Lini

Arssanguinus's page

1,450 posts (4,340 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,081 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Once you’ve tried to stab me in my back, you don’t get to say oops my bad.

Indeed.

First rule of OGL-cide : do not miss.

Don’t pick a fight with someone who buys dice by the barrel.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Once you’ve tried to stab me in my back, you don’t get to say oops my bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apparently the forces of Saruman saw the riders of Rohan coming down the hill at them …


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they were caught off guard by the unified response, flanked, and sneak attacked.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
12Seal wrote:

I mean, yes, but that's honestly just business. For all that diehard free market proponents love to talk about the merits of competition, the reality is that competitions always have winners. Everyone works towards that monopoly in whatever way they can because it's the most efficient way to make money, and therefore the ultimate goal of any serious competitor. That's miserable for everyone else, ofc, hence anti-trust laws, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still the goal.

Especially for a publicly traded company that's beholden to shareholders who are themselves usually more interested in getting fat returns on their investments than on what the company stands for or its consumers. That's how we end up with the adversarial relationship between the management of Hasbro/WotC and the audience; the shareholders, and by extension upper management, want to separate the audience from as much money as they possibly can, whether the audience wants to part with it or not, in order to boost profit margins. That means killing competition, changing the business model from "ownership" to "rent-seeking," and forcing brand loyalty going forward by quashing 3pp and taking the majority of income on 3pp products by virtue of its licensing rules and larger economic scale.

It's actually a sensible move through that lens. However, to everyone but the corpo suits, it's utterly vile.

They aren’t trying to win by competing but by outlawing their competitors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I don't like the idea of any governing body having the right to decide who is or is not a bad actor. That's what the power of our wallets is for :P
And I’m not sure I like the idea of the power of wallets deciding who is or isn’t a bad actor. Sure, the cancellation pf DnD Beyond subscriptions could be seem as a “wallet-powered” exploit, but similarly I see bank-rolled bad actors are legion. It feels like “let the market decide” all over again. And over and over again, the market has decided in favor of investors, slavers, polluters and other assorted captains of industry.

And just as or more often those same things are pushed or bankrolled by governing bodies. If you give them the upper hand you lose control over where they put it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Without posting the new license, any press release is just hot air.

“Mea culpa. Now will you please just look away for a moment…”


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aotrscommander wrote:

Tangenital Response to Tangential Rant: I mean, me, I looked at 3.5, I looked at Pathfinder 1 (with Rolemaster leaning over from the one-in-forp'nnies) and said "that's not complicated enough! I'mma make my own edition, with Brimoraks and Hook Horrors! Let's add it all together and steal some bits from 4E and 5E (since I saw the latter on Unexpectables!) Huzzah!"

...

I do not think I am anyone's target market anymore.

Oooh. I still have my role master for when I get a real desire for numbers


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I get it, but I'd like ORC to be more focused on who we are and what we can create than what we want to happen to our enemies.

What will happen for our allies rather than to our enemies?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
*I'm not sure I buy the "teen boys" theory in particular. Maybe if they have no understanding of the current demographics? But that seems unlikely. It's not being marketed as a boys-only game anymore. There's still gender bias, not nearly as centered as it once was.
I'm going by where I see the boxes placed at Target. They're placed toward the area of the endcap game shelves that corresponds with the "war" and "action" toys - your action figures, Nerf guns, licensed Lego sets, and Matchbox cars. The stuff that's classified as "boy toys" by the industry. They're not at the end of the game shelves that corresponds with the more domestic play styles, things like dolls and accessories (classified as "girl toys").

I’d have to say the judgment of stores like target of what the audience that buys it is not necessarily what I would go on


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually have adopted many of the deities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any such thing as a possible negative trait for a race/species to have that has not at some time been attached to some real world race or ethnic group? Seems like it’s a rabbit hole it’s really easy to go way too deep down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, a different type of bow is quite different from a different mechanism of damage entirely. Even if it was the same type of bow, it wouldn’t be the gotcha you seem to try to imply.

If you had a modern game and you allowed an Anachronistic firearm it wouldn’t also follow that you were unfair if you didn’t allow lasers too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

Well yes. Taking feats that change the rules will in fact change the rules.

And even then the phrase for you must be added so that +5 vorpal cookie sheets arent created.

Now you have me wanting a +5 vorpal cookie sheet…


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Load up on divination spells. Knowledge is power,


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
They aren't exactly normal and do tend to attract glances.
Or vice versa, in the case of Riven and our most recently completed encounter.

I can imagine the gaping open mouth and the look like a landed fish still.

:-)


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.

1 to 50 of 1,081 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>