Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.
1: Errata/redesigns for things before there's technical debt and it can't be changed
2: a better FAQ/errata system. Random posts and clips from 4 hour streams, twitter, etc. Doesn't cut it. You have your own website to put things on! Put things there!
3: a way to get the Mount ability on something that isn't a horse (preferably at low levels). Elk riding elves, gobbo dog riding gobbos, Orc on a bear, halfling on a bird - these are a few of my favourite things.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Because they aren't printing more 1e Society. While it may be opposed to my usual method of play, if it's directly in line with my appetite for regular games where I don't need to GM.
An 80% failure is pretty bad, I want to loose my fireballs, dangit.
That's pretty standard for Society, annoying as it is. I really wish they just added more tiers to the check instead of inflating the DC.
However, my first 2e PFS games went wildly different on difficulty - I think the writers are still dialing it in at this point. I'll give them benefit of the doubt for now, but we really should give this kind of feedback some the iron is hot.
James Jacobs wrote:
Of course, one of the most INTERESTING "side effects" of undead now having constitutions and being affected by mind-affecting stuff and not having so many immunities baked into the role is that it's a lot easier now to have PC undead...
How long until we get a Geb book with PC undead rules, and who do I need to bribe to have season 2 of Society be about establishing a Lodge there?
As someone who had to GM for the first 5 or so years of my RPG time, I don't know what you're getting at. To me it sounds like a gas jockey saying having 3 grades of fuel AND diesel is too much to expect him to pump.That's just part of the job, and half the fun. Sure, it can be a challenge. So is playing the game.
And I find myself agreeing with gorbacz for once, so between that that and the snow here I most conclude that hell has frozen over.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?
Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun - even more when a martial finds a way to do it instead of a cleric doing meditation to prep the perfect divine spell or a Wizard grabbing a scroll they just happened to scribe. Don't bring entitlement into this, because frankly you sound like you're in that camp.
Temperans, you're absolutely right - that's a communication issue. I GM way more than I play, and the amount of bellyaching from other GMs is always surprising to me. We're running a cooperative game with agency, not a rail shooter, and we aren't writing a book.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
I still don't get people like you, empowered players was the best thing about 1e. The main selling point for me.
Richard Crawford wrote:
Yeah,that part is especially frustrating because they have a central location to state those things on, the most official location, and they ignore it? Like, I knew they aren't organized great but it's not even funny anymore.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I could use a link, I have no idea how to figure those stats and it really changes the Shield game, at least until mid levels of play.
Asking to hit more no longer has any correlation to being hit more because enemies don't follow PC rules anymore. What we do doesn't have anything to do with what monsters do.
For the sake of politeness I'll leave that to other minds.
Rysky, how about we do each other a favour and never respond to each other again? It's clear that in every thread we're like positive and negative energy. I don't think we'll be able to stay polite, or even have a decent discussion, given our completely different ideological/intellectual bases.
Being offended is their problem, you do what you enjoy, and if they are really bothered by it they can talk to you like an adult.
I haven't had a game where this didn't happen. I also think we need to come to terms with Society being a big deal and that it requires faster movement on rules and FAQs because of the pace and scale of it. I know one of my GMs biggest complaints about the system in Society play is that there's a lot if built in table variance that makes consistent play experience difficult - not counting actual rule issues that make the problem even bigger.
I think you're right for the most part, but we do need to keep an eye out for "technical debt," I think thats the term? So we don't have books upon books of stuff that rely on a mistake or just a bad rule that's easy to fix now, which results in nothing being done.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, aren't those the CRs you should be running anyhow? I've been under the impression that on level challenges are supposed to be "boss" type encounters.
I know I'm not getting exactly what I want, but they keep making the same kind of mistakes and I was hoping they'd learned from the last decade. Some of this stuff is pretty basic, some of it I know is just that people enjoyed 1e for different reasons.
I know there won't be bespoke lists, I just ment whatever list they get better have decent touch spells.
I'd like to see the Arcane pool be bigger this time around - pool strike was cool but awful for example.
They did better, but the same kind of mistakes are still there. And I fear that like 1e we'll be dogged by errors and oversights from the CRB for the next decade.
I keep finding bits and pieces where things don't really work well and appear rushed.
Some of my problems may be PFS scaling, but on the whole my main impression of 2e is that it needed 6 more months of playtesting and developing with the full rules, and that really annoys me because the good parts are *so* good and I really like a lot about the edition.