The Main Problem of PF2


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnight Anarch wrote:

This happens with every major edition. It always looks like a dumpster fire. There's always some edition war mongering. There is nothing new or extraordinary about this.

You are 100% correct. It's still...exhausting. :(

In fact, I think I might just see myself out of the playtest entirely, at least as far as the boards go. It just isn't worth wading through the grar.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
They might fail, they even should have a solid chance to fail, as to keep things exciting and risky. But they should not be gated away from that just because they entire party isn't skill monkeys.

This is key. But another key is also that the character who focuses on stealth should clearly shine.

I truly believe, based on precedent, that players will find making it too easy starts running thin after a few months.

I'm onboard with reworking the system, partly because it is widely recognized as an irksome thing to many, so clearly there is room for improvement. I'm also onboard because I want to play things a "new shiny" way after all these years.

But, that can be done without sacrificing archetypes. And making it simply easy for everyone is gated them into something worse than we have with 1E.

Ranting about every change is bad.
Being a lapdog approving of everything and upset over ever complaint is bad.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Dracovar wrote:

What I see playing out now on the Paizo boards is exactly what I saw on Wizards Boards when WotC released the dumpster fire that was 4e. Right down to the boosters and detractors, the tone of the posts, underlying bitterness and hope, etc. The seeds of an edition war have been sown, really.

This happens with every major edition. It always looks like a dumpster fire. There's always some edition war mongering. There is nothing new or extraordinary about this.

I don't think this is a particularly astute comment.

It *is* true that every edition change has "dumpster fires" of people screaming about the simple concept of change.

It is also true that you can find some edition warring in any edition change.

The divisions present can be siqnificantly different however. The roll out of 3E saw an overwhelming level of unity. People got FURIOUS about whether a fireball pea could go through an arrow slit. People got furious over all kinds of details. But they were battles over details among a very excited collective.

The roll out of 5E was similar. Of course there were people upset over the change from 4E. But the community was very positive, even while they were fighting over personal opinions on the details.

The build up to 4E, however, featured anger of the core conventions of the game. It was different and it felt different.
This feels closer to that then to 3E or 5E. (And I got my first "we don't need you as a player" today, something 4E was infamous for).

Now, the magnitude of split seems less and this is a playtest. So there is still PLENTY of room for optimism. But poo-pooing at discontent is something that should be avoided.


Ckorik wrote:
Well - to add this to the discussion - I'll be happy if PF2 means they allow the devs to answer the questions about PF1 without a company meeting - 3 roundtable discussions, several 5 hour dev meetings, and then a straw poll to decide if the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit is 10 or 15.

I think I'd prefer they get an actual rule person[s] that CAN answer rules questions without having to get every single person into one room to hash it out.

Asgetrion wrote:

And we known how much people like getting EVERYTHING out of something in PF1.

Well, I don't know which kind of campaigns don't involve *any* downtime (especially nights of drunken revelry) in inns or taverns, and think of all those long hours at campfires when the PCs probably do more than just stare in the flames while grunting at each other, right? ;)

I mean, seriously, don't PCs in your group ever "talk shop" or train with each other, sharing lore and secrets? I personally can't think of any other example besides a solo campaign set in the most remote part of the world with no friendly contacts... and that's about as extreme as it gets.

For me though I have to wonder: how much downtime do you need to enforce to have it make sense? How many days do you require the players mark off to justify all that learning?

'yes, I know you want to retrain but you haven't had any "nights of drunken revelry" so you need to take a few days off to keep up your skills...'

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Skystarlit1,

Oh mind, you said it Skystarlit1. Those are the points that have us all unhappy.
*I don't agree with every point and I do feel there should be more to the list, but its pretty much spot on.

On point 2. I'm playing in 5ed right now. The limit on the difference between someone trained in a skill and someone who is not, feels very unrealistic.
It breaks the suspension of disbelief, when a weak in strength character can move something that a clearly stronger character can't.

On point 6. I want to compare Skyrim and Dragon Age. Both are great RPGs, but you know why people still play Skyrim years later? (Other then mods)
Cos Skyrim don't force a backstory into the gameplay. You are whoever YOU want to be. You write your story!
*Both are CRPGs

It makes the story and your character come alive! Cos whatever you do, you earn it in someway. It becomes a living game, not just a number cruncher.

Should a game give some reward for a character's backstory? Yes
Should a game be heavy handed in enforcing backstory as part of a character and tied it to game mechanics? No! It pigeonhole a character into a certain role and don't allow a character to grow out of it (not organically atleast)

Once something is a game mechanic, people will compare them. Guides and players would start picking 1 over another for their game benefits.
*Look at Reactionary (+2 trait bonus on initiative checks). Its a trait you will find on more characters then any other trait in PFS. Everyone's character seems to have been bullied as a child. Did people pick that for backstory? Or for its mechanical benefits?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:

ALL OF THEM.

I'm sorry, I'm a 3.0/3.5/PF1 hardcore... And I know lately we (the old schoolers) have been most unhealpful... And angry... And yelling... But everyone should try to understand our perspective on PF2.

We are the fans that were in love with 3.0, and 3.5 just made things BETTER. When 4.0 dropped it was like someone had smeared a turd in a book and tried to get us to buy it... Then came Paizo. Our rescuers from the blight!

PF2 feels like a dagger in the back from a previous savior. I even preordered the books for PF2, excited to see what my favorite RPG company had come up with!

(...)

I'm another old-schooler, who has been playing RPGs since he was 8, and Pathfinder for several years. I loved 3E, I loved PF even more; I tried 5E and liked it initially, but eventually found it too flat.

Still, I disagree with you on... basically everything you said.

Quote:

1. Everything that we loved was thrown away.

A little bit too broad, don't you think?

Anyway, that's not what I feel.

Quote:

2. No skill points. I HATE THIS. H.A.T.E. I do not use this word often but in this instance it's accurate. This UNBALANCES the game. Do not let a maximum of 5 points be the difference between an untrained person and a master level rogues stealth! This is one character customization that cannot be gotten rid of! GIVE ME BACK MY POINTS! #1 SUPER COMPLAINT HERE. Change this now... please

This is a common complaint, and I will repeat once again that the numerical difference in the new design is not so important.

PF1 is a system where you can hyper-specialize and amass numerical bonuses to the point that you auto-succeed at tasks where your party members don't even have a slight chance. Many perceived that as a problem, so a solution was found. You may not like it and prefer the old system instead; that's ok, but please don't call it balanced.

Quote:
3. Actions... This was an interesting concept. This concept I think is a good one, but the way they mixed it with the spells and VS&M components I do not like. Making spell comments variable is a bad idea. Also STOP PICKING ON ARCANE CASTERS! Let the fighters b++&#, casters have their place...

That's funny, since arcane casters have always been dominating the game in mid-high levels, in every edition.

Quote:

4. Power levels in this are WAY off. Are you trying to turn PF2 into Exalted? Barbarians becoming dragons? Druid that become a T-rex? Freaking seriously guys? After beating down arcane spell casters?

So arcane casters should be able to transform into dragons and dinosaurs, but no others. Not even druids. Wizards have always been able to, but you didn't complain about them it seems.

The only thing I can say here is: LOL!

Quote:

5. Why oh why is the Bard just another arcane caster now? Bards have been getting the short end of the stick sense 1st ed, when it was a b!tch to even get to play one, then they just became b!tches, and now this?

Bards were arcane casters in PF1, and were considered by most a fine and balanced class. They are occult casters now. I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

Quote:

6. Do not make the characters role playing a core part of the mechanics. Having characters pick things that are part of their background that give them in game benefits like feats is just asking for people to be LESS involved and interested in their background and the role-playing elements of the game, NOT MORE. Your adding to the rapid growth of min-maxing mouth breathers around the table. STOP!

This may be the only point you make that I can agree to, to an extent. I still think that your concern is misplaced, since you are never forced to take a specific background thanks to the floating bonus. If you feel forced to take one instead of another because of a secondary stat, that's your choice of min-maxing over character backstory.


RafaelBraga wrote:

My pick on the problem is even more "fatal" than that.

Last week when i was compilating the informations of the previews i was thinking (i should have written it down on the many posts i was participating so i could recall it now) "Well, many abilities, ok, but aside from spells, were are the damage coming from? High level abilites are increasing utilities, aplying rider effects, but no true damage. Since your HP is increase dramaticly... were will the damage come from?"

Then i got my answer like searching the book... magic weapons.

But not just that... you damage is now in a essense a MULTIPLIER! So you not only is more dependant on magic weapons, but they are in essense your damage by level. So, its easier to think that youre a level 10 weapon looking for a level 10 adventurer to wield you and do some cool stuff while you do the real load of the fight.

Yeah, I do not dig the treadmill, the item bonus for weapon quality, damage multiple from magic weapons, and armour potency runes, so, the current house-rule my buddies and I are implementing, outside the playtest, is:

+Level is omitted.

Weapon Proficiency (weapon quality Item bonus is omitted):

Expert, +2 to hit/2 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Master, +5 to hit/4 x Weapon Damage.
Legendary, +8 to hit/6 x Weapon Damage Dice.

Armour Proficiency (potency runes are omitted):

Expert, +2.
Master, +5.
Legendary, +8.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A level 18 cleric in PF 1 is far more afraid of falling into a swimming pool than she is of encountering a CR 18 Shoggoth.

I'm happy to see that's been fixed.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ckorik wrote:

Well - to add this to the discussion - I'll be happy if PF2 means they allow the devs to answer the questions about PF1 without a company meeting - 3 roundtable discussions, several 5 hour dev meetings, and then a straw poll to decide if the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit is 10 or 15.

That is - I hope we can get a nice 'dev notes - not offical' area where they can just say 'this is how we do it - if you aren't happy with it - then do it your own way - but the only answer you get from us is this'.

And then clear out the FAQ queue.

I think this is a great idea. Or perhaps an account they could all log in to when providing unofficial “developer houserules”.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

I'm another old-schooler, who has been playing RPGs since he was 8, and Pathfinder for several years. I loved 3E, I loved PF even more; I tried 5E and liked it initially, but eventually found it too flat.
Still, I disagree with you on... basically everything you said.

Sorry to hear that, well let's take a look at what your think then.

Everything I liked was thrown away.

1.

Quote:

A little bit too broad, don't you think?

Anyway, that's not what I feel.

Not at all broad. I started exactly what I ment. The focus of this game seems to have shifted from role-playing into the realms of number-crunch-o-mania where everything is min-maxing your characters combat abilities. They attempted to streamline skills (and failed in my opinion) and bloated feats beyond comprehension. They cut down arcane casters, killed class abilities that use to be awesome and focused on bringing in new players. No awesome sideline classes made it into the book, just Alchemist (rolling eyes)

I stated exactly what I ment.
All my favorite things from PF1, ARE GONE.

Moving on...

No skill points.

Quote:

This is a common complaint, and I will repeat once again that the numerical difference in the new design is not so important.

PF1 is a system where you can hyper-specialize and amass numerical bonuses to the point that you auto-succeed at tasks where your party members don't even have a slight chance. Many perceived that as a problem, so a solution was found. You may not like it and prefer the old system instead; that's ok, but please don't call it balanced.

The old system at least made it possible for degrees of success and error and margins of sills to be more than 5... freaking... points...

And what is wrong with hyper-speculation of a skill? If a player wants to dump that many resources into a skill, or multiple, LET THEM. What I find day more detrimental to a game isn't having players auto-succeed in a silly balance check, but is incentivizing them to choose background stories by giving them in-game rewards!

The concept of 'eventually there is going to be a list of special actions that you can take for being skilled in this!' Is ridiculous. Nuts. If I want to hyper customize my skills, then that's what I want to do with PF1. At least that's more of an RP element, and mechanically more balanced than the stuff in PF2. Seriously? You throw stones at PF1 for balance when talking about PF2? Are yo blind?

I have YET to see a single thing in the new ed that actually encourages RP above crunch.

4. Your just a caster hater I see. Why is it that people can't appreciate that caters have their own checks and balances? I had this argument out years ago with a friend that boldly stated that a lvl 20 wizard (3.5 D&D) could kill any non-caster. It took me about a week to prove him wrong. If you would like I'm sure I can rebuild the character for you to see.

5... Okay then. Not worth the time. The RP element seems to be lost on you.

6. Now is where you offend me. I am MOSTLY a DM sir. My concern with my players feeling that they must build their character background from a list of pre-determined, run-of-the-mill, old soup CRUD is my concern. Keeping up with the Jones's, or simple competitiveness can lead players into bad character building methods. Good games start with good players. Good players make good characters. New players will be tempted as always to focus on the mechanics, being inexperienced with role-playing, building bad habits and bad future games. And if your players are given the option of being handed free candy, you think they won't opt for it?

REWARDING players for good RP is the JOB of the DM and should not be arbitrarily handled by a broken system made to reward cookie cutter characters that all choose the same background characteristics to make their characters crunchie.

I understand that Paizo is not purposefully trying to De-RP it's system. I know that they want to produce a good product that is balanced and appealing. My only problem is that in MY OPINION, that would require them cutting about 70% of the current book.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skystarlit1 wrote:


Not at all broad. I started exactly what I ment. The focus of this game seems to have shifted from role-playing into the realms of number-crunch-o-mania where everything is min-maxing your characters combat abilities. They attempted to streamline skills (and failed in my opinion) and bloated feats beyond comprehension. They cut down arcane casters, killed class abilities that use to be awesome and focused on bringing in new players. No awesome sideline classes made it into the book, just Alchemist (rolling eyes)

I stated exactly what I ment.
All my favorite things from PF1, ARE GONE.

Did you play a different version of pf1? There is not any more focus on crunch in pf2 then pf1, and if you think you couldnt minmax pf1 you clearly didnt visit the forums. Again, rather then being general please point out specifics. What elements are too crunchy that used to be flavorful. What feats are too 'bloated'. How are class abilities no good. Its not useful to speak so generally when your objective is to explain your position. List the feats, say why they are bad, give us a comparison of class abilities that were good and are not good now. That is literally what a playtest is for.

Quote:


Moving on...

No skill points
The old system at least made it possible for degrees of success and error and margins of sills to be more than 5... freaking... points...

There is a method to this madness. They are bounding the math. That is among one of the most popular aspects of 5e. And while you dont like it, it makes a lot of sense in terms of system design. Also, no the old system didnt allo for degrees of success. It was purely binary, you fail or you succeed. This is the first introduction of degrees of success (where succeeding or failing most checks by 10 changes the effect). Your complaint isn't based in reality or you mean something other then what you said. Also, the difference isnt 5 points. Because you are ingoring all the ways you can alter that number. You are taking it in isolation because its different and you liked what came before. Its fine you liked skill points. But the difference between a high level rogues acrobatics check and a bumbling fighter in full plate of the same level wont be 5. It will be far higher. Stats, equipment and other abilities will divide people who focus on a thing and those who dont by far more then 5.

Quote:


And what is wrong with hyper-speculation of a skill? If a player wants to dump that many resources into a skill, or multiple, LET THEM. What I find day more detrimental to a game isn't having players auto-succeed in a silly balance check, but is incentivizing them to choose background stories by giving them in-game rewards!

Then why do you like pathfinder? Abilities that come from character background are a staple of paizos work. Its how they tie pcs into their adventure path line. Its literally key to their flagship product. Traits are a big part of pf1. So....whats your point here?

I can tell you in my experience traits did WAY more for encouraging backgrounds and character development then they hurt it. Players who are inclined to roleplay still roleplayed, and those that struggle with it used it as a basis to do a little roleplaying and eventually get used to it.

Quote:


The concept of 'eventually there is going to be a list of special actions that you can take for being skilled in this!' Is ridiculous. Nuts. If I want to hyper customize my skills, then that's what I want to do with PF1. At least that's more of an RP element, and mechanically more balanced than the stuff in PF2. Seriously? You throw stones at PF1 for balance when talking about PF2? Are yo blind?

I have YET to see a single thing in the new ed that actually encourages RP above crunch.

What rule in pf1 does this? I think you have blinders on. There is basically nothing in the pathfinder rulebook or any dnd book that has really does this. Roleplaying has always been something you do around the rules, and with the right dm and group, no amount of codification interferes with that. Literally none. PF is crunchy as hell, it always has been, and i have played with roleplay groups, and with groups that play it like a board game. And the system had little to do with it. The latter would play fate like a board game too.

Quote:


4. Your just a caster hater I see. Why is it that people can't appreciate that caters have their own checks and balances? I had this argument out years ago with a friend that boldly stated that a lvl 20 wizard (3.5 D&D) could kill any non-caster. It took me about a week to prove him wrong. If you would like I'm sure I can rebuild the character for you to see.

This argument is as old as time at this point, but usually people are arguing past eachother. Being able to kill someone has nothing to do with the martial caster disparity. Narrative power is the issue. Not ability to do harm to things.

In regards to your original point. Have you playtest this? Do you actually have evidence the power levels are off? Show evidence, again that is something provable. Play an encounter with a barbarian turns into a dinosaur. What problems did it cause? How was that character superior in an unreasonable way to the rest of his party.

Quote:

5... Okay then. Not worth the time. The RP element seems to be lost on you.

So is your problem the terminology? That what used to be bardic performance is now a spell that requires the bard to perform? Because thats all it is. In PF1, inspire courage was for all intents and purposes magic. Heck it could be used to counterspell. It just came from a different source then the bards actual spells. Now its just called a spell that doesnt draw from the bards spell slots. This doesnt change the rp at all if you actually sit down and think about it.

Quote:

6. Now is where you offend me. I am MOSTLY a DM sir. My concern with my players feeling that they must build their character background from a list of pre-determined, run-of-the-mill, old soup CRUD is my concern. Keeping up with the Jones's, or simple competitiveness can lead players into bad character building methods. Good games start with good players. Good players make good characters. New players will be tempted as always to focus on the mechanics, being inexperienced with role-playing, building bad habits and bad future games. And if your players are given the option of being handed free candy, you think they won't opt for it?

So again, why did you like pf1? This isn't new. It has been a staple of pathfinder since before it was a game system. Background traits and campaign traits have ALWAYS been a thing for pathfinder. And they have been important. And there are some that have always been strictly better then others. So if this ruins character building and roleplaying how have you been having fun for the last 10 years?

Quote:

REWARDING players for good RP is the JOB of the DM and should not be arbitrarily handled by a broken system made to reward cookie cutter characters that all choose the same background characteristics to make their characters crunchie.

How does getting a feat from a background mean you as the dm cannot reward players for good roleplay? What exactly is stoping you? Because I choose Acrobat as my background does that mean i cant spend time and energy on fleshing out who my character is besides a circus performer? Is Dick Grayson JUST an acrobat? And you are again ignoring the fact that for lots of groups this will encourage more character development then they would have done. Groups that are not yours exist. Things like this help them. And nothing is stoping a 'good dm' from having players create their backgrounds and then creating new backgrounds or adapting existing ones to fit the characters. Again in pf1 i did this all the time, creating new traits for people if one didnt suit the character they had in mind. This isnt new, handle it like you have been for the last decade or more.

Quote:

I understand that Paizo is not purposefully trying to De-RP it's system. I know that they want to produce a good product that is balanced and appealing. My only problem is that in MY OPINION, that would require them cutting about 70% of the current book.

Since you havent mentioned 70% of the book, please mention it. There are lots of places for the game to be improved, participate rather then throwing your hands in the air. The reality is this version of the game is no more crunchy or anti rp then pf1. It is possible you had been ignoring elements of the original pathfinder. Which may be an issue for you, but that doesnt mean this is actually a change in focus. Pathfinder and 3.x in general has ALWAYS been crunchy as heck, and basically never had a single rule in the book that was about rp directly. Not one. Its always been up to us at our table to make that happen. That hasnt changed. You can rp a literal board game if you want to, and it can be fun. You can do the same with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Its not useful to speak so generally when your objective is to explain your position. List the feats, say why they are bad, give us a comparison of class abilities that were good and are not good now. That is literally what a playtest is for.

You want a step by step? A list? A complete breakdown with specifics of EXACTLY why I'm complaining?

Sure okay.

I'll be back in a couple days with my dissertation.
Don't forget you asked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Well - to add this to the discussion - I'll be happy if PF2 means they allow the devs to answer the questions about PF1 without a company meeting - 3 roundtable discussions, several 5 hour dev meetings, and then a straw poll to decide if the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit is 10 or 15.

That is - I hope we can get a nice 'dev notes - not offical' area where they can just say 'this is how we do it - if you aren't happy with it - then do it your own way - but the only answer you get from us is this'.

And then clear out the FAQ queue.

I think this is a great idea. Or perhaps an account they could all log in to when providing unofficial “developer houserules”.

Yep - then JJ could answer some of these without the wrath of (whoever) ;)

Honestly though I've advocated for a less formal GM advice type 'column/answer' whatever for a while - I'll be honest if there is disagreement I'd rather get 2 or 3 answers that show how everyone is right and good ways to implement the result than silence followed by an answer that twists over itself to make the words fit the result (in cases where it's obvious the intent didn't match the text... but the answer matched the intent).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Well - to add this to the discussion - I'll be happy if PF2 means they allow the devs to answer the questions about PF1 without a company meeting - 3 roundtable discussions, several 5 hour dev meetings, and then a straw poll to decide if the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit is 10 or 15.

You won't be the only one. Seeing FAQ threads unanswered for years after their product release (or be rejected as FAQ candidates), while Paizo seems hell bent on publishing new expansions with minimal testing (that make everything that much worse) has driven away several long term players in my group. They won't go to 5E (too simple), but Pathfinder has reached a point they consider unplayable without extreme frustration.

This is Paizo's big chance to make a fresh start with a product that might appeal to new players and grognards, without the baggage from earlier products. I can see Pathfinder dying a slow death if they screw it up, so we need to give the best feedback and testing we can, in the hope that it'll make a difference.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

see, I'll never understand that. You play with your group for years a system everyone likes. Then a book with new options gets published.

And suddenly the system you liked is 'unplayable'.

These are options. It's optional if you use the book or not.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like sorcerers should be able to heighten spells on the fly as part of being a spontaneous caster.

Also, has anyone else noticed that for fighters, as written Grace makes it impossible to use Two Weapon Flurry? I hope that gets addressed soon.

Also, can we get a two weapon fighting option for rogues? I'll take a slower progression than fighter because fighter should be the best at, well, fighting. I just want to play a twin dagger rogue and use that sweet, sweet accuracy from Grace.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fallyna wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Well - to add this to the discussion - I'll be happy if PF2 means they allow the devs to answer the questions about PF1 without a company meeting - 3 roundtable discussions, several 5 hour dev meetings, and then a straw poll to decide if the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit is 10 or 15.

You won't be the only one. Seeing FAQ threads unanswered for years after their product release (or be rejected as FAQ candidates), while Paizo seems hell bent on publishing new expansions with minimal testing (that make everything that much worse) has driven away several long term players in my group. They won't go to 5E (too simple), but Pathfinder has reached a point they consider unplayable without extreme frustration.

This is Paizo's big chance to make a fresh start with a product that might appeal to new players and grognards, without the baggage from earlier products. I can see Pathfinder dying a slow death if they screw it up, so we need to give the best feedback and testing we can, in the hope that it'll make a difference.

As grognard, I can say with certainty that this edition, as presented, does not appeal to my people.

... Which is not to say it without elements worth pilfering (Actions, proficiency [with tweaks to increase the bonus spread], and the new take on bardic music come to mind)


Skystarlit1 wrote:
(too long to quote)

Didn't mean to offend.

From your first post I got the idea that you were the kind of player who likes to outshine others making them irrelevant, which in PF is rather easy to do with hyper-specialized skills or simple arcane magic.
Why did I? Because you started saying that the new edition took away EVERYTHING that you liked and then complained twice about the nerf to arcane casters, while also complaining that other classes were getting something cool (actually I think Druids CAN transform into a t-rex in PF, or am I wrong?)
Then you reversed the thing on me calling me a caster-hater. I can understand why you did, but I'm not: I played a lot of casters, even a 'god' Arcanist (who didn't become so godly simply because that campain didn't get very far). I just think that letting full casters (not only arcane ones) dominate the narrative, more than combat, while imposing 'mundane only' to the others is totally unfair.
Do you like the fact that a mid-high level Wizard can trivialize encounters, hazards and other important plot points with a spell from her repertoire?
I don't want to go into details about the infamous caster/martial disparity, I'll just say that it's broadly recognized as one of the main problems of PF. If the developers nerfed most spells, they must have seen the same thing.

Frankly, I don't see how this edition discourages role-playing in favour of crunch. More than PF1e, I mean.
You cited backgrounds, and I told you that I could understand your concern there, but that ultimately I didn't agree because... I'll explain better.
A background now is just a vague idea that a player can of course expand; it does contribute to the "crunch" of the character because it just makes sense (being trained in Sailing Lore if you worked as a sailor is logical, for example). But it does it in a way that doesn't make a player choose one background instead of another because of the crunch! Unless that player is trying to min-max a secondary ability score.
Traits in PF1e did that instead, and were very often chosen because of their benefits! That's why things like Reactionary or even Fey Foundling were so common.

About the part on Bards, I honestly didn't understand what you wanted to say. What's wrong with them?

And finally, skills. Here I will quote:

Quote:

The old system at least made it possible for degrees of success and error and margins of sills to be more than 5... freaking... points...

And what is wrong with hyper-speculation of a skill? If a player wants to dump that many resources into a skill, or multiple, LET THEM. What I find day more detrimental to a game isn't having players auto-succeed in a silly balance check, but is incentivizing them to choose background stories by giving them in-game rewards!

The concept of 'eventually there is going to be a list of special actions that you can take for being skilled in this!' Is ridiculous. Nuts. If I want to hyper customize my skills, then that's what I want to do with PF1. At least that's more of an RP element, and mechanically more balanced than the stuff in PF2. Seriously? You throw stones at PF1 for balance when talking about PF2? Are yo blind?

You call me blind (which is not nice) and than you say that you consider a system, where you can have an enormous numerical difference between an hyper-specialized character and another equal-level who DID invest in that skill, to be balanced?

Then you talk again about backgrounds, where PF1e IS the system where the hyper-specialized character you like is definitely going to pick a trait that gives her that additional +1 in the skill she wants, and then try to make it fit in her backstory (if ever).
Still, as I said in another thread, I DO think that being a master or a legend in a skill doesn't seem to do enough with the current rules; for the lack of options, probably, but I even suggested giving a free reroll when facing lower-rank challenges.
But rejecting the system altogether and claiming that what we had was perfect? I don't agree, at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracovar wrote:


YMMV - Paizo took the risk of offering up an alternative product to a dissatisfied WotC customer base that hated the 4E offering. A product that offered a more familiar gaming experience. They lucked out and captured a large gaming demographic, and thrived as a result. Timing is everything.

Now, they are playing the role of WotC and offering up the unfamiliar - and I suspect a similar result awaits for them as for 4E. If I’m so inclined to ditch the 3.75 paradigm (if you will) then all contenders are going to be up for consideration, the most notable being 5E. I’m not so inclined to ditch PF1 - that dog still has a lot of hunt left in it.

This sums up my feelings perfectly. Thanks!

3.5 is my Holy Grail. If I'm going to be forced to give it up, D&D5e has the better support, larger community, and professionally published and managed games. G&S, AcqInc. WebDM, it's all for 5e. D&D is also more familiar to me overall since I come from 2e and 3e originally, so I already know the game worlds. I quit 4e because it was stupid, and I didn't return for 5e because I'm not super thrilled by the way they're handling high level play in general and spellcasters specifically. Looking at what I might get from a PF2e, I think I would either just stick with 3.x, or else move back to 5e. PF has to really wow me to get me to move. That's not going to be easy since I'm getting old and am more and more stuck in my ways. Kids today are likely to go with D&D anyways, due to branding, and the larger community. PF isn't like CoC or VamptM or anything, it doesn't break the mold enough to attract niche audiences. It's just trying to do what D&D is doing, and it doesn't do it well enough to survive in that market. My opinion anyways.

Starfinder is just capitalizing on the Star Wars revival, and capturing the sci-fi crowd that never really had a good home. Fantasy is a whole-different ball game though.


I also don't love PF2, but think it has potential to be extremely good depending on how this Playtest goes. Many people in this thread have pointed out some major issues, like dependency on Magic Weapons that I hadn't even noticed.

Anyways, I just came in to say I do not endorse Skystarlit1 representing me, as I disagree with most of his points.

There's many good threads in this forum if one wants to read legitimate critiques by concerned old-timers.


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

Personally I find all the salt of the 3.5 holy grail people mystifying. I love game systems and to expect something to exist frozen in amber forever is just.. baffling to me. How many regurgitated books can they make?

As far as the new system is concerned I really like everything ive seen so far. I was on the fence about the skill system and removal of levels but to be honest now that Ive read it. Im warming up to it and looking forward to seeing it in action on the table top.

In someways its unfortunate that the playtest is as open as it is. While it no doubt will refine the game I feel like there is a large crown hell bent on keeping the game from innovating in anyway. Hell I went all in on purchasing the Play test stuff for this reason alone. I liked the majority of what I saw and expect to see what I love about the new system gutted.

This way I can at least preserve the original intent of the new system or piece together the best of both versions. Hopefully cooler heads prevail though and what comes out of this is a great innovative refreshing game that's not just 3.75 rehashed for the ninth time but this time with a rarity system..


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My group took a look at the PF2 rules over the weekend.

The reasons varied, but none of us enjoyed them.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

Locking this thread while it is in review.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Update: This thread will be unlocked. Some posts were left because the resulting conversation showed the capacity for understanding and accepting the opinions of others' even if we disagree that we'd like to see on our forum. No one should feel, or make others feel, that they are unwelcome to the conversation.

Do not insult the intelligence of, or otherwise demean or dismiss any member of our community. This is attacking the person for their ideas and is unacceptable. Please remember not to perpetuate an off-topic tangent or any other behavior damaging to the tone of the thread. While providing Playtest feedback, please remember to abide by community guildelines, as well as the advice for being heard laid out in this thread.

Profanity is not allowed on our forums. The substitution of alternative characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:

A level 18 cleric in PF 1 is far more afraid of falling into a swimming pool than she is of encountering a CR 18 Shoggoth.

I'm happy to see that's been fixed.

Spellcaster. You mean to tell me they aren't prepared all the time for everything that might happen as per community understanding of spell casters?

As for PF2..., well if you leave it at just Trained you seem to average out at maybe under or over 50% success at Trivial and Low. More or less depending on factors such as armor.

So cool, that Cleric doesn't auto drown because it's isn't a locked skill(Cough, Why not take a Trait that gives Swim in PF1, oh right power gaming, doesn't come up, etc, Cough).

But at the same time, one can argue that they don't need to jump in to save you.

Mind you, this is all without taking into account the Ordinary task. If not under any hurry your DC to beat for swimming is 5-6. A Mighty 13 if swimming in the ocean during a storm.

So even a Trained character can swim no problem. PF1 doesn't have that right? Err.., what is taking 10?

To me at best, this is just a Foolproof change. Not so everyone can do it but so everyone can try. At worst, this changes little other than auto drowning and death by failed climbing.

Either players will still let the expert go do the skill, or the expert doesn't feel like they've advanced too much in a skill they wanted to focus on.

Now I could be wrong and this all works out very well. But the only way to tell how this system will play with the community is to wait and see.


Hythlodeus wrote:

see, I'll never understand that. You play with your group for years a system everyone likes. Then a book with new options gets published.

And suddenly the system you liked is 'unplayable'.

These are options. It's optional if you use the book or not.

If only it were that simple.

One of the biggest problems is that the options start showing up in all the subsequently published material. If I buy an adventure that has, say, an enemy built as a member of a new class, I can either:

1. Start using the options (which means having to purchase and understand them); or
2. Rebuild the NPC from scratch, which defeats much of the purpose of buying published material in the first place.

Neither one is ideal.

Some of us aren't looking for character building to be an ever evolving meta-game. That being said, this probably isn't a discussion for this thread. (Besides, all signs point to the rapid proliferation of options being unchanged in 2E. That's kinda one of the things for which Paizo has become known.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


One of the biggest problems is that the options start showing up in all the subsequently published material. If I buy an adventure that has, say, an enemy built as a member of a new class, I can either:

1. Start using the options (which means having to purchase and understand them)

or you could go online and look the class up for free.

And most of the time you don't even have to. just specific class features or spells.

And honestly, I wouldn't call playing a NPC for an encounter with a couple of levels of, let's say Oracle or Vigilante or Spiritualist 'start using the options'. You're just playing an NPC with an unusual powerset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:


Quote:
Its not useful to speak so generally when your objective is to explain your position. List the feats, say why they are bad, give us a comparison of class abilities that were good and are not good now. That is literally what a playtest is for.

You want a step by step? A list? A complete breakdown with specifics of EXACTLY why I'm complaining?

Sure okay.

I'll be back in a couple days with my dissertation.
Don't forget you asked.

I'll actually wait around to see this I think. Please post it somewhere obvious and bump it a few times in case it starts getting lost. Here and/or an original thread.

Seriously though your original post and subsequent responses are highly emotional, although I understand and agree that this IS an emotional subject for some older players, myself included. You have to try and remain calm, and provide constructive feedback when and where possible.

Something being "Not Fun" IS constructive criticism. It does not have to articulated beyond minor explanations of what is found to be not fun, and possibly what in comparison you have fun doing. Fun is subjective, but ALL games generally trade in the currency of fun. If people aren't having fun, it doesn't matter how mathematically perfect your game is. If possible, we should all endeavor to PLAY with the game before we call it not fun, but visceral first impressions create bias, bias flavors perception, and perception is reality for many people. This fact can not be ignored. We are not robots, or Vulcans, we are people and our emotions and biases are a part of what makes us like what we like.

I for instance, also really, really like the 3.5 skill system, but not because it creates large differences between people who invest in it and people who don't (although I obviously believe investment in a skill should be rewarded, I don't think you should be able to sneak so well that your legendary sneaking skill all of sudden effectively makes you invisible and silent and able to walk right in front of alert palace guards in the open and in broad daylight). I like the skill system because I am a fiddly person who like to tinker on stuff, because 1 point here verses 1 point there makes a big difference in my head. I'm the guy who spends hours playing with the old WoW talent calculators. I make characters on my computer who never see the light of day at someone's table. I find that stuff fun. Granted I like to actually play too, but I usually play the same old tired characters over and over when I do, interestingly enough, because I find that fun. I will rehash my beloved arcane spellcasters over and over and over until I quit forever, because that's what I like to do, because I don't need some unique character concepts that are unique and special snowflakes that no one has ever thought of before, because that's not why I play.

I play to live out a fantasy of the one thing I could never be IRL, a magic wielding engine of destruction. Every time I reinvent my mage, I do weird little fiddly things to it, but its the same character, the same personality, and I'm attached to it, because IT'S MY AVATAR IN THE GAMEWORLD. It is my expression of what I want to be. My mage might be a demon blasting blaster arcanist one game, or a demon summoning occultist the next, or a demon blasting abjurationist in yet another, or an alien banishing abjurationist with some CoC vibes, or an undead blasting blaster in another game, or an undead calling wizard with a small splash in divine magic or whatever. I literally never get tired of arcane casters. I only don't play them when someone else wants to play one, and then I'm usually a cleric or paladin, because thats the other major fantasy I enjoy. If I absolutely have to, because a DM is pleading with us to play a low magic setting, then I usually play an archer ranger (because I'm former infantry and my mind just doesn't wrap around the concept of fair-fighting and melee).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Good LORD seriously?

Since the 2E announcement, I've tried to maintain a conciliatory tone; I've tried to respect everyone's opinion. Hell, I'm still not sure how I feel about 2E myself.

But the grinding negativity, the incessant waling and gnashing of teeth...enough, already! There's a huge difference between offering suggestions for improvement and screaming your displeasure at the top of your lungs ad nauseam. Not only are you not helping, you're actively derailing meaningful conversations, because if you can't have the game you want, then NO ONE CAN.

It's basically scorched earth crap. Cut it out.

Agreed - it has reached near cartoon level - after a few passes, it becomes harder and harder to take anyone waving an "the end is nigh" sign frantically all that seriously.

Dark Archive

MerlinCross wrote:

*Shrug* I keep seeing "No down time" come up in PF1 before on the forums though in practice I haven't see it myself.

But no I don't see players trying to teach each other things. Why would they, they don't get anything out of it. Nothing in the rule book so sleep, eat, prepare and recover; move on. That's how it works right?

I still think that's how it's going to work in PF2.

Side note; I try to give out small buffs, abilities or items if they do go out of their way to talk with each other, NPCs, and training. Not much but I like to reward them myself, not have the book say they get it because "This is what they do, they do it right?".

In practice though I don't get to hand too many of those out.

That's fine; my group's style is a bit different and we see roleplaying and interaction more rewarding than combat, but tastes vary. And while we don't want to roleplay everything the characters do, our sessions often feature fireside conversations and PCs teaching each other small things (or sparring with weapons), occasionally in more in more detail and sometimes simply by noting something like "My bard shows the barbarian some common dancing moves and how to play some basic sounds on my pipes".

But to answer your question: why would characters teach each other things, such as lockpicking, tracking or survival? Because they want to stay alive, and learning helpful tricks and teaching them to their allies is ofter crucial to getting out of the dungeon together and in one piece! And they might also do it to pass time; after all, PC adventurers tend to spend a lot of time traveling through wilderness and dungeons.

So, again, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a barbarian to pick up at least some bits of history or religious lore during his adventuring career (or even dancing!). How about a PC who has never used a bow or any other missile weapon... should they get +0 on their attacks if they try to fire one for the first time? I think a certain level of abstraction is just fine for any RPG.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Working on my write up for my complete systemcomplaints. It's only in chapter 3 atm so give me a few days.

2. I am representing NO ONE but myself and my players here ChibiNyan, and it is SHE if you don't mind.

3. Call it scorched earth all you want but the truth of the matter as I see this system is that it is, if not entirely, at least nearly unplayable in its bloat, unnessicary rules complexity and... Again working on my breakdown. It's going to take a while. But yes. If a game is this unbalanced it IS a major problem. This is not a matter of tweaking broken parts, this is an engine overhaul.

4.AshVandal, thank you. I will endeavor to remain calm... But it is difficult as people like Megistone are more interested in flinging accusations of my play style instead of also remaining calm and discussing things... Though my instincts to sling mud in retaliation of perceived insults does not help to calm situations for sure. I will endeavor to control my temper.

5.Megistone:

If your DM allows the utter domination of the game by casters then that is your DM that is at fault, NOT the systems. There are always circumstances that can challenge a player, no matter the power levelor abilities he/she has. Perfect and obvious example. Psyonics in 3.5 were BROKEN. One mob: Psyon Killer. This is a overly simplified example, and there are much more creative ways to test your players skills and abilities and make every player feel needed. If you have problems with that in PF1 I lay that at the feet of a lazy DM.

Come to think of it that is another BIG issue in PF2. The ability to make a player feel like a monumental success at any level. There doesn't seem to be any way to make lower powered characters at all. The power creep in PF1 was bad, but at least you still had the capability to make and play mooks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:
4.AshVandal, thank you. I will endeavor to remain calm... But it is difficult as people like Megistone are more interested in flinging accusations of my play style instead of also remaining calm and discussing things... Though my instincts to sling mud in retaliation of perceived insults does not help to calm situations for sure. I will endeavor to control my temper.

Please quote an accusation I flinged at you. I explained what I thought when I first read your first post here, and why; and that was AFTER getting called a caster-hater and blind.

Well, actually no, don't borher quoting anything. I have no interest in continuing a conversation with you after this. Others will hopefully explain to you why a GM can't really challenge hypermaxed characters without utterly wiping out the rest of the group, or explicitly picking on him/her which quickly becomes boring and STILL steals the spotlight from the other players.
Complaints about this, and about full casters easily destroying the story, have been very common on these boards for years.
I'm off.


Megistone wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
4.AshVandal, thank you. I will endeavor to remain calm... But it is difficult as people like Megistone are more interested in flinging accusations of my play style instead of also remaining calm and discussing things... Though my instincts to sling mud in retaliation of perceived insults does not help to calm situations for sure. I will endeavor to control my temper.

Please quote an accusation I flinged at you. I explained what I thought when I first read your first post here, and why; and that was AFTER getting called a caster-hater and blind.

Well, actually no, don't borher quoting anything. I have no interest in continuing a conversation with you after this. Others will hopefully explain to you why a GM can't really challenge hypermaxed characters without utterly wiping out the rest of the group, or explicitly picking on him/her which quickly becomes boring and STILL steals the spotlight from the other players.
Complaints about this, and about full casters easily destroying the story, have been very common on these boards for years.
I'm off.

How can you possibly claim to not hate casters after this post?

It is entirely possible to challenge the creativity of the entire party at the same timewith a "OP" caster in the group. Fireball, okay reduce the field so that splash/aoe attacks need to be better thought out, dungeon perhaps? Monsters/bad guys with SR or magic resistance, DR, immunities etc... IN character motivations for actions or motivations to NOT act.

As for the remaining party, traps/puzzles for rogues and intelligent characters. A opportunity for the bard to play a big/desirable gig. A barbarians opportunity to regain his honor/homeland/whatever in a one-on-one. Rotating the spotlight is NOT hard. If your caster is getting all the attention your either not thinking through your combats enough and/or having too many of them... Or your DM is dating him/her.


MerlinCross wrote:


Mind you, this is all without taking into account the Ordinary task. If not under any hurry your DC to beat for swimming is 5-6. A Mighty 13 if swimming in the ocean during a storm.

So even a Trained character can swim no problem. PF1 doesn't have that right? Err.., what is taking 10?

Err...are you sure you read the list properly? I'm reading:

Swim in an ocean - level 1 task; Modifiers turbulent; Trivial at level 6
Swim in a stormy ocean - level 6 task; Modifiers severe storm; Trivial at level 13

Checking the numbers, the low DC for a level 1 is 12, which can become 14-18 depending on turbulence. Low DC for level 6 is 19, which can become 22-26.

That's quite a bit harder than you're representing it as.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For posterity, I dislike that using the medicine skill to stabilize someone has a chance of killing them, but punching them in the face will bring them to one hit point.

I find it amusing and realize it's an error, but it is officially on my 'disliked rules' list as of this moment.


Hythlodeus wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


One of the biggest problems is that the options start showing up in all the subsequently published material. If I buy an adventure that has, say, an enemy built as a member of a new class, I can either:

1. Start using the options (which means having to purchase and understand them)

or you could go online and look the class up for free.

And most of the time you don't even have to. just specific class features or spells.

And honestly, I wouldn't call playing a NPC for an encounter with a couple of levels of, let's say Oracle or Vigilante or Spiritualist 'start using the options'. You're just playing an NPC with an unusual powerset.

Agree to disagree.

For me personally, it's not about the money. I only mentioned it because I know for some people it is. It's about the time. To play a Oracle or Vigilante, I absolutely have to read and understand how the class works (or, assuming I'm not playing PFS, rebuild it as a cleric or rogue/fighter). I do not wish to spend the time to do either of these things, and either option absolutely represents a reduction in the utility of the product to me.

With all due respect, you appear to understand the issue just fine, you simply lack empathy. There's a difference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yes, the revolutionary approach has not gone down so well in the past.
That's true, 3.0/3.5 was a total disaster after it was so different from 2e. No wonder WotC shelved them so quickly.

The only total disaster for D&D was 4e.

3.0 had many problems, yes but it was playable and 3.5 fixed most of them, making it a very viable product. All Pathfinder had to do was adding masterclass adventures to cater players. Then they bloated the product with useless rules that's why D&D 5e resurrected so strongly. People want to play, not to be drowned in rules. This playtest should aim to make pathfinder the perfect blend of simplicity and tactic. Much simpler than Pathfinder First Edition, but much more tactical than D&D 5e.

Also I disagree with the OP on the refactor for the skill system. I think it's a good perception became one with Initiative and I like the fact that skills are very generic, with feat skills that go deeper, I'm only afraid that they will end up bloating the whole thing by making hundreds of feats and feat skills which inevitably will create unbalance and broken exploits for munchkins


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dairian wrote:
As grognard, I can say with certainty that this edition, as presented, does not appeal to my people.

Your people?

Care to explain who "your people" are?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
4.AshVandal, thank you. I will endeavor to remain calm... But it is difficult as people like Megistone are more interested in flinging accusations of my play style instead of also remaining calm and discussing things... Though my instincts to sling mud in retaliation of perceived insults does not help to calm situations for sure. I will endeavor to control my temper.

Please quote an accusation I flinged at you. I explained what I thought when I first read your first post here, and why; and that was AFTER getting called a caster-hater and blind.

Well, actually no, don't borher quoting anything. I have no interest in continuing a conversation with you after this. Others will hopefully explain to you why a GM can't really challenge hypermaxed characters without utterly wiping out the rest of the group, or explicitly picking on him/her which quickly becomes boring and STILL steals the spotlight from the other players.
Complaints about this, and about full casters easily destroying the story, have been very common on these boards for years.
I'm off.

How can you possibly claim to not hate casters after this post?

It is entirely possible to challenge the creativity of the entire party at the same timewith a "OP" caster in the group. Fireball, okay reduce the field so that splash/aoe attacks need to be better thought out, dungeon perhaps? Monsters/bad guys with SR or magic resistance, DR, immunities etc... IN character motivations for actions or motivations to NOT act.

As for the remaining party, traps/puzzles for rogues and intelligent characters. A opportunity for the bard to play a big/desirable gig. A barbarians opportunity to regain his honor/homeland/whatever in a one-on-one. Rotating the spotlight is NOT hard. If your caster is getting all the attention your either not thinking through your combats enough and/or having too many of them... Or your DM is dating him/her.

The fact that you believe that fireball was a part of the "casters being OP" problem speaks volumes about how little you understand about the problem in the first place.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
4.AshVandal, thank you. I will endeavor to remain calm... But it is difficult as people like Megistone are more interested in flinging accusations of my play style instead of also remaining calm and discussing things... Though my instincts to sling mud in retaliation of perceived insults does not help to calm situations for sure. I will endeavor to control my temper.

Please quote an accusation I flinged at you. I explained what I thought when I first read your first post here, and why; and that was AFTER getting called a caster-hater and blind.

Well, actually no, don't borher quoting anything. I have no interest in continuing a conversation with you after this. Others will hopefully explain to you why a GM can't really challenge hypermaxed characters without utterly wiping out the rest of the group, or explicitly picking on him/her which quickly becomes boring and STILL steals the spotlight from the other players.
Complaints about this, and about full casters easily destroying the story, have been very common on these boards for years.
I'm off.

How can you possibly claim to not hate casters after this post?

It is entirely possible to challenge the creativity of the entire party at the same timewith a "OP" caster in the group. Fireball, okay reduce the field so that splash/aoe attacks need to be better thought out, dungeon perhaps? Monsters/bad guys with SR or magic resistance, DR, immunities etc... IN character motivations for actions or motivations to NOT act.

As for the remaining party, traps/puzzles for rogues and intelligent characters. A opportunity for the bard to play a big/desirable gig. A barbarians opportunity to regain his honor/homeland/whatever in a one-on-one. Rotating the spotlight is NOT hard. If your caster is getting all the attention your either not thinking through your combats enough and/or having too many of them... Or your DM is dating him/her.

The fact that you believe that...

Sometimes I really enjoy your "tough love".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I would love to see a thread about the playtest that didn't devolve into endless debates about every other edition of every game that ever existed, or drift into pseudo "realism" about the games industry when we have hardly any data :) For my own sanity, I think I need to click those little arrows to collapse the threads, and then jump back on in a few weeks once I've played a little :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jhaeman wrote:
I would love to see a thread about the playtest that didn't devolve into endless debates about every other edition of every game that ever existed, or drift into pseudo "realism" about the games industry when we have hardly any data :) For my own sanity, I think I need to click those little arrows to collapse the threads, and then jump back on in a few weeks once I've played a little :)

It’s an interesting trend (or seems so to me, anyhow) that when I talk to RPG fans about game design they nearly always relate everything to some preexisting system. When I speak with game designers they very rarely do (unless someone else in the conversation brings it up).

I fear we can waste many pixels arguing about whether “this bit” is like 4E’s such-and-such or whether “that bit” is just a version of 5E’s something-or-other and that ultimately the resolution of those debates doesn’t have any bearing on whether PF2 is fun or not.

As fans, we’re in a hopeless position to speculate on the marketing or other business-related issues. None of us have a remotely useful sample. What we should focus on is whether we enjoy PF2 and which specific bits we love or hate.


Cyouni wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Mind you, this is all without taking into account the Ordinary task. If not under any hurry your DC to beat for swimming is 5-6. A Mighty 13 if swimming in the ocean during a storm.

So even a Trained character can swim no problem. PF1 doesn't have that right? Err.., what is taking 10?

Err...are you sure you read the list properly? I'm reading:

Swim in an ocean - level 1 task; Modifiers turbulent; Trivial at level 6
Swim in a stormy ocean - level 6 task; Modifiers severe storm; Trivial at level 13

Checking the numbers, the low DC for a level 1 is 12, which can become 14-18 depending on turbulence. Low DC for level 6 is 19, which can become 22-26.

That's quite a bit harder than you're representing it as.

I will admit that is my mistake brought about by not reading it right and not due to Malice. So many years of reading charts like it and I just assumed when I saw the chart "Oh wait these are the DCs when not in trouble/hurry"

Also hold up, swimming in the ocean is Trivia by level 6? Wat

Exo-Guardians

MerlinCross wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Mind you, this is all without taking into account the Ordinary task. If not under any hurry your DC to beat for swimming is 5-6. A Mighty 13 if swimming in the ocean during a storm.

So even a Trained character can swim no problem. PF1 doesn't have that right? Err.., what is taking 10?

Err...are you sure you read the list properly? I'm reading:

Swim in an ocean - level 1 task; Modifiers turbulent; Trivial at level 6
Swim in a stormy ocean - level 6 task; Modifiers severe storm; Trivial at level 13

Checking the numbers, the low DC for a level 1 is 12, which can become 14-18 depending on turbulence. Low DC for level 6 is 19, which can become 22-26.

That's quite a bit harder than you're representing it as.

I will admit that is my mistake brought about by not reading it right and not due to Malice. So many years of reading charts like it and I just assumed when I saw the chart "Oh wait these are the DCs when not in trouble/hurry"

Also hold up, swimming in the ocean is Trivia by level 6? Wat

Considering the idea that anything with a Level is already far and away superior to anything without a level (Level 0 Human to Level 1 human sort of thing.) I don't find that surprising, Level 5 seems to be the cutoff for what an earth human can do with extreme training.


3E sold like gangbusters the problem was a lot of those sales were very front loaded IIRC and WoTC rushed 3.5 out the door again with the logic of "new core books 2000 all over again" only to have the market crash in 2004/Warcraft landing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:


This is playtest after all, it's not the final product. It would be weird if we were just playtesting minor changes.

Yeah I haven't actually played the playtest rules yet but what I've read and seeing the comments here leads me to believe PF2 needs an overhaul. But I doubt that's what's going to happen in the end.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:


BTW, I just remembered a gaming system which also did a drastic change from one edition to another and which did not go nearly as well as 2nd Ed -> 3rd Ed.

And that is Vampire: The Masquerade to Vampire: The Requiem (and the other affected WoD games from that edition change). Food for thought how radical change can not always lead to desired results.

I think it's also important to remember something that really made the 2E -> 3E migration doable.

The Conversion Guide.

You see, I'd ported old characters from White Box to Advanced D&D. I'd ported characters from 1st Ed to 2nd Edition. Each time, the character still had the look and feel of what I expected from that character. Spells and their effects were similar (sure, there were tweaks, but the essence of the spells remained).

Going from 2nd to 3rd was more jarring - BUT - here's that Conversion Guide to help port the character over. And when you were done? You still had the look and feel. Spells still worked in a similar way (without too much nerfing). Skills and magic item creation was distinctly new, for sure, but the CORE of what made my characters tick? That core was there. I could SEE it. These were still my characters. A campaign can still continue forward with enough verisimilitude despite changes to the system. Sort of like a program that runs fine on Windows XP can still run on a newer OS.

In comparison the move from 3.0 to 3.5 was negligible, as was the move from 3.5 to Pathfinder. My characters were still recognizable. Spells still worked pretty much as they always have.

But wait! What about 4th Edition? Well, to me, nothing looked the same. My characters didn't seem like the same characters as before. The game didn't feel the same. And thus, the move to Pathfinder was an easy no-brainer for myself and the group I was gaming with.

So - here's the Pathfinder 2E playtest. Can I convert my old characters? Erm, no handy guide. That's bad. Can I craft em from scratch? Hmmnn, they don't really seem the same anymore. I don't recognize them as DnD/Pathfinder characters. Nor do I recognize the massive changes to spells as being in line with my expectations for what DnD should be.

I've run a persistent world of my own for decades, through various editions, but things have always been recognizable. A system that messes with that is going to be problematic. 4th Edition did precisely that and was a non-starter as a result. Now PF2 looks to do likewise.

Some sort of Conversion Guide to help make PF2 more backward compatible with PF1 would be really, really useful. But I don't see PF2 as being close enough to PF1 to facilitate such a thing. Which really means that PF2 is a distinct enough departure from 3.0/3.5/PF1 that it will likely lose me. At least for my campaign.

It's a different game. Just like 4E was.

Too bad Paizo didn't invest more in it's Beginner Box. THAT was a slicker, easier version of PF that my 7 year old could pick up, yet, you can still migrate that into full PF down the road. Your BB Character is still going to look the same, but more options present themselves.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dracovar wrote:
magnuskn wrote:


BTW, I just remembered a gaming system which also did a drastic change from one edition to another and which did not go nearly as well as 2nd Ed -> 3rd Ed.

And that is Vampire: The Masquerade to Vampire: The Requiem (and the other affected WoD games from that edition change). Food for thought how radical change can not always lead to desired results.

I think it's also important to remember something that really made the 2E -> 3E migration doable.

The Conversion Guide.

Out of curiosity, did you ever fiddle with moving those characters from PF to Starfinder? There was a small conversion guide placed in the back of the core rulebook, and it might be a useful reference for Paizo as a guide for what kind of changes could work and what wouldn't. Doubly so if you can maintain the feel while transitioning to a science-fiction setting.

151 to 200 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / The Main Problem of PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.