GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
In this edition, it's roughly a third of the entire game space.
And considering that a large majority of play time would end up being spent on combat makes this statement misleading.
Alric Rahl wrote:
Or let her heighten whichever spell she wants anyway?
Let wizards do the same with a smaller repertoire they can change daily.
It's better for everyone, ultimately, and less confusing.
If auto-heighten is to be a feature of the game, then it oughta be featured. The game design seems too worried about bringing character strength down in arbitrary ways.
Arcanist style casting on all prepared casters with access to auto-heighten fixes the balance problem with just nixing spontaneous heighten.
Ideally, the mechanics for all spell casting will be identical, you have a repertoire of spells and cast from that list by choosing a spell slot to spend. The only difference is the scope of that repertoire on the daily basis. Overall prepared casters have more options, but in the moment spontaneous casters feel stronger.
In one of the math threads with Mark, we went over something like this with respect to the size of the flat modifiers and it turns out you actually need those numbers to be lower for the balance of the game to not be thrown off, as I did all my Power Attack calculations with proficiency modifier being added to damage. This additional modifier throws the curves off so much that it would make something like Power Attack actually seem useless compared to other fighting styles.
If before it was a balance issue because of the implications of having higher DEX for other things, here it may end up being worse for balance.
I'm attempting to get into my account to change some things around, and the system is telling me that my account is not linked to my e-mail address. I tried using an old one from a few years ago and I'm getting the same problem.
But I am still logged in thanks to Chrome and I can still post. I am confused....
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
But every creature has magic within them, hence resonance.
At least that's my head canon.
You're missing the point, their environments come from a much more reactive climate which means they have a lot more energy per calorie and thus have to have much higher metabolisms and larger bodies to handle it.
Pathfinder is an abstraction to be sure, but actual giant insects existed when we had a lot more oxygen, heat, and radiation going on on our little rock here.
The rules for what determined their physiology were different as they actually had access to higher temperatures (and thus speeds).
Putting these two things next to each other is for damn sure impossible, but saying one could not exist is not in line with physics, unless you are establishing a domain within which it is impossible (which I negated by describing pre-historic Earth).
Also, I imagine magic is more than likely some form of energy intrinsic to matter in the Pathfinder universe, which may or may not counter base physiology of non-magical bodies.
Hell, giants may only exist because of millenia of exposure to magic which caused them to adapt to having this extra source of energy. In my setting, magical beasts are natural evolutions of creatures exposed to magic over generations.
Early on in Earth's history we had actual giant insects like you describe because we had a much more reactive oxygen rich atmosphere. None of us could survive a climate like that.
In my own setting, I describe magic as a natural phenomenon based upon stellar radiation from stars brighter than the sun. I use an A classification star (blue star about twice the mass of the sun) to explain where magic comes from. I'm still doing the math on how exactly I want my planet to work, length of a year, time slippage, seasons, etc. I also use it to explain the lens flare gleam effect you see in fantasy movies.
Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.
Dragons could have a chemical reaction in their bodies that fill bladders within them with ultra light gas that enables them to fly. It could even help fuel their breath weapons hence their extraordinary description.
I want to test the new paladin and see how it plays compared to the other classes, as it's been completely changed in mechanical theme from where it was in 3.x/PF1.
I want to see if the 'aggro' mechanic that replaced smite evil actually works, and if it still feels like a paladin if it's not dumping mass damage onto things to vanquish evil, but rather plops itself in front of squishy allies to protect them and whether or not that incentifies enemies to just avoid them all together.
If the result is the latter, I feel the class will be exceptionally boring, because its job is literally to sit there and be a deterant from enemies. If you move into the action and away from whomever you're trying to defend, then this class feature becomes useless. Conversely, if this class feature is a resource to the group, we may see more squishy allies being willing to jump into the fray if there's some real defense going on.
I also want to see if the new role in 'defender of the weak' rather than 'vanquisher of evil' does something to the class's identity, and whether or not it really feels like a paladin or if it serves better as a more generic knight class to complement the offensive builds designed for the fighter.
This is not meant to be indicative of the whole alignment debate thing, but rather an aside to see if the massive kind of damage a paladin would have with something like smite would otherwise break the new game's math (I don;t think it would, if it's tied to spell points and has its action cost balanced with other combat styles). This information would remain true in any alignment based scenario.
Then does it also automatically scale in proficiency as well? How else is it used?
Sense motive is also no longer a skill, thus it wouldn't have these options either.
I'm fine with everyone getting perception trained as a base (like Craft and Profession in PF1), but what's the actual applicable difference between the Perception mechanic and skills?
This is what I would like to know; why isn't Perception a skill?
It's not the mechanism which confuses me, but rather the implementation.
If it works like a skill, and is used the sane way (and sometimes in the same scenario) as a skill, then why isn't it a skill?
Are there skill feats that enhance perception to allow you to "see" invisible or ethereal things? A skill feat that allows you to perceive and thus attack and damage enemies that are incorporeal?
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.
How does Perception fit into this?
If Perception is not a skill, but is used parallel to them for things like initiative, then how does one deal with someone taking Assurance on their chosen "go-to" skill for initiative in Exploration mode.
I would think things like tracking, sense motive, wild empathy, and the like would all be uses of Perception that ought be improved with Skill Feats, but if perception is not a skill, even though it's used like a skill, then where do we go from here?
I love the new d20 engine, and I really like the uses of skills and different feats to gate abilities. I wish the rest of the game was designed with this in mind to reduce uncertainty as you progress, not to increase it. This is the best part of the new game.
I notice there is a lot of confusion for myself in the new system of having a bunch of things that function the same way, but are specified not to be the same thing, in an indistinguishable way aside from what's printed on paper telling me that it's different. Spells that aren't spells but are still spells, and a skill that isn't a skill but is used in the same scenarios as skills.
This I fell needs tightening up.
Could've sworn someone did say any time you add an ability modifier you also add proficiency. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time I didn't have all the relevant information that changes things.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I really tried to get him to tell us about enemy design and AC on monsters guys, I really tried.
My issue comes in when we consider that it is a principle of the new game's design that critical hits happen more often.
As a result, if the probability for primary attacks landing a crit ever reaches one (or 95% for us) then comparing the damage linearly results in double slice being better.
WBL being factored into the game's damage engine seems faulty, but it works so eh.
I'm more inclined to be affirmative to this if there's more of a solid base for power attack, the belle curve problem seems hard to design around.
And if it matters, my calc came from 18 STR and +2 from proficiency that fighters get at 3rd level.
It changes little, as our ultimate equating of power attack being tripled damage vs double slice being quintoupled still applies.
That means average die value needs to be adequate to make up for that 3:4 ratio. (Taking away that crit to account for the -8)
Subtract flat bonuses, which means your dice need to make up for that ratio. The problem I fear, is that the damage doesn't add up, especially since we've done the math for when it doesn't have double slice applied to the other attacks.
It gets worse the better your characters get until power attack gets you extra dice. Even then, you'll never get more dice with a power attack as you would get with two attacks.
My solution is to double the base damage as well, which puts power attack ahead in damage, but with less odds to hit and/or crit.
Perhaps I need to show more work.
With double slice, any strikes you perform after your feat are treated as tertiary strikes (normally -10), since an agile weapon's tertiary attack oughta be -4 (-2, twice) then with haste your two tertiary attacks have a better chance to hit than the Power Attack user's secondary and subsequent tertiary attacks.
This also improves their odds of landing a crit by a large margin.
I have neither of these rules incorrect, at least according to what I can double check in the blogs.
Tertiary attacks with agile weapons should be -4, not -8.
I never did math for multiple uses of either feat.
Where are you getting -8 from? It's only -2 on agile weapons, and thus -4 on tertiary attacks.
I never suggested you could make multiple attacks with power attack or double slice. You do get to make two more attacks, with haste. For Power Attack you get one at -5 and one at -10. With double slice, both these attacks are at -4. In all cases, you get better odds of a crit with two weapons, way more often.
Again, the odds don't linearly decrease when comparing crits on both builds. Average damage doesn't add up on the extra dice from power attack, which is what matters when you compare it to double slice.
The extra dice need to exceed the damage on a regular attack. It's possible with bigger dice, but not often likely, especially when your chances to crit get even better on the double slice build.
Power Attack could just start with the extra die to make up for the average not catching up, and you just deal with it from then on.
There's plenty of fixes, but math suggests that we need one.
You have to calculate probabilities over the max.
D12 averages 7.5, where d8 averages 3.5.
The difference is 4, so based on the difference you need to make sure those dice land there, as your level and damage progresses this becomes more difficult.
The extra die in power attack lessens the discrepancy, but doesn't balance it.
You have to compare the average extra damage to the weight of a whole attack, but thanks to Double Slice, you also have to compare it to double that because the odds of it being a crit you have to compare to are just as good. It takes the power attack problem that it had alone and completely wrecks the math.
There's a whole thread on it.
We got some really good looking numbers by the end of it, now that we have a good grasp on the damage calcs.
Really the only actual math we "need" is in how often do you expect to really see critical hits.
All we have are hints from Mark that you expect them to happen a lot more often, and it looks like every weapon more or less has a unique ability to trigger on a crit. It's interesting, but if the math is bad then we need a much more immersive action system to make us completely stop caring about if damage is balanced.
I'm pressed to find better solutions to the combat style dilemma, since I know none of it matters yet. Most of my negative commentary has been on what the implications are for the game as a whole when we look at how damage scales.
Just as Power Attack gets worse the better your secondary attacks get, it gets exponentially worse compared to Double Slice.
Short hand version of the math says Power Attack will likely deal 3x base damage overall per turn where Double Slice would deal 5x base damage in the same conditions.
Unless the extra dice you gain add up to be worth as much damage as two whole attacks overall, never take Power Attack.
Even taking away a crit from the TWF gets you a 3:4 ratio.
Add in haste and Power Attack is even worse.
The math doesn't hold.
Because the odds of landing a crit twice with Double Slice is way better. This is because they are both at your full attack bonus.
Just adding in the die, then doubling it will never exceed the math on landing a whole extra crit unless you can guarantee that the average damage on you extra dice will exceed the flat bonuses on the secondary attacks.
The odds of landing a crit needs to either change, or the weight of what that crit is worth needs to be better on Power Attack. Double Slice is explicitly superior not only because you get to make two attacks, but even your last attack will only be at -4 when Power Attack's secondary attack is at -5.
It only gets worse, unless you always roll amazing, and even then, the math is working against you when the TWF gets high enough bonuses to land crits on attacks other than the primaries.
Doubling the entire damage function for Power Attack from the start solves this discrepancy as factoring in the chances to crit boosts Double Slice's damage far above Power Attack's overall performance.
Arguably, the old system had way better math for balance purposes, though this system may have some promise if I only care about making a single big attack (or pair of attacks). That said, I still think action taxing is not the way to go with this edition, and reducing actions is instead the better way to go to grant more agency and better flow to the game.
All due respect marsh, but I'm gonna trust Mark's math on this matter more than yours, considering he has the whole picture and half of what you're talking about is just guesses.
It's not guesses though, it's hard math, and Mark seems to have left some figures out.
The biggest one is the propensity for critical hits, which is equal for two attacks on Double Slice, and halved for Power Attack.
The issue I have is having the actions available, which seems to be a real problem with PF2. It would seem the devs are really enforcing the 1 big hit plus 1 other thing per turn (either move, or something equivalent).
If Power Attack's action cost is being designed around the fact that you want to crit more often, then there needs to be better math that balances how much that critical is worth compared to the other options that let me crit more often, especially when the threshold for when those bonuses come online (level 3) becomes a huge factor in determining how much bigger your average is going to be vs. what you could guarantee with better numbers and a better designed feat.
By no means should this be interpreted as me bashing Double Slice, I love it for what it does. If Double Slice had been previewed instead of Power Attack, my presence on these forums would have a very different tone.
Also, why bring up weapons types when we know Sawtooth Sabres exist? And we know they're designed around being used in pairs. If we're comparing straight damage, me feels TWF wins every time now.
If you care:
Now that I've seen Double Slice, the simplest solution to the math is to remove the clause that gives Power Attack an extra die later on, and have it simply double your damage. That means 4x on a crit, and different spikes in damage by comparison to Double Slice, even though the formulae are the same.
f(new Power Attack)= 2(dx + STR + bonus)
dx = dy
this seems off, or does it?
Then calculate critical hits, for ease we'll say a full martial character expects a primary hit to crit .75 of the time, a secondary hit would then crit .5 of the time, and tertiary attacks .25 of the time. Or with agile weapons, .75, then .65, then .55.
g(new Power Attack)= .75c * .5c = .375c^2
x^2 doesn't compare to x^3, oh crap
g'(Power Attack)= .75
In other words, you'll have way better odds landing crits on the Double Slice build, when compared straight to Power Attack. This is due to the higher chance to land a crit with such weapons, and the fact that you get to make more attacks at those higher crit chances.
What does this do to damage? Compare average damage outputs that Mark gave us and we see that Double Slice wins every time, not just some of the time.
But they only scale up to +5, and we don't know how reliably we will obtain said items.
Who's to say that TWF won't have just as much access to magic weapons?
More than likely, I'd expect the TWF guys to win overall, because agile weapons are a thing, which nets them +6 on their iterative attacks if I've read the blogs correctly.
What was the price difference in PF!? 50k for a +5 vs 64K for two +4's?
or worse, 40K for a +2 and a +4, which in our system yields the same average results.
The math is not on Power Attack's side, no matter how you slice it, unless the cost for magic weapons scales even more exponentially than it did in PF1.
You simply cannot use this function to balance the two styles, Power Attack will need its math redone during the play test. I know I don't want to take a feat that specifically makes me worse, especially when Double Slice is better in every way but bulk. It's the same action to use, but offers two full chances to crit (making power attack worse even on crits) and I feel less punished in the action system, in fact Double Slice is good design for what it is, an actual benefit to using your style since movement is supposedly supposed to be more active in this version. Not seeing it with all the action taxes though.
Action taxes are bad, if you have to use them to design the game around because of the new proficiency system's relationship with critical hits (which are meant to be a major part of the new game math), then in a vacuum those options need to be better than using nothing. Double Slice does this, Power Attack does not.
I also see they used my second option fix for haste in RAE, I like it, it's elegant. It also really shows how broken the game math is when a 'full attack' from a Power Attack player is +x/+x-5/+x-10, and a Double Slicer is +x/+x/+x-4/+x-4.
TWF lands more hits, more crits, just by virtue of the new d20 system. Having a maximum potential for 8 extra damage on max rolls does not counteract this. I can do the math if you like.
I'm not surprised at all in how Double Slice works, mathematically it dwarfs Power Attack, with its trade-off being what happens to your third action.
I do not like action taxes on martial characters to initiate a combat style, this means the new feat abilities you have may not work either if they are all going to require an expenditure of actions.
With the clunky design they seem to be forcing, action economy will be worse in this edition of the game than in the previous. The difference? A paradigm shift in which combat methods are superior. Used to be Power Attack, now its Double Slice (since I'm pretty sure you can use weapons to grant yourself a shield bonus as well).
The maths are not aligned:
f(Power Attack)= 2dx + STR + bonuses
f(Double Slice)= 2dx + 2STR + 2bonuses
hence f(Double Slice) yields an extra amount of damage equal to what you lost from using Power Attack (which made Power Attack bad in the first place) except now Double Slice gives you just as good a chance to land two crits! This means Power Attack is even worse, and will rely on good dice rolls to matter in the long run, since the average difference on something like an 8 and a 12 (from dice) is gonna add up to only around 3-6 damage per turn. So unless by 3rd level you can guarantee those dice adding up above 6 every time (legendary proficiency at 3rd level plus 18 STR) then Power Atttack is hereby cemented as a mechanically induced mathematical trap.
This gets even worse when you consider that the rate at which martials progress with weapon proficiency is meant to score critical hits more often, rather than to bind accuracy to level, per the developers.
If you manage to combine Double Slice with the new mechanics for shield use and shield bashing, then we have our one-true style, based on the numbers. Those tactical feats had better be pretty f*cking amazing.
Honestly, I'm a fan of everything in this edition but the classes and combat system. Everything out of combat aligns with my house rules so much I'll only have to relearn the d20 engine, which isn't even hard.
In combat though, relearning how the best tactics work to design encounters around is not going to look very fun. I want the combat styles to be equal and different, not blatantly favoring one style, which makes me sad as RAE in PF1 did this so well.
Let's not forget that agile weapons are a thing and you can use them with your TWF antics to reduce that -10 to what? a -4 on your secondary attack?
I am disappoint.
Every single combat style presented imposes an action penalty. This is (seemingly) an attempt to balance tee styles against each other, but ends up favoring some. It imposes on the ratio of actions you get to choose vs actions you are taxed. Conversely, spell casters are no longer limited to a single spell per turn, and casting time on many spells is reduced to a single action (with options to spend more) increasing their agency by virtue.
It's a really bad start, as relative agency in a turn really changed C/M D in combat, especially when counter spells become a factor.
Out of combat utility looks to be on track to be solved via skill feats.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Been using the Unchained RAE since it came out, with some tweaks to iron out the problems that the obviously rushed system had.
Action type designations are my biggest issue, instead of having clear rules on just how many act[ion]s and whether or not it provokes, which is really all you need. The difference in the way they're trying to impose this "interact" tax on everything is destroying the freedom we gained imho.
C/M D is by the looks of things just having a paradigm shift, but isn't getting fixed. Unless the feats designed to encapsulate individual combat styles somehow are simultaneously designed to be worse both numerically and temporally as a feature of the game. Current math suggests it is not.
I agree with pretty much every point but the first one, as I feel the classes and class feats we've had previewed have not given us a good sense of balance between the execution of the different classes, compared to PF1 it seems the class imbalance may seem worse at higher levels thanks to how the new action system seems to be taxing on martial characters and more relaxed for casters than it comparatively was in either the stock action system for PF1/3.5 and the RAE in PF:Unchained. If it's just a more complicated way to play 5e then I'm not gonna be happy.
I love the d20 engine, modes of play, not opposed to resonance on principle, and I'm shaky on the same things as well, such as monsters/NPCs, though I'm not sure how bad Legendary skills really are, when we compare them to mythic (Ex) abilities in PF1 and compare the levels that they can be achieved at.
I like to see it as them incorporating the CRB, UCamp, and Unchained all into one book.
See I'm on the opposite corner here, I'd rather see less dumb abilities that require arbitrary rulings that punish players for no reason other than "we wanted to nerf these couple abilities that we wrote."
New edition, new chance to get it right the first time.
Why is the door thing even an argument when you can easily shift your grip, wait a turn, then open the door and shift it back to have an action left over to attack? If the fight doesn't start until we open the door anyway then why bother trying to do it all at once?
Honestly, and for no other reason, because it complicates the game in an arbitrary way.
Captain Morgan wrote:
My fear is that it won't be, based on some of what we're seeing.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Yeah, you have to build for it, some classes are designed around the paradigm of bringing weaker combat styles up to par. Brawler was another one. Shifter.... existed.
Point is, it was still a viable option.
Captain Morgan wrote:
So, I'm gonna have to actually break down a lot more of the old system for you, but short answers:1) Duelisty stuff just happened to be done better by rogues, swash's, and daring champions because they had the best damage.
2) rogue's were good with one handed weapons, because they could spend an action on improved feint and still get in two attacks, if they had greater feint they got sneak attack on both, without taking the penalites on TWF. With haste you could do this twice and still make two attacks with sneak attack at your full bonues.
3) shields were still better, if built for it. It was a boring build, but there is a large factor by which your AC can improve with a shield, it is the best defensive option.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).
They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Is the trade-off for using the one handed weapon the added ability to have higher defense in carrying a shield? You are trading damage potential for defense.
In PF1's RAE from Unchained, the 3 act system lended itself well to showing how each combat style functions while treating them all equally. In effect, greater agency was granted to players who could take a multitude of actions within the same turn that didn't affect their ability to serve their mechanical role in game. The mechanical niches of each style came in numerical ways in that edition, so BFW guys would use their Power Attack two-handed, and take on an accuracy penalty. One handers often were either duelist-types that got the damage back somehow (sneak attack was incredibly viable now), and most of the time they could also carry a shield which came with a higher AC, generally higher to hit thanks to a lack of power attack, but lower damage overall. Two-Weapon fighting traded a small amount of to-hit for more chances to hit, and actually got more chances to hit all the time. Melee combat became a RPS of these three choices, all played differently, and all felt equal in execution.
But they didn't have to waste a minimum of 1/3 of their turn just turning on their combat style. If you get taxed your actions to do this, then the added agency and versatility that martial characters gained (making them play more fluidly and simply) gets removed and the game plays the same as it did before (move + single attack, or single attack + single action ability) and martial characters are back to being on the bottom. This unfixes the problem they had already fixed with the flow of play.
Now to be fair, this was all done in a different mathematical system, one in which critical hits primary benefits were extra damage, and the chance to land a critical hit wasn't the same with all weapons. Given the new math of the game, it looks like critical hits are something that the new martial builds are designed to trigger much more often than characters who don't have such high proficiency in weapons. Because they are designed to happen so often, we will likely see a lot more one-big hit builds that focus on making a critical hit happen every turn, especially since it looks like most if not all weapons have a utility option tied to it's critical hit mechanics. Crits mean you get to do something, which is different from just adding damage like they did before (class abilities and feats designed for this notwithstanding).
Because of what we know between the different editions, we might or might not like what we see, but I do not like that the game's combat engine is looking to seemingly reverse the relationship between casters and martials in combat, especially when what we had was just sooo good.
Especially if the one-big-hit thing is really a solid conjecture on what the devs envisioned for the game, I would rather have more actions that are worth taking in a turn (tactically speaking) to add actual variety to the game rather than having to plan my tactics around a system that takes those options away. I'd have to see how it actually plays out, but given what I've experienced I would be inclined to say that the things they are doing make the game worse than what existed before (as in less fun for me and my players) and it is my hope that somehow this information about my experience can inform you and others in thinking critically about the system when you go to play test it.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Did you read through the previous thread I had, 15 minutes ago?Not meant to sound snide as it might without being able to convey my tone, I just need to know how much I should retype and how much will be redundant.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Let's not get petty over it, but the fact is that very post you mentioned included the clause "should be" which indicates even they don't have it down.
Again, the game is not necessarily better by taxing away the actions they designed you to have more freedom with. It's counterintuitive to the game design.
This has been demonstrated, but it may be the intent of the designers, after all it's not like these aren't the same group that gave us crane wing.
Captain Morgan wrote:
It's not about the door, it's about the fact that the rules as presented aren't clear and there was already confusion on the fact that it takes a whole turn to open the door, two to change grips, and one to interact with the door where in the previous edition two of those actions were not actions that taxed you on what the game allows you to do.
It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.
Mark Seifter wrote:
MARK DON'T TELL THE PLAYERS!!!!
For real, my group is conditioned to be afraid of every closed door, forever. My bad... (or is it?)
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
Captain Morgan wrote:
But the DR isn't automatic, it costs you another action that I would rather have free to make an Aoo or something.
It takes two actions to get the DR. If it cost 1, and I could do it with an action (active defense) or a reaction based on my choice, then I'd say shields got better and it was worth the single action. I don't like it costing two actions.
See, taxing actions like that isn't making the game better though, it's making it worse than the one we had, or at the very least, unchanged.
Considering the wide range of possibilities that existed with your abilities separate from the combat style you chose, because it didn't affect your options. Now, seemingly you have to use your actions just to use your chosen combat style.
Which, may be the goal here, but if in that system I find not taking any of these combat styles benefits me more overall according to the math of the game, then I start to see a problem with the feat and class design. Your abilities shouldn't make you worse, especially when it's supposed to be a quintessential identifier of your character.
Grey Guards are also paladins tho. They're my favorite paladins.
Hellknights function on a chassis so similar to the paladin, I don;t understand why having a choice of order at first level, similar to a cleric, with the paladin being an option is so abhorrent to you. You literally want to exclude us from this part of the game, unapologetically. You also really don't seem to be discussing the compromises either, might I suggest you step away from the keyboard for a while and really understand that other people are also allowed to have opinions, and it's okay for those opinions to be different.