Incap spells are partly useless because they do nothing to bosses. Crippling bosses is far, far more useful than crippling their minions
The other part of their uselessness is that there are usually better options at the level you have to heighten them to for them to be at all effective. Essentially, they're generally only worthwhile at their base spell level. They're just too unreliable to bother with.
I think a lot depends on how you run games and perceive the world as players.
For example, in games that I run, class abilities and spell names are known things in character. People know that a spell is 'cure light wounds' or 'bladed dash'. People know a gunslinger has grit. Spells are codified in books by their level of power.
In my current setting, spell incantations are subroutine calls to a set of goddesses that interface with the world through complex thaumaturgic computers. I've written up a little bit of language for the computers and incantations.
Class abilities changing or disappearing if you run a world like this is of significant note if you have an ongoing campaign. People would understand that teleportation, once freely available to all mages who trained enough, was suddenly restricted. Weapons that used to work one way suddenly function completely differently. Magic items and spells that used to work together in harmony suddenly no longer function the same way, and now the strongest one overrides the others.
I like characters in game having that level of "meta" knowledge. It makes sense to me that they would understand how their world works. It also means that an edition change is virtually impossible unless I write a whole new setting, or majorly time shift the one I have.
That, or that PF3 will be more like PF1, which means we're in for a decade of constructive criticism.
It's this one. I'd also be fine with a much more nitty-gritty system than PF1 for PF3 (e.g. making height and weight have mechanical effects, more realistic depictions of gear, more skills, more bonus types, etc.)
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
Bah, why use a fruit cart when there's always a cabbage cart around?
I do miss the coupe de gras rules, and I would like to see them return. I think this is a case where you could use the 4 degrees system well.
In the given scenario, the innkeeper's son probably deals 3 or 4 damage, so the player only fails on a nat 1 and likely can't critically fail.
Problem is that maxing out your roll in PF2 is too easy, there's no challenge to be had then.
One of my favorite characters was a fighter built around armor spikes with bull rush and overrun - it took something like six or eight hours of digging through feat interactions and whatnot to come up with something really effective and powerful, that could succeed most of the time and deal heavy damage.
The fun was in spending all that time rooting around the rules to cone up with a character who was as good at something as they could be. I don't really see things like this ever being possible with the way PF2 is designed. It's too easy to max your roll and pick your options. There's little joy to be found in a game that gives you the best possible character without any major effort.
I dunno John, this is a person whose stated goal on the forums us to spend his time trying to make pf2 seem as bad as possible so it fails and they make a pf3 he personally is happy with. I think most people would agree that such an approach can only be detrimental to the community (and company) as a whole.
Thats...not at all what I said. I don't "hope PF2 fails". I want a PF3 that's better. Paizo has to stick around for that to happen. What I did say is that I'm being vocal about my complaints in the hopes that future versions (or this version, though I realize that's unlikely) will improve.
I honestly don't know how you could have gotten that I hope PF2 fails, or that I'm somehow 'out to destroy the community' from what I have said. Yes, it's not the game I hoped for and it is disappointing, but my aim is to make the next one better, not make this one fail.
If you're likely to fail the roll more than once or twice in a session it's constant.
Attack rolls after the first get a partial pass if the first one is a near guaranteed success.
Only boring if you enjoy constant failure. I don't. It's the pinnacle of design, because you can fail constantly if you build one way, and succeed constantly if you build another, thereby enabling any level of play to suit taste.
Even with a weapon cord, you still cost them a move action to retrieve it, which means no full attacks. That's well worth the effort.
Disarm is defeated by locked gauntlets, but those do come with other drawbacks.
You can also make a weapon cord in pf2. It may not be an official item, but you can still tie a bit of rope (or a strip of leather sliced off a belt pouch, etc) to your arm and the weapon. It just matters less because nobody is foolish enough to actually try to disarm you in PF2. Much like KAC+8 in starfinder, crit success is a ridiculously hard target for a maneuver.
I suppose if it inflicted a penalty of some type to the enemy, it might be ok, but as it is it basically does nothing on a normal success so it's unreliable and therefore useless.
It's the biggest success of the system, not a major failing.
You're saying all this like it's a bad thing.
It isn't. Spells should be markedly more accurate than normal attacks since they're a limited resource.
Mark Seifter wrote:
So instead it's a waste of time and effort.
Why do you have a problem with people specializing and being good at what they do, and then using their best skills at every opportunity? That's how it's meant to be played.
You can cast dirge of doom to inflict frightened 1 for 1 round, no save, then follow up with inspire courage to buff allies, no harmonize needed, so long as you don't go right before all the baddies.
The fear effect of dirge of doom is immediate. The only thing you lose this way is that enemies can recover from the fear normally on their turn. As long as you don't go right before them, it gives your allies time to take advantage of both at once. And you can still shoot a bow or something.
At least one of the following:
1) PF3, if and when it is released, winds up being more in line with my tastes
2) They release an 'unchained' book with more palatable rules
3) They significantly overhaul the system in the next printing
The first two at least have a decent chance of happening. It isn't fun, but it's necessary to be constantly heard to be taken into account for future plans. I'm doing everything I can to push towards a shift back at some point.
More or less this, PF1 is the perfect game in my opinion. I had very high hopes for PF2 when I first heard it was announced, which were subsequently wiped during the playtest, and I'm even more disappointed by the final. I put in a fair bit of feedback during the playtest, and my thoughts were clearly ignored (the only big change I see that I wanted from the playtest is items having HP instead of dents).
What I wanted from PF2 was an evolution on PF1 with even more options and depth. What I got instead was a completely different game with little depth by comparison. So yes, I am disappointed in PF2, which is why I am particularly active on the boards here as opposed to other systems I dislike, which I largely ignore.
Online play just doesn't do it for me unless I already know the people I'm gaming with. I much prefer to sit at the same table.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ah, so we should just delete all the buff spells then, I see. Nobody would ever want a buff, given the choice between having one and not having one.
That's the main selling point though. It sucks to be a slave to RNG for areas you've focused in. Failing now and then is one thing, but failing frequently (>15% or so) is just irritating. And, you have to invest a lot of time to make your character the best they can be. Here, it's impossible not to make them the best they can be unless you deliberately shoot yourself in the foot sonehow.
It's not at the expense of anything. I know of 0 fighters who would want the buffs on them to last for less time.
That's not fun, you don't have to work for it. In PF1, to achieve that level of success, you had to build your character right and use the right buffs. In PF2, anyone optimizing something has around the same number range. It's zero effort to be the best you can be. And even then you still fail 30 to 50% of the time.
And to those saying "then what's the point of the die", crits or "beating by 5 or more", obviously.
The whole numeric advancement is just so shallow and simple and it's really a huge step back.
That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no fun at all.
I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.
It's not balanced, spells are pretty lackluster now. Mostly just there for flashy variety compared to PF1 where they were actually worthwhile.
Those dips sound cool in my book. PF1 style was a hell of a lot more fun and effective than whatever this is. Shoulda kept PF1 style and had VMC separate like before.
It is true though. Claiming that pathfinder is Golarion is like claiming that D&D is dragonlance. They're not the same. They're just settings used in their respective rulesets. I could claim my Endless Frontier setting is pathfinder, but it isn't.
Final Fantasy 3 also used spell slots. Many the games based on D&D have as well, and Pathfinder Kingmaker of course. Dark Souls 1 and 2 both used prepared limited spells. Not Vancian per se, but the same basic idea. PoE too for some classes.
Pathfinder is a game. Golarion is a setting. Golarion is not pathfinder.
They can exist in novels (c.f the LitRPG subgenre) and therefore you can plan abilities out with them. You can also reasonably have multiclass or prestige class levels described like this.
It is false advertising to use the name of a game system and then not use its rules to drive the narrative setup. If I see a game system on a novel cover, I would naturally assume that to be a major feature of the story.
If I don't care about system and mechanics, there are thousands of fantasy novels that don't need to follow a system because they aren't affiliated with a game. However, for ones that are, the system and mechanics are the primary consideration.
If I'm looking for fiction from an RPG world this is specifically what I want. There's plenty of other options in the fantasy realm if I want something different. Using the RPG's name to sell the novel then completely divorcing it from the game is false advertising.
At the very least there needs to be a prominent disclaimer on the front cover indicating that they didn't bother using the rule set and only took fluff into consideration. Its still a waste of an opportunity though.
That's goofy. Why would you write a novel if you don't know the basics of the class you're writing about? If a paladin has detect evil at level one, then that's what they get in the book. I detest authors (like Salvatore) who use a system to sell their work but don't even follow the most basic of mechanics in their narrative.
I would personally have liked a much more granular skill list than PF1 (maybe 50ish skills plus knowledges) and a lot more skill ups. But instead we went the more nonsensical route.
I also hate Perception not being a skill anymore. You should need to invest in it, and should be able to invest in it (the general feat that levels it for you doesn't count since it stops at Master).
You can't use a weapon in mountain stance. It's one of the stances that only lets you use its special unarmed strike. Which is a shame, because it would actually make a lot of the monk weapons actually have a point.
The problem you'll run into is that it's flat out worse than wolf stance, which is also a d8 trip weapon but is agile and finessable (and backstabby), unlike the temple sword. Wolf drag is also really solid.
If you want a weapon monk, I think that tangled forest style with a bo staff is one of the more interesting options. Doesn't come online until level 8 though.
If weapons worked with Mountain stance, that would be a good combo for temple sword, but that isn't the case.