Alurad Sorizan

magnuskn's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 7,973 posts (7,975 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,973 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

A, B and C, then target individual spells for necessary nerfs. The entire super-nerf to casters killed this edition, IMO. Then bring martials up.


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

Well, at least that way my (also locked, booo!) thread stays the biggest thread of the entire playtest. With double the posts of every blog post to boot.

Yeah, I'm just a little bit smug. ^^


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Some of the magic in PF1E was too strong, but IMO if those specific spells would have been targeted for necessary nerfs that and martials would have received buffs to their high-level capacities, that would have been enough to balance out the game. Monsters would have to be adjusted upwards to compensate.

But the devs pretty clearly prefer a more low-powered game overall. Not a direction I am interested in.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, the argument of "I want longer fights" sounds great, until you only got a few hours each session due to people growing up and having to sacrifice play hours to little things like "family" and "having to get up early due to work". Then you realize that the entire campaign is advancing at a snails pace because you only get one or two combats done each session. And then you start being happy for fast-paced combat.


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

I'd presume Ckorik is the GM of the group and everything I've seen from him over the last years says that he is an experienced GM.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:
dnoisette wrote:
- The attack routine is always the same, because there's only one that works : get into melee>strike with melee weapon x2, rinse and repeat

I see this feedback constantly. Wasn't this the point of the three action system?

I'm under the impression that the whole point of the three action system is to open up combat. Not make combat the same as it's always been minus spells.

It seems to be an actual flaw in the three action economy, now that it is under actual increased scrutiny by a multitude of players. I know people were complaining about the old "move into melee and full attack until dead" system, but if the replacement is just the same but it takes longer to resolve every single combat (which means that even more playtime each session is dedicated to this, a problem for players who want more roleplaying in their Pathfinder), then the new system is actually inferior, IMO.

Then again, as I've grown older and play sessions have grown shorter due to RL commitments, I've increasingly begun to judge a system by how much content I can squeeze out of a single play session. Because there is always more content to consume, but not enough actual playtime to do it.

A system which actively makes each AP last even longer than the 1 1/2 years already invested for each one (which has been by and large my experience over the last ten years) is actively detrimental to my own goals. If combat would go much faster than it did in previous editions than it would make sense, but so far I don't see that happening, either.


33 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, I am also pretty much done at this point. I already mentioned in my big thread about arcane spellcasters that it was my last hail mary and since Jason saw fit to shut it down (like so many threads seem to have been shut down lately), I am pretty sure by this point that nothing substantial will change. Since I somehow managed to make the most successful thread on the entire playtest forum (it had almost double as much posts as the next biggest thread after it, including every single developer blog post discussion, which is kind of amazing), at least I had an impact on the overall discussion.

I'm staying with Pathfinder 1E. As I've said before, that actually will put some money into Paizo's coffers in the short term, since I'll get all the hardcovers I'm still missing. I've already by now stocked up on the softcover books I find interesting. Too bad the Technology Guide and the Magnimar book are out of print and just not available at sane prices anymore.

I don't know. I just don't see how they'll pull a game I'm interested in out of the mess they got right now and it doesn't seem that they are really interested in changing it, either. I wish the developers the best of luck, but I think they are making a gigantic misstep.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pjrogers wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:


Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.
Unlearn it You Must!

Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"

Agreed, I'm not all that interested in learning a new RPG system, particularly when I'm quite happy with the system, PF1e, that I'm currently playing.

To my mind, this is just another strike against PF2e. I don't especially want to spend time learning a system that I don't really like and didn't ask for.

It's a definite question to which the developers so far have not delivered a convincing answer. At least to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Yoda Pugwampi wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
I've learned a few brand new game systems these last few years. PF2 is the only one I have struggled to try to keep everything straight. I think there IS a challenge in trying to unlearn/forget PF1 rules in PF2 context, not assume something is the same. But even so, I have found PF2 unintuitive and hard to learn or teach to other (experienced in many systems) gamers in a way that lack of backwards compatibility can't account for (nor do I think backwards compatibility is necessary)...

You must UNLEARN what you have learned.

*Chews on stick and looks profoundly wise*

Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.

Unlearn it You Must!

Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

Personally I wish more posters were put on bans, because it seems like too much energy is being spent on them by devs. Locking threads is just one result, but despite it being clear (in some case self admitted) that these are not productive commenters or playtesters, a disproportionate amount of effort and dev posts ends up directly or indirectly focused on this small group of posters.

I think it's a natural trend to fall into, I have long seen on Paizo boards where dev energy is spent focusing on the most toxic and least productive posters, ignoring serious humble posts to either attempt "nice guy" engagement with the bad posters (with idea this somehow satisfies them) or "public service" posts which try to keep pretense of it being moderated and under control.

It doesn't seem a stretch to think that anybody who would wish to be influential or incisive in game design here, should hold their posting to a standard that would help if it were a factor in being hired as a game designer, i.e. if not entirely professional (given they aren't actual employees) at least in the realm of that. Several devs now working for Paizo posted here before being hired, and I'm pretty sure their posting pattern was never remotely close to the people consistently dragging non-productive threads and so on.

There is just no plausible way to believe this type of posting is in good faith or productive. I don't think it makes a better play-test or forum or work-load for devs to tolerate this, I think honesty is the best policy here. And really I don't see how it is really helping the sabotaging posters themselves, to pretend it's all OK and let them continue spending their life & energy on such an activity that isn't helping anybody. This trend, involving really a very small set of posters, is significant negative factor to engaging forums here for me. It takes over discussion band-width, and reduces my will to engage because I can smell from a mile off when responding to one of their arguments has no chance of being productive.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure banning any critical posters or trying to mob them from the messageboard will be great PR for Paizo and PF2E. Surely there will be no negative repercussions in the gaming community about this or any long-term ill will this could engender. Brilliance! Brilliance I say!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anguish wrote:

The quotes were about the stories, not about the statblocks. Stories are plots, not mechanics, and I'm pointing out that the plots of the APs can continue.

I don't think the bar for what James is talking about comes down to being mechanically identical how specific combats play out. It's about the idea that the story events of an AP take place.

In this specific case, the encounter in PF2 would involve a caster who doesn't need pre-buffing because a} it's party CR+2 or something, and b} monsters don't follow the rules PCs do. If they want to give a monster a buff that lasts, they can just do that, and it doesn't matter if it makes players feel lame because they can never get that sort of ability, even when they're uber-epic-legendary 20th level.

To quote James: "Not even that he just wakes up and keeps doing what he's doing. Every story we told in First Edition needs to be something we can tell in Second Edition, and vice versa. "

You make this comment out to be only about the story, but a story informed by Pathfinders mechanics is a story which involves said mechanics. An evil archwizard who rules his empire through force of his incredible magics needs the mechanical oomph to back him up on that. And PF2E arcane casters don't have that anymore, because of the all-encompassing spell nerfs.

Furthermore, I fundamentally disagree with the design decisions to make NPC casters essentially "monsters", who have mechanically different statblocks than PC casters (and who die immediately at 0 HP by the standard assumptions, lets not forget that). I find that terrible design for class level based opponents, let's leave that to actual monsters.

Anguish wrote:

I hear and share your pain. I don't like the mechanics involved either. But the specific topic I replied to regards the intent and function of the quotes from James. I don't think he mis-spoke, or that that there's a disconnect between Jason's department and James'. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming James likes or dislikes the new rules... that's out-of-scope.)

I've stopped arguing for rules/style I want because Jason has said that one of their design goals is eliminating what I want. But I'll still post if something like this - unfair analysis of quotes - comes up.

I hear you. But I still come away with a different interpretation, because IMO there is a disconnect with what he said and what we actually have.

Anguish wrote:
Most fun campaign I ever played. Wouldn't want to do it regularly, but it was a frolic, and has added a bunch of interesting threads to the tapestry of our group campaign canon, that there are these very select heroes out there who casually slapped around some demon lords. But everyone's tastes vary.

As someone who had to GM this mess, I have to disagree. I already put in nerfs to the mythic rules and my players still slapped Baphomet and Deskari around like they were orphan children. It put a substantial crimp in my enjoyment for many months of GM'ing Pathfinder and I'm happy that I've overcome that feeling by now. Still, I'll never touch a Paizo product anymore where players get mythic tiers (or at least over tier 3).

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Stories are plots, not mechanics,
Mechanics can inform story/plot in a game like this. If, suddenly magic (and other things) does not do what it used to do, how does that reconcile with the New World?

Yeah, that exactly. Teleport is suddenly level six? How does this affect story design. Fly vastly nerfed in duration, speed and it has an increased level? Suddenly existing chasms in old AP's become a much bigger problem. Feather Fall nerfed? Wrath of the Righteous ends during the opening narration with four PC's making "splat" hundreds of feets below.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I wonder if there's a disconnect between the story writers and the rules writers.

I don't think that at all.

I don't think there's anything in any of the APs or modules that's been published that doesn't work with the new rules paradigm.

For instance, just because PC casters have roughly a 50% of wasting their slot and turn by casting a spell doesn't negate published events. Karzoug and friends for instance were clearly the statistical outliers whose dice were always hot, and their foes' were always cold. By definition, the winners are the ones who won.

What you just said is, empirically, wrong. There is no bloody way high level casters from a multitude of modules can work the same way they did before. They just can't.

Without spoiling anything, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of single caster vs. a party fights where the casters start pre-buffed extensively. That just doesn't work anymore, because a party might just as well close the door on said caster for just one minute and they then will have wasted most of their buff spells.

The "one minute to (almost) everything" buff durations just killed that kind of combat, forever. If the nerfs go through in that way. And I don't cope with the idea I've seen other people express in other threads where some enemy casters get super improved versions of some spells, because rare spell list, blablabla. That is just lazy design if that is really an idea (which is complete speculation on some peoples part, to be sure, and I am not accusing the devs of actually contemplating that terrible idea).

The Archive wrote:
Funny you mention WotR, actually. That campaign, following PF2 RAW, can't even get off the ground, let alone to mythic content. The Feather Fall nerf TPKs the PCs in the opening act.

Well, probably the best way to run this campaign, anyway. :p


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

In my spell review thread someone mentioned that they think classes like the Magus will just use the common arcane list when they come out, because it would be just much more easy to manage spell lists if they are universal.

I think that is overall a bad idea, because unique spell lists are part of what makes new classes unique and interesting. Hence, I also liked the six level spell lists, because you could do interesting things with it. The only problem was DC scaling, but since that has been taking care of with the level bonus system, I don't see why we really needed all caster classes to be nine (or ten, optionally) level casters.


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

Of course my entire analysis works on the playtest rules as released. If the base success chance is increased for the entire bestiary, then that helps a bit with casters feeling more consequential. Same with the APL math, which seems to make it out to be that we are going to face much more enemies with a lesser CR than the party than we did before in adventure paths and so on.

It does not, however, address the concerns about effect duration, range, persons affected, spell effects, spells per day, spells known, uncommon spells and so on. Those all need looking at, because most of them were affected negatively and at the same time. The problem is not just "the success chance is too low", but "most spells got four to five nerfs at the same time".


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

Sorry for the bad link, I should have done it properly.

While I think "short rests" would be a great thing overall, I also agree with dnoisette that the spells don't do enough at the moment, because the chance for critical failures is too low. Overall the idea of 4 types of success sounds great, but if you tie every type of really good result only to critical success, then you set it up that the "normal" results will be underwhelming.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I find it fascinating that all those people are turning up independent of each other to say the same thing over the last months. Almost as if there is something to the argument...


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DrSwordopolis wrote:
angeila avalon wrote:
wizard are too weak,noone want to play wizard in my party
I can't blame 'em. I wouldn't mind playing a martial in 2E, but I'd hate to play a caster.

That's pretty much the impression I came away with as well. I guess we'll see if the developers majorly change things when they do their spell pass.

I have hopes that James Jacobs may influence the PF2E devs a bit, because on the Roll For Combat podcast he was on, he said that in his ideal vision a caster who goes to sleep under PF1E rules and wakes up under PF2E rules could fulfill his role and do what he does just as well as he could in the first edition. Which is... not the case at this moment. Not nearly. Here's a link to the podcast, James says this at the 55 minutes mark. Thanks to Ronnam for making me aware of this:

http://rollforcombat.com/podcast/sp05-interview-with-paizo-pathfinder-creat ive-director-james-jacobs/


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:


Once Teleport comes online, it has seen tons of use. Last year our off-target Teleport landed us in the middle of the ocean (and the requisites for off-target Teleport in P2 were fulfilled, incidentally), but we managed to get home thanks to it having a short casting time. Floundering about in a raging storm trying to spend 10 minutes casting the spell while people in heavy armor roll 1s on their Swim check...sounds like a TPK to me.

Hey, another great argument why that particular nerf to Teleport (and, in conjunction tot hat, the one to Dimension Door) are counterproductive. :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ephialtes wrote:
You can still assume that those very vocally blaming Paizo to not listen to them how bad PF2 is will probably not upvote a post by a dev. It is quite a fair assumption that those upvotes don't come from that alu hat wearing crowd cursing PF2 at every turn because it is not exactly PF1.

I'd say that is a very individual and wrong assumption. I regularly upvote if I think the post contributes positively to the discussion. A dev weighing in, even if s/he says something I disagree with, counts about 90% as something like that. Hell, I even give Gorbacz the occasional upvote, because he says something which contributes positively to a discussion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

RotRL actually ends at level 17 and I personally gave the players the 18th level after the final boss fight.

Also, the final boss(es) in Jade Regent are notoriously low-powered (I GM'ed Jade Regent twice and both final fights were over in two rounds, even after I was forewarned and tried to adjust after the first time it happened), so a few mythic tiers would be a good idea there.

Anyway, still a bad idea to connect the two campaigns, IMO. I get why you want to and those reasons are called Ameiko and Shalelu. But the two campaigns play better in sequence, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Y'know, I just took a look at the Starfinder CRB, and it reminded me eerily of how Star Wars Saga was a middle child between 3.5 and 4E, where the good ideas ended up in Star Wars Saga and somehow then what they learned with that game led to the mess that was 4E. I really hope history doesn't repeat itself here.
I can see that; SWSE was a "snapshot" into 4th Ed design at the time, and then ToB/Bo9S, unfortunately for me, they went more with ToB, and less SWSE (it has several serious blunders, like +Heroic level, but otherwise a fantastic d20 game).

If it wasn't totally off-topic, I'd love to go a bit into why I kinda disagree about the +level in that game (it also wasn't as all-encompassing as with PF2E). But, alas. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
kpulv wrote:
I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.
I'm surprised there aren't more. My group broke up after the second part: the general replies were that no one had any fun and it was painful to play. These were all people that played pathfinder before and knew it was a playtest. For myself, I haven't been in a rush to find a new group as I too didn't have a good time.

There have been dozens of people at the start of the playtest who posted just once to say that they think that the new rules suck and then stopped posting. Make of that what you will.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Y'know, I just took a look at the Starfinder CRB, and it reminded me eerily of how Star Wars Saga was a middle child between 3.5 and 4E, where the good ideas ended up in Star Wars Saga and somehow then what they learned with that game led to the mess that was 4E. I really hope history doesn't repeat itself here.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1.) The rules read as byzantine as the ones for the Kineticist did in Occult Adventures. The classes seems significantly more straightjacketed into "roles" as well. So far everything I've heard is that mastering the rules just yields being able to keep up with the monsters. I'd have rule this design goal so far as a failure.

2.) The new rules are basically incompatible with the stories of older AP's and it's all in the all-encompassing spell nerfs. The overwhelming single caster enemy archetype who is pre-buffed up to the gills? Dead, since most buffs last one minute now. The archmage who rules a nation through his marvelous spellcasting abilities (something of a thing in Golarion history, see: Runelords, Tar-Baphon)? Dead, because all spells have been overnerfed that the very idea of that kind of ruler is laughable now. So, yeah, failure number two so far.

3.) I'm not sure where "level to everything" was one of the new optional features they included anywhere. "All spells are quadruple nerfed into the ground" also wasn't seen anywhere. But the new action economy and some other stuff from Pathfinder Unchained was included, so half a success for that design goal.

4.) Since casters have been nerfed vehemently and (some) martials have been improved a bit, I'd have to rule that as a success. I personally don't think balance should overrule fun, though (which I know is a highly personal feeling) and PF2E so far feel very much like "nerf fun for balance" to me. As a caster fan that balancing certainly sucked the fun out of those classes for me. But that would be quibbling, since this particular design goal is about balance and party contribution. So, design goal met.

5.) Well, "except conservative white straight males who feel attacked by statements of this sort" is the unspoken subtext. As a lefty I sympathize with this design goal, but I'm well aware that there are people who feel alienated by it. It is not really about game mechanics, so IMO it's more of a philosophical point than a "design goal".

Summarizing the first four points, for me that's only a 37,5% success rate so far. It'd be good to know if there is even a chance of the core design still being changed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Erm, basically impossible. If you want to keep to some basic principles of their story, at least. Unless you run the events of one after the other. Which would basically be the same as playing both campaigns in their intended sequence.

Rise of the Runelords is 80% located in Varisia, with a planar excursion to a fixed isolated place being the other 20%.

Jade Regent is a travel campaign which leaves Varisia and doesn't return after the first module. It goes to the literal other side of the world, over the north pole of Golarion. The plot-essential McGuffin which accompanies the journey specifically makes dimensional travel impossible to avoid a level four party buying a scroll of Greater Teleport and doing away with the large travel portion, so any "have handy teleports between the two places" convenciences to connect the two adventures do not work as well.

IMO, it's a bad idea to try to connect those two AP's.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freagarthach wrote:
Holy Word is used at considerably above character level using feats and items. In a recent PF1 game, a single equal to party level 13 NPC Cleric assassin paralyzed all but one of the party members successfully using Dictum. As a group they overcame and forced his retreat, but not before a character death (Raised immediately after, but costly).

It's funny how I somehow get accused of having a group of hyper-optimizers (which empirically is wrong, anyway), but that is the first time I've ever heard of someone weaponizing the Holy Word series of spells in this way (raising caster level and such). Shows what I know. ^^

Freagarthach wrote:

As to loot loss, I have traditionally been the only member of my group not to particularly care about loot, as well as usually the caster. In playtest anecdote, they are each starting with 330 gold for the level 9 module splitting my share, enabling the purchase of things like Necklace of Fireballs Type III.

On the one hand, my group knows they will get more loot with higher quality by getting to split my share. On the other hand, they know I might blast a foe with glowing plate armor and gold plated greataxe straight into a random plane, frustrating their desire for fat loots.

They have let me stay around to this point, so it must not be too rough a tradeoff.

Hey, if that works for your group, more power to you. I'm only saying that there are significant drawbacks to most of the specific PF1E spells you were citing. I'm all for bringing spells a bit more in line, but the devs have vastly overdone in in almost all aspects.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
GM ruling is fine. I use it a lot for narrative purpose. But when people stop every 10 minutes to complain about the 10 level Rogue that somehow can manage to nova 200 damage on average each round several times per day, there is indeed something that went wrong somewhere.

Huh, funny how that is possible and people constantly complain about the Rogue being a bad class.

Anyway, increase HP if players build characters like that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My breakdown of each and every arcane spell is here.

The OP by me (one post above) should also be of interest.

There are some good spells on the list left, but they are far and in-between.


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

All reasonable points from your perspective, but one of them I want to address

Gorbacz wrote:

3. I don't abdicate the power, I merely am not interested in exercising it, or in spending the time necessary to judge whether I need to use that power or not. Rule 0 should be used to fill in gaps in rules and to make The Rule of Cool take precedence before RAW, it should not be used as a hammer to punch out imbalances of the system. Oberoni Fallacy and all that.

We're meeting to have fun, not to argue whether Matt's emergency force sphere is OP or not. There's absolutely no fun in such arguments for us.

I think that is one thing you cannot get away from. You, as the GM, are not a player, you are the arbiter and storyteller. Hence you have to do arbitration sometimes. I'm not saying that your approach is "wrong" or anything, but very different from my personal take.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Also it sounds like you wish Paizo produced D&D 5e APs. It sounds like your ideal scenario. Is be surprised if someone hadn't converted some of them.

Yeah, that kinda came to my mind as well. 5E sounds so much like the system Gorbacz is advocating for. But since he explicitly wants APs for the system he plays, it seemed 5E is out as an option. I heard people talk about converting AP's to 5E somewhere on the board, though.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

Oh, PF1 is a perfectly fine system, when and if the players and the GM are capable, willing and ready to put in the amount of time required to master the system enough to ensure that we aren't looking at an Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit scenario. This goes doubly so for the GM.

That's doable, but for me and my folks, it was doable in college and isn't quite possible now. Faced with the amount of time investment PF1 requires on the top of generally time-consuming nature of RPGs, the more kids get born and the more engaging the jobs become, the less alluring PF1 becomes.

See, here is where I run into problems in several different way with your stated desires and, well, reality. To wit:

1.) We already went over the discussion a few weeks ago where you express your hope that Paizo will slow down their publishing schedule after PF2E releases to not bloat the system up too quickly and my express skepticism at such an assertion. But I remain deeply skeptical and so far have seen no evidence whatsoever that the devs plan to have a much slower release schedule for new splat books.

2.) You are not the only adult person with a full-time job and kids and yet many others with your same status manage to run PF1E just fine. For me, I've changed to AP's over homebrewn when my schedule in RL began to fill up. I'm not saying your problems are not real, but they are not an universal truth.

3.) You are kinda abdicating the power of the GM to talk to powergamers and get them to be more group friendly and to help out gamers new to the system. I have one new player in my regular group since a few months and we collectively just help out the guy when he has questions.

4.) One of the biggest points of contention on the board in general seems to be that PF2E is not really less complex than PF1E, just different from the prior system (the enjoyment factor of that is up to each individual person). Hence I don't exactly see how you can advocate so much against one system when the one you are helping push through only shifts problems around, but remains deeply complex and hard to build NPC's for.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Sorry, won't work. My primary reason for being Paizo's customer are the APs and the setting, something WotC doesn't really provide ever since 4e came out. My secondary consideration is how easy it is to bring new people to the game. Paizo scored A+ on the former and C+ on the latter with PF1, so I'm interested in change which is mutually exclusive with what you are after. For you, a tweaked PF1 is perfectly fine, because you're not seeing the issues with PF1 which I experience. For me, it's all about discarding the faulty principles of 3.5e design and starting over.

Well, at least nobody can now fault you for honesty.

My personal design goals for PF2E are pretty much that I think the 3.X skeleton is great and has worked for 20 years and PF2E should be an improvement on it, not a complete rework. It's too bad our goals are incompatible, but that's how it is.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DrSwordopolis wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
1.) "Save or lose" spells are so far and between in PF1E that they are mostly irrelevant.
Possession, Magic Jar, and Plane Shift come to mind, and are certainly go-to spells in the tables I've played at. Adapting those to fit the new "four categories of outcome" system could serve as a method of nerfing the spells a bit without dropping them into the "useless" category, though Paizo's track record thus far doesn't inspire much confidence.

I'm totally okay with putting away the last "Save or die" spells and nerfing them to be "save or damage" or "save or suck". But, yeah, overnerfing them into uselessness definitely isn't the way to go.

Freagarthach wrote:

Have to agree here - Holy Word, Flesh to Stone, Prismatic Spray, Baleful Polymorph, all are spells that we designed around maximizing in PF1.

If PF2 does not turn out the same way, I have no problem with that. It would be a significant shift though, and an opportunity to adjust how they work that retains a satisfactory feeling for the successful caster.

Almost all of those spells you mentioned , though, either are not exactly "save or die" or have significant drawbacks. Holy Word only works on weak enemies (so not really a threat), Flesh to Stone petrifies your loot, Prismatic Spray has a 50% chance to only inflict damage and Baleful Polymorph also transforms your loot into fuzzy animals. Though Baleful Polymorph definitely is the best of the bunch, since you can safely kill said fuzzy animal and the opponent transforms back, IIRC.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Personally, I find that in many (but not all) cases, the power of spells, abilities, etc has a maximum determined by gm (via their creative ability to deal with it), and a minimum determined by the player's creativity.

Much like how the 15 minute workday depends entirely on the gm letting players get by with it.

I don't think many players/gms/designers give enough credit to the impact of the narrative situation on a character's options and overall power. For example, in world of invisibility spells, who in their right mind woukdn't have protections in place to handle assassins or theives that would use invisibility? Sure, the poorer folks might not be able to afford such things, but the wealthy and powerful are not going to ignore such things in their defensive planning.

Yeah, I know some people boo and hiss at this suggestion, but it definitely is the task of the GM to counter power tactics by their players in some way. It's a bit of work, but that's part of your job as GM, anyway. The real time problem with all that prep time is not coming up with interesting countertactics, but (at least for me) statting up NPC's when needed. That takes a ton of time, especially when they are casters. And PF2E doesn't seem to alleviate that one bit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hm, interesting. Maybe I should give the Sandpoint book another look. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:

In the end, I think some want the 3.75 they never got.

I am still waiting, I mean, between 3rd Ed (UA)/PF variants and my own few house-rules, they take care of enough, and I dig 5th Ed, again, with some adjustments, but it would be nice for another another proper pass at 3rd Ed/PF1 (evolutionary).

Oh, I'm getting hoised on my own petard here, no doubt. I was clamoring since about five years ago for a PF2E, but with the anticipation that it would be 3.87, not more 4E-ish. Oh, well. The law of unintended consequences and all that.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
3rd Ed/PF1 does not need drastic measures to whip into shape, some of the extreme design decisions in PF2 seem like an attempt to cure the headaches by cutting off the head, that is how I feel about 4th Ed in some aspects.

Here here.

Unicore wrote:
Pathfinder 1 has started to lose by business recently because their mechanics actively get in the way of high level storytelling. The adventures that they write cannot keep up with what players can do and require so much GM fiat that books 4-6 become free form/GM writing their own adventure to keep up with what the players can do.

Hm, I've been managing fine with just advanced templates or more opponens. Combat Manager helps a ton with that and the PC version is free.

Then again, I got a non-standard group (six players) and have had that paradigm basically since I started GM'ing 3.5/Pathfinder. And there had been early cases where I lost control of the campaign at high levels, but that was early on in my GM career and under 3.5. And Wrath of the Righteous, but the less said about mythic rules, the better.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
pogie wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Except I'm a player that played 3.5 didn't like 4th then played pathfinder and I am looking forward to PF2.

Dang. Any exceptions completely invalidates my statement. I stand corrected and withdraw my statement.

Ugh. Of course there will be exceptions and people ideas and game preferences may change. But on balance, paizo is trying to sell a game design to people who have previously rejected this type of game. Can they make it up with new players? We will see.

What makes mine the exception? why isn't yours the exception?

Logical inference, which pogie laid out pretty well.

People who changed to Pathfinder overwhelmingly represent the segment of the gamer population who were unhappy with the radical changes to the 3.X skeleton which WotC did with 4E.

Hence, if Paizo tries to take PF2E into a direction which in many respects is similar to 4E, it stands to reason that logically a majority of the same gamers who already rejected that direction would also be unhappy with this second attempt to make the game they enjoy more gamist than simulationist.

Maybe there was a vast paradigm shift where a majority of those gamers suddenly changed their minds about how they want their favorite roleplaying game to be designed during the last ten years, but so far I've yet to see evidence of that. The same seven guys incessantly wagging their fingers at people who dislike the core design of PF2E does not constitute a majority of opinion, IMO.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
I don't understand the negativism and the blame-like comparison to D&D 4th Edition.

And that despite people going to great lengths through the last months to thoroughly explain why they feel that way.

Mathmuse wrote:

Pathfinder 1st Edition has some legacy problems from its underyling design.

* Odd attribute scores barely more useful than the even scores below them,
* Complicated turn structure of standard, move, swift, and five-foot-step actions that can slow down combat,
* A lengthy system of assigning skill ranks,
* Character design trade-offs that encourage min-maxed builds,
* Base Attack Bonus greatly exceeding Armor Class at high levels,
* Caster versatility greatly exceeding martial versatility at high levels,
* Necessity of magical healing to avoid a short adventuring day.

- The turn structure is, IMO, not a problem in PF1E. I know my guys are very experienced with the system by now, hence of course I am having a somewhat skewed perspective on it. But "swift action, move action, standard action, immediate action" (the latter of which is very seldomly used) is not an inherently difficult concept. The "three action economy" of PF2E is simpler, but unnecessarily so. I got about four players between my ten friends I share between two groups, who sometimes run into questions what they can do in a round, but that is always resolved in about five seconds.

- Skill ranks were totally fine in PF1E and gave characters actual options at what they wanted to be good at.

- Base attack bonus does not exceed armor class per se. A player who builds his character to have a good AC is very difficult to hit by monsters at high levels. The problem is instead that there are too many buff types for attack bonuses being readily available. Morale bonuses, luck bonuses, competence bonuses and quite a lot of unnamed bonuses all stack and make accounting what your actual attack roll is too complicated. I can't count the times players forgot to add this or that bonus to their attack (or armor class) during combat.

- Caster versatility being higher than martials should have been solved the other way around, IMO, by buffing martial versatility.

- Before update 1.3 magical healing was also completely required in PF2E. We'll see if non-magical healing being so ubiquitous survives to the final product.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm not gonna call myself the core fan base. I will say that the pieces fit when viewing most aspects of the game in the light of organized play. It certainly plays that way.

But again, it seems our opinions on what makes the game work at its best must be vastly different.

I'd like to have some sort of goal or knowledge about what the team is working on to know what to test/play next.

It's not impossible that the few of us here who like the OP are a minority compared to the survey results.

Yeah, pretty much that. It would be arrogant of the people who dislike the core design of the game (like me) to assume we are a majority and the same goes for the fans of the new design.

But it would be really nice to know if the core design (level bonus to everything, vast spell nerfs to bring casters down five pegs) are still up for grabs or already cast in stone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, regarding that stay in Sandpoint...

Spoiler for RotRL and Jade Regent:
Who else who has played Rise of the Runelords and Jade Regent is already foreseeing that their players would rather visit the Rusty Dragon instead of Cracktooth's? I plan to have Amaya Kaijitsu (Ameiko's half-sister) run the tavern and make an off-hand comment about how her half-sister is running around Minkai, apparently ruling something. ^^


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

Here, here. The automatic bonus progression also was my favorite part of Pathfinder Unchained (with a slight adjustment to how weapon/armor properties worked). Seeing that system in PF2E as baseline would be good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pogie wrote:
The more I read about 2E the more I want to just bring in changes from Unchained into 1e or just go play 5e.
I am definitely cannibalising PF2 for 3rd Ed/PF1 and 5th Ed.

That seems to be the way forward for me as well, if the spell pass doesn't get the results I hope for. Get the new CRB as a PDF and export anything good as optional houserules to my home game.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.

This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.

Okay, that has to be the most damning thing I've heard so far about PF2E. It seems to be actively an design which does not cater to me, but rather to a setting which prescribes things not needed for home groups. The sacrifices to get their desired ruleset for conventions actively work against the other half of their customer base.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Doubtful; all of this now seems cyclical: 3rd Ed to 4th Ed to 5th Ed to PF2, not the right cycle, for me.

I totally get it. It's very possible I'm in the same boat, although so far I don't see another 3.X upgrade cycling in.

Shisumo wrote:
The Twitch stream yesterday said that there was a "rules-specific" survey coming, and that questions specifically about magic would be a part of it.

Good, I'll be looking forward to that.

Excaliburrover wrote:

In merit of what OP said i would like to say that the Path paizo took regarding spell success based on enemy save is ideal.

A thing i never liked was the hit or miss chance of so many type of spells in 1E. This led to a bad play pattern: save-or-lose spells from the caster are working= everyone else is not having fun, save-or-lose spells are not working=the caster player is not having fun.

The fact that there are 4 degrees of success now and that many spells hinder the opponent even on a success is amazing imo. Yes they got nerfed but basically in 1st edition i was banning a whole lot of things. Or better i used to say "yes, you can play an enchanter if you want to be unpleaseant to all other players"

Okay, that's wrong on several levels, at least in my opinion.

1.) "Save or lose" spells are so far and between in PF1E that they are mostly irrelevant. Most of the old "save or die" spells were converted into "save or take damage" spells, with outliers like Phantasmal Killer (which needs to failed saves to succeed) or Baleful Polymorph, which at least targets Fortitude, generally the best save for monsters. The real champions are "save or suck" spells, which weaken opponents and allow your party to clear them out easier. Meaning as a caster you normally are helping others shine.

2.) The weakened effects you get with PF2E spells on a succesful save by the enemy are mostly not very good. The only exceptions I found were Blindness and Enervation, IIRC. That doesn't make up at all for the nerfs to duration, effect, range, number of spells per day and success chance you have to suffer through between PF1E and PF2E.

3.) If you are fighting same-level opponents, the 4 degrees of success become more "2 degrees and a miniscule chance at the other 2 degrees" of success. Casters got it much worse than melee in that regard, anyway, since they don't have many ways to lower and enemies chance to save as melee/ranged characters have.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Mechalas wrote:
The best they are going to get, short of building the kind of survey I describe above, is to just ask the question, and make sure that everyone is using the same definition for terms like "powerful" (which is a term their surveys do throw around a lot, and for which many of us probably have very different definitions).

Yeah, I noticed that as well. I'm pretty sure that my personal impressions what constitutes a powerful spell differ a lot from other people's impression. The surveys are okay (I took the class surveys a few days ago), but they pretty clearly don't exactly conform to standards of objectivity.

I wonder if there will be a "magic and spells" survey.


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

I really have to wonder how that briefing with Keleri went.

Keleri: So, I sent adventurers to get my necklace and they... all died. So I had to get the necklace myself and found a book detailing the Night Heralds and their plans. Then other adventurers were sent with that info by colleagues of mine to retrieve an important magic item and, uh, also all died. So I had to go myself again to get the damned thing. And this happened two more times before we got to this point. So... who wants to be a hero? <big smile>


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, more info on high level play, please. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
So am I. I don't see how that's relevant.

Someone was asking earlier in this thread. I saw fit to respond.

Quote:
If Pathfinder 2e crumbles apart just because a GM opts for that...
Arakhor wrote:
Literally any game with a GM can fall apart if you aim to kill your players at any opportunity, because you always have that power. As such, any anecdote that starts with "I killed all their characters, therefore X is bad" is automatically suspect if every session is "I actively try to kill all their characters and usually succeed".
You are forgetting that in this case, I am constrained by the limits of a premade adventure, and I do my best to try to eliminate PCs using the options offered by that premade adventure and no more.
Except you have been breaking the rules by using GM knowledge to know whether a PC is dead or just dying, and you have not been running it as the rules state that typically most creatures don't keep attacking downed PCs. You're probably lucky that these adventures are all one or two shots or else I'd doubt you would have any players willing to play with you left. If you were pulling this in an AP where Orcs are all ganging up on my character and killing him after he's already downed I'd be outta there real quick.

A simple Medicine check should be enough to determine that. Then a free action to announce it to your comrades.

I can't wait for the comments claiming that NPC's can't use Medicine at all. ^^


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

I find it funny that some weeks ago I was argueing with people who really thought that Fighter dedication wasn't worth all that much. Seems the devs caught on what a good option it is for almost everybody.

Gah, I got to catch up to the 1.3 update, but no time, too much RL stuff going on....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
In a world where most creatures are dead before they even hit the ground, most creatures with any survival instincts will assume a dying opponent is already dead and won't waste time trying to confirm it before dealing with opponents who are still engaged in trying to murder them.
Correct. Generally, creatures in this game are DEAD at 0 hp and do not come back or get healed from 30 feet away. Only PCs and some exceptional NPCs can pull this off, and most opponents will most likely never have encountered anyone who can survive a lethal bow taking them down. Therefore they should normally have no reason to assume that a PC struck down is not dead, unless they have concrete contrary evidence.

Which is, IMHO, a completely gamist mechanic, which gives the PC's extra "hero points" to not die. As a more simulationist gamer, I find it a pretty bad decision to have PC goblins or humans behave markedly different from NPC goblins or humans.

But I'll admit that this is a matter or preference. If you are okay with it, that's your sitch.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nettah wrote:

It also seems somewhat meta gaming for creatures (that don't work the same themselves) to know that this particular person is really easy to finish off while he is laying dying but might become a threat again if left to his own.

Heck even if you are fighting for your life against enemies as soon as you have rendered them unconscious it would make more sense for the monster to start neutralizing his allies. Of course in our world magic isn't a thing that suddenly lets the unconscious person get back in "tip-top" fighting shape, but most unintelligent foes would never plan for that even in a world where magic is "normal".

But yea, it solves the mystery of a lot of TPK's (or a lot of player death) if monsters are played with every attack focusing the downed player, while the rest of the team is still fighting.

Given that in "our world" it is really easy to finish off a dying person by shooting the unconscious enemy in the head, I'd say that many people would choose that method.

In terms of a world where the Cleric might just heal the unconscious person up to be fully functional from 30 feet away with the two action Heal, I'd say finishing off dying opponents would be much, much more common than before.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As someone who is interested in running Starfinder if the devs would give out at least one real high-level AP, the latter idea seems the best.

1 to 50 of 7,973 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>