Colonel Kurtz's page

Colonel Kurts, may I direct you to the Community Guidelines. Particularly under the heading "Baiting".

May I direct you to not being hassled for not agreeing with a blanket statement that PF2 is easer to learn than PF1. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as this forum seems to be all ganged up.

And it's not like you haven't made thinly veiled implying that those who disagreed with you were lying before. So this isn't an isolated incident. It's a pattern.

Disagreeing with people has nothing to do with disingenuousness or lying; and let's not get personal. The only pattern I am seeing is disingenuousness.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Well, let's not get hysterical, this is what I actually said:

Ah, are we gaslighting now?

No, clarifying things, how would you construe that as undermining someone's mental wellbeing?

You literally called my statement disingenuous. Which is to say called me dishonest to my face for no particular reason. And I'm somehow in the wrong for calling this out as inappropriate behavior?

Yeah, I'm done here.

Well, let's not get hysterical, this is what I actually said:

"I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it."

No accusations, or condemning of whole statements.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

You can think my description is pedantic or inaccurate if you like (though I self evidently disagree), but accusing people of dishonesty when you disagree with them (particularly with no supporting evidence) is poor form, .

Yikes, it's statements like this that lead me to think some disingenuousness is going on.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, and certainly not because I disagree with them.

Right, accusing someone of being disingenuous isn't accusing them of anything..

I never accused anyone of anything. I said the comparisons were disingenuous, nothing personal.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

2nd Ed AD&D was the beginning of the ranger losing its identity; all that Drizzt baggage got attached.

The publication of the 2e PH was before the first of the books that featured Drizz't

The Crystal Shard was published in 1988, one year before 2nd Ed.

You can think my description is pedantic or inaccurate if you like (though I self evidently disagree), but accusing people of dishonesty when you disagree with them (particularly with no supporting evidence) is poor form, .

Yikes, it's statements like this that lead me to think some disingenuousness is going on.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, and certainly not because I disagree with them.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.

You've been accusing people of being disingenuous either directly or by implication in a couple of threads now. Stop that. .

I'm good, thanks, and please don't tell me what to do.

It's a great feeling to be like "Eh, I'd accept an argument for either a Nature, Survival, Perception, or specific Lore check for this particular thing. Choose whichever one is higher or makes the most sense to you", and I feel like I'm doing it not because I need to make an on-the-fly ruling to keep the game going rather than look up the specific rule somewhere, but because the system expressly encourages me and my players to have that quick conversation.

Yeah, very like 5th Ed, the DM calls for an ability check, and the PC may be able to add their proficiency bonus if they have a skill that they can apply.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

That is a very dull and uninspired core feature/defining characteristic, an extra +2.

Their core mechanical feature is being vastly better at accuracy than everyone else, yes. Likewise, Barbarian's is doing more damage than anyone else when they do hit, and Rangers is their Hunt Target mechanic, and Rogues' is Sneak Attack.

I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.

You might find it dull, but Fighter was PF1’s most popular class.

The PF1 fighter's defining feature is not accuracy (an extra +2).

I really don't think that Kurtz cares much about what other people have experienced.

That's fine and all, but people making blanket statements about which is easier based on their anecdotes is hard to swallow, and of course, with the internet you have the classic "You never see blue, 5-legged tigers", instantly you will get "I see blue, 5-legged tigers all the time, and so does my wife.".

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

That is a very dull and uninspired core feature/defining characteristic, an extra +2.

Their core mechanical feature is being vastly better at accuracy than everyone else, yes. Likewise, Barbarian's is doing more damage than anyone else when they do hit, and Rangers is their Hunt Target mechanic, and Rogues' is Sneak Attack.

I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

That is what is what I have found with teaching new players, and others I know, and contacts, groups, etc, finding.

So, I guess all we have to go on is everyone's assertions and anecdotes, until we see some hard evidence, one way or the other, as to whether PF1 or PF2 is easier to teach new players.

Okay, see, this is exactly what I was asking.

And sure, we only have anecdotes for the moment, but so far, yours is the only one I've heard where people who were new to RPGs (as opposed to people who'd previously done PF1) found PF2 harder.

Well, that's not entirely true is it?

It is, I mean, maybe ease to learn was a goal, but whether they have succeeded, remains to be seen. We do not have any hard evidence that PF2 is easier for new players to pick up than PF1.

1) What hard evidence do you have that it is not easier?

2) Which hard evidence would even be enough to satisfy you here?

1) I don't.

2) I guess getting groups of new to RPG people, half learning PF1, the other half learning PF2, and see which has the easier time of it.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So people that never played RPGs were filling out the playtest surveys and found it easier to learn than PF1?

People who had never played RPGs before the playtest, yes.

So how would they compare it to PF1 if they were new to RPGs?

The core feature of the Fighter is better Proficiency than anyone else, to the tune of a universal +2 to-hit over everyone else at all levels.

That is a very dull and uninspired core feature/defining characteristic, an extra +2.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

What does that have to do with whether someone brand new to RPGs finds PF1 or 2 easier to learn?

Fact #1: Per surveys, people who had never played RPGs before found the Pathfinder Playtest easy to create characters in.?

So people that never played RPGs were filling out the playtest surveys and found it easier to learn than PF1?

Ad&d unearthed arcana, pg# 10 "Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand. They cannot use a shield when performing this type of combat, but may use a spiked buckler as one of their two weapons."

Yeah, it was also a drow deal, hence Drizzt and his dual-wielding, nothing to do with being a ranger, neither his animal companion, as that is a magic item, but both got folded into the ranger.

I never played 2nd Ed only 1st.

Ah, well, TWF is a thing in 1st Ed AD&D (there are rules for it, PCs that use it), it just isn't particular to any class.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You: How did they collect the data?

Me: Through the surveys.

You: That doesn't make any sense.

???

Of course it doesn't make sense. How does data collected over a year ago during the playtest reflect how easy or hard it is to pick up PF2 compared to PF1?

Because the character creation process is almost exactly the same as it was during the playtest.

What does that have to do with whether someone brand new to RPGs finds PF1 or 2 easier to learn?

TWF wasn't even a thing in AD&D.

It was/is, and 2nd Ed made it a feature of the ranger, much to my chagrin.

2nd Ed AD&D was the beginning of the ranger losing its identity; all that Drizzt baggage got attached.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Seems if you do not dig every aspect of PF2, the same half-dozen posters all come down on you (plus the cheerleading), been going on since the playtest started.

I know right? How dare people disagree with your assertions or question why you feel the way you do.

Totally, and why should we take people's assertions and anecdotes at face-value, especially as many seem fabricated.

You: How did they collect the data?

Me: Through the surveys.

You: That doesn't make any sense.

???

Of course it doesn't make sense. How does data collected over a year ago during the playtest reflect how easy or hard it is to pick up PF2 compared to PF1?

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So Paizo has collected data that shows people that are extremely used to PF1 have a harder time picking it up than those that are brand new to the hobby? When and how did they collect that data?

Playtest. Surveys.

That has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I bought the original playtest book, took part in all the surveys, it was more about fine-tuning what was already set.

The surveys all included questions on how experienced you are with Pathfinder and how long it took you to build a character for any given section. That sounds exactly like what is being discussed to me.

How does that reflect on current data as to how easy or hard it is to pick up the released PF2 game compared to PF1?

I guess it's too early for that sort of information.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So Paizo has collected data that shows people that are extremely used to PF1 have a harder time picking it up than those that are brand new to the hobby? When and how did they collect that data?

Playtest. Surveys.

That has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I bought the original playtest book, took part in all the surveys, it was more about fine-tuning what was already set.

You asked, I answered.

With an answer that makes no sense (neither here nor there).

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I think maybe trying to read it front to cover may be a bit more challenging then pf1 but I think teaching people it will be easier for me and my group. I have a good handle on it and I feel some things will be easier to convey.

The CRB definitely does feel like more of a "user manual" than a "teaching tool" a lot of the time. It feels like PF2 is a game that is very easy for a GM who already knows the game to teach it to players, but it's probably pretty tough for an entirely new group to pick up on their own.

I hope they have something like the Beginner's Box 2 planned.

Yes (very technical, dry, dense), and maybe it isn't that important that it be easy for totally new to RPGs to pick up, as it seems like an advanced RPG.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So Paizo has collected data that shows people that are extremely used to PF1 have a harder time picking it up than those that are brand new to the hobby? When and how did they collect that data?

Playtest. Surveys.

That has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I bought the original playtest book, took part in all the surveys, it was more about fine-tuning what was already set.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

That is what is what I have found with teaching new players, and others I know, and contacts, groups, etc, finding.

So, I guess all we have to go on is everyone's assertions and anecdotes, until we see some hard evidence, one way or the other, as to whether PF1 or PF2 is easier to teach new players.

Okay, see, this is exactly what I was asking.

And sure, we only have anecdotes for the moment, but so far, yours is the only one I've heard where people who were new to RPGs (as opposed to people who'd previously done PF1) found PF2 harder.

Well, that's not entirely true is it?

It is, I mean, maybe ease to learn was a goal, but whether they have succeeded, remains to be seen. We do not have any hard evidence that PF2 is easier for new players to pick up than PF1.

No, but Paizo almost certainly does. Jason explicitly said their data showed that people who were extremely used to PF1 had more trip ups than new players did.

So Paizo has collected data that shows people that are extremely used to PF1 have a harder time picking it up than those that are brand new to the hobby? When and how did they collect that data?

Also, what about new players learning PF1, compared to PF2, have they collected data on that?

Seriously, what is it about the ranger that:

1) invites so much redesign from edition to edition

Yeah, the ranger identity has taken a beating over the years, seems hard to reconcile at this point.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

That is what is what I have found with teaching new players, and others I know, and contacts, groups, etc, finding.

So, I guess all we have to go on is everyone's assertions and anecdotes, until we see some hard evidence, one way or the other, as to whether PF1 or PF2 is easier to teach new players.

Okay, see, this is exactly what I was asking.

And sure, we only have anecdotes for the moment, but so far, yours is the only one I've heard where people who were new to RPGs (as opposed to people who'd previously done PF1) found PF2 harder.

Well, that's not entirely true is it?

It is, I mean, maybe ease to learn was a goal, but whether they have succeeded, remains to be seen. We do not have any hard evidence that PF2 is easier for new players to pick up than PF1.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Also the term Ancestry leads some to think of familial ancestors, instead of using Race or Species. Race makes perfect sense, especially in D&D/PF, we are all the Human race (we simply have different ethnicities), so Elves and what-not really are another race/species.

Ancestry is a much better term for the list of optional things that it gives you to choose from. Some of the different ancestry feats and heritages may imply a biological element, but many of them relate to cultural practices, and even if it was an even 50/50 split, ancestry is the much better catch all category for this element of the character creation process. Leading new players to think of the Ancestry part of character creation as including one's family tree and cultural placement in the campaign is a great addition to the process, and worth spending an extra 5 to 10 minutes on from just choosing a race for mechanical reasons.

I do like separating out cultural, heritage action, but I think they could have kept race, and still implemented it.

That said...none of that is actually anything but your own opinion and experiences. None of it has anything to do with what new players will actually find difficult.

That is what is what I have found with teaching new players, and others I know, and contacts, groups, etc, finding.

So, I guess all we have to go on is everyone's assertions and anecdotes, until we see some hard evidence, one way or the other, as to whether PF1 or PF2 is easier to teach new players.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Counterpoint...okay, I am not just talking about my experiences.

Okay. What experiences? I'm legitimately interested in the details of this since, as I said, it's the first example I've heard of new players finding PF2 harder.

What example? This now seems like sealioning.

I'm confused.

Okay, my apologies, you seem genuine.

Just a few for new players:

A lot of decision points (and the ABC thing is rather clunky), jargon (weapon qualities, conditions).

Just taking an array, or rolling, race then class, is much easier and intuitive.

Also the term Ancestry leads some to think of familial ancestors, instead of using Race or Species. Race makes perfect sense, especially in D&D/PF, we are all the Human race (we simply have different ethnicities), so Elves and what-not really are another race/species.

Another thing for new players (no experience with any RPG), finding the term, Feat, odd to be used for so many things. It's odd enough in 3rd Ed/PF1/5th Ed, as most people see the word, Feat, and think of an action or accomplishment, like "-that was quite a feat of strength" and some such, not some discrete ability or modifier.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Counterpoint...okay, I am not just talking about my experiences.

Okay. What experiences? I'm legitimately interested in the details of this since, as I said, it's the first example I've heard of new players finding PF2 harder.

What example?

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Still your counterpoint bring "I don't like that this poster generally approves of pf2" is a bit insulting.

Odd; that would be an insulting counterpoint if anyone actually said that, and you used quotation marks, so, who said that - what are you talking about?

Well if your not talking about me as a cheerleader as your counterpoint to my actual play experience then your post makes 0 sense.

Yeah, I think this illustrates why I should not put much stock in your assertions, anecdotes and what-have-you.

Still your counterpoint bring "I don't like that this poster generally approves of pf2" is a bit insulting.

Odd; that would be an insulting counterpoint if anyone actually said that, and you used quotation marks, so, who said that - what are you talking about?

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And you base your disbelief of Malk_Content on?

Several reasons, but I'm not going to go into that here.

I'm honestly not sure where else you'd go into the subject of why you believe the game is hard to learn for new players.

That's not the question I replied to (see above).

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And you base your disbelief of Malk_Content on?

Several reasons, but I'm not going to go into that here.

I'm honestly not sure where else you'd go into the subject of why you believe the game is hard to learn for new players.

That's not the question I replied to (see above).

Do you have a counterpoint to that other than it being harder for you personally?

Counterpoint...okay, I am not just talking about my experiences.

Seems if you do not dig every aspect of PF2, the same half-dozen posters all come down on you (plus the cheerleading), been going on since the playtest started.

And you base your disbelief of Malk_Content on?

Several reasons, but I'm not going to go into that here.

Eh its really more complicated a question some facets are more complex and others are simpler and then their is going to be an individual variable some people will pick some parts up faster and some parts slower.

That's fair, but PF2 comes across as more fiddly, dense, page flipping, and a lot of jargon (conditions).

Also, for my eye condition, PF2 is way harder on the eyes, aesthetically very unpleasant.
The icons are utterly horrid, I have a hard time deciphering the difference between the 2 and 3 Action icons, at a glance.

Having introduced new players to both (and with just core of both to boot). Nope new players find PF2 easier.

I don't agree with this assertion; PF2 is more difficult to teach/dive into than any other edition of PF or D&D.

I can understand not wanting to simplify 3rd Ed to the level 5th Ed did (3rd Ed Lite) for PF2, but they seem to have made it more complex, yet a bit homogenous, but that can be a byproduct of gunning for balance, as some of us have seen in the past.

Malk_Content wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah I think it worked better in 3.5 D&D

Definitely; 3rd Ed multi-classing actually captures the Conan deal very well: start as Barbarian, then some Fighter levels, then a few rogue levels, some more fighter levels what-have-you.

Not really, Conan is a competent character.

If you have enough levels under your belt you are always gonna seem competent to lower level challenges.

Yep, you can multi-class Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue and be more than competent. Being not brokenly powerful or completely homogenous with all other "builds" does not equal incompetence.

And apparently, technically, according to many, if you are not a full caster in PF1, you are always incompetent, comparatively.

Yeah I think it worked better in 3.5 D&D

Definitely; 3rd Ed multi-classing actually captures the Conan deal very well: start as Barbarian, then some Fighter levels, then a few rogue levels, some more fighter levels what-have-you.

gnoams wrote:

Interesting that a lot of people find Pf2 character creation to be elegant. I find it quite the opposite. The terrible organization of the book requires you to hunt back and forth in a long string of looking up options that refer you to other parts of the book where those rules are only partially defined and refer you to yet another term that you have to look up.

I've experienced this as well, but I believe it's more of an issue for those of us coming from previous editions. New players don't seem to have this issue at all.

I am not seeing this at all; PF2 is rather byzantine, the least new-player friendly edition to date, I feel. I would introduce a new player to pretty much any other edition before PF2.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

graystone wrote:

This is pretty much the section I want to see: Optional rules.

I thought any vagueness in the rules required you to get that GM’s ruling written down before the first session? Wouldn’t optional rules only compound that further?

Labeled optional rules allow graystone and others in their situation to ask 'Are you using X' and GMs to announce 'I am using Optional Rules X, Y, and Z.'

It provides standardized language in regards to any House Rules it covers which allows for easier and more proper communication, as well as legitimizing such rules and making usages of them more common.

For example, a lot more people actually used Wounds and Vigor or Automatic Bonus Progression after they were laid out in Unchanined than ever did beforehand.

Exactly, and at least with PF2 I know Unchained's Revised Action Economy is default.

Apparently:

"They haven't fully decided if the Witch will be an Occult caster. Lots of similarities to different second edition spell lists. They want to do cooler things with Patrons, especially making them relevant to the game's lore."

I am happy that Perception is no longer a skill (that everyone takes/wants).

I am also very happy with some monster Actions (the marilith, Grim Reaper, great stuff).

I most happy with the use and refinement of the Unchained' Revised Action Economy.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Mark's favorite thing: variance chapter. Chapter to show off how modular the game is and how easy you can house rule it. Examples Mark gave include gestalt (what if you got two classes) and giving everyone the pirate archetype for free.

This is pretty much the section I want to see: Optional rules.

Me too; I experimented with omitting + Level during the playtest, and found it far more to my taste. I also tried out +1/2 level, but preferred total removal of a level based bonus, so looking forward to them expanding on that.

I love optional rules/variants, something I thought 5th would really dig into, what with the system being very hack-friendly and all the talk about "modules".

Not sure about high level, but I find building a 1st-level PF2 character to be more fiddly and time-consuming than PF1, so far. PF2 seems rather dense, lots of moving parts.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

A lot of extraplanar creatures are sort of over represented in the PF1 Bestiary, so there are fewer of them and more creatures that catually live on Golarion.

Depends on the campaign, and most private games are apparently home-brewed worlds.

I doubt any rpg maker has access to those sorts of stats, even surveys would only hit a small part of the playerbase.

WotC did a few, and found just that. I think it's a mistake to tie PF so closely to a specific campaign setting.