Quinn

D@rK-SePHiRoTH-'s page

372 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 372 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Ediwir wrote:
Oberyn was higher level, which is why he could afford lighter armour and still have the advantage. There, fixed it.

This implies Oberyn would fight better with heavy armor. I don't think that's the case and I definitely don't like the implications if it was (that would mean Oberyn is deliberately not wearing one despite knowing that would be the superior choice)


MaxAstro wrote:

"Backwards compatibility with 3.5 requires math that is fundamentally broken in ways that become more and more inescapable past 10th level."

I'm not sure they've outright said that, but from everything they've posted and the actual design of the playtest, it's fairly clear that is the primary mechanical motivation for the new system.

I see qhere you're coming from but again that's not broken, that's a feature.

I myself hate what it can lead to if misused. Just like freedom. Freedom can lead to awful things if used for bad ends.
It's still inherently neutral. I like freedom. I like order, too. It depends on your priorities.


MaxAstro wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

The game is designed to make written adventures go as planned no matter what the players build.

That's it.

You say that like it's a bad thing

I don't think it's either good or bad, it's just a feature that one may or may not want


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The game is designed to make written adventures go as planned no matter what the players build.

That's it.


MaxAstro wrote:

"I want my character to be able to be absolutely terrible at things. But if being absolutely terrible isn't the default, then I expect to be compensated for being terrible."

That logic doesn't flow to me; I don't understand that point of view.

Because that's not it.

It needs to be rephrased to better represent the actual content of the point of view:

"I want to be able to choose to have a character who is overall able to attempt any challenge, which reflects a certain narrative trope, OR a character that has more marked strengths and weaknesses compared to the former, which represents another trope"


Min-maxing is not inherently bad.

I would argue that it is healthy in the right doses.

YMMV on what the right dose is, but here are some potential points to adress:

1 - It makes the game imbalanced
It depends on how effective the minmaxing option is compared to its cost first, and to the whole game in general second.
If the game can handle it fine, then it's fine in this regard.

2 - It rewards players who min-max
Again, it depends on how effective the minmaxing option is compared to its cost - some players may very well prefer to be able to roll on every occasion rather than have a 5% higher chance of a spotlight at a single skill, that sounds reasonable to me

3 - it is not necessary
Nothing is, but it's a feature some players will love to have. Again, it cannot be bad as long as there are no adverse effects.

4 - it is BAD design, ditto
It is not as long as it has no adverse effects


what if "not competenet" was an optional training rank, that gives +1 to another skill at the cost of never getting the +level bonus to that "not competent skill; You can do it with a number of skills and never get the +1 to the same one.

+ it would be optional
+ it would allow for the trope of "a character with strengths and weaknesses" that is much cherished
+ it would reward min-maxing (good for those who like it)

- it would incentivize min-maxing (bad for those who don't)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Found The Path

man I haven't even finished reading but this made me laugh out loud, favorited without a second thought

EDIT: after reading the whole post, I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points (plus, I had a few more laughs, so thank you)

I really hope the best for this game. Regards.


Meraki wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Meraki wrote:
Those people, imo, should not be told they should go to another system
I can tell whatever I deem appropriate: if I think another system is better for YOU I will suggest that, and if that upsets you well that is your problem
Phrase it as a suggestion and not a demand, and I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. Most people react fine to "have you considered X?"

Agreed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meraki wrote:
Those people, imo, should not be told they should go to another system

I can tell whatever I deem appropriate: if I think another system is better for YOU I will suggest that, and if that upsets you well that is your problem


How can you be sure this is going to happen in the final version?


Cantrips are not supposed to rival weapons in damage. It would be a problem if they did.


I feel that I am the same kind of player as Go4TheEyesBoo

I want to add one thing:
Building those characters are fun because the player is coming up with the concept.

It's not as fun if the concept and the mechanics are prepared in advance by someone else.

The fun lies in researching ways to make your own idea work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The legacy argument doesn't really hold up when you think that "the" D&D left the old vancian behind and despite that (or, actually, thanks to that) it's at peak popularity


Helmic wrote:
to become specialized you instead gain more versatility in your specialization

Unfortunately this is achieved at the cost of robbing people of the ability to wipe their bottoms unless they have a feat that allows that extremely specific use of toilet paper


This is a perfect analysis. I have nothing to add.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh
Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.
In fairness, they have been silent for quite a while.

Of course, it reached the point where previous version advocates were harassing people they disagreed with in private messages with personal attacks.

How could anyone tolerate such a toxic one sided environment?
Of course they left the aggressive echo chamber.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what if the fighter hits easily on the first attack?

The same Fighter has 2 other attacks that previously were not relevant but now they are.

This is how it should have been in the first place


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Very good, now just add the ability for players to have a minimum guaranteed amount of uncommon abilities without GM fiat and I may even buy the game when it's out


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Are you trying to stop the playtest with this post? I'm not sure what the purpose is. This was zero percent constructive.

"I said I want to swim into magma no matter what! Are you trying to stop me? This is 0% constructive"


Gorbacz wrote:
1. Modifiers should affect the way you toss the coin. A regular toss is your standard RNG, but a requirement to toss it by throwing the coin up in the air, spinning 360 degrees and then catching the coin could represent the "disadvantage" style mechanic.

Controlling the randomness via throwing skill techniques doesn't seem to be in line with development goals.

Quote:
2. We need hard and fast rules as to what happens when the coin lands on the side. Sorry, either that, or there will be much gnashing of teeth on the forums.

Reroll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the current maths, many feel that there is no reason to stick with a d20.
Instead, most if not all of the game's goals would be accomplished by throwing a coin.

So, why not just throw a coin!
Here is my thought experiment:

1) -Every action requires throwing a coin; head is success, tail is failure
Level, class ability scores and DCs are irrelevant

2) -Level, class, ability scores and DCs are instead represented with pools, just like HPs, and the ability to erode that pool faster, just like damage

Example 1 (attacks)

Rob is a fighter with a greatsword, on a succesful attack the amount of damage is calculated like this:
Weapon Damage + Proficiency + Ability Score + Level Bonus (same for all classes) + CLASS BONUS (depends on class) + specific options (feats etc) + circumstance & conditional

Subtract a certain amount from subsequent attacks to simulate MAP.

AC in this system is either represented as damage reduction or as extra HP

Example 2

Dan is a rogue who's trying to pick a lock. Roll 1d2. On a success, he partially or completely solves the challenge, depending on wether he deals enough points of Success to the challenge Pool:
Ability Score + Proficiency + Level + CLASS BONUS (depends on class) + specific options (feats etc) + bonuses (circumstance, conditional... etc)

Example 3

Jimmy is a wizard. He casts a spell with a save. The enemy throws a coin. On a failure, the spell takes effect.
Enemy is now forced to add points to their "debuff pool" depending on the wizard's and spell power.
On the enemy's turn, he can remove some debuff points, and even spend actions to remove more. The stronger the enemy, the higher the amount of removed debuff points. When debuff points go to zero, the effect ends.

I know this might look like a joke, but I'm honestly thinking this could actually work.


Rek Rollington wrote:
Mathfinder. The quest is making a mathematically balanced game system.

This is not a change from the playtest material


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is *significantly* better than resonance and I'm very satisfied with the change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I had to redesign stats and no sacred cows my setup would be

-Prowess
Damage, strength and physical resistance (fortitude, HP...)

-Quickness
Defense, initiative, reflexes

-Dexterity
Hit chance, movement, fine movement

-Logic
Unchanged from Intelligence, basically

-Perception
Sense Motive, Perception, save against illusions

-Spirit
Force of personality, charisma, save against charm & compulsion

Example:

A character with high Dexterity would hit and crit more often but wouldn't deal as much base damage as someone with high Prowess.

A character with high Prowess would have more HP but less AC than a character with high Dexterity.

Both stats are useful for attack and defense, and you never feel that raising the lower one is a waste.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0

Great for your group, but given the state of Pathfinder at present, it would probably not go well for the company. 5E is drawing existing PF 1E players away, along with the normal attrition that all games have with their player bases.

As I see it, Paizo can:

Go with a significantly new edition and gamble it will bring in enough players to counteract those turned off. If you win the gamble, you'll do great. IF not, well...things go poorly

Do nothing at all, or just offer a mild update of the system. Consign your company to a massive downsizing that the company may never recover from.

I just don't see option 2 as viable. Option 1 is risky of course and who knows if it will work, but risk is better than nothing.

Pretty much. People here act as if Paizo was some charity ran by people who didn't ask themselves the question "is a slightly tweaked PF1 viable economically for us?". Of course they've asked themselves that question and apparently they've arrived at the conclusion that no, a slightly tweaked PF1 is not going to float the boat.

And?

I'm not Paizo, my goals don't have to be aligned with theirs.
They have their priorities, I have mine, both parties are allowed to express themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0


Alyran wrote:
I don't like the idea of adding bookkeeping to individual spells used on individual characters. That sounds like a lot of work.

You don't need any book keeping

EXAMPLE

Cure wounds

This spell can heal 1d8 HP, up to 20 HP. If the recipient has more than 20 HP maximum, this spell can only heal up to 20 HP.


pjrogers wrote:
However, the solution to this is NOT PF2e.

How does PF2 fail at countering that problem?


up to N HP per character

Let's say you have 100 max HP, and you took90 damage, a low level spell coul only heal up to 30


Cure Wounds:
"This spell heals xdy points of damage, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF N"

This way, higher level characters can't refill their HP pools by using low-level wands.
However, You can sill use low level spells to help people in critical conditions.

Make N depend upon both the spell power and the recipient so that you don't get fully healed wizards and partially healed barbarians.

I will not go into details with the math because I don't want to focus on tweaking the numbers, that is not my purpose.
Assume the numbers are correct and fulfill the above statements for the purposes of this thread.

To make the system less restrictive, maybe add the following:

"By spending *daily resource* you can overcome this limitation"

So if you REALLY need that extra HP you can get it. But you cannot refill your HP after every single battle.

What do you think?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
So my big problem is attack rolls. Some people are going to be massively more proficient in their weapons than others- at level 3 a fighter has master weapon proficiency whereas the Barbarian (whose job is hitting things) has to wait for level 13 to get expert.

This can be fixed by adjusting the base damage per swing so that despite the proficiency difference, the final DPR is about the same


I like it, but if applied to weapons it makes everyone significantly weaker than the Fighter

I mean, I really love this change!

As long as other melee classes like the Barbarian get a flat damage buff to make up for the lower crit/hit rate, the game will still be balanced... and classes will also feel different, which is great imo


8 people marked this as a favorite.

"they try to propose us a more "Dark Souls" game"

Except in Drak Souls you win if you're actually good, while in PF2 it's down to randomness and player ability is minimized both before combat (optimization is no longer possible) and in combat (tactics are weak and unlikely to work, positioning is less relevant, CC is ineffective etc)

It's actually the opposite of a game like Dark Souls that rewards you for good play


Shisumo wrote:


Mark Seifter spent some time tonight on the Twitch stream...

I can't find it, could you please share a link?


Looks like too many pools for my tastes, I personally would be fine with 3 genetic feats or traits (including half heritages) and 1 cultural heritage ability, big flavorful and juicy

+class skills and general of course


8 people marked this as a favorite.

No I just want feats to be relevant, I didn't say it has to be through numbers.

Relevant such as choosing street style over outslug style or viceversa.

Feats that do something noticeable, and you can use often.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
or we ignore you and play right into your theory

You shouldn't be worrying about this. You're in control. Let people think what they want. Just make sure your communication is clear when you want to send a message. That is how politicians handle controversies and they are, arguably, the most succesful category of people in the world.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

However I still crave for options that are fun in a pure gameplay sense.

My favorite "gameplay" feats from PF1 are Barroom Brawler, Lunge, Combat Patrol, Weapon Trick, Cornugon Smash, Street Style, Improved Spring Attack

Yes I want feats that give my character cool stuff to do fluff-wise but I also really, really want optional feats that enable new levels of tactical gameplay because... well, that's just what I like.

These are the kind of feats that make me feel like my character is actually my own. When I customize both fluff and gameplay, then I feel it's truly complete.

I'm ok if other people don't share this feeling.

I'm just pointing out something that I regard as great in PF1 and would like to see more in PF2


8 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.

Yes, but:

1) it's not something you should not be able to *attempt* without training

2) You are technically trained anyway so having to select the feat on top of that is extremely counter-intuitive


14 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

None of these feats push the envelope as far as the power level of a character of that level. However, they are all really cool. They are things that a player is going to get excited about being able to do, and they let a player expand or refine their character concept

You have convinced me.

Then the problem seems to be that the current feats are restrictive rather than the opposite.

For example, it's quite disheartening that you need a feat to actually pickpocket someone even if you're already technically trained at thievery. It makes the feat feel like a tax rather than a cool new feature.


This is a very interesting problem, MaxAstro, so I'm going to ask you a question:

How do you make feats that "despite not being numerically powerful, are cool and exciting" within the framework of a system where most things (if not everything) are measured or expressed as numbers?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I basically agree with everything.

While I believe that the core system could use some tweaking, the features seem to be the most pressing issue that needs fixing.

As of now, we have 2 types of features:

-Mandatory features that are extremely strong, for niche protection
-Optional features that are irrelevant, to minimize the extent to which a player can optimize their characters

The combination of these 2 design choices create a very limited building environment, that for me, and other people, just doesn't cut it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well technically they *can* change the fundamentals of the system during the playtest, but I'm worried that people who gave them money to get the playtest book believing it would be used for about 1 year wouldn't be very happy to learn that it's no longer the case


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pogie wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Apparently the inability for a small company to handle tens of thousands of users on their website simultaneously in the wake of a hotly-anticipated release counts as a "misstep" now?
Of course it does. What would the consequences be to Paizo if on the day 2E launches, their site goes down for 2 weeks?

The people who manage the website are not the same who design the game tho.

Yes, mistakes from the technical department CAN of course impact sales, but this tells us nothing about the quality of design choices themselves.


Cyouni wrote:
dnoisette wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
The fact that insofar Paizo didn't address some of the critique which was frequent on the boards (eg. the "it isn't PF1" one, the "monsters should be built like PCs" or the "casters are too weak" one and of course the "wrought treadmill, verily" one) while tackled other comments that were frequent (ancestries, out-of-combat healing, signature skills, untrained being too low) tells me that they are unwilling to change some very specific things about the game, no matter how unpopular
This. Bolded part is mine.

I might remind you that your play experience is not representative of everyone. The only reason I didn't end up with a group of pure casters for Sombrefell Hall is the fact that one person specifically asked about how caster-y the rest of the party was (and another last minute swerved into Fighter for Point-Blank Shot). Based on results, they don't seem to think casters have major problems.

Can they be strengthened without destroying the game foundations again? Probably. Are they so weak that they're unusable? I don't believe so, but we'll see how the one mystic theurge fares.

Of course.

Time will tell.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand some people have a hard time accepting others may have different point of views, but blaming the unhappy customer in the end is not going to help their cause except for perhaps momentary emotional relief


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that insofar Paizo didn't address some of the critique which was frequent on the boards (eg. the "it isn't PF1" one, the "monsters should be built like PCs" or the "casters are too weak" one and of course the "wrought treadmill, verily" one) while tackled other comments that were frequent (ancestries, out-of-combat healing, signature skills, untrained being too low) tells me that they are unwilling to change some very specific things about the game, no matter how unpopular


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I want exploration mode to allow for a playstyle that is not supported by the very same idea of exploration mode.
Complete deletion of the whole mode seems to be the best improvement I can think of.


Quandary wrote:
I am curious... Why the reticence on part of dice-haters ;-) to consider using averages for portion of dice in one way or another?

I don't consider myself a "dice-hater" but sometimes I don't want to roll many dice and I resort to using average.

I am not reticent but this is something I can't do alone - I need my GM's consent.
I am not confident that I could get away with it in organized play.

1 to 50 of 372 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>