| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't have to be noticed by Paizo and introduced into their design process - it doesn't even matter whether anyone looks at it or not. I just want to get it off my chest.
I was in favor of 2nd edition. I thought it was gonna simplify PF, similarly to how 5e simplified D&D, but without making it so bland and devoid of deep customization and strategy. A better system, improving on 5e's still great design.
I read the book. Then I ran a little of the playtest, for 2 parties.
It didn't go far.
* There are good ideas. Spell-less paladins and rangers. Sorcerers with different spell lists according to bloodline. Gated 10th level spells. Class feats customization. More concise monster stat blocks, more to the point. More crits and fumbles.
* Armor still doesn't make any sense. Nor do many weapons, or why monks are allowed to use some of them in such an arbitrary way. Choosing gear and recording bulk when creating characters is a total chore. Touch AC could just as easily have been Reflex save, or, damn it, normal AC.
* Casters use their primary ability only for their spells' DCs. To hit with a spell you need Dexterity. This is quite absurd - now all direct damage casters need Dex, not just their normal core stat.
* Rules for everything. Everything encoded in its own little paragraph to know how to do it right. To swim you do this, to jump you do that, to speak over a strong wind... (hyperbole... but not by much).
* The player of a 1st level caster doesn't need to read all their spells. That of a 4th level wizard has to look at their entire list's first 2-3 levels and then write down a lot of them, even stuff they don't really give a crap about. Even 1st level characters can be quite complex to stat down, but the process becomes a real chore soon.
* I still don't think bards were perfectly captured by the rules and flavor, but that, like much of what I'm writing, is just me.
* Some magic items are more trouble to write down than usefulness or flavor to have. Low level trinkets are ugly and underwhelming.
* Having level add to skills, attacks etc gives us nightmare fuel like that monstrous table telling us what DC to assign a task from level 0 to over 20 and from trivial to "please desist for the sake of all that's holy and decent". Tens and tens of DCs, no possibility to learn them all by rote unless you're some kind of savant. Anti-intuitive par excellence, with DCs going up or down by 1 or 2 points according to cryptic factors only designers and character optimizers have discerned. So many times I would've had to look a DC up in the table and I just made one up for brevity and game flow. Not to mention some DCs in the playtest that looked patently absurd.
* The backlash of people who were okay with PF 1st edition. Paizo could have doubled down on the Unchained concept: optional rules to fix some balance and, for instance, streamline prep and gameplay. Now, instead of new material telling us about new concepts, new lands, new beings, we'll get a rehash of everything that's been published these last 10 years with different rules. Not too bad, I've never managed to read my whole collection and I still have dozens APs to run, I'll marry and have children first. Still.
* Still gamism first, simulation second. And I don't mean slavish simulation of reality - I would've liked a better simulation of many classic and not-so-classic fantasy tales. Wounds that actually hinder you, for instance, or the possibility of deadly attacks killing "minions/mooks/cannon-fodder" in one go. No such luck.
There were a lot of interesting concepts, honestly. I still think it's all too laborious for a game, even a strategy game, and certainly a narrative-based game. I love Golarion, but my group and I aren't using PF, 1st or 2nd edition. Not after a week of work and worries. Neither will many younger players who could just get into 5e. This is a pity because Paizo is a great company ethically speaking, with great people and great workplace practices, and they deservedly ascended to the heavens of some of the best rpg publishers around ever. Golarion is a beautiful setting that more people might do well to know more deeply instead of thinking it's just racist pulp (it's not).
But I personally don't see 2e doing the trick. Still, hope springs eternal.
And now it's off your chest!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now it's off your chest!
Yep. I was just so disappointed running the whole thing I had felt the need to speak up since a while. Done, over with, let's get to more interesting things.
Most of your views are common ones I hear from others across the USA and world.
But having said that there are quite a few people her that have had a different experience.
I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.
*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.
MDC
And now I'm wondering about the stat block of said sunshine trolls, and trying to imagine how they'd appear...
I'm not sure there are so many people with a lot of spare time to sink games they don't like, but I hope their dice all roll 1s (at the very least).
I've seen people on these boards supporting the 2e playtest, and they could certainly be legit - at least a good percentage of them. Still, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it was a waste of a perfectly good opportunity. Danke.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I kinda get what (I think) Roswynn is saying there.
The way the spell list is formatted in the playtest book is terrible. Not having short descriptions of the spells in the spell lists is really really bad. So you end up writing down the names of a bunch of spells you probably don't care about, so that you remember to look up the description and find out if you actually want it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me reference some of your points of contention for a moment here.
Paladins and Rangers without spells does make them weaker in general, especially if they didn't get anything equally as strong to compensate. Sorcerers having spell lists based on bloodlines sounds neat on paper, except when you look at them being weaker than any other comparable class as a balance point and are still the weakest casters to date, since the only buff they got was being on the same spell progression as Wizards. Furthermore, spell gating through feats and rarity is highly unfun, and many people are vocally against fumble rules.
I do agree armor is imbalanced at the moment, but I wish that they had positive traits for armor instead of negative ones (like the weapons tables), though what they can do with that is significantly more limited. Some examples such as adding the armor's AC bonus to Fortitude and Reflex DCs, would be pretty cool for anti-athletics shenanigans. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with the relevance of TAC and some Monk stuff.
I strenuously disagree with main-stat casting no longer being mandatory; in fact, I like it a lot more since it disincentivizes min-maxing. Granted, they might have gone too far with the current nerfage to magic, but the fact is that having a 14 Intelligence doesn't mean you're dead weight, as you can do plenty with spellcasting that isn't reliant on having such a high score.
I don't mind there being rules for everything. The big question is whether those rules are done right, and to be honest, several of them (most notably flying) needs work yet. Because if a character being carried can fly, and is let go, does he drop immediately, or does he have to wait until his turn before he drops? The rules don't say. And in those cases, I'd like clarification, but there is room for GM FIAT otherwise.
The character generation app fixes that. I dislike I need an app to make things smooth, but it does say a lot about how to flow through everything.
I think a lot of magic items are too bland and consumables are lame treasure. Personal opinions, but I agree.
PF1 people are like that. I say let them keep playing their game. They will get bored with it eventually, or never, in which case that's not Paizo's target audience.
D&D has always originated as a tactical war game, so of course it's gamist first. Not saying the other way around is wrong, just not it's originally intended design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other concerns seem to be a bit weird to me. Like wanting casters to not using dex for ray attacks or to remove TAC
Well in 5e casters use their casting stat for spell attack rolls and TAC doesn't exist, and it works fine. This isn't a big deal for me though, any of the two ways are fine as long as they have a decent chance to hit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.
Haha this sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.
Reality is much simpler than that, people do not agree on what they find fun and doesnt matter how hard it is to some, they arent trolling, they just dont agree and that is that.
Hell playtest is a perfect example, 5th edt players and PF1 players arent looking for the same game, even among those groups there is gaps, but lets keep in the big 2 for simplicity.
Paizo is trying to go for the middle ground at the same time both sides pull for theirs.
There is no way they will appeal to everyone, based on how they are going by vote in the surveys, they are trying to appeal to a majority.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D has always originated as a tactical war game, so of course it's gamist first. Not saying the other way around is wrong, just not it's originally intended design.
The key words here are "originated" and "originally". It is easy to look at the past 25 years of gaming and see that as the industry has evolved the games that embrace story, narrative, and so degree of simulation have eclipsed heavy "gamist" systems in popularity, and simply bringing more fans into the hobby and creating more fun for more people.
You are right about the 1970s though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.
The general level of enthusiasm, rough nose-count, and nature of the comments from the advocates appears to be very well aligned with the popularity of similar games (4E / 5th Age) so I'm rather confident that they are quite real.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.
How self-absorbed do you have to be to hear that someone has a different opinion from you and think, “This sounds like a conspiracy.”
That said, there are good points in the OPs post (armor being wonky is a personal sticking point with me). But a lot of it is... normal?
Take for instance casters using Dex to hit with touch and ranged touch attacks. That’s been around! The reason it stands out is that currently spellcasting is in a weird place (getting Expert in spellcasting isn’t so easy as it was to get Spell Focus, casters have more limited spells per day, and power levels have been adjusted across the board). Many players can look at that and say, “Well, if I want to play a blaster wizard, I should go heavy in Dex and touch spells.” I don’t know. That seems fine? I think there’s more to talk about with spellcasting, however. Something Paizo has already said is getting overhauled.
And rules for everything? That’s a complaint? A remember playing AD&D growing up and marveling at how I could find a rule for every situation. As I got older, it just became “have enough system mastery so you don’t reference the books every session.” I don’t think there’s ever not been rules for everything? Especially jumping and swimming!
And I would be shocked and stunned if Paizo...
A) Changed from Golarion as their setting.
B) Built setting rules into their Playtest, which was lookong to test mechanics.
I’m not sure why you’ve included that as a point. The core book isn’t going to have many setting specific things included. We may see the Prestige Classes like the Grey Maiden, but t hardly seems reasonable to say, “Why didn’t they shake up the setting?” in a playtest.
You have valid points here, but you’re brushing off a lot without looking at the underlying reasons. The game will be (hopefully) launching next summer, so take a look then and see what has changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am unaware whether I am amongst the people you would suspect of being a sunshine troll, but I can assure you I'm not. I am however pretty hopeful for a lot of what PF2 is doing, but I am not narrow-minded enough to not see potential to get things even better.
It sucks that Roswynn didn't find what he/she was looking for in the playtest, but I would like to see what changes you would propose to get the system more aligned with your taste.
However your original post did make it seem that you weren't a fan of PF1 either. So if your ideal is for the game to be a closer copy of 5e set in Golarion, I fear you likely won't be happy with the final version either. It seems to me at least that trying to do 5e copy would be a bad (and maybe illegal) idea for Paizo, since I would think they need to differentiate themselves from 5e to get the best chance of a sustainable success.
If it's a more narrative focused system you are looking for, I also think other systems will be better suited for your needs. Personally I see explicit rules as helpful in terms of supporting the narrative of any games (with rule 0 always in mind, to make the game flow and fit your specific table).One of your concerns does seem to be going in a "better" direction though because Paizo is simplifying the DC table.
Other concerns seem to be a bit weird to me. Like wanting casters to not using dex for ray attacks or to remove TAC and I am unsure what you meant by:
"The player of a 1st level caster doesn't need to read all their spells. That of a 4th level wizard has to look at their entire list's first 2-3 levels and then write down a lot of them, even stuff they don't really give a crap about. Even 1st level characters can be quite complex to stat down, but the process becomes a real chore soon."
Regardless good luck finding a suitable system for your taste.
And remember if you like the setting of Golarion there is nothing stopping you from using the Campaign setting for other systems (with some changes maybe).
I'm not a big fan of PF1 either, indeed - I find it a little too complex for my tastes... that said, I think it could have been streamlined and simplified in a different way than the direction PF2 is going. Still, I think it is very interesting and even though you can easily get lost in the sea of options, customization is good.
Anyways my group's already found a suitable alternative: Mutants and Masterminds works like a charm. But let's perhaps not sing the praises of a different game system here.
What I meant with casters, wizards and spells is this: at 1st level it isn't too difficult/complex to create a caster and choose their spells. But take a wizard and already after a few levels they have to choose a lot of cantrips and spells for their spellbook, from a table that is hardly user-friendly, plus inevitably some of the spells they'll choose will be just padding the player is not really interested in. Too much chaff. And it adds to the lenght of character creation and to the amount of page-flipping. It's not really an ideal development, I think - it's good that wizards are the most versatile arcane casters of the game, that's part of their shtick, but creating them becomes a chore soon.
Let me reference some of your points of contention for a moment here.
Paladins and Rangers without spells does make them weaker in general, especially if they didn't get anything equally as strong to compensate. Sorcerers having spell lists based on bloodlines sounds neat on paper, except when you look at them being weaker than any other comparable class as a balance point and are still the weakest casters to date, since the only buff they got was being on the same spell progression as Wizards. Furthermore, spell gating through feats and rarity is highly unfun, and many people are vocally against fumble rules.
I do agree armor is imbalanced at the moment, but I wish that they had positive traits for armor instead of negative ones (like the weapons tables), though what they can do with that is significantly more limited. Some examples such as adding the armor's AC bonus to Fortitude and Reflex DCs, would be pretty cool for anti-athletics shenanigans. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with the relevance of TAC and some Monk stuff.
I strenuously disagree with main-stat casting no longer being mandatory; in fact, I like it a lot more since it disincentivizes min-maxing. Granted, they might have gone too far with the current nerfage to magic, but the fact is that having a 14 Intelligence doesn't mean you're dead weight, as you can do plenty with spellcasting that isn't reliant on having such a high score.
I don't mind there being rules for everything. The big question is whether those rules are done right, and to be honest, several of them (most notably flying) needs work yet. Because if a character being carried can fly, and is let go, does he drop immediately, or does he have to wait until his turn before he drops? The rules don't say. And in those cases, I'd like clarification, but there is room for GM FIAT otherwise.
The character generation app fixes that. I dislike I need an app to make things smooth, but it does say a lot about how to flow through everything.
I think a lot of magic items are too...
Paladins and rangers could be made stronger even without spells, I think. I like this version because of flavor reasons, I'm not good with game balance in all honesty. Sorcerers could be made stronger as well without losing the different spell lists.
Spell gating only 1 level, the topmost and most epic, is a small price and I'm not sure why it should be so unfun... I don't see it, honestly.
Fumble rules perhaps aren't awesome. Crit rules I like very much, they allow you to get great results even without a natural 20, it's very heroic (and appropriate for heroic fantasy).
Armor... I don't know if it's working as intended, but rogues with high dex and studded leather got better ACs than paladins in plate in my playtest. My problem with armor though is not really that: I'm an amateur hoplologist and I've studied weapons and armor extensively (btw, weapon criticals special effects don't make sense as of now), and armor simply doesn't work like that. To elaborate:
* Leather armor was a rarity. The lowest rung was usually padded armor - gambesons, cotthyboi, aketons. It was pretty effective too, although a sword will slice it and get to the body underneath without huge difficulties. That said, of course leather armor has a place in fantasy, so I don't ask that it's removed, just that padded armor is buffed up a little.
* Mail was heavy, uncomfortable, and quite impenetrable. It also made a lot of noise. It didn't slow you down enough to be noticed, and it certainly wouldn't impose a penalty to all physical checks.
* Plate was impenetrable, unless you aimed for a mail-covered articulation or smashed it with a heavy bludgeon. The helmet highly restricted your vision, though. It made almost as much noise as mail. It was hot and sweaty. It wasn't heavy, the weight was distributed over the whole body and you could do cartwheels in it with no hindrance, but it wasn't built for you to take long marches in it (half plate is better for that scenario), gods forbid overland travel. So you had a limited field of view and you got tired fast in it. Instead D&D & PF insist it hinders your movements (wrong) and slows you down (wrong). It also costed an awful lot of money, plus you needed help to don it (historically, a squire). So it should be more effective, at the cost of a lot of inconveniences (just not those listed) which wouldn't make it the obvious choice for all characters with enough gold, at all. That said, half plate is a little more forgiving, and transitional armor (brigandine and plates over chain and padded) is probably a great top-rung contendent.
* I know it's anti-D&D, but armor would really make more sense with a rating you subtract from damage taken (DR, essentially) instead of adding to your AC, which should instead be your ability to parry, block and dodge, nothing else (and shouldn't be too low in the case of most competent fighters, plus it should rise with your BAB).
And that's most of what I don't like about armor in D&D/PF. I know, quite drastic, but even some token efforts in this direction would help verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.
What else... I'd rather not need an app to create characters, in all honesty. As for rules for everything, I'd prefer a few standards and general guidelines, as in 5e. I ran a campaign in it and we all had a blast: simple and to the point, and I could always come up with the right DC on the spot if one wasn't provided. I understand Paizo can't just copypaste 5e (and thanks the gods for that) but some things it does really well, and if they want more converts making the game simpler would certainly help.
I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.
How self-absorbed do you have to be to hear that someone has a different opinion from you and think, “This sounds like a conspiracy.”
That said, there are good points in the OPs post (armor being wonky is a personal sticking point with me). But a lot of it is... normal?
Take for instance casters using Dex to hit with touch and ranged touch attacks. That’s been around! The reason it stands out is that currently spellcasting is in a weird place (getting Expert in spellcasting isn’t so easy as it was to get Spell Focus, casters have more limited spells per day, and power levels have been adjusted across the board). Many players can look at that and say, “Well, if I want to play a blaster wizard, I should go heavy in Dex and touch spells.” I don’t know. That seems fine? I think there’s more to talk about with spellcasting, however. Something Paizo has already said is getting overhauled.
And rules for everything? That’s a complaint? A remember playing AD&D growing up and marveling at how I could find a rule for every situation. As I got older, it just became “have enough system mastery so you don’t reference the books every session.” I don’t think there’s ever not been rules for everything? Especially jumping and swimming!
And I would be shocked and stunned if Paizo...
A) Changed from Golarion as their setting.
B) Built setting rules into their Playtest, which was lookong to test mechanics.I’m not sure why you’ve included that as a point. The core book isn’t going to have many setting specific things included. We may see the Prestige Classes like the Grey Maiden, but t hardly seems reasonable to say, “Why didn’t they shake up the setting?” in a playtest.
You have valid points here, but you’re brushing off a lot without looking at the underlying reasons. The game will be (hopefully) launching next summer, so take a look then and see what has changed.
The problem is: if you want a blaster wizard, you say take high Dex and go to town. Yet iconic spells like fireballs and lightning bolts need high primary stat to pump the save dc. So there isn't a coherent idea behind it.
Yes, rules for everything is a complaint because I prefer lighter systems - I love crunch as much as the next player, but I don't care about exact DCs for every activity a character can attempt. I wasn't a fan of Rolemaster, the game where you rolled and consulted a chart to pee.
I love Golarion and it's my main draw to Paizo's products. I think the playtest could've easily included Golarion-specific material considering that it took place on Golarion (and indeed it did). Shaking up the setting is definitely not something I want and I don't know how I gave you that impression.
All in all, I'll have a look at 2nd edition in Summer, sure. I just don't expect anything much from it at this point (fool me once...).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D has always originated as a tactical war game, so of course it's gamist first. Not saying the other way around is wrong, just not it's originally intended design.The key words here are "originated" and "originally". It is easy to look at the past 25 years of gaming and see that as the industry has evolved the games that embrace story, narrative, and so degree of simulation have eclipsed heavy "gamist" systems in popularity, and simply bringing more fans into the hobby and creating more fun for more people.
You are right about the 1970s though.
I can say that strides have been made to make narrative a more driving force behind the attraction, that much is true. But it hasn't evolved to the point of being primarily a narrative game, especially since Combat is still a major portion of how the game is played, which is heavily codified and, to no surprise, functions more like a tactical wargame than a narrative combat scene. I can assure you a lot of players, my group included, will drop out if we turned Combat into a chapter of a choose-your-adventure novel. Numerous GMs aren't storywriters (why else do you think APs are popular purchases? Because people can't be arsed to write a story due to creativity/time constraint), and it's much easier to force strategical thinking than creative illustration onto a person, if given the choice between the two.
IMO, There are other, better systems that offer more rules-lite options (or better yet, less codified rules), and I'm certain these narrative-driven players have already houseruled these implementations into their tables, well before PF2 has hit the scene; using it as an excuse to denounce something that has been run in a certain way, and has always been intended to run that way for nearly 50 years, is just plain baffling, especially when doing so is objectively more harmful to the game's image than helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Let me reference some of your points of contention for a moment here.
Paladins and Rangers without spells does make them weaker in general, especially if they didn't get anything equally as strong to compensate. Sorcerers having spell lists based on bloodlines sounds neat on paper, except when you look at them being weaker than any other comparable class as a balance point and are still the weakest casters to date, since the only buff they got was being on the same spell progression as Wizards. Furthermore, spell gating through feats and rarity is highly unfun, and many people are vocally against fumble rules.
I do agree armor is imbalanced at the moment, but I wish that they had positive traits for armor instead of negative ones (like the weapons tables), though what they can do with that is significantly more limited. Some examples such as adding the armor's AC bonus to Fortitude and Reflex DCs, would be pretty cool for anti-athletics shenanigans. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with the relevance of TAC and some Monk stuff.
I strenuously disagree with main-stat casting no longer being mandatory; in fact, I like it a lot more since it disincentivizes min-maxing. Granted, they might have gone too far with the current nerfage to magic, but the fact is that having a 14 Intelligence doesn't mean you're dead weight, as you can do plenty with spellcasting that isn't reliant on having such a high score.
I don't mind there being rules for everything. The big question is whether those rules are done right, and to be honest, several of them (most notably flying) needs work yet. Because if a character being carried can fly, and is let go, does he drop immediately, or does he have to wait until his turn before he drops? The rules don't say. And in those cases, I'd like clarification, but there is room for GM FIAT otherwise.
The character generation app fixes that. I dislike I need an app to make things smooth, but it does say a lot about how to flow through
Well, it basically turns 10th level spells into a feat tax (because every other 20th level feat is trash by comparison). One solution can be to bump the 20th level feats up to a fair standard, but the option to cast a 5th level spell or lower for free once per minute is not very fun or cool unless it's a convenient buff spell (but then it becomes tedious). And if the 10th level spells are as powerful as they once were in PF1 (doubtful, but probably still plenty powerful enough), someone who doesn't take that feat is a fool. Did I also forget that for characters whose Cantrips and Spell Points/Features that scale with spell level also benefit from this scaling? Divine spellcasters getting access to 10th level Harm/Heal from their deity choices or some other ability, without increasing its actual cost, just makes the feat that much more powerful. There is also the rarity gate, where several Uncommon spells are totally fine to include into the base list but apparently can't because reasons, and you won't ever get it until the GM says so.
Again, armor needs works. There should be more of a gap between a Rogue with Light Armor and a Paladin in Heavy Armor, and there should be positive traits instead of negative ones to mirror the weapons. Armor as DR is probably a no-go though, since that's added math each time you calculate damage to a PC. You could just let the PC adjust it, but sometimes they forget, or their AC value changes, that sort of thing.
App to create characters I don't like, but the alternative isn't much better. Spending less than an hour creating an entire character (of any level pretty much) or spending 3 hours on a character that probably hasn't considered all the available options there. The standard and guidelines are already there, just not in the same ratio you like, which I suppose makes sense and is a thing.
Well, it basically turns 10th level spells into a feat tax (because every other 20th level feat is trash by comparison). One solution can be to bump the 20th level feats up to a fair standard, but the option to cast a 5th level spell or lower for free once per minute is not very fun or cool unless it's a convenient buff spell (but then it becomes tedious). And if the 10th level spells are as powerful as they once were in PF1 (doubtful, but probably still plenty powerful enough), someone who doesn't take that feat is a fool. Did I also forget that for characters whose Cantrips and Spell Points/Features that scale with spell level also benefit from this scaling? Divine spellcasters getting access to 10th level Harm/Heal from their deity choices or some other ability, without increasing its actual cost, just makes the feat that much more powerful. There is also the rarity gate, where several Uncommon spells are totally fine to include into the base list but apparently can't because reasons, and you won't ever get it until the GM says so.
Again, armor needs works. There should be more of a gap between a Rogue with Light Armor and a Paladin in Heavy Armor, and there should be positive traits instead of negative ones to mirror the weapons. Armor as DR is probably a no-go though, since that's added math each time you calculate damage to a PC. You could just let the PC adjust it, but sometimes they forget, or their AC value changes, that sort of thing.
App to create characters I don't like, but the alternative isn't much better. Spending less than an hour creating an entire character (of any level pretty much) or spending 3 hours on a character that probably hasn't considered all the available options there. The standard and guidelines are already there, just not in the same ratio you like, which I suppose makes sense and is a thing.
I understand your reasoning regarding 10th level spells - I hadn't considered all relevant factors. This occurs often to me, I happen upon concepts I like or dislike from a gut feeling approach, but fail to follow through and factor in all the variables. I'd say you're right, it's a feat tax. I'd like for Wish to be a little more than a 9th level spell, maybe some other restrictions to its casting... but anyways, nothing actually important, it doesn't matter.
I understand armor as DR is added math, but I think it'd be added math *in an instance that deserves it* (opposed to some parts of the game which could be easily improvised or would need just general guidelines, like many things in downtime and skill checks, imho). Also, yes, armor should have positive qualities, *and* negative qualities (see my above post about the problems of different kinds of armor). Same for weapons: an arming sword parries very well, but a spear has reach and will always hit you first, while a flail is complicated to master and not hit yourself on the nose with, and a repeating x-bow alas is both inaccurate and weak, while most other x-bows require long loading times... every offensive or defensive weapon and armor suit or piece has interesting and different factors that will influence your fighting style and even your adventuring. It's not just "Like leather, but better".
Of course this could be a fetish of mine. Although a game so focused on personal combat (and let's be frank, we all love personal combat - and large armies battles, and...) would benefit from a little more verisimilitude (not to the expense of too much expediency of course).
I think it's okay to spend a lot of time customizing a character to your heart's content, but there are noobs around who love Game of Thrones and LotR and the MCU etc who'd really sing the praises of standard ready made templates for their charas, because too much complexity and choices right from the start can be discouraging and migraine-inducing. I can appreciate that wizards have access to almost all cantrips at a certain point, and know what those cantrips do more or less, but a noob needs hand-holding, no way around it - and the playtest had none of that. Big mistake, again imho. Let's see what happens come August (or later, no actual problem for me).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D has always originated as a tactical war game, so of course it's gamist first. Not saying the other way around is wrong, just not it's originally intended design.The key words here are "originated" and "originally". It is easy to look at the past 25 years of gaming and see that as the industry has evolved the games that embrace story, narrative, and so degree of simulation have eclipsed heavy "gamist" systems in popularity, and simply bringing more fans into the hobby and creating more fun for more people.
You are right about the 1970s though.
I can say that strides have been made to make narrative a more driving force behind the attraction, that much is true. But it hasn't evolved to the point of being primarily a narrative game, especially since Combat is still a major portion of how the game is played, which is heavily codified and, to no surprise, functions more like a tactical wargame than a narrative combat scene. I can assure you a lot of players, my group included, will drop out if we turned Combat into a chapter of a choose-your-adventure novel. Numerous GMs aren't storywriters (why else do you think APs are popular purchases? Because people can't be arsed to write a story due to creativity/time constraint), and it's much easier to force strategical thinking than creative illustration onto a person, if given the choice between the two.
IMO, There are other, better systems that offer more rules-lite options (or better yet, less codified rules), and I'm certain these narrative-driven players have already houseruled these implementations into their tables, well before PF2 has hit the scene; using it as an excuse to denounce something that has been run in a certain way, and has always been intended to run that way for nearly 50 years, is just plain baffling, especially when doing so is objectively more harmful to the game's image than helpful.
Well, now you are just offering vague and subjective statements. Of course opinions will vary and that is wonderful.
But the games that get the huge buzz and have tons of people excited to play have been on the "simulationist" side and the games which have seen difficulty in keeping people playing have been "gamist". Obviously 4E vs. 5E is the prime example, but there really aren't any examples to the contrary.
5E vs PF shows clearly shows that there are refinements within that which matter a lot. But 4E holdouts are still critical of 5E for "going backward". The 5E vs PF is a case study of nailing simulation for the 2010s vs the 2000s, but is still sim vs sim when compared to the serious gamist offerings out there.
I understand your reasoning regarding 10th level spells - I hadn't considered all relevant factors. This occurs often to me, I happen upon concepts I like or dislike from a gut feeling approach, but fail to follow through and factor in all the variables. I'd say you're right, it's a feat tax. I'd like for Wish to be a little more than a 9th level spell, maybe some other restrictions to its casting... but anyways, nothing actually important, it doesn't matter.
I understand armor as DR is added math, but I think it'd be added math *in an instance that deserves it* (opposed to some parts of the game which could be easily improvised or would need just general guidelines, like many things in downtime and skill checks, imho). Also, yes, armor should have positive qualities, *and* negative qualities (see my above post about the problems of different kinds of armor). Same for weapons: an arming sword parries very well, but a spear has reach and will always hit you first, while a flail is complicated to master and not hit yourself on the nose with, and a repeating x-bow alas is both inaccurate and weak, while most other x-bows require long loading times... every offensive or defensive weapon and armor suit or piece has interesting and different factors that will influence your fighting style and even your adventuring. It's not just "Like leather, but better".
Of course this could be a fetish of mine. Although a game so focused on personal combat (and let's be frank, we all love personal combat - and large armies battles, and...) would benefit from a little more verisimilitude (not to the expense of too much expediency of course).
I think it's okay to spend a lot of time customizing a character to your heart's content, but there are noobs around who love Game of Thrones and LotR and the MCU etc who'd really sing the praises of standard ready made templates for their charas, because too much complexity and choices right from the start can be discouraging and migraine-inducing. I can appreciate that wizards have access to almost all cantrips at a certain point, and know what those cantrips do more or less, but a noob needs hand-holding, no way around it - and the playtest had none of that. Big mistake, again imho. Let's see what happens come August (or later, no actual problem for me).
The thing with armor is that the negative qualities are already reflected in things like ACP and movement reduction and required proficiency, in the same vein that weapon negative qualities are reflected in damage dice and proficiency as well. The weapon qualities do work both ways, since it more-or-less makes weapons diverse and have intended purposes for use. Armor doesn't have any of that, which is why we're still in PF1 territory regarding armor, especially since the negative qualities in armor (which are only two, compared to the insane breadth of weapon qualities in the playtest) only serve as detriments instead of creating niche options for players. Maybe some people like Half Plate because it's more maneuverable (i.e. loses less move speed) than Full Plate, but it's less protective and maybe can't meaningfully be affected by special materials due to the Piecemeal trait. Tradeoffs like this are what made weapons interesting in the playtest. Those tradeoffs don't exist in the armors, and it's just not fun whatsoever, especially since, as others have stated, there is zero upside (sans class proficiency) to use heavier armors.
My games don't just deal with combat in the slightest; one of our main bad guys did engage in combat first, but was captured, interrogated, broke free, gave his captors the middle finger with a special illusion/invisibility ability, and ran away, which made for a very memorable villain for one of the PCs. Yes, while combat is still a major part of the game, that's more-or-less by the game's design. We have a whole section dedicated specifically for how combat works. Compared to how roleplaying works, which has practically zero specific points of reference (and for obvious reasons, because people roleplay in different ways), and this, too, is by design. In fact, I'd have to say that PF1 is less restrictive on roleplay compared to PF2, which actually requires feats to make roleplay options more convenient and potentially usable for combat purposes (think Quick Diplomacy/Intimidate skill feats, which IMO should be baseline for proficiency benefits).
I'm sure there are premades to be found online, in a Pathfinder book, and so on, but it will still be a pain to do by hand simply because of all the paper shuffling and cross-referencing that the book makes you do to properly understand it, compared to an app that is less of a hassle, and actually gets you right to where you need to look for certain things, instead of trying to parse it for yourself and potentially getting it wrong and taking more time out of your day (and killing game momentum if you're doing things in-game). I'm not saying the app is necessarily a godsend, simply because people being on their phones all the time doesn't help with immersion, but the alternative is much, much worse, because it is much more frustration-inducing.
Well, now you are just offering vague and subjective statements. Of course opinions will vary and that is wonderful.
But the games that get the huge buzz and have tons of people excited to play have been on the "simulationist" side and the games which have seen difficulty in keeping people playing have been "gamist". Obviously 4E vs. 5E is the prime example, but there really aren't any examples to the contrary.
5E vs PF shows clearly shows that there are refinements within that which matter a lot. But 4E holdouts are still critical of 5E for "going backward". The 5E vs PF is a case study of nailing simulation for the 2010s vs the 2000s, but is still sim vs sim when compared to the serious gamist offerings out there.
I think this ultimately depends on how the game is presented.
There are numerous kinds of games which are heavily "gamist" titles, but have been considered some of the best kinds of games to hit publication (at least according to some ratings and awards being handed out accordingly), but these titles are also very specific and close-booked in their publication; there are little to no mutable aspects to it (sans houseruling, but that's still mostly for "gamist" elements).
With D&D and PF having a very open-ended and variant system to it, it evolved into more of a simulationist system by necessity (because not doing so creates paradoxical issues of identity between creations), but it still retains a lot of the "gamist" elements, adhering still back to the original D&D with terms and mechanics and such, which still indeed becomes a "gamist" concept. Simulationism has grown in relation to the hobby, but whether that dwarfs "gamism," much like unclear rules, is left to table variance at best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wanna take a quick note that GNS theory has been known to be bunk for ages and that terms like "gamist" don't really mean all that much if we're worrying who the system will appeal to. I don't see much merit in trying to discuss the system in those terms. Making big claims about whether "simulationist" systems are more popular is gonna be suspect when, say, 5e exists and goes out of its way to not include fiddly rules just for simulating stuff, instead giving the GM fairly decent tools to b!&%~%$% something quickly.
Wanna take a quick note that GNS theory has been known to be bunk for ages and that terms like "gamist" don't really mean all that much if we're worrying who the system will appeal to. I don't see much merit in trying to discuss the system in those terms. Making big claims about whether "simulationist" systems are more popular is gonna be suspect when, say, 5e exists and goes out of its way to not include fiddly rules just for simulating stuff, instead giving the GM fairly decent tools to b&%%&~$@ something quickly.
The irony here is that I can actually "BS something quickly" a lot better with PF2 rules than with PF1 rules due to the streamlined leveling mechanics, so if the intent is to make PF2 a lot more GM friendly like 5E is, it has most certainly succeeded on that front. And the best part is, I don't need to adhere to some stupid arbitrary 10-2 table that Paizo published, since as a GM, I should be able to properly gauge what my PCs can and can't do (and apply DCs accordingly), and shouldn't have to reference some table that has vastly different expectations than my own (which is probably the #1 reason why people absolutely despise Table 10-2).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other big reason to dislike Table 10-2 is that it's a step away from difficulties being determined by something related to the world, and towards difficulties being a number determined purely by the needs of the game. Also there's the way it's used; to keep bards on a treadmill for how they use the performance skill in their magic for example.
I find both of those annoying. If the designer wants a cantrip to have a 50% chance of success, just use that rather than cross-referencing bard level with a table and rolling performance against that number, it'd be simpler to learn and use. And it feels better to have some idea what you can climb with a +10 skill than for that to vary depending on character level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other big reason to dislike Table 10-2 is that it's a step away from difficulties being determined by something related to the world, and towards difficulties being a number determined purely by the needs of the game. Also there's the way it's used; to keep bards on a treadmill for how they use the performance skill in their magic for example.
I find both of those annoying. If the designer wants a cantrip to have a 50% chance of success, just use that rather than cross-referencing bard level with a table and rolling performance against that number, it'd be simpler to learn and use. And it feels better to have some idea what you can climb with a +10 skill than for that to vary depending on character level.
My 14th level bard has a Perform of +27 vs DC 31, and therefore succeeds on a 4 or higher. That's significantly better than a level 1 character, who would have a Perform of (at most) +4 vs DC 15, and succeeds on a 11 or higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with armor is that the negative qualities are already reflected in things like ACP and movement reduction and required proficiency, in the same vein that weapon negative qualities are reflected in damage dice and proficiency as well. The weapon qualities do work both ways, since it more-or-less makes weapons diverse and have intended purposes for use. Armor doesn't have any of that, which is why we're still in PF1 territory regarding armor, especially since the negative qualities in armor (which are only two, compared to the insane breadth of weapon qualities in the playtest) only serve as detriments instead of creating niche options for players. Maybe some people like Half Plate because it's more maneuverable (i.e. loses less move speed) than Full Plate, but it's less protective and maybe can't meaningfully be affected by special materials due to the Piecemeal trait. Tradeoffs like this are what made weapons interesting in the playtest. Those tradeoffs don't exist in the armors, and it's just not fun whatsoever, especially since, as others have stated, there is zero upside (sans class proficiency) to use heavier armors.
My games don't just deal with combat in the slightest; one of our main bad guys did engage in combat first, but was captured, interrogated, broke free, gave his captors the middle finger with a special illusion/invisibility ability, and ran away, which made for a very memorable villain for one of the PCs. Yes, while combat is still a major part of the game, that's more-or-less by the game's design. We have a whole section dedicated specifically for how combat works. Compared to how roleplaying works, which has practically zero specific points of reference (and for obvious reasons, because people roleplay in different ways), and this, too, is by design. In fact, I'd have to say that PF1 is less restrictive on roleplay compared to PF2, which actually requires feats to make roleplay options more convenient and potentially usable for combat purposes (think Quick Diplomacy/Intimidate skill feats, which IMO should be baseline for proficiency benefits).
I'm sure there are premades to be found online, in a Pathfinder book, and so on, but it will still be a pain to do by hand simply because of all the paper shuffling and cross-referencing that the book makes you do to properly understand it, compared to an app that is less of a hassle, and actually gets you right to where you need to look for certain things, instead of trying to parse it for yourself and potentially getting it wrong and taking more time out of your day (and killing game momentum if you're doing things in-game). I'm not saying the app is necessarily a godsend, simply because people being on their phones all the time doesn't help with immersion, but the alternative is much, much worse, because it is much more frustration-inducing.
No, the negative qualities of armor are not reflected in the current negative traits of armor. Right now armor hinders and slows you, which I've tried to make clear is actually *not the case*. I think it should be more fatiguing, most of all in the long run, and give a penalty to Stealth, plus one to Perception with some helmets (although helmets being such a soft issue doesn't make it so important), and needing help to wear in the case of plate and half plate (probably brigandine with mail too, I'm actually not sure).
I do agree that armor deserves at least a couple specific qualities itself - something to mimic plate's imperviousness for instance, and in general bits of rules to display how different defenses interact with different weapons/attacks.
Btw I've always been adamantly against armor proficiencies. IRL people don't need a proficiency or equivalent to wear any kind of armor. Weapons? Sure, you need to train with those. Armors? You could get a feat to reflect being used to most armors and become less fatigued by them, and that's it.
I'm not sure whether PF1 or PF2 is more restrictive on role-play. I don't really see either as too much of a burden on it. What I see is that both codify every situation your character can find themselves in with loads and loads of rules, which I'm not in favor of. Combat - sure. Social interaction? Practising a profession? Telling your party about a monster's weak points? Too much codification. Not needed. 5e does without a lot of it and flows beautifully. And really, 5e is the life goal here - of course you can do better, but learn from it and apply what good it has brought to D&D, i.e. a lot.
I'm not talking about premades, I'm talking about templates. Again, in 5e each class tells you what features to choose for a generic member of it, which spells, what gear. It speeds up chargen significantly, if one is so inclined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The thing with armor is that the negative qualities are already reflected in things like ACP and movement reduction and required proficiency, in the same vein that weapon negative qualities are reflected in damage dice and proficiency as well. The weapon qualities do work both ways, since it more-or-less makes weapons diverse and have intended purposes for use. Armor doesn't have any of that, which is why we're still in PF1 territory regarding armor, especially since the negative qualities in armor (which are only two, compared to the insane breadth of weapon qualities in the playtest) only serve as detriments instead of creating niche options for players. Maybe some people like Half Plate because it's more maneuverable (i.e. loses less move speed) than Full Plate, but it's less protective and maybe can't meaningfully be affected by special materials due to the Piecemeal trait. Tradeoffs like this are what made weapons interesting in the playtest. Those tradeoffs don't exist in the armors, and it's just not fun whatsoever, especially since, as others have stated, there is zero upside (sans class proficiency) to use heavier armors.
My games don't just deal with combat in the slightest; one of our main bad guys did engage in combat first, but was captured, interrogated, broke free, gave his captors the middle finger with a special illusion/invisibility ability, and ran away, which made for a very memorable villain for one of the PCs. Yes, while combat is still a major part of the game, that's more-or-less by the game's design. We have a whole section dedicated specifically for how combat works. Compared to how roleplaying works, which has practically zero specific points of reference (and for obvious reasons, because people roleplay in different ways), and this, too, is by design. In fact, I'd have to say that PF1 is less restrictive on roleplay compared to PF2, which actually requires feats to make roleplay options more convenient and potentially usable for combat
It is more fatiguing, because sleeping with it makes you Fatigued until you properly rest without it unless it's Light Armor or less. (Then again, I really only remember that as a PF1 rule, but I wouldn't be surprised if it carried over here.) And you already suffer penalties to Stealth, and Acrobatics, and Athletics, and most everything else that's Strength or Dexterity based. Short of proficiency boosts, there is zero reason to wear heavier armor, and by relation, zero reason to ignore boosting Dexterity. Adding penalties to Perception because of helmets likewise sounds absurd to me and really boils down to preferential tastes. On top of that, there are numerous head-slot items that are of this concept (masks, and so on), wouldn't they suffer this penalty too? Nobody will wear those items if they have some arbitrary penalties to something as important and universal as Perception, all this ruling does is make people not want to use those items, ever. You're better off just scrapping the idea of helm and head items as a whole if we want to do that.
Armor is very difficult for newcomers to move around in. On top of that, armor isn't necessarily something passive, like some magical barrier that covers your entire body; someone who isn't trained in reducing the exposed weakspots of your equipment means an enemy who strikes you is a lot more able to find and exploit the weaknesses in your armor compared to someone who isn't trained, which is why characters who aren't trained in it aren't very effective at protecting themselves.
PF1 has a lot more passive elements, such as free Knowledge checks and speech to communicate weaknesses/strengths/abilities, free speech, and also doesn't require feats for basic functionality. PF2 is more hardcoded and restrictive by requiring actions from just about everything, and common tactics like Intimidation for Coercion or Diplomacy are realistically impossible without taking feats. The only benefits to PF2 from PF1 is that the 3 action system lets you have more diverse turns, but that's largely only if special abilities exist or you aren't absolutely crap in certain skills.
So you want PF2 to have build guides for classes? That's actually counterpoint to how PF2 is meant to be as freeform building as possible. That is, your choices only matter in what you, as a player, want from your character. You can otherwise run in with 8 Strength Rangers and still expect to come out on top (he can still be effective with Heavy Crossbows). To that end, having build guides (which PF1 promoted from the community for min-max purposes which have been reduced in this edition) defeats the point of player preferential choices that Pathfinder has always promoted.
Noted.
-OR
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
* Casters use their primary ability only for their spells' DCs. To hit with a spell you need Dexterity. This is quite absurd - now all direct damage casters need Dex, not just their normal core stat.
I see no reason why casters need only one ability score for everything when other classes need at least two or three.
Especially when it's really easy to max out two ability scores with the point buy system with minimal punishment for doing so.
It is more fatiguing, because sleeping with it makes you Fatigued until you properly rest without it unless it's Light Armor or less. (Then again, I really only remember that as a PF1 rule, but I wouldn't be surprised if it carried over here.) And you already suffer penalties to Stealth, and Acrobatics, and Athletics, and most everything else that's Strength or Dexterity based. Short of proficiency boosts, there is zero reason to wear heavier armor, and by relation, zero reason to ignore boosting Dexterity. Adding penalties to Perception because of helmets likewise sounds absurd to me and really boils down to preferential tastes. On top of that, there are numerous head-slot items that are of this concept (masks, and so on), wouldn't they suffer this penalty too? Nobody will wear those items if they have some arbitrary penalties to something as important and universal as Perception, all this ruling does is make people not want to use those items, ever. You're better off just scrapping the idea of helm and head items as a whole if we want to do that.
Armor is very difficult for newcomers to move around in. On top of that, armor isn't necessarily something passive, like some magical barrier that covers your entire body; someone who isn't trained in reducing the exposed weakspots of your equipment means an enemy who strikes you is a lot more able to find and exploit the weaknesses in your armor compared to someone who isn't trained, which is why characters who aren't trained in it aren't very effective at protecting themselves.
PF1 has a lot more passive elements, such as free Knowledge checks and speech to communicate weaknesses/strengths/abilities, free speech, and also doesn't require feats for basic functionality. PF2 is more hardcoded and restrictive by requiring actions from just about everything, and common tactics like Intimidation for Coercion or Diplomacy are realistically impossible without taking feats. The only benefits to PF2 from PF1 is that the 3 action system lets you have more diverse turns, but that's largely only if special abilities exist or you aren't absolutely crap in certain skills.
So you want PF2 to have build guides for classes? That's actually counterpoint to how PF2 is meant to be as freeform building as possible. That is, your choices only matter in what you, as a player, want from your character. You can otherwise run in with 8 Strength Rangers and still expect to come out on top (he can still be effective with Heavy Crossbows). To that end, having build guides (which PF1 promoted from the community for min-max purposes which have been reduced in this edition) defeats the point of player preferential choices that Pathfinder has always promoted.
* That sleeping in armor is fatiguing is a good thing. That fighting in it, or gods forbid, travelling on foot in it, isn't, is a lack in my opinion.
* Penalties to athletics and acrobatics for armor aren't actually accurate, they don't reflect reality. Stealth, though, yes, very much so. That's good.
* Armor is not difficult for newcomers to move around in at all. At worst it's more fatiguing than for an expert, fit combatant, but that's a quick question of familiarity, and an already decent fighter won't have significant problems after donning armor for the first time. Yes, some conditioning can make you even more used to the heat and sweating, but that doesn't mean you need to be proficient in light, medium and heavy armor to don different kinds of protection - again, armor proficiency is an artificial limitation that while certainly in line with 40 years of D&D, still doesn't make sense. In my opinion a wizard shouldn't wear armor not because they can't do it effectively, but because most armor, again, is tiring, noisy, costly and impractical, *unless* you're a first-line combatant - and in that case it becomes a great boon, even with all its faults, because it literally saves your life, again and again.
* Similarly, it is not true you need to be proficient in minimizing the chinks in your armor. There is no actual skill or expertise in using armor. You wear it, go fight, and *first and foremost* try not to get hit, parrying, blocking and, if all else fails, dodging. That said an archer in mail will know they need to watch out for spear thrusts if someone get close, while a knight in plate harness will almost not care unless they notice their opponent aiming for a point of articulation, but that's not "learning to use armor". There's no actual skill, not like learning to fight with a sword or shooting a bow, or as for that, picking locks, cutting purses, in all probability studying and casting spells... no, armor only asks of you that you're fit and don't tire too easily (and a substantial amount of money, and someone to help you don it in the case of plate, for instance). You could theoretically reduce the weak spots in your protections, I suppose, but fighters are usually too busy *fighting*, and trying to *not get hit in the first place*. Trying to keep all your body protected notwithstanding the fact your hauberk doesn't cover your forearms and shins, or that your harness has only mail and padding at the joints, is something that simply wasn't, and isn't, done. So no, armor proficiency is not a thing outside very, very old rpgs.
* No, I don't want build guides - I'd like that there were templates speeding up character creation for each class. Each should give you an optimized choice of main stats, feats, gear, and spells, leaving you to decide ancestry, background, deity, and a couple other things, so that if you want to cut to the chase you don't need to go through the complete chargen process. If, instead, you want the maximum amount of customization, you ignore the template and start from scratch. I'm not a *fan* of templates, but it'd help noobs creating a character quickly - that's all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Casters use their primary ability only for their spells' DCs. To hit with a spell you need Dexterity. This is quite absurd - now all direct damage casters need Dex, not just their normal core stat.I see no reason why casters need only one ability score for everything when other classes need at least two or three.
Especially when it's really easy to max out two ability scores with the point buy system with minimal punishment for doing so.
It strikes me as odd that casters need to be generally agile (and not just slightly so, but peak human ability if they want to stay competitive at blasting). Martial characters - sure. Casters? No problem with asking them for more than 1 high stat (even though in all honesty I can definitely see a wizard needing only Int to be a good spellcaster). But Dex... eh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
~sigh~
It's really a shame that something as useful as Table 10-2 is going away because (depending on which view you take) either most players couldn't understand what it was for or most game designers were going to apply it incorrectly.
I was really looking forward to having that kind of information in the final version, and I'm not sure I totally believe that Paizo's "refined single column" version is going to have the same granularity of data...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
~sigh~
It's really a shame that something as useful as Table 10-2 is going away because (depending on which view you take) either most players couldn't understand what it was for or most game designers were going to apply it incorrectly.
I was really looking forward to having that kind of information in the final version, and I'm not sure I totally believe that Paizo's "refined single column" version is going to have the same granularity of data...
Agreed, i loved that table. But i do hope the new one makes some more examples of what feat fits what description. I mean i could tell something like. Swim versus a weak current it's an easy level 1 or maybe a medium level 0 check, climbing a high tree is probably an Hard level 2? Maybe at most a medium level 3 check. But it gets a bit murky specially at after level 10, i really couldn't tell what would be harder than level 10 hard check outside of a clearly scripted situation.(You are climbing on a hot wall of a volcano while stones fall on you :P)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably hardest for natural obstacles. At least to my mind it's really easy for anything built by sentient creatures. "What level creatures creatures built this castle? How good were they at building impenetrable castles?" Answer those two questions and I instantly know what DC the walls are.
Plus, I have the option of approaching it from the other side. "What level creatures built this castle? How hard do I want it to be for a party of equal level to scale the walls?"
I totally understand how the table could have/would have been misused or misunderstood. But as someone who does a lot of adventure design, I lament the loss of how incredibly useful it was for answering certain basic adventure design questions.
One of the things that frustrates me so much about PF1e adventure design is that "what DC will be hard but not impossible for a 13th level party?" is a question that is almost impossible to answer, and having that information baked into the system in the playtest was something I saw, much like the standardization of monster levels, as taking a huge amount of guesswork out of my design.