| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I don't see any, or at worst only minor, problems with these examples, because I (and I'd also say my players) have always accepted that the game, especially magic, isn't always symmetrical. With that I mean that the NPCs, monsters and enemies, and by an extend the GM, has tools at their disposal that the PCs and the players don't get.
That, right there, as a GM and as a player, I completely disagree with.
This applies to NPCs more than monsters, but: The only advantages an NPC should have over the PCs are time, money, and maybe level.
The NPC shouldn't have a better version of dominate person just because they're an NPC. They shouldn't have a better invisibility just so they can spy on the PCs.
Building their stats? Sure, that can come from a table. But their actual abilities, what they can and cannot do in the world. That should never be more than what the PCs are capable of (with the caveat of 'what the PCs are capable of at a higher level)
It just feels wrong to me from a world building perspective. Yes, the wizard should eventually be able to cast the same spells as that great wyrm dragon. Yes, the fighter should be able to strike a mountainside just right and cause a landslide just like that stone giant elder. Yes, the rogue should be able to sneak into a vault holding the riches of the kingdom. Yes, the ranger should be able to track a target across entire continents.
Just at later levels, if an NPC/monster can do it, the PCs should be able to do it eventually as well. It might take them time, they might find the magic ritual required is morally wrong and they decide not to perform it, but that should always be an option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like a lot lot lot of the stuff that 2nd edition is doing or is trying to do.
That being said.
I like the idea of changing the way the game is played (the new 3 action system, for example). But tampering too much with certain class's signature abilities (a paladin's smite) seems a little off to me.
Taking some of the math down is fine. Changing the skill system entirely is fine and pretty cool.
But tinkering too much with class abilities and such makes it feel more like a different game altogether, rather than just a new edition of the same game.
Change the way actions, skills, and such are done. Great. It makes it easier for new players to learn. But leave us our rage, smite, and all that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I don't see any, or at worst only minor, problems with these examples, because I (and I'd also say my players) have always accepted that the game, especially magic, isn't always symmetrical. With that I mean that the NPCs, monsters and enemies, and by an extend the GM, has tools at their disposal that the PCs and the players don't get.
That, right there, as a GM and as a player, I completely disagree with.
This applies to NPCs more than monsters, but: The only advantages an NPC should have over the PCs are time, money, and maybe level.
The NPC shouldn't have a better version of dominate person just because they're an NPC. They shouldn't have a better invisibility just so they can spy on the PCs.
Building their stats? Sure, that can come from a table. But their actual abilities, what they can and cannot do in the world. That should never be more than what the PCs are capable of (with the caveat of 'what the PCs are capable of at a higher level)
It just feels wrong to me from a world building perspective. Yes, the wizard should eventually be able to cast the same spells as that great wyrm dragon. Yes, the fighter should be able to strike a mountainside just right and cause a landslide just like that stone giant elder. Yes, the rogue should be able to sneak into a vault holding the riches of the kingdom. Yes, the ranger should be able to track a target across entire continents.
Just at later levels, if an NPC/monster can do it, the PCs should be able to do it eventually as well. It might take them time, they might find the magic ritual required is morally wrong and they decide not to perform it, but that should always be an option.
I want to chant "QFT" more than a googol times on this... It looks like you were inside my wildest dreams and wrote about it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the Feather Fall thing:
This is a legitimate problem, but one easily solved by being able to make Feather Fall heightened, and thus effect more people. I really hope they do precisely this.
Over-reliance on heightening spells just makes casters even more nerfed because the more spells need to be heightened to be effective it means that low levels slots are basically useless. In addition to having spell slots halved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traits, multiclassing and alternate racial traits were being used to customize... but they were also the source of some of our biggest power imbalances that seriously skewed the game. They were the features that frequently allowed players to cherry pick their power level.I'm not interested in a new game that doesn't allow me to cherry pick my power level.
I already have other games for that.I chose to specifically keep playing Pathfinder not for the APs, not for PFs, but because it's the most fun for character builds.
I loved PF1 complexity and it was a cost I was happy to pay because It came with a wonderful pre-game playground that made the effort feel worth it.
PF2 is just as complex as PF1 but character building is so straight jacketed I can't get any fun from it.
I'm not willing to pay the tax of complexity for no reward whatsoever.Other games are not fun to build characters with, but they have other selling points: they play smooth and are simple to run.
PF2 doesn't do that either.
It's complicated, for no reason at all.I'm sorry our tastes don't meet.
I hope you can make the game that is perfect for your goals and be happy and succesful with it, even if it's not for me.
Regards.
Fixed to better apply to me, but basically this post sums up my thoughts. I'm still gonna be here in an effort to maybe make the game closer to my liking but your true goals(*) are really incompatible to mine.
*I say true because stated goals in blogpost are frankly nothing but advertising:
Charitably put, these are generalized mission statements. Less charitably, they are meaningless platitudes.
What I would (yes, still!) like to read is a design goal with regard to a specific system. Ideally, with an explanation of how, in the designer's mind, the new system achieves this goal.
The only true goal seems to be squash the optimizing and variety, because I really don't see the way the game rewards system mastery. While in the same time making it very bland.
I'm kinda jaded by the whole thing Paizo is making out the game I loved for a decade (and I loved PF for the system rather than APs, modules or the setting).