| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(They were from a Hasbro presentation to shareholders so would have been dollar value, not “number of nerds”). He’s looking for a good story to tell - I’d be astonished if he had adjusted for inflation.
Maybe, but the popularity of the game is evident with basic research. There are tons of podcasts and stuff about it, and if you go to independent RPG sites (ie, not WOTC or Paizo), there is an overwhelming majority of 5e posts. IcV2 sales reports also show the same.
Even with those caveats (he inflating the 5e sales), the game is still extremelly popular, and it is still early for them in their de elopement cycle. It is still growing.
I think blinding ourselves to that fact, and believing 3e or PF is more popular because it is what WE play, isn't helpful. The post I quoted said that Paizo has shot themselves in a foot by giving the initistive to WOTC with PF2, because WOTC was somehow helpless and could not regain 3e popularity again by themselves with PF there. That is a massively deceiving argument, in a situation where Pathfinder is the THIRD best selling RPG, and Starfinder is more of a threat for 5e market share than Pathfinder is.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this. I second ALL of this. There is too much thick terminology and too much scavenger hunting around from definition to definition before you find out what an ability actually does.Omg yes. This book is dry, awkward, terribly organized, and nothing feels interesting or exciting. I swear it's like the writers of PF2E had no idea what makes an RPG fun or appealing.
But then again, they did make Starfinder, which my entire gaming circle rejected utterly.
Aaaand Starfinder is the second best selling RPG currently, giving D&D 5e a run for its money. So chances are that Paizo will follow the route that made them bounce back, rather the one that makes them slide into oblivion.
Slide into oblivion. What's an argument among geeks without some solid melodrama!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
(They were from a Hasbro presentation to shareholders so would have been dollar value, not “number of nerds”). He’s looking for a good story to tell - I’d be astonished if he had adjusted for inflation.Maybe, but the popularity of the game is evident with basic research. There are tons of podcasts and stuff about it, and if you go to independent RPG sites (ie, not WOTC or Paizo), there is an overwhelming majority of 5e posts. IcV2 sales reports also show the same.
Even with those caveats (he inflating the 5e sales), the game is still extremelly popular, and it is still early for them in their de elopement cycle. It is still growing.
I think blinding ourselves to that fact, and believing 3e or PF is more popular because it is what WE play, isn't helpful. The post I quoted said that Paizo has shot themselves in a foot by giving the initistive to WOTC with PF2, because WOTC was somehow helpless and could not regain 3e popularity again by themselves with PF there. That is a massively deceiving argument, in a situation where Pathfinder is the THIRD best selling RPG, and Starfinder is more of a threat for 5e market share than Pathfinder is.
Don’t get me wrong - I think it’s obvious 5E is going gangbusters. It’s just worth remembering that we don’t really have any decent information.
FWIW, the fans’ fixation on ICv2 and market share is something I hope Paizo don’t waste a lot of effort on. In a growing market, declining market share could well be fine. Paizo is privately owned - they don’t need to “win” anything, they need to sell enough to pay the staff, keep the lights on and save as much or as little as Lisa and Vic deem necessary. The eternal race for growth doesn’t have the same urgency as it does for WotC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this. I second ALL of this. There is too much thick terminology and too much scavenger hunting around from definition to definition before you find out what an ability actually does.Omg yes. This book is dry, awkward, terribly organized, and nothing feels interesting or exciting. I swear it's like the writers of PF2E had no idea what makes an RPG fun or appealing.
But then again, they did make Starfinder, which my entire gaming circle rejected utterly.
Aaaand Starfinder is the second best selling RPG currently, giving D&D 5e a run for its money. So chances are that Paizo will follow the route that made them bounce back, rather the one that makes them slide into oblivion.
Slide into oblivion. What's an argument among geeks without some solid melodrama!
OMG the melodrama is the worst part. Its the main reason I find all these threads so exhausting. every thread you have to deal with sooo much melodrama.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I'm a loyal gamer. My first instinct is to but from my local game store and support the companies I believe make good products. Paizo was one of my favorites...You don't need to be sorry for not liking a system. No system will please everyone. If, when playtest ends, this is not the system for you, the so be it. You don't have to keep buying Paizo products out of sheer loyalty, you don't owe them a thing. And they don't have to keep doing games exactly as you want forever, they don't owe you a thing either
They sell books. You like, you buy, you dislike, you buy something different.
CASE IN POINT!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I'm a loyal gamer. My first instinct is to but from my local game store and support the companies I believe make good products. Paizo was one of my favorites...You don't need to be sorry for not liking a system. No system will please everyone. If, when playtest ends, this is not the system for you, the so be it. You don't have to keep buying Paizo products out of sheer loyalty, you don't owe them a thing. And they don't have to keep doing games exactly as you want forever, they don't owe you a thing either
They sell books. You like, you buy, you dislike, you buy something different.
I’m very similar. Although, I generally give gaming systems a year or two to mature before I pass judgement (I try to do that, anyhow. It can be hard when they just don’t grab me).
Sometimes I just end up wasting money, however there are times a system surprises me (I didn’t expect to like Starfinder, for example - turns out to be one of my favourites!)
This is what needs to be put on a plaque.It's 2018 and "video game" is still an insult?Inasmuch as roleplaying games are supposed to be the medium where you're free to interact with the setting however you want and video games remain the medium where you must interact with the game bits exactly in the ways the designer prescribes. Yes.
People want their characters to be able to do what they want without the game censoring them within the bounds of reason and the tolerances of all those at the table. Games that unreasonably restrict what characters can do for reasons that are entirely gamist...yeah that's, if not an insult, a complaint at least
Wow. Thanks!
Yes I was very aware that this us a alpha version at best... But I did not understand before, and I should have from the 'we are changing everything we can' comments Paizo related, that they would change this high of a percentage of the game. As I've started (and others have also) before, I'm starring down at the D&D 4th ed book all over again. This was not something expected, ESPECIALLY from Paizo.I pre-ordered the PF2 set with the module because I was so excited at the idea of a new game!
What I want is for them to make a functional, well balanced, playable fun game.Instead I received this. A way-too-overhauled, overpowered, clunkey videogame in a book.
Forgive me if this is obvious, but you were aware this isn’t the finished product when you bought it, right?
(I’m not criticising your views on whether you like it or not, but I don’t think anyone should have bought it with the expectation that it wouldn’t need serious work).
If they were done, with just a bit of spit and polish required, it would mean they’d left the playtest process too late to be truly valuable for answering “the big questions”.
Cheers. I just wanted to understand.
I remember the PF1 playtest - the actual game ended up quite different from the original plan, so it’s probably worth keeping an eye on (even if the current iteration of the ruleset leaves you cold).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's 2018 and "video game" is still an insult?Inasmuch as roleplaying games are supposed to be the medium where you're free to interact with the setting however you want and video games remain the medium where you must interact with the game bits exactly in the ways the designer prescribes. Yes.
People want their characters to be able to do what they want without the game censoring them within the bounds of reason and the tolerances of all those at the table. Games that unreasonably restrict what characters can do for reasons that are entirely gamist...yeah that's, if not an insult, a complaint at least
Do I really need to point out how far 3.5/Pathfinder are from a "theatre of the mind" system? It's an incredibly gamist system to begin with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I'm a loyal gamer. My first instinct is to buy from my local game store and support the companies I believe make good products. Paizo was one of my favorites...You don't need to be sorry for not liking a system. No system will please everyone. If, when playtest ends, this is not the system for you, the so be it. You don't have to keep buying Paizo products out of sheer loyalty, you don't owe them a thing. And they don't have to keep doing games exactly as you want forever, they don't owe you a thing either
They sell books. You like, you buy, you dislike, you buy something different.
Great! Then keep buying whatever their sell, honoring that loyalty. Just keep in mind that regardless how much you feel you owe them for building PF1, they don't owe you keep doing PF1 or clones of it forever.
|
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really prefer if people would quit the notion that playing and enjoying rules-heavy games makes them intellectually superior to those who don't or that RPGs are inherently a superior form of entertainment to <<board games/video games/TV/bocce>>. This attitude is all over the playtest discussion, it's poisonous and the only thing it does is drive new people away by reinforcing the image of p'n'p RPGs as an arcane hobby guarded by basement-dwelling gatekeepers who will chase you away if you aren't "true" enough.
I'd really prefer if people would quit the notion that playing and enjoying rules-heavy games makes them intellectually superior to those who don't or that RPGs are inherently a superior form of entertainment to <<board games/video games/TV/bocce>>. This attitude is all over the playtest discussion, it's poisonous and the only thing it does is drive new people away by reinforcing the image of p'n'p RPGs as an arcane hobby guarded by basement-dwelling gatekeepers who will chase you away if you aren't "true" enough.
I feel almost all game hobbies have people like that. (I mean I guess maybe even board games?) Its a weird thing you think people would be happy to have new people getting into ones hobby but so often it seems the reverse. I think its self-esteem related... I should do some research on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really prefer if people would quit the notion that playing and enjoying rules-heavy games makes them intellectually superior to those who don't or that RPGs are inherently a superior form of entertainment to <<board games/video games/TV/bocce>>. This attitude is all over the playtest discussion, it's poisonous and the only thing it does is drive new people away by reinforcing the image of p'n'p RPGs as an arcane hobby guarded by basement-dwelling gatekeepers who will chase you away if you aren't "true" enough.
So you mean our prefered way to pretend being elves does not make us special?
Shocker
Do I really need to point out how far 3.5/Pathfinder are from a "theatre of the mind" system? It's an incredibly gamist system to begin with.How is 3.5 or PF1 a "theater of the mind" system?! I use the maps in every combat! It's perfectly compatible!
Maybe the systems are only gamest to some because of their lack of ability to play. How about a old guy euphonium for this one? Perhaps it's the lack of bumpers keeping your ball in the lane that keeps landing your ball in the gutter.
Erm... not to be that guy, but they actually said that "3.5 and Pathfinder are far from a theatre of the mind system".
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You criticise the supporting of companies you believe in?
No, I find that lovely. I criticize the entitlement that because someone is loyal to the game company, said company has to cater them forever, never evolving or producing different things that other people might like.
To put it in a non edition war context, some people tried to bully Paizo to not make Iron Gods, because they didn't want science fiction in their fantasy. It turned out that Iron Gods was a success, Distant Worlds was a massive success, and those created a window to build Starfinder, which is a massive success that many players enjoy, including me, as it is, as if now, my fav game. So I'm grateful 7that Paizo didn't listen to that vocal entitled group of forum posters that claimed against Iron Gods, and instead did what they, as expert developers, thought it could be good.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You criticise the supporting of companies you believe in?
No, I find that lovely. I criticize the entitlement that because someone is loyal to the game company, said company has to cater them forever, never evolving or producing different things that other people might like.
To put it in a non edition war context, some people tried to bully Paizo to not make Iron Gods, because they didn't want science fiction in their fantasy. It turned out that Iron Gods was a success, Distant Worlds was a massive success, and those created a window to build Starfinder, which is a massive success that many players enjoy, including me, as it is, as if now, my fav game. So I'm grateful 7that Paizo didn't listen to that vocal entitled group of forum posters that claimed against Iron Gods, and instead did what they, as expert developers, thought it could be good.
Oh, I remember those "what the hell Paizo, don't mix science-fiction in my fantasy, this is a horrible decision, it will end with Paizo going bankrupt because old true grogs like myself will never buy any of your product again!" posts. Fun times!
WOTC will never again be as big as they were under 3rd edition.5e is the best selling DnD of all time.
WOTC can cook their publicity numbers however they like, but they don't have the same number of players per capita that they used to. After all, they used to be about the only game in town, discounting GURPS and other, even smaller competitors. The fact that PFS is still even around, let alone doing as well as it is, tells me that they're not steamrolling the competition like they used to be able to back in their 3e salad days when they so dominated the landscape that they thought they could get away with murdering Living Greyhawk out of spite because that campaign wasn't using their Forgotten Realms setting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaand Starfinder is the second best selling RPG currently, giving D&D 5e a run for its money. So chances are that Paizo will follow the route that made them bounce back, rather the one that makes them slide into oblivion.
Slide into oblivion. What's an argument among geeks without some solid melodrama!
Um, ah... didn't Starfinder still cleave much closer to the 3.5 framework in its design than the PF2E playtest? Because I think you might have just invalidated your entire "PF2E simplifications can only be good for sales!" argument you've been making since Thursday...
Um, ah... didn't Starfinder still cleave much closer to the 3.5 framework in its design than the PF2E playtest? Because I think you might have just invalidated your entire "PF2E simplifications can only be good for sales!" argument you've been making since Thursday...Aaaand Starfinder is the second best selling RPG currently, giving D&D 5e a run for its money. So chances are that Paizo will follow the route that made them bounce back, rather the one that makes them slide into oblivion.
Slide into oblivion. What's an argument among geeks without some solid melodrama!
I don't see it. Explain to me what your saying but in greater detail so that it makes sense. How does starfinder selling indicate that PF2 won't sell?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, ah... didn't Starfinder still cleave much closer to the 3.5 framework in its design than the PF2E playtest? Because I think you might have just invalidated your entire "PF2E simplifications can only be good for sales!" argument you've been making since Thursday...Aaaand Starfinder is the second best selling RPG currently, giving D&D 5e a run for its money. So chances are that Paizo will follow the route that made them bounce back, rather the one that makes them slide into oblivion.
Slide into oblivion. What's an argument among geeks without some solid melodrama!
It doesn't any more than PF2 does. Heck, it some areas it goes even further - you can make three attacks per round in PF2, while SF caps you at two (and penalites aren't iterative, which is even more a simplification). Five-foot-step is gone, HP aren't rolled, monsters are built of different (and simpler) Lego bricks, CMB/CMD is gone, concentration is gone, skill list is condensed, bulk replaces weight, AoOs are simplified, crits do not require confirmation, spell components are gone, arcane/divine divide is gone. That's off my head.
And above that, the rate of new player-side material published for SF is snail's crawl compared to PF1. It's been one year in and no new classes were published or announced, while with PF we were poring over 6 new classes and dozens of archetypes from the APG.
YMMV, of course.
Technically 5 foot step is still around. Its a little different but still an option (Just called step in PF2 and it doesn't trigger reactions like AOO.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it. Explain to me what your saying but in greater detail so that it makes sense. How does starfinder selling indicate that PF2 won't sell?Um, ah... didn't Starfinder still cleave much closer to the 3.5 framework in its design than the PF2E playtest? Because I think you might have just invalidated your entire "PF2E simplifications can only be good for sales!" argument you've been making since Thursday...Aaaand Starfinder is the second best selling RPG currently, giving D&D 5e a run for its money. So chances are that Paizo will follow the route that made them bounce back, rather the one that makes them slide into oblivion.
Slide into oblivion. What's an argument among geeks without some solid melodrama!
No, Gorbacz has been making the argument the entire week that PF2E is a good idea and will sell really well, because it simplifies the underlying system. He has contrasted that with sliding sales for the more complex PF1E and how making PF2E more like an upgraded PF1E is a losing proposition for Paizo.
But now he makes the point that "Starfinder is the second best selling RPG currently, giving D&D 5e a run for its money" (direct quote) and Starfinder cleaves still very closely in most aspects to PF1E. Which, in my eyes at least, invalidates most of his week-long argument how bad of an idea it would be for PF2E to cleave more closely to the PF1E framework.
Ah I think its all fade and fluctuations myself. Its like fashion some things go out and come back in again. You just need to be showing the right fashion at the right time. Its like how their was a movement for games to be more complex and then one for simplifying it back down again. Its like all of life really lots of ups and downs and all about balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah I think its all fade and fluctuations myself. Its like fashion some things go out and come back in again. You just need to be showing the right fashion at the right time. Its like how their was a movement for games to be more complex and then one for simplifying it back down again. Its like all of life really lots of ups and downs and all about balance.
I concur. IMO, if PF2E would have incorporated the best idea of Starfinder and removed many trap options, while leaving enough customizability and brought martials and monsters up at the high levels to better compete with casters, it would have been a far better idea. I'm sure that would have brought in enough older and newer players to keep their niche and expand it. Maybe publishing a "Strategy Guide" like book at the same time as the core book could have been a good idea as well, given how people like Gorbacz fear that new players might choose poor feats for their class.
But that's me, I'm sure others will argue with that point.
Ah I think its all fade and fluctuations myself. Its like fashion some things go out and come back in again. You just need to be showing the right fashion at the right time. Its like how their was a movement for games to be more complex and then one for simplifying it back down again. Its like all of life really lots of ups and downs and all about balance.I concur. IMO, if PF2E would have incorporated the best idea of Starfinder and removed many trap options, while leaving enough customizability and brought martials and monsters up at the high levels to better compete with casters, it would have been a far better idea. IÄm sure that would have brought in enough older and newer players to keep their niche and expand it. Maybe publishing a "Strategy Guide" like book at the same time as the core book could have been a good idea as well, given how people like Gorbacz fear that new players might choose poor feats for their class.
But that's me, I'm sure others will argue with that point.
I actually disagree with your assessment myself. I think a lot of the changes are what people have been asking for they just didn't play them out in their heads. This is the result of peoples requests and suggestions. maybe not everyone but I can read the play test and remember someone asking for every change in some shape or another. It needs more improvement for sure but that IS literally the point behind the playtest. Fortunatly I think a lot of the final changes will be made by the play test process (and I don't mean people playing who can yell louder on the boards) I think overall it will turn out pretty well. It may not be what each one of us might have envisioned. I plan on playing it out submitting my results and seeing what happens.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't any more than PF2 does. Heck, it some areas it goes even further - you can make three attacks per round in PF2, while SF caps you at two (and penalites aren't iterative, which is even more a simplification). Five-foot-step is gone, HP aren't rolled, monsters are built of different (and simpler) Lego bricks, CMB/CMD is gone, concentration is gone, skill list is condensed, bulk replaces weight, AoOs are simplified, crits do not require confirmation, spell components are gone, arcane/divine divide is gone. That's off my head.
And above that, the rate of new player-side material published for SF is snail's crawl compared to PF1. It's been one year in and no new classes were published or announced, while with PF we were poring over 6 new classes and dozens of archetypes from the APG.
YMMV, of course.
I can recognize much more of the PF1E skeleton in Starfinder than in PF2E, that's for sure. Class based saves are still a thing, base attack is still a thing, spells are not all gimped as all hell. Class entries look recognizable. It managed to keep me feeling as if I was reading an evolution of PF1E instead of something which doesn't feel like it anymore. Maybe that's just me.
And in terms of new materials, Starfinder has an entirely new class system, so I'm pretty sure people needed more time to absorb that before clamoring for more. If Starfinder manages to keep its market place (I'd recommend publishing some adventure paths which go to real high levels, people, so I can buy them), there will be more classes in the future as well.
I would recommend leaving Wrath of the Righteous until you and your players feel like you've reached the "advanced" stage of gameplay.
From your description you played through the entire Rise of the Runelords adventure, so you got your money's worth.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the nerfed spells. Its been a long time coming.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually disagree with your assessment myself. I think a lot of the changes are what people have been asking for they just didn't play them out in their heads. This is the result of peoples requests and suggestions. maybe not everyone but I can read the play test and remember someone asking for every change in some shape or another. It needs more improvement for sure but that IS literally the point behind the playtest. Fortunatly I think a lot of the final changes will be made by the play test process (and I don't mean people playing who can yell louder on the boards) I think overall it will turn out pretty well. It may not be what each one of us might have envisioned. I plan on playing it out submitting my results and seeing what happens.
Sure, man, at the end of the day everybody must decide for himself if he can live with the end results. My fundamental assertion remains though that the devs overshot the "acceptable" mechanical aspects for many of their actual playerbase and would have done much better by cleaving more to the paradigm of Starfinder, where one could still recognize the skeleton of PF1E much better. I think "level to everything" is one of the biggest offenders in that regard, as are the truly gimped spells. For me personally that the class entries look like a total mess (to me, I should haste to add again) is also something which turns me off something fierce.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would recommend leaving Wrath of the Righteous until you and your players feel like you've reached the "advanced" stage of gameplay.
From your description you played through the entire Rise of the Runelords adventure, so you got your money's worth.
Is that directed at me? I've GM'ed through RotRL and WotR (the latter was a mess because of the terrible mythic rules) and have GM'ed several homebrewn campaigns to level 20 in 3.5. So I guess that would make me "advanced" in your eyes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually disagree with your assessment myself. I think a lot of the changes are what people have been asking for they just didn't play them out in their heads. This is the result of peoples requests and suggestions. maybe not everyone but I can read the play test and remember someone asking for every change in some shape or another. It needs more improvement for sure but that IS literally the point behind the playtest. Fortunatly I think a lot of the final changes will be made by the play test process (and I don't mean people playing who can yell louder on the boards) I think overall it will turn out pretty well. It may not be what each one of us might have envisioned. I plan on playing it out submitting my results and seeing what happens.Sure, man, at the end of the day everybody must decide for himself if he can live with the end results. My fundamental assertion remains though that the devs overshot the "acceptable" mechanical aspects for many of their actual playerbase and would have done much better by cleaving more to the paradigm of Starfinder, where one could still recognize the skeleton of PF1E much better. I think "level to everything" is one of the biggest offenders in that regard, as are the truly gimped spells. For me personally that the class entries look like a total mess (to me, I should haste to add again) is also something which turns me off something fierce.
See to me level to everything is no different then BAB saving throw bonuses and skill ranks its just has the same way to calculate it now. It means you can do stuff like roll athletics for a combat maneuver and it work out just as simply as a attack roll. Also the spells not auto scaling so that a 3rd level spell is just as effective as a 8th level spell is a positive in my book (and thats not exact I know but the balanceing factor for wizards was suppose to be that they could run out of spells but that was not very likely in PF1)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See to me level to everything is no different then BAB saving throw bonuses and skill ranks its just has the same way to calculate it now. It means you can do stuff like roll athletics for a combat maneuver and it work out just as simply as a attack roll. Also the spells not auto scaling so that a 3rd level spell is just as effective as a 8th level spell is a positive in my book (and thats not exact I know but the balanceing factor for wizards was suppose to be that they could run out of spells but that was not very likely in PF1)
Well, here we part ways in our agreements. Level to everything robs the game of verisimilitude in a way which the prior system did not. I made the example in the past of a naked 16th level low-strength goblin wizard walking into a tavern filled with 20 fully armored level 1 dwarven fighters and murdering them, without casting a spell, with his bare hands. And that is a bridge too far for me.
And I just personally hate the gimped spell effects, sorry. They contribute to the overall feel of a "venture 10 minutes into danger, rest the rest of the day" feel I've gotten so far from the game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But looking at the grand scheme of things fans of PF1 accusing, say, 4e of being video gamey is like fans of Warmachine and Warhammer 40k arguing which of these two is more of a "silly wargame with silly toy miniatures".Not really, 4th Ed was specifically designed with an eye towards WoW (very popular at time), and to utilise a VTT; unfortunately the VTT never came to fruition, due to some personal tragedy (very sad, for those involved in the tragedy, and for the 4th Ed product). So, 4th Ed was never really released as the game it was supposed to be.
4e was complete game, playable without the VTT and with no functionality lost due to that. Pathfinder 1e has several VTTs servicing it (Roll20 and FantasyGrounds to begin with), but it does not make it a video game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See to me level to everything is no different then BAB saving throw bonuses and skill ranks its just has the same way to calculate it now. It means you can do stuff like roll athletics for a combat maneuver and it work out just as simply as a attack roll. Also the spells not auto scaling so that a 3rd level spell is just as effective as a 8th level spell is a positive in my book (and thats not exact I know but the balanceing factor for wizards was suppose to be that they could run out of spells but that was not very likely in PF1)Well, here we part ways in our agreements. Level to everything robs the game of verisimilitude in a way which the prior system did not. I made the example in the past of a naked 16th level low-strength goblin wizard walking into a tavern filled with 20 fully armored level 1 dwarven fighters and murdering them, without casting a spell, with his bare hands. And that is a bridge too far for me.
And I just personally hate the gimped spell effects, sorry. They contribute to the overall feel of a "venture 10 minutes into danger, rest the rest of the day" feel I've gotten so far from the game.
Well for your first part it depends on the power you mentally attribute to character level. How much power do you think a level represents to a character.
for the second one. You know how many people have complained about Caster martial disparity right? but that aside 10 minute adventuring day depends on a lot of things. Also the way you talk you seem to imply that you haven't tried it first hand which is another strike against you. lastly if the resources aren't enough then that is something that will be assessed in the play test and will be improved. Have you gone through and asked anyone that has ran the adventure if they had a 10 minute adventuring day or are you just theory crafting?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
WOTC can cook their publicity numbers however they like, but they don't have the same number of players per capita that they used to. After all, they used to be about the only game in town, discounting GURPS and other, even smaller competitors. The fact that PFS is still even around, let alone doing as well as it is, tells me that they're not steamrolling the competition like they used to be able to back in their 3e salad days when they so dominated the landscape that they thought they could get away with murdering Living Greyhawk out of spite because that campaign wasn't using their Forgotten Realms setting.WOTC will never again be as big as they were under 3rd edition.5e is the best selling DnD of all time.
I'm not sure what players per capita mean, but if you mean market share, 85% of 100 means more than 95% of 50.
5e is not only dominating the market, it is making the market bigger as well. And the trend for 5e is upwards, while the trend for pathfinder is downwards. Starfinder, with 3 books and one AP out, outsells the entire PF portfolio.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well for your first part it depends on the power you mentally attribute to character level. How much power do you think a level represents to a character.
for the second one. You know how many people have complained about Caster martial disparity right? but that aside 10 minute adventuring day depends on a lot of things. Also the way you talk you seem to imply that you haven't tried it first hand which is another strike against you. lastly if the resources aren't enough then that is something that will be assessed in the play test and will be improved. Have you gone through and asked anyone that has ran the adventure if they had a 10 minute adventuring day or are you just theory crafting?
Theorycrafting, on the basis of common sense. If you have vastly more limited resources and another limiting system added on top of that (Resonance), then that will, by common sense, result in shorter adventuring days. The solution to that is forcing one player to be the healbot for the party, which is a sub-optimal solution in the eyes of many veteran players who are really done with playing that role.
I'll be doing the 1st level adventure playtest on Saturday, so then I'll be here with real results. Still got to study so many of the rules before that and tomorrow I run my regular campaign, where I just am adding a lot of homebrewn sub-plots, aaargh. So much to do, still...
Anyway, aside from spellcasting being overnerfed (either reverse some of the spell effect nerfs or give out more spells per day... and buff the Sorcerer against the much better Wizard), the lack of resources shortening the adventuring day has been my biggest bugbear I've warned about even before the playtest book came out. One could see just already from the previews that there was a danger of that happening and it became just so in the released rules.
Well for your first part it depends on the power you mentally attribute to character level. How much power do you think a level represents to a character.
for the second one. You know how many people have complained about Caster martial disparity right? but that aside 10 minute adventuring day depends on a lot of things. Also the way you talk you seem to imply that you haven't tried it first hand which is another strike against you. lastly if the resources aren't enough then that is something that will be assessed in the play test and will be improved. Have you gone through and asked anyone that has ran the adventure if they had a 10 minute adventuring day or are you just theory crafting?
Theorycrafting, on the basis of common sense. If you have vastly more limited resources and another limiting system added on top of that (Resonance), then that will, by common sense, result in shorter adventuring days. The solution to that is forcing one player to be the healbot for the party, which is a sub-optimal solution in the eyes of many veteran players who are really done with playing that role.
I'll be doing the 1st level adventure playtest on Saturday, so then I'll be here with real results. Still got to study so many of the rules before that and tomorrow I run my regular campaign, where I just am adding a lot of homebrewn sub-plots, aaargh. So much to do, still...
Anyway, aside from spellcasting being overnerfed (either reverse some of the spell effect nerfs or give out more spells per day... and buff the Sorcerer against the much better Wizard), the lack of resources shortening the adventuring day has been my biggest bugbear I've warned about even before the playtest book came out. One could see just already from the previews that there was a danger of that happening and it became just so in the released rules.
How many encounters a day do you expect on average?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See to me level to everything is no different then BAB saving throw bonuses and skill ranks its just has the same way to calculate it now. It means you can do stuff like roll athletics for a combat maneuver and it work out just as simply as a attack roll. Also the spells not auto scaling so that a 3rd level spell is just as effective as a 8th level spell is a positive in my book (and thats not exact I know but the balanceing factor for wizards was suppose to be that they could run out of spells but that was not very likely in PF1)Well, here we part ways in our agreements. Level to everything robs the game of verisimilitude in a way which the prior system did not. I made the example in the past of a naked 16th level low-strength goblin wizard walking into a tavern filled with 20 fully armored level 1 dwarven fighters and murdering them, without casting a spell, with his bare hands. And that is a bridge too far for me.
And I just personally hate the gimped spell effects, sorry. They contribute to the overall feel of a "venture 10 minutes into danger, rest the rest of the day" feel I've gotten so far from the game.
Well for your first part it depends on the power you mentally attribute to character level. How much power do you think a level represents to a character.
Indeed. If that lvl 16 goblin, instead of "a goblin" is Globerg The Dragonkiller, Son of Grafgh, heir of Magluybyet, the Widowmaker, Blood of Fiends, then slaughtering 20 low level guards isn't surprising. He is the goblin equivalent of Achilles. That is why he is lvl 16, a legendary level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many encounters a day do you expect on average?
Well, if you've kept up with the board where they post their playtest impressions, so far the party endurance seems really swingy, where some parties breeze through everything and others suffer 10 downed characters throughout the 1st level adventure and had to rest a ton between fights.
So, no idea. But realistically casters will run out of spells after two or three fights, maximum, unless they completely rely on their cantrips, and won't *that* be fun to just plink away with 1d6+nothing attacks all the time.