| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I am bowing out. This is like arguing with someone that 50cc engine on a moped has the same potential as 1300cc one.
If I hold out 5 fingers and ask someone how many fingers I am holding up, any answer other than 5 is wrong. It does not matter if they see me holding up a different amount. Granted this is certainly more complex thing but the same idea applies. And for the record I have read every post on the thread.
Maybe because I am not a native speaker, but the expression. "false fact" is excatly claiming that her physique is remotely grounded in reality. Only option I see as possible that not being the case if s/he misunderstood me about not talking about physique grounded in reality. I have stated that if someone minds or doesn't is a matter of preference. I have never stated otherwise. My argument has been that the lack of said belivability makes the design bad in my opinion. We can't argue to any real meaning if such a matter makes the design bad or not. But we most certainly can about if that matter exist or not. And I have been arguing it does. And I maintain my position that those that disagree with that statement are wrong.
Go ahead then and find me a person that is in say even the top 10% of humans in feats of strength that has a physique like Amiri in the above picture. And 10% is quite generous considering 18STR. And make it 10% of females since in PF there isn't a difference between the sexes. I will guarantee that such a person does not exist.
@thejeff: The quote section is coming too long to work so I will respond without them. Hopefully that won't make things too laborsome to understand that I am referring to. Unless I am misremembering in the playtest at least all races even ones with penalty to a stat had the same maxium of 18. That may change with the final version but I doubt it. (or may have changed even during the playtest.) And just because someone doesn't perceive something doesn't suddenly make it not exist. I am stating it is a fact that Amiri in the art does not have the physique to justify her strength score. I am saying that people who do not think so are flat out wrong. There is room for debate where in the scale of human strength performance her looks fall but it isn't at the top. I am not calling them liars I am calling the position they hold to be false.
And how exactly is that relevant to discussing the appearance of a human character? Or is snark all you are capable for supporting your side of the argument? As noted already I would expect said races members with high strength to also look muscular.(not necessarily defined though). That being said I do think that small races should not be allowed to have the same maximum STR as medium sized races. It's not a massive issue to me but it is one of those things that add on to the pile of things that stretch my suspension of disbelief. Granted due to how strength works in proportion to body size those races could be surprisingly strong for their size.(look at say a chimp) But the emphasis on that is for their size. Now if someone doesn't care that Amiri or whatever character for that matter, physique does not match what it is supposed to look like according to their capabilities, that is a matter of opinion and preference. However it is not a matter of opinion if they do or don't. And in this specific case it is blatantly obvious for someone with even casual experience in how humans who are highly above average in their physical capabilities look that the art does not even remotely resemble it.
And how exactly is that relevant to discussing the appearance of a human character? Or is snark all you are capable for supporting your side of the argument?
Yeah that slim torso is the main clue as to why she looks 'weak', To clarify weak in comparison to her stated STR score.(imo she looks like a 12 at tops 14 and that is really stretching it.) Her arms are skinny too, her legs actually look somewhat strong. Note that said pictures have athletes what covers what underwear would do. So even if not sexualized, I figured it would be polite to 'warn' about it. Anyways if you look at the women in those pictures the only ones that has even close to as slim torso as Amiri in the picture above is a golfer and long distance runners. Where as a swordfighter probably should look like a wrestler/boxer/martial artist in their physique. And not one in the lighter weight divisions either considering the assumed STR of 18, and the fact that Amiri wouldn't have to make weight class so no need for weight cuts which results in less defination. Sure you could look at the athletes walk around weight but you are less likely to find pictures of that.
If we assume that they fix the broken ass spell DC vs Saves, properly it will certainly help. But for hypothetical blaster focused mage, this is where I think the math should be. If we assume 4 encounters per day. For blasting the 2 highest spell slots are relevant. So you have 2 relevant spells per encounter. This is blaster so they should have metamagic to help, so they are spending 3 actions to cast. I say the damage of those spells should be equal to twohanded weapon user hitting with all 3 attacks for the highest level slot and 2-2,5 for the second highest, assuming failed save. My opinion is based on the fact that they are spending all their top 2 slots to accomplish this with rest of the casting regelated to minor significance. Where as the weapon user should be averaging something like equilevant of 2 strikes a round during the entire fight. AoE vs Single target spells naturally should have different math. And yes the 2 handed is what a dedicated blaster should be compared to given that both are builds focused on offense opposed to defense, specifically DPR. Granted I think a lot better idea would be to increase the anemic amount of spell slots that was cut in half.
While you are correct that modern testing of arrows v plate armor shows that plate would have been largely effective in stopping arrows, remember that those tests are done for battlefield conditions in the Middle Ages. Most tests were simulating archers firing from 750 feet away. No weapon in pathfinder has a range of longer than 120 feet. So, while a longbow might not have pierced plate when fired at an arc to cover the length of the battle field, the results at close range would be vastly different. Link provided as proof I am not pulling this out of my butt. Also there isn't proof within the video about the poundage of the bow so will have to take word for it. (Though casual research showed that at least some of the people involved have some reputation in their respective circles) To save time.
Results were the arrow shaft breaking the arrowheads point flattening(but still fully intact) and a very minor scratch on the breastplate. Granted the bow isn't on the high end of warbows but still very respectable and the range was about as close as one could reasonably expect to fire a bow in a battlefield conditions, or at least close enough that any significant loss of speed shouldn't have happened. Now I realize that I am going off on a tangent of the thread. So let's concentrate on that now. The whole skill DCs and the way they are created are silly because they decided to use the same mechanics for everything. The needs of mechanics for combat are not the same as those from out of combat activities. And even if they were the math/probabilities shouldn't work out the same way. So in the pursuit of simplicity they screwed it up like usual in PF2.
Plate was impenetrable, unless you aimed for a mail-covered articulation or smashed it with a heavy bludgeon.Hmmm.... If you have actually studied Medieval Arms and Armor, then you know that this is flatly untrue. The English long bowmen at Crécy proved this rather decisively. Sometimes fun game play and fidelity to reality don't go hand in hand (you know, like the existence of magic). Unless of course you are in favor of Longbows and Heavy Crossbows ignoring AC entirely (which would do terrible things to melee combat and melee characters), in which case I think you are playing the wrong game. Well your own studies are clearly lacking. While plate is not really impenetrapable it is real good. The term bullet proof comes from breast plates being tested by guns. Heavy crossbows and warbows MIGHT pierce well made plate but it would not get deep enough to get through the padding underneath. On some parts of plate it is thin enough that it might do actual harm(instead of none or too minor) but suggesting that they somehow ignored armor is about as based in reality as swords cutting through the steel. Even the battle you cited has the French king have two horses killed from under him, yet still only suffered an arrow to the jaw(not unlikely by a shot bypassing the armor or visor raised), so I would say his armor held up just fine. All that said yeah the game part has to come first. Even the armor as AC is profoundly illogical instead of it working as DR. Just decided to pipe up when seeing nonsense.
Oh you mean almost every single character that wants to swing a weapon in the game? Yeah that's where the depth is gone in PF1. Everyone just makes glass cannon alpha strike builds since it's the most effective way at fighting creatures above your level. So far in PF2 my group has had to actually think and plan out their turns when they aren't playing casters which has almost never happened in PF1. Isn't that the definition of depth? You have way more choices to make in combat as every class except for maybe wizard. Even then, with the new action system it feels like you can do more in a turn: like attack and cast a spell without having to take feats. Just because you play with people who aren't aware of possibilities or unwilling to put effort in isn't issue with the system.
The real measuremeant isn't near-optimal choices. It is how many meaningful choices you have and more so how meaningful they are. The potential differences between the two editions is colossal, if someone either chooses or is incapable of using that potential, that ain't on the system.
at level 1 yeah sure, it is well known issue that the low levels suck mechanically in the d20 system. The problem is that PF2 never gains any depth comparing level 20 and level 1 to any significant extent. And I just disagree on the statement that PF2 has more depth at the table. Perhaps if you compare to some cookie cutter fighter build that's only purpose is to full attack and nothing else. For the record PF1 is not a particularly deep game. It is on deep side of systems, but there are lot deeper systems than it and some achieve it with lot less complexity. PF2 just happens to be at the very low end of depth, I would say any storyteller system has more depth to it and that is just about as bare bones as a system can get while still being called a system reasonably. As to the work before/during session. Imo it is supposed to be multiplication, your efforts beforehand, be that making a build or much more importantly understanding the underlying mechanics and how they interact is the base you work with and how good you are using what you have, be it with tactical choices, risk assesment or creativity multiplies that.
Reasonable argument. Problem for at least me personally and I reckon good bit of the folks who loathe PF2 is that the pendulum swung way too far towards less depth to the point that we are stretching for it to qualify for the word. If you are casually familiar with videogames look at the diablo immortal fiasco as a comparison.
Lot of people did not/do not consider 4th edition dnd, actual dnd outside of the name, if people are right about that is a matter of opinion. But the point was that it isn't a second edition of a game. It is a new game with a name tagged on and some superficial similarities. It isn't an evolution/continuation of the same game. So it really isn't the next edition it is something else. Also note that I spesificly did not use the pre 4th edition changes between editions as an example that was very delibarate. If it makes it easier to understand, consider early editions checkers, PF1 as chess and then PF2 comes out and instead of say 3d chess or changing how the pieces move we got sink the battleship. Note: I am not here to edition war, so leave the statements made at facevalue.
As someone from the PF1 guard that took a look at the playtest and it imidietly came clear that I wouldn't be joining up. Hell I was fairly sure that would be the case when I saw some of the preview blogs. (This is to give POV for the post.) What paizo did was make a completely new game with only superficial resemblence and slapped on PF2 name. It isn't a second edition in anything but name. You could have just as well take a hypothetical situation of 4e dnd (or 5th) didn't exist in their current forms and have that game and slap PF2 on the cover and it would have as much to do with the first edition of pathfinder as what the playtest showed. What I saw was dumbing down the mechanics, without even getting rid of complexity just changing how it is complex. Any real depth is gone. What I think happened is that they tried very hard to make it easier to write adventures(probably GM too) and as a result took all of the tools away from the players, putting everything in these neat little boxes so you wouldn't have to work so hard to manage it. Not necessarily unreasonable thinking at it's core due to how they conduct business. Though I have always considered their adventures severly under par at best, they seem to be popular and that is what really counts from paizos POV. They are courting a completely different crowd imo, at the very least the demographic that I fall into. Let the rules lite crowd have their own games there is more choice of systems for than ever. And to make matters worse PF2 is in this akwards middle spot that doesn't really cater to either camp, it is needlesly complex for the depth it manages, so it won't really be competing for the rules lite people. And it lacks the depth and sophistication to get the people who don't mind investing more time on the mechanical part of the game if that results in added depth. To use an analogue of videogames, to me it seems more or less that paizo were modders and pretty good at it too, but then they tried to make their own game and failed hard. Again to me it seems they needed that scafolding of 3.5 to work off. But when you consider paizos past it isn't really that surprising. Look at all the kneejerk erratas/faq, they nuke from orbit if something is problematic. Now they just took that attitude to the entire system. |