First Knee-Jerk Reaction


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Honestly, if people don't understand that 3-18 for Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha is fundamental to the definition of D&D and its descendants, they shouldn't poke holes in other people's design.
Many things were "fundamental" to D&D. Like THAC0, and Elf/Dwarf being a class instead of a race. Doesn't mean we kept them.

THAC0 was 2e only. Elf/Dwarf as classes was only from Moldvay B/X onward to Rules Compendium, and isn't part of the lineage that current D&D/PF are derived from. Much less fundamental that the stats. They're as definitionally part of D&D as rolling a d20 to attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
do you want ability damage to also cut in half? And not everyone will remember that they gave themselves a half point in a stat. All this talk of fractions and negative numbers is, by definition, more complex math than counting up and down. It's simpler to stick with the old method.

There would be no half points. You either had a full modifier or you didn't.

Its not simpler to have a middle man, just base everything on what is actually being used, the modifiers. +1/-1 to modifiers is a hell of a lot simpler than "Okay, this one is a -1, but it only affects anything if its a stat that is odd, otherwise nothing happens".

When doing modifiers, something either happens or it doesn't. There is no fiddling with go-betweens.

So then, upon hitting level 5, and my strength was already a +4, I have to make a note somewhere that, upon reaching level 10, I can make it into a +5? When I hit level 10 I may not remember that I even did that. Unless I leave a note for myself somewhere. Unless you're saying abandon that concept entirely, at which point ability damage sudddenly becomes much harsher. there's no buffer, you just immediately drop. Because 1d6 str damage on the 3-18 scale is, in fact, statistically different than 1d3 on the +1/-1 scale. it's set to a different pace. In an effort to "slim down" the rules, you're making the game deadlier.

Also, while not related to the stats being 3-18vs +1-1, I have to disagree about roleplaying against type, at least in terms of race. I'm currently playing a Dwarven bard in a pbp on here. Due to the way pathfinder stat generation works, I couldn't get my Charisma above 14 without severely tanking my other stats. Under the new generation of stats, my barkeeping gun-wielding dwarf can get his charisma to 16 with little issue at all, though in doing so admittedly I likely couldn't get the Dex to 16 at the same time. But that's a trade-off I get to choose, whereas before I could get the dex to 16 and Charisma to 14 and that was what I had to deal with, whereas PF2 I could pick for myself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, I just want to know what my animal companion is doing when I'm not mentally commanding it. "so they gain 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command an Animal action to command them" makes it very clear that they only gain two actions *if* I bother to command them in that instance.

Does it immediately flee the battlefield? Do I have to make it move back into the fight the next time there's an encounter? *Can* they immediately flee the battlefield or do they actually have no actions because I haven't commanded them?

So far I'm kind of seeing more bad choices than good choices, but it'll take some math to prove that.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

23 people marked this as a favorite.
wizzardman wrote:
...it'll take some math to prove that.

How about playing it? I recommend trying that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
wizzardman wrote:
...it'll take some math to prove that.
How about playing it? I recommend trying that.

...Because I can't play Pathfinder while I'm at work.

I tried a few times; it didn't go over well.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ability scores give a texture to the abstract nature of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Renchard wrote:
THAC0 was 2e only.

To be honest, BAB is nothing fundamentally different than THAC0 in disguise, just one counting up to ACs getting better when higher, and the other counting down for ACs that are good when low. The machanism is the same.

Thus, the BAB of a 3.x/PF1 character added to the THAC0 of the same character class/level in AD&D always results in 20.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was reading through your original post and I would like to respond to a few of the points you made. Note that I'm not fully disagreeing with the "knee-jerk" reaction as you make some good points but I would like to perhaps have some debate on the subject.

Edymnion wrote:

Everything feels VERY cookie cutter, like its actively promoting only the most generic fantasy tropes, and that it is actively punishing anyone who wants to play against type.

I dislike the entire idea of how default ability generation works, as you no longer get a choice in how your character is really built. Back to playing against type, you can't do a Dex fighter anymore because the classes force you into taking stats you don't want. And then its going to be a case of either everybody has identical cookie cutter backgrounds, or the entire concept of backgrounds are going to be ignored and it just becomes "Pick some more stat boosts".

I honestly don't get what you are saying here other than the last bit. It seems to me that you are getting the same amount of choice as you did in Pathfinder before? The only difference is that the system aids you in selecting ability boosts in places that make sense for your character concept. It was already stated elsewhere that a Dex fighter is possible, but you implied that there are concepts that can't be done with this system, can you provide a good example?

As to the point of backgrounds, they are pretty flexible IMHO as every one of them allows a "free" ability boost in addition to the one that you have to pick from a limited list. As to their flavor and the concept of "cookie cutter" backgrounds...I can't say I agree. They seem very wide open for interpretation and meshing with your character's backstory. So you can pick the background that most closely matches your character's upbringing (and I would assume that the full release will include rules or guidelines for creating your own backgrounds...).

Edymnion wrote:

Frankly, should have just ran with point buy and called it done (which is completely missing, I notice, yet that archaic sacred cow of rolling for stats is still there).

This is probably the only point in which I will straight up disagree. I actually like this system quite a lot as it maintains flexibility while being far simpler for new players. I do, however, agree that rolling stats is archaic and should be abandoned...

Edymnion wrote:

Speaking of ability scores, why do we even still have them? Monsters in the bestiary don't have them, they just list modifiers. Why do players still use them? If the idea was to streamline and simplify, getting rid of 3-18 format ability scores seems like an obvious place to do it, so why are we holding on to it if literally nothing uses it?

I actually don't have a good argument against this. Seems like it would have been a nice way to smooth out some pain points...

Edymnion wrote:

And I just cannot get over the "Everything is locked behind class walls".

You give a few examples here and I would like to address them individually, but here is my response to this general statement:

You are absolutely right that things are locked into class systems, but I honestly don't see a problem with that. Contrary to popular belief, having abilities locked to a particular class doesn't stifle creative character concepts, it merely aids in balancing systems. I can 100% assure you that (once we have the full set of multiclass feats) you can make any concept work within the limitations of the system.

Will you be able to make the concept work immediately? Potentially not (and that is another problem in and of itself...more on that later)

Will the concept be particularly well-balanced in comparison to others? Maybe, maybe not. That is exactly the sort of thing the playtest is for...that said, someone who is trained in fighting demons probably won't be all that great at summoning them...so maybe consider whether or not your concept is flawed before complaining that the demon-summoning Paladin of Iomedae concept is being quashed by the system. Note that this is intentional hyperbole to make a point, not imply you are overreacting...I think you are making good points.

Anyway, to demonstrate the point, let's look at the examples you give:

Edymnion wrote:

If I want to play a Paladin tank? Tough luck, only the Fighter gets shield feats.

So, you want a Paladin that is capable of taking a lot of hits and shrugging them off. OK, cool, here are some good options for that:

Righteous Ally: Shield Ally
Shield Warden (Paladin Feat 6)
Shield of Reckoning (Paladin Feat 10)
Fighter Dedication (Multiclass Dedication Feat 4)
Basic/Advanced Maneuver for any shield feat you could possibly want from the Fighter list.

Edymnion wrote:

Want to play a sorcerer with a certain bloodline, but don't want the spells the designers think are appropriate? Tough luck, you don't get to choose from a generic spell list anymore.

Ok, run that by me again? You want to play a Dragon sorcerer that doesn't cast arcane spells? Ummmm...why? That's the whole point of being a sorcerer, your spells aren't studied, you don't get to pick them, they are forced on you for better or worse. If you want to PICK your spells then you shouldn't be playing a sorcerer.

WITH THAT SAID I agree on this one within the limitations of the platest. Once we have the ability to multiclass sorcerer though, I think this concept becomes completely doable, just pick a base class that casts the spells you want, then gain a bloodline through the sorcerer multiclass dedication feat.

That said...you didn't get a "generic" spell list in PF1 any more than you do now, your bloodline chooses what spell list you get access to, but you still get to choose what spells you want at each level from within that list...so I really don't get the problem here?

Edymnion wrote:

And my god, having everything stretched out over so many levels just makes the entire idea of having to wait to play the character you want to play SO MUCH WORSE! Apparently the answer to "High level play is kinda broken" was to say "Hey, lets make the un-fun parts of low level last as long as humanly possible!".

I mostly agree with this sentiment. It really does take too long for a lot of what I'm seeing to come online. This may prove to be a problem...except for the fact that they seem to be making leveling considerably faster. That might be enough to mitigate it, but I won't know for sure until I start getting it onto the table.

Alright I think that mostly covers everything I wanted to touch on. Please do feel free to respond as the point of this was to have discussion. Or not, as you choose.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Ron Sterling wrote:

Not every edition has to work for all the same players that came before it. Pathfinder 1st edition has so much content and support that it can be run for 10+ years easily, if not longer. What would be the point of releasing a second edition and having it be nearly identical to the first?

I'm extremely happy to see that they've taken dramatic steps to make the game different and to expand on some unique ideas to make the game their own. It's not just a rehash of 3.0 or 3.5 anymore, it's becoming something far more interesting. The action system they have in place right now is probably one of my favorite new things. I think they've done a fantastic job with a lot of the systems so far.

There are 5 editions of Dungeons and Dragons and countless OSR books out there. People all play differing editions based on preference. There's nothing to say that Pathfinder players shouldn't have that same option. So if you don't like it, I think that's okay. It's a knee-jerk reaction. People are scared of change. Actually play the game with a group of people and maybe you'll be singing a different tune, especially if you go in wanting to enjoy the same and hoping to see that it all works out in play.

[sarcasm]YOU DESERVE TO NEVER PLAY TABLE TOP ROLE PLAYING GAMES EVER AGAIN!!!111!!![/sarcasm]

No sarcasm code? Darn, oh well lol. Joking aside, I actually agree with you. When it comes to reaction posts, I'm seeing the same people arguing that this is the worst system in the world and they are refusing to actually have a discussion in which points are actually being taken. We haven't even had the rule book for more than 12 hours and yet somehow it's the worst system ever, and it must be made known that this will be the worst system ever because I say so! I honestly don't understand this mentality. It drives me nuts.

As for my reaction, I liked how the opening still seemed simple enough to say "Hey, this is a table top game, and it's fantasy!" and not try to say "This isn't a video game, go away if you want a video game". The ancestries (gonna take some getting used to) threw me off a little seeing how they're done. Seeing that abilities grow with a character, it actually comforted me. I've seen players use specific races because they get xyz37rhgt abilities out the gate, and that's the best and only way to do what they want at level 1. And no, I'm not exaggerating on this. Had one game where a player was able to get +30 to disguise self at level one because of race. Does it seem like it'd be forever to fully develop racial abilities? Yes it does. Does it seem like it's slowing the process of character development? Yeah, it does.

Classes threw me for another loop because it wasn't something I'm used to seeing. It's a very different structure than older systems. I will absolutely agree that it needs to be cleaned up presentation wise because holy crap trying to sort stuff. I like the format, but not how it's organized. Makes me glad that this is a PLAY TEST, not the final publication, so hopefully that can be sorted out. Seeing how they can fit with backgrounds is something else that seems very different and will get time to take in.

Overall, I think this is a positive step towards the future. A lot of it will take time to get used to, and less than 12 hours is no where near the amount of time to condemn a system to instant death. I'm curious to see how things get cleaned up, I'm hopeful that some things that don't fully make sense can be remedied (like how some weapons are vastly not as powerful), and I'm really interested to see the rest of the content they're aiming for. Is it perfect? No, it's not. But here's the thing, this is a playtest. It's going to be imperfect. But I find it a positive step because it's something that's been needed. PF1e is a decade old, based off a system that lasted almost as long. I started this hobby when I was 16, and there was already a lot for DnD3.5e. I'm now 30. We've got almost 2 full decades on a single system. That's almost 3 full generations (if you count generations by 7 years). Yeah, a lot of the guys who've been playing since the 80's aren't going to like this. A lot of the guys who've played 3.5/PF1e and only those are going to be pissed. Paizo has done a wonderful job in keeping an older system alive that should have been dead years ago. But almost 20 years of rule building isn't going to bring in someone new who wants to try. I've seen more new table top players choose DnD5e over PF1e because of the bloat. Everyone wants to claim the whole 'video gamey' deal, but I've yet to see anyone say that. It's always been "It's too much." No matter how much I try and help new people with it, they'll spend over an hour and a half because they're trying to sort through so many options that they have absolutely no clue is worth it or not because they haven't been playing for 2 decades.

The best part about this is that we have the choice to play this! Paizo isn't holding a gun to our heads saying "Play this and this only or die!" If it ain't your thing, it ain't your thing. But rather than complain and moan about something that's not exactly to the T because you've done it for the last 2 decades and instantly deeming it unplayable, be constructive in how to improve upon it or just do those of us who want to improve upon it a giant favor and leave. We'd rather spend our time focusing on what to improve and tweak than read your bulls*** complaints because you want the kids to get off your lawn.


Edymnion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
In which case, you'll be happy playing 1e and I'll be happy playing 2e.

Correct.

I have no interest in playing a system that tells me what I'm allowed to make or not make. I have a set of crazy test builds/concepts I put any new system through. The more of them it can do, the better I consider the system to be.

So far, 2e is failing on ALL OF THEM because it has no real flexibility.

I've been in this hobby for a quarter of a century now. I don't give a damn about generic cliche characters, and that is all I see 2e promoting. Horrible cliches and 1 dimensional builds.

I think we should keep in mind that this IS a Playtest, not the final product. even if the final game does end up being more restrictive than 1E the options listed in this book are not the end all sum of what your character will be allowed to take. The options and variety will undoubtably be greater in the final rulebook, not to mention further products. This is a playtest, making your paladin into a dragon unicorn with lightsabers doesn't help paizo make sure that poison functions properly for everyone else.

That being said everyone's opinions are totally valid to make the end product better


Zaister wrote:
Renchard wrote:
THAC0 was 2e only.

To be honest, BAB is nothing fundamentally different than THAC0 in disguise, just one counting up to ACs getting better when higher, and the other counting down for ACs that are good when low. The machanism is the same.

Thus, the BAB of a 3.x/PF1 character added to the THAC0 of the same character class/level in AD&D always results in 20.

In addition, I believe THAC0 was actually originally started in AD&D 1e. They had the to hit tables, but there was also an option to use THAC0 via the DMG and later elaborated or focused more upon in some modules/adventures.


Edymnion wrote:
Roll for modifiers. 1d6-2. You now have a full range of -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, and +4. And you can do it on one die instead of 3-4.

Nitpick, but that isn't remotely the same probability-wise...

Edymnion wrote:
Or just roll like you do now, look up the modifier, and write the modifier down, then throw away the base rolls. They aren't needed.

..but that is. ;)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
KyleS wrote:
be constructive in how to improve upon it or just do those of us who want to improve upon it a giant favor and leave.

If I thought it would do any good, I would. I honestly do not believe Paizo will change the things that I think need changing the worst, because they are too fundamental to the core of this system. To fix what I think needs fixing would basically require them throwing the entire thing out the window and starting over from scratch, and thats not going to happen.

As for "You can either like it, or you can GTFO", well we don't need gatekeepers like that.

If you actually think Paizo will change things on any great scale, then you NEED people who aren't just gushing that "Everything is perfect, I love it so much!".

To say "Like it or leave" is to say "This is exactly how it will go to print, nothing can be changed, everyone's opinions right now are worthless."

Is that really the message you want to send?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
KyleS wrote:
be constructive in how to improve upon it or just do those of us who want to improve upon it a giant favor and leave.

If I thought it would do any good, I would. I honestly do not believe Paizo will change the things that I think need changing the worst, because they are too fundamental to the core of this system. To fix what I think needs fixing would basically require them throwing the entire thing out the window and starting over from scratch, and thats not going to happen.

As for "You can either like it, or you can GTFO", well we don't need gatekeepers like that.

If you actually think Paizo will change things on any great scale, then you NEED people who aren't just gushing that "Everything is perfect, I love it so much!".

To say "Like it or leave" is to say "This is exactly how it will go to print, nothing can be changed, everyone's opinions right now are worthless."

Is that really the message you want to send?

I can't agree more.

As I was saying since the first previews. When the new version of Pathfinder Unchained come out, which will basically make this feels like Pathfinder, than I can consider playing it.

The current ruleset is the biggest turn-off ever, and I don't even know if I want to play this to give feed that will be ignored.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
KyleS wrote:
be constructive in how to improve upon it or just do those of us who want to improve upon it a giant favor and leave.

If I thought it would do any good, I would. I honestly do not believe Paizo will change the things that I think need changing the worst, because they are too fundamental to the core of this system. To fix what I think needs fixing would basically require them throwing the entire thing out the window and starting over from scratch, and thats not going to happen.

As for "You can either like it, or you can GTFO", well we don't need gatekeepers like that.

If you actually think Paizo will change things on any great scale, then you NEED people who aren't just gushing that "Everything is perfect, I love it so much!".

To say "Like it or leave" is to say "This is exactly how it will go to print, nothing can be changed, everyone's opinions right now are worthless."

Is that really the message you want to send?

So you're just going to completely ignore the reply you got from Vic in another thread? Do you know who Vic is? And, as I also said in the other thread, you obviously have no experience with previous Paizo playtests, otherwise you'd know that your "incriminations" don't hold up to history.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.
Not even close. If we learn that something major isn't working, we will change it. Rules development clearly moves quicker you think—we even have time to test multiple potential solutions to a problem.

At this point it sounds more like you're just trolling or posting without actually listening to the replies you get.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the degree of desired change is relevant. As has been pointed out, they're not going to completely rewrite the system at this point, so if your objections are that fundamental, then it can be tough to see them as intended to be productive (as opposed to simply venting your displeasure).

Also, many of the complaints do seem to boil down to "this is bad because it has changed from 1E." Which is just silly.

My $.02.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
So you're just going to completely ignore the reply you got from Vic in another thread?

Can't ignore what I haven't seen, mate.

Quote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.
Not even close. If we learn that something major isn't working, we will change it. Rules development clearly moves quicker you think—we even have time to test multiple potential solutions to a problem.

Okay, well I can say this. I. Don't. Believe. Him.

I simply don't.

If everyone here said the 3 action system was bad, I honestly do not believe that they would scrap it and rebuild literally every class, every feat, and every spell.

If I said I don't like hitpoints, I do not think they are going to redesign the entire way damage is dealt and tracked at this point.

I have never seen Paizo or any other company make RADICAL changes to a product this late in the game.

Especially not when their entire design mantra with this seems to be a full 180 degrees away from what I wanted to see.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

I think the degree of desired change is relevant. As has been pointed out, they're not going to completely rewrite the system at this point, so if your objections are that fundamental, then it can be tough to see them as intended to be productive (as opposed to simply venting your displeasure).

Also, many of the complaints do seem to boil down to "this is bad because it has changed from 1E." Which is just silly.

My $.02.

This is not bad because it chanced from 1E. It's bad because it has nothing in commun with 1E except for names. This will never be a game I'll recognize as Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
This is not bad because it chanced from 1E. It's bad because it has nothing in commun with 1E except for names. This will never be a game I'll recognize as Pathfinder.

1. Classes

2. HP
3. You can out level foes
4. Vancain magic
5. You can craft magic items
6. Utility magic is massive and world shaking
7. All the critical combat stats are the same you just calculate them differently
8. You get a skill point in every skill every level but that isn't good enough anymore
9. Feats everywhere

Nah man, it's basically just Pathfinder, just built a little differently. Maybe if someone only ever plays D&D and D&D-likes, this game seems "too different".


12 people marked this as a favorite.

The more I read, the more it feels like 4th edition to me. Mostly given that each class is pretty restricted to a smattering of abilities unless they use feats to multiclass. And every couple levels you gain a new class feat from a class list, like the encounter (Et. all) abilities from 4E.

I find this all very ironic because PF exists due to people abandoning 4E, and now it's trying to emulate the failed project that caused it exist in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
This is not bad because it chanced from 1E. It's bad because it has nothing in commun with 1E except for names. This will never be a game I'll recognize as Pathfinder.

1. Classes

2. HP
3. You can out level foes
4. Vancain magic
5. You can craft magic items
6. Utility magic is massive and world shaking
7. All the critical combat stats are the same you just calculate them differently
8. You get a skill point in every skill every level but that isn't good enough anymore
9. Feats everywhere

Nah man, it's basically just Pathfinder, just built a little differently. Maybe if someone only ever plays D&D and D&D-likes, this game seems "too different".

1, 2 and 3 are present in any d20 game (and any Final Fantasy Game too).

4 and 5 Not pathfinder exclusive either.

6. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than it used to be. I can't fly for 10 hours, for exemple.

7. Nope. Definitily nope. Combat are completely different.

8. Nope. I don't get any skill point. There is no such a concept of skill points in PF2 (not even in PF1 actually). I have the same bonus to each roll in game, save from -3 to +2 bonus.

9. And I can't get most of them because they are gated behind a class.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Renchard wrote:
THAC0 was 2e only.

To be honest, BAB is nothing fundamentally different than THAC0 in disguise, just one counting up to ACs getting better when higher, and the other counting down for ACs that are good when low. The machanism is the same.

Thus, the BAB of a 3.x/PF1 character added to the THAC0 of the same character class/level in AD&D always results in 20.

In addition, I believe THAC0 was actually originally started in AD&D 1e. They had the to hit tables, but there was also an option to use THAC0 via the DMG and later elaborated or focused more upon in some modules/adventures.

Sure, but the greater point I was making is that THAC0 is is no way fundamental to D&D.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
So you're just going to completely ignore the reply you got from Vic in another thread?

Can't ignore what I haven't seen, mate.

Quote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.
Not even close. If we learn that something major isn't working, we will change it. Rules development clearly moves quicker you think—we even have time to test multiple potential solutions to a problem.

Okay, well I can say this. I. Don't. Believe. Him.

I simply don't.

If everyone here said the 3 action system was bad, I honestly do not believe that they would scrap it and rebuild literally every class, every feat, and every spell.

If I said I don't like hitpoints, I do not think they are going to redesign the entire way damage is dealt and tracked at this point.

I have never seen Paizo or any other company make RADICAL changes to a product this late in the game.

Especially not when their entire design mantra with this seems to be a full 180 degrees away from what I wanted to see.

Okay, so you don't like the rules, yet you're absolutely convinced that they're not going to listen to any suggestions you might have (despite one of the most senior people in the company telling you otherwise) and it doesn't sound like you're going to playtest a system you don't like. Yet you keep posting here. So you're basically trolling. Okay, good to know that we can discard any further posts from you then. Feel free to play PF 1st edition to your heart's content, but if you're not interested in the PF2e playtest I don't see any reason for your trolling here.


Edymnion wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
So you're just going to completely ignore the reply you got from Vic in another thread?

Can't ignore what I haven't seen, mate.

Quote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.
Not even close. If we learn that something major isn't working, we will change it. Rules development clearly moves quicker you think—we even have time to test multiple potential solutions to a problem.

Okay, well I can say this. I. Don't. Believe. Him.

I simply don't.

If everyone here said the 3 action system was bad, I honestly do not believe that they would scrap it and rebuild literally every class, every feat, and every spell.

If I said I don't like hitpoints, I do not think they are going to redesign the entire way damage is dealt and tracked at this point.

I have never seen Paizo or any other company make RADICAL changes to a product this late in the game.

Especially not when their entire design mantra with this seems to be a full 180 degrees away from what I wanted to see.

I could be wrong about this but didn't the playtest for pathfinder 1E use a similar energy system to the Stamina system from Unchained? Also the Medium class from Occult Adventures was fairly different in the playtest, as was the Gunslinger.

They have said already some systems such as Resonance are on the more extreme side of what they wanted to test so we will most likely see a change of some kind.


Uchuujin wrote:

The more I read, the more it feels like 4th edition to me. Mostly given that each class is pretty restricted to a smattering of abilities unless they use feats to multiclass. And every couple levels you gain a new class feat from a class list, like the encounter (Et. all) abilities from 4E.

I find this all very ironic because PF exists due to people abandoning 4E, and now it's trying to emulate the failed project that caused it exist in the first place.

In all seriousness, how do you add options into a class and level based system without creating a menu of options to pick from? What would you do differently?

The only way I can see to add even more versatility into the system would have been to turn the class features, prestige class features, archetype features, and feats into an enormous pool of general feats, and let you select a feat each level. And I think that kind of system would have its own giant problems.


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

My knee-jerk reaction is it all looks really cool, and I can't wait to keep reading to get it all figured out.
I like how the numbers got dialed down a bit. I like how magic items are supposed to be wondrous. I always hated the whole magic wal-mart idea that many players had. "Let's just go into town and trade it all in and buy what we want, using the Core Rulebook as our shopping catalog!"
I can't wait to start building some characters and try it out.
If people are upset that it's not PF1, then go play PF1.

For the guy complaining that you can't make a Dex fighter anymore... it lists STR and DEX as the two possible ability prime scores in the fighter section. So... dunno what the complaint is there.

Mostly, what I see is a lot of people upset that they can't min-max optimize as easily.
This is just the playtest of the core book. I'm sure there will be plenty of supplements coming.


Eternal_Twilight0 wrote:

I could be wrong about this but didn't the playtest for pathfinder 1E use a similar energy system to the Stamina system from Unchained? Also the Medium class from Occult Adventures was fairly different in the playtest, as was the Gunslinger.

They have said already some systems such as Resonance are on the more extreme side of what they wanted to test so we will most likely see a change of some kind.

Changing a class (even a full rewrite from scratch) is not what I call a radical change.

Chopping out Resonance (while welcome) would not be a radical change.

These are relatively small, self contained changes.

Completely overhauling the skill system would be a radical change. Converting HP over to a Toughness saving throw and changing every damage and HP reference in ever feat, spell, etc would be a major change. Scrapping the entire spell list and replacing it with a point buy spell creator would be a major change.


Edymnion wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:

Maybe I should have expected this, but I didn't. Pathfinder 1E was effectively D&D 3.75. But somehow I didn't expect that Pathfinder 2E would be D&D 5.5.

I guess I'll try to change my expectations and start going over it again....

This is true. Pathfinder always has been trying to ride D&D's coat tails instead of making their own product.

this playtest cannot be further from 5e even if they wanted to.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Igor Horvat wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:

Maybe I should have expected this, but I didn't. Pathfinder 1E was effectively D&D 3.75. But somehow I didn't expect that Pathfinder 2E would be D&D 5.5.

I guess I'll try to change my expectations and start going over it again....

This is true. Pathfinder always has been trying to ride D&D's coat tails instead of making their own product.
this playtest cannot be further from 5e even if they wanted to.

Sure it could. They could use THAC0, have deific ranks, become a d100 system...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ron Sterling wrote:

Not every edition has to work for all the same players that came before it. Pathfinder 1st edition has so much content and support that it can be run for 10+ years easily, if not longer. What would be the point of releasing a second edition and having it be nearly identical to the first?

I'm extremely happy to see that they've taken dramatic steps to make the game different and to expand on some unique ideas to make the game their own. It's not just a rehash of 3.0 or 3.5 anymore, it's becoming something far more interesting. The action system they have in place right now is probably one of my favorite new things. I think they've done a fantastic job with a lot of the systems so far.

There are 5 editions of Dungeons and Dragons and countless OSR books out there. People all play differing editions based on preference. There's nothing to say that Pathfinder players shouldn't have that same option. So if you don't like it, I think that's okay. It's a knee-jerk reaction. People are scared of change. Actually play the game with a group of people and maybe you'll be singing a different tune, especially if you go in wanting to enjoy the same and hoping to see that it all works out in play.

No one is afraid of change.

It would be welcomed.

this is just taking the worst of 3.5e and 4e and sticking it together.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Edymnion wrote:
Completely overhauling the skill system would be a radical change.

Which, by the way, the did going from Pathfinder Alpha to Beta back in 2008.

Edymnion wrote:
Converting HP over to a Toughness saving throw and changing every damage and HP reference in ever feat, spell, etc would be a major change. Scrapping the entire spell list and replacing it with a point buy spell creator would be a major change.

Yeah that's not going to happen. Because this is a playtest, not a brainstorm for a completely new and different game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
KyleS wrote:
be constructive in how to improve upon it or just do those of us who want to improve upon it a giant favor and leave.
If I thought it would do any good, I would. I honestly do not believe Paizo will change the things that I think need changing the worst, because they are too fundamental to the core of this system. To fix what I think needs fixing would basically require them throwing the entire thing out the window and starting over from scratch, and thats not going to happen.

Please, list me all the items you've seen in this play test where you've given a constructive possible solution for. I've yet to see one.

Quote:

As for "You can either like it, or you can GTFO", well we don't need gatekeepers like that.

I did not say that. I said you have the option to not play it because it is not being forced upon you to be played. I did however say that you can leave your complaining outside of here because there are those of us who would like to improve upon this system you so adamantly hate.

Quote:
If you actually think Paizo will change things on any great scale, then you NEED people who aren't just gushing that "Everything is perfect, I love it so much!".

I never said it was perfect. There are things I like about it. There are also things that concern me. I actually mentioned them if you would've bothered to read everything I said.

Quote:

To say "Like it or leave" is to say "This is exactly how it will go to print, nothing can be changed, everyone's opinions right now are worthless."

Is that really the message you want to send?

And once again, I did not say that. The message I'm sending is that there are those of us who want to help improve what's being put out in front of us. And that is what we're trying to do. I've seen a great bit of discussion in how weapon damage die can be improved, discussion on how ancestry feats can be changed or modified so that it works out better, ideas to help make it seem like some classes don't feel either over bearing or one sided. It's a different system than what people have used to for once again, the high part of the last 2 decades. I remember participating in the DnD Next playtest, what obviously became 5th edition. Those first two play test packets? Holy crap I wish I still had them because they were so radically different. I have full and complete faith that Paizo will listen to us when we have majority concerns and similar suggestions.

Paizo is not some multi-billion dollar company where the CEO earns more in a minute than most of us will earn in a lifetime. They are still considered a small company, and are in the position where they do have to listen to us in order to make some progress. If you don't believe that, look up iRacing. That is a very small company who has done incredible stuff in only a decade. We fight and banter over some of the stupidest things in there (seriously, we had a 6 page fight over what was causing the problem we all knew existed. Wasn't pretty). Paizo has put a lot of information out for us to look at. Holy crap it's a lot to look at. That doesn't mean this is exact word for word copy what we're getting. The amount of typos alone say that this isn't ready for paid distribution.

You accuse me of being a "gatekeeper". In reality, you're the one who fits that description a lot better. I only said that if all you're going to do is argue and complain about something you just have to feel that you have to make sure everyone know you hate, then you should leave. You however have made it to the point that if anyone says that they like something, even if there's something that they don't like, you have to instantly tell them off and tell them that they're wrong. I have seen you in multiple threads doing this. We haven't had the PDF's for 12 hours, and you are making it out to be that this is the worst system ever designed and that Paizo is telling it's consumer base to eff off.

So here's the message I'm sending: If you wanna help make it something you want to play, then help. If you're just going to shed hate on it and everyone trying to support it by trying to improve upon its shortcomings, then stop wasting your time and leave. That is not "gatekeeping", this is saying 'Don't be a dick.'


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ancestry feels like a weird mash-up of race and culture. Which makes sense, because D&D's racial traits have long been a mash-up of the two, combining racial traits (I can see in the dark) with cultural norms (I know how to use dwarven weapons). But really, these things should be separate.

The best handling of this I've seen was in Fantasy Hero, where you basically had a package of racial traits that ALL members of a race got, and a separate package of cultural traits that people raised by a race got. So in most cases, if you played a dwarf you would take both, but if you wanted to play a dwarf raised by humans, you would take the dwarven racial traits, but not the dwarven cultural traits. That way your character would still have dark vision, but wouldn't mysteriously know how to use dwarven weapons that he or she had never seen.

I would love to see PF2 adopt a similar approach. Perhaps doing so by having BOTH race (for the inherent racial traits) and ancesory (for the cultural traits).


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

Ancestry feels like a weird mash-up of race and culture. Which makes sense, because D&D's racial traits have long been a mash-up of the two, combining racial traits (I can see in the dark) with cultural norms (I know how to use dwarven weapons). But really, these things should be separate.

The best handling of this I've seen was in Fantasy Hero, where you basically had a package of racial traits that ALL members of a race got, and a separate package of cultural traits that people raised by a race got. So in most cases, if you played a dwarf you would take both, but if you wanted to play a dwarf raised by humans, you would take the dwarven racial traits, but not the dwarven cultural traits. That way your character would still have dark vision, but wouldn't mysteriously know how to use dwarven weapons that he or she had never seen.

I would love to see PF2 adopt a similar approach. Perhaps doing so by having BOTH race (for the inherent racial traits) and ancesory (for the cultural traits).

I believe that is what the general feat Adopted Ancestry is meant to solve. Like it's saying "Hey, these are the things most commonly associated with dwarves, but if you are a dwarf somehow raised by elves, then you can have some of those things with this ability right here!" I think there could be a better way of accomplishing this without having separate physical vs cultural traits.


Edymnion wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Not to mention past 17/18 things drop to +1 instead of +2 to stats.
That is easily fixable by simply cutting the rate you get the boost in half after +4.

Far easier to simply say that raising beyond +4 costs 2 Ability Points and remove the needless stipulation of raising 4 different abilities.

I'm with you, Edymnion. I wondered this back with Starfinder when it came out and now the creation process is even simpler and doesn't require 3-18 at all. Base 10 becomes Base 0. Creation boosts and flaws become +1 instead of +2.

I've played dozens of systems and written a few of my own, and nothing has caused more weird confusion in my home games with new players than the artificial/useless numbers associated with d20 abilities. And these are with relatively smart people- just not well versed in old-school gaming so it's not second nature.

"What's your STR?"
"Uh, it's a 16."
"Great, so add your modifier to your d20 roll."
"I rolled a 12... plus 16?"
"No, your modifier. +3"
"I add 3 to my 16?"
"No."
"Why don't they just give me one number. Can I just erase the 16?"
"Please do."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Welp, finally Pathfinder is heading into the direction where nerds with too much free time won't be automatically at an advantage over new/casual players due to system mastery.

You play PvP Pathfinder?

I keep my game on the complex end of the spectrum. And I've piked up three "never played before" new players over the past three years. In every case things were explained as they came up and fun was had by all.

I mean, I really find it shocking that people whine about the learning curve of system mastery.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My reaction so far is the things I thought I would hate stick out badly. But, a lot of things still look really cool.
I think that I can convert this into something that works for me.
I'm more concerned about the laundry list of alienators each driving a few % of the fanbase away. It doesn't matter if I like it, there needs to be a sustainable core.


I've to say, I'm rather sadly amused at some of the people freaking out because of what they perceive to be a lack of choices in being able to customize... as if this playtest holds all of the options that will be ever be available when in reality it's merely a sampling given to people to oh... play it, and test it.

It's completely illogical to think that you're going to be able to get all of the depth in a sample immediately that took ten years to build in the first edition.

I've read it, I've played it at Paizocon and was intrigued by it, and I'm looking forward to running it through the wringer in every way possible. It's going to come one way or another - best to make sure it's the best possible by providing the most feedback possible.

Still, it is a "Knee-Jerk Reaction" thread so hopefully time and trials will prevail.


BryonD wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Welp, finally Pathfinder is heading into the direction where nerds with too much free time won't be automatically at an advantage over new/casual players due to system mastery.

You play PvP Pathfinder?

I keep my game on the complex end of the spectrum. And I've piked up three "never played before" new players over the past three years. In every case things were explained as they came up and fun was had by all.

I mean, I really find it shocking that people whine about the learning curve of system mastery.

I can only speak for myself but it really is off-putting to me to play a role playing game with people who are more experienced, and without even a minute of talking about role playing, they start discussing intricacies of a system that for no reason has to be this complex or thought out. I mean, perhaps that's just my style, and I don't like the complexity. I came to look at PF 2E because I found 5e TOO boring and samey, but PF a bit too complex. I feel like 2e is hitting a good middle ground for players like me.

It doesn't help that the people I see constantly theorycrafting are actual neckbards, and the people I see playing 5e only seem to have an interest in critical role, but hopefully my experience might allow you to see a person like me's perspective.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
I would love to see PF2 adopt a similar approach. Perhaps doing so by having BOTH race (for the inherent racial traits) and ancesory (for the cultural traits).

+1 to this, I can see it being way better both in terms of being intuitive for character creation (Of course my Elf raised by Gnomes can use a battle ladder, why wouldn't he?) and offering more options and granularity when making a character. The only issue I could see is that it's maybe too similar to the original Race Trait system.

Grand Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
BryonD wrote:
You play PvP Pathfinder?

No, but there are far too many toxic players who talk down to others for not having system mastery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Knee-jerk reaction but... am I reading this right? I would need to spend a resonance point to reach into a bag of holding? That’s a bit extreme right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
exoicho123 wrote:
I can only speak for myself but it really is off-putting to me to play a role playing game with people who are more experienced, and without even a minute of talking about role playing, they start discussing intricacies of a system that for no reason has to be this complex or thought out. I mean, perhaps that's just my style, and I don't like the complexity.

Slow down, you just added "without even a minute of roleplaying". To coin a phrase, *there's your problem*. If you get in with a group that wants to use a strong system to tell a story then you will find yourself learning from them without even noticing it happening.

Quote:
I came to look at PF 2E because I found 5e TOO boring and samey,

I think 5E is a really good game, but it did wear thin on me for this exact reason.

Quote:

but PF a bit too complex. I feel like 2e is hitting a good middle ground for players like me.

It doesn't help that the people I see constantly theorycrafting are actual neckbards, and the people I see playing 5e only seem to have an interest in critical role, but hopefully my experience might allow you to see a person like me's perspective.

Again, I think the difference between constructive and confrontational players is the key. Obviously I can't say anything about you personally. But what you have stated makes me think that you need a better group to ground truth your perception. And I'm certain the majority of folks who went from an annoying game-op over story approach to a maximize the story group would soon find that complexity (within reason, and PF1E falls within that) simply equals better realization of the story.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BryonD wrote:
You play PvP Pathfinder?
No, but there are far too many toxic players who talk down to others for not having system mastery.

Noted.

You are not going to fix toxic players with different rules.

Edit: Or to ask a different way: You saw my comments about picking up several new players. For sake of argument lets assume I'm just lucky and I've been lucky over and over. Would you agree, "for sake of argument" that in my personal case it is fair to completely reject this complaint against complexity?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I reject everything you say, so I'm not going to complain.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

MY knee jerk reaction: The blogs led me to believe PF2 would be a system that integrates the best of PF1 with the best of 5e, but instead I got the worst parts of both. PF1's obtuse technical nature combined with 5e's artificially restricted characters.

So far I can look forward to: something as simple as staring someone down requiring a feat, animal companions being literally lobotomized and unable to think for themselves, *thinking* being an action, combat feats being artificially parceled out between classes, and more.

I feel like the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Consider the gamist-narrativist-simulation triangle. PF1 might not have been the best game balancewise (far from it) but it's a ruleset that happily accomodates narrative and simulation. PF2 on the other hand feels focused squarely on the "game" part, making tons of decisions that don't make sense from a narrative or simulation standpoint in order to reinforce game balance.

I'm still willing to at least give it a fair chance in playtesting (I hope I'm wrong, really), but my initial once-over of the rules isn't impressing me in the least. PF2 just might not be the system for me and my group.


Edymnion wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Honestly, if people don't understand that 3-18 for Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha is fundamental to the definition of D&D and its descendants, they shouldn't poke holes in other people's design.
Many things were "fundamental" to D&D. Like THAC0, and Elf/Dwarf being a class instead of a race. Doesn't mean we kept them.

Actually none of those things are anywhere near “fundamental”

THAC0 is second edition only. Elf/Dwarf as race and class is Basic DND only.

But every Edition of DND and it’s children have the same 6stats and they are rated 3-18.

Now I’m open to thinking that these stats and the range could be a sacred cow...but that’s a different discussion.


So I’ll convert my game over when I find better rules... umm first impression this isn’t better. There are some neat things...but I’m not seeing any major improvement to the way the current game is played. Lore seems like a massive waste of skills.. why don’t wizards (the most studied and book learned characters) get as many skills as sorcerers? Because INT is their casting stat and it will likely be high? That sounds dumb to me. Why not give them separate skills to spend on lore or something? Then maybe lore would be worth wasting time on? I’m still reading but I’m not seeing any reason to box up my 3.5 and pathfinder library.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E
Thing is, if I wanted to play something like 5e... I would be playing 5e.

This in many ways feels like the same bad design direction that WoTC went with during 4th Ed, including the whole statement at the beginning about,"Our goal is to simplify and make it easier while maintaining depth" I am paraphrasing the line, but its the same vibe for sure, and I am hating most of what I am reading, because Paizo from what I am seeing is not only failing at simplifying anything, from the convoluted ability boost rules changes and the dumpster fire that Resonance is. Changes that are adding nothing good while over-complicating and sucking the fun out of magic items, not to mention creating far worse problems that what they appear to have been trying to solve. I am super underwhelmed and honestly disappointed. Looks like WoTC and Paizo are companies that were once cool, and now suck. This is a product in its current form, I would never buy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracovar wrote:

I find myself in agreement with a lot of what both Edymnion and magnuskn have said already.

My first pass through the material was "this is interesting, but it's not what I want to play when I think of 'Pathfinder' or 'DnD'.

It's a radical enough departure from the 3.0/3.5 mechanics that I have to ask - WHY would I choose this system over Dnd 4E or Dnd5E (or GURPS, for that matter). Myself and the group I game with all ported over to Pathfinder as "Dnd 3.75" precisely because it was closest to what we've played all these years.

For anyone whose running persistent homebrew campaigns, how do you implement such changes cleanly? How magic works, etc all help define, over time, how the campaign evolves. Sure Forgotten Realms was regularly blown to bits to accommodate changes in how magic worked, but I found that to be a pretty brutal way of doing things, and NOT suitable for my own campaign. That also helped Pathfinder pretty much be the shoe-in as the next logical step from 3.0/3.5 evolution. When WotC came along with 4E, I pretty much took one look and "noped" right out that - it wasn't DnD (despite marketing and branding). Pathfinder WAS.

I'm left with a distinctly 4E deja-vu feeling that I can't quite shake, and I'm not liking that.

I'll see how gameplay is, and I'm sure it can be a fun system, but 2E is going to fall into the same category that GURPS, Call of Cthulhu and other 'non-DnD" systems fall into for me.

I've got enough 1st Edition material to last 20 years. And two more AP's coming. In a year, it will be 3rd party publishers I'll be relying on more and more.

Meh.

^This, exactly this. You have echoed my own thoughts and sentiments precisely. Well said.

51 to 100 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / First Knee-Jerk Reaction All Messageboards