Kyra

Skeld's page

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 4,438 posts (4,755 including aliases). 6 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Well, the OP isn't unique in the "I have a PhD part", too.

I didn't want to be critical of OP/OP's group for their lack of education.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I was pretty unimpressed with both of these books, tbh.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
trischai wrote:
Just to give this a little context. I have a family and work 1.5 jobs. I don't have the time to make my own world.

You just described more than half the people here. You're not special in this regard.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, and one of them has to be a scullery maid. It's in the rules.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Beyond that, yes, the setting of Golarion is NOT intended to be an accurate simulation of medieval Europe's technology level.

Whaaaaaaaaa?!?!?!

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I force my players to make their own paper. That store bought stuff is too easy and convenient. With my way, they know where the paper comes from instead it just showing up like magic.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't do much online shopping apparently. What's so bad about Paizo's process? From my POV, it looks like: find item, add to cart, click on cart, click purchase button. Amazon basically works the same way for me. What am I missing here? Am i too dumb to know better?

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I gotta say, i hated the silver economy thing from the playtest. It was a primal, irrational hate.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The Ennies are predicated on publishers self-selectively nominating their own products (throwing their hat in the ring, so to speak). If you don't submit, you won't be considered.

IMHO (as a former Ennies judge), Paizo hasn't gotten a fair shake in the awards the last few years. Most of the people involved (administers, voters, judges, etc.) come from Enworld and that board heavily favors WotC and indie games.

I almost got back in the running for Judge this year, but I just don't have the time.

-Skeld

Edit: So nothing submitted from Paizo OR WotC this year. It'll be the Best of Chaosium awards again this year.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Luis Loza wrote:
World Guides will vary in their setting and rules material...

Ok, thanks. Sounds like another sub I need to cancel.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After looking into it, I'm skipping this one altogether.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
nighttree wrote:

Ya that was cool.

Is this the first time they have done that ? or did I just miss it in the past ?

This is the only PF AP that I see a trailer for. They have some SF ones too. I hope this is something they'll continue to do going forward.

Any trailers for previous APs would be awesome too.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My group stopped using XP 10 years ago and none of us miss it. I don't miss being constrained by it and they don't miss keeping track of it.

Those milestones look workable.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My group and I played some of the playtest and most of us didn't really like any of it. We felt there were a couple good ideas in there, but they were completely overshadowed by the things we absolutely hated. As a result of that overwhelmingly negative experience, I've lost all my enthusiasm for PF2. When it comes out, I plan to buy a PDF of the CRB (assuming Paizo keeps it at $10) just out of curiosity, but I'm otherwise cancelling my non-AP subs and sticking with PF1.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If the bug hasn't been fixed yet, then the fix is probably more complicated than you realize.

Where I work we have a saying, "[Doing what we do] looks easy when you don't know anything about it."

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MER-c wrote:
Going to a slower release doesn't mean they downsize. it just means products get more time to develop. Paizo will still need all of it's dev teams they will just have them developing their product for longer.

That also means prices will increase.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There's no dishonesty here, just a lot of bad PR spin. Pointing that out isn't harsh. Things change over the course of 10 years and pointing out some of that irony is a great way of saying, "yes, we've heard something like this before."

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah, yeah, the good ol' days. I remember that thread.

I wonder if Paizo's is going to switch to the new edition of Pathfinder, or if they're going to decide it doesn't let them tell the stories they want to tell, like they did with 4e. I guess we'll have to wait until Jason has a chance to play it at PaizoCon.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I GM for my group. For nearly everything that's not a bestiary "stock" opponent, I rebuild them from scratch (NPCs, monsters with levels, etc.).

I'm baffled at how that takes people hours.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Since there's so much agreement in this thread, I'll speak up and say I hate this change. Changing the basis for the economy feels to me like change for the sake of change.

The #1 reason why I don't like this change is because it adds yet another hurdle to converting adventure material. Unfortunately, this change is more involved than "all things that were gp are now sp" because the prices (in sp) are also different.

Also, we'll have 12 years of established Golarion setting material that assumes gp are the standard. Now, everyone wakes up one morning and everything is silver pieces? The time to have made this change was during the build-up to PF1 when the backlog of adventure/setting content was smaller.

It's just churn to me and another reason not to bother with switching to PF2.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gerald wrote:
GM SuperTumbler wrote:

I don't know if this contributes to the discussion, but I've been wanting to say this, and this seems like a good place to say it. I've been a Paizo customer since the Dragon and Dungeon magazine days. I was sad to see the magazines disappear, but transferred my subscription credit to the new Pathfinder subscription on faith. Since then, I've gradually expanded my subscriptions. I subscribe to most of the print lines at the moment, and I own every print product Paizo has produced for 3.5 or Pathfinder except the 2E playtest materials. At the end of the last 1E adventure path, I'll cancel my subscriptions. I've played with the same group since 2003. People have moved, but the group has hung together. At this point, I'm the only person who still lives in the city where we started. Some people drive in, some phone it in via Google Hangouts, but much of our original group is still together.

We aren't really interested in a new edition. Maybe we are old, maybe we are set in our ways. I felt betrayed for a while with the announcement of 2E, but now I just feel like it is a time of change. I'll save some money every month. I have enough Paizo and 3rd party content to last me another 15 years, which is probably longer than the group will last. I wish Paizo all the best, but the only money I'll spend with them in the future is on accessories and maybe miniatures.

I’m a charter AP subscriber as well. I plan on cancelling my subscription at the end of PF1 too. I’ll buy the new book and read it over, but if it is similar to the material I have playtested, that’s the end of my run with Paizo.

I'm a charter subscriber too. I'm going to (probably) buy the PF2 PDF when it releases, just to check out the game and so what it's like, but that's as far as I plan tomorrow into PF2.

However, I do plan to keep my AP sub, and maybe Modules. Over the past 2-3 years, I've become very disillusioned with PF's rule content. The adventure content I'm just as happy with as when I started. With that said, if the quality of the AP starts to slip, I'll consider ditching it as well.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Igor Horvat wrote:

So, one person cannot do that in one working day? 6-8hrs?

I do not think that one shift is deal breaking cost for a company as Paizo.

We have a saying about this where I work: "The less you know about something, the easier it seems."

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Reckless Hound wrote:
Players available will quickly dwindle once those books go out of print.

My home group probably isn't going anywhere, so I'm good.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
considerably wrote:
You can see the poorly aligned grids (grid "squares" are not square at all). I assume this is caused by the low resolution, which can be a big issue when playing in something like Roll20. Not to mention, the low resolution makes it difficult to appreciate Matthias Rothenaicher's excellent cartography.

Open the interactive maps PDF and turn the grid OFF before copying the image and pasting it into Roll20. Then you can use Roll20's grid system to create a grid to overlay the gridless map. This way, you get a nice even grid that isn't subject to the resolution problem, and you don't have 2 competing grids on the map.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It also chills the conversation. If people are quitting and no longer posting about it, it looks like everything's fine.

Personally, I'd prefer everyone that wants get their say on why their leaving the playtest, especially if what they have to say is well-reasoned and communicated. If someone creates a post that's well-reasoned and communicated, then it doesn't help when others who disagree jump in to say things like, "maybe you're not cut out for playtesting," or "playtests aren't supposed to be fun, they're supposed to stress the rules."

I get locking a feat before it turns into a dumpster fire. It doesn't have to turn into a dumpster fire though. Let people say their peace and move on, even if you disagree.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Yqatuba wrote:
meet/fight a certain German person...

Do you mean Magnuskn?

Lol. :D

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Khonsu wrote:

Hey all!

So, according to my research, Orik is either the cousin or the half-sibling of Lullaby. Any official call on this?

There is. We had a pretty fun and weirdly complicated discussion of the Vancaskerkin family tree, and it IS all worked out, but it's too complicated to get into here and knowing the details isn't necessary for Lullaby's role in the adventure, so for now it's gotta stay behind the scenes. But some day we'll make it public, never fear.

This is begging for a Campaign Setting book, "Vancaskerkin: Varesia's First Family." It may need to be a double-sized volume.

Another thing: I hope when the heroes travel back in time, they meet a Vancaskerkin from thousands of years ago.

:D

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Skeld is smart and knowledgeable.

Be like Skeld.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm replying to a bunch of stuff in no particular order.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
This sounds a bit dismissive and unpersuasive.

In the 10+ years we've interacted here, I've never know Steve to be dismissive of anyone.

Steve Geddes wrote:

My impression is that the number of people posting in the PF2 forums is pretty small (compared to the PF1 playtests). I have lots of theories about that (mainly based on my middleage preconceptions) but this impression leads me to think that most people exposed to PF2 are not going to have gone through the playtest.

Personally, it feels to me that the participation of current fans is a significant distinguishing factor between the PF1 and PF2 playtests. (eg there's lots of "I don't play PF1 but have come back to try this playtest" posts now - I don't think there was the same significant cohort of people playing other systems when Paizo developed PF from 3.5).

PF1 playtest was a completely different. We had all the people that didn't want to change editions that Paizo was trying to directly cater to. PF2 is explicitly leaving the current edition behind. If PF2 were a tweak of PF1, I think we'd have a similar dynamic to the last playtest.

Frames Janco wrote:

I think it has more to do with some players making a point to come to every thread and sowing dissent in emotive posts when it is clear the devs have already heard it.

This isn't some conspiracy - they're just game developers. Give constructive feedback and your posts will stay. Playing devil's advocate for the sake of it is not productive.

There's a lot of this going on on both sides. Sure, we don't have a "my group is quitting the playtest" thread without some people chiming in to agree and give their reasoning. There's also a contingent that shows up to those threads to dismiss the OP with comments such as "playtesting isn't for everyone," "the playtest is designed to be fun," and "I hope you filled out a survey" (with an implied "because what you say in your post doesn't matter"). A reasonable person will agree that this isn't one-sided. A constructive "I'm quitting and here's why" post is valid feedback.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Skeld (on the off chance you felt dismissed) my apologies. When I replied to you, I didn't mean to imply you were wrong, merely that I have a different perspective.

I didn't feel the least bit dismissed by you, Steve. Don't sweat it. You should know by now that I'm usually right anyway. ;)

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Data Lore wrote:
Skeld wrote:

If people are not enjoying the playtest and don't consider it "fun," that's going to predispose them against the released game because bad impressions last.

That seems like a big (marketing) problem.

-Skeld

I tend to agree. I think if they would have released conversion notes to something akin to Isle of Dread or Caves of Chaos, people would more likely have a better time with it.

Cypt of the Everflame would've been ideal, I think. It was the first Module written for PF (so it's been out a long time) and it was used in some of the demo podcasting that cam before PF2's release.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

35 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If people are not enjoying the playtest and don't consider it "fun," that's going to predispose them against the released game because bad impressions last.

That seems like a big (marketing) problem.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Oladon wrote:
Skeld wrote:

I want the ability to choose avatars for other people.

-Skeld

Just popping by to say that you can do this with the Paizo Forum Tools browser extension.

Yeah, but only I can see those. It's not as much fun if others don't suffer at my whims.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I want the ability to choose avatars for other people.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
glass wrote:
Also, PFS does not cause problems. What it does is highlight them.

PFS definitely highlights problems. It's not the cause of the problem (as I've mentioned numerous times, that's the wand pricing rules), but it grossly amplified the problem by making wands automatically available (you don't even have to spend money; you can use a prestige point or whatever they're called) and that makes the problem look way worse than it actually is. This creates a situation where the devs say, "something must be done about this," and instead of fixing the problem (cheap wands), we get resonance as a part of the core rules making it difficult for people in home games (many of whom consider this a non-issue at their tables) to ignore.

PFS isn't the cause, but it boosts the signal.

Ryan Freire wrote:
I submit that throwing obstacles at post core balancing options is in fact causing problems.

I agree with what you've said, but I'll add something:

PFS uses its own set of houserules, making it a campaign within itself, complete with its own quirks. Because of its size and scale, it makes problems more noticeable and the number of people complaining about any given quirk is greater than any other home campaign. Add to that that Paizo IS the GM for PFS and you get people complaining about PFS on the boards constantly (and it's usually the same sorta stuff over and over). The "GM" (ie. Paizo) sometimes gets involved by issuing rulings and thus you get a whole bunch of errata to fix problems in a campaign that uses a bastardized ruleset. It's not different than if i had the ability to make all my houserules official is the PRD/SRD/AoN.

Requielle wrote:
It wasn't PF1 - it was D&D. PF1 inherited the 'problem', and opted to make their own high-magic campaign setting (Golarian, instead of Forgotten Realms) and continue the tradition of having magic all over the freaking place and commercially available.

Personally, I like Golarion as high fantasy. As they try to tie the Golarion setting and the rules more tightly together (which started with the Adventurer's guide) and the rules seem to be changing to encourage and lower-magic fantasy, then Golarion necessarily transitions to lower fantasy. Changing the established game world is probably my single biggest dealbreaker. As an adventure content customer, I want a consistent game world going into PF2 because I want all that stuff to remain compatible.

dnoisette wrote:
rknop wrote:
Resonance is overdriving the system in an attempt to correct for bad steering by installing rocket engines pointing in the opposite direction.
I don't believe I would have been able to describe that issue in such a concise, picturesque and surprisingly on-spot image. :D

I've spent the last 20-something years as an aerospace engineer and I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone try to solve a specific problem by crafting a solution taht tries to solve multiple problems at once. It usually leads to bad thing (like things exploding unintentionally).

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Going to add "Because PFS" to the list of meaningless catch phrases that have proliferated here as soon as one person said it with little back up evidence. It can join "But 4th ED" "Video Game Like" and "MTG style" in list of meaningless but repeated phrases.

Know Direction did a Q&A podcast with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner on March 9th addressing the PF2 playtest. Early in the interview, they ask Erik about his pet peeves with PF1 and he mentions a couple of them. At ~45:15 into the interview, Logan is talking about magic items in PF2. Erik gets excited and starts discussing CLW wand spamming and how much he hates it. At ~46:16, one of the interviewers brings up how CLW wand spamming in PFS, to which Erik replies, "Yeah, I mean it's just stupid; so, we're not doing that."

Granted, Erik didn't say it's because of PFS, but those guys get to see a lot of PFS games played at conventions and they get a lot of feedback from PFS volunteer leadership, far more observation and feedback than they'll get from home games, so it's not much of a logical leap. These things are discussed in the video in the same context within about a minute of each other.

-Skeld

Edit: Also, Erik discusses how much he hates magic item identification and how PF2 does it and "it's pretty awesome."

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dire Uranus wrote:
Would it not make sense to do the opposite and NOT have an absolutely ridiculously op item in the game and instead ask YOUR gms to just have you start every encounter with full HP?

Wand of CLW (or wand of st level anything, for that matter) is not "an absolutely ridiculously op item." And the answer to your question is, no. It's easier for a GM to remove an item from the game than to invent an item to go into the game. That whole "ask the GM to let you start every encounter at full HP" is a hyperbolic question. Is anyone advocating that or doing that? Also, at low levels, a CLW wand still represents and expenditure of resources (gp); it's not as free as you imply. At mid to high levels, it might as well be free. All of that, however, is more of a problem with wand pricing (which I mentioned earlier), not the existance of the item.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dire Uranus wrote:
I don't play PFS and I hate CLW wands. Makes the game too easy. If you want the game to be easier just ask your GM to lower the difficulty. The game shouldn't be just easy mode because some people don't want to be challenged.

Or, you can ask the GM to limit wand availability, make them more expensive, or do away with them altogether if you think the game is too easy.

I GM, so I set the difficulty. I like my campaigns difficult, but I also don't like 15 minute adventuring days or my party to stop and rest after every encounter. I'd rather them use a few charges from a wan and move on than stop/retreat and rest because their at half HP.

In PFS, wands are assumed to always be available and there's nothing the "GM" can do about it* in terms of restricting them or making the adventure more difficult.

I would much rather they fix wands than institute some bad mechanics. CLW wands get used because, 1) they're cheap (15gp/charge vs. 25gp for a scroll or 50gp for a potion), 2) wands carry a lot of charges (50 vs. a single-use scroll or potion), and 3) they easily portable (unlike 50 scrolls or potions).

Stop assuming because someone doesn't like Resonance that they want the game to be "easy." It makes you look like a tool.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
They’ve explicitly ruled out “realms shattering events” a number of times.
Yes, they've said that many times over the years and now it's time for them to actually follow-through with it.
I meant they’ve said it several times since announcing PF2.

That's good to know.

It still bothers me that everyone on Golarion is going to wake up the morning PF2 drops and decide to start using silver instead of gold though.

Backward compatibility to all the APs and other stuff I've bought for the last 12 years is my #1 issue. (Boy, doesn't that sound a lot like what people said about the switch from 3.5 to 4e?).

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I will tell you what why don't you give me the specific issues and I said specific on what you don't like about resonance. The impression I've gotten is you like being fully healed for every fight and nominalizing healing in general. Also you prefer using 5+ magic items at 1st level per character. I've already answered that question of what its fixing in other forums but you refuse to acknowledge it so lets go again I guess..

This is an unnecessary attack. Just because someone doesn't like Resonance doesn't mean they free, unlimited, full healing between fights or that they want 1st level character covered in magic items.

I personally don't like Resonance because it's a dumb solution to a marginal problem. The whole reason it exists in the playtest is because the Paizo devs, who go to conventions and see a lot of PFS being played, don't like CLW wand spamming. They think the people who do that are playing the game wrong, so they've crafted a ham-fisted "fix" that causes other problems (read: healing in general, a well-recognized problem with the current playtest). This "problem" has much better solutions on the wand side of the equation that don't break other parts of the game.

This is a great example of how "problems" in PFS can have a huge effect on those of us that play home games.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
They’ve explicitly ruled out “realms shattering events” a number of times.

Yes, they've said that many times over the years and now it's time for them to actually follow-through with it. That aside, setting incompatibility is one of my dealbreakers. i don't want Golarion to be changed on some fundamental level.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Skeld wrote:
I really hope that isn't the case. Back in the day, there were three things that drove the original surge of people from D&D to PF:
Without getting into it - I'd add the shift from OGL to the much more restrictive GSL.

To the average player, i don't think the OGL vs. GSL was that big of a thing, but it was a huge deal to publishers (like Paizo). I think what was the bigger deal to players was learning, after the fact, how much 3.5e material was hidden behind the IP wall and specifically wasn't included in the OGL(Beholders, Midflayers, Book of Nine Swords, etc.).

rknop wrote:
Remember that slightly (often barely) tweaked new versions worked for Call of Cthulhu for decades. Yes, that's a much smaller, niche-market game, although it is critically extremely well-regarded.

There are a lot of games out there, CoC is a great example, that tweak instead of revise and they remain popular and keep customers around between edition changes.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
I too was hoping for something a little more evolutionary, not so revolutionary.

This is my new mantra.

pogie wrote:
I feel that Paizo is in the midst of alienating its core player base with this more gamey design and unlike D&D is not backed by a huge corporation with deep pockets. If 2E falls on its face it could take a Paizo down with it.

I've said this exact same thing in other threads.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
I think the inherent issue of a "slight retool", is that its not going to provide you with a lot of new design space, and you will have a large segment of the population that even then won't want to move on or buy into a slightly tweaked system.

Can you provide an example of new design space that will be opened up?

Voss wrote:
The parts that get to me, though, and really make me wonder are the parts that are simply incompatible with Golarion as written. Either Return of the Runelords is a terrible meta-adventure that changes the nature of the universe like the 'Time of Troubles/Fate of Istus' things that happened to AD&D, or some of the ways the world operates and its defaults assumptions just get flushed for no explicable reason.

I really hope that isn't the case. Back in the day, there were three things that drove the original surge of people from D&D to PF:

1) The cancellation of Dungeon magazine and Dragon magazine,
2) The poor marketing lead-up to 4th edition (where they told people that edition you like and we've been selling you is crap; you'll like the next one much better)
3) "Realms Changing Events," ie. blowing up the game world to make game edition changes seem more "natural."
Players/fans really hated that spell plague stuff and the "points of light" was ridiculed too.

Mathmuse wrote:
Thinking back...

I was pretty active here back then. I remember all that, especially the fallout from Jason's trip to D&D Experience because we were all very eager to hear what Paizo's plans for 4e were. It's ironic how the devs didn't want to make products for 4e then, but now their beta test edition is very gamey like 4e was.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
I honestly feel for Jason in particular. Spending nearly a decade and a half writing for someone else's system has got to be frustrating. I imagine he's really eager to spread his wings and create an edition that is his.

I don't know. For years now, players have been complaining that the rules content is the weakest segment of PF (compared to setting content and adventure content). It could be that being constrained by the Core rules of the 3.5/PF system has hamstrung Bulmahn for the past few years and that letting him out of the box to design a game unconstrained is exactly what Paizo needs. But, based on a lot of the feedback, a wholly new and different system isn't what's needed.

Personally, I somewhat like about half of it, and really, strongly dislike the other half. There isn't much in the middle. That really leaves me questionable as a continued customer.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Skeld wrote:

I liked Paizo's decision-making better when they said they weren't trying to compete with WotC/D&D. They made decisions that made sense for them and their fanbase. Things seem like they took a turn they tried to spin-off an MMO. Maybe Paizo is becoming a victim of their own success.

-Skeld

I think this is a bit unfair though. I don't think it's so much trying to compete with WotC as trying to SURVIVE WotC. 5E is pulling Pathfinder Players who are bored/dislike the system away, and at least some of the current folks who still love the system don't buy paizo products or at least not at a sustainable level. Something had to be done, and a slight retool of Pathfinder for a second edition was probably not sustainable.

Paizo trying to come up with a new PF2 game in an attempt to entice people to come back to PF from 5e would be the definition of "competing with."

It remains to be seen whether a slight retool would be better than a complete redesign. There's a lot of space between what we have in PF1 and what we've gotten so far in the playtest. We'll probably never know if a retool would've worked since PF seems to be headed firmly into redesign territory, especially if the survey questions and wording are any indication.

All of those high-fantasy tropes and quirks are built into the DNA of Pathfinder AND Golarion. If that DNA changes too much, Paizo is going to lose a bunch of customers and it remains to be seen whether they'll pick up new ones to replace them.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I liked Paizo's decision-making better when they said they weren't trying to compete with WotC/D&D. They made decisions that made sense for them and their fanbase. Things seem like they took a turn they tried to spin-off an MMO. Maybe Paizo is becoming a victim of their own success.

I see a lot of the game design that's centered around what will work best for PFS. Since PFS is a public thing at conventions and has a good reporting system (not to mention all the advice Paizo gets from PFS VLs), it makes since that PFS would heavily influence the game design. I worry though, since Paizo doesn't get analogous feedback from the homegaming community, that what's good for home games is being marginalized, or left out completely. Even the playtest adventure that drives all the feedback data they're collecting is designed to fit in a PFS-style, single-run, 4-hour slot. PF2 will be optimized for PFS play.

Which is a strange thing to me because Paizo has always said APs are their best sellers and "bread and butter" when it comes to revenue.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

PF1 and the PF2 playtest are completely different games with fundamentally different building blocks. It's only natural that some people would like one more than the other.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

21 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I GM'd Lost Star a couple weeks ago and one of my players made a Dwarf Fighter because, he reasoned, that Dwarf Fighters are relatively iconic to the genre. His fighter also had 0 resonance, because Dwarves start with 8 Cha and you have to pick Cha buffing character options to raise it.

His character was down, tried to drink a potion, and failed the Res check, wasted the potion, and had nothing to show for it. As a GM, I think this completely sucks.

Gratz wrote:
You can't just play PF2 just like it were PF1 and expect to be successful with the same strategies.

Agreed; we can ignore PF2 and just keep playing PF1. I don't see any reason to switch to the new game when it's less fun that the old game.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My only issue with AoN is that it's blocked where I work. d20PFSRD and PRD are/were accessible.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scythia wrote:
Pathfinder came about because of players that didn't want the big changes that switching to 4th would entail.

Not only that, but the folks working at Paizo also didn't like the changes they were seeing in 4e (that WotC hadn't put out an OGL didn't help). At least that's how PF was sold at the time, in a nutshell.

Ikos wrote:
At this point, PF has little to loose and all to gain.

Paizo/PF has a lot to lose if PF2 misfires, considering it's the core of their business and they don't have M:tG/Hasbro backing them up if it fails. There are lots of examples of popular-ish products being radically redesigned and failing because they lost the core qualities that made them popular to begin with. 4e is a perfect example a redesign leading to failure. PF was wildly successful primarily because it was a continuation of 3.5e with refinements and marketed to a fanbase that didn't want radical changes.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FitzTheRuke wrote:
but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.

I am honestly uncertain if resonance is genuinely unpopular, or if just it's just that the subset of commenters who really hate it who will take absolutely every opportunity to point out how much they hate it.

Like I see comments like "Now let's get rid of resonance" made by people in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with resonance. I wonder if this is what they were talking about when they said "Make your point and move on. If you view every thread that touches on a particular topic as an opportunity to restate your opinion, people will notice, and will stop reading what you say, even on other topics."

It was unpopular and a real mood killer at my table. One of my players had a 1st level Dwarf Fighter with 0 Resonance who nearly died in the final encounter because he couldn't drink his healing potion (I forget if he failed or crit failed his Res check).

Running out of Resonance can turn trying to use a healing potion into a Save vs. Death scenario.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ludovicus wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
If what they keep saying is true ("We put the most off the wall ideas in the playtest because that's what we really need data about") then a lot of the things that don't land well right now might go.

That was certainly true of the original PF playtest, when there was a lot of wild stuff in the Alpha, that they walked back some of for the Beta, before releasing Pathfinder.

However, this time they did a couple years of super secret development and alpha testing in house, before dropping the Beta for public. I thought it had been said early on (shortly after the PF2 announcement) that the rules were largely finished and the playtest was going to be mostly about tweaking and making minor adjustments. I hope (dear gods, I hope) that I'm wrong about that.

I mean, we're a month in without in real Dev discussion on big-ish things they plan to change. Hell, this week we got a blog asking for feedback on changing the wording to say "standard saving throw" instead of something more wordy. That doesn't convey to me a willingness to change much of substance.

This time around, the Dev 's aren't nearly as active in discussions on the boards as they were for the original playtest. Another thing I've noticed after playing and taking some surveys is that the survey questions don't reflect interest in changing much either. "Did your party kill the ooze," "how many hero points did you give out," and "did any of your players run out of resonance points" are not questions you ask when you're considering major changes because those are, again, tweak questions.

I'm rapidly losing hope that this is a game I'm going to want to play and support. I have a lifetime of PF1 material, so I need solid reasons to make a switch to PF2.

-Skeld

You can read a lot of rumbling from former devs on Twitter over the last couple years that suggests real dissatisfaction with Paizo's corporate culture. I'd love to read an exposé one day.

I can't help but think...

I have no interest in following peoples' twitter accounts or any of the office drama, especially if it's from a former dev that has a bad habit lately of sticking their foot in their mouth and getting fired.

What I care about, selfishly, is that Paizo turns out a good product that I'm willing to pay them money for. I like (most of) the products they've turned out, especially the APs, which are excellent. The rules, for the past couple years, have taken something of a quality hit, but are passable, especially if you're like me and you don't give half a s+~~ if the rules are mathematically tight or about the "system mastery" some claim you need to enjoy the game.

That said, I'll throw in here and say that there are a number of rule systems in the PF2 playtest that worry me and I don't see them exorcising enough of it to convince me to switch from PF1 to PF2. Moreso, there are enough changes that i consider to be just plain bad that make me actively not want to switch.

-Skeld

1 to 50 of 1,401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>