2nd edition woes


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Finally read the skills addendum to 2e. I have to wait for the book to come out, and see this in practice. As it reads, I'm not that person who looks at it and jumps for joy.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their replies.

The posts removed from this thread were removed due to their off topic nature. The "fluff" discussion was a derail from the original purpose of the thread. This has been the case for other threads in the past, and I will remind you that if you wish to discuss the use of "fluff," you must do so in a thread that is for that purpose. It is not appropriate to insert that discussion into other forum topics.

We appreciate that many of you wish to respect the wishes expressed by content creators. However, your good will can become a derailing force when we allow the discussion to derail other conversations. Informing those who would like to make this change and continued discussion on this topic belongs in its own thread.

Please continue to respect your fellow posters and their threads, and recognize where it is appropriate to address other topics.

Scarab Sages Starfinder Design Lead

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
But if this playtest is a 'sham', it wouln't be the first time they've been dishonest about their long-term goals. Pathfinder Unchained and Starfinder really were test-beds for PF2 for example.

As one of the two Starfinder Design leads for the core rulenook, and as the current Starfinder Design Lead, I am unequivocally telling you Starfinder was absolutely not a test-bed for the Pathfinder Playtest.

Design work on the Pathfinder Playtest began before design work on Starfinder did, and continued after we were done with our core rulebook. At no point was the idea of testing any idea for Pathfinder Playtest using Starfinder planned, considered, or even mentioned.

The long-term goal for Starfinder was to make the best science-fantasy game we could, and we were entirely honest about that.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and its replies.

I dislike having to lose valuable content and player experience due to the way it is expressed. Profanity is not allowed on our forums. Do not use alternative characters to bypass the profanity filter. This is not acceptable and will result in your post being removed.

The conversation which spawned from the original removed post was also derisive, and disrespectful to other posters. Do not post merely to make comment on the character of your fellow posters. This is often a personal attack and absolutely unacceptable. If you feel you are ever being attacked or disrespected on our forums, please flag and move on as to avoid perpetuating the situation.

As I just said, please remember to respect your fellow posters and know that you are responsible for the tone of our forums. Conversation on the topic can continue, and some wonderful points remade if the offenses explained above are avoided in the future. Thank you.

Shadow Lodge

Hello, Sam. I haven't seen you before, but thanks for the work. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back.

Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it. But the information we are getting about 2e just doesn't gel with any us and some of the stuff I'm seeing only makes the game seem even harder to run while being less fun to play.

We're hoping that all the info only looks bad and that the new system is going to be great. But man do I not have the energy to do a deep dive on this like I did Starfinder. 2e is going to only have a superficial look through to grab my attention, which can be wrong. I didn't buy the book with the Warlock in it because the bolts weren't touch AC, even though they become touch AC eventually. I still never bought that book. I gave it a 30 second look at Gencon and that one class feature decided my purchase.

I'm probably going glance through the skill system of 2e and decide whether or not I care about the system. Then I'll move on to magic item crafting.


MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.

That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.

That is your big bugaboo about all RPGs, but not necessarily what MR. H was referring to (I may be wrong, but I think it was about the system, not the way the system is presented).

If PF2 were an "engine" as you describe it, I would not play it.


Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.

Sort of how a huge chunk of popular video games over the past several years have been built on the Unreal Engine? I can dig it.

Wasn't Pathfinder already built on the D20 "Engine" though?

Seems PF2e is making a drastic move in the opposite direction.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll admit it. I'm sad Pathfinder is changing at all. I've played every edition of D&D from the original game to 5E, and out of them all I enjoyed PF1 the most. That my system of choice will soon no longer have any official support makes me sad. I think there are probably plenty of people who feel the same way.

I'm also mildly concerned about no more "within one step" rule for Clerics. The character I've played for years now is dependent on that rule, and if Lamashtu no longer allows CN Clerics in the new edition, I'll have to retire him or find a group that's okay with houseruling that back into the game.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:

I'll admit it. I'm sad Pathfinder is changing at all. I've played every edition of D&D from the original game to 5E, and out of them all I enjoyed PF1 the most. That my system of choice will soon no longer have any official support makes me sad. I think there are probably plenty of people who feel the same way.

I'm also mildly concerned about no more "within one step" rule for Clerics. The character I've played for years now is dependent on that rule, and if Lamashtu no longer allows CN Clerics in the new edition, I'll have to retire him or find a group that's okay with houseruling that back into the game.

There's no telling, but in my mind, Lamashtu ought to allow clerics of many alignments. We're told in ISG that her church likes to recruit outcasts, people who are rejected as monstrous by society. That could be a justification for her allowing even good-aligned or Lawful-aligned clerics, though I don't expect that to be true. If I were designing it, her allowed alignments would be CE, CN, N, NE.

I'm surprised I've not seen an explosion on the forums about the fact that LN Asmodeans are confirmed to be no longer possible. I've honestly considered making a thread linking that interview just so I can sit back with some popcorn and watch the magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me I need a robust game with a lot of options, or at least room for a lot of options.

My friends tell me I'm the guy who makes "weird" characters in the group. Maybe I am but if so it's because I enjoy experimenting with all the different and new options.

That's what I need to see in PF2. Lots of options that I can sink my teeth into

Starfinder is an OK game but it feels very ....thin to me. Like some parts should have been left out and just given their own book, so that more room could have been given over to other parts that really needed to have more of in the core book.

I don't want PF2 to feel like that.

I like some of what I've seen and I really dislike other parts. At the moment I'm pretty much inclined to stick with PF1, simply because I haven't seen enough of the good stuff to really catch my interest. Maybe that will change next month, I hope so.

but if I want a Simple game I'll play 5E


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:

I'll admit it. I'm sad Pathfinder is changing at all. I've played every edition of D&D from the original game to 5E, and out of them all I enjoyed PF1 the most. That my system of choice will soon no longer have any official support makes me sad. I think there are probably plenty of people who feel the same way.

I'm also mildly concerned about no more "within one step" rule for Clerics. The character I've played for years now is dependent on that rule, and if Lamashtu no longer allows CN Clerics in the new edition, I'll have to retire him or find a group that's okay with houseruling that back into the game.

Honestly, I'm surprised you're upset with PF1 ending in official support. There are many things in PF1 I wanted to do but never got the chance because of not having enough time (or opportunity) to play what I wanted (or even GM what I wanted). The books were coming out too fast for me to actually digest what I all wanted to play, and with PF2 coming out now, I'll probably be more frustrated with the "lack" of options I have in comparison. Sure, it's more modular, which gives more customization, but the amount of content PF1 had in comparison to PF2 is leaps and bounds ahead of it. Heck, there isn't an Oracle for PF2 yet, and I have had a couple Oracle ideas I wanted to play for PF1.

I mean, I can understand it if you've gone through everything that PF1 has to offer, but realistically speaking, considering how often gamers play (I think the most frequent is once a week, barring hiatus breaks and such), and assuming players want to continue adventures (I've only done 4 characters since we switched to PF1 from D&D 3.X from when there was only Core and APG for PF1), the odds that players have really played what they all wanted to play is slim.

That isn't to say that PF2 won't offer me anything that PF1 doesn't, but that the ideal that PF1 is out of official support doesn't mean that you can't still enjoy, homebrew, or even purchase usable 3PP sources further your fun with PF1, or even that you ran out of fun things to do in PF1.

I thought they instead changed it to only allow specific alignments, which are (largely) within one step of the deity's true alignment? At least, that's what I remembered from the playtest blog post (and I could have easily misremembered); I just know it wasn't really a big problem other than what deities can do only positive, only negative, or at least offer either one of your choice, which did baffle me for some of the example deities they debuted. But to be fair, this was largely done because of certain PF1 rules that allowed you to skim those requirements, which was honestly a headache. (You had people arguing for Paladins of Asmodeus for crying out loud!)


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I'm surprised I've not seen an explosion on the forums about the fact that LN Asmodeans are confirmed to be no longer possible. I've honestly considered making a thread linking that interview just so I can sit back with some popcorn and watch the magic.

Wait, where were they confirmed as no longer possible? This seems specifically strange, and while I admit I'm no Golarion scholar, I've always felt (and ran him that way when I ran it in golarion games), that LN followers of Asmodeus were almost key to the faith. After all, as the Contractually minded fellow that he is, it always seemed to me that he would be more open to LN than NE, as even though both are one step from him, he knows LN are more likely to hold up their end of the bargain.

As for moving away from the 1 step, I suspect we'll see a roughly equal number that grow their alignment count as ones who shrink it. For example, I can see Pharasma allowing worshipers of all nine, since people of all nine are born and they all die, while I can see Irori, for instance, insist on strict adherence to self-perfection and self-discipline (so no more true neutrals), and I can even see ones that add and subtract from their allowed alignments (though I suspect that'll be more in the non-core pantheons, so no more CG followers of Yog-Sothoth, for instance, but NE followers might get admittance, by virtue of Dark Tapestry cults)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I'm surprised I've not seen an explosion on the forums about the fact that LN Asmodeans are confirmed to be no longer possible. I've honestly considered making a thread linking that interview just so I can sit back with some popcorn and watch the magic.

Wait, where were they confirmed as no longer possible? This seems specifically strange, and while I admit I'm no Golarion scholar, I've always felt (and ran him that way when I ran it in golarion games), that LN followers of Asmodeus were almost key to the faith. After all, as the Contractually minded fellow that he is, it always seemed to me that he would be more open to LN than NE, as even though both are one step from him, he knows LN are more likely to hold up their end of the bargain.

As for moving away from the 1 step, I suspect we'll see a roughly equal number that grow their alignment count as ones who shrink it. For example, I can see Pharasma allowing worshipers of all nine, since people of all nine are born and they all die, while I can see Irori, for instance, insist on strict adherence to self-perfection and self-discipline (so no more true neutrals), and I can even see ones that add and subtract from their allowed alignments (though I suspect that'll be more in the non-core pantheons, so no more CG followers of Yog-Sothoth, for instance, but NE followers might get admittance, by virtue of Dark Tapestry cults)

It's in this stream.

Edited to link to the correct moment. The way it's worded, it technically says you can't be "neutral" while worshiping him, but doesn't specify which axis. However, I suspect he means morally, because I've never seen someone refer to the ethical axis as "being neutral" without further specification.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.
That is your big bugaboo about all RPGs, but not necessarily what MR. H was referring to (I may be wrong, but I think it was about the system, not the way the system is presented). If PF2 were an "engine" as you describe it, I would not play it.

If nobody runs the game, you don't get to play it.

A database "engine" would greatly benefit everybody, but GMs most of all, because they are harried constantly by the players whenever the books they have are lacking in needed details. For example, a 1st-level sorcerer wants to buy a 20gp guard dog off a table in the CRB. --What are its stats? Well, those are inexplicably in another book that the average player is unlikely to have. That's one small example, but all the minor annoyances and frustrations inherent in rule-searching are a constant drag on time.

(Q. In the PF2 CRB, can a player with that book alone properly stat an animal for his 1st-level character, regardless of whether it's purchased through goods & services, or is an animal companion?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Slim Jim, I advise using a laptop or phone while engaged in play. We use Hero Labs at my table, and I use Realm Works between sessions. It works out and balances very well. There are moments and hours of dead time during game, but the players are busy texting one another or having a smoke break. Before they continue further, I am polite enough to let them gather their wits before Malerix shows up at their trite little community west of Bard's Gate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Strangely enough, there seem to be many people actually running the game as GMs, even though it's not an "engine", and I bet most of them have not been coerced. I've been running Pathfinder since day 0 (and many of its predecessors before) as a GM because I like to run this game. Please do not assume what other people like or don't like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.
That is your big bugaboo about all RPGs, but not necessarily what MR. H was referring to (I may be wrong, but I think it was about the system, not the way the system is presented). If PF2 were an "engine" as you describe it, I would not play it.

If nobody runs the game, you don't get to play it.

A database "engine" would greatly benefit everybody, but GMs most of all, because they are harried constantly by the players whenever the books they have are lacking in needed details. For example, a 1st-level sorcerer wants to buy a 20gp guard dog off a table in the CRB. --What are its stats? Well, those are inexplicably in another book that the average player is unlikely to have. That's one small example, but all the minor annoyances and frustrations inherent in rule-searching are a constant drag on time.

(Q. In the PF2 CRB, can a player with that book alone properly stat an animal for his 1st-level character, regardless of whether it's purchased through goods & services, or is an animal companion?)

Just for the record - this wouldn't benefit me and my group ...

I respect that it would be good for you, but you're not speaking for all of us. I love books and thinks that learning a system is easier with printed material. Also at our table we find that turning off phones, PC's and tablets enhance the the joy of playing.

A lot of people don't feel like we do, but then again, a lot do.
We're all different and none of us can speak for "everybody".

Good Gaming to You All:-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeeeaaah, the bigger problem is prepping content for our homebrew campaigns.

PCs do so much with very complicated and entirely separate rules and it's just very difficult as a GM to know what to expect without mastering the game. That's the big problem for most of my friends.

I'm a rules guy though. So that isn't my problem. My problem comes from the sheer clunk and my absolute demand for NPC/PC parity (I'm not even OK with Starfinder given how the math of AC and to-hit inverts from PC to NPC). 1e has parity but it also has clunk. No amount of engine or automation is going to fix the "I need to know what these 20 spells and feats do at the same time". I can do it, but it drains me to be spending so much effort on it.

Sure 2e is putting everything into feats and spells and the lack of other categories is going to prevent lots of general rules arguments on forums. But everyone still does dozens of things and things they do are less memorable. Way too many of these abilities are full of numbers I'm going to have to look up every time to even know if I want to use it.

I'm all for tons of abilities and deep mechanics, but the mechanics need to justify their weight enough so that I'm interested enough in them to easily want to memorize the rules. This is far more important to me than "balance".


MR. H wrote:

Yeeeaaah, the bigger problem is prepping content for our homebrew campaigns.

PCs do so much with very complicated and entirely separate rules and it's just very difficult as a GM to know what to expect without mastering the game. That's the big problem for most of my friends.

I'm a rules guy though. So that isn't my problem. My problem comes from the sheer clunk and my absolute demand for NPC/PC parity (I'm not even OK with Starfinder given how the math of AC and to-hit inverts from PC to NPC). 1e has parity but it also has clunk. No amount of engine or automation is going to fix the "I need to know what these 20 spells and feats do at the same time". I can do it, but it drains me to be spending so much effort on it.

Sure 2e is putting everything into feats and spells and the lack of other categories is going to prevent lots of general rules arguments on forums. But everyone still does dozens of things and things they do are less memorable. Way too many of these abilities are full of numbers I'm going to have to look up every time to even know if I want to use it.

I'm all for tons of abilities and deep mechanics, but the mechanics need to justify their weight enough so that I'm interested enough in them to easily want to memorize the rules. This is far more important to me than "balance".

I'm not completely sure I understand where you are coming from on this, but if it is about it being hard to DM monsters and NPCs with all kinds of abilities, than the good news is that is being cut waaaay down. Stat blocks will be much simpler to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
MR. H wrote:

Yeeeaaah, the bigger problem is prepping content for our homebrew campaigns.

PCs do so much with very complicated and entirely separate rules and it's just very difficult as a GM to know what to expect without mastering the game. That's the big problem for most of my friends.

I'm a rules guy though. So that isn't my problem. My problem comes from the sheer clunk and my absolute demand for NPC/PC parity (I'm not even OK with Starfinder given how the math of AC and to-hit inverts from PC to NPC). 1e has parity but it also has clunk. No amount of engine or automation is going to fix the "I need to know what these 20 spells and feats do at the same time". I can do it, but it drains me to be spending so much effort on it.

Sure 2e is putting everything into feats and spells and the lack of other categories is going to prevent lots of general rules arguments on forums. But everyone still does dozens of things and things they do are less memorable. Way too many of these abilities are full of numbers I'm going to have to look up every time to even know if I want to use it.

I'm all for tons of abilities and deep mechanics, but the mechanics need to justify their weight enough so that I'm interested enough in them to easily want to memorize the rules. This is far more important to me than "balance".

I'm not completely sure I understand where you are coming from on this, but if it is about it being hard to DM monsters and NPCs with all kinds of abilities, than the good news is that is being cut waaaay down. Stat blocks will be much simpler to use.

But if monsters aren't following the same rules as PCs, then I don't care. I can't really stand 5e monsters and blog about subjective skill DCs for 2e probably means I'll never want to run it. I hate seeing the majority of what creatures can do be hidden in the "creatures can do what I feel they can" sub system.

Also you can have plenty of abilities, but they need to each mean something and be meaningfully different from one another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.
That is your big bugaboo about all RPGs, but not necessarily what MR. H was referring to (I may be wrong, but I think it was about the system, not the way the system is presented). If PF2 were an "engine" as you describe it, I would not play it.

If nobody runs the game, you don't get to play it.

A database "engine" would greatly benefit everybody, but GMs most of all, because they are harried constantly by the players whenever the books they have are lacking in needed details. For example, a 1st-level sorcerer wants to buy a 20gp guard dog off a table in the CRB. --What are its stats? Well, those are inexplicably in another book that the average player is unlikely to have. That's one small example, but all the minor annoyances and frustrations inherent in rule-searching are a constant drag on time.

(Q. In the PF2 CRB, can a player with that book alone properly stat an animal for his 1st-level character, regardless of whether it's purchased through goods & services, or is an animal companion?)

I only GM. I actually would be OK with just playing it if it were an engine (because I wouldn't use the engine in-game), but I would never run it. My group would have to move on to something else.

I try to have my players keep electronics off at the table, because they are distracting. I don't find it all difficult to flip through books, even during the game. In fact, I find it enjoyable. I like reading the books, especially the physical copies. Besides, I am OK with them not having every possible rule in the game in a single book. Heck, I don't think there needs to be stats for a guard dog.

I've never actually encountered a rules question I couldn't flip to in less than 30 seconds. I'd probably be much slower if I had to do it online, and then I'd also be chained to electronics and WiFi.


Malachandra wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.
That is your big bugaboo about all RPGs, but not necessarily what MR. H was referring to (I may be wrong, but I think it was about the system, not the way the system is presented). If PF2 were an "engine" as you describe it, I would not play it.

If nobody runs the game, you don't get to play it.

A database "engine" would greatly benefit everybody, but GMs most of all, because they are harried constantly by the players whenever the books they have are lacking in needed details. For example, a 1st-level sorcerer wants to buy a 20gp guard dog off a table in the CRB. --What are its stats? Well, those are inexplicably in another book that the average player is unlikely to have. That's one small example, but all the minor annoyances and frustrations inherent in rule-searching are a constant drag on time.

(Q. In the PF2 CRB, can a player with that book alone properly stat an animal for his 1st-level character, regardless of whether it's purchased through goods & services, or is an animal companion?)

I only GM. I actually would be OK with just playing it if it were an engine (because I wouldn't use the engine in-game), but I would never run it. My group would have to move on to something else.

I try to have my players keep electronics off at the table, because they are distracting. I don't find it all difficult to flip through books, even during the game. In fact, I find it enjoyable. I like reading the books, especially the physical copies. Besides, I am OK with them not having every possible rule in the game in a single...

I Totally agree ...


I discourage using electronics as a distraction. I'm otherwise all for making use of modern luxuries like a Smart Phone with a bookmark to the PRD (or Archives') and a calculator app. They are just too useful a resource to deny your players. Tap Titans and Minecraft on the other hand...

While I can find stuff by feel in books I know. My players cannot be expected to. I own more 1st edition Pathfinder content than I can keep in mind, and my collection is smaller than many devotees. I am missing half a dozen books out of the core line (mostly bestiaries), and I only own a tiny fraction of the player companion and campaign setting lines.


Beercifer wrote:
Slim Jim, I advise using a laptop or phone while engaged in play. We use Hero Labs at my table, and I use Realm Works between sessions.

When a 3rd party is making money massaging the database, it means that Paizo is forfeiting a revenue stream to middlemen. When the game increasingly becomes a PITA to play without the middleman's software, then the game developer needs to step it up a notch.

Malachandra wrote:
I try to have my players keep electronics off at the table, because they are distracting.
Space-hogging laptops I consider distracting. Tablets that lay flat and which a player typically just has his character-sheet showing, and maybe a die-rolling app are fine (and those certainly save time counting when you're rolling over a dozen of the things).
Quote:
I don't find it all difficult to flip through books, even during the game. In fact, I find it enjoyable. I like reading the books, especially the physical copies.
Everybody likes reading when they have time to kill; they don't like it when the cadence of play comes to a screeching halt when something needs to be looked up and no one can remember what book it's in or when and where and who-said-what-in-a-FAQ (then out come the horrible electric devices).
Quote:
Besides, I am OK with them not having every possible rule in the game in a single book.
That's a straw-man fallacy, as no one has argued for "having every possible rule in the game in a single book." --We certainly don't need the stats for pit fiends in the CRB. We should have the stats for mundane gear. Basically, anything listed in Goods and Services should have an entry just as if it were a weapon. Horses, dogs, and cart-pulling donkeys are very commonly-purchased goods by low-level PCs of all classes, and deserve a few inches of space.
Quote:
Heck, I don't think there needs to be stats for a guard dog.

20gp is big percentage of starting cash for a 1st-level PC. That melee-averse character buying protection will want to know what he's getting for his money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Beercifer wrote:
Slim Jim, I advise using a laptop or phone while engaged in play. We use Hero Labs at my table, and I use Realm Works between sessions.
When a 3rd party is making money massaging the database, it means that Paizo is forfeiting a revenue stream to middlemen. When the game increasingly becomes a PITA to play without the middleman's software, then the game developer needs to step it up a notch.

I've been running variations of this game for the better part of two decades, and I don't think it's been a pain in any way since the switch to PF1, due to a few subtle rules changes. In fact, I still occasionally call for Use Rope checks. Anyway, that's beside the point... in my experience, a large part of being able to run this game smoothly is to only care about specifics when they actually matter.

Besides, the way it looks, I won't need 3rd party software anymore to make my PF2 characters. That's a plus in my book.

Slim Jim wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
I try to have my players keep electronics off at the table, because they are distracting.

Space-hogging laptops I consider distracting. Tablets that lay flat and which a player typically just has his character-sheet showing, and maybe a die-rolling app are fine (and those certainly save time counting when you're rolling over a dozen of the things).

Quote:
I don't find it all difficult to flip through books, even during the game. In fact, I find it enjoyable. I like reading the books, especially the physical copies.
Everybody likes reading when they have time to kill; they don't like it when the cadence of play comes to a screeching halt when something needs to be looked up and no one can remember what book it's in or when and where and who-said-what-in-a-FAQ (then out come the horrible electric devices).

Instead of a tablet with character sheet and a dice rolling app, I tend to play with printed out character sheets and dice. Even less distractions in front of the players! It's not even a rule I put down or anything, we just play that way. As for looking up rules questions, we tend to handle them in one of four ways.

* If it's an obscure feat or skill challenge that's part of an adventure, it's the GM's job to look up how it works during preparation (or occasionally during intense RP moments where there's no adjudication needed and I'm reading ahead and see that I forgot to look up whatever is needed).
* If it's an obscure feat or spell or whatever that's part of a character, I fully expect that player to either know what it does, have it written down, or know where to find it and have it ready whenever it comes up. I mean, you should know what your character can do.
* If it's a miscellaneous rules question that I know is in the CRB - which I tend to know, because I've leafed through the damn thing so many times - we look it up. In a book. That I carry with me.
* All other things I adjudicate with what makes sense, or a close approximation of a similar rule.

Slim Jim wrote:
That's a straw-man fallacy, as no one has argued for "having every possible rule in the game in a single book." --We certainly don't need the stats for pit fiends in the CRB. We should have the stats for mundane gear. Basically, anything listed in Goods and Services should have an entry just as if it were a weapon. Horses, dogs, and cart-pulling donkeys are very commonly-purchased goods by low-level PCs of all classes, and deserve a few inches of space.
Quote:
Heck, I don't think there needs to be stats for a guard dog.
20gp is big percentage of starting cash for a 1st-level PC. That melee-averse character buying protection will want to know what he's getting for his money.

That's easy. He's getting a guard dog. Something like a Rottweiler or Doberman. When he decides to use it to keep guard, I'll look up its Perception score on the one laptop at our table, which is behind the GM screen; when he brings it into combat, I'll look up its attacks, AC, hit points and speed. If he wants to know its Strength, I'll ask if he wants to arm wrestle it.

After that one session, I'll expect him to print out the stats of a guard dog, or write them down in his notebook (a paper one, not a bleepy bloopy one). A guard dog in Pathfinder isn't a stat block with a picture of dog attached, it's a mental image of a dog, quite a big one at that, that you occasionally need stats for.

And that's a guard dog, I can't even begin to fathom why you'd need any of the stats of a cart-pulling donkey.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Slim Jim wrote:
Beercifer wrote:
Slim Jim, I advise using a laptop or phone while engaged in play. We use Hero Labs at my table, and I use Realm Works between sessions.
When a 3rd party is making money massaging the database, it means that Paizo is forfeiting a revenue stream to middlemen.

Paizo license it to specialists. They’re still earning revenue from it and can focus on what they do best. Chasing down every potential drop of revenue would include taking on too much risk. They’d have to take on a whole slew of new staff with no guarantee of it being profitable (or of being able to keep them on long term, which is an important consideration to the owners).

101 to 150 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / 2nd edition woes All Messageboards