John Milligan 87's page

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.

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.

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.

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.