That sucks.
FWIW, I use a whole distinct house-rule system for languages, so as an unintended side effect this CAN'T happen in my game.
But, shrug, I've also frequently stated that 3X/PF won't stop you from making it crash. It just soars if you choose not to crash it.
Maybe part of my luxury of being able to turn away from the constraints of playtest 2E is tied to the fact that I game with good players invested in story.
But, I remain pretty amazed that someone had 12 SP at one level (16 INT, human, rogue) and NOTHING else worth SP. Must have been high level where, according to conventional wisdom, the game has already gone off the rails.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes, but since there are no skills in PF2 that lack an untrained use, you're going from "I can do this and this" to "I can do this and this and also this and this," and considering it only happens with one skill at a time, that still doesn't seem all that much like a "leap up." It's like learning a new feat, which is also a thing you couldn't do yesterday but now you can.In 2E, what happens when a level 12 character becomes trained or expert? All kinds of things they were not even permitted to TRY yesterday suddenly become stupid easy as they leap to +12 (probably better). I don't think I've ever seen a 1E character dump 12 or more SP in one slot out of the blue. In 2E that will be routine. Am I wrong?...I wouldn't normally describe the difference between +10 and +12 to be a "leap up."But that isn't correct.
It is a change from "not permitted to roll" to +12.
Gating is a thing.Please go back and read the context.
Edit: IMO, going from not allowed to pick basic locks to being able to pick difficult locks over night *is* still a leap up.
But that doesn't happen. You go from not being able to pick locks to being able to pick basic locks, albeit with some reliability. If you're picking difficult locks then you could already pick basic ones.
This is why the skill gating makes more sense in PF2 than it did in PF1, because there are 5 steps rather than just the binary trained/untrained.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that doesn't happen. You go from not being able to pick locks to being able to pick basic locks, albeit with some reliability. If you're picking difficult locks then you could already pick basic ones.This is why the skill gating makes more sense in PF2 than it did in PF1, because there are 5 steps rather than just the binary trained/untrained.
Wrong. Look in the book.
Pick a lock is a Thievery action which requires Trained.If you are 11th level and untrained you can't use the action at all.
If you become trained at 12 you leap to really good at picking locks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's always fascinating that when a new edition comes out, some of the fans seem to spend a lot of time bashing the previous edition, which makes me wonder why they played a game for so long that they seem to hold in utter contempt.
Neither "the rules allow this but it really doesn't make any sense" nor "as much as I love this game, it has issues as well" are expressions of utter contempt.
This seems like another one of those "I've never seen a blue, 5-legged tiger." and someone instantly pipes up with "I see blue, 5-legged tigers all the time, and so does my wife."Four times across three campaigns.Dumping 12 skill ranks in Linguistics and waking up knowing fluently 12 new languages was always a very powerful indication of how logical and sound 3.5/PF skill system was.Did this happen in your games?
It seems pretty clear how this happens. Play an Int-based class, so invest your level ups in Int, when you hit the next even number on level up you gain an extra bunch of skill ranks equal to your level. So if you invest all of those into one skill, you can go from "knowing little to nothing about a topic" to being a world's leading expert on it.
|
Four times across three campaigns.Dumping 12 skill ranks in Linguistics and waking up knowing fluently 12 new languages was always a very powerful indication of how logical and sound 3.5/PF skill system was.Did this happen in your games?This seems like another one of those "I've never seen a blue, 5-legged tiger." and someone instantly pipes up with "I see blue, 5-legged tigers all the time, and so does my wife."
It's always fascinating that when a new edition comes out, some of the fans seem to spend a lot of time bashing the previous edition, which makes me wonder why they played a game for so long that they seem to hold in utter contempt.
Better yet, some of those fans have spent 5k USD on the game! Alas, human mind, beyond comprehension its vagaries are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't wine. be constructive say what the specific problem is and explain yourself. Why is it not working what is not working etc.Many do this. You are focusing on one side too but say nothing about the other side that doesn't add to the debate. Those that tell people that their issues are 'because they played it wrong' or 'you played the wrong class, or race or, ect' Or if you use these 5 specific tactics it's a cakewalk or....
People that come into any debate with 'it's all perfect, change nothing' are as constructive as those that say "burn it all down". People just don't complain about them because they're 'positive'.
Other people gave plenty of complaints about the "other side".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean whether or not a DM allows it it is allowed in the rules to put your 12 points of skills into linguistics and suddenly know 12 more languages. That's not even the most egregious of examples.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, once you've bought into the idea that you can permanently turn a warhorse into a chicken, or that if you stick with your career path you'll eventually learn photosynthesis... having an epiphany and learning a bunch of stuff when you gain INT is one of the less bizarre features of the realm.
Yes, it was a common house rule, especially in lower-magic campaigns, to limit skill-point dumping. But in those campaigns, the players planned to have someplace to put those upcoming skill points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually wing it with skill points. Usually trying to make sense.
My Brawler was an ex Bouncer for a tavern. His skill points (And I have to convert it to Core standard rules so one sec) get chucked into; Perception, Sense Motive, Knowledge Local, Bluff, Diplomacy and Profession. If I can, gets tossed into Craft(Alchemy) or maybe Craft (Brewing). Is brewing a thing?
Under PF1 rules I'd probably spend the first 2 levels just putting a point into them all or at least Perception and some other things. But I'd probably juggle those followed by some support(Hello Climb, Acrobatics, and maybe swim).
But he's a down on his luck city boy. He doesn't need the other skills(He MIGHT but in my head he doesn't require them in his line of work and now his adventures). He could just dump a level into Linguistics and be allowed to by RAW.
But I'm looking at this character and thinking "Why would I do this?"
I dunno, this is off topic I feel but people were talking about PF1 skills.
(Psst, I took a trait that gave me Diplomacy as a class skill so that's why I put skill ranks into it)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean whether or not a DM allows it it is allowed in the rules to put your 12 points of skills into linguistics and suddenly know 12 more languages. That's not even the most egregious of examples.
I think nobody would be averse to Paizo coming up with a more organic solution to this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Second edition killed this game for me. "Herofinder" was right there for the taking rather than dropping ten years of work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...that can be picked by someone who is only Trained. Like I said, basic locks.
If you become trained at 12 you leap to really good at picking locks
No, that's not right. You have a +12 (at least).
A trained level 1 rogue can open "basic locks" with his +5 (assuming an 18 Dex). If you have a 16 Dex you are at +10 over the guy doing "basic locks" A +10 is HUGE in 2E.
Are you even looking at the mechanics? Or are you just saying what you think *should* happen?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ten years ago, this place was a den of negativity during the original Pathfinder Playtest. First Edition wasn't doomed because a rule wasn't changed...Second Edition probably won't be either. History repeats.
Luckily for us, Paizo do keep an archive of these discussions.
I see a lot more negativity here than in those boards...
Where I did see the negativity was in boards about another product released a few months before the Pathfinder Playtest was announced...
True.
I was there. I remember.
Tons of negativity for the game Pathfinder replaced while the boards here were mostly positive - we were all glad that the game we knew and loved through two editions (3.0 and 3.5) but was killed by a new edition (4e) would be resurrected in Pathfinder.
Now the boards today feel like that resurrection had a 10 year expiration date and that game we knew and loved through three editions (3.0 and 3.5 and Pathfinder) is getting its final true death.
Maybe it's not true, I hope it's not true, but these boards kinda feel that way.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental issue is that "feels like Pathfinder" was a stated goal - and the playtest doesn't feel like a streamlined, updated version of PF1E. It feels like a different game. PF1E *did* feel like a new & improved D&D3.5, mechanically.
Just like slapping Forgotten Realms™ all over D&D4E didn't make it feel like a continuation of the same game, stuffing Golarion™ into every nook & cranny of this game isn't going to make it feel like Pathfinder if it is a new game. Mind you, making a whole new game isn't inherently a bad thing. D&D3.0 was a completely different game from D&D2.5. But it was (for me) a new game that moved in a direction that matched a lot of the extensive houserule revamp we'd been making to the D&D2.5 chassis.
I really, really love a few of the changes in the playtest (new action economy, for example). And if they were updating PF1E with those, I'd be on board. But they are also fundamentally revamping the underlying structure into a new game. And that new game doesn't match my playstyle preferences, either as a player or as a GM. I'm still hopeful that when all is said and done, we get that PF1.5E, but I don't think that's actually in the cards.
|
|
...that can be picked by someone who is only Trained. Like I said, basic locks.
If you become trained at 12 you leap to really good at picking locksNo, that's not right. You have a +12 (at least).
A trained level 1 rogue can open "basic locks" with his +5 (assuming an 18 Dex). If you have a 16 Dex you are at +10 over the guy doing "basic locks" A +10 is HUGE in 2E.
Are you even looking at the mechanics? Or are you just saying what you think *should* happen?
I'll let the book answer that.
Proficiency-Gated Tasks
Sometimes succeeding at a particular task requires a higher proficiency rank than the base use of the associated skill. This is particularly common with Disable a Device, Pick a Lock, and Recall Knowledge. For instance, you might decide that knowing the details of a certain arcane theory isn’t possible for anyone who’s not trained in Arcana. However, you could allow someone untrained to try anyway; in this case, the PC could not succeed at the check but could still critically fail and gain erroneous information. Locks and traps often require a certain proficiency rank to successfully use the Pick a Lock or Disable a Device tasks of Thievery; a character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but can’t succeed.
Bold emphasis, of course, added.
So, to reiterate: you can go from Untrained to Trained, and thus start being able to somewhat reliably pick basic locks. However, you still cannot pick any lock that requires Expert or higher. If you can pick locks at an Expert level, then you were already able to pick Trained-level locks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am terribly disappointed to report that our playtest is over. While we enjoyed some of the features of the new edition, (scaling cantrips, and bulk - much to my surprise), the decision to abandon was unanimous.
We adopted the revised action econony from Unchained in our weekly Pathfinder game soon after that resource was released. So the action econony was not a new feature for us.
I look forward to seeing the finalized rules, but I must confess that we did not enjoy our experience with this new (unfinished) version. Perhaps that will change once feedback is considered and the new version finalized.
We are a group of mature gamers with decades of experience playing different role playing games. I am more than a little crestfallen that the playtest wasn't a fun experience. Maybe we just aren't up to the playtesting task? It felt like work and we puzzled over some of the design decisions.
Tonight I had a lengthy heart to heart with my group and we decided to continue with classic Pathfinder (with our house rules to correct issues as we see them). We considered switching to a different ruleset or genre, but will hold off on that for now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, that's not bad faith criticism. Bad faith implies an intent to deceive, which your example doesn't give.
When your intention is not to improve PF 2 but to make it into a mere PF 1 clone, that's exactly what it is. And if you attack any criticism not because you want to refute it, but because you want to discredit every kind of criticism out of a wrong sense of loyalty to Paizo. It's bad faith defense.
I've seen both more than once and especially from some of those that are very vocal about the perceived wrongs from the other side. Main reason why I'm content to wait for the end result and (most probably) just play it based on what the designers think is best for the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are a group of mature gamers with decades of experience playing different role playing games. I am more than a little crestfallen that the playtest wasn't a fun experience. Maybe we just aren't up to the playtesting task? It felt like work and we puzzled over some of the design decisions.
This is where I think Paizo might have over-reached with its publicizing. Playtesting is work. Especially in a Table top RPG where there is no computer that will be handling all of the rules and rule-changes. I think a lot of people were expecting to be playing a more finalized and put together product and are getting frustrated that the reality of a playtest is not matching their expectations for what PF2 will eventually become.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where I think Paizo might have over-reached with its publicizing. Playtesting is work. Especially in a Table top RPG where there is no computer that will be handling all of the rules and rule-changes. I think a lot of people were expecting to be playing a more finalized and put together product and are getting frustrated that the reality of a playtest is not matching their expectations for what PF2 will eventually become.
We are a group of mature gamers with decades of experience playing different role playing games. I am more than a little crestfallen that the playtest wasn't a fun experience. Maybe we just aren't up to the playtesting task? It felt like work and we puzzled over some of the design decisions.
Playtesting yes, is work. I was thinking back to the 5e Playtest and realized something.
It may have been better to playtest each change one at a time, and release a free Doomsday Dawn chapter to test those single changes. Get feedback on each different new system one at a time rather than infodumping it all in a rulebook. I've hovered the thought around that many of the solutions they've had to PF1 problems have been double solved. Like making a list of everything wrong with the PF1 system and going down one by one making solutions without paying attention to if a prior solution had already solved the problem.
Playtesting yes, is work. I was thinking back to the 5e Playtest and realized something.It may have been better to playtest each change one at a time, and release a free Doomsday Dawn chapter to test those single changes. Get feedback on each different new system one at a time rather than infodumping it all in a rulebook. I've hovered the thought around that many of the solutions they've had to PF1 problems have been double solved. Like making a list of everything wrong with the PF1 system and going down one by one making solutions without paying attention to if a prior solution had already solved the problem.
Certainly that has its own issues with practicality as well - such as an extremely long duration that would inevitably follow without a significant end date in realistic sight.
Besides, you don't necessarily get wide agreement on what is actually wrong with the PF system as it is. You get pockets of it here and there and then pockets of the opposite opinions there and here. Batching together a bunch of them, even a lot of them, isn't an unreasonable direction to take. But it does ask a lot of the play testers - particularly of their open mindedness and patience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't know where are you coming from because since the playtest dropped I've seen maybe two threads locked. There has been a fair amount of flamewaring during the previews, but I think the atmosphere currently is one of debate. An i remember the i avoided the Paizo forums because of serious flamewaring during the playtest even though I was lurking because i was interested in the rules. The amount of negativity is a different thing altogether, and IMO signals that the rules are not in a good place right now.It's telling that the archive includes threads complaining about negative overly dramatic posts...but few to none of those posts themselves. For instance I distinctly remember Frank Trollman's exit thread but can't find it in the archives. Not accusing Paizo of whitewashing - they only have so much server space - but let's not pretend that the alpha period wasn't contentious.Luckily for us, Paizo do keep an archive of these discussions.
I see a lot more negativity here than in those boards...It’s probably a function of the more egregious posts being deleted and threads being locked (meaning they drift to the bottom).
I found the PF1 playtest ugly but I think this one is worse. I don’t think it’s a function of how well the rules are being received, I think people are less concerned with being polite now than they were then.
We shouldn’t object to people posting negative opinions - that’s useful and almost the whole point of the process. There ware ways to say it though.
Agreed. The pre play test comments were quite toxic, but the vast majority of the current threads don't feel mean spirited to me.
I posted my own, careful to be organized and constructive in my criticism, because I want the problems fixed far more than I want to just rage. I think this represents the majority of posts these days.
My group's current frustrations can be best summarized as 1) Poor layout of the book and 2) Breaking stuff that wasn't broken before (such as rangers, alchemists, and reducing the 15 minute adventuring day to only 10 minutes). I want to like the new version, but the current version fixed problems that didn't effect our group and created problems that never afflicted us before.