| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You will likely never see me arguing in favor of "realism" in a game, even games that are supposed to be "realistic". However, I do feel that it's very important that a game maintain versimilitude - internal consistency with player perception and expectation.
I feel like in some cases PF2e has a problem here.
For example: The rules for dropping items. Is there a reason that if you are carrying a sword in each hand you can't drop them both at once? Is there a reason that the overworked scholar with an armload full of a dozen scrolls can't drop them all on the table in a pile, even by spending an action to do so?
I definitely feel that game design/balance concerns should take precedence over "realism". But does not being able to drop two items at once serve an important game balance function, or does it just serve to take the player out of the world?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to hear an answer to your questions as well
but your use of that word is so unbelievably unnecessary that I had to point out your obnoxiousness.
Nobody's being obnoxious here except you. Please don't post unless you're going to contribute to the discussion. Thanks!
Back on topic: I agree with your concerns, especially because the more you carry, the more likely you are to drop stuff entirely by accident (e.g. the scroll laden scribe stumbles, sending paper flying everywhere). If the rules don't let you drop multiple objects intentionally, then it seems to me that the rules can't let you drop multiple things by accident either, otherwise you open the door to loopholes and rules abuse. If you can't drop stuff by accident, what does that say about the laws of physics on Golarion? Playability and game balance take priority over verisimilitude, but there is such a thing as as taking things too far.
Sidenote to OP: It's verisimilitude, with an "i" after the first "r". I used to spell it and pronounce it wrong for years.
What is preventing you from using the "Drop" free action repeatedly until you have dropped everything that you want to drop? That would be mechanically the same as dropping many things at once.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@David knott 242 You can only use a free action once per trigger. The triggers for drop an item are start of turn, start of action, and end of turn, meaning you can only drop a maximum of five items per turn, and only spread out through your turn.
@Bardic Dave Thank you, I can never seem to spell it right. :) I mean this point in regards to more than just dropping items, though, it's just an easy example to make because it's so obviously weird without seeming to serve any real game balance purpose.
A more controversial example would be the sneak rules (the fact that unseen breaks before you attack). That clearly IS a game balance decision, but it also badly affects verisimilitude.
@exoicho123 I use that term because there is a difference between realism and verisimilitude, and that difference is important. Mostly because systems that are unrealistic can still have verisimilitude. Most of the time, when players say they want more realism, what they actually want is more verisimilitude.
Then that is definitely something we should comment on for the playtest.
I mean this point in regards to more than just dropping items, though, it's just an easy example to make because it's so obviously weird without seeming to serve any real game balance purpose.
I guess there's a game balance purpose if you had some way of killing enemies by dropping large numbers of objects on them while flying?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean this point in regards to more than just dropping items, though, it's just an easy example to make because it's so obviously weird without seeming to serve any real game balance purpose.I guess there's a game balance purpose if you had some way of killing enemies by dropping large numbers of objects on them while flying?
I don't know about you, but I would absolutely rule that "trying to drop an item such that it lands on and effectively harms an enemy" would be a Strike. That's what I did in 1e when people tried to drop things on things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@thflame To my mind the action is not "put your hand on the weapon" and if a PC just wanted to physically place their hand on their weapon for some reason I would not charge an action. The action, as it reads to me, is "adjust your stance to be ready to fight effectively with two hands" and to my mind, yeah, that is an action.
It might be my LARP experience speaking, but that one bit actually makes perfect sense to me. Starting from a two-handed stance and suddenly flinging out your weapon with one hand is basically effortless, but regripping your weapon and recentering your stance definitely takes a non-zero amount of concentration and often a little footwork.
I do agree that the bastard sword is a bit of a legacy weapon, though.
I'm all about a more realistic, less gamey Pathfinder. That's one of the goals I'm fighting for here. I completely agree with the OP, a drop action should let you discard any number of held items you choose. The idea you have to drop them one by one feels like a bug.
To the larger issue of P2 being unfun and too straightjacketing, I'd argue that's an artifact of P1 which has its DNA from the tight balancing constraints that developed during years of writing Dragon and Dungeon magazine. If there's a single lesson that I think Pathfinder needs to learn to be able to survive it's to loosen it's deathgrip on the accounting and let a little air in. Let things be a little more loose and fun. Like not pure chaos levels of fun, but give people some more lattitude.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big Wall of text
Bravo. I don't know who you are but your post sums up exactly how I feel about this game. It is balance first, fun second. They are scared of things being cool, awesome and useful because it can get out of control. However, that is what made PF1 such a cool game: Imagination was truly the limit! (unless you tried to use combat maneuvess). And at least the rules on it were based on both logic and awesomeness! I Can drop all my items or fall prone for free, can REMEMBER information free, animals and summons have brains, anyone could pick up archery/TWF/PA, you coul dactually get benefits from stealth and surprise at all.
Maybe PFS is having too much of an impact on the decision making of some of these things, which seem like the most heavy handed change imaginable to stopping some classic PF1 complaints, so much so that making zombies is not even on the playtest (Guess couldn't figure out how to make this one un-fun).
Really looking forward for August 2019 now. All of the above has already been said thousands of times in the 5 days the playtest has been out, so I don't have to worry that they won't know what's wrong with this playtest.
The PF2 base engine is quite great, too, just specific rule implementations hurt. I, or many people here, could already turn the game into something amazing with < 2 pages of house rules (Would be 1, but a lot of feats need to be re-arrnaged and that takes up page space). We gotta wait for the survey period to end before that becomes a thing.
Back on topic: I agree with your concerns, especially because the more you carry, the more likely you are to drop stuff entirely by accident (e.g. the scroll laden scribe stumbles, sending paper flying everywhere). If the rules don't let you drop multiple objects intentionally, then it seems to me that the rules can't let you drop multiple things by accident either, otherwise you open the door to loopholes and rules abuse.
Well, if by 'accident', you mean 'fall unconscious', then yes you can. When you fall unconscious, you drop all items you are wielding or holding (page 296). So a Wizard carrying his library in his hands would drop them all if an arrow kills him.
While I admire the attempt of explaining this rule by extrapolating a different model of gravity, there's a simpler explanation, one that fulfills a better verisimiltude. All adventurers everywhere are trained to treat their tools for dungeoneering with the utmost care. One does not just drop their crossbow on the ground after using it, unless they want it to be broken in the fall. Dropping a scroll in a dank cave is sure to ruin it, hence you place it down gingerly, where it won't be ruined or get trodden upon. It's only when an adventurer loses consciousness that things go flying.
Proper care of your weapons is an universal drilling point for police and military training, and having the Drop action be an unbreakable standard for even Barbarians and Goblins is an excellent case of making a setting with societally-recognized guilds of adventurers possess more verisimilitude.
Proper care of your weapons is an universal drilling point for police and military training, and having the Drop action be an unbreakable standard for even Barbarians and Goblins is an excellent case of making a setting with societally-recognized guilds of adventurers possess more verisimilitude.
I...really like this. See this is a good example of good input. You take a weakness and turn it into a feature. Okay so maybe we assume that any item dropped rather than laid down takes a dent? Potentially breaking?
I could really go for that.
While I admire the attempt of explaining this rule by extrapolating a different model of gravity, there's a simpler explanation, one that fulfills a better verisimiltude. All adventurers everywhere are trained to treat their tools for dungeoneering with the utmost care. One does not just drop their crossbow on the ground after using it, unless they want it to be broken in the fall. Dropping a scroll in a dank cave is sure to ruin it, hence you place it down gingerly, where it won't be ruined or get trodden upon. It's only when an adventurer loses consciousness that things go flying.
I...really like this. See this is a good example of good input. You take a weakness and turn it into a feature. Okay so maybe we assume that any item dropped rather than laid down takes a dent? Potentially breaking?
I could really go for that.
Sounds good to me. The 'Dent' feature certainly lends itself well to resolving damaging item in a more streamlined fashion.