Jeff Deaner's page

As I have been reading through this I ran into a lot of posts that suggested more than one change ("I like this, but not that and that"). I would like to try something: a vote.

Forum votes are unproductive. Paizo have already started this. If they thought that this kind of view was useful, they'd have added a voting feature to the boards.

Kalindlara wrote:

Mats Öhrman wrote:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Taste_test_problems:

Wikipeda wrote:

In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005), Malcolm Gladwell relates his conversations with market researchers in the food industry who put most of the blame for the

...

That's what I get for relying on half-remembered hearsay. ^_^

Thank you for the information!

You are very welcome! ^^

As a software developer, I'm quite dependent on a good test team - the nastier and meaner the better! I've used this New Coke info snippet several times when discussing testing strategies. :)

Another example of poor testing metrics was the testing of Windows Vista prior to release. The replaced most of their testers with programmers who could write automated tests. And Vista was architecturally a big improvement over XP. But they failed to test the important metric: "Compared with XP, will a user (or corporation) see the advantages and want to switch?"

Yolande d'Bar wrote:

But the chart as provided is not helpful in any situation except creating a level-dependent obstacle when designing an adventure. That's a useful thing to have--but it does not suffice for setting baseline expectations in the game world.

Having stable DCs for common obstacles and activities keeps the world consistent and real.

Exactly, the chart is helpful in adventure design (to know how much the challenge is to the party) but we need static DCs for consistency to make the world feel real.

If the same task increases in difficulty every time you gain a level, gaining a level becomes kind of pointless.

I agree: there is a big distinction between designing an adventure and running one. As a GM, I shouldn't have to look at the "how to design a challenge" section while running it.

The logic of "look at the design conditions" when running a game fails especially when the design condition for monsters have been removed.

Couldn't one argue that "hitting a door to do noticeable damage" is a "trivial task" of a Level equal to that of the door?

I'd like to put a shout-out to those hard-working sysadmins who were able to keep the website working, including downloads, during the flurry of activity associated with the Playtest release.

Well Done!

I know sysadminning is an underappreciated job, and any failures are always pounced on, but this was an excellent outcome!

PF2 is a totally different situation to 4th Ed, PF2 has a playtest, a lot changed between the first 5th Ed playtest packet and the last, so much can change by later next year

5e also had a much longer playtest period. The question that has come up here is "when is the next playtest release coming out?"

Which is a valid question.

Andarr wrote:

Pf2 seems to me like it took more than a few pages out of the 5e.

But 5e and Pathfinder should be directed towards different audiences. It's pretty obvious the 5e is geared towards more inexperienced players, who care more about "class balance" (when did that EVER become a thing in pen and paper RPGs... Sigh) and ease of play than a more complete and simulationistic experience like most PF players do.

Comments like this always baffle me...

First, ever comment from every Paizo staffmember I have every read gives me the impression they have never read 5e, let alone played it enough to have an idea how to emulate it.

However, MacFarland and Bonner were both in the 4e design team...

One of the advantages of the Pathfinder (and 3.5e) layout was that if you weren't playing a spellcaster, you didn't need to read the Magic or Spells chapters.

A new player, playing a monk, can ignore a large amount of the rulebook. With the merging of powers and spells - and the massive amount of cross-references, this is no longer a possibility.

In the past, Pathfinder really toned down a bunch of spells. This was done somewhat surreptitiously, but if you look at web, you can see it.

PF2 has taken that concept and taken it way out of proportion.

In addition, Pyrotechnics is gone.

I'm going to posit the existence of a 20th level rogue who is a transcendent locksmith- she charges exorbitant prices for locks she is confident no one can pick unless they are at least as good as her.

I mean, a lot of modern security experts used to be blackhats, so it checks out.

"I'm a 20th level locksmith. For only $levelappropriate SP, I'll sell you a lock that can't be picked by anyone under 12th level - 95% of the time. I don't provide insurance against the Natural Twenty"

Is there a reason why these "monster design guideline" aren't available?
Given that we're deviating from "build monsters on the same framework as PCs with some balancing adjustments" to "build monsters with balance with some framework adjustments", knowing how to balance monsters seems pretty important.

Jumping : Not Found
Movement : Not Found

An explanation of why these changes were necessary would go a long way. I would suggest in the foreword.