Colonel Kurtz's page

81 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:
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.".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
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.

I remember quite a few Moonglum wannabes back in the day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
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.

PF2 is like an advanced (niche) fantasy RPG. A system designed for designers.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Yeah, but in PF1 they (fighters, paladins, etc) all have High BAB, seems strange to have a whole level of proficiency just to basically give the fighter +2 to attacks, could just be a class feature (like in 4th Ed).

The weapon training comes online at level 1, and by having it work with the proficiency system you reduce cognitive load “I have to add proficiency AND this random +2” (once someone learns how the proficiency system works they immediately understand what expert with weapons at level 1 means). It also includes a hard cap on bonuses (no matter what you will never get legendary AND +2 in martial weapons).

If fighter’s martial weapons was the only time legendary existed, I would agree it’s not necessary. But legendary is used all over the place.

Yeah, I like the cap of +8, I just think they could have spread the Legendary love around a bit for weapons (monk Legendary in unarmed). I"m sure there's more interesting things to distinguish the fighter than +2 to hit.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Something went wrong when characters started being referred to as "Builds".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is an old classic, now.

I like the balance:

No control-freak DMs, and no entitled players, the latter is a newer phenomenon, relatively. Seemed to really gain popularity in the mid-2000s.

"What do you mean I can't play a pixie paladin in your Dark Sun campaign?! You are an unimaginative, mean, controlling DM. My character is all I have, you have no say in the matter!"

Or something to that effect.

There are even some DMs I read about that gloat about how permissive they are with everything (never say no, always "Yes, and") and don't know or care about the PCs, as if it's cool to not have any knowledge of any PCs abilities, because you are so detached and professional, I guess what they're going for.

These are often the everything is emergent through the fiction types (you can play your 5 Int Sherlock, however you want, no regard for the abilities), nothing is pre-established, the whole multiverse would seem to be in stasis until the PCs interact. If you do not follow the make-it-up-as-you-go-along, play whatever you want method, you are a railroading DM, telling your story.

That's the gist I have got, so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
As I said in another thread, the crafting rules were conceived for crafting magic items and suits of plate armor, not for crafting arrows or coffee mugs. Perhaps in a future supplement we will see a use of the crafting skill called "Craft Simple Items" giving another formula for items costing 5sp or less.
I am doubtful about this. By this logic, a 20th-level, legendary crafter still needs a minimum of four days to craft a mundane suit of full plate, or one day with an 18th-level magic item.
How long does it take history's greatest craftman to make a suit of full plate?

Probably longer than an unskilled one. Most "expertly crafted" things take more time than normal.

Factory made chair - a few hours.

hand carved chair - a few months.

Yep, like the old saying, you can have it one of three ways: cheap, fast, or good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
That's cannibalism so you'd have to ask the Urgathoans.

Tengu hard-boiling tengu eggs and eating them, I guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently it takes about 90 minutes to hardball an ostrich egg, so how long would it take for one of these badboys?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like slower crafting times; in 3rd Ed/PF1, we house-rule it to 1 week per 1,000 gp in the price for magic items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Another vote to Wizards not being about big single damage, but more utility/control.
Well, Wizards should be more about utility/control, yes. Problem is that the utility/control spells have either been weakened or plain out not exist.

Well, yeah, that's something else entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

Charisma lets you qualify for several decent Multiclass Dedications, and if you're really worried about investing into more worn items then there's the incredible investiture feat that requires 16 Charisma.

I'm glad they didn't make it an innate function of the stat because then it would feel very clunky and almost require you to invest into it where almost no other stat feels like you actually NEED to invest into it.

I don't agree, I think this was the time to make Cha matter to everyone; like maybe some sort of luck replacement score or something. Maybe another year would have helped.

I think of Kirk, Cha is his main schtick, gets him out of a lot of jams.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.
Yes, and you have Diplomancers; I would just like something more concrete.
Cha is better than Int as it stands now, with the amount of "trained skills" you get already, and Int only giving trained skills, it's much less important that having at will -1 to everything debuffs as well as being competent in gather information and etc.

I think gaining a number of trained skills equal to your Int modifier is pretty juicy; if only 5th Ed went this route.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very happy they did not make the mistake of Dex to damage being any kind of default, as 5th Ed did.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I too think that any class should be able to reach at least Expertise proficiency in any armour or weapon, without jumping through too many hoops, certainly not multiclassing.