Dire Ursus wrote:
Thats because the people who complain create threads and the people who demand appreciation or get out show up to crap all over those threads. Its a pretty standard forum dynamic.
Which doesn't matter when placed as treasure, only when crafting.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
But when you look at the raw numbers on roll20, pathfinder games have actually increased, just not at the same rate as d+d games. MORE GAMES IN GENERAL are being played on the site, including an increase in pathfinder games.
Domains missed the entire point. Domains were a nod to sphere access which was one of the limiting aspects of 2nd edition clerics. Without sphere access limiting their spell selection (based on what kinds of powers a deity would actually grant their followers) clerics took the front seat as the most powerful class in 3rd, and frankly remained top 3 in pathfinder 1.0
PFS regularly bans and limits far more options for the lower powered martial classes than it does for the casters. PARTIALLY this makes sense as it requires time to suss out the potential problems of an option, but the ISSUE is that options to improve and balance weak classes are put through a tighter lens than the power options the most powerful classes have from core book.
I submit that throwing obstacles at post core balancing options is in fact causing problems.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I don't play PFS and I hate CLW wands. Makes the game too easy. If you want the game to be easier just ask your GM to lower the difficulty. The game shouldn't be just easy mode because some people don't want to be challenged.
Or, yknow, you put limits on wands not potions permanent items and X use per day items, which is the actual issue.
This, PFS has crapped up the game in pf1 and now its crapping up the design of pf2
The game also doesn't work if you dont maximize your main stats
You could start by not responding to peoples unhappiness with "nothing is wrong with the game its surely the players who are wrong"
Rules Artificer wrote:
Its not about resonance being "a little off" its about it being a bad solution to a "problem" fewer people want solved than some think. An easy solution is to scrap resonance entirely, up the prices of wands and/or change their mechanics to work more like 1 spell staves.
Funky Badger wrote:
No, it doesn't as evidenced by how much people hate resonance, hate having to stop adventuring due to hp loss, and hate the idea of a dedicated healer being required in party.
With Weapon Finesse+Chain Mastery does Spiked Chain count as a light weapon for Two Weapon Fighting?
FWIW 4E was blatantly and significantly influenced by loud voices on their forums, a LOT of what some of the most obnoxious "3.5 is not up with modern game design" posters wanted was included in 4E. Then it tanked.
TBH the pf 2.0 playtest feels a lot like the WotC forums immediately pre 4e.
People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.
Where the comparison breaks down is that pathfinder is not the cultural touchstone that is Star Wars. Star wars is in a pretty unique place as basically the only long term space fantasy/opera property given significant funding by the entertainment industry, its backed by freakin Disney now and with a sea of merch that contributes to the growth of that property, whether the movies are critically accepted or not.
Pathfinder is in a SEA of other rpg options and despite the increasing mainstream absorption of TTRPGs (thanks mainly to the internet) its still a relatively niche hobby in comparison to even things like MTG. When you're in a niche like that the risk of a poor reception from current fans increases. In a lot of ways the idea that these sorts of hobbies are going to tap into some large untapped market of growth is like assuming there's always administration and waste you can be rid of to balance a budget. Its a risk, and that waste you can cut isn't always actually there.
It is unfortunate that often times the most passionate advocates for a thing take it far too seriously.
Except commoners aren't going to go into a dungeon and come out learning to cast spells. They're going to take a far safer and slower path to learning. Also, the stuff you gain at a level is supposed to be stuff you've been working on in downtime.
Just to point out that whole "why doesn't EVERYBODY study magic" line of thought.
Pretty much the same reason people don't all have STEM masters. Its hard, it requires devotion, and you need to feed yourself while you're learning it. Thats not even considering the places where "powerful mage wreaks havoc" is recent history. Or the rulers who maybe don't want their peasants shooting magic missiles when the time comes for an uprising.
So if a *player* with an arguably low IQ rolls an Int 18 Wizard, do you tell them that they need to quit playing the character because they can't realistically roleplay the rules? Will your group constantly pressure them to drop the "smart" aspect of the character?
No what happens there is that the GM steps in with things an 18 int char may not overlook but the player might.
Wands working more like things such as spell lattices would go a long way too. The wand doesn't do the thing, the wand lets you act like you have the spell on your list and you can use your own spell points/slots to cast whats in the wand.
wands = 1 spell of lowish level
I'd say go with the Double Axe purely for the sheer image of it. An orc rampaging around with a dual bladed axe just seems cooler to me. You need Weapon Training to be able to pick up the Advanced Weapon Training, and since yours doesn't count, you can't pick it up. It's what make a variety of fighter archetypes not nearly as good as they used to be.
The arsenal chaplain's weapon training counts. You can't forfeit the second choice but you can take the feat.
Same for a number of those fighter archetypes, if it specifically says "you must take weapon training with X" or is just referred to as weapon training (dragoon and unarmed fighter respectively) For both of those you have the weapon training prerequisite of the feat, but don't have the opportunity to trade later weapon trainings away for an AWT.
I hate this attitude. where the DM decides to take player control away just because they arnt as dumb as the dm thinks they should be. whats next? yelling at him every time he conjugates a verb or uses a pronoun other than "me smash"? keep in mind that wolves have an int of 2 and are well known for pack tactics including ambushes, hit and run, flanking, and disctraction
I hate people who dump mental stats and then play their characters as normal.
I dont know where i remember reading the no keen + vorpal, maybe it was a different setting or an older version. But there's no restriction on only +5 in enchantments, just a hardcap of +10 modified for non artifacts.
I'll go farther than disagree and just say its wrong. The ability to put polymorphs, specifically polymorphs that allow gear useage (monstrous physique and giant form) on your fighter or barbarian is freaking insane.
I mean, other than the rules i linked talking about how you spend WBL when creating a character, the rules about how magic items are actually available, spending caps, purchasing caps, the in game realities of finding a 16th level ranger who took craft wand in order to create the wand in the first place...