| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love that the only objective complaint to back up the idea of "no customization" is the change to AoOs. You know, the change so every character doesn't automatically have the same AoO functionality, but this depends on class choice, and even more on further Feats which add new unique Reactions. You know, the end of character customization.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...clickbaity headline goodness.Guilty in every sense of the term. Though I did specifically ask for contrary evidence, and what's the best way to get it...?
Would like to see some input from the devs, though.
Who is this Neil guy, by the way?
The original poster seemed to put a good amount of weight on his opinion for some reason, but I’ve never heard of him ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm missing something with this new coke thing. I don't drink coke. What is this new coke thing?Coke produced "new Coke" formula which was widely regarded as terrible. It was done specifically to kill the new Pepsi formula that had just been released that was harming Coke's sales. Through they're marketing campaign and the their new terrible soda they were able to kill Pepsi's growing share of the soda market and then brought back the old Coke formula, which people loved/love, regaining their market share.
That's why many coke cans say "Original Formula" or "Classic" on them.
Funny story with new coke, in the blind taste tests coke conducted people consistently liked new coke better. So at least from the data coke had people would have liked it better. what new coke really teaches us is people are afraid of change even if it's for the better and will resist it just to avoid "scary" change instead of judging it on it's own merit...
Which seems to parallel a lot of what is happening right now on this board.
(second thing it teaches us is marketing is proper marketing is almost more important than the actual product...)
Note: I'm not saying pathfinder 2nd edition is like this as we do not have enough data at this stage to really make any judgement that hold weight since we are seeing it piecemeal.
Actually the rest of the story is that professionals at this sort of thing said their taste tests were designed poorly.
Coke produced "new Coke" formula which was widely regarded as terrible.This is the popular telling of the story, and it is completely wrong. It's a classic example of a lie being repeated so often that people just accept it.
The fact is that most people liked New Coke, and for the first few months of its release it enjoyed positive reception and high sales. The problems stemmed from a vocal minority that was shouting at the top of their lungs about how terrible it was. And the thing is, the narrative often is driven by whoever shouts the loudest. So with so many people shouting about how terrible New Coke was, others started to believe it and opinions turned south. The actual lessons learned by marketing departments everywhere is that it doesn't actually matter if your product tastes good or not: what matters is that people believe your product tastes good, and those are two different things. It doesn't matter whether New Coke is better than Coke Classic or vice-versa, only that the public believes that one is better. And now that public perception is fixed, the company will use it to its advantage.
This is actually a very good example that we, as fans, should take to heart. It's very easy to lash out against change, and there will be no shortage of other fans who are equally uncomfortable with a change to agree with us. Self-inspection is difficult, but it's very worthwhile, and going forward it's well worth our time to ask whether we dislike something because it is legitimately bad, or because we've convinced ourselves that it's bad. Because those are two different things.
Huh that actually makes a lot more sense thanks for the clarification on that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny story with new coke, in the blind taste tests coke conducted people consistently liked new coke better. So at least from the data coke had people would have liked it better. what new coke really teaches us is people are afraid of change even if it's for the better and will resist it just to avoid "scary" change instead of judging it on it's own merit...Which seems to parallel a lot of what is happening right now on this board.
(second thing it teaches us is marketing is proper marketing is almost more important than the actual product...)
Note: I'm not saying pathfinder 2nd edition is like this as we do not have enough data at this stage to really make any judgement that hold weight since we are seeing it piecemeal.
Yeah, that was an interesting part of the New Coke story. They underestimated the emotional connection to the product. And it's certainly something that needs to be kept in mind.
But at the same time it's also a bit more complicated than that, because the taste test was just a sip, which is a different context than drinking a whole can or so. Something might be nice in a single sip, but gets cloying for actual drinking. So the whole concept of the taste-test was flawed. Which I think also has parallels to RPG development, in that to get a good idea it needs to be actually tried out in actual play instead of just isolated experiments that don't account for the full context of it's normal use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't vocal about it, but I hated new Coke. For the record, the current Coke isn't the same as the old Coke, as they modified the recipe for high fructose corn syrup over pure cane sugar. New Coke lasted less than 3 months in the spring to summer of 1985. At least current Coke tastes enough like old Coke, that I can drink it still.
The sugar change is why there are Coke enthusiasts that go out of their way get imported Mexican Coke because some bottlers in Mexico still make it with cane sugar. And there is a seasonal Passover Coke made with cane sugar (it has a yellow cap) because the corn syrup doesn't meet the more stringent Passover Kosher standards. I think it's mostly sold in areas with lot of orthodox Jews like New York City, Chicago and Israel. Of course there is some dispute as to how significant the difference is and some Mexican bottlers do use corn syrup. So mileage may vary.
[/tangent]| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be the first to admit I have some serious reservations about PF2. For example, I deeply concerned that alignment and rolling for stats will become 'optional' rules without official support. However, lack of customization is not among my fears and concerns about the new edition. We get an extra race and class (still hoping they switch the race to tiefling) on top of archetypes becoming a core option and feat selection remains a vital part of the game completely up to the player.
I'll be the first to admit I have some serious reservations about PF2. [b]For example, I deeply concerned that alignment and rolling for stats will become 'optional' rules without official support.[(b] However, lack of customization is not among my fears and concerns about the new edition. We get an extra race and class (still hoping they switch the race to tiefling) on top of archetypes becoming a core option and feat selection remains a vital part of the game completely up to the player.
Responding to the bolded part.
Alignment is still very much a core part of the rules, just listen to the latest Know Direction Podcast:"Alignment is still a thing in the game, Paladins still have to pay attention to alignment"
Rolling for stats is still possible. For consistency in the playtest, though, the designers encourages you to use the stat creation system they've put in the playtest rules. But I don't really need to point that out as Logan Bonner already replied to you concerning that.
I wasn't vocal about it, but I hated new Coke. For the record, the current Coke isn't the same as the old Coke, as they modified the recipe for high fructose corn syrup over pure cane sugar. New Coke lasted less than 3 months in the spring to summer of 1985. At least current Coke tastes enough like old Coke, that I can drink it still.
The sugar change is why there are Coke enthusiasts that go out of their way get imported Mexican Coke because some bottlers in Mexico still make it with cane sugar. And there is a seasonal Passover Coke made with cane sugar (it has a yellow cap) because the corn syrup doesn't meet the more stringent Passover Kosher standards. I think it's mostly sold in areas with lot of orthodox Jews like New York City, Chicago and Israel. Of course there is some dispute as to how significant the difference is and some Mexican bottlers do use corn syrup. So mileage may vary.
[/tangent]
yep, HATED the new coke with a passion! As to kosher Coke, you can place orders at distributors if you aren't in an urban area. Also, canadian coke also uses cane sugar. Lastly, as a fun fact, some supermarkets sell the mexican coke by importing it in. Mine has it on the shelf next to the other options.
I miss red cream soda. Its not available locally... hmm I should just order some from the interwebs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know there is a lot that looks like customization is coming, but I have concerns. Some games, like Shadowrun just to pick an example, have a flat point buy for attributes, but it is graduated later, making it harder to raise attributes later than it was at the outset. That makes it interesting and results in different builds. PF1 has a graduated point buy at the start that also encourages a wide variety of builds. Players don't need "permission" from the game to have a farmhand background, they just pick it and then assign stats in a way that is meaningful to them, which results in great customization.
I fear PF2 is taking what was a freeform exercise that resulted in interesting and varied builds and is turning it into a cookie-cutter exercise. (I waiver between this and cautious optimism.) I'm pleased they got rid of that +1 theme crap from Starfinder, but we run the risk of builds that are flat the whole time, eliminating the trade-offs of a graduated system. I like that about PF1 and Shadowrun and I am going to dislike it if there is always the "correct" build and everything else is inferior, but you are "free" to choose to gimp yourself. That kind of customization is not fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I miss red cream soda. Its not available locally... hmm I should just order some from the interwebs.
Barq's Red Creme Soda or Big Red [originally Sun Tang Red Cream Soda]? Barq's is rarer and costs about x2 the price. It MIGHT be possible to buy it online and pick it up locally to avoid shipping costs depending on your store options.
Hm, red cream soda. Kroger has their own brand of that.
Yeah when I lived in OH I worked a a kroger briefly I can't think of a kroger anywhere around where I'm at now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All evidence so far actually points to larger customization, however the crystal ball is foggy on if the customization matters.
I mean I can go right now and buy 100 different shades of black, they are still all black. Some people might even like one black best, or argue the merits over one over the other - but they are still all black. If all the changes make for tons of customization but mathematically all end up the same - I will no longer find the game fun.
I feel like this is in essence what people are worried about. If I put 10 fighters with 10 weapons and 10 builds that are wildly different in the room - but the all hit 80% of the time and do 35 damage on average (regardless of build options) - does it really matter that we could customize?
This is one of my greater concerns. I don't think it will be all the same numbers but question is how much tighter will they be and will it be to much for me to have fun with the system.
I said it before, I think the illusion of numeric difference will come through throwing a lot of dice, while the differentiation in play will come through different actions you can take. Although from what I've seen from the blogs that doens't fill me with hope so much as all those actions feel too situational and, for now, the whole game feels like playing the swashbuckler (which very much felt like a class playing against itself, IMO). Of course all this is a feeling I'm getting now, I withhold my judgement until I see the playtest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All evidence so far actually points to larger customization, however the crystal ball is foggy on if the customization matters.
I mean I can go right now and buy 100 different shades of black, they are still all black. Some people might even like one black best, or argue the merits over one over the other - but they are still all black. If all the changes make for tons of customization but mathematically all end up the same - I will no longer find the game fun.
I feel like this is in essence what people are worried about. If I put 10 fighters with 10 weapons and 10 builds that are wildly different in the room - but the all hit 80% of the time and do 35 damage on average (regardless of build options) - does it really matter that we could customize?
This is one of my greater concerns. I don't think it will be all the same numbers but question is how much tighter will they be and will it be to much for me to have fun with the system.
I said it before, I think the illusion of numeric difference will come through throwing a lot of dice, while the differentiation in play will come through different actions you can take. Although from what I've seen from the blogs that doens't fill me with hope so much as all those actions feel too situational and, for now, the whole game feels like playing the swashbuckler (which very much felt like a class playing against itself, IMO). Of course all this is a feeling I'm getting now, I withhold my judgement until I see the playtest.
Waiting and seeing too. I am hoping they make the choices meaningfully different. How they do that while not making one choice clearly superior or leaving trap options is going to be challenging.
I get how some people enjoy min-maxing over making actually fleshed-out characters
Not mutually exclusive..you do know you can just leave out "over making actually fleshed out characters" and your sentence maintains it's intent without irritating those who enjoy tweaking the mechanics and fleshing out characters?
I know there is a lot that looks like customization is coming, but I have concerns. Some games, like Shadowrun just to pick an example, have a flat point buy for attributes, but it is graduated later, making it harder to raise attributes later than it was at the outset. That makes it interesting and results in different builds. PF1 has a graduated point buy at the start that also encourages a wide variety of builds. Players don't need "permission" from the game to have a farmhand background, they just pick it and then assign stats in a way that is meaningful to them, which results in great customization.
I fear PF2 is taking what was a freeform exercise that resulted in interesting and varied builds and is turning it into a cookie-cutter exercise. (I waiver between this and cautious optimism.) I'm pleased they got rid of that +1 theme crap from Starfinder, but we run the risk of builds that are flat the whole time, eliminating the trade-offs of a graduated system. I like that about PF1 and Shadowrun and I am going to dislike it if there is always the "correct" build and everything else is inferior, but you are "free" to choose to gimp yourself. That kind of customization is not fun.
The APG had a small number of fairly generic traits. And every player's companion, the adventure path player guides and a lot of the hardbacks had new traits in. I'm expecting to see new backgrounds in a lot of books. And they will be explicitly tailored for adventure paths. So I'd go with using the limited number in the core book as guidelines, and design my own.
Hm, red cream soda. Kroger has their own brand of that.
So, what is the flavor difference of ‘red’ cream soda from normal cream soda?
Hm, red cream soda. Kroger has their own brand of that.So, what is the flavor difference of ‘red’ cream soda from normal cream soda?
I don't think I can properly explain it its still very cream soda like but it does seem to have a difference. hmm next time I get a hold of 1 ill buy a regular one and do a taste test. see if I can pin it down. (it is possible its all in my head.)
All evidence so far actually points to larger customization, however the crystal ball is foggy on if the customization matters.
I mean I can go right now and buy 100 different shades of black, they are still all black. Some people might even like one black best, or argue the merits over one over the other - but they are still all black. If all the changes make for tons of customization but mathematically all end up the same - I will no longer find the game fun.
I feel like this is in essence what people are worried about. If I put 10 fighters with 10 weapons and 10 builds that are wildly different in the room - but the all hit 80% of the time and do 35 damage on average (regardless of build options) - does it really matter that we could customize?
This is one of my greater concerns. I don't think it will be all the same numbers but question is how much tighter will they be and will it be to much for me to have fun with the system.
I said it before, I think the illusion of numeric difference will come through throwing a lot of dice, while the differentiation in play will come through different actions you can take. Although from what I've seen from the blogs that doens't fill me with hope so much as all those actions feel too situational and, for now, the whole game feels like playing the swashbuckler (which very much felt like a class playing against itself, IMO). Of course all this is a feeling I'm getting now, I withhold my judgement until I see the playtest.
Well, anecdotally Mark has said that he's had a 3 fighters with 3 very different fighting styles (two handed, two weapon fighting, sword and board) play in the same campaign and all feel relevant but distinct. He didn't specify how tight the math was between them but IIRC it sounded their relative performance varied based on what they were fighting. Monster abilities like damage reduction and such would alter who did best, but people rarely felt useless.
There's certainly a line to walk there and I doubt all of us will have the same ideal balance point, but the designers seem to be keeping it in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of Latino diners in my area that sell the cane sugar coke. Its around if you like it. I heard from my ex who was raised in Louisiana, that in Texas there is a plant that makes Dr pepper with cane as well. She swears by it.
If PF2 turns out to be made with syrup, folks are just going to have go to a specialty shop for wholesome cane sugar PF. Or this entire premise was intentionally incendiary to get blog views. Your choice.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That all said, I'm waiting for the actual playtest to judge if Paizo manages to insert enough other richness into the game such that I don't miss the complexity. I can say that we'll be done with Starfinder as a system once we're done our current campaign, for this reason.
Not directly related to the original topic, but I figured it's worth mentioning that we opted to prematurely terminate our Starfinder campaign yesterday.
Reasons cited included serious imbalance between NPC/monsters and PCs, and (relative) lack of ability options that matter. In short, we hit a boss fight that our optimized fighter could only hit by rolling a 17, nobody else could hit without a natural 20, and it made six consecutive Will saves that we would have had to roll at least a 14 to succeed on. We used the limited party-applicable abilities to do what we could to it (make it flat-footed, Coordinated Shot to give everyone else +1 to hit etc) and it was still broken. In Pathfinder by 8th we would have had a variety of spells, spell-like abilities, rogue talents, barbarian tricks, alchemist discoveries, witch hexes etc, etc, etc which could have been brought to bear in a teamwork fashion to nerf the boss enough that we'd feel successful. Instead, here, we waited until the boss finally failed a save against hold person and could finally hit it. This experience was not unique in the campaign.
Bottom line is that - for us - PF2's options need to be diverse and meaningful. We want the fiddly bits where we have a stack of buffs / debuffs that let everyone contribute beyond "I damage the bad guy". We want to stack bless and bardic song and a evil eye hex to swing the numbers in our favor (that's what... an effective +7 or so to hit at 8th level?) We also want the monsters to play by the same build rules we do. None of this BS where the bad guy hits us on a rolled 2 with the best armor we can afford on an armor storm soldier while we have to roll 17+.
If the options are like Starfinder's, this won't work for us. By 8th, my (melee) soldier was down to gear boosts and combat feat options that were all "you can do things other than be a melee fighter better than if you didn't have this option" or highly conditional (hey, if reach was useful, you could have it, but so far it's been useless). In Starfinder, there just isn't... stacking, mostly.
Our post-campaign post-mortem discussion pretty much broke down to the above complaints, which seemed topical, so that's why I've related them here. Still hopeful for PF2, but it needs to be the same kind of game for us that PF1 was, even if the details are different.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That all said, I'm waiting for the actual playtest to judge if Paizo manages to insert enough other richness into the game such that I don't miss the complexity. I can say that we'll be done with Starfinder as a system once we're done our current campaign, for this reason.Not directly related to the original topic, but I figured it's worth mentioning that we opted to prematurely terminate our Starfinder campaign yesterday.
Reasons cited included serious imbalance between NPC/monsters and PCs, and (relative) lack of ability options that matter. In short, we hit a boss fight that our optimized fighter could only hit by rolling a 17, nobody else could hit without a natural 20, and it made six consecutive Will saves that we would have had to roll at least a 14 to succeed on. We used the limited party-applicable abilities to do what we could to it (make it flat-footed, Coordinated Shot to give everyone else +1 to hit etc) and it was still broken. In Pathfinder by 8th we would have had a variety of spells, spell-like abilities, rogue talents, barbarian tricks, alchemist discoveries, witch hexes etc, etc, etc which could have been brought to bear in a teamwork fashion to nerf the boss enough that we'd feel successful. Instead, here, we waited until the boss finally failed a save against hold person and could finally hit it. This experience was not unique in the campaign.
Bottom line is that - for us - PF2's options need to be diverse and meaningful. We want the fiddly bits where we have a stack of buffs / debuffs that let everyone contribute beyond "I damage the bad guy". We want to stack bless and bardic song and a evil eye hex to swing the numbers in our favor (that's what... an effective +7 or so to hit at 8th level?) We also want the monsters to play by the same build rules we do. None of this BS where the bad guy hits us on a rolled 2 with the best armor we can afford on an armor storm soldier while we have to...
Our Starfinder problems started at the very beginning. The min/maxer (who also tends to create the most interesting back stories and is generally the most interesting to play with) wanted a technomancer with maxed out INT, which got him an 18 INT despite putting racial and theme bonus in INT.
It was actually a good thing when he noticed a) racial bonus doesn't matter and b) theme bonus doesn't matter. It was good because it opened up all of the races for his consideration, instead of just Android, Damay, Ysoki, and Human. It was also good because it made him revisit theme (he didn't really like Scholar) and went with Ace Pilot (one of the two DEX themes he thought was tolerable). So we were perked up a little from what was feeling like kind of a downer in the character creation process, but the fact nothing mattered remained a constant drag.
He ended up with a technomancer Ysoki, which, along with the Android, is equivalent to the Elf Wizard build in PF1, from an attribute perspective: 8/17/10/18/10/10 for Ysoki... until he noticed that 17 was wasted at 5th Level because, of course, he wanted to improve DEX. That was also kind of a good thing because it made him consider whether he really wanted to focus his theme on something he was good at, or should go for something that speaks to him on a deeper level. He ended up going with the Priest theme, making him a priest of a technology-worshipping cult, and shifted his +1 from theme to WIS, which would do practically nothing until 10th Level when it increased to 15 and he could take Connection Inkling at 10th Level, which is not a completely worthless feat, and his theme bonus wouldn't be wasted, even though it would go from 17 to 18 at 20th Level (making the theme bonus irrelevant at that point, but far enough out that who cares). He also switched to Android, which he figured was the highest form of life in his tech-worshipping cult, and planned to increase DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA at every 5 levels, which we never reached because we changed game systems to Shadowrun (though PF1, which I love, was certainly still in the running, but we wanted fantasy + tech, and we also seriously considered Fragged). We find character creation in Shadowrun to be far more satisfying than Starfinder. We're tacking on the rules from Fragged for space combat, which feels a little like Starfinder, but better.
We played five sessions of Starfinder and rather liked the action economy, but everyone felt like, particularly compared to PF1, the characters felt like cardboard cutouts. It's hard to describe the feeling precisely, but it was something like if you tried to specialize too much, you were punished and, as long as you stayed within the bounds of where the game designers wanted you to be, from the character creation process to the items you were allowed to buy, you could pretend to be free. It had a D&D 4e vibe in that respect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...That all said, I'm waiting for the actual playtest to judge if Paizo manages to insert enough other richness into the game such that I don't miss the complexity. I can say that we'll be done with Starfinder as a system once we're done our current campaign, for this reason.Not directly related to the original topic, but I figured it's worth mentioning that we opted to prematurely terminate our Starfinder campaign yesterday.
Reasons cited included serious imbalance between NPC/monsters and PCs, and (relative) lack of ability options that matter. In short, we hit a boss fight that our optimized fighter could only hit by rolling a 17, nobody else could hit without a natural 20, and it made six consecutive Will saves that we would have had to roll at least a 14 to succeed on. We used the limited party-applicable abilities to do what we could to it (make it flat-footed, Coordinated Shot to give everyone else +1 to hit etc) and it was still broken. In Pathfinder by 8th we would have had a variety of spells, spell-like abilities, rogue talents, barbarian tricks, alchemist discoveries, witch hexes etc, etc, etc which could have been brought to bear in a teamwork fashion to nerf the boss enough that we'd feel successful. Instead, here, we waited until the boss finally failed a save against hold person and could finally hit it. This experience was not unique in the campaign.
Bottom line is that - for us - PF2's options need to be diverse and meaningful. We want the fiddly bits where we have a stack of buffs / debuffs that let everyone contribute beyond "I damage the bad guy". We want to stack bless and bardic song and a evil eye hex to swing the numbers in our favor (that's what... an effective +7 or so to hit at 8th level?) We also want the monsters to play by the same build rules we do. None of this BS where the bad guy hits us on a rolled 2 with the best armor we can afford on an armor storm
Looks like he forgot to look at soldier, the only guy that breaks the mold, can result in optimization and kicks ass even at level 1! Only meaningful choice you can make in Starfinder is to dip 1 level of soldier for proficiency + super initiative. Everything else kinda too weak to matter.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We played five sessions of Starfinder and rather liked the action economy, but everyone felt like, particularly compared to PF1, the characters felt like cardboard cutouts.
This is (my opinion) what happens when the math is to tight. It feels good to a mathematician, I think the trick though is to hide it enough so that players don't feel the bounds of the equation.
This is my complaint about the kineticist - the stuff you can 'do' never seems to come online - what the character would look like at level 12-14 seemed fun... but the first 8 levels were so... boring - when the opportunity came to let mine get killed off - I took it because it was ... blah. They did really reliable damage though - could count on almost always having a solid hit from that guy.
Honestly I said the same thing about WoW back in the day - when it first came out and the classes were all super unique and could do odd stuff - I had a blast - over time they tweaked, and tweaked, and tweaked, and every time they moved stuff closer together so the 'math' was perfect it got more boring. Not the only game to do this either - balance doesn't mean every class has to perform the same, it can be achieved by each class being good at their core function, and some being the best at 'that thing' - which is why sorcerer and wizard can function side by side doing the same thing - they are both 'the best' at something different (raw spells per day vs. versatility) the closer you get to them being the same the less need or really want everyone has for both existing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...clickbaity headline goodness.Guilty in every sense of the term. Though I did specifically ask for contrary evidence, and what's the best way to get it...?
Would like to see some input from the devs, though.
Who is this Neil guy, by the way?
The original poster seemed to put a good amount of weight on his opinion for some reason, but I’ve never heard of him ...
He writes a lot of clickbait threads which show up in the PF general discussion or advice forums. I skip over them without reading now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He writes a lot of clickbait threads which show up in the PF general discussion or advice forums. I skip over them without reading now.
I've just read the "article" and I hope his other posts are better than this, because else I don't understand why anyone would go to him for his opinions.
Comments like: "If Paizo puts their eggs into the 2.0 basket, then it also means I may not be able to acquire old adventure paths, or other books, if I can't get the money together fast enough. Even PDF options may not be in the store, depending on company decisions regarding support for those older products."
sound quite uninformed or incredibly far-fetched.
His statement looks also rather ignorant, because we haven't able to buy many physically sold-out products over the years (I think the expection to that is anything in the "Rulebook" section on the site), while we have still been able to purchase anything as a PDF, even if it was released under the 3.5 umbrella and nothing so far has indicated a change in that policy so far.
We could go much deeper into his post, but most of it is baseless speculation and in the end it seems like the motivation for his post boils down to this: "And, for all those asking why I don't write about a more complicated RPG that still has support instead, the simple answer is market share. If you're not writing about 5th Edition or Pathfinder, your traffic drops off pretty fast because the fan base of most other games that share the fantasy RPG niche is a lot smaller. Less people, less traffic, less return on investment."
A knee-jerk reaction to a potential loss of a stream of revenue...
Bottom line is that - for us - PF2's options need to be diverse and meaningful. We want the fiddly bits where we have a stack of buffs / debuffs that let everyone contribute beyond "I damage the bad guy". We want to stack bless and bardic song and a evil eye hex to swing the numbers in our favor (that's what... an effective +7 or so to hit at 8th level?)
Well, I think PF2 will be a mixed bag for you, but hopefully one that still comes out ahead.
1) We have like 11 different types of bonuses now. I'm reasonably sure we will have fewer types in PF2--pretty sure they said that in the Know Direction podcast.
2) Any bonus or penalty will have larger impact in PF2 thanks to the four tiers of success.
3) What I recall from the No Direction podcast implies that we will see bonus types labeled in a more intuitive manner. Types will include things like "alchemical bonus" or "spell bonus." This should prevent confusing overlap like explaining to a newbie cleric that "bless" won't stack with the morale bonus of a cavalier banner, or that shield of faith only grants a +1 AC bump if the recipient is wearing a ring of protection +1.
Hopefully this means we still have the ability to profoundly buff and debuff, just in a less confusing way.
We also want the monsters to play by the same build rules we do. None of this BS where the bad guy hits us on a rolled 2 with the best armor we can afford on an armor storm soldier while we have to...
I don't play Starfinder, but I'm not sure that parity of build rules avoids your situation. I've run PF APs where boss monsters hit on a 2. They aren't the norm, but they happen. And we don't actually want bad guys to play by the EXACT same rules, because we need them to be weaker than us for the PCs to consistently win.
PF2's monster creation rules sound like they are going to be based around finding the sweet spot in the math for any given CR and then keeping monsters in line with that, rather than using complex rules for HD and creature type which may combine in unexpected ways. Hopefully this will make encounter balance easier from a math perspective.
For both bonuses and monster design, a lot of this comes down to math, which HOPEFULLY Paizo gets close enough to correct in the playtest for the feedback to hit that Goldilocks "Juuuuust right" spot. But I would certainly expect some problems to emerge during the test.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He writes a lot of clickbait threads which show up in the PF general discussion or advice forums. I skip over them without reading now....clickbaity headline goodness.Guilty in every sense of the term. Though I did specifically ask for contrary evidence, and what's the best way to get it...?
Would like to see some input from the devs, though.
Who is this Neil guy, by the way?
The original poster seemed to put a good amount of weight on his opinion for some reason, but I’ve never heard of him ...
I remember his articles from a few years ago, and they were just as assinine and uninformed then as they are now.
The first time I saw one, I thought it was...I can't think of the right word (genuine? Legitimate? Something someone would actually believe?)...
Well, anyways, I posted in the thread countering pretty much all of his points, and nothing really ever became of it. I quickly learned that he just writes these ridiculous articles and posts click bait titles on the forums.
I really hope he's getting some sort of revenue for it, because if he's writing all this at a loss, well that's just sad. How could someone as prolific a writer as he is be so wrong so much of the time?
I suppose responding to the thread tile, with "Probably not, alas" is of limited help here.
its OK the whole thread is of limited help too.