Raiztt's page

making them actually descended from dragons completely missed what I saw as the point of the rumor: That nobody actually believed kobolds about it.

It was always my understanding that this was true - that kobolds were not actually descended from dragons in any way whatsoever.

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that paizo would release a product that needs exstensive errating from the very jump. Paizo does so many things well - formatting and proof reading just aren't among them.

I'd argue EA was/is was lightly toxic in that it teaches a lot of casters that they didn't need to engage with the MAP system, don't need to think about maybe the occasional staff bonk, ect. How many even put Striking Runes into their staffs they are already holding?

We do not share a foundational premise, so we're never going to agree. Cantrips are meant to be the "0 MAP" option for casters.

Yes, many of my spellcaster characters do not even carry weapons. The ones that do rarely use them. Making weapon attacks as a spellcaster is certainly not mandatory. But making a weapon attack is a viable option in the spellcaster's toolbox. And cantrip damage isn't intended to out-perform martial character's weapon damage.

Cantrips are absolutely intended to be the caster's go-to combat option. It is their "i swing my sword", "i shoot my bow", basic attack action. That's why they are unlimited now instead of having a fixed number of uses. This change goes back to PF1e and this was the reasoning then.

There is a long history, that extends back before PF2e, of trying to find some sort of equivalent for casters vis a vis a basic attack. 3.5e implemented a new system for at-will cantrip level casting in the complete mage and then PF1e went further and just made cantrips infinite/free.

You can argue about whether or not that SHOULD be the case, but if you're operating under the assumption that it IS NOT the case, you are mistaken.

The link you showed does not say "Oh and btw this is not meant to be a caster's primary mode of offense".

That comparison, coupled with there being no other core rulebook, nor later released cantrip, that comes close to EA's easy 4d4 + Hd2, clearly demonstrates that EA is the outlier / mistake.

And yet it made it into the revised core rulebook, so it's definitely not a mistake on the dev's part. Because they just had a golden opportunity to change it and decided not to do so.

Furthermore, I don't agree that burning hands is worse than electric arc. But also, I've been DMing since PF2e released and with a wizard who uses electric arc constantly... it has not destabilized my game - so I don't even agree with your premise that it's a problem that needs a solution.

Well, you can believe what you wish regarding the developer's intentions.

But Trip.H is accurate in quoting the rulebook. So if your beliefs disagree with the printed rules, I'm going to side with the printed rules.

...who are you responding to? It feels like me but, what you posted in no way contradicts anything I said in my post.

These are both true:
1.) The devs make a conscious and knowing decision to create cantrips that can completely replace mundane weapons for casters
2.) Cantrips are weaker than spells

Cantrips were never supposed to compete with 0 MAP Strikes, not even for casters.

I do not believe this is true anymore. In fact, I think this is implicitly, if not explicitly, false. At least since PF1e, the assumption seems to be that cantrips were meant to replace wizards throwing darts or firing crossbows.

Also, the quoted texted reads to me like you're saying "the designers intent was not for cantrips to compete with 0 MPA strikes" - which if true leads back to my first point. It appears that it WAS their intent.

If you're saying that cantrips 'were never supposed' to function this way, but are appealing to some other standard or universal principle... then i guess *shrug*.

When the game itself literally says "[cantrips are] weaker than other spells" people should pay attention.

Cantrips are weaker than other spells.

It's messed up that Capitalism has made "a computer can do your job now, so you have more free time to do whatever you want" into a bad thing.

Anyone who thought technology was going to bring liberation is naive beyond saving.

Raiztt wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

The algorithms aren't doing anything that artists haven't already been doing for centuries.

This is laughably wrong/uninformed. The brain is not a computer and it does not function like one.

Well...sort of...

The algorithms themselves are broad mathematical models of selected human behaviors (including creating artworks, writing, etc.).

Most folks don't really understand what the broad stacks of intertwined, monstrously complicated equations are doing but it boils down to this. Unfortunately, we've kind of already proven that these algorithms can approximate certain human behaviors. So, it's not as simple as saying headcheese isn't the same as a mdf board full of electronics.

It wouldn't matter if they could do it exactly the same as or even better than - which is something that seems lost to you all.

This is exactly the problem. People who love AI art see it as a product or material good. I swear materialist technocrats are going to destroy the world.

Cyouni wrote:

... there's been a massive push by companies to replace people (writers, artists, etc) by using AI to create something "good enough" to function for profit...

Why is that any worse than automation to replace assembly line workers, kiosks to replace food server order takers and cashiers, or any other of the myriad examples of advancement replacing human labor (the printing press, industrial looms, bulldozers, harvesters, ad nauseam)?

Because art is more valuable than all those other mundane activities.

But I'm also fully on board with going backwards/limiting progress to preserve human dignity.

The algorithms aren't doing anything that artists haven't already been doing for centuries.

This is laughably wrong/uninformed. The brain is not a computer and it does not function like one.

Most are excited for the new technology and some will tell you that they would be flattered to hear that someone was trying to emulate their work. That's how artists are made.

I also work with freelance artists every day and there are exactly 0 of them who would not blacklist/blackball someone immediately for engaging in generative AI that scrapes other artists work.

People have already covered all of the ways "AI art" is unethical so I'll just chip in that I am also one of those people who will ostracize/ignore anyone engaging in generative "art" that scrapes from artists without their consent.

If you showed up to my game with AI you'd get kicked out on the spot.

I think the increase in lethality will be a good thing - i wouldn't even mind if you're just flat out dead at 0 hit points.

Raiztt wrote:

Have I been playing PF2e wrong? Example:

1.) PC goes down, is at dying 1
2.) PC makes their death save, is no longer dying 1 but instead wounded 1 and unconscious.
3.) PC gets healed for X amount of damage, they're up.
4.) PC goes down again and is at dying 2, because they were wounded 1 before.

Nope, that's correct.

Where the new change comes in is what happens when you're already wounded 1 and fail a recovery check. Rather than incrementing dying by 1, you increment it by 1 + wounded level.

Which means if you are wounded and dying and fail a recovery check, you are just dead.

Well, If you're just knock down, and are wounded one, and you fail your check, you'd be at dying 3. Not dying 4.

Have I been playing PF2e wrong? Example:

1.) PC goes down, is at dying 1
2.) PC makes their death save, is no longer dying 1 but instead wounded 1 and unconscious.
3.) PC gets healed for X amount of damage, they're up.
4.) PC goes down again and is at dying 2, because they were wounded 1 before.

AestheticDialectic wrote:

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I wonder if people realize how facetious this turn of phrase is.

Like the idea that you can have a cake but you're not allowed to eat it is not a commentary on trade off it's a description of insanity.

The whole idea that you need to be 'punished' to somehow counterbalance having something good in your life is absurdly toxic nonsense.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too" is saying that it cannot be simultaneously true that you ate your cake, but you also didn't eat you cake and are able to admire it/have it.

I had REALLY hoped that when paizo said editing and clarity was going to be a focus that they'd improve their layout... but alas... a split table in the preview.

I guess no one in the non-indie ttrpg space has seen the layout from games like OSE??

The Raven Black wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

So, you want to play a caster who is as effective as a Fighter using their favorite weapon but who also benefit from variety in their casting ?

No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.

Class-specific spell lists are a nightmare to create and to maintain.

Adding meta tags to spells is something that you could automate in Excel. If Paizo is so bad at tech they can't automatically append new class tags onto existing spells that's not a me issue.

Editing/clarity/layout has never been a strength of Paizo but maybe the remaster can turn that around.

Raiztt wrote:

Fighter was garbage for more than twenty years - can they just have a crumb of power? Please??

Except they weren't if you actually looked at the builds people used in Pathfinder.

Sorry, I didn't properly convey my sentiment: The fighter was garbage compared to full casters.

"Are fighters too strong?" No.

Next question.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I've always read "up to 3" as 0, 1, 2, or 3 targets, and never as the same target three times. I've interpreted "up to X" to mean that if I have less than X targets, I can still use the spell/feat. Compare this to "select X targets" specifically and then being prohibited from using the spell/feat because I can't target EXACTLY that many targets (or worse, having to include allies).

I know I've seen spells/feats that have called out ahead of time that the targets must be separate, but is there a spell/feat that says "up to X" that allows you to target the same creature? If we can find example to support "up to X" allowing you to target the same creature multiple times, then I'd say this argument has legs.

For example, Magic Missile allows you to target the same creature more than once, but:
1) it doesn't says "up to X."
2) has specific rules for if you target the same creature with more than one missile.
This would be an invalid example for this argument even though the intent and end result is what we're looking for.

Unfortunately, PF2e lacks the rules precision of MTG.

Fighter was garbage for more than twenty years - can they just have a crumb of power? Please??

I love PF2e for it's three action economy and numerical/mathematical tightness... but I don't particularly care for how crazy/super human PCs eventually get. What does the Paizo braintrust think more OSR-like generic classes would look like in the PF2e sysem?

My first thought is that spells greater than 5th level are flat out unavailable, and that classes would probably receive no feats whatsoever?

Basically, I'm curious about what PF2e would look like if you stripped it way, way down. Anybody have any thoughts?

ShinHakkaider wrote:

I'm also not a fan of splitting the core into two books.

I'm with you on this. I'm not sure why they are doing this.

it's because the core rule book is way, way, way too big. It's so big that the mere size of the book obliterates it's spine over time.

Splitting them in two is something I've wanted for years.

Raiztt wrote:

Helmic wrote:

...(nor does 2e's design goals permit) a general bread-and-butter attack that you try to do as much as possible. The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger.

Well, if you're an off-hand free fighter, then snagging strike makes your normal/basic strike completely obsolete. It's just a strict upgrade over your basic strike.

True

You said that "The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger" - that is false. For an open hand fighter, snagging strike completely replaces your basic strike. Everything else you said was addressing a completely different point.

If you're an open hand fighter, then using snagging strike is either the same as, or better than, your basic strike depending on the situation. But the basic strike is never better than snagging strike.

People, even professional writers, are pretty bad at writing good encounters and 'boss' encounters are no exception. It's not really their fault though, because they need to keep things simple enough for mass consumption, word count, etc.

(Interestingly, BG3 has a lot of well designed encounters)

An engaging encounter ought to have some mixture of the below:

• -Varying enemy types/roles (melee, ranged, manipulators, etc)
• -Varying terrain (quality, elevation, hazards, etc)
• -Alternate win/loss conditions
• -Environmental interactables

If you're only going to have a single enemy, this is a lot harder because that's the easiest way to spice up an encounter (different enemies with different abilities) so you're going to have to lean on the other 3 elements pretty hard.

tl;dr if you want to make a good 'boss' encounter, it takes more than just finding a cool singular enemy and plopping them down on the grid.

...(nor does 2e's design goals permit) a general bread-and-butter attack that you try to do as much as possible. The only exception to this general design principle is the Flurry Ranger.

Well, if you're an off-hand free fighter, then snagging strike makes your normal/basic strike completely obsolete. It's just a strict upgrade over your basic strike.

I'd give their class DC progression the same scaling as the fighter's weapon proficiency for whatever their chosen school is.

Mathmuse wrote:

A lot of text about Pathfinder, Starfinder, and 'Modern'

Firstly, d20 modern ruled. Second, I wouldn't be surprised if you could squeeze a modern game out of starfinder rules by hacking away certain things, and grafting on others.

I realize that Paizo is now fully committed to Pathfinder = Galorion / Galorion = Pathfinder*... but I would still like to see a generic, modern, PF2 rules-system application to a modern setting that would help facilitate some 'gritty'/plausible-psuedoscience steampunk type situations, as well as westerns and other period pieces that have firearms.
‎
‎
‎
‎
‎
‎
‎
*(I would be much happier if the core rule books were as setting neutral and setting generic as possible, with a separate book that served as the "golarion setting guide". D&D 3.0 did this with Faerun and Eberron)

Here's the question: Will by game explode into a fiery conflagration if I just say all stat boosts are +2, period.

What are your thoughts?

Necromancy as an entire tradition makes no sense to me whatsoever because of how narrow it is. That would be like saying that conjuration is an entire tradition.

(That being said I also don't like that wizards will no longer specialize in specific schools of magic and I don't like that there are even 4 different 'traditions')

So I'm into year two of consistently playing PF2e weekly and everyone in our group agrees that casters are not accurate enough. It's just how we feel and it's what our experience has been. It's not unusual for our casters to go a full session without ever landing an attack spell.

I swear there was a bit in the book about when to not roll, but now I can't find it to quote it.

If there's no consequence to failure, there's no point in rolling.

Monk should lose all mystical abilities, and never get more than trained proficiency with unarmed defense. They should also never get more than trained simple weapon proficiency.

Furthermore, they should be able to begin as an expert in their choice of brewing lore, calligraphy lore, lore relevant to their particular monastic order.

I, for one, am glad to see this post get necro'd. Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Fighter is the best fighter... I don't see the issue with this. If you want your defining feature to be how bad ass you are at combat, regardless of your weapon choice, you should be a fighter.

Fighter has been arguably one of least powerful d20 classes since 3.0 - can they please just have something nice??

breithauptclan wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has ...

So only looking at higher levels? No one plays at lower levels any more? Or we just don't need to balance those?

That's a very very moot argument. Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, Strength of Thousands, Blood Lords are 1-20. Fists of The Ruby Phoenix, Stolen Fate (still coming out) are 11-20.

The fact is that spectrum of a class is 1-20 level. Not 1-10, nor 11-20. However if one class can become a better version or another class at any of those level ranges, that in my opinion is balance problem. There many moving parts of this problem (Fighter getting Legendary in whatever he wants, Monk archetype giving Flurry, Fighter getting Paragon Guard which even Champion can't get before level 20) but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

If monks should have legendary unarmed proficiency... should rangers have legendary bow proficiency? Or legendary proficiency whenever they wield a weapon in both hands?

I understand that but It still doesn't click with me how brawler would have better accuracy with unarmed attack than Monks, whose whole class shtick is unarmed style. It just doesn't click in my head.

The fighter's schtick is that they're the best fighter with whatever weapon they choose to use - in this case, fists.

A fighter/"brawler" gets legendary prof. with unarmed, but they don't get all the mystical b$$!@$** that comes with monk normally. There are tradeoffs and right now, the monks schitck isn't "I am the unarmed fighting master" it's broader than that now and takes into account more aspects of 'monkery' than just the unarmed combat.

I don't mean to bum anyone out but if you wanted to give actual feedback on this (whether it would be considered or not) you'd need to invent a time machine and go back in time about 3 months if not more.

Printing books is not like hitting print on your inkjet at home. The prepress and proofing process is long, making sure the pages are laid out correctly, (offset printing at 8.5" x 11" is actually going to be 4 up - 8 pages to a sheet). Sheets need to be cut, colated, bound, etc - it's a whole deal.

Let alone that we're talking tens of thousands of books. In fact, depending on how exactly and who exactly does their printing, the books might be printed in one location and then bound/finished in another.

So yes, "I hope..." or "I wish..." would be the right way to preface things that you want to occur. Hell, by now they couldn't implement the changes you're asking for if they wanted to.

I personally don't like the action/activity distinction and it's caused a lot of confusion in my players. They thought of it as some sort of completely separate minigame or subsystem of play, when in practice (reality?) "activities" are just really long actions.

Raiztt wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Raiztt wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Raiztt wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Yes, many things can be insults. We're not talking about the myriad of other insults that can be thrown about, we are discussing that the Paizo staff has repeatedly asked us not to denigrate their work by using the term fluff to describe it.

Yes - and some people are saying "No" to that request.

And you think that’s a positive quality about yourself?

You might have noticed that I haven't actually used the word 'fluff' outside of making arguments or hypotheticals. I actually, in my normal conversations, have been adhering to Jame's request.

But I don't think it matters if it's positive or not. I don't look at things as "good or bad" only whether they can be done or if they can't be done.

”im beyond good and evil”

Okiedokie

No, I might still be good or evil, it's just not something that matters practically. Which is why I was asking if the term "fluff" is banned.

If it's banned, then I can't say it.

If it's not banned, then I can.

Not how empathy and morality and genuine human social interaction. Works. At all.

So? And?

Raiztt wrote:

Raiztt wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Everyone just flag and move on, this thread has clearly been taken over and successfully derailed by Rysky.

This thread has been a crash course in cognitive dissonance and not recognizing the unintended consequences of a proposition.

Why would it? Well, insults usually have these qualities:

"to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront"

"to affect as an affront; offend or demean"

I definitely think calling someone a bigot is contemptuous.

So your faux-intellectualism peels away, spare the bigots feelings.

Would you say that suggesting that I'm a faux-intellectual is an insult? Or, is it not an insult because you believe it's true and properly applies to me?

Did you intend it to fit the criterion normally attributed to an 'insult'?

Isn't it a bit late for changes in format for the Remastered books ?

Though I like the idea of distinguishing more the mechanical stuff.

Since they're supposed to be out in October I'm willing to bet it is completely impossible to make any changes. It takes a long time to print and bind this many books. But, I could be wrong.

To be honest 1 and 2 are things that even Paizo doesn't add to most encounters because it's hard.

Definitely - I don't blame them. It would make their modules/adventures much longer and more complicated.

Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.

I mean, I wouldn't take that as like THE definitive word - lots of people enjoy lots of different things of various degrees of complexity. The first two are probably less important for MOST gamers than the other ones though.

Maybe you're technically correct but it has no practical bearing on the topic if whether flavor text should be italicized.

Flavor text should definitely NOT be italicized. It would be difficult to read.

Raiztt wrote:

I'm arguing to argue because someone said something that I think is false.

It also feels like you are arguing against a misunderstanding of what people are saying here.

I have taken Unicorn to be saying that the specific narrative context that PF2e implements is inseparable from its mechanical rule set.

I.e.: I have taken them to be saying "If you change narrative aspects of [God X], then the mechanical rules will not function".

I am arguing that statement is false in so far as it includes the word "specific". I am not arguing that the rules can exist without some context.

Raiztt, if you don't respect the developers and their work enough to even bother writing flavor instead of fluff, I have no idea why you expect them to respect you enough to do the much more complicated task of dilenieating rules to your preferences.

I'm not asking them to do anything so I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I respect that the devs have created a very solid mechanical system for playing the sorts of TTRPGs that I like to play.

Clerics and deities, champions and codes. A paladin being able to lie has direct impact on the mechanical actions they can take in the story. Whether you think that's a problem I guess is a separate issue. But even if your premise is correct... If drawing the distinction is as easy as you claim, than what needs to be changed? Are you even taking a stance on the original formatting topic, or are you arguing just to argue?

I'm arguing to argue because someone said something that I think is false.

But also, that wouldn't be a counter example to my argument because deities can be reflavored to just "sun god" (rather than whoever the sun god is in galorion) and codes are entirely matters of convention.

Jacob Jett wrote:

Is the point of the debate to stamp out the thinking of one of the groups? If so, isn't that something akin to mere cyberbullying?

That is certainly what it feels like to me. Especially with people insisting on using derogatory terms for the rules text that they don't like despite being informed that it is in fact considered derogatory.

How about instead I call it "text that I personally think is unimportant and totally ignorable"? I want to make sure that I use the correct shibboleths.

Ultimately, I'm not sure why the debate has to happen. Some folks think thing A. Some think thing B. There's more than enough community space for both groups to coexist. Is the point of the debate to stamp out the thinking of one of the groups? If so, isn't that something akin to mere cyberbullying?

The only reason I'm in this debate is because someone has, or seems to have, said that "narrative text"/fluff/non-mechanical text cannot be separated from mechanical rules text and I am trying to demonstrate why that statement is false.

People are obviously free to play however they wish.

What is a wizard?

A "wizard", for me, is all the mechanical abilities found and defined in its section of the CRB.

Without a narrative conception of what that is, a body of rules about "spells" and "spell slots" are completely meaningless. There are certain narrative constraints that are inherent in all rules that speak to topics like the genre of the game and the tone of the game that are all completely modifiable, but are just as relevant as the rules themselves.

If I replace the word "spells" and "spell slots" with "gorbles" and "gorble spots" the game still plays mechanically the same, so I do not agree with this set of statements. But furthermore, it's just not true that they are 'meaningless' when they are explicitly defined to have a meaning. The number of gorble spots you have determines how many gorbles you can cast per day. It has meaning.

I am not arguing that it is wrong to change narrative text to fit the the game that you are trying to run, but that in doing so, you are actually modifying the game itself in a way that can be understood as changing the rules as well.

I do not believe that statement is true.

Also, as politely and civilly as I can articulate this, the wishes/desires/feelings of the developers do not matter to me whatsoever. So, if it bothers of offends them that I refer to non-mechanical aspects as 'fluff'... so much the worse for them I suppose.