Alurad Sorizan

magnuskn's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 7,698 posts (7,700 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,698 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The solution is to remove the onerous and really unrealistic fatigue rules or at least amend them to something less... I am struggling to find a polite word here.

Yeah, okay, when I do a slightly strenous activity for 10 minutes at a time , I need to lie down for 8 hours or I'll be physically fatigued for the rest of the day. That sounds totally something which every marathon runner and person who works in a job with extended physical activity can endorse, surely.

Otherwise we'd have people heating their tea with Prestidigitation, because that would be FUN and we can't have that!

PF2E: Balancing fun out of the game.

Sorry, that's been bothering me the whole week now.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, honestly. The way some people talk about casters, I want to hand them a doll and ask "show me where the bad caster touched you".

Luckily all the people I play with, in both groups, seem to have fun playing their characters no matter what they choose to play and appreciate the way that martials pulverize their opponents and casters add tons of useful stuff for the party.

Hell, the biggest complaints I've had at my table over the last decade have been that Paladins just outclass everyone else when we have one and, if not, that archers are OP vs melee classes. I honestly can't remember anyone saying for many years that they thought that someone with a caster class was running away with the campaign.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thflame wrote:

EDIT: Even though I feel like you were being morbidly facetious with your comment, I DO get the feeling that a lot of Paizo's new rules for PF2 appear to have a "Powergamers Not Welcome" theme.

The problem is that Paizo is "burning own the crops to kill the weeds", if I may invent a metaphor.

Yeah, that's a pretty similar train of thought to what I've said in another thread, which is that they balanced the fun right out of the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, the shield was really quite useful and it was actually a fun way to calculate if it was worth it to ready it in the first place. It prevented damage two times and took only one dent.

Although, and I haven't really checked, but unless there are rules for way harder shields at higher levels, blocking damage will destroy shields at such a prodigious rate that the option to prevent a few points of damage will become actually detrimental. Unless you have a hireling with a cart of shields two rooms waiting behind the party. :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Got my pre-notification e-mail. Now to wait for the shipping mail. I really want that PDF. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gavmania wrote:
I can't see any encounter waiting 10 min while a wizard learns the perfect spell, so both wizard and sorcerer rely on what they have available, which really favors the sorcerer. Sure, given time the wizard can rejig his spells, but time is not always available.

Then you probably never have played an adventure path, because most encounters areas do not have active patrols or people who immediately storm out of their rooms when they hear combat elsewhere.

Also, things like chasms or doors which do not open (which are the things where Quick Preparation is super useful) don't normally attack players.

Gavmania wrote:

Then too, my arcane sorcerer can have access (if he so chooses) to the complete list of heal spells (or e.g. cure spells). Can a wizard do that?

But how?, I hear you say. Easy. Sorcerers can pick up the Arcane Evolution Feat at 4th level. That means they can add a spell from a scroll to their repertoire. Any spell. It doesn't even speify it has to be an arcane spell.
So, If I have a scroll of Heal1 (which is cheap), and get trick magic item so as to be able to cast it, I can add it to my repertoire for the day.
Now, spontaneous heightening says I can pick a spell I know - such as heal1, and heighten it to know all the heal spells. I'd like to see a wizard do that.

That is actually an excellent point and a definite plus for the Sorcerer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
magnuskn wrote:


That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.
Uhm, Giant in the Playground is a popular website with entire forums dedicated to "3.P" games and Pathfinder's early word of mouth marketing included phrases like "3.5 lives!", so there are actually a ton of people who do, in fact, treat PF1 as a 3.5 supplement. I mean, one of the biggest complaints that keeps popping up across multiple forums is that PF2 is too different from PF1 for people to easily continue using their existing collections. Make of that what you will, but it's inaccurate to say that some people didn't treat 3.5 as a supplement for 3.0 (I personally still used a lot of my 3.0 books when playing 3.5), or that some still don't treat PF as a supplement for 3.5.

Sure, and some people are still playing AD&D, but I think a majority of people changed editions completely (especially because there were OP options in both 3.0 and 3.5 which were negated by gating off the older content).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The whole "you get fatigued after 10 minutes of X activity", with the Fatigued condition needing a whole 8 hour rest period to get rid of, seems really arbitrary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I wholeheartedly support the idea of the "Abusive/baiting/harassment." category. Otherwise what CrystalSeas just said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
If "tweaking 3.5 and updating it" was a viable route, WotC would have gone with it in 2015. After all, they had the brand recognition, 3.5 grogs would embrace the chance and given choice of playing "The Real Deal" as opposed to "3.5 with beholders and illithids filed off", people would have gone with the former. And everybody who was salty about 2006 would forgive them 4e in a jiffy if they could go Planar Shepherd/Ur-Priest once more.

That is pretty much as much an assumption as my theoretical case is. Maybe their approach rather was "okay Pathfinder is kicking our asses right now, they already are occupying the 3.x design space and we still got a lot of people mad as us over the Forgotten Realms fiasco, why don't we try a completely new direction".

Not saying I am correct, but I am posing this as much less of a definitive statement than you are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
You'll have to define what you consider the "3.X engine" and what bits of it aren't part of the PF2 playtest, because it looks very much to be built from the same parts.

I think I'll skip having to explain a system for your edification which we are already all playing.

PF2E added +level to everything, which keeps the math pleasantly easy to manage, but makes classes feel a bit same-y, which was a problem already with the 4E design.

That is the biggest design difference between PF1E and PF2E, but from that decisions apparently grows a need to nerf about all spells, many feats and many classes to arrive at a much more pronounced "keep it safe" gradualism. The decision seems to have been made to take cool abilities many classes got and gate them away to later in the game (in a nerfed version, of course).

The feeling I'm getting from PF2E is that the overarching design motto was "okay, let's make sure everything is super-duper balanced" and the devs balanced the fun right out of many of the nerfed parts of the game. They nerfed Prestidigitation, for cripes sake!

And, yes, that is a personal feeling I've gotten from reading the rules, I am not ascribing this as an active motivation to the devs. But it seems to have been, again IMO, the unintended consequence of their good intentions.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Well, to be clear I haven't tried to convert over a ninth-level character yet, and have been focusing most of my free-time character creation on first-level guys for now. It'll be interesting to see if my general satisfaction level with the conversions holds true at higher levels. I'm excited to find out.

One of the things which hit me most deeply when reading the rules was the realization that several classes undeniably now have a much worse power level in almost every regard than their counterparts in PF1E, meaning Alchemists, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards. Coming in as an aficionado of five of those six classes (and especially the Sorcerer), the question immediately came to my mind "why would I ever want to play those classes in PF2E, if they are so much cooler in their prior version?" So far I haven't found a good answer to that.

The thing is, when I changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder, every class felt like it had received a huge upgrade and was cooler than it was before. Now the contrary is the case for many of them and that leaves a really bad first impression. I'm fighting to get that out of my system and judge the new edition on its merits, but there really is only very little "wow" factor to the new design to tide me along.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the more closely 2e hews to 1e, the more likely people are to treat it as a supplement for 1e rather than adopt it wholesale.

That makes no sense. People didn't treat 3.5 as only a supplement for 3.0 and they neither did so for PF1E for 3.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
You and I have differing estimations of 'posters deliberately being jackasses'.

I'm not sure how that relates to the topic in a way which hasn't already been discussed. Flagging will happen, no matter if people have different standards. Adding a subcategory which clarifies a substantial part in a much more meaningful way than "breaks other guidelines" would, at least in my estimation, be a useful criteria for the mods to have.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The thing which makes me wonder is what would have happened in the theoretical case that Paizo would have designed PF2E as an improvement on the 3.X engine, by getting rid of the typical problems which crop up during play or at least smoothing them out. Don't tell me that would have been impossible, we have Starfinder after all. In fact, Starfinder seems to be a very decent skeleton for just such an PF2E edition.

To my mode of thinking, this would have been a much safer bet overall, would not have upset a good part of the existing customer base and would have ensured Paizo to retain and enlarge the design space which no other big publisher is currently occupying.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"Breaks other guidelines" is even bigger and much less defined.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Do you have actual to-hit vs. AC numbers? I'm interested to see how the math shakes out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Okay, then that makes bow significantly more <drumroll> deadly than I imagined them to be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Noodlemancer wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
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.

I really like some parts of PF2, the Action Economy, monsters, and the interaction between, I just hope this doesn't end up being Paizo's New Coke.

I'm not sure why do you consider New Coke to be some sort of a spectacular blunder.

Here's some facts:
1. According to literally all blind taste tests where they weren't told what is what, people preferred the taste of New Coke to Old Coke. The main reason New Coke was rejected by the public was that people subjectively felt "betrayed" by the company, not any objective lack of quality.
2. After New Coke was discontinued and Coca-Cola company returned Old Coke on the shelves, sales skyrocketed to significantly higher levels than before New Coke was introduced, meaning New Coke was a commercially beneficial project even though it never took off on its own.

Clearly the correct lesson is then to launch PF2E and shorty afterwards take it out of circulation and continue publishing PF1E materials.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, what Seannoss asked.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

BTW, I'm not sure if I'm reading the Deadly property correctly. Does the critical hit additional die change from a d6 to a d10, or do you add the normal second d6 and then a d10 on top?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darkbridger wrote:

I am having some minor confusion from your original post. The adventure states the goblins are on the north side of the room constructing a statue. The north side of the room is nearest the entrance the PCs would be coming in from. There is no "North" indicator on the map sadly, but the first room description indicates direction. Did you allow them to notice the light early enough that they moved south?

That is wrong, the first paragraph under "The Ashen Ossuary" clearly states that it is a "10-minute trip to make it back to the surface from the exit south of area A1." You probably were confused by areas A1 description that the "charred tunnel entrance on the north side of the cistern is the primary entrance to the Ashen Ossuary", but that references the tunnel out of area A1, not into it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thank you for your great effort you are putting into your playtest journals. I hope you have enough still motivated players to continue to the end and I really hope the devs are looking at your threads and taking notes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, dwarf cleric is probably the best combo in the game, I had the very same experience with my group. In fact, dwarf anything (but bard or sorcerer) seems to be the best you can be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darkorin wrote:
Sorcerers don't have automatic access to uncommon and rare spell. They must learn them with the arcana skill and then spend a week of retraining to retrain a known spell into the new spell, or select it as a new spell on level up. That makes sorcerers a lot worse than wizard when they learn uncommon or rarer spell.

Urk. Again. Could you point me to the page of that rule, since you apparently found it and I overlooked it? :)

*edit* Nevermind, Xenocrat pointed it out.

Sorcerer clearly needs another development pass or two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, it's just an educated guess, alright.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Enemies are a LOT stornger thid edition. The Boss doesn't need too many actions if they have like 30%+ crit chance and nearly oneshot party members. I don't want to spoil, but the boss from the first Doomsday Dawn adventure already proves you don't need numbers of bodies if you have the big advantage in the numbers that matter (Attack, AC).

Except when your party hits him reliably and/or they keep their best attacks just for him, he goes down like a chump just as much as solo bosses often do in PF1E.

Tarkus was an easier fight than the five goblins preceding him for my party. It helps that the fighter hit him very solidly him while under the effect of magic weapon and the wizard used a three action magic missile and then drained his arcane focus next round to do that one more time. Tarkus brought the fighter down to single digits (without raise shield the fighter would have gone down), but since we had a cleric the fighter was back up to 4/5's of his HP without a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, on second thought I'll limit “propaganda“ to Spanish and to be sure to Paraguay, where I lived for seven years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ikarinokami wrote:

so i think Ancestry is fair enough however i dont calling them ethnicities would also be very accurate and much easier say and understand, but that assumes that most people would know that the term "race" is just a social construction and not a biological one.

"Ethnicities" would also be a much better term than "ancestries".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fabius Maximus wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
"Ancestry" sounds incredibly clunky and you will never see a person in the real world use that word in conversation when talking to another person, outside of academia. And even there they would use words like "ethnicity", "nationality" or "race".

Firstly, your personal experience is anecdotal and cannot be generalised. People do use species in everyday conversation when applicable.

Secondly, you are German, are you not? If I'd meet anybody using "Rasse" when talking about human beings (and not about dogs, for example), I'd be extremely wary of that person, for obvious reasons. Btw, "Herkunft" (i. e. Ancestry) is rather common in my experience.

Words have different contexts in different languages and nations. "Race" is used more colloquially in English and Spanish than it ever would be in German, due to the context of my countries history. The same way "propaganda" is a commonly used word in English and Spanish, but in German it has a strongly negative connotation, again due to the history of my nation.

As someone who can grasp the concept of "context", I am fine with the word "race" as applied in English, while at the same being perfectly able of being appalled when it is used in German.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yep, spontaneous heightening for all spells seems to be the solution to not having the sorcerer being completely inferior to the wizard at this point.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Visanideth wrote:
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.

Nonetheless the idea that the devs don't have to listen to us and just do whatever they want is insane. They are trying to sell this product to us and they have actively solicited our feedback. Sure, they can go out on a longshot and try to change the paradigm of the game which has kept them employed for the last decade just with their ideas, but then it is just a wild guess if they will keep their jobs for the next decade.

Furthermore, they already have changed things based on the feedback they have gotten from the community. So I really have idea who in their right mind would think it a good idea to give them advice to ignore all feedback which isn't 100% positive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Since darkvision is now unlimited, dwarves and goblins are now god tier in lightless dungeons with big rooms.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The goblins have darkvision, they are not in a darkened area for their purposes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hm, I haven't even looked at how item crafting is now for Sorcerers.

And Paizo has already announced that the "signature skills from bloodlines are also trained" thing was an editing mistake, like most people already suspected.

About the only advantage I can see for the Sorcerer over the Wizard at this point is that maybe they can just take uncommon and rare spells, where the Wizard needs to go "pretty please, let me kiss your feet" to his GM. But that is absolutely unclear from the rules text, it could well be that Paizo truly intends for those spells only to be available through GM approval, even for classes which just learn spells from nothing as they level up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Good question, I would also love to get feedback for that. I'm not sure that the 1st level playtest adventure will give enough of an answer, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
then the wizard used a reaction to recall his magic missile and converted Tarkus into confetti.
It's a free action, not a reaction.

Thanks for pointing it out. Didn't really change the result, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
EberronHoward wrote:
Would you say that playing the game changed some of your initial perception of the game?

It felt much better than expected to use the new action economy. And overall I got a good bit of enjoyment seeing my players like their first level characters power level.

Since the run went so well for the players, though, I didn't get see many of the problem areas other GM's are describing in their threads. Hence I remain still worried that the dice and good decision making just covered the pitfalls of the new system. I guess higher level play is needed to see if there are cracks which need to be filled out.

And, as I said, the availability of healing resources is obviously the big difference which can let a party get going to success or fail and have to retreat quickly.

So, to sum it up, I am feeling more positive overall, but I remain skeptical that without a cleric and at higher levels the system will work out just as well. We'll see.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
AndIMustMask wrote:
I'd say less dunked on and more met with "have you actually *played* the game?"

That, for example. I really am not feeling like going through dozens of posts now and look for specific examples, which of course will then be disputed with "But this isn't dunking on, this is...". Let's just keep it at "difference of perception" and strive to do better from both sides.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
However, as someone posted, the fact that there are only 4 spell lists now, helps. You can tag each spell as "primal, arcane, divine, occult", instead of class. That also helps with classes that have multiple spell lists available, like Sorcerer.

Yeah, it really doesn't, unless all new arcane caster classes get the exact same spells. Which limits their design space significantly.

with the caveat that anything can change during the playtest, I'm pretty confident that's the case.

Ooof. Well, we'll have to see. But I still think that this would limit the design space for those classes in a detrimental way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryan Blomquist wrote:

I know I'm a lot late to the party of reaction threads to the Pathfinder Playtest (PFP from here on in), but after running six tables of the PFS playtest adventure Rose Street Revenge and half of the first chapter of Doomsday Dawn I think I have some feedback to share on the playtest that are more than just visceral gut, "EHRMAGERD THIS IS DIFFERENT I FEAR CHANGE MAKE IT THE SAME!" type responses. Borrowing an idea from Deadmanwalking's thread I'm going to create this thread in General, and link out to the individual threads so that they're findable in accordance with this post's instructions.

I've tried my best to post in accordance with Vic's requests, but I fear some of these will come off as, "The sky is falling you did something horrible." That's not my intent, with one notable exception where I genuinely think one design choice was... well, bad. I think underneath some unpolished portions of the rules is a really cool mechanical system that needs some refining, some polishing, and a few changes to core components to make it a strong offering in the larger RPG market, and I because I like Paizo I want to see that accomplished I'm sharing feedback from my game sessions in the hope our playtesting moves it toward that (in addition to filling out the surveys).

THREADS
Classes
Feats
Skills
Playing the Game

Excellent feedback, but you probably would have been better served to post all this in one thread in the general forum. People barely seem to be looking at most of the sub-forums in comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Huh, that's decidedly different than the reactions the devs related that they got a GenCon. Did you do tables which were not visited by the devs?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
However, as someone posted, the fact that there are only 4 spell lists now, helps. You can tag each spell as "primal, arcane, divine, occult", instead of class. That also helps with classes that have multiple spell lists available, like Sorcerer.

Yeah, it really doesn't, unless all new arcane caster classes get the exact same spells. Which limits their design space significantly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A few things I want to point before leaving this playtest report alone:

- Secret checks are onerous on the GM: I gave up almost immediately on the idea of demanding to roll the perception checks for the party, because I had to balance about three stacks of papers on each of my legs and reference them constantly for little rules questions. Aside from taking away player agency, it really puts too much strain on the GM to keep check on that aspect as well. YMMV if you are very good at multitasking, at which I am only competent.

- Seeking and Invisibility: We could use some official examples for how detecting invisible or hiding creatures works with vision, hearing, etc. I had to adjudicate stuff on the fly pretty much and would have liked to have a clearer idea how that works now.

- Superfluous Encounters: Why have the centipedes there at all, if Talga would point out that they exist? I've heard of groups walking into their room and getting wrecked, but I have to wonder why they even bothered, given that Talga clearly warns them that they are there. Same with the skeleton room.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Alright, now that I 've actually played the game, here's with what I've come away with so far.

Like:

- Cantrips doing significant damage: The wizard player was in love with that during our playtest session and so far I'm also quite impressed. I'll have to see how it feels at 17th level, but at this moment it is quite good.

- About half the classes feel improved: Those would be the Barbarian (sans unplayable Superstition totem), Cleric, Fighter, Monk and Rogue.

- The action economy works: Playing the game felt really pretty fast (although my players said the fights lasted longer, which was a positive for them) and I had no problem adjudicating what actions a character could take in a round.

- The game feels fast paced: This comes out of the new action economy and 20 years of RPG gaming experience, but even the new player who has joined the group only two months ago had no problem deciding quickly and implementing his ideas just as quick.

Indifferent/Unsure:

- Spell nerfs: It's obvious that the new paradigm is that most spells should only last one combat, so as to avoid overbuffed parties clearing a dungeon quickly. This has the added advantage of giving them more time to explore their surroundings, not coming back to now worthless clues after already stumbling into the corresponding trap two rooms down the line. However, as someone who has always enjoyed playing casting classes, reading this chapter feels like a giant killjoy. I understand why it was done, but it doesn't feel good.

- Bards: I have really no idea how to feel about them at this moment. I guess I have to see one in action to get a better idea. I loved them in PF1E and one of my favorite characters was one, so this concerns me somewhat.

Dislike:

- Healbots required: The game now heavily caters to one player being relegated to healbotting. As my playtest session show, this is not as much of a problem if someone took the cleric class. But the other healing classes have much reduced healing options compared to the cleric, which leads into one of my biggest bugbears since resonance was announced.

- Shorter adventuring days: Without a cleric to keep everyone going, the length of the adventuring day is capped by resonance and the class-based healing available. The Battle Medic feat is not good enough to really help out and dangerous at low levels to boot. The solution would probably be to either give non-clerics some sort of free healing extra abilities or remove/alter resonance.

- The second half of the classes feels deeply disappointing: Alchemists, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards all feel heavily nerfed when coming in from PF1E. If one of those classes is your favorite class in the game, I'd expect you to have a quite disappointed first reaction to the new edition. Especially if you are a full caster aficionado who also has to content with the heavily nerfed spell section. Paladins absolutely feel like a sad, nerfed version of themselves and I would probably never want to pick one up over a Fighter.

- The game feels more "gamey": I know this will be a heavily individual criticism, but for me the game now feels less like a "high fantasy simulator", but more like a "fantasy boardgame with roleplaying". The "+ level to everything" mechanic is the main culprit here. I know some people get really pissy if you point that out, but it's how I feel, man. YMMV, of course.

- Prestidigitation got nerfed: Yep, I'll never let that go until the nerf has been reversed. Woe be to washerwomen all over Golarion!

All in all, I had a favorable impression upon playing a first level adventure, but I'll have to see how higher levels feel and if the math even holds when we get to the later parts of Doomsday Dawn.

If things stay like they are, I probably will plunder the good stuff like "racial HD at first level", "perception for everybody!", "the new action economy (+swift actions as their own thing)" and "auto-scaling and significant cantrips" for PF1E houserules and just observe from afar how things go after the release of the 2E CRB. I got at least six more years of really exciting AP's to run before I have to think "What now?".

But I hope that the playtest will let things shake out in a way which makes it actually desirable for me and my group(s) to change editions. Because the main thought I am still coming away with is "Why change?". Quite ironic for someone who had been saying we need a new edition for six years.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Not really. It's because there is no melodrama in his post, just stated things that happened, point by point, both good and bad. I still disagree with some of his views, but the way he gives his criticism is welcome, if anything, because it's a chage of pace from all the "longbows having volley is less realistic than fireballs" kind of posts.

The praise is not as much for what IS in his post, but for what he left out. No melodrama, and concise points, makes the criticism much better to read.

And I guess here is where our difference of perception comes in, because I've seen so many thread where people laid out their problems in much the same way, but got dunked on immediately. I guess percepting intent really comes down to whose side you are on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)
I know - it's shocking that it's been done that way ever since 3rd Edition debuted. Incredible, isn't it?
At the very least 3.X had tag for each spell which class could cast them.
Weird. I'm looking at my PF1 corebook right now, and I don't see "magus" anyway near the Shield spell.

Weird, I didn't know that Magus could time travel to the release of the CRB and insert themselves into that book. Oh, wait, they can't.

But good to know that you are on the side of terribly organized books.

You missed the point. Tagging classes in the spells is only a solution if you don't plan to release any more classes, ever. Otherwise, you need something else.

I agree that it is always a little bit of a mess for classes which have been released later, where you need to reference their full (at the time) spell list from the book they've been released in. However, I take that small evil any day over the nightmare of organization we got in the playtest document.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As far as the adventure is concerned, Talga knows everything about the dungeon except the defiled shrine area and everything beyond and of course the secret passage to Tarkus lair. Hence I saw no reason to not tell my players about the centipede room, the fungus room and that there were lots skeletons lying around in one room which the goblins never entered. The party reacted organically to that. Talga can even draw the party a map and is eager to do so. The adventure basically tells you to just lay out the map and just put some paper over the sections Talga doesn't know about.

To be precise, the sidebar says about Talga "she can tell the PCs what to expect in most of the rooms". Hence there's no good reason for anyone to enter the centipede, fungus and skeleton rooms.
"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Excellent feedback. And, funnily enough, much of the same thing most of critical people have been saying for over a week now, but now the people who normally jump on that type of post are falling over themselves praising your criticism. I guess getting the Mona Seal Of Approval so fast kinda blunted their usual modus operandi.

Anyway, all the "yes!" to the overall feeling of feeling disappointed about how less powerful many classes feel. However, that is somewhat blunted by the fact that it only applies to half of the classes (Alchemist, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard), while the others feel like they've improved in many respects.

The second thing which makes me go "erggghhhhh....." in disappointment every time I open it is the spell section, where almost nothing feels as cool as it was before, except cantrips. With the extremely notable exception of Prestidigitation, which is now terrible.

I come off a very positive first playtest session for The Lost Star yesterday, so I'm willing to ride out this playtest and see how enjoyable the game is at higher levels. But I'm already seeing some mathematical calculations on other sites which suggest that rocket tag is still there at high levels, only that is seems to be now gated off to martials. I hope those were miscalculations, because otherwise the entire goal of balancing the game at every level seems to have been missed.

Oh, and btw., since I'm German, too, I want to dispel any notion that we all only enjoy gritty games where you are dragging yourself by the gum of your teeth to the finish line. Then again, I never played Das Schwarze Auge, but went instead directly in AD&D 2nd Ed.

1 to 50 of 7,698 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>