Docflem's page

I think that in the absence of any specific rules I think this can be approached with the table and the tone of the campaign in mind. I really don't see a wrong answer other than not making the risks clear to your PC'S.

While I see many people talking about the trigger, I then have to ask this. If the trap is a basic save and since you take no damage from it with a critical save, is it an atmosphere you can not breath in them? Since it is a basic save and you will take no damage with the chance of no interruption in breathing, does the trigger go off?

Thats a great question! I guess it kinda depends on how you role-play the save. In My group, we usually role-playing that someone crit saving from a poison trap held their breath fast enough and the body managed to resist whatever minor effects occurred from their eyes and skin being exposed, so I guess that kinda colors my interpretation of the spell.

Yeah, except for everyone has a differnt reading of the trigger and spell, so the intent can't be that clear.

Again, if breathing in poison count as breathing because you are physically pulling in a substance with your lungs than breathing in water counts too. The only time the spell would trigger is in a void as a previous poster pointed out. Besides, even if the poison wouldn't cause instant death, if a chamber were filled completely with said poison (like say when you're drowning and all you can breathe is water) you would still start to suffocate just like if you were under water. The competitive volume is the problem, not the substance.

Honestly, the fact that they put normally on the first part but left it off the trigger is the entire problem. It's impossible to know their exact intent because of that and I would lean to letting someone use that spell when ever it came up because its going to come up q few times and a spell slot is not a tiny resource to be wasted.

Yeah, but the "evil" act would have to be a singular mistake or opps. Like if all she did was sell the weapon and latter realized her mistake, maybe I could see a neutral character and I could even lean towards good if she was actively trying to find a way to undo the mistake. However, choosing to receive and keep a slave is a continuously evil act, one of the most evil things you can do, and even without all the extra baggage, that alone makes a character pretty damn evil and by definition isn't a one time mistake.

Ummm, I'm not sure about the pathfinder universe, but poison gasses are absolutely guaranteed to be more dangerous than water. Resuscitation when it comes to drowning is a pretty straight forward process of getting the water out of your lungs. A poison gas wouldn't be something like carbon monoxide (which has the same treatment as water, get it out and breathe in o2, with the added danger of not even knowing you were drowning) to something like a nerve or blister agent (these would be the actual "poisons") which about a million times more dangerous than water.

Now you could argue that there are substances that you shouldn't breathe in that cause long term damage, like fiberglass, but nobody is making a fiberglass powder trap, so its not really relevant.

Either way, the key word in the description is "normally." Breathing normally means the lungs are exchanging o2 with co2, something a "poison gas" would interfere with just as much as "breathing" in water would.

So that was my purpose in pointing out all the incongruity and context around his videos, I wasn't just trying to be mean.

Cody is a public figure who stands to make money from controversy, that alone means his statements shouldn't just be taken at face value, especially if it goes against the experiences and evidence of people who have also played the game or understand the subject. It doesn't mean he's automatically wrong, it just should be taken with a grain of salt.

Yeah, I double checked and the way it was written makes me think that not only did she sell the WMD her main motivation for selling it was to buy the punishment of another person, thats incredibly selfish.

Really I know you didn't mean to write it this way, but I'd just like to point out that not only did this character sell a WMD to a very evil person in order to settle a personal beef, but she received a slave (for life) and got real rich in the process, including titles and powers. Now, if you compare that situation to relatively recent history you might hit upon my feelings when it comes to slavery of any kind. . .

Who's asking who for thanks? Like, you added that stuff all on your own and is not my point. Honestly, it just sounds like you dont like GMing that much. Besides that point, if everyone is learning the rules, contributing honestly to the story through their character work, everyone's pitching in for books AND your using a pre-written adventure and you think the workload divide is that terrable, then I don't know what to tell ya.

In my group, even though I dont GM regularly I still build all the terrain and props and work as the back up rules "knower," one of our players does all the character/world building illustrations, when we play unique worlds we all contribute by building the culture and environment our characters come from, others buy snacks and organize and manage timing. In the end the GM does more "work" but not by that much and I can tell you, its quite rewarding when it clicks. I mean, I've thanked my players for particularly good acting and roleplaying before.

Owning another human being is an evil act, period. Slavery is a cruel and unusual punishment and will do nothing to rehabilitate the "criminal" and there is no situation where its not just an evil act, you can try and argue that its evil your inflicting on evil people, but that kind of argument leads to only more evil stuff.

Greg.Everham wrote:

This "it's a hamster wheel" argument applies to literally every RPG game ever created.

Not really. Because in a lot of games the balance breaks down at high levels and the 'level appropriate' opponents become trivially easy to beat.

PF2 fixed this issue. Only it turns out that not everyone wanted it fixed.

And thats okay that some people subjectively dont like it, but most of the people who complain about it 1. Ignore the fact that its basically still present in the main competitors to PF2 and 2. Act like it is objectively a problem with the game, which it definitely is not. At least that's my problem with these arguments.

Docflem wrote:

The problem is not that people shouldn't be paid, its that only SOME people getting paid. While I appreciate the work my gm does (and the work that I put in when I gm) the game can't be played without everyone there.

A restaurant doesn't work without customers eating the food, but the chef is the one who gets paid, because more people want to eat than want to cook. If there is a serious shortage of people willing and able to GM, that creates the possibility of people willing to pay for someone else to do it.

Docflem wrote:

No one is forcing anyone to play this game, but just cause you put work into something doesn't mean people are going to want to buy it

The complaint isn't that no-one is willing to pay for a GM. The complaint is that seeking pay is treated as unacceptable.

Docflem wrote:

people expressing disdain for people trying to commodify every aspect of the human experience (down to the games we play) is not the same thing as demanding free work from artists.

It's considered OK to ask for money to cook food, or perform stand-up comedy, or paint pictures, or sing, or write novels, or put on a play.

This is despite a genuine risk of money corrupting these institutions. ("If comedians are allowed to tell jokes for money, soon there could be a comedy union trying to prevent anyone telling jokes for free!")

It's considered bad (by some) to ask for money for GMing, for sex, or for writing mods for games. These are the only three things I can currently think of that people commonly insist should only be for free.

It's a weird dividing line, is what I'm saying. I can't see a consistent rule.

Your players are not the customers, they are more accurately analogous to the wait staff and the GM is the cook. Again in all your other examples the customer line is clear, there is no (or very little) labor expected out of the customer, only money. Players are just as responsible for telling the group story as the GM, at certain point arguably more so, so your points don't work.

Again, just to be clear, GMs are PLAYING the game too, they are not refs, they are not the sole artists or creators of the art, they are not chefs feeding wholly uninvolved customers, they are an equal participate in the game, just like the "players."

P.S. I would also be way more supportive if the buisness plan wasn't to use the rules, materials, and stories from other creators to create this "for pay GM" system. In my opinion most of the artistic work was already done by someone else who is getting paid only a tiny chunk of what you seek to reap, seems like pure rent seeking to me.

The problem is not that people shouldn't be paid, its that only SOME people getting paid. While I appreciate the work my gm does (and the work that I put in when I gm) the game can't be played without everyone there. If you think critical role (as one of the few examples of people getting actually paid a livable wage for playing a ttrpg) could work without the players, you dont understand the appeal of Critical Role. Besides that, critical role is art, because it's acting. The game may be the "medium" but the art comes from the collaborative story telling and the acting. No one here has explained why GMs should be compensated when the players arnt besides the fact that someone somewhere is willing to buy the product. Like, you might have made an argument why they should get paid MORE, but thats not people's problem with the idea.

Its a huge disservice to all the other artists out there to pretend like GMing isn't just one role within the game (or artform if you will)z its like arguing that comic book writers shouldn't get paid because the illustrators work so much harder and longer than they do.

Beaides all that, as others have pointed out, this isn't the time or place to turn your rant post into an unapologetic ad for a service you're selling.

P.S. No one is forcing anyone to play this game, but just cause you put work into something doesn't mean people are going to want to buy it and people expressing disdain for people trying to commodify every aspect of the human experience (down to the games we play) is not the same thing as demanding free work from artists.

Good thing I made points completely separate from my credentials and didn't just tell them to trust me cause I got a degree right?

Like I said, the credentials portion was directly related to them telling me to read a basic book on the subject. If they had said, "I got my information from this source" I would have handled the situation completely differently, but there definitely a differnt context to assuming i havnt done even the most basic reading on the subject just because my opinion differs from the status quo.

It's bad form to point out that freakenomics is a pretty basic pop-level take on economics and that I've spent a good portion of my life studying the subject youre making sweeping generalizations about? It wasn't even an appeal to authority, the points I made stand despite me pointing out that "telling me to read *blank* basic book" is pretty insulting and unnecessary in of itself. I'm not arguing againts capitalism ubiquity because I'm uneducated or a child, in fact, I'm doing so because of the exact opposite and I'm not going to be shamed because I spent real time and effort (and yes money) working towards my expertise.

Docflem wrote:

Hmmm, I dont think capitalism and gravity are all that similar, seeing how one is an intrinsic property of the universe and therefore trillions of years old and would exist with or without humans and the other is arguably 600 years old, not even practiced in every country in the world, is created by humans, and practiced differently all over the place.

Just cause something is old(ish) doesn't make it a law of physics and doesn't make it right.

Besides that, GMing is still playing a game and while some people get paid millions to play games, that's entirely based said games ability to be sold as an entertainment product to people not playing. Also, while most of the time people are paid differently based on their roles, I doubt you could get away with making most of the players pay and only one (no matter how hard they work) getting paid.

GMing for pay and critical role are only similar on a surface level, especially since the players arnt paying Matt, they are absolutely friends having a good time together, and the product being sold is being sold to an audience for basically free (supported by ads and donations)

Supply and demand are absolutely operative in every country, and also were operative everywhere before there were countries. It is not created by humans, it is simply a consequence of limited resources. Where there are laws or conventions that attempt to ration scarce resources, if those rules defy a significant supply-demand imbalance then they will be ignored or circumvented.

BTW, if you read Freakonomics you will note that even animals partake in resource rationing, not so unlike humans as you might expect.

This isn't politics, it's economics. I'm not arguing that nothing can be done and nobody should try to influence things, I just think anger at "capitalism" is totally unproductive and misplaced. It's not right or wrong, anymore than gravity is right or wrong. That was my point.

"Supply and demand" is not a law and depending on who you study, even if you study only capitalism based economics, its not even defined the same way. No one has proven a universal relationship between supply and demand and economics is by far the SOFTEST "science" there is. Capitalism, specifically neoliberal capitalism, is not an intrinsic portion of our world, no matter how much you say it is. The very fact you think it is an immutable part of the world IS political in nature.

Additionally, freaknomics is not a textbook, and while I have read the book, its word is not law and I trust my (two) degrees worth of education in economics, sociology, and political science over a singular pop-economic book.

You know who else was an economist? Argubaly the most famous? Thats right, old Marx himself. Funny that you really never cover his material in undergrad level economics classes, I wonder what perfectly non-political reason thats for?

I dont really get the treadmill comments at all. I remember a ton of them during the playtest,but I think those were because the DC by level system was not made very clear and it seemed like a skyrim style, everything gets harder as you level at exactly the same rate. Like, I saw a lot of people suggest that no matter what you were doing (athletics check to jump, attacks on monsters, social type checks to interact with npcs) it would be compared to the DC by level chart.

Now that the system is out its clear that there is a ton of variation in those checks, like just cause your level 17, doesn't mean the npc's that you're trying to get info from are also level 17. Just cause you're trying to climb down a sheer cliff qt level 5 doesn't mean its a level 5 DC. Shoot, with monsters alone you can see as much as a 6 level swing depending on how many there are and they tend to have very unique abilities and challenges completely separate from just high numbers in their stat blocks. Honestly, I have to wonder what rpg systems the pf2 is a treadmill folks would suggest that doesn't, at some level experience the same "issues"?

thejeff wrote:

While I'm aware some people seem to think this way, I've never understood it. It's a game. There's supposed to be balance all the way through. That keeps up the challenge and the excitement. High levels aren't supposed to be easier than low levels. Enemies are supposed to keep pace, not just in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of new tricks and abilities. It gets boring if everything becomes a curbstomp.

I think you can vary it up though. Have accuracy go up but hit points increase. Or having some things (like magic) not being assumed so they actually confer a bonus.

Increasing the warrior's odds of hitting from 55% to 80% over levels 1 to 20 doesn't make things a curbstomp or lack a challenge.

This is something commonly seen in non-d20 systems that use percentile dice and skill system action resolution.
(Like Call of Cthulhu, which is an odd example as you do get "weaker" as you advance as your sanity declines.)

Back in 2010 I walked out of 4e thinking that since advancement and progression was so rigid you could just drop all the numbers and math and reduce combat & skill accuracy to "roll a 10+ to hit." That your epic level awesome fighter never felt like they were better at hitting things or more successful in combat.
(At the time, given the board gamification of 4e, I actually wondered if 5e would drop the d20 and numbers for something simple like roll 2d6 and a 7+ hits.)
And it occurred to me that you could just stick to low level with easier to manage numbers and simpler & faster play and change the flavour. Tell the dramatic endgame adventure at level 5 where they're fighting a level 9 Runelord Karzoug and flavour everything as being higher level. Cap or slow "level" advancement but award regular powers/ feats and hit points.

So seeing Pathfinder 2 come out with even bigger numbers than 4e (adding full level rather than half level!) but just as tightly balanced and rigid accuracy just didn't excite me.

I think part of it is the Illusion of Choice the...

People here have pointed out before that the difference between specializing and not specializing isn't that great in PF2 and that suboptimal characters, within reason, are not a team killer. Its much more about team work than anything else. Additionally, while boosting your main ability score with your boosts is important, you do know you get 4 differnt boosts at level 5 and every 5 levels past that right? So while one of two of those boosts are generally going to be used the same you got 2 to 3 that you can place anywhere you want.

Docflem wrote:

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat rotation possible (the illusion of choice complaints) AND that TPKs happen all the time. Thats the problem people have.

It's fine for someone to say "hey, the system is super dense and finding the right thing to do is not fun for me." No one would bat an eye at that, and probably most of us here could point you to a system that would be more for those players and GMs. I also think its fine to point out that pazio doesn't always make it super easy to read the book and understand the rules at first blush, I think a ton of us would agree with you. HOWEVER! Supposedly Cody's expert veteran team has been playing for a whole year and has yet to show any mastery over the rules system and thats not going to be most peoples experience, to the point where its just kinda silly. They are not new players anymore and yet they are still doing what "new players would do" over and over again even though it kills them.

The notion that TPKs happen all the time in Cody's PF2 campaign is an error. His party had one TPK.

He was talking about how his players were bored with doing the same thing in combat. For example, at time mark 5:09 he said, "they [druid's player] were getting bored just turning into dinosaurs and dragons to bite and claw things over and over again." At time mark 5:38, Cody explained how fast that boredom set in, "And before you dismiss what I am saying here as hyperbole, let me give you some additional context. Back at the end of book 2 of Age of Ashes my players TPKed, something that I haven't had happen in a game in 22+ years behind the screen. I've had plenty of character death, but never a complete wipe before. And so this druid player is already bored of his character just between the levels of 9 to 12. That's how little choice they feel they have after initiative has been rolled."

I think his point is that after the original party died against the final boss in...

Thanks for the correction, and I'm fine admiting to not watching Cody's video more than once. The points still stand, if tpks in other games are so rare for his team, then you would think that experiencing one would make one think twice about their rotations. Sure, maybe if you you were to feel like giving them the benifit of the doubt you could say it "sppoked" them into making the tactical error of doing the same thing over and over again, but for me, nkt so much.

The fact that his second video was not really in good faith and his reactions to reaction videos being so defensively shitty (especially nonat's which to me seemed like a very kind and thoughtful video) leads me to believe that his arguments were not in good faith.

Additionally, how does anyone play ttrpgs and not tpk in 20+ years? Is that super common for other people?

No, I didn't say that the fact that you struggled made things more heroic, I said that PF2 character MAY struggle throughout thier career, but the things they struggle at will become more heroic, there is still a progression.

Like lighting raven said above, you can go from being able to high jump 5-10 feet in the air to jumping 50 feet. Your character will still have to work hard to jump that 50 ft (like an Olympic runner still has to run hard to beat a record) but that doesn't nix growth and progression. As objectively as heroic can be defined, jumping 50 feet in the air or falling from orbit definitely counts.

And your point about enemies misses lighting ravens point, its not just that enemies scale up, its that the types of challenges enemies pose change also. Thats something I think, subjectively, systems like 5e do not do well. Its the benifit of having a denser rules system.

Finally, while I dont think anyone would argue that PF2'S ules communication is the clearest out of all the ttrpg, how obscure it is really does seem at least mostly a subjective question. I think it could be written clearer, and I do think there are legitimate issues with certain bits, but its far from indecipherable.

Addtionally, no matter what you do, the more dense and complex the rule set, the hard it will be to understand without practice. If thats not for someone, thats cool, but its not objectively a bad thing.

Docflem wrote:

Temperans wrote:

There is also the fact that a lot of the things that gets talked about as being good or needed requires that:

1) You know you have those options.
2) Understand that any action might be good on the right circumstance.
3) Finally, that just because it costed you a feat, it does not mean it is a better choice.

A lot of the problems in this thread boils down to one person or another not realizing those three things and then getting punished one way or another. Which is 100% a fault of the book and how dense and search dependent it is.

Some might say its the fault of the player/GM for not reading all the rules before playing. But even someone who has read all the rules will make mistakes because of the sheer amount of interactions. Not to mention that players usually look at the abilities they pick and only read the relevant rules. So its not strange for a new player to make an "archer" and then just shoot, whether they are experienced or not in TTRPGs.

Heck a lot of the examples can be summarized as: Me and my group of experienced PF2 players know all these things you can do and had no problems.

**********************

Going back to how dense and search heavy the book and game is. The book is written in such a way that its full of reference to one object leading to another. Its written the same way a computer programmer would write data. While that type of structure is incredibly modular by nature, its a pain for regular people to understand without giving it multiple passes.

Which explains why some people say they are fine, when they have a a program to handle it.

Example: To pick a spell, you must go to the spell list section, which then means going to the condition sections to check what those spells do, while going to the spell section to confirm what the spell rules are. Both of which have parts that point to other parts.

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat

...

Ah, thats probably my bad, sorry about that and I think we're on the same page then.

Edit: also, I agree entirely with the post by lighting raven above mine and I'm glad you posted it. Just because PF2 doesn't get much easier, doesn't mean it doesn't progress, it just means the stuff you struggle to do gets more and more impressive and heroic.

There is also the fact that a lot of the things that gets talked about as being good or needed requires that:

1) You know you have those options.
2) Understand that any action might be good on the right circumstance.
3) Finally, that just because it costed you a feat, it does not mean it is a better choice.

A lot of the problems in this thread boils down to one person or another not realizing those three things and then getting punished one way or another. Which is 100% a fault of the book and how dense and search dependent it is.

Some might say its the fault of the player/GM for not reading all the rules before playing. But even someone who has read all the rules will make mistakes because of the sheer amount of interactions. Not to mention that players usually look at the abilities they pick and only read the relevant rules. So its not strange for a new player to make an "archer" and then just shoot, whether they are experienced or not in TTRPGs.

Heck a lot of the examples can be summarized as: Me and my group of experienced PF2 players know all these things you can do and had no problems.

**********************

Going back to how dense and search heavy the book and game is. The book is written in such a way that its full of reference to one object leading to another. Its written the same way a computer programmer would write data. While that type of structure is incredibly modular by nature, its a pain for regular people to understand without giving it multiple passes.

Which explains why some people say they are fine, when they have a a program to handle it.

Example: To pick a spell, you must go to the spell list section, which then means going to the condition sections to check what those spells do, while going to the spell section to confirm what the spell rules are. Both of which have parts that point to other parts.

But thats not Cody's complaint. He has stated that his players understand and have found the ultimate beat rotation possible (the illusion of choice complaints) AND that TPKs happen all the time. Thats the problem people have.

It's fine for someone to say "hey, the system is super dense and finding the right thing to do is not fun for me." No one would bat an eye at that, and probably most of us here could point you to a system that would be more for those players and GMs. I also think its fine to point out that pazio doesn't always make it super easy to read the book and understand the rules at first blush, I think a ton of us would agree with you. HOWEVER! Supposedly Cody's expert veteran team has been playing for a whole year and has yet to show any mastery over the rules system and thats not going to be most peoples experience, to the point where its just kinda silly. They are not new players anymore and yet they are still doing what "new players would do" over and over again even though it kills them.

My personal biggest problems with Cody's complaints is they are, at a certain level mutually exclusive. He claims that problem A is that his players have obtained such a level of mastery of the system that they figured out the perfect way to play, and that perfect way includes almost no variation.

Then his second problem is that players die all the time. His group of "veteran" players die and die and die and that makes them not want to play.

On the face of it, with no other context, these two complaints could be congruent. PF2 could just be brokenly hard, that no matter what you do you will lose because either the monsters are too strong or the player character are just too weak, the rules as written make the game basically impossible. That argument falls apart when you have thousands of people who do play the game and don't run into these problems.

So the deeper analysis leads people to believe that there is more going on than a perfectly played game that still sucks. As others have pointed out, the chances that Cody's players are actually making the most optimal choices is pretty close to null, especially since in his follow up video he gets basic rules and maths involved in the game wrong. Other people have pointed out (myself included) that within the greater context of him being a content created who is basically financially required to play the game for his fans (since, you know, they payed him too) and it's clear that even if Cody and his players just don't want to play the game, he can't just quit without a reason.

Add to the fact that at least in the short term, youtube rewards controversy, it seems clear to me that Cody would be in the position to benefit from flaring up a good ole' fashioned version war and we know that the "veteran Cody" understands this type of controversy well. So, if you put 2 and a 2 and 2 together you get a disingenuous "critique" that isn't going to help us learn more about the game and isn't going to help any game developers. Really there are only a few people who stand to benefit and honestly, the whole situation is kind of gross.

Docflem wrote:

Why I do not think its as rules dense as pf1 or 3.5 its definitely denser than a lot of rpgs on and it makes sense that feels like a significant time investment, one that not everyone wants to put in. I dont think its a pure negitive, for me that density means the systems have enough crunch to remain interesting for a long time, but it does make introducing new people harder than a system like 5e.

Whether or not PF2 is or is not as dense as 3.X systems is probably a topic that could be argued at length in either direction. I can't say for certain which is the heavier game.

But I would say PF2 is probably the most dense RPG game currently on the market. I can't think of any in-print games that are as complicated or more complicated.

Which does mean PF2 *really* needs a full campaign to shine. Where you can learn the complexity and get a handle on the rules, but also advance characters and take advantage of unfolding builds. Playing characters for a single level and not being able to take new feats or make new choices seems unsatisfying.

See, that is something I like about PF2 but I also think a major advantage of that rules density is that you can really dig into the moment to moment gameplay. You have rules that let you interact with the environment, the enemies, and your other players so you can come up with complicated battle plans and schemes and not have to put all that onto your DM.

I found in 5e, so often myself and others would come up with a unique kind of trap or surprise ambush and the burden of working that all out fell almost entirely on the DM, often forcing them to make up rules on the spot or just tell you no. Its not perfect, but that density means you have a lot of things to try.

Again, PF2 has its problems and its totally fine that you don't dig it, but man, I really appreciate its advantages.

Docflem wrote:

Jester David wrote:

I feel this video and Taking20.

As someone who was also a *huge* Paizo fanboy and PF1 proponent who happily adopted that system over 4e for many years. But bounced hard off of PF2.

I really wanted to love the game and keep throwing money at Paizo, but just couldn't work up the interest.

And thats all good, you might want to try it again down the line, but it's totally ok to just not like something.

I doubt it.

It's the golden age of RPGs. I have no less than five other games I really want to run, so finding time for a PF2 campaign is unlikely.

Especially as it is such a dense game. It's not going to work as a one-shot, as just getting the basics down will take 2-3 sessions.

Hey! Thats actually a good critique and one that I think most of us can agree on. Why I do not think its as rules dense as pf1 or 3.5 its definitely denser than a lot of rpgs on and it makes sense that feels like a significant time investment, one that not everyone wants to put in. I dont think its a pure negitive, for me that density means the systems have enough crunch to remain interesting for a long time, but it does make introducing new people harder than a system like 5e.

*taps the sign with the definition of sealioning on it*

Alright, I'm positive this is relevant now

From the Wikipedia page:

"Sealioning: (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate"."

I think I'm personally done trying to explain the rules to someone who won't even take the pdf for free when offered and completely ignored the generous invite to play from someone who only seemed to sincerely want to teach him the game, WHILE trying to educate others who have actually played the damn thing. I think maybe everyone else should be done too, but thats just my two cents.

I feel this video and Taking20.

As someone who was also a *huge* Paizo fanboy and PF1 proponent who happily adopted that system over 4e for many years. But bounced hard off of PF2.

I really wanted to love the game and keep throwing money at Paizo, but just couldn't work up the interest.

And thats all good, you might want to try it again down the line, but it's totally ok to just not like something.

Docflem wrote:

Stangler wrote:

The third attack choice still requires some work on the player to determine if it is or isn't a good choice. The game may even offer scenarios where it is a good choice

First of all, people have repeatedly shown examples of times when a third attack is a good choice, and proved it with math in some cases, so it's not an "if." Second, are you legitimately saying that its a "flaw" that pathfinder 2nd edition requires players to weigh the benifits of different actions againts thier costs in order to make a decision? Cause that's not an illusion of choice, that is the litteral definition of making a choice.

How does a player know when it is the "good" choice?

I am not saying it is bad to have players weigh the costs and benefits. I am saying that the information they have when making that decision matters. The nature of that decision matters. The types of things they are weighing against one another matters. The hurdles the player needs to overcome to make an educated decision matter.

These are all decisions made by Paizo with regards to how this works. Paizo designed the math involved. They designed the cost and benefit analysis.

Cody's video is ultimately about a group of experienced players getting run down by this system Paizo designed and quitting.

They read the book, that's how they learn the rules. the rules tell you how different actions work and then you as the player are responsible for applying those rules in the situation within the game, just like every table top RPG that has ever existed. Now, if you had actually read the rules, you might be able to argue that the rules are arbitrary or dumb. or you could argue that the rules are too unclear and hard to understand. But, I think we all know that you have not read the rules have you?

How do YOU decide to make any choice any any game?

I think this has gone on long enough and I'm comfortable with agreeing with the others that pointed out that you are not arguing in good faith. You are purposefully avoiding the fact that you don't own the book, nor do you understand the rules you are discussing. Beyond that, I'm very confident that if Cody's video was simply about how the system wasn't for him and his players just didn't like it this thread wouldn't even exist.

That isn't what his video is about though. The very poignant context is that Cody is being paid by his supporters to play the game and that he can't just decide not to play anymore. It's clear that he needed a scape goat, and he decided to instead blame the system. If you're ok with ignoring that context, and have decided to not question the fact that his "experienced players" and him could not even get the basic math and rules involved with the game right in the video in which he "proves" that the game is broken, that's alright, but that doesn't make it a fact.

In addition, it is pretty wild that you have joined a forum filled with "experienced players and GMs" to "educate" us on a product you don't even own. Seriously, why do you think you understand the problems of a game system you have never played and do not own?

I personally do not want to go back,I could, but it really puts a lot of strain on the DM to make combat exciting and I doubt I could play a pure martial character again. The very simplified character builds and the limited action economy means that I just don't feel like I can approach battles in a unique way and they tend to drag for me. But luckily, so far my group enjoys pathfinder 2 even through its not the most rules intensive group.

The third attack choice still requires some work on the player to determine if it is or isn't a good choice. The game may even offer scenarios where it is a good choice

First of all, people have repeatedly shown examples of times when a third attack is a good choice, and proved it with math in some cases, so it's not an "if." Second, are you legitimately saying that its a "flaw" that pathfinder 2nd edition requires players to weigh the benifits of different actions againts thier costs in order to make a decision? Cause that's not an illusion of choice, that is the litteral definition of making a choice.

Additionally, you haven't answered my question, one that many others have also asked you, do you own the book that you are talking about?

Actually opportunity costs are often the reason how choices become illusions. The cost of every action can be measured in the benefit of the other options available. If the opportunity cost is always greater than the benefit then it is not really a choice.

The post you are replaying to litterally just said that the opportunity cost changes all the time, so your reply makes no sense. No one here has ever said that in pf2 the opportunity cost of any choice is always greater, in fact they, like I said above, have repeatedly given you examples of times when one choice is the "best" one and then gave a counter example of when that choice is no longer the "best" one. Thats litterally how choices work.

Okay, I accidentally posted too early and then the forum software ate my edit not once, but twice. Thankfully I copied what I added the second time. If you were wondering why my post cut off suddenly, it's complete now.

You know what, I was wondering what happened there, well you got a good post out eventually and thats what really matters.

...

Have you read the rules? You said before that you haven't played any pathfinder 2nd edition games, so my question for you is how are you supposed to help US understand the problems with the game when it seems like you don't even own the book that were talking about and you have zero personal experience with the game? Like how do you know anything Cody said is accurate at all, other than just taking his word for it?

fanatic66 wrote:

Yep, you're on the right track. Imagine the Battlemaster maneuvers being given to every character and not being limited to a handful of times per short rest. Now a Barbarian can trip an enemy or frighten them. A player that wants to play a surgeon that heals allies and attacks with medical precision can play a rogue that uses Medicine to heal allies during combat. A ranger that's studied all sorts of monster lore (aka the Witcher) can use knowledge checks to discover weaknesses of a creature to help the ranger and her friends target the discovered vulnerability. A sly fighter can use cunning trick (deception) to fool opponents into exposing themselves to the fighter's attacks. All of the above is possible starting as early as 1st level depending on your skill choices.

Because of these varied options, just attacking 3 times is not great except for very specific builds (Flurry Ranger). Instead its better to mix tactical options with attacking. For example, let's say you are a raging Barbarian fighting a goblin boss. Its your turn and like in 5E, rage gives you bonus damage. You could just move and attack a goblin boss twice, but you've already seen your other friends miss several times against this heavily armored goblin. So instead, you move up to the goblin boss, trip him as a 2nd action, knocking the goblin prone. Now that the goblin is flat-footed (-2 to AC), you attack with your last action. More importantly, now any allies that go after you can take advantage of the goblin's prone position to hit more accurately. Also, when the goblin finally goes, it has to use an action to stand up, which only leaves it with 2 actions left. That's really nice, as some monsters (and characters!) have some nasty 3 action abilities.

OK so how did Paizo communicate this game design to players in character creation? Are there instances where they offer abilities that can undermine this system? For example a 3 action combo that weaponizes that third action.

Is that option to attack a third...

Maybe it is time for you to pick up the rule book and do some investigating yourself? Cause you've asked a lot out of the people here and taken up a lot of thier time for someone who hasn't played the game and doesn't seem super interested in playing it. Honestly, you're not going to understand any tabletop game without at least reading the rules and getting some actual play under your belt.

Thank you for all of your input on this; I still think that if they intend for this to be how it works, they need to put it in the book itself (by updating the kits to be one-handed, or at least clarify that they can be used that way), rather than expecting people to check the FAQ.

Yup, its definitely a problem and it's kinda surprising they didn't clarify the situation better in either erata

Hey, so first post here, I watched this whole argument unfold from the sideline and I guess now I thought I'd jump in and speak on the "realism" aspect of one-handed trauma medicine. I have some expertise in battlefield medicine, I was until relatively recently a combat medic for a combat arms army unit. I carried the same weapon as everyone else, which we all know requires 2 hands to operate, and generally I do prefer to use both hands when treating a patient. However, not only are there many ways to partially free up one hand to partially use both (in a way that wouldn't really require "putting away" your weapon) there's a number of immediate treatments that you can legitimately preform one handed.

I think the one free hand rule is more about balance and ease of use to be completely honest, but in a magical rpg it really doesn't stretch my verisimilitude much to imagine someone using worn healers tools (kinda like an IFAK) one handed, just my opinion on the subject.