| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the goblin being moved would deny all of the goblin players who are excited by there addition to the book what 2.5 or 3 years before they could play them?Not if they end up in PF2's first Bestiary, which I seem to recall is supposed to ship alongside the PF2 CRB.so only wait till 2019 and of course lose the amount of support that core races get?
still not a great option imho.
at the least very there being in the playtest is a good idea.
that will give a lot more time for goblins and other choices to be field tested.
Who's saying anything about Goblins not being in the playtest? I don't think anything of consequence will be changing for the playtest (and I don't think John Lynch 106 was talking about changes to the Playtest in his post either), I'm just talking about things that might change for the actual release of PF2.
You're providing feedback now, and we're hearing it now—don't think it doesn't bear weight!
Thanks for responding. I very much appreciate it.
However, your feedback—like everyone's—will bear more weight after you've actually seen the game, and it will bear still more when you're actually playing the game during the playtest process.
If you choose not to do that, of course, that's fine, but don't be too surprised when we listen more to the people who do.
Fair enough. Like I said, I do hope to get my group to playtest the game. I just know that if the game is too different from what we enjoy then getting more than one game session is going to be difficult. And if we were to get someone to play a goblin that would negatively impact the enjoyment of the game all of our feedback will be coloured from that experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because those people are talking about having 1E. They don't want anything to change. Just a mildly revised PF1E core. This edition change is about trying new things that address some very longstanding issues with the core engine. If the game you want already exists (you might have to incorporate some sourcebooks that aren't folded into core, but that's minor), why would you deliberately try to ruin the new stuff for more of the same?The playtest ISN'T the final product and we've been told that things CAN change from playtest to finish, so why WOULDN'T those that dislike things they currently see try to get the end product shift into something they like? It's not to ruin your day but to make theirs.There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
Weren’t you just complaining yourself about other people putting words in your mouth? I would say it is bad form to turn around and put words in theirs. Quite a good number of those objecting to aspects of this are perfectly happy to have significant changes they just don’t like some things about the specific changes made. That isn’t the same thing. So can we stop the ‘they just hate change’ broken record as well? It isn’t helpful, and from what I see for the most part isn’t true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, no one is out to ruin your stuff: it's not even your [or anyones] stuff yet. And it really doesn't matter where a persons starting point is. they have JUST as much right to input into the game as those with a different starting point. Both are entitled to try to shift the new game to where they want it. Myself I want a LOT, and I do mean a LOT, shifted. I doubt I'll get everything I want but if enough does I might play the new game when it comes out.It does matter, and yes, if all you want is minor revisions done to PF1E, then that's a problem. Because PF2 is about more than that, and the game you want already exists. So at that point, from my perspective all you can try to do is hamper the development of something new until it ends up being the game that already exists. That is not cool.
"This edition change is about trying new things": Maybe but too much or too radical of a change and they risk losing the old players to gain new ones. IMO they want to walk the line of keeping it close enough to the old game to keep the current players while adding new rules to bring in new ones. So IMO current players saying 'heck no' in and of itself is valuable as 'i'm not even playtesting it' is a potential customer not switching to the new game.All of the old players who have posted against every single change only want a slightly revised PF1E. That game already exists, even if you have to rely on a couple different books instead of one core that covers everything. So deliberately trying to hold back development for something that already exists is absurd, and it needs to be pushed back at every turn. This is a chance for a new game that fixes a lot of issues that objectively hamper the aging D20 core engine. Scrapping everything just to satisfy people who just want 1E anyway, with all its caster supremacy, skill wonkiness, lack of epic feats, and broken monster math, is pointless. They already have that game.
Refusing to playtest...
I think this person who has posted against every single change is vanishingly rare to mythical. It certainly isn’t me. I love the action economy for example. I’m cautiously optimistic with some caveats about the combat system. I have some heavy concerns in the skill system. I am very wary of resonance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with waiting for goblins to appear in the bestiary? We don't know yet if the bestiary will actually have ancestries, what with monsters being built using different systems and the whole ancestry feat system.
For instance, if ancestry feats are keyed into specific ancestries, until you get publication of those feats, those "races" won't actually be viable in play, as they will have nothing to select.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of the old players who have posted against every single change only want a slightly revised PF1E.
Players that don't exist for 1000 alex.
I would have preferred a pf 1.5 for sure. That said i'm cautiously optimistic about the changes to rogue and fighter, im cautiously optimistic about the action economy. I'm vehemently against goblins as a core race and vehemently against the removal of alignment/opening up of paladin alignment restrictions. The issue with the latter isn't that its even been hinted at, its that people started lobbying for it so others, who didn't like the idea started lobbying against it so as not to present a forum that seemed to universally support the idea.
In all reality this forum is going to be agitated and moderately toxic until the actual rules get released. The dribs and drabs only serve to increase uncertainty and fuel internet slap fights.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there are some things I am vehemently against that I can just fix trivially on my own time. Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop. But if Paizo says "have fun with your chaotic neutral 'Paladins'" it's not like it takes me a lot of time/effort to say "Paladins are LG only in my game."
So I don't know why it doesn't work exactly the same with some other things. Like it will be hard to enact wholesale changes for the action economy or the unified proficiency system, but a class, ancestry, feat, spell, background, etc. that I don't like seems so trivial to fix myself that it's hardly worth complaining about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there are some things I am vehemently against that I can just fix trivially on my own time. Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop. But if Paizo says "have fun with your chaotic neutral 'Paladins'" it's not like it takes me a lot of time/effort to say "Paladins are LG only in my game."
So I don't know why it doesn't work exactly the same with some other things. Like it will be hard to enact wholesale changes for the action economy or the unified proficiency system, but a class, ancestry, feat, spell, background, etc. that I don't like seems so trivial to fix myself that it's hardly worth complaining about.
I'm not a fan of having to argue with players about why X core book option isn't allowed and am not inclined to spend a bunch of money on systems where i feel i'm going to have to do that regularly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I‘ll also chime in by saying while I am very wary about skill system, the basic idea of forced universal math, the magic system, the resonance sytem, and naming everything a feat. Openning up the classes and action system could work with only minor changes. I'm indifferent on goblins.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cabbage has a point - if there are two similarly-sized camps that have strong and opposing opinions on an issue, it makes sense for the designers to adopt the more flexible option. For example, if the rules accommodate paladins of any alignment, it's easy for GMs to restrict paladin alignments in their own games to LG only, or any Good only. It's not so easy to take a class that's designed from the ground-up to be LG-only and homebrew it to allow neutral paladins.
I'm not a fan of having to argue with players about why X core book option isn't allowed and am not inclined to spend a bunch of money on systems where i feel i'm going to have to do that regularly.I mean, there are some things I am vehemently against that I can just fix trivially on my own time. Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop. But if Paizo says "have fun with your chaotic neutral 'Paladins'" it's not like it takes me a lot of time/effort to say "Paladins are LG only in my game."
So I don't know why it doesn't work exactly the same with some other things. Like it will be hard to enact wholesale changes for the action economy or the unified proficiency system, but a class, ancestry, feat, spell, background, etc. that I don't like seems so trivial to fix myself that it's hardly worth complaining about.
If you have to argue with players about what's allowed, maybe it's time to find new players?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to argue with players about what's allowed, maybe it's time to find new players?
Yeah, this. I don't argue with my players about this sort of thing. I put forth what I am comfortable and willing to GM and they can decide whether they want to play or if someone else would like to GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People always present players as these random folk that just fall into a game. I get that for PFS (where you don't even get to argue about what core option isn't allowed, making my point even more thoroughly) but friends getting together for a fun evening.
Pathfinder is a game i play with various groups of friends, and if the issue becomes enough that it isn't fun for one of us, we'll find a game that works for both. RPG systems are disposable, friends are not.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of having to argue with players about why X core book option isn't allowed and am not inclined to spend a bunch of money on systems where i feel i'm going to have to do that regularly.
Well, personally I don't think I have ever encountered an RPG system that I haven't tweaked at least a little to make it more like how I want it, so that's not a big deal to me- the appeal of these things (as opposed to like board or video games) is how easily anything can be changed if the people playing it want to.
But I'm genuinely wondering what percentage of the Pathfinder 1st edition stuff I have never used, or been in a game where it was used. I think it's a sizeable portion, but this doesn't really bother me. Like I'm not sure I've been in a game in which someone played a Grippli; or someone cast the spell Mount; or someone took the feats Athletic, Elemental Channel, or Fleet but I don't feel like I'm missing a lot (though that Grippli medium archetype looks neat.)
Or, alternately, someone may have to give up a given value of "fun" in order to play. Friends should be able to compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, alternately, someone may have to give up a given value of "fun" in order to play. Friends should be able to compromise.
From what I've seen on the forums across numberous topics, giving up fun is; bad player, bad GM, or bad busted design/balance.
Why do I keep coming back again? Maybe I haven't shaken off Confusion yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, personally I don't think I have ever encountered an RPG system that I haven't tweaked at least a little to make it more like how I want it, so that's not a big deal to me
I prefer to keep those changes to a minimum. I see a loy of different games, player and DM's so it gets confusing if you are continually seeing shifting houserules. So I'd rather see things I don't like at least shifted to optional rules. In this case i'd LOVE to see alignment removes from mechanics and/or from paladins. If they do that, I could play with a paladin in that party again.
Like I'm not sure I've been in a game in which someone played a Grippli
Check
someone cast the spell Mount
Check
someone took the feats Athletic, Elemental Channel, or Fleet
check, check and check... LOL unless it's related to paladins, I've seen pretty much everything in play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, alternately, someone may have to give up a given value of "fun" in order to play. Friends should be able to compromise.From what I've seen on the forums across numberous topics, giving up fun is; bad player, bad GM, or bad busted design/balance.
Why do I keep coming back again? Maybe I haven't shaken off Confusion yet.
What I tend to see/hear is that if people do not get exactly the rules that they want then it isn't fun or the GM is being mean to deny them. I reject that. PFS is just one big set of house rules just like anyone's home game.
I play with family and friends as well. If and when one of them wants to GM I am happy to let them and play by their rules -- or not play if it is something that I just cannot stand. I don't expect things to change for me because I HAVE to have X or cannot stand Y.
|
Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop.
Slightly off topic:
I've seen the possibility of non-LG Paladins pop up a few times now. Is this something that a Paizo employee has mentioned being a possibility, of just another rumor/wish floating around? I ask because back during the 1e alpha/beta playtest, some fairly important people at Paizo were dead set against the idea of Paladins being anything other than LG.-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop.Slightly off topic:
I've seen the possibility of non-LG Paladins pop up a few times now. Is this something that a Paizo employee has mentioned being a possibility, of just another rumor/wish floating around? I ask because back during the 1e alpha/beta playtest, some fairly important people at Paizo were dead set against the idea of Paladins being anything other than LG.-Skeld
It's a wish that's been floating around since....well, forever, really. But with 2E coming it's popped up again, no doubt emboldened by 5th Edition doing away with LG as a Paladin requirement.
AFAIK it hasn't been hinted at anywhere, officially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all reality this forum is going to be agitated and moderately toxic until the actual rules get released.Once the rules get released, the boards will become agitated and moderately toxic, which will be a welcome change.
-Skeld. ;)
Ah. Just like the good old days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop.Slightly off topic:
I've seen the possibility of non-LG Paladins pop up a few times now. Is this something that a Paizo employee has mentioned being a possibility, of just another rumor/wish floating around? I ask because back during the 1e alpha/beta playtest, some fairly important people at Paizo were dead set against the idea of Paladins being anything other than LG.-Skeld
It's a wish that's been floating around since....well, forever, really. But with 2E coming it's popped up again, no doubt emboldened by 5th Edition doing away with LG as a Paladin requirement.
AFAIK it hasn't been hinted at anywhere, officially.
LOL Well I know I didn't bring it up because of 5e. ;)
Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop.Slightly off topic:
I've seen the possibility of non-LG Paladins pop up a few times now. Is this something that a Paizo employee has mentioned being a possibility, of just another rumor/wish floating around? I ask because back during the 1e alpha/beta playtest, some fairly important people at Paizo were dead set against the idea of Paladins being anything other than LG.-Skeld
I feel like a lot of people had "Paladins of any alignment" as an "obvious" thing Paizo should do with PF2 for whatever reason that makes sense to them. I don't think a Paizo employee has said anything than that they think people will like their solution to this "problem".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said: If Paizo don't want my thoughts on what adds to the game (at least in so much as the goblin is concerned) so be it. If they want my thoughts as to how the goblin impacts enjoyment at the table due to the flavour of the race (not the mechanics) but require it be the result of playtesting, that's an issue.
If they only want feedback backed up with actual playtestkng and weight the feedback accordingly, this diminishes the ability for people who strongly dislike how 2nd edition appears to be getting designed to participate. In this situation I anticipate my ability to provide feedback on how the rules and flavour are impacting my group's enjoyment of the game to be greatly diminished. If that's what Paizo wants then it's what they will get. If it isn't what they want then they need to consider veey carefully how they judge feedback and evaluate it's worth to them.
You're providing feedback now, and we're hearing it now—don't think it doesn't bear weight!
However, your feedback—like everyone's—will bear more weight after you've actually seen the game, and it will bear still more when you're actually playing the game during the playtest process.
If you choose not to do that, of course, that's fine, but don't be too surprised when we listen more to the people who do.
I'll be play testing as soon as I can - BUT - I can tell you now, no amount of play testing will convince me that it is a good idea for Goblins to be in the core book.
It feels gimmicky. I don't want them being commonly played by players I play with.
At my table, if these are in the book, they will be banned.
I have no control over that at something like PFS. Where they will overrun everything. Meaning I will be forced to sit through something I know I will not enjoy.
I. Do. Not. Want. Goblins. As. A. Core. Race.
It makes no sense from a lore perspective and it is going to be a headache for every GM who isn't a fan of the "Chaotic Neutral" player.
I am using that in quotes because we all know that *one* player. That player who goes out of his way to be disruptive. That one player who, the second they are told they can't be evil, they grin and say, "Can I be Chaotic Neutral?"
Then proceed to burn down the orphanage the second they have the opportunity to do so.
Except in the first game I DMed where I didn't know better because of inexperience, Chaotic Neutral is the only alignment that I have always banned. It's the only alignment that is truly ALWAYS a problem. Even the Chaotic Evils are more consistent and easier to plan around, though that is of course my second-most banned alignment. CN players will screw up an evil campaign as much as they screw up a good campaign.
Generally, in an evil campaign I will ban good alignments and Chaotic Neutral, in a good campaign I will ban evil alignments and Chaotic Neutral, and in a more nuanced game I will ban only Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil.
As to how this relates to goblins, well, they're not a CN race. They are rather too consistent for that. They're a NE race, that sounds like for at least the playtest is being shifted to either "NE with N tendencies" or "N with NE tendencies." We'll see how it works out in the playtest.
TLDR don't ban races, just ban players from being Chaotic Neutral.
They're a NE race
Well... That's what the book says but they SURE don't act that way. If you look at the lore and hazard a guess, I think most people would say Chaotic with a side of chaotic and some evil/insane sprinkled in. I've been wondering if they plan to shift the alignment for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're a NE raceWell... That's what the book says but they SURE don't act that way. If you look at the lore and hazard a guess, I think most people would say Chaotic with a side of chaotic and some evil/insane sprinkled in. I've been wondering if they plan to shift the alignment for them.
Yeah, I have to say that I thought the gobs and bugbears we're swapped alignment-wise. I feel like this is an old 3.5 vestige. As depicted, goblins are chaotic and bugbears are not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there are some things I am vehemently against that I can just fix trivially on my own time. Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop. But if Paizo says "have fun with your chaotic neutral 'Paladins'" it's not like it takes me a lot of time/effort to say "Paladins are LG only in my game."
So I don't know why it doesn't work exactly the same with some other things. Like it will be hard to enact wholesale changes for the action economy or the unified proficiency system, but a class, ancestry, feat, spell, background, etc. that I don't like seems so trivial to fix myself that it's hardly worth complaining about.
I am probably the closest to what Lady Firebird is railing against (she recently made a post as to what she is looking forward to and I am the complete opposite on her on every point she mentioned). But even I don't want nothing changed. Here are Some elements I'm positive about, willing to compromise or reserving judgement:
* Goblins: Make non Golarion goblins viable with the ancestral traits and I'm on board with goblins in the core rules (I won't GM a Golarion campaign with goblins, but will GM an Eberron one).* Proficiencies: This sounds like a hot, complicated mess for minimal to no benefit. But give me the option to not have untrained Proficiencies autoscale (perhaps with more proficiency slots to compensate) and I'll at least give it a real honest chance.
* Legendary over the top epic skill feats: Don't make taking them mandatory and make sure topping off at master across many skills instead of specializing in a few legendary ones is a viable strategy and I'll be happy.
* Potential currency changes: I'm happy with that.
* Potential changes to multiclassing spellcasters to make cleric/wizards more viable: I'm open to this depending on how it is implemented (NOTE: Paizo may have no plans to do this and I could be making this one up).
* Limited Magic: I'm actually happy with this SO LONG AS the subsequent changes to martial characters don't make the casters/non casters feel too Same/same.
* Theorised non-LG Core Paladin's: Also okay with this provided there is a clear and distinct option for LG Paladin's (I think 5th Ed does a good job of this).
* Revised action economy: Certainly willing to give it a good go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, alternately, someone may have to give up a given value of "fun" in order to play. Friends should be able to compromise.From what I've seen on the forums across numberous topics, giving up fun is; bad player, bad GM, or bad busted design/balance.
Why do I keep coming back again? Maybe I haven't shaken off Confusion yet.
What I tend to see/hear is that if people do not get exactly the rules that they want then it isn't fun or the GM is being mean to deny them. I reject that. PFS is just one big set of house rules just like anyone's home game.
I play with family and friends as well. If and when one of them wants to GM I am happy to let them and play by their rules -- or not play if it is something that I just cannot stand. I don't expect things to change for me because I HAVE to have X or cannot stand Y.
I think it's important for people to make expectations really clear before the campaign ever starts. And also for people to understand that not every game is going to be the one for them, neither will every player want to play the game they've presented if they're the GM. And to not take that personally. It's all for fun, after all.
I guess some of it has to do with how many gamers someone knows, but I've found through hard experience that when people say "no game is better than a bad game" that they're very correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As promised:
* Goblins: Make non Golarion goblins viable with the ancestral traits and I'm on board with goblins in the core rules (I won't GM a Golarion campaign with goblins, but will GM an Eberron one).
For the life of me, if I never hear another word about Goblins as a playable ancestry again, it'll be too soon. This isn't a shot at you (or anyone in particular), but until I came here, I had no idea Goblins and Paladins were such contentious topics.
... makes me want to make a Goblin Paladin.
* Proficiencies: This sounds like a hot, complicated mess for minimal to no benefit. But give me the option to not have untrained Proficiencies autoscale (perhaps with more proficiency slots to compensate) and I'll at least give it a real honest chance.
I'm curious about this one. Some of this is purely taste, but "complicated?" Honestly, they seem both easier and more flexible than the old skill system to me, and offer lots of benefits. Chiefly in the form of abilities you can hang on the system to give it breadth and depth. It seems from what we've seen to be both mathematically more sound and opens up a lot of design options.
* Legendary over the top epic skill feats: Don't make taking them mandatory and make sure topping off at master across many skills instead of specializing in a few legendary ones is a viable strategy and I'll be happy.
See, that's what I like to hear. It's very easy to just cap what you don't like rather than force the entire system out of the rules. Me, personally, I look forward to all the crazy over-the-top stuff that you can get at higher levels. To me, that best emulates the mythological and high fantasy stories that serves as both Pathfinder's and my own personal inspiration. However, it's an easy thing to just say "I don't want Legendary skills in my game," whereas making up the rules wholesale to support those is very difficult. Also, it offers no support for people who do so if they can't find games where their houserules are in play.
Conversely, and in line with what you want to do, from what we've seen I'm guessing you can very much go for Master proficiency in multiple areas, and be very effective. Hopefully they do indeed allow for spreading out that skill proficiency as well as specialization, but with the greater oomph these skills seem to have, picking up multiple Masters would make your character very capable indeed.
* Potential currency changes: I'm happy with that.
* Potential changes to multiclassing spellcasters to make cleric/wizards more viable: I'm open to this depending on how it is implemented (NOTE: Paizo may have no plans to do this and I could be making this one up).
Agreed, though pensive about multiclassing casters, because of a long history of casters just wrecking the game.
* Limited Magic: I'm I'm actually happy with this SO LONG AS the subsequent changes to martial characters don't make the casters/non casters feel too Same/same.
Personally, I would not worry for a second about the casters and martials feeling at all the same. They can both access this cool new proficiency system, and benefit from the changes to magic items equally, but outside of that, I'm quite sure they will be different. Everything they've stated and previewed has suggested that casters will still be awesome, just not packing enough power to put most gods and fictional cosmic entities to shame.
* Theorised non-LG Core Paladin's: Also okay with this provided there is a clear and distinct option for LG Paladin's (I think 5th Ed does a good job of this).
* Revised action economy: Certainly willing to give it a good go.
I never realized non-LG Paladins was such a hot-button issue. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, though I would certainly scrutinize non-Lawful characters to make sure they really seem to follow a sort of code that you would associate with paladinhood. But then, I think a Paladin could easily be replicated by going Fighter/Cleric, too, so.
Action economy looks good to me. I like standardization, and especially like the different widgets they're showing to be able to put on it.
