Why do these rules hate fun?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, small rant incoming. I'm getting ready for a homebrew campaign starting in the playtest rules and I'm coming up with characters. The problem is, almost every time I think of a neat concept that I can't FATHOM being overpowered, the rules just flat out tell me "No!"

So, I was thinking about Rogues, as I often do because they're a pretty well-designed class in the playtest, and trying to make the whole "Gish" character work without resorting to Cleric/Wizard, because it really irks me that the Mystic Theurge is probably the best Gish in the game. (FYI, Gish is a magic/martial hybrid, for those of you who might not be aware of the term). I started thinking: What about Arcane Trickster? Could I make that work? I remembered reading that Sneak Attack worked with Unarmed strikes, and sure enough, melee touch attacks from spells count as unarmed strikes! With all of these spells costing two actions, but targeting Touch AC, including cantrips, I really liked the idea of a melee spell-slinging rogue.

Then I get to the rules on spell attacks:

Pathfinder Playtest wrote:
Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell.

I will give the rules this: They've covered the base for this kind of interaction. But COME ON! Almost every time I think a character concept might work, I'm sent into this spiral of frustration with this game. I get that the rules are tight, but why are they so freakin' restrictive? Is there going to be some super special rule surrounding the Arcane Trickster dedication feats? Are we really worried that, what, MONKS are going to start picking up cantrips because they might get an accuracy bonus with them?

Actually, stop right there. That's a thing that could be neat, right? Monks critting more frequently with cantrips and touch spells because of their accuracy bonus? Well, no, not any more than wizards and sorcerers anyways, so it's basically a waste of time. And don't get me started on how "meh" sorcerers are. I heard they were going to be spontaneous primal casters and got so excited!... and there's basically no incentive to play them over a druid. Ever.

Paizo, please just consider loosening the reins a bit. The system has some upside, but the game is so restrictive it's aggravating. More cool stuff, less fuddy-duddy rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, you've got a couple different ways to play an Arcane Trickster, if you define it as some kind of rogue/wizard hybrid. The magical rogue concept can be addressed, most likely through a Rogue(Wizard) multiclass.

Now, what I see you wanting is probably more along the lines of an Arcane Trickster PRC that can be taken with multiclass feats... we just don't have one yet.

More in general, as to your comment about how "limited" P2 is, think back to any core book of any of the previous systems, what exactly could we do with them? How limited were they? Lets not forget that this is the playtest, how much content is currently missing? How much more content will we have in a couple of splat books?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I entirely agree that that particular rule is unnecessarily restrictive, I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to state that

Davor wrote:
almost every time I think of a neat concept that I can't FATHOM being overpowered, the rules just flat out tell me "No!"

and then only give one example. Could you maybe provide some other instances where the rules have prevented cool builds?

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:

So, you've got a couple different ways to play an Arcane Trickster, if you define it as some kind of rogue/wizard hybrid. The magical rogue concept can be addressed, most likely through a Rogue(Wizard) multiclass.

Now, what I see you wanting is probably more along the lines of an Arcane Trickster PRC that can be taken with multiclass feats... we just don't have one yet.

More in general, as to your comment about how "limited" P2 is, think back to any core book of any of the previous systems, what exactly could we do with them? How limited were they? Lets not forget that this is the playtest, how much content is currently missing? How much more content will we have in a couple of splat books?

Okay, so I have thought about all this things:

1) "We don't have the Arcane Trickster PRC via multiclass feats"

Correct, but why not? They showed us the Cavalier as a prestige class (which they actually did a pretty decent job with), the Pirate (a sort of proof of concept), and the Gray Maiden (again, a proof of concept, but from a world-building perspective), but didn't think to put into the playtest what was a Core prestige class? Some of the core prestige classes are represented in some way (Mystic Theurge receiving a noticeably HUGE boost in this version of the game), but the gishy ones really aren't in any recognizable way, and that's kind of disheartening.

2) I understand that previous systems didn't have all the options in their core that we eventually got. But 2nd edition is supposed to iterate and improve on the first, not simply rehash it. They proved they were willing to do that by making the Alchemist a core class, yet a handful of feats and rules that would have made certain character archetypes exciting (not just possible, but EXCITING) simply aren't there, and that I can think of relatively simple fixes leaves me perplexed, and I haven't really seen a response from Paizo in this regard.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
While I entirely agree that that particular rule is unnecessarily restrictive, I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to state that
Davor wrote:
almost every time I think of a neat concept that I can't FATHOM being overpowered, the rules just flat out tell me "No!"
and then only give one example. Could you maybe provide some other instances where the rules have prevented cool builds?

Okay.

1) An animal companion-focused character. Animal companions seem really cool, with archetypes, fixed progression, and Work Together benefits coupled with unique attacks.The rules for them are actually really neat! Buuuuuuuut...

Pathfinder Playtest wrote:
...though with the exception of barding allowing an item bonus to AC of up to +2, they never benefit from item bonuses.

So... I can buy all the magic runes and items for my companion that I want, but the vast majority (and I do mean vast) will have no effect. Why? It's completely arbitrary! Why in this fantasy game can I not have a bear with flaming claws? Or a gleaming horse with barding that reflects spells? Or heck, why can't I,from a mechanical perspective, have a companion that stays relevant later in the game? Because honestly, the stat bumps from Barding or Unarmored proficiency and saving throw proficiencies are not going to save your companion, and their attack bonus is going to be really darn low.

2) A Paladin that can Smite Evil. I tried this one with available resources, and Paladin is just... so disappointing as a whole. I don't mind some of the abilities, but Blade of Justice (the only thing resembling Smite Evil) is just sad. To be clear, when I say Smite Evil, what I really mean is "Be a warrior that situationally hits really hard." And I tried. I looked for spells or abilities that allowed for that style of gameplay, and they just aren't there. There are some spells that increase your item bonus to your weapon by one, but that's really it across the board.

Actually, I take it back. A CLERIC could do it by channeling negative energy and taking Channel Smite. So, yeah, a negative energy channeling cleric. Paladin could never do it, not even through multi-classing, because their Channel Life feat doesn't even give you the prerequisite cleric ability to qualify for Channel Smite, and of course cleric multiclassing doesn't give you access to channel energy.

3) The Wizard Gish. So, this one may seem a bit odd, because for a lot of people the Eldritch Knight was mostly wizard, with a hint of martial, and for the most part you get the vague outline of this in the playtest. But it's really depressing when you look at it. Buff spells, the source of what really made Eldritch Knight work, are basically gone as a form of balancing your character. Now, for the most part that's a good thing, as balancing between 6-12 effects on your character, all with different durations, was frustrating, but we didn't really get anything equivalent in their place. To make matters worse, there aren't even any Eldritch Knight/Magus core elements encorporated into the game. Where's the "Cast a Spell on Crit" feat? You could put that in Wizard + Sorcerer no sweat. It would even have SOME synergy with the existing Magical Striker feat and oh no I said Magical Striker.

This feat is probably the most disappointing one I've seen. The design philosophy behind it is actually REALLY good. It's the sort of counter to Cast a Spell on Crit: Cast a spell, free attack buff! The problem is action economy, efficacy of use, and the fact that you're a wizard and you kinda suck at combat and there isn't really anything you can do about it. At low levels, this spell can actually be pretty cool. Combining True Strike with this actually gives you a reasonably hard-hitting, high accuracy attack (Suck it, Power Attack!)... but this feat falls off so hard, especially once that +1 item bonus stops mattering as much. Without any other support, and with almost no spells that allow you to move/strike/cast in any sort of productive way, the whole thing just feels very underwhelming.

4) The Support Character/The Debuffer Character: These two are a bit of a longer discussion, but I'm going to keep it brief in the hopes that someone will point out something I missed and I'll be able to salvage these character concepts. As far as I can tell, Conditional buffs, and conditional penalties from debuffs, don't stack. In a way, this is understandable. The overall tightening of the math around level means that buffs/debuffs actually can work really well in tandem. The problem is that, alone, these things simply don't feel very impactful. If you had a whole group doing them, it could be cool... except most of them don't stack, so realistically you're looking at about a +4 to any given roll on the net (including debuffs to enemy defenses). That's pretty solid, but I can't, for the life of me, see any way to build a character around doing both well, let alone one or the other well. It's depressing, because the Arm/Anvil roles are my two favorites.

I'm sure there are more, and I realize that a couple of those are kind of a personal taste thing, but I'm very tired, so I'll have to let those suffice for now.

I would be sad to think I'm the only person seeing these issues, but I feel like the Paizo crew are good enough game designers that I shouldn't be finding what I would think are simple problems. Maybe I am crazy. It certainly wouldn't be surprising.


1) Remember that item bonuses mean literally "+X item bonus to whatever", which does not include any additional effects. For example, flaming - nowhere do I see that flaming is an "item bonus".

3) Err...did you forget that increasing a magic weapon by +1 also adds an additional die of damage?

4) Reminder that +4 is basically equal to +8 in 1E thanks to how crits work. Also reminder that based on the math, +3 to hit for the party is approximately a 50% increase in damage, just on that alone.

Scarab Sages

Cyouni wrote:

1) Remember that item bonuses mean literally "+X item bonus to whatever", which does not include any additional effects. For example, flaming - nowhere do I see that flaming is an "item bonus".

3) Err...did you forget that increasing a magic weapon by +1 also adds an additional die of damage?

4) Reminder that +4 is basically equal to +8 in 1E thanks to how crits work. Also reminder that based on the math, +3 to hit for the party is approximately a 50% increase in damage, just on that alone.

1) Yes, but that does nothing to solve animal companion accuracy problems. That's the big one, not even including the generally lower damage. That's also a LOT of money to spend if you want your companion to get 3 runes that apply to their unarmed strikes.

3) That's why I said it was good at lower levels, and lost usefulness as you got higher.

4) +4 is a nice number. I've yet to see how any class can feasibly reach it, since bonuses/penalties don't stack (as far as I can tell, you take the highest conditional bonus, and the vast majority of them are conditional).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
(FYI, Gish is a magic/martial hybrid, for those of you who might not be aware of the term).

They will always be Githyanki Fighter/Magic-Users, to me!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a different idea of fun in roleplaying than Davor, but I have had players with similar ideas. They want cool moves. They want glory in victory. As their GM, my job is to set up situations where they can attain that glory.

Cool moves have to be effective. If not, then they are only fluff. But they can be effective in ways that the game has planned to be effective. A paladin with Smite Evil or a magus with Spellstrike are attacking with a weapon, as expected, and have a cool limited-use rider on top of that. A spellcasting rogue turning invisible for extra stealth is sneaking. Rogues are expected to be sneaky.

This has some risk. A character can put all his eggs into one basket and then turbocharge that basket for high-speed performance (oops, mixed my metaphors). It takes solid encounter design to keep that turbocharged trick from dominating all encounters. The risk is worth the fun it provides to many players.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a PF1 GM, and what strikes me about the OP is that everything is from the perspective of the player wanting to be powerful, and without consideration for whether it might break the balance of the game.

I have GMed high-level PF1 and it can be exhausting -- not only having to be familiar with all the players' abilities, but also having to adjust published adventures to account for the ways my players find ways to combo and break the game. I approve of much of the direction PF2 is going in as a result. (That said, I would like the individual choices to be powered up some within the current structure; Skill Feats in particular are not very exciting at the moment.)


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Davor wrote:
(FYI, Gish is a magic/martial hybrid, for those of you who might not be aware of the term).
They will always be Githyanki Fighter/Magic-Users, to me!

A Gish will always be a ball of tar with eyes and teeth to me!


12 people marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

I am a PF1 GM, and what strikes me about the OP is that everything is from the perspective of the player wanting to be powerful, and without consideration for whether it might break the balance of the game.

I have GMed high-level PF1 and it can be exhausting -- not only having to be familiar with all the players' abilities, but also having to adjust published adventures to account for the ways my players find ways to combo and break the game. I approve of much of the direction PF2 is going in as a result. (That said, I would like the individual choices to be powered up some within the current structure; Skill Feats in particular are not very exciting at the moment.)

There is a happy medium between the two systems we have as of now.

One allows you to utterly break the game by copy-pasting builds you find online and the other won't let you tie your shoes and talk at the same time for fear of you destroying the universe.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
One allows you to utterly break the game by copy-pasting builds you find online and the other won't let you tie your shoes and talk at the same time for fear of you destroying the universe.

Here's a good example of the latter: languages have been nerfed pretty heavily. Starting languages are set by your ancestry unless you are a human, and bonus languages are limited to one additional language if your Int >= 14 (chosen from a pre-set list of languages, also set by your ancestry or perhaps your region). For most ancestries, that means you have two languages that are fixed, and possibly one bonus language. If you are a gnome, then it's 3(+1).

To learn a new language, you need to take a feat (Multilingual), though that Feat gives you two languages. To take that feat, however, you have to be an expert in the Society skill. And you can't be an expert until you get your first skill increase.

Here's what that all means:

  • A starting character can never have more than 3 languages unless they are a gnome (at which point it's 4)
  • A character can't learn new languages until level 3 (unless they are a rogue, as they get a skill increase at level 2)
  • Learning languages costs a feat

Feats are precious resources in this game. Picking up a language comes at the expense of other mechanics. Now, we can make an argument that the old way of doing things (a skill point = new language) was too lenient, but this new approach seems like a severe over-correction. Especially since languages were never an OP aspect of the game. It is so severe of a cost that actually feels like punishment to take a language.

PC's are supposed to be the exceptional characters in the world. They are traveling great distances, meeting humanoids and monsters and extra-planar creatures of all sorts. The sort of people that would be motivated to pick up new languages.

Wizards used to be one of the language champions, exactly as you'd expect from someone who spent most of their time scouring books and tomes for arcane knowledge. Now they are spending all that time to get a 50% failure chance of learning a new spell of the highest level they can cast. Bards were also language masters, exactly as you expect from a traveling showman, and in this edition are eclipsed by Rogues.

It's insanity. The mechanics of languages are fixing problems that weren't problems, and breaking things that just made sense.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:
thflame wrote:
One allows you to utterly break the game by copy-pasting builds you find online and the other won't let you tie your shoes and talk at the same time for fear of you destroying the universe.

Here's a good example of the latter: languages have been nerfed pretty heavily. Starting languages are set by your ancestry unless you are a human, and bonus languages are limited to one additional language if your Int >= 14 (chosen from a pre-set list of languages, also set by your ancestry or perhaps your region). For most ancestries, that means you have two languages that are fixed, and possibly one bonus language. If you are a gnome, then it's 3(+1).

To learn a new language, you need to take a feat (Multilingual), though that Feat gives you two languages. To take that feat, however, you have to be an expert in the Society skill. And you can't be an expert until you get your first skill increase.

Here's what that all means:

  • A starting character can never have more than 3 languages unless they are a gnome (at which point it's 4)
  • A character can't learn new languages until level 3 (unless they are a rogue, as they get a skill increase at level 2)
  • Learning languages costs a feat

Feats are precious resources in this game. Picking up a language comes at the expense of other mechanics. Now, we can make an argument that the old way of doing things (a skill point = new language) was too lenient, but this new approach seems like a severe over-correction. Especially since languages were never an OP aspect of the game. It is so severe of a cost that actually feels like punishment to take a language.

PC's are supposed to be the exceptional characters in the world. They are traveling great distances, meeting humanoids and monsters and extra-planar creatures of all sorts. The sort of people that would be motivated to pick up new languages.

Wizards used to be one of the language champions, exactly as you'd expect from someone who spent most of their...

Languages in P1 were always a little under-powered because everyone and their pudding had a unique racial language, so even if you maxed linguistics and had 10 languages, the likelihood that you would have the correct language for a situation was never high. Add to that that comprehend languages and tongues come online pretty early and it was all kind of pointless.

P2 nerfed the number of languages you get but did not really reduce the number of languages that exist (that I can see) so it makes it even less useful.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

I am a PF1 GM, and what strikes me about the OP is that everything is from the perspective of the player wanting to be powerful, and without consideration for whether it might break the balance of the game.

I have GMed high-level PF1 and it can be exhausting -- not only having to be familiar with all the players' abilities, but also having to adjust published adventures to account for the ways my players find ways to combo and break the game. I approve of much of the direction PF2 is going in as a result. (That said, I would like the individual choices to be powered up some within the current structure; Skill Feats in particular are not very exciting at the moment.)

I think you have hit on exactly what the disconnect is for the OP.

He wants to have fun. He wants to play a wild and loose game with lots of options at his fingertips. He wants to be able to come up with a concept and through delving into the rules find a way to make it happen.

And PF2 isn't about that. It's designed for you. For PFS play. It's designed to put a brake on the wild and wooly designs. See, no design can break a game. You're the GM, you have everything under your control, you have the entire universe at your fingertips. But, if you don't want to have to study as much as the player does, if you don't want to have to keep up with all the various options out there then it can be difficult to keep the game balanced. So you, and others, look to Paizo to do it for you.

And they have. Slammed a big fat brake on the way options and the like can be applied. Limit starting stats. Hamstring what "multi-classing" actually means. Etc. Etc.

And to you, this is a good thing. And that's fine. You can run the game that you enjoy and possibly that your players enjoy. But it's not going to be fun for OP.

The change in the rules isn't for everyone. Some folks will be just better off finding a group that is sticking with PF1.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:

I am a PF1 GM, and what strikes me about the OP is that everything is from the perspective of the player wanting to be powerful, and without consideration for whether it might break the balance of the game.

I have GMed high-level PF1 and it can be exhausting -- not only having to be familiar with all the players' abilities, but also having to adjust published adventures to account for the ways my players find ways to combo and break the game. I approve of much of the direction PF2 is going in as a result. (That said, I would like the individual choices to be powered up some within the current structure; Skill Feats in particular are not very exciting at the moment.)

I think you have hit on exactly what the disconnect is for the OP.

He wants to have fun. He wants to play a wild and loose game with lots of options at his fingertips. He wants to be able to come up with a concept and through delving into the rules find a way to make it happen.

And PF2 isn't about that. It's designed for you. For PFS play. It's designed to put a brake on the wild and wooly designs. See, no design can break a game. You're the GM, you have everything under your control, you have the entire universe at your fingertips. But, if you don't want to have to study as much as the player does, if you don't want to have to keep up with all the various options out there then it can be difficult to keep the game balanced. So you, and others, look to Paizo to do it for you.

And they have. Slammed a big fat brake on the way options and the like can be applied. Limit starting stats. Hamstring what "multi-classing" actually means. Etc. Etc.

And to you, this is a good thing. And that's fine. You can run the game that you enjoy and possibly that your players enjoy. But it's not going to be fun for OP.

The change in the rules isn't for everyone. Some folks will be just better off finding a group that is sticking with PF1.

The biggest problem is that the game The Rot Grub wants already exists. It's called D&D 5e.

Fans of Pathfinder wanted an updated PF1 with bug fixes and new content. Something that was backwards compatible if you wanted something lost in the change. We wanted PF2 to be what PF1 was to 3.5.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

I think you have hit on exactly what the disconnect is for the OP.

He wants to have fun. He wants to play a wild and loose game with lots of options at his fingertips. He wants to be able to come up with a concept and through delving into the rules find a way to make it happen.

And PF2 isn't about that. It's designed for you. For PFS play. It's designed to put a brake on the wild and wooly designs. See, no design can break a game. You're the GM, you have everything under your control, you have the entire universe at your fingertips. But, if you don't want to have to study as much as the player does, if you don't want to have to keep up with all the various options out there then it can be difficult to keep the game balanced. So you, and others, look to Paizo to do it for you.

And they have. Slammed a big fat brake on the way options and the like can be applied. Limit starting stats. Hamstring what "multi-classing" actually means. Etc. Etc.

And to you, this is a good thing. And that's fine. You can run the game that you enjoy and possibly that your players enjoy. But it's not going to be fun for OP.

The change in the rules isn't for everyone. Some folks will be just better off finding a group that is sticking with PF1.

I see what you're saying. And I think that what will decide the success of an RPG system is whether GMs are excited to run it and propagate it. GMs usually have the job of organizing groups (and I'm not just talking about opening up your house and ordering pizza -- I'm talking about recruiting people to your group).

I currently have a player who has a 17th-level slayer with archery feats and sneak-attack feats. He has an eversmoking bottle, a goz mask to see through smoke (and party allies with goz masks as well), and he can, with little effort, do a full attack that deals 60 damage per arrow after being buffed by the bard, by haste, using manyshot, DR penetrating feats, rapid shot, a holy enchantment on his bow, and the several ioun stones spinning around his head, all while being hidden by smoke that prevents him from being targeted by the enemies. I've nerfed this combo by modifying the eversmoking bottle, but every week I get a new combo from him that he usually gets from the internet and hasn't created himself.

I love PF1; I've run it for 8 years; and I'm ready to move on.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

The biggest problem is that the game The Rot Grub wants already exists. It's called D&D 5e.

Fans of Pathfinder wanted an updated PF1 with bug fixes and new content. Something that was backwards compatible if you wanted something lost in the change. We wanted PF2 to be what PF1 was to 3.5.

Well you would be making a wrong assumption. Read my previous post. And you should not make divisive statements with people you disagree with being "5e" and "Fans of Pathfinder" (your words) on the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:


I currently have a player who has a 17th-level slayer with archery feats and sneak-attack feats. He has an eversmoking bottle, a goz mask to see through smoke (and party allies with goz masks as well), and he can, with little effort, do a full attack that deals 60 damage per arrow after being buffed by the bard, by haste, using manyshot, DR penetrating feats, rapid shot, a holy enchantment on his bow, and the several ioun stones spinning around his head, all while being hidden by smoke that prevents him from being targeted by the enemies. I've nerfed this combo by modifying the eversmoking bottle, but every week I get a new combo from him that he usually gets from the internet and hasn't created himself.

I love PF1; I've run it for 8 years; and I'm ready...

That's a player/gm issue, not a rules issue. Once PF2 has been around for a couple of years there will be these same combos and the like. Because Paizo will create new content and someone with the eye for it will figure out how to work it into something truly impressive.

Changing the rules isn't going to change the people. It only gives Paizo a chance to sell us much of the same, but with modified mechanics. Which is smart for them. They are a business. They gotta sell to be successful.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Rot Grub wrote:
Quote:

I think you have hit on exactly what the disconnect is for the OP.

He wants to have fun. He wants to play a wild and loose game with lots of options at his fingertips. He wants to be able to come up with a concept and through delving into the rules find a way to make it happen.

And PF2 isn't about that. It's designed for you. For PFS play. It's designed to put a brake on the wild and wooly designs. See, no design can break a game. You're the GM, you have everything under your control, you have the entire universe at your fingertips. But, if you don't want to have to study as much as the player does, if you don't want to have to keep up with all the various options out there then it can be difficult to keep the game balanced. So you, and others, look to Paizo to do it for you.

And they have. Slammed a big fat brake on the way options and the like can be applied. Limit starting stats. Hamstring what "multi-classing" actually means. Etc. Etc.

And to you, this is a good thing. And that's fine. You can run the game that you enjoy and possibly that your players enjoy. But it's not going to be fun for OP.

The change in the rules isn't for everyone. Some folks will be just better off finding a group that is sticking with PF1.

I see what you're saying. And I think that what will decide the success of an RPG system is whether GMs are excited to run it and propagate it. GMs usually have the job of organizing groups (and I'm not just talking about opening up your house and ordering pizza -- I'm talking about recruiting people to your group).

I currently have a player who has a 17th-level slayer with archery feats and sneak-attack feats. He has an eversmoking bottle, a goz mask to see through smoke (and party allies with goz masks as well), and he can, with little effort, do a full attack that deals 60 damage per arrow after being buffed by the bard, by haste, using manyshot, DR penetrating feats, rapid shot, a holy enchantment on his bow, and the several ioun stones spinning...

In before "It is GM's duty to properly challenge the players well maybe you are a bad GM if you can't handle those combos and hey what is a goz mask anyway?" ;-)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:
thflame wrote:

The biggest problem is that the game The Rot Grub wants already exists. It's called D&D 5e.

Fans of Pathfinder wanted an updated PF1 with bug fixes and new content. Something that was backwards compatible if you wanted something lost in the change. We wanted PF2 to be what PF1 was to 3.5.

Well you would be making a wrong assumption. Read my previous post. And you should not make divisive statements with people you disagree with being "5e" and "Fans of Pathfinder" (your words) on the other.

I really didn't mean that in a divisive way.

Look at the thousands of threads about fixing Pathfinder, and you will see the common theme of wanting basically the same game, with the trap options and OP stuff tuned to be more in line with the average.

Most people didn't want a brand new system.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I really like all the discussion about this. To be clear I actually DON'T like PF1 as much as it might seem I do. I enjoy systems like 5e a bit more, which may come as a surprise, but 5e is actually pretty robust as far as character customization is concerned, mostly because, despite they pretty tame base class structure, the way that they've structured their feats and multiclassing rules actually allows for some pretty varied character concepts.

As for being powerful, it's a little bit of that. I will admit that I enjoy building Pathfinder 1 characters that are extremely effective, but honestly, if you knew me, you'd know that what I want isn't a high level of power, but the joy of being a "Johnny" player.

For those of you unfamiliar with that term, it's a Magic: The Gathering name for the kind of player that likes building weird, combo-centric decks that, while not necessarily the best, utilize unconventional options in order to make what is actually an effective whole. In PF1, that was things like my Starknife-Paladin, or my Lore Warden/Slayer fighter. It was taking things that rarely got used, and going super-overboard with them to the point that they were really quirky, and turned heads at the table. I LOVE doing stuff like that, not because it's powerful, but because it's unconventional and it works.

I feel like a lot of PF2 at the moment is sticking too close to enforcing convention, to the point that it feels really limiting. I don't want to take away from the base game of Pathfinder for everyone else, nor do I want to bump up the power level. Instead, I want the rules to be more open to doing unconventional things, or messing with Action economy, or combining unique effects without unbalancing the combat. It really doesn't bother me if swinging a longsword and casting a cantrip isn't overpowered, but I WOULD like it if there were a way to do that with a modicum of success.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:
Languages in P1 were always a little under-powered because everyone and their pudding had a unique racial language, so even if you maxed linguistics and had 10 languages, the likelihood that you would have the correct language for a situation was never high. Add to that that comprehend languages and tongues come online pretty early and it was all kind of pointless.

Ironically, this is one situation in the Playtest where magic actually shines. I say "ironically" because one of the goals of the game design seems to be "reign in magic so players with skills aren't rendered useless by the spell caster". But these rules torpedo languages as a mundane skill, and Comprehend Languages has been given a huge boost: it has a 1 hour duration, heightens at 3rd level to an equivalent of Tongues (so you don't have to learn a separate spell), and can be heightened to 4th level to provide a mass version (which doesn't exist in PF1). That makes Comprehend Languages pretty much a required spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
That's a player/gm issue, not a rules issue. Once PF2 has been around for a couple of years there will be these same combos and the like. Because Paizo will create new content and someone with the eye for it will figure out how to work it into something truly impressive.

Heck, it took the community all of three days after the playtest started for someone to discover that clerics could cast fist to heal people because the original dying rules had nonlethal damage send you to 1 hp.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:
thflame wrote:

The biggest problem is that the game The Rot Grub wants already exists. It's called D&D 5e.

Fans of Pathfinder wanted an updated PF1 with bug fixes and new content. Something that was backwards compatible if you wanted something lost in the change. We wanted PF2 to be what PF1 was to 3.5.

Well you would be making a wrong assumption. Read my previous post. And you should not make divisive statements with people you disagree with being "5e" and "Fans of Pathfinder" (your words) on the other.

I really didn't mean that in a divisive way.

Look at the thousands of threads about fixing Pathfinder, and you will see the common theme of wanting basically the same game, with the trap options and OP stuff tuned to be more in line with the average.

Most people didn't want a brand new system.

The forums represent just a fraction of PF1 players, though. I've played with or GMd for somewhere around 20 people and only one had an account here, so I'd hardly say the opinions of the forums here are an accurate representation of the community as a whole. Besides that, the PF2 forums alone are pretty split in their opinion of the new edition, and there have been many cases where someone's opinion changed drastically (positively or negatively) once they sat down and played.


The Rot Grub wrote:
I currently have a player who has a 17th-level slayer with archery feats and sneak-attack feats. He has an eversmoking bottle, a goz mask to see through smoke (and party allies with goz masks as well), and he can, with little effort, do a full attack that deals 60 damage per arrow after being buffed by the bard, by haste, using manyshot, DR penetrating feats, rapid shot, a holy enchantment on his bow, and the several ioun stones spinning around his head, all while being hidden by smoke that prevents him from being targeted by the enemies. I've nerfed this combo by modifying the eversmoking bottle, but every week I get a new combo from him that he usually gets from the internet and hasn't created himself.

Filling a room with smoke and wearing goggles that see through it seems like a valid tactic to me. A party will need alternative tactics for enemies that are not bothered by impaired vision. As a GM I would readily throw such a foe against the PCs.

60 damage per arrow, on the other hand, sounds ridiculous. How did that player manage it? I also scratch my head at why anyone would bother with bypassing damage reduction given that much damage, since I have not seen any DR greater than 15. We GMs create enemies that can be defeated by damage, since that is supposed to be the universal solution. ("The reactor is going to overload and blow the city to atoms! Does anyone know nuclear physics?" "No." "Nope." "Not me." "Okay, let's smash it to bits.") That level of damage means that the universal solution is the easiest solution, so victories will lack creativity.

We GMs like some limits on PC abilities, so that we can keep the encounters interesting. The limits don't have to be noticeably restrictive. For example, my Jade Regent campaign (Amaya of Westcrown) had a fighter Jao with the two-handed archetype who could deal 100 damage per round (but not 100 damage per swing). His favorite foes were oni, with CRs ranging from Earth Yai CR 13 to Void Yai CR 20. They had abilities that could foil a fighter, such as invisibility at will, shape changing for a disguise, or organizing into armies. When dealing with oni, the role of the rest of the party was find, subvert, trick, or trap the oni so that the fighter could kill them. That led to interesting variety in combat, despite the fighter having a single tactic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

To be fair, I think a lot of this is future proofing for classes to be added later.

A design problem for building specialized classes that used concepts from the druid is that the druid was a very capable spellcaster, shapeshifter, and companion class, all at the same time with minimal investment. That made it tricky to say, create a specialized classes around The Hunter or shapeshifting while still being relevant.

I know people were predicting before the rules release that the new system would allow you to build EVERYTHING with only minimal need for new classes, but I would say it's the reverse. We are probably going to get more narrowly designed classes, and classes with more of a jack of all trades approaches are going to be less powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

Filling a room with smoke and wearing goggles that see through it seems like a valid tactic to me. A party will need alternative tactics for enemies that are not bothered by impaired vision. As a GM I would readily throw such a foe against the PCs.

60 damage per arrow, on the other hand, sounds ridiculous. How did that player manage it? I also scratch my head at why anyone would bother with bypassing damage reduction given that much damage, since I have not seen any DR greater than 15. We GMs create enemies that can be defeated by damage, since that is supposed to be the universal solution. ("The reactor is going to overload and blow the city to atoms! Does anyone know nuclear physics?" "No." "Nope." "Not me." "Okay, let's smash it to bits.") That level of damage means that the universal solution is the easiest solution, so victories will lack creativity.

We GMs like some limits on PC abilities, so that we can keep the encounters interesting. The limits don't have to be noticeably restrictive. For example, my Jade Regent campaign (Amaya of Westcrown) had a fighter Jao with the two-handed archetype who could deal 100 damage per round (but not 100 damage per swing). His favorite foes were oni, with...

Hello, fellow GM. *salute*

Yes, the goz mask/smoke combo IS a valid tactic, and I don't want to negate smart play, but it also means that if it is unchecked, the party can magically scout enemies that can't see through smoke and insta-win them.

I do adjust the tactics of the monsters (and I am GMing that group through Rappan Athuk, so yeah I do my part to make things challenging). I often do this with more intelligent (usually spellcasting) enemies who sometimes will scry the party to observe their tactics, or use magic, or ready ranged attacks against their casters, etc.

But if I were to make the MAJORITY of encounters ones which negate the benefit of the players' plan (because, again, the combo in question is an instawin), then that means I'm obviously countering the benefit of what they're doing, and for most of their enemies to be spellcasters.

So my call in this situation was to warn the party that the Eversmoking Bottle in its description needs 1 round before it spreads out to a 50' radius, and to limit it to one use per day. And if it is opened earlier, then it warns enemies of the party's approach and the enemies.

As for the 60 damage per arrow, this is how he does it:
+2 holy composite longbow +28/+23/+18/+13 (1d8+6+2d6 vs. evil/x3). The +28 comes from: +17 base attack bonus, +8 Dexterity, +2 enhancement, +1 weapon focus feat. The damage bonus is from +4 Strength, +2 enhancement. AVERAGE DAMAGE: 17.5 (24.5 vs. evil)
* The party's bard has the banner of ancient kings, which together with Inspire Courage as a 17th level bard (which gives a +4/+4 bonus) gives a +6/+6 bonus to attack and damage. AVERAGE DAMAGE 23.5/30.5
* He can study an enemy using his Slayer ability as a swift action, granting him +4/+4 to attack and damage. AVERAGE DAMAGE: 27.5/34.5
* Deadly Aim gives a -4 to attack, +8 to damage. AVERAGE DAMAGE: 35.5/42.5
* Sneak attack +6d6. AVERAGE DAMAGE: 56.5/63.5
* Goz mask to see through the smoke he created. Since the enemy can't see him, he benefits from sneak attack and the +2 bonus to attacks.
* Sniper's goggles: he can make sneak attacks beyond 30'. If they are within 30', he adds +2 to each sneak attack damage die and +1 from Point-Blank Shot. (SO IF THE CREATURE IS WITHIN 30 FEET, IT IS AVERAGE DAMAGE: 69.5/76.5.)
* Assuming he has haste (either from the party's bard or from the boots of speed he's wearing, then after taking all the above into account and assuming he also uses Rapid Shot his bow stats are now +2 holy composite longbow +34/+34/+34/+29/+24/+19 (1d8+24+2d6 vs. evil/x3) with +6d6 sneak attack. And because that first attack is Manyshot, two arrows will land. (SO THE FIRST ATTACK ROLL IS AVERAGE DAMAGE: 113/127 vs evil. IF THE CREATURE IS WITHIN 30 FEET, IT IS AVERAGE DAMAGE: 139/153 vs evil.)

A CR 17 creature under the Bestiary guidelines has an AC of 32. By my estimate (and without the Sniper's goggles bonus), this character is dealing about 370 damage per round (this accounts for 3x non-precision damage on a critical). This is more than enough to kill that CR 17 creature, with a fair chance of killing a CR 20 creature (370hp, 36 AC).

* He also has the Sneaking Precision feat from Ultimate Combat, so that when he successfully sneak attacks an opponent he can apply the effect of one critical feat with a swift action. His feat is Blinding Critical, which has a Fort DC of 26 to resist. (If a creature is blinded, they are pretty much shut down.)
* He also has Improved Precise Shot, and can ignore cover and concealment.

Gorbacz wrote:
In before "It is GM's duty to properly challenge the players well maybe you are a bad GM if you can't handle those combos and hey what is a goz mask anyway?" ;-)

Sigh, believe me I know! :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:
"Adjust the encounters to your players to challenge them!" is easy to say, but what does it mean in practice?

That is common advice, but I don't say it. I tend to adjust the encounters to amuse my players rather than challenge them. For example, my players like to talk to enemies, so the enemies in my campaigns are more willing to talk back. I usually due increase the CR on the adventure path's encounters by 1 or 2, since they fight above their party level, but that is routine increaases in the number of foes. I once let them kill off over 100 oni in an ingenious surprise that used architecture against the oni, but that was more to let the players show of their cleverness than their prowess in a fight.

My own party fights so well because of teamwork, and I see teamwork in The Rot Grub's party with someone handling the eversmoking bottle, a bard with Inspire Courage, and the bard casting Haste. I believe good teamwork should be rewarded. I also give my party advantages for gathering advance information and for good planning. Those unbalance the encounters, but my players have fun and feel that they earned their victories.

I had not expected the smoke tactic to grant the ability to sneak attack repeatedly, but I see that the 15-rank skill unlock from Pathfinder Unchained grants the ability to maintain Stealth during repeated attacks. That rule goes too far. The fun is in coming up with new ways to deny the target his Dexterity bonus.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think one of the big problems here is just that the base rules are just not going to be able to give you the options to tweak the basic rules. I am 95% sure that there will be a Rogue class feat at some point (probably book 2 or 3) that will let you add sneak attack damage to Touch spells. Both versions of Pathfinder are exception based. What that mean is they give you the base rules, and then they give you the thing that breaks that rule. However, you just can't print enough of those things that break the rules in the first book. I think it is important to remember that PF 1e only got going so fast because you had all of the 3.5 options to still use with some modifications. And when did it really hit it's stride as it's own game that was with the APG.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This thread highlights one of the problems I have with the system too. It's a game where you only get to play the characters the designers want you to play rather than the characters you want to play. That's why all the feats went from well-designed general purpose abilities to highly restrictive no-creativity-allowed abilities that you only get by taking the class. The lack of a good multiclass system only exacerbates this.

The alchemist (for example) would be infinitely better if you took the PF1 alchemist, turned all the Discoveries into proper PF1-style feats. Give all the feats the Discovery keyword (and any other applicable keyword such as Combat, maybe add Mutagen and Bomb as appropriate to open up design space) and change the discovery class feature to granting bonus Discovery feats. Fix multiclass spellcasting while your
at it and you've got an Alchemist mark 2 that is really awesome.

Similar things could be done with Rogue Powers, rather than having Ninja Tricks and Slayer Talents (and the similar abilities for Investigators and Vigilantes). Turn them all into feats and just give the classes bonus feats that have the right keyword. Rogues would get bonus Trick feats. If you really don't want too much class sharing, then use a variety of keywords. Make some of the Ninja Tricks into Trick feats but others into Ki feats and give the Ninja bonus Trick or Ki feats while the Rogue only gets Trick feats. The important things is the feats are general purpose and anybody can take them if they meet the prerequisites.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LuniasM wrote:
thflame wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:
thflame wrote:

The biggest problem is that the game The Rot Grub wants already exists. It's called D&D 5e.

Fans of Pathfinder wanted an updated PF1 with bug fixes and new content. Something that was backwards compatible if you wanted something lost in the change. We wanted PF2 to be what PF1 was to 3.5.

Well you would be making a wrong assumption. Read my previous post. And you should not make divisive statements with people you disagree with being "5e" and "Fans of Pathfinder" (your words) on the other.

I really didn't mean that in a divisive way.

Look at the thousands of threads about fixing Pathfinder, and you will see the common theme of wanting basically the same game, with the trap options and OP stuff tuned to be more in line with the average.

Most people didn't want a brand new system.

The forums represent just a fraction of PF1 players, though. I've played with or GMd for somewhere around 20 people and only one had an account here, so I'd hardly say the opinions of the forums here are an accurate representation of the community as a whole. Besides that, the PF2 forums alone are pretty split in their opinion of the new edition, and there have been many cases where someone's opinion changed drastically (positively or negatively) once they sat down and played.

This is a dangerous line to go down. This is the kind of response that might lead somebody believe the greater sentiment is the opposite of the forum sentiment. Or at least intimate that is the case. Without concrete numbers of active forum users, the active player base size, and any sort of sampling biases of forum users to the wider player base the only conclusion that one can make is that the forum is equally likely to represent aggregate opinion as it is not to.

Scarab Sages

Frozen Yakman wrote:

This thread highlights one of the problems I have with the system too. It's a game where you only get to play the characters the designers want you to play rather than the characters you want to play. That's why all the feats went from well-designed general purpose abilities to highly restrictive no-creativity-allowed abilities that you only get by taking the class. The lack of a good multiclass system only exacerbates this.

The alchemist (for example) would be infinitely better if you took the PF1 alchemist, turned all the Discoveries into proper PF1-style feats. Give all the feats the Discovery keyword (and any other applicable keyword such as Combat, maybe add Mutagen and Bomb as appropriate to open up design space) and change the discovery class feature to granting bonus Discovery feats. Fix multiclass spellcasting while your
at it and you've got an Alchemist mark 2 that is really awesome.

Similar things could be done with Rogue Powers, rather than having Ninja Tricks and Slayer Talents (and the similar abilities for Investigators and Vigilantes). Turn them all into feats and just give the classes bonus feats that have the right keyword. Rogues would get bonus Trick feats. If you really don't want too much class sharing, then use a variety of keywords. Make some of the Ninja Tricks into Trick feats but others into Ki feats and give the Ninja bonus Trick or Ki feats while the Rogue only gets Trick feats. The important things is the feats are general purpose and anybody can take them if they meet the prerequisites.

I think there is such a thing as having too much freedom, particularly when it comes to games. Having some elements of tight or cohesive design is beneficial, particularly involving things like decision paralysis. I just think that there is a balance between a totally open system and an extremely rigid system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't the idea of a playtest to playtest the rules they have? Not to immediately look for ways to do things not covered in the rules? Maybe those of you who want more out of the game have already run all the current race and class options that have been given. I haven't had the time to run through all the combos I could do with the rules as is, so I'm not to the 'why can't I make x character' yet. My group is trying to truly playtest the 2nd edition. Make the characters, run a playtest module, and discuss the result. Make the 2nd characters, run a playtest module, and discuss. etc. Half of our group have been gaming together for 30 years and the other half for 15. We all started with Advanced Dungeon and Dragons all those years ago. Every new edition have brought changes, most of them good, but some not so much. The only edition the our group, as a whole, detested was 4th edition D&D. Luckily for us, it allowed Paizo to create Pathfinder, and Pathfinder 2 is a solid start to upgrade the system.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Doering wrote:
Isn't the idea of a playtest to playtest the rules they have? Not to immediately look for ways to do things not covered in the rules? Maybe those of you who want more out of the game have already run all the current race and class options that have been given. I haven't had the time to run through all the combos I could do with the rules as is, so I'm not to the 'why can't I make x character' yet.

Oh, of course. I definitely want to play a bog-standard elf evoker wizard. /sarcasm

I am under the impression that playtesting is a way for us to see what Paizo is focusing on for the next edition, and to see if it works. If the next edition is focused on only allowing stereotypical characters in a clean, but uninteresting system, I feel like they should know that I'm not a fan, and that it could be improved upon.


John Mechalas wrote:
thflame wrote:
One allows you to utterly break the game by copy-pasting builds you find online and the other won't let you tie your shoes and talk at the same time for fear of you destroying the universe.

Here's a good example of the latter: languages have been nerfed pretty heavily. Starting languages are set by your ancestry unless you are a human, and bonus languages are limited to one additional language if your Int >= 14 (chosen from a pre-set list of languages, also set by your ancestry or perhaps your region). For most ancestries, that means you have two languages that are fixed, and possibly one bonus language. If you are a gnome, then it's 3(+1).

To learn a new language, you need to take a feat (Multilingual), though that Feat gives you two languages. To take that feat, however, you have to be an expert in the Society skill. And you can't be an expert until you get your first skill increase.

Here's what that all means:

  • A starting character can never have more than 3 languages unless they are a gnome (at which point it's 4)
  • A character can't learn new languages until level 3 (unless they are a rogue, as they get a skill increase at level 2)
  • Learning languages costs a feat

Feats are precious resources in this game. Picking up a language comes at the expense of other mechanics. Now, we can make an argument that the old way of doing things (a skill point = new language) was too lenient, but this new approach seems like a severe over-correction. Especially since languages were never an OP aspect of the game. It is so severe of a cost that actually feels like punishment to take a language.

PC's are supposed to be the exceptional characters in the world. They are traveling great distances, meeting humanoids and monsters and extra-planar creatures of all sorts. The sort of people that would be motivated to pick up new languages.

Wizards used to be one of the language champions, exactly as you'd expect from someone who spent most of their...

I'm still on the fence of with power vs gameplay {you are less powerful in this edition meaning your not always a one man soultion to problems, or can be good in everything. On the one hand, this can lead to more reliance on your team mates/ other people, jury-rigging soultions, and engaging in tatictics you would normally not, which can be quite fun. But it can also go to far, if your charater is to weak to do anything /can't do what he want/ you just cannot win because your party just didn't build there charater to have the soultion, it can go down hill quickly. Just have to see what side of the fence this will fall on in the end.)

In regards to the Multilingual feat you mentioned, you only need to be Trained in Soecity {unless I'm missing something.} Now you still need to spend one of your prof (either from the ones you get from your class or from a skill increase) but it is a bit easier pill to swallow that you do not need to spend a Skill Increase to gain Expert just to gain access to learn languages, escpecally when you gain so precious few of those.


Davor wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


...
3) Err...did you forget that increasing a magic weapon by +1 also adds an additional die of damage?
...

...

3) That's why I said it was good at lower levels, and lost usefulness as you got higher.
...

In my opinion at least an additional +1 bonus on a weapon is amazing:

+1 additional bonus on a weapon is +1 to hit, +1 crit range, and +weapon dice to damage; over and above the weapons other characters get using WBL.

That's useful and powerful at all levels. Especially that +1 crit range. In PF1 there were about one or two ways to get crit ranges over 15-20; and they required specific weapons, a confirmation roll and level 20.

That +1 crit range also benefits the extra damage dealt.


The Rot Grub wrote:

And because that first attack is Manyshot, two arrows will land. (SO THE FIRST ATTACK ROLL IS AVERAGE DAMAGE: 113/127 vs evil. IF THE CREATURE IS WITHIN 30 FEET, IT IS AVERAGE DAMAGE: 139/153 vs evil.)

* He also has Improved Precise Shot, and can ignore cover and concealment.

While that slayer has an impressive damage output, your calculation is a little bit off:

* Manyshots second shot doesn't get the Sneak Attack, since Manyshot explicitly states that Sneak Attack is only added once
* Improved Precise Shot lets him ignore the miss chance for concealment. That does not allow him to sneak a target that has concealment, so a blur spell would reduce his damage quite a bit.

A few ideas to lessen the impact of that characters damage:
* Try using enemies with Uncanny Dodge, like Rogues and Barbarians. Flat-Footed? I don't think so....
* The Level 5 Spell Fickle Winds pretty much shuts him down completely

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, the GM has to dumpster dive to challenge a dumpster-dived PC. High level PF1 basically becomes a battle of who reads more splatbooks faster :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
So, the GM has to dumpster dive to challenge a dumpster-dived PC. High level PF1 basically becomes a battle of who reads more splatbooks faster :)

And the problem with that is? People still play Legacy MTG despite the game being absolutely, game-breakingly, broken in several dozen different ways. Different people have different views on what is fun.

Personally, I'm more of a "Johnny" player like Davor here who just cares about making crazy and fun builds work. That said, I do have fun breaking the game at times with high-level play (or more commonly, with low-level characters fighting APL+6 or higher.)

Keep in mind we're discussing the merits of optimized play, NOT high-level play. High-level play is not inherently broken (though it definitely needs some tuning) whereas the whole point of Optimized play is throwing yourselves at ridiculous challenges with just as ridiculous characters.

I've personally broken the game with infinite wishes at level 5, in a party where I could easily argue that I wasn't the most overpowered/ridiculous character in the group.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
So, the GM has to dumpster dive to challenge a dumpster-dived PC. High level PF1 basically becomes a battle of who reads more splatbooks faster :)

Yeah, it's like the GM has the responsibility to challenge his players, talk with problem players if they overshadow the group and so on. You know, normal GM stuff.

Also, Wind Wall and Fickle Winds are from the CRB and Ultimate Magic respectively, while the Goz Mask is from a campaign setting splat book, the Inner Sea World Guide... a book not renowned for its balanced magic items, see the Mantis Mask. In any case, not exactly "dumpster diving" for the GM when he just has to use two spells from the one of the most commonly used three splatbooks of the game and the actual core rulebook.

I know you seem to prefer to abdicate all GM responsibility on the ruleset, but even if PF2E comes out so straightjacketed for the players that they cannot optimize at all (which seems to be the case, because due to the very tight mathematic construction of the system its either playing optimized like the devs intend you to or sucking right out of the gate), that will change rather sooner than later when Paizo needs to publish splatbooks to remain afloat.


Ramanujan wrote:

In my opinion at least an additional +1 bonus on a weapon is amazing:

+1 additional bonus on a weapon is +1 to hit, +1 crit range, and +weapon dice to damage; over and above the weapons other characters get using WBL.

That's useful and powerful at all levels. Especially that +1 crit range. In PF1 there were about one or two ways to get crit ranges over 15-20; and they required specific weapons, a confirmation roll and level 20.

That +1 crit range also benefits the extra damage dealt.

It's +1 to the crit range once you're already hitting on a roll of a 10 (or better). To get the equivalent of a 15-20 crit range you need to be able to hit the enemy on a 5; to get better than 15-20 you need to be hitting the enemy on a 4 (or better). I'm pretty sure the math for PCs in PF2 is tied down hard enough that you're not going to be doing that against any but the weakest mooks.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
So, the GM has to dumpster dive to challenge a dumpster-dived PC. High level PF1 basically becomes a battle of who reads more splatbooks faster :)

Yeah, it's like the GM has the responsibility to challenge his players, talk with problem players if they overshadow the group and so on. You know, normal GM stuff.

Also, Wind Wall and Fickle Winds are from the CRB and Ultimate Magic respectively, while the Goz Mask is from a campaign setting splat book, the Inner Sea World Guide... a book not renowned for its balanced magic items, see the Mantis Mask. In any case, not exactly "dumpster diving" for the GM when he just has to use two spells from the one of the most commonly used three splatbooks of the game and the actual core rulebook.

I know you seem to prefer to abdicate all GM responsibility on the ruleset, but even if PF2E comes out so straightjacketed for the players that they cannot optimize at all (which seems to be the case, because due to the very tight mathematic construction of the system its either playing optimized like the devs intend you to or sucking right out of the gate), that will change rather sooner than later when Paizo needs to publish splatbooks to remain afloat.

For you, that's normal GM stuff. For me, that's a chore. You're young with no family obligations and ample free time. That'll hopefully change and with that will your view on how much time do you want to spend preparing the game.

And as for the system blowing up with splats - yeah, sure, but 5e didn't blow up in 3 years and I do sincerely hope that Paizo will adopt a much more sane pace of publishing material, more akin to the one 5e has. With Starfinder around, Paizo has far less financial pressure these days.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lyricanna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
So, the GM has to dumpster dive to challenge a dumpster-dived PC. High level PF1 basically becomes a battle of who reads more splatbooks faster :)

And the problem with that is? People still play Legacy MTG despite the game being absolutely, game-breakingly, broken in several dozen different ways. Different people have different views on what is fun.

Personally, I'm more of a "Johnny" player like Davor here who just cares about making crazy and fun builds work. That said, I do have fun breaking the game at times with high-level play (or more commonly, with low-level characters fighting APL+6 or higher.)

Keep in mind we're discussing the merits of optimized play, NOT high-level play. High-level play is not inherently broken (though it definitely needs some tuning) whereas the whole point of Optimized play is throwing yourselves at ridiculous challenges with just as ridiculous characters.

I've personally broken the game with infinite wishes at level 5, in a party where I could easily argue that I wasn't the most overpowered/ridiculous character in the group.

There's nothing wrong with that. There is PF1 and D&D 3.5 and million pages of 3PP for either to keep you happy coming up with ways to break the game and compare that with your buddies.

Meanwhile, I'll be here asking for a game that's easier to get new people into and to run Paizo's excellent APs with. Because at this point, PF1 is a clunky, unapproachable mess.

Don't get me wrong - I like that mess. But after introducing close to 40 people to Pathfinder and gaming on regular basis with 20 I think I have a nice look at what new and casual gamers are after in the game and how the 5e+Critical Role combo is bringing in new people.


Gorbacz wrote:
Lyricanna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
So, the GM has to dumpster dive to challenge a dumpster-dived PC. High level PF1 basically becomes a battle of who reads more splatbooks faster :)

And the problem with that is? People still play Legacy MTG despite the game being absolutely, game-breakingly, broken in several dozen different ways. Different people have different views on what is fun.

Personally, I'm more of a "Johnny" player like Davor here who just cares about making crazy and fun builds work. That said, I do have fun breaking the game at times with high-level play (or more commonly, with low-level characters fighting APL+6 or higher.)

Keep in mind we're discussing the merits of optimized play, NOT high-level play. High-level play is not inherently broken (though it definitely needs some tuning) whereas the whole point of Optimized play is throwing yourselves at ridiculous challenges with just as ridiculous characters.

I've personally broken the game with infinite wishes at level 5, in a party where I could easily argue that I wasn't the most overpowered/ridiculous character in the group.

There's nothing wrong with that. There is PF1 and D&D 3.5 and million pages of 3PP for either to keep you happy coming up with ways to break the game and compare that with your buddies.

Meanwhile, I'll be here asking for a game that's easier to get new people into and to run Paizo's excellent APs with. Because at this point, PF1 is a clunky, unapproachable mess.

Gorbacz - You seem to be going to any post that isn't happy with PF2 and attacking the posters.

While I agree with you, I'm not fond of playing a game that's not balanced, it's not engaging to either attack them or tell them to play other games. Constantly making that your MO makes people tune you out.

I, personally, feel that one can make fun builds in PF2. I would like some extra customization though.

Exanple:
I would love to have a more customizable mount rather than a horse. Mechanically the exact same as a horse, but flavored differently.

Example:
A heavily armored knight riding a large winged war tiger into battle while wielding a burning whip in one hand and a glowing shield in the other?

I can't do that. (I can do it with a horse though, but that doesn't quite look as metal.)

So I refute the idea that you can't make fun builds.

You can't make overpowered mega optimized game breaking builds. I'm ok with that.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You couldn't do that knight in PF1 Core as well, so that's kind of a moot argument. Heck, I'm pretty sure there were no winged tigers in PF1 at all. People keep expecting that the PF2 will have all their beloved options right from the get go. That's not something that could ever happen.


Gorbacz wrote:

You couldn't do that knight in PF1 Core as well, so that's kind of a moot argument. Heck, I'm pretty sure there were no winged tigers in PF1 at all. People keep expecting that the PF2 will have all their beloved options right from the get go. That's not something that could ever happen.

Uh. I could do that in PF1.

I can *almost* do it in PF2. I just can't get a non-horse mount.

The wings I get from the high level Paladin ability.


Davor wrote:
Jeff Doering wrote:
Isn't the idea of a playtest to playtest the rules they have? Not to immediately look for ways to do things not covered in the rules? Maybe those of you who want more out of the game have already run all the current race and class options that have been given. I haven't had the time to run through all the combos I could do with the rules as is, so I'm not to the 'why can't I make x character' yet.

Oh, of course. I definitely want to play a bog-standard elf evoker wizard. /sarcasm

I am under the impression that playtesting is a way for us to see what Paizo is focusing on for the next edition, and to see if it works. If the next edition is focused on only allowing stereotypical characters in a clean, but uninteresting system, I feel like they should know that I'm not a fan, and that it could be improved upon.

I'm with Jeff here that the goal of the playtest isn't to see what Paizo is focusing on, but rather testing the mechanics of the new system. And you should absolutely be trying to make characters that are as off the wall and insane as possible and seeing what works mechanically. However, I wouldn't say that is what Paizo is looking for.

Like Jeff, I'm running the modules, I'm getting feedback from my players and I've got input of my own to give. Some of it can totally be flavor stuff (like, a rogue can just walk through walls now, that's odd), but the focus shouldn't be "release more material," when the playtest is still continuing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

You couldn't do that knight in PF1 Core as well, so that's kind of a moot argument. Heck, I'm pretty sure there were no winged tigers in PF1 at all. People keep expecting that the PF2 will have all their beloved options right from the get go. That's not something that could ever happen.

Uh. I could do that in PF1.

I can *almost* do it in PF2. I just can't get a non-horse mount.

The wings I get from the high level Paladin ability.

\

Ah, I understood you as wanting a tiger with built-in wings. I get it now.

Well, if you want a mechanically same mount but with different flavour ... why don't you just ... propose the GM that your mount is a tiger, but is a horse for purpose of stats ... I mean, this is about as not-game-breaking change as you can get ... I cannot imagine myself saying "no" to that. Asking for a tiger with claws and pounce would be a different story, but a simple reflavour is just that.

And I too will hope for some more customization in PF2. Heck, I expect the game to have more customization thatn 5e but less than PF1. There's a happy point midway between these games which I hope Paizo will reach AND STOP THERE BEFORE WE DROWN IN OPTIONS THANK YOU.


Gorbacz wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

You couldn't do that knight in PF1 Core as well, so that's kind of a moot argument. Heck, I'm pretty sure there were no winged tigers in PF1 at all. People keep expecting that the PF2 will have all their beloved options right from the get go. That's not something that could ever happen.

Uh. I could do that in PF1.

I can *almost* do it in PF2. I just can't get a non-horse mount.

The wings I get from the high level Paladin ability.

\

Ah, I understood you as wanting a tiger with built-in wings. I get it now.

Well, if you want a mechanically same mount but with different flavour ... why don't you just ... propose the GM that your mount is a tiger, but is a horse for purpose of stats ... I mean, this is about as not-game-breaking change as you can get ... I cannot imagine myself saying "no" to that. Asking for a tiger with claws and pounce would be a different story, but a simple reflavour is just that.

And I too will hope for some more customization in PF2. Heck, I expect the game to have more customization thatn 5e but less than PF1. There's a happy point midway between these games which I hope Paizo will reach AND STOP THERE BEFORE WE DROWN IN OPTIONS THANK YOU.

Yes, that is why I said I would like to be able to get a non-horse mount option that is mechanically identical to a horse. That would allow more customization and not worry about breaking the game. It is still a fun idea.

My point was to the poster above you that you can have "fun" and not be "mechanically better"

Though I also propose since "flurry of bombs" is a thing there are plenty of "fun" (read game breaking) options in PF2 already. We just have to find them.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Why do these rules hate fun? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.