Why are we prohibited from telling people that playing scenario X will grant them access to the Y uncommon weapon?
The problem in this example are the Devs, not the PFS players.
Data Lore wrote:
Frankly, folks that want to be able to grab whatever and cobble a character together by nabbing any ability from here and there are probably better served by playing GURPS anyways.
So, taking away features from one edition to the next, and if you don't like it, there's the door?
Just finished playtesting parts 1 & 2 over a weekend. Thoughts below, mostly on the first experience of P2, rather than specifics about the adventures themselves (although thew were both fun - comments below notwithstanding).
-3 action combat sytem is excellent. Engaging and quick with enough scope for tactical choices.
-having said that, there are still a few nit-picky annoyances, the rules for putting both hands onto a 2-handed weapon are annoying, and seem needless given 2H isn't particularly better than 1H anymore.
-magic isn't quite as flexible as we were led to believe in the trails (but its still cool). Also cantrips are very nice, and its seems a lot easier to get critically spell results (or crit save failures) than combabt crits.
-lockpicking mechanics are a waste of time, building up (and losing) a bank of successes to overcome the difficulty is an unfun time sink. Especially since there are so few ways to assist a roll
-skills seems much less well defined than in P1, nobody seems to know which is used for which, this just adds to feeling of dissociation
-character creation options are neat within the very limited boundaries. Gating combat options behind classes seems like a terrible choice. Some things you can no longer do: play a longbow wielding ranger, sneak attack with a longsword, power attack as a barbarian.
-resonance is just rubbish. I don't see the issue this is trying to fix. Why put a limit on magic item use in a high-magic setting? And if you absolutely have to, why tie it one particular stat? Surely class + primary stat modifier would be more balanced?
-secret rolls are nonsense. Immersion breaking, pointless and heaping more work on the GM. I will literaly (again) never run a game using these rules, and most likely never play in one. BURN THEM WITH FIRE.
-exploration mode seems like a badly thought out excuse for railroading. And self-contradictory from the start (not good design). Casting a spell for more than 10 minutes at a time is fatiguing. Except for Detect Magic, when it isn't. Even though Detect Magic takes *literally* twice as much effort to cast as Shield. Why?
-dying rules are clunky in the extreme. I think with removal of the unconscious condition, or the save to remove it (make it an action to become conscious when on 1+ hp?) these could work. Although given they seem to exist to stop characters getting critted into oblivion, why does the massive damage rule exist - its only point sems to be criting first or second level characters directly to death?
-detect magic. Please put it back to how it was. Its tedious nonsense now. Unfun in the extreme. It could take days to find the magic coin in the treasure chest - why?
I know that's fairly negative, but I'm concerned that the really good combat and magic chassis is drowning under the weight of badly thought-out pointless bolt-ons.
Drake Brimstone wrote:
Is Drake Brimstone your real name?
Want to make sure I never get stuck on a table with you.
You haven't got Raging Vitality, therefore you die shortly after reaching fifth level.
Who else to blame for the player making a cheesy/dishonest/sketchy choice like that?
N N 959 wrote:
I suppose you could always go to work next time there's a gaming session on instead...?
Jeff Mahood wrote:
In fact, I said that new problems were created. I even agreed with you that this is bad law. Please don't focus in on two words out of my post and ignore the rest.
Not that I think this instance is much of an issue, but the rationale behind the decision making is worrying.
(Apologies for misreading your post and over-snarking)
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Or, in this hypothetical, you could stop being a dick.
Jeff Mahood wrote:
Problem solved. Yup, jerk players continue to be jerks, everyone else has to suffer under new rules.
Yay! But at least its simple.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Hard cases make bad law.
Awesome battlefield weapons, until the wind changes. They had far more psychological impact in the first world war than "practical"* - and still do.
*meaning actual dead bodies.
Interesting, I'd not thought of it in those terms.
I'm not part of "our", my chosen representatives have already decided - wisely I believe - that the case for military intervention hasn't yet been made.
As for motive? War boners?
Aside from being more indsicriminate, none of your listed reasons are actually true.
Chemical weapons are very fiddly to make, diffult to store and use and very tricksy in the field. All of which make them expensive. If you absolutely want a value for money when it comes to killing, pick a machete (cf: Rwanda) or pick an AK-47.
So why are we against "chemical weapons" - by this I mean pretty much poison gas, rather than the more acceptable White Phospour, Napalm and depleted uranium?
Estimated number of humans killed during the Syrian civil war: 100,000Estimated number killed by Chemical Weapons: 1000
Intervening in Syria because they've used the wrong kind of weapons to kill 1% of their victims seems obtuse in the extreme.
David Haller wrote:
Heh. That's funny.