Favoured Enemy seems kind of lame now


Advice

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
That is a very dull and uninspired core feature/defining characteristic, an extra +2.
Their core mechanical feature is being vastly better at accuracy than everyone else, yes. Likewise, Barbarian's is doing more damage than anyone else when they do hit, and Rangers is their Hunt Target mechanic, and Rogues' is Sneak Attack.

I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.


Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
That is a very dull and uninspired core feature/defining characteristic, an extra +2.
Their core mechanical feature is being vastly better at accuracy than everyone else, yes. Likewise, Barbarian's is doing more damage than anyone else when they do hit, and Rangers is their Hunt Target mechanic, and Rogues' is Sneak Attack.
I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.

You might find it dull, but Fighter was PF1’s most popular class. There’s a need for a simple, blank “plus numbers” class.


QuidEst wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
That is a very dull and uninspired core feature/defining characteristic, an extra +2.
Their core mechanical feature is being vastly better at accuracy than everyone else, yes. Likewise, Barbarian's is doing more damage than anyone else when they do hit, and Rangers is their Hunt Target mechanic, and Rogues' is Sneak Attack.
I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.
You might find it dull, but Fighter was PF1’s most popular class.

The PF1 fighter's defining feature is not accuracy (an extra +2).

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.

You've been accusing people of being disingenuous either directly or by implication in a couple of threads now. Stop that.

You can think my description is pedantic or inaccurate if you like (though I self evidently disagree), but accusing people of dishonesty when you disagree with them (particularly with no supporting evidence) is poor form, debatably a violation of the message board guidelines, and generally serves no good purpose.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:
The PF1 fighter's defining feature is not accuracy (an extra +2).

No, it's a flat +4 to hit and damage (ie: Weapon Training). But numbers matter more in PF2. Well, and extra Feats, but they actually still get some of those in PF2 as well...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Colonel Kurtz wrote:


2nd Ed AD&D was the beginning of the ranger losing its identity; all that Drizzt baggage got attached.

The publication of the 2e PH was before the first of the books that featured Drizz't (who was never meant to be the main character either). So, technically, the TWF ranger was an independent development - if a weird one.

(Though it is possible there was some cross-pollination going on in the back channels of TSR...)

Before 2e, most players I know who picked rangers had focused on archery as a more hunty type of weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All martial classes have a general area of DPR they need to be effective at their job.

Fighters get to that area by being more accurate than the norm.

Barbarians get to that area by doing more damage than the norm.

Rogues get to that area by doing more damage than the norm under specific conditions.

Rangers get to that area by either doing more damage (precision) or being more accurate (flurry) than the norm against a specified target.

Did the people who hate Hunt Prey now feel the same way about Studied Target in PF1? Because. That's what it is. It's Studied Target


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it.
You've been accusing people of being disingenuous either directly or by implication in a couple of threads now. Stop that. .

I'm good, thanks, and please don't tell me what to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


You can think my description is pedantic or inaccurate if you like (though I self evidently disagree), but accusing people of dishonesty when you disagree with them (particularly with no supporting evidence) is poor form, .

Yikes, it's statements like this that lead me to think some disingenuousness is going on.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, and certainly not because I disagree with them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


You can think my description is pedantic or inaccurate if you like (though I self evidently disagree), but accusing people of dishonesty when you disagree with them (particularly with no supporting evidence) is poor form, .

Yikes, it's statements like this that lead me to think some disingenuousness is going on.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, and certainly not because I disagree with them.

Right, accusing someone of being disingenuous isn't accusing them of anything.

I suppose that me accusing you of trolling now would in turn mean that I'm not accusing you of anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:


2nd Ed AD&D was the beginning of the ranger losing its identity; all that Drizzt baggage got attached.
The publication of the 2e PH was before the first of the books that featured Drizz't

The Crystal Shard was published in 1988, one year before 2nd Ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


You can think my description is pedantic or inaccurate if you like (though I self evidently disagree), but accusing people of dishonesty when you disagree with them (particularly with no supporting evidence) is poor form, .

Yikes, it's statements like this that lead me to think some disingenuousness is going on.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, and certainly not because I disagree with them.

Right, accusing someone of being disingenuous isn't accusing them of anything..

I never accused anyone of anything. I said the comparisons were disingenuous, nothing personal.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

You literally called my statement disingenuous. Which is to say called me dishonest to my face for no particular reason. And I'm somehow in the wrong for calling this out as inappropriate behavior?

Yeah, I'm done here. I'll be back after the inevitable post removals.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

You literally called my statement disingenuous. Which is to say called me dishonest to my face for no particular reason. And I'm somehow in the wrong for calling this out as inappropriate behavior?

Yeah, I'm done here.

Well, let's not get hysterical, this is what I actually said:

"I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it."

No accusations, or condemning of whole statements.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Well, let's not get hysterical, this is what I actually said:

Ah, are we gaslighting now? That's worth coming back for with one last post, I suppose.

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

"I think those are disingenuous comparisons, but I can see the pedantry in it."

No accusations, or condemning of whole statements.

When you say to someone in response to an opinion statement they make 'That's a lie.' you are calling them a liar. 'I think that's disingenuous' and 'I think think that's dishonest' are synonymous statements. So...how is saying something I said was disingenuous not calling me dishonest? I'm curious.

And it's not like you haven't made thinly veiled statements implying that those who disagreed with you were lying before. So this isn't an isolated incident. It's a pattern.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Well, let's not get hysterical, this is what I actually said:
Ah, are we gaslighting now?

No, clarifying things, how would you construe that as undermining someone's mental wellbeing?


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

Kurtz do you actually know what disingenuous means? Because 100% seriously DMW is right. It means lying. If you say someone has made a disingenuous statement, you are saying the author of that statement lied.

EDIT: Also gaslighting has a broader meaning than just undermining someone's mental wellbeing...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bitter years of enmity feels like it is much better moved to an ancestry (if a combat mechanic) or a special campaign specific background (focusing on skills instead of combat bonuses) than a class thing. Focusing on hunting a specific kind of creature in a specific context feels like a class feat to me and one that should be easily retrainable. (I'd probably even allow the ancestry feat to be retrained as a GM if the player is really willing to play up their character's decision to stop hating a group of people because that sounds like the more interesting narrative.

As far as its power level and essence to the identity of the ranger. Absolutely good riddance to its replacement with the hunt prey mechanic because that narratively feels like what it always should have been.

I have personally not been interested in the ranger class of PF2 because I preferred the weird magical adaptations of AD&D 2nd edition and feel like I am still waiting for that ranger to be possible (I figure it will be in a nearer future splatbook), but one possible thing that could be cool is if the ranger can get lore skills that focus on specific subsets of monsters that could be used for the various monster hunter class feats but with slightly easier (like +2) checks if the ranger has dragon lore, or animal lore rather than the general arcane or nature skill proficiency.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


And it's not like you haven't made thinly veiled implying that those who disagreed with you were lying before. So this isn't an isolated incident. It's a pattern.

Disagreeing with people has nothing to do with disingenuousness or lying; and let's not get personal. The only pattern I am seeing is disingenuousness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Colonel Kurts, may I direct you to the Community Guidelines. Particularly under the heading "Baiting".


GM OfAnything wrote:
Colonel Kurts, may I direct you to the Community Guidelines. Particularly under the heading "Baiting".

May I direct you to not being hassled for not agreeing with a blanket statement that PF2 is easer to learn than PF1. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as this forum seems to be all ganged up.


Squiggit wrote:


Fighter is such a generic concept that it kind of struggles in practice to feel like it accomplishes anything. In particular because its only niche is 'combat', it makes it hard to design other combat-focused classes like the barbarian and ranger and keep them all distinct and interesting without stepping over each other . How does "class that fights well and nothing else" simultaneously not trivialize combat and still be relevant next to "class that fights well, has a couple spells and is really good at skills"?

At first I would have disagreed with you, since I thought things like Swashbuckler were meant to fall squarely in the "Fighter" camp.

After seeing Swashbucklers being released in the new APG playtest, that sort of throws that theory straight in the trash.

Personally would have loved to see them take the role of those that thrive in combat, but for different reasons:

- Gladiator
- Swashbuckler/Duelist
- Tacticians
- Cavalier
- Samurai
- Guerrilla
- Gunslinger

Now it seems like all of that is getting auctioned off to the highest bidding Class to "fully flesh out a concept".

Making a new class for Swashbuckler pretty much speaks to that. The class in PF1 offered the ability to play a Dex based finesse full BAB fighter. You can now already do that, and relatively effectively I might add, with a lot of the flavor coming from Skill Feats (Kip Up) and Fighter Feats (parry line).

Not saying the two can't coexist, but invalidating a combat style choice of the Fighter by creating another class that "does it better" or even one that plays similarly is a disservice to the Fighter.

Seems strange to me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Colonel Kurts, may I direct you to the Community Guidelines. Particularly under the heading "Baiting".
May I direct you to not being hassled for not agreeing with a blanket statement that PF2 is easer to learn than PF1. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as this forum seems to be all ganged up.

I don't see how offering to provide tips on ways to introduce pf2 to new players is harassment... I was kinda aiming for the opposite.


It's hard to say it invalidates a combat style of the Fighter when we don't really know what the Swashbuckler will do just yet.

Perhaps they are built such that they get a feature where the Stride action for them can be a free action if they do something else after it, or whathaveyou.

They did mention the Swashbuckler will play around with the action economy even more than the Fighter, and in ways people may not expect.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Colonel Kurts, may I direct you to the Community Guidelines. Particularly under the heading "Baiting".
May I direct you to not being hassled for not agreeing with a blanket statement that PF2 is easer to learn than PF1.

There are ways to express that view that are not purposefully inflammatory. I'd suggest you reflect upon how you are communicating your ideas to others.

Quote:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as this forum seems to be all ganged up.

DMW has earned my respect (and many others') for his fair analysis and criticism of PF2. When you question his sincerity, it is no surprise that many people chime in to tell you how wrong you are.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking this down for moderation. If you cannot abide by the rules of our forums, I suggest you reconsider posting here.

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Favoured Enemy seems kind of lame now All Messageboards