This relies on a supposition that the published table is wrong, but it otherwise entirely consistent with the rules/logic. All the other ranged items use multiples of 10 and you can let the benefit go to the player and call it 40'. I would treat this as a percentage, not an absolute number reduction, so with that assumption, the range increment for a tiny longbow should be 60ft *.6= 36 feet. Moving from medium bow to small bow is a reduction of 40 ft. The range increment in the table being the same for both sizes should be taken as an error or "fairness" handwave for halfings, IMO. Also, I don't think the magic item generation tables distinguish between long and short arrows at all, so I think that difference must just be ignored and we can infer that by rule, the arrows are the same.Įrgo, we can infer by rule that the energy imparted by a "standard" shortbow is the same as a small longbow. Since they cost the same, and labor would obviously be very close, I conclude the heads are the same and therefore the "damagyness" of the arrows themselves are the same.
The arrows cost the same amount of money for long and shortbows and logically the only difference would be a slight amount of wood in the length that would be negligible.the value is the head and labor. Damage would be the same if and only if the arrows were essentially the same and the imparted energy were essentially the same (or those 2 factors differed in opposite directions and cancelled each other out, I suppose, but that's the trivial case and logically not happening.) I feel Vancian casting is more a traditional element than a needed mechanic on a modern system.I'd say that slight design variations aside w/ the handle, a medium shortbow=small longbow. The only rule change I would honestly consider especially coming from 5e is the limited Vancian casting because this is the only thing that makes me cringe about the system. If you simplify the system to attract new players they won't get to experience the real pf2e, which is why this system is SO successful. So at the end of the day is 5e simpler? Well sure at first, but then it falls apart and becomes a time sink to make it work while pf2e needs an upfront investment, but then you don't require anything more than reading CRB as a GM to just play. Pathfinder rules are clear and hard to misunderstand. Once the investment is done the system does not require house rules or constant searches on Sage Advice to get a session running smoothly.
5E TINY PLAYER RULES PC
I don't think it's needed and here's why: I feel pf2e only requires an initial investment to learn the rules and most of this burden is on the GM, not the players (they can just get a PC going with Pathbuilder or Hero Labs or FoundryVTT). I've upvoted the thread because it's good writing and advice for new 5e players, but I honestly disagree with the concept of trying a simplified version of pf2e. I just wanted to bring these handy variant rules to the attention of the groups who I feel can make the best use of them. However, the best way to play any game is to play what works best for your group. While they are an excellent way to sample the system, having character options that arise from your character's ancestry and skills are a big part of what makes this system so characterful. If you reach level 4 and your group is comfortable with PF2e and interested in continuing with this system, Fantastic! This would be an excellent time to drop the variant rules I mentioned above. It can even continue with the prewritten adventure Troubles in Otari which will bring your players up to level 4: I would also recommend starting with the Beginner Box, which has a nice dungeon crawl with each room designed to teach the players about a new concept in pf2e. It is a helpful way to make the character decision space more focused and feel more similar to the 5e decision space. These are two official variant rules that will reduce the rule load on new players by making 2 of the 3 feat categories work very similar to 5e. However for those groups glancing at pf2e at this time of change, I have some assistance to help reduce the load if you want to sample this system. As with any major system changeup, some groups are looking at trying a new system.įor several years I have heard various 5e players mention that Pathfinder 2e feels too rules dense, which is a complaint I can understand.
0 kommentar(er)
