dirtypool's page

147 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

MaxAstro wrote:
I think the most soul-crushing roll I've ever seen was one of my players rolling 13 0's on 18 dice... on a damage roll, the one kind of roll where 0's only count as a single success. XD

I know this is some serious necroposting, but I was looking through my favorited comments saw this and my brain kind of started to melt. I remember reading this, feeling awful for your player for his bad luck and faving the comment. On seeing it a second time, there are no 0's on a d10 the 0 is the 10 - so your player had 13 successes + the damage of the weapon. Now I don't feel bad for them at all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
O no i am talking about the old must die not as a troll. But as a 'sales person'. Troll is when you want it to die just because, but not launching pf1 anymore for example is a calculated move because paizo can't keep printing pf1 new content and launch pf2.

What does it matter who is saying it or why they're saying it? If someone is a proponent of PF2 and is saying that PF1 should be left to die, why do we have to have a debate about that? If someone doesn't like PF2 and is saying it isn't worth the paper it's printed on, why do we have to have a debate about that?

Why do we have to have a debate about how to have a debate that has no value?

There is no purpose here. PF1 is there and it's not going anywhere, those who enjoy it can continue to do so in peace. PF2 is here and it's not going anywhere, those who enjoy it can continue to do so in peace.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Also trolls and the fact that the old must 'die' so the new can succeed does not help.

There is an equal size trolling element devoted to the idea of "kill the new thing in its crib so they'll go back to the old." The point some of us are trying to make is their neither of those views are necessary.

Like PF1? There is 10 years worth of PF1 content, and 10 years worth of easily adaptable 3.X content. With 20 years of material to use in your campaign, PF1 will continue to be around for a very long time.

Like PF2? Get on board the train, we're pulling out of the station and headed that-a-way.

Like OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3.x, 4e, 5e, OWoD, NWoD, CoD, GURPS, Traveler, GeneSys, whatever...? Good. Play what you like, do what you like, you're limited only by your preferences and your imagination.

The problem is when you start telling other people what their opinion SHOULD BE about the game you like, or espousing to them that your opinion of that game is fact and more valid than theirs.

This whole industry is a subjective medium driven by personal taste and opinion. Let's try to be cognizant of that and let people express their opinion of products without feeling like it's an attack against our own taste and experience.

Temperans wrote:
I wasnt defending (at least consciously), just an acknowledgement that they were right.

You acknowledged the point and then immediately followed up with the defensive follow up “that doesn’t make it (PF1) bad.”

He hadn’t said it was bad, there was no need to state the the game isn’t bad. Yet you did, because whether as a conscious response or as reflex you took the simple statement of a flaw in PF1 as a challenge to its quality.

I’ve seen a lot of talk about Edition wars and people trashing PF1, but I haven’t seen a lot of people actually trashing it. I’ve seen stuff more like this where PF1 proponents get defensive about any criticisms made.

Not all criticism is an attack and not all criticism needs to be met with a fair and balanced reply from a supporter.

We can, I hope, agree that the people who think PF2 is superior and the people who think PF1 are superior can just agree to disagree.

Temperans wrote:
it has traps and required some level of system mastery, its doesnt mean it's bad.

It doesn’t mean it’s good either. It means it is a thing that exists and you enjoy. Some people enjoy the new thing more. Some people never enjoyed the old thing. Some people will never enjoy the new thing.

But take note that Tarik didn’t say PF1 was bad in his initial response. He made an argument about multiclassing that you felt the need to defend.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Well it's not made up a few really do treat traditional MC as this thing only munchkins use to power game and destroy balance, pointing to extreme theorycraft (most damage, most ac, etc.) and bad play experience as proof. Dips are specially hated for some reason.

And some people have written screeds about how terrible the guy at their table was for playing a “sub-optimal” character alongside their highly customized Mathfinder Wizard.

Each iteration of the game has its audience. The idea that in talking about PF2 in the PF2 area of the forum that we have to go out of our way to be fair, balanced and conciliatory of PF1 at all times or we’re seen as attacking it is way further afield than what you’re describing.

Temperans wrote:
I agree that talking about problem areas isnt an insult, but many of those were subjective and they state it as fact

Likewise much of the pushback against PF2 is stated as irrefutable, unshakeable fact about the greatness of PF1. Everyone uses the language of consensus and fact when they have neither standing behind them. It’s all subjective.

Temperans wrote:
Just to make sure, I wasnt saying it on an edition war mentality and more on a people are weird mentality.

I was responding to the OP who it seems is of the opinion that praise for PF2 is an insult to the legacy of PF1

Artofregicide wrote:
I could debate you on why PF1e is a great game (objectively)

You can’t actually, because for it to be objectively great we would all have to share and agree upon a common sense of taste. Which is not possible. You can say you feel it is a great game without demanding I sublimate my own opinion to yours.

Let's just say to a lot of folks, including the *creators of PF2e*, think it's a great game.

Lots of other folks think that isn’t.

But good for you. If you don't like it, don't play it. That doesn't make it not a great game, it just means you don't like it.

I see, if I don’t like it it’s still great I’m just wrong... that’s a lot.

Folks don't frame this this as a subjective "my preference is" situation.

Gorbacz did in the thread you posted your initial version of this in.

But yeah it's this kind of negative, game bashing, edition wars nonsense that has really turned a lot of people off PF2e

I don’t see how people saying they find it superior is in any way “game bashing”. Nothing I said has bashed PF1, nothing in this thread has, and nothing in the original thread did either.

The only thing feels like it’s coming from an edition wars mindset is this insistence that we all MUST give PF1 it’s due respect when referring to it. It’s again, a little much

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
Why are some folks treating these as mutually exclusive?

Maybe to those folks, they are mutually exclusive. I, for one, lost interest in PF1 right around the time Ultimate Combat came out. I don't enjoy that game, but I thus far do really enjoy PF2.

Defining something as a "great game" is a personal choice, while you may feel that PF1 is a great game, someone like me may feel that it is not. If someone legitimately feels that PF2e is a better game, and says so in a thread, why is it necessary to question their opinion?

Your statement here seems to be that there is some sort of objective reality of these games that must be addressed, when that just isn't the case. It is purely subjective, and that's ok.

Zapp wrote:
And my question is: how far can you carry/drag something exceeding your max Bulk in a single action?

That is one of your questions, the other was about dragging someone off the battlefield. Page 273 says that a medium creature (most PC’s) has a bulk of 6 and dragging rules say to halve that value.

Zapp wrote:
So... the rules ARE silent on this, since I'm asking about encounter mode, and you're replying with an extrapolation from exploration mode.

No I’m replying with the dragging rules that appear in the equipment chapter that make no mention of the mode of play. Another poster surmised that these rules were referring to exploration mode.

“Zapp” wrote:
Or rather, what the rules ARE saying is, you can't even budge something bulkier than your Strength + 10.

No, what the rules ARE saying is that if you want to drag something or someone you halve it’s/their bulk, use both hands and it takes a minute to move it 50 feet. Making no mention of what mode of play.

Captain Morgan wrote:
See, the fact that it is in the equipment chapter makes me think it is more about dragging large pieces of loot out of the dungeon that dragging someone out of the way mid combat.

It is in the equipment chapter by dint of that being where the first detailed entry on Bulk is found, and the entry for dragging specifically mentions dragging items or creatures so it isn’t about loot from a dungeon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

With the aforementioned asterisk that this probably references the lower actions per round exploration mode, so doing 5 feet per action in encounter mode seems pretty reasonable.

It being found in the equipment chapter, it references no specific mode of play. I would argue the fact that it clearly defines the action with a timetable means it is intended not for the free form exploration mode but for Encounter mode based on the following sentence:

CRB Page 10 wrote:
Encounters usually involve combat, but they can also be used in situations where timing is critical, such as during a chase or when dodging hazards.

One minute to go 50 feet is structured enough that I, as a storyteller, would call it an encounter.

Zapp wrote:
Okay... so the rules really ARE silent on this issue?

No, the rules are not silent on this.

The Rules wrote:
In some situations, you might drag an object or creature rather than carry it. If you’re dragging something, treat its Bulk as half. Typically, you can drag one thing at a time, you must use both hands to do so, and you drag slowly—roughly 50 feet per minute unless you have some means to speed it up.

So, unless you have a means of making it go faster you are dragging that person at 5 feet per round.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
“Zapp” wrote:
you're entirely correct to suggest that Rules ain't it.

He’s not suggesting that. He’s answering your question about why people kept bringing up the rules. You asked a question about color text by admittedly beginning from the premise that the rules had vastly changed. You then rudely defined anybody who disagreed with your premise as having gone “off topic” so you could dismiss and then chastise them for not following the unpublished rules of your thread.

Also, if this question about the rules of a spell not matching the color text of the spell doesn’t belong in the rules forum, where would it belong?

“Zapp” wrote:
However, I'm sure this thread is not the first one to experience topic drift

The thing you’re describing as topic drift is not what topic drift is.

You brought up the idea that the rules had changed and asked for “Thoughts.” People gave you thoughts on your initial statements. That IS the topic. People explaining that the rule still worked as it did in previous editions - or that the thing you (again by your own admission) assumed about a previous iteration of the spell was not based on the RAW of the time had not “drifted.”

You waiting more than 10 posts into a thread to reframe the conversation to be about soliciting approval for a change to color text is actually topic drift.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
How does that change the fact the description doesn't match the mechanics?

The description does match the mechanics. The only thing that isn’t accounted for here is your assumption that everyone who comes in contact with the sphere must make a save or take damage. Which is not supported by the rules as written in the last five versions of the game that included this spell.

“Zapp” wrote:
Why do you insist on just discussing the rules when I've repeatedly stated I have no questions regarding the rules?

Because you presented your argument as involving a discrepancy between the versions of this spell across multiple editions. I cited rules to point out that no such discrepancy exists.

“Zapp” wrote:
Why don't you instead engage on topic

I am engaging on topic, every other person who replied to you has as well. You created this thread but you aren’t a moderator of it, you do not get to dictate how people engage with the conversation.

“Zapp” wrote:
provide your feedback on a description like "a floating glowing ember that pulsates with great gouts of flame at (ir)regular intervals"?

Sure: my feedback is that the description you propose is unwarranted because your issue with the spell does not exist. Flaming Sphere in PF2 does what it did in PF1, 5e, 3.5, and 3.0. Your assumption that it did more than what was defined in those editions was unsupported by the rules as written for the last 20 years.

When the rule doesn’t support your headcanon; it isn’t the rule that’s wrong

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Do you feel the spell's description should have been altered to better match its (new) mechanics?

Are it’s mechanics that different? The 5e version allows for people to move through the square and only take damage if they end their turn inside the sphere.

Both the PF1 and 3.0/3.5 descriptions only make mention of making a save or taking damage if the sphere roles into your square - making no mention of what happens if you step into its square.

The 2e version was the last version that explicitly stated anyone who enters the sphere must save or take damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicolas Paradise wrote:
2. Work on providing missing core options from 1e that were iconic and heavily used such as Magus, Oracle(LOCG).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by core options here. I would think that to mean options (classes in this case) that were available in the 1e CRB which doesn't describe either the Magus (UM) or the Oracle (APG)

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?

Only if you've got 40 pages of notes. That's as many as four tens.

BlueMagnusStormCrow wrote:
I don't know why but when I read Help Hounds I immediately thought of a Hell Hound with human hands. That uses it's hands to assist you.

I thought of dogs made out of sentient gloves serving their master the Hamburger Helper Helping Hand... so yours isn't that off the wall.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Dirtypool, you are I think taking Baby Samurai's words the wrong way.

While I disagree with them, they are clearly just stating their opinion, and not trying to insist that their opinion is objective fact.

No I’m taking it for exactly what it is: over the top negative carping about an edition change that when challenged is not clarified but repeated more vehemently. It isn’t a productive conversation, it’s just a monotonous declaration of non enjoyment.

So I’m responding to hyperbole with hyperbole and just a dash of sarcasm.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
Not missing the point, at all, the comment is totally warranted, as it has been before. I truly believe they went a bridge too far; you don't agree, fine. That there's what it is.


So this game is "revolution rather than evolution" and it "cut of the head to cure the headache." and it's "a bridge too far" and those are facts that I can choose to disagree with or not.

That's a very nuanced and clearly unbiased reality you've defined for us that is in no way needlessly hyperbolic about what remains a fundamentally similar game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
I don't think so, using the basic d20 system and revolutionary are not mutually exclusive; PF2 feels a bit like a d20 sci-fi game converted to fantasy, to me.

You're missing the point I'm making, which is that your: "cutting off the head to cure the headache" comment is not warranted here. If PF2 were suddenly using custom pictographic dice or a d10 mechanic then yes it would be a revolution that changed this game beyond recognition.

That's not what PF2 is.

I'm all for expressing distaste with how far astray it is from your preference, but let's not get too histrionic about it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:

For me, really. So, to each his own; I could definitely see a less drastic PF2.

I meant more that "revolutionary" is a bit of an overreach given that we're discussing a game that still utilizes the d20 + stat framework that has existed at the core of the industry for lo these many decades.

We're not talking about a quantum leap beyond the game that we knew before, and the game before that and the game before that.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:

It seems this edition is more revolutionary than evolutionary.

I would have preferred less cutting off of the head to cure the headache.

I mean... not really. There is really well defined niche that is the d20 system writ large. You can change math behind the success threshold, or tweak the number of instances in which the player can use a power, but PF2 still very much lives into that same niche.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
It turned out that at the back of my mind I was imagining all martial characters as geriatric athletes who refuse to stretch. "I could do that flip thing, but I know it'll pull a muscle, so I better wait until I really need to."

I went the other route and head canon'ed that each usage of the Encounter or Daily powers were bestowed upon the PC by their patron god. A blessing of extra strength, etc. It's a great in game way to justify the limitations, but it was additional flavor that was above and beyond the usual settings tropes so it didn't feel right.

Had that ability boost system been in a fresh launched game that didn't hold setting and game play baggage from multiple previous editions it might have been a neat narrative element for the setting.

That's the take away I think. The 4e elements that people complained about took the player out of D&D and that made it not work. Similar elements in PF2 so far to me feel like they won't take me out of Pathfinder.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by being dismissive.

I don't think he's trying to accomplish anything beyond telling the person loudly announcing on a forum that he's rage quitting something to just suck it up and rage quit already.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Having also just gotten the books, I feel very differently; nowhere in 2e is the "every class plays fundamentally the same" that turned me off to 4e. In fact if anything they've put a lot of work into making sure that different classes and even different races play very differently.

My CRB arrived last night, so I'm not too deep in - but I've got to agree with MaxAstro here. I'll add that just from looking at the races and classes it looks like they have made them play a little more distinctly from each other than they did in the playtest.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
The success or lack thereof of the game is important to it's players in one way, continued support. If it's not financially successful, Paizo won't have the incentive or ability to continue to dedicate time, effort and money to put out so many products and to give them such high production values. Lower levels of success will result in cutting back new releases and likely not employing as large of a staff, and won't hire so many top-notch freelancers. So in that case, success certainly matters, to an extent. Whether it outsells D&D 5 or not isn't so much an issue (which is good, because that's highly unlikely, considering the amazing brand recognition D&D has and the huge success of 5th ed), just that it's successful enough to justify high-quality support.

If this were a new game launching in a vacuum, then yes it would be time for us supporters to cross our fingers and hope it lands right. This is, however, a new edition from a company that has an entrenched place in the market; successful brand recognition of its own; and two successful catalog games.

For the kind of nightmare scenario where support dries up completely and the staff is cut and future is thrown into jeopardy PF2 would have to be an immediate massive failure that can’t be course corrected.

There is literally nothing to justify that kind of fear. Even a modest initial success for PF2 will allow the company to keep pushing forward.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
But it will. People don’t have infinite time or money, they’re in the same genre, they will compete. That is inevitable.

Yes they will enter the same marketplace, but they don’t need to be judged against each other in a sales competition that will make or break the other. They’ve existed alongside each other for 10 years now, there is a segment of the audience that prefers D&D and a segment of the audience that prefers PF. Where they will compete is for the attention of those who are not entrenched in either camp.

There is plenty of room in this hobby for both without making it a horse race.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

I kinda wish they'd gone landscape.

Portrait is okay and "traditional" but when you're playing at a table—which is almost a given since minis and a battlemap are expected—it takes up extra space.

If everyone's using landscape sheets, it's five more inches of interior table space to put out the maps or place minis.

I, for one, REALLY liked the landscape character sheet from the playtest.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MongrelHorde wrote:

I would be lying if I didn't say I have my fingers crossed for PF2's success.

PF2 will be successful, just like Starfinder is successful, just like PF1 remained successful through the death of 4E, Essentials and yes the rise and height of 5E.

Will it be MORE successful than PF1 at its highest point? Maybe. Maybe not. Will it be MORE successful than 5E at the moment? Maybe. Maybe not.

Does it really matter what's on top, or if PF2 draws hordes of players away from the other game as long as you're enjoying what you play?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MongrelHorde wrote:
Logically I don't think this is true for a few reasons. If the main driving force for older (and/or more experienced) players was complexity of a given system people would not have rebuked 4E and moved to Pathfinder.

You present it as a binary "PF1 came out and the players chose it over 4E", and it is more complicated than that. Just as it is more complicated than "players like less complexity the older they get."

His argument neglects all the people who move out of D20 systems into other more complex gaming experiences, and your argument neglects all the people who ignored 4E altogether because they a.) didn't like change or b.) didn't like the way Wizards announced the edition change. It also ignores the people who initially supported 4E but plateaued in their enjoyment and retreated to PF1 because it was familiar. It also ignores the people who jumped in because they heard the hubbub about Paizo as the plucky upstart using the OGL to raise 3.5 mechanics from the dead and then promptly left to play neither PF1 nor 4E.

If that was true people would have left PF en masse to 5E.

Many did.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Quite true. I should have added that it had remained that way until the PF2 announcement.

The argument that PF1 dropped out of the number 2 slot because of the announcement of PF2 is purely a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy. Starfinder dethroned PF1 before the PF2 announcement and held the number 2 slot until Fall 2018 where it was dethroned by L5R

The PF2 announcement happened on March 6th 2018, the publish date of the ICv2 Fall 2017 sales figures that showed PF2 falling out of the number 2 slot was March 9th 2018. The sales period where Starfinder overtook Pathfinder was in Fall of 2017 before any PF2 announcement was made.

PF2's announcement is likely what caused PF1 to drop out of the top 5 entirely in the Fall 2018 period.

Bluenose wrote:
Basically since the release of 5e the top two had stayed steady, D&D 5e in first, PF in second.

That’s not entirely accurate. Pathfinder fell out of the #2 slot after the Spring of 2017 numbers and has not returned to that sales position yet.

Diego Valdez wrote:

Hello Dirtypool,

Your updated payment method authorized successfully, so everything looks good. You hadn't received any notifications because we hadn't tried to charge you yet. When a card is declined an email is letting letting you know.

Thank you Diego.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kenhito wrote:
I love how much hatred the concept of 4e has. 4e wasn't a terrible game, it just wasn't a good D&D successor to 3.5. Had they called it D&D Miniature Battles or something along those lines it would have sold like hotcakes and been super successful.

Had WOTC marketed the game we know as 4e as a simplified version of D&D with less barrier to entry and allowed two editions to live side by side like TSR did with OD&D and AD&D then I suspect 4e would probably still be in stores today.

I heard from several people who had ordered their PF2 Cores after I did that they were receiving notifications of receipt of payment and that their books are due to be shipped out. I had seen no such thing, so I logged into my account to look at my order and saw that I needed to update my credit card information.

I had used my card on file and it expired and was replaced between pre order and now, but I had received no notification from you that I needed to do this. I've now updated the information and I wanted to confirm that this error would not preclude me from getting my preorder on launch day.

MaxAstro wrote:

dirtypool, if you think the layout of the Playtest was acceptable, just do me this favor.

Working with the assumption you know nothing about the rules and starting from the spell entry, tell me how the spell Dispel Magic works.

If going down that rabbit hole doesn't convince you the playtest book has organization issues, then, frankly, you have vastly different organizational standards than the average person.

Better still how about you work from the assumption that my opinion is not some failing on my part that the ever genius and long term forum posters must correct so that I understand the game as fully as they do. Move past the arrogance of trying to correct people you don’t agree with.

I found no issue with the bulk of the organization in that book. Are there issues that need addressing? Sure. The kinds of issues that made me take multiple hours to build a character on day one of the playtest as others said surely must be the case for anyone who cares enough to weigh their options? No. Were the issues mostly in the magic chapter? Yes. Does that mean the whole creation section is terribly organized? No.

It’s disingenuous to present my argument as being that the book is perfect, because I’ve not said anything of the kind. Just that it is not as endemically flawed as has been asserted in this thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

I gave an example in this thread 4 weeks ago in comment #54.

You give in example a feat write up that mentions a trait and the trait is not indexed and requires looking paging through to find. I submit if that is “poor writing” that turns you off from a game - you shouldn’t even be here debating it because that issue existed in PF1 and should have driven you away a decade ago


For another example, look at proficiency. As of Rules Update 1.6 in the playtest, the Alchemist starting proficiencies said:

Rules Update 1.6, Alchemist, changes to page 45 wrote:

Trained in Crafting

Trained in a number of additional skills equal to 4 plus your
Intelligence modifier
The character does not have an Intelligence modifier yet, because that depends on the final ability score boosts to four ability scores.

Yes, the character does have an intelligence modifier because the alchemist correctly applied the clearly laid out steps of applying their boosts and applied their four free ability boosts before turning to the Alchemist pages in the classes chapter to determine what their final class boost would be before assigning skills. It isn’t bad writing if you ignore the written instructions.

We can assume that the player sees all the skills listed on the character sheet, so he or she does not need to read Chapter 4, Skills, first.

Just as we assumed the same of PF1 without complaint for a decade because the “Skills” chapter has followed the “Classes” chapter since this game had a completely different name. Not a bug of PF2 but a feature of 3.0/3.5/PF1. How is this a proof of the bad writing of PF2?

But what does Trained mean? That is summarized in the glossary on page 8, but it does not show up as a full rule until page 290 in the Chapter 9, Playing the Game, far away from the character creation chapters.

You mean it’s summarized before it appears in the creation descriptions, referenced in the creation chapters and then the application of it is explained in the area later in the text about how to apply what you built? That’s called scaffolding and it’s an element of instructional design.

graystone wrote:
IMO "hours" is because of the truly horrible setup/layout of the playtest book.

I keep reading this complaint and I’m not sure what the issue is. Walkthrough of character creation, followed by Ancestries, followed by Backgrounds, followed by Languages, followed by Classes, followed by Skills, followed by Feats, followed by Equipment, followed by Spells is pretty linearly laid out. Unlike 1E which breaks from character creation for 58 pages to offer up Combat and Additional Rules.

Almost every entry required you to go to another entry which then required you to look at another entry...

I don’t recall it happening that often, examples?

You have an Ancestry feat and background to look through too along with buying equipment, armor and weapons. So it's a little more than 'grab your class feat and go'...

It is a little more than grab and go, but it’s not hours of backbreaking toil.

First World Bard wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Helmic wrote:
I'm dead serious when I say it took my players hours to create level 1 characters for Doomsday Dawn, while I'm consistently able to help rush out level 5 martial characters in 20 minutes or less in 5e.
20 minutes sounds really slow for a first level 5e character. Really slow.

Also “hours” feels even slower for a first level PF2 character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also while I do appreciate a good statistical debate over what will happen on dice rolls - I would like to point out that statistics gives you a predictive model and not a measurable outcome. The quirkiness of that little thing called chance can drastically swing any way it wants.

I once had a player in Exalted 1E with a 26d10 combo roll zero successes. It can and does happen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
3e is such a good system, though! I mean, in a lot of ways it's terrible. XD But the core concept is so good. The combat basically being lifted from Discidia is amazing, and really does a wonderful job of creating the cinematic scenes Exalted is known for while avoiding rocket tag (or at least letting you see the rocket coming).

Don't get me wrong, I like 3E. It restored some of the 1E flavor that 2 jettisoned and turned combat back into something epic. However, I'm approaching middle age and so is every member of my game group. We've tried using digital resources, but we're all just too stuck in the old "we need a book" mindset. And given how frequently players have to consult charm writeups and spell writeups in any edition of Exalted - it is just not feasible for us to play without having multiple unwieldy 700+ page books to pass around.

The size of PF2 may be near comparable, but far less of that text is going to be necessary to constantly revisit. If OPP put out a stripped down Players Handbook, or just a collection of all the charms, or hell both - I think a group like mine would jump right in.

MaxAstro wrote:

I played 1st Edition Exalted in my younger years, but the systems I ran were 2nd and 3rd. I have a lot of fond memories of playing in that 1e game, but honestly the 2e game I ran is my favorite thing I've ever run.

I wasn't really a fan of the "tick" initiative system used in 2e and in Scion 1e. Excellencies were a little wonky, so we stuck with 1e. 3e isn't a role playing game it's a weapon. That book just is way too big for table use.

Even 1st edition had its... messy points, though. I remember my ST telling us that if we ever tried to grapple anything our characters would immediately be struck down by divine retribution rather than trying to learn the grapple rules. XD

I do not know what your ST was talking about because the grapple rules in 1e were simple Dex+Brawl or Dex+Martial Arts opposed checks. The writeup for it isn't even complicated. It was literally one paragraph describing the rolls to initiate a grapple and then half of the next page defining what types of grapple holds you could attempt (Clinch, Hold, Sweep, Tackle or Throw) and how damage was applied. Easy peasy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

The Exalted system is such a mess that I basically houseruled almost every single mechanic at one point or another, but the setting is so fascinating that it was worth the work. And because of how strongly Exalted ties setting and mechanics together, it's hard to port the setting to other systems.

Never underestimate how much a well-designed setting can make a system attractive. Definitely something Paizo has going for it, also. :)

Are we talking 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition Exalted? Because I will disagree with you vehemently about 1st. That game was well put together and required almost no tweaking to make work. Everytime I feel the jitters about a campaign I'm running, my first instinct is to throw it out and just have my players wander the 100 Kingdoms again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:

PF is for all intents and purposes a supers fantasy setting... For a less heroic game I usually suggest D&D 5th or other games.

I feel like you're really splitting some hairs here. Pathfinder is no more a "supers fantasy" setting than 3.0 or 3.5 were. 5e is no less a supers fantasy setting than its predecessors.

You're projecting what you like about the settings onto your interpretation of the art for each and that is a perfectly valid taste statement - but neither is categorically correct or incorrect

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
This was 8 years ago. People's habits for buying and consuming products have changed

Peoples habits have changed, but it's also important to note that the realities of the publishing industry Vic spoke to in his comments have not changed.

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>