions?