Visanideth's page

Visanideth wrote:

I have to disagree here; in 4E, Fighters are 100% mundane (barring literally a couple "you slam your hammer really hard and the ground trembles" moves over literally hundreds) and they're generally regarded as the best rendition of the class in polls even by people that dislike the edition.

Fighters in 4E are not magical by any stretch, the Champion archetype in 5e is much closer to the ideal of the Magical Warrior.

Not really, the Martial power source is described as being magic, but not in the sense of fireball-type magic, which makes sense in the 4th Ed Multiverse (especially pre-Essentials).

Uhm, no?

All we have on the matter is this line in Martial Power:

"All legendary warriors develop martial power to such an extent that their abilities are the equal of magical abilities."

and the Martial Power Source description in the PHB:

"Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies."

Both are pretty explicit about exploits not being magic.

In general people who ask for Fighters and mundanes that stand up to casters imagine them dodging lighting bolts, parrying dragon breaths with their shields, breaking out from mind control spells with ease and performing great feats of strength and agility.

My personal suggestion is that the high level fighter is a guy who's really good at using magic items (your Fire Tongue sword in the hands of a druid is just a blade that adds some fire damage, but the Fighter can do plenty of things with it).

They tried wuxia stuff in 4E, crashed and burned. Supernatural abilities can be put on archetypes, sub classes, or high level feats just make them magical, psionic, blessed by the gods or something else that makes sense in the D&D context. No damage on a miss or come and get it type rubbish. Yes fighters can have nice things, bbut make it work in the D&D context. Even something basic like +10 on all saves is a big FU to casters who can't just save or suck them.

I have to disagree here; in 4E, Fighters are 100% mundane (barring literally a couple "you slam your hammer really hard and the ground trembles" moves over literally hundreds) and they're generally regarded as the best rendition of the class in polls even by people that dislike the edition.

Fighters in 4E are not magical by any stretch, the Champion archetype in 5e is much closer to the ideal of the Magical Warrior.

You love the idea of magically powerful martials, I hate it. This is one of the several irreconcilable differences I have with Pathfinder 2E, at least from what I read in one of the 2E blog posts. Maybe you can chalk it up to my distaste for "high fantasy settings".

I feel like 1E struck a reasonable balance: If you want to do absurd things and altar the fabric of...

The problem is that what you're describing is level, not class. Fighters start out as ordinary, army ranger people. Wizards start out as magical people.

But there's no such thing as a level 20 army ranger. If you've reached level 20 you can take as much punishment as a small dragon. You ARE superhuman.

I wouldn't make a big deal out of the technical language for now. I'm sure Paizo will be able to embellish the text.

And honestly, I'll take a dry, technical rulebook that leaves no room to misinterpretation over pretty prose that forces me to spend an hour a week over twitter asking the authors what they really meant with that (looking at you, 5E).

To offer an allegory:

A young Batman may struggle taking down a mob hit squad.

An experienced Batman defeated Superman.

In his growth, Batman was always closer to the mob grunts than Superman in personal power. How he tackled the fight is what changed the outcome.

As presented, I would take the left path, based on the premise that as your characters grow in power, so does the player in terms of skill.

So the Tarrasque may be proportionally mathematically more challenging than the gnoll, because when the low level character meets the gnoll he's unexperienced and tries to get by whacking away at it. By the time the Tarrasque is on the table, the player knows how to manipulate the game to turn impossible odds into a chance of victory.

Is it a minor thing? Yeah. Is it about feelings? Yes. One difference, is that alignment is made up, and atheism is real. And just like I'm sure you weren't trying to say atheism is silly like alignment, I don't think Paizo was trying to make a judgement statement on atheism either. But what's written is excluding towards nontheists by omission, whetehr with malice or not (probably not). And the fix is simple. So I suggested it.

Atheism is real, and none of the religions or deities described in the book are. Do you realize this is all nonsense? It's not like people who are religious in real life are acknowledged by the existance of Pharasma.

You're basically conflating something real (atheism) with something fictional (the religions and gods of Golarion). Your insistence that acknowledging your real life beliefs is so important makes as much sense as christians demanding God and Jesus to be included in the setting would.

Ngai M'katu wrote:

Davick, to be honest, I don't think anybody is attacking you or your beliefs. They are just saying they disagree with your interpretation of the relevant passages, as you've laid it out. Perhaps restating a different way would help clear the matter up?

Are you essentially saying that maybe a passage saying the non-theists have just as happy an afterlife as theists would help?

Most people seem to think I'm saying something entirely different than I did. They're attacking either my experience, which makes no sense, or they're arguing about what atheism is in a fantasy setting, which is immaterial to my critique.

I don't even need them to say atheists die happily ever after. I just want the notion of a nonreligious character entertained next to the religious concepts they mention. Just like they made sure to do with the concept of characters challenging other social norms like gender. It seems more like an innocent oversight (probably due to the authors' personal opinion) than any attempt to be exclusive. But that could be easily misinterpreted. And being actively inclusive is better than being accidentally uninclusive.

So basically the point is that you wanted a "Lack of Faith" paragraph on pag. 12 describing people that don't follow religion, and a chapter on people who don't believe in gods at the end of the book, after pag 288 and before the "Playing the Game" chapter?

Are you sure you're not mistaking inclusion for acknowledgement?

Wow, that's just a messed up thing to say. You're saying you do in fact want to exclude the nonreligious from your game. A game thats setting has an entirely nonreligious country no less. This was disheartening to read.

There shouldn't be any need to state this, but since you've already gone on two "you can't tell me how I should feel!" tirades, let's do it: nobody is trying to tell you what you should or shouldn't be bothered by.

If the idea that being nonreligious in a setting where gods exist is ultimately not leading to an happy ending is problematic to you, that's ok. You're completely free to be bothered by it. But it can't be fixed. If gods exists, atheists are clearly not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Nonreligious people ("I know the gods exist, but I refuse to acknowledge them") perfectly know they're setting themselves for some sort of punishment along the way, and they probably make for fantastic tragic characters. But there's no real scenario were the guy who refuses the gods finds himself "winning".

People are simply pointing out that while you make this about "noninclusiveness", the two instances you cite simply state that being religious is an option and not mandatory (an inclusive approach) on pag. 12, and in a very matter-of-fact way detail what happens to the immortal souls of the people who refused to acknowledge the gods on pag. 288.

Besides, the idea that the game should have options and inclusive text for nonreligious people in order to be "inclusive" makes as much sense as saying that the setting should include abrahamic religious to be inclusive to people who are religious in real life. It's not like a muslim player is going to feel a stronger relationship to his character following a fictional religious than the nonreligious one does. Nothing bad is actually happening to your character after he dies. It's all fiction.

Conditions in particular feel problematic. There's many issues of "Condition X: this makes you Condition Y for N turns, plus this", so you have to cross reference to other pages all the time.

The over reliance on key words fundamentally begs for hot linking. There's an argument for creating TTRPGs that are not meant to shackled by the limitations of printed paper, but I think PF2 is probably a decade too early for that.

Where can I find your system? The description piqued my curiosity.

Not yet released. I'll pm the details as this isn't the proper avenue for promotion.

TheFinish wrote:

OP: It's a whole different beast to play a "faithless" character in a setting where faith as we know it isn't really there. The gods do exist, and there's no denying it

OK I didn't say otherwise. But you talking about it being OK here on a message board is a lot different than the book creating an inclusive environment for players. That's what I'm talking about. Not the methodology of playing it.

Edit: and honestly, there is denying it. Being wrong in a denial doesn't preclude it. This is a different discussion, but look at things like Han Solo denying the force. Look at real people denying climate change. There's also denying divinity without denying ability. There are Pathfinder books about this very subject. I just want the core book to be as inclusive concerning matters of faith as it is gender and sex.

I think you may be stretching the definition of inclusiveness. Pathfinder is a game that fundamentally revolves around violence, which would make it non-inclusive to pacifists, which is largely ok.

Gods existing is a big part of Pathfinder's worldbuilding.

Page 12 starts with "Perhaps you’d like to play a character who is a devout believer in the faith of a specific deity. Pathfinder is a rich world full of myriad deities whose faiths and philosophies span a wide range"...

This tells you this paragraph is about people who want to pick the option to create a religious character. Much like a paragraph detailing the option of playing a Fighter props up the fighter and doesn't feature a "Did you consider a Wizard, instead?" line, or the entry about melee weapons doesn't start with "Bows are better, but if you really want to use swords, here's how they work", a paragraph about religious character and deities doesn't need to discuss nonreligious characters.

That said, page 288 clearly describe atheists as people who are s!@+ out of luck. Which, in a world were gods do exist, makes sense.

Golarion is a fictional world, and in this world gods do exist; thus in this world atheists are wrong. Sorry, there's no way around it.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Visanideth wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

We removed the +1/2 level treadmill from 4th Ed after about 5 sessions (and used the Inherent Bonus rule from the DMG2), worked out great.

We started with that, but once we decided to actually create a commercial game, we ended up removing the d20 altogether.

Our engine is now a radically different beast from the D20 engine, and honestly we've landed with something that (ideally) scratches the D&D itch but looks nothing like it.

Right on, a non-d20 D&D itch-scratching system, colour me intrigued, not Badd!

FOr me it goes into the good game maybe not D&D thing.

There are other fantasy RPGs out there and things like the D6 system which avoid some of the problems D&D has. But then you're not playing D&D.

Well, we clearly don't have the rights to D&D and it would be vanity to try and say "You should play this instead!".

But it's a fantasy RPG that is class and level based, that works around the notion of having a strong focus on combat and task-solving, and that is based on the principle that the rules are there to simulate the "physics" of the action rather than informing the narrative (which is up to the players and DMs).

And all of that makes it similar to D&D. We want to scratch the same itch, not be the same thing. But this isn't the time and place for self-promotion.

We removed the +1/2 level treadmill from 4th Ed after about 5 sessions (and used the Inherent Bonus rule from the DMG2), worked out great.

We started with that, but once we decided to actually create a commercial game, we ended up removing the d20 altogether.

Our engine is now a radically different beast from the D20 engine, and honestly we've landed with something that (ideally) scratches the D&D itch but looks nothing like it.

Visanideth wrote:

Zardnaar wrote:

It doesn't drastically bother me to much I want something with more complexity than 5E, but without the math problems of 3.X and 4E.

Don't we all?

While the market has a huge offer of functional, quality games starting from 5E and going down the mechanical engagement scale, there's basically nothing north of that. We all want a game with 3.X's or 4E's offer of options, mechanical widgets and tactical engagement and better math, but nobody is really focusing on providing that.

It's not easy.

Slapping a few houserules on OD&D's engine and calling it an OSR game is easy. Writing something with the mechanical complexity of Pathfinder and making the math work... is another thing.

Yeah I have been working on a homebrew system currently using the 5E round structure (option B is 4E), but best way of describing it is Advanced B/X with microfeats. Some 3.5 feats have been merged (Great foritude, iron will, lightning reflexes), others removed (natural spell) while some 4E feats were ported in as is (power attack).

I also stapled on parts of 5E I liked but removed short rest mechanics as I don't think they play nice with daily resources and forcing the expected 2 short rests ting is a pain.

Even with 4E you could strip out the classes, plug in whatever and tweak the skill system and I don;'t think thats a bad thing either.

As much as I love 4E, I think the biggest weakness is the number threadmill. In fact, one of the things that got us started on our project was the question "Can you build a game that feels like D&D while moving away from the d20+x formula?".

I think we are on the same page here. If you clone 5E and ripped out the classes and made feats non optional and had different class structure that is roughly what I want.

Layer on some concepts from PF2 and AD&D 2E options that is something useful/fun.

For what it's worth, I'm part of a project that fundamentally follows the premise of taking the kind of mechanical engagement the 3.x/4E generation pursued (huge number of classes, rich character options, strong options for customizing actions) while completely removing the number threadmill.

In a way we were relieved to see PF2 doubled down on scaling, growing numbers because it makes it go in a different direction. We believe in horizontal growth more than vertical growth, so to say.

PF2 seems to double down on the "pick this to become +1 good at thing" ethos of 3.X, which may or may not be your thing.

It doesn't drastically bother me to much I want something with more complexity than 5E, but without the math problems of 3.X and 4E.

Don't we all?

While the market has a huge offer of functional, quality games starting from 5E and going down the mechanical engagement scale, there's basically nothing north of that. We all want a game with 3.X's or 4E's offer of options, mechanical widgets and tactical engagement and better math, but nobody is really focusing on providing that.

It's not easy.

Slapping a few houserules on OD&D's engine and calling it an OSR game is easy. Writing something with the mechanical complexity of Pathfinder and making the math work... is another thing.

We can all argue about whether someone's issues were real or perceived, and we can tell people that the problems they had go away in actual gameplay, but if a person chooses not to play a game because it seems to complex, boring, confusing, bland, tedious, or time-consuming, then that is a valid criticism against that game.

That's valid criticism but it's low-quality feedback, ie it's not very useful information.

You're selling a product, you focus on the people interested in your product. Unless you're completely incompetent and you have created something your target audience isn't interested into, the odds probably are that the people who are not interested in even trying your product aren't those you were creating it for.

I think the big takeaway from this is... this isn't the game for you or your wife.

Most of my players currently think PF2 is too simple, rigid and streamlined for them. They have the exactly opposite issue: there's no real intricacies or complexities to the system.

I think you can rejoyce because simple, low crunch games have been the most popular for a decade now, and they still are. 5E is a game with minimal mechanical engagement for the player.
You can solve your issues by turning to one of the dozen quality games that actively and aggressively pursue mechanical clarity and the reduction of moving parts.

Games like PF2, D&D 4E and such are probably aimed at the audience that is interested in mechanically engaging, complex games. Not every game is necessarily for everybody. I can't play 5E or Basic anymore because they bore me, but I'll never ask for them to change because I realize they're made for someone else.

The trick is finding feedback that is insightful.

That's of course the best reason to have a playtest. It's not about counting heads - most people have absolutely no idea of what makes an RPG work and critics are always the most outspoken people (again look at 5E, a colossal commercial success, and the vitriolic reaction to the playtest on the WotC boards).

Azih wrote:

BryonD wrote:

I've seen several comments now about how much "the people at GenCon loved it" or similar. Those comments concern me that they are being taken as more significant to the big picture than they should.

To be fair, the comments on these boards should also not be taken as more significant than they should.

People who are opinionated and passionately adamant enough to post on forums a lot are not all that representative of the wider player base :).

I would say they are disproportionally the people who buy the actual products, though, i.e. GM's.

To be honest, outside of the CRB, none of my players own any of the materials. I am the only person who is collecting all the hardcovers, AP's and selected sourcebooks. And there's only one guy who has another CRB.

This doesn't change the fact that the people are vocal on criticism of the playtest on these boards are... a couple dozen people at best? It's literally the same names over and over.

Also, not all gaming groups look like yours. I'm the DM generally - I own almost a hundred 3rd/3.5 books, a boatload of PF1 ones, everything ever released for 4E, heck I own almost ever 5E book and we aggressively dislike 5E. But my players generally own the PHBs, the various splats for the class they own, the DM books if they DM too... it's very rare that a person sitting at my table has less than 5-6 books for whichever version of D&D we're playing.

I'm still getting 4th Edition vibes from this for some reason.

If only. Having read the rules in full detail and played some, PF2 is just a cleaned up, modernized 3rd that borrows *some* of 4E without capturing the rich character options and the biggest virtues of exception based game design.

It's probably going to become a good stepping stone between Pathfinder and 4E.

Zardnaar wrote:

who plays 4E with just the core 3 book.

Masochists.

Yep.

I fully believe 4E is the best D&D edition, but it only really works if you've invested a few hundred dollars in it.

Visanideth wrote:

Considering 4E is the second best selling D&D edition of all times as far as core products go, I don't think that is going to scare Paizo very much.

It would scare me if I were them. D&D's brand name is strong in the RPG market...even though they lost a good bit of fans over 4e, their base was strong/large enough to sustain the losses...and when they released 5e, many fans came flocking back because D&D apparently fixed what had caused their fans to split...

Don't see it as the same at Paizo. RPG fans flocked to Paizo because of the change to 4e; that's their base. They seemingly built their base on folk resistant to drastic changes and carved out a niche for themselves...and when 5e was released some of the D&D folk went back to their first love. I'd guess most that stayed with Pathfinder were the hardcore fans and the ones who had invested a lot of time and money...and now Paizo introduces a drastic change to Pathfinder and many of these hardcore fans are disappointed...considering how Pathfinder came to be, this should not be a surprise...

This may be a move that Paizo has to make to survive...I'll be participating in the PbP playtests next week and hope all goes well...I just worry what might happen to Pathfinder if it doesn't go so well...I don't think Pathfinder can sustain a split in the fan base as well as D&D was able to...

Honestly the history of 4E proves that online outrage is rarely, if ever, a good meter of judgement for the actual success of a product. Paizo's only concern is creating a product that can safely coexist with 5E, and not appeasing grognards. Grognards never have the commercial critical mass to sustain a product.

So...now that we've seen it seems like most of the locals will just be sticking with 5e or pf.

*Voice over* They didn't.

This is the story of every RPG playtest ever. The reaction of the WotC community on the official boards to the 5E playtest was so bad Hasbro killed the forums. 5E proceed to be a gigantic commercial success.

Stop dreaming about PF2 failing. It won't.

Visanideth wrote:

...

Funny, from what I have seen, the majority consensus is that overall framework of PF2E is reasonably sound, but there are serious problems with the implementation.

Even the OP's problems basically boiled down to the playtest book being rather impenetrable, which has nothing to do with anti-change or simulationist sentiments.

I'm not referring to the OP. I'm seeing a lot more positive comments lately, but it's undeniable that there's still a lot of people lamenting how Wizards can't decide to punch things harder or clerics can't do opportunity attacks.

Funnily enough, I find that virtually any d20 game out there, including Pathfinder, is rather gamist. If I want simulationist, I want a system with fatigue rules, realistic encumbrance, *much* better outdoor survival rules, preferably a non-level/class structure, and most importantly, an engine that isn't adhering to some sort of "balanced on combat value" measure. GURPS would be better, for instance, or HERO, or any number of other offerings. Heck, even Rolemaster would trump d20. I would also prefer a randomizer with more of a bell-curve, which rather tosses RM out on its ear, of course.

Mind, I'm not sure that the above systems are more enjoyable, as they tend to not work nearly as well for adventuring in the "heroes versus pre-ordained evil" power fantasy style that a lot of gamers prefer. At the end of the day, a game is only as enjoyable as the company you keep while playing it, so some appeal to available audiences is critical.

I don't disagree at all; I don't think Pathfinder is a particularly good simulationist system, but fans of simulationism still latched onto it.

Maybe the answer is that among a game type (the high fantasy RPG) that tends to veer toward narrativist/gamist pastures, Pathfinder may be the most simulationist option?

As the Title Says:

Bull Rush (Dwarf- Boulder Roll or Fighter Brutish Shove or Monk Knockback Strike)

Charge (Barbarian & Fighter- Sudden Charge)

Cleave (Barbarian)

Great Cleave (Barbarian)

Whirlwind Attack (Whirlwind Strike- Barbarian, Fighter)

Reach Spell (NOT Bards)

Command Undead (Cleric)

Selective Channel (Selective Energy- Cleric)

Elemental Channel (Cleric)

Warrior Priest (Cleric)

Widen Spell (NOT Clerics & Bards)

Attack of Opportunity (Fighter & Paladin)

Double Slice (Fighter & Ranger)

Furious Focus (Fighter)

Point Blank Shot (Fighter)

Power Attack (Fighter)

Shield Bash (Aggressive Shield- Fighter)

Rapid Shot (Double Shot- Fighter)

Using one handed weapon 2 handed and removing a hand as a free action (Dual-Handed Assault- Fighter)

Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Exotic Weapon Training- 6th level fighter!!)

Blind-Fight (Fighter)

Combat Reflexes (Fighter)

Spring Attack (Fighter)

Crane Style (Monk)

Dragon Style (Monk)

Stunning Fist (Monk)

Tiger Style (Monk)

Deflect Arrow (Monk)

Snatch Arrow (Arrow Snatching)

Quick Draw (Monk & Rogue)

Rapid Reload (Running Reload- Ranger & Rogue)

Mobility (Rogue)

Counterspell (Sorcerer & Wizard)

Quicken Spell (Quickened Casting- Sorcerer & Wizard)

Magical Striker (Arcane Strike- Sorcerer & Wizard)

*Homer drool*

Personally, it's great to see a class based game embracing compartmentation.

It's my preference too and a more simulationist approach, but I don't think it would work so well with the +1/level for everything paradigm.

One of the most interesting elements of this community's reaction to the playtest is having the confirmation that there's a huge disalignement between Paizo and its audience.

Paizo created Pathfinder the way Pathfinder was not because that was the system they had dreamed and pursued, but because they foundt themselves out of a job and had the rights to work with that engine.

Yet a lot of people with different agendas (traditionalists, simulationists, you name it) latched onto the project as if it was the staltwart defender of some greater values they deemed all important in RPG Gaming.

Now that Paizo gets to create their own system, using the design ethos they can choose (instead of having to carbon copy an existing system) they - like pretty much everyone else in the market - distance themselves from the game design nightmare that was the 3.5 engine. This is the system Paizo believes in, not the one they have to use.
And a lot of those people from before now feel disenfranchised because they discover simulationism and fighting back any form of innovation weren't, after all, that integral to Paizo's vision.

I can totally see how those people would feel betrayed. Rough awakening, also because there's fundamentally nobody now that is producing a game that adheres to the most strict definitions of simulationism. To be clear, I'm working on a yet unreleased RPG system and while the dev team agrees that simulationism is one of our core goals, I'm convinced in its current status our game wouldn't satisfy the definition of "simulation" a lot of people are asking for here. Weird situation, and I hope someone with more interest in strict simulation will raise to meet that demand eventually.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

What is gone forever is the option to keep the status quo. Revolution is coming, be it one way or another, I feel.

That revolution may be a repeat of the one that took place with 4e.

A substantial percentage of the player base leaving for another company.

Considering 4E is the second best selling D&D edition of all times as far as core products go, I don't think that is going to scare Paizo very much.

The biggest problem is that the playerbase has already gone. Pathfinder has tanked in sales and it's clear the hardcore fans of 1E are not enough to keep the product alive. The majority of people who fled to Pathfinder because they loathed 4E have returned to WotC (because let's face it, 5E is the best selling D&D ever), so Paizo now needs something new and different to carve a new niche. There's no disgrunted audience that will take anything as long as it's not the weird, complicated game. That audience have the game they wanted in 5E. Simulationists and hardcore 1E fans are not going to keep Paizo alive.

Stormbinder wrote:

I really enjoyed 4E and still play it.

BURN THE WITCH! ;-)

Seriously, I really liked 4E, too. Which is an admission that sometimes makes me feel like a pariah around here.

4E is the best D&D edition, and I play D&D since the 80s. Come fight me!

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. Yes and no. I appreciate Paizo's commitment to supporting their product and the design ethos of all the things they bolted on the 3.5 engine, but I still think the core engine is a derivative mess that is too cumbersome for its own good.

2. Honestly I feel the opposite way; I think Pathfinder became better as time went by. The biggest imbalances and the worst issues (wonky math, absence of class balance, not-functional design decisions) were all present in the first incarnations of the system.

3. I appreciate 5E as the perfect introductory system for players new to the D&D formula, but it's a way too simplistic game for my tastes. There's a few excellent ideas in the core engine but the whole package is strict, rigid and severely lacking.
4E is still my favourite D&D edition and the full package (much like Pathfinder, the game got better with time) is the most customizable, balanced and flexible system in the ecosystem.

4. As 4E proves, all those things are achievable at the same time, and if PF2 fails to deliver on all 3 aspects I will have no reason to switch over.

5. This is a very nuanced question. I do believe that accessible games are currently dominating the market, which could be an excellent reason to let PF2 be a less-accessible game for the hardcore audience. I don't really think the market needs another simplistic and barebone game engine when 5E is exactly that. Let PF2 be a game for the hardcore audience. It will never regain the mainstream one from D&D. The people who wanted an accessible, easy game already left.
I do feel in its current form the game is convoluted for the sake of being convoluted. The chapter on perception, senses and conditions is a nightmare of cross-references. You need to hop pages 3 times to find out you get a +2 circumstance bonus to AC.

6. I'd take those 3 things over accessibility, if that's the question. All 4 things together would be the best, however.

7. Well.. yes? I'll focus on playtest this one for now, however. This question feels like wishfull thinking.

8. The biggest weakness at the moment is that you get to make dozens of choices when creating a character and they don't amount to very much. Paizo needs to drop the "choose this and this and that to get +2 to a very specific skill roll" mentality ASAP.

I think the answer is d) people don't really want power parity, they just want fun options as a martial.

That's kind of hard to reconcile with the 10.000 posts threads, the success of 5E and all that jazz. People most definitely care about power parity.

That really is not what they mean, the only transparency is this same tired old dismissive rhetoric from 2008.

At the third time you say "Can't you just make that a magic ability instead?" I think it's fair to call a duck a duck.

I don't have time to go into details on how "dissociated mechanic" is an outdated definition that was never really fitting (since many people proved in this thread that the mechanics can absolutely have a reflection in the fiction), but that would be another bugbear to tackle.

I dislike dissociated mechanics. But they're not what's happening here.

bugleyman wrote:

The Sideromancer wrote:

They can move it fast, but you can't launch it fast. The last guy in the line throws like just another commoner

So...instant transportation of goods over infinite distances doesn't qualify as "dissociated"?

As has been pointed out (ad nauseam), ALL RPGs are by their nature full of abstractions. At this point the willfully obtuse should simply be ignored.

How is this so difficult to understand? Mechanics aren't dissociated because they lack consequences in the world. They are dissociated when they lack an EXPLANATION.

Yes. Games are full of ignorable real world consequences. Just like arid conditions and decanters of endless water.

This game is also 99% full of EXPLANATIONS of what feats and skills DO. Pointing out the few that don't isn't being obtuse. It's calling attention to an easy fix of what is usually an oversight.

Does a battle medic need a healing kit? Is the healing magical? Does it work on golems? What about undead? What exactly is he doing? One line of fluff fixes all of it.

And that same line of fluff will call attention to the areas where the mechanics might not work as intended. Like Dorothy the basket weaver making better katanas than Hattori the smith.

Just because you can imagine a fix to a problem, doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. And when 99% of the book grounds in world explanations. That might just be a hint that the remaining 1% is an oversight.

You need to realize that for the majority of RPG fans, "leaving room for imagination" is a feature and not a flaw. Your desire for having an official, strict in-fiction explanation for everything in the game is more than likely a minority position, which doesn't make it any less respectable but I wouldn't hold my breath hoping the RPG industry caters to such expectations.

Besides, it's rather transparent now that with "explanation" here you mean "let's not have extraordinary things happen outside of the power of magic", which, once again, is something that died in the 90s.

Again, since we're talking about a 20 ft tall giant wielding a 1500lb sword, it took a LOT of brunt out of the attack. Turning that into a scratch factually means being practically missed.

And we go back to the issue with hit point. The 9 dmg spear stab from the goblin and the 31 dmg sword strike from the giant were both "but a scratch", so while the mechanical implications of those attack strongly differ, the in-fiction effects are nearly identical.

If you say so. I find it funny that you're the one having problems coming up with a narrative to fit the rules here.

For example: the more damage you take, the more trouble you have lessening further damage, until you eventually die.

But I have no problem with the fiction, because I use hit points the way they've been written from the get go (ie, a hit is not always a hit) so I can explain everything that happen.

In-fiction problems only start if you take a "every hit actually connects" stance (some cases are particularly amazing, like taking 25 damages from Acid Rays but not actually being scarred or corroded).

I take it you know how soldier in "the olden times" looked after they had survived a few battles. They were full of scars from superficial wounds. There are a few instances that suggest that people kept fighting after they had suffered severe head trauma.

Also, that's where magical healing comes in. And not some weird rules element that doesn't explain why it heals damage.

Those soldiers accumulated those wounds over years. A D&D/PF character gets hit dozens of times each day.

Also, this is a good example of what I was saying above: rather than use the common sense explanation that would make this all have sense, we'd rather have a fiction that only works thanks to magic because this allows for more (theorical) purity in the literal interpretation of the rules.

I'm just not sure that "the gm being should be able to explain away all the inconsistencies" is a useful substitute for "making a game with less inconsistencies."

It is because of three reasons:

1. creating a game with no inconsistencies that is also playable is factually impossible.

2. reducing inconsistencies as a design goal is severely limiting when designing a fantasy game, unless you can expect your audience to have completely arbitrary preferences that perfectly align with your approach ("I think Fighters should be designed as 100% realistic human being out of an historical movie, but I'm also fine with monsters not obeying the same laws of physics because reasons" ie "inconsistencies only matter when I say so").

3. (this is a very personal opinion) a roleplaying system should provide the most solid, functional and balanced mechanics possible as its main goal, and leave narrative consistency to the DM if conflict arises, because it's much easier (and fun) to fix narrative inconsistencies than fixing lacking mechanics. It's better to have solid, interesting mechanics that may need some imagination from the DM to rationalize if they become an issue for him or his group, than having lacking, non functional or uninteresting rules for the sake of consistency.

In that case, the fighter gets hit, but could twist his body in a way that lessened the blow so that he didn't take the full brunt of it.

Again, since we're talking about a 20 ft tall giant wielding a 1500lb sword, it took a LOT of brunt out of the attack. Turning that into a scratch factually means being practically missed.

And we go back to the issue with hit point. The 9 dmg spear stab from the goblin and the 31 dmg sword strike from the giant were both "but a scratch", so while the mechanical implications of those attack strongly differ, the in-fiction effects are nearly identical.

Which pretty much mean you're not getting hit. Also considering how a stab from a paper cutter can leave you crippled in real life, any pretense that your character is routinely getting wounded dozens of times each day with no lasting consequences is much more dissociated than just assuming you're not actually getting hit until you're dropped under 0 hp.

How will the players ever have fun by dealing creatively with a problem? When a single die roll can solve everything.

Let's use your example: We're on the plane of fire. And I know where there's a prison with food stores. Ok great.

But let's not bother sneaking in. Or playing any of that out. Let's not make an adventure out of it.

We're starving. There's a prison. The prison has food.

I make a forage check.

Ok done. You got into the prison and got the food. You aren't hungry anymore.

Was that fun?

I think we have different interpretations of what a foraging check does.

If my players are in town, and the Ranger doesn't want to pay for food and chooses to make a Foraging check to get some game in the woods, the assumption is that he goes to the woods to do so.
The food doesn't magically get to him.

You generally don't need to play out those situations, but we had a character kidnapped during a foraging check once as we were being hunted by agents of the local church, for example.

So in the extreme planar situation you will still get an adventure out of how you'll get the Planar Survivor guy in the vicinity of the area where he can procure the food.

Or maybe you won't and you'll make out some cool story on how he knows how to purify undead moss and make it edible or create rocks that can sustain you by mixing cold lava and troll blood, and you'll proceed doing more fun things. Again, your task as the DM isn't being a calculator that simulates the environment or a lawyer applying every comma of every rule. You're there to provide fun.

Visanideth wrote:

Fabius Maximus wrote:

(Also, the fighter would be at negative hit points and close to death in your second example. I would imagine him bleeding out on the ground.)

Instead he's standing with 23 hp and full combat capabilities, so the question still is: did that 1500 lb sword hit or not?

He's lying on the ground bleeding. 23-31 equals -8, does it not?

No, he's at 23 AFTER he got hit for 31.

Or not hit, considering the 1500 lb sword would definitely kill him if it actually had hit.

Visanideth wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So perhaps there is food to be found in Xal Karanith or something.

How can your players possibly enjoy the travel to Xal Karanith and the encounters they'll have within when the thought that the Ranger being able to forage food for them there is so dissociated from the fiction?

How are they supposed to be entertained by the tale of how he managed to boil and cook some disgusting, poisonous moss he took from the walls into something edible, when they know that fiction was born out of an impure, dissociated mechanic?

Necessities of plot compress space and time. Sure the NEP is huge and mostly empty, but however the PCs got there I will say dumped them not far from a point of interest, since the alternative is not as interesting.

I mean, have you ever had PCs die because they ran out of food or water when crossing the desert or the arctic? IRL these are incredibly likely scenarios but because the logic in storytelling games is primarily narrative logic, the PCs are always going to come across something of interest before they expire from hunger or thirst. It's just how these things work.

I was being sarcastic btw. I know tone is lost on the Internet. I agree on the point anyways.

Food that coins normally sustain you isn’t there. That doesn’t mean food isn’t there. The point of the Feat isn’t finding food where none exists, it’s derriving sustainence from sources you would not otherwise be able to.

If you go looking for ways to “dissociate” the mechanics from the narrative, you’ll find them. All RPG mechanics are necessarily abstract to a certain degree, so they will never hold up if you look at them too closely. However, if you pay attention to what the rules actually say instead of actively looking for the most absurd interpretation you can think of, you’ll find that most mechanics are indeed rooted in the narrative.

I read the feat and I imagine the Genasi bard smiling at the party while they're standing in an air pocket on the demiplane of ashes and she's siphoning fire out of some magma, adding a misterious fluid to the rock as it cools down, and say "swallow this, it will sustain you for a few days. Don't ask me how it works. Remember not to evacuate until we're out of here".

If you read that feat and all you can imagine is a guy doing jazz hands and food magically popping out I feel sorry for you.

(Also, the fighter would be at negative hit points and close to death in your second example. I would imagine him bleeding out on the ground.)

Instead he's standing with 23 hp and full combat capabilities, so the question still is: did that 1500 lb sword hit or not?

So perhaps there is food to be found in Xal Karanith or something.

How can your players possibly enjoy the travel to Xal Karanith and the encounters they'll have within when the thought that the Ranger being able to forage food for them there is so dissociated from the fiction?

The good news is that there is literally an overabundance of low crunch, low engagement games out there. D&D being first and foremost. There's literally so much choice it makes your head spin.

Now, if you want crunch-heavy high fantasy... you're kind of out of luck. It's a good thing PF2 went that way, because we didn't need yet another fast! simple! easy! game. So while I'm sorry you're not going to be able to enjoy this, I also feel it's kind of inevitable. Not every game is for everyone, and your preference is actually incredibly popular and extremely well served.

Visanideth wrote:

Lucid Blue wrote:

Visanideth wrote:

Your example doesn't work because in the "floating in the energy void" case the character wouldn't be allowed the check to look for food, since he's floating in the void.

Yes it does. That's exactly what it does. I can search for food in any plane of existence. Even planes that don't contain food.

You still need to be able to perform the action of looking for food, which floating in the void precludes.

It's like wanting to hold a sword without having hands. The rules never exclude the use of common sense.

And I would agree with you. Except that's not what's in the book. The book is explicit. A master level Nature skill with Planar Survival "can forage for food even if the plane lacks food that could normally sustain you."

The food isn't there. By fiat. But I can MAKE it be there, simply by searching.

Well yes. But that's a different thing than your example.

The problem with your example isn't that there's no food, it's that it's impossible to look for food (so the check doesn't happen and the ability can't trigger).

In a less doctored situation you have plenty of solutions. The guy knows how to track shadow giants and steal some of their captured creatures to use as food. On Carceri, they know where to look for shallow prisons that may contain edible creatures.
On the elemental plane of Fire, they spot a trade route to the City of Brass and trade with Djinn for food or steal from their secret caches.

Visanideth wrote:

Your example doesn't work because in the "floating in the energy void" case the character wouldn't be allowed the check to look for food, since he's floating in the void.

Yes it does. That's exactly what it does. I can search for food in any plane of existence. Even planes that don't contain food.

You still need to be able to perform the action of looking for food, which floating in the void precludes.

It's like wanting to hold a sword without having hands. The rules never exclude the use of common sense.