Tithron's page

44 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Good thread so far. Looking forward to the rest of it.


This is a treat thread. Lot of well thought out opinions here. Great job friends. :)


I love character creation and the action system. I feel some areas need some love and polish, but the core seems solid and easier to pick up than PF1.


graeme mcdougall wrote:

I admit 'Anathema' is a bit unfriendly for non-europeans. It does have the advantage of being quite flavourful, in my opinion. And it is still in use in English today, though it's 'Uncommon'.

I think they should swap 'Somatic' which means absolutlely nothing to anyone outside of D&D for 'Gesture', which is instantly self-explanatory.

Yes, I would love to see Incantation and Gesture replace Vocal and Somatic components/actions


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tithron wrote:
Video Gamey

IMO, this is people saying they don't like the presentation. From their perspective, they have an idea what works well in a video game setting and what works well in a text based medium. I don't see why this isn't a valid thing to note, though I agree it would be better is the comment is expanded on.

Tithron wrote:
People hating PF2 simply because it isn't 3.X polish further
This I find valid too as they are continuing the setting that has a multitude of material for it. The further you move the mechanics away from the other edition, the more work it requires for any of that to be usable.

I will repectfully agree to disagree on trying to keep 3rd alive 20 years in.

As far as presentation vs text, everything in our culture is going to icons and abriviations. I personally think this can go overboard, looking at emojis. But I find it silly that you can have these sleek interfaces on your phone, your favorite websites, your video games, even in your car if you have a touch screen radio, but when it comes to TTRPGs, it has to be walls of text or its "video gamey." I respect that not everyone sees it that way, but I think this resistence to such things is hurting the medium.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tithron wrote:
I really don;t get the hatred of the Icons
For myself, they are hard to read/interpret and, IMO, I can't understand how letters and/or numbers wouldn't be infinitely easier to understand and recall for the beginner and the old hand.

As someone who plays a lot of video games and also a lot of games like Magic: the Gathering and Hearthstone, I like Icons. I realize there is a learning curve on them, which is why I would be fine with Icons + words. That way for new players it is clearly spelled out, and if I am an experienced player looking through a splat book, I can see the icon and know what it means. I am not saying that design mentality is for everyone, but to me good clear icons are nice.


graystone wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
I'd say roughly 30 from logic, but that's actually how many L items fit in it... Why do we need Bags of Holding again?

LOL well at worst, it's be 40 as you can put 40 arrows/bullets in. ;)

Tithron wrote:
The correct answer is ALL the Shuriken. LOL
I can work with this. So I have allx3 if I put on 3 pouches...

allx3 Shuriken... now that is a great place to start designing a character from.


Joe Mucchiello wrote:

First, yes, you can select any skill with any class. But only signature skills for that class can be advanced to master or legendary using your skill increases.

Feats that give you a feat? So you can take a feat you normally do not have access to. Why is that a bad thing?

Advancing skills? First, read about proficiency levels on page 8. Being master or legendary in a skill is used as prereqs for some high level feats.

That was most of the questions. Now, there are a hundred threads on the layout of the book.

I've read a lot of them. This is consensus "Best practice" I have come to think they should employ:
-------------
All ancestor, class, and skill feats should be listed with the ancestor, class, or skill. No flipping around. In ancestories, heritage feats should be listed separately from other ancestor feats.

All class powers, that aren't spells, should be in a section called powers. Or listed with the class.

Spells (and powers) should be listed by level, then name alphabetically. Uncommon and rare should be text (and Paizo already said they would not use color again). All the traits for an object should just be line of text in the listing, not the running list of text in a weird sidebar box. And among the traits should be the spell lists the spell can be found within.

Spell name -> level 3
Traits: Arcane, Divine, Enchantment, Mental, Primal
casting: A> somatic A> verbal
etc.

I like that best practice list a lot. There is a lot of unneeded flipping around to figure out classes.


I might have to do that. Even the act of making such a table would help me get the basic actions in my head better.


graystone wrote:
Tithron wrote:
It is like they are just being willfully obtuse and confrontational.
Some of us that are dissatisfied with the playtest can feel this way about people that are positive too. ;)

It depends on your complaint and how well thought out it is. I am personally sick of:

- Knee Jerk Click Bait Posts
- People saying Video Gamey like Video Games aren't a billion dollar industry that Paizo or Wizards wouldn't love to get a piece of
- People hating PF2 simply because it isn't 3.X polish further
- Why did Paizo copy Edition X posts
- Flame wars

Really, other than that, I am very happy to chat with people who disagree with me. Maybe you have insights I haven't heard yet.


I wish there were more tables for sure. And the Feat and Spell sections feel very very messy.

I really don;t get the hatred of the Icons, but I agree that having the word Action next to the icon wouldn't hurt.


ChibiNyan wrote:
graystone wrote:

Also has anyone seen that the humble Shuriken is our new ranged weapon overlords? While it only does a 1d4, it adds str, is - bulk so any 'non-vast amount' doesn't weigh you down and has a reload of 0 for a thrown weapon. Add to that monks can flurry with it makes Monastic Weaponry seem like a must have feat.

I wonder how many - bulk Shuriken can fit in one of those belt pouches?

I'd say roughly 30 from logic, but that's actually how many L items fit in it... Why do we need Bags of Holding again?

The correct answer is ALL the Shuriken. LOL

Also you need bags of holding to waste all your Resonance points on (this is going to need addressed eventually, for real).


Yeah, I too am realizing the waste of time trying to engage people with negative thread titles. It is like they are just being willfully obtuse and confrontational.


I agree that tacking the word Feat on everything seems a bit silly. Ideally I would enjoy something like this:
Class Feats = Talents
Skill Feats = Trainings
Ancesty Feats = Lineage
General Feats = Feats

I would avoid traits simply because items have traits now and giving each word a single in game use is kind of the point of this.

I like them having seperate names and then you could put each in its own section. None of this mixing General Feats and Skill Feats into one huge list. Still gets the modularity, but you have clearer language.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would agree about the Combat Feats. Maybe also a MetaMagic Feat list. And maybe move a few other more general things that show up on multipe classes back to General Feats. But maybe overly restricted Feats were on purpose? At least for the playtest?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me that they were probably looking for an excuse. My group really enjoyed character creation.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.

Paizo is never going to win the 5e crowd. The 5e crowd plays 5e because of the name recognition advantage D&D has and because that system requires zero mental energy to create a reasonably successful character.

I honestly have no idea who PF2 is supposed to appeal to. On one hand it presents itself with far more depth than anyone interested in 5e would ever want, and on the other hand all of that depth is for nothing because trying to build Your Dude and making something that doesn't play exactly to the type Paizo envisioned involves trap option after trap option after trap option (hello, signature skills).

Signature Skills are awful. They are currently my biggest fault with the rules I have found so far.

As for who to appeal to, being a nerd is cool now. TCGs, video games, board games that aren't made by Parker Bros. All of these things have had a huge surge in popularity. If you could make a game that has interesting complexity but is easy for a new group to start playing, you could get a huge following. Not saying Paizo will pull that off, or even if that is their goal. But their are plenty of people out there that like games and like being social.


Oh I second this request. Trying to keep players informed of avalible actions bogged down our combat a lot. Even something player made would be great honestly.


Agree with the Char Sheet being rough. I expect it to be much more streamlined by the time release happens.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.


slightlyprime wrote:
It feels like a good meet between the complexity needed for customisation and the simplicity for new players and smooth gaming. Ilove most of the playtest material.

This.

Complexity while being able to pick up easily. That should be the goal. I am not going to say they are nailing it so far, but it has a lot of potential.


Murdered it and then dragged it through town to the jeers of onlookers. It has been mostly civil, but some people are deffinetly not thrilled.


Yes, Paizo has 10 years of other games and ideas to draw from. And all the people that really do want to play 3.5 until the sun burns out can keep playing PF1. I do not understand this anger at the NEW edition being NEW. Also the term video-gamey. God forbid that TableTop RPGs take inspiration from a multi-billion dollar industry.

I agree, with some acclimation a lot of formating issues and jargon issue will not be as much of a barrier.

I am very excited. And I love how combat plays.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad to see more thoughtful and positive threads. I agree that there needs to be some serious formating and rebalancing updates in some areas. But I love the core game engine.


Cfoot wrote:
I understand why Paizo is going this direction, its just not what I (personally) hoped for. I disagree that PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could go.

Fair enough. And there are plenty who agree with you. I am not here to fight about it, just explaining why I think they went the way they did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the playtest as well. I am super excited for the direction things seem to be heading. I would say most the core is solid. With somthing like 20% of things that need some attention.

It is good to see more positive threads on here. I feel like the negative thereads get more attention.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I don't want to get into an edition fight here, so I will be direct. No it is not 3.8. PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could. 5th ed is crushing Paizo in market share at this point. They are not trying to make another 3.5, they are taking the Pathfinder engine and making a NEW edition. That means taking risks and making changes. The 3.5/PF1 die hards will still be playing PF1 regardless of what happens with this Playtest.

I am also of the opinion that they will be opening up the options more in the full game. I think the playtest is intentionally restrictive to make sure classes fill there niches properly. That is speculation though.


Ale, the 4th level potion wrote:
Tithron wrote:

Well Legendary level stuff is supposed to be epic almost to the point of silly. It seems to be designed that way. Your martials are going to be superheroes to compete with the high level casters.

That being said, you also have to take into account Skill Feats, which will only probably be 2-3 of your Skills. And higher DCs at those higher levels. Somethings have fixed DCs, and I admit that might get silly, but honestly, PF1 level 20s are silly, so I don't find this to be a huge issue. Maybe...

I see what you mean. I was really hoping that this edition would get us closer to the 15-17 levels before things really started to come off the rails. I can deal with it I guess. But if that was also adjusted I would fight people who attacked the system at that point.

Now back to happy. I really want to see more multiclassing. Regardless of how it looks right now I really like the concept, you take a feat that gives you the basics. Then you can tailor it a little more to get the right feeling. I would love to see it opened up a bit more. Mixing the shield fighter feats or something with monk would be awesome. I have always wanted a shield monk. Captain America jokes wouldn't stop me. I want it.

They are going to add more multiclassing. They just did the most basic four as a proof of concept for the playtest. I am thrilled with the new Multiclassing. Compared to 3.5/PF1 it is super simple to understand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goddity wrote:
Tithron wrote:
Maybe thats just me though.
I agree with you. Epic should be epic. It's also perhaps the best way for martials to keep up with casters.

Yeah. I mean basically your party is going to look like a Marvel Movie by level 13, and thats fine. Having Thor and the Hulk and Scarlet Witch running around is way better than having Thor and Bruce Banner and Scarlet Witch running around. Cause, spoiler alert, casters are stupid good in PF1, by level 12 at the latest, but starting around 9 or 10.


MerlinCross wrote:
Tithron wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Tithron wrote:
I like it. It makes coppers matter. And it means that, if you care about the weight of coins, carrying around a few platinum is now a small fortune. And there is no downside. Most of the complaints against it are "I don't like things changing" which isn't really an argument.

Okay. I'll bite.

What would you use copper to buy that you wouldn't use silver for? And from what I'm looking at, copper buys only matter when making your character and goes right out the window. And if it matters so much, my players shouldn't lynch me for paying out in copper right?

I invite you to try that on your players if you're so confident.

My point is that if Silver is your default currency, copper might actually see use in the game. When was the last time in PF1 that you bought anything that cost a copper? Only thing I can think of off hand is maybe a candle? I personally would rather see silver and gold be the common currencies, leaving copper for super cheap items and platinum for parties that care about carry weight. Rather than the current PF1 system which is basically write everything in gold unless I feel like converting it to Platinum for fun.

But I do agree with you that all item prices need to be the same type of coin, otherwise it will cause confusion.

Might isn't the same is will though. How many things "Might" be used only to be pitched off a cliff for any number of reasons.

Sorry I foresee copper going over that same cliff if Paizo doesn't make an effort to keep it relevant to a degree.

And Silver has very limited use in PF1. Which is where copper would end up. But the list of things in PF1 you can buy with Silver is so much more than copper. I am not saying copper will be a major currency, just that centering things at Silver means you might occasionally use it. Otherwise, just make everything a single currency since that seems to be what everyone does in PF1 anyway.


Ale, the 4th level potion wrote:

Alright I think this is the place I can go for this.

I really like this system. I want it to take off. Bards are like this damage increasing support monster that they really always should have been. A knife fighter is actually awesome and contends (doesn't have to be better, but it at least brings it to the table).

I'm super bummed out about +level for everything and how it seems to be making everyone good at everything and leading to the old let's wrap up the campaign at around 13th level and make new characters. Can someone (who isn't a troll, and that's why I ask here) tell me why this isn't completely terrifying?

I built a knife fighter to level 20 and found that I have a good everything. Really, I can intimidate everyone to death untrained. 16 charisma and it's my second lowest stat (which feels a bit nutty). I have a 21 to intimidate. The same is true about arcana, I have a +19 to arcana rolls. With an intelligence of 12 (my low stat). At 20th (or even close to it) how is the point not to start being dumb and having the fighter goblin administer first aid and the dwarf barbarian make a good impression? This seems like a big issue and seems like something that multiple designers gave the nod on.

I really like the idea of +1/2 level and double penalties and bonuses for proficiencies.

What am I missing? This genuinely isn't a complaint. I'm not understanding how this is getting a solid thumbs up from people. Thanks in advance. Let's make this thing work.

Well Legendary level stuff is supposed to be epic almost to the point of silly. It seems to be designed that way. Your martials are going to be superheroes to compete with the high level casters.

That being said, you also have to take into account Skill Feats, which will only probably be 2-3 of your Skills. And higher DCs at those higher levels. Somethings have fixed DCs, and I admit that might get silly, but honestly, PF1 level 20s are silly, so I don't find this to be a huge issue. Maybe thats just me though.


MerlinCross wrote:
Tithron wrote:
I like it. It makes coppers matter. And it means that, if you care about the weight of coins, carrying around a few platinum is now a small fortune. And there is no downside. Most of the complaints against it are "I don't like things changing" which isn't really an argument.

Okay. I'll bite.

What would you use copper to buy that you wouldn't use silver for? And from what I'm looking at, copper buys only matter when making your character and goes right out the window. And if it matters so much, my players shouldn't lynch me for paying out in copper right?

I invite you to try that on your players if you're so confident.

My point is that if Silver is your default currency, copper might actually see use in the game. When was the last time in PF1 that you bought anything that cost a copper? Only thing I can think of off hand is maybe a candle? I personally would rather see silver and gold be the common currencies, leaving copper for super cheap items and platinum for parties that care about carry weight. Rather than the current PF1 system which is basically write everything in gold unless I feel like converting it to Platinum for fun.

But I do agree with you that all item prices need to be the same type of coin, otherwise it will cause confusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy seeing this positive threads. It kinda feels like this forum is a dumpster fire sometimes. Less tonight than earlier today though.

I am very excited for this Playtest and have been since it was announced. Most of my PF1 group is at least open to it, a few are even getting pretty excited as well.

Some of my favorite things from one day with the rules:
- New class features and specializations for Barbarian and Druid.

- The Ancestry system (though I think there needs to be some rebalancing)

- How Ability Scores work

- The new Action System


huh, I did not expect my wording choice to get sensored. LOL


My group has always played with this rulle:
You can be evil, but you cannot be a murder-hobo party stealing from b#~+$!~+ (real curse words removed for this forum).

So if your players can handle making complex, interesting, evil characters, allow it. If they just want to do it for the drama or similar reasons, don't allow it. I, as a DM, have no interest in being the host of a reality show at my table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it. It makes coppers matter. And it means that, if you care about the weight of coins, carrying around a few platinum is now a small fortune. And there is no downside. Most of the complaints against it are "I don't like things changing" which isn't really an argument.


Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
Playtest pg. 18 wrote:
At 1st level, a character can never have any ability score that’s higher than 18.
Just curious why this is here. If we can only, at most, boost a stat to 16 at level 1, why put this in at all?

You can get a stat to 18, not 16, if you stack your Ancestry, Background, Class, and 1 of your Free boosts to the same Ability.

As to why that rule exists, perhapse they intend to add Ancestries that get +4 to one Ability in later books? Just a thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Specific always overrides general. So normally you round down, but specific abilities and feats can override this.


I agree with your wife's reading of the rule. This is how my group did it when we made a small party last night.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

DMW this is a great thread. Thank you for being a well thought out voice of reason in this sea of "hot takes"


I honestly didn't even see that chapter yet. I read Character Creation, Classes, most of the rules on Actions, and then some buddies wanted to take it for a rough test ride, so after that it was just what I needed to look up to run things for a few hours.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to say two things, to off set the depressed mood here. 1, a lot of it does still feel like Pathfinder. And a lot of things are easier to explain to new people than they were in PF1. The new Action System being a great example.

And secondly, Paizo said that some of these changes are experimental, just for the playtest. They still have a whole year till they are planning to release a core book. Somethings are unlikely to change, but a lot of this is not set in stone yet. The purpose of this playtest, and these forums is meant to be "Hey, this feels off" and then hopefully they address that. I am not saying don't express yourself, but I get really bummed when something new comes out and the existing fanbase starts a pool on how long it is till the publisher goes broke. Give them the benefit of the doubt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I gotta say, I am excited about the new edition. I have been following the spoilers on the blog since they started in March. And for the most part I liked what I found when I downloaded the PDFs. The layout of the PDFs feels weird, but with practice that might be less of an issue. Its just when you are reading the early chapters, there are terms you need to know in the late chapters, so there is a lot of flipping around, but this may be unavoidable.

Skills
Trained Skills
I do not like that some casters have more trained skills then the martial classes. I always felt it was a failing in PF1 that the fighter had the least skills when non-magic classes need skills the most. I would like to see something more like this:

  • 10 - Rogue
  • 7 - Ranger
  • 5 - Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin
  • 3 - Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard

Int also makes this complicated, because Alchemist and Wizards are going to have more trained skills than the other magic focused classes without having to give much up. I realize this isn't new, just pointing out that it feels more noticible in this system, at least to me.

And I realize the Bard is supposed to have skills, but if he is a full caster now, he either needs way less skills or way less weapon proficencies.

Signature Skills
I hate them. Lets look at what they replace, Class Skills, Class Skills gives a numeric bonus to skills that your class is most likely to be relied on to provice for the party. This bonus is most noticable in the early game. They are a nice benefit, but do not force your class in a direction.

On the other hand, Signature Skills are a straight jacket. I realize the difference between Expert and Legendary is only 2 on Check Rolls, but with Skills Feats, it is a massive difference. And this is on top of the rules restricting Master and Legendary to mid and high levels respectively. I feel that having to wait until 13th Level and having to invest 4 of your 10 (I think, still working on getting the rules ingrained in my head) Skill Upgrages is enough of an investment. Adding the restriction of Signature Skills is overkill.

Ancestries
First, they feel out of balance. After looking over the sidebars of the other classes, I was shocked seeing how empty the Halfling and Humans were. I know not everyone can have special senses, but you have to at least try to make a level playing field.

Second, Ancestry feats feel very hit and miss. Some are so strong you would be a fool not to take, others feel more like niche cases or just garbage. And the distrabution of the good feats is also not even amoung races. And it isn't like the weak starting races have better feats, it really just looks like Elfs and Dwarfs are the best choices, with Goblin also being pretty good, depending on how much Size ends up hurting them.

Bulk
Bulk feels weird. I like the simple math and low numbers. I do not like how there doesn't seem to be (I may have missed it) a way to tell players how much bulk something is on the fly. This came up 3 times (my players like to carry/drag stuff).

Those are my initial thoughts. There is still plenty of the book to digest.


They changed Attack to Strike so there is a clear distinction from the Strike action and just a general Attack. This was an issue for the wording of a few Feats in 1st Edition where an Attack and the Attack action could lead to confusion.

I am less sure why they changed Move. I honestly like the similar sound, but I can see it leading to communication issues in some situations.