|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no, I worked a bit to play a decent blaster and read a guide or two. Or did you hate it so much that I tried to math out if PF1E or PF2E blasters are better?
No, and your comprasions and analyses are made from the point of view of somebody whose idea of playing the game is quite different from mine, as well as your benchmarks of what is "better". You've proved, time and time again, that you are an optimizer who takes pride in being The Very Best, you game with a table of people who share that approach and you judge everything from that POV.
That's fine, everybody has his or her way of enjoying the game, for me running a calculator across several books in order to ensure myself that my fireballs are The Very Best is an exercise in wasting your time, for you it's The Way It Was Meant To Be Played. I'm not out to show that your way of having fun is badwrong, I'm perhaps out to show that your way of playing the game is far from universal, baseline, typical or in any way what Paizo should be aiming for.
And I guess they've realised that too, since it's been 10 years and the game is still geared towards people who just cast a fireball than people who seek to ensure that it's going to be The Very Best fireball. Which does not mean that the latter can't or shouldn't enjoy the game, but they need to realise that their investment and expectations must be met with challenges which well exceed what a "Sunday Fireballer" would face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats a silly comparison PF1 casters are better blasters by design. One of the design goals was to make it so that one spell wasn't going to end a encounter my its lonesome.
That was the point of my post from that thread, yep. :)
So what? Our friend Goblet isn't just some random goblin. He is Globerg The Dragonkiller, Son of Grafgh, heir of Magluybyet, the Widowmaker, Blood of Fiends, which is why he is lvl 16, and not some random lvl 2 goblin sorcerer. That is why is totally appropriated and a great simulation that he punches everybody in the face. He has blood of fiends, and have killed dragons, after all.
So, again, that is not "worse simulation". It is a simulation of a different story. Which might not be the kind of story you want to tell, and that is fair.
Fair enough. I still disagree, because we've been used to telling "my" story since basically the original Dungeons & Dragons came out and now we are told that "your" story is the new paradigm and is as valid and always has been as valid as "my" story. But that's okay. I know I'm probably tilting at windmills here, but that won't stop me from going all Don Quijote in the hope of killing those giants.
No, and your comprasions and analyses are made from the point of view of somebody whose idea of playing the game is quite different from mine, as well as your benchmarks of what is "better". You've proved, time and time again, that you are an optimizer who takes pride in being The Very Best, you game with a table of people who share that approach and you judge everything from that POV.
That's fine, everybody has his or her way of enjoying the game, for me running a calculator across several books in order to ensure myself that my fireballs are The Very Best is an exercise in wasting your time, for you it's The Way It Was Meant To Be Played. I'm not out to show that your way of having fun is badwrong, I'm perhaps out to show that your way of playing the game is far from universal, baseline, typical or in any way what Paizo should be aiming for.
And I guess they've realised that too, since it's been 10 years and the game is still geared towards people who just cast a fireball than people who seek to ensure that it's going to be The Very Best fireball.
Sure, okay. I'm pretty sure everybody has slightly different playstyles. I like optimizing to a degree (though not by far as much as people who demand in their guides that you put a 7 into two dump stats, ugh). Other people play more casual. Both of those systems work with PF1E, though. They can become problematic if both are present in the same group, but that's the job of the GM to sort out.
I infer that you are trying to make the point that the system should prevent a situation where one player out-optimizes the rest of the group and hijacks the game for himself. But I'm pretty sure that PF2E will miss that mark as well, as there already are options which are significantly worse than other options you could take.
Well I kind of want to improve on bad options through the play test myself.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
but that's the job of the GM to sort out
Aaaand this is the crux of our disagreements: for you, it's the job of the GM to sort that out. For me, the game system should ensure that the table doesn't end up with that weird feeling when the GM has to go out to provide meaningful challenges for a group with varied approaches to optimising.
In fact, and here I speak from experience, it becomes increasingly difficult in PF1, since you either provide "baseline" challenges aimed at casual players and thus leave the optimizers to trivialise encounters (and feel like they're playing Easy Mode) or you provide "NewGame++" challenges leaving the optimizers thrilled but casuals strained.
In either situation, you provoke uneasiness and conflict within the group, since in either situation both types of players feel punished for sitting at the table with the other type. Heck, I've have had a married couple argue because he was turbo-optimizing and she was just enjoying the story and rolling dice.
You can try to do something that's middle of the road, but that's incredibly difficult to land well and honestly, if I am to, apart from running the story, NPCs, managing the game world, handling various personalities, to also ensure that Mr. Conjurer Wizard with 10 summons in round 1 feels just as good as Ms. Rogue/Cavalier - I'd rather prefer the game to handle that for me by ensuring that all options land within some predictable zone and that the system both prevents casuals from picking Power Attack for a Wizard AND preventing the Sorcerer from twinking his fireballs to a point which wasn't anticipated by authors of Bestiaries.
I'm all for variety of options and for rewarding investment made in choosing the options, but not the insanely swingy level PF1 is at right now, with an insurmountable difference between PC built with little attention to optimisations and full on "I've read all the guides" approach.
This is what I will be looking for in my playtests - since I will run two groups, one of total newbies and one mixed, including total newbies, so-so experienced players and Mr. Conjurer Wizard. I'll have to make sure that the second group will be aware that Mr. CW is set loose to try and break the system :D
Again, differing philosophies and none of them desevers words such as "hate", but I'm going to fight for my vision since, well, that's one thing I am entitled to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but that's the job of the GM to sort outAaaand this is the crux of our disagreements: for you, it's the job of the GM to sort that out. For me, the game system should ensure that the table doesn't end up with that weird feeling when the GM has to go out to provide meaningful challenges for a group with varied approaches to optimising.
In fact, and here I speak from experience, it becomes increasingly difficult in PF1, since you either provide "baseline" challenges aimed at casual players and thus leave the optimizers to trivialise encounters (and feel like they're playing Easy Mode) or you provide "NewGame++" challenges leaving the optimizers thrilled but casuals strained.
In either situation, you provoke uneasiness and conflict within the group, since in either situation both types of players feel punished for sitting at the table with the other type.
You can try to do something that's middle of the road, but that's incredibly difficult to land well and honestly, if I am to, apart from running the story, NPCs, managing the game world, handling various personalities, to also ensure that Mr. Conjurer Wizard with 10 summons in round 1 feels just as good as Ms. Rogue/Cavalier - I'd rather prefer the game to handle that for me by ensuring that all options land within some predictable zone and that the system both prevents casuals from picking Power Attack for a Wizard AND preventing the Sorcerer from twinking his fireballs to a point which wasn't anticipated by authors of Bestiaries.
This is what I will be looking for in my playtests - since I will run two groups, one of total newbies and one mixed, including total newbies, so-so experienced players and Mr. Conjurer Wizard. I'll have to make sure that the second group will be aware that Mr. CW is set loose to try and break the system :D
Again, differing philosophies and none of them desevers words such as "hate", but I'm going to fight for my vision since, well, that's one thing I am entitled to.
But of course. I hope we can both fight for our visions without, y'know, telling each other to go away. Or having celebrations because someone went away.
BTW, as I said in my last post, even the playtest is already including better and worse options wich people can take. I know the mathematical skeleton keeps everyone closer together by its very nature, but the optimizers will still build significantly better characters than Joe Casual. And that will get worse as time goes by and Paizo brings out new splatbooks. As it always does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. you guys actually seem like your working things out. Kind of a agree to disagree type thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah if you want good statistical evidence something is good or bad you need to go into it trying to prove its the opposite of what you think. Its not perfect but it will give more useful results.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I still disagree, because we've been used to telling "my" story since basically the original Dungeons & Dragons came out and now we are told that "your" story is the new paradigm and is as valid and always has been as valid as "my" story. But that's okay. I know I'm probably tilting at windmills here, but that won't stop me from going all Don Quijote in the hope of killing those giants.
oh, but I totally understand that. And I even support that, heartily. Not only you have every damn right to tell the story you want, you are the final judge in your tastes, and have every right to like or not like other story telling.
My only point is that PF2 is not "poor at simulating stories". It is just simulating a different kind of stories. In PF2 paradigm,our goblin friend kills 20 guards with his bare hands because he is lvl 16. He can survive fires that melt steel. He can survive poisons, and being hit by a colossal creature 40 ton Warhammer and survive. So 20 low level guards are not a problem for him, because he is nigh inmortal, and a damn superhero.
PF1 just tries to tell a different story. A story where our goblin friend CAN survive steel melting fire, and poison, and falling off a cliff, and being hit by 40 ton hammers, but can't defeat 20 guards by himself. And that is totally fair too. It is a story worth telling. Just a different one
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, as I said in my last post, even the playtest is already including better and worse options wich people can take. I know the mathematical skeleton keeps everyone closer together by its very nature, but the optimizers will still build significantly better characters than Joe Casual. And that will get worse as time goes by and Paizo brings out new splatbooks. As it always does.
Let's try to stamp them out, then? And ensure that Paizo slows down the rate of splat output AND keeps a little more oversight so that emergency force spheres don't happen? For the fact I am confident that across its 10 years of existence Pathfinder has done a much better job at ensuring that we're not looking at 3.5 levels of Truenamer vs. Divine Metamagic + Nightsticks + Persistent Spell range of discrepancy. Sure, there were Sacred Geometries along the way, but I've have had much less of a headache with PF games I ran than I have had with my late 3.5 games.
This is our chance. Best done through surveys, because if you fill them out, that means you actually care to improve things and didn't just came here to take revenge for that permaban 8 years ago. And before you get your sauerkraut boiling - I am not refering to you, I know that you'll play the test and fill the surveys (and that you didn't get permabanned). You're German after all, you guys love filling out forms and questionnaires :P
Ars Magica, Gurps, Rolemaster, Exalted, some modifications of Runequest, and a few other games extant at the time handle high fantasy and are more simulationist than any version of D&D. Turns out when they were suggested that people desiring simulationism didn't want that much simulation after all, just the exact amount present in D&D 3.x/PF.
You gotta find a mix which suits you best. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try to stamp them out, then? And ensure that Paizo slows down the rate of splat output AND keeps a little more oversight so that emergency force spheres don't happen? For the fact I am confident that across its 10 years of existence Pathfinder has done a much better job at ensuring that we're not looking at 3.5 levels of Truenamer vs. Divine Metamagic + Nightsticks + Persistent Spell range of discrepancy. Sure, there were Sacred Geometries along the way, but I've have had much less of a headache with PF games I ran than I have had with my late 3.5 games.
This is our chance. Best done through surveys, because if you fill them out, that means you actually care to improve things and didn't just came here to take revenge for that permaban 8 years ago. And before you get your sauerkraut boiling - I am not refering to you, I know that you'll play the test and fill the surveys (and that you didn't get permabanned). You're German after all, you guys love filling out forms and questionnaires :P
Since I never got a permaban (I think Sean K. Reynolds banned me for a few days some years ago and it was for b%$*&~## reasons ^^), I know you're not referring to me. :p
And, yeah, let's ensure that they don't release a Terrible Remorse or Divine Protection ever again. I'm pretty sure you are out of luck on them releasing splatbooks quickly, though, since that's a good part where they make money.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, yeah, Raistlin being super good at magic but weak at fighting in melee is simulationism, because it fits the paradigm of "smart at mathematics, but weak at sports" person we know of in the real world.
That’s a stereotype, not a paradigm. Being fit has no correlation to mental ability, other than that if you’re healthier in one aspect you tend to have a better well being in the other.
Intelligence has no bearing on fitness and vice versa. It’s just a matter of dedication and time allotment if you want to increase, and depending on your circumstances you can readily achieve both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, to be fair, Gandalf is not really a fantasy Wizard, per se, but a Celestial/Angel/Demigod deal.That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all.As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...
sure. And a level 16 wizard in PF 2 is someone who can survive being submerged in molten lava. Which might not be as cool as being an angel, but it is pretty bad ass anyway. More badass than beating people in a tavern brawl
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In therms of GNS Theory, Simulationism =! Realism. Simulationism is about simulating a genre or source material rather than any notions of "simulating realism." This is what makes a wildly different game system such as Fate also "simulationist" in how it often seeks to approach a variety of genres.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My daughter and I sat down last night with a printed character sheet and she decided to make a paladin.It went well at first, taking her through the various ability bits, the choosing feats for ancestry (elf). Despite the annoyances of jumping back and forth for the feats and overview, then off to spells to learn lay on hands (rather than be written in the class), working out the weapon property options for righteous ally, we were going well until we got to one of the class feat choices, which stated something along the lines of “lay of hands loses the manipulate trait”.
She looked at me and asked “what the hell does that even mean?”. No idea, probably something related to attacks of opportunity was my guess. I wasn’t even sure where to go looking.
There's a tension here between Paizo's publishing model: books and static PDFs, and the evolution of game design. The publishing model of books is really starting to result in a bad user experience, as the interconnected-sophistication of game frameworks evolves.
The issue is that PF2 is a highly object oriented system, to borrow a programming term. The same patterns repeat all over the place and elements are shared in all sorts of ways. This makes the system highly symmetric and efficient (and powerful, customisable etc) but makes reading it in a linear book format unpleasant and confusing as you have to look up things all over the place every 10 seconds. It's jarring, and a real turn off. And very hard to fix: there's no 'perfect structure, for the new CRB: the right structure depends on the reader and what they are doing at the time.
Books don't work that way.
But what works like that? Websites and apps. Websites have some massive advantages over books. Advantages that address some of the biggest (and legitimate) problems people are raising in this thread.
- The same 'object' (eg a feat, power, action etc) can be written once but shown all over the place easily. Eg: Powers can be shown both in a list of powers (alongside spells etc), but also on the class pages they are available to. There's no need to page flip. You can't do that in a book without printing it out twice in two parts of the book, creating a 900 page CRB.
- There's no page count limit. In fact, the notion of 'pages' and writing to fit a given page space no longer applies. The devs, knowing how important RAW is, have created a kind of PF 2 syntax for the playtest of traits, reactions, actions etc, that is great for RAW due to its precision, but makes for very dry reading. It feels in places more like reading the manual for your TV, not a game. This space constraint does not exist for a website: you have room both for the colourful flavour text that makes a new player thing 'hey cool i want that ability' as well as the detailed game syntax RAW that we use to apply the rules with precision.
- Errata documents don't need to exist: you update the site and everyone is up to date.
One of the smartest things WotC have done is create D&D Beyond. It's not even very good, but it benefits from all the advantages I described above. Every page has the right information on it, brought to you, you don't have to hunt for it. Each page is as long as it needs to be. And it's always up to date.
Paizo: have you ever considered a digital publication of PF2 alongside the book? Given the deeply interwoven structure of your new game, it could really improve the player experience. Clearly there's a business model there. I know I would subscribe to this.
And a question:
Some developer friends and I who love Pathfinder are seriously considering building an online structured data version of PF2 (as an SRD) to support everything I described above. Essentially an SRD, but not built as the existing SRD such as d20pfsrd, nethys etc, but rather a dynamic system that assembles pages on the fly based on what that page should contain. ie, no more page flipping, and pages designed around the users task, not the game structure.
We'd prefer it if you did this and made money from it, and got the maximum benefit. But failing that, we believe it can help gameplay and especially new players so much we feel compelled to make it happen.
So to this end: will PF2 continue to retain its openness to 3rd parties publishing the SRD online, d20pfsrd and nethys-style? What are the implications given the Golarion content showing up in the CRB? And more broadly, have you considered a D&D beyond type digital product, and if so, what are you current thoughts on it?
Ars Magica, Gurps, Rolemaster, Exalted, some modifications of Runequest, and a few other games extant at the time handle high fantasy and are more simulationist than any version of D&D. Turns out when they were suggested that people desiring simulationism didn't want that much simulation after all, just the exact amount present in D&D 3.x/PF.You gotta find a mix which suits you best. :)
I'll admit, I adore Ars Magica, but even there, I find that not too many people enjoy my level of research and historical reference. Surprisingly, in a game that's labelled to be about magic, they want to sling magic at pretend problems, rather than deal with social consequences! Silly people :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.
Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.
Belgarion, for example, is not a weak nerd. Or Radagast. The protagonist of Wheel of Time, which I can't remember now, is not a book rat either. Constantine, from DC comics. Shaman, from Marvel. The guys from Full Metal Alchemists. The protagonist of Elenium. The sorcerers of The Black Company. Teclis, Malekith or Nagash in Warhammer. Elric of Melnibone. Chandra, Jace or almost any of the planes walkers in MtG.
There are a lot of types of wizards, sorcerers, witches and warlocks, once you look at fantasy as a whole.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.Belgarion, for example, is not a weak nerd. Or Radagast. The protagonist of Wheel of Time, which I can't remember now, is not a book rat either. Constantine, from DC comics. Shaman, from Marvel. The guys from Full Metal Alchemists. The protagonist of Elenium. The sorcerers of The Black Company. Teclis, Malekith or Nagash in Warhammer. Elric of Melnibone. Chandra, Jace or almost any of the planes walkers in MtG.
There are a lot of types of wizards, sorcerers, witches and warlocks, once you look at fantasy as a whole.
Vidmaster from Vidmaster7
Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.Belgarion, for example, is not a weak nerd. Or Radagast. The protagonist of Wheel of Time, which I can't remember now, is not a book rat either. Constantine, from DC comics. Shaman, from Marvel. The guys from Full Metal Alchemists. The protagonist of Elenium. The sorcerers of The Black Company. Teclis, Malekith or Nagash in Warhammer. Elric of Melnibone. Chandra, Jace or almost any of the planes walkers in MtG.
There are a lot of types of wizards, sorcerers, witches and warlocks, once you look at fantasy as a whole.
Even in the old Conan novels, wizard types were more often than not supernaturally fast and tough. Not usually quite as strong as the beefed up uberbarbarian and not as dangerous as they would be at a distance given preparation, but still not exactly a pushover. A hell of a lot of mages died via surprise longsword to the back type attacks or from a plot mcguffin. In fact, I can only remember a single Conan story with a magic wielding adversary that went down easily in a fair fight, and that one was a relative nobody who turned and ran instead of standing and using his magic slowing shield thingy to render himself virtually impervious to Conan's attacks. I can think of a lot more when Conan went into a straight up fight with a wizard on relatively equal footing and either barely survived or got his ass handed to him.
In fact, are there any good examples of magic wielders as massive physical pushovers in classic or very popular media. I am struggling to think of any.
Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.Belgarion, for example, is not a weak nerd. Or Radagast. The protagonist of Wheel of Time, which I can't remember now, is not a book rat either. Constantine, from DC comics. Shaman, from Marvel. The guys from Full Metal Alchemists. The protagonist of Elenium. The sorcerers of The Black Company. Teclis, Malekith or Nagash in Warhammer. Elric of Melnibone. Chandra, Jace or almost any of the planes walkers in MtG.
There are a lot of types of wizards, sorcerers, witches and warlocks, once you look at fantasy as a whole.
Even in the old Conan novels, wizard types were more often than not supernaturally fast and tough. Not usually quite as strong as the beefed up uberbarbarian and not as dangerous as they would be at a distance given preparation, but still not exactly a pushover. A hell of a lot of mages died via surprise longsword to the back type attacks or from a plot mcguffin. In fact, I can only remember a single Conan story with a magic wielding adversary that went down easily in a fair fight, and that one was a relative nobody who turned and ran instead of standing and using his magic slowing shield thingy to render himself virtually impervious to Conan's attacks. I can think of a lot more when Conan went into a straight up fight with a wizard on relatively equal footing and either barely survived or got his ass handed to him.
In fact, are there any good examples of magic wielders as massive physical pushovers in classic or very popular media. I am struggling to think of any.
Holy cow I haven't seen a snowblind post in ages. Like for real more then a year I think.
Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.Belgarion, for example, is not a weak nerd. Or Radagast. The protagonist of Wheel of Time, which I can't remember now, is not a book rat either. Constantine, from DC comics. Shaman, from Marvel. The guys from Full Metal Alchemists. The protagonist of Elenium. The sorcerers of The Black Company. Teclis, Malekith or Nagash in Warhammer. Elric of Melnibone. Chandra, Jace or almost any of the planes walkers in MtG.
There are a lot of types of wizards, sorcerers, witches and warlocks, once you look at fantasy as a whole.
Even in the old Conan novels, wizard types were more often than not supernaturally fast and tough. Not usually quite as strong as the beefed up uberbarbarian and not as dangerous as they would be at a distance given preparation, but still not exactly a pushover. A hell of a lot of mages died via surprise longsword to the back type attacks or from a plot mcguffin. In fact, I can only remember a single Conan story with a magic wielding adversary that went down easily in a fair fight, and that one was a relative nobody who turned and ran instead of standing and using his magic slowing shield thingy to render himself virtually impervious to Conan's attacks. I can think of a lot more when Conan went into a straight up fight with a wizard on relatively equal footing and either barely survived or got his ass handed to him.
In fact, are there any good examples of magic wielders as massive physical pushovers in classic or very popular media. I am struggling to think of any.
Yes, James Earl Jones isn't Arnold, but he is not a pushover either
Raistlin Majere, Pug, most wizard characters from D&D novels, Shmendrick, Rincewind. I probably overstated my case, though.
Sure, Harry Dresden comes to mind. But it's still the archetype you most encounter in fantasy fiction.The fictional archetype of the booky nerd wizard who sucks at athletics, however, is very much a thing in books and media. And that is what I am referencing here.It's a archetype, but by no means the only one.
Gandalf successfully grappling a balrog, giving it the grabbed condition, comes to mind too.
In fact, are there any good examples of magic wielders as massive physical pushovers in classic or very popular media. I am struggling to think of any.
Raistlin Majere from the Dragonlance books.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, are there any good examples of magic wielders as massive physical pushovers in classic or very popular media. I am struggling to think of any.
I just got quite a chuckle from imagining Dumbledore sans-magic, brawling barehanded in Diagon Alley against a dozen thugs.
(in this imagery, it's young Jackie Chan as the too-obvious stunt double with a barely attached beard no less)
De gustibus non est disputandum,