Withersans's page

To be honest I feel that "shields getting destroyed when used to block" should not be a frequent fantasy trope. It should be rare and significant.
A design that produces a narrative where shields are at a constant risk of being destroyed when used for their main purpose is a design that produces a narrative I don't like.
Just my 2 cents.

+1 Gunslinger, I am okay if it's an archetype. But I want to be able to actually blend the use of guns with another class speciality, i.e. sneak attack, alchemist bombs, spells and so on.

The game is designed to make written adventures go as planned no matter what the players build.

That's it.

Found The Path

man I haven't even finished reading but this made me laugh out loud, favorited without a second thought

EDIT: after reading the whole post, I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points (plus, I had a few more laughs, so thank you)

I really hope the best for this game. Regards.

Those people, imo, should not be told they should go to another system

I can tell whatever I deem appropriate: if I think another system is better for YOU I will suggest that, and if that upsets you well that is your problem

The legacy argument doesn't really hold up when you think that "the" D&D left the old vancian behind and despite that (or, actually, thanks to that) it's at peak popularity

Dire Ursus wrote:

Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh

Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

In fairness, they have been silent for quite a while.

Of course, it reached the point where previous version advocates were harassing people they disagreed with in private messages with personal attacks.

How could anyone tolerate such a toxic one sided environment?
Of course they left the aggressive echo chamber.

So what if the fighter hits easily on the first attack?

The same Fighter has 2 other attacks that previously were not relevant but now they are.

This is how it should have been in the first place

Very good, now just add the ability for players to have a minimum guaranteed amount of uncommon abilities without GM fiat and I may even buy the game when it's out

Are you trying to stop the playtest with this post? I'm not sure what the purpose is. This was zero percent constructive.

"I said I want to swim into magma no matter what! Are you trying to stop me? This is 0% constructive"

Given the current maths, many feel that there is no reason to stick with a d20.
Instead, most if not all of the game's goals would be accomplished by throwing a coin.

So, why not just throw a coin!
Here is my thought experiment:

1) -Every action requires throwing a coin; head is success, tail is failure
Level, class ability scores and DCs are irrelevant

2) -Level, class, ability scores and DCs are instead represented with pools, just like HPs, and the ability to erode that pool faster, just like damage

Example 1 (attacks)

Rob is a fighter with a greatsword, on a succesful attack the amount of damage is calculated like this:
Weapon Damage + Proficiency + Ability Score + Level Bonus (same for all classes) + CLASS BONUS (depends on class) + specific options (feats etc) + circumstance & conditional

Subtract a certain amount from subsequent attacks to simulate MAP.

AC in this system is either represented as damage reduction or as extra HP

Example 2

Dan is a rogue who's trying to pick a lock. Roll 1d2. On a success, he partially or completely solves the challenge, depending on wether he deals enough points of Success to the challenge Pool:
Ability Score + Proficiency + Level + CLASS BONUS (depends on class) + specific options (feats etc) + bonuses (circumstance, conditional... etc)

Example 3

Jimmy is a wizard. He casts a spell with a save. The enemy throws a coin. On a failure, the spell takes effect.
Enemy is now forced to add points to their "debuff pool" depending on the wizard's and spell power.
On the enemy's turn, he can remove some debuff points, and even spend actions to remove more. The stronger the enemy, the higher the amount of removed debuff points. When debuff points go to zero, the effect ends.

I know this might look like a joke, but I'm honestly thinking this could actually work.

This is *significantly* better than resonance and I'm very satisfied with the change.

If I had to redesign stats and no sacred cows my setup would be

-Prowess
Damage, strength and physical resistance (fortitude, HP...)

-Quickness
Defense, initiative, reflexes

-Dexterity
Hit chance, movement, fine movement

-Logic
Unchanged from Intelligence, basically

-Perception
Sense Motive, Perception, save against illusions

-Spirit
Force of personality, charisma, save against charm & compulsion

Example:

A character with high Dexterity would hit and crit more often but wouldn't deal as much base damage as someone with high Prowess.

A character with high Prowess would have more HP but less AC than a character with high Dexterity.

Both stats are useful for attack and defense, and you never feel that raising the lower one is a waste.

MMCJawa wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0

Great for your group, but given the state of Pathfinder at present, it would probably not go well for the company. 5E is drawing existing PF 1E players away, along with the normal attrition that all games have with their player bases.

As I see it, Paizo can:

Go with a significantly new edition and gamble it will bring in enough players to counteract those turned off. If you win the gamble, you'll do great. IF not, well...things go poorly

Do nothing at all, or just offer a mild update of the system. Consign your company to a massive downsizing that the company may never recover from.

I just don't see option 2 as viable. Option 1 is risky of course and who knows if it will work, but risk is better than nothing.

Pretty much. People here act as if Paizo was some charity ran by people who didn't ask themselves the question "is a slightly tweaked PF1 viable economically for us?". Of course they've asked themselves that question and apparently they've arrived at the conclusion that no, a slightly tweaked PF1 is not going to float the boat.

And?

given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

"they try to propose us a more "Dark Souls" game"

Except in Drak Souls you win if you're actually good, while in PF2 it's down to randomness and player ability is minimized both before combat (optimization is no longer possible) and in combat (tactics are weak and unlikely to work, positioning is less relevant, CC is ineffective etc)

It's actually the opposite of a game like Dark Souls that rewards you for good play

No I just want feats to be relevant, I didn't say it has to be through numbers.

Relevant such as choosing street style over outslug style or viceversa.

Feats that do something noticeable, and you can use often.

or we ignore you and play right into your theory

You shouldn't be worrying about this. You're in control. Let people think what they want. Just make sure your communication is clear when you want to send a message. That is how politicians handle controversies and they are, arguably, the most succesful category of people in the world.

However I still crave for options that are fun in a pure gameplay sense.

My favorite "gameplay" feats from PF1 are Barroom Brawler, Lunge, Combat Patrol, Weapon Trick, Cornugon Smash, Street Style, Improved Spring Attack

Yes I want feats that give my character cool stuff to do fluff-wise but I also really, really want optional feats that enable new levels of tactical gameplay because... well, that's just what I like.

These are the kind of feats that make me feel like my character is actually my own. When I customize both fluff and gameplay, then I feel it's truly complete.

I'm ok if other people don't share this feeling.

I'm just pointing out something that I regard as great in PF1 and would like to see more in PF2

After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.

Yes, but:

1) it's not something you should not be able to *attempt* without training

2) You are technically trained anyway so having to select the feat on top of that is extremely counter-intuitive

examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

None of these feats push the envelope as far as the power level of a character of that level. However, they are all really cool. They are things that a player is going to get excited about being able to do, and they let a player expand or refine their character concept

You have convinced me.

Then the problem seems to be that the current feats are restrictive rather than the opposite.

For example, it's quite disheartening that you need a feat to actually pickpocket someone even if you're already technically trained at thievery. It makes the feat feel like a tax rather than a cool new feature.

Well, I basically agree with everything.

While I believe that the core system could use some tweaking, the features seem to be the most pressing issue that needs fixing.

As of now, we have 2 types of features:

-Mandatory features that are extremely strong, for niche protection
-Optional features that are irrelevant, to minimize the extent to which a player can optimize their characters

The combination of these 2 design choices create a very limited building environment, that for me, and other people, just doesn't cut it.

Well technically they *can* change the fundamentals of the system during the playtest, but I'm worried that people who gave them money to get the playtest book believing it would be used for about 1 year wouldn't be very happy to learn that it's no longer the case

LuniasM wrote:

Apparently the inability for a small company to handle tens of thousands of users on their website simultaneously in the wake of a hotly-anticipated release counts as a "misstep" now?

Of course it does. What would the consequences be to Paizo if on the day 2E launches, their site goes down for 2 weeks?

The people who manage the website are not the same who design the game tho.

I understand some people have a hard time accepting others may have different point of views, but blaming the unhappy customer in the end is not going to help their cause except for perhaps momentary emotional relief

The fact that insofar Paizo didn't address some of the critique which was frequent on the boards (eg. the "it isn't PF1" one, the "monsters should be built like PCs" or the "casters are too weak" one and of course the "wrought treadmill, verily" one) while tackled other comments that were frequent (ancestries, out-of-combat healing, signature skills, untrained being too low) tells me that they are unwilling to change some very specific things about the game, no matter how unpopular

I want exploration mode to allow for a playstyle that is not supported by the very same idea of exploration mode.
Complete deletion of the whole mode seems to be the best improvement I can think of.

Not really, since outside of few hyper-specialised builds, Vital Strike was a trap option. So what it actually did was punish people who wanted to roll more dice.

I don't really agree here.

On paper it's a trap option but in real play you can't always land a full attack, especially if the GM plays smart.
Most 2 handed fighters and barbarians can make a very good use of Vital Strike up to lv 9-10 at which point they can simply retrain.

Anyway, back to the topic -

Forcing people to perform repetitive and slow steps in order to do something makes the gameplay feel clunky and is not good design.
This might be enjoyed by some, but forcing it on everyone is definitely a mistake.

I don't like that you can't really choose.

In comparison, PF1 had the optional Vital Strike chain that dice-freaks could optimize in order to roll the thunderous dice avalanche of death, which they enjoyed - and even then, only when they chose to actually use Vital Strike.
People who didn't like to roll many dice simply didn't choose the options that would lead them to. There were plenty of viable melee builds based on 1 single die roll + static numbers.
This way, people with different tastes could enjoy playing at the same table together.

In PF2 instead you have no real choice. You either roll lots of dice, or you'll be underperforming.

To me, this is not very good design.

This happens because weapons are not very well balanced.

If this game had a system like Lemmy's weapon creation rules (or was based on a sensible point-buy system for all weapons) nobody would complain because reduced damage would always come with comparable benefits

People say you gimp yourself because, well, if you pick an entirely inferior weapon, then... you ARE gimping yourself.

I'm not proposing that specialists are better at everything. I'm suggesting that specialists are better at one thing, but this must come at some cost so that if a character chooses not to be a specialist, they can contribute better in other areas
(something I very much like to do in PF1, BTW)

The important factor is that you can CHOOSE to either be a specialist or not, and in either case, if the system is well designed, the character will perform well.

Feats are "garbage" because in order to make characters power perfectly predictable at all levels, Paizo had no other choice but making all feats basically irrelevant

If all feats are weak, no matter what you choose (or don't choose), your character will always stay into the predefined range of power.

This ensures that the game is always balanced no matter what the players choose, because, well, their choices technically don't matter

This wouldn't be bad, if the players didn't notice.
Problem is... they do.

This is not going to change. Let's look at facts.
The official Design Goals clearly state that one of the game's priority is to be well balanced.
However, nowhere in the list it says that building characters is supposed to be engaging on a theorycrafting level.

That is the job of other games, such as, well... Pathfinder 1, amongst many others.

PF2 is different and unfortunately, as the time goes on, this fact appears to be less and less likely to change.

As long as the nonspecialist has a reasonable chance at normal success, the issue you are presenting wouldn't really be a problem

Success rate feels too low.

Many have suggested to remove the -10 +10 degrees of success as a solution. But I haven't seen anyone suggesting the other way around: leave degrees of success in place, but also tweak the game to allow for larger numerical differentiation.

Here is how the whole thing would work

if martials (characters specialized at physical combat) had a hit bonus high enough so that they could crit at 15 with their first attack, then I believe this would happen:

-It would make the whole attack routine more worth it (second attack would still be very good, third attack would be decent)
I believe this would make the game feel more satisfactory because players are complaining that success rate doesn't feel high enough for specialist characters, both for narrative and gameplay reasons

-DPR would skyrocket
This is bad with current math

How to fix this problem?

-First, give monsters some more HP
-Second, change how magic weapons work so that crits don't deal as much damage
-Third, make sure that only true specialists can reach this level of success rate

Pros:
-Specialists feel like true specialists
-Character building phase could allow for some numerical tweaking, allowing optimizers to feel rewarded without breaking the game

Cons:
-None that I can think of, if you implement the required changes correctly

This could even be applied to skills

Problem:
Most skills don't require multiple attempts and don't have Multiple Attack Penalty math associated

Possible solutions:

A-Make most skills require either 1 crit success or 3 normal success to succeed. You can try 3 times in a turn, but you get multiple attempt penalty

Pros (All of the above goes without saying, but also):
-the whole game would follow a single basic rule, making gameplay more coherent allaround
Cons:
-requires more rolls

B-Give skills "success pools" similar to HP pools that get "damaged" when a success is achieved, and let crit success deal double success points of "damage" to the task. You can try up to 3 times per turn, but you get MAP.

Pros:
-Allows for more differentiation between long and difficult tasks
For example, building a house might have a very low difficulty, but a very high "task pool" as it takes very long. However if you're good enough to crit often, you can complete the task sooner.
Cons:
-Requires a lot more rolls

C-Redesign crit success and normal success so that crit succ is basically always the same as a normal success, but without the normal resource expenditure (common resource expenditure include time, materials etc)

Pros:
-Elegant and simple, has all the + points of making specialists feel truly superior like they should
Cons:
-less granular than the above solutions, which to me feels like a wasted chance

Let me know what you think. Did I miss any important cons? If so, which ones?
Would you enjoy the game more if similar changes, or different changes with the same purpose, were implemented? If so, why?

Thank you for your opinions.

pogie wrote:

Their boards, their rules, fine. But it seems disingenuous to put out a play test, which many have paid for, ask for input and then actively shut down some of the discourse on the product you claim to want feedback on.

I think it would be great if board users could decide what topics are worthwhile of discussion and not have an active topic closed because of reasons.

I'd generally agree with this statement, but most of these threads are just repeating talking points that have been made dozens, if not more, times and than ending in circular arguments. Just look at the last couple of posts about AoOs in the 4e thread, which is neither helpful nor productive, so I don't mind shutting that kind of "discussion" down.

I'm not sure if I did something wrong there. If that's the case, I'm sorry. It was never meant to bother anyone. I mean, a question gets asked, I try to reply to the best of my ability. Do you think I shouldn't have answered the questions that were being asked?

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Gratz wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?

Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area

The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.

I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.

Right on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?

Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioning

Yes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.

A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interesting

You still haven't provided any response to how AoOs make combat tactically more interesting...

It's an additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choices

That's rewording of what you previously said (seems like avoidance); how does the additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choices make it tactically interesting?

Because it requires to think tactically in oder to make good use of it

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?

Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area

The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.

I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.

Right on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?

Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioning

Yes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.

A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interesting

You still haven't provided any response to how AoOs make combat tactically more interesting...

It's an additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choices

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?

Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area

The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.

I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.

Right on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?

Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioning

Yes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.

A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interesting

sherlock1701 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?

Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area

The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.

I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.

Right on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?

Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioning

AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?

Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area

Playtest questions only investigate wether the game is running according to plans

They don't ask wether the rules are fun or enjoyable or feel easy to use or well designed, or any other important question...

...you should pay more attention to your own posts, I guess.

I never said that the majority is hating on PF2, so... Whatever

your theory about the majority hating PF2 like you do is quite preposterous.

I didn't know I had a theory about the majority, can you please show me the post where I exposed it because I don't remember writing one

It's honestly pretty silly to count favorites (which aren't supposed to be upvotes anyway)

If people use favorites as upvotes then functionally they become upvotes and you can use their number to count effective upvotes, the only difference being said upvotes are in favorites form

If everything's supposed to be a coin flip, just own it and turn this into a d2 based system

...

This doesn't even sound as bad as you probably intended. It would get the game rid of some unnecessary complexity, while achieving basically all of the same goals.

Imagine if everyone hit with 2 and miss with 1, but they can get more damage based on class & equip, or additional effects on hit.

Casters hit & miss the same way, they deal less damage, but have stronger effects.

Level increase would be represented by additional hit points and "condition removal" points
(hit points are basically condition points for death)

It wouldn't feel much different from now but it would surely be a faster and simpler game

Traits, multiclassing and alternate racial traits were being used to customize... but they were also the source of some of our biggest power imbalances that seriously skewed the game. They were the features that frequently allowed players to cherry pick their power level.

I'm not interested in a new game that doesn't allow me to cherry pick my power level.

I chose to specifically keep playing Pathfinder not for the APs, not for PFs, but because it's the most fun for character builds.

I hated PF1 complexity but it was a cost I was happy to pay because It came with a wonderful pre-game playground that made the effort feel worth it.

PF2 is just as complex as PF1 but character building is so straight jacketed I can't get any fun from it.
I'm not willing to pay the tax of complexity for no reward whatsoever.

Other games are not fun to build characters with, but they have other selling points: they play smooth and are simple to run.
PF2 doesn't do that either.
It's complicated, for no reason at all.

I'm sorry our tastes don't meet.

I hope you can make the game that is perfect for your goals and be happy and succesful with it, even if it's not for me.

Regards.

One of the best features of PF1 is being able to calibrate my character to be exactly as good as appropriate for the group.

I play in different groups at vastly different levels of optimization and this degree of freedom is for me an extremely important part of what makes the system fun and rewarding for me.

1. Not good. The rules are awkward and system mastery is only required to make the game run faster, not to customize more

2. Complete success

3. Good degree of success

4. Success, but it comes at the cost of not allowing any room for deliberate imbalance, which is definitely a fun part of the game that is now not available (unless you willingly nerf yourself, which is the only deviaton allowed by the system)

5. I don't see this. The game has so many technical terms and book keeping it's very clunky to run.