AshVandal's page

Pathfinder 2E seems to be doing a lot of things right in rectifying some of the old notions about medieval weapons and armor, but it still gets a lot wrong. Was there an attempt to incorporate some of the newly rediscovered knowledge out there put forward by HEMA and prominent YouTubers on the subject? Did you guys want to do more and were limited by necessity of game mechanics?

For instance I really appreciate how bastard swords and hand crossbows don't seem to require a special proficiency anymore, but longswords are still one handed weapons and padded armor is still bad and studded leather armor is still a thing even though it never was.

One of my favorites, nevermind he's still primarily referncing D&D: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVc1v90b7o

So just a quick lore question, why did the Runelords all pursue such round-about and faulty methods to escape Earthfall, creating their various demiplanes tied to runewells with elaborate pre-requisite contingency to revive them? What was the purpose for wizards of the generally absurd level of power they possessed? Alaznist and Xanderghul were the only two who don't have access to the conjuration school, and thus "Create Greater Demiplane", so it makes a little bit more sense that they had to create some alternative means of escape. They rest of the Runelords should all have just permancy'd a Create Greater Demiplane and they would have accomplished the same result.

But why did they bother trying to hibernate in the first place? Why didn't they just go world/dimension hoping for a couple hundred years or so while they waited out the effects of Earthfall like most high-powered mages. Or like, teleport to the opposite side of the world and just survived as necessary after they saw the effects of Earthfall.

magnuskn wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Fallyna wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Why the hell not? It was a fun, innovative thing to do. Again, killing fun should not be objective of the game.

Also, mechanically the guy should have gotten a save, because someone used magic against stuff he was wearing. Furthermore, and I know this is subject to interpretation for many GM's, if he gets a save, he knows magic has been used against him.

Also also, even if we take the situation as is, while the guy was removed from future social encounters, you can be pretty sure that he would try to take his revenge on the PC who embarassed him in some other way, maybe by hiring assassins to take him out. Roleplay! Consequences!

Casters should be able to use 0-level cantrips which require saves only if the GM feels like it while martials should jump the hoops of multiple skill checks and be just plain unable to match a 0-level cantrip at all?

This isn't fun. This is driving the "casters do cool things, you get to stand and watch" further. I can see how, by being a caster player, you didn't notice that.

So having seen a lot of your posts elsewhere, I think you should just be a DM and ban magic from your tables. Like just play a low magic setting and make people play barbarians, fighters and rogues. Or else find a table where other people want to play just pure martials in a low/no magic setting. Then you can have your fun without nerfing the system for those of us who like magic, and think magic should be special. You can always REMOVE something from the game, but its a lot harder for individual tables to build a system into their game.

Or why don't you just play a caster? Stop hating a join the dark side?

There's no amount of time that would be guaranteed to be sufficient. You could release the game to playtest, find a lot of issues, make a lot of changes to fix them, release the game to a second playtest, find a lot of new issues, make a lot of changes to fix them, release the game to a third playtest, find a lot of new issues...

This. Honestly though, no. 6 months for a beta wasn't enough for WoW BfA and they have the ability to iterate on feedback relatively rapidly, unlike Paizo and their mostly paper product. It *could* be too difficult to get all the playtesters on the same page if they start releasing multiple copies of the rulebook.

Although I think they should re-release the rulebook at least once, and soon. Preferably in a much more streamlined format following the innumerable critiques people have put out regarding the pdf's formating. I feel like 95% of people's complaints right now either boil-down-to or are severely-magnified-by their inability to navigate the rulebook very well. Myself included. Or at least maybe a couple of "guide to the rulebook" type supplements that teach people the stuff they seem to commonly be misinterpreting? Not sure.

Quote:

Its not useful to speak so generally when your objective is to explain your position. List the feats, say why they are bad, give us a comparison of class abilities that were good and are not good now. That is literally what a playtest is for.

You want a step by step? A list? A complete breakdown with specifics of EXACTLY why I'm complaining?

Sure okay.

I'll be back in a couple days with my dissertation.
Don't forget you asked.

I'll actually wait around to see this I think. Please post it somewhere obvious and bump it a few times in case it starts getting lost. Here and/or an original thread.

Seriously though your original post and subsequent responses are highly emotional, although I understand and agree that this IS an emotional subject for some older players, myself included. You have to try and remain calm, and provide constructive feedback when and where possible.

Something being "Not Fun" IS constructive criticism. It does not have to articulated beyond minor explanations of what is found to be not fun, and possibly what in comparison you have fun doing. Fun is subjective, but ALL games generally trade in the currency of fun. If people aren't having fun, it doesn't matter how mathematically perfect your game is. If possible, we should all endeavor to PLAY with the game before we call it not fun, but visceral first impressions create bias, bias flavors perception, and perception is reality for many people. This fact can not be ignored. We are not robots, or Vulcans, we are people and our emotions and biases are a part of what makes us like what we like.

I for instance, also really, really like the 3.5 skill system, but not because it creates large differences between people who invest in it and people who don't (although I obviously believe investment in a skill should be rewarded, I don't think you should be able to sneak so well that your legendary sneaking skill all of sudden effectively makes you invisible and silent and able to walk right in front of alert palace guards in the open and in broad daylight). I like the skill system because I am a fiddly person who like to tinker on stuff, because 1 point here verses 1 point there makes a big difference in my head. I'm the guy who spends hours playing with the old WoW talent calculators. I make characters on my computer who never see the light of day at someone's table. I find that stuff fun. Granted I like to actually play too, but I usually play the same old tired characters over and over when I do, interestingly enough, because I find that fun. I will rehash my beloved arcane spellcasters over and over and over until I quit forever, because that's what I like to do, because I don't need some unique character concepts that are unique and special snowflakes that no one has ever thought of before, because that's not why I play.

I play to live out a fantasy of the one thing I could never be IRL, a magic wielding engine of destruction. Every time I reinvent my mage, I do weird little fiddly things to it, but its the same character, the same personality, and I'm attached to it, because IT'S MY AVATAR IN THE GAMEWORLD. It is my expression of what I want to be. My mage might be a demon blasting blaster arcanist one game, or a demon summoning occultist the next, or a demon blasting abjurationist in yet another, or an alien banishing abjurationist with some CoC vibes, or an undead blasting blaster in another game, or an undead calling wizard with a small splash in divine magic or whatever. I literally never get tired of arcane casters. I only don't play them when someone else wants to play one, and then I'm usually a cleric or paladin, because thats the other major fantasy I enjoy. If I absolutely have to, because a DM is pleading with us to play a low magic setting, then I usually play an archer ranger (because I'm former infantry and my mind just doesn't wrap around the concept of fair-fighting and melee).

YMMV - Paizo took the risk of offering up an alternative product to a dissatisfied WotC customer base that hated the 4E offering. A product that offered a more familiar gaming experience. They lucked out and captured a large gaming demographic, and thrived as a result. Timing is everything.

Now, they are playing the role of WotC and offering up the unfamiliar - and I suspect a similar result awaits for them as for 4E. If I’m so inclined to ditch the 3.75 paradigm (if you will) then all contenders are going to be up for consideration, the most notable being 5E. I’m not so inclined to ditch PF1 - that dog still has a lot of hunt left in it.

This sums up my feelings perfectly. Thanks!

3.5 is my Holy Grail. If I'm going to be forced to give it up, D&D5e has the better support, larger community, and professionally published and managed games. G&S, AcqInc. WebDM, it's all for 5e. D&D is also more familiar to me overall since I come from 2e and 3e originally, so I already know the game worlds. I quit 4e because it was stupid, and I didn't return for 5e because I'm not super thrilled by the way they're handling high level play in general and spellcasters specifically. Looking at what I might get from a PF2e, I think I would either just stick with 3.x, or else move back to 5e. PF has to really wow me to get me to move. That's not going to be easy since I'm getting old and am more and more stuck in my ways. Kids today are likely to go with D&D anyways, due to branding, and the larger community. PF isn't like CoC or VamptM or anything, it doesn't break the mold enough to attract niche audiences. It's just trying to do what D&D is doing, and it doesn't do it well enough to survive in that market. My opinion anyways.

Starfinder is just capitalizing on the Star Wars revival, and capturing the sci-fi crowd that never really had a good home. Fantasy is a whole-different ball game though.

The basic Wizard and Sorcerer should both be dumped in favor of the Arcanist. It is what casters should have always been with Vancian casting.

Never had a problem with preparing spells in spell slots. Not sure I understand exactly what the complaint is. Although if it helps, I've had a house rule for a long time with my casters that Heighten spell can be applied to any spell that has been metamagiced, as long as you have the heighten spell feat. So it's a bit of a feat tax but makes spell-casting much more enjoyable. Is that similar to what you mean by freedom to prepare any spell in any slot? It only really matters for combat spells.

And speaking of the graphical design...although I really do thing it is a HUGE improvement over 1E, there are a few tweaks I would suggest:
[list]

The icons for one, two, and three actions should be more obvious at a glance. As it stands they're not quite there. As silly as it might sound, you might look at military rank insignias -- which must be distinguishable at a glance in bad conditions

Bad example, a lot of enlisted ranks (which these icons most look like) are very hard to distinguish in bad conditions. At least for Marines in cammies, telling an e8 from e9 is super difficult, especially if they're d@&*!eads and have cammy blouses that have black splotches on their collars. Navy has it best, but that's only because the whole insignia changes drastically every 3 ranks. e4-6 can still be a pain.