| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am for Reign of Winter, some people in the group want something more "traditional".Yeah, that's what they wanted after "revolutionary" Iron Gods and RoW and Paizo made a traditional AP which just accidentally happens to be a stinker.
If the want a traditional AP, Ironfang Invasion is a much better choice.
Ironfang Invasion has been a mixed bag for me. On one hand, it has a strong opening and multi-faceted antagonists. Some real great environments and climactic moments too. On the other hand, enemy variety is awful. Encounters are somewhat same-y. Book 2 the hook to go to the next location is one they're under leveled to go to and you have to jump ahead before doubling back. There are solid themes and interesting ways to take the characters.
I'm feeling a little burnt out on it as we finish Book 3. I hear the later books get better but at the same time I see a lot of the same stuff in the later books, just higher level. I do like Book 6 a lot but
You better get used to seeing Slayers in a lot of encounters. I like them as a class a lot, but Hobgoblin aversion to magic makes a lot of encounters start to feel stale. This can be especially challenging when your party has a lot of spellcasters as it often means they can bypass or crush the opposition in ways they simply can't deal with. The final fight can be avoided with a diplomacy check though which I think is super neat.
I hear Tyrant's Grasp and Strange Aeons are fantastic though.
I would also like to play Iron Gods but our DM is not a fan of the "Sci-fi stuff" in D&D/Pathfinder.
What is the problem that people have with Giantslayer?
It's actually a decent AP, though weak by Paizo standards. The problem is it basically devolves into killing bigger and bigger giants in long dungeon slogs. Also, at higher levels many of the encounters are just not a challenge at at all for high level PCs.
I've actually been rewriting book 5 and may rewrite book 6 as well. I really like books 1, 2, and 4. 3 could probably use help too.
Shameless self promotion: Giantslayer Book 5 revisions.
Giantslayer is absolutely the most 1e/2e adventure path Paizo has put out. Its super nostalgic for against the giants, feels a lot like it, throws powerful magic at you the same way old 1e modules would.
The problem is people have nostalgia for dungeon crawls but really don't enjoy them in the moment as much as they seem to remember enjoying them.
I've had good experiences with the dungeon crawl style adventure and bad.
The good experiences all came in parties where everyone took advantage of the take 10 rules there was a character with the trap spotter rogue talent and some means to always take 10 on perception, and stealth and a caster who could cast status. There was a whole system where the scout would move through the dungeon, monitored by status, unlocking doors but not opening them, disabling traps and drawing a map as he goes by taking 10. The gm would stop drawing when take 10 didn't succeed or there were no other places to go without opening a door and standard play would resume with a partially drawn map tossed over the gm screen.
The bad experiences had no autosearch for traps, a party that didn't understand take 10 and had no real plan for dungeon crawling so it would progress with the scout checking every 10 feet for traps like the rules say you should, rolling a die and comparing through the entire dungeon. The party would open one door, kill the monsters, ransack the room, move to the next room, kill the monsters search the entire room. The dungeon took forever to get through, like 4 sessions if im remembering right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like to play Iron Gods but our DM is not a fan of the "Sci-fi stuff" in D&D/Pathfinder.
What is the problem that people have with Giantslayer?
Having reffed it, Giantslayer delivers what it says on the label.
However that becomes problematic for several reasons
1. Its very easy for parties to specialise in killing giants. This leads to big set piece encounters becoming trivial but random wandering encounters nothing to do with the plot were the ones that killed people.
2. So much of a giant's CR is eaten up by their HD & strength there's little room to give them class levels, so they make very poor casters and generally are much worse at missile fire than melee. For obvious reasons they aren't good at sneaking about or social infiltration. This means most encounters turn into them trying to walk up and hit the party, maybe mixed in with some combat maneuvers. This can get very repetitive.
3. Giants live in giant buildings as makes sense. These give rise to huge maps, which is cool. However while the maps are two, three, four times bigger than normal maps, giants are only 10ft around faster than medium creatures. Giants also suck at ranged combat (see #2)- so the party often got to pepper them with arrows, cast any buff spells they wanted, maybe have a leisurely cup of coffee while the giants crawled across the huge maps towards them.
4. Its a pretty straightforward story. After the first couple of books there is very little in the way of roleplay, diplomacy, investigation or
similar - there are big obvious bad guys and you get to go fight them.
This probably adds up to a couple of ways people find books 3-6 get dull
- players that enjoy non-combat stuff may get bored by the lack of it
- players who are very combat focused will find the fights very repetitive
Its eminently fixable though if a referee wants to sub in their own content - I'll put up a separate post under a spoiler shortly
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would if running giantslayer again, because some parts are excellent.
Books 1 & 2 are superb - run as is.
Book 3 is the first serious section of giant bashing and book 4 has the whole cool commando raid feel to it so basically sound. But I'd look to add in
- more interactions with possible allies - persuading people from Lastwall, Jandhoff, Magnimar, Nithramas etc that the giants are a threat and they need to start gathering armies (or evacuating small settlements)
Also perhaps side quests to go look for magical items / flying mounts or some such.
Don't just let them go off and buy a +1 giantsbane weapon each, have a session or two at least involved in winning the favour of someone who can do it and getting ingredients for them for example.
Give the Storm Tyrant some other allies - doesn't matter what kind of group - just something intelligent and very different to giants. Could just be a bunch of quisling types willing to sell out the human nations for gold or to settle a score with their rulers.
Book 5 goes basically in the bin. As it stands, one communal resist fire spell is about all you need to trivialise all non giant encounters in it.
Instead really play up the orb of dragonkind thing - make this all about fighting dragons.
Towards the end of your replacement book 5, have things start gearing up for a huge pitched battle as the armies of the small folk get ready to clash with armies of giants - lots of trying to win over allies, prepare defences, build ridiculous siege engines, allow the PCs to play drill sergeant giving the regular soldiers training on how to fight giants.
After the battle, the Storm Tyrant flees to his castle and the PCs as the victorious champions take him on in his lair. Have the castle flying over and in danger of crashing into the capital of whichever nation they care most about - otherwise run book 6 as is
I would also like to play Iron Gods but our DM is not a fan of the "Sci-fi stuff" in D&D/Pathfinder.
Ditto. Neither of my 2 groups are interested and every pickup group I tried for it on Roll20 fell apart after a few sessions. I semi-jokingly call it a cursed AP.
|
I would also like to play Iron Gods but our DM is not a fan of the "Sci-fi stuff" in D&D/Pathfinder.Ditto. Neither of my 2 groups are interested and every pickup group I tried for it on Roll20 fell apart after a few sessions. I semi-jokingly call it a cursed AP.
Mine is Wrath (3 or 4 games) and Way of the Wicked (at least 6 attempts, only one barely got out of the prison).
Giantslayer is absolutely the most 1e/2e adventure path Paizo has put out. Its super nostalgic for against the giants, feels a lot like it, throws powerful magic at you the same way old 1e modules would.
The problem is people have nostalgia for dungeon crawls but really don't enjoy them in the moment as much as they seem to remember enjoying them.
I've had good experiences with the dungeon crawl style adventure and bad.
The good experiences all came in parties where everyone took advantage of the take 10 rules there was a character with the trap spotter rogue talent and some means to always take 10 on perception, and stealth and a caster who could cast status. There was a whole system where the scout would move through the dungeon, monitored by status, unlocking doors but not opening them, disabling traps and drawing a map as he goes by taking 10. The gm would stop drawing when take 10 didn't succeed or there were no other places to go without opening a door and standard play would resume with a partially drawn map tossed over the gm screen.
The bad experiences had no autosearch for traps, a party that didn't understand take 10 and had no real plan for dungeon crawling so it would progress with the scout checking every 10 feet for traps like the rules say you should, rolling a die and comparing through the entire dungeon. The party would open one door, kill the monsters, ransack the room, move to the next room, kill the monsters search the entire room. The dungeon took forever to get through, like 4 sessions if im remembering right.
I had no idea you could do that. It's incredible!
Giantslayer is absolutely the most 1e/2e adventure path Paizo has put out. Its super nostalgic for against the giants, feels a lot like it, throws powerful magic at you the same way old 1e modules would.
The problem is people have nostalgia for dungeon crawls but really don't enjoy them in the moment as much as they seem to remember enjoying them.
I've had good experiences with the dungeon crawl style adventure and bad.
The good experiences all came in parties where everyone took advantage of the take 10 rules there was a character with the trap spotter rogue talent and some means to always take 10 on perception, and stealth and a caster who could cast status. There was a whole system where the scout would move through the dungeon, monitored by status, unlocking doors but not opening them, disabling traps and drawing a map as he goes by taking 10. The gm would stop drawing when take 10 didn't succeed or there were no other places to go without opening a door and standard play would resume with a partially drawn map tossed over the gm screen.
The bad experiences had no autosearch for traps, a party that didn't understand take 10 and had no real plan for dungeon crawling so it would progress with the scout checking every 10 feet for traps like the rules say you should, rolling a die and comparing through the entire dungeon. The party would open one door, kill the monsters, ransack the room, move to the next room, kill the monsters search the entire room. The dungeon took forever to get through, like 4 sessions if im remembering right.
this brought a tear to my eye...
you have a someone running that doesn't throw a fit when you ask to Take 10 on things? It must be so cool...
I don't even get it, the take 10 rules are the single least used but most streamlining aspect of the game. You want your sessions to move quickly? You provide your GM with a sheet that has everyone's perception, stealth, and sense motive take 10 numbers on them and just let them narrate the passive stuff.
|
I can't even tell you how many times I've had to argue with a GM when I said I take ten and they say so that takes you ten times as long as normal.
I think Giantslayer has the same problem as a lot of other "focused" APs, like Ruins of Azlant (the underwater AP) or Wrath of the Righteous (the demon AP). It is easy to specialize in pathfinder, so if you know that the majority of your opponents are going to be one thing, then it's easy to design a character to utterly destroy that one thing. Giantslayer is compounded however, by the fact that giants are notoriously susceptible to enchantments. I mean, there was whole empires that enslaved them in Golorion, and it's true in their rules too. So many parties end up with entourages of dominated giants in games that feature them.
I can't even tell you how many times I've had to argue with a GM when I said I take ten and they say so that takes you ten times as long as normal.
I think Giantslayer has the same problem as a lot of other "focused" APs, like Ruins of Azlant (the underwater AP) or Wrath of the Righteous (the demon AP). It is easy to specialize in pathfinder, so if you know that the majority of your opponents are going to be one thing, then it's easy to design a character to utterly destroy that one thing. Giantslayer is compounded however, by the fact that giants are notoriously susceptible to enchantments. I mean, there was whole empires that enslaved them in Golorion, and it's true in their rules too. So many parties end up with entourages of dominated giants in games that feature them.
Bruh the cyphermages just incidentally get a prestige class ability that makes mindcontrolling giants easier
I love taking a 10, especially if the skill modifier is at least a +20;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a fair number of people are still playing pathfinder 1e. I really do think it's worth a companies time to continue support for the system. It might even be worth it to create a pathfinder 1.5 (I'm not really interested in porphyria, it's too different).
What is the problem that people have with Giantslayer?
See giant? Kill giant. See a different type giant? Kill giant. Repeat.
Currently I'm running a merged Giantslayer and Ironfang Invasion (more troops!) and I'm rather happy with it. But I recognize the poor planning that went into books 5 going into 6. Also, not really a fan of book 4 either....
But if you got a group that likes to build some serious @ss kickers and just faceroll every encounter...then Giantslayer could just be fun that way!!
It would have been great if they had a non-giant as the main villain in the Giantslayer AP.
A titan would have been really great since the players would think it's a giant.
A creature that was magically disguised as a giant.
A halfling or gnome would have been very interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a fair number of people are still playing pathfinder 1e. I really do think it's worth a companies time to continue support for the system. It might even be worth it to create a pathfinder 1.5 (I'm not really interested in porphyria, it's too different).
That's what I am doing in the Pathfinder 1.5 thread. Working on pieces and making notes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been great if they had a non-giant as the main villain in the Giantslayer AP.
A titan would have been really great since the players would think it's a giant.
A creature that was magically disguised as a giant.
A halfling or gnome would have been very interesting.
in the old 2nd ed module series dragon mountain there was a fire giant polymorphed into a kobold. Back then you kept your giant stats...so it was just a regular looking kobold...with like 22 str
|
Weirdly enough, while I play both 1e and 2e, I have absolutely no interest in hypothetical PF 1.5. Like besides that creating question of "So is that like D&D 3.99?" I think my cynicism on reading about D&D 3.5 has kinda made me feel "Wait, the basis of Pathfinder is broken system with lot of really dumb things about it?" and any further fixings of pathfinder are all about fixing problems that 3.5 has inherently.
Like you at this point kinda expect the brokenness being part of the experience if that makes sense? Part of fun with 1e is that its broken system where you can stack bonuses so high you can do pretty much whatever you imagine. There are lot of things you could cut yeah (like options that are just essentially traps and make certain feats be gameplay mechanics), but I don't really think it can be balanced super easily at least without major reworks. And even then from gming perspective, I don't find monsters in 1e to be as fun as they are in 2e, action economy of 1e results in stuff like "you move up to door, you open it, turn ends" or it being really hard to kick people off the building or drag them or... Well point is, lot of cool things are "Its just mechanically better to attack instead"
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about a PF1.5, but with Unchained and a couple of 3rd party books I'm pretty much good. I've got the game me and my group want to play.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.
Yeah, that "What would you want in PF1.5" thread was enlightening. While there were some commonalities, everyone had their own pet peeve or area for improvement. No wonder Paizo wanted to wipe the slate clean and not come in with as much baggage.
I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Strange, as far as I am aware, 3PP overhauling large sections of mechanics are fairly popular(Spheres/Psionics). That seems rather obvious that there is a clear demand for certain re-hauling.
TxSam88, how many people are in your group? What classes are they?
5 players, 1 GM. Currently running Gestalt, Hunter/Paladin, Oracle/Paladin, Magus/Ninja, Monk/Rogue, Barbarian/Kineticist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Paizo's choice to move away from the 3.5 ruleset was about sales. I think it was more about them wanting to do their own thing, not just be the guys who keep rehashing old DnD.
Back when White Wolf scrapped OWD for their new game a great article came out about why game companies come out with new editions. it basically boils down to after about 7-10 years a game has hit market saturation and very few new players are coming on board. A llot of it has to do with high cost of entry (a bunch of rulebooks) combined with doesn't want to play the same game the old folks do. So simply to stay afloat, companies need to renew their player base, typically by releasing a new edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m getting Curse of the Crimson Throne off the ground in a couple of weeks. Can’t wait!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that "What would you want in PF1.5" thread was enlightening. While there were some commonalities, everyone had their own pet peeve or area for improvement. No wonder Paizo wanted to wipe the slate clean and not come in with as much baggage.I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.
Funny thing is I see it completely different then that. Pet peeves aside I noticed a very clear trend. Other then the action system nobdy (unless I missed something/a post) wanted about 90% of the changes that came with pathfinder 2e. To me this is important, noby wanted feat catogories, nobody wanted proficency levels, nobody wanted the new skill system, nobody wanted the pathfinder 2e archetype system, nobody wanted the new spell-casting system. There's more, the new critcal hit system, the new dying system, and likely more still.
What people are clearly agreeing upon is the generalties, balance is bad, classes need more skill points (selection), the action system needs some investigation, we should investigate feats (again balance problems).
To me the is a very clear message, I don't want pathfinder 2e, and knowling what people don't want, along with the general commonalities actually is painting a picture to me. I just don't have the time or resources to make it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last night my group got together over Discord and Fantasy Ground to make characters for Curse of the Crimson Throne. Didn't get to actually play yet but spent a fair amount of time working out and testing effects for our characters. At the moment I think we are Human Fighter, Drow Paladin, Human Wizard and me Half-Orc Armiger from Spheres of Might. There is one more guy going to be joining us.
Looking forward to it
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that "What would you want in PF1.5" thread was enlightening. While there were some commonalities, everyone had their own pet peeve or area for improvement. No wonder Paizo wanted to wipe the slate clean and not come in with as much baggage.I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.
Funny thing is I see it completely different then that. Pet peeves aside I noticed a very clear trend. Other then the action system nobdy (unless I missed something/a post) wanted about 90% of the changes that came with pathfinder 2e. To me this is important, noby wanted feat catogories, nobody wanted proficency levels, nobody wanted the new skill system, nobody wanted the pathfinder 2e archetype system, nobody wanted the new spell-casting system. There's more, the new critcal hit system, the new dying system, and likely more still.
What people are clearly agreeing upon is the generalties, balance is bad, classes need more skill points (selection), the action system needs some investigation, we should investigate feats (again balance problems).
To me the is a very clear message, I don't want pathfinder 2e, and knowling what people don't want, along with the general commonalities actually is painting a picture to me. I just don't have the time or resources to make it.
That's not clear at all because you're overapplying and exaggerating comments you've seen. Some people don't like change A, a couple didn't like change B, a few didn't like new rule C, etc.
Claiming nobody wanted 90% of the new system is complete and total hyperbole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that "What would you want in PF1.5" thread was enlightening. While there were some commonalities, everyone had their own pet peeve or area for improvement. No wonder Paizo wanted to wipe the slate clean and not come in with as much baggage.I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.
Funny thing is I see it completely different then that. Pet peeves aside I noticed a very clear trend. Other then the action system nobdy (unless I missed something/a post) wanted about 90% of the changes that came with pathfinder 2e. To me this is important, noby wanted feat catogories, nobody wanted proficency levels, nobody wanted the new skill system, nobody wanted the pathfinder 2e archetype system, nobody wanted the new spell-casting system. There's more, the new critcal hit system, the new dying system, and likely more still.
What people are clearly agreeing upon is the generalties, balance is bad, classes need more skill points (selection), the action system needs some investigation, we should investigate feats (again balance problems).
To me the is a very clear message, I don't want pathfinder 2e, and knowling what people don't want, along with the general commonalities actually is painting a picture to me. I just don't have the time or resources to make it.
That's not clear at all because you're overapplying and exaggerating comments you've seen. Some people don't like change A, a couple didn't like change B, a few didn't like new rule C, etc.
Claiming...
Gosh, I'm agreeing with Rysky again. What weird upside down universe is this? I want PF2e. I'm planning to run my podcast (if that ever happens) in PF2e, not PF1e because it's the better system for my needs.
The statement that nobody likes PF2e is demonstrably false (see the PF2e forums) and really isn't constructive or on topic.
If folks are really so invested in retreading the same arguments, why not make your own thread and let this one stay on topic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing I didn't like about PF2 was the character creation. It's too compartmentalized and colour inside the lines for my tastes. It's not about there not being enough options, it's the overall way you put a character together. Give me a premade character and I'll gladly play PF2. I won't be terribly invested in the character but I'll enjoy the game.
If I had to house rule it I would rip out all the class feats and put them in a couple of great big piles; Combat feats, Skill Feats, Magic Feats. Anytime it says you get a class feat it would be Pull something out of the Pile that best fits your character.
It's why I love the Spheres of Power stuff. It's all there in a couple of big piles. There are ways to easily access both piles if I want to and ways to customize the things I pick so that they better fit the way I want to use them. I would be perfectly happy to play with just the Core book and the three main Sphere books and nothing else. And if they make a PF2 Spheres of Power I will gladly give it a shot. (already Kickstartered the 5E books they are working on)
PF2 is plenty fun. I'm just not going to play it
Strange, as far as I am aware, 3PP overhauling large sections of mechanics are fairly popular(Spheres/Psionics). That seems rather obvious that there is a clear demand for certain re-hauling.I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Are the speheres of power rules relatively simple to use? They get a fair bit of praise for 3rd party stuff but I'm not sure how much time I'd need to prep my players for the alterations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are the spheres of power rules relatively simple to use? They get a fair bit of praise for 3rd party stuff but I'm not sure how much time I'd need to prep my players for the alterations.Strange, as far as I am aware, 3PP overhauling large sections of mechanics are fairly popular(Spheres/Psionics). That seems rather obvious that there is a clear demand for certain re-hauling.I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Spheres is kind of a Feat based power system. You start with a Base Sphere that gives you a Spell/Action. Then you buy talents in that sphere to modify and expand how that Spell/Action can be used.
Destruction is probably the easiest to use as an Example. You learn the Sphere you get "Destructive Blast" Spell This lets you zap someone.
Then you take a Talent like Fire Blast that changes the damage to Fire or Explosive Orb which turns it into an AOE Blast spell. Fire Blast + Explosive Orb = Fireball.
They have a Wiki if you want to look it over
http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/
Thanks, it sounds pretty intuitive. It seems similar to building super powers in gurps or champions. I'll use the system for some NPCs and see what the players think.
I’ve also been running a campaign consisting of several 3.5-era Paizo adventures. Just finished Entombed with the Pharaohs. I call it the “Roots of Golarion” campaign. Some of those early adventures are really challenging, but they’re fun and flavourful too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, update I guess: I'm currently only running one PF1e game IRL, Reign of Winter.
But PbP I'm running 4, and hopefully at some point a 5th.
1) I'm running book 5 of RoW as a stand alone.
2) I'm running my rewrite of book 5 of Giantslayer.
3) I'm running book 2 of RoW.
4) I'm hoping to start up a second instance of my rewrite of Giantslayer.
5) I'm playing a paladin of Erastil in book 1 of Ironfang Invasion.
Yeah, I'm a Forever GM :(
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.
Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.
<shrug> You'll never make everybody happy. Case in point, I'm not playing 2E because I'm not happy with how it turned out.
However, by fixing some of the more blatant stuff (absurd bonus stacking and so on), the devs could have approximated a more balanced system enough to keep the overall skeleton of 3E (the most popular D&D system, ever) and bring enough improvements into the game to justify a new edition. That was what I was expecting and hoping for in regards to 2E, so yeah.
Oh, well. I guess it's up to the individual GM's to balance the game for their own individual needs. Maybe, if I get the time and brain power one day, I'll try to find a solution for the bonus stacking thing which doesn't the other aspects of the game.