Late comer here to posting but I've read the whole thread and I have a question for John Lynch 106. Every time somebody makes a post containing
Critical Success: Blah blah really good stuff happens
you then question the validity of where this comes from. Even asking/ stating
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I don’t even recognise the game that critical fail scenario came from. Maybe Fate or Powered by the Apocalypse? It certainly wouldn’t belong in any D&D game or Pathfinder game I’ve played in. I really hope they don’t put that sort of stuff into Pathfinder 2e.
My question is are trying to make a point or are you being willfully obtuse? Or are you unaware? Because that format was in the Playtest. Cyouni even quoted the crit fail, fail, and success outcome from Mirrored Moon, one of the sections in the Playtest Adventure Doomsday Dawn. This appears to be the format moving forward into Pathfinder 2e. So what are you saying when you question that? Are questioning the format? Or what other individuals have used the format for in this discussion?
Doktor Weasel wrote:
...sounds good until you realize that 5th level spells are only available at level 9 and above...
This part. I don't understand why you included this part. Until you realize? I mean 5th level spells have been only available at level 9 and above for 45 years (from the white box through 5E, from the white box through PF2). When you see a spell is a 5th level spell you know this you don't realize this. And if you are brand new you learn this you don't realize this. Again I don't understand this part. It actually took me completely out of your argument.
But Amber Diceless is not Pathfinder the game in question in the thread titled:What do you think about the digital future of Pathfinder? A game very much in need of a random number generator to be played. You may not need pen an paper but you do need more than you and your friends. I mean I assume even for Amber a ruleset exists.
But every player needs access to the rules, for those times when they are not with everyone else and want to reference them on their own.
Could've used some of this in the PF2 Strategy Guide thread where people were saying all a transitioning player from PF1 needs is a concise write up of the 3 modes of play and character creation rules. And how not everyone reads or learns the rules and can just rely on other players to tell them what to do. Cause there are people who flat out say not every player needs access to the rules.
And you are the one who brought up 1000 anecdotes about having trouble stopping a car using brakes. And how multiple anecdotes can be as informative as an survey? And I'm asking if those anecdotes are clearly false as anecdotes can be unreliable how is that as informative as a survey? Wouldn't the data and information be unreliable?
But what about the second definition of anecdote:
a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
The second definition says an anecdote is unreliable. So you're basing data on unreliable sources? Doesn't that skew results?
Shain Edge wrote:
Glad I don't play with them does not equal unworthy to play with me. Where do you even get that correlation from? Not from anything I said. You quoted it above where is unworthiness even in there? Hint, it's not.
Karnak was a famous skit on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.
Shain Edge wrote:
I'm so happy you can make a complete judgment on what I find worthy or unworthy Karnak. Because I'd rather play with someone who takes agency and the reigns of the game in hand has no bearing on whether I find some one worthy to play with me. What does that even mean, worthy to play with? Good conversation derail, though. Why would you even want to play a game without knowing the rules? I wouldn't even want to play Battleship without knowing the rules.
Shain Edge wrote:
A handbook for players is for players who don't even want to read the rules for play. I don't think I've ever been at a game where at least one or two of the players don't even want to read the rules. They just want to play, and trust the other players to tell them how the game is played.
Wow!!! I didn't realise so many players would so adversely affect their own agency in game. Glad I don't play with them.
Yes, I'm sure that not every player needs to purchase an all up CRB to play pathfinder, which was the point I was responding to. For proof, please see every single iteration of 3.5, including PF1.
To play pathfinder sure but PF2? If all I'm going on is pathfinder and character creation rules and concise rundown of the three modes of play, rather than the actual rules, I'm going to try to take an attack of opportunity when someone moves out of a threatened square. If PF2 holds true to playtest not everyone can do that. How's a transitioning player to know that with their creation rules and concise rundown of three modes of play, not ruleset? Relying on 3.5 and Pathfinder knowledge tripped up every player I playtested with, more than once. How did we correct that? By looking up the rules. Rules that would not be thoroughly provided in character creation rules and concise run down of the three modes of play which you said is all transitioning players would need.
Also, transitioning players do NOT need the entire CRB. They need the character creation rules and a concise rundown of the three modes of play (and what parts of the character sheet are relevant to each). Players coming from 5E would also benefit from a rundown of Golarion. All of which is in the PF1 strategy guide.
Are you really, really sure about that? Because during the Playtest every PF1 player I encountered, self included, needed more than a concise rundown of the three modes of play. They needed every iteration of every rule because of inherent differences. They needed every spell because of the differences.