Richard Crawford's page

94 posts. Alias of Jeff Deaner.


RSS

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I assume th that we won't be seeing official errata until the second printing of the core rulebook.

So if you want it faster, buy more core rulebooks!


Keep in mind that making something Uncommon doesn't actually make our unavailable in PFS2. So the scenario writers still need to take us into account.

The fact that spells like Detect Poison have been nerfed into near-uselessness seems to be more important.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Alzhan wrote:

I think that for a dedicated archer there are a bit more than Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Deadly Aim.

You really need Rapid Shot, Manyshot and Clustered Shot, with the later one being mandatory in high level play, when monster start stacking DR.

Point Blank Master and Improved Precise Shot are really useful too, but i take them only if I have feat to spare.

I'd add to that. Dip a level in Ranger, so you can use a Wand of Gravity Bow, so your arrows do 2d6.
Just be a halforc with an orcish hornbow
Be a half orc with an orchish hornbow, and cast Gravity Bow on yourself. Now you do 3d6!
At that point vital strike can become a reasonable maneuver with a bow too

I would argue that Vital Strike / Manyshot both fall into the "non-mandatory" category. Even Clustered Shot can be mitigated with the right ammunition, most of the time.

I think it boils down to Precise Shot, Rapid Shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To give GMs the tools to tell the stories they want to tell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a business perspective, even if you only get 25% of current players converting, and a similar number of new players, you're likely still getting more sales than you would have if you hadn't released the product.

Both converting and New players are buying the core rulebook.


WormysQueue wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Design principles have always been wishy washy marketspeak.
Not even remotely true.

Oh, which of the stated design goals aren't?

WormysQueue wrote:

And that statement you made about PF 1 succeeding in being better than 3.5? Very questionable as well.The two biggest problems 3.5 had were CM/D and high level/epic gameplay. And contrary to PF 2, PF1 didn't even try and touch those two topics.

But Pathfinder did touch those two topics - many of the more "game-breaking" spells were nerfed (wild shape, Divine Power, Polymorph and their derivatives, Web, the Save-or-die spells, etc). Combined with buffs to the fighting classes and simplifying of feats like Power Attack.

The question of whether they went far enough is still open, of course. But they did make progress.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:

Better designed? Yes, of course. Better game? Don't know yet, need to play/run it first.

Better designed? That's questionable. Design principles have always been wishy washy marketspeak. At least Pathfinder was designed to be "compatible with 3.5, but better. And it succeeded at that. Maybe it didn't go far enough, but it largely succeeded.

Depending how you look at it, you could say that in some ways, PF2 did manage to create a system that is easy for developers and GMs to tell the stories they want to tell, for instance.

A better game? Well, we shall see...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If we take a comparison to Pathfinder, we can see that once you take Exotic Weapon Proficiency, your skills with that weapon are equivalent to any other weapon your class or race is proficient with.

For PF2 to make this worst seems like a step back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In addition, the "native outsider" part where you Dodge all of this "hold person" effects is just icing on the cake.


It is like 3.5e, where the GM is required to look up tables every time they award XP.

On the other hand, it does make it easier for the players to know when they're leveling up - they don't need to refer to a table.


With undead steed, does it mean "undead can command the steed without making a check" and "allies of the steed can command the steed without making a check".

Or does it mean "undead can command the steed without making a check" and "allies of undead can command the steed without making a check".

The phrasing is unclear.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would argue that one of the 4e failures was that the producers blindly expected players of the previous editions to transition.

Paizo's success stems from the fact that they were wrong.


Do we know how many encounters are to be expected in a balanced adventuring day in PF2?

Enterprising homebrewers are keen to know!


Thank you very much for transcribing this.

The content, however, is underwhelming. I thought they were doing away with feat trees.

And the "Devotion" line of fears are either overcosted (if low-level class feats are powerful), or insignificant (if they are not). It seems like nothing more than the option to check a box labelled "mulitclassing".


MaxAstro wrote:
The only situation I could see where countering a spell would be a poor choice is if the party is outnumbered by casters.

Or if the caster who you're trying to counterspell doesn't cast a spell (or moves out of sight before casting), thus wasting the counterer's turn...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point that I was trying to make it that "42000 different characters" is a meaningless metric. I think Malk_Content has proven my point.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

All Jason's statement tells us is that he knows how to perform multiplication.

How many of those choices are meaningful? How many of them have a concrete effect on how the game is played?

If I'm choosing from fifteen different backgrounds, couldn't this be a barrier to playing the character that I want to play?

If we're bringing up "number of distinct choices" as a metric for system flexibility, my int 10 human barbarian has 1'947'792 different ways of allocating skill points alone.

At first level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we're talking about the compatibility with pre-existing content, by dropping compatibility with Pathfinder (and by extension with 3.5), we're losing eighteen years of first-party content. Not to mention all the other third party stuff.

Getting three years of 5e content (which seems to be lighter on the ground than the Pathfinder content produced even in that same period) doesn't seem like a good exchange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
A well-run game doesn't need to break immersion, as PF2 gives the GM all the tools to prevent it.
Whether Paizo wanted it or not, the playtest provided a sample as to how PF2 could work if implemented with the rules that were present in the playtest.

Doomsday Dawn was a test, as Edge93 reminded us. Using this as a predictor of how PF2 adventures will be designed requires assuming that Paizo will ignore their own stated intent. I think we can safely dismiss that hypothesis.

If Doomsday Dawn was a test, one thing it objectively failed at was demonstrating that AP writers could readily come up with justifications as to why a certain skill usage required a particular level-appropriate DC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
The fun lies in researching ways to make your own idea work.
Aww hell nah. I don't have the time to spend going through every book anymore. I do enough research for work, I don't want my hobby to be more of it. Just give me options I can choose with minimal consideration so I can play the dang game rather than paperwork.
Engineering mentality says, I want to be think less so let the system be simple and easy to use. To hell with dumpster diving through ten years worth of trap options and splat books.

You realise that literally anything that isn't an established system will satisfy that requirement?

"Doesn't support Pathfinder mechanics" isn't a glowing statement of support for a system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's very easy to move away from "builds" in Pathfinder. Just move away from them.

The system won't break down if you don't follow what someone has told you to do on the internet.


Disarm is literally broken. With the monster math replaced with "arbitrarily come up with a level appropriate number", there is no way of knowing what modifiers a disarmed opponent has when attacking.


Mary Yamato wrote:
Ultrace wrote:


I would instead ask what are your examples of situations where it is highly detrimental that a person can wear only two rings, one pair of boots, a single necklace, and the like.

Speaking only for myself:

Around when my Council of Thieves party hit 12th level, the GM pointed out that the PCs were struggling badly with regard to AC and saves and I should fix things up.

A different approach you could have taken - and one that I have taken is to explain to the GM that if the PC's numbers are incorrect, the best person to fix it is the GM.

This is why we have GMs.


I started playing D&D when 3.0 was out. When Vancian Casting was presented to me back then, it was different to any other system I'd dealt with. But then I realised that other systems for limiting a mage's spellcasting were harder to track and balance.

I've seen various other attempts to structure magic differently, from point-based psionics, to 'prepared spontaneous' (3.5e Spirit Sharmen/PF Arcanist/5e wizard), to Pool-based (One ring/SP), to Limited Daily Use (4e style). Of these, none seem to offer the balance and reward offered by Vancian.

While the call for Vancian Casting to be removed is loud, I think it's important to consider what it is to be replaced with.

I think that the Requirements for a Replacement would be as follows:
- Allow spells of different levels
- Provide a widely different play experience between a prepared caster and a spontaneous caster.
- Be balanced, between both spontaneous and prepared (and non-caster, but that's more a Class Design requirement).

I have yet to see such a system. Maybe the fact that after the years of PF2 design we are being presented with Vancian Casting indicates that the Designers have also been unable to come up with one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I've been a Paizo fan since the days of the magazines.

Yes, there has been a lot of back & forth with these rules, as they get put thru the ringer.
But since Jason, James, Erik, and the gang play this game in their offices every single day to get it the game they want to play, as well as share with the world... I just have this feeling in the back of my mind that they are not going to put out crap.

Amazing, creative people can have a great time, play a great game, and tell a great story regardless of the system they're playing it under.

A great system makes it easier for people who aren't amazing, creative people to do the same.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

As I see it, it won't really come up. By the time +1/level becomes really significant (level 4 or so), almost all things that people are going to actually roll on will be at least trained.

Perception, attack rolls, and AC are all automatically trained - it doesn't matter that a wizard gets a -15 to AC when wearing armour because she will never be wearing armour.

I find it interesting that whenever someone points out the weaknesses in the mathematics of Pathfinder - and the Playtest - they bring up skill modifiers. When what is at stake with an unreasonably high modifier is typically not particularly impactful in the big picture.

At least compared to combat modifiers of save DCs, attacks and AC. Which all appear to be always at least trained.

Effectively all this change achieves is aggressively trained-proficiency-gates all skill uses vs scaling DCs.


It punishes players who use their class abilities - which are powered by the same resource that is used to avoid dying once unconscious.

Not a particularly intuitive system. And a great way to kill new players' characters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

I'd just like to offer some perspective here. Understanding that the #1 goal of PF2 is "be a new system", what you describe sort of had to happen. As in, when the new healing system was thought flawed, they had to try another new healing rule. Then another new healing rule. New, new, new. Folks didn't like resonance? Here's a new version of it, try that.

My issue is that when writing these systems for testing (healing, dying, resonance etc), it wasn't clear what the designers wanted to achieve with it.

They made complaints (clw spam, "big six", "mandatory items", item slots, overuse of low-level consumables) but they didn't state what they wanted to achieve.

For example, rather than saying "clw spam is a problem", they should say "for out of combat healing, we expect PCs to be spending about X% of wbl." Then design a healing system around that.

But so far, the only "design goals" that have been posted are really wishy-washy and the myriad subsystems they've published - while they might well be good ideas - show a lack of cohesion.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It is almost always a mistake to try to solve people problems with game mechanics.

I would argue that a lot of PF2 mechanics are an attempt to solve people problems.


Edge93 wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:


4e has an extensive series of specific DCs in addition to DMG page 42.

It didn't stop the aforementioned table being abused.

And that goes right back to my initial point. You really can't make the rule much clearer than that, it's really a people problem at that point.

If people are going to be THAT insistent on ignoring the clear guidelines then it's not like REMOVING table 10-2 will have them suddenly setting lower DCs. They will probably be trying to set level-appropriate DCs just as surely if they don't have 10-2, the only difference is their guesses might be less accurate.

It's not a matter of an unclear or bad rule, it's people by and large choosing to play in a style that involves ignoring it.

A rule that is habitually ignored is by no means a good rule.

And a rule that's commonly abused is not a good addition to the game. Just look at Blood Money.

Isn't that a thing that was made to be campaign-specific?

Yes, yet when you read these very boards, there are numerous claims that its campaign specificity is routinely ignored, resulting in abuse.

Shouldn't we aim to not print rules that are commonly abused - regardless of which side of the screen they typically apply?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:


4e has an extensive series of specific DCs in addition to DMG page 42.

It didn't stop the aforementioned table being abused.

And that goes right back to my initial point. You really can't make the rule much clearer than that, it's really a people problem at that point.

If people are going to be THAT insistent on ignoring the clear guidelines then it's not like REMOVING table 10-2 will have them suddenly setting lower DCs. They will probably be trying to set level-appropriate DCs just as surely if they don't have 10-2, the only difference is their guesses might be less accurate.

It's not a matter of an unclear or bad rule, it's people by and large choosing to play in a style that involves ignoring it.

A rule that is habitually ignored is by no means a good rule.

And a rule that's commonly abused is not a good addition to the game. Just look at Blood Money.


Edge93 wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:

Rather than attacking the OP on the kind of character he wants to play, it's better to ensure that the options are available.

I think most of us would rather not play a game that gave the option to play a d*** character without other people's knowledge OUT of character without requiring approval from the GM. That's the kind of character the OP wants to play, and that's what people are telling off about. XP

Also some comment have indicated they might want to be able to do it without the GM's knowledge too but I might be misreading that.

Exhibit A. Page 30 of the Playtest rulebook.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
I honestly just think that you should be happy that some of these options are even available in PF2.

I think you're missing the point. Maybe the OP's example of a wizard wielding a greataxe was a little extreme, but an ability that is only available at a high level is in some ways worse than that ability not existing at all. At least if it doesn't exist, it can be added in a later splatbook or be achieved by a player's creativity.

If a player wants Blind Fight, its very existance as a tenth level feat precludes its use for at least half the game.


Raylyeh wrote:

I can break this down into 3 things.

1. Others have stated this but I will reiterate. Just because the playtest doesn’t delve into the rules for creating undead doesn’t mean it won’t be there for the final product. The necromancer is a staple of the genre and has existed in all previous forms of the D&D/PF game and it won’t go away. They just didn’t feel that it was relevant for testing the system at this point. I would be surprised if it wasn’t in core when released. At worst it will be in the bestiary or something later.

Comparing the Playtest with the 2008 Pathfinder Beta, this genre was possible, with either a base cleric or base wizard (also achievable with Sorcerer).

A core-to-core comparison should be valid - saying that it might be in a future book is admitting that the product as released is an incomplete product.

Removing core options on the surface, makes it harder to tell the same stories using the new system.

Rather than attacking the OP on the kind of character he wants to play, it's better to ensure that the options are available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

While I have never played 4E, many people are saying that such a rule was largely misinterpreted, so I believe that something should be done in this regard.

Instead of scrapping an otherwise good tool, I would add a nice, comprehensive list of static DCs for most skills. Even if it only covers the lower levels (so that every group is free to decide what higher levels characters can really accomplish), it would be helpful in many ways.
First, it's a clear example that shows how the 10-2 should be used, and how it should not: even if I misunderstand the intent of the table, reading the specific DCs page would probably make me reconsider my interpretation of the rule.
Second, it gives GMs a pattern to design their own challenges for a given level of difficulty: what should that wall look like, if I want my level 8 group have some trouble climbing it?
Third, it can set a consistent standard for adventure design: if a moss-covered rock is level 1 hard in one adventure, it shouldn't be level 7 in another unless the moss is exceptionally slippery (and knowing that, I can think of a reason why it is, and keep the consistency).

4e has an extensive series of specific DCs in addition to DMG page 42.

It didn't stop the aforementioned table being abused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
in◆⃟ wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So one of the best things about PF2 is that the proficiency system works the same for things like "saves" and "armor class" and "attacks with weapons" as it does for skills.

It would be a shame to break this in the interest of changing how skills work, and giving a fighter a massive advantage in "to hit" compared to everyone else, and giving Paladins a huge advantage in AC would be worse than the current issues with skills.

Also, nothing wrong with monks having a high AC, some of the highest AC characters I saw in PF1 were monks.

Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity?

It is for predictable mathematics.

In PF1 the main line of advancement is simple: fighters, barbarians, and rangers get +1 BAB every level, bards, clerics, and maguses get +1 to BAB every 3/4 levels, and sorcerers and wizards get +1 to BAB every 1/2 level. But really, everyone needs to hit the same monsters (assuming blaster wizards that use ranged touch attacks). The full BAB character use their BAB, the 3/4 BAB characters use their BAB plus some trick to boost their BAB close to full BAB, and the 1/2 BAB characters target touch AC instead of regular AC. However, when a full BAB character borrows the 3/4 BAB tricks or a 3/4 BAB character targets touch AC, the expected rate of hitting falls out of balance. The higher the level, the more powerful the tricks that a character can buy or borrow. The rogue and monk suffered because they had 3/4 BAB but limited low-level tricks to help them hit.

I couldn't agree more. But the solution that worked for 3.5e was not to print these options. And it worked pretty well.

The fact that the APG released the alchemist (3/4 BAB that targets touch), followed by the Gunslinger (full BAB that targets touch) illustrates a possible lack of understanding on the part of the developers early this decade.

These options weren't in core, and is how that if it was redone, it wouldn't happen again.


Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm actually into the idea. I've pitched replacing "item bonuses" with "skill bonuses." A cumulative +1 you get every time you take a skill feat for a skill. But I guess there's no reason why proficiency and skill feats need to be separate at that point?

However, it does make skills no longer run on the same engine as most other things, which might not be the best.

Haven't you just reinvented skill points, with a different name?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:


To be fair, you are forgetting all the proficiency and skill feat gating. The GM should be constantly dropping "you cant do that level of insert untrained skill here" on the PCs unless they have the prof and feats.

As a GM, the last thing I want to be required to do is tell players, "you can never achieve that". Blanket denials rob players' ability to creatively overcome challenges.


MaxAstro wrote:


Premise 2) Someone who optimizes for defense should be almost as good at defense as someone who optimizes for offense. The "almost" is because missing is less fun.

Is this really a good idea?

There are actual issues with defences being too high - especially defences that negate effects (which definitely includes 'high AC').

It slows combat down. It causes frustration to the other side (GM or player). In extreme cases it results in fishing for natural 20s.

Luckily, a pool of HP should also be considered a defence, which might be a mitigating factor...


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I think it's funny that people claim the OP is wrong when there is a quote from Jason Bulmahn himself that essentially agrees with his conclusion. GMs having better tools to work with helps them tell better stories, which was one of the goals of the playtest, I might add.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, but the factor that most everyone whom posted being in disagreement of the OP (and by relation, Jason Bulmahn himself) simply because the players aren't expressly mentioned as having an impact on how the story is told or unfolded, is baffling, and also disingenuous.

I don't think people are claiming they I'm wrong. There are claims that they don't like it.

And there are claims that it's fine. Both of which are completely legitimate.

But assessing the system against its design goals requires understanding the design goals.


What is inherently wrong about low level items remaining relevant as levels increase?

In Pathfinder, Antitoxin is useful at basically all levels.

In the real world, a bottle of water is equally useful as income and wealth increases.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A few months ago, Jason Bulmahn posted the design goals for PF2. In particular, the second one:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.

The question that arose here was, "who is 'us'?" Paizo (in selling adventure paths)? A GM, running a homebrew? Five people from diverse backgrounds, sitting at a table?

While I had some theories, I wanted to ask about it, but was unable to properly phrase my question.

Last Tuesday, I read an interesting post from Jason Bulmahn:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


The goal of this new edition of the game is create a version of Pathfinder that is easier for people to learn, while still giving the depth of character option and customization that we are known for, while also giving GMs better tools to tell the stories they want to tell.

(emphasis added)

It finally snapped and I now understand the design goals as stated.

PF2 wants to allow characters to be customisable, but wants GMs to be able to tell the stories they want to tell.

Say as a GM, I wanted to run an investigation of a murder by poisoning. In Pathfinder, the access to the detect poison cantrip might make this problematic. But lo! PF2 has provided me the tool to say "detect poison is uncommon, you can't learn it" (and even if you could, it's a first level spell).

The decoupling of monsters from being bound by PC rules makes it very easy for a GM to tell their story. A Razmiran calamity can easily be explained as "he's an NPC", while also preventing a high level PC from attempting to replicate his success.

Should a magic barrier exist, a GM can easily prevent it being solved by making it a few levels higher so that the counteract rules prevent the PCs from dispelling it. In Exploration Mode, a GM no longer needs to worry about the druid spending all their time in Wild Shape.

By level-restricting items, the risk of the odd high-level consumable interfering with the story - at least at character creation - has been eliminated.

Players should still have options. It's important from a financial standpoint for the company, and it's an important checkbox to maintain the "feel of Pathfinder". We'll give characters a massive amount of options, as long as it doesn't affect the story the GM wants to tell.

Because after all, it's the GM who's telling the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
I find peoples hatred of 10-2 so weird, and while I do agree the world shouldn't automatically scale with you, so does Paizo. It's clearly stated in the rules that the world doesn't arbitrarily scale, so all 10-2 really is, is a helpful tool. I do however want Paizo to make a more...

Although it's "clearly stated in the rules", both Doomsday Dawn and abilities like Lingering Performance clearly have DCs that directly use that scale.


Ediwir wrote:


Edge93 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Item level does not affect purchasing. This isn’t Starfinder.

However, item price is fairly closely related to level, and the low-level PCs would likely not have the money to burn on True Healing Potions until they are about the right level.

I am thinking a few thoughts on this. More on item level and DCs later.

If item price is so closely tied to level (and price is much more easily justifiable in-game), what is the point of levels for items in the first place?
Because players can pool money together?
Indeed. My Chapter 2 DD party pooled to by the Barbarian a +1 Greataxe, which matched their level. If they really tried they could have gone above. In Part 3, one of my players had enough gold to buy a scroll of higher level than him and did so without telling me, leaving me to metaphorically smack him upside the head and swap it for level-apporpriate substitutes when he tried to pull it out in battle because he didn't know "Or didn't want to know XP_ that you aren't supposed to have access to higher level items.
There is no such restriction. He was perfectly capable to buy that scroll and you made a mistake in removing it :)

So it doesn't provide a restriction more than any sort of gp pricing does, and causes unnecessary confusion. Why does the subsystem exist?


Edge93 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Item level does not affect purchasing. This isn’t Starfinder.

However, item price is fairly closely related to level, and the low-level PCs would likely not have the money to burn on True Healing Potions until they are about the right level.

I am thinking a few thoughts on this. More on item level and DCs later.

If item price is so closely tied to level (and price is much more easily justifiable in-game), what is the point of levels for items in the first place?
Because players can pool money together?
Indeed. My Chapter 2 DD party pooled to by the Barbarian a +1 Greataxe, which matched their level. If they really tried they could have gone above. In Part 3, one of my players had enough gold to buy a scroll of higher level than him and did so without telling me, leaving me to metaphorically smack him upside the head and swap it for level-apporpriate substitutes when he tried to pull it out in battle because he didn't know "Or didn't want to know XP_ that you aren't supposed to have access to higher level items.

One of the best PFS games I ran was solved by the players coming up with a really well thought-out plan and executing it with the help of a hired casting of veil (in tier 5-9). Removing player agency in this regards is not a good thing for an RPG.


Ediwir wrote:

Item level does not affect purchasing. This isn’t Starfinder.

However, item price is fairly closely related to level, and the low-level PCs would likely not have the money to burn on True Healing Potions until they are about the right level.

I am thinking a few thoughts on this. More on item level and DCs later.

If item price is so closely tied to level (and price is much more easily justifiable in-game), what is the point of levels for items in the first place?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
So, if there were no +1/level, what is the alternative? Have the same to-hit at level 15 as you have at level 2? I'm not really sure what the point of this entire post is, honestly.

The OP has illustrated a problem. He likely hasn't spent three and a half years working on a system to be able to supply a workable solution.

It's a hard problem - and one that will frame Pathfinder 2 for the life of the system.

Math of an RPG is hard. It's also hard to house-rule around.

With Essentials, WotC tried to rework the math of D&D 4e. By that time, the interest in 4e had plummeted. Even with the brand recognition, they didn't have much of a second chance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:


I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.

If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.

Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow. There's a lot of association of "people who don't like the direction" with powergamers. It's easy to dismiss opposing views in this manner.

I think that classes in general should scale differently. It promotes diversity, highlights differences between classes, and incentivises characters to play to their strengths. And the diversity should increase as levels increase.

Designing such a system, while maintaining balance, is possible, but difficult. Designing for such a system is difficult too. But I think that it is worth the effort.

But I understand the temptation to take the easy way out and use uniform scaling across the board. But I don't like it.


MerlinCross wrote:

Didn't the Settlement rules come later in PF1's life first off? Like it wasn't at launch and maybe to this day, hard baked into the system. So many people just didn't use the settlement rules and probably just skip over them.

These settlement rules existed in a similar form in the D&D3.0 DMG. Paizo has used them since at least 2007 (Rise of the Runelords book 2)

MerlinCross wrote:

So it might be limited by "RAW" but no one actually used RAW and came up with their own systems. And the most common one was "Magic Walmart". People didn't want to roll for items or didn't want to set up their own shops(Or use the settlement rules later). Or put any kind of hard limit on shops. So you have events where people walk in and walk out with 50 CLW wands, dozens of potions, and some magic gear. All from a little dime store on the corner.

I don't see PF2 actually fixing that part of the game. I've ranted on Rarity as being a problem but I've also complained that "How many people will use it". I don't expect as many as Paizo seems to think.

This really depends. It's likely that if PFS2 has that restriction, it will at least matter there.

But from what we've seen of PF2, magic items are at least required for the system to function: and there is therefore an assumption that they will be available.

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>