I presume it's intended to solve the scroll/wand golf bag.
Maybe, but it really doesn't. The players can just pass the CLW wand around like a bottle of wine with each using the number of charges needed. Granted, since most items require the use of Resonance to activate, it could possibly act as a deterrent to the practice, but something tells me most items are ultimately going to lose out to the one that lets the characters not die...
I still like Resonance because, in the sense that it replaces Item Slots, it seems to be the only aspect of PF2's rule set that isn't ridiculously complicated, but I'm not crazy about this particular ramification.
FuzzyPaws: Maybe, but the fact that ALL the classes now follow a uniform progression will hopefully mean that the remaining Class Features are roughly balanced against each other which will aid in stripping them down for our campaigns (Obviously we'll go RAW for the Playtest itself).
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Yes, but it does seem that "Fury" is a Totem in the same sense that 'Bald' is a hair colour...
Weather Report wrote:
Not always since a lot of characters had their Level capped due to Class, Race, or Ability and Magic was less prevalent, but I was referring more in terms of mortality.
EDIT: Also, AD&D isn't usually considered OSR
Yes, they're different. My point is that I think the latter would've worked better. Apologies for any confusion. Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience. It may be that it's more a mimicking of that as aesthetic choice, however.
As in all things, Form follows Function.
That very facet is what prevents the concern that many people have about "the untrained level 20 fighter is better at stealth than the highly-trained level 1 rogue."
Well, that and the fact that a Level 1 character can't really be considered 'highly trained' by any reasonable measure. At best, they might have more theoretical knowledge or practice, but lack experience using any of it in practical terms.
The whole Earthfall thing would seem to suggest that F=MA is still valid on Golarion.
In fact, with falling damage being deadlier than ever in PF2 for without that Feat, gravitational force would seem to have increased, if anything.
It is possible some mass is affected differently, however. Which could explain why the 250 lb orc and 35 lb gnome can have identical Strength Scores.
I'm gonna second the appropriative nature of the Barbarian as a whole, but it's so iconic and integral to fantasy gaming that it's unavoidable at this point. But the word "Totem" could be changed, I'm sure there's a word that fits the idea that would dodge issues of appropriation. "Catalyst" maybe? "Trigger" might also be technically accurate, although heavens to betsy using "Trigger" would probably not go over well on the internet dot com.
I was going to suggest "Fetish" myself, but it kinda has the same vibe. As well as certain other connotations.
I was going to suggest giving any potential Barbarians three counters/poker chips to be given each round of rage and then returned in any non-raging rounds, but it now occurs to me that you might've been talking about Temporary HP which could indeed be a pain if it works anything like it did back in PF1.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ahh yes, I can see what you were going for now.
As for question two, it was in response to this:
Which makes it sound (to me) like the playtest Barbarian will be receiving the feature earlier than was intended for the 'real' game.
Look like a piece of text might be missing in the penultimate sentence of the final paragraph. Although it might also be an artefact from a previous draft.
Also, if you don't mind us asking, I'm curious why Totems are being made available earlier in the playtest than they will be in the final book (tentatively)
Naturally, every PC does impact the narrative, but the folks Dudemeister is talking about feel that their impact is negligible relative to that of casters at high level. I think that assessment is correct. It's the most common and old complaint about the game, and in my opinion, a major reason why the first couple of books of any AP see a lot more play than the end book.
While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.
I'm not intimately familiar with all the spells listed and am away from by books, but those spells I do know don't really change the game's narrative beyond the obvious point of removing an obstacle (similar to hitting things with a stick). Granted, they resolve different types of obstacles, but then isn't that the point of a class-based system?
Besides, even if the GM does mess up and create a scenario where a given spell basically ruins the adventure, how does the inclusion of Skill Feats (Legendary or not) prevent that? If anything, it would seem to make such scenarios far more likely.
Milo v3 wrote:
None of that affects the narrative though. Besides, all four examples are basically identical - solving challenge put in by the DM. It's interesting, however, that to me your example PF1 sounds far more entertaining than the PF2 one as it leads to potential for adventures rather than just casting a spell that's not a spell or rolling a skill check.
Mind, it's trivial to modify the adventure to work just as well with group of casters (or PF2 healers). Simply change the King's illness to a plague infecting the entire capital. Sure they could just go around healing people, but they just contract the disease again. Instead, they need to discover the source of the plague and put a stop to it once and for all.
@Weather Report: I understand that it's not the same thing, but I do think it would have kept the numbers low while mitigating some of 5e's flaws.
@thaX: The game's underlying math isn't a player choice by any means. Actually, however, I maintain that 5e would be improved immensely by removing the small number of very specific archetype options and just having a more broadly applicable core. Of course, whether that would constitute adding or restricting player choices is a matter of perspective.
While I'm perfectly happy to just use the first 2/6 AP books myself, now that I've given the matter some more thought there could be some potential in Paizo experimenting with shorter Adventure Paths from time to time.
I don't really understand this line of reasoning. By definition everything the protagonists do and say affects narrative (though I suspect you may be using a nonstandard definition of that term).
PS. It did, briefly, occur to me that you meant 'directly', but very few Spells actually do that in PF1 and none of the Skill Feats previewed for PF2 do so I remain puzzled.
I wasn't really speaking about setting agnosticism. Obviously, there has to be something that is the core game that is later expanded upon. There's a difference between acknowledging that not everything can fit in a book and encouraging Paizo to drop aesthetics from the core because they don't like them and don't want to have to reach agreement with other players.
True, but I feel it was sufficiently connected to the idea of keeping the core as simple as possible that it was worth mentioning, if only in passing. As for the other aspect, I think your assumptions about other gamers' motives is pretty off-base. In any event, Paizo clearly wants feedback as evidenced by the public playtests and solicitation of feedback in each and every Blog we've seen to this point.
I completely disagree. You can just as easily throw existing systems out of wack or obsolete them by adding poorly designed mechanics. Imagine PF1 without magic item crafting or Leadership. Perfectly functional, right? No holes making the system fundamentally not work. Now add those back in. In the opinions of many on these boards, you have wildly unbalanced the game with your additions. And that's ignoring the actual effort of creating the new content. I think your "objectively easier" is wildly overstated.
Maybe. The point was that you can at least see where the points of connection are and thus try to avoid them. On a tangential note, however, my opinion regarding 'balance' as it relates to TTRPGs is as follows:1. Unnecessary: Players aren't competing against each other and the GM usually isn't trying to win. Since there's no competition, there's no need to make the rules fair.
2. Impossible: Because of variations in party composition, playstyles, and more, there's no really solid benchmarks to balance the game around.
3. Undesirable: Ultimately, RPGs are supposed to be fun. Different players, even within the same group can have vastly different opinions about what they want their characters to be capable of. Forcing a one-size-fits-all approach on as flimsy and ephemeral pretext as balance doesn't go over well with a lot of people.
Perhaps not the actual authors when they first wrote them, but based on some of the PF2 interviews it seems that at least some Paizo employees seem to feel that now. Also, while alternate and optional rules do exist (as they have since at least AD&D), that's not really the same thing as providing support for actually removing mechanics from the game altogether which I was referring to.
In any case, I'm stepping back here as my personal objection to Skill Feats is that they add too much complexity and I'm having a difficult time trying to comment from perspective I don't actually share regarding aesthetics and/or power level.
Not really. The reason for favoring a vanilla, setting agnostic core is that it makes it easier to learn and play as well as more flexible. If you then want to add stuff to that, Paizo or its 3pp will no doubt be producing supplements to that purpose.
Also, designing new mechanics is objectively easier than removing parts of an existing game engine as you don't need to worry quite so much about unintended effects on other parts of the system as you can freely choose where and how the new system intersects with other rules.
It also related to Paizo's business model which involves putting out new content on a semi-regular basis. How many Paizo supplements in the past have offered suggestions for removing broken systems as opposed to just piling more on in the hopes of achieving some sort of equilibrium?
The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.
I think they want Perception to autoscale roughly in line with the characters best Skills which is why it was divorced from the Skill List. In any event, the option actually being removed is to NOT enhance it like a skill though whether that's a significant difference depends upon one's perspective.
I think he was referring more to the physical removal of the garment from a standing or sitting mark without their active cooperation.
I'm quite sure I've heard somewhere that the Rank determines the quality of items that can be created via the Craft skill though that may be a special case.
In any event, if you are right then they should be easily removable.
Gregg Reece wrote:
None of these are really relevant to my concerns. To be clear, I'm not really opposed to Legendary Skill Feats per se (I probably would be, but I play under a Level 10 Cap so it's not relevant), but rather the concept of Skill Feats themselves. Mostly because I feel they'll make the game much harder for me to run without any corresponding increase in enjoyment from myself or the players. And frankly, when the rules start to get in the way of the fun they need to be jettisoned. I already know we'll probably be dropping Background, for example, and I'm just curious whether Skill Feats will be as easy to excise from the game.
Specifically, in PF1 all you had to really know was whether a Skill could be made Untrained or not and whether the PC could make the DC. In PF2, it sounds like we'll also need to know whether the proposed application is appropriate to their UTEML rank and keep track of these Skill Feats. While there will, supposedly, be fewer modifiers under the new system, I'm not really convinced the new system will be easier in play and even if it were, our dislike of fiddly conditional mechanics would probably predispose toward the old system anyway.
In addition to the aforementioned Level Cap, our homebrew setting has very few magical items, restricted spell availability, and while there's no actual rule, players generally favour Feats that have passive effects and that provide exemption from conditional rules over those that add new action types or confer situational modifiers. In short, we would like PF2 to be more streamlined and player-friendly than PF1 something Paizo cites as a design consideration, but don't seem to have provided many examples of yet.
I'm not sure I understand the first part. Care to elaborate?
As for the second, I can't really say I've seen anything that looks demonstrably easier than it was in PF1 and quite a few seem like they'll be more involved.
That said, I mostly GM and so will have to learn everything anyway and none of my players care whether their characters are 'viable' or not. My main source of concern is the number of extra pieces being bolted onto the system in PF2. I had my share of problems with PF1, but 'not enough fiddly conditional rules' wasn't one of them and sadly it seems to be the main one that the designers seem to be focused on.
Most of the problem with Feats may, in fact, be backloaded as you say, but it's not much of a distinction if you don't want them anyway. At this point, I'm just hoping it'll be relatively easy to remove most of the additional features though at present I'm toying with the idea of dividing XP yields by 5 and running levels 1-5 which will hopefully resolve my issues.
While I have my own set of concerns about how this system will actually function in play I don't feel that Skill Feats should be equivalent to magic because:
I can only disagree on this point. Adding new mechanical gimmicks every level is, at best, boring and tend to result in players being saddled with abilities they don't want, can't use, or are thematically inappropriate to their character.
More concerning to me, is that the modular approach seems diametrically opposed to Paizo's stated design objectives of making the game easier to learn and play - which to me at least, would point towards an exception-based system.
I believe it was mentioned on 'Glass Cannon' that Fighters get multiple Reactions though I personally understood that to indicate that they had more than one way to spend their Reaction each round...
Quite aside from being lenient to the point even referring to them as 'restrictions' seems disingenuous, I can't really see any reason for their inclusion in the game.
First, no matter how detailed the rules might be, they will ultimately come down to the GM or the character's deity making a decision so why not just cut out the rules altogether and just have the GM inform the player through dreams etc whenever her actions are at odds with the will of her deity?