Moro's page

Several more steps in the right direction, and I think I can safely say most of the issues I have with the current playtest system have been addressed or mentioned. Looking forward to next August!

Moro wrote:

Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom.

However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.

I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.

I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.

I mean, AD&D 2e multiclassing pretty much was the definition of commitment, considering you literally could never take levels in your previous class. Though you may be thinking of Dual Classing, which was honestly a hot mess and with the tighter math of Pathfinder in any form a Dual CLass character could not survive due to leveling at half the rate of either class, and only got a slight bonus if they had god stats due to needing a 16 in all their prime requisite stats to get the 10% bonus XP.

I think someone else already explained that you have it backwards, but wanted to note that because of the way XP was distributed and leveling was done, multiclass characters were fine in 2nd edition.

Typically a multiclass with 2 classes would be about a level behind a single-classed character at a given level, and would be fine in terms of power - for example, a 3/3 Fighter/Mage was just fine in the same party with a 4th level Fighter and 4th level Cleric. Things got a little weird, particularly with the Rogue, because different classes needed different amounts of XP to attain certain levels, but generally, multiclasses were ok without being overpowered. Since 3.0 changed the dynamics of leveling and how levels scaled, I think multiclassing has taken a hit and has been very hard to balance.

But my main point was that 2nd edition multiclassing gave a list of set multiclass combinations that were possible, and made it more difficult to unintentionally end up gimping your character by choosing a couple of classes that did not mesh well together.

Elf to Alf.

If you want to go a bold new direction with pc species...

Felines of Golarion, run for your lives!

Moro wrote:

2nd edition multiclassing is a terrible straitjacket. The developers obviously hate freedom.

Sarcasm I hope? The new multiclassing system has way more viable freedom than 1e's multiclassing. Which yeah you can level in any class you want to, but why the hell would you want to unless you were leveling into fighter for 1 level for free feats, armor and weapon proficiency, and +1 BAB. You'd just be a crappier version of both classes.

Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom.

However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.

I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.

I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.

Moro wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Not a power gamer? Too bad, become one to keep up or get out.

*Lights the Robin's Law book on fire*

It didn't let you get the numbers high enough and everyone knows you're supposed to get the numbers high enough. Otherwise you're a badwrongfun GM or player.

LOL. I love it. I need to save this somewhere so I can quote it frequently. Great post.

Love it as much as you want.

But I've never been more disheartened about a game until after coming to the forums. Where everything I seem to have done is wrong and I basically shouldn't be playing the game.

No wait. I've spent time on MOBA forums. Paizo might be third then.

I see this quite a bit, and my answer is always "well don't go to the forums, then".

If your self-worth is so wrapped up in a TTRPG character that learning that the mechanics of what you have built causes you an existential crisis, then don't go learn the details.

It always reminds me of the mathematician played by Stellan Skarsgård in that 'Good Will Hunting' movie. His entire ego is built upon being a math prodigy, and his whole world is shattered by the realization that someone out there is not just better/smarter than he is, but is so by an order of magnitude that he never realized existed. Even though Will Hunting's very existence doesn't invalidate his own in any way, he is still crushed.

So I should just leave the community, because the community doesn't want me. Okay. Have fun telling that to new players. Always wondered why I keep seeing the same people, no one ELSE signs up.

I wouldn't say it causes me existential crisis. But when people follow the Meta and the Numbers to a degree I haven't seen outside of Mobas and MMOs, I question if we are playing the same game. I assume tabletop games aren't about chasing the numbers all day but I guess the community doesn't want me here since I don't do that.

I like playing the game, I...

I never said nor would I say "leave the community", the message was more one along the lines of "stop letting other people and their unasked for opinions get you down."

If going to certain sections of the forums, or certain forums, disheartens you or lessens the fun you have with the game, don't to those places. If playing with certain people makes playing the game a chore, don't play with those people.

The fact that optimizers/min-maxers/whatevers exist only has an impact on your fun if:

A. you allow them to do so, in the case of online persons
B. they are rude twits and you are too nice to tell them off, if in person

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Not a power gamer? Too bad, become one to keep up or get out.

*Lights the Robin's Law book on fire*

It didn't let you get the numbers high enough and everyone knows you're supposed to get the numbers high enough. Otherwise you're a badwrongfun GM or player.

LOL. I love it. I need to save this somewhere so I can quote it frequently. Great post.

Love it as much as you want.

But I've never been more disheartened about a game until after coming to the forums. Where everything I seem to have done is wrong and I basically shouldn't be playing the game.

No wait. I've spent time on MOBA forums. Paizo might be third then.

I see this quite a bit, and my answer is always "well don't go to the forums, then".

If your self-worth is so wrapped up in a TTRPG character that learning that the mechanics of what you have built causes you an existential crisis, then don't go learn the details.

It always reminds me of the mathematician played by Stellan Skarsgård in that 'Good Will Hunting' movie. His entire ego is built upon being a math prodigy, and his whole world is shattered by the realization that someone out there is not just better/smarter than he is, but is so by an order of magnitude that he never realized existed. Even though Will Hunting's very existence doesn't invalidate his own in any way, he is still crushed.

Snowblind wrote:

Requielle wrote:

...

Why would any NPC 'kill' a downed opponent? How would they know that these folks are the 4-6 beings in the entire universe who can be brought back from 'death' with normal healing spells? Obviously, in your playthrough, *they saw it happen*. So, duh. Kill the thrice-cursed-freaks-who-defy-the-will-of-Pharasma and all that.
...

I can't be bothered finding the rules text right now, but the "0hp=dead" thing is basically a GM shortcut that they are encouraged to not use for things like major NPCs, or for any creatures that have healing backup. Going off this, any intelligent NPC would have to be aware that stabbing things until they fall over may not finish them off permanently.

OK - so let's be generous and say that 1% of all the things in existence (from mayflies to dragons) are 'important enough' to whatever powers that be to not die instantly. That's still 99% of the things out there that don't get back up. And an intelligent creature is not very intelligent if they waste their actions in combat whacking dead things that almost never get back up. Totally fine if (as happened above) they see someone cheat-death-OMG-kill-it-again-and-keep-killing-it.

It's just messy. It's very contrived. It's very inconsistent. And again - YMMV.

Messy, contrived, and inconsistent is a perfect description of a system wherein the unconscious/dying/healing rules are not the same across the board, PC or NPC.

In a world where magical healing is possible, it makes perfect sense to spend an action to ensure that a downed opponent stays down.

Definitely doing this ASAP.

luy wrote:

All this conversation reminds me when WOTC released 4e...

Déjà vu anyone?

Maybe it's because I was out of the loop regarding D&D at the time, but I'm quite sure I've heard that there was no real lead up to 4e - it was just announced and later went on sale within a relatively short timeframe.

That said, there should be more than enough material for PF1 to play it for decades to come.

Personally, I rarely have trouble with RPG rules, but find PF2 particularly impenetrable though I think this is, at least in part, probably due to the language used rather than outright complexity as D&D 5e has a similar effect despite (supposedly) being pretty simple.

Definitely out of the loop. There were lots of previews from the designers, and plenty of discussion/ranting/arguing on the old WotC forums. I'd dare say those boards had quite a bit more activity at that time than these do now.

A few more steps in the right direction...

Toblakai wrote:

So your Fantasy Ground link shows PFRPG at 80,000 games.

Looking at 2016 graph PFRPG accounts 40,000 games.

Seems like usage for PF is growing right alongside all the rest of the games. The pie is just getting a lot bigger.

Yeah, "winning" isn't worth a lot if "losing" means twice as many people are playing your game.

There's a strong argument that D&D's recent success is directly growing the size of the pie by bringing new players into the hobby. Which is good for everyone.

Which is great, if tons of these new players are purchasing your material. Which it seems to me from everything I am reading and hearing that they are not.

So yeah, you know how many game settings have an ancient civilization, with super-powerful casters who accomplished crazy, unheard of feats of wizardry, but the secrets to such arcane prowess is lost to the ages?

This is the same thing, but that civilization was just last year, and the descent into magical diminishment took just a few weeks.

Karzoug read the playtest, and wept.

You know i am seeing each side calling others a minority. Please stop. Everyone on these forums are a minority.

EDIT:Just to be clear. All of us on these forum are part of the same minority. A lot of people never visits these forums.

EDIT 2: Calling other people minority doesnt help your arguments. It makes it look biased and makes it look like you are trying a little too hard to support your argument. Which it doesnt btw.

I swear I'm just going to save this post in a text file or something.

I am constantly amazed at how many posters on this forum assume that they are members of the "silent majority" and yet there is never an admitted member of the "vocal minority" to be found.

And here we have a good example of it in action. Having listened to the stream? Jason never paints it as an assumption. He says it is a choice you can make to customize your character.

He specifically says "If you want to be the guy that identifies things quick, you can be that guy. If you want to be the guy who knows a little bit of everything about nature, whenever he sees something without spending an action, you can be that character. If you want to be the guy that intimidates people with just a glare, you can be that character. The skill feats are there to customize your skill use."

So we can say definitively that Quick Identification is not going to be an assumption.

Perfect. So the assumption is that Quick Identification is going to be a luxury. Thanks for giving us the more specific rundown. I gather most of my information while in situations where noise is not really an option, and hate watching videos when reading is so much faster and more accurate. Also captioning on most formats blows.

But you gotta judge a game on the game it is not on the one you want it to be.

Patently false. You can judge a game on whatever criteria you choose. Didn't used to be this way, back when there weren't many options, but there are enough TTRPG alternatives in the market nowadays that people can judge games by whether or not they like the cover art, or by how friendly or unfriendly the players of that game appear to be, and still be able to walk away completely satisfied with lots of other options that better meet their criteria for a "good game".

There are plenty of people who judge a game by whether or not it's the game they want it to be. They pick the system that is closest to exactly what they desire, and house rule the rest.

Sounds like myself and several other posters are probably correct on shields, and they can't multi dent.

Moro wrote:

Almarane wrote:

Q: Does it really take an hour to identify healing potions ?

A: Yes. When you are high level you are supposed to take Quick Identification.

If this is true then it is not a particularly good design. If it is assumed characters will have to take something at "high level" then why aren't those classes just given that as a class feature later on?

Not necessarily. Consider that repairing a dent also takes an hour. The shield spell takes 10 minutes to respawn. We also have Natural Healing, which let's you heal sans magic in 10 minutes, but it is a hard check you'll probably have to attempt more than once to beat at low levels. (We should have more healing options like this, IMO.)

The base assumption seems to be most of the party probably has something to do over a "short rest," so stuff like ID'ing items taking an hour works out pretty well. It also stretches out the adventuring day in a meaningful way. (I'm thinking I might keep a clock displayed to show what time it is in game.)

If you and yours don't want to take as long between fights, the feats exist to let you speed it up. That seems fairly appropriate for a skill feat. But honestly, it is rare that taking 10 minutes instead of an hour will make a big difference, so I wouldn't say you really have to snag the Quick feats until you are inundated with items and you have access to the higher proficiency stuff anyway-- once you can ID something in rounds it is gold.

At that point, a single skill feat out of like 8 or whatever seems rather affordable.

No. Thanks for making excuses for the poor design, but you missed my point. IF it is ASSUMED that pretty much EVERY party takes this, then it is bad design to force them to spend a resource on it rather than baking it into whatever base ability gets modified by the spent resource from the start. If that is not the base assumption, and Quick Identification is not seen as a "must-have" or baseline assumption at X level, then it's no big deal.

This is the kind of thing that affects scenario/module/adventure path design assumptions for pacing and whatnot going forward, and is the type of detail that can often be overlooked, causing issues down the road, as well as being something that can be most easily remedied at this stage. There's no reason not to be decisive about this now. Is it a luxury, or a default assumption at X level?

Q: Does it really take an hour to identify healing potions ?

A: Yes. When you are high level you are supposed to take Quick Identification.

If this is true then it is not a particularly good design. If it is assumed characters will have to take something at "high level" then why aren't those classes just given that as a class feature later on?

I really like Tarik's take. Pick a power level, stick to it.

A supremely impressive system would support a wide range of power levels for play, with actual, delineated distinctions between them, and mechanics for defining them before the campaign begins.

There will always be a large percentage of people who dislike added restrictions, no matter the situation, and this sort of shortening of the math ranges usable by PCs can definitely be viewed in that light.

This holds true even when it comes to removing the illusion of choice rather than meaningful choice.

I want them to have a noticeable, dynamic effect on and meaningful decisions to make in combat, and significant narrative options out of combat, all on par or nearly on par with casters from earlier editions.

I don't really care what form these options or effects take, what source is used to explain them, or how mundane or over-the-top they seem. I just don't want to see martial players required to play "mother may I?" with the GM to feel relevant past level 9 or 10.

Not necessarily. I would prefer they get better feats, preferably feats that scale with level like spells or class abilities.

I see a lot of Raging Swimmer-level feats and powers in the current version.

I've yet to have a session in which every player didn't feel like they really were in the world with both their strengths and their weaknesses, and they had times to shine brightly and also time to celebrate that they overcame really scary problems.

The 2E approach would rob everyone at the table of these more complex encounters, the opportunities to shine much brighter than others, and the glory of overcoming really scary stuff.

Unfortunately it seems that PF2E is being written with PFS play in mind, and the type of disparity you enjoy in your game can be difficult to cram into a 4 hour session between players who are all total strangers.

I'm not saying it's right, or fun, but it's just how things appear to be headed.

I think we might be moving in the right direction.

Moro wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Moro wrote:

Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.

I don't have to buy them. D20PFSRD and Archives of Nethys got me covered.

So what is the problem? Just don't use the content that you dislike.

This sounds perfectly fine on paper, except it requires me actually reading the content. Do you realize how much time does it take to read with comprehension every rule element put out by Paizo in 10 years?

My argument is about quantity. The current quantity makes it virtually impossible to encompass the entire material. You can't exercise quality control without checking the quality first and worst of all, a feat A may look innocent, but coupled with feat B and item X it might become your headache (goz mask + eversmoking bottle).

Sure, you can drop an atomic bomb and say "well my games are core + APG only", but this robs players of options and smells heavily of "I am a lazy bum and I like casters", because arguably casters walk away from PF1 CRB far ahead of martials.

What works or doesn't work for you and your players isn't necessarily the same for everyone.

I'd much rather you need to rob your players of options than to rob everyone else who plays the game of options, simply because you don't feel you have the time to read and evaluate the content.

Now if you wanted to discuss the amount of quality control and evaluation that should be performed on new options before they are published, I am sure that would slow down the rate of release a bit, and I would be all for that.

Moro wrote:

Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.

I don't have to buy them. D20PFSRD and Archives of Nethys got me covered.

So what is the problem? Just don't use the content that you dislike.

Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.

Moro wrote:

Interesting. Every change you mentioned and labeled "for the better" was a removal of a restriction rather than the imposition of a new restraint such as resonance.

They were the first three things I thought of. Don't read too much into it.

No, it just got me thinking of the changes between editions, and how it appears that most, perhaps all, of the more well-received changes boiled down to relaxed constraints as opposed to the uproar I recall over any changes that were perceived as adding restrictions instead.

These types of games are not at all mutually exclusive.

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Stop trying to fixing the game by changing the world around it has ben working for decades.

Demi-human level limits, paladins only for humans and multi-classing never for humans were all ways the world worked "for decades". They changed, for the better too.

Interesting. Every change you mentioned and labeled "for the better" was a removal of a restriction rather than the imposition of a new restraint such as resonance.

I did tell you guys a while back it would be significantly reduced and then Dan saw you guys asking in the stream and asked me "But how significantly does that mean when you say that it sounds like a lot?" and I said "Significantly reduced." I figured no one can say total removal is not a significant reduction ^_^

Can't argue with that logic.

The way I see it, going from highest power level to lowest:

1. D&D 3.5
2. PF1
3. PF2
4. 5E
5. Old school eds.
6. Warhammer :)

PF2 is going down a notch from the crazy gonzo turn your badger into a dragon while you plane shift from your personal demiplane level, but is still above 5E's "yeah, well, the most we can do is swing swords and cast fireballs, yay" power level. Even the most powerful monsters in 5e feel uninspired and hardly interesting to fight compared to ones in PF2.

Other than moving Old School Editions up to the very top, I can't really argue.

I think both the Masters and Immortals boxes could outstrip 3.5 s far as raw character power.

Bigger numbers.

dnoisette wrote:

Lausth wrote:

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Martial characters don't want to have to use magical items.

They want to be able to perform the same level of magic as spellcasters but retain all of their better combat abilities.

/end sarcasm

i like that when one of the main issues casters bring up is that they want more damage, to reach the martials, but when they confront the narrative issue their defense is: "but martials do more damage.!!!11!"

also, you can buy wands and staves and fling fireballs every round.

"i don't get why casters don't want to have to use magical items to solve their problems?"

/end sarcasm

Were people asking for casters to do more damage? I don't recall that, but I am too lazy to go and look.

I can see perhaps arguing for this if the caster niche is going to be restricted to "blaster" in this edition, but most of the complaints I am hearing at tables and reading on the forums about the playtest are aimed towards the manner in which non-damage spells have been gutted in either duration or effect.

Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong?

Sure seems that way. You have your at-will, encounter, and daily powers...

Moro wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

The other important thing that's locked behind trained competency: Practice a Trade or Stage a Performance. Standard uses of Perform (untrained) are good enough to impress someone or prove that you're decent, but it's not good enough to actually put on a performance if they have to look at you for more than a few seconds.

Similarly, Read Scripture, Read Esoterica, Treat Disease, actual Crafting, and Tracking. If you're not trained, doesn't matter how high level you are, you can't do those.

One man's "trained competency" is another's "arbitrary gatekeeping."

So what I'm hearing is that you'd have a problem either way - either you complain because everyone can do everything at full competency, or you complain because "arbitrary gatekeeping".

Then you might need your hearing checked. I never said that I do or would have a problem either way.

Either the final 2nd edition looks like fun to me and a majority of those I game with, and so we play it, or it does not, and we do not. Either way I have zero problems.

My post was simply pointing out the argument against it. There are myriad ways of handling skills, and in a system with such tightly controlled mathematical bounds, some sort of artificial enforcement of boundaries is necessary.

I personally would have preferred to see a system that handles increasing skills and their more difficult uses with an increased opportunity cost at higher ranks, but that isn't what is in the playtest. I am not a huge fan of bounded accuracy at all, as it introduces a level of gamism with which I am uncomfortable.

With the math as it is now, it's not playing great in my experiences, but I can see it being a usable skill system if the numbers are tweaked, even if it is not my cup of tea.

The other important thing that's locked behind trained competency: Practice a Trade or Stage a Performance. Standard uses of Perform (untrained) are good enough to impress someone or prove that you're decent, but it's not good enough to actually put on a performance if they have to look at you for more than a few seconds.

Similarly, Read Scripture, Read Esoterica, Treat Disease, actual Crafting, and Tracking. If you're not trained, doesn't matter how high level you are, you can't do those.

One man's "trained competency" is another's "arbitrary gatekeeping."

Ostog the Untenured says it's fine.

This post has never been a matter of exclusion, but a matter of forced inclusion. The way it is written forces peoples hands depending on the situation. I'd prefer to have open reign with creative freedom. I'm not one for anything offensive, but I want the choice to have a controversial character or story without having to risk scrapping it.

Then ignore that section, right up until the controversial stuff causes an issue. Nobody is going to come to your place and take away your books for running a controversial character or story.

Unless you're talking about PFS.

Almost all people have been put in uncomfortable situations before; congratulations on your impressive luck to anyone who has not.

Recall how that discomfort felt, and take another human being's word on the matter if they tell you that something is, has, or might in the future cause them feel this way. Period. It's really not up for debate.

As far as the potential controversial subject matter of the game goes, as with any multi-person activity, up-front transparency is of primary importance. If anyone at the table even thinks that something controversial MIGHT come up, it should be discussed with and agreed upon by all participants in advance. If at any point, even after the initial agreement, any single party suddenly decides things have gone too far, and requests that it cease, then it ceases.

This is pretty much common decency, it really isn't that difficult, and sure as hell isn't too much to ask.

Had a half-orc in my group. The player really liked the change to the way halfies are handled (as did I).

it gets even better. Just wait until the half-orc character reaches a level where their eyes are finally fully developed!

Interesting take on scaling feats. I think it could be tweaked enough to be both usable and a reasonable start towards closing the caster/martial gap.

Congratulations! See you later, probably. Perhaps sooner.

I guess man. If you cant stand the five minutes it takes to make a character I dunno what to tell ya.

As someone HATED the tedium of planning my character to 20 in 3.X/PF, I do not find the proto-lifepath system in PF2 tedious in the least.

Yeah man, I guess. If you like the superficial complexity and the illusion of choice this new system inserts into the process, and the parade of less than impressive results of that process, I don't know what to tell ya.

Planning 1st through 20th is no more or less necessary in this system than previous systems, and backstories have always been a thing.

I prefer a process with more meaningful choices, myself, and results that give me a character that makes me excited to play. It was ok the first couple of times, but has gradually gone downhill for me. I think maybe I'm just burnt out on this playtest already.

Tedious

adjective: tedious
too long, slow, or dull: tiresome or monotonous.
"a tedious journey"
synonyms: boring, dull, monotonous, repetitive, unrelieved, unvaried, uneventful; More
characterless, colorless, lifeless, insipid, uninteresting, unexciting, uninspiring, uninvolving, flat, bland, dry, stale, tired, lackluster, stodgy, dreary, mundane, monochrome;
mind-numbing, soul-destroying, wearisome, tiring, tiresome, irksome, trying, frustrating;
informaldeadly, not up to much, humdrum, ho-hum, blah, dullsville, 'same old, same old'
"work on the assembly line was tedious"
antonyms: exciting

Also, I've used the Fantasygrounds/Hero Lab Online tools. Doesn't make the process, and certainly not the result of character creation for this system more exciting.

No offense but character creation is easy as hell.

If you want to make characters even more easily, download Fantasy Grounds (the free trial is all you'll need I think). They have a character generator built into their current implementation of the playtest. It isnt complete but can do up to 5th level or so.

Maybe after using that you will get it.

No offense taken since it has nothing to do with difficulty. I've played the entire playtest module and ran parts of it, including part 1 a couple of extra times, as well as a couple of non-Doomsday Dawn sessions.

It's not a matter of "getting it" it is a matter of "I don't want to do it" because in this system I don't care for the process or the result. I'm already tired of it, and I'm not really looking forward to playing today because of that.

And that's the first time I've said that about any system in a long time.

There's also an elephant in the room: spells auto-scale, but martials need to spend their class feats to scale, which gives more room to casters for conceptual development, rather than running to keep up with the tide.

I've been pushing for scaling feats since 3.0 for exactly this reason. Why does anyone need to take Cleave, then Great Ckeave, then Greater Cleave, then Greatest Cleave? Taking Cleave should eventually scale up to better Cleaves as your character advances.

I absolutely love character creation!

Awesome, make one for me then, because I find it tedious and am tired of doing it, and I'm supposed to play again later today.

Generally I agree that the feel of the game has changed a bit. There is much less option to make a character that is highly powerful in any particular area. There is also less of a possibility to make a character that is too underpowered. Reminds me of the 'no child left behind' policy that also translates into 'no child allowed ahead'. But that is a different matter.

It would be nice to make rules that cater to the power gamers. Allow people to make characters that are overly powered in some particular area or other at the expense of being competent at most anything else. But when that happens, a GM facing a mixed group will have difficulty making a game that is enjoyable to everyone. Challenges that would be worthy of the power gamer's characters would be overwhelming to the more balanced characters. And challenges that would be appropriate to the balanced characters would either be a cake walk to the power gamer, or would also be overwhelming - depending on if the challenge caters to the area of expertise of the power gamer's character or not.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition character creation, where Harrison Bergeron meets TTRPGs!

I lurve numbers.

Pretty sure I have said this before, but I just adore how everyone assumes that their personal views align with the "silent majority", and yet there is never a professed member of the "vocal minority" anywhere to be found.

It's a MIRACLE!