Jakaw Razorbeak

Jar of Crows's page

Organized Play Member. 4 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

...

But how would you even go about demonstrating that the problem doesn’t exist, though? You can’t do a mathematical analysis of all possible scenarios; one alternative would be to draw from experiences playing 2e to show that the system is interesting and not repetitive, which many people *have* been doing. Even so, it’s still going after a sliding target. If 50% of actions are spent making a bow attack, is that too repetitive? What about 70%? 85%? What if most turns are comprised of basically the same set of actions, but the sequence allows for several different variations on the set of actions? Are the variations interesting enough, then?

I’m of the opinion that ultimately the exact numbers don’t actually matter that much, the experience of those numbers is going to matter more. People are using a lot of numbers and complicated examples to explain their own experiences, and the original examples are being “nitpicked” because they’re discordant with peoples’ experiences with the system.

At the end of the day, it’s a lot like trying to convince a friend that a movie they loved (or hated) is actually really terrible (or amazing). It’s a not literally impossible task, but you can give a lot of examples and explanations and they won’t seem to do much of anything.


Falgaia wrote:
ShikiSeiren wrote:


No, the DM is not using those. He is doing 10 vs 4 with the enemy level at party -1, because the difficulty rating as written makes absolutely 0 sense. And from what I've seen, if your DM sends you enemy numbers equal to your own, then he is in the minority.

"My DM" is literally the system Paizo uses to balance Organized Play, modules, and Adventure Paths. Say the encounter system is whack all you want but it is the system that we should be using when conducting a playtest. If your GM likes hard fights, that's on them; the system has clearly stated what it uses to balance classes and its disingenuous to use other metrics for a rules playtest.

Even in your new scenario, you make the mistake of treating the Eidolon as an additional Player. They are not, so the scenario should be 4+Eidolon+3 Animal Companions Because Why Not Its The Same Thing vs 4 equal-level enemies for an Extreme Level Encounter, something thr CRB explicitly states should only be used for climactic events. Much more common challenging fights would be vs 3 Enemies of Equal Party Level, or 4 Enemies of Parry Level -1 in this system for a...

These numbers are so far beyond the pale that I doubt it’s just a matter of GM “preference”.

I’m suspecting that there are either some unusual house rules involved or someone is just doing the math completely wrong.


Moppy wrote:
My question is why clerics are held to different standards to non-clerics. I've only ever heard that line from religious folk IRL.

There might be a reason for this; although, I think the framing is a bit backwards.

I agree with the sentiment from previous posts that it’s generally about decorum and not about specific behaviours being anathema. However, I’m not sure that the comparisons with expectations of decorum from real-world organizations is the best comparison. In these comparisons, the reason to behave in a certain way is still driven by external factors, to avoid repercussions or reprisals for breaking certain rules. I would flip it around and say that clerics are held to a higher standard by others less than they would hold *themselves* to a higher standard. After all, if you truly believe in a cause, wouldn’t you be incentivized to behave in a way that presents your cause in a positive light, even in the absence of specific rules? (Note: definitions of “positive” may vary based wildly based on deity) As a result, this kind of motivation for the character towards certain perceived ideals, and the advancement of those ideals, affects how people choose to roleplay a Cleric and forms how people in general expect a Cleric to behave.

Not that this is universally true; one could easily play a Cleric that is rather ambivalent about the whole religion thing and only avoids doing certain things purely out of a desire to avoid the consequences (anathema), but as far as I can tell that would be the exception and not the rule.