| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Condescending much?Zman0:
Im going to read exactly 0 of those words.
So I guess it was condescending VERY much in that case.
So Dual handed assault, free action drop hand off the sword, activate dueling dance stance and repeat losing the stance when you attack at the beginning of each turn. When's the grab happen?
Dual handed assault:
This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free.
Also, it may likely be changed to a single action (or something) soon.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs429qi?DualHanded-Assault-needs-a-buff-following
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I should have read to the end. It sounds like the concern in the thread is that there isn't much advantage to be had in using the attack unless you are effectively gaining an action by saving one on the attack. It sounds like your build is already reaping that benefit by reactivating a stance, isn't it?
Either way, still doesn't sound much like a fighter. Switching to two hand a weapon, grabbing people, sounds very much like a barbarian thing, and dueling style still sounds more like fencing and should probably stay with rogues as I mentioned before. And now we have an issue where an under performing ability is only valuable when combined with that one feat, so its best to separate them anyway so one could be buffed.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What we are saying is way too many feats are locked behind classes.Strongly disagree.
"We" are already making plans to make their current 5e campaign their last and move to PF2. This is not something "we" expected to do since "we" were extremely burnt out and turned off by 3.X/PF.
"We" are saying the current implementation of feats is one of the major reasons why "we" are drawn to this edition of the game. The reduction of munchkinist char-op is a huge draw for "us" and "we" like that characters won't lean on the same common pool of combat feats to create a slate of samey characters every campaign.
I'm honestly confused. PF2 is striking me as PURE (as you put it) 'munchkin char-op' and very little else. The only thing that matters is a finding a way to get a leg up on the numbers the monsters are using (because theirs are better)
I've seen a lot of people throw 'One True Build' around as a term already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, a Taunt that determines "aggro" is a line in the sand for me. If I see something like this it's getting house-banned faster than limp lash.Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".I'm just glad we don't have anything that compels enemies to drop everything and attack you regardless of circumstances; that's a line I'm unwilling to cross.
Well, Retributive Strike has been working pretty well to get my GM to always attack me instead of the other PCs. I personally don't think it's that enforcing, but then again, neither was Divine Challenge in 4th edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for the record, 4e Paladins do not have a fixed Smite feature but they have lots of Smites that they can select as powers (or not).
Two Essentials sub-classes (Cavalier and Blackguard) do get Smite effects built into their builds. Like you said, pretty much any power that deals more than 1[W] damage can be considered "Smite", but it could be said that forcing players to get Smite is a way for them to recognize that Paladins do get it.
It's funny. James Wyatt said he is a big fan of Paladin, and much of his input to the 4ed Paladin was because he felt the 3ed Paladin was so anemic. He called out Smite Evil as being situational, easily lost, and forgettable even if it hit. The final result had a lot of effects more powerful than Smite Evil, but perhaps the problem was that none of them were called "Smite Evil".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter's an armor and shield guy what's he doing with agile weapons?That is not an assumption I agree with. That way lies 4th Ed's Roles and what-not. Fighters should not be forced into being armoured, sword and board person.
I agree. Either we're going with niche protection and forcing things like this, or we aren't. While tightening up the rules regarding what makes a fighter a fighter would give more much needed design space to the ranger for instance, it would only make it more time consuming to create the character you intend to create.
I was trying to walk someone through the problems slowly, so I have a few loose posts like that one that make little sense out of context. Sorry about that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love it when criticisms of 4th ed get dismissed due to lack of experience, considering I played in 3 campaigns (2 of which got to late teens), ran 1 campaign and played more LFR then I would care to admit (I stopped playing 4th ed after 5 years of playing it).
the devs are already changing things according to feedback and announced further changes are coming but you critisize without even playtesting and providing feedback.
The fact you interpret feedback as criticism isn't a good starting attitude. As for refusing to playtest it, that's my group. They do refuse to playtest it and there's nothing I can do about that except provide feedback as to why I won't be playtestjng. Also that quote of mine you grabbed? It was in response to Jason saying they will not be changing in the playtest the very sticking point that is causing my group to refuse to playtest. I only say this because without the context the quote does appear quite hysterical (I'll assume that was unintended and you weren't trying to misrepresent me).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you gotta judge a game on the game it is not on the one you want it to be.
Patently false. You can judge a game on whatever criteria you choose. Didn't used to be this way, back when there weren't many options, but there are enough TTRPG alternatives in the market nowadays that people can judge games by whether or not they like the cover art, or by how friendly or unfriendly the players of that game appear to be, and still be able to walk away completely satisfied with lots of other options that better meet their criteria for a "good game".
There are plenty of people who judge a game by whether or not it's the game they want it to be. They pick the system that is closest to exactly what they desire, and house rule the rest.
But you gotta judge a game on the game it is not on the one you want it to be.Patently false. You can judge a game on whatever criteria you choose. Didn't used to be this way, back when there weren't many options, but there are enough TTRPG alternatives in the market nowadays that people can judge games by whether or not they like the cover art, or by how friendly or unfriendly the players of that game appear to be, and still be able to walk away completely satisfied with lots of other options that better meet their criteria for a "good game".
There are plenty of people who judge a game by whether or not it's the game they want it to be. They pick the system that is closest to exactly what they desire, and house rule the rest.
Boo, the GM should do no work, the game should be perfectly fesible to run and the GM shouldn't fix any problems they have with the system at large.
Oh you did fix it? Either you're badwrongfun or the system isn't for you.
No seriously, people have said a version of that. That it's "Not their job to fix the system" when it comes to some problems. Do these people run everything as RAW?
Bah. But that's one reason I'm sticking with PF1. I have it largely to the point I want. I'm looking into other features/options to turn on maybe but my ruleset is largely finished. Maybe some touch ups.
PF2 won't have that home brew for awhile AND probably won't have that many extra options at launch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you gotta judge a game on the game it is not on the one you want it to be.Patently false. You can judge a game on whatever criteria you choose. Didn't used to be this way, back when there weren't many options, but there are enough TTRPG alternatives in the market nowadays that people can judge games by whether or not they like the cover art, or by how friendly or unfriendly the players of that game appear to be, and still be able to walk away completely satisfied with lots of other options that better meet their criteria for a "good game".
There are plenty of people who judge a game by whether or not it's the game they want it to be. They pick the system that is closest to exactly what they desire, and house rule the rest.
Boo, the GM should do no work, the game should be perfectly fesible to run and the GM shouldn't fix any problems they have with the system at large.
Oh you did fix it? Either you're badwrongfun or the system isn't for you.
No seriously, people have said a version of that. That it's "Not their job to fix the system" when it comes to some problems. Do these people run everything as RAW?
Bah. But that's one reason I'm sticking with PF1. I have it largely to the point I want. I'm looking into other features/options to turn on maybe but my ruleset is largely finished. Maybe some touch ups.
PF2 won't have that home brew for awhile AND probably won't have that many extra options at launch.
I don't like to dog on them for it, but this probably comes from the PFS scene which is over represented on the forums.
I do think the game should be functional out of the box, some DMs don't like having to reevaluate things on the fly. I think the most boring part of the game is when I have to sit through hours+ of rules verifications with my players instead of playing the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do these people run everything as RAW?
I play online with players and DM's I haven't played with. The less that needs 'fixed' before you can even get to character creation helps speed things along greatly. As such, if a game works as/is, it's a much better candidate to get run than one that needs heavily houseruled [EACH and EVERY time you run it, as some fix it differently] before you start. IMO, I see a LOT of "badwrongfun" comments when people want a game to work 'out if the box', and I don't think that's too much to ask.
Now if you play a home game and don't mind rebuilding a game from scratch to get to functional, that great for you... Not everyone can or wants to do that and instead want to jump right into having fun with the game. Fixer upper vs move in ready: neither is 'bad', they just attract different people.
I agree to the two of you.
But when people sit there and complain about something they could easily try and fix only for them to fold their arms and go "It's not my job to FIX it" strikes me as an insane stance to have.
A game should work at least enough out of the box for new players and a GM to figure out and play. But they should also be allowed to fix things and not be called out for it as badwrongfun and told "Not your job".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just easier if I can let the players just go make characters without expanding on a list of house rules that affect builds etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A game should work at least enough out of the box for new players and a GM to figure out and play. But they should also be allowed to fix things and not be called out for it as badwrongfun and told "Not your job".
It's fine if you WANT to fix something: if you want to do that, great. I shouldn't HAVE to fix something if I don't want to. SO I'm fine with someone that want to houserule to make things better for their group. What I don't want to see it me having to fix things because they weren't done right in the first place and I now have to take my limited time to do the fix and THEN go over that fix EACH and EVERY time I play with a new group, all because it wasn't done right at the start. IMO, it ISN'T my job: I'm here to have fun, not reinvent the wheel by having to do basic game design instead of 'fun things for the party to do' design.
And again, that's fine.
But I'm not going to sit back and take complaints from some nameless goon(Not you two) on a forum complaing about oh say Wands for 35 pages and 15 topics and told I'm badwrongfun for daring to try and fix it in my game.
I don't like Resonance. If I play PF2, I'm removing it. I don't want to suddenly be called "the worst GM ever because how dare you" for pages on end.
I don't want to be accused of robbing the players of their agency when I tweak some of the numbers or accused of wanting to power game the heck out of a game if I mess with some of the systems.
The COMMUNITY seems to think otherwise, so whatever. Report me to the GM association. See if they can revoke my GM license
But when people sit there and complain about something they could easily try and fix only for them to fold their arms and go "It's not my job to FIX it" strikes me as an insane stance to have.
If there's a problem with the system, it is literally "not our job" to fix it. It's Paizo's.
Whether we can houserule something to deal with it is something that should be discussed after the system is published.
Working around a problem both diminishes the value of the playtest data, and makes it less likely that the issue will be corrected in the published rules.
I'm running PF2 as is. Or at least how I understand the rules. One reason I'm waiting to see the Erratas a bit.
But if PF2 hits the shelves, and there's something in the rules YOU, Mekkis, do NOT like. Well then I guess you need to either play with the thing you dislike or find another system. Because you can't houserule it without being wrong it seems.
So without niche protection, what are classes for? Without some kind of picture of how a class contributes differently from other classes, how do you decide a new class is needed?
I'm not entirely convinced I want niche protection, but it feels that that leads to a classless system as the inevitable conclusion.
But classes are more than their class feats.
You'll notice I didn't say a dang thing about class feats. Whether your class features are locked like so many classes in PF1 or al a carte with class feats is completely irrelevant to what I asked.
There exists no logical reason why "the ability to take Power Attack" or "The ability to reload while moving" should be gated behind a given class.
So, how does that contrast with one of your examples, Evasion? Why does it make sense for Evasion to be gated and not Power Attack? What reason can you give me besides "it's what I'm used to."
Sorry, the topic was specifically calling out Gated Class Feats. My apologies for the confusion.But classes are more than their class feats.You'll notice I didn't say a dang thing about class feats. Whether your class features are locked like so many classes in PF1 or al a carte with class feats is completely irrelevant to what I asked.
Fair enough. I'm very curious what your answer to me second question is. I haven't come up with an answer yet, so if someone else has one, I'd love to hear it.
I feel like the topic turned into a philosophy on gaming as of the last page.
I feel like the topic turned into a philosophy on gaming as of the last page.
I mean, the question of gating/role protection vs. free-form choices is a question of game design philosophy, so I think it always was.
I feel like the topic turned into a philosophy on gaming as of the last page.I mean, the question of gating/role protection vs. free-form choices is a question of game design philosophy, so I think it always was.
Hey hey no one opened you up.
(well actually I guess one person did. )
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".I'm just glad we don't have anything that compels enemies to drop everything and attack you regardless of circumstances; that's a line I'm unwilling to cross.
Honestly, in a system that plays and feels like PF2, I'd welcome something like drawing aggro.