Gambler

Hythlodeus's page

998 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 998 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CorvusMask wrote:

So now that 1e hardcover version is definitely not happening, would you guys prefer 2e remake or no remake at all?

neither.

ideally, I'd prefer a PF1 version but since that ship has sailed, I'm kinda ambivalent to the question. SD would benefit from an update, storywise, but I'd have to convert that updated content back to PF1 anyway.
Maybe after PF2 bombed and Paizo returned to the 3.x ways


how easy will it be to convert it into PF1 rules?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
If someone can figure out how to make a 1.5 that doesn't alienate half the target market, that would be great

It would be preferable to a 2E that alienates even more percent of the target market, I agree


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Because each of those rolls is probably going to involve about 3-5 minute scenes of narration, improv, and roleplaying

yay! god forbid there's actual roleplaying in my roleplaying game


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:


Groups from either side coming in shouting, "This is the end!" or "Give them an award for the best roleplaying game!"

I don't think anyone believes this will be the best roleplaying game ever. personally I'm just glad that at the moment the game doesn't look as bad as it looked a week ago


5 people marked this as a favorite.

there's a special place in hell, as I strongly believe, for people who put anchovies on otherwise perfectly fine food.

*starting the big anchovies war of 2019*


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

Yeah, weird how after months of being bullied, they somehow decided to not longer show up

/s


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Playtest rulebook pdf wrote:
We’re attempting bold strides in this new edition of the game, but it’s far from finalized. This is where you come in—this book is only a playtest of the final version of the game, which we’ll release in August 2019. Over the next few months, we hope you’ll help us refine the game to make it even better.

refine /rɪˈfʌɪn/ verb make minor changes so as to improve or clarify

if what they were trying to say was "well, major stuff can change of course!", REFINE was a very poor choice of words.

that said, I'm glad major changes happened. Now all I have to do is get that good news that the playtest wasn't at all was the final product will be to my group somehow, so that we might give PF2 another chance


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

When I run games, every round (every. single. round.) the players do this, "Does a 17 hit?"

And another player spouts off, "Is that including your +2 for flanking?"
"No... does a 19 hit?"
"Did you include your +1 for bardic performance?"
It slows combat to a crawl.
I'd rather just have the GM track it.

How is

"Does a 17 hit?"
"No!"
"Even though the monster is flanked?"
"Ah, you're right, let's see...still, no."
"Did you account for the bardic performance?"

in any way faster?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:

It is very easy to not allow races into your setting. It is very difficult to create a race that a player wants if it's misisng.

Aside from the core races, all other races are only options at the GM's discretion. If you don't want that many, don't use them.

And even those that are core races, depending on the story the GM wants to tell, might not always be playable. I can certainly see not allowing Goblin characters for reasons just like I would not allow Elves if I ever GM Second Darkness


14 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:

Gut reaction,

A lot of the loudest most toxic people here seem to have gotten what they want

Then why are the loudest and most toxic posters on this forum the ones that are complaining about the changes right now? the ones that made feedback during the playtest on these boards hell for everyone that disagreed with them; the very same people that whine in this very thread the loudest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:


Actually, it wasn't possible in PF1 for a reason not related to exploration mode: the bard had limited rounds of bard song and five minutes would use them all up.

I know, but being a nice GM, that I usually am, if my bard wants to sing and the effect doesn't matter in that situation anyway, I let him sing. I'd probably rule it like "Well, you have used up 3 rounds of your performance in the last fight, so in case another fight begins, you will have x rounds left. in the meantime you continue singing with no effect but the effect will start immediatly with a new encounter."

It's not strictly a by-the-rules approach, but if the player decides to continue to shred the same accords on his ukulele for the whole time Roguey McRogueface does his thing the time for going straight into his magic song again would be reduced. It is not a complete illogical train of thought and for me, outside of combat, story and fun trumps a strict ruleset anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:


[...]Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. [...]

GM:Now that the fight is over, you have time to notice the unusual interior of that room. You see a delicately ornated mantlepiece in the east (continues to describe the room in detail)

Bard:I'll continue my performance just in case we're getting attacked again while Roguey McRogueface searches around.

Are you trying to tell me that scenario wasn't possible in PF1?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:


Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail?

I actually don't think that exploration mode will make it into the final product. it adds nothing to the game, takes most of the RP elements out of it and I highly doubt most groups that finished DD used that mode till the end of the playtest. I suspect most of them ditched it after chapter 2 if not earlier. Luckily, even if it would make it into the final product it is so easy to be simply ignored


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Unicore wrote:
This is a secondary concern I have about these changes. That the people complaining loudest about + level to proficiency system and wanting to be able to be bad 1 skill, were actually upset about enough other changes to the game

Well, to be fair, the Paladin not working like a Paladin or the Dwarf not being nearly dwarfy enough to be considered a Dwarf or some spells being nerfed into uselessness are very, very minor things compared to the +level mechanic that was the broken backbone of the PFPlaytest system. Those things can easily be rewritten or adapted or houseruled if necessary (although I'd prefer to not have to do that extra work myself of course).

getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.

Though I love to perform lengthy mathematical analyses on +1 per level and other core topics about Pathfinder 2nd Edition, the little details are what bothered my playtest players. Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail? Why does the smooth three-action economy feel so clunky? What is up with the 42 different basic conditions and how can I tell them apart? Why doesn't my dwarf feel dwarfy? Thus, my one complaint in Hear our Plea(s) was about action economy taxes.

For example, when the 7th-level monk barkeep dwarf was fighting against 3rd-level ghasts, she had to roll saves against their Stench ability, their paralysis ability, and their ghast fever. Every hit by a ghast meant two saving throws (the stench thankfully was once and done), which she could fail on only a 1 or 2. Eventually she failed the ghast fever and that was more a relief than a dismay, because it meant that she could stop rolling against it. Ghast fever takes a day to...

while I agree, the thing is: I KNOW why the Dwarves don't feel dwarfy and therefore it is easier for me to come up with my tables own version of Dwarves and Dwarf-related feats within an otherwise working system than changing a system that doesn't work but get the Dwarves right. Or, as presented in the playtest, a system that doesn't work AND sucks at getting Dwarves right.

Of course, I'd prefer a system that works AND provides us with dwarfy Dwarves, but the dwarfiness of Dwarves is, for me at least, easier to fix if necessary


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

I wonder how people will feel about Untrained proficiency the first time they attempt to use a weapon they are Untrained in.

At moderate levels the gap is much bigger than the difference in PF1 between fighter and wizard weapon proficiency.

probably exactly the same I felt in PF1 whenever I used a waepon I hadn't invested in the proficiency for it. maybe even better, because I don't have a -4 malus and in PF2 it is still ridiculously easy to roll a crit


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:


getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.
Is this getting rid of + level to proficiency? It sounds like it is just making it possible to be completely incompetent in most skills. It isn't touching +level for anything that should effect combat, since all of that stuff is trained minimum.

as long as you can be untrained, it effectivly is. and I'm pretty sure not every character starts being trained in every weapon group.

Saves are uneffected though, and as such less diverse than in PF1. that's unfortunate, but someting I can actually live with


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
trumping strategic play at the table.

Good. If I want to play chess, then I play chess and don't have to invite 4 to 6 people for that


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


This is a secondary concern I have about these changes. That the people complaining loudest about + level to proficiency system and wanting to be able to be bad 1 skill, were actually upset about enough other changes to the game

Well, to be fair, the Paladin not working like a Paladin or the Dwarf not being nearly dwarfy enough to be considered a Dwarf or some spells being nerfed into uselessness are very, very minor things compared to the +level mechanic that was the broken backbone of the PFPlaytest system. Those things can easily be rewritten or adapted or houseruled if necessary (although I'd prefer to not have to do that extra work myself of course).

getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Alternative option 5:

Keep +1 per level, but you don't get it if you're Untrained.

Looks like they're going with this one. Which means all the "Every Level 20 Barbarian is really good at music and computers" issues will go away and we can stop trying to make jokes about it.

Thank Cthulhu, they came to their senses


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:

Untrained: You get NOTHING, not even your level, you will suck hard my friend!
Trained: LVL + 2
Expert: LVL + 4
Master: LVL + 6
Legendary: LVL + 8

that's awesome. A huge, HUGE, step in the right direction.

Now, let's make the NPC/monster building rules similar enough to PC building rules, so that it is not longer completely immersion breaking, fix a couple of classes, fix the ancestries, rework most of the spells, throw item levels in the trash bin and we MIGHT have a system that sounds fun to play.

But the Proficiency rework alone is worth butting heads with a lot of...erm..not so nice people in a lot of threads over the last few months. There is progress made right here and with the exception of monster building rules all the important changes that still need to be made are minor compared to fixing the +Lvl to untrained stuff madness


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Making GMing easier is necessary for the long-term survival of the hobby. It's the hardest role at the table to fill (everyone wants to play, only a small subset thereof is willing to GM) and far and away the most work.

Gee, I wonder how the hobby survived that long if GMing was that hard for all these decades. Only a handful of geniuses mastered that art and I guess they must have found a way to GM on all tables worldwide at almost the same time.

/s


I agree that there are two different problems that are phrased as "+Level", one, the most severe one, imo, is the +Level to skills, the other one is the lack of variety that occurs when every class progresses at the exact same rate in saves and BAB.
If PF2 had only the latter problem (and no others, like the monster building rules for examples), while it wouldn't be ideal, I could actually live with it. sure, it would still feel boring, I guess, but bundled with the first problem, the +Level to skills, it is where PF2 becomes very ugly and unenjoyable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I strongly prefer flaws which are roleplayed, not flaws which are "this number is lower than it could be." It's completely possible to be a clumsy character with high dex or an absentminded character with a high wis or a eternally sickly character with a high con.

...

right here, Darksol. while I agree it is possible, it feels, looks and reads wrong and is the most inelegant solution a RPG system can provide.

(why on Earth my response to that post shows up as being postet right bfore that post, only the Gods of Forum Software will understand, though)


Edge93 wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Edge93 wrote:


Because somehow neither myself nor any of my 4 players have run into any of these alleged problems, and yet we're playing the same system and coming from years of playing PF1, so there's no lack of comparison.

And there were a lot of percieved problems with PF that I never ran into. different tables, different games.

And if your fine with your shiney new game, more power to you, I hope you enjoy it.

Fair enough.

And likewise hopefully you can find at least something from PF2 that can be used to enrich your own games.

idk. maybe the 3 action economy, but that's an Unchained thing anyway. I had hopes for the Ancestry/Heritage feats, but those need a lot of fixing. Other than that, I'll stay with the houserules I always use and hope some other company will pick up the 3.5 legacy


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Personally, I want the flaws that I roleplay be reflected in the numbers. Something about a clumsy Dex 18 character doesn't look, sound and feel right
A clumsy Dex 18 character is an oxymoron, just like a Stupid Wizard with 18 Int.

You realize, of course, we agree on this, right? that was my whole point


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I want the flaws that I roleplay be reflected in the numbers. Something about a clumsy Dex 18 character doesn't look, sound and feel right


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:


Because somehow neither myself nor any of my 4 players have run into any of these alleged problems, and yet we're playing the same system and coming from years of playing PF1, so there's no lack of comparison.

And there were a lot of percieved problems with PF that I never ran into. different tables, different games.

And if your fine with your shiney new game, more power to you, I hope you enjoy it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:


As for PF1 only needing a few tweaks... Maybe other people's experience varies but I've found PF1 FAR too broken to be fixed with a mere few tweaks. Exhibit A, Pathfinder Unchained WAS "a few tweaks". It helped but it wasn't enough. Not even close.

And Ironically, +/level, the so hotly debated topic, is one of the first things I would try to incorporate into PF1 if I wanted to "fix" it, right after the 3 action economy.

I don't think there is anything in this statement that I don't disagree vehemently with. This perception is so far removed from my gaming experiences or thos I play with, so far removed from any reality I know, that I honestly don't believe we're playing the same games here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because, since every character can now sneak and use his Knowledges and is basically feeling the same, the ability to cast spells was the only thing to make some classes stand out. And the Gods forbid that some classes provide variety and difference. So rituals are a way to let characters, whose players willingly chose to create as martials and not as spellcasters, to perform magic, because somehow it is unfair that they can't.
It is absurd, really, that choice don't matter any more


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Why on earth would anyone want to be known for a game that's clunky and full of so many options (80% of which are traps, 10% of which are situational, and the other 10% breaking the game entirely) that it's more fat than a blue whale?

because it is still a better game than anything presented in this playtest


thflame wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
But the thing I want to underline about adventure design is that sometimes "someone in the party hasn't invested in the relevant skill" makes a particular approach impossible or undesirable. Stealth is a good example of this, the -2 stealth character is going to make a stealthy approach for the party impossible. So I think the "you're not so bad about the stuff you aren't good at" is an improvement.

The problem here is that this has been a thing since skills have been a thing. If one party member can't sneak, sneaking isn't an option for that character. Good GMs work around this by letting the players come up with alternate solutions. Maybe that player bluffs his way past threats instead of sneaking? Maybe he offers a distraction to help the rest of the party? Maybe the party has to create a diversion to help him sneak by? There are a lot of potential solutions that aren't "let's make everyone good at everything".

so much THIS^
this "Oh, but my character sucks at sneaking so the whole party can't..." argument puzzles me since day one of the playtest, really. get creative, FFS


14 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Skills, and BAB went up with +Level in PF1.

Skills only if you had a minmax playstyle focussing on a handful of skills. the other skills, really did not. your character could totally suck at a skill even at high levels if you chose to create him that way. a choice, now taken away from the player. Likewise BAB was +Level only for selected classes, while other classes had fractals of that. That brought variety to the table, variety is a thing that doesn't exist in PF2 where every character feels more or less the same, because the numbers on the sheet don't allow for mechanical differences

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Saves, and DCs went up with +Level/2 in PF1.

Again, depending on the class and with variety that isn't there in PF2

PossibleCabbage wrote:
In order to keep pace with the opposition, you were expected to keep your armor class above like 17+Level by relentlessly upgrading your magic gear in PF1.

idk. Over the course of 18 levels I changed armor maybe twice and added Bracers of Armor once, IIRC. Mostly because my character found the loot, not because I actively needed it. I might have been behind a little of what's expected AC wise, but then I chose not to update my armor every given chance and again, that's a choice taken away from me.

Not that it matters anyway. +Level to both BAB AND AC cancel each other out and all that is left is unnecessary number bloat just for the sake of a fake feeling of progression.


If they are smart, they should concentrate on making PF2 a buyable product before announcing APs for that system. And I doubt, considering the current state PF2 is in, that we will see an AP announcement for PF2 in 2019.
Of course, if Paizo really thinks that PF2 works as it is, then yes APs could be announced in February but I still refuse to believe they don't know how much they would hurt themselves with the current iteration of PF2


5 people marked this as a favorite.

honestly, I would too.


22 people marked this as a favorite.

If I have to have only one plea than that's to rethink what your definition of the word "edition" is.

the second edition of a novel usually doesn't change the plot and structure, even if it is a revised edition. The second edition of Moby Dick didn't add sharks with laserguns, made Moby Dick lose his ancestral ability to swim and changed the point of view to one of a seagull passing by Ahab's ship.

PF2 is not a new edition. It is not Pathfinder at all. It is a new, different game. If you want to produce and sell a new game, that's totally fine, just don't call it a Pathfinder Second Edition just as I don't call a novel about a seagull watching a whaling ship catain in a three way fight with a stranded whale and sharks with laserguns "Moby Dick".


Dread Moores wrote:
If these potential "two guys in the basement" can continue to produce APs and modules with the same amount of maps, artwork, editing, proofing, and layout without ever needing to involve any other art, editing, or layout staff...

tbf, artwork and maps are edition independant unless PF2 chnges lore to a degree that the people depicted in the artwork would have to change their look drastically.

Editing, proofing and layout are, I guess, were the cost factor comes in, still I fail to see how it is economical more sound to alienate over a third of the customers than to use the additional ressources necessary to provide PF1 versions of the content


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Emotionally, I'd like to continue receiving PF1E adventures.

See, this is what I don't get about Paizo's decison to discontinue PF1. Small, 3rd parties manage to publish their adventures simultanously for different systems without problems. You can buy the same adventure in either PF1 or 5Ed and even more obsure systems. And those 3rd party publishers are basically, at least in my mind, one guy who writes those module at weekends in his basement.

Paizo can probably afford at least two guys in their basements to write on their holidays too and yet it is seemingly out of the question to write future APs and modules not only for the 17% who are determined to switch to PF2 as soon as possible but for the 35% who intend to stick with PF1 too.

Everybody would win. Those, who like the playtest, those who found their home in 3.x 18 years ago and all those inbetween who are undecided at the moment


Captain Morgan wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:

One of the advantages of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is that there are whole sections that you can conditionally skip reading. For a new player, this is invaluable.

Not playing a caster? Don't worry about chapter 10. Not the GM? Ignore chapters 12 through 15. Starting at level one? Ignore chapter 11.

Isn't this true for PF2 as well? Non casters don't need to read spells, and 1st level characters needn't read the Advancement or Treasure chapters.

Certainly none of my players so far have read the entire book AFAIK. Or even most of it.

idk, the information is all over the place in this one and always where you expect it last. 80% of the character creation proces is scrolling to different parts of the book, somtimes in the middle, sometimes right before the end, back to first 50 pages or so, back to the middle part and so on and one still has no idea how the character works


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:


That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?

Ongoing support. A game without support is dead


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:


Of course, none of this will stop people from sighing wistfully about Second Darkness.

Doug M.

Well, "Pathfinder" 2 stopped me from doing that. Even Second Darkness doesn't deserve to be wasted by the PF2 treatment


10 people marked this as a favorite.

It means choices and options, it means freedom for all the participants in telling the stories we cooperatively want to tell and it means being the true inheritor of the 3.x system that we fell in love with 18 years ago. All of this, paired with quality Adventure Paths as support.

Aside from the APs, PF2 sadly will be nothing of this. It will just be another TTRPG


Frozen Yakman wrote:


Accept that a dwarf in heavy armor is slow to the point of utter tactical uselessness without the feature. Even the most incompetent general would just out-maneuver them. Other species don't have this problem.

this quote somehow reminds me of the game Thud . I agree it is hard to win, playing the Troll side, but not impossible


ChibiNyan wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I'd say it is still mostly INT.

CHA has it's uses in that Spell Point/Resonance/whatever it is called now pool and STR as stated above still increases your damage somewhat.
INT is now the only ability score that doesn't do anything useful, especially with the way the Skill system "works" now.
So...expect a lot of really stupid characters in your games now
At least better than in PF1 since it won't go down to 8 this time.

If you use point buy in PF1, sure.


IIRC it wasn't even a Wizard/Fighter combo but a flat Wizard with INT as obvious dump stat and STR as main stat. the general swinginess of the new system and the wizard critting more often (and hitting slightly more often) than the Barbarian (sheer luck, I guess) made him dealing a little more damage over those two sessions than the Barbarian as a result. I'm not sure the effect would have been the same without maxing STR, though.

(And yes, +1/level is obviously also a huge factor here, but just mentioning that there is a problem with +1/level usually leads to Jason closing the thread, so for the sake of keeping the thread alive, just pretend +1/level is a gift from the gods and nothing better could ever happen to not only RPGs but to gaming in general)


PhoenixSunrise wrote:
casters who won't even use it for damage

won't they? because one of my playtest players built a wizard with high STR just to see if he could outperform the barbarian character in melee combat. (based on that players theory that PF2 barbarians are seriously underperforming)* and, well, they were about the same level without the wizard's spells

*that was between the 1.3 and 1.4 updates, so the new 1.6 classes might differ, we haven't had the chance to playtest since that update came out


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say it is still mostly INT.
CHA has it's uses in that Spell Point/Resonance/whatever it is called now pool and STR as stated above still increases your damage somewhat.
INT is now the only ability score that doesn't do anything useful, especially with the way the Skill system "works" now.
So...expect a lot of really stupid characters in your games now


thank you


Meraki wrote:

I like this because it provides more minor benefits rather than one or two major ones, though it is more complex than the existing system. Personally, I'd like to leave ability scores out of background altogether. I really liked PF1 traits because they were (mostly) smaller benefits, so you could pick one that actually fit your character without feeling mechanically disadvantaged.

My concern with the current system is that I feel it nudges people too strongly toward backgrounds that "fit" their class, and the nature of the math in the system means you can't really make up for that elsewhere until higher levels when your ability scores increase.

Backgrounds in PF2 are probably the only thing I like in that system, because it is very easy as a GM to make ones for your own campaigns without much thiniking on the mechanical side, but I have to agree that leaving Ability Modifiers out of the equation might be preferable


Oooh, shiney!

1 to 50 of 998 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>