Lini

Arssanguinus's page

1,394 posts (4,284 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,064 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how it’s nonsensical. There are plenty of perfectly cogent explainations on how a prepared spell system would work in ‘reality’. Just because you don’t like their flavor doesn’t make them nonsensical.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:

The more I see Mark and Jason talking about the final version of the game, the more hyped I get. Probably the only way I could get more excited was if they said Vancian Casting is going away in favor of Arcanist but I don't really see that happening, unfortunately.

Also, I can't help but notice that you two have been a LOT more active in the boards lately. Does that mean the time is coming...? The time for... drum sounds... revealing stuff?

I really don’t get the “"Ceterum censeo", "Carthago delenda est”

Level of disdain for prepared casting I see out there. It’s not a disparagement of you I just literally don’t get what causes that level of engagement over the issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:

Also, it should be noted that this is gonna be one book. It won't be able to encapsulate every possible character you want to play. They can only fit so much in there. Luckily, we will get a lot of books in the future, as Paizo is prone to do. Just because something isn't possible in core doesn't mean it will never be possible.

People seem to also be seeing "problems" with PF2 that also existed in PF1 by any reasonable metric. The super hero thing is especially silly considering the amount of power given to high level PCs in the first edition. High level driids can literally cause earthquakes and reduce towns to rubble. The "super hero" nature of heroes is by design. They want to emulate Beowulf and Guts at high levels.

If people are talking about problems with a new edition they are naturally going to view the continuance of things they saw as a problem in first edition as also a problem in second edition. Why is this odd in the slightest, whatever the individual complaint might be?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

As long as we don't bring back "you can voluntarily lower your stats in order to increase other ones" I'm not concerned about "dumping stats in PF2".

I know people are going to say "but I want to play flawed characters" but there isn't a "take a flaw to gain an advantage" system in roleplaying games which hasn't been run roughshod on by minmaxers. Plus, there's no reason you can't be a "phenomenally foolish person" with a 10 wis, or a "catastrophically clumsy person" with a 10 dex, etc.

No. Because as soon as dice rolls come up you are not actually those things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is it insisted that level itself rather than the various things each level grants needs to be a significant factor in a character’s growth?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Part of my problem with the plus one per level to all, is how it really really restricts the universe of opposition that is useful as even cannon fodder. Below say two levels lower things might as well not even be there and above two levels higher and the pcs might as well not even be there. I really don’t like hardcoding ‘superhero’ status like that.

How's that different from PF1 CR=APL-2 encounters being non-existient threats? A APL 10 party wouldn't even notice a CR 8 opponent, they would just walk past it.

Superheroism was so hardcoded in PF1 to a degree that a mid to high level party was less Fellowship of Rings or Conan and Co. and more Justice League.

They could be included as an element of an encounter and have some meaning. Now they aren’t even a speedbump at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of my problem with the plus one per level to all, is how it really really restricts the universe of opposition that is useful as even cannon fodder. Below say two levels lower things might as well not even be there and above two levels higher and the pcs might as well not even be there. I really don’t like hardcoding ‘superhero’ status like that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But we aren’t allowed to think that. Because any flaws whatsoever must be removed from characters. They are only allowed to be good or REALLY good at something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it really heroic though if there isn’t any risk in attempting those things because, hey, they’re good at them now just because they exist and have raised levels, no other reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Actually, Paladins for Every Alignment was a thing as far back as Dragon 106 ("A Plethora of Paladins") from way back in 1986.

And they were distinctly different from each other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the only significant difference is code, then it’s majorly disappointing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And originally elf was a class. Why is that statement even remotely relevant?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I seriously doubt they are going to be significantly different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it’s pretty clear from this that the battle has been decided and only the details remain. I mean, it’s not going to make me leave or anything, but it is sad.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it. Not just a paladin with the numbers filed off and a different word pasted on the placard.

And the very next post there are people attacking the idea of even the paladin subclass existing as just lawful good.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

Whatever they supply, the paladin itself is pretty much killed off. It does not any longer exist in a meaningful form. It’s pretty clear here that there isn’t any real chance of the old paladin remaining at this point.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
The frequency that 10th level PCs climb a level 1 cliff is just about the same frequency that 10th level PCs fight a level 1 monster...

The thing is that level 10 characters might very well climb level 1 walls, but do so at breakneck speed, in the rain, at freezing temperatures, in total darkness. The task itself might be the same, but the situation makes it very different. But these modifications come from the situation and player choices, and might well be mitigated by PC abilities. A PC with endure elements, darkvision, suction cups (that actually benefit from things being wet) and choosing to climb slowly, the task is easy as all the modifiers are taken away.

Using PF1, this is simple to GM. Each of the problems have a modifier, and having the right counter removes that modifier. With Table 10-2, the GM arbitrarily sets the original task to level 10, and each mitigating circumstance might lower the level of the task by 2. Is this more intuitive than the PF1 system? I say no. PF1 gave a feel for the physical reality of the task, it gave the world substance. Table 10-2 creates a world made of gel that takes any form or difficulty depending on GM whim.

Yes, I admit it will be hard to create example tasks that are level 10 and above. Most such tasks will be compound problems like the one I presented here. We can have just a few examples and leave defining more tasks to scenario designers.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed

Ok Cato.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(

Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.

For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.

On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.

It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.

By completely eliminating the ability to tell the other type of story.

Well you really can't tell both in the same system.

Not even remotely true.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(

Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.

For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.

On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.

It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.

By completely eliminating the ability to tell the other type of story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1: definitely yes.
2: provisionally no.

I don’t think initiative should be solely perception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So you are saying they will have more fun options because ‘bigger numbers’?

I'm saying the Caster/Martial Disparity will be much more apparent with it removed. Martials benefit from +1/Level way more than Spellcasters do, since more of their options are reliant on numbers inflation, and this hasn't changed from PF1.

Martial options need to be more cool and powerful to warrant doing and choosing those options over the traditional "I swing until it dies."

Plus one per level also applies to spells, spell dcs, et al.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And unfortunately completely rendiering non functional a genre of more normal hero’s that are actually both good and bad at things rather than being omnicompetent rennasaince men universally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So you are saying they will have more fun options because ‘bigger numbers’?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can’t be good at perception without also being a master at judging people is the laughable one to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I have to say aesthetically I prefer that "training, experience, and expertise" has a much greater effect on success versus failure than one's magic gear or their attributes.

I figure the former is represented both in both Level and Proficiency, since Level is a broad set of experiences whereas Proficiency is specific training.

But I want a level 10 fighter in his underwear wielding a busted chair leg as a weapon to be much more dangerous than a level 1 fighter would be in that same situation. Every previous edition in this family of games has managed this, so I'm not sure why people are hell-bent on taking it away. I figure PF2 manages this even better since a level 10 fighter would be sufficiently practiced at "getting out of the way of the dangerous thing" that they should be harder to hit than a level 1 fighter with the same stats and gear, so +Level to AC makes a ton of sense to me.

As for skills, since 3rd edition I could get my level to "being sneaky" by just investing a skill point in appropriate skills every time I leveled up. So at the very least I'd like to maintain this sort of bonus.

And he would be able to mop the floor with the level one without the plus one per level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
With it in encounters with large numbers of lesser opponents will be essentially pointless.
I wasn't aware 200 goblins were a challenge to a level 20 fighter.

It causes a problem at a much much lower differential than merely at twentieth level. It absurdly and very narrowly restricts the options a GM has for building encounters unless they just want ROFLSTOMP either by the monsters or the players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With it in encounters with large numbers of lesser opponents will be essentially pointless.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don’t see why they are so hard set on plus one per level that it seems the one thing that there is to be no discussion on. It breaks so many things by intruding onto every aspect of the game and breaking the sense of verisimilitude. He’s much better at EVERYTHING. Why? Because level.

That wizard is now a better fighter than the fighter. Why? Level. As a GM, your options for encounter makeup are now limited to an extremely narrow band of ingredients unless you want them to be the equivalent of one hp minions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

They’ve fixed most of the things that annoyed me but left in the elephant in the room of +level to everything and seem to have no interest in addressing it.

Other than that I mean I like the action economy I’m ok with the skills if it weren’t for plus level. There are many things where I am perfectly fine with the implementation except for the intrusion of ‘+level to everything’


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1/level to +0/level.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I’m hoping the designers can find a way to broaden the play styles PF2 supports. I like my PCs to retain weak points throughout their careers.

I appreciate that everyone doesn’t want to have that style, nonetheless it’s a major sticking point to me and maybe the boffins at Paizo will be able to solve the problems they’re trying to solve without making me lose interest in my PCs as they develop.

But that's the thing. You CAN retain weak points, even though you are basically faking it.

It is just a very different thing to not have enough skill points - (But my guy is 10th level! He should have learned SOME survival skills! - Did you put skill points into Survival? No? Tough!) - because assuming things you did not pay the price for makes others mad who did. It is just not fair.

But to have the skill, in theory, and then deciding not to use it for RP reasons? That's different. That is voluntary on your part and doesn't cost anybody else a thing. Unless we talk spending resources to save the PC in question from their self-imposed peril. Again, ask your fellow players if they applaud the dedication to RP or hate the drama queen.

That isn’t maintaining weak points. That’s faking it. It isn’t even remotely close to being the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:
The thing is in Pathfinder/D&D there are levels of play. Most typical fantasy tropes, such as LOTR, Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones are in the 1 through 7 range. There are only a few things in those works of fiction that cannot be created by lvl 7 or so. So after that you have to start getting into beyond that fantasy. Like Eragon (toward the end anyway), Beowulf, or most superhero characters. After Lvl 13+ the characters are essentially demigods. The stories of Hercules, Achilles or Superman are those types of stories. One just simply can't expect someone who is level 15 to behave the same as someone who is lvl 4.

They wouldn’t behave or be the same even without plus level to a skill,


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bartram wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I feel like part of the point is your not supposed to not how accurate the information your character remembers is. '

This is part of what doesn't make sense.

I work in a highly technical field. I have lots of experience in that field (lets say I have "Expert" training in that skill). When I try to think about a fact in my field, I KNOW when I am thinking about a fact in my field and I KNOW without a doubt when I DON'T know something in my field. If I am trying to remember something, and I don't know the answer there is no mystery involved. I either know it or I don't. And I know which of those two it is.

Yes, occasionally someone will think they are right when they are in fact wrong, but this is almost universally someone who has no training in said field (Untrained)

Secret rolls just don't make sense in the context of knowledge.

Oh now that isn’t true. I know plenty of highly trained people who mistakenly think they know something in their field and are flat wrong about it and don’t realize until someone points it out to them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The ‘plus level’ breaks a lot of things. I really wish they hadn’t decided to go that direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like resonance in its aspect as a replacement for item slots. Otherwise, not so much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
We don't have to dumb down encumbrance at our table.

One could easily say that making encumbrance be only weight is ‘dumbing it down’ as any hiker can tell you that raw weight is most definitely not the only thing which matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
Really. I have to agree with Crayon: it seems like one of those 'solutions in search of a problem'. Lets look over those "many uses and benefits of mechanic".

I strongly disagree and think this will be enormously helpful to many, if not most, GMs.

graystone wrote:
Worldbuilding and Emulating Genres: More granulation than really needed. If you don't like/want gunslingers you don't need ANY of the ratings: they just don't exist. Spells you don't want players to have... is uncommon rare what you want? No. Healing items hard to find? Just limit what can be found. It's something that is easily done without an artificial rating system.

Not in all games. You will absolutely get people saying 'this is in the book so I get to have it' and having straightforward rules to shut them down is convenient and avoids argument and unpleasantness.

Additionally, and at least as importantly, some GMs, especially new ones, don't feel comfortable laying down the law like this, or may not even realize on an emotional level that they can, and having the rules back them up gives them a lot of help in realizing that they can and in some cases should do this.

Having a language to talk about what things are restricted and how much is also immensely useful for calibrating expectations about both the game and the world. I gave an example of the sort of restrictions of this sort I generally have in my games and was able to explain it in three sentences with the new terminology, when I'd never been able to properly articulate it at all using any PF1 terminology. Word lore wise, it also saves a lot of word count and avoids immense confusion to just be able to say 'X is rare' and have rare mean the same thing to most people most of the time rather than being entirely subjective.

graystone wrote:
Mechanical Diversity without Cognitive Overload: For me, there is MORE Cognitive Overload in the shifting rarities of items over the game world than there ever would be with having
...

It’s my old green light, yellow ilght, red light system ...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m the farthest thing from a min maxer. I don’t care about that, I usually make characters by ‘what feels cool’ ‘what I like’. ‘What paints an evocative picture in my head’

I have problems with resonance for many or the reasons stated above and a few others. Have I suddenly become a whining minmaxer?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Sigh pessimists... XP (almost forgot the emoji)

But seriously the thing that gets me is when people keep hammering there opinion in over and over posting it on multiple threads and acting like it is the only correct opinion and anyone that doesn't see that is stupid. I don't care what side you are on that crap gets under my skin. I see them try and do this thing like "well everyone else in the world thinks your wrong so you must be wrong!" It makes me give the biggest eye roll where I have to actually hold the eyes in to keep them from coming out.

oh an personally what I do is igther use an I statement something like Oh I think this is X or I offer suggestions for improvements or compromises.

If someone really thinks an aspect is detrimental to the game and they want to see it improved or changed, why would they not want to bring that thing up whenever that aspect is discussed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


They can just go play 5th Edition where potions don't compete with your other magic items for a resource based on your charisma score or go back to 1st edition pathfinder if they came from there.

Of the 3, the way potions works and magic item slots work it seems that Resonance makes PF2 the least attractive of all possible options.

Huh, personally I detest magic item slots being a thing. If I'm not playing a video game, I can't say I like the idea of item slots.

While 5e is partially based around the assumption of limited attunement, the actual limit of 3 feels thematically arbitrary, nor are potions in the best place in 5e anyway. Even this draft of resonance I think is more interesting than either, and I'd much rather deal with item fizzling than giving what to me is a contrived explanation for either slots or max attunement. I very much doubt that potions of all things are going to be a make or break for my party.

Nathanael Love wrote:


At best, many people will be putting up with resonance for parts of PF2 that are actually attractive (I assume there will be some, if nothing else for PFS with new scenarios), the mechanic itself isn't adding any fun or draw to the game- or certainly the feature of it being required for healing potions is not.
Each to their own. Personally as the perma-DM of my table it actually is drawing me to an extent, as the mechanics give a clear springboard to tinker with or use them. E.g. locations that restore or sap resonance, a legendary hero getting kidnapped to fuel some arcane machine (due to having a high resonance score, depending on the in universe explanation of how it works), bottles that can store a number of resonance points for later use or transfer to another.

To the extent of replacing magic item slots, I like resonance. If it was only ‘you have x resonance in magic items on you and attuned at any given time’ and the resonance pool reflected what that limit was, and items had resonance costs reflecting how much ‘interference’ they provided, so the pool was utilized, but not spent - I would like that.

Then some other solution for item spam. Perhaps the pool also represents what sort of ongoing magical effects you can have on you. So, say, a limit on the number of buffs and magic items combined, then tweak that number for taste. But basically treating a buff as if it were a temporary worn magic item.

In effect, you could call it ‘magic encumbrance’ if you wish. And different spells and items have different ‘bulk’.

Then you could adjust that resonance number based on how ‘Christmas tree’ you wanted your world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Example 1: Lots of Large sized giants are described in bestiary text to be around 15 feet tall. Game mechanic wise they are 10x10 size square with 10 feet reach. While you can assume that 15 foot tall giant putting his arms up could be about 20 feet tall, rules for squeezing care only about creature's size category. This means that 15 feet tall giant in 10 feet tall hallway isn't squeezing by the rules.

Example 2: I'd post here Dragon size chart from dragonslayer's handbook, but I can't find it on google, so I'll settle for Vishap, a colossal dragon that is "70 feet from head to tail and weighs 60,000 pounds." from bestiary 5.

Colossal creatures take 30 x 30 feet square and have 30 feet reach, vishap specifically has 40 feet for its bite attack. Now while that isn't too unbelievable, same thing about it fitting into 30 x 30 feet cube without squeezing by rules applies to it as well. But ignoring that, Vishap is CR 19 creature, so level 20 fighter that is well equipped should be capable of slaying the dragon. Game mechanics wise this means that fighter will go next to dragon's legs(as it size means they have no way to reach their body from the ground) hits the leg four times for over 200 hp damage in six seconds and dragon dies from the leg wound.

Now back to the true dragons: Vishap doesn't have this problem, but great wyrm red dragon doesn't have swallow whole ability. So when this colossal beast bites 5 feet tall(or maybe 6 feet as that sized creature still fits one square) fighter, he survives and somehow doesn't get swallowed whole or die from it. Basically, why doesn't every creature with colossal size automatically have swallow whole to enough smaller creatures?

Side note 2: Same applies to grapple abilities. When Gargantuan Rune Giant(40 feet tall) grapples the fighter, rule wise fighter is still touching the ground, otherwise they would have to take falling damage whenever grapple is released. Rulewise rune giant also can't just lift the fighter and throw him into distance with combat...

Note that while yes the fighter could only reach the leg if both were standing still, actual combat should involve movement, including things like the bigger beasties ducking down to attack, thus exposing different areas of their bodies to attack themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
necromental wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Stuff
This is probably the best argument I've seen for resonance, but still see a big problem. While it differentiates what is THE best option for a certain race, class or build, resonance pretty much punishes non-optimal choices, as it uses the same pool for the strong/optimal AND for the fun things.

What are the "fun things" that seem like they're getting pushed out? Since all the magic items aren't in front of us, it's kind of hard to tell what fun little widgets might look like or how much resonance (if any) they're actually going to cost. We know from the preview that the cloak of elvenkind gives you the ability to cast ghost sound without consuming any resonance beyond the initial attunement, so we know that options for gaining abilities that don't consume resonance on use exist. If, for example, attuning an ebon fly allows you to attune it and then use it without additional resonance costs, it would be a fun and also optimal choice for gaining flight on a character with low resonance, while grabbing a (presumably) more versatile wand of fly might be more attractive to a character with resonance to spare. Without seeing the full spread of magic items, we really don't know whether or not it's true that resonance could be pushing out the fun things, we're just afraid of that possibility.

Anecdotally, one thing I like about resonance replacing limited slots is that it actually opens up the door for way more fun things. I absolutely love magic rings, but I almost never get to use any of the fun ones in the current system because it's too important that I have a ring of protection. If I'm playing an arcane spellcaster, a ring of wizardry is just too good to pass up. Since I can lean on resonance in the new system instead of being limited to just two rings as the method of maintaining balance, I'm going to be way more likely to actually pick up something like a ring of x-ray vision or a...

Resonance replacing item slots I like - just not most of its other functions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope. My appreciation for resonance is most definitely not growing. All the things I previously had a problem with are still there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m sorry, this blog has done absolutely nothing to make me like resonance as presented more. It just seems way too fidgety and to have several second order effects I don’t like, including discouraging cool minor magical geegaws. I really do hope this is one of the things clawed back. I’m willing to be convinced, but so far I see little that makes me think resonance as presented is a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resonance is top of my list, by far, on the ‘likely to need immediate significant House rules’ at best category. It just doesn’t feel very elegant and feels forced and bolted on - based on what I’ve seen so far.

1 to 50 of 1,064 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>