Oread

Cyouni's page

Organized Play Member. 1,955 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 1,199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe the wizard was deprived of a choice of ??? because they got Drain Bonded Item.

You're aware that taking away Shield Block from the fighter doesn't mean they gain anything as a result, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, that would be part of Doomsday Dawn, part 5. Checking tells me the name is Heroes of Undarin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Can you use Rapid Affixture to attach the scroll? That is what I was wondering. I can attach them rapidly with Affix a talisman and and Rapid Affixture?

That you can do, yes. Striker's Scroll notes that it uses Affix a Talisman, and Rapid Affixture reduces the time of Affix a Talisman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:


You picked bad examples. AD&D isn't particularly detailed or granular for a modern TTRPG that isn't a rules light it's just from a different age and isn't very tightly writen with lots of fluff and ambiguity.

You literally insisted that skill simplification made the game objectively less interesting. Hence, anyone reading this would understand that by that logic, complexity/granularity is interesting by default.

But I specifically pulled out the weapon system for a reason. There is absolutely no fluff or ambiguity there - it is literally a table of how good each weapon type is against each AC bonus.

It is dated in exactly the same way that 3.5's skill system is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:


Complexity isn't a net negative. It allows for granularity and fine-tuning which is highly desirable in a TTRPG. The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.

You can have the complexity without the worst excesses if that is your goal.

Counter example 1: FATAL. (Please do not look this up if you are not already aware of it.)

Counter example 2: AD&D.

Both examples have tons of granularity which provides absolutely no improvement to the game. In AD&D's case, for instance, Haste aging the target by 1 year and having a material component of licorice root does not make it more "interesting". The weapon tables of AD&D do not allow for more "desirable fine-tuning".

And before you attempt to say something to the effect of No True Granularity, I don't think you can prove that skill simplification and weapon simplification are meaningfully different.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

So question: how do you have enough information to comment on how "unacceptable" and "below par" the balance of multiple classes is in play if you basically don't play yourself?

Or is this yet another person armchair theorizing and feeling they know best?

It's not like I haven't played and GMed the system before and see struggle bus classes in action. I played right at launch with one of my players rolling up a pre-errata Alchemist in Fall of Plaguestone. It was not a good time and even once we applied the errata he still felt useless in that AP. I've played alongside a Gunslinger and watched them struggle against foes he couldn't easily roll crits against. I never saw a Witch because nobody I knew would touch the class pre-remaster.

I don't need to continue playing the system because I've already seen its flaws in action and they're the same flaws people keep pointing out on this forum and on Reddit.

So you've seen precisely two examples and clearly it's because of inherent flaws in the system.

I've seen a druid be unimpressive because he prepared very questionable spells and spent a lot of time with a melee weapon. But yes, clearly this is representative of all casters and I should be yelling about how casters suck and can't do things in play.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So question: how do you have enough information to comment on how "unacceptable" and "below par" the balance of multiple classes is in play if you basically don't play yourself?

Or is this yet another person armchair theorizing and feeling they know best?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Travelling Sasha wrote:

Translation!

So, I'm not a native English speaker — in fact, I GM in both Spanish and Portuguese. Since these two languages are so full of cognates, though, the actual act of translating anything from English to either of these two languages can be confusing. I can't do it on the spot, not with precision. So, I'd have to sit down and actually translate these little blue room descriptors that Paizo puts in premade adventures to be read out loud. That... could take a bunch of time. Certain words don't translate easily. I remember spending a good thirty minutes trying to translate the word alcove, for example.

But today, it really is a matter of just quickly copying the text and asking ChatGPT to translate it. Running online, I can even do it on the spot! It's a breeze.

Have you considered dedicated actual language things like DeepL?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixel Popper wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
... there's been a massive push by companies to replace people (writers, artists, etc) by using AI to create something "good enough" to function for profit...
Why is that any worse than automation to replace assembly line workers, kiosks to replace food server order takers and cashiers, or any other of the myriad examples of advancement replacing human labor (the printing press, industrial looms, bulldozers, harvesters, ad nauseam)?

One thing to consider is the difference in fields here. Creative fields are the big difference - automation in the form of the printing press hasn't done anything to say, calligraphy, because automation can't do that. Automation is only really able to cover tasks that can be done simply, whereas there's also still a market for hand-done and custom work of all types.

Generative AI takes that and stifles creativity because you can mimic hand-done work on the cheap, thanks to it stealing and copying the work of those that had come before it. It's also self-devouring, because you can have infinite levels of standard automation without affecting anything, while AI work can't sustain itself without non-AI people feeding it. It can't create something new - taking an example from a recent show, it can't imagine stars in a sky that has never had any.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm a graphic designer and technical illustrator by profession, draw dozens of illustrations a week for my job, and I'm loving the new capabilities these automation tools allow.

So another big reason why, aside from the art theft mentioned above, is also that there's been a massive push by companies to replace people (writers, artists, etc) by using AI to create something "good enough" to function for profit.

Working in that field yourself, I'm sure you can see the problem there.

The concept behind generative AI-assisted tools is fine in and of itself, but the execution and general corporate response has some major problems.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You might be interested to know that undead aren't immune to nonlethal. They're immune to unconscious, which is a different thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squark wrote:
Can we get guidance on which pre-remaster spells should have the [Manipulate] and/or [Concentrate] trait added? It feels important since the former is not universal to all remastered spells, and Reactive strike only triggers if the action has the [Manipulate] tag, so spells like Sure Strike no longer trigger Reactive Strike or most similar reactions.

I suspect that Manipulate is generally on things that had Somatic, and Concentrate on things with Verbal. I'd have to trace through all of them to find exceptions, though, and see if there's a pattern there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, you do have to consider that you're also shorting yourself on the benefits of conflux focus spells. It's clearly better than not using a focus point (as it should be), but you do also have to give up a level 2 and 6 feat, in addition to the opportunity cost of other archetypes and a focus point.

That said, it does get insane if you maximize its power with things like Spell Swipe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will also point out a few other factors:

1 - yes, the swash is going to deal less damage than a two-handed barbarian on each hit because that's how weapons work. The barbarian is paying for that extra damage by having 3 less AC, for instance. Similarly, yes the swash is going to do less damage than a top level spell, because again, that's how the numbers are designed. That's all basic design math - that the tradeoffs that are happening have costs as a result.

2 - the swash has significantly more support tools built in automatically. For instance, fencer makes its targets off-guard, which is a free helper that makes a lot of people very happy (the spell attack psychic you like to trot out, for instance, gets a big boost there). A lot of the other ones should be insanely obvious as well, with gymnast and wit being especially far up there.

3 - I've absolutely never seen a GM go "it's not worth it to target the swashbuckler", first. And if you really keep getting that, that's what AoO is for - it's really not hard to lean into that in ways that force one or the other to happen. Also, if they do that and you're *not* punishing their incredibly silly positioning as a result, that's on you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

One thing about the playtest is that it was really big. Four classes is a lot, and opinions on the investigator, witch, and even oracle were extremely polarizing and intense.

I feel like to some extent a lot of people gave the Swashbuckler a once over or a very superficial test and then moved on to the 'real' problems. It just didn't get the same level of deep analysis and criticism the other classes got.

I mean, you were part of it, you tell me. You were one of the people commentating in the swashbuckler playtest forum.

Deriven Firelion wrote:


So you're saying the swashbuckler is bad due to popular vote? Wouldn't you have a process in place to ensure that you saw the data problems?

I guess I am too accustomed to video game balancing at this point. I figured the devs could run the numbers and see the problems. But maybe there is more to it than that with a tabletop RPG.

...tabletop balancing and video game balancing are completely different. You just cannot tweak tabletop numbers with near the same level of control that you can in a video game. Not to mention tabletop balance is basically like balancing for an open world game, except you're also balancing for Diablo on steroids, and with significantly more options because of how it works with action flow.

But if you want a longform discussion with specifics, here, you can listen to Mark talk about Electric Arc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

There were so many ways the Swashbuckler was short circuited. How the design team did not see this is beyond me given how obvious it was in play.

It made me wonder if they fell in love with a bad mechanic. One that was clunky and techy as I've heard them put it.

I'm not sure who "they" is, because I'll remind you again that it was insanely well rated during the playtest by everyone that participated. 80% of people picked either 4-5/5 on enjoyment in every regard.

So clearly if it was so "obvious", it's interesting that it barely came up during testing. Two things noted in the one thread where it came up as a topic (specifically against a level+4 enemy) is first, the alternate method of gaining panache where you don't interact with the boss's DCs (but very hard for your level), and second, not necessarily burning panache every round for finishers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:


I personally want to see the math they ran and what their design parameters that made things work out in the end game the way they are.

They must have calculated the rate of panache generation combined with finisher damage compared to what a comparative class does to come up with the Finisher damage dice and finisher limitations, right? They must have had an idea of how that works.

I'm wondering if they expected people to focus more on regular strikes, then use panache judiciously to boost damage with finishers in fights rather than almost every round as I see it used in the game.

One thing I definitely note is that you're expected to get decent use of Riposte, and don't need to be parrying to get that use, unlike Duelist or Fighter feats. (Also, that example is 2-3 feats deep in a chain.)

Another thing that certainly comes up is that some posters basically never consider movement as a factor, see every example where people only ever consider 4 attacks standing still. I do see a quick reference to a dev-side level 5 swashbuckler doing fine with fists critting at 2d4+4+3d6.

One thing I did recall is that it's definitely come up to use the secondary damage on panache in a way where you might not necessarily burn it every turn in situations where it's not reliable to regain it.

---

That said, one thing to consider is that swashbuckler was, far and away, the most popular class in the playtest. I'd have to dig up the Twitch VOD somehow again to confirm, but I don't recall any concerns about damage coming up during the retrospective. In general, people picked 5 stars to rank it more than any other option.

So what changed since then? Retort was lost, because it came up as limiting, though this did an interesting thing in regards to Cheat Death and how often it could be used. One fascinating thing I see changed is that styles had a way to start with panache - when they rolled it for initiative - but that was cut.

What could have been missed? One thing I definitely feel slipped people by is skill increases and the limitations therein, because there wasn't really leveling/characters over time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's very funny that people seem to think they are the only ones with the ability to do math.

Especially when Mark was one of the core designers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think something that'd be nice is better scaling for Finishers, because it seems weird that they get comparatively worse as you get higher level. At level 1, it's cool to do 10.5 damage on a rapier instead of 3.5. But when we get to level 20, let's use the triple damage rune weapon as an example - a rapier is 4d6+3d6 rune+6 specialization, averaging to 30.5. With finisher, that's 13d6+6, or average of 51.5. Significantly less impressive of an increase. Even if we take out the triple damage rune, that's still 20 to 41, which is a pretty big cut. Yes, we've gotten much more reliable about it, but the corresponding result is less interesting.

(Note that an example with 16->20 Str doesn't throw this off that much, even with a d8 weapon. We go from average of 7->14.5 to 39.5->60.5, with no damage runes being 29->50.)

Corabee Cori wrote:
Easl wrote:
Corabee Cori wrote:
Yup. Just as legit as saying that my awesome feinting ability makes me feel awesome and inspired and I gain panache status even if the mindless enemy I am feinting against doesn't notice.
I honestly have no problem with that. The audience Errol Flynn cares about is mostly Errol Flynn, not the other guy.
I would think so too. But apparently that is a disengenuous reading of the rules. I haven't found a GM yet that allows this.

So question: what separates feinting against a mindless enemy versus feinting against the adjacent vase, besides the difficulty?

You might argue that the vase isn't trying to kill you. In that case, what stops you from feinting against a hazard, say a Spinning Blade Pillar?

I'd argue it's hard to say you're succeeding if you have no effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Corabee Cori wrote:
Or the GM rules that Tumble Through and effectively go nowhere is allowed.
This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.

So you're slipping in and out of their legs just to style on them?

Eh? Sounds legit.

I like this one in combination with Tumble Behind, because it implies that they spin trying to follow you, only to find you didn't actually go through their legs as you stab them in the back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, do you disallow Running Reload from taking a Step because then it's not a "Running" Reload?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corabee Cori wrote:
Or the GM rules that Tumble Through and effectively go nowhere is allowed.

This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless they've changed the actual design principles 2e started on, Dex-to-damage isn't happening.

Corabee Cori wrote:


I remember once when we were fighting against some mindless enemies and the GM was ruling that feint wouldn't give panache no matter how well I rolled at it - that I still didn't want to use Tumble Through because I was the one plugging up the hallway and preventing the enemy from getting to the downed characters and spellcasters behind me. The thing instead had to try and attack me and my high AC, Hit Points, and Dueling Parry.

But... you can just use Tumble Through and return to your previous location. You're still moving through the square, and gaining panache. Is it the most efficient way? Definitely not. But you still trigger things like Tumble Behind, which in the situation you were in is still handy for off-guard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if you don't want that, simply Tumble Through, Finisher, Tumble Through again on your way out to end with panache at a safe distance. And that's not even counting the fact that you don't actually have to end surrounded - you can Tumble Through to a spot adjacent to only one enemy, or return to the previous square after Tumbling Through. I know this sounds heretical, but you don't have to play stupid simply because you're playing a swashbuckler.

Acrobatics is attached to the class for a reason.

(I liked Twin Parry as well on my swash.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know it always comes up, but auto skill increases a la Inventor is definitely wanted.

VampByDay wrote:

-1 Panache is a problem. Listen, Panache is a problem here. I love the idea in concept, the idea that you are styling on your enemy, and that gives you the confidence to get more done. The problem here is that it just doesn't work for a couple of reasons

--A) A lot of fights only last 2-3 rounds. So if you spend your first round getting up to someone and getting panache, not only are they going to merc you for the whole of your next round, but that's 1/3 of the fight you aren't participating in.

What are you even doing that you're taking your full first round there? If you are close enough to get your base move -5, Tumble Through gets you panache in one action.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Game designers' sanity and quality of life ?
Is maintaining a table and thinking about which new spells are appropriate for each casting class really supposed to be some impossible feat? I do not buy that for a second.

You're aware that there are 1388 spells currently and 13 classes capable of casting, right?

You're aware that you're suggesting quadrupling+ the work of developers for no benefit? And then it also breaks the entire system if they introduce a new casting class, because now they have to backport all 1388 spells into that class?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the question is: is this thread adding any value or new information, or just the 30th retread of old ground?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
I don't find that true at all - I've long-played with folks who take what some people consider 'traps' and forgo 'must-takes' and the experience has been completely fine and often they had more fun than they would have if they took the 'must-takes'.

You know what's a trap in forums' eyes?

A martial druid with a Savage animal companion, maxing Diplomacy with 10 Cha.

You know who was a perfectly functional character in the AP I played all the way to the end?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grumpus wrote:

If 3 moderate fights a day are the expectation, they need to communicate this to AP writers.

Just looking at the start of book-1 of Outlaws of Alkenstar ** spoiler omitted **

And this AP does not have the excuse of being an early one.

And to answer the OPs question. From what I have seen, The designers seem to think those who don't enjoy the wizard or think it is too weak are playing the game wrong.

I will point out you definitely feel like you're supposed to be resting in that second area you mentioned. There's a literal campsite there. I don't know why you think you shouldn't be resting at the literal campsite surrounded by friendly characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:


Only if you build one that doesn't.

IMO is a bad idea not to build a martial that can target every save with at least something. Max out intimidation, dip Alchemist or Gunslinger for bombs, get a weapon with the trip and/or disarm trait, use snares and talismans.

Its all there.

Are you implying that a character with one archetype, a maxed skill, and a specific weapon type is equivalent to one that doesn't have all those requirements?

Not to mention that only does things related to frightened, trip, and disarm. By rank 3 spells, you can target slowed on at least two different saves, damage large AoEs, blind enemies (for a minute, which is basically the whole fight), make groups invisible, open locks, cause stronger fear, etc.

This is unquestionably a larger variety of activities that can target a wider range of defenses. Now, you can absolutely argue that it's not as good as just hitting things (which people may disagree on), but martials definitely do not reach the range of things a caster has available.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah to talk about "the prepared wizard can solve anything"... no.

And see, this is why these threads always have issues - because people take things and warp them into this.

Because what was actually said was:

Quote:
Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

This is absolutely and unequivocally true. A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw that the Twitter thread was posted and immediately knew the exact same people were going to be in this thread.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
EidolonAzul wrote:
I really wish they would nerf Fighter in the remastered edition, my players just don't see a point in playing other martials, for example you can be a fighter with a martial artist/monk dedication instead of a monk who will never reach Legendary proficiency in unarmed strikes or grab the champion dedication and be a champion with the reaction, lay on hands and the +2 to hit from fighter.

I see your players don't understand the value of Legendary AC and movement.

Which, y'know, says something about the GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ouatcheur wrote:

We House Ruled a "fix":

- Power Attack becomes a clear upgrade, not a mere occasionnal sidegrade, and remains useful at all levels.

- Assumed that it will be used relatively regularly, too.

We changed it to:

Power Attack: <> (1 Action)

Traits: Barbarian, Fighter, Flourish, Press.

In order to deal a mightier blow, you gain momentum to push your strength beyond its limits, focusing everything on offense to the detriment of defense. However, this leaves you momentarily reeling and unbalanced.

- Make a Strike with a melee weapon wielded in two hands. That attack loses any potential Precision Damage.

- The attack's base damage adds twice your Strength bonus instead of addding it only once. Note that for Critical Hits, this is added before the doubling of the total weapon damage.

- Until your next turn, you become Clumsy 2.

It's funny because your "fix" accomplishes none of your stated goals. Giving yourself Clumsy 2 on Press in return for 4-7 flat damage (and also disabling precision damage) is so insanely bad that I'd take it on maybe the Giant Barbarian at most (because they're clumsy 1 anyways), and it'd stop seeing use very quickly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one thing I'm wondering about with the loss of alignment is how they're going to present certain deities.

Like Torag being Lawful and Good is an important bit of context to his edicts *not* demanding genocide. Arazni being Neutral and Evil but granting divine power to only one evil alignment, three neutral alignments, and one good alignment tells us a lot about Arazni. I sort of suspect what we're going to be doing is "backformating a lot of this." Like "Arazni is still NE, and allows CG, LN, N, CN, and NE clerics, but we're not going to say any of those words."

I think Torag is less fraught when you don't have to label what he's doing Lawful and Good. Likewise, "Arazni grants powers to those abuse survivors who refuse to have their pride broken by suffering" is perfectly coherent without a list of Cleric alignments stapled to it.

I feel like this is kinda reopening the door to "good" or "neutral" Asmodeus or Lamashtu worshippers though. They specifically moved away from that for a reason.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vasyazx wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nothing in there says you get to identify the tags the spell has. Why are you adding that in when it seems to cause problems?
Well i assume that correctly recognition of spell would give you full information about it otherwise it would not be correct recognition at all.So what exacly should be gain from that action from your persectve?

You recognize the spell being cast as Divine Lance.

How is that not correct recognition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:


I'm definitely not trying to argue that 5e doesn't have a tremendous advantage in reach and visibility over all other ttRPGs - that would be plainly ignoring reality, as you say. I ran a club at uni introducing students to ttRPGs, and I am fully aware how few of them even knew what Pathfinder was, despite being the second biggest RPG on the market. How I'm using accessibility doesn't really include visibility though. I was talking about the game design, and when saying accessibility I am talking about how the game design gives rise to more or less accessible games for new players. When I'm talking about visibility, I'm meaning the popularity of the game in the cultural zeitgeist.

I feel they're important to distinguish, because if someone is talking to a new player who wants to get into tRPGs and says 'the key advantage of 5e is its accessibility', I think they'll interpret that as 'this is a really easy-to-get-into beginner's game'. If you say...

I'd argue that accessibility includes visibility, in that it's hard to get people to join a game if people have no idea what it is. It's rare that people go "I'm fine with playing any TTRPG" as they enter into the system.

I think 5e is accessible enough in gameplay that it doesn't deter people from its overwhelming popularity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please remember at even at its weakest, during 4e, D&D still outsold everything not named Pathfinder.

So it's unsurprising that during a boom that they created, backed by both tons of influencers and highly popular ones, that they're doing better than ever.

The D&D brand is just that strong, and that's the biggest factor behind their success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
So Wizard is good because they can spend 2 feats to cast covertly? When they were the go to class for using metamagic such as dazing. Which Druids and Bards just need 1 feat to hide everything by simply doing what they already wanted to do. The wizard's version is in fact worse because it wants them to use Stealth as opposed to Nature (Druid) or Performance (Bard).

While technically correct, that's missing a few major problems. Druid requires natural terrain (which can easily be an issue) and Bards require already conducting a Performance, an attention-grabbing act by default.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


...
If I want to play a caster who wants to do any kind of blasting. I am forced to use true strike regardless of how I want my character to play. That is the definition of mandatory.

The fact I can play debuffer/utility mage and do blasting does not make me a blaster.

Specially not when all the debuff/utlity spells just work, and I have to bend over backwards just to not lose one of the 4 top level spells.

And no, being forced to play spell blending or whatever is not a fixed. That is a stop gap bandaid solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place.

Please come back to me when you've played a blaster caster from 1-14.

I've literally seen it played in front of me and it's been absolutely fine.

Oh, and it was on staff nexus.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Blaster caster exists perfectly fine. Like, I absolutely do not understand anyone who seems to think that -40 HP to 6 enemies is somehow useless. If an enemy has, say, 120 HP, and the fighter does 40 HP/attack, then that means 1 less attack required per enemy. That absolutely speeds up the combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really want to know what people are doing such that creatures of level-2 are "more a distraction than a real threat" while creatures of equal level are so threatening that you can never get them to fail saves.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Slacker 2.0 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

If you thought PF2 ever had a chance of outselling 5e, it's good you didn't do this. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of branding and market penetration.

Don't quit your day job, is what I'm saying.

I never said it did. Only that Paizo failed to capitalize on its growth as well as it could have and continue to miss chances to grow into the digital realm with the line that they "aren't a tech company."

This you?

Slacker 2.0 wrote:
I'd like it if that changed so I could stop supporting WoTC but the Paizo team seems to want to carve out a small niche rather than aiming for the top.

Especially since PF2 is doing perfectly fine by anyone's measure. They're already sitting pretty in a spot above everyone else, and also managing to stay above the tide of "5e 3pp products", a claim no one else can match.

I don't see why they should have to rewrite their perfectly successful game to satisfy some random person on the internet.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Slacker 2.0 wrote:
Farien wrote:
Well, it sounds like you already know exactly how to fix it all. So why are you wasting time arguing with people here. Being a 3rd party publisher couldn't possibly be that hard for someone as expert at writing as you are.
The issue isn't writing a good system. It's marketing and distributing said system in a crowded indy scene with no unified storefront and very low, lower than Steam or the Apple Store, levels of discoverability. It's not worth the time to write a better system unless you have a load of funds to ensure people actually see it.

If you thought PF2 ever had a chance of outselling 5e, it's good you didn't do this. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of branding and market penetration.

Don't quit your day job, is what I'm saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Some people just don't like lots of fiddly bits. They want to make a martial that smashes. They want it to be simple because they enjoy it.

You can also make simple casters if you want to taking the most straightforward damage spells or abilities.

That's the thing, I don't really think you can build a simple caster. I mean, you can, in a strict sense, make a caster and only pick damage spells. But that's not a build. That's just a self-imposed restriction with no benefit. It's like doing a naked dagger run on Dark Souls. Sure, some people might like it, but many others would rather be able to play a blaster without feeling like they're doing some kind of challenge run.

The game assumes all casters are a versatile toolbox by default, and gives you no option to truly specialize to the detriment of vesatility, but with a focused power boost. Because of that, playing anything but a Treantmonk-brand super versatile caster is like buying a burger, paying full price, then throwing everything away and only eating the bread.

Neither of my players did that in a 1-14 campaign. Both were fine. The wizard really liked to blast (but had some other spells because they picked abjuration), while the druid mainly had polymorphs in their higher level slots and utility lower. Neither of them really tried to think about what the weak/strong saves were, thought about how to avoid incapacitation spells, or how useful the spell would be in a situation. The druid even prepped mariner's curse at one point in their second highest level slot, when we were on dry land.

What are they doing that yours aren't?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely do not think you need to play a spellcaster optimally to be equal to a martial.

I had a recent campaign where we had two casters, one played passably with various times of optimization, and one played...mediocrely to poorly. The first saved quite a few fights, and we absolutely could not have done without him. The second we could definitely feel when turns were wasted, but there were still quite a few useful spells cast.

However, that's been the same with martials. I definitely can feel it when an archer monk wastes two shots at MAP -10. Or when someone tries to grapple or push around the elephant.

There are tons of points of failure in martial characters' decisions, it's just that people don't scream about them as loudly as casters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd argue that there are some corporations that could be Lawful Evil, but the average probably trends closer to LN, similar to Abadar. The last one I worked at was straight-up quietly abusive, paid well below the average, and was basically willing to do anything to make a quick buck. (They're still around, incidentally.) That's one I'd classify as LE.

My current one offers good pay (well over the standard, I believe), very friendly benefits, looks to improve workers in general, etc, but has also had very large-scale questionable reports in the past. I'm not sure if I'd be willing to call them Good that's been tainted by certain people, as I haven't worked with them long enough to tell, but they probably make the bar for LN at least.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Yeah, Paizo staff answering questions is the exception, not the rule. And this is speculation on my part, but if I was one of those staff members and I saw someone demanding an answer from me and not accepting extremely reasonable answers from the community... Well, I'd be even less inclined to bother.

The other thing there is that a lot of Paizo developers were community members before becoming developers. The immediate ones that came to mind were Mark Seifter and Michael Sayre, for instance.

So trying to draw some imaginary line in the sand between "mere" community members and developers is a very silly line.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
GM_3826 wrote:
I am not going to take your reasoning as an explanation as to why all non-core ancestries are uncommon, even if you disagree, so I'm going to wait to see if a developer has anything similar (or opposite) to say. This thread was a quesiton directed towards them in the first place.

Respectfully, if you refuse to accept anyone's answer except developers, then you're going to have a hard time in general interacting with the community.

1 to 50 of 1,199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>