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.
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?
No. Because as soon as dice rolls come up you are not actually those things.
They could be included as an element of an encounter and have some meaning. Now they aren’t even a speedbump at all.
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.
Data Lore wrote:
And they were distinctly different from each other.
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.
Not even remotely true.
By completely eliminating the ability to tell the other type of story.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Plus one per level also applies to spells, spell dcs, et al.
And he would be able to mop the floor with the level one without the plus one per level.
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.
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.
Playtest so far - Round Two! Three things you Love, Three things you Hate, and Three Houserules you'd Make.
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’
That isn’t maintaining weak points. That’s faking it. It isn’t even remotely close to being the same.
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,
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.
It’s my old green light, yellow ilght, red light system ...
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?
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?
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.
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.
Resonance replacing item slots I like - just not most of its other functions.
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.