Alurad Sorizan

magnuskn's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 8,330 posts (8,332 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, good, then she gets to have a personal storyline where she probably falls from grace due to her feelings of personal revenge getting the better of her despite Sorshen genuinely trying for redemption. Of course that is probably after failing completely at doing any lasting harm to the level 20/tier 10 character.

I don't know, sounds like a road to player frustration to me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Name: Flavianne Ejiadiel
Race: Aasimar
Classes/Levels: Fighter 6 / Heritor Knight 8
Adventure: Into the Nightmare Rift
Location: D4. Ritual Isle
Catalyst: Bit by Ognathooga, then finished off by a wail of a Banshee

The Gory Details: The party had moved down in the Core and hesitantly started to explore the vast cavern. After noticing the small island to their right, they flew over to it. On the move there, Ognathooga unsuccessfully tried to Dominate three different party members.

On the island I had changed out the six Dark Naga (a vastly underpowered encounter for the party of six at level 14) against a single Banshee. To lure the players, I placed a self-built item, the "Hand Mirror of Self-Righteousness" (basically a Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone, just that you need a free hand to hold it and it has the draw-back that you like to smell your own farts) at the center of the island.

One of the PC's went to retrieve it and of course the Banshee rose out of the ground as soon as he had touched it. At the same time Ognathooga came out of hiding in the water from behind.

Flavienne, formerly Flavian before leveling in the Heritor Knight PrC changed his gender, moved up to Ognathooga and got bit for her troubles, losing two levels and 45 HP. Then the Banshee came up from behind, nobody killed her fast enough or had healed Flavienne, so when she wailed, Flavienne's player rolled a 3 on the dice, which was not enough and down she went to -40 HP.

Ognathooga wasted no time, dived deep and took Flaviennes corpse in the same round back to her lair for some munching.

After some discussion, the Bloodrager and Paladin went after Ognathooga buffed to the gills (the most important buffs being Fly and Freedom of Movement) and the Bloodrager one-rounded her after moving close with his Quickrunner Shirt, to the tune of something like 400 HP of damage, before she died on the fourth hit due to a natural 1 on a massive damage fortitude save. I didn't mind too much, because the difficulty of getting Flavienne back from an underwater cave had made for some amusing discussions and also the Paladin would have acted and smited before Ognathooga's next turn, anyway.

Flavienne got resurrected from the single leg left still left after Ognathooga was almost done munching her down by using another Resurrection scroll (good thing there are a few around to find in the AP).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, come on. If it has stats, they will kill it. That's basically rule number two of D20 roleplaying games (rule number one of course being "Don't piss off your GM too much" :p). Developers recognizing that fact and writing accordingly is just smart work.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Running a campaign journal (which I've done privately in German for another group where I am a player) is actually a good bit of time investment. Especially if other people than your friends get to look at it. ^^


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

Thanks, interesting stuff. :) I'll see if I can use any of this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, I'm starting to prep Hell's Rebels now. And, while working with a character background, I noticed that Hetamon Haace has a starting similarity in appearance to a certain Cardassian who lives on a space station in the boonies and also has a tailor shop... and also is more than what he seems.

Makes you think if that was the writers intent or just a coincidence. :)

In any case, now I got a personality for that NPC which I'll love to play. :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Tell me more about that last paragraph. :)


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

Oh come on, she's the same person due to shenanigans. It's obvious! :p


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

That was actually a very good discussion on Sorshen. You couldn't have put that into one of two proper threads on the Return of the Runelords forum, instead of outright permanently deleting several pages of pretty constructive conversation? That's like taking a chainsaw to a porcelain shop. :-/


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yep, no high-level AP's for Starfinder is the reason why I never picked up anything else but the core book.

If the devs would put out at least one AP which goes to full level 20, I'd pick up the SF Bestiary and some other hardcover books for sure, just to get a good feel how a full campaign (meaning experiencing it at all levels) of Starfinder feels like. None of my players are interested either in a system where they are forever stuck at finishing their characters at mid-levels.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I still have Hell's Rebels and War for the Crown ahead of me, so I can't really comment on them, except that I love the concepts of them.

Of the ones I've played, the two that most stand out are Jade Regent and Curse of the Crimson Throne, both of which were excellent. Both also had their faults, but the good outweighed the bad significantly.

Just do something to buff the end boss(es) of Jade Regent, because I GM'ed that campaign twice and both times they died way too quickly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
The game is feeling more adversarial to me as a result.

Quite franky, that is what you get from many GM's if you specifically develop your new edition to shift the power back to the GM from the players. I was concerned about that during the playtest and it's one of the main reasons why I opposed the rarity system back then so much. Many GM's don't know how to handle the power they are given (okay, that sentence sounds just a bit hyperbolic, but you get my point) and by putting more power into player hands 3.X/PF1E did a good thing, IMO. And I say that as someone who has GM'ed about 70-75% of the games I've been in for the last 17 years or so.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
which means that a critical hit with specialization knocks the target right back prone.

Seriously?!?!? I mean, there was a reason that this wasn't a thing in 1E. >.<


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:

If it hasn't been published, why assume it's anything other than a standard phylactery?

I have previously mentioned 2 goddesss who could have easily and believably been worked into the storyline easily, with Iomedae being especially interesting as foil to Arazni. Yes, hiding his phylactery is possible, though fairly difficult, from Iomedae. From Pharasma, supposedly the most powerful of the deities, it should be next to impossible.

"Spoiler": Arazni also comes off more likeable than Iomedae from WotR. :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Rot Grub wrote:

Strange... older people often complain about inflation:

"Back in my day, a quarter got you into the movies AND got you a bag of popcorn! You had to WORK for a dollar!"

But now it's reversed:

"Back in my day, treasure hoards were GRANDER! You killed goblins and got GOLD for your troubles! You got REWARDED for your hard work!"

Heh.

Yeah, well. The dragon sleeping on a bed of gold and gems is kinda iconic. I guess dragons also now suddenly went through the sudden deflation which has gripped Golarion. :p


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

I was a bit disappointed that we get the stereotypical Aztecs/Maya expy civilization. I mean, it wasn't unexpected and probably the most likely for an introduction to Arcadia, but I was hoping for something not inspired by real life.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dammit, foiled again! :D Well, then, Xulgaths it is. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Umm, Xulgaths ARE trogdolytes

Tsk, you and your fancy new-fangled names. :p Troggos it is. ^^


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

Again, you just made those criteria up. The original criteria (singular) was:

"Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far. "

Alderpash is an acient powerful wizard. Xanderghul certainly is as well, even moreso than Alderpash.

Hence, criteria met. Twice to three times with Sorshen, Arueshalae and Nocticula. The original argument was that only hot female evil gets redeemed. This has been conclusively proven wrong by now.

I will admit, though, that those three female redemptions are canon, while Alderpash and Xanderghul are optional. That could have been handled better, IMO.


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

I think he was just possessed or led astray by the really evil person (who was female and middling attractive, IIRC), but with a very real danger of going evil for realz if the PC's didn't intervene. So, half-redemption? ^^


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

It was Ardathanatus for Shattered Star, the tribe was actually Troglydites in module two. You can redeem quite a lot of people in War for the Crown, lots of male ones included.

So male, redeemable:

Some spoilers:

Spoiler:
- Alderpash
- Ardathanatus
- Xanderghul
- Baron What's-his-name in War for the Crown module two
- Other dudes in Wrath of the Righteous (the gay siege engineer whose boyfriend was a priest of Shelyn comes to mind)
- Unnamed Troglodytes in Shattered Star

Very probably more, but I ain't got a photographic memory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.
Especially Alderpash, right?
He's one, where are the others?

Wrath if the Righteous has several evil dudes you can possibly redeem. Return of the Runelords lets you redeem Xanderghul, although for some reason that wasn't canon, instead they let Belimarius live... who isn't even really redeemed. It's just the default assumption that somehow she gets away being a complete douche to the PC's.

Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Especially Alderpash, right?

- Not mythic of any kind,

- lost his Runelord title long ago, already had two successors,
- non-evil lich doesn't have the same impact as non-evil demon (or demon lord)
- is his redemption actually canon, or just optional? Sorshen's and Nocticula's redemptions aren't just official canon, they also have a huge impact on the world, one in the form of a new country, the other in the form of a new deity, placing both front and center.

Alderpash is an ancient evil who is not at all lustful. That was the criteria, not the ones you just made up.

Also: Xanderghul (who fits your criteria) and Belimarius, although the latter really doesn't redeem, as already pointed out a bit above in my post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.

Especially Alderpash, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The lack of redemption of non-pretty Evil is also definitely an issue in need of addressing.

Except of course all the non-pretty people you could redeem in PF1E AP's. But people steadfastly ignore those, because that wouldn't fit into the agenda.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

This is a core part of the whole "Giving GMs agency and control" that 2nd edition is all about, and will help GMs keep a handle on their game to a level of complexity they are comfortable with.

Talk to your GM.

And there it is. The core philosophy of 2E, which obviously means that the reverse, i.e. "disempower the player" is true as well. I mean, it was pretty obvious from the playtest, but nice to see it spelled out clear and simple.

You mean the exact same 'player empowering' that led every wizard to demand that they get access to Blood Money, the spell that only ever existed in one wizard's spellbook?

Or that all characters should have access to all options, no matter how disparate and unrelated they are?

Yeah, I think I've had enough of that.

I see the job of a GM to facilitate player choice. Only if there are options which obviously unbalance the game should things be forbidden and, if possible, that should be done before the campaign even starts. It is still possible to talk to your players during the campaign as well, if things start to fall apart around a certain character concept, spell or class option.

Forbidding or restricting such a huge section of the game which was priorily available to everyone (and with a lot of spells people were not viewing as problematic before as well) is restricting player choice way too much for me. And I say this as a person who has been at least 75% a GM for the last twenty years of his AD&D/D&D/Pathfinder "career".

But, hey, I'm not changing to 2E (and partly because of this aspect as well), I'm just voicing that I already saw this coming in the playtest.

Actually, I'll shut up now after having said my piece, because I don't want to spend the next two evenings having to fend off irate 2E fans, like what happened in the thread about Wizard nerfs.


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

This is a core part of the whole "Giving GMs agency and control" that 2nd edition is all about, and will help GMs keep a handle on their game to a level of complexity they are comfortable with.

Talk to your GM.

And there it is. The core philosophy of 2E, which obviously means that the reverse, i.e. "disempower the player" is true as well. I mean, it was pretty obvious from the playtest, but nice to see it spelled out clear and simple.


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

After reading the P2E playtest blogs, it was my understanding that rarity was going to be an organization tool for GMs to more easily control what enters their game. There wasn't going to be any hard rules or mechanics behind it. Simply a bunch of tags and the GM saying "No rare items without checking with me first" or "Since this is an oriental campaign, all items traditionally considered oriental have a Common rating. More western armor and weapons have an Uncommon rating and require my blessing in this campaign." That sort of thing.

Except that's not what happened. Everywhere I look, I'm seeing hard rules that state I can't get this or that Uncommon item, or rather, that I'm limited to Common items and spells whenever I'm able to make a selection.

Uncommon items are not even made harder to get. They simply can't be got. Period.

This might not be such a big issue if so many iconic items and spells didn't fall into this category. Creating characters and concepts has proven quite difficult as a result, since the only assumption I can make without a GM is that it's not allowed. You can't make a decent spy caster without magic aura or nondetection. Can an enchanter without dominate really be considered an enchanter? High level champions just don't feel right without their holy avenger. I could go on. Nearly every character concept I've tried to build without a GM has thus far been stymied.

I imagine this is especially frustrating for people who want to make characters, but don't have a GM to talk to about it (such as those who jot down characters for future game opportunities).

What do you guys think? Does it feel suffocating to you too?

Oh, look, the thing I said would happen, happened. Yep, I complained about that in the playtest and voilá.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah, thanks, it's in the Combat tab. I thought it would be there in the Monsters tab as well.

And for some reason the half-fiend/half-celestial thing seems to have fixed itself. Oh, well, much better than if it would have been a real problem. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks for the newest version of the application!

I kinda cannot find the new "maximum HP" option and also, unless I am doing something wrong, the half-fiend and half-celestial templates don't seem to apply themselves when selected. Still, many thanks for your hard work! :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

By the way... wasn't "Paizo surely will not oversaturate the new edition with fast releases of new splatbooks" one of the main arguments how this new edition would be super-duper newbie friendly?

I mean, it's just one new "essential" splatbook at this point, but having it announced already in the same week as the new edition launches kinda makes me wonder how the pacing over the next few years for more new hardcover splatbooks will look. Not that I would personally have a problem with that, but given the attitudes I encountered during the playtest, I wonder how other people see this aspect of such a fast announcement?

Where else are they going to announce the playtest that needs to happen in a few months for the book to come out in time for the next GenCon where it's going to get more attention than "the current GenCon"?

Not exactly the question I was asking. Announcing the APG right now and at GenCon makes all the sense in the world.


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

By the way... wasn't "Paizo surely will not oversaturate the new edition with fast releases of new splatbooks" one of the main arguments how this new edition would be super-duper newbie friendly?

I mean, it's just one new "essential" splatbook at this point, but having it announced already in the same week as the new edition launches kinda makes me wonder how the pacing over the next few years for more new hardcover splatbooks will look. Not that I would personally have a problem with that, but given the attitudes I encountered during the playtest, I wonder how other people see this aspect of such a fast announcement?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Eltacolibre wrote:
Looking forward to the oracle. If I had to say, which was the best-designed class of PF1 among the new classes, it was definitely the Oracle.

I'd personally say that was the Alchemist, but Oracle was very close.

Swashbuckler and Investigator are interesting picks and two of my favorite classes (Swashbuckler more in concept than in execution, but still). I'm staying with 1E, but I hope for you guys that they turn out well.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fair enough. I personally feel that, modularity aside, all the PF2 Classes have some pretty defining and iconic features. They're not quite the same ones as in PF1 in all cases, but they're definitely there.

I'll not dispute that. And, once again, it's just one of the things which made me go "nope" on changing to 2E. In effect, a lot of the classes actually gained something, but some crucial classes lost defining stuff ("weaker magic all around" is pretty defining for the two arcane classes). The poor Alchemist just got dragged into a dark alley and beaten up until it died and now the shambling corpse of it has stumbled out again. Not sure why one of the best and most successful original creations did in 1E had to be mangled like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Oh, it has far more modular choices in PF2, and I never said otherwise (though if including Background in PF2, you should include Traits in PF1, narrowing the gap slightly). My objection was to your contention that they gave something up for those extra options. They did not.

Well, my actual original statement was that the high amount of modularity for every class was one of the things I didn't quite like, then some dude went "OH, BUT RAAAAGE POOOOWERS!" and what I tried to say (but apparently did not) was that Barbarians, Slayers and some others are classes which have some modularity but still a high class identity beyond that. Now, you correctly point out Barbarians actually gained features, but, at least for me at first glance at the character table, the old Barbarian seemed to be a more iconic representation. But we are getting now into the "just my opinion, man" territory, which I definitely will acknowledge is highly subjective and not exactly based on empirical evidence.


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

Let's follow up my last post and look at Barbarians and compare, actually:

Counting Trap Sense and DR each as one feature (which they are, just a scaling one), PF1 Barbarians have 10 features (Rage, Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense, Damage Reduction, Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, Mighty Rage). They'd have 18 if you counted each point of DR or +1 of Trap Sense separately.

PF2 Barbarians have 12 not counting raising Proficiencies that don't provide evasion equivalents or other bonuses beyond the +2 or Weapon Specialization (Rage, Instinct, Deny Advantage, Brutality, Juggernaut, Raging Resistance, Mighty Rage, Greater Juggernaut, Indomitable Will, Quick Rage, Devastator). If you include all Proficiency ups and Weapon Specialization they have 17.

That's definitely not less features in PF2 to any meaningful degree.

Now, Champion compared to Paladin would have less inherent features as it gave some up to have Class Feats, but PF1 Barbarian and Slayer in no way have more Class Features than a PF2 Barbarian or Ranger.

Well, I guess I got suckered into comparing a class which got a bit more in features than it lost. Given that it is one of the melee classes which apparently needed help, it's not a great wonder. Still, if I count all the modular stuff on the Barbarian, I count 20 modular things on the PF1E Barbarian (10 rage powers, 10 general feats) and 32 modular things on the PF2E Barbarian (11 Barbarian feats, 10 skill feats, 5 general feats, 5 ancestry feats, 1 background choice).

The modular stuff isn't even one of the bigger negatives of PF2E for me, so I don't think I'll find it too productive to make a big discussion out of this. But it's definitely there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
I guess I've just never felt the need to go to the pages of products I personally don't like to voice my discontent past dropping a review or a single post. Never have I hung around for days trying to convince people that the things they like are bad.

I would have walked away after about three days, but people just keep throwing punches and I don't take that lying down.


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

Don't like the modular feat system huh

Completely disconnected from PF1's paradigm huh

Hey magnuskn how do you feel about rage powers

They are pretty nifty for that one class. I also like Unchained Monk ki powers and Slayer talents and so on. But those classes also got lots of fixed class features which gives them their identity. I'm not trying to say modularity is bad, but the focus (I'd personally say "overfocus") of PF2E on it is one of the factors which did push me away from it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
magnuskn wrote:


It's the bloody release week of the new edition and I am taking some time out of my day to voice opinions I have about it. The new edition went into a direction I disliked already in the playtest and before moving on with my life, I want to state at least that I am disappointed that I won't be supporting Paizo anymore (outside of the AP's... for now). I mean, is that a principle that you have never encountered before in your life? Dissatisfied customers?
Its fine to be a dissatissfied customer, but it is down right rude to Paizo to come in and make extreme statements that will severly turn off people investigating. There is a difference in saying you are dissatisfied with the new product and will be sticking to the old for x,y and z reasons, and saying things like " It is conceptually another game than PF1E, 3E and 3.5, it just is wearing the skin of those games like a loose hanging fleshsuit."

But... it is. I used a bit of a shocking turn of phrase at the end, because that was the first day of the release and my feeling of disappointment was pretty high at that time.

But the game conceptually is very far removed from the 3.X engine which Pathfinder 1E very clearly still used. Things like "level to AC", the extremely modular feat system and many other of the mechanical changes make the game a highly different experience than playing any of the 3.X/1E versions of the game would give you in the past. Yeah, you still get levels and hence that's the "loosely hanging fleshsuit" part of it.

And, honestly, if you think one or two people voicing their discontent for a few days (I definitely plan to stop as soon as people stop throwing punches at me) will turn off people in the long term, then your confidence in the new edition seems to be almost criminally low.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
manbearscientist wrote:
I have played a great deal of second edition: the entire Playtest, as well as a 2e version of Rise of the Rubelords that started in January

Probably my favorite typo of the day. :p


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

How are you not attributing feeling and opinions onto the designers? You literally just complained about someone doing that to you and my attempt to back them up. What am I missing ?

(Someone is going to have to explain to me why forming an opinion even if it involves assumptions about others is wrong when no one claimed anything is fact. Perhaps I am not processing it as it is late where I am and it has been a long week and I have forgotten how that original part started )

I took care to delineate that section of my post as just my opinion and I never talked about how the designers felt about anything, just that in my opinion they went into the design process with a certain goal and stuck to it, despite getting a good amount of pushback on the forums. I also pointed out that it is completely possible that the surveys were much more in favor of their changes than forum opinion, so I already admitted that I could be wrong. Not sure what else you want me to do to try and be fair in my assessment, without just shutting up and not saying anything at all.

Lanathar wrote:
Also it is a massive assumption to assume about forum feedback.. The designers definitely read the forums. That is what they are on record as saying. You are free not to believe them and it sounds like you don’t . But they always knew some people would never want to move

Where did I say that the devs don't read the forums? Stop putting words in my mouth or read more carefully. Sorry if I sound irritated, but it's really taxing trying to have a decent discussion when people start irrationally accusing you of things you haven't done.

Lanathar wrote:
As politely as possible can I ask you intentions in the 2E board if you never intend on playing it to even try and see if you are right or wrong? I am obviously not saying you can’t post here as I have no right to do that but I am just wondering why ?

It's the bloody release week of the new edition and I am taking some time out of my day to voice opinions I have about it. The new edition went into a direction I disliked already in the playtest and before moving on with my life, I want to state at least that I am disappointed that I won't be supporting Paizo anymore (outside of the AP's... for now). I mean, is that a principle that you have never encountered before in your life? Dissatisfied customers?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
In the end I made the call to stay with PF1E after consulting with my players.

One could wonder why you're posting in the Second Edition part of the forum if you've already decided not to play it?

Seems like you're more interested in stirring up trouble (by posting hyperbolic claims about the new edition) and accusing the developers of being disingenuous than providing constructive feedback (positive or negative).
It seems quite clear that you're not interested in Second Edition (as you've also just admitted), so I think it's best to just ignore your grumblings.

Totally your prerogative. But if you think that people who are unhappy that the game is moving in a direction they disagree with are not allowed to post a bit about it in the week of release, you might want to take some lessons on free speech. I had some opinions I wanted to express and I've mostly done so, so after this I can leave you PF2E fans to your love fest.


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


Instead of addressing his point of view, you made a joke. When someone addresses a statement to you and you make a joke instead of considering their statement and replying to it, it can give the impression that you are choosing to dismiss their statement instead of engage with it.

Yeah, sorry that I seem to have upset one of the humor impaired. He wasn't really adding anything new to the conversation, since he basically just repeated what Watery Soup had already said. I wouldn't have answered to his post in normal course, I just found that particular turn of phrase funny and wanted to riff on it. And that's it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Well there was an "I feel" there. So clearly an opinion.

Pretty clearly, still attributing opinions to other people based on how you feel about them.

Lanathar wrote:
Do you have a counter opinion as to why there might have been insufficient feedback decrying the power down of magic?

There was sufficient feedback, however since, as some people have rightfully pointed out, it was apparently more on the forums than in the surveys, so it wasn't heeded. Also, in my personal opinion, the devs already went into the development process with a certain mindset and very probably weren't going to change anything bigger than tweaking some minor numbers on the spell nerfs. Which is exactly what happened in the end.

Lanathar wrote:
Or do you think there were loads of people who hated that wizards power didn't increase exponentially as higher level spells were unlocked and that they were all just ignored?

There clearly were a significant number of people on the forum who thought that way, but, if we take the word that the surveys told another story, not enough. Also, what I said about my opinion on the devs design intentions.

Lanathar wrote:
It sounds like you and your group played and hated the playtest. Out of interest (not being accusatory) - how far in did you get? Did you feedback on all 6 parts. Sorry if you have already said this, I am just interested in your position

No, we only played the first part and then things began to fall apart as we got a better understanding of the math. Also, I got demotivated a lot to push for more playtesting by the general abrasive mood on the forums during the playtest. In the end I made the call to stay with PF1E after consulting with my players.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel that one of the reason a number of vocal wizard partisans dropped out of the playtest right away is that even they recognize how past about level 12 full spellcasters are just absurdly more powerful than everybody else and this was in no way a thing that was going to make it into an edition that made clear its goal to make high level play fun, fast, and balanced.

That's a lot of attributing motivations to other people, but if that is what makes you happier, be my guest. ^^


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

Hm... I'm not sure it was a very well-timed joke? I can see what you are going for, but it comes across as dismissive of Diego's point of view.

I don't think that was your intention, but people who actually are dismissive of those views are common enough that you may wish to consider avoiding being lumped in with them?

I was just making fun of a certain turn of phrase he used, so I'm not sure how that dismisses his entire point of view.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Watery Soup wrote:

Correct - I apologize if I come across like I'm trying to say there's something wrong with you.

I more or less agree with your assessment of the world. I just think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

No problem, it's just that people who try to pin "bad views" onto the discussion partners they disagree is all too common. I appreciate your view of things, even if I disagree with it.

Watery Soup wrote:


Agree. The mobs are a negative when they're on target, and a double negative when they're off target. But we get a bunch of positives, too - the expanded popularity is huge both in terms of exposing us to new artists and new players.

Is there a way to have a popular game where artistic expression and free will isn't limited? I suspect the answer is no.

We see it all the time in other artistic media - graphic novels, books, movies, etc. - all of them get "sanitized" before they're released to a wide audience. My wife asked me what the difference between a dwarf and halfling was, I said Gimli and Frodo and she knew exactly what I was talking about.

Yeah, I see your point. While I focused here specifically on the effect on Pathfinder, the whole desexualization thing is pretty much happening worldwide, with the US moral mentality of "sexual things bad, violence good!" pushing most of it. It would be hugely off-topic to go into that in detail, though, so I'll leave it at that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Magnuskn wrote:


I'm not really sure how much your little girls will be running into combat in real life, though...
Comically missing the point.

Emphasis on the "comic". Or did you miss that I was making a joke? ^^

Captain Morgan wrote:
Ugh, I knew this thread would get awful, but this is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

Really? We are having a polite discussion here, not sure why you think that is bad.

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I honestly have zero idea why Magnuskn is here.

You have talked serious trash since the playtest. You have proclaimed you have no intention of playing PF2. But you're here giving hyperbolic opinions to people who are wanting to try it out.

I'm mostly keeping out of other discussions for the very reason that I am not going to play it. But threads like "Was the Wizard nerfed?" and "Do you think 2E is better than 1E?" are topics which give me the chance to voice a few first opinions (which I'm bound to have on the two first days of the release of the game), before I leave you guys to it. Or do you think dissenting opinions are bad and people should not be allowed to voice them, so as to not offend your innocent eyes? C'mon, diversity is the spice of life and I sure am not unhappy for the people who are ecstatic to play PF2E.


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


Well from what they've said, the survey response to their basic paradigm was quite positive. I know I filled out a survey saying in detail what I wanted to be different about casters, which included a variety of possible changes.

The apparent result is that people wanted spells powered up from the playtest primarily inasmuch as they wanted enemies to fail Saves more often and durations to last longer rather than change the core dynamic of how spells work from the playtest. Both those things happened.

Well, it didn't work for me, but, again, I am just one dude GM'ing for some other dudes.

I really haven't seen the "durations to last longer" part, though, unless you mean how long spell effects on enemies last, which I haven't checked yet. Most buff spells have been nerfed in duration and effect as far as I've seen. Some spells last longer from the start but never scale after leveling past the point you outscale the congruent PF1E level (i.e. Mage Armor lasts 8 hours, but after level 8 you don't get the benefit you'd have in PF1E of it lasting even longer).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Hopkins wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.
Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^
A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.

I'm not really sure how much your little girls will be running into combat in real life, though...

1 to 50 of 8,330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>