Golden Goblin Statue

Ruzza's page

Organized Play Member. 1,406 posts (1,407 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 13 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who makes a lot of NPC stat blocks (and made a ton more in PF1), building out an NPC like a monster is so very much more freeing. Like...

moosher12 wrote:
But there is a weird niche use that's in between, where I might want to make a loyal NPC companion, say a traveling chef that levels up with the party, perhaps a few levels behind, or even a few levels ahead.

This is just an NPC that I stat out like a monster. I can even have some fun with it and give them an ability like "[Reaction] I've Eaten You Before! Trigger: An ally within 30 feet uses a Recall Knowledge check on an animal you have cooked with. Effect: Roll Cooking Lore to Aid the check."

Like, I can't remember the last time I've built an NPC using PC rules because I have never, ever needed the multitude of options that a PC has on an NPC. To make an NPC stand out, I've only ever needed one or two abilities to sell their personality along with a handful of skills. This is something that's already handled beautifully in the system. I can't really imagine there would be dedicated page space for "a class that PCs should not use" because that's fairly antithetical to how PF2 has been designed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wrote a few too many words about some of my experiences in the past and a rough outline of how this could take shape. I have the doc set so that anyone can comment, and would love to see more ideas!

(Also I wrote this hours ago and I think it's funny that both you and I considered Irrisen having a problem with nobility).

LINK


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I suppose I personally don't like the "Look I've built this NPC using the same rules as all of you!" especially in the case of Lady Aldori. My players don't want their limited play time spent watching me show off by having my NPCs fight other NPCs. I describe the action, but keep the spotlight on my players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So after talking about effective characters for far longer than is actually necessary, I thought it'd be fun to hear what sort of "terrible, awful, no good" builds that we've got out there. You don't necessarily have to have played these characters, but it would be nice if you could tell us a bit about how they work so we get an idea.

To get the ball rolling, I've pretty much always been a wizard fan and have played around with so many numerous wizards at this point that I have practically abandoned any reasonable way to approach the class, so here is my "muscle wizard."

Ancestry: Hold-Scarred Orc

We're going to want hit points and that Diehard feat. Part of this build is going down, but not staying down. We can grab up ancestry feats like Orc Ferocity, Defy Death, and Undying Ferocity to just stay in the fight as well as survive when our terrible plan goes sideways.

Class: Wizard

I really like the wizard when viewing them as a massive toolbox of tricks. Since the release of the game, one of my favorite tricks has always been Jump and plenty of ways to hamper enemy movement. Especially if they're lacking spell saves! Because...

We're not really using our Intelligence.

We're grabbing up Strength to 16, maxing out that Athletics at every turn and dumping Intelligence to the wayside. Who needs opponents to fail saves? We're just going to use spells that work regardless! This means throwing up walls, creating difficult terrain, and buffing ourselves (or even those smaller, less-strong people that sometimes join us for adventures).

We go with Staff Nexus so that we can churn those higher level spell slots into batteries for our "jump stick" (or, I suppose you can consider it a staff overflowing with charges used for jumping around). We grab up the Mauler Dedication so that we can eventually get Slam Down so that we have an option to heroically jump into battle and knock an enemy prone to protect our incredibly squishy armor-covered champion. Until level 4, of course, we can just keep a hand free so that we can play around with all sorts of little Athletic shenanigans as we utilize our mobility to outfox our opponents.

Generally, this is a character that works best with a group that wants someone to control the battlefield, but may need that bit of magical assistance as well. Being able to change the rules to the encounter and then break those very rules the next is really quite fun and - with the right group - can actually trivialize certain opponents.

Just make sure to keep an extra trick or two up your sleeves to deal with flyers (or as we call them - cheaters).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RPG-Geek wrote:
I think it's a test that could be run, in theory, but realistically it's not something worth the effort to test. The best use of this idea would be to think of the toughest tables and GMs you've experienced and ask yourself if your build would thrive in that environment. In practical terms this means that different players will find different things viable as a PFS only player will have a very different experience than a player who plays hard APs with a killer GM.

So like I said, it really just means it's not something that I can see as measurable. "Can this character survive a killer GM?" I mean, the answer is always going to be yes and no. I've killed optimized characters and have survived killer GMs. I've also had games where there was never going to be a chance - with a GM handing unwitting players cursed items to start and stranding them in a land where no one speaks the same language. We're veering into the realm of "video game simulationism" where we are trying to measure an incredibly subjective game. Even with the most objective boundaries, there are such an abundance of variables that it becomes untenable.

RPG-Geek wrote:
As for what I'd find "unplayable" that would be anything with AC or saves more than two points below max, that is the same threshold behind on attacks or saving throws, or a build that does the same thing as another build but worse. This means that I'd be unlikely to play a Wizard, Oracle, Investigator, Alchemist, Swashbuckler, Gunslinger, or Inventor as I don't see their flavor upside or mechanical texture as doing enough to offset bring worse than other classes the broadly fill their sane niche.

This to me was more interesting because it skews away from "feasible" to "optimal," but it sounds like - to you - unoptimized play is unplayable. I mean, we all have class preferences (I don't really vibe with the class fantasy of inventor, personally), but calling them personally unplayable for mechanical reasons is sort of the thing that I was bringing up earlier.

Having set requirements for a character ends up feeling very limiting. It's not a problem on a personal level, but it's disheartening to see happen at a community level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, a definition like that gets really weird then, right? We have to figure out what the "least favorable AP by class" would be while ruling out home games. And then it varies on a GM by GM basis. It also means that characters who ARE considered optimal shouldn't be failing this test as well. Then we have a variable of what their party is doing and... like, I see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't click for me as something you can just measure and judge.

Obviously things like "a merfolk barbarian in Strength of Thousands" wouldn't exactly be feasible in that setting, but even then the game allows for such characters to work and be effective. What do you see as a character that isn't feasible?

EDIT: Follow up question, do you see there being a build that you just wouldn't allow at your tables because it underperforms? I mean this as a player or a GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryangwy wrote:
The issue is that your definition is so broad that short of games that let you literally cripple or kill your character in chargen, you could say anything is 'feasible' so long as it's buildable.

You may be misunderstanding me - while I do think it's truly difficult to make an unplayable build in PF2, you certainly could in the 3.X/PF1 days even if it was a solid idea. Dumb ideas like "a character with a 1 level dip in everything" were unplayable. Characters built to grab up grab up "social prestige classes" couldn't function outside of specific campaigns. I mean, there's even the debate of a pure martial being playable in PF1 if you have even a halfway decent spellcaster negating your existence (not something I agree with necessarily).

I say that to illustrate where I am coming from. If I have a concept, it's most likely going to work in PF2. Will it be optimal? Probably not. Will it be feasible? Probably!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So your qualifier for "feasible build" involves player skill and expectation. To put it more succinctly, your definition of "feasible" looks like:

"A build that works without requiring a higher level of knowledge of the game's systems."

I don't think that's a bad definition, especially if you want to involve a more nebulous sort of measurement like "player skill." But I do wonder if it rules out entire classes like the wizard or alchemist.

I also don't know that we've explored "not feasible" within this thread as the OP has created five categories (which have mostly gotten ignored, if we're being honest): Optimal, High Performing, Feasible, Low Performing, and Unplayable. Going by the inclusion of player skill into the equation, it seems like what you woul see as "not feasible" would be a build that can work with a deeper understanding of the game.

We may just never agree on these things as my definition removes the actual player understanding of the rules. What you call a "not feasible build" could be "feasible" to me because the math and rules of the game allow it to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean the thing is "an Intelligence-based barbarian who does Recall Knowledge checks" is not an unplayable build. It's not optimal, but I would call it feasible. It can be done amd a player who wants that can have a lot of fun. A barbarian who wants to be the best at Recall Knowledge may have to adjust their expectations away from "optimal" to "feasible."

A player who is making these choices with no goal or intention is a separate problem from the build. I don't know what you'd want to talk about. We can just lambast players for not reading the rules, but is that really fruitful? What do you want this line of thinking to move into?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And while you reiterate that you're saying that statline ensures a feasible character 90% of the time, I'd like to reiterate that I disagree in that it seems, to me, to be an overstatement. I also have not said that I would ever change a game to accommodate a lower performing character, though I have often on these forums encouraged GMs to adapt their games to help their player concepts shine (like providing Linguists a chance to Decipher and translate or characters heavily-invested in Survival to handle environmental Hazards and track enemies).

I've already given my definition of "feasible" to be a character who accomplishes what they set out to do. The scenario you've given doesn't fall into that - a player with no goal or idea. I see two situations in which a player like this would arrive at my table:

1) This is a player in a home game, in which case, their character concept would come out in session 0 and we can work together to guide that closer to what they want.

2) This is a player who has shown up to a PFS game and I could provide advice as to getting their concept closer to what they want after the game and then talk about how that can function within the Organized Play rules.

But I keep going back to saying that we should stop using clueless players who are scattershotting ability scores without any reference. The game as a whole assumes that the players know the rules and if we aren't assuming that either than we're just creating effigies to mock. If a wizard player dumps Int in favor of Cha, why would we assume they don't know what they're doing? Knowing nothing other than their choices, the idea that "they are wrong" comes from this idea that characters have to fit certain criteria to be "feasible" and rejects the idea that a player has made these choices with intent.

It just keeps looping back to "Sure, it could be feasible, but I know a better (optimal) way to play because of these criteria."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the rules for Non-Combat Level as a point of reference, but I feel like it doesn't really paint the picture too well without more concrete examples.

It really boils down to "NPCs and PCs have different roles in both the story and gameplay," and trying to move one into the realm of the other is something that has already been done or the system really won't support.

Like a PC who wants to "take NPC levels" (i.e. improving on non-adventuring skills) already has those options through skill feats, archetypes, various Lores, and even just good ol' roleplaying. They can improve on these skills to become amazing at them, too, and they should very likely come into play in the game. It would be rather unfortunate to play as a master Linguist only to never use the ability, but that's a bit on the GM to accommodate.

Likewise, an NPC who wants to be statted out like a PC can be done, but they'll run into the artificial game limitations that PCs run into that keep the game balanced. This means that to have a legendary smith, that NPC should be at least level 15, which makes for very odd verisimilitude when trying to justify why these incredibly powerful NPCs are just doing small forms of labor around the world. So the rules allow for NPCs to act as they are intended to in a game setting - challenges or allies with their own level appropriate skills that are measured apart from the trappings of player-choices.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole conversation loops back around to why I find the "you require X, Y, and Z to be feasible" to be uninteresting. It shuts down character concepts before they can even begin. That's not to say that others can't play that way, but when it becomes holy writ it's frustrating.

A witch with the Dandy archetype and a high Charisma is a fully-functional and feasible character. It's not even on some low scale of "can't do anything it sets out to do." But because that CON/DEX/WIS lags, it's called a liability because "the math is so tight," which is an accurate statement, but is not the whole picture.

These little catechisms get circulated around the community until it goes from "Yeah, you might take a bit more damage from a nasty save," to "This character cannot function because they will be dead." It negates player agency and choice and also makes a game that we love look like a pile of incredibly difficult math. As someone who regularly gets new players into games, the reputation that Pathfinder is one wrong number away from impossible is frustrating to have to surmount, especially when it leads to confirmation bias after poor play or poor luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Witch of Miracles wrote:
To me, this is just saying "you should be happy with having to invest way more to match a different character that isn't investing nearly as much, and you only match them before they bump their proficiency."

Before this gets lost in the weeds, the concept isn't "the best at Deception," it's "a witch who is the best at Deception." If a player tells me they want to play a witch who is really good at Deception, I would assume they would want the witch part of their concept more than "incredibly deceptive."

And you are potentially comparing against a character who isn't there. Like, if you have two people in the party angling to be the face character and one happens to be a Charisma-based class, well, yeah - maybe there should be a discussion at the table. But a player who wants to play a witch and sees a role needing to be filled ("Wait, we don't have anyone with Deception? Yeah, I can play in that space.") doesn't mean that they aren't feasible or that they should play something else to fill some optimized criteria.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, these sort of exist already in that they are firmly in the realm of the GM. We don't stat out NPCs like this, instead giving them levels and the occasional skill that exist to help ground their role in the story. This means that the old days of "level 15 expert" are gone to be replaced with "Greg, innkeeper 15; Society +28, Local Town Lore +28."

I mean, the thing is, PF2 has moved away from "dipping into talent" - there isn't anything like grabbing a level or two of something (not that it anyone dipped NPC classes in PF1 or 3.5, to the best of my knowledge). It just doesn't mesh with the system. You'd be proposing a class that exists only on the player side that specifically acts as an NPC, which function on different rules. Instead, however, we have skill boosts to explain PC growth in skilled areas as well as dedications like "Wandering Chef," "Dandy," or "Linguist."

I'm just not sure what NPC classes would bring to the table that wouldn't be able to be replicated by just an actual PC or a dedication, all the while fitting into the gameplay of PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like you're linking "intent" and "optimal play."

A witch who intends to be very good at Deception will be, at most, a single point behind a sorcerer who wants to be THE BEST at Deception. That's feasible. Not optimal.

A witch who intends to be THE BEST at Deception will be hampered only by their singular class ability boost missing, but can still be THE BEST within their group. A feasible concept.

Now, take that and expand it out and you are saying "I am willing to take the hit to a saving throw/the expense of other skills to achieve this." Feasible as a character, not optimal when viewed as a whole (if you see optimal builds are requiring maxed saving throws at every point).

A player who intends to make a character in such a way is assumed to understand the cost. Otherwise, we aren't talking about feasible characters, but players who don't understand the game.

I mentioned new players only as a reference point to the reputation that we as a community have grown around our game. "Pathfinder is a game of optimal numbers," which it isn't. "Pathfinder is a game of illusory choices," which it isn't. "Pathfinder is too difficult because of the knowledge needed to make a feasible character," which it isn't. It's disheartening to see the same things tossed out in a thread specifically talking about the difference between "optimal" and "feasible."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I stress, we have to assume that players making characters understand the rules to the game they are playing. A spellcaster without spellcasting ability is not built to cast spells and I wouldn't assume that's their goal. If they state "I want to be great at spells and at melee," then you can say, you will have to make concessions.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryangwy wrote:
You can sus out 90% of feasible characters by just looking for a few key points:

See, I think I just disagree with this fundamentally - asking that players build in specific ways to be "feasible." This leaves us with a "Con, Dex, Wis, and KAS" cookie cutter that gets brought out at character creation and leaves little wiggle room for player input. It feels like a starting from mechanics and working backwards to a concept which clashes with what so many people come to the hobby for.

I run PFS and am a big advocate for PF2 and when I get new players (especially players coming from another popular game), then tend to say "I have been told that PF2 is very restrictive and I have to do X, Y, and Z." While this is good advice (keeping an eye on your defenses, having a plan for your actions, etc) it's an unnecessary barrier when the game functions just fine without checking these boxes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

These boards will also offer up a variety of answers that run the gamut based on their preferred playstyles. Like pH unbalanced I like to look at lesser-used builds or "weak" options and work them into full characters that utilize them to the best of their ability.

But there is a not insignificant portion of the forums that are looking to get the most out of every number and option, which certainly isn't a bad way to play! The language of "optimal/feasible/unplayable" should help to differentiate the goals of play here. Someone wanting a character that fits their concept (using the melee witch as an example) is likely not looking for "optimal" but rather "feasible." As we saw in the thread, it's certainly a feasible idea, even if they won't be "top of the game."

I would be hard pressed to find anything unplayable, even purposefully. I had a player show up to his first game of PF2 and did the opposite of everything I recommended for his first game. He made a catfolk wizard with the summoner dedication and leaned heavily into the fey spellcasting aspect of the eidolon while aiming to be a melee powerhouse with a scythe. His only spells prepared boiled down to Create Water and Shocking Grasp (which was snubbed in favor of Striking). It was a wildly underperforming character, but the player showed up to every session and all of the players had a great time.

Like, at the core of it, that's what so much of character builds come down to: will I have fun playing this with other people? If I derive joy from doing "the most" across the board, then I would lean towards optimized characters. But I feel like feasible and fun often gets forgotten when we talk about play.

EDIT: To add, that catfolk wizard played in an Abomination Vaults game and didn't even manage to die! There's another meta layer there of "difficulty decided by community" being altered between personal experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I had a player using a "muscle witch," in the Premaster days in a game of The Slithering. It was wildly successful, though it may not be the exact sort of witch you're looking for. I don't have their build on hand, but they were an orc Curse witch who stayed just behind the champion swinging a meteor hammer and generally using a combination of Evil Eye, occult buffs, trips, and Cackles for action economy. It was amazingly devastating, but the champion on the team did also pick up Attack of Opportunity which made for nasty set 'em up, knock 'em down combos.

It seems that you're looking more for the brute force of damage dealing, which is not something I have experience with. I'm sure it could be done, but don't neglect the rest of your toolkit!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also chiming in with Staff Nexus is amazing (it's my go to for DPR wizards), but wanted to give feedback on the proposed homebrew thesis.

Magic Flow is insane. Putting aside the nitpick of "Spell DCs" as opposed to all DCs, you'd be giving wizards a MASSIVE swing in accuracy in a system that already accounts for that not being there. For the cost of two actions, you're bumping up your DCs by a whole proficiency by level 5 and going beyond some wild super mega legendary by level 20. To put it in perspective - this would be outclassing not just other spellcasting accuracy and reliability, but fighter accuracy with their one chosen weapon. This would be amazing reliability with (nearly) every spell.

At that point it goes from "an Arcane Thesis option" to "absolutely mandatory." That's not even getting into a save-less debuff that practically neuters any spellcaster. At two actions, it just feels like an unfun action tax, too. Like, it's powerful so it can't really be a free action or even one action, but to lose practically your whole turn at the start of every combat (because you will be using this in every combat) is just not a fun mechanic. Now, I personally oppose a Theory that is just "numbers but more," but there's a joke that my group has about Wizard Discourse.

"Everyone would swoon over the wizard if one Theory was just +1 to spell attack rolls and spell DCs."

Which, I mean, they would. It wouldn't be as engaging as the other theories, but people would get what they want - the wizard does spells, but HARDER. While Theories certainly help to differentiate wizard playstyles, they also give them interesting decision points that influence how a player uses that character. A staff nexus wizard may mix things up more with Sure Strike attack spells while spell blending wizards may go all in on ending fights as fast as possible with massive high level magic - they still have to choose what spells work best, how that playstyle feels to them, and what purpose they have for going that route. "Numbers but more" doesn't really have those decision points, it just "is bigger" which works for aby playstyle, which tends to leave the other Theories feeling... Lesser.

Now, if you love this idea, I would rework it - remove the upward scaling as that gets out of control immediately. I would even go so far as to remove the attack and DC buff. Instead think about what you want the goal to be. Want to dampen magic? Allow their spellcasting to bump saves vs magic. Want more accurate spells? Have their spellcasting inflict conditions (Reflex save spells add clumsy, Fort add drained, Will adds stupefied; needs work as those conditions are hardly equal). Want more damage? Limit how the wizard can add damage so they need to think of how to get there. It's a lot trickier to do, but you'll end up with a more satisfying and interesting result.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Would this be better served in Homebrew where it won't turn into yet another thread on wizard hate?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just curious, as this is a more ambitious homebrew project than you may be envisioning - what about PF2 do you want to keep so badly that you would prefer to run this system over another?

It really sounds to me that what you're looking for is already covered much better in other systems whereas tinkering with some decidedly tight math can be an undertaking that may not get you the result you want (or leave a GM having to fudge a lot more tableside).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have done something similar in the past, but not to this extent. I ran a level 0 game with the goal of making the world feel big and dangerous before the players advanced to level 1 and began to play "Pathfinder proper."

The thing is... it isn't fun? Like, I should say, there's an extra burden on the GM of not outright murdering the party with even a slightly too powerful encounter as well as still providing meaningful challenges that are interesting to interact with. After getting a walloping by a raven, my party - in the very least - felt quite demoralized, moreso when they lacked any of the tools to really interact with the fight beyond "Ready an action for one it comes close and really hope to hit."

Now, I would say there is room to make a homebrew system for it, but you would be better served, I feel, making an adventure that suits this style of play better. "Children slipping their bonds to rescue the adventurers," "Awakened animals navigating the dangers of the first time," or even "Freshly risen undead coming to terms with their existence." Presenting it as just low fantasy makes me feel like there's just not enough reason to justify doing all of that (unless, of course, you have a group that's greatly interested in the concept).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Along the same lines, there are plenty of trans characters throughout Paizo Adventures and APs, such as Anevia Tirablade from Wrath of the Righteous, Selozè from Strength of Thousands, and Il’setsya Wyrmtouched from Agents of Edgewatch.

I'm certain there are many, many more, but that's just a few quick ones that I remember.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really love encounter design in Pathfinder 2e and could spend a lot of time talking about it. Unfortunately, I don't have that time at the moment! Rather than dotting the thread and coming back later, though, I did write a whole lot about adventure design (for low-levels) and that includes some encounter design talk - with more coming soon in the same vein!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Local PFS enjoyer here. Playing scenarios this way is a fantastic way to cobble together your own non-AP story and something I do to introduce players to the game (as scenarios tend to be a bit more rigid, letting me as a GM step out from behind the screen to explain options a bit more openly). I also think that if you want to string together several scenarios, it's quite easy to assemble a coherent story.

The first resource that I can point you towards is the very obvious Metaplot tag that you'll see many scenarios carry. This mean that they're a part of an overarching story for that season. Season 1 gives us Origins of the Open Road, Season 2 has the Reach of Corruption, Season 3 has Shattered Sanctuaries plot, etc.

There are also many scenarios which reference previous scenarios and lead into each other, though sometimes the expected levels make it a little tricky. A good example of this would be "Freedom For Wishes" a level 5 to 8 scenarior from Season 2, helps set up the events of "Foundation's Price" which is a level 1 to 4 scenario from Season 3. With a bit of careful planning, however, you can make something that weaves together very neatly!

My personal recommendation has been focused on Season 3 metaplot and sprinkling in intreresting subplots. Things like the Dacilane Academy adventures create a throughline that feel whimsical breaks while grappling with the troubles of the metaplot, while sidetracking to explore characters introduced in the metaplot keeps the world feeling lived in (like Shattering Golden Chains in Season 4 to expand on a character).

A great resrouce towards finding these connections and plotting out a story would be the Pathfinder wiki which not only includes all of the scenarios and seasons, but relevant connections within each scenario.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can, of course, purchase and carry a larger shield. It's just that, outside of houserules and homebrew, it doesn't do anything.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Really should have just saved some cash and gone with the Heartbond ritual.

Also, obviously reported for spam.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While not quite in the spirit of the question, I did have something similar come up around the launch of the APG. A friend and I both had some time off and wanted to meet for a one-shot where I would play around with some monster and encounter design while he would run a four-person party himself. Let me just get this out of the way - doing this was incredibly not fun for either of us at the end of the day. Turns out that besides the obvious social element missing with so many others, turning inward to strategize and plot left us both really drained.

But my friend made a team with one single goal: support the fighter with the heavy pick. Now it's been years, but I want to say that his characters were all level 7. His group was...

Elven fighter with a heavy pick and Sudden Charge.
Human (Half-elf) monk with Flurry of Maneuvers and Assurance (Athletics).
Human bard.
Elven wizard with Quick Repair.

This was around the time that my player was fairly insistent that if a group forms around "one DPR" then they would be successful. He did prove that somewhat correct, but also ammended that statement to "it's pretty inflexible if you play that way." Fights would start with him immediately Delaying everyone in the party to stack up their initiative together. This way the bard could start things off with buffs, the wizard could control/debuff/buff as needed, the monk could leap in and trip a number of foes before darting out again, and the fighter would Sudden Charge a prone enemy and then run out again. He was using the Speed of the elves to keep distance on opponents and the Trips to suck away their actions. This meant that most of the creatures could only "Stand, Stride, Stride" or resort to another tactic.

At least in theory. He's a whiteroom kind of guy.

The first encounter definitely went the way he intended, with him steamrolling a group of redcaps and winter wolves. Things got a little trickier versus a handful of elite pixies, however, who harassed the group from afar with longbow attacks. It did force him to admit that going all in on a single melee weapon did mean that he needed a backup. The wizard, if I recall, cleaned them up nicely. There were a few more encounters, but the one that stood out to me was a pair of remorhaz that ambushed the group. After the creatures' Heat aura broke the fighter's pick, I felt pretty safe in saying that the "all-in" strategy wasn't going to pan out. He did have the Quick Repair come into play at that point, so I had to admit he was thorough.

He stands by this strategy, even though he has opened up to the idea of bringing the right tool for the right job. While his most recent character is a psychic, he did manage to pair up his great pick fighter with a weapon inventor who was using a reach+trip weapon innovation to great success in our Kingmaker game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If Paizo is losing out on players based on the mechanics of their game working well (but differently from how you'd prefer), it sounds like those are players who come from other editions and have made up their mind already.

I'm also going to say that on a personal level, when people talk about the business side of the company ("Really losing customers because they aren't doing mechanics this way.") - it feels so disingenuous. Moreso when we've had years of the opposite being true. Just take ownership of your feelings and stop being upset and argumentative about something you can't change. Just say "I don't like X, but others seem to and why would I yuck their yum."


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
While this thread has certainly run its course, it feels like an awful rehash to turn this into a spellcasting conversation once more. It's a conversation that has been done to death. No side will sway the other at this point.

Let's all just move on or wait until Monday for the thread to get locked.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
arcady wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
PF1 was also published at an unsustainable rate. A player handbook every month, a setting book every other... It wasn't a surprise when they had to slow down.

PF2E is getting dangerously close to that issue as well.

Hopefully the pace will slow down a bit after Player Core 2.

The consolidation of the "Lost Omens" line and the "Rulebook" line looks to make this much more manageable. If you check the release schedule, you'll see that we get monthly releases in the AP line and the PFS line. These certainly keep the lights on. The larger releases are still there, but not the constant flow of niche feats and options like we would get with the player supplements of PF1. It's much more accessible for casual or new players and controlled for those who look to get every monthly release.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

While this thread has certainly run its course, it feels like an awful rehash to turn this into a spellcasting conversation once more. It's a conversation that has been done to death. No side will sway the other at this point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't need to sell or advocate for PF1 to us. Many of us here on the PF2 boards have played PF1 for many years and now play PF2. Accepting that official content is finished is your first step towards coming to peace with it. What I recommend now is that you should look for PF1 spaces - the PF2 boards is not the place for it.

Good news, there are still PF1 spaces all across the internet and in real life.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
R3st8 wrote:
Ruzza wrote:

PF1 also had a lot to learn before you began. The barrier for entry was very high while the market moved towards games with easier access.

As someone who brought plenty of people into the hobby during the start of PF1 and even just a few years before PF2's launch, the onboarding process became more and more difficult

so the greatest obstacles is getting people into it and making them learning the rules right? what about a different way of teaching the rules like you know how many anime have power scaling community, maybe a dedicated anime/manga that followed rules could lead people to learn the rules naturally like how some people pick on Japanese by watching subbed anime even if its very broken Japanese.

There's a lot to unpack here. To start - as someone who lives in Japan and has been here for nearly a decade, this is a bad example. Don't learn Japanese through anime. That's like learning how to count by juggling.

As I said up top, if you are truly passionate about this game, you need to be an advocate for it, warts and all. I wouldn't go looking for a shortcut (or, in the case of... designing a manga, the longest cut imaginable - it would just be easier to read the books). Showcase what makes the game fun and interesting to you and go and find people you can share that passion with.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If I could hazard a guess, it isn't that people didn't like PF1, but it had begun to run its course and was getting very difficult to bring new players in. Over the years, general attrition as a product ages happens to all editions (which is why you'll see many people here making guesses as to how long it would be before another edition). PF1 also had a lot to learn before you began. The barrier for entry was very high while the market moved towards games with easier access.

As someone who brought plenty of people into the hobby during the start of PF1 and even just a few years before PF2's launch, the onboarding process became more and more difficult - worse if players showed up having skipped looking at the rules and instead relying on hastily googled class guides (with often suspect rules interpretations).

At the end of the day, if you were a PF1 fan, you were dedicated and knew the material well. This, unfortunately, doesn't make for a healthy game that will gain new players regularly, but a more insular community that requires a lot of foreknowledge to access.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

As many of us have moved between editions, you will find folks who "find their version," so to speak. I had a group that fell in love with 4e and never looked back (or, more accurately, forward). Editions don't often get revisited because it doesn't make financial sense.

But not all is lost - you just need to find your people. People who want PF1 more than other TTRPGs. And that sounds hard, but in reality, it means that you have to be an advocate for what you love to the people you want to play with. Run games, convert adventures, tell stories, and introduce people to what YOU love about the edition.

It's one thing to want to play an older edition of any game, but it's another to get a group. Be the change you want to see, and share your enthusiasm.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, could you two put your egos in check and stop or take it elsewhere? This is a playtest forum and these rile up enough atrong opinions that we don't need a fight going on between X number of threads.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

@Ruzza - reading your post from six years ago seems so align with my thoughts, but you are saying this current Taunt doesn’t affect agency enough to perturb you?

I have to disagree, it feels a lot more problematic than Bon Mot or Demoralize.

The current Taunt isn't saying to the GM or their NPCs, "you must now act the way I want," (non-magically) but rather "here's an easier target for you." An enemy about to finish off the spellcaster is suddenly shouted at by the dwarf in full plate saying "Oh, come on! Run that one through? I'm wide open for you!" I've had these scenarios play out in games and had no mechanical incentive to play along. Now, however, my enemy is shaken and might miss that finishing blow, but that guardian presents an appealing target.

I like the choices put in front of both the player and the GM. It's something I enjoyed a lot when playing with a Redeemer Champion with AoO and Shield Block. Do I swing on the Champ for less damage? Their ally for a lot less potential damage? Or do I retreat and suffer the consequences? Each NPC and encounter dealt with "his deal" differently and his play made it so that I, as a GM, had to deal with one of his three reactions at all times.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I have always been opposed to a "taunt mechanic" since what was often being asked for (and is some places, still is) feels very video game-y. An aspect of video games, I should note, that exists to fill a mechanical niche that TTRPGs don't have, which is threat generation and management.

When I heard about the Guardian playtest, I internally cringed, expecting the worst. On my first read, however, it isn't stripping autonomy from players (GM included) and isn't breaking the fantasy of the game. I personally like where the Taunt numbers are, but I don't have any playtest experience to back up that feeling. I think the expectation of an MMO Taunt and playstyle is what is getting a lot of flak from some (not all, I should stress).

I don't think this version of Taunt really breaks verisimilitude. It's on par with Bon Mot weakening an opponent's resolve or Demoralize lowering an opponent's guard.

1 to 50 of 1,181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>