my future here


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

I abandoned 4e because Pathfinder existed and had APs which blew the competition out of the water. If the stories are there and they stay good, they will keep my business.

Pathfinder 1 has started to lose by business recently because their mechanics actively get in the way of high level storytelling. The adventures that they write cannot keep up with what players can do and require so much GM fiat that books 4-6 become free form/GM writing their own adventure to keep up with what the players can do.

PF2 had issues with expectations being directed one direction on game play and then not living up to those expectations, but as long as the system works to tell the stories, it will keep me interested even if I would have designed the game differently (especially if my issues can easily be house ruled.)

My story of embracing Pathfinder is similar to Unicore's. I switched from D&D 3.5 to D&D 4th Edition without complaint. The one character I played, a dwarf paladin Gardain, did not quite gel as a character for a few levels, he seemed more like a collection of abilities until I had some stories under his belt. Other people at the game store had heard about Pathfinder and one GM started a short introductory game. That game was enough to persuade us to buy the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. My wife borrowed the D&D 3.5 Rise of the Runelords modules from a friend and we began a Pathfinder campaign at the game store.

My players proactively avoid selecting Pathfinder abilities that disrupt the high-level storytelling. The story is their main goal, and they realize that powergaming simply causes me to increase the challenge level. This means that my table is an exception, except that I am bewildered that three groups of players, with only one player (my wife) and the GM (me) overlapping all three groups, are all an exception in the same way. Do the GM and the GM's lovely assistant influence player style that much? My players do derail the modules, both at low level and high level, so I have to freeform the games like Unicore using the modules as sourcebooks, yet the derailments are for story-based reasons.

magnuskn wrote:
- The turn structure is, IMO, not a problem in PF1E. I know my guys are very experienced with the system by now, hence of course I am having a somewhat skewed perspective on it. But "swift action, move action, standard action, immediate action" (the latter of which is very seldomly used) is not an inherently difficult concept. The "three action economy" of PF2E is simpler, but unnecessarily so. I got about four players between my ten friends I share between two groups, who sometimes run into questions what they can do in a round, but that is always resolved in about five seconds.

Most of the people on these forums sound positive about the three-action system. The PF1 system was not a showstopper, but it was more complicated than necessary and funneled actions too strictly. Dire Ursus and Tarik Blackhands point out that combat in PF2 is more tactical and the three-action system is part of the reason.

magnuskn wrote:
- Skill ranks were totally fine in PF1E and gave characters actual options at what they wanted to be good at.

When I had to build high-level NPCs for my campaigns, necessary due to the derailments, the main slowdowns were studying the classes and archetypes to find the best one and assigning the skills. Often for a generic high-level NPC, I would search the NPC Codex or the Rival Guide for an NPC of the right theme and class and add a few levels. In that case, updating the skills and the spell list were the hardest parts and took two hours.

magnuskn wrote:
- Base attack bonus does not exceed armor class per se. A player who builds his character to have a good AC is very difficult to hit by monsters at high levels. The problem is instead that there are too many buff types for attack bonuses being readily available. Morale bonuses, luck bonuses, competence bonuses and quite a lot of unnamed bonuses all stack and make accounting what your actual attack roll is too complicated. I can't count the times players forgot to add this or that bonus to their attack (or armor class) during combat.

Yes, PF1 has a problem with too many little bonuses. The tight math in PF2 is an attempt to fix that. Oddly, PF2's other practice of offering only item, circumstance, and conditional bonuses that don't stack seems a more direct and effective solution.

magnuskn wrote:
- Caster versatility being higher than martials should have been solved the other way around, IMO, by buffing martial versatility.

I agree.

magnuskn wrote:
- Before update 1.3 magical healing was also completely required in PF2E. We'll see if non-magical healing being so ubiquitous survives to the final product.

I wondered why Paizo seemed to think resonance was the solution when the ubiquitous wands of Cure Light Wounds were only a symptom. Treat Wounds has a very mechanical design with little story worth, so I doubt it will be the final answer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
I wondered why Paizo seemed to think resonance was the solution when the ubiquitous wands of Cure Light Wounds were only a symptom. Treat Wounds has a very mechanical design with little story worth, so I doubt it will be the final answer.

I only agree with this if you're playing in a game where time is not an issue.

Try running Chapter 3 or 5 of Doomsday Dawn with 1.3 rules. Or even just look at how it would work. That's VERY much a hard choice of if you want to try Treating Wounds. The 10 minutes do mean something if your GM makes it mean something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?
Because every single martial in PF1e plays the exact same. 5foot step full attack. In PF2e you have a lot more options during your turn, and it's not always obvious what is 100% the best.
Ah, that is not my experience, and it would seem you are referring to tactics, not strategy.
Well that pours over into strategy too. You do feel like you need to plan stuff out. While in PF1e: "eh let's just run in and hopefully kill them in a turn or two of full attacking."

Not really, short term tactics is not strategy, and again, I do not agree with your run in and kill them in two turns of full attacking, assertion (especially if one uses the Unchained RAE).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?
Because every single martial in PF1e plays the exact same. 5foot step full attack. In PF2e you have a lot more options during your turn, and it's not always obvious what is 100% the best.
Ah, that is not my experience, and it would seem you are referring to tactics, not strategy.
Well that pours over into strategy too. You do feel like you need to plan stuff out. While in PF1e: "eh let's just run in and hopefully kill them in a turn or two of full attacking."
Not really, short term tactics is not strategy, and again, I do not agree with your run in and kill them in two turns of full attacking, assertion (especially if one uses the Unchained RAE).

Never used the unchained RAE but will entirely concur that there wasn't much strategy at work beyond blitzkreiging the bad guy with some permutation of booting in the door or something like dimension door for 95% of engagements. The closest thing to strategy I've come by in my years of playing PF has been how many layers of buffs the wizard and cleric distribute before someone boots the door open and bursting down occurs.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?
Because every single martial in PF1e plays the exact same. 5foot step full attack. In PF2e you have a lot more options during your turn, and it's not always obvious what is 100% the best.
Ah, that is not my experience, and it would seem you are referring to tactics, not strategy.
Well that pours over into strategy too. You do feel like you need to plan stuff out. While in PF1e: "eh let's just run in and hopefully kill them in a turn or two of full attacking."
Not really, short term tactics is not strategy, and again, I do not agree with your run in and kill them in two turns of full attacking, assertion (especially if one uses the Unchained RAE).
Never used the unchained RAE but will entirely concur that there wasn't much strategy at work beyond blitzkreiging the bad guy with some permutation of booting in the door or something like dimension door for 95% of engagements.

Well, we have very different experiences with the game (3rd Ed and PF1), and I find yours unfortunate, which is a shame. Also, what you are claiming sounds like classic edition warring rhetoric from 2008 (often from people that didn't even play 3rd Ed).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?
Because every single martial in PF1e plays the exact same. 5foot step full attack. In PF2e you have a lot more options during your turn, and it's not always obvious what is 100% the best.
Ah, that is not my experience, and it would seem you are referring to tactics, not strategy.
Well that pours over into strategy too. You do feel like you need to plan stuff out. While in PF1e: "eh let's just run in and hopefully kill them in a turn or two of full attacking."
Not really, short term tactics is not strategy, and again, I do not agree with your run in and kill them in two turns of full attacking, assertion (especially if one uses the Unchained RAE).
Never used the unchained RAE but will entirely concur that there wasn't much strategy at work beyond blitzkreiging the bad guy with some permutation of booting in the door or something like dimension door for 95% of engagements.
Well, we have very different experiences with the game (3rd Ed and PF1), and I find yours unfortunate, which is a shame. Also, what you are claiming sounds like classic edition warring rhetoric from 2008 (often from people that didn't even play 3rd Ed).

From playing 3.5 and PF for years this is the strategy we found the most effective for martials. Killing the opponent as fast as possible. Usually with a two handed sword and power attack with a high critical threat range, or with a bowman firing off as many arrows as possible.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
- Base attack bonus does not exceed armor class per se. A player who builds his character to have a good AC is very difficult to hit by monsters at high levels. The problem is instead that there are too many buff types for attack bonuses being readily available. Morale bonuses, luck bonuses, competence bonuses and quite a lot of unnamed bonuses all stack and make accounting what your actual attack roll is too complicated. I can't count the times players forgot to add this or that bonus to their attack (or armor class) during combat.
Yes, PF1 has a problem with too many little bonuses. The tight math in PF2 is an attempt to fix that. Oddly, PF2's other practice of offering only item, circumstance, and conditional bonuses that don't stack seems a more direct and effective solution.

The "tight math" in PF2 is actually intended to fix two problems, and the "many little bonuses" thing is only one of them. The other problem the tight math wants to fix is the possibility, which comes online at surprisingly low levels in PF1, that the same challenge, the same DC, can be an auto-fail - mathematically impossible, regardless of the die roll - for one character and an auto-sucess - mathematically guaranteed, regardless of the die roll - for another of the same level.

Right now, at the point of maximum divergence, the best possible character and the worst possible character attempting the same skill roll can have a difference of +20 between them (barring some truly weird choices with regard to armor). That's a character with a 22 stat, bumped to 24 with a potent item, who is Legendary at the skill, and has a +5 item bonus (+7, +3, +5 = +15) vs a character with an 8 stat who is untrained (-1, -4, = -5). That range covers exactly the range of one d20. That means that, while the first character is going to be much, much, much better than the second one, they can both actually participate in the same set of challenges, which means that the game as a whole is easier to design stories for and to engage all the players in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
From playing 3.5 and PF for years this is the strategy we found the most effective for martials. Killing the opponent as fast as possible.

That is the best tactic for every edition, as hit points are the main source of attrition. Dead is the ultimate condition/effect inflicted in PF2, just like every other edition/iteration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?
Because every single martial in PF1e plays the exact same. 5foot step full attack. In PF2e you have a lot more options during your turn, and it's not always obvious what is 100% the best.
Ah, that is not my experience, and it would seem you are referring to tactics, not strategy.
Well that pours over into strategy too. You do feel like you need to plan stuff out. While in PF1e: "eh let's just run in and hopefully kill them in a turn or two of full attacking."
Not really, short term tactics is not strategy, and again, I do not agree with your run in and kill them in two turns of full attacking, assertion (especially if one uses the Unchained RAE).
Never used the unchained RAE but will entirely concur that there wasn't much strategy at work beyond blitzkreiging the bad guy with some permutation of booting in the door or something like dimension door for 95% of engagements.
Well, we have very different experiences with the game (3rd Ed and PF1), and I find yours unfortunate, which is a shame. Also, what you are claiming sounds like classic edition warring rhetoric from 2008 (often from people that didn't even play 3rd Ed).

If I were edition warring I'd actually be propping up my favored edition along the way. And as a guy who dislikes 3.5 far more than PF1 (ultimately for the same reasons funnily enough they're just far more pronounced in 3.5) and hasn't even touched the playtest document I'm not doing that. I'm just relaying my experiences with a system I've played for years primarily because it was easily accessible via SRD and wasn't anything my gaming group needed to collectively learn in order to play.


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

How do you know what much of core fan base wants? Do you have any empirical data on this? A poll of at least five digits of people reporting? An analysis based upon a reliable sample group?....ad nauseum......

Give me a break. Of course I didn’t fund a scientific study on this. The reason Pathfinder exists is because a large percentage of the D&D playerbase rejected the gamist design of 4E. The same type of design Paizo is presenting with Pathfinder 2E. It’s a logical inference that those same players will not be happy with this type of game again.

Ah, damn, no data once again. *kicks tumbleweed*

Let's be clear, Pogie's first statement is true, or at least, it's been asserted repeatedly, even by Paizo itself, that this was the case. Pathfinder exists because 4e failed.

The second part of the statement here is the part that can come reasonably under fire, but there is evidence that 4e concepts were included in 2e, and I'll present it here:
* "Level to everything": It was half-level in 4e, but same concept.
* Skill challenges: These were largely loathed in 4e. The concept exists when it comes to traps/locks in 2e, with much the same loathing.
* Class roles: 4e had a notion of combat roles. In 4e, each class could be one of 4(?) roles, and each had a specific combat purpose. While each class can't do this in 2e, the notion of roles is pretty prevalent on a per-class basis.
* Multiclassing: Yep, they're pretty much the same systems, or at least, extremely close. You give up feats to get some minor feats/abilities from the other class...
* "Powers": Here, while the concept is the same (you have various things you can do that cost a number of actions on your turn) the issue people had with 4e powers is they felt homogenous. In 2e, at least, I don't think this is the case.

So, you want evidence, there's 5 things that were taken from 4e, intentionally or not. I don't think 2e is a clone of 4e, by any means, but I do think it borrowed heavily from it, and to propose that people will reject it in a similar manner is not an unreasonable assumption.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You'll never get better tactics than using PF1's RAE with the vast variety of characters and viable combat styles, along with the lack of superfluous action taxes that eat away over half your turn just to hold your weapon correctly and use a class feature.

The new action economy has a good framework, but they're micro-managing too much and the game doesn't play well. My players got sick of me telling them "no you can't do that" over and over and over and over again when they're just trying to move, use class feature, and attack.

Character creation is difficult because you have 4 different boxes of feats to track and you get no freedom with them. That means you have to read all four sections and figure out what the best combos are, instead of picking one feat that you want for 1st level, plus maybe a bonus feat that your class gives you.

Character creation is the longest process of this play test.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

You'll never get better tactics than using PF1's RAE with the vast variety of characters and viable combat styles, along with the lack of superfluous action taxes that eat away over half your turn just to hold your weapon correctly and use a class feature.

The new action economy has a good framework, but they're micro-managing too much and the game doesn't play well.

That is a key word for my feelings on PF2: Micro, too many micro-options/choices, not enough macro. Despite the treadmill, or maybe because of it, there is a flatness, a clinical vibe. I've said it before, but it feels bit like a sci-fi RPG, converted to fantasy.


If we're sharing anecdotes as to how we wound up here,

My family was going on a road trip. This required something the driver could do to not get bored and tired while at the wheel on a featureless highway. Utter nerds that we are, we contemplated D&D. So me and my sister (neither of us had any experience with TTRPGs) head down to the local gaming store and walk out with the PF beginner box because the person at the counter had said something to the effect of it being a spiritual successor when D&D itself isn't doing to hot at the moment.

We did not finish the 3-week trip using the beginner box. Because the primary DM had noticed there was a good deal more than what was in there, and wanted to use that extra content. If I wasn't fully aware that there was the ability to crank up the complexity so the person in the back seat with the books and the map (yes, we used the BB fold-out map in a car) wasn't getting bored for lack of splitting focus with steering the vehicle, the experiment with tabletop gaming probably would have been deemed a failure.

If the CRB was simple and easy, I wouldn't be here. Completely independant from what 3.5 did (since I have yet to open a 3.5 book)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
pogie wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

How do you know what much of core fan base wants? Do you have any empirical data on this? A poll of at least five digits of people reporting? An analysis based upon a reliable sample group?....ad nauseum......

Give me a break. Of course I didn’t fund a scientific study on this. The reason Pathfinder exists is because a large percentage of the D&D playerbase rejected the gamist design of 4E. The same type of design Paizo is presenting with Pathfinder 2E. It’s a logical inference that those same players will not be happy with this type of game again.

Ah, damn, no data once again. *kicks tumbleweed*

Let's be clear, Pogie's first statement is true, or at least, it's been asserted repeatedly, even by Paizo itself, that this was the case. Pathfinder exists because 4e failed.

But that's not the claim that Pogie made. They said that "a large percentage of the D&D playerbase rejected the gamist design of 4E." The fact that a large portion of the playerbase rejected 4E doesn't mean that it was because of 4E's gamist design. That was undoubtedly one reason, probably the primary reason for many, but for many others, it was either only part of the reason or had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Some of those latter people have already posted in this thread. It also doesn't necessarily mean that 4E failed due to "gamist design" writ large, as opposed to simply 4E's particular expression of that design.

Moreover, many of the arguments against both 4E and PF2 conceptually - high-level complaints, not specific element issues - can be boiled down to some variant of "we didn't need a complete re-design, we just needed an edition that fixed [blank]!" Somehow, "fixing [blank]" is assumed to be something relatively easily done, that for some reason the developers just ignored and instead did this whole other thing that is both much more difficult and much more controversial. Oh, and let's not forget that two more-or-less completely independent sets of game developers both made this decision, seemingly flying in the face logic twice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

You'll never get better tactics than using PF1's RAE with the vast variety of characters and viable combat styles, along with the lack of superfluous action taxes that eat away over half your turn just to hold your weapon correctly and use a class feature.

The new action economy has a good framework, but they're micro-managing too much and the game doesn't play well. My players got sick of me telling them "no you can't do that" over and over and over and over again when they're just trying to move, use class feature, and attack.

Character creation is difficult because you have 4 different boxes of feats to track and you get no freedom with them. That means you have to read all four sections and figure out what the best combos are, instead of picking one feat that you want for 1st level, plus maybe a bonus feat that your class gives you.

Character creation is the longest process of this play test.

We took less than an hour to create our characters in the first adventure. It's usually sat at around 2 hours for each chapter thereafter. What is your group getting hung up on?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
pogie wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

How do you know what much of core fan base wants? Do you have any empirical data on this? A poll of at least five digits of people reporting? An analysis based upon a reliable sample group?....ad nauseum......

Give me a break. Of course I didn’t fund a scientific study on this. The reason Pathfinder exists is because a large percentage of the D&D playerbase rejected the gamist design of 4E. The same type of design Paizo is presenting with Pathfinder 2E. It’s a logical inference that those same players will not be happy with this type of game again.

Ah, damn, no data once again. *kicks tumbleweed*

Let's be clear, Pogie's first statement is true, or at least, it's been asserted repeatedly, even by Paizo itself, that this was the case. Pathfinder exists because 4e failed.

But that's not the claim that Pogie made. They said that "a large percentage of the D&D playerbase rejected the gamist design of 4E." The fact that a large portion of the playerbase rejected 4E doesn't mean that it was because of 4E's gamist design. That was undoubtedly one reason, probably the primary reason for many, but for many others, it was either only part of the reason or had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Some of those latter people have already posted in this thread. It also doesn't necessarily mean that 4E failed due to "gamist design" writ large, as opposed to simply 4E's particular expression of that design.

Moreover, many of the arguments against both 4E and PF2 conceptually - high-level complaints, not specific element issues - can be boiled down to some variant of "we didn't need a complete re-design, we just needed an edition that fixed [blank]!" Somehow, "fixing [blank]" is assumed to be something relatively easily done, that for some reason the developers just ignored and instead did this whole other thing that is both much more difficult and much more controversial. Oh, and let's not forget...

Fine, that's fair, drop "the gamist design" and everything else I said is true: People rejected 4e and moved to Pathfinder, causing it to succeed, Pathfinder 2e shares a lot with 4e. Extrapolating that 2e will produce similar results, particularly in a modern environment with a good gaming alternative (5e) and criticism of 2e had a *big* uptic on release of the actual rules is not a big jump.

Beyond this, there are *concrete* complaints about high-level issues with 2e that have nothing to do with "we don't need a redesign". As people have pointed out here, the +/-10 critical system is fundamentally flawed the way it's implemented. Beyond this, people have also complained that they expected a new system, but with the same "feel" of 1e and they didn't get that. They've expressed specific issues with that in particular. You're setting up a strawman hear and beating it to death. Yes, Paizo couldn't just "fix this one issue", but people who are arguing reasonably about the issues with 2e aren't suggesting they should (though, in fairness, some are), they're saying that the resulting system, fundamentally, isn't fun and doesn't feel like Pathfinder.

EDIT: Who cares that game designers made the same mistakes twice? That doesn't make them "not mistakes".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

You'll never get better tactics than using PF1's RAE with the vast variety of characters and viable combat styles, along with the lack of superfluous action taxes that eat away over half your turn just to hold your weapon correctly and use a class feature.

The new action economy has a good framework, but they're micro-managing too much and the game doesn't play well. My players got sick of me telling them "no you can't do that" over and over and over and over again when they're just trying to move, use class feature, and attack.

Character creation is difficult because you have 4 different boxes of feats to track and you get no freedom with them. That means you have to read all four sections and figure out what the best combos are, instead of picking one feat that you want for 1st level, plus maybe a bonus feat that your class gives you.

Character creation is the longest process of this play test.

We took less than an hour to create our characters in the first adventure. It's usually sat at around 2 hours for each chapter thereafter. What is your group getting hung up on?

At first it was about realizing which Skill feats we wanted, but could not qualify for with signature skills, but it got much harder to do builds once we started looking at how to do items and how to distribute wealth.

The alchemist never actually finished his character, we decided to wing it and start playing because we had all been sitting there for an extra hour waiting for him to get done.

Then there's the problems that come from needing to constantly flip back and forth in the book to reference what all your abilities could do and it makes it much harder than having say, the domain powers' descriptions actually listed with the cleric to compare the options, instead we have to sift through all the spells to find them, or turn the page back and forth over and over again.

Then there's the reading that comes into figuring out which feats exist to fulfill a concept, and I have had players flat out turn a 180 on a build after realizing their concept is not possible in the book as written because of how restrictive it is.

I think Ancestry feats need to go, I don;t like how they stagnate an complicate the character creation process, and it feels like I'm forced to take them because the devs want to make sure I take them lest they be wasted ink, which they feel like when I compare them to being able to just take the feats I want in PF1.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Moreover, many of the arguments against both 4E and PF2 conceptually - high-level complaints, not specific element issues - can be boiled down to some variant of "we didn't need a complete re-design, we just needed an edition that fixed [blank]!" Somehow, "fixing [blank]" is assumed to be something relatively easily done, that for some reason the developers just ignored and instead did this whole other thing that is both much more difficult and much more controversial. Oh, and let's not forget that two more-or-less completely independent sets of game developers both made this decision, seemingly flying in the face logic twice.

Well, *thrice*, since while designing 5E, instead of "slightly tweaking 3.5" - which, according to some, would be the best thing since sliced bread and would sell like hot cupcakes - WotC decided to make an entirely new ruleset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Moreover, many of the arguments against both 4E and PF2 conceptually - high-level complaints, not specific element issues - can be boiled down to some variant of "we didn't need a complete re-design, we just needed an edition that fixed [blank]!" Somehow, "fixing [blank]" is assumed to be something relatively easily done, that for some reason the developers just ignored and instead did this whole other thing that is both much more difficult and much more controversial. Oh, and let's not forget that two more-or-less completely independent sets of game developers both made this decision, seemingly flying in the face logic twice.
Well, *thrice*, since while designing 5E, instead of "slightly tweaking 3.5" - which, according to some, would be the best thing since sliced bread and would sell like hot cupcakes - WotC decided to make an entirely new ruleset.

Keep beating on that strawman instead of discussing the actual issues raised... You go!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Moreover, many of the arguments against both 4E and PF2 conceptually - high-level complaints, not specific element issues - can be boiled down to some variant of "we didn't need a complete re-design, we just needed an edition that fixed [blank]!" Somehow, "fixing [blank]" is assumed to be something relatively easily done, that for some reason the developers just ignored and instead did this whole other thing that is both much more difficult and much more controversial. Oh, and let's not forget that two more-or-less completely independent sets of game developers both made this decision, seemingly flying in the face logic twice.
Well, *thrice*, since while designing 5E, instead of "slightly tweaking 3.5" - which, according to some, would be the best thing since sliced bread and would sell like hot cupcakes - WotC decided to make an entirely new ruleset.
Keep beating on that strawman instead of discussing the actual issues raised... You go!

Your issues (or OP's issues, or Vic Ferrari's issues or etc. etc.) aren't my issues, so apart from saying that, there's little to discuss apart from filling the surveys, since that's the most relevant mode of feedback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Moreover, many of the arguments against both 4E and PF2 conceptually - high-level complaints, not specific element issues - can be boiled down to some variant of "we didn't need a complete re-design, we just needed an edition that fixed [blank]!" Somehow, "fixing [blank]" is assumed to be something relatively easily done, that for some reason the developers just ignored and instead did this whole other thing that is both much more difficult and much more controversial. Oh, and let's not forget that two more-or-less completely independent sets of game developers both made this decision, seemingly flying in the face logic twice.
Well, *thrice*, since while designing 5E, instead of "slightly tweaking 3.5" - which, according to some, would be the best thing since sliced bread and would sell like hot cupcakes - WotC decided to make an entirely new ruleset.
Keep beating on that strawman instead of discussing the actual issues raised... You go!
Your issues (or OP's issues, or Vic Ferrari's issues or etc. etc.) aren't my issues, so apart from saying that, there's little to discuss apart from filling the surveys, since that's the most relevant mode of feedback.

The surveys are a joke, so that's amusing. They don't ask any relevant questions to the issues I have with the underlying system, and I've heard from others that they feel similarly. Knowing my class and race and how much resonance I used is completely irrelevant to knowing I was dissatisfied with the frequency of hitting enemies.

If all Paizo cares about is feedback from those surveys, 2e is doomed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

The second part of the statement here is the part that can come reasonably under fire, but there is evidence that 4e concepts were included in 2e, and I'll present it here:

* "Level to everything": It was half-level in 4e, but same concept.
* Skill challenges: These were largely loathed in 4e. The concept exists when it comes to traps/locks in 2e, with much the same loathing.
* Class roles: 4e had a notion of combat roles. In 4e, each class could be one of 4(?) roles, and each had a specific combat purpose. While each class can't do this in 2e, the notion of roles is pretty prevalent on a per-class basis.
* Multiclassing: Yep, they're pretty much the same systems, or at least, extremely close. You give up feats to get some minor feats/abilities from the other class...
* "Powers": Here, while the concept is the same (you have various things you can do that cost a number of actions on your turn) the issue people had with 4e powers is they felt homogenous. In 2e, at least, I don't think this is the case.

So, you want evidence, there's 5 things that were taken from 4e, intentionally or not. I don't think 2e is a clone of 4e, by any means, but I do think it borrowed heavily from it, and to propose that people will reject it in a similar manner is not an unreasonable assumption.

If I may add some more bullet points:

* Skills being trained or untrained only: Yes there's different levels of teml in PF2, but it's still basically the same boolean system instead of the more versatile skill ranks.
* Item levels: I don't know about anyone else, but it's rather immersion-breaking for me to find something described as a "Level X item" when levels are, in-setting, not a known or quantified factor.
* Monsters using different creation rules than PCs: Thankfully not using 4e's minion/standard/elite/solo ranks, but the opponents in PF2 are still merely presented as stat blocks with numbers meeting benchmarks with no explanation (# of hit dice, BAB, saves, etc) why they're achieving those numbers. Similarly, opponents get to do things that PCs aren't allowed to do because they're not using the same rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Moreover, many of the arguments against both 4E and PF2 conceptually - high-level complaints, not specific element issues - can be boiled down to some variant of "we didn't need a complete re-design, we just needed an edition that fixed [blank]!" Somehow, "fixing [blank]" is assumed to be something relatively easily done, that for some reason the developers just ignored and instead did this whole other thing that is both much more difficult and much more controversial. Oh, and let's not forget that two more-or-less completely independent sets of game developers both made this decision, seemingly flying in the face logic twice.
Well, *thrice*, since while designing 5E, instead of "slightly tweaking 3.5" - which, according to some, would be the best thing since sliced bread and would sell like hot cupcakes - WotC decided to make an entirely new ruleset.

Not really, 5th Ed is far closer to 3rd Ed and PF1 than PF2, it's sort of like a 3rd Ed Lite (with some 4th Ed injected for good measure), and no one has asked for "slightly tweaked", that would seem to be a construct made by the apologist/defender types, happens with every new edition.


Casters and Alchemists do take longer to create in PF2, especially if you are trying to build a character concept from scratch instead of just plugging in a recommended spell list. But that will be something that can be improved by having more item kits, and good spell lists for a couple of different types of builds. There also isn't a bunch of character building guides for the PF2 classes out there, so the time reading through general feats available to a starting character is not being factored in to building a PF1 character so a lot of power gamers are underestimating how much time it would take to walk in to PF1 and try to make a hyper optimized character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we should tone down the venom a bit ALL of us ...

Let'splay nice:-)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:


* Skills being trained or untrained only: Yes there's different levels of teml in PF2, but it's still basically the same boolean system instead of the more versatile skill ranks.
* Item levels: I don't know about anyone else, but it's rather immersion-breaking for me to find something described as a "Level X item" when levels are, in-setting, not a known or quantified factor.
* Monsters using different creation rules than PCs: Thankfully not using 4e's minion/standard/elite/solo ranks, but the opponents in PF2 are still merely presented as stat blocks with numbers meeting benchmarks with no explanation (# of hit dice, BAB, saves, etc) why they're achieving...

I don't really see why people keep trying to argue the first point here; how is the ability to choose to be incompetent at completing level-appropriate challenges "versatility". That's not versatility, if I wanted that "versatility" I'd just let you decide to automatically fail checks.

And half-investing in two skills is just investing in inability to succeed at level appropriate challenges in two places rather than just one. Which you'll be happy to know that plenty of people seem happy to complain about being the result of not putting continuous investment in a skill. So you can still have that too.
Or is your definition of versatility when the wizard gains a point of Int at level 16 and goes from totally untrained to a complete master of some skill?

Items have always been leveled in some way or another. Items that cast spells have caster levels. Magic swords have a definite + number that makes no sense in universe. These sorts of numbers and direct level relations are not new and people roleplay out how they're described in universe all the time.
A level 5 potency rune is no more versimilitude breaking than a +1 sword.

And as for monsters, them playing by player rules has been a boldfaced lie for nearly 20 years now. Go open up a 3.5 monster manual and tell me that the Succubus plays by PC rules. Monsters have had the targets for the end result set, and then it's someone's job to build back from that to figure out how to make them fulfill those numbers for a long time. And most of the time, the raw numbers are lacking, so they get numbers inflated. Whether it's absurd "racial attribute bonuses" or natural armor, they are brought as close to the prechosen end result as possible.
And now they're cutting out the ridiculous middleman.
And yes it is kind of unfair to use the Succubus, because it's one of the most egregiously "I wasn't made by player rules" monsters in the first manual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KohaiKHaos wrote:
And as for monsters, them playing by player rules has been a boldfaced lie for nearly 20 years now.

Ha, hardly anything that extreme (at least the designer spin along these lines was less hysterical); in general, monsters follow PCs rules, in 3rd Ed/PF1, of course some have extra crap slapped on them to "make them work," but that doesn't mean they generally don't follow a PC-like structure.

I am not advocating for monsters to be designed along PCs lines, or not to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really care which they go for either. But it's kind of annoying when the people who claim to Carr about the method ignore that monster stats can and do get inflated (sometimes massively, the Succubus has at least +7 Cha and +9 Nat armor) to meet a number goal


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am.

I want enemy/ PC parallelism, it would fix the math, but require a complete rewrite of the entire game where giving some classes a little boost here and there might be substantially less work.

Which is kinda where I'm at with this, why advocate for the game I want when the devs have a different path in mind?

Jason says it's not built for organized play, but I want to know what aspects of this aren't directly influenced by it here. It's been a criticism of Paizo for literally years that they care about the PFS crowd more than home games, and despite what they're telling us here, they aren't showing it in their actions or their products.

I doubt Jason will come back here for the conversation, and I have no idea what I'm supposed to look forward to next week. My players have given up on the play test as of yesterday. They do seem interested in what I'm working on as an aside tho.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

I am.

I want enemy/ PC parallelism, it would fix the math, but require a complete rewrite of the entire game where giving some classes a little boost here and there might be substantially less work.

Which is kinda where I'm at with this, why advocate for the game I want when the devs have a different path in mind?

Jason says it's not built for organized play, but I want to know what aspects of this aren't directly influenced by it here. It's been a criticism of Paizo for literally years that they care about the PFS crowd more than home games, and despite what they're telling us here, they aren't showing it in their actions or their products.

I doubt Jason will come back here for the conversation, and I have no idea what I'm supposed to look forward to next week. My players have given up on the play test as of yesterday. They do seem interested in what I'm working on as an aside tho.

If PF was designed around PFS, there would be no processes sanctioning the material and highlighting what's PFS-approved and what is not, simply because why have that process if the game is designed around PFS?

Your position makes no sense and begins to sound like a conspiracy theory with you desperately trying to fit everything into your narrative which, at this point, looks increasingly like if kicked puppies and hurt feelings are a central part of it.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The suggestion that the PF2 Playtest was written with PFS in mind is so laughably and obviously untrue that I honestly have difficulty understanding how anyone could believe it.

Seriously, guys. Hero points are a core mechanic around which dying is based. THEY ARE AN ORG PLAY NIGHTMARE. There's no frickin' way this game was designed for PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Seriously, guys. Hero points are a core mechanic around which dying is based. THEY ARE AN ORG PLAY NIGHTMARE.

How so? I'm genuinely curious, as I have no PFS experience at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Seriously, guys. Hero points are a core mechanic around which dying is based. THEY ARE AN ORG PLAY NIGHTMARE.
How so? I'm genuinely curious, as I have no PFS experience at all.

Organized play (PFS) already has a similar concept which grants a reroll once per session if you have Paizo swag. It's not the exact same thing as Hero Points, but it's never created an issue to my knowledge.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Seriously, guys. Hero points are a core mechanic around which dying is based. THEY ARE AN ORG PLAY NIGHTMARE.
How so? I'm genuinely curious, as I have no PFS experience at all.
Organized play (PFS) already has a similar concept which grants a reroll once per session if you have Paizo swag. It's not the exact same thing as Hero Points, but it's never created an issue to my knowledge.

The "Hero Points for out-of-game stuff" idea is something that works in home game, but would be an absolute nightmare to adjudicate and enforce in PFS. You'd have "I want a Hero Point because I was on time but what I really mean Mr. Manager, tell this GM to give me a hero point because I've spend 200 USD here last week" situation on day one.

Swag is at least measurable :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Seriously, guys. Hero points are a core mechanic around which dying is based. THEY ARE AN ORG PLAY NIGHTMARE.
How so? I'm genuinely curious, as I have no PFS experience at all.
Organized play (PFS) already has a similar concept which grants a reroll once per session if you have Paizo swag. It's not the exact same thing as Hero Points, but it's never created an issue to my knowledge.

The "Hero Points for out-of-game stuff" idea is something that works in home game, but would be an absolute nightmare to adjudicate and enforce in PFS. You'd have "I want a Hero Point because I was on time but what I really mean Mr. Manager, tell this GM to give me a hero point because I've spend 200 USD here last week" situation on day one.

Swag is at least measurable :)

Sure, but it's easy to say "you start with 1 hero point, if you bring swag, you get an extra hero point, if you have at least X GM stars, you get a third" or something along those lines. It's not even that hard to adjudicate, you just adjust the rules on how you award them.


tivadar27 wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Seriously, guys. Hero points are a core mechanic around which dying is based. THEY ARE AN ORG PLAY NIGHTMARE.
How so? I'm genuinely curious, as I have no PFS experience at all.
Organized play (PFS) already has a similar concept which grants a reroll once per session if you have Paizo swag. It's not the exact same thing as Hero Points, but it's never created an issue to my knowledge.

I would not say that is accurate. The reroll is used to sell products and as a reward for PFS GMs. They are not intended to simulate or convey the concept of the "hero always succeeds." You can't do anything creative with rerolls and they only work on d20 rolls. In fact, there are many in-game feats/abilities that do the same thing, if not better. I'm not aware of any class abilities that specifically give Hero Points as there are some that give rerolls.


N N 959 wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Seriously, guys. Hero points are a core mechanic around which dying is based. THEY ARE AN ORG PLAY NIGHTMARE.
How so? I'm genuinely curious, as I have no PFS experience at all.
Organized play (PFS) already has a similar concept which grants a reroll once per session if you have Paizo swag. It's not the exact same thing as Hero Points, but it's never created an issue to my knowledge.
I would not say that is accurate. The reroll is used to sell products and as a reward for PFS GMs. They are not intended to simulate or convey the concept of the "hero always succeeds." You can't do anything creative with rerolls and they only work on d20 rolls. In fact, there are many in-game feats/abilities that do the same thing, if not better. I'm not aware of any class abilities that specifically give Hero Points as there are some that give rerolls.

Actually, Breath of Life is a Hero Point equivalent, as it returns you to 1 HP when you die.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
you just adjust the rules on how you award them

Like I said. The game we were given is clearly not intended for PFS play.

If you have to change the rules to make it work, then it's clearly not designed to fit in the first place.


tivadar27 wrote:
Actually, Breath of Life is a Hero Point equivalent, as it returns you to 1 HP when you die.

Breath of life is not a Hero Point equivalent. BoL is a spells and has strict rules on how it can be used. Regardless, PFS does not use Hero Points or any work around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
you just adjust the rules on how you award them

Like I said. The game we were given is clearly not intended for PFS play.

If you have to change the rules to make it work, then it's clearly not designed to fit in the first place.

The rules on distribution are up to the GM. The only thing PFS needs is defined rules for distribution.

That isn't so much a "changing" of rules so much as it is giving them definition for organized play.

Not going to lie your argument that they are a "nightmare" for PFS doesn't sound that true, especially since Hero Points used to do a fair amount more (aka petition the GM) and now are pretty commonly relegated to the occasional reroll or avoiding death conditions.

Nothing about them on the surface seems even remotely hostile to PFS play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

The "Hero Points for out-of-game stuff" idea is something that works in home game, but would be an absolute nightmare to adjudicate and enforce in PFS. You'd have "I want a Hero Point because I was on time but what I really mean Mr. Manager, tell this GM to give me a hero point because I've spend 200 USD here last week" situation on day one.

Swag is at least measurable :)

That makes sense. Personally I'm ambivalent about the "Hero Points for out-of-game stuff" idea. While I like the idea in general, it can too easily be abused and/or devolve into favoritism, even in home games. I'd probably be in favor of dropping this. Even awarding hero points for in-game heroic deeds is difficult to adjudicate.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
you just adjust the rules on how you award them

Like I said. The game we were given is clearly not intended for PFS play.

If you have to change the rules to make it work, then it's clearly not designed to fit in the first place.

The rules on distribution are up to the GM. The only thing PFS needs is defined rules for distribution.

From this one statement I am just about positive you have never played PFS. You certainly haven't ever spent any time looking at how it's set up.

"Up the GM" is more or less anathema (no pun intended) for PFS. The goal of organized play is to do the best possible job of getting every player, regardless of the table they're sitting at, a comparable experience playing each scenario.

As written, PF2 leaves it entirely up to the GM how many times you can almost die and get to come back. As Mr Bulmahn himself recently noted on his YouTube channel, how your game handles dying is kind of a big deal. A system written to PFS' needs would never even consider using such a subjective mechanic for anything nearly as vital as character death. It would never have made it into the design docs at all.

Midnightoker wrote:
That isn't so much a "changing" of rules so much as it is giving them definition for organized play.

Trust me: if Hero Points continue to hold a role in PF2 similar to the one they have now by the time the game comes out, PFS is going to have to do a lot more to them than just "give them definition."

Midnightoker wrote:

Not going to lie your argument that they are a "nightmare" for PFS doesn't sound that true, especially since Hero Points used to do a fair amount more (aka petition the GM) and now are pretty commonly relegated to the occasional reroll or avoiding death conditions.

Nothing about them on the surface seems even remotely hostile to PFS play.

To be clear: their use is not the nightmare issue. It's how they are earned, and what the consequences of earning them or not earning them are.


Zaister wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

The "Hero Points for out-of-game stuff" idea is something that works in home game, but would be an absolute nightmare to adjudicate and enforce in PFS. You'd have "I want a Hero Point because I was on time but what I really mean Mr. Manager, tell this GM to give me a hero point because I've spend 200 USD here last week" situation on day one.

Swag is at least measurable :)

That makes sense. Personally I'm ambivalent about the "Hero Points for out-of-game stuff" idea. While I like the idea in general, it can too easily be abused and/or devolve into favoritism, even in home games. I'd probably be in favor of dropping this. Even awarding hero points for in-game heroic deeds is difficult to adjudicate.

I agree, also in 5th Ed, I find Inspiration obnoxious, some, though, seem to think it's the bee's knees. That also has the cloying factor of trying to encourage people to play up to their Background's ideals, traits and bonds and all that crap in order to gain it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Not going to lie your argument that they are a "nightmare" for PFS doesn't sound that true, especially since Hero Points used to do a fair amount more (aka petition the GM) and now are pretty commonly relegated to the occasional reroll or avoiding death conditions.

Nothing about them on the surface seems even remotely hostile to PFS play.

To be clear: their use is not the nightmare issue. It's how they are earned, and what the consequences of earning them or not earning them are.

I misunderstood this as well. I will say that in PF1e, there was always the notion of a free reroll when the dice were bad/the GM determined you deserved it. PFS, in my opinion, compensated for this by adding additional formal rules for rerolls at the table. I guess i don't see how this would be any different in 2e. Rather than adding rules, you replace the existing rules for awarding Hero Points with more formal rules appropriate for organized play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
I will say that in PF1e, there was always the notion of a free reroll when the dice were bad/the GM determined you deserved it.

I've neither heard nor experienced this notion, inside our outside of PFS. Perhaps it's common to your group. GM's fudging rolls is a different paradigm.

Quote:
PFS, in my opinion, compensated for this by adding additional formal rules for rerolls at the table.

Once gain, I would say that is totally inaccurate. You cannot get a reroll at a table unless you purchase an item that allows it (and then it's once per item) or GM enough games. With new players, you won't have any rerolls.

Have you actually played PFS?

If there is a way that PFS compensate for not having Hero Points, it's that the community GMs tend to soft-ball encounters. People being people, generally don't want to kill off PC. But deaths happen as well as TPKs. If your PC is high enough level you may have the prestige and member equity to get the Society to resurrect your PC. But as you surmised, BoL is a common spell scroll used to overcome immediate death, though I don't know how often the circumstances allow it to work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
I will say that in PF1e, there was always the notion of a free reroll when the dice were bad/the GM determined you deserved it.

I've neither heard nor experienced this notion, inside our outside of PFS. Perhaps it's common to your group. GM's fudging rolls is a different paradigm.

Quote:
PFS, in my opinion, compensated for this by adding additional formal rules for rerolls at the table.

Once gain, I would say that is totally inaccurate. You cannot get a reroll at a table unless you purchase an item that allows it (and then it's once per item) or GM enough games. With new players, you won't have any rerolls.

Have you actually played PFS?

Yes... Lots of it... And your statements are actually incorrect. First: The GM can give out a single table reroll using an item they purchased. Second: you don't get a reroll per item purhcase, you get one per player, assuming they have an item. Finally: GM stars only give you bonuses on your rerolls, not rerolls themselves.

Have *you* actually played any PFS?

Yes, if your table is entirely new, including the GM, then you won't get any, but even when I've GMed at conventions, typically about half the table will have reroll items or the GM will bring multiple of them to "hand out". Once you've played for any length of time, you generally have one of these items coming to the table, so essentially, every character gets one free reroll.


tivadar27 wrote:
Yes... Lots of it... And your statements are actually incorrect. First: The GM can give out a single table reroll using their stars.

Really? Where is that stated in the PF Guide?

Quote:
Second: you don't get a reroll per item, you get one per player, assuming they have an item.

I've seen GMs allow players to borrow T-shirts and folios to get a reroll. So while it is once per player, a player having multiple items has been used for additional rerolls. Paizo's goal is to reward people for buying schwag.

PFS Guide wrote:
Reroll: This refers to any chance to reroll a d20 and use the new result. In the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, this often refers to the free reroll provided when a play[sic] wears or uses certain Pathfinder merchandise during an event. See page 37 for rules about free rerolls
Quote:
Finally: GM stars only give you bonuses on your rerolls, not rerolls themselves.

That's true.

The bottom line is PFS doesn't have Hero Points or any equivalent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Yes... Lots of it... And your statements are actually incorrect. First: The GM can give out a single table reroll using their stars.
Really? Where is that stated in the PF Guide?

"A player using any of the items from the reroll list on paizo.

com/organizedplay/perks can reroll one d20 roll during the
course of a scenario or quest."

Note that this says nothing about "owning" the item. For items that are easily transferrable, the GM can give out theirs (note I modified my post to indicate that the GM had to have an item, not stars, that was a mistype). Note that it's apparently any number of these items, but most people I know in our area bring a single one while GMing to offer up to players.

N N 959 wrote:
The bottom line is PFS doesn't have Hero Points or any equivalent.

If you don't see the society reroll system as similar to Hero Points, okay, but I do. They're systems instituted to account for random bad luck/die rolls in game and smooth things out. They fill the same purpose in my view of things.


tivadar27 wrote:
They're systems instituted to account for random bad luck/die rolls in game and smooth things out. They fill the same purpose in my view of things.

And I once again, I think that statement is inaccurate. Item-specific Rerolls and Hero Points were introduced for completely different reasons. Let's look at what Hero Points says,

Playtest Rulebook wrote:

HERO POINTS

Your character earns Hero Points for performing heroic deeds or tasks and can spend these Hero Points to gain certain benefits.

Hero Points are intended to let the player pull of dramatic reversals of fortune. They are granted by the game automatically, and then by the DM.

Rerolls are solely a mechanic for selling merchandise. The GM cannot grant you rerolls in-game, or for in-game acts. Even if Paizo looks the other way now, the GM giving a player a t-shirt that the GM purchased was not anticipated or intended when the rerolls mechanic was introduced.

Just because two things have the same functional effect in one facet of the game, does not make them equivalent. The sun and moon both provide light on the surface of the Earth. That doesn't make the moon a sun-equivalent.

The point here is that PFS Pathfinder is not expecting players to use rerolls to get out of death. Why? Because unlike Hero Points, every player doesn't start off with a reroll, nor do they have an opportunity to earn any in-game. The PF2 playtest does expect you to use Hero Points and possibly earn more, and has designed the scenarios with that mechanic in mind. This is not the equivalent of a t-shirt reroll in Paizo's or PFS's mind.

If you want to call it the same, that is your prerogative.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see this got productive. Really appreciate being accused of conspiracy theories and what not when I say that the game plays like it's intended for organized play. If you couldn't tell that I was referring to the limited options and how optimization doesn't actually destroy the encounters anymore but it's instead the assumed norm.

Hero points? Yes they can easily be dealt out for organized play. Organized play is now and will always be about rewarding out of game decisions, hence you need to buy the books to play the class/ archetype/ options.

The game as written would do fine for organized play, you can't make broken characters.

151 to 200 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / my future here All Messageboards