Lini

Arssanguinus's page

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


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quixote wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
Sorry to call you out but the average IQ is 100 with a 15 point standard deviation...

Hardly feels like anyone's calling anyone out; I tried to remember the average range from something I read years ago, but it looks like I was about 10 points off. Hardly a hill to die on. As I said, it's all a guess.

The actual point of my comment still stands; it's hardly a cut-and-dry situation.
On one hand, an extremely low intelligence could be argued to represent cognative disability (the broader term that both includes mental retardation and is the new preferred term for the specific disability), which raises all kinds of questions about how such a character would behave.
But on the other hand, the lowest intelligence could be argued to fall above the range of disability, which suggests that, in Pathfinder, people with such disabilities do not exist at all.

Either way would be a PR and PC nightmare for any company, so of course things are left vague. It's an abstraction, and a pretty big one at that, but necessary.

I would argue that those people are special cases and fall outside the realm of normal character creation. Also, in my head cannon at least, ‘Intelligence’ as a concept is more an average of the three mental stats representing different areas of mental prowess. So if you had someone with a seven int, a thirteen wisdom, and a ten charisma, then you have someone with a bit of a weakness when it comes to things like academics, who is whoever good at judging people and such and ok at dealing wit social issues. In all, average.


The Past Jedi - they’re all gone now.
Rotocop- he’ll spin you right round baby right round.
Malice in wonderland. She hates you.


I suspect that the average person does something like what I do and has a couple premade spell lists already written up and then just adjust those slightly based on whatever they think they’re going to be encountering that day. Probably 80 or 90% of your spell slots aren’t going to change day to day, so that’s really kind of false.


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.


MaxAstro wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Whai sword 'n' bord when u can has smash face 2h (or maybe twf)? The discrepancy in rise of attack and AC in PF1 made sacrificing offense for defense only really worth it with some cookie cutter specialised defensive builds. And we're back in the "this could work, but you'll need book A, B, X, Y and Z in order for this, pretty much iconic and straightforward build to compare to an effortlessly made greatsword user".
I dunno. I just wasn't worried that much about whether it was "worth it" or "as good as X". I contributed my fair share, did adequate damage, and I didn't feel like a failure, nor did anyone else in the party think I was.
Plus 1,000 to this post.
My dream for PF2e is that the people who don't worry about whether their build is any good or not and the people who optimize their murder machines to the maximum will both be able to play at the same table without anyone feeling unable to contribute.

Close but no cigar; it’s often ‘those who don’t care if the character is optimal just that it can contribute. And that is not hard to do even in PF1, for all the flaws you might find.

It isn’t ‘not caring if their build is any good’ it’s ‘being satisfied with ‘good enough’


Kalindlara wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Whai sword 'n' bord when u can has smash face 2h (or maybe twf)? The discrepancy in rise of attack and AC in PF1 made sacrificing offense for defense only really worth it with some cookie cutter specialised defensive builds. And we're back in the "this could work, but you'll need book A, B, X, Y and Z in order for this, pretty much iconic and straightforward build to compare to an effortlessly made greatsword user".
I dunno. I just wasn't worried that much about whether it was "worth it" or "as good as X". I contributed my fair share, did adequate damage, and I didn't feel like a failure, nor did anyone else in the party think I was.

Plus 1,000 to this post.


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.


Feros wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
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.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.


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.


Edge93 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Well, you may want to know the plan DOES seem to be for only the LG version to be called Paladin in the final book. They just don't want to have to errata the bazillion times the word Paladin appears in the playtest document so it's Any Good for now. But the final class will be called something else, with a LG Paladin subclass.

Unfortunately that really isn't good enough. The Paladin under those rules is just a class with a name. It's no longer special. A lot of us felt that way, and a lot of us felt like this was a line in the sand.

For me it was.

Regardless, I'm sure Paizo will do fine without us. I imagine we were a minority of players. We'll just find something else to play. It'll be ok.

I mean, you haven't seen the 1.6 or final CRB Paladin yet. For all you know it could still have the iconic and rare powers that apparently make your idea of a Paladin while the other Champion (or whatever the final class name is) types go entirely different directions.

It just seems really premature to jump ship when there's still an LG-only character build called a Paladin with as-yet-unknown specifications just because there are now other alignment-specific warriors as well.

Now if the CRB comes along and it turns out Paladin is just a minorly different subclass of champion in the same vein of Bard Muses that's an entirely different thing. I can't judge you for how important this is or isn't to you whether I feel the same or not, but jumping like this without seeing the end product just seems premature.

With the way they seem to be talking that seems exceedingly unlikely. They seem to have made the calculation that they are willing to lose people over this. They also rather pointedly didn’t say anything about the subclasses being significantly different which you would think if they were they might have led with as it might assuage the people that are being cut out of the will so to speak. The fact that no mention is made of something like this seems fairly akin to confirmation.


Edge93 wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
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.

I mean, you haven't playtested the 1.6 verson, let alone the final. How the heck do you know that the class chassis wont be changed to be more like how you want it, or that the Paladin won't be different enough from the other sub-classes to fit your idea of a Paladin? You said that the chassis of the current Paladin isn't Paladin-like for you but this update is said to be a major change so for all you know it could be adjusting more to your liking rather than less.

It's kinda hard taking any decrying of the 1.6 Paladin seriously, let alone the final version, when you haven't even seen either yet.

I said no such thing.


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.


Matthew Downie wrote:

It's fairly simple to list generic quest structure events that are possible without high-level magic:

Go to a place.
Get hold of some information.
Befriend someone.
Map an area.
Kill someone or something.
Protect someone.
Rescue someone.
Recover an item.
Destroy an artefact.

What are some new things you can only do with Rare high-level magic, as opposed to higher level versions of those same things?

I've asked this before, but I was hoping for a simple answer rather than a series of novels to read. Instead, I'll try using my imagination:

Resurrection detectives: The party go around solving murders, with the help of the victims, who they have miraculously brought back to life.

Teleporting crisis squad: The party respond to disasters in progress throughout the kingdom by teleporting to the aid of everyone who needs it before it's too late.

Shadow government: The party must rule the kingdom with the help of a puppet king who is entirely under their control, dealing with both invading armies, economic crisis, and the like.

Planar diplomats: The party must travel interdimensionally to deal with massive conflicts between the various realms. Why are earth elementals invading the plane of fire? Why is the plane of shadows trying to forge an alliance with the abyss? Who is trying to start a war between law and chaos?

One problem with this type of campaign is that the GM basically has to write it around the party, since a party with no cleric or wizard might not be able to handle it.

Still pretty much the same thing with different geegaws


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Alyran wrote:
The point is: if you want to play without rarity, then you just ignore it. If you want to implement rarity for a system without it, that's a gigantic pain.

And it is practically impossible for the Paizo AP authors to implement if it doesn't exist in the core rule set.

That is my understanding for the rarity system at least as far as the spell list goes. There are a bunch of really fun adventure scenarios that get completely wrecked by certain types of spells. Teleport being an easy example. Creating an escort mission to take a senator from one city to another falls apart completely if there is a wizard that can cast Teleport. So we can either restrict the adventure to only be for low level characters that won't have access to the spell, try and come up with various setting shenanigans to try and explain why Teleport won't solve the problem instantly, or remove Teleport from the setting.

So which would you like Paizo to do?

Create actual high-level plot instead of rehashing the same escort mission again and again.

Level 1: escort the diplomat.
Level 3: escort the expert diplomat.
level 7: escort the master diplomat.
Level 15: escort the legendary diplomat.

Maybe there's something more interesting to do at high level than "the same thing as before, but with a different adjective"?

Except pretty much every possible adventure at any level is going to be by nature the same as something you do at lower levels but with some different adjectives and twists.

I defy you to name one that isn’t, that you can’t find any equivalent by swapping out some nouns and descriptors.

You're missing the point. Just doing the exact same stuff over and over again with increasingly bigger numbers isn't doing anything qualitatively different. That's just difficulty levels in MMO quests.

Most of the fun of high level abilities, especially magic, is opening up entirely new ways of doing...

It is still the same things solved in a bit different ways, however you try to slice it.


thejeff wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:
1 Yes. Anyone who's ever been around autistic people knows that Sense Motive is absolutely nothing whatsoever with how good your eyesight and hearing is. Society, diplomacy or its own thing.
OTOH, Perception isn't entirely eyesight or hearing either. Sometimes it's just noticing the thing that's out of place.

It’s quite a bit more related to that than sense motive is.


Dancing tights - when you are late to rehearsal and forgot your outfit ..,
Massage - for your comfort
Crease: for your laundry
Sock: summons the missing half of the pair
False Wife: keeps the possible dates away.
Humanoid Worm : ‘The worm who walks’
Secret rage: a very calm looking barbarian ...


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

Is this really different from how you can't be a good climber without being a great swimmer? Or how you can't know how to make swords without also knowing how to make arrows, cabinets, barrels, and hats? Or how you can't know a lot about the undead without knowing a lot about comparative religion? Or how you can't be good at picking locks without being good at sleight of hand? Or how you can't be good at playing the flute without also being good at playing the bagpipes, piano, harp, and drums to say nothing about your acumen at acting, mime, and comedy?

I feel like this is just a side effect of "too much granularity is just needless complexity" and "all these things are just abstractions for ease of play."

I think basic things that are nothing like each other being lumped into one skill is a prime example of way too little granularity.


Your last paragraph makes no sense. At least number wise, of course someone trained keeps getting better at something more than one who isn’t.


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.


Cyouni wrote:
Azmodael wrote:

The biggest reason the +1/level system is bad is because it artificially de-powers lower level creatures and empowers higher level creatures.

This forces DMs to either auto-level opponents or be forced to replace them as the party levels up.

To give a comparison - our D&D 5e campaign started as fighting an invasion of orcs & hobgoblins. We were level 4 and the campaign has progressed to level 14 now. The DM has used basically the same monsters as minion fillers for several combats through the campaign, on various PC levels. The only upgrade they got was a minor AC and Hit boost of +1, because during the story they were armed by a dragon overlord. Even at level 14 these minions pose a credible threat and have to be removed quickly via AoE.

If we had to run the same campaign in Pathfinder 2e they would either miss or crit us on a natural 20 due to the 10+ level difference between PCs and NPCs.

This wasn't a problem in PF 1e, because you could use lower level creatures and buff them via spell casting allies to hold up somewhat against higher level PCs. But with PF 2e math being so tight they are utterly unusable.

Bounded accuracy is not inherently a good thing. How much have you grown if a level 4 enemy is still a threat at level 14?

People already complain about not being able to reliably hit things on the same level as them.

. A threat to a degree but not nearly as much of one.


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.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Wulfhelm II. wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I don't see how making perception a skill that everyone is automatically trained in and therefore doesn't work like most skills,
You don't see how doing that instead of separating Perception out as its own thing and thus make it work different from "most skills" (which incidentally is something else that would be worth talking about but in this discussion environment clearly isn't) even more would be simpler?

Nope, not at all. Perception being its own thing is VERY simple. Especially since it follows the same ability score+proficiency+item+other bonuses model as everything else in the game. Making it a skill that doesn't actually follow the same rules as other skills seems much weirder. Literally the only reason I can think of why anyone would find the current model confusing is because it breaks what they are used to from PF1 and D&D. A new player coming in would have no reason to question it.

Combine that with how poorly balanced Perception is against the skills, and I'm quite happy to slaughter that particular sacred cow in favor of something simpler and better designed.

Quote:
You can’t be good at perception without also being a master at judging people is the laughable one to me.
That to me feels like a call to make sense motive its own skill, or perhaps make it something rolled into one of the charisma based skills. Which is an idea I'm open to, and could certainly warrant some interesting discussion, but has nothing to do with Perception being a skill in general. I feel like Sense Motive is soooooo campaign dependent that it currently qualifies as the least rolled use of perception.

It is exactly that, but having sense motive rolled in with perception is a bit silly.


Gaterie wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Alyran wrote:
The point is: if you want to play without rarity, then you just ignore it. If you want to implement rarity for a system without it, that's a gigantic pain.

And it is practically impossible for the Paizo AP authors to implement if it doesn't exist in the core rule set.

That is my understanding for the rarity system at least as far as the spell list goes. There are a bunch of really fun adventure scenarios that get completely wrecked by certain types of spells. Teleport being an easy example. Creating an escort mission to take a senator from one city to another falls apart completely if there is a wizard that can cast Teleport. So we can either restrict the adventure to only be for low level characters that won't have access to the spell, try and come up with various setting shenanigans to try and explain why Teleport won't solve the problem instantly, or remove Teleport from the setting.

So which would you like Paizo to do?

Create actual high-level plot instead of rehashing the same escort mission again and again.

Level 1: escort the diplomat.
Level 3: escort the expert diplomat.
level 7: escort the master diplomat.
Level 15: escort the legendary diplomat.

Maybe there's something more interesting to do at high level than "the same thing as before, but with a different adjective"?

Except pretty much every possible adventure at any level is going to be by nature the same as something you do at lower levels but with some different adjectives and twists.

I defy you to name one that isn’t, that you can’t find any equivalent by swapping out some nouns and descriptors.


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.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Quite frankly, I think a lot of people who are asking for "+level" to be removed are cheapening the point of what a level gives you, which is a new peak and access of power (and future challenges) that you as a character have (or are awaiting your character).

Can I request a clarification? Are you saying this specifically in regard to 2E as-is with simply +level removed?

When I first read it I thought you were implying this is needed for an level based game. I'd suggest that 1E and D&D3E and 5E all do quite well at leveling. But I think you only mean to comment on what would happen to 2E without it. Am I understanding you?

This is specifically a claim in relation to PF2 as it stands. +Level gives more to the player than the abilities they acquire from spells or feats/features (though at least spellcasters have spells, martials don't even have that). A Fighter at 1st level without class feats is identical to a Fighter at 20th level, both in terms of playstyle and in relative power. Yes, the Fighter will have a couple more bonuses thanks to features, but that's it. My Attack of Opportunity at 1st level will not change as I gain levels, nor will its effectiveness increase, nor will it grant the option to do something cool and/or interesting. It is what it is, and that's that. That's boring. Bland. I can assure you that if there was anything keeping me to play a character like this, it sure as hell isn't the story, and I honestly wouldn't even have to have a character in the game just to listen to or witness the story unfold.

Spellcasters don't have this problem with their features, since their spellcasting feature changes and scales up still somewhat automatically (especially with the new spellcasting buff!), and have a multitude of interesting and usable options that, for prepared spellcasters, can be prepped on the fly (whereas spontaneous can just simply be cast on the fly as they need them).

Removing +Level now reinforces the...

“Without class feats”. Class feats do, in fact exist.


Founded on it much to its detriment.


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.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Shamechange: Alter how shameful a person feels about things.
Awesome. Now we have a counter to the various blame spells like Blame Strike and Eternal Blame.

That's what Blame Barrier is for, and I already said that upthread.

Whoops...

Wall of Blame?

1 to 50 of 1,394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>