The Main Problem of PF2


General Discussion

251 to 300 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:

So wait... Base movement speed really doesn't mean what it use to mean... That would equate to a level 1 human fighter in armour moving less than half (45ft) the speed that his Elven ranger companion (90ft)...

Seriously? Damb

Yeah, completely incredible. How do they dare to do that? What an awful game design. Totally unlike in PF1, where a lvl1 fighter in armour would move 40, compared to a barbarian moving 80.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:


In PF1 the difference can be substantial!
SHOULD be ABLE to be substantial.
Okey, what about... no?

No? No is neither an answer or a reasoned argument, nor even a sentence...

No because why? Because you feel that your character is getting the shortend end of the stick because he put less into a skill the rogue is going to be better at?

No because there shouldn't be a way, without magic items, to differentiate between characters of similar ability scores and level in what sills they would be talented at?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:

So wait... Base movement speed really doesn't mean what it use to mean... That would equate to a level 1 human fighter in armour moving less than half (45ft) the speed that his Elven ranger companion (90ft)...

Seriously? Damb

Yeah, completely incredible. How do they dare to do that? What an awful game design. Totally unlike in PF1, where a lvl1 fighter in armour would move 40, compared to a barbarian moving 80.

That is a completely unfair assessment!

The barbarian and monk have, and are ment to have, fast movement abilities!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:


In PF1 the difference can be substantial!
SHOULD be ABLE to be substantial.
Okey, what about... no?

No? No is neither an answer or a reasoned argument.

No because why? Because you feel that your character is getting the shortend end of the stick because he put less into a skill the rogue is going to be better at?

No because there shouldn't be a way, without magic items, to differentiate between characters of similar ability scores and level in what sills they would be talented at?

You said it "SHOULD" be substantial. That's your personal opinion, stated like a fact.

So I did the same, and stated my personal opinion like a fact.

My opinion is "No".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:

So wait... Base movement speed really doesn't mean what it use to mean... That would equate to a level 1 human fighter in armour moving less than half (45ft) the speed that his Elven ranger companion (90ft)...

Seriously? Damb

Yeah, completely incredible. How do they dare to do that? What an awful game design. Totally unlike in PF1, where a lvl1 fighter in armour would move 40, compared to a barbarian moving 80.

That is a completely unfair assessment!

The barbarian and monk have, and are ment to have, fast movement abilities!

LOL.

I have to admit, this one was really funny.


Okay so your saying the degrees of success for skills from one character class to another are ment to be made mostly of feats and magic items instead of points.

And that heavy armour users are ment to be left behind.

Is that right or no?


No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the game should not have a math that completely breaks itself at mid to high levels because the ever-growing bonuses to everything makes everyone who is not specialized totally irrelevant, and I'm saying you are overreacting to things in a really funny way, like saying heavy armor users are "being left behind" because they now move 45 feet per round instead of 40 (which is, you know, an improvement) and other characters move double that (which happened too in PF1).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
ENHenry wrote:

Although there's been much dissatisfaction, and some people have posted they don't like the feel of it, the last time I read the thread, people who have so far actually used it in-game and posted there haven't run into mechanical problems with it.

so, just because Resonance is mechanically sound, I have to like it? It can have no mechanical problems but still be a wy to clunkily solve problems that aren't there in most games outside PFS
How do you know what happen in most games outside of PFS? Did you do a survey among most players in the world? Or is that just a generalization of your own experience?

When the player base splits and half leave for other game systems, as happened with 4e and the creation of Pathfinder, you can continue to sit there and blame it on everyone else's generalizations.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and anyone with even a basic familiarity the Pathfinder's history can see events are already repeating themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and anyone with even a basic familiarity the Pathfinder's history

can see events are already repeating themselves.

I have more than "a basic familiarity" with Pathfinder's history, and I don't agree that the outcome of this transition is a foregone conclusion.

Since you have declared that an impossibility, I guess I don't exist. Heavy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

They did say a few months ago that they were trying out the most extreme versions of the rules changes that they were considering, so it is likely that they can and will walk back many of them. But which ones? That is where we need to speak up.

They would need to walk back the whole thing....a whole lot....to recapture my interest. The direction they are going does nothing for me. I don't like the attempts to "stream line" and simplify for a new generation that can't be bothered to learn the rules. It feels far to much like a video game to me, from what I'm seeing. I'm not even really interested in looking at the playtest when they release it after seeing the previews.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:
I don't like the attempts to "stream line" and simplify for a new generation that can't be bothered to learn the rules.

Oh no?

Well I don't like attempts to overly complicate a game to appeal to basement dwelling min-maxers who look down their noses at everyone else. Isn't generalizing fun?

Alternatively, we could all trying to refrain from insulting people because they don't share our preferences IN RPGs (radical, I know!).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Alternatively, we could all trying to refrain from insulting people because they don't share our preferences IN RPGs (radical, I know!).

Where's the fun in that?


Sgt. Ed Itionwarrior wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Alternatively, we could all trying to refrain from insulting people because they don't share our preferences IN RPGs (radical, I know!).
Where's the fun in that?

Socket puppet!


bugleyman wrote:
Socket puppet!

Am not!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Oh no?

Well I don't like attempts to overly complicate a game to appeal to basement dwelling min-maxers who look down their noses at everyone else. Isn't generalizing fun?

Alternatively, we could all trying to refrain from insulting people because they don't share our preferences IN RPGs (radical, I know!).

Interesting thing about insulting people, especially these days...as insults are highly subjective, you actually can't post anything without running the risk of insulting someone ;)

That said, I'm not overly concerned with it. I speak my opinion, and the reactions of others is all them ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
nighttree wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

They did say a few months ago that they were trying out the most extreme versions of the rules changes that they were considering, so it is likely that they can and will walk back many of them. But which ones? That is where we need to speak up.

They would need to walk back the whole thing....a whole lot....to recapture my interest. The direction they are going does nothing for me. I don't like the attempts to "stream line" and simplify for a new generation that can't be bothered to learn the rules. It feels far to much like a video game to me, from what I'm seeing. I'm not even really interested in looking at the playtest when they release it after seeing the previews.

The play test is out, yo!

You might even find it at your local game store.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kochiwa_Kurosake wrote:
I just downloaded the playtest package. I'm ticked that half orcs and half elves are an off shoot of humans instead of their own true race like in PF1. I would like to see this changed come final print if possible.

i for one am okay with it--especially since paizo's said it may open the door to play half-whatsits without any human involved at all at some point.

it's such a shame that ancestries are so weak and slow now.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the game should not have a math that completely breaks itself at mid to high levels because the ever-growing bonuses to everything makes everyone who is not specialized totally irrelevant, and I'm saying you are overreacting to things in a really funny way, like saying heavy armor users are "being left behind" because they now move 45 feet per round instead of 40 (which is, you know, an improvement) and other characters move double that (which happened too in PF1).

1. If you have a problem with the ever expanding bonuses, attack them, not base skill points.

2. Reducing the maximum movement speed of heavily armored characters by up to 30ft a round, especially after some races speeds already went down below what they should be I think (seriously? Halflings move at the same speed as humans but not Dwarves?) Is bunk.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Oh no?

Well I don't like attempts to overly complicate a game to appeal to basement dwelling min-maxers who look down their noses at everyone else. Isn't generalizing fun?

Alternatively, we could all trying to refrain from insulting people because they don't share our preferences IN RPGs (radical, I know!).

Interesting thing about insulting people, especially these days...as insults are highly subjective, you actually can't post anything without running the risk of insulting someone ;)

That said, I'm not overly concerned with it. I speak my opinion, and the reactions of others is all them ;)

The silliest thing is I can see you honestly didn't intend to insult him with that comment. He probably got insulted because it hit too close to home for him. Some people just don't want to bother actually learning anything complicated I guess.


magnuskn wrote:


My sorcerer produces a DC 25 Fireball (Sage bloodline, greater spell focus evocation, robe of arcane heritage to get the Sage bloodline lvl 15 power early) currently at 12th level. That will still scale up later on when I get Spell Perfection (Fireball) and higher intelligence modifiers.

Oh new bloodline that I need to play with! - I'm unsure that the dc increase is worth giving up 'my fireball is any energy' but I'll be honest - I am not 100% on my numbers. I do expect a hyper spec. build is going to outclass a 'generalist' caster - my point is that the generalist is alot closer (I think) than you are giving them credit for. I also get the feeling that encounter design is radically different (or will be) because monsters attack scales faster than PC armor - and throwing level=CR monsters is going to be a quick way to TPK a party.

New rules - new paradigm. I'm not trying to say it's the best thing ever - but I do see what they are *trying* to do - and I feel confident that if you limit yourself to the core rulebook the sorcerer and wizard that exist far outshine the core PF1 versions.

If I'm wrong - we'll find out in playtesting, but I haven't abandoned hope here - and while I do agree with you that many many spells were vastly over-nerfed - I am not quite on board with everything is broken.

Finally - please stop saying (not you Magnuskn but others) that wizards and sorcerers only get 3 spells per level - they get 4 - there is 1 extra spell per level per day you get from 'sources'. Yes it's a nerf without the 'bonus spells per day' but it's not 3, it's 4.


magnuskn wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Yep but the intensified empowered fireball is still a 3rd level spell DC in PF1 - and that means that even the giants are going to mostly save against it doing half damage - in PF2 they are most likely going to take a crit if they have crappy reflex saves because of the scaling.

My sorcerer produces a DC 25 Fireball (Sage bloodline, greater spell focus evocation, robe of arcane heritage to get the Sage bloodline lvl 15 power early) currently at 12th level. That will still scale up later on when I get Spell Perfection (Fireball) and higher intelligence modifiers.

Level appropiate giants have about a +7 to +9 save to reflex, something more nimble like an Valkyrie demon has a +13, with the "average" high reflex DC of monsters being +12 to +14 and some outliers in the way higher tiers (who have other weaknesses against Fortitude or Will). I'm not seeing how those monsters are going to "mostly" save against that DC 25. Spell Resistance is much more of a problem for me here. So, we are talking about a 10% - 50% chance to save against that fireball.

At this point I can choose to use a fourth level slot for 14d6 (average damage 49 HP) or a sixth level slot for 14d6 x 1,5 (average damage 73).

Meanwhile, my PF2 pendant would be looking at a fixed DC of 28 for 12d6 of damage (average damage 42), against saves of +21 (slime demon, including its conditional +1 vs spells) or +18 (Valkyrie). And he only can use his sixth level slots to cast those much less useful fireballs. The chance of a same level challenge to save against the PF2 lvl 12 sorcerer is 50% - 65%. Furthermore the PF2E Sorcerer will only crit against a same level challenge on a saving throw with a natural 1.

So, yeah. Not really seeing the advantage here for PF2E blasters.

Now, let's do some more comparisons, at 16th level. By now, my Fireball has an increased DC 29 save (+6 enhancer and lvl 16 stat up, plus...

I think this shows the advantages and negatives of PF1 at the same time.


MerlinCross wrote:
wakedown wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
At low levels, without putting feats purposefully into place to boost skills, ranks are all the low level character had to distinguish itself in skill from other characters.

Something I keep meaning to process.

Say you have two 2nd-level guard NPCs watching a hallway. Say they are nothing special, there's no feat investment into detecting/perceiving/guarding.

Take a 3rd-level halfling rogue who hasn't done anything significant to invest in Stealth feat-wise. He's picked it as best he can otherwise (picked it as a skill, or maxxed points in it).

How do PF1e and PF2e rate at the rogue's success? I can recall a Kingmaker adventure where our 3rd-level rogue was something like +14 (6 ranks, 4 Dex, 4 size) sneaking through some level 2 warriors at +0 (0 ranks, 10 Wisdom).

In PF2e, how different is this classic trope?

Rogue has +4 to his roll. He's at Expert and that's (Level +1) bonus. Now I actually went and looked at Stealth feats a day or two and I really couldn't find any boost to it. Nothing like a +2-3. And by level 3, you don't have any items to boost it either thanks to level gating. However let's give him the benifet of the doubt and say he or she has as high Dex as they can get away with. That'd be 18 I'm assuming. So grand total is 7.

Now let's take those NPCs, make them fighters. Because there's no Warrior yet.

Fighter is Expert in Perception and he's level 2. So that means he's at +3 for his Perception bonus by default. Now lets say this one knows what's up and knows how to do his job better, so Wis 12. And if we really want to complete that full transfer, there's 2 Guards.

So that Halfling Rogue has a +7 to beat two +4 rolls. Oh and is instantly seen if there's no cover so I hope the GM didn't just give you a straight hallway to try and sneak up to these guys.

Now I could be wrong. I'm willing to be wrong. It's a new system, I'm using questions like this to help test my own ability to math things out. I could...

I'm willing to actually comment on this. Remember that it's against Perception DC, so a single roll of +7 vs DC 14 for the two guards. If he's using Assurance, it'd get him a roll of 15, impossible to fail.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
ENHenry wrote:

Although there's been much dissatisfaction, and some people have posted they don't like the feel of it, the last time I read the thread, people who have so far actually used it in-game and posted there haven't run into mechanical problems with it.

so, just because Resonance is mechanically sound, I have to like it? It can have no mechanical problems but still be a wy to clunkily solve problems that aren't there in most games outside PFS
How do you know what happen in most games outside of PFS? Did you do a survey among most players in the world? Or is that just a generalization of your own experience?

When the player base splits and half leave for other game systems, as happened with 4e and the creation of Pathfinder, you can continue to sit there and blame it on everyone else's generalizations.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and anyone with even a basic familiarity the Pathfinder's history can see events are already repeating themselves.

or we could use 3rd edition or 5e as examples, instead of going back to that single situation in history that 4e was, and stop using that example as if it was the only possible outcome.

Or, at the very least, stop talking like if our own living experiences are general for everybody. Like that "it doesn't happen outside of PFS" crap


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:

2. Reducing the maximum movement speed of heavily armored characters by up to 30ft a round, especially after some races speeds already went down below what they should be I think (seriously? Halflings move at the same speed as humans but not Dwarves?) Is bunk.

You still seem to miss the point that armored characters move more now. It's 45 feet in a round, vs 40. It is 30 feet and attack, vs 20 feet and attack. They can even move, attack, and move again, right out of the gate, no feats involved.

There are 3 actions per round, that's why movement was reduced. A normal character now moves 25 x3 instead of 30 x2. If you think that's reducing mobility, what else can I say... just stop reading the book and giving insight based on such reading, you are not good at it. Instead, go play the game, then answer the survey. You might still not like it, and that's your prerogative, but at least you would make sense, instead of arguing than 45 is less than 40 and 30 is less than 20


Isn't Assurance a final roll of 10, not like taking 10 used to be? how do you get assurance resulting in 15?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:

2. Reducing the maximum movement speed of heavily armored characters by up to 30ft a round, especially after some races speeds already went down below what they should be I think (seriously? Halflings move at the same speed as humans but not Dwarves?) Is bunk.

You still seem to miss the point that armored characters move more now. It's 45 feet in a round, vs 40. It is 30 feet and attack, vs 20 feet and attack. They can even move, attack, and move again, right out of the gate, no feats involved.

There are 3 actions per round, that's why movement was reduced. A normal character now moves 25 x3 instead of 30 x2. If you think that's reducing mobility, what else can I say... just stop reading the book and giving insight based on such reading, you are not good at it. Instead, go play the game, then answer the survey. You might still not like it, and that's your prerogative, but at least you would make sense, instead of arguing than 45 is less than 40 and 30 is less than 20

That's great. So I'm a scout sprinting at the enemy, we have 200ft to cross for the battle. Leaving the armored knight behind I join in combat during round 3 and make 2 attacks that round. My knight will be here to back me up in oh... By round 5, and able to make 1 attack that round. So I get almost 2 full rounds, as much as 5 attacks more until my companion joins me. That is 7 more attacks I can make because I move twice his speed. THAT is ridiculous, and boaring for everyone. Me if I wait, him if I don't.

And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

This game in its current incarnation is unplayable. I actually tried to get my group to test run it (sense I did order the books) and they all flatly refused it after reading it. I can't even blame them.


Traiel wrote:
Isn't Assurance a final roll of 10, not like taking 10 used to be? how do you get assurance resulting in 15?

It's 10 at Trained. It's 15 at Expert, 20 at Master, 30 at Legendary.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Skystarlit1 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:

2. Reducing the maximum movement speed of heavily armored characters by up to 30ft a round, especially after some races speeds already went down below what they should be I think (seriously? Halflings move at the same speed as humans but not Dwarves?) Is bunk.

You still seem to miss the point that armored characters move more now. It's 45 feet in a round, vs 40. It is 30 feet and attack, vs 20 feet and attack. They can even move, attack, and move again, right out of the gate, no feats involved.

There are 3 actions per round, that's why movement was reduced. A normal character now moves 25 x3 instead of 30 x2. If you think that's reducing mobility, what else can I say... just stop reading the book and giving insight based on such reading, you are not good at it. Instead, go play the game, then answer the survey. You might still not like it, and that's your prerogative, but at least you would make sense, instead of arguing than 45 is less than 40 and 30 is less than 20

That's great. So I'm a scout sprinting at the enemy, we have 200ft to cross for the battle. Leaving the armored knight behind I join in combat during round 3 and make 2 attacks that round. My knight will be here to back me up in oh... By round 5, and able to make 1 attack that round. So I get almost 2 full rounds, as much as 5 attacks more until my companion joins me. That is 7 more attacks I can make because I move twice his speed. THAT is ridiculous, and boaring for everyone. Me if I wait, him if I don't.

That’s not much different than PF1 is it? A heavily armoured melee PC and a quick moving melee companion running 200 feet to the enemy? That’s always been a hassle (since way back when it was 12” versus 3”).


One strategy we use to use is a bit of a pull strat we would attack and pull back to draw the enemy closer to where we wanted him. If he didn't come then you take pot shots at them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:


And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

this is the fun part of your posts. The faux outrage declaring the game unplayable because things that happen in PF 1 too (like some small races such as goblins or small races with alternative race traits su ha fleet of foot halflings, moving more than dwarves, or some characters moving twice as fast as an armored fighter).

If having a small race being nimbler than a dwarf is the hallmark of a bad game design, then PF1 sucks too.

Quote:


This game in its current incarnation is unplayable. I actually tried to get my group to test run it (sense I did order the books) and they all flatly refused it after reading it. I can't even blame them.

If after reading the book, they thought, as you did here before, that fighters are slower now because you failed to realize there are 3 actions (despite this late attempt to goal post moving) , maybe they should not read it, and just play and a ser the survey. In that case,, reading it isn't helpful anyways.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skystarlit1 wrote:


And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

Goblins, Grippli and Kobolds are all PF1 playable Small races faster than dwarves in PF1, but I've never seen you take umbrage with that.

EDIT: DAMMIT ENRIQUE!


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:


And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

this is the fun part of your posts. The faux outrage declaring the game unplayable because things that happen in PF 1 too (like some small races such as goblins or small races with alternative race traits su ha fleet of foot halflings, moving more than dwarves, or some characters moving twice as fast as an armored fighter).

If having a small race being nimbler than a dwarf is the hallmark of a bad game design, then PF1 sucks too.

Quote:


This game in its current incarnation is unplayable. I actually tried to get my group to test run it (sense I did order the books) and they all flatly refused it after reading it. I can't even blame them.
If after reading the book, they thought, as you did here before, that fighters are slower now because you failed to realize there are 3 actions (despite this late attempt to goal post moving) , maybe they should not read it, and just play and a ser the survey. In that case,, reading it isn't helpful anyways.

You continuing to post races and classes with inherit movement boosts isn't helping your argument. How bout you bring up quicklings next?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skystarlit1 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:


And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

this is the fun part of your posts. The faux outrage declaring the game unplayable because things that happen in PF 1 too (like some small races such as goblins or small races with alternative race traits su ha fleet of foot halflings, moving more than dwarves, or some characters moving twice as fast as an armored fighter).

If having a small race being nimbler than a dwarf is the hallmark of a bad game design, then PF1 sucks too.

Quote:


This game in its current incarnation is unplayable. I actually tried to get my group to test run it (sense I did order the books) and they all flatly refused it after reading it. I can't even blame them.
If after reading the book, they thought, as you did here before, that fighters are slower now because you failed to realize there are 3 actions (despite this late attempt to goal post moving) , maybe they should not read it, and just play and a ser the survey. In that case,, reading it isn't helpful anyways.
You continuing to post races and classes with inherit movement boosts isn't helping your argument. How bout you bring up quicklings next?

Quickling aren't a playable race, as per standard PF1 rules. Now if you could tell me where do Kobolds, Grippli and Goblins (all Small with 30ft. speed) get "inherent movement boosts" in PF1, I would be obliged.


I wish I could of played a quickling... Really their life spans are so short though. Whole time playing a quickling I feel like I would be working on how to extend my life for one more year... also I felt their movement actually should of been a bit higher >.>


Gorbacz wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:


And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

this is the fun part of your posts. The faux outrage declaring the game unplayable because things that happen in PF 1 too (like some small races such as goblins or small races with alternative race traits su ha fleet of foot halflings, moving more than dwarves, or some characters moving twice as fast as an armored fighter).

If having a small race being nimbler than a dwarf is the hallmark of a bad game design, then PF1 sucks too.

Quote:


This game in its current incarnation is unplayable. I actually tried to get my group to test run it (sense I did order the books) and they all flatly refused it after reading it. I can't even blame them.
If after reading the book, they thought, as you did here before, that fighters are slower now because you failed to realize there are 3 actions (despite this late attempt to goal post moving) , maybe they should not read it, and just play and a ser the survey. In that case,, reading it isn't helpful anyways.
You continuing to post races and classes with inherit movement boosts isn't helping your argument. How bout you bring up quicklings next?
Quickling aren't a playable race, as per standard PF1 rules. Now if you could tell me where do Kobolds, Grippli and Goblins (all Small with 30ft. speed) get "inherent movement boosts" in PF1, I would be obliged.

You mean the 3 prey animals you named?

Oh I wonder why they run so fast *rolling my eyes at you*

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:


And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

this is the fun part of your posts. The faux outrage declaring the game unplayable because things that happen in PF 1 too (like some small races such as goblins or small races with alternative race traits su ha fleet of foot halflings, moving more than dwarves, or some characters moving twice as fast as an armored fighter).

If having a small race being nimbler than a dwarf is the hallmark of a bad game design, then PF1 sucks too.

Quote:


This game in its current incarnation is unplayable. I actually tried to get my group to test run it (sense I did order the books) and they all flatly refused it after reading it. I can't even blame them.
If after reading the book, they thought, as you did here before, that fighters are slower now because you failed to realize there are 3 actions (despite this late attempt to goal post moving) , maybe they should not read it, and just play and a ser the survey. In that case,, reading it isn't helpful anyways.
You continuing to post races and classes with inherit movement boosts isn't helping your argument. How bout you bring up quicklings next?
Quickling aren't a playable race, as per standard PF1 rules. Now if you could tell me where do Kobolds, Grippli and Goblins (all Small with 30ft. speed) get "inherent movement boosts" in PF1, I would be obliged.

You mean the 3 prey animals you named?

Oh I wonder why they run so fast *rolling my eyes at you*

They're all biped humanoids that walk upright, not prey animals. And Goblins don't even have an inch of a connection to any animal.

And those were just three examples. There are more Small 30ft. speed races: Gathlains and Wyrwoods.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Prey animals? Kobolds? what?

Humans be crazy.


Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:

PREY ANIMALS! I roll your eyes! like dice! *continues to cuss out in kobold*

Dude, I totally love you right now.

I'm not saying they are animals. I am saying they are tribal creatures. Small tribal creatures... Small (usual npc bad-guy, NOT ALWAYS!) creatures that get involved with bigger creatures such as dragons or orcs that are more than happy to look at them like they are a meal. They are kinda low on the food chain in their given places of exsistance... Like the little brother who's parents are out of town and who's older siblings torture them entire time they are gone... Accept the patents won't ever come back and cannabilizm is a thing.

So yah, prey 'animals'...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:

PREY ANIMALS! I roll your eyes! like dice! *continues to cuss out in kobold*

Dude, I totally love you right now.

You not my type, but if you want to give me your silver I will take it.


Gorbacz wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:


And why, OH WHY, are Halflings, a SMALL CREATURE, faster than a medium size Dwarf??? Are they all tripping over their beards? Or did Paizo change that too? Order a Dwaeven nation wide shave?

this is the fun part of your posts. The faux outrage declaring the game unplayable because things that happen in PF 1 too (like some small races such as goblins or small races with alternative race traits su ha fleet of foot halflings, moving more than dwarves, or some characters moving twice as fast as an armored fighter).

If having a small race being nimbler than a dwarf is the hallmark of a bad game design, then PF1 sucks too.

Quote:


This game in its current incarnation is unplayable. I actually tried to get my group to test run it (sense I did order the books) and they all flatly refused it after reading it. I can't even blame them.
If after reading the book, they thought, as you did here before, that fighters are slower now because you failed to realize there are 3 actions (despite this late attempt to goal post moving) , maybe they should not read it, and just play and a ser the survey. In that case,, reading it isn't helpful anyways.
You continuing to post races and classes with inherit movement boosts isn't helping your argument. How bout you bring up quicklings next?
Quickling aren't a playable race, as per standard PF1 rules. Now if you could tell me where do Kobolds, Grippli and Goblins (all Small with 30ft. speed) get "inherent movement boosts" in PF1, I would be obliged.

You mean the 3 prey animals you named?

Oh I wonder why they run so fast *rolling my eyes at you*

They're all biped humanoids that walk upright, not prey animals. And Goblins don't even have an inch of a connection to any animal.

And those were just three examples. There are more Small 30ft. speed races: Gathlains and Wyrwoods

Gathlains are Fey, no go, Fey are freaking weird and play by their own rules.

Wyrwoods are basically constructs (If I'm remembering right) So yah, still no joy.

Your having to go further and further afield to find examples!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow that is a basic troll tactic. Even though you have given examples he just dismisses them and then tries to make you do all the research to waste your time. (Thats like textbook) I mean heck as soon as he called kobold and goblins prey animals its obvious. also I don't see what that really has to do with anything anyways.

Also they hunt, eat meat, and have forward facing eyes. Not to mention are humanoid so no on all accounts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Wow that is a basic troll tactic. Even though you have given examples he just dismisses them and then tries to make you do all the research to waste your time. (Thats like textbook) I mean heck as soon as he called kobold and goblins prey animals its obvious. also I don't see what that really has to do with anything anyways.

Also they hunt, eat meat, and have forward facing eyes. Not to mention are humanoid so no on all accounts.

Dude he's reaching farther and farther afield for his examples. We are taking about a CORE race, not some insignificant construct or Fey creature most players aren't even aware of...

Okay the Kobald prey comments were mostly to try to get a reaction from Definitely NOT a certain Kobald... They are freaking funny.

But do you honestly think Dwarfs need to be at a 20 ft base movement speed? Then a 10ft reduction for heavy armour?... Not a little bit much for you?

And damb it, how feminine of a name do I need to not be called 'he'?! Bad enough to call me a troll but calling me a dude? Jeesh. At least try to use gender non-specifics guys. This is one girl without penis envy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Wow that is a basic troll tactic. Even though you have given examples he just dismisses them and then tries to make you do all the research to waste your time. (Thats like textbook) I mean heck as soon as he called kobold and goblins prey animals its obvious. also I don't see what that really has to do with anything anyways.

Also they hunt, eat meat, and have forward facing eyes. Not to mention are humanoid so no on all accounts.

Dude he's reaching father and father afield for his examples. We are taking about a CORE race, not some insignificant construct or Fey creature most players aren't even aware of...

Okay the Kobald prey comments were mostly to try to get a recon from Definitely NOT a certain Kobald...

But do you honestly think Dwarfs need to be at a 20 ft base movement speed? Then a 10ft reduction for heavy armour?... Not a little bit much for you???

arent dwarves immune to speed reductions?


AndIMustMask wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Wow that is a basic troll tactic. Even though you have given examples he just dismisses them and then tries to make you do all the research to waste your time. (Thats like textbook) I mean heck as soon as he called kobold and goblins prey animals its obvious. also I don't see what that really has to do with anything anyways.

Also they hunt, eat meat, and have forward facing eyes. Not to mention are humanoid so no on all accounts.

Dude he's reaching father and father afield for his examples. We are taking about a CORE race, not some insignificant construct or Fey creature most players aren't even aware of...

Okay the Kobald prey comments were mostly to try to get a recon from Definitely NOT a certain Kobald...

But do you honestly think Dwarfs need to be at a 20 ft base movement speed? Then a 10ft reduction for heavy armour?... Not a little bit much for you???

arent dwarves immune to speed reductions?

Are they!? From just armour or all reductions?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Wow that is a basic troll tactic. Even though you have given examples he just dismisses them and then tries to make you do all the research to waste your time. (Thats like textbook) I mean heck as soon as he called kobold and goblins prey animals its obvious. also I don't see what that really has to do with anything anyways.

Also they hunt, eat meat, and have forward facing eyes. Not to mention are humanoid so no on all accounts.

Dude he's reaching father and father afield for his examples. We are taking about a CORE race, not some insignificant construct or Fey creature most players aren't even aware of...

Okay the Kobald prey comments were mostly to try to get a recon from Definitely NOT a certain Kobald...

But do you honestly think Dwarfs need to be at a 20 ft base movement speed? Then a 10ft reduction for heavy armour?... Not a little bit much for you???

arent dwarves immune to speed reductions?

In the playtest document it says they ignore 5ft of speed reduction. I would say that they should just go ahead and ignore all speed reduction of armor IMO.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Wow that is a basic troll tactic. Even though you have given examples he just dismisses them and then tries to make you do all the research to waste your time. (Thats like textbook) I mean heck as soon as he called kobold and goblins prey animals its obvious. also I don't see what that really has to do with anything anyways.

Also they hunt, eat meat, and have forward facing eyes. Not to mention are humanoid so no on all accounts.

Dude he's reaching father and father afield for his examples. We are taking about a CORE race, not some insignificant construct or Fey creature most players aren't even aware of...

Okay the Kobald prey comments were mostly to try to get a recon from Definitely NOT a certain Kobald...

But do you honestly think Dwarfs need to be at a 20 ft base movement speed? Then a 10ft reduction for heavy armour?... Not a little bit much for you???

arent dwarves immune to speed reductions?
In the playtest document it says they ignore 5ft of speed reduction. I would say that they should just go ahead and ignore all speed reduction of armor IMO.

Yah, I'm thinking your thinking right on that one.

A fully armored Dwarf moving 10ft an actin just sounds ridiculous, even 15 isn't much better. I think your right on just ignoring movement penalties, err... Speed reductions for Dwarfs.


They also have a feat that lets their "step"(apparently a step works just like a 5ft step in PF1.) ignore hindering terrain

251 to 300 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.