The Raven Black wrote:
It wasn't the interpretation of the numbers, it's when and what skills that gave me headaches (can I do it on Disable Device, Perception, Diplomacy? I've heard everything from yes to no and all sorts of shades of grey).
Assurance sounds a lot cleaner, and I have high hopes for it being clear. From what Mark has been saying it sounds like it, but we'll see once we get some GMs using it.
Yeah, that's another big one. No Lance and Shield, only riding horses. Mounting up looks boring and not very good.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Noooo! Yoon is awesome
8 ranks is all it takes
I'd Revise a few things.
1: Unified terminology - no more weird wording, make it consistent.
2: Remove Feat Taxes, make more feats scale.
3: Clarify "Take 10" and make it explicit, I see far too much variation on this when playing.
4: Clarify Mounted Combat, it's a bit of a mess. (actually, beyond there being so few good mounts in PF2 I was largely happy with it there).
5: More Style feats for classes that aren't monks, makes martias more diverse.
6: consolidate skills. Some skills are practically infinite (profession, craft, etc.) and others don't need to be separate (Arcana and Spellcraft, for example). Would not reduce skill points to go with this.
7: Make lighting rules not a mess.
Captain Morgan wrote:
It's a very similar argument because it involves base assumptions about people. I agree with him, max sympathy points.
If consistency has no value then we dont need rules at all. That's what rules give us, that's all they give us over straight narrative.
That sounds perfect, I could get behind a system like that.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'd like to think so, but I have some serious doubts. And from what I've seen of past and playtest DCs being untrained won't really be useful at all past the first few levels.
I don't think lore will play nicely in Organized Play at all. I already run into the situation where we miss a lot of the story because nobody at a table of 6 has Profession: Librarian or something else like that, and I see tables without basic stuff like Knowledge: History all the time too. Now there are infinite versions of that and we have fewer ways to increase it with more limited skill use... I don't see it working. The big draw was I could play any character at any table and that wasn't entirely true before but looks to be impossible now.
That line about "you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs" wouldn't be needed if people could just TAKE 10 which would get rid of half of this nonsense.
Ah, take 10. The most controversial and widely varying rule I've ever seen. No two GMs seem to run it the same.
Mounted combat as a whole is unintuitive, needlessly difficult and convoluted, unrewarding, and unfun.
I love mounted characters, PF was the first RPG that I ever felt mounted combat was not just good but fun too. I love mounts, from my Roc rider and my buddies Bug rider to my Snake rider and my Wolf rising monk. Hell, some druids and prestige classes even made horses cool. I get none of that in 2E, none of the fun or shenanigans - not even the power ones, just the silliness of riding a bug that's too dumb to let allies through it's square when I'm knocked out, or being able to use Entangle and still melee things, or just saying "yes, I ride this ugly thing" or "my mobility bird takes the magic carpet ride with me on its back, I'm not using my crop of ant haul to get to a party"
My first test of the system was "can I use a mace and ride a bear like one of my favourite tabletop characters? (and not suck)" I couldn't when the rules first dropped and I can't now. Learning that a Shield and Lance can't even be done well is even worse, in 1E I did that from bird-back.
That sounds so weird to me, nearly everything is consumed faster than its made. Food, adventures, television, books. All take more time to make than consume.
Humans are just a flash in the pan, really.
Interesting post encounter options are awesome, and we need more. I'd love to see a crafter so good at fixing shields they can even patch up the wizard's Shield cantrip, and other fantastical feats (that don't need to be Feats necessarily)
Just because everyone does it, does not mean it's a good thing.
Sometimes I wonder how well these guys actually know the game.
I don't think we need more skill feats, we need more exciting skill feats - most of the ones I've seen are buying back base functionality from 1E. I want those legendary feats and new uses, with an expanded base function otherwise we have the same problem we did with 1E animal tricks (every new trick made the base animal less useful)
Despite using a d20 my girlfriend might as well roll a d4 for initiative with the numbers she gets. She looks like she'd have a bad day in second edition
Yeah, we gotta go whole hog on this for every race or it's a wash. I even get weird looks when I say "my elf is from Kyonin, he left because of the racism against his half elf son" gods forbid if I mention Castavorel. And that's just elves, my Ouat monk requires a brief lecture too usually, and that's no shenanigans on my part people just tend to assume racial monocultures if you don't tell them upfront - a complete world map and the ethnicities would be great, I'd be happy with just the inner sea getting done well in the core book.
I've run a lot of Dark Heresy, and they have a Fate Point system that's like Hero Points - I really liked how they capped out at a number ( I.think 5 was the highest), automatically refreshed each game, and you gained them my finishing a campaign (like a book in an AP) but lost 1 permanently to avoid death (and you could do that even if you spent all your points, it removed the "slot").
I found it worked pretty good, and wasn't overbearing. PF2 isn't quite as lethal, but it's a lot closer than PF was.
Oh God, that sounds terrible. No thank you. Every example you have on changing a scenario punishes players for using a character's abilities - especially situational abilities that do not come up every game (like object reading). A GM tells and facilitates a story where players have agency, and that comes before your desire to keep things on the rail you want. If someone puts in the effort to have a +56 grapple I sure as hell won't tell them "sorry, plot powers activate and he slips away"
And even if your a good GM there are bad GMs who will abuse that. With current GM fiat I've seen scenarios change from a fun romp to a hallway of murder-holes.
You dont have to like it. I've rarely seen a crit happy GM run as well as one that isn't, that kind of fun is for the players.
Probably because Organized Play is one of the biggest draws of Pathfinder (at least in my area). If the system isn't consistent and doesn't work well enough to be done "out of the box" it really impacts that amazing organized play environment that Paizo has set up. Frankly, without PFS I wouldn't even be playing and every rule I see I have to evaluate with regards to the PFS environment - and that's where designer intent matters and houserules don't mean anything.
I GM all the time, when I GM I am absolutely NOT there for big numbers or crazy crits, I am there to run a fun game and let the players get their hero moments and forget our dull, almost-30 lives. I have yet to see someone getting their face smashed in have fun, unless they were built to have it smashed and keep going.
You get egg timers for those games and people stop dicking around on their phones pretty quick
Are they at least of an uncommon or higher rarity? That's the only way I can think of making that kind of stuff useful