|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with pretty much every change into remaster and I follow the errata usually right to the tee etc. I just feel like changing fundamentals like weakness regardless of the discussion of math or balance 6, 7, 8 years changing down the line a fundamental thing that affects a lot is concerning. I thought this was behind us and that was the point of remaster and etc. Mostly because it's a wide sweeping change via an example that needs further clarification.
Nobody at Paizo on any let's play I can find has ever played it that way. And the creators have said that damage = per type. The errata example felt like an error or something out of nowhere. I don't think it/Paizo is "wrong" I assumed it was a mistake. Because there's a history of making them and things getting past edit/jobs being given off to writers and things just happening. Like the dreaded topic/history that shall not be named. "Sources" and various other things. I can't condense all that history down and it spans a lot of years but that's more why I am somewhat eyebrow raised.
This came out on Friday and we're waiting till at least Monday for answers. Having people spin around all weekend is entertaining but it also sorta sucks.
I downright can believe that somebody posted this before it was ready as they were leaving or finishing their work for the week considering it references the resistances but doesn't include them. (But that's just a theory... a game theory!) It's not that I dislike these changes either. I'm just concerned and hopeful that if we do this that there's clarifications. In the encounters where this works. (any weakness, looking at you undead majority games. And stacking abilities that give weakness and die types but this is somewhat unclear.) If the history was better, I wouldn't have concern or think that. (But this is also just me.)
It's possibly creating a divide between the knowers and the not knowers in a way that feels anathema to the closing of that efficiency gap (which I thought was a design direction for 2e, but this is telling me maybe for 6,7 entire years that wasn't the truth which is fine also but after this long?) I am concerned about organized play/pickup situations and IRL calculations/parsing.
We already have a system where some of the QOL features/rulings people look for are behind knowing the PFS guide/PFS rules (items of differing sizes/consumables, decreasing state of success willingly to ally effects, etc.) and a lot of people don't interact with that and usually think some of the features of PFS are their own invented idea. There's a division of information/assumed possibility that requires a bigger picture view/system knowledge to gain that information.
I'm more than willing to try this weakness change. But I don't like the idea that I'm showing up spell striking and confusing some poor new gm trying to learn at their PFS game and calculating each die and weakness if it does come up/people will stack dies when they can just buy the scrolls in-between. There's enough things to think about to be adding this into the stew pot. They already spent all the time and effort to look up the guide despite it being not the most user friendly or onboarding friendly process learning about warhorn online or etc. They're here trying to learn. I did not know we wanted to complicate math like this IRL?
These effects are set rather low level effects that you don't need to use heightened to get the stacking going because it's just per instance, making it cheaper to do with progress and devaluing the heightened effects of extra damage because it's better in some encounters (for me, basically all of my encounters and for most any effect that can impart one on any encounter.) to now stack multiple lower level sourced dies. (potentially because there isn't further clarification and it's an example only.)
Later at high-level play, this is a "how encyclopedic is your Pokémon knowledge?" "Bob just knows the different effects (abilities) at the different levels (evolve when) so his strikes (cause he knew the max stat array for his capture before continuing.) will simply be doing an extra two to three digit number." What I don't prefer is "Bob is more prepared before sessions so it makes sense." or something like that.
Now we can say it's always been a bit like that or the gap was never that small to begin with, but this is the difference between multi-digits per action in a totally different way between knowing and not which feels disproportional.
You have people who know and that's around people who are just enjoying their experience who never swap their Pokémon out mid-battle or just have one team of Pokémon they go from start to finish with regardless of type. To me, this can indeed bring out negative behaviors in people. Including me. Totally unrelated to balance or math. That's my concern. It's not the damage, it's all the other factors.
There's nothing wrong with questioning these things. Partly why we're here playing 2e is these kinds of sweeping changes that happened in 1e. We went a really really long time where it seemed like this similar kind of fundamental change wouldn't likely happen, that was what many felt was a point of the remaster. It's more about my perception of the history that has me concerned. I've seen enough of this to not necessarily trust it.
I totally agree/see though that for a lot of people and the negative discourse is a hatred of change and there are more rational, healthy responses than just "I don't like that." We need to discuss the history. Discuss why and when push comes to shove, make up our own opinions and cooperate with those we play with. (Lest history will repeat itself.)