Lady Firebird's page

As promised:

* Goblins: Make non Golarion goblins viable with the ancestral traits and I'm on board with goblins in the core rules (I won't GM a Golarion campaign with goblins, but will GM an Eberron one).

For the life of me, if I never hear another word about Goblins as a playable ancestry again, it'll be too soon. This isn't a shot at you (or anyone in particular), but until I came here, I had no idea Goblins and Paladins were such contentious topics.

... makes me want to make a Goblin Paladin.

* Proficiencies: This sounds like a hot, complicated mess for minimal to no benefit. But give me the option to not have untrained Proficiencies autoscale (perhaps with more proficiency slots to compensate) and I'll at least give it a real honest chance.

I'm curious about this one. Some of this is purely taste, but "complicated?" Honestly, they seem both easier and more flexible than the old skill system to me, and offer lots of benefits. Chiefly in the form of abilities you can hang on the system to give it breadth and depth. It seems from what we've seen to be both mathematically more sound and opens up a lot of design options.

* Legendary over the top epic skill feats: Don't make taking them mandatory and make sure topping off at master across many skills instead of specializing in a few legendary ones is a viable strategy and I'll be happy.

See, that's what I like to hear. It's very easy to just cap what you don't like rather than force the entire system out of the rules. Me, personally, I look forward to all the crazy over-the-top stuff that you can get at higher levels. To me, that best emulates the mythological and high fantasy stories that serves as both Pathfinder's and my own personal inspiration. However, it's an easy thing to just say "I don't want Legendary skills in my game," whereas making up the rules wholesale to support those is very difficult. Also, it offers no support for people who do so if they can't find games where their houserules are in play.

Conversely, and in line with what you want to do, from what we've seen I'm guessing you can very much go for Master proficiency in multiple areas, and be very effective. Hopefully they do indeed allow for spreading out that skill proficiency as well as specialization, but with the greater oomph these skills seem to have, picking up multiple Masters would make your character very capable indeed.

* Potential currency changes: I'm happy with that.

* Potential changes to multiclassing spellcasters to make cleric/wizards more viable: I'm open to this depending on how it is implemented (NOTE: Paizo may have no plans to do this and I could be making this one up).

Agreed, though pensive about multiclassing casters, because of a long history of casters just wrecking the game.

* Limited Magic: I'm I'm actually happy with this SO LONG AS the subsequent changes to martial characters don't make the casters/non casters feel too Same/same.

Personally, I would not worry for a second about the casters and martials feeling at all the same. They can both access this cool new proficiency system, and benefit from the changes to magic items equally, but outside of that, I'm quite sure they will be different. Everything they've stated and previewed has suggested that casters will still be awesome, just not packing enough power to put most gods and fictional cosmic entities to shame.

* Theorised non-LG Core Paladin's: Also okay with this provided there is a clear and distinct option for LG Paladin's (I think 5th Ed does a good job of this).

* Revised action economy: Certainly willing to give it a good go.

I never realized non-LG Paladins was such a hot-button issue. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, though I would certainly scrutinize non-Lawful characters to make sure they really seem to follow a sort of code that you would associate with paladinhood. But then, I think a Paladin could easily be replicated by going Fighter/Cleric, too, so.

Action economy looks good to me. I like standardization, and especially like the different widgets they're showing to be able to put on it.

As far as I know, no one is out to ruin your stuff: it's not even your [or anyones] stuff yet. And it really doesn't matter where a persons starting point is. they have JUST as much right to input into the game as those with a different starting point. Both are entitled to try to shift the new game to where they want it. Myself I want a LOT, and I do mean a LOT, shifted. I doubt I'll get everything I want but if enough does I might play the new game when it comes out.

It does matter, and yes, if all you want is minor revisions done to PF1E, then that's a problem. Because PF2 is about more than that, and the game you want already exists. So at that point, from my perspective all you can try to do is hamper the development of something new until it ends up being the game that already exists. That is not cool.

"This edition change is about trying new things": Maybe but too much or too radical of a change and they risk losing the old players to gain new ones. IMO they want to walk the line of keeping it close enough to the old game to keep the current players while adding new rules to bring in new ones. So IMO current players saying 'heck no' in and of itself is valuable as 'i'm not even playtesting it' is a potential customer not switching to the new game.

All of the old players who have posted against every single change only want a slightly revised PF1E. That game already exists, even if you have to rely on a couple different books instead of one core that covers everything. So deliberately trying to hold back development for something that already exists is absurd, and it needs to be pushed back at every turn. This is a chance for a new game that fixes a lot of issues that objectively hamper the aging D20 core engine. Scrapping everything just to satisfy people who just want 1E anyway, with all its caster supremacy, skill wonkiness, lack of epic feats, and broken monster math, is pointless. They already have that game.

Refusing to playtest completely disqualifies any feedback, though. If you don't participate, obviously the game isn't for you. The playtest is specifically for engaging with; that's literally the entire concept. No one can force you to participate, but your input means nothing if you don't actually playtest anything. That's the way it works. It's a playtest.

Lady Firebird wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.

Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.

The playtest ISN'T the final product and we've been told that things CAN change from playtest to finish, so why WOULDN'T those that dislike things they currently see try to get the end product shift into something they like? It's not to ruin your day but to make theirs.

Because those people are talking about having 1E. They don't want anything to change. Just a mildly revised PF1E core. This edition change is about trying new things that address some very longstanding issues with the core engine. If the game you want already exists (you might have to incorporate some sourcebooks that aren't folded into core, but that's minor), why would you deliberately try to ruin the new stuff for more of the same?

There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.

Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.

To be fair, I usually avoid minority/majority claims because of the difficulty in proving them, as well as the claim to others' opinions. Easier for each of us to speak for themselves. ^_^

Fair enough. I'll try to avoid that phrasing in the future, but I still won't brook the things that poster said.

The thing is, it IS a fun character when it's played that way: as a unique loner fighting 'against the man'. it's less fun when it becomes a literal joke.

It only becomes a joke when players try to demean what others enjoy, which is flat-out a jerk move.

A barbarians shtick isn't unique or rare. You know what makes star wars fo great? Everyone playing han solo, so the millennium falcon is stuff full of his clones. :P

Except two things: 1) I've never seen that happen literally ever, and have been gaming in this and Star Wars and all that kind of thing since I was 7 (more than 20 years now), and 2) Who cares? If the group is having fun with a bunch of Han not-so-Solos, good for them. You can craft entertaining stories and have fun, so what's it to you?

That have a tradition of uniqueness and being 'lone wolves'?

Compared to what? Tell me your characters that are so original that it gives you free license to disparage everyone else's inspirations. Go on, I'll wait.

The other characters essence and identity doesn't hinge on it being unique though? It's not fun IMO to have a concepts that 'playing against type' when the type has been effectively destroyed. Really, I can't buy the premise that a concept is super rare and therefor cool and awesome when they are standing next to 3 others claiming the exact same thing.

So the moral is: unique type characters can be a fine/cool concept but it loses it's luster when it's provably false by seeing carbon copies.

The thing is, what's not fun for you may be fun for someone else. It objectively doesn't hurt your game or even the game in general. Also, it doesn't mean the character concept loses its luster for fans of the concept. No one has to justify anything to you, and you have yet to elucidate how these concepts are any worse than the standard PC concept.

@Lady Firebird: Can we please avoid using language like "vocal mimority" (and it's twin "silent majority"). Opinions can be held and the validity of them should not be weighed by how many share them (at least without Paizo releasing actual numbers).

FYI I can see a game where we both get what we want (and what I want is the opposite so everything you want). It saddens me that you can't imagine a game where that is true.

No? It's neither offensive nor inflammatory language and accurately describes the situation. Also, your usage of "you can't imagine" is deliberately offensive. Let me make this clear: you don't get to decide what I can and can't imagine, you don't get to put words in my mouth (figuratively). Period. That is unacceptable.

Also, no we can't have the same game. You want a slightly revised PF1E. I want what they have thus far promised in something far different, taking bold new steps toward user-friendliness and playability.

My answer to the question posited in the thread title is "A lot more than I think many of you are expecting."

Those of you arguing that there's not time for significant changes? Owen has just demonstrated how much can be changed in a small amount of time, and we have a LOT more time than that in the plan.

That's both good news and what many of us fear. For me, certain things really going to be what bring me and my group into the game as full-bore diehards. The ability for skills to perform awesome feats as has been described, the martial classes getting cool stuff to play with, casters being reined in, monsters being built on separate rules (and streamlined, hopefully, in the same way XP and stuff are), etc. All of that has been the focus of ire by a vocal minority here and I'm quite worried about PF2E losing those things because of the playtest.

Of all the stuff we've heard, only Resonance is the one thing I could really live without, and even then I quite enjoy it as a concept. So if we lose the above stuff because of the playtest, I will be quite heartbroken at the loss of a chance to have the perfect fantasy game.

I only seems that way because you didn't experience it is my guess. There WAS a time it was surprising to NOT see multiple 'unique' runaway drow trying to get into a game.

Oh no. People playing character concepts that sound like fun. How can we survive this plague?

Also, as opposed to what, the 'unique' Barbarian that rages at people and is content? The 'unique' Wizard who travels the land gathering magical power and acquiring (and dispensing) wisdom? Those so-called clones are not any less unique than any other character, they're just inspired by a more high-profile character.

I don't understand the Drizzt hate. What's wrong with emulating a popular character? I understand the cliche is overdone by the gaming community, but that doesn't give people license to mock another player for making a character that excites them. Besides, it might be overdone by the community, but a single Drizzt clone in a home game can still be the singular example of the heroic member of an evil race. Even if every home game had one of those characters, they would still all be unique in their respective settings. And if all of those players are having fun playing Drizzt, then have at it.

On a side note, the concept of Drizzt was done before and will be done again, many times. But Drizzt is popular not just because of the idea, but the execution. Maybe a few people dislike R. A. Salvatore's writing, but the massive success his books have had give objective evidence that he is, in fact, an excellent storyteller. I know quite a few people who started playing RPG's because they read his novels. Any cheesy shenanigans of people making clones of his characters doesn't take away from that.

I agree with basically everything you've said here. Even the haters come off as a bit hypocritical at best, anyway, because it's not like any one of their characters is going to be "original." At least, completely original, written in a way that has never been done before. It's not about that, it's about execution, and what entertainment it brings people.

I, for instance, can't stand playing the trigger-happy murderhobos that so many people think of when they talk about "PC rampages." I generally prefer heroic characters, unless I have a specific anti-hero concept in mind. Nor do I like to play with people who just play murderous groups purely out to kill things and take their stuff. But those players don't have to play in my games, and the existence of their fun doesn't affect mine.

Like I've said, frankly I find the (often hypocritical) hate on supposed "Drizzt clones" infesting our games is far more toxic and harmful to gaming environments than any such pastiche or heavily-inspired character.

Please see my post directly above yours with the quote from GoG that states "goblins do have an unfortunate habit of eating anything if they are hungry enough." Babies fall into the broad category of "anything."

There is also this section from p. 10 of the same book ...

"There is an old goblin saying: 'If it moves eat it. If it doesn’t, pickle it and eat it later.' Able to digest practicallyanything organic, a goblin is always hungry, and prefers to eat meat (ideally cooked and well salted) but is pretty much happy to eat anything with plenty of salt in it."

So ...

1) Goblins will eat anything if they are hungry enough

2) Goblins are always hungry

Therefore, they're eating babies.

I mean, by that same logic, Goblins are eating planets and mountains and dragons, too. Making that extrapolation is just that, and also, it's an easy thing to change.

Frankly, I don't need my fantasy too gritty, anyway, so I would probably change it for my own games, so it's not much of a problem for me either way. If a player is being a problem, I'll deal with them, but fortunately that doesn't come up much.

I did read the first five books about Drizzt and his party. I'll explain. In the prequel trilogy, where he is growing up in the underdark, you really get to like him and the constant challenges he faces. He is low level and, while quite gifted, he sometimes gets his ass handed to him.

However, once he reaches the surface and hooks up with his party, things change. He can kill 1001 orcs in a single night long fight. His party's barbarian has a magical teleporting hammer way cooler than Mjölnir. One of the girl's has a magic bow that shoots lightning bolts (and is once used to carve a tunnel through a mountain). It's like reading bad fan fiction. I could no longer stomach it for long. Of course, 50 Shades of Grey also started out as a fan fiction, and it sold like 160 million copies. So, there ya go.

None of that (except 50 Shades) sounds all that bad to me. It depends on how its's done. I'll agree a character who is too Mary Suie-ish (itself a term that has lost of lot of distinction) can be annoying, but stuff like a bow that can shoot lightning bolts and blasts a tunnel through a mountain? That's cool. Very mythic feeling, the kind of thing I like in my high fantasy. I'm totally okay with that sort of thing.

I have never seen a Drizzt clone in the wild. I've seen plenty of good-aligned "dark elves" but none of them particularly evocative of the famous Forgotten Realms character.

Often, the whole thing is a buzz word that the person complaining can't even accurately expound upon. In my experience, the people who rabidly hate on these alleged "Drizzt clones" are often far more toxic and harmful to a good game than the objects of their ire.

I like dark elves and I like the idea of going against the grain. As exceptional heroes are wont to do. That might take the form of my Drow Monk who seeks personal power out of a desire to personally throw down Lolth and break the tyrannical hold over her people. Or it might be a mischievous Drow Sorceress whose passion is only matched by her elemental power, facing gods and monsters for their secrets and for the love of a good challenge. Or maybe I have other ideas. Surely other players have just as many ideas.

Likewise, I'm feeling the same vibe here: Goblin hate is honestly far worse than the goblins themselves.

I think that the ball is well and truly rolling; they've forked out the cash to get Reynolds to illustrate, they've thunked out the rules and played with them, they have an idea that they think is close to ready for the masses to play with. I don't think the ball could be stopped at this point. (I don't particularly want it to be, either.)

They aren't starting this playtest to decide what their latest system is going to look like; they've already designed the system. They're doing a playtest to make sure that it's balanced and enjoyable to play.

Which, to me, is good news, because it makes it pretty unlikely they'll cave and create Pathfinder 1.5E. Stuff like monsters built on PC rules, martials not having anything cool to play with, all of that which the detractors are clamoring for (and already exists in the game they currently have) is a dealbreaker as far as 2E goes. So if they don't carry forward with the changes, I certainly won't be interested.

Fortunately, I believe as you do that this stuff is already well underway, and they're not looking to radically change fundamental pieces of the system, but rather fine tune and balance certain things. So, I'm hopeful!

Everything looks alright to me, although Very Sneaky doesn't seem real strong. I may be underestimating its usefulness, though, and withhold final judgment until of course I have the full rules.

Question for the devs: can we get ancestry feats in addition to class feats, or is it one or the other?

I want ancestry feats to add breadth, without being combat power enhancers.

My worry is that as soon as you make an Elven ancestry feat that enhances your archery, suddenly 90% of archer builds become elves.

I agree. Indeed, I don't like being shoehorned. If it's going to increase combat power, then Ancestries should hopefully have options. I don't want to be limited to being an archer as an Elf. Why can't my inhuman grace and speed work just as well for unarmed combat, or deft swordplay?

Stuff like Gnome Magic is great. I had a PC completely surprise me last session by speaking to a mule, and it was awesome. That sort of fun ability that gives a unique twist to a character, rather than enhancing their combat prowess, is what I'd love to see in ancestry feats.

Yes! More of this! One of the abilities I love in The One Ring is "The Speakers," which allow the Wood-elves to speak to almost anything: animals, plants, rocks, rivers, etc. That sort of stuff is flavorful, can be useful without being a combat ability, and really adds to the fantasy of the game.

Agreed on it having a much more narrative-style feel to it. I am also pleased by that direction. (Although I also love a good simulation...I just don't feel any game has ever managed simulation very well) It'll be interesting to see where they draw the lines between those elements in the playtest rules.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen game come close to decent simulation. Now, I tend to prefer more crunch in that regard than the really loose narrative style; M&M over FATE for supers, say, though I'm willing to play the latter and play to its strengths. But no D20-based game, and especially 3.x/PF, has been any good at simulationist gaming. I mean, the nebulous definition of hit points alone kinda puts the kibosh on anything remotely resembling that. And that's only the first of many, many problems for simulationist rules!

But so far, all of this sounds like the perfect blend of narrative and crunchy ("semi-simulationist?") rules. Gah, I wish it was here already so I could start using it!

ChibiNyan wrote:

I wonder how the "Take 10" rule is going to be handled and how it will help people who don't want to "screw up" basic tasks 5% of the time. I personally use crit/fails house-rule on PF1 and most of the time those random 1s go to perception, which can always be explained!

I like the reminder up thread that "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

To pull another Star Trek reference, there is a podcast of the new Star Trek Adventures RPG that I saw a couple of episodes of. In that game the helmsman rolled results that, in other games, would be critical failures. In that game though, rolls on the extreme end of the failure side (20s in this case. weird, I know.) could simply indicate misfortune. The helmsman didn't fail the piloting task, but the ship was hit by ion discharges.

Maybe the degrees of success work out like that for some things?

Failures and Critical failures could be set up as no particular mistakes made, but still something didn't go quite right.

This smacks a bit of some of the more narrative-style games made famous by the "indie" movement of the past few years. For me, that's a great thing. Marvel Heroic Roleplaying was a great example of how you could really tie narrative and mechanics together. FFG's Star Wars game, where you can fail but with advantages, or succeed but with complications, is another example.

What works for me about this is that ultimately we're crafting fantasy stories. I don't play purely for combat (not that there is anything wrong with such), nor do I play purely for diceless shared storytelling. I love the unique mix of both role- and rollplaying that our hobby offers, and so systems that blend narrative with mechanics are great. They open so many doors, especially since almost all of my gaming today is in PBP, which takes advantage of the written format.

It'd be easy to describe these things as the scene needs and the context fits best. Maybe your warrior simply missed her shot. Maybe falling debris from the ruined keep walls ruined the shot instead. Maybe the Orc's valiant comrade pulled him to safety in the nick of time. All of these could describe the same event (Failure on a shot) in different scenes. The group goes with whatever is most entertaining for them.

Really, everything they've described for PF2E so far really seems flexible like this. This looks to be the ultimate toolbox for fantasy gaming. I can't wait!

Deadmanwalking wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

Point taken about our lack of detaled knowledge about dinosaur intelligence. However, I think we can say that on average mammals are smarter than reptiles. Also, I am not aware of any domesticated reptiles (using domesticated in its fullest sense).

Dinosaurs (especially stuff like deinonychus) were more closely related to birds than they are to most modern reptiles. Birds are pretty smart, as animals go.

Crows, for example, for sure are smart, but I still don't think they can compete with a fair number of mammals.

I'm no expert, but I guess that while you can train a bird for hunting or bringing messages, training a dog is easier and can give it a much broader competence (more tricks, if we talk PF).
There must be a reason why men have started domesticating wolves and horses much more often than birds, in their history.
If we get to primates, there's even more difference.

But familiars, paladin mounts, animal companions aren't common animals: they are a special thing, so I don't see why a snake companion shouldn't be as intelligent as a monkey.

On the contrary, crows may well be the most the intelligent animal next to humans. There is footage out there (easily viewable on YouTube right this instant) of them discovering solutions to multi-layered problems within mere minutes of encountering them. Discovering how to bend a wire into a hook to get food from a tube. Figuring out how water displacement works. Figuring out how to use a tool to get a longer tool to get the food (this one is crazy high-level stuff). And so on. Even the smartest mammals haven't mastered those nearly as fast as the crows did. They've been proven to think about the future and consequences, pass on knowledge socially, and more.

Now, a lot of the non-avian dinosaurs were not as smart as the modern crow. They did, however, dominate the Earth for well over 100 million years for a reason. The crow may be more intelligent than, say, the 60-ton sauropod, or the 7-ton tyrannosaur, but those two still "win."

Seriously, though, for some fascinating stuff, look up crow intelligence. It's beyond crazy. In fact, you want to see something nuts? Literally. Check out this video, where crows have learned to use passing cars to crack their walnuts, then wait to use the crosswalk to claim their prize.

We know that ancestries will let you take more and more feats, kind of like the racial prestige classes from 3.5. The examples thus far have included a dwarf so dwarfy he just ignored being poisoned for a fight. What I'm most looking forward to is the human ancestries. I'd love to see a tian ancestry that hands out exotic weapon proficiency (katana) or a taldane exotic weapon proficiency (falcata). A tian ancestry could completely replace the samurai class, by having a couple of the ancestry give tian weapon proficiency and class feats for a challenge like power (which makes equal sense for knights as it does for samurai). It also cuts down on the need for archetypes.

What else are people hoping we get from ancestries?

I want Ancestries and their related feats to be significant. Powerful. Personally, I'm tired of "races" that are little more than minor stat modifications and maybe a special sense or two that, hopefully, the GM lets you make fun uses of. What I want is the ability to become powerful as a member of that given Ancestry; the tough-as-boulders Dwarf was a good example. I'd love to play an Elf with senses so keen she puts most predatory creatures to shame, so graceful her movements are dreamlike. I look to Legolas and his incredible feats of far-seeing, or the walking the strange paths of Elvish dreams even as they marched, and so on. I think of the Iksar of EverQuest and their adaptability, their ruggedness in both land and water.

I'd also like some strong guidelines or full-on rules for creating our own Ancestries. I love to build and tinker and would really like to make a bunch of them. Heck, I have my own setting that I've been developing as a prehistoric fantasy, and if the OGL allows, I think it might be fun to create such a setting, replete with Ancestries, for PF2E.

I could get behind most of this! Monks and unarmed combat are my favorite style, and I'm hoping that the streamlining of the various combat and skill rules really play into this. Let our unarmed warriors do awesome things by honing mind, body, and spirit as weapons, and let me play a Monk leaping and dancing gracefully about the battlefield, even as she dispenses wise remarks.

And kicks. Lots of kicks.

It would be so cool if we could have conversations about the actual topic in these threads, instead of every blog thread devolving into discussions of why others systems might be the devil, or how everyone else either hates change or hates Pathfinder, take your pick.

Ugh.

But how do you propose we do that? It essentially boils down to these groups:

"I don't like [topic] because it's different from PF1!"

"I like [topic] because it's different from PF1!"

Normally, this isn't a problem, but this comes up in threads specifically about stuff they have already changed for PF2. Content that is happening regardless. The latter group can talk about what they liked or didn't like without completely tromping all over the thread topic, even while enjoying or preferring aspects of PF1. It's more difficult for the former group to do so because much of their opposition comes from resistance to any significant change at all, which is exactly what these topics describe.

Neither group is wrong, but in discussions about what is, in fact, changing for PF2E, some stuff is more contentious by nature. How do you get it to stop without segregating these groups in some way?

thflame wrote:

I'm not sure I like the fighter doing minimum damage when he "misses"...

I don't mind casters still getting some benefit from their spells even if the opponent makes the save, ...

So fighters can't be really good at using their weapons, but casters can still screw you on a success? Dude, its minimum damage.

That's usually how those things go. As long as the casters reign supreme, that's really what matters.

You can have something new. There's Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. There's 13th Age. There's anything Monte Cook Games produces. There's new RPGs coming out all the time. Or Paizo could have produced a new game called "Amazing Stories" and chart a completely new direction in fantasy RPGs.

But no. Instead Paizo wanted to capitalise on the success and brand of Pathfinder for their new game. So now they have to live with the baggage that name comes with and the expectations from their existing fans*. Unfortunately Paizo can't have their cake and eat it too. How different and dissimilar the game ends up being has yet to be seen. How much Paizo is willing to change to appease their existing fans who don't want certain changes vs reaching out to new fans at the cost of some of their existing fans also remains to be seen.

* Based on your own posts you are not an existing fan. You are a new fan who has no interest in playing Pathfinder.

You could have the same thing. And choose to, indeed, since it seems you won't be happy with any significant change. Fortunately, I'm still here in this forum because I don't believe for a second that posters who share your conservative view will hold back the development of something awesome. Obviously, you won't be pleased with any significant change at all, so I don't understand why you aren't just sticking to PF1. There's no sense limiting PF2 to a few minor revisions when that already exists. Nor is it reasonable to expect that no one will ever do anything new with Pathfinder, as with the Star Wars example.

I'm a fan of Paizo's quality and their dedication as developers. They've also proven to be very accepting to people of all stripes. For that alone I would support them. But I can't stand the broken 3.x engine that powers PF1, and am glad to see it go the way of the dodo. So I'm here precisely because I want a fantasy game that fits my needs, and nothing has sufficed.

Until now.

I see people are completely misreading my post.

(Side note: I'm not actually 100% of the stance that we shouldn't have a new game, P1e is perfect, yadda yadda- I'm just vocalizing that side)

I think the easiest comparison might be something like this:

Imagine walking up to a die-hard Star Wars fan. The kind with a life-sized Jabba the Hutt statue in his living room, and every model of the Milennium Falcon ever made sitting on his shelves. Now, imagine telling that fan, "You know, the new trilogy and prequels are absolutely the best thing that's ever happened to Star Wars. We got to learn about how the Force works, we get to see Luke be a grumpy old man, we get to see Darth Vader flirting using sand-based pickup lines, we get to see Han die. You know, you really should like them. Oh, you don't? That's okay. You can just completely ignore them and pretend that the original trilogy is all that ever existed and ever will exist, while the rest of the world gets more and more stuff from the Galaxy far, far away. You just sit in your little corner with your toys, that will never change and you can rewatch over and over again to your heart's content."

How do you think they would respond to that? Because that's basically what's happening here. People are saying, "Oh, you don't like the new stuff that they're asking our opinion about? That's okay, because you like how things were, you can sit in the corner with your old stuff while we get shiny new things to play with. You have plenty of things, stop complaining!"

And that's where people have an issue.

The alternative is basically just going "No, you can't ever have anything new/different because I don't want it!" And that is far more unfair, boiling down to selfishness standing in the way of progress.

To use your examples, if you don't like the new Star Wars stuff, who cares? You weren't going to engage with it anyway. There is literally no pleasing such a fan because they only want the original stuff. Seriously, if you don't like anything new that they're doing with it, what else is there? It's a logical inconsistency at best. But you can't reasonably expect no one to ever make something new for Star Wars. Myself, I pretend the horrible prequels don't exist, or basically gloss them over for the purposes of Star Wars gaming. I did exactly what you said, and kept to my originals, which weren't tainted in their awesomeness by the existence of the prequels.

Literally, there is no solution to this problem except to ignore those who refuse change for change's sake. They don't want anything new, so of course they'll have to be satisfied with what they have. And if they are not satisfied with that, how were they ever going to be? Meanwhile, they would actively deny those of us who enjoy something new, be it Star Wars or a PF2E, simply for the sake of their stuff remaining unchanged, even though it would have anyway.

CorvusMask wrote:

Yeaaah, quite lot of pushback is just "I don't want things to change because I don't like change!" so I'm becoming afraid if the vocal people who might or might not be the minority(its really hard to tell on Internet) make it so that changes I really liked don't happen :'D

What's wrong with that? There's plenty of people out there who would much rather not see a new edition, but just continue seeing support for P1e. Are you saying that the people who actually want to play Pathfinder because that's what they like should be ignored, simply because they would rather more things stay the same than change? I play PF because I want to play PF, not because I think it could use some major reworking and then it might be fun.

And you can still play it. No one's taking away your toys. But you have those toys. Many of us don't. Paizo obviously feels there's nothing further they can do with an aging system that breaks badly under certain (rather common) stresses. Or simply that it's time to try something new.

In this case, I'm proof it's working. I simply won't play 3.x/PF. It's too much work for too little payoff, with so many more problems than features that it's never going to win out over an alternate system that I don't have to fight against. Yet every single thing I've heard for PF2E, even Resonance, sounds great. It's almost like they're designing a fantasy game specifically for me. If we get what they have promised, and that includes a monster creation system with much more ease of use (including use of levels rather than pure hit dice/CR), I won't have need for another fantasy game again.

The change is happening. There'd be no point in doing this if not to try something new and bold, and fix the problems with the 3E engine that Paizo is very aware of by now. It's not pleasant, and it might sound unfair or seem personal, but yes, I do hope they continue with their plans full steam ahead, and don't pay attention to the people who are basically just going to continue playing PF1 anyway.

They have their game with more than enough support for many, many years of gaming. Now it's everyone else's turn.

None of it changes the narrative nature of Medusa. As you point out, PF1 throws the PCs a bone in that it provides a way to avoid "seeing" Medusa. But it doesn't contradict the narrative.

Your scenario contradicts the narrative. You may like the play value more than you care about the narrative integrity of the character.

I don't know about you, but in my games, my stories, both as player and GM, I decide the narrative. Any narrative integrity arises organically from the game at hand, and is not enforced by some slavish devotion to a mythological creature who inspired the similar but still very different creature in this game.

I love what they're doing with the tiered approach and I would never go back to the old way.

Lady Firebird wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

[...]

Hehe. To be fair, some of those combatants didn't get to act because the PCs took them out before their initiative. This includes the bards (good for the PCs, as the bards were all planning to use heroic finale to give the most dangerous enemies 10 extra standard actions).

Haha! I would have done the same thing. Pesky choirs... Pretty sure Sephiroth would've been only half as bad-ass if he didn't have a choir chanting his name.

One thing I'm looking forward to with PF2, funny enough, is martial battles at higher levels kinda looking like some of the fights in Advent Children.

Oh God, I'm old. I initially read that as "All My Children", and picturing Susan Lucci in full armor trying to scratch the Barbarian's eyes out! I gotta get away from these boards for awhile.

Hm. General HospitalKingdom? One Life to Live (until your Cleric casts True Resurrection)?

Soap opera-style drama in a high fantasy world. Could be fun!

Mark Seifter wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

[...]

Hehe. To be fair, some of those combatants didn't get to act because the PCs took them out before their initiative. This includes the bards (good for the PCs, as the bards were all planning to use heroic finale to give the most dangerous enemies 10 extra standard actions).

Haha! I would have done the same thing. Pesky choirs... Pretty sure Sephiroth would've been only half as bad-ass if he didn't have a choir chanting his name.

One thing I'm looking forward to with PF2, funny enough, is martial battles at higher levels kinda looking like some of the fights in Advent Children.

Dasrak wrote:

This is an unfortunate necessity due to a design decision choice made in the damage calculations of 3rd edition D&D that Pathfinder inherited.

But it doesn't follow that PF2 needs to inherit the same issues.

Just saying, when a modestly sized grizzly can grab over half a ton of drowned bison out of a hole in lake ice and drag it to shore without being all that unduly put out...

I saw footage of a polar bear pulling a beluga out of the water. Their strength is unreal.

PF2 could take care of this in a lot of ways. Give the bears an appropriately high Strength (which also means that big animals like elephants, dinosaurs, and dragons need really titanic Strength scores), and/or add more noncombat power to high Strength values. For larger animals, their feats of strength should be more potent, so a bear can simply lift or pull more than most (low-level, at least) heroes.

Had a friend looking at animal companions. They wanted to grab a pet hyena, but its stats are really bad. It’s not even just because of verisimilitude- hyenas have the strongest jaw pressure of any mammal (thanks, Google!), but they’ve got a d4 bite with no starting strength bonus. I’d need to check, but I think that’s the weakest mammal bite attack.

Animal companions in Pathfinder get scaling beyond the base form anyway, and the word “dire” solves a lot of scale problems. It’d be nice to have choices even out a little more.

Hopefully this is something they can really make scale well. Especially since monsters are getting levels now, and not being built like PCs, it should be simpler to have a scaling companion that doesn't break the action economy or the rest of the game but is still cool. Even better if the mythic level of skills and stuff apply to animal companions. So at level 1, your wolf is a faithful hound, but at level 20, he has ascended to greatness alongside you, and is now Huan, Hound of Valinor, who took down Sauron in the form of the greatest werewolf that ever lived.

If the breaking and entering skill gets named "Security" I hope that the quotation marks get left on the character sheet.

If not that, maybe it's called "Security (or the sudden lack thereof)?"

Options for AoE/multi-target effects, and perhaps an "Elite" template or something that increases resistances wouldn't be bad. Heck, it could be ablative. So if you are up against a powerful death knight, he has an elite armor bonus that wears down after being attacked several times in a row (resetting on his initiative), making him more resistant to numbers but not immune to being ganged up on.

Likewise, teamwork bonuses and stuff would help if an elite monster is particularly tough to hit. And with the new skill system and hopefully the stunts and environmental interactions it inspires, maybe we can have things like spilling braziers to set a place on fire and hem in the enemy, or toppling heavy objects on a dragon to daze it, or the nimble Elf Rogue spilling marbles on the floor that trip up the enemy but allow her Master Acrobatics to easily skate through, etc.

Unicore wrote:

People are going to hate it, but the supreme flexibility of the spell casting wizard is going to have be reigned in, even while non-caster flexibility is improved.

Why should they make a choice that people will hate when revising a product meant for enjoyment? You can't make changes that people hate "for their own good" when they will simply opt not to use the product.

This is why I expect a certain level of C/MD to remain in PF2e(though I also expect it will get better), because fundamentally, many years of 3.0/3.5/PF1e have shown that this type of game structure is very popular and enjoyed.

A lot of players were turned off of 4e because of the whole "we know what you want in a game better than you do" attitude. Luckily we aren't seeing that from Paizo at this juncture.

Not everyone is going to hate it. I, for one, wholeheartedly support specialization and reining in of spellcasting powers, and I enjoy playing mages quite a bit. Even a Wizard with greatly diminished power still eclipses almost all fictional and mythological wizard characters, and I would never allow player access to spells like Wish unless it was a one-time thing.

I like that casters, or Wizards at least, are versatile. I like versatility. However, it needs to come at a cost of not having the depth of power of specialization, and it needs to also not do everything everyone else does but better.

Many years of 3.x/PF have also shown that many, many people disliked caster/martial disparity. 4E was immensely successful and killed because of Hasbro's unreasonable expectations, whatever one may think of it (I wasn't a fan). Paizo has recognized this and they want to give us a fantasy game that can portray the actual fantasy heroics that underlie the whole genre. If I can't play a warrior who, at high levels, can't wrestle a troll and win, or leap across a chasm, or endure the primeval powers hurled at her by dragons and titans, then it's not the game I am going to play.

So, PF2 looks to be exactly the game I want to play, as a counter to your own assertion. Hopefully they have found some good solutions to these big problems.

I feel like the biggest change we are going to see is going to come from the skill system.

Which is one of the places it's most needed. Consolidation is part of it; skills actually being awesome and allowing you, at high levels, to pull of truly fantastic feats worthy of myth and legend are absolutely a godsend for this game.

Devs, please keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to err on the side of epic!

Sounds pretty awesome! I especially like the sounds of things like Blank Slate, meaning that higher-level martial characters get options to counteract magical effects. This sounds very promising so far, as does the rest of it.

The playtest can't begin soon enough!

If we're changing things for a new edition can we please change of the name of the Fighter class to Warrior? I know the name has been around since the 70s, but it really makes no sense. And if the only reason for keeping it is tradition, well your changing the name of "race" to "ancestry", which also goes back to the 70s; so if we can change that we may as well make a class name change that is heck of lot more appropriate for a fantasy world. At best a fighter sounds like a gladiator forced to fight for someone else's pleasure, and more likely it brings to mind UFC or some drunk guy in a bar. Have you ever seen a fantasy movie where the hero calls himself a "fighter". A knight, a warrior, a soldier, a mercenary, but never a fighter. Even in the classic fantasy literature is their a single character in Lord of the Rings or Conan to use the term "fighter?"--not that I recall. Heck even Munchkin (the parody game) gets this right. It's about time for the serious RPGs to follow suit.

I've actually advocated for this before, myself, and would wholeheartedly support this. The thing is, "Warrior" carries many more connotations than simple "Fighter." Warriors are often skilled in noncombat pursuits, can be gifted leaders and shrewd tacticians, and can be wise on and off the battlefield. A Warrior can also be a fighter, but it sounds so much cooler and carries more weight than just simply being called a "Fighter."

A Fighter sounds like someone who is only good in a fight. A Warrior could be a queen or a king, a leader, a fighter, an inspiration, an artist, even a healer, all at once.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

What would you call the NPC class?

Your saying that as if NPC classes were going to be a thing.

Or would matter more than the vastly more important PC class.

I'll say it again: Pathfinder 2nd edition being too dissimilar to 1st edition and too similar to 4th edition will stop my group from playing it.

If Paizo want feedback as to what will make people play the game or stop people from playing the game, this is valid feedback.

Until we get the full rules text I can't say "elements X, Y and Z are disliked for reasons A, B and C. Furthermore elements S, T, U, V, X, Y and Z are too sufficiently different from Pathfinder 1st ed that when taken in their totality make this feel like a game wholly unconnected with 1st edition beyond a very thin coat of paint." Until then, I'll certainly continue to point out the similarities that I see with D&D 4th ed. Because every single similarity is yet another nail in the coffin of getting my group to move over to 2nd edition.

You haven't pointed out even one similarity so far! Beyond the similarities all of the games share, 3.x/PF and 4E and 5E included, you've yet to name anything specific enough to interact with. So at this point, it's a meaningless statement without anything to back it up.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Snip for brevity

I disagree that most of your points about it being more 4e are valid in any way. I might not have responded to you before, I don't track that sort of thing, but I have responded to ridiculous claims like Sudden Charge being indicative of design being like 4e powers design despite the fact that PF1E had numerous options designed around improving your action economy for certain things or providing new options to do with your actions. I also don't feel my response was particularly strong.

I have a strong vested interest in making sure Pathfinder 2 is the best game it can be. Poor comparisons to any edition don't serve that purpose. Especially as "oh no 4e" doesn't really say bugbear all about what your specific complaint is. Totally fine with you not liking a mechanic, but explain why you dislike it, don't repeatedly use 4e as a cop out for an actual point.

The points don't stand on their own merit, either. You know what else shares lots of terminology and concepts with 4E? PF1. D&D 3E. Both reference "encounters," and abilities that last roughly as long as a given encounter. They also share: levels, ability scores, HP, saves, skills, feats, class abilities, classes, races, etc. Oh no, 4E! It's 4Enception!

This idea that we should torch anything that vaguely resembles 4E doesn't take into account that everything resembles 4E, because it has the same roots and a lot of the same concepts. The execution might not be the same, but nothing of the PF2 previews has remotely suggested AEDU formats and forced movement-heavy stuff, which is where 4E truly differs from its brethren. The whole "encounter" powers thing? That's been around since 3E, even if it wasn't codified with those terms.

What 4E tried to do with codifying these terms was more clearly defining the rules. Again, the execution may not have been to taste (it wasn't to mine), but the goal itself is desirable in a roleplaying game this crunchy.

Edna Mode wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

I notice the skill is called "Nature" rather than "Knowledge: Nature". Does it still key off of Intelligence or is it wisdom now (and therefore a more appropriate skill for Druids to have)?

Maybe Nature's still Intelligence-based for everyone else, but the wild empathy ability now also allows classes with it (wild empathy) to use it (the Nature skill) with Wisdom instead?

Why does it need to key off of anything? You'll notice they were particular in not mentioning ability bonus when talking about proficiency. My guess is that if you're trying to know something about a creature, you'll roll and Intelligence based Nature check, and if you're trying to do Herbalism (or Tracking?), you'll roll a Wisdom based one...

I'd really dig this. It actually fits in with allowing broader applications of skills and proficiencies, as well as making abilities more useful overall. Strength + Nature could be when you're trying to force a shelter into place, or Constitution + Nature to endure a march through brambles (in a way that wouldn't call for a full Fortitude save) and the like. I really like this sort of "stat + skill but either can vary depending on the action" setup in a lot of games, and it fits really well here.

Lady Firebird wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Glad to see magic item crafting (sans spell batteries) shift to the role of craftsmen rather than mages.

I mean we don't know that yet because well the last edition you could do that too. It was such a crappy feat.

The Magical Crafter skill feat is the feat to make magic items. It is the feat for spellcasters. It is the feat for fighters.

You will need to take Magical Crafter for each type of magic item?

I really hope crafting has been seriously reworked so it doesn't take weeks or months to craft a high level magic item.

I hope for the opposite, though it'd be easy to houserule. High-level magic items are, by all accounts, going to be much more powerful as befits their stature. These things should be forged over time and great labors. The One Ring shouldn't be forged in a single night.

This, entirely.

I hope crafting the better, higher end items take a lot of time and investment, potentially some quests to gain the right items. Give them flavor, history, meaning.. and a story. Definitely not just ok, I spend 1 day of downtime to create my +4 Sword of Demonslaying. Where's the excitement behind that? Not just having it but telling people how you came to have it.

Yes, definitely. Not every campaign must be to save the world or kingdom. Maybe you must venture across distant realms of untold dangers to acquire the precious starmetal you need to forge the most powerful sword seen in this age of the world. They've already shown that magic items are gonna be a lot more impactful than just a "+5 sword" as opposed to a "+4 sword." These things can shake the very pillars of creation. More than a single night, except as some really high-level epic feat that becomes legend, seems in order for me.

Plus, it's great adventure fodder for everyone. "You need this, I need this, let's take a long and perilous journey to acquire these items." Which then makes generous use of both encounter mode and downtime mode.

Use of the word mode just lets of have sentences that make sense. When in the middle of running text we might say, "while exploring", but we also like having the ability to say "During encounter mode, you can..." . Its not really worth delving into on this thread (and seriously.. I do not want to derail things), but we are trying to take a little bit of a lighter hand with hard-coded grammar constructions for our rules so that the text is a bit easier to read and parse.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a longtime veteran (and former player and writer) of various White Wolf/Onyx Path games...

This is greatly appreciated.

So very, very appreciated. "Your swords become like things unto chainsaws" indeed. There's nothing wrong with having simplified language when it comes to rules. I hope that extends to abilities, where the rules and flavor of the ability are discrete.

Mark Seifter wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Glad to see magic item crafting (sans spell batteries) shift to the role of craftsmen rather than mages.

I mean we don't know that yet because well the last edition you could do that too. It was such a crappy feat.

The Magical Crafter skill feat is the feat to make magic items. It is the feat for spellcasters. It is the feat for fighters.

You will need to take Magical Crafter for each type of magic item?

I really hope crafting has been seriously reworked so it doesn't take weeks or months to craft a high level magic item.

I hope for the opposite, though it'd be easy to houserule. High-level magic items are, by all accounts, going to be much more powerful as befits their stature. These things should be forged over time and great labors. The One Ring shouldn't be forged in a single night.

Lady Firebird wrote:

Yeah. That's the general response in, say, Overwatch, too, when someone spams "We need a healer!" "Then play one." If you're not willing to do it yourself, you don't have much right to demand others do!

The standard rule is that the only one allowed to complain about a lack of healers is the tank.

Yes, that is acceptable. Fortunately, I love playing healers, but I don't love it when the Genjis and Reapers and Winstons keep diving me and my oblivious teammates don't do anything about it. Then they demand healing. And I say "Sure, when I get back from spawn, because you won't protect me, so that's why you're not getting healed."

My kingdom for a decent bodyguard.

The kinds of people who insist that "we need someone to play the Healer" are the perfect candidates for investing in some healing on their wizard, barbarian, or rogue.

Yeah. That's the general response in, say, Overwatch, too, when someone spams "We need a healer!" "Then play one." If you're not willing to do it yourself, you don't have much right to demand others do!

For me, I like playing "White Mage" characters, particularly the Final Fantasy-esque ones that also have some cool attacks and status effects. They don't have all the damaging spells, but they do have some offensive ones, and a variety of barrier, healing, and curative spells. I like that.

What I love is the idea that anyone can contribute healing. This is huge. It's a game-changer and in all the right ways. This opens more doors, gives more options and more agency to the players, particularly the non-caster characters. All of that is necessary for this to be an improvement over PF1, and also something I want to play.

So far, every single thing, Resonance included, has been a big plus for me. If things continue on like this, I'm so onboard, I'll do tons of gaming (including a lot of PBPs) and write up some of my (once) famous examples of play, like I did for Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. Show people how all of it works and looks in action. This is going to be amazing.

Lady Firebird wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Oh man, I just got home from my PF2 playtest game. In our third fight, Luis's fighter Randyll, a master of Intimidation, intimidated a pukwudgie with his battle cry, two-hand smacked the pukwudgie then shifted his bastard sword so he could smack and grab the thing (eating the spine damage and critically succeeding against the poison), and on his next turn, he grabbed it by the neck and started shaking it and critically succeeded on his Intimidation check, thus ending the fight with his social skills, as the pukwudgie ordered its undead to back off and let the party explore unimpeded. Luis also had an ability such that the pukwudgie will never inform his dullahan boss because he's too terrified of Randyll.

Sounds so cool. I can't wait to get to test it out!

Are Monks awesome? Please tell me Monks are awesome.

Monks are pretty slick. This week, we had fighter, monk, barbarian, bard, all at level 10. A really solid team, all around, if a little melee heavy, but they're exceptional at bringing the hurt to their foes.

Do they get to keep the cool esoteric powers and stuff? Oh, man, I'm so not patient. All of this sounds pretty cool, and I love the description of Randyll's terrorizing of the poor pukwudgie!

Oh man, I just got home from my PF2 playtest game. In our third fight, Luis's fighter Randyll, a master of Intimidation, intimidated a pukwudgie with his battle cry, two-hand smacked the pukwudgie then shifted his bastard sword so he could smack and grab the thing (eating the spine damage and critically succeeding against the poison), and on his next turn, he grabbed it by the neck and started shaking it and critically succeeded on his Intimidation check, thus ending the fight with his social skills, as the pukwudgie ordered its undead to back off and let the party explore unimpeded. Luis also had an ability such that the pukwudgie will never inform his dullahan boss because he's too terrified of Randyll.

Sounds so cool. I can't wait to get to test it out!

Are Monks awesome? Please tell me Monks are awesome.

Lady Firebird wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Lady Firebird wrote:

Yikes! If that's the case, that +5 greatsword is going to hit like a meteor. But then, you are talking about one of the most powerful enchanted weapons to ever grace the world, so ... I rather like it that way.

Funny you used that exact choice of words there. Remember this moment when we inevitably preview the magic item that makes this seem prescient.

Are you naming grades of weapon/armor enchantments? We won't actually be seeing "+5 greatswords" but instead "meteoric greatswords?"

Hm. Brings me back to Diablo, and a lot of happy memories.

As long as we don't see broken things like King's Sword of Haste and Godly Plate of the Whale, I think it'll be a nice change of pace...

You kiddin'? I think it'd be awesome to have a Godly Plate of the Whale or something like that. It's fun, evocative, and crazy. Also, it's what every high-tier Warrior wants in her collection!

Mark Seifter wrote:

Lady Firebird wrote:

Yikes! If that's the case, that +5 greatsword is going to hit like a meteor. But then, you are talking about one of the most powerful enchanted weapons to ever grace the world, so ... I rather like it that way.

Funny you used that exact choice of words there. Remember this moment when we inevitably preview the magic item that makes this seem prescient.

Are you naming grades of weapon/armor enchantments? We won't actually be seeing "+5 greatswords" but instead "meteoric greatswords?"

Hm. Brings me back to Diablo, and a lot of happy memories.

"Burning Greatsword of the Meteor" does have a fun ring to it!

I don't really need absolute balance, and I do accept that lots of people don't enjoy characters based off Street Fighter. I just need martial characters that actually feel awesome. Like they're doing something cool, something beyond "I am less incompetent in basic functions of combat." And yes, holding your shield between you and the bad things is something I consider a basic function of combat. Its... mind boggling, how that's considered so high level an idea...

Maybe they'll put it all in the Monk, and I'll just have to yell really loudly "LET THE MONK USE OTHER WEAPONS! I WANT A SWORD WITH MY COOL POWERS MAN!"

Yeah, I agree. The Monk is my favorite class, in large part because you get cool fighty abilities but also these really fun esoteric mystical abilities.

The thing is, I like spellcasters. Many of my characters would be, if not Monks, Sorcerers and Druids. I just don't like completely overshadowing the martial characters, and I like to be able to play some of those without being overshadowed. Sometimes it'd be cool to be a warrior who took up her grandfather's rusty heirloom sword and rose from a simple life to battling dragons and gods, becoming a demigod through epic feats of legend.

Also, Street Fighter/manga-inspired heroics would always be cool, in my book.

No it doesn't. You're simulating a magical reality, where everything obeys real world stuff except magic.

As we'll see below, this isn't even remotely true. And magic itself does not follow any predictable laws except insofar as spellcasters gaining and using spells, so it's not simulating anything coherent. I mean, simulationism breaks down the moment hit points come into play, which is immediately.

You're surviving an attack roll, not literally being cleft in twain by a tooth the size of your leg. All of these points were well answered in the 80s, and probably the 70s.

Except that "hit points =/= meat points" hasn't been true for, what, decades now? Simulationism takes another backbreaking hit right out of the gate.

You are simulating a reality that has magic in it. By definition, magic doesn't break simulationism. Magic is the thing that is allowed to break the rules of reality.

Except that it doesn't have any consistency or observable scientific process by which it does this, which means it breaks simulationism yet again.

No, but generally something like this could deal attribute damage. A DM faced with the unhappy reality of running this has plenty of rules to use as templates.

But simulationism covers everything else, right? Except for all this stuff it doesn't.

I'm not sure of your point here. The rules for forced march are in the core rulebook, and barring a spell, fatigue can happen.

How long can your Wizard hike or exercise before lactic acids build up and cause fatigue? How does the character's metabolism change with age (and how does that interact with rising Constitution scores)?

This has never been part of simulationism. You track in real-time when you must, and usually when the party is together, this is not necessary.

Ah! So simulationism is "everything obeys real world stuff except magic. And time. And any time dice are involved. And..." Gotcha. Rock-solid internal logic there.

Simulation of a magical reality is not injured by pace of play being the same as it has for decades, and you know this.

By definition it must be. It's not simulating much at all, or with very much accuracy, if the passage of time can't even be said to be congruent to our own.

I'm surprised you got this far without relying on ad hominem. I'm sorry you have no other arguments besides attacking me for having a different playstyle.

Sorry, but I quite literally attacked your argument. Not you or your quality as a person. That flies in the very face of "ad hominem," much like your arguments themselves fly in the face of "simulationism." So, nice try, but please try to discuss things like an adult, or otherwise I'll just ignore you.

You were literally the one who compared those of us who dared to want high-powered martial abilities to "manga-style or whatever." A very loaded term that very specifically targets a subset of gamers and disparages their preferred style. That this ignores that these powers and things show up as much in non-Asian stories as anything else is just icing on the cake. Don't pretend like we don't know what you're doing with the comparison, though.