John Milligan 87's page

7 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
John Milligan 87 wrote:
Stop misrepresenting the scenario.

Pot, meet kettle...

John Milligan 87 wrote:
it’s comparing two rule sets that have a lot of similarities, about arguably the exact same design decision.

Note the bolded word in the quote. It seems MOST of us here don't buy into the argument that they DO use the same design decisions.

John Milligan 87 wrote:
You could remove all references to 5e and the points, they would stand or fall on their own merit, but you are not actually addressing them.

And I covered that: delay works just fine as is and is working as intended. What is there to justify? What do I have to prove? As I said above, how do I prove and justify that I like blue? The OP jumped over steps in an argument:

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
#1 Make an observation.
#2 Ask a question.
#3 Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
#4 Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
#5 Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The OP took steps #1-#4 by himself and wanted others to agree: we just made it it #1 and stopped there as we came to a different conclusion [things working fine] instead of his [things not working fine] then answered #2 [yes, no issue here]. As the person with a theory, they have to justify the observation, question, the testable explanation and the prediction. If the people you ask don't agree to the premise of any of those, it's a non-starter. If my observation is that the world is a sphere, I have no obligation to justify why it isn't flat: I can SEE it's sphere and don't have to write out a long post why it looks round...

You are completely misrepresenting once again what occurred. He presented some criticisms, you dismissed these criticisms because he referenced 5e.

It’s fine to state you have no problems with the system as it stands, but that on its own doesn’t address the points he raised. You of course are not obligated to address his criticism, it’s fine to simply like it how it is. However, without doing so, you are contributing nothing to the conversation of said critique. Does that really need to be explained?

Also, to rephrase for clarity, it is the same design problem, the outcome was however obviously is different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
John Milligan 87 wrote:


I have no dog in this, but you and others saying this, are so clearly fallacious. Address the actual argument presented, stating the “developers decided X works for their game” is a non starter. If they didn’t, short of outright editing errors, it wouldn’t be in the game.

Saying the games have different philosophies or focuses, doesn’t make these very much overlapping design decisions irrelevant, it just led to a different outcome. If it’s not relevant, you need to justify why.

It's about as relevant as asking "why doesn't Pathfinder use advantage for everything like 5e".
Or "why doesn't pathfinder use THACO! Please justify why!' or 'Why doesn't pathfinder use d100's like rolemaster! The creators of that game said that that roll is clearly superior to d20's so how do we fix this in pathfinder?'... Asking it this way presumes that the parties in questing already agree there is a problem instead of just asking if you like or dislike something. Asking 'do you like blue' is different than saying "blue is awful! If you don't agree justify why you like it': IMO I don't have to justify why I like or dislike something. It'd be different is this started off as a homebrew change like 'how can I change this in my game' instead of what it is now. :P

Stop misrepresenting the scenario. It wasn’t in a vacuum, it’s comparing two rule sets that have a lot of similarities, about arguably the exact same design decision. You could remove all references to 5e and the points, they would stand or fall on their own merit, but you are not actually addressing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Maybe you'd like to, I dunno, actually engage with the arguments - if you can explain why and how those objections aren't valid in the context of PF2

They are irrelevant because PF2 is not 5e, nor was PF2 developed by the developers of 5e. 5e’s developers decided Delay did not work for their game. PF2’s developers decided that it did work for theirs. The one teams thinking is inherently irrelevant to the others. Your inclusion of it brought no value to the conversation.

“Zapp” wrote:
Just go play the game you so uncritically love

While we’re on the subject of intent: why don’t you stop trying to rewrite the game that so clearly doesn’t suit your needs and go find one that does? You keep praising 5e’s design, why not play that instead?

I have no dog in this, but you and others saying this, are so clearly fallacious. Address the actual argument presented, stating the “developers decided X works for their game” is a non starter. If they didn’t, short of outright editing errors, it wouldn’t be in the game.

Saying the games have different philosophies or focuses, doesn’t make these very much overlapping design decisions irrelevant, it just led to a different outcome. If it’s not relevant, you need to justify why.


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Just like in 3.x and PF1e, the "expected treasure by encounter" will total more than "expected wealth by level" due to three factors:

1) A portion of the "expected treasure by encounter" is basically a replacement for resources used by the PCs (consumables, expensive material components, etc.).

2) Not every group of PCs will find, recognize, or have the means to transport every valuable object that is included in the "expected treasure by encounter" numbers.

3) The PCs may not keep and use every item found, so they will not get "full value" when they sell the ones they don't keep (other than "art objects, gems, and raw materials").

I'm aware, and none of which is relevant to my criticism, if anything it arguably strengthens it. The way it's presented is unclear, and provides significantly less utility. The desire to have this easily defined category isolated would be incredibly common for the exploration/sandbox style games this is explicitly intended to help enable.


Or for my purposes, only about 2/3 of the encounters will include rewards :P. 12.5 encounters x 50 gp = (625 + 100) = 725 * 0.33 (¬30%)= 478.50.

So yeah, about 2/3 of the 500 gp, and as you say it will vary, and the book also indicates to include encounters without treasure.

Unless I am still on the wrong page, then they have included part (but only part) of the expected items worth in the per encounter valuation columns? That is where my confusing came from.

I really do not understand that decision. While the math now adds up, in my opinion that approach is both confusing and provides less utility over simply keeping items and treasure values separate.

I understand there is no hard science to this, but this is effectively mixing a relatively easily defined category (treasure/gp) with a much more nebulous one (items). In the process of doing so, both are now less well defined.

Irrespective of this, it could also be indicated much more clearly how many encounters on average are expected to provide rewards (of any kind), or not.

Thanks for clearing that up!


I am interested in the actual gold and actual items value of rewards expected per level.

From my reading, there is a 300-400% difference between the two sources. In the below examples I am using a level 3 party with four members.

_________________________________________________________
Aim: Determine Item Rewards Total Value per Level
_________________________________________________________

GMG - TREASURE BY ENCOUNTER (pg 51)
_________________________________________________________

Extra Treasure is directly advising the expected value of items rewarded, so this is dead simple. (This value is also included within the Total Treasure per Level)

- A level 3 party should expect to find 100 gp worth of items.

_________________________________________________________
CRB - PARTY TREASURE BY LEVEL (pg 501)
_________________________________________________________

Party Currency is the expected amount of actual gold rewarded. (This value is also included within the Total Value). Therefore the value of items is not stated outright, but this is a trivial equation.

- (Total Value 500 gp) - (Party Currency 120gp) = 380 gp
- A level 3 party should expect to find 380 gp worth of items.
_________________________________________________________

As you can see, the two sources produce significantly difference results, and a similar disparity will occur when you attempt to work out the *actual* gold to reward.

No amount of bonus xp, treasure, or variations between per encounter vs per level differences, can reasonably account for this difference.

I suspect I have erred fundamentally here, but this is pretty straightforward wording and math. At least I thought so! Can someone please break down where I am going wrong?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair I haven't read the whole thread, but your conclusion, that clerics are nesscesary,isn't supported by your argument. All you have argued is that they are the most optimal healer, not that you must have a cleric in that role.