Please concentrate your 2E histrionics in this thread...


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

...so the rest of us can get on with business of playtesting and offering constructive feedback.

That is all.


Thanks much, old bean, I shall endeavor to remember to post in this thread when I have something overly dramatic or theatrical in character or style to say!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay fine. If you want a topic to go over the top in, fine.

Hey remember when crafting was actually good and not just "Well now you can have it at anytime every 4 days if you make the right checks".

I'm an alchemist! I already have everything cutting into my Resonance, why the heck is my bank account also being targeted? Especially with the change to Silver!

It's like they don't want people to craft the new alchemical items.


23 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure!

PFS is a poison that's killing the base system for home games.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm appalled there's no Waffle Iron in the playtest book. No adventuring team should set forth into the wilderness without a mithral waffle iron emblazoned with their chosen insignia. Game breaking omission.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:

Sure!

PFS is a poison that's killing the base system for home games.

I actually think there is a fair amount of truth in that: Any organized play system is going to have a particular set of concerns, applied to adventures that tend to follow a particular style and set of constraints, and the people involved are likely to have a disproportionate voice when communicating with devs¹.

If your home game doesn't have those concerns and uses an adventuring style that doesn't match those in the organized play system, developments to fix problems in organized play are likely to cause problems for you. (e.g. If the assumption in organized play is 2-3 strong combat encounters per 'adventuring day' and you play with 6-7 generally weaker encounters/day, efforts to balance "few uses/more power" with "unlimited uses/less power" will actively unbalance your game in favour of the unlimited uses.)

1: A combination of more avenues of communication, some of which are more direct, and a more unified voice.


Chakat Firepaw wrote:
DFAnton wrote:

Sure!

PFS is a poison that's killing the base system for home games.

I actually think there is a fair amount of truth in that: Any organized play system is going to have a particular set of concerns, applied to adventures that tend to follow a particular style and set of constraints, and the people involved are likely to have a disproportionate voice when communicating with devs¹.

Believe it or not, so do I.

But this is a thread for 2E histrionics, not PFS ones. ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
DFAnton wrote:

Sure!

PFS is a poison that's killing the base system for home games.

I actually think there is a fair amount of truth in that: Any organized play system is going to have a particular set of concerns, applied to adventures that tend to follow a particular style and set of constraints, and the people involved are likely to have a disproportionate voice when communicating with devs¹.

Believe it or not, so do I.

But this is a thread for 2E histrionics, not PFS ones. ;-)

It is and isn't. Don't know how much of the rules are in place maybe not for us but for PFS.

Besides this is for being over the top. I think it fits here.

Yossarian wrote:
I'm appalled there's no Waffle Iron in the playtest book. No adventuring team should set forth into the wilderness without a mithral waffle iron emblazoned with their chosen insignia. Game breaking omission.

Okay. I'm yoinking this. Great idea.

I'd probably give you a bonus of some kind if you served Waffles with your team's insignia to the homeless, distrustful, etc. Get your brand name out there to the point of "Hey I have heard of you guys, you're good people. Need some help" or something.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

How does one get the Waffle Iron to work out there in the wilderness without spending Resonance on it?
Wait, there must be a Waffle Iron related Feat somewhere...Oh, I see, I can't use it. Wrong Ancestry


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:

How does one get the Waffle Iron to work out there in the wilderness without spending Resonance on it?

Wait, there must be a Waffle Iron related Feat somewhere...Oh, I see, I can't use it. Wrong Ancestry

Someone prepare Shocking Grasp each day


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think my playtest book got up and kicked my dog, but I cant be certain.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Alas the humble mithral waffle iron is only a mundane item. But it would be nice to see an upgrade so they can have a rune etched on them. A Flaming mithral waffle iron should be Pathfinder standard expedition equipment.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

How the hell are you supposed to make a bard that hits people with waffle irons in this new system, anyway?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

i miss my characters taking four feats that were largely useless to get one decent one while the wizard was a flying invisible battlefield dominator--now i can only do that on the fighter class!

where has sunder gone? (no really, only spell sunder appears to exist now)

i love that paladins don't actually go out to proactively smite evil anymore, they just bring a group of friends to serve as fodder while they stand nearby (but not tooo close, don't want to be adjacent to those icky demons) to get those sweet, sweet retributive strikes. their core class mechanic.

i'm wondering what kid of faustian deal that alcehmist made: you get into the core class list!
but you're demoted from caster! and you run off a small precious resource pool AND your wallet now! and poisons (a good 1/3rd of your craftables, by the looks of it) are terrible and annoying to track (and generally better used by the rogue)!
like, what dev hates a class that much?

and dont even get me STARTED on build diversity.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what, I have a particularly crazy one I've been holding back, but since this is a thread made specifically for this sort of thing.

I absolutely can't stand how every time there's a new edition the suggestions from the fighter players are nerf spellcasters. No we can't make fighters better, that would be "too comic booky!" THAT ATTITUDE IS THE PROBLEM! Oh I want to play a dumbboringnormal character in a fantasy. No awesomeness is a terrible thing, I don't want to be Hercules, I just want to be a normal dumb guy with a sword, So you have to be first year Harry potter instead of Dumbledore, because dragons existing and flying and talking and having half dragon babies with humans doesn't stretch my willing suspension of disbelief, but gosh if I could wrestle a dragon in this game world I just wouldn't be able to make sense of it any more!
No I want to be a lame normal dude with a sword and not be awesome So your magic has to suck now.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

How many of these problems are just "grognard-ism"? (For all of our "adaptability," Humans can be remarkably resistant to change.)

That said, player resistance to a new system can be fatal to a game. Check out Lisa Stevens's own post about why Pathfinder eclipsed D&D 4th. PF 2nd. could, very realistically, end up losing in the marketplace to PF 1st. in exactly the same way.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:

How many of these problems are just "grognard-ism"? (For all of our "adaptability," Humans can be remarkably resistant to change.)

That said, player resistance to a new system can be fatal to a game. Check out Lisa Stevens's own post about why Pathfinder eclipsed D&D 4th. PF 2nd. could, very realistically, end up losing in the marketplace to PF 1st. in exactly the same way.

Oh, PF2 isn't meant to be a game for diehard grognard PF1 fans, just like Starfinder wasn't meant to be a game for diehard grognard PF1 fans. Remember all the "Why Starfinder isn't just PF with lasers, you didn't have to change anything except adding starships, no way I'll pick it up I'm done with you Paizo I hope SF tanks and you'll learn the lesson!" people? Well, SF is now the second best selling RPG behind 5E.

PF2 is a game meant to attract new players, since PF1 has expired its potential to do so.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

How many of these problems are just "grognard-ism"? (For all of our "adaptability," Humans can be remarkably resistant to change.)

That said, player resistance to a new system can be fatal to a game. Check out Lisa Stevens's own post about why Pathfinder eclipsed D&D 4th. PF 2nd. could, very realistically, end up losing in the marketplace to PF 1st. in exactly the same way.

Oh, PF2 isn't meant to be a game for diehard grognard PF1 fans, just like Starfinder wasn't meant to be a game for diehard grognard PF1 fans. Remember all the "Why Starfinder isn't just PF with lasers, you didn't have to change anything except adding starships, no way I'll pick it up I'm done with you Paizo I hope SF tanks and you'll learn the lesson!" people? Well, SF is now the second best selling RPG behind 5E.

PF2 is a game meant to attract new players, since PF1 has expired its potential to do so.

True. But, PF 2nd., kind of feels like swapping a plane's engines mid-flight. There are so many hazards.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
True. But, PF 2nd., kind of feels like swapping a plane's engines mid-flight. There are so many hazards.

See World of Darkness 3rd to 4th editions. It was so radical it made the company cease to exist.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

...so the rest of us can get on with business of playtesting and offering constructive feedback.

That is all.

Not cool. Not classy. Not helpful.

"Do not like" is constructive feedback. Suppressing, isolating, or segregating opinions that are critical of new rules is just as wrong as suppressing, isolating or segregating opinions that are praising new rules.

If you want me to respect your right to have a voice, you need to respect my right to have a voice.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


PF2 is a game meant to attract new players, since PF1 has expired its potential to do so.

has it? I haven't noticed. Sure, it's anectodal, but over the last few years my wife and I have brought 7 new players to PF. And that's only the adults, not counting the children - my wife works as a governess at a boarding school - that started RPGs with PF, mostly because she was there to GM for them and teach them the system. Last week she got an email from one of the kids that asked her to GM PF for them during their school's summer camp

So, judging by that, the potential to attract new players is still there. It may not be as big as it once was, but it is not like it is impossible to get new players to play the game.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

How many of these problems are just "grognard-ism"? (For all of our "adaptability," Humans can be remarkably resistant to change.)

That said, player resistance to a new system can be fatal to a game. Check out Lisa Stevens's own post about why Pathfinder eclipsed D&D 4th. PF 2nd. could, very realistically, end up losing in the marketplace to PF 1st. in exactly the same way.

Oh, PF2 isn't meant to be a game for diehard grognard PF1 fans, just like Starfinder wasn't meant to be a game for diehard grognard PF1 fans. Remember all the "Why Starfinder isn't just PF with lasers, you didn't have to change anything except adding starships, no way I'll pick it up I'm done with you Paizo I hope SF tanks and you'll learn the lesson!" people? Well, SF is now the second best selling RPG behind 5E.

PF2 is a game meant to attract new players, since PF1 has expired its potential to do so.

True. But, PF 2nd., kind of feels like swapping a plane's engines mid-flight. There are so many hazards.

Sure there are. But I have a lot faith in a company which managed to do several ballsy moves (Subscription-based model in a world where every FLGS will hate your guts for that. APs. PF1. Starfinder. OrgPlay on WotC scale.) and has so far failed with only one (PFO).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
True. But, PF 2nd., kind of feels like swapping a plane's engines mid-flight. There are so many hazards.
See World of Darkness 3rd to 4th editions. It was so radical it made the company cease to exist.

Exactly my concern.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

You know what, I have a particularly crazy one I've been holding back, but since this is a thread made specifically for this sort of thing.

I absolutely can't stand how every time there's a new edition the suggestions from the fighter players are nerf spellcasters. No we can't make fighters better, that would be "too comic booky!" THAT ATTITUDE IS THE PROBLEM! Oh I want to play a dumbboringnormal character in a fantasy. No awesomeness is a terrible thing, I don't want to be Hercules, I just want to be a normal dumb guy with a sword, So you have to be first year Harry potter instead of Dumbledore, because dragons existing and flying and talking and having half dragon babies with humans doesn't stretch my willing suspension of disbelief, but gosh if I could wrestle a dragon in this game world I just wouldn't be able to make sense of it any more!
No I want to be a lame normal dude with a sword and not be awesome So your magic has to suck now.

people on both sides (some fighters wanting grim gritty darksouls-esque fantasy-realism and wizards who think that if martials are being brought up near their level, they should get even more bonuses too) make it super annoying, i agree. I want to see the yardstick of personal flexibility and narrative power be set at the wizard and everyone balanced UP to fit appropriately, rather than trying to kneecap the wizard and make everyone feel bad to play instead.

i personally just want a proper game where a caster starts as a squishy in-need-of-protection-but-potent-otherwise magic user and martials are tough and strong combatants towards the sorts of threats they might reasonably encounter (a half-decent example being the older E6 design), and then wizards graduate into protecting themselves with layered spells, while martials surpass their mortal limits and stat becoming able to do heroic or even legendary things:
things like beowulf tearing grendel's arm off with his bare hands, cu chulainn's impossible feats of acrobatics and terrifying rhiastrahd transformation, fergus mac roich splitting a hill/mountain with his sword swing, siegfried becoming incredibly resistant or nigh-invulnerable to conventional weaponry by bathing in dragon's blood (this isn't even going into the even crazier stuff the greeks did in their heroic epics, like slaying entire armies by themselves, wrestling titans, and more!)

a game where EVERYONE scales from those heroic deeds into outright legendary, world-altering beings and possibly outright demigods (yes even the casters) in the higher levels (15-20+ range), and EVERYONE can live out the heroic fantasy they came into the game envisioning for their character.

currently the only real one that's allowed is being merlin, and all of the martials' fighting is really done with their wallets (basically worthless without their +X sword of functionality and +Y armor of please don't make me will save) and that's a crying shame.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


PF2 is a game meant to attract new players, since PF1 has expired its potential to do so.

has it? I haven't noticed. Sure, it's anectodal, but over the last few years my wife and I have brought 7 new players to PF. And that's only the adults, not counting the children - my wife works as a governess at a boarding school - that started RPGs with PF, mostly because she was there to GM for them and teach them the system. Last week she got an email from one of the kids that asked her to GM PF for them during their school's summer camp

So, judging by that, the potential to attract new players is still there. It may not be as big as it once was, but it is not like it is impossible to get new players to play the game.

Look, you're telling what you, a person heavily (judging from your responses recently) invested emotionally is doing for his hobby. And it's great that you're doing that! But I'm telling you what is the talk on corners of the industry. PF1 is on a slope, going down, losing not only to 5E but also to its younger brother Starfinder.

There are signs on the walls. Look at how many reviews are new PF products getting on Amazon - that's a solid metric, because the % of people who bother to review books is the same with PF and D&D. Bestiary 6 has 27 since May 2017, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes has 128 since May 2018. That's five times over in five times less time. That's very bad news.

And it's not because 5e is eating up PF players - well, it is, but not that fast. It's due to its ability to bring new players to the hobby and keep them there. It will kill PF1 at this rate unless Paizo manages to put out a product which, despite the lack of brand recognition, will be able to pull new players at a rate that will keep Paizo trucking forward. Revising a product which at this point is eclipsed by both your own stuff and the competition is not something they can afford.

Also, an important point lost on many here - Paizo doesn't need to "take over 5e" or "steal its customers", it merely has to bring in enough new customers to make ends meet and ensure a stable growth of the company. For Paizo, the bar is much lower than for WotC due to company size and lack of shareholder overlords expecting their tithe.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


PF2 is a game meant to attract new players, since PF1 has expired its potential to do so.

has it? I haven't noticed. Sure, it's anectodal, but over the last few years my wife and I have brought 7 new players to PF. And that's only the adults, not counting the children - my wife works as a governess at a boarding school - that started RPGs with PF, mostly because she was there to GM for them and teach them the system. Last week she got an email from one of the kids that asked her to GM PF for them during their school's summer camp

So, judging by that, the potential to attract new players is still there. It may not be as big as it once was, but it is not like it is impossible to get new players to play the game.

Look, you're telling what you, a person heavily (judging from your responses recently) invested emotionally is doing for his hobby. And it's great that you're doing that! But I'm telling you what is the talk on corners of the industry. PF1 is on a slope, going down, losing not only to 5E but also to its younger brother Starfinder.

There are signs on the walls. Look at how many reviews are new PF products getting on Amazon - that's a solid metric, because the % of people who bother to review books is the same with PF and D&D. Bestiary 6 has 27 since May 2017, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes has 128 since May 2018. That's five times over in five times less time. That's very bad news.

And it's not because 5e is eating up PF players - well, it is, but not that fast. It's due to its ability to bring new players to the hobby and keep them there. It will kill PF1 at this rate unless Paizo manages to put out a product which, despite the lack of brand recognition, will be able to pull new players at a rate that will keep Paizo trucking forward. Revising a product which at this point is eclipsed by both your own stuff and the competition is not something they can afford.

Also, an important point lost on many here - Paizo doesn't need to...

I don't argue against that. I argue against the generalization that PF can't bring in new players. Of course there are way less new players now than 10 years ago. Of course something new will bring more people that something old.

having clarified that, addressing the last part of your response, that strayed away from that point:

a radical new system might have a chance to bring in more new blood, but it also has the potential to lose the old guard. And if the new system can't bring in substantially more new players than it loses old ones, which has happend in the past with big revolutionary changes between systems, that is a problem they can't afford either


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
shareholder overlords expecting their tithe.

If they'd limit themselves to a tithe, things would be a lot better.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

...so the rest of us can get on with business of playtesting and offering constructive feedback.

That is all.

Not cool. Not classy. Not helpful.

"Do not like" is constructive feedback. Suppressing, isolating, or segregating opinions that are critical of new rules is just as wrong as suppressing, isolating or segregating opinions that are praising new rules.

If you want me to respect your right to have a voice, you need to respect my right to have a voice.

And I do.

Unfortunately, some people has chosen to use their voice to scream hyperbole at the top of their lungs for the last four days. Which, besides getting really, really old, actually drowns out the productive feedback. It's a simple matter of signal-to-noise ratio.

"I like rule X, because reason Y" is productive, useful feedback. "I don't like rule X, because reason Z" is productive, useful feedback (in fact, despite accusations of blind support, you will see I have made several posts of this nature myself).

"Pathfinder 2E is cancer that will kill Paizo" is not productive feedback. "The rules are deliberately unclear" (seriously?) is not productive feedback. Unfortunately, the boards are currently littered with comments like these.

So in my frustration, I made this thread. Was doing so snarky and ultimately counter-productive? Probably. But waiting for people to calm down -- and later asking them nicely to do so -- have both been futile.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this was the Waffle Iron thread?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

There are signs on the walls. Look at how many reviews are new PF products getting on Amazon - that's a solid metric, because the % of people who bother to review books is the same with PF and D&D. Bestiary 6 has 27 since May 2017, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes has 128 since May 2018. That's five times over in five times less time. That's very bad news.

And it's not because 5e is eating up PF players - well, it is, but not that fast. It's due to its ability to bring new players to the hobby and keep them there. It will kill PF1 at this rate unless Paizo manages to put out a product which, despite the lack of brand recognition, will be able to pull new players at a rate that will keep Paizo trucking forward. Revising a product which at this point is eclipsed by both your own stuff and the competition is not something they can afford.

Sounds like a perfect time to tick off, alienate, and eject 1/3rd or more of your most die hard fans!

It's always been a calculus problem trying to figure out whether you can bring in more new players than old players that you lose.

What I've seen PF2 isn't going to do it-- I haven't seen anything that's going to bring new people in, bring back a few who left PF1 previously perhaps, but not NEW people.

Those it brings back will leave again because they are the type who leave a game easily-- people who hate "bloat". They'll be gone by the third hard cover.

It's not going to take market share from 5th ed or OSR style games because it's still much more complicated than them, but it's not going to satisfy people who want the complexity that PF1 offered, and it absolutely will shed a large number of people who've been subscribers for years and had planned to stay as long as PF1 was being published.

There's no way to do a new edition without splitting the fan base (or it's incredibly hard to do so), but I feel like Paizo has done it in the worst possible way.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
I thought this was the Waffle Iron thread?

Bah, everyone's just getting derailed talking about corporate economics and rule systems.

Paizo needs to introduce a +5 Waffle Iron of Time Stop (2,500rnds/day) for 2sp. It needs to be a piercing weapon that deals 20d12 damage and 2d6 fire.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
I thought this was the Waffle Iron thread?

It got off topic, that's my fault. Sorry. It was horrible of me and I hope that one day you may find it in your heart to forgive me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, there is no waffle iron in PF2? *checks pdf* But how will the group eat half the session up by waffling around the plot?! Oh no!


Paradozen wrote:
Wait, there is no waffle iron in PF2? *checks pdf* But how will the group eat half the session up by waffling around the plot?! Oh no!

As long as I can have tea and cocoa I'll be fine... And maybe pancakes. We still have teapots and skillets don't we?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So glad you fixed that typo, graystone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AndIMustMask wrote:
the whole point of playing those types of characters (there's lots of great RP opportunities abound with such unique characters, after all!) in a fantasy universe is to express them WITHOUT them being judged through the lens of all the real world hostility around them.

Or to use the fantasy universe as a lens to deal with the various players' emotional and psychological troubles over the course of a 20-30 minute TV episode.

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Calling for people to be kind, and for tables to be welcoming isn't woke, it's basic decency and respect.

If people read that, and think it's too hard, I'd prefer they not tarnish the game and its community with their presence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm concerned that races... er, I mean "Ancestries", are limited to just ONE ancestry feat at first level. It seems to me that most dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. are probably just going to put them on the weapon familiarity feat 90% of the time. (Unless they are playing a straight wizard or sorcerer who doesn't care about weapon damage). Which of course means that all the other ancestry feats won't see much use... things that used to give the other Races in previous editions their particular "flavor", like elves' immunity to sleep spells, or gnomes speaking to squirrels, or dwarves' affinity to unusual stonework. These things which were MOSTLY useful at lower levels will now no longer see the light of day until HIGHER levels.

Discussion? Am I wrong about this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maveric28 wrote:

I'm concerned that races... er, I mean "Ancestries", are limited to just ONE ancestry feat at first level. It seems to me that most dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. are probably just going to put them on the weapon familiarity feat 90% of the time. (Unless they are playing a straight wizard or sorcerer who doesn't care about weapon damage). Which of course means that all the other ancestry feats won't see much use... things that used to give the other Races in previous editions their particular "flavor", like elves' immunity to sleep spells, or gnomes speaking to squirrels, or dwarves' affinity to unusual stonework. These things which were MOSTLY useful at lower levels will now no longer see the light of day until HIGHER levels.

Discussion? Am I wrong about this?

it is a shame, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Calling for people to be kind, and for tables to be welcoming isn't woke, it's basic decency and respect.

If people read that, and think it's too hard, I'd prefer they not tarnish the game and its community with their presence.

Weirdly enough, it doesn't seem like it's the notion of welcoming and kindness that turns people away. Seems more like it's being told to be welcoming and kind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I came to this thread so I could roast marshmallows over the flames of the churning edition wars, whilst enjoying the flashbacks of edition wars long finished.

Guess they're all spread out across myriad threads. Too much work.

Color me disappointed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Calling for people to be kind, and for tables to be welcoming isn't woke, it's basic decency and respect.

If people read that, and think it's too hard, I'd prefer they not tarnish the game and its community with their presence.

Weirdly enough, it doesn't seem like it's the notion of welcoming and kindness that turns people away. Seems more like it's being told to be welcoming and kind.

we humans are a contrary lot, to be sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So... Barbarians all have totems, and that was such a good idea in other games... Oh! and a 16th level barbarian can transform into a Dragon, check...

You nurfed almost all the old awesome spells... Why? Seriously? Do you have a thing against arcane casters?

The bard isn't a bard anymore. Just another caster... Well damb.

Made the Alchemist (wtf!?) A base class.

A... Am I getting this right? A 3rd level cleric can throw out a 3d8 healing spell? And the aoe heal... Ugh

There is at maximum a 5 point base difference between a Bada$$ rogues stealth and a commoner of the same levels stealth. So you've taken away my skill points huh? Bad Paizo, no cookie! Stop listening to Star Wars! It sucked there too! (This was actually the final straw for me!)

Guys... Seriously? I'm so hoping I got at least some of this wrong...

OMG! Do NOT integrate backgrounds into base character creation and open the Pandora's box of cheezery! Giving them rewards for choosing a specific background? Are you trying to attract the most pea brained players with min-maxing /inappropriate comment...

I can't go on... I'm not even going to try to get all the way through this book... Actions, spells, skills... Nothing appealing. This sucks. I had such high hopes. I can't even do the playtests. This is unplayable.

I'm starting down at the 4th ed book all over again...
100% streamlined. 100% overpowered. 0% Role-playing.

Paizo! Why? I loved you!

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Please concentrate your 2E histrionics in this thread... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.