Our group is also bowing out of the playtest - and reasons why


General Discussion

201 to 250 of 378 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

N N 959 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

*Cough*

Quote:

Monster Lore

A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Seems pretty clear cut to me in PF1 N N 959. I haven't seen anything like that in PF2 yet only that on success you "Recall Knowledge".

Now as a GM it depends.

That's right, it depends on the GM. Ignoring GMs who think you need to get 5+ to get anything more than a name, I've seen GMs give out information, that wasn't actually useful. Nevermind that many GMs aren't even sure what "useful" means in this context.

And why should it depend on the GM? Why should what I know about an Ogre given the same character and the same roll be different depending on who is running the game? Is the DC different based on the GM? Is the monster stat block based on the GM? Do GMs get to arbitrarily decide whether your attack hits? No.

There's no reason why the rules should allow the GM to arbitrarily decide what a characters would know. How does that improve the default game? It doesn't. It makes knowledge and the corresponding skill checks arbitrary. If Paizo wants to make the game simpler, then they should address this. Make it straight-forward.

The point is that Paizo turned a blind-eye to this part of the game in PF1. In PF2, it's even worse. Arbitrary info from K. checks is not an asset to the game, any more than arbitrary armor classes.

I would argue those are bad or new GMs. Which could be fixed with Paizo giving better examples on what info to pass to the players.

But. Why does it depend on GM?

Because I gave the Ogre Advanced. Because Bob gave it different armor. Jane removed the armor. Benny used a different Template, and Ann swapped Toughness for Dodge.

And that's just for AC. That's not getting into giving monsters different attacks or abilities or Gasp, Class Levels. How would your character KNOW this Ogre has Barbarian levels?

And how would your character KNOW of things without a check? Your character grew up in the middle of a landmass with maybe a small river, and yet you know everything there is to know about 30 different sea monsters? That seems arbitrary and more to the point, seems like the Player expects monsters to be played fully from the Bestiary without any changes.

I'm not sure what you want here. Outright rules like "Players know A and B at the start of the adventure. If they beat the DC they will know C if they beat it by 5 they learn D? Or if they beat the DC they learn all the stats?"


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I mean there's nothing stopping you from just using a bow as a paladin and multiclassing into fighter for bow feats. And I wouldn't say that a bow paladin was really an "intended" character concept in the core rulebook.

Using a Bow, and being able to realistically wield one without being entirely handicapped are two different things. It's quite clear this falls into the latter scenario.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "intended" character concept. It is possible, it was good, it doesn't make sense to limit weapon styles to certain classes.

Saying it wasn't "intended" is a cop out. It was intended, because combat feats in general were available to all classes, which were designed that way so that all classes could pursue those combat styles.

That's the definition of intended because the design supported that.

Quote:


Anyways, during the class surveys you should have been able to answer questions about paladins. If enough people think that a bow paladin is popular enough they might just put that kind of stuff into the core rulebook.

I feel uncomfortable filling out a survey for a class that I did not personally run the game for or play myself. Paladin falls into that category at the moment.

It has just been a common complaint among Paladin fans on this forum, and from a build perspective based on the rules, I can see why they feel that way.

That said, I did relay the above concerns in the general rules survey in regards to Class Feats/General Feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
And why should it depend on the GM? Why should what I know about an Ogre given the same character and the same roll be different depending on who is running the game?
There are some advantages to letting this go undefined

Yes, there are some. The game design should be driven by obtaining the biggest net gain for the game. As Paul notes, it is a huge source of table variation in PFS and I don't see that, on the player level, this type of variation is a net gain.

Quote:
any attempt to codify this means that every creature stat-block has to be accompanied by a series of "what you know if you beat the DC by 0, 5, 10, 15" info blocks, which makes creating new creatures much more laborious.

Yes, initially it is. But once Paizo identifies the controlling logic, it can be applied by an intern. You simply box information that pertains to which DC. But once you do it, it's done. And it dramatically improves the GMs' consistency and the players know what to expect and have a clear idea of what kind of information they'll know about any creature.

Quote:
And it would also make that knowledge very rigid. A GM can tell the fireball specialist wizard, "This creature is resistant to fire," as the first piece of information, because that's what he cares about most, or tell the archer, "This creature is resistant to non-silver weapons". If the rules were more precise, that probably wouldn't be possible.

You're right. You'd be sacrificing a small degree of flexibility. You'd be gaining a world of consistency. You'd dramatically reduce table arguments and hard feelings because the GM thought Spell Resistance was more important than Combat Reflexes when the Wizard makes the K check within the creature's threat range.

And, information like fire resistance would still be there. A successful check can still acquire it. But players would know that this type of info would be something you'd need 5+ to get because a plain success just gives you type and mundane stat block. This, in turn, means players would recognize a reliable benefit from using/improving K skills.

Like everything in these games, there are trade-offs. I am in 100% agreement with Paul that Paizo is not making the right call on these trade-offs. In my opinion and experience, the benefit from a consistent treatment of K checks far exceeds the benefit of the system PF1 employes.

The player agency in RPGs is a function of decision making. Having information supports that dynamic, withholding that information undermines it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
Do you genuinely believe that every single concept available in PF1 Core has to be in PF2? Because that would mean that A) certain trap builds would need to be made available again and B) no new concepts could be added because of space concerns.

Saying that I want trap builds because I want Paladins to be able to wield bows is a bit of a stretch. Of course no one wants trap builds.

If anything, I'd want those builds to become viable, but I can understand if some things are cut because logistically they just would never work (a bow wielding paladin is not that).

As for your assertion with B, that's a bold statement and pretty untrue. There are plenty of ways to expand the design space outside of weapon usage, and if you're really advocating for the "What will we sell as DLC if we get this now?" approach, I can't say I agree at all.

Quote:
There are some things that actually need to be look at and playtested, like accuracy options available to certain classes, scaling skill DCs and relative success likelihoods, the viability and usefulness of many skill feats or single target attack options for casters, and these issues are being lost in complaints about "problems" that aren't anything to do with the core mechanics of a game but are fixed by content that 100% will be released by Paizo.

You are trying to say "there are bigger fish to fry than just a one off build" but that's not what people are saying.

The system itself restricts builds/concepts across the board because of how it is designed.

The biggest reason everyone stuck with PF1 when 4E was out, and the biggest reason people love 3.0/3.5's style of system in general is for the customization it provides characters.

If you came to Paizo for the AP's they produce, more power to ya, but the reason I play their system is because I like the system. Good stories are not as difficult to find, and I rarely used Golarion in PF1.

I'd like to see a less close minded attitude towards customization in general being an issue. Most of us here loved PF1. I know I did.

I played it for customization of builds and unique character designs. No two of my characters (despite being the same class) have ever even remotely used the same concepts/builds.

That to me was the best part of the game. If it's going to come down to "imagination" and "just do it and be fine with being weaker", then I can do that in another edition or I can keep on with PF1. Telling Paizo that's a make or break factor for me is important, I think.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Expecting to be able to play a Paladin that uses a bow in the playtest, that seems extremely reasonable.

I mean there's nothing stopping you from just using a bow as a paladin and multiclassing into fighter for bow feats. And I wouldn't say that a bow paladin was really an "intended" character concept in the core rulebook. It's just the fact that smite does more damage if you have more attacks, and one of the best ways to get a lot of attacks is to use a bow.

Anyways, during the class surveys you should have been able to answer questions about paladins. If enough people think that a bow paladin is popular enough they might just put that kind of stuff into the core rulebook.

The Multiclass archetypes should befor extreme edge cases and weirdness, not core concepts, they are a clunky feat tax to make standard builds, and really not very well done as Multiclassing tbh, so worse of both worlds, they are a tax to get over the feat gate that kludges up the system, and don't work as multiclassing either.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:


It does not feel like 1E to me or a lot of other people.

It does to me and a lot of other people. In fact every player I've run the game for has said as much when filling in the survey. As Paizo said in that initial post, the mechanics function differently, but characters and games can still feel similar. A PF2 Fighter feels like a Pathfinder Fighter, a PF2 Cleric feels like a Pathfinder Cleric and the PF2 adventures we've played so far feel like Pathfinder adventures, even with the significant rules differences.

I'm actually glad that you're enjoying it. As I've said before we all stand to lose if PF2 flops in epic fashion. I could have said that all the people I've run the playtest for (round about a dozen so far) have all felt the same - it wasn't for them and didn't feel like Pathfinder. But that's such a small, anecdotal sample size, I didn't bother.

The really discouraging thing is that these feelings became stronger as we leveled up. The cleric felt less like a cleric, the wizard less like a wizard and the fighter less like a fighter as we increased in level. In our last playtest, one player was a cleric multiclassed into a fighter multiclassed into a wizard. Why not? In PF1 that would have been an instant gimping of the rules. In PF2, it didn't seem to matter. We all contributed equally (with all of the problems others have mentioned about PCs v monsters) in every fight. Again, on the one hand that's an incredible balance achievement. On the other hand, why bother to take a deep interest in your character when their chance to excel in their specific field is so limited.

There are games that are built on homogeneity and they work. And there are games that are built on heterogeneity and they work. Neither perspective is superior. But when you've built your fan base on the one and you appear to switch to the other, there's going to be a certain percentage of your base that don't want to go in that direction. How large that percentage is... I don't know.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

BryonD:

I dont expect you to play Game A, B, C or whatever. If you want to only play games where very specific mechanical builds are possible, go ahead. I am not stopping you.

I am also not gonna go and get into some kinda "narrative spirit" discussion with anyone since that is a bunch of subjective stuff which wont lead to any sort of productive discussion.

Fair enough, expect that this is all very relevant to the conversation of making 2E a successful, popular, and economically viable game. You can't just say that subjective stuff isn't worth conversation when that is the heart of the matter.

Quote:
But "kinds of stories"? Exact build mechanics has very little to do with that kinda broad measure.

That is terribly wrong. The mechanics can go with the story or they can resist the story. And you can have a set of mechanics that support the story "pretty well" and still fail because some other set of mechanics fits the story much better.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am surprised that nobody gave this reason for abandoning the playtest:

We have full confidence in Paizo's game development skills but aren't interested in trying out a wide variety of experimental ideas under extreme gaming conditions when that won't be fun (because of some unbalanced scenarios) or with rules that don't well reflect the final game (because a significant portion of the playtest rules will change significantly in the final game).

I suspect that my group will end up there at some point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:
. In our last playtest, one player was a cleric multiclassed into a fighter multiclassed into a wizard. Why not? In PF1 that would have been an instant gimping of the rules. In PF2, it didn't seem to matter. We all contributed equally (with all of the problems others have mentioned about PCs v monsters) in every fight. Again, on the one hand that's an incredible balance achievement. On the other hand, why bother to take a deep interest in your character when their chance to excel in their specific field is so limited.

This touches directly on a post by Mark Seifter. He made it clear that Paizo wanted the Fighter 6/ Wizard 6 to work because it was a concept that players might naturally try. Ironically, my concern was that this would facilitate more martial / caster disparity. Apparently, they balanced the game so well, there is almost no disparity, at least in your experience.

Quote:


There are games that are built on homogeneity and they work. And there are games that are built on heterogeneity and they work. Neither perspective is superior. But when you've built your fan base on the one and you appear to switch to the other, there's going to be a certain percentage of your base that don't want to go in that direction. How large that percentage is... I don't know.

This topic has come up all over the forums and I think this is where the value of information can be most strongly felt. I'm under the impression that Paizo thinks there is a larger player base that that they cannot reach through PF1 paradigms.

For many us who play PF1, we are focused on how the game is dissimilar. I can imagine some at Paizo might be saying WTF, we've put so much of PF1 into this new version, it's holding us back. All any of us can do is be sincere and hope that the compromise is something we can all enjoy.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:


It does not feel like 1E to me or a lot of other people.

It does to me and a lot of other people. In fact every player I've run the game for has said as much when filling in the survey. As Paizo said in that initial post, the mechanics function differently, but characters and games can still feel similar. A PF2 Fighter feels like a Pathfinder Fighter, a PF2 Cleric feels like a Pathfinder Cleric and the PF2 adventures we've played so far feel like Pathfinder adventures, even with the significant rules differences.

This, again, sounds eerily aligned with the 4E debates.

I do not doubt for one second that 2E feels very much like 1E to you. I know a lot of people use the 1E foundation and play games that feel very different from one another. 1E/3X is a very flexible core system.

As with 4E, 2E has redrawn the circle and it covers a lot less ground. It may very well be that you are inside the area that they retained. And, if you are, it is even quite likely that they have done a *better* job of serving your personal desires.

But doing a better job for a fraction to the exclusion of the larger fanbase has never demonstrated to be a successful rpg marketing strategy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
Do you genuinely believe that every single concept available in PF1 Core has to be in PF2? Because that would mean that A) certain trap builds would need to be made available again and B) no new concepts could be added because of space concerns.
Saying that I want trap builds because I want Paladins to be able to wield bows is a bit of a stretch. Of course no one wants trap builds.

Evilgm did not say any of that. He was specifically replying to this quote by yourself:

Midnightoker wrote:
If I can open the Core of PF1, and make a build that does not exist at all in the current playtest then to me that is an issue.

If you were talking only about bow-wielding paladins with that quote, then you phrased it very confusingly.


MerlinCross wrote:

*Cough*

Quote:

Monster Lore

A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Seems pretty clear cut to me in PF1 N N 959. I haven't seen anything like that in PF2 yet only that on success you "Recall Knowledge".

Now as a GM it depends. Myself, I don't toss out stats(If only because the stats might be modified), so maybe I would give out the base stats and they can figure it out from there. I usually give out immunities, weaknesses, poisons, special attacks, etc.

Quote:

Monster Identification

Identifying monster abilities is one of the most common uses of Recall Knowledge. The monster’s commonality sets the difficulty: low for common monsters, high for uncommon, and severe for rare or unique. Most monsters’ level should be the level of the DC, but you could reduce the level drastically for really famous monsters. A character who succeeds identifies the monster and singles out one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s weakness to acid and fire or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success, the character gets that information plus something more subtle, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for a reaction.
After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should increase the difficulty each time. Once a character has attempted an extreme-difficulty check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless.

Aside from the clear classification of which skill applies to what type of monster (something which I think they did in order to expand what skills you could use, but it's backfired), it's very similar to 1E - actually, it's clearer as to what types of information you get.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:


Evilgm did not say any of that. He was specifically replying to this quote by yourself:
Midnightoker wrote:
If I can open the Core of PF1, and make a build that does not exist at all in the current playtest then to me that is an issue.
If you were talking only about bow-wielding paladins with that quote, then you phrased it very confusingly.

Here is what he said:

Quote:


Because that would mean that A) certain trap builds would need to be made available again

Interpreting "make a build that does not exist at all in the current playtest" to mean that I want trap builds to exist is a false equivalence.

It's also intentionally misconstruing the argument, because I'm sure that absolutely no one wants Trap Builds, so to make the assumption that I want that or that saying that Core builds that exist should be worked in with the same exact state they were is a stretch.

We are speaking conceptually, which is clear in the context of my post. I didn't say I wanted PBS, Precise Shot, and Rapid Shot for Paladins, I said the core concept of a bow wielding paladin should exist.

If that was not clear, then I apologize, but his response was to another post I made previously where I certainly made that extremely clear. The fact this particular snippet of my previous comment is out of context of the post I made is probably where the confusion comes from.

I was also not specifically talking about only bow wielding paladins. All concepts that were present in the original core (key word being concepts) should be viable and available in some context with some edge cases being excluded.

People aren't asking for something ridiculous, they're asking for the ability to dual wield and use bows. Let's not try to muddy the waters like the argument contains a bunch of other requests.

General concepts for characters that were available in Core PF1 should exist in the playtest. That includes Paladins that want to use bows, Barbarians that want to dual wield, etc.


Cyouni wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

*Cough*

Quote:

Monster Lore

A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Seems pretty clear cut to me in PF1 N N 959. I haven't seen anything like that in PF2 yet only that on success you "Recall Knowledge".

Now as a GM it depends. Myself, I don't toss out stats(If only because the stats might be modified), so maybe I would give out the base stats and they can figure it out from there. I usually give out immunities, weaknesses, poisons, special attacks, etc.

Quote:

Monster Identification

Identifying monster abilities is one of the most common uses of Recall Knowledge. The monster’s commonality sets the difficulty: low for common monsters, high for uncommon, and severe for rare or unique. Most monsters’ level should be the level of the DC, but you could reduce the level drastically for really famous monsters. A character who succeeds identifies the monster and singles out one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s weakness to acid and fire or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success, the
character gets that information plus something more subtle, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for a reaction.
After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should increase the difficulty each time. Once a character has attempted an extreme-difficulty check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless.
Aside from the clear classification of which skill applies to what type of monster (something which I think they did in order to expand what skills you could use, but it's backfired), it's very similar to 1E - actually, it's clearer as to what types of information you get.

I scrolled down to the knowledges themselves. That and no one has really rolled knowledge checks on monsters yet. I suppose even with a change in monsters, there's a general idea of what monsters can do because they've been used so much.

I think the only thing someone tried to Knowledge roll was on the Earth Elemental. They thought they were killing it on impact but it was using that Crumble ability(or whatever it's named).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
it's very similar to 1E - actually, it's clearer as to what types of information you get.

I would heartily disagree. I'm not sure any average player knows what a Treachery Demon's best-known attribute is. What about a Vrock, or a Dretch? What is a Xill's best-known attribute? Do I know the creatures type and the attributes of creatures with that type? Come on, this is a total punt on the part of Paizo.

In fact, 1e was better in that it at least required the information was "useful." In the world of vague instructions, I'll take useful over best-known any day of the week.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of this comes down to table issues, I think. If a DM is gonna screw you after you make a knowledge check by not giving you ANY useful info, well, don't play with that DM.

As a DM, a PC successfully makes a Recall Knowledge check on an enemy, Im gonna give that PC useful info. If he critically succeeds, he will get alot of useful info. This is doubly true if theyve invested in that skill.

Maybe its all my time DMing 5E, but you shouldn't need ten rules that explicitly tell you not to screw your players. Making the character options theyve chosen feel meaningless is the opposite of what the DM should do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Also, it has Weakness to Fire as well as Good, providing spell options to capitalize on said weakness, and archers can have cold iron arrows easily enough.

One of my current concerns with the game is that there is absolutely NO remotely reliable way for the spell casters to GET the information they need to take advantage of those weaknesses.

I expect Paizo to fix this in the final product but right now, RAW, knowledge skills are very, very much up to GM fiat. Certainly as I interpret how they're written I think they're close to useless.

If characters are more or less EXPECTED to be able to take advantage of monsters weaknesses then this is an issue that MUST be fixed.

I'm going to second this with the caveat that this problem also existed in PF1 and 3.5. Here is an excerpt from the Lore checks on the Binder class in 3.5

Tome of Magic wrote:
DC 20: Binders contact vestiges—souls that have been lost to the gods and planes, and banished to some hidden place. A binder calls forth these spirits and makes pacts with them. In exchange for allowing the vestige to experience life through his body, a binder assumes some of its powers. Many churches outlaw this practice of pact magic. Some even mark its practitioners for death.

The point here is that none of this information is actually useful in combat and that unwillingness to provide information that is useful, seems to be a part of the Pathfinder mindset as well. Paizo has largely ignored an opportunity to make Knowledge checks provide substantive value. In warfare, a spy can be worth an entire army (Sun Tzu). But in PF1, I can make a K check on a goblin and a dragon and have no idea which creature has more HD or is harder to kill. That's just silly.

In actual game play, I've experienced a number GMs who seem to hate giving out detailed information. A lot of that is because of the misconception that things like AC and HD and saves are strictly metagame information and Paizo seems unwilling to explicitly rule that the in-game equivalents of these are entirely knowable by the characters.

So yes. Knowledge checks mechanics are black eye on this game as it was on the last versions. Paizo would vastly improve the entire axis of knowledge checks by clearly outline/labeling what success gives you and each step above that. How? Outline the stat block in groups that correspond to levels of success. Paizo, please delivers us from the reoccurring 1e argument about whether a Success just gives the name or an actual piece of information. If GMs don't want to give out info, they can easily house rule that out.

MerlinCross wrote:

*Cough*

Quote:

Monster Lore

A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
Seems pretty clear cut to me in PF1 N N 959. I haven't seen anything like that in PF2 yet only that on success you "Recall Knowledge".

I searched the Playtest Rulebook and Bestiary on the word "lore" and the online Pathfinder 1st Edition under "monster lore" and found the source of MerlinCross's quote. It is a piece of a larger paragraph.

Pathfinder 1st Edition Knowledge skill wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.

Recall Knowledge under the Lore skill has similar wording.

[[A]] RECALL KNOWLEDGE
You can use Lore to remember a bit of knowledge related to your type of Lore. The GM determines the
DCs for such checks and whether your Lore applies to the topic.
Success You recall the knowledge.
Critical Failure You recall erroneous knowledge.

Define "bit". In computer science, a bit is an answer to a yes-or-no question. However, when dealing with the entire body of knowledge about monsters, a bit could be an entire half-page entry on one monster like found in the Bestiary.

Cyouni's quote on Monster Idenfification above is from page 338 of the Playtest Rulebook and the following paragraph sounds stupid to me.

2nd paragraph of Monster Identification wrote:

After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should increase the difficulty each time. Once a character has attempted

an extreme-difficulty check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless.

The player has used an action to successfully remember information, but is limited to one sentence at most. And the second sentence is harder to recall. For example, remembering that a red dragon breathes fire makes it harder to remember that a red dragon is immune to fire.

In real life, I remember information in useful blocks of interrelated information. If I remember that I have a doctor's appointment, I also remember where the doctor's office is located and how much time I need to drive there and that the receptionist wants me to arrive 15 minutes early to fill out paperwork and that I made the appointment at 8:30 in the morning because the doctor often wants a fasting blood test and I would rather delay breakfast than skip breakfast and lunch. Each detail I remember unlocks other details.

I went to an extreme to find a better answer. I asked my playtest players. My wife had a fairly detailed answer.

She wants a story that helps the player characters see what is special about the creature. Every monster is different and she wants to know that difference. Reading the Bestiary entry is an infodump that hides the nature of the creature behind a lot of numbers. Summarize it to highlight what her character would remember.

Imagine her barbarian Haku Na Matata as a child listening to Mountain Lore stories at the campfire. The storyteller tells about the day he fought a giant scorpion (page 102 in the Playtest Bestiary). Of course, the storyteller tells about the pincers that grab and the tail that stings with venom. He will mention that its chitin exoskeleton is like hardened hide (here I can mention AC 18 and TAC 14). Mention a lightning fast flash of the tail that warns of its Scorpion Sting reaction Strike. All of this is one story of information about a warrior fighting a giant scorpion. Since the warrior avoided the sting, the listener won't learn anything about the venom, but maybe a second Recall Knowledge check will recall another event where the tribal healer was helping a victim of scorpion venom and young Haku saw the feebleness of the poisoned patient.

In GM metagaming, Recall Knowledge is a good action to fill in a third action. We have to make it at least as good as an attack at a -10 penalty. The knowledge gained ought to improve the martial character's tactics and help the wizard choose a spell to cast.

Also, my wife's playtest character for The Lost Star had the Dubious Knowledge feat, so I had to make up a lot of believeable-sounding false information. Making up false numbers is a pain, but a false story about someone setting a Sewer Ooze on fire after a rapier through its heart barely damaged it (the true and false information about a Sewer Ooze was it was immune to critical hits and weak to fire) is easier to tell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
General concepts for characters that were available in Core PF1 should exist in the playtest. That includes Paladins that want to use bows, Barbarians that want to dual wield, etc.

I agree only for certain definitions of "general concept".

You could come up with a concept for a gnomish wizard 1/sorcerer 1/druid 1 that relishes melee combat using only the core rules. Heck, you could build that character with the core rules. But that is a terrible character, and I don't think PF2e should be required to support it (of course ironically, with how multiclassing works in PF2e, I think you almost could build that character).

On the other side of the equation, at least in my experience, "wizard that trivializes every encounter" was a common core concept in PF1e and I don't want that to come back, either.

I guess on the whole, I consider it more important that 2e be a system that can easily and eventually support every reasonable concept, rather than 2e start out as a system that goes down the line ticking every concept checkbox from 1e core.

If Barbarians don't have good dual wield support in core, but the system is robust enough that when Barbarians of Golarion comes out there is plenty of design space to add support for that build, I will be happy.

I'm fine with core focusing more on the iconic builds and doing those builds right, thus setting precedent for how to properly support a build.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Some of this comes down to table issues, I think. If a DM is gonna screw you after you make a knowledge check by not giving you ANY useful info, well, don't play with that DM.

As a DM, a PC successfully makes a Recall Knowledge check on an enemy, Im gonna give that PC useful info. If he critically succeeds, he will get alot of useful info. This is doubly true if theyve invested in that skill.

Maybe its all my time DMing 5E, but you shouldn't need ten rules that explicitly tell you not to screw your players. Making the character options theyve chosen feel meaningless is the opposite of what the DM should do.

I totally agree. The famous German boardgame designer Reiner Knizia once said (can't find the source) to reward the behavior you want to see in the game. I like seeing my players making Knowledge checks. It makes their combat more tactical and gives more opportunity for teamwork.

I have what I and other GMs consider perfect players. They play interesting characters, they don't powergame, our combats don't become rocket tag at high levels, they don't abuse wands of Cure Light Wounds, their characters treat friendly NPCs with respect, and they derail the module only when it improves the story. They and I have a good social contract between us and I am not going to break that contract.

Therefore, I am not going to shortchange my players on the knowledge they receive from a successful check. In fact, the standards on page 338 of the Playtest Rulebook are way too stingy for me and I will follow my wife's advice instead. Houserule time!

I am embarrassed that I am already considering houserules during the playtest, but my players come first.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Some of this comes down to table issues, I think. If a DM is gonna screw you after you make a knowledge check by not giving you ANY useful info, well, don't play with that DM.

As a DM, a PC successfully makes a Recall Knowledge check on an enemy, Im gonna give that PC useful info. If he critically succeeds, he will get alot of useful info. This is doubly true if theyve invested in that skill.

Maybe its all my time DMing 5E, but you shouldn't need ten rules that explicitly tell you not to screw your players. Making the character options theyve chosen feel meaningless is the opposite of what the DM should do.

kinda like how you shouldn't need a rule to tell you not to spam wands of CLW.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

Therefore, I am not going to shortchange my players on the knowledge they receive from a successful check. In fact, the standards on page 338 of the Playtest Rulebook are way too stingy for me and I will follow my wife's advice instead. Houserule time!

I am embarrassed that I am already considering houserules during the playtest, but my players come first.

I'll be honest, that's one thing I basically always changed in PF1 (and the one time someone actually did Recall Knowledge I think I gave them a decent amount), so I'd like to see quite a bit more knowledge reflected in the RAW for the Playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

Therefore, I am not going to shortchange my players on the knowledge they receive from a successful check. In fact, the standards on page 338 of the Playtest Rulebook are way too stingy for me and I will follow my wife's advice instead. Houserule time!

I am embarrassed that I am already considering houserules during the playtest, but my players come first.

I'll be honest, that's one thing I basically always changed in PF1 (and the one time someone actually did Recall Knowledge I think I gave them a decent amount), so I'd like to see quite a bit more knowledge reflected in the RAW for the Playtest.

I did, too, but that does not stop the embarrassment. I also houseruled fast one-turn Diplomacy checks to ask enemies to surrender and imported those to the playtest, too.

I haven't had to import my other houserules, yet. I am hoping that the PF2 playest is enough of an improvement that they won't be necessary.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Didn't PF1e have rules about taking a -10 to Diplomacy to do it in one round?

That's how I've always run it, but sometimes I get my house rules confused with actual rules, I'll admit. XD


8 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
You could come up with a concept for a gnomish wizard 1/sorcerer 1/druid 1 that relishes melee combat using only the core rules. Heck, you could build that character with the core rules. But that is a terrible character, and I don't think PF2e should be required to support it (of course ironically, with how multiclassing works in PF2e, I think you almost could build that character).

This is another false equivalence. I am not asking for this, and you know I'm not asking for this. Why you would suggest that I want the concept of a triple multiclass level 3 character is beyond me.

Barbarian with two axes != ridiculously uncommon build that was rarely played.

Quote:


On the other side of the equation, at least in my experience, "wizard that trivializes every encounter" was a common core concept in PF1e and I don't want that to come back, either.

This really doesn't have anything to do with the complaints being brought up. This is a balance issue in terms of combat and narrative power.

It's also not true until about level 7-9 and requires the person playing the Wizard to have some pretty decent system knowledge to "break the game" (though not so much to just be effective).

Regardless, this is not the topic of discussion, so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up.

Quote:


I guess on the whole, I consider it more important that 2e be a system that can easily and eventually support every reasonable concept, rather than 2e start out as a system that goes down the line ticking every concept checkbox from 1e core.

The excessive siloing to me is evidence that it likely can't. Developers cannot realistically plan every concept in the state of Class Feats as is.

People criticizing that are disappointed with how limited concepts are. I am one of those people.

I did not feel nearly as limited when switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder, even though I lost a lot of options. The reason was because of how much more organic the construction of the rules was, and how much stronger the foundation got.

When they released Archetypes, I 100% knew that I would no longer want for options.

This new system vs. the old does not have me feeling quite as comfortable.

Quote:


If Barbarians don't have good dual wield support in core, but the system is robust enough that when Barbarians of Golarion comes out there is plenty of design space to add support for that build, I will be happy.

This is again the "DLC will solve the problem" argument. Some people are willing to wait for that and pay additional to get it (if they want the PDF/Books).

Others are not.

However, it was available in Core PF1, so the expectation that it would exist in PF2 is there. Telling people that isn't worth criticism is dismissive for your personal tastes.

Quote:


I'm fine with core focusing more on the iconic builds and doing those builds right, thus setting precedent for how to properly support a build.

You're making assumptions that one cannot get "core builds right" without sacrificing other builds.

You could simply get bows right and then apply that to all classes.

Same goes with Dual Wields.

Excessive Siloing is one of the leading complaints for the game right now in terms of customization.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

Using a Bow, and being able to realistically wield one without being entirely handicapped are two different things. It's quite clear this falls into the latter scenario.

I find this part kinda hilarious because that's one of the things that PF2 got rid of. Anyone can use a bow fine as long as you have training. You don't need to spend 2 feats right off the bat just to not fire with a -4.

And honestly I think you can probably make a pretty sweet paladin build with bows. Here I'll build one for you:

16 str 16 dex.

Use a composite shortbow and take blade ally (doesn't specify it has to be a melee weapon.)

Take either hospice knight or a domain for your first level feat your choice.

Multiclass fighter and get the point blank shot stance then upgrade to a longbow.

Get blade of justice at level 6 (2e version of smite evil)

And then spend the rest of your feats as you see fit either on utility paladin feats or on more fighter feats to increase your combat ability.

Will you be able to use your retributive strike at all? Nope, but right now that ability is really underwhelming and is probably going to be changed in some way in the core rulebook. And really, it doesn't matter much. I ran a playtest game with a shield based paladin and he didn't have the opportunity to use it once but he was still pretty happy with the paladin.

That seems like a pretty viable build. You do lose out on some stuff if you decide not to wear heavy armor, which will net you lower AC because of max Dex bonuses but being a ranged character is just such an advantage you're probably still well off even without those features.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Some of this comes down to table issues, I think. If a DM is gonna screw you after you make a knowledge check by not giving you ANY useful info, well, don't play with that DM.

There's a saying in the world of industrial engineering and quality control:

It's not the people, it's the process.

It'd be convenient to try and push this off on a bunch of spiteful badwrongfun GMs, but that would be Paizo refusing to see/hear/speak no evil. The problem isn't the GMs, it's that fact that the game isn't clear about how this is suppose to work and the rules are intentionally leaving the outcome in the GMs discretion. Why? GMs fumbling with what info to give players or whether they should get info isn't value-added, it's opportunity lost.

Let's put up a survey and ask ten people what info they would give to Party A and you might get 8 different answers. Why not have them all give the same answer? Why not make it clear what the answer is? You hit the DC, you get the knowledge. Simple...straightforward. The GM has enough decisions to make and axis for agency.

Quote:
If he critically succeeds, he will get alot of useful info. This is doubly true if theyve invested in that skill.

And what is the advantage to Paizo allowing this process to be subject to table variation? If a group really wants to stumble around deaf, dumb, and blind, then it's easy enough to house rule that. But it's a lot harder for players to advocate for their own house rules that benefit them.

Quote:
but you shouldn't need ten rules that explicitly tell you not to screw your players.

The game has thousands of rules to stop GMs from screwing players and providing a consistent gaming experience. Every printed statblock is a message to the GM that this is what you're supposed to be doing.

In a world such as Golarion, information on what is out there and how it works would extremely prevelant. This isn't Call of Cthulu where nobody would believe what you found in your basement. These creatures are known to society, for thousands of years. Kruk, the barbrian, isn't the first person to face a red dragon. You'd think he'd know more than just that it breathes fire. Again, this is a black eye on the 3.5 system and PF2 should clean it up, not punch us in the same eye.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:


Multiclass fighter and get the point blank shot stance then upgrade to a longbow.

And therein is where I stopped following your plan.

If the only way to achieve a "viable" bows as a Paladin is to multiclass into Fighter and sacrifice Paladin abilities (as a tax mind you), that to me is a problem.

Now I do agree, the reduction of penalties with just using weapons is a good step, but those were just taxes from the get go. With the reduction of General Feats and a majority of Class Features being moved to Class Feats, we've now created this "choose flavor or choose your build, but you can't have both" issue.

If I have to sacrifice being a Paladin to wield my bow, then I'm not really a Bow wielding Paladin, now am I?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
If I have to sacrifice being a Paladin to wield my bow, then I'm not really a Bow wielding Paladin, now am I?

That argument cuts both ways. If you are using a bow, then one could argue that you're not really a Paladin. Paladin's of Erastil are a subset who have sacrificed some of the traditional abilities to fight in an untraditional way.

The PF1 addressed this in a specific way and PF2 does in a different way to which players are not accustomed. However, I believe the real source of the problem is that there are a bunch of unrelated nerfs to the game that keep you from feeling as powerful as you were in PF1 with the same concept. I can tell you I have the exact same feeling for the baseline Ranger. Animal Companions require upwards of 2/3'rds of a Ranger's class abilities to stay viable. In PF1, I used 1 feat-Boon Companion. Now, maybe I'm getting more out of the companion, but it feels more like I need those feats just to keep it from being pointless to keep it.

So in truth, I feel like I can't even get the same baseline Ranger, let alone some variant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Toker:
Personally, I think thats more of an issue with the volley trait needing to go. Bulmahn himself mentioned it might not be a bad idea to remove it from longbows and to make shortbows agile. I hope they do that.

Also, the devs have stated on multiple streams that Paladins are likely to get ranged options on release. Many such options were removed from the playtest due to space.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Using a Bow, and being able to realistically wield one without being entirely handicapped are two different things. It's quite clear this falls into the latter scenario.

I find this part kinda hilarious because that's one of the things that PF2 got rid of. Anyone can use a bow fine as long as you have training. You don't need to spend 2 feats right off the bat just to not fire with a -4.

And honestly I think you can probably make a pretty sweet paladin build with bows. Here I'll build one for you:

16 str 16 dex.

Use a composite shortbow and take blade ally (doesn't specify it has to be a melee weapon.)

Take either hospice knight or a domain for your first level feat your choice.

Multiclass fighter and get the point blank shot stance then upgrade to a longbow.

Get blade of justice at level 6 (2e version of smite evil)

And then spend the rest of your feats as you see fit either on utility paladin feats or on more fighter feats to increase your combat ability.

Will you be able to use your retributive strike at all? Nope, but right now that ability is really underwhelming and is probably going to be changed in some way in the core rulebook. And really, it doesn't matter much. I ran a playtest game with a shield based paladin and he didn't have the opportunity to use it once but he was still pretty happy with the paladin.

That seems like a pretty viable build. You do lose out on some stuff if you decide not to wear heavy armor, which will net you lower AC because of max Dex bonuses but being a ranged character is just such an advantage you're probably still well off even without those features.

you lost as soon as you multiclassed. You cannot build a bow paladin.


Monster Lore:
GM Part:
IMHO please make it as clear as possible to help out both GM's and players.
ME as Player:
I try and not use my personal (player) knowledge when I play so my PC acts on the knowledge he gets or has, even if it bad or incomplete knowledge.
I do agree not everyone plays this way but it is what I try to do (with various success). I also do not generally read the monster guides (unless I have to GM or create adventures or advise on adventures) as I feel it is a bit of a cheat (I am not saying if you read them because you enjoy them it is a issue as I have done this in the past, the problem is if I use this info in the game or the GM thinks I use this info in the game.)

Feel of PF1 vs PF2, in core setting:
I have talked to quite a few people an this has come up a lot and during our talks it generally comes up that PF2 is "probably" going to do big stuff like in RoTRL as rare spells and or rare rituals. Most agreed that they could do it that way but would like to see "how" and until they saw "how" it just did not have the feel of the Core Setting in PF1.
If you are saying can I run an fantasy or fantasy/horror game with PF2 then I say yes, no problem but the rules (as of now) are so different it feels (to me) a lot more like running it with a vastly different system (which may be good or bad; so no judgment here and I have done this a lot)

Issue of Game X and Game X+1:
What people have been saying that you cannot do Z in X+1 but you could in X, is a very common experience. IMHO it might have been better not calling the play test PF2 and instead call it something else. Once the rules had been ironed out then see if it fits in the Core Setting.
The money reason this does not occur is PF has a huge awareness as a brand and often people want PF X and PF X+1 to be close together in rules, feel, play, etc and the farther apart they are the more I have seen people have negative perceptions of the game and or changes.

MDC


5 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

... There's a saying in the world of industrial engineering and quality control:

It's not the people, it's the process. ...

Which would be great to keep in mind as a guiding principle if we were doing engineering and quality control instead of cooperative interactive storytelling.


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


If I have to sacrifice being a Paladin to wield my bow, then I'm not really a Bow wielding Paladin, now am I?

Well what are you sacrificing really? 2 class feats at level 2 and level 4. So let's look at those feats.

Level 2 feats: Divine Grace and a bunch of Oath feats. I'm not sure if I'd ever not multiclass at this level with any Paladin build. Unless I absolutely know for sure I'll be fighting a certain type of creature for a bulk of a campaign then I might take an oath. So this is a really easy cost to start multiclassing imo and does not make you any less of a "paladin".

Level 4 feats: Aura of Courage, Channel Life, Divine Life, and Mercy.

Here are the more paladin-like feats. But even still I'm not a completely neutered paladin if I spend my class feat on a multiclass archetype instead here.

I just don't understand how multiclassing like this is at all different from how in 1e you would have to spend every feat you obtain on bow feats just to be viable and keep up... You could not spend any multiclass feats and instead just spend all of your class feats on paladin feats and just keep an upgraded magic shortbow and a high dex and you would probably be completely fine and deal decent damage.

So yeah you can make a bow paladin in the playtest. Will it do the most damage in the game like how the bow paladin in the 1e core rulebook does? No, but that's fine imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am absolutely willing to wait for PF2e to become a better system. In fact, I think "growth potential" is the number one most important thing for PF2e to have.

Also, as long as Paizo continues to OGL their mechanics, something I don't see ever stopping, people will not be required to buy books when new options come out. I build characters in 1e with options from books I've never heard of.

I also really like the idea of classes doing different things in different ways. If I am going to play a class-based roleplaying system, I want class to be a meaningful choice that informs my whole character. I want there to be flexibility within classes, of course, but I would prefer that a dual-wielding barbarian dual-wields differently than a dual-wielding rogue.

In 1e, you could dual-wield as any character, but your class didn't typically enhance your ability to dual-wield at all. In fact, dual-wielding Barbarian was typically a sub-optimal build; you need high Dex, which takes points out of your key Strength, and none of your class features directly support dual wielding. Some of them even directly work against dual wielding, especially in core.

This is roughly the current state of 2e, as well. A Barbarian can dual-wield, they just don't get any support from their class for it. The big difference here is that some classes do get mechanical support for dual-wielding, which by and large simply wasn't a thing in 1e core.

And hey, dual-wielding isn't a feat tax anymore in 2e (as opposed to the three feat tax it was in 1e. That's pretty awesome.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Using a Bow, and being able to realistically wield one without being entirely handicapped are two different things. It's quite clear this falls into the latter scenario.

I find this part kinda hilarious because that's one of the things that PF2 got rid of. Anyone can use a bow fine as long as you have training. You don't need to spend 2 feats right off the bat just to not fire with a -4.

And honestly I think you can probably make a pretty sweet paladin build with bows. Here I'll build one for you:

16 str 16 dex.

Use a composite shortbow and take blade ally (doesn't specify it has to be a melee weapon.)

Take either hospice knight or a domain for your first level feat your choice.

Multiclass fighter and get the point blank shot stance then upgrade to a longbow.

Get blade of justice at level 6 (2e version of smite evil)

And then spend the rest of your feats as you see fit either on utility paladin feats or on more fighter feats to increase your combat ability.

Will you be able to use your retributive strike at all? Nope, but right now that ability is really underwhelming and is probably going to be changed in some way in the core rulebook. And really, it doesn't matter much. I ran a playtest game with a shield based paladin and he didn't have the opportunity to use it once but he was still pretty happy with the paladin.

That seems like a pretty viable build. You do lose out on some stuff if you decide not to wear heavy armor, which will net you lower AC because of max Dex bonuses but being a ranged character is just such an advantage you're probably still well off even without those features.

you lost as soon as you multiclassed. You cannot build a bow paladin.

Step 1) Take Paladin.

Step 2) Pick up Bow.

Um... Guys, I think I made a bow Paladin. Not that complicated.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"Rob Godfrey wrote:

you lost as soon as you multiclassed. You cannot build a bow paladin.

Then don't multiclass and just keep an upgraded magic shortbow and high dex... You're still viable. There. You CAN build a bow paladin. Hope this ends the argument.

But with the new multiclass system you aren't losing your ability to be a paladin when you multiclass. You're just spending a couple class feats. Your champion powers still get stronger, your still gaining access to higher level class feats. Your progression as a paladin doesn't stop.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

... There's a saying in the world of industrial engineering and quality control:

It's not the people, it's the process. ...

Which would be great to keep in mind as a guiding principle if we were doing engineering and quality control instead of cooperative interactive storytelling.

This is a first and foremost a game. Games are facilitated by the rules. The interactive story telling is a facet of this game. But the interactive part is facilitated by the the player's ability to make decisions. Decisions are meaningful when you have information. In the absence of information, a decision is meaningless. This reduces the "interactive" part to simply rolling dice.


Tholomyes wrote:


Step 1) Take Paladin.
Step 2) Pick up Bow.

Um... Guys, I think I made a bow Paladin. Not that complicated.

Look away people, nothing to see here. Move along...move along.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd prefer Retributive Strike go the way of Finesse Strike, i.e. be a possible path instead of required.

I enjoyed using it when I played my paladin/rogue, mainly because it forced the enemy to choose between the two bad choices of hitting me and getting damage absorbed by my shield, or hitting my ally and getting sneak attacked by me. Probably would have been better if I'd had AOO to cap off the trick, but that wasn't a thing for level 4, sadly.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Using a Bow, and being able to realistically wield one without being entirely handicapped are two different things. It's quite clear this falls into the latter scenario.

I find this part kinda hilarious because that's one of the things that PF2 got rid of. Anyone can use a bow fine as long as you have training. You don't need to spend 2 feats right off the bat just to not fire with a -4.

And honestly I think you can probably make a pretty sweet paladin build with bows. Here I'll build one for you:

16 str 16 dex.

Use a composite shortbow and take blade ally (doesn't specify it has to be a melee weapon.)

Take either hospice knight or a domain for your first level feat your choice.

Multiclass fighter and get the point blank shot stance then upgrade to a longbow.

Get blade of justice at level 6 (2e version of smite evil)

And then spend the rest of your feats as you see fit either on utility paladin feats or on more fighter feats to increase your combat ability.

Will you be able to use your retributive strike at all? Nope, but right now that ability is really underwhelming and is probably going to be changed in some way in the core rulebook. And really, it doesn't matter much. I ran a playtest game with a shield based paladin and he didn't have the opportunity to use it once but he was still pretty happy with the paladin.

That seems like a pretty viable build. You do lose out on some stuff if you decide not to wear heavy armor, which will net you lower AC because of max Dex bonuses but being a ranged character is just such an advantage you're probably still well off even without those features.

you lost as soon as you multiclassed. You cannot build a bow paladin.

Step 1) Take Paladin.

Step 2) Pick up Bow.

Um... Guys, I think I made a bow Paladin. Not that complicated.

Step 1) Pick Rogue

Step 2) Pick up Bow.

I think I made an Archer Rogue in PF1 guys.

Oh wait. Everyone and their brother tells me how unviable it is and how impossible it is to play. Huh.


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


Step 1) Pick Rogue
Step 2) Pick up Bow.

I think I made an Archer Rogue...

well no you didn't because now you're taking a -4 penalty to firing into melee, and your BAB isn't very good. Also you can't sneak attack since it's very hard to make people flat footed.


MaxAstro wrote:

Didn't PF1e have rules about taking a -10 to Diplomacy to do it in one round?

That's how I've always run it, but sometimes I get my house rules confused with actual rules, I'll admit. XD

That's the 10-rank Diplomacy skill unlock from Pathfinder Unchained.

10 Ranks: You can attempt to adjust a creature’s attitude in 1 round by taking a –10 penalty. If you take 1 minute to adjust a creature’s attitude, add your Charisma bonus to the number of hours that attitude change persists.

My one-round Diplomacy is more of a "Please listen to me NOW!" than a full attitude change. It is good for making quick declarations like, "Drakus the Taker is dead, so why are you goblins still fighting?"


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Step 1) Pick Rogue
Step 2) Pick up Bow.

I think I made an Archer Rogue...

well no you didn't because now you're taking a -4 penalty to firing into melee, and your BAB isn't very good. Also you can't sneak attack since it's very hard to make people flat footed.

What is this BAB you speak of? PF2 Playtest does not have that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Requielle wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

... There's a saying in the world of industrial engineering and quality control:

It's not the people, it's the process. ...

Which would be great to keep in mind as a guiding principle if we were doing engineering and quality control instead of cooperative interactive storytelling.
This is a first and foremost a game. Games are facilitated by the rules. The interactive story telling is a facet of this game. But the interactive part is facilitated by the the players ability to make decisions. Decisions are meaningful when you have information. In the absence of information, a decision is meaningless. The reduces the "interactive" part to simply rolling dice.

I suspect you and I play in a fundamentally different manner. I find that having a range of viable interpretations for a rule allows for different flavors of games, and different expressions of group creativity. Everyone in our group GMs at times - we have the range from heavy tactical with strong rules emphasis to story-focused with rules flexibility. That whole spectrum is covered by the current 1E rules (and by other rules systems that came before).

I don't want a game system that tells me what specific item of information I give at each level of successful check. I want the ability to answer the question posed by my player... "What is it? And can I kill it with fire?" in a way that respects that knowing if it can be killed with fire might be the type of useful information *that character focused on while learning about things that populate dungeons*. And with the same level of skill check I want to be able to answer a different character who wants to know "What is that? And is it poisonous?" - because that's useful to them.

At the end of the day, I only want to play with people in a setting that is cooperative. I don't want an oppositional arms race where it's the GM vs. the players. I am not saying your games are that way - but I am saying that if someone in one of our games told me that I needed a chart of what I had to tell them on a knowledge check, I would think they were seeing me as the opponent and not a fellow-traveler creating a story with them.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Step 1) Pick Rogue
Step 2) Pick up Bow.

I think I made an Archer Rogue...

well no you didn't because now you're taking a -4 penalty to firing into melee, and your BAB isn't very good. Also you can't sneak attack since it's very hard to make people flat footed.

It's like putting a Bow on a Paladin doesn't instantly make them a Bow Paladin then huh?

Unless it doesn't work both ways. And if it does, why can't I instantly become a Bow Rogue with just a bow, it's just a bow right?

Archery in both systems is JUST giving a class a bow right?

BRB, Making Bow Sorcerer in both systems. Totally works.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Step 1) Pick Rogue
Step 2) Pick up Bow.

I think I made an Archer Rogue...

well no you didn't because now you're taking a -4 penalty to firing into melee, and your BAB isn't very good. Also you can't sneak attack since it's very hard to make people flat footed.

It's like putting a Bow on a Paladin doesn't instantly make them a Bow Paladin then huh?

Unless it doesn't work both ways. And if it does, why can't I instantly become a Bow Rogue with just a bow, it's just a bow right?

Archery in both systems is JUST giving a class a bow right?

BRB, Making Bow Sorcerer in both systems. Totally works.

Bowbarian! Bowchemist! The possibilities are endless!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
You could come up with a concept for a gnomish wizard 1/sorcerer 1/druid 1 that relishes melee combat using only the core rules. Heck, you could build that character with the core rules. But that is a terrible character, and I don't think PF2e should be required to support it (of course ironically, with how multiclassing works in PF2e, I think you almost could build that character).
This is another false equivalence. I am not asking for this, and you know I'm not asking for this. Why you would suggest that I want the concept of a triple multiclass level 3 character is beyond me.

My wife made a halfling sorcerer that relished melee combat with touch spells in a Pathfinder 1st Edition Serpent's Skull campaign. The concept worked out quite well. Her halfling was named Wealday Addams. The evil Dr. Addams in Nidal viewed his halfling slaves as test subjects for his eldritch experiments. One slave, named for the day of the week in which she was born, developed abberant sorcerer powers, used them to escape, stowed away on a ship heading south, and ended up in the shipwreck that began the adventure path. She wore armor to protect herself in melee and put up with the arcane spell failure because that was the best way for her to fight given the resources available on that island.

Part of the reason this worked is that in Pathfinder 1st Edition, halflings gained a +1 size bonus to attack rolls and AC. That compensated for the Strength penalty to attack rolls but not the Strength penalty to damage. Wealday was not fighting with Strength-based damage, so it worked. Pathfinder 2nd Edition dropped that size bonus. It has one fewer option to offer in character design.

As Midnightoker asks, why add the other two classes? What part of the character design concept do wizard and druid fulfill?

As for the paladin of Erastil, Paizo dropped the ball on that during the playtest design. Of the 20 gods in the playtest, Erastil, Iomedae, Torag are Lawful Good and Abadar, Irori, Sarenrae, and Shelyn are one step away, so Erastil is an obvious god for a paladin. My wife was happy when she made a paladin of Alseta (I added the god to the playtest at her request) because the paladin's Deific Weapon ability applied well to Alseta's favored weapon, the dagger, despite it being unconventional for a paladin. The paladins of Erastil should have something nice with their weapon, too.

It's one little oversight. Paizo will fix it. Imagine errata for Deific Weapon that adds, "If your diety's favored weapon makes ranged attacks, you may make a ranged Retributive Strike with that weapon rather than a melee Strike." ("You hit my friend and thought you were safe on the other side of the room. Have an arrow to show you the error of your ways.") That would be a bow paladin that makes people happy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
I don't want a game system that tells me what specific item of information I give at each level of successful check. I want the ability to answer the question posed by my player... "What is it? And can I kill it with fire?" in a way that respects that knowing if it can be killed with fire might be the type of useful information *that character focused on while learning about things that populate dungeons*. And with the same level of skill check I want to be able to answer a different character who wants to know "What is that? And is it poisonous?" - because that's useful to them.

Neither the PF1 nor PF2 rules specifically allow players to ask questions. PF2 suggests that a player might be able to recall that information, but let's look at your example:

You have a player asking if its poisonous? Okay, that's a Knowledge check (why it cost an action to do this is beyond me). The GM tells the player, "No, it's not poisonous." That's your check. You want to know if it's susceptible to fire? That's another check at what is a higher DC.

Wait...you're saying it doesn't work that way? Well, the rules certainly support that interpretation, don't they?

So a player has wasted an attack or move or some other action to find out one thing about a creature, that answer which is no. Yup, that's a great system.

Quote:
At the end of the day, I only want to play with people in a setting that is cooperative.

Nothing of what you're describing is cooperative. Interactive, yes. Cooperative, no. In your example, they roll a check and they get told yes or no on the results.

If the GM is deciding what is "useful" or in PF2 "best-known" then you're making an arbitrary decisions on what is useful and as a player, I might not agree. This can be misinterpreted as you trying to screw me. Especially if you're expecting me to do X with that knowledge and I'm not seeing that.

Quote:
I don't want an oppositional arms race where it's the GM vs. the players. I am not saying your games are that way - but I am saying...

You make it an arms race when you're putting the outcome in the hands of GM discretion. Now, you're incentivizing GMs to withhold information because the GM wants a certain outcome. This is exactly why PFS's greatest modification was to require that scenarios be run as written. It removed a LOT of the adversarial nature of the GM / player interaction.

There are an infinite number of interactions in the course of a scenario where player/GM can be cooperative. Knowledge checks is not one of them. You're not adding to the value of my game by deciding what is useful to me because i'm betting what I want to know and would find useful, might not be the same as you. So why are you deciding what is useful for me? Why not just make it simple and straight forward. There's plenty of other places to leverage GM discretion.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Step 1) Pick Rogue
Step 2) Pick up Bow.

I think I made an Archer Rogue...

well no you didn't because now you're taking a -4 penalty to firing into melee, and your BAB isn't very good. Also you can't sneak attack since it's very hard to make people flat footed.

It's like putting a Bow on a Paladin doesn't instantly make them a Bow Paladin then huh?

Unless it doesn't work both ways. And if it does, why can't I instantly become a Bow Rogue with just a bow, it's just a bow right?

Archery in both systems is JUST giving a class a bow right?

BRB, Making Bow Sorcerer in both systems. Totally works.

From the playtests I've participated in, archery actually does lend itself to a wider variety of characters because you no longer need multiple feats just to make it viable in combat, everyone gets the same bonus to attack, and magic weapons add extra damage dice. The level of specialization required to be tied to that one combat style does not require the same tax. Giving any character a bow actually does make them an archer in a way not possible formerly because the bow tree in PF2 is nonexistent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Step 1) Pick Rogue
Step 2) Pick up Bow.

I think I made an Archer Rogue...

well no you didn't because now you're taking a -4 penalty to firing into melee, and your BAB isn't very good. Also you can't sneak attack since it's very hard to make people flat footed.

It's like putting a Bow on a Paladin doesn't instantly make them a Bow Paladin then huh?

Unless it doesn't work both ways. And if it does, why can't I instantly become a Bow Rogue with just a bow, it's just a bow right?

Archery in both systems is JUST giving a class a bow right?

BRB, Making Bow Sorcerer in both systems. Totally works.

From the playtests I've participated in, archery actually does lend itself to a wider variety of characters because you no longer need multiple feats just to make it viable in combat, everyone gets the same bonus to attack, and magic weapons add extra damage dice. The level of specialization required to be tied to that one combat style does not require the same tax. Giving any character a bow actually does make them an archer in a way not possible formerly because the bow tree in PF2 is nonexistent.

Now see in my opinion and a bit of testing..., it's not. You still have feat Tax. It's called Fighter Dedication but it's a feat tax. Lemme try to expand my thoughts on this.

PF1 had feat taxes to just get started, yes. But with all the floating bonuses, you could find a way around some of the issues. Rogue has low BAB? Give them a spell, a wand, magic gear and while they aren't the stupid uber gods swinging with like +30 to hit or something, they'd be good enough to play.

Meanwhile, PF2 doesn't expect you to push the numbers. But you're also not rewarded for sitting there either. You can use a bow, but you also miss out on all the Bow actions. Unless You're fighter, or Ranger. Maybe a little Rogue. So you're always going to be behind them. You CAN use a bow, but being unable to keep up, why would you want to? You can use the bow but to actually viable, you need certain feats from other classes. And being viable is all you people seem to care about.

I'm done. Call me when Improved Weapons are viable in PF2.

201 to 250 of 378 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Our group is also bowing out of the playtest - and reasons why All Messageboards