Losing Gracefully


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I was hoping that this would be the edition to finally ditch imperial measurements, but I accept that the preferences of one country overrides those of the rest of the world because of how big and influential that market is.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I used to think that ability scores should go away, and only ability modifiers mattered and the maths is clunky. I've gradually come around on that, as having the score provides a sense of scale that would otherwise be lacking.

I'm not entirely convinced about the overwhelming effect of +Level to everything compared to the underwhelming effect of a legendary +3, but I'm willing to see how that falls out in the playtest, and whether the effect of skill feats keeps it all balanced. Paizo may very well know what they're doing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
I was hoping that this would be the edition to finally ditch imperial measurements, but I accept that the preferences of one country overrides those of the rest of the world because of how big and influential that market is.

And also the developers being from that country.

That's an important aspect of it too.


HERO System is a US product and uses the metric system. It took me a long time to learn to guage distances in meters. But otherwise it is just so much more sensible.
Also... not everyone in the states uses imperial, just like not eveeybody speaks english. Being the official system lends it a false sense of commonality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are a lot of rules, modules, flip-mats and other things that are built with 5ft squares. Changing it, even to the almost-exactly-equivalent 1.5m, would make things more complicated.

There's also an aspect of flavour to it, with items such as the Seven League Boots tying Golarion's lore into old English folklore.

I agree with the desire, though, and other game systems without that legacy should take note. It's just not practical to do with Pathfinder.


We shouldn't clutter this thread up with further debate over Metric vs Imperial. Imperial will continue to be the unites used in Pathfinder, and losing gracefully is the purpose of this thread. Sorry I inadvertently restarted the debate over this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pretty sure it was stated that paladins will be LG for the playtest. And they'll look at other alignments and possibilities once they figure out if the mechanics for the base paladin work.
Why get in a tizzy over a game that's not out yet?

Scarab Sages

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

I will bow down to the new skills system. Over the years, I have developed intuition about good DCs for skill checks in PF1. That experience will be obsolete. And in PF2 I will have to decide on both a DC and an expertise level (untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary) for every skill check.

GM MATHMUSE: The next door is densely decorated. You see carvings that are iconic images of plants and animals and four dials among them. Make an Occultism roll, DC 13 trained.
BARBARIAN PLAYER: untrained.
BARD PLAYER: 9
CLERIC PLAYER: 6
WIZARD PLAYER: 17
GM MATHMUSE: The wizard realizes it is a puzzle door. You recognize some of the symbols from the carvings in the previous room. Maybe if you search adjacent rooms, you will see more carvings.
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary.
GM MATHMUSE: What?
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary in Thievery. Can I open the door?
GM MATHMUSE: I thought you were master level.
BARD PLAYER: I increased it when we leveled up last week.
GM MATHMUSE: Okay, make a Thievery roll for lockpicking.
BARD PLAYER: 15
GM MATHMUSE: Let me think, because the module did not give a DC. Okay, you spot the very faint signs of wear from when the ancient priests regularly opened this door. You set the dials according to those almost undetectable telltales, and the door opens.

your rolls seem really, really low. I think the earliest Legendary happens is 13, but Bard for Thievery is 15. Plus 3 for Legendary. Plus Dex Mod. I'm not sure it's possible to roll less than 21.
Example post is an example. Certainly not a proper reflection of actual numbers or gameplay.

Except if you are going to give an example of why you think a system doesn't work, it kinda behooves you to use actual numbers, and not numbers that, at a glance, prove to be incorrect. While I agree, that in many cases, pendantry doesn't help move discussions along when you are just using a small semantical point to discredit someone else's point, statements that are so incorrect lose the point altogether.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

<snip>

Except if you are going to give an example of why you think a system doesn't work, it kinda behooves you to use actual numbers, and not numbers that, at a glance, prove to be incorrect. While I agree, that in many cases, pendantry doesn't help move discussions along when you are just using a small semantical point to discredit someone else's...

I apologize for making a post where miscalculated numbers disturb people. I am usually better with numbers.

My losing-gracefully theme is that I will endeavor to regain expertise with the new PF2 skill system, because the numbers will change so much that my previous experience will no longer apply. In addition, I will have to factor in whether a skill challenge is rated as untrained, trained, expert, master, or legendary. I believe the new skills system will work, but that it will also be more work for me.

I wrote the example to demonstrate how the difference between master skills and legendary skills might affect the game. I think it likely that master expertise in Thievery would not help solve a puzzle lock, but legendary skill in Thievery could find a way to bypass the puzzle. Making such decisions will require more effort as a GM. Alas, I cannot invent correct DCs for my PF2 example, because I still lack the experience to figure out correct DCs. As Darksol the Painbringer deduced when he wrote his comment, "Example post is an example," the numbers I used are placeholders standing in for the correct numbers.

Let me steal another example from another game, the video game Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. One quest has my character at Snow Veil Catacombs, faced with a locked door were attempting to open it gives the text, "This door can be opened only with the key." No matter how how high my character's Lockpicking skill is or how many Lockpicking perks he picked up, he cannot even start to lockpick such a door.

But my character is with Mercer Frey, head of the Riften Thieves' Guild. He goes to the door and says, "They say that these ancient Nordic burial mounds are sometimes impenetrable. This one doesn't look too difficult. Quite simple really, I don't know what the fuss is about these locks. All it takes is a bit of know-how and a lot of skill." And he unlocks the door. That is what I believe legendary skill will act like. (Later, you learn that he cheated--he had an artifact that gave him legendary skill.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:

Pretty sure it was stated that paladins will be LG for the playtest. And they'll look at other alignments and possibilities once they figure out if the mechanics for the base paladin work.

Why get in a tizzy over a game that's not out yet?

Yeah, I’m fairly certain Mark said he was a big proponent for other alignment Paladins, but for now just Lawful Good. Make sure it’s solid. He was saying that writing class feats for 9 different alignments off the bat would take up too much space. So it might not even be CRB, but maybe a few books in.

Scarab Sages

Mathmuse wrote:
Tallow wrote:

<snip>

Except if you are going to give an example of why you think a system doesn't work, it kinda behooves you to use actual numbers, and not numbers that, at a glance, prove to be incorrect. While I agree, that in many cases, pendantry doesn't help move discussions along when you are just using a small semantical point to discredit someone else's...

I apologize for making a post where miscalculated numbers disturb people. I am usually better with numbers.

My losing-gracefully theme is that I will endeavor to regain expertise with the new PF2 skill system, because the numbers will change so much that my previous experience will no longer apply. In addition, I will have to factor in whether a skill challenge is rated as untrained, trained, expert, master, or legendary. I believe the new skills system will work, but that it will also be more work for me.

I wrote the example to demonstrate how the difference between master skills and legendary skills might affect the game. I think it likely that master expertise in Thievery would not help solve a puzzle lock, but legendary skill in Thievery could find a way to bypass the puzzle. Making such decisions will require more effort as a GM. Alas, I cannot invent correct DCs for my PF2 example, because I still lack the experience to figure out correct DCs. As Darksol the Painbringer deduced when he wrote his comment, "Example post is an example," the numbers I used are placeholders standing in for the correct numbers.

Let me steal another example from another game, the video game Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. One quest has my character at Snow Veil Catacombs, faced with a locked door were attempting to open it gives the text, "This door can be opened only with the key." No matter how how high my character's Lockpicking skill is or how many Lockpicking perks he picked up, he cannot even start to lockpick such a door.

But my character is with Mercer Frey, head of the Riften Thieves' Guild. He goes to the door and says, "They...

I'm not sure how much more work its going to be or not. Mark Seifter seems to say quite a few times here and there (easy to miss if you aren't paying close attention to all threads I think) that things will be explained how they apply fairly well, or give GMs very easy to follow guidelines.

I'll wait until I see the playtest document before I determine if "easy to follow guidelines" is indeed true, or just generates more questions. But suffice it to say, I think the intent is to actually give GMs less actual work once they understand the system, and an easier metric to rule things on the fly.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:

Pretty sure it was stated that paladins will be LG for the playtest. And they'll look at other alignments and possibilities once they figure out if the mechanics for the base paladin work.

Why get in a tizzy over a game that's not out yet?
Yeah, I’m fairly certain Mark said he was a big proponent for other alignment Paladins, but for now just Lawful Good. Make sure it’s solid. He was saying that writing class feats for 9 different alignments off the bat would take up too much space. So it might not even be CRB, but maybe a few books in.

Mark said that Paladin alignment was about as much of an argument among the development team as it is among the players. It seems like Mark lost that argument and I'm not confident that it'll be possible to convince those at Paizo who believe Paladins should stay LG to change their stance (I mean, nobody else is changing their opinions on it either).

Given that the people I suspect are the LG hardliners are much more veteran developers than Mark I have my doubts that mechanic is ever going to change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You all ALMOST got me to reiterate my position paper on paladin alignments.

But, losing gracefully. Losing gracefully. House rules exist. Losing gracefully.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I wasn't ready for VMC back in March, but now I think I'm going to like it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have now at last found something I very heavily dislike in PF2, namely multiclassing. I feel that instead of opening a greater variety of builds, the requirements and the implementation kill it

I will try it nonetheless with the greatest hope to be proven wrong


Never give up, never surrender!


captain yesterday wrote:
I've always hated paladins, whichever edition they're from.

B-but they like you:-)


Didn't like the the Goblin as a Charismatic PC, but I'll live ...
There just won't be any at my table!

wait! that wasn't graceful at all!

I know, I know - but I can't abide the idea:-)


The Raven Black wrote:

I have now at last found something I very heavily dislike in PF2, namely multiclassing. I feel that instead of opening a greater variety of builds, the requirements and the implementation kill it

I will try it nonetheless with the greatest hope to be proven wrong

Where did you get information on this? Paizo has been very cagey on what exactly multiclassing entails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I have now at last found something I very heavily dislike in PF2, namely multiclassing. I feel that instead of opening a greater variety of builds, the requirements and the implementation kill it

I will try it nonetheless with the greatest hope to be proven wrong

Where did you get information on this? Paizo has been very cagey on what exactly multiclassing entails.

It was the first (and possibly only) thing leaked from an early copy on reddit.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Sideromancer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I have now at last found something I very heavily dislike in PF2, namely multiclassing. I feel that instead of opening a greater variety of builds, the requirements and the implementation kill it

I will try it nonetheless with the greatest hope to be proven wrong

Where did you get information on this? Paizo has been very cagey on what exactly multiclassing entails.
It was the first (and possibly only) thing leaked from an early copy on reddit.

I think a bit of half-orc info that didn't make the blog also got out, but that is all that I recall seeing.


graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
monster slots
What are monster slots?

Something uncouth you'd call an ogre's mum.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I have now at last found something I very heavily dislike in PF2, namely multiclassing. I feel that instead of opening a greater variety of builds, the requirements and the implementation kill it

I will try it nonetheless with the greatest hope to be proven wrong

Where did you get information on this? Paizo has been very cagey on what exactly multiclassing entails.

Yeah, that got leaked. So did the Half Elf/Half Orc being Feats thing, but given that the leak was Monday and they blogged it on Tuesday, that one got basically overlooked.

You can find more discussion in the Multiclassing Thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, that got leaked. So did the Half Elf/Half Orc being Feats thing, but given that the leak was Monday and they blogged it on Tuesday, that one got basically overlooked.

It might have been a tuesday blog because it was leaked. ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, that got leaked. So did the Half Elf/Half Orc being Feats thing, but given that the leak was Monday and they blogged it on Tuesday, that one got basically overlooked.
It might have been a tuesday blog because it was leaked. ;)

Very possible. It was presumably written already, but they may have moved up the schedule for releasing it due to the leak.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I have now at last found something I very heavily dislike in PF2, namely multiclassing. I feel that instead of opening a greater variety of builds, the requirements and the implementation kill it

I will try it nonetheless with the greatest hope to be proven wrong

Where did you get information on this? Paizo has been very cagey on what exactly multiclassing entails.

Yeah, that got leaked. So did the Half Elf/Half Orc being Feats thing, but given that the leak was Monday and they blogged it on Tuesday, that one got basically overlooked.

You can find more discussion in the Multiclassing Thread.

Oh good, so now we're up to three things Paizo has deceived us on: archetypes are in because they were a popular feature of PF1, except not really because we just made a completely new mechanic and called it archetypes because you associate the word with preexisting good things; all of the core ancestries from PF1 are maintained, except not really because half-orcs/elves are now merely a feat humans can take if they want better night vision; and now multiclassing is maintained, except not really because its now an extension of the archetype system we tricked you with earlier.

This has been a really bad week for my enthusiasm for this system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*cough*

I think you are looking for the Sky Is Falling thread. This one is for gracefully accepting changes into our lives.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh good, so now we're up to three things Paizo has deceived us on:

'Deceived us' seems way too strong. I've been paying very careful attention to their wording, and they have promised none of the things you seem to think they did.

You may not like the direction things are going, but Paizo didn't lie about it.

Arachnofiend wrote:
archetypes are in because they were a popular feature of PF1, except not really because we just made a completely new mechanic and called it archetypes because you associate the word with preexisting good things;

The new Archetypes actually do work a lot like many old ones, and are precisely like Starfinder Archetypes (only better because they're modular). Them working like this is not something that was unpredictable or hidden beyond everything else being hidden.

Add in that we probably do get old style Archetypes back at some point and I'm not really seeing the deception here.

Arachnofiend wrote:
all of the core ancestries from PF1 are maintained, except not really because half-orcs/elves are now merely a feat humans can take if they want better night vision;

They're still around and an available option. I'm not happy with how they're being done, but saying they're in the game is not a deception.

Arachnofiend wrote:
and now multiclassing is maintained, except not really because its now an extension of the archetype system we tricked you with earlier.

They always said very carefully that multiclassing was gonna be different. This has been theorized as the explanation for that for, well, a long time. Again, this is not hugely surprising to people who've been paying attention.

Arachnofiend wrote:
This has been a really bad week for my enthusiasm for this system.

That's unfortunate, but I don't think accusing Paizo of deception is really appropriate.

Shadow Lodge

Finding it hard to come up with anything here, because I haven’t really lost anything yet.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the actual thread topic:

I tried to post here on-topic days ago. I can't do it. I firmly believe I'm right on all my issues (which are not numerous) and hope they all get changed before the final game, and my post just turned into me justifying those feelings.

I can admit I'm wrong fairly gracefully, but I haven't been convinced I'm wrong on any of my issues as of yet. We'll see if the playtest itself persuades me. And I'm apparently unable to concede with grace when I believe I'm right.

I will be running the playtest RAW, though. That's the best way to find out how legitimate my own issues are, and to influence the game for the better in general. I recommend everyone else do the same.

Verdant Wheel

TOZ wrote:
Finding it hard to come up with anything here, because I haven’t really lost anything yet.

Yet. Perhaps first edition players in a future landscape?

Besides, the title and tone of this thread is meant to be light-hearted. The idea of "losing" as in the battle to resist the lure of the new edition!

So maybe the question you can ask yourself is: Do you have any last words while we usher in the new era of Pathfinder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
archetypes are in because they were a popular feature of PF1, except not really because we just made a completely new mechanic and called it archetypes because you associate the word with preexisting good things;

The new Archetypes actually do work a lot like many old ones, and are precisely like Starfinder Archetypes (only better because they're modular). Them working like this is not something that was unpredictable or hidden beyond everything else being hidden.

Add in that we probably do get old style Archetypes back at some point and I'm not really seeing the deception here.

Arachnofiend wrote:
all of the core ancestries from PF1 are maintained, except not really because half-orcs/elves are now merely a feat humans can take if they want better night vision;

They're still around and an available option. I'm not happy with how they're being done, but saying they're in the game is not a deception.

Arachnofiend wrote:
and now multiclassing is maintained, except not really because its now an extension of the archetype system we tricked you with earlier.
They always said very carefully that multiclassing was gonna be different. This has been theorized as the explanation for that for, well, a long time. Again, this is not hugely surprising to people who've been paying attention.

Disagree heavily on that; PF1 Archetypes only worked with specific classes by replacing original features that a class possessed (including bonus feats, which still exist in PF2!), in exchange for different features entirely. A great conversion for this would be an Armor Master Fighter, who exchanges all of his enhanced Weapon proficiencies for identical Armor proficiencies. While the modular building means simply taking certain feats for benefits in place of other feats, and is identical to how it's originally described, the fact of the matter is that this doesn't touch a class' base features whatsoever, whereas PF1 archetypes almost explicitly changed those, and nothing else. (Very rarely did an archetype replace or restrict your bonus feats, and even if it did, it was for thematic/mechanical reasons that it was done, whereas this is a "Well, if you want to be called X, then you take Y feat.") None of the archetypes in PF2 will change a class' base features, such as a Crossblooded Sorcerer not letting you choose between two sets of Bloodlines in exchange for reduced spellcasting and Will Saves, because none of the "archetypes" in PF2 will affect a class' base features.

As for them "adding in the classic archetypes later," that's not going happen, nor make any sense. If we can't add them in now, then why wouldn't the optional feats instead be called something else, if the intent is to add those options later? And if we do add them in later, what do we proceed to call them? Arch-archetypes? Subclasses? Professions? I'm not really seeing it happen down the pipe, which makes it a pipe dream.

I also disagree about the Ancestry thing, because Humans are now even more of a gateway race than they were in the past, and this creates even more confusion than you realize. I'm now going to have character sheets that have "Human*" written on them, and I'm going to have to ask my player(s) what race they really are, or look at his feat list to see which heritage feat he took, whether he's Half-Tiefling, or Half-Orc, or whatever. It's just bad and confusing design for a game that's supposed to be intended to streamline these aspects. I seriously dislike the mechanical implications, especially if I put restrictions on things like "No outsiders" on my home games, and players try to pull a fast one on me by saying he's "Human*". You're better off replacing Human with Halfbreed, and giving them a bonus Heritage feat that must be chosen to select one of the given Ancestries. I'm not kidding, this is basically what Humans are like now in PF2, so you might as well just cut out the extra hoops.

Multiclassing being the same thing as Archetypes in terms of application really just creates more confusion than it helps, especially when, in a previous blog, we were told that multiclassing only required referencing a single table/chart to use for any time someone of one class wanted to take levels in another class. Now, it's just taking certain feats with a "Multiclassing" tag on it that gives certain benefits, which is basically the same way Skill feats and Combat feats worked, as well as every other feat in PF1 that had some sub-tag. Which doesn't seem bad on its face, but now you throw in Archetype feats, Prestige Class feats, and all the others, and it's just one hot heaping mess of feats. Certainly not a chart to "use in perpetuity" like Mr. Bulmahn originally stated.

Shadow Lodge

rainzax wrote:
So maybe the question you can ask yourself is: Do you have any last words while we usher in the new era of Pathfinder?

You been around long enough to know that I ain't never gonna shut up. :P


Deadmanwalking wrote:

On the actual thread topic:

I tried to post here on-topic days ago. I can't do it. I firmly believe I'm right on all my issues (which are not numerous) and hope they all get changed before the final game, and my post just turned into me justifying those feelings.

I can admit I'm wrong fairly gracefully, but I haven't been convinced I'm wrong on any of my issues as of yet. We'll see if the playtest itself persuades me. And I'm apparently unable to concede with grace when I believe I'm right.

I will be running the playtest RAW, though. That's the best way to find out how legitimate my own issues are, and to influence the game for the better in general. I recommend everyone else do the same.

You know, I recall you saying that you had an issue with how resonance works. Do you want to link me to your argument on that (if you have indeed put your argument in any one place).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
So maybe the question you can ask yourself is: Do you have any last words while we usher in the new era of Pathfinder?

Bye.

Not getting out of this chair.

Well this makes it harder to run PF1 games more now.

Should I jump to 5e?

Eh, there's this homebrew system I've been meaning to try.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
You know, I recall you saying that you had an issue with how resonance works. Do you want to link me to your argument on that (if you have indeed put your argument in any one place).

Oh, I've stated my issues various places (the current way Resonance works, Paladins being only LG, the current Half Elf/Half Orc setup, some martials not getting enough skills, a few terminology issues...I may be forgetting something). I'm just not quite up to losing gracefully on any of them.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Disagree heavily on that; PF1 Archetypes only worked with specific classes by replacing original features that a class possessed (including bonus feats, which still exist in PF2!), in exchange for different features entirely.

Many did, yes. Others definitely traded away stuff like Bonus Feats, Discoveries, or Rogue Talents. Which is what I meant by them being similar to some PF1 Archetypes.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
None of the archetypes in PF2 will change a class' base features, such as a Crossblooded Sorcerer not letting you choose between two sets of Bloodlines in exchange for reduced spellcasting and Will Saves, because none of the "archetypes" in PF2 will affect a class' base features.

This is not necessarily true. Mark Seifter has explicitly and specifically stated that there's definitely a design space for old-style Archetypes in PF2, and that the main reasons they aren't in the playtest is that the people at Paizo already know they work (obviating the need for playtesting), plus space issues (since making one or two for each Class would be very space intensive).

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As for them "adding in the classic archetypes later," that's not going happen, nor make any sense. If we can't add them in now, then why wouldn't the optional feats instead be called something else, if the intent is to add those options later? And if we do add them in later, what do we proceed to call them? Arch-archetypes? Subclasses? Professions? I'm not really seeing it happen down the pipe, which makes it a pipe dream.

They'd just call them Archetypes, and the first Feat would have a particular Class a prerequisite and effect that Class's built in stuff.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I also disagree about the Ancestry thing, because Humans are now even more of a gateway race than they were in the past, and this creates even more confusion than you realize.

You seem to be under the impression that I like this decision. I don't, I really dislike it for many of the reasons you cite. I'm just saying Paizo didn't lie about it.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Multiclassing being the same thing as Archetypes in terms of application really just creates more confusion than it helps, especially when, in a previous blog, we were told that multiclassing only required referencing a single table/chart to use for any time someone of one class wanted to take levels in another class. Now, it's just taking certain feats with a "Multiclassing" tag on it that gives certain benefits, which is basically the same way Skill feats and Combat feats worked, as well as every other feat in PF1 that had some sub-tag. Which doesn't seem bad on its face, but now you throw in Archetype feats, Prestige Class feats, and all the others, and it's just one hot heaping mess of feats. Certainly not a chart to "use in perpetuity" like Mr. Bulmahn originally stated.

No, leveling is still one Chart. You can pick Feats every time the chart says you can and grab them from a variety of specific lists...all of which are easier than the one big list in PF1, since all are much shorter.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
You know, I recall you saying that you had an issue with how resonance works. Do you want to link me to your argument on that (if you have indeed put your argument in any one place).
Oh, I've stated my issues various places (the current way Resonance works, Paladins being only LG, the current Half Elf/Half Orc setup, some martials nkt getting enough skills, a few terminology issues...I may be forgetting something). I'm just not quite up to losing gracefully on any of them.

Aside from resonance and # of martial skills, those are mostly flavor issues (for which I care relatively little TBH).

Maybe Martial Skill will be an issue (though maybe it will be fine with the condensed skill list and the ability to raise int cheaply), but I gotta say that I like the idea of resonance and generally like its implementation as I know it. You are generally someone who I have found myself largely in agreement with these last few months so I am interested in why we would differ on this point in particular.

Towards the topic of this thread: I honestly am not outraged by anything in what I know of the playtest. It all seems interesting and I can generally see the reasons behind all the changes. If I were to complain about anything, I guess I am a little bummed that gold management is still gonna be a bit of a bugbear for players and GMs since magic items are still a major facet of character power, the rules still only have loose guidelines for wealth/rewards, and the game's expectation for how players should use their wealth is not necessarily obvious to players.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Aside from resonance and # of martial skills, those are mostly flavor issues (for which I care relatively little TBH).

The Half Elf/Half Orc being a Feat thing is mechanical, too, for the record.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Maybe Martial Skill will be an issue (though maybe it will be fine with the condensed skill list and the ability to raise int cheaply), but I gotta say that I like the idea of resonance and generally like its implementation as I know it. You are generally someone who I have found myself largely in agreement with these last few months so I am interested in why we would differ on this point in particular.

I like the idea of Resonance fine.

I dislike how fiddly it gets combined with Charges on Wands and Staffs. It's inelegant, potentially confusing, and involves keeping track of too many different things. Ditto 3/day abilities that also cost Resonance.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Aside from resonance and # of martial skills, those are mostly flavor issues (for which I care relatively little TBH).
The Half Elf/Half Orc being a Feat thing is mechanical, too, for the record.

Oh? Maybe I should hunt down your problem in that thread then. For me, the half elf feat seems balanced well enough.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Maybe Martial Skill will be an issue (though maybe it will be fine with the condensed skill list and the ability to raise int cheaply), but I gotta say that I like the idea of resonance and generally like its implementation as I know it. You are generally someone who I have found myself largely in agreement with these last few months so I am interested in why we would differ on this point in particular.

I like the idea of Resonance fine.

I dislike how fiddly it gets combined with Charges on Wands and Staffs. It's inelegant, potentially confusing, and involves keeping track of too many different things. Ditto 3/day abilities that also cost Resonance.

Oh. I get that. I think "wands" are really just "bulk consumables" so that bit doesn't bother me. It is a niche for items that I feel benefits the game. On the other hand, I suppose that I am also worried about X/day abilities and staffs in general. Maybe that could/should be handled instead by increasing the amount of resonance those items used instead? Those same items could maybe not be "drycast" when you are out of resonance as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't remember Mark or any other developer mentioning that being the case; if you could link a post, I'd appreciate it.

However, even if they did, my point of it not making any sense still applies, since we have an official blog post outright linking Archetypes to being as generalized as Pirates, as one example, with their example "Archetype Feats" having the "Archetype" tag on it.

So, how are you going to differentiate those from the Archetypes identical to PF1 without using identical terminology that creates confusion? Hence my satirical rhetorical questions of "Call it Arch-archetypes." Unless they decide to retcon the as-written blog Archetypes into something else, and then reinstate the PF1 Archetypes as they existed, which is okay, but nobody knows that (and will know that until the PDF becomes available).

Also, if PF1 Archetypes don't need playtesting and can just be "thrown in," then why are they trying to reinvent their own wheel with something that can easily backfire (as is evidenced by some vocal few on the boards)? It just seems like people are doing work just to do work, which makes no sense to me when the job is (technically) already done, and doesn't need any major revisions.

I'm glad we can agree on the ancestry thing, I thought I was the only one who felt that way; sometimes, when it seems like I don't get post responses (even if they disagree with what I say), it feels like people don't find it an issue enough to warrant discussion (or even follow up on it with a minor tangent from it).

Leveling is one chart true, which is still technically different from Multiclassing, at least in PF1 standards. I mean, you could technically say they didn't lie, since you still use the same chart for Leveling, and Multiclassing is just "Feat Taxes +," similar but more freeform to how VMC was in PFU, which means it's not technically a lie. It's still something I'm not a big fan of.

Even then, like PF1, you still have to reference both your leveling chart and your class chart (for class features), just like PF1 did with their leveling chart and an example PF1 class. I mean, you can say it might be easier to correlate the two to determine what you all get, but saying you only use one table when PF2 isn't technically much different isn't all correct.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I don't remember Mark or any other developer mentioning that being the case; if you could link a post, I'd appreciate it.

It can be found here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
However, even if they did, my point of it not making any sense still applies, since we have an official blog post outright linking Archetypes to being as generalized as Pirates, as one example, with their example "Archetype Feats" having the "Archetype" tag on it.

Many Archetypes being general doesn't preclude some being specific.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So, how are you going to differentiate those from the Archetypes identical to PF1 without using identical terminology that creates confusion? Hence my satirical rhetorical questions of "Call it Arch-archetypes." Unless they decide to retcon the as-written blog Archetypes into something else, and then reinstate the PF1 Archetypes as they existed, which is okay, but nobody knows that (and will know that until the PDF becomes available).

Very simple. You structure them identically, then have the Dedication Feat have the prerequisite of "1st level, Class X", and change the class Feature as well as doing other stuff.

This is really easy to do.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Also, if PF1 Archetypes don't need playtesting and can just be "thrown in," then why are they trying to reinvent their own wheel with something that can easily backfire (as is evidenced by some vocal few on the boards)? It just seems like people are doing work just to do work, which makes no sense to me when the job is (technically) already done, and doesn't need any major revisions.

Because the PF2 class agnostic Archetypes are great and have a lot of neat mechanical concepts they allow that the PF1 version does not, or greatly simplify others (one Pirate Archetype rather than one for every Class). Not adding them when they're a good idea both mechanically and thematically because 'some people won't like them' is dumb. Someone's gonna object to any change made.

And they aren't reinventing the wheel. The class-agnostic Archetypes serve a whole different set of needs than class-specific ones.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'm glad we can agree on the ancestry thing, I thought I was the only one who felt that way; sometimes, when it seems like I don't get post responses (even if they disagree with what I say), it feels like people don't find it an issue enough to warrant discussion (or even follow up on it with a minor tangent from it).

Check the thread, I went into it a few times about why I find the Half Elf/Half Orc thing unsatisfying.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Leveling is one chart true, which is still technically different from Multiclassing, at least in PF1 standards. I mean, you could technically say they didn't lie, since you still use the same chart for Leveling, and Multiclassing is just "Feat Taxes +," similar but more freeform to how VMC was in PFU, which means it's not technically a lie. It's still something I'm not a big fan of.

You can not like it all you like. All I was addressing was that they weren't lying about it.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Even then, like PF1, you still have to reference both your leveling chart and your class chart (for class features), just like PF1 did with their leveling chart and an example PF1 class. I mean, you can say it might be easier to correlate the two to determine what you all get, but saying you only use one table when PF2 isn't technically much different isn't all correct.

I'm not sure if this is strictly true. You could easily have one chart per Class that includes everything and then no Fighter needs to ever refer to anything but the Fighter chart. Each character is thus only required to use a single chart.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

I love me some LG characters, but I have to say I really don't understand this viewpoint of trying to enforce what alignments people play. Like I don't like it for Classes in general, but I can still consider it reasonable, whereas when it comes to just trying to stop people from playing Chaotic characters in general I am wondering why anyone cares so much.

You've got an alignment, you like your alignment, you think other people would like it. That's all great, but there's no need to enforce or reward alignments as a mechanic. People play their characters however its fun to play them. There's certainly really common tropes to playing Chaotic that are infuriatingly annoying, same with Lawful, but that's more about just getting players to play in a way that doesn't impede fun for everyone else.

But if some alignments are more popular than others, then they're just going to be more popular and that's it. We can't go trying to 'Balance the Scales' because we think other people aren't playing a diversified enough array of alignments.

My own stance on Paladins is that I don't like LG getting more than other alignments, I don't like anything placing it above others. Having "Everything NG/CG gets, +Paladins." makes it the 'Special' or 'Best' Good alignment and I don't like that. I am not willing to lose gracefully on that issue at present, I far prefer to make a big scene and get beaten by security before they steal my phone and toss me in a dumpster.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

I love me some LG characters, but I have to say I really don't understand this viewpoint of trying to enforce what...

As things stand, the Paladin is my favorite class to play, and I like to be a lawful good one. If NG and CG opened up, I would probably begin to play NG and LG pallys in roughly equal measure, favoring NG.

However, had that been allowed from the beginning, I would have only ever played NG and CG paladins and ever touched the LG one due to the fear and stigma surrounding them. I wouldn't have discovered Gadrian the Kind, one of my favorite characters I've ever played. I don't want to see people cheated out of LG characters in general because they never have a reason to try one despite the stigma.

I would prefer an environment where that stigma didn't exist and all alignments could have Paladins, but the current environment seems to be such that the day the Chaodin drops is the last day a LG paladin other than Seelah is played by a newbie.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

As things stand, the Paladin is my favorite class to play, and I like to be a lawful good one. If NG and CG opened up, I would probably begin to play NG and LG pallys in roughly equal measure, favoring NG.

However, had that been allowed from the beginning, I would have only ever played NG and CG paladins and ever touched the LG one due to the fear and stigma surrounding them. I wouldn't have discovered Gadrian the Kind, one of my favorite characters I've ever played. I don't want to see people cheated out of LG characters in general because they never have a reason to try one despite the stigma.

I would prefer an environment where that stigma didn't exist and all alignments could have Paladins, but the current environment seems to be such that the day the Chaodin drops is the last day a LG paladin other than Seelah is played by a newbie.

Amusingly enough, my first Paladin was a Paladin of Freedom from the 3rd Edition Unearthed Arcana, the CG variety of Paladinner. I think it was easier for me to think of a character when I could do something more free-form as I started in the hobby. Time went on, I experimented with other characters and ideas, and I can't think of a non-insulting way to say that I moved on from the kind of character ideas people tend to come up with in High School. And that's also about the time I got more and more interested in Lawful characters over Chaotic or Neutral.

Which is not to say Lawful is more mature, just that I was an edgy teenager and that works with Chaotic. Now, I really suck at playing Chaotic characters in all honesty. My best current effort is Neutral, because I value my plans and consistent organization of power structures too much.

But what I personally feel is just that people need to be allowed to feel out what they enjoy about the game without being guided to a correct viewpoint. I wouldn't mind trying to give examples of how Lawful can be fun to play, I just don't want anything pushing people like "If you want to have the super cool Divine Champion then you HAVE to be LG! Mwhahaha!" I figure the people that will enjoy Lawful characters will find their way in their own good time, and it doesn't actually feel super important to keep the two sides balanced if that doesn't happen. People having fun and playing the game needs to take precedence.

Silver Crusade

Xerres wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

As things stand, the Paladin is my favorite class to play, and I like to be a lawful good one. If NG and CG opened up, I would probably begin to play NG and LG pallys in roughly equal measure, favoring NG.

However, had that been allowed from the beginning, I would have only ever played NG and CG paladins and ever touched the LG one due to the fear and stigma surrounding them. I wouldn't have discovered Gadrian the Kind, one of my favorite characters I've ever played. I don't want to see people cheated out of LG characters in general because they never have a reason to try one despite the stigma.

I would prefer an environment where that stigma didn't exist and all alignments could have Paladins, but the current environment seems to be such that the day the Chaodin drops is the last day a LG paladin other than Seelah is played by a newbie.

Amusingly enough, my first Paladin was a Paladin of Freedom from the 3rd Edition Unearthed Arcana, the CG variety of Paladinner. I think it was easier for me to think of a character when I could do something more free-form as I started in the hobby. Time went on, I experimented with other characters and ideas, and I can't think of a non-insulting way to say that I moved on from the kind of character ideas people tend to come up with in High School. And that's also about the time I got more and more interested in Lawful characters over Chaotic or Neutral.

Which is not to say Lawful is more mature, just that I was an edgy teenager and that works with Chaotic. Now, I really suck at playing Chaotic characters in all honesty. My best current effort is Neutral, because I value my plans and consistent organization of power structures too much.

But what I personally feel is just that people need to be allowed to feel out what they enjoy about the game without being guided to a correct viewpoint. I wouldn't mind trying to give examples of how Lawful can be fun to play, I just don't want anything pushing people like "If you want to have the...

It's one thing for taste to vary. It's another thing for one version of a class to be strictly better than another version. Would you regard it as okay for there to be two sorcerer bloodlines that offered the same abilities but one had an anathema and the other did not?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my perfect PF2, alignment and anathema would be suggestions and examples, not mandates. It's so much more fun for me to come up role-play restrictions for my own character than to be saddled with ones that someone else thought would be fun.

Buuut... I can play around them easily enough, so I'll live.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
It's one thing for taste to vary. It's another thing for one version of a class to be strictly better than another version. Would you regard it as okay for there to be two sorcerer bloodlines that offered the same abilities but one had an anathema and the other did not?

Deadmanwalking has some good ideas for a CG code that keeps restrictions that are still in line with the alignment. So I think its feasible to have a CG Paladin that isn't easier to play.

Or just keep the same Code you have the follow regardless. I don't support any Paladin ideas that don't have them following a Code, but I don't think Lawful is harder to play than Chaotic. Its just a matter of taste, so I prefer not viewing it as a real restriction on behavior.

Silver Crusade

Xerres wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
It's one thing for taste to vary. It's another thing for one version of a class to be strictly better than another version. Would you regard it as okay for there to be two sorcerer bloodlines that offered the same abilities but one had an anathema and the other did not?

Deadmanwalking has some good ideas for a CG code that keeps restrictions that are still in line with the alignment. So I think its feasible to have a CG Paladin that isn't easier to play.

Or just keep the same Code you have the follow regardless. I don't support any Paladin ideas that don't have them following a Code, but I don't think Lawful is harder to play than Chaotic. Its just a matter of taste, so I prefer not viewing it as a real restriction on behavior.

I don't remember what DMW has to say on this matter, but I find it very hard to imagine it won't be any easier to play in practice. Strictures are generally lawful by nature, so it's going to be difficult to come up with a code that is chaotic to begin with. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I find it hard to imagine what it would consist of. Let's look at the current 2e Paladin Code:

You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.

You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

The first two tenants of the code are what make it good, and could be moved to the Chaodin unchanged. What do we replace the second two with, though? We can't simply invert them. "You must never forgo a tactic that will help save an innocent" isn't a meaningful limitation because there are few if any situations where a Chaodin would be inclined to do otherwise. "You must violate the law the instant it is superficially good-aligned to do so" would be suicidal and make the character unplayable. A tempered version of that, something like "you must not follow the law if it's bad" is again a non-limitation because it's something they'd always do anyway. A requirement that they respect the choices of others even when they disagreed with them would contradict higher aspects of the code in every situation where it mattered at all.

So how does one make a Chaotic paladin without just shortening their code and making a strictly easier class?

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Losing Gracefully All Messageboards