In theory, but PFS and PF in general so far have been very centered on a specific region of the world. So while the concept might be varying rarity of ancestries and other options based on region, if you only ever focus on one region, what we get in practice is a fairly static set of 'normal' people and then 'others', which is both frustrating for players who want to play other ancestries and has some unfortunate undertones to it.
It's a little hard to define a consensus, because even on the issues there do seem to be common opinions on, what the implications of that opinion mean vary wildly too.
You mention Wizards being weaker, but on that subject alone we've seen opinions ranging from high level wizards still being busted, to wizards being fine, to wizards being fine but lacking build variety, to wizards being weak, to the notion that wizards are weak, but that's a good thing because the class and the people who play it need to be punished for PF1.
Comparisons with 1e are in general doomed to fail. You can look at optimized blasting builds from 1e and conclude blasting is weaker in 2e, but at the same time general purpose blasting appears to be a lot more relevant and depending on your class, there's a much better selection of longevity enhancing tools, which was one of the blaster's biggest problems in 1e.
Although honestly, most of the debates I see now, with the possible exception of the Alchemist, center around whether the game is too well balanced as a whole.
I can't agree, the only time I've seen 'too balanced' echoed as an argument tends to be rarely and mostly in peripheral threads, coming from people approaching the system from an antagonistic perspective. It's not really a serious opinion I've seen shared by people invested in 2e.
EDIT: Oh look, your sole prior post in the thread is a disingenuous concern-troll of the OP.
It was two posts.
And do you really not see the deeply unsavory implications of asserting that "versatility" is somehow a Eurocentric stereotype that needs to be "twisted around" to apply to POC and indigenous people? Yes, it's immediately followed with an example of applying it to a hunter-gatherer, but it's described as a subversion of Eurocentric worldviews to do so. That struck me as a particularly big red flag, but if you don't see it I'd like to hear more. To me it smacked of a sort of subtle othering, because it left hanging the suggestion that those terms aren't ones that 'normally' ought to be applied to noneuropeans.
Fair enough, it probably is.
So it's a recurring issue for you? Weird. Couldn't be anything you're doing, of course. I'm sure it only galvanizes that self-righteous conviction you're wielding like a hammer.
Tiresome is a good choice of word, though. Suggests a sort of world weary gravitas and wisdom to your position. Not annoyed or angry, just tired, above being questioned.
That's certainly a convenient framing for you, at the very least. No such thing as a different perspective. Just bigots, people afraid of upsetting bigots, and bigots pretending they aren't.
You can actually twist this around and use those heritages to create a Skilled hunger-gatherer, or a Versatile black prince who trained as priest but is also a skilled rider.
This statement and its surrounding commentary needs to be called out.
The notion that a skilled non-white person is somehow a fundamental subversion of norms or "twisting around" of anything is dangerously close to mimicking the ethnocentrist, imperialistic mindset the rest of your post claims to be critical of.
The most interesting thing to come out of this thread and its predecessors I think is just how thoroughly traumatized a section of this community has been by the PF1 wizard.
There have been a number of threads across the months since PF2 has come out suggesting various QoL improvements or balance changes to nearly every class in the game, with reactions often ranger from agreement to mild, tempered disagreement or the occasional 'doesn't seem necessary, but it's not a big deal either way.'
But Wizard threads in particular seem to evoke this extremely emotional response from people. Very naked hostility even directed toward suggestions that are, under objective scrutiny, negligible suggestions from the perspective of game balance. Almost always inevitably accompanied by accusations of bad faith or trolling, because the perspective that anyone might not share their own world view is so far beyond that that's the only conclusion to make.
You don't see this pretty much anywhere else in the community, not to this level at least.
I mean if you want to be a patronizing ass about it, let me fix this real quick:
Evidence that it's not intended:
Evidence that it is:
Wow gee. Guess that proves it.
if one version of an ambiguous rule seems too good to be true, it probably is
Too good to be true? If you want to argue that an alchemist with a crafter's book is an overpowered nightmare you can. Not sure that's a winning argument though.
compare WotC's handling of the Beastmaster Ranger)
Tell people you're looking into ways to fix the class.Then later tell people in an offhand comment on twitter that the class is fine and they should stop talking about it.
Then print two or three different updates to the class.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
"I cast a Heal spell on my friend to bring him back to consciousness while I'm affected by Silence," does not work.
One action heal spell only has somatic components. I'm double checking the text of Silence but I'm not seeing any reason this doesn't work.
Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel which can very well invalidate other working game mechanics, as I've demonstrated above.
You did not.
For one, the problem you're describing appears to be something you've invented on the spot. That whole thing about auditory traits is completely nonsequitur to Battle Medicine itself.
In summary, you're in favor of a certain a house rule because if you didn't you might need to house rule something to cover for a problem with the rules that you invented just now with another house rule.
Honestly the whole line of logic is a little convoluted and doesn't really go anywhere.
It would be a lot simpler if you just said outright that you thought Battle Medicine should be difficult and action-inefficient to use, rather than jumping through all these nonsensical hoops to try to justify it. It's okay to have an opinion.
You say that, but two posts later are quibbling over summons and different types of magic pits.
Clearly it's not that simple and clearly you do think certain non-permanent spell effects should be treated differently.
I made a captain role operative one time and got some level 12+ space combats in. It quickly became apparent that I could write down the actions, roll dice, write the results, and then leave to watch tv.
Isn't that like saying you made a soldier and your regular combats are just making your full attack then leaving to watch TV?
The whole game can be broken down to 'just roll some dice' and then going back to playing with your phone or watching TV.
That's not to say starship combat is perfect, or even good, but there seems to be a lot of issues with how people are choosing to approach it, too.
My point was that, in a system with math as tight as PF2's, there's really no way for math booster items to not have this large an effect
I'm sorry, but this claim doesn't hold up under even the slightest scrutiny.
If striking runes were half as potent as they were in the current edition, magic weapons wouldn't suddenly stop being mandatory, despite also having obviously not as large an effect on a character's total damage output, the thing you claim is impossible.
Which makes your claim demonstrably false. Along with the entire fake binary you're trying to establish where the only choices one was allowed to make were between no magic items and the exact, specific implementation of magic items as they appear in PF2 is equally false.
If you like the system so much, just say it, but don't keep trying to invent these false narratives to prop it up.
They (I could say 'we' but I disagree with the majority on this one in many ways) were pretty clear they wanted 'math booster' items.
No one disputed that.
But too often those survey results are used to justify this particular implementation of magic items, rather than just math-adjusting gear in general. That is a misrepresentation of the survey, because it was never that specific.
In this very thread we have people only a few posts up who seem to be interested in math boosters, but not a fan of the raw power PF2's math adjusting items have. So clearly the insistence that these positions are synonymous is off base.
The playtest indicated that people really wanted items that did this (ie: provided sizable and thus necessary mathematical bonuses).
Only sort of true. The survey questions, from my recollection, were a lot more general than that.
People wanted meaningful magic items. It's less clear whether or not people wanted a magic item economy as demanding as PF2's.
So, for the record two people (SuperBidi and DeadManWalking) have said I simply don't understand the complexity of the system.
Too complex might have been the wrong choice of words for them, but you make a lot of really severe value judgements about certain options that don't really line up with the conventional wisdom of the forums. Which, to them, will create the appearance that you don't grasp the system as well as you think you do.
Responses here seem to take for granted the idea that you can see a hazard ahead of time and/or escape from it when it reveals itself.
But that's clearly not the case, no matter how much we condescendingly mock people for "brute forcing it" because a functionally undetectable trap instantly dropped them with no warning.
Unless by recall knowledge we mean reading the AP ahead of time.
Why are elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling etc. characters allowed to be individuals who make their own choices and have their own preferences, goals, fears, etc. but not goblins?
That's a bad faith characterization of their position. So is the notion that this is exclusive to goblins, because people have absolutely complained about this sort of thing when it comes to dwarves or elves.
It's not that a character can't have their own choices, preferences and what have you, but that a character is still part of some heritage and that sometimes writers try really hard to absolutely reject any notion of that in their portrayal.
It's not like this is a new phenomena or restricted to tabletops, either.
There's some well-worn jokes about "How men write female characters" around the internet you could read, about women in fiction that are depicted in a very male-gaze fashion.
It's not that these characters aren't "allowed to be individuals" but that the female characters and their creators being lampooned lack any conception of any biological or social realities about sex and gender. They're female characters, but only in the strictest sense to fulfill some superficial goal and the writer never expresses it beyond that point. Much like someone picking a race or ancestry in a video game for mechanical reasons and then doing everything in their power to downplay it otherwise.
Similar criticisms have been levied about writers Europeanizing characters of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.
While the portrayal of a goblin PC doesn't have the same real-world weight to it as the above examples do, it's definitely in the same vein and not all that peculiar that someone might question another player's motives when they're trying so hard to reject everything about their chosen ancestry except for the stats.
A standard CR1 bugbear against a level 1 party will, on average, instantly kill via massive damage any d6 class or any d8 class that doesn't have 14 or more Con if it ambushes the party. Anyone else is forced into a dying state. Even outside ambush mode, it only needs a slightly above average damage roll to drop anything except a raging barbarian.
Not even remotely swingy, definitely.
If each independent type of damage being dealt by a weapon counts as a separate instance or 'packet', does that mean abilities like a Champion's Retributive Strike, which applies to 'the triggering damage', are mitigated by instances? If I take 2 slashing and 3 fire and I have DR5, do I take 0 because I have 5 DR, or 3 because it's two instances of damage, of which the ability only applies to one?
Would an attack with three damage instances instantly takes a creature from Dying 1 to Dead, because Dying increments when you take damage and such an attack damages you three separate times?
Richter Harding wrote:
This might be something with considering too.
The focus has been pretty strongly on melee-buffing Solarian and Soldier combat options, but how do those numbers shake out when you're looking at melee vs ranged for operatives? Technomancers? Mechanics? Mystics? Biohackers?
Sorry OP I guess that's kind of off topic but that seems like a natural follow up to so much of the debate being centered on buffs provided by specific fighting styles vs options open to everyone.
I don't trust anyone being fair with their negative opinions (Bellow 3-4). People are overall, too crazy here, too passionate and disproportionate in their way of describing something they found... Like their lives depend on it. You are doing a wonderful job though Vest, thanks for keeping everything in check
Can't trust them. Crazy people.
That whole 'let's not be rude' thing of yours didn't last very long, did it?
Athletics assurance seems best for a character with a low strength score to be able to more reliably perform basic athletics tests.
The problem I've encountered is that the PFS scenarios I've played and the AP encounters I've looked at tend to ignore the CRB's advice about creating challenges and tend to present primarily CR appropriate skill checks for relevant challenges. As a result the usefulness of the ability is diminished quite a bit.
It's the same thing in the threads on bulk and familiars and every other rule some of these people don't like.
They don't like something, so they'll try to use the most absurdly contrived scenarios and nonsensically restrictive faux-rules interpretations possible to make things sound as bad as they can. In this way, they can feel like they've 'won' the internet argument, which is apparently very important to some of these people.