Ghostwasp's page

I think everyone has a right to say they have problems with a game even if they don't playtest. You can still be smart, gauge the content on it's concepts, and come up with educated theories and hypothesis. However, the OP really didn't do this, and only complained about things without providing any sort of interesting insight. Come to the table with more or else you do no one any good. You are just a seagull, swooping in, crapping all over everything, and then leaving.

Not at all true, dropping in and saying "don't like these things" is way more useful then not saying anything at all. Everyone who wants to contribute is required to do so only exactly as much as they want or can.

MaxAstro wrote:

Curtoss wrote:

So you haven't played it?

I can't upvote this enough. The amount of "I haven't played this system yet but I hate everything about it" on the playtest forums is mind boggling.

Maybe, but it makes sense to me. I'll explain, but first let me get out of the way that I am playing PF2 as part of the playtest.

Ok, here's my view. I read game rules all the time to determine if I want to run them. There are lots of game systems to pick from. If I have an idea for a campaign and I'm trying to pick a rules set, there's no way I'm going to give each medieval fantasy game a 6-month playtest before I make my decision. I don't have the time.

It is reasonable for a person to read a set of rules and decide they don't like them. It is also reasonable for a person to be unable to articulate what they don't like. The bottom line is they're not buying the product.

Admittedly, it is tragic for those with a financial/emotional investment in the game but that's the way it is.

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.

I'm not saying the only other option is silence, but I am saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and feedback. If time is an issue? That's understandable. There are finite hours in a day, and not enough to go around.

If interest is the reason you don't want to playtest? That's fine, too - it's your prerogative and your choice. You're welcome to say that, too. None of this is meant to shout you down or anything, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I'm just saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and the feedback surveys. Nothing more.

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.

The only other option from play testing should not be silence.

Unfortunately we are not game designers but we can say we don't like something in the play test and that it will not work for us. Silence on this does no one any good, even if we cannot provide more helpful advice\criticism because of time, interest or ability.

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.

Thanks for the answer, did not see that feat there.

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.
This is my game, go elsewhere if you believe that D&D/Pathfinder should be changed for your pleasure.

My playgroup has played with Dex to damage forever and STR characters are on-par, if not better.

Anyone who claims that Dex-to-damage, with two feats as requirement, overshadows STR builds, clearly hasn't made the math or thought about the implications.

Dex-to-damage characters do have two very important advantages: skills and initiative. Of course, that is VERY IMPORTANT for DEX fighters, because if they lost initiative, their flat-footed AC would be damning for them.

Anyway, I challenge anyone to make a character that has Dex-to-damage through a two-feat investment that is outright better than a STR fighter. Barring, as I've said, skills and initiative, I find it impossible. The STR fighter usually has much higher damage potential and more room for feats, not to mention more versatility in battle.

The one exception might be a Slayer, but I haven't been able to theorycraft with it yet.

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.

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.

I have to say that this is awesome, and I am going to use it in my game this week.