Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
Agree completely, I really wish pf2 was what I had hoped it would be and I could play it. Hopefully the play test works out and the game gets the refining it needs.
Absolutely, but this is my feedback. Not the most helpful but it is what it is.
What should I tell them instead? I am not going to go through read every paragraph of the play test and write an essay detailing every change I do not like. What i do know is that Paizo most likely lost 6 players because we are that disinterested in the way the new edition is going. If that is not useful so be it, but I feel like it is important to share my experience and thoughts on my formerly favorite game since I don't want to waste my time play testing a game i do not like.
Not a great sign when people don't want to play the game after just looking at it. My group and I took a brief look and so far the opinion is meh. While play testing it and giving feed back sounds good in theory, I don't want to waste my time on the play test when I am so disinterested in it (i play in/run 3 adventure paths right now). This release should have captured people's imaginations to be successful, but it just doesn't for at least a vocal percentage. Gamers tend to be opinionated and dislike changes they don't feel are warranted (i know I am), so maybe it feels insulting that paizo is replacing the entire base system some of us have been playing for almost 15 years instead of refining and improving it.
All the experience in the world with 2nd Ed Greyhawk would not mean anything when running or playing in Pathfinder's Golarion setting, without taking the time to understand how they are different, all that experience would make you better at it if you did however. It is not really about humility, rather its knowing exactly how far your knowledge goes.
Skills, feats, spells, to hits, and all those changes don't really change what the game was, is, where it has come from, or how it is meant to be played. Sure an android gunslinger is new (not really though), but he base assumptions of the game have for the most part always been the same. And that is the point of Pathfinder, even if it feels different than what has come before, it is suppose to also feel like the game has continued on rather than been replaced.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Amazing... people are tired of an argument from authority which is usually a subargument in a threads which are rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Experience is helpful; it doesn't make you right. What would be better is a commitment to new or more interesting discussion on the boards instead of the same old nonsense.
Well of course just having done something for longer doesn't automatically make you right, just like trying to insert a "fallacy" argument into your post doesn't make you right. But it does give you perspective and knowledge that can only be gained one way.
So Snowblind you have played AD&D and 2nd ED? You have seen how the rules systems have change dramatically over time? I think not, otherwise you'd know how little has actually changed.
The reason people list how long they have played or what their experience is because there is literally no other metric in which to measure someones ability or knowledge of the game. You can say all you want that you know every rule, but on a forum that means nothing since you have all the time you want to look up rules. When trying to decide between to opinions who would you rather listen to, the guy who has stayed with the game for over 5 editions of the game or the one who thinks that they can "fix" Pathfinder after playing it for a few years.
To be clear if you say "I am playing Pathfinder" that means something completely different that "I am playing Pathfinder. Except for not this or that thing, and this book, and magic is different and everyone is also a anthropomorphic badger with barbarian levels for free". No true Scotsman would be if I said no true D&D/Pathfinder would want to change the magic system for their home game, which I did not.
The entire Pathfinder fan base obviously.
Actually I completely agree with you on everything you just said. Play the game how you want, just do not think that the game has to change to fit your own preferences.
You have to use 3 different sources that significantly change the core game to make it close to what you want, than why are you even playing Pathfinder? Well I guess you are not actually...
Well "anime characters" is derogatory because Pathfinder is not anime, just like it is not science fiction or western. Pathfinder supports those genres but it is a terrible idea to model the core mechanics on them, as I said. As to "3PP" they are almost universally regarded as unbalanced compared to pathfinder products, although some are real gems.
I have played d20 D&D since it came out and AD&D before then, with short term group, in campaigns that last for years, with newbies, power gamers, grognards, and mixed groups. I have seen the power difference between "wizards" and "fighters" at high level and at low, both as the player of both and DM to both. From all of this I have to say that D&D (now Pathfinder) is what it is, always has been and should always be. If you want "fighters" to cut mountains in half, jump for miles, or to be an anime character play a different game. If you however want them to hold off a dragon with nothing but some plate armor and an enchanted sword while the cleric calls the blessing of the Gods, the wizard lobs fireballs while flying, and the rogue snipes from the shadows than you'll want to play Pathfinder (the most popular, well supported RPG in the world). This game is not developed and written by idiot monkeys, but professionals that love this game and literally work to make it as great as they can. If any house rule or 3rd party product actually "fixed" anything than it would be a very popular product (or even added to as a pathfinder product like unchained), rather than just another option in the pack. But that has not happened and it wont, because the majority of players like the difference between the classes (or don't care) other than the vocal group on the internet who believe that the difference between "fighters" and "wizards" is something that needs to be fixed.
In my game Wednesday my players are going to be fighting cyclopes, my question is how that ability would work with abilities that force re-rolls. The specific instance is with the Preacher Archetype Inquisitor warning shout. I think that it would not work, because the cyclops is not actually rolling and flavor wise I cant see a warning shout trumping a monster seeing into the future to make sure his attack hits. Let me know what you think everyone, Thanks!
(P.S. Sorry I did not insert the link correctly)
I have a similar character that is a 3rd level Paladin, I went Aasimar with the celestial champion alternate racial trait for +1 to hit and AC vs Evil Outsiders and the character trait Purity of Faith (Iomedae) for a +1 to will saves and another +1 to all saves vs Evil outsiders. Those two are a nice bump to all your basic combat stats and have a nice RP feel to them (that your always better vs Fiends). Hope that helps.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Dex to damage has nothing to do with fighters, whether or not they can take dex to damage. Dex to damage only matters when you allow easy access for everyone, PC's and monsters. Because if it breaks down anywhere then it is unbalanced, which it is. Just because str fighters maybe better (or not) than dex fighters does not mean anything.
Kudaku already pointed out that it isn't good for the small cat to gain the 4th level advancement (thank you Kudaku for pointing out the rule I was using), take the +2 dex and con instead and stay small ( for a dex of 26). It makes the small cat an amazingly better option at 4 and in almost all ways at 7th. Look at my stat blocks on page 2 for the comparison, its crazy how much it messes with things, even if it costs 2 feats to get dex to damage it is so much better there isn't a choice.
Small Cat at 7th level: HP 39 AC 24 To Hit with claws and bites +13 dealing 1d2+8 and 1d4+8 (average damage with all hits of 28), Init +8, reflex of +13, CMB +5/+11 with trip, CMD of 19, and a stealth of +16 (only has one skill point).
Big Cat: HP 45 AC 19, claws and bites +10 dealing 1d6+7 and 1d8+7 (average of 32 with all hits), Init +3, reflex of +8, CMB of +12 and CMD of 21 and a stealth of +3 (with only one skill point).
The only differences in the above stats are the small cat chooses to take weapon finesse as one of its feats and puts its ability increase at 4HD into dex instead of str. Other choices or abilities such as special attacks, movement speeds and other stats have been discounted, so I'm just going to focus on the above for now. Sure having a feat over the big cat included is a big game changer, but it illustrates the point quite well.
Anlashok the situation that immediatley comes to my mind was with my last character a druid who had a small cat as an animal companion. By forth level I was getting +7 damage to each bite and claw attack (at first level each one was at +5), without any magic items, spells, or other feats. That is broken if you consider that same +7 went to AC, reflex saves, initiative, and its to hit (+5 at first level to all of those) all only from its dex. Imagine this type of problem applied evenly between players and monsters across all the levels, if it isn't an obvious problem to you then you may want to increase your understanding of how pathfinder is balanced.
So Zapbib you think the following feats are balanced?
If so I'm glad you have no influence on how future feats are written up.
How would Str based characters get two extra feats and 3 points at character creation, actually what does that even mean? The problem with giving dex to damage easily is that if you are to balance it you have to look at it reversed. If you allow one stat (lets say str) to govern melee to hit, ranged to hit, melee damage, ranged damage, AC, initiative, and the reflex saving throw would that be balanced? Not even close, that would be broken as hell, even if you did not get the bonus from 2 handing a weapon. If that is broken (which it obviously is) then doing the same with dex is broken, even at the cost of multiple feats.
Neither Improved initiative or Lightning reflexes are even close to being as good as adding Str to Initiative or AC (or both for the cost of one feat), they do not even compare. And so what if you can add Cha to AC or Wis to hit? What you want is one stat that can do ALL of that and more. I've played in games where people think that Dex should be added to damage, some adding it as a bonus of weapon finesse some as a separate feat that requires WF. Both ways are horrible in game, it creates so many situations that are unbelievable or cause balance issues.
I have a question for everyone who believes that using Dex for damage is the way they like to do things. Would you allow feats in your game that allowed you (lets say 2 or 3 in total) to add Str to initiative, all ranged attacks, ac, and reflex saves? Even if you added that you only gain the benefits when using a weapon one handed (so no 1.5x str damage), and had to deal with Armor check penalties, and the like-this would seem over-powered to many people, myself included.
graystone, no rule spells out this exact situation. It is ludicrous to expect the pathfinder writers/developers to do so for everything.
graystone, the relevant text is obvious: "A weapon with two types is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder’s choice) if the entry specifies “or.”" Since vorpal can only be used on slashing weapons (daggers can count as such) then when it is used as a piercing weapon it is no longer slashing and can longer use the vorpal enchantment. Your also saying that a duelist can use a dagger as a slashing weapon and still get the precise strike bonus which is again obviously wrong. When commenting in the "rules questions" section of the message boards please use the actual rules and not your house rules.
So graystone you think that a duelist can use a dagger as a one handed/light piercing weapon to add precise strike to his attacks while also being able to crit with a 20 and get a vorpal instant kill off is the way the rules work? That is obviously wrong, unless you have a different idea of how that situation works?
God all of these arguments are annoying, but I'll dive back in and say I do agree with Redneckdevil, there is no other way to argue it this point without ignoring how pathfinder works in all most every case (the developers write conservatively, please understand that).
The view I have is that vorpal can be placed on a slashing weapon and if for any reason the weapon stop dealing slashing damage it is no longer a slashing weapon. I follow how pathfinder generally works, if you lose a perquisite than you lose the ability needing it. So the dagger being used as a piercing weapon loses all feats/enchantments/class feature benefits that require it to be slashing, they all fail to activate. To me this includes the vorpal enchantment.
Seriously, really seebs...the example of the vorpal dagger is actually two different weapons one of which is vorpal and slashing, while the other is only piercing-generally speaking it does not matter however. A case were it does is my previous example: it is impossible to use precise strike and a vorpal weapon that is "P or S", since it is either slashing and vorpal , or piercing and precise. This is how it works, this is the way it was intended and written.
Edited for clarity.
Have a quick question for you blackbloodtroll, in your opinion would a duelist's precise strike class feature work with a dagger if she used it as a slashing weapon rather than a piercing weapon? My opinion is no because it is not that type of weapon any more. As such I also believe that while a dagger can be enchanted as vorpal (it is a slashing weapon) that as soon as it is used as a piercing weapon instead it loses all benefits gained from being slashing (while still being enchanted) because it is not being used correctly. Any civil response is welcome.
You are correct Seebs, I should be a little more understanding. Thank you for pointing that out and for actually reading the way weapon damage types works. As for blackbloodtroll I told you how it worked and told you were the rules were, believe me or do not, but I am not required to present you with more evidence that I have. If you think I am wrong tell me why and how, or at the least explain how my view of the rules in incorrect or problematic rather than just blindly challenge me because I disagree.
graystone, unfortunately you are wrong. A dagger can either be a piercing melee weapon or a slashing melee weapon based on the choice of the wielder. A vorpal weapon must be a slashing weapon, as such a dagger can be enchanted to be vorpal but when used as a piercing weapon it no longer can be used as vorpal since it is no longer a slashing weapon (even though it is enchanted as such). Done.