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


General Discussion

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

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I think you are right vic.

I'm going to look through the spells and see If I can figure out the issue myself so I can relate because no one wants to give me specifics.

There is the large (now closed) thread started by (Excuse me if I butcher the name) Maguskin that went over in a detailed analysis the specifics. The thread came close to 1000 replies.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I really think lots of folks are taking away bad impressions of the system based off the PT rules because the Test requires that DD be essentially a standardized test with little/no room for creative problem solving or even balanced encounters.

The sweet spot for PF has always been allowing groups to use the rules to play their own thing on their own terms, that and providing QUALITY Adventure Paths, neither of these things are currently applicable to PF2 and I fear there are many players who just don't have the temperament or patience for trying new rules only to throw them out a few weeks later.

This supposes that all issues with the game are in the play of it though. In my experience this is not the case. There are more than enough problems with the rules and the rulebook themselves that sour the experience long before the rubber hits the road.

I have dozens of issues with many of the rules and systems in the game, but a big one for me a far more nebulous. I love reading an RPG rulebook and having my imagination set start effervescing with possibility as I read. I know this is a playtest and not final but it is like reading a textbook or the service manual for a surplus Soviet diesel engine. Instead of firing the imagination it is a boring, tedious slog. Rather than feeling like I am learning the system that will let me experience wondrous adventures I feel like I am studying for an exam.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

You don't hear from people that are happy. Tons of people were perfectly content with magic in 1e. It wouldn't have stuck around for so long if everyone disliked it (and 3.5 before it).

Now we're hearing from those people because magic in the playtest is only vaguely recognizable as being from the same game, and that's more due to the annoyances like morning preparation than it is from the power level.

They overnerfed so hard that it's now going to take work to undo some of it. Frankly, the only reason I can even tolerate playing a caster in the playtest is because Channel singlehandidly makes up for it.

This is the part I find particularly weird.

Magic as a whole was not the problem in 1E (or even 3.5 for that matter).

The problem was multifaceted:

- Casters only had to increase one stat to improve everything about spells. More spells per day, higher DCs, easier concentration checks, etc. Spells were getting thrice buffed with one ability boost.

- Certain spells were just too good at the level they were acquired (Sleep, Color Spray, Contingency, Emergency Force Sphere, Feeblemind, Baleful Polymorphy, etc.). A lot of spells outright were fine where they were or required finesse to execute properly, there were just a few "bad eggs" that gave them a bad name.

- Spells had too much narrative power, and there was no way for Martials to compensate for that narrative power. Teleport, Fly, and other "gated" abilities prevented Martials from participating without casters. That would be fine, if there were a quid pro quo, where Martials were required narratively to get past obstacles (almost always, these had to be handled by the GM, or required "solo" missions which leave half the party uninvolved).

- Spells were released in spades with every book, which every caster could immediately take advantage of by simply selecting them. Feats were not nearly as liquid in use for Martials, as they require investment, prerequisites, sometimes were bad or too niche, etc.

Now if we evaluate the above now:

1. This one has been handled and then some. Stat now only decides DC, and the DC can't be boosted with pretty much anything else (as opposed to Spell Focus and racial traits). Not only that, but bonus spells based on ability scores are gone. Not at all an issue.

2. Not just the bad eggs got nerfed. I have never had a problem with Hideous Laughter in play, and now it's a laughing stock (pun intended). Various others were also nerfed.

3. Narrative power is now stripped from everyone. Instead of Martials getting more narrative power, they still have similar narrative power as before. Skill Feats allow for more non optimized choices, but don't scale well. Class Feats are a bit starved and compete with combat options, so you can't select juicy abilities as well as combat oriented ones. Casters just had every spell nerfed, so even the narrative focused ones are not what they were. Even with the addition of rituals (which I like conceptually, but lack in impact) there is still a lot missing narrative wise.

4. It is yet to be seen how this will go. Spell selection is now more important because of how few you get, but it's also easy to unlearn spells. I'd like to think Paizo for the most part can avoid this better than WotC did (orbs were such a mistake in the PH2) but they should keep the ease of access in mind as Feat vs. Spell entry cost is still exactly the same as before.

Overall, they nerfed the parts people weren't complaining as much about. People wanted martials that didn't stand around at level 10 and go "well Mr. Wizard, looks like you have to get us to the Shadow Plane/through this gate/into the castle" because I can't get us ALL in there.

Did casters have a few problem spells? absolutely. Which is why they have to be careful with spell releases, because of how easy it is for Casters to take them vs. Martials grabbing feats.

I was also semi-okay with the power curve (albeit toned done) in that Casters were meant to be "slightly weaker" 1-5 and then "slightly stronger" 15-20, at least in theory, but I also wouldn't have minded it coming down to strategy/builds/etc.

So no I don't think anyone was advocating for them to make a sweeping changes, where they nerfed the spells, they nerfed the rate of getting spells, they nerfed the ability to make spells stronger, they nerfed the ability scores relative to spells, and they nerfed spell based feats (metamagic is now Class specific and requires losing features).

Nerfs were fine, but instead of a bat it seems like it was a machine gun.

Do I think they are as "unplayable" as people say? no. But they definitely flipped the roles, so now being a caster is the new martial. That to me is a problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think it's a little unfair to call out metamagic because metamagic is also a fair bit stronger now - it no longer increases spell level, which is huge.

For the record, I fall on the "I want casters weaker than 1e, and martials cooler than 1e" line. Specifically I'd like the difference in narrative power resolved, and I think that absolutely means increasing the narrative power of martials, not just nerfing casters.

And I say that as someone who has literally never played a straight martial character. XD

I particularly think that the removal of caster level was a huge step in the right direction.

My opinion has not crystallized yet about whether the other nerfs are too much or not.


MaxAstro wrote:
I think it's a little unfair to call out metamagic because metamagic is also a fair bit stronger now - it no longer increases spell level, which is huge.

While that is a buff, the distribution change being moved to Class Feats was a nerf.

Also, for the most part, those spell level increases were also merited (in the case of quicken) so that in some cases they cannot exist in the current design, or were completely removed via traits/abilities/feats (Toppling Magic Missile for free via a trait).

I'd consider it a net nerf, since it's now competing with every other Class Feat.

Quote:


I particularly think that the removal of caster level was a huge step in the right direction.

My opinion has not crystallized yet about whether the other nerfs are too much or not.

Caster Level being removed was merely substituted for Class Level to Spell DC, and then removed the more interesting changes to the spell (AoE, duration, and Range). Other than duration (which only really mattered sometimes) those were relatively tame in terms of scaling. Individual spells got scaling that was a bit too good (Mirror Image) but that's not really the culprit of caster level so much as the spell itself.

I'd prefer ranges/durations still be dependent on caster level.

Now they've relayed something similar with heightening applying far more valuable behaviors, but a bit truncated and too granular.

Instead of a consistent heightening patter, each spell's heighten is tailored to the spell. This sounds like a good idea, until you realize it requires balancing on an individual spell basis across every heightening "shelf", sometimes in a non intuitive way.

Personally, I'd prefer something a little more linear, and I think all spells should receive variant action outcomes, adding to the tactics of choice relative to that spell.

I think a lot of those that had problems with spells were like you and I in that we disliked the narrative aspect, not so much terribly with the combat prowess, though with the spell count at higher levels, that definitely become somewhat of an issue with some spells scaling being too good (Mirror Image stayed relevant into high levels).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I think it's a little unfair to call out metamagic because metamagic is also a fair bit stronger now - it no longer increases spell level, which is huge.

For the record, I fall on the "I want casters weaker than 1e, and martials cooler than 1e" line. Specifically I'd like the difference in narrative power resolved, and I think that absolutely means increasing the narrative power of martials, not just nerfing casters.

And I say that as someone who has literally never played a straight martial character. XD

I particularly think that the removal of caster level was a huge step in the right direction.

My opinion has not crystallized yet about whether the other nerfs are too much or not.

I play primarily martials and with the exception of Cleric wouldn’t even consider a caster in 2E, I tried a primal sorcerer and after our first combat where everything kept passing the burning hands DC I outright gave up on attack spells and just used healing and cantrips since most spells requiring a save are a joke in the playtest, blaster casters were mediocre in 1E but they’re pointless in the playtest since monsters are so overtuned.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure that the problem is necessarily with spells being nerfed - I really like the concept of the four degrees of success/failure. The problem - in my view - is that the monsters have ridiculously good saves: case in point, the manticore that TPK'd my playtest group was more likely to critically succeed on a save than it was to fail (it could only fail by rolling a 1 or a 2).

No wonder casters feel nerfed! The math is stacked against them ever being useful.

I recognize that PF1 has C/MD issues, but I honestly thought that the combat stamina rules from Unchained went a long way toward powering martials up. I'm really surprised that system wasn't included in the playtest - especially since everyone else seems to get 'spell points' based on a casting stat. Would it have been so hard to give something equivalent to martial classes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
The problem - in my view - is that the monsters have ridiculously good saves: case in point, the manticore that TPK'd my playtest group was more likely to critically succeed on a save than it was to fail (it could only fail by rolling a 1 or a 2).

I agree. I think the tight math is at the root of this issue and it's the most serious affecting casters. The four degrees of success and all spells having the highest Spell DC should feel like major buffs to casters but instead those are mostly negated by most of the bestiary having unreasonably high saving throws. The majority of creatures should have at least one easily exploitable saving throw (with Outsiders being the notable exception).

Individual spell changes, multiple action casting, and even the reduction in spell slots are minor compared to this.


Midnightoker said wrote:

Not just the bad eggs got nerfed. I have never had a problem with Hideous Laughter in play, and now it's a laughing stock (pun intended). Various others were also nerfed.

Hmm different opinions i guess. To me Hideous Laughter is one of the best examples I can think of in terms of spellcasting done right.

It affects one target making it quite useful against single strong foes but bad versus monsters outnumbering or being an even number with you.
It doesn't end the encounter on a unsuccessful save; but doesn't feel useless on a succesful save either at least I think the successful save effect is good enough to keep concentrating on the spell against a single strong opponent.

I do think that a lot of monsters have saves that are too high; and I think that needs to be adjusted. I also think the amount of spells per day is a tad too low. I works fine if you plan to have 1-2 encounters a day (and the players know this) but anymore than that the caster would either have to "conserve" his resources to an unfunny extend to keep his power if an encounter requires him to have it or to use it all and risk being a liability if a harder encounter presents itself.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Midnightoker said wrote:

Not just the bad eggs got nerfed. I have never had a problem with Hideous Laughter in play, and now it's a laughing stock (pun intended). Various others were also nerfed.

Hmm different opinions i guess. To me Hideous Laughter is one of the best examples I can think of in terms of spellcasting done right.

It affects one target making it quite useful against single strong foes but bad versus monsters outnumbering or being an even number with you.
It doesn't end the encounter on a unsuccessful save; but doesn't feel useless on a succesful save either at least I think the successful save effect is good enough to keep concentrating on the spell against a single strong opponent.

Are we referencing the same spell?

Current:
Success The target is plagued with fits of laugher. It can’t take reactions.
Critical Success Unaffected.
Failure The target is overcome with fits of laughter. It is slowed 1 and can’t take reactions.
Critical Failure The target falls prone and can’t take any actions or reactions for 1 round, then suffers the failure effects.

Old:
This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. After the spell ends, it can act normally. On the creature’s next turn, it may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If this save is successful, the effect ends. If not, the creature continues laughing for the entire duration.

so on a typical failure, that person loses ONE action and can't take reactions and it requires concentration to maintain that effect.

Where the old spell fell prone, took no actions, and on the next round (at least) cost them the round to attempt a new save.

Even the Critical Failure of the spell Hideous Laughter as current is not even as good as the old spell.

Was the old spell a bit potent? Sure.

It was also a compulsion mind-affecting, level 2, single target, close range, duration level spell that required the target have at least 3 INT (so no animals), and the creature against type gets a +4 to the save.

In no way was it even remotely overpowered, but it was certainly too binary.

That said, the new spell is a waste of actions and pages in a spell book, unless you have aforementioned knowledge of fighting a foe with EXTREMELY good reactions.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

Many excellent cooperative board games are balanced, yet incredibly fun. Gloomhaven, Descent, Imperial Assault, Aeon's End to name a few. And honestly, D&D/PF is not far from a board game, given that 90% rules are about combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

Many excellent cooperative board games are balanced, yet incredibly fun. Gloomhaven, Descent, Imperial Assault, Aeon's End to name a few.

RPGS are not board games.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

Many excellent cooperative board games are balanced, yet incredibly fun. Gloomhaven, Descent, Imperial Assault, Aeon's End to name a few.
RPGS are not board games.

They aren't? D&D is a tactical wargame. It's mostly played on the grid with minis, which is a default assumption for Pathfinder 1e and 2e. Sure, there's stuff that happens off the board, but once you strip the whole "we roleplay the conversation with the duchess and do the whole get into the characters and develop their personalities" thing, D&D boils down to a board game, with most of the ruleset focused on combat. And one that's not much different from Descent and Gloomhaven. These games too have heroes facing monsters in tombs and dungeons, turn based combat, spells fly around, characters gain levels and abilities, magic items, skills etc. etc.

And those games tend to be laser-balanced and cooperative, not competitive, at the same time. These are not exclusive goals. Balance does not imply PvP.

Sure, you can say that RPGs have the advantege of the umpire/GM to handle balance, but then again why should the GM be burdened with that? He or she should have time and energy for developing the story and running the world around the players - something RPGs are better at than board games - instead of getting a headache about emergency force sphere.


Midnightoker said wrote:

Are we referencing the same spell?

Current:
Success The target is plagued with fits of laugher. It can’t take reactions.
Critical Success Unaffected.
Failure The target is overcome with fits of laughter. It is slowed 1 and can’t take reactions.
Critical Failure The target falls prone and can’t take any actions or reactions for 1 round, then suffers the failure effects.

Old:
This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. After the spell ends, it can act normally. On the creature’s next turn, it may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If this save is successful, the effect ends. If not, the creature continues laughing for the entire duration.

so on a typical failure, that person loses ONE action and can't take reactions and it requires concentration to maintain that effect.

Where the old spell fell prone, took no actions, and on the next round (at least) cost them the round to attempt a new save.

Even the Critical Failure of the spell Hideous Laughter as current is not even as good as the old spell.

Was the old spell a bit potent? Sure.

It was also a compulsion mind-affecting, level 2, single target, close range, duration level spell that required the target have at least 3 INT (so no animals), and the creature against type gets a +4 to the save.

In no way was it even remotely overpowered, but it was certainly too binary.

That said, the new spell is a waste of actions and pages in a spell book, unless you have aforementioned knowledge of fighting a foe with EXTREMELY good reactions.

I do agree that it's weaker than it used to be, but I don't mind that. Action economy is everything and if you are 4 vs 1 trading one of your actions each turn to cancel out even a reaction is worth it in my book. (The concentration on the spell that is; it's not really worth the two actions and the spell slot, but the enemy saved so in pathfinder 1 it would have no effect) I don't like that a spell would essentially cost you two turns (or more) on a failure. In old pathfinder that is a dead enemy. Now it's much more of a debuff spell than a straight save or suck(die) spell.

However I do see the concern that now the spell is that much weaker the limitation of maybe casting it once a day (unless this is your only spell prepared) is too big a cost for the effect.
So I do think that maybe extra spells per day is needed to keep spellcasting useful in the group.


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

This discussion is more and more making me feel that Vancian magic is what needs to die.

Make all casters work like 3.5 Warlocks, maybe with individual spells have X/day boosted forms.

Then again, that's a strong step towards 4e and I know how popular that idea is... Still think Paizo could do it right, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

This discussion is more and more making me feel that Vancian magic is what needs to die.

Make all casters work like 3.5 Warlocks, maybe with individual spells have X/day boosted forms.

Then again, that's a strong step towards 4e and I know how popular that idea is... Still think Paizo could do it right, though.

I love the 5e warlock. I pulled it over to my PF game because my gf wanted to play one and with very little changing, it has worked out quite nicely. I just gave it a mix of sorcerer and rogue base stats. With the limited spell slots per combat, their cantrips aren't really out of line either. Sorry for not being particularly on topic, but my point is that I think that model could definitely work for PF2.


A player of mine also is looking for a warlock in 2e. More ability to specialise and liberally use a field of magic at the expense of "well i can change my playstyle and contributions every day because spellbook".

I'm also of the opinion to at least change to arcanist style prepared casting (is that the same as 5e prepared casters?). But futher investigation of daily resources and how to best handle them in a way that feels fun seems necessary.


I'm looking for a warlock in 1E.


Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

Many excellent cooperative board games are balanced, yet incredibly fun. Gloomhaven, Descent, Imperial Assault, Aeon's End to name a few.
RPGS are not board games.
They aren't?

No.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

Many excellent cooperative board games are balanced, yet incredibly fun. Gloomhaven, Descent, Imperial Assault, Aeon's End to name a few.
RPGS are not board games.
They aren't?
No.

They kinda are, though.


Alyran wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

This discussion is more and more making me feel that Vancian magic is what needs to die.

Make all casters work like 3.5 Warlocks, maybe with individual spells have X/day boosted forms.

Then again, that's a strong step towards 4e and I know how popular that idea is... Still think Paizo could do it right, though.

I love the 5e warlock.

I detest that class, since its inception in 3rd Ed's CA; how on earth someone thought that a Warlock is a leather-clad dude that pew-pews laser-beams from his hands is beyond stupid.


MaxAstro wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

Many excellent cooperative board games are balanced, yet incredibly fun. Gloomhaven, Descent, Imperial Assault, Aeon's End to name a few.
RPGS are not board games.
They aren't?
No.
They kinda are, though.

Not at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
They kinda are, though.

In our D&D game last night, it was an hour between dice rolls.

No, they're really not. The idea that they are is based around only one style of campaign.

Combat is an important part of the game, but it's not the game the way a tactical mini game is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tridus wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
They kinda are, though.

In our D&D game last night, it was an hour between dice rolls.

No, they're really not. The idea that they are is based around only one style of campaign.

Combat is an important part of the game, but it's not the game the way a tactical mini game is.

To clarify my opinion:

Combat in Pathfinder very much is a board game, and should be balanced like a board game. I played Mansions of Madness recently, and my friends and I roleplayed our characters; it was basically indistinguishable from a "proper" RPG.

Obviously the stuff that happens outside of combat (and the stuff in combat that isn't mechanical, like social interactions during combat) should not be balanced like a board game.

I mean, I run Exalted. I've had entire sessions where no dice were rolled. I get where you are coming from there. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tridus:
Different people game for different reasons. One persons idea of fun is different than another's. Some want tactically rich choices in their rpgs. Others couldn't care less. The games folks play cater to these likes in varying degrees.

Some, like me, can appreciate both. If I want the dice to get out of the way, I'll play Shadow of the Demon Lord. I am coming to PF2 for tactical play.

Paizo is not going to beat 5E at the high roll roleplay, low/medium cruch market. WotC has that cornered. What Paizo can do is present an accessible alternative that happens to be tactically rich and has comparatively heavy customization.

PF2 is a clearly a game for those that want tactical combat and the game is a closer cousin to a squad based tactical board game than you seem willing to admit.


MaxAstro wrote:

Obviously the stuff that happens outside of combat (and the stuff in combat that isn't mechanical, like social interactions during combat) should not be balanced like a board game.

What about for tables that do not use a combat grid and just strictly deal with combat conceptually by petitioning the GM

aka

Player: "I want to hit X, Y, and Z with my Fireball"
GM: "You can hit X and Y, but Z is too far away. Hitting Z would mean only hitting Z."

My tables used to adopt this mantra, which made combat a lot swifter than working with a table grid.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there all,

This thread started as a post talking about why a group was bowing out of the playtest. It is no longer on topic, debating over the power level of hideous laughter and bickering over whether or not RPGs are board games.

As a result, I think we can move on. This thread is locked.

351 to 378 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
Future Kinectist