|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: While I don't own it myself, it certainly sounds like the game mastery guide is filled with options that very significantly affect the power balance and raise the power level. I'm more than a little surprised that this book came out so early in the PF2 life cycle (when we're all still learning how the base game works, especially at higher levels). Maybe its a good sign (higher powered games will be supported by options and so power creep will be held in check in the base game) but maybe its a bad sign (they see higher powered gamers as a significant part of their market and want to cater to them).
The GMG has a bunch of great things in it;
- Comprehensive advice for the beginning (and advanced) GM.- An NPC gallery
- Monster and hazard creation rules
- Basic principles for building minigames
- A lot of actual minigames, for chases, heists, exploration, research, debates and whatnot.
- An actual usable vehicle rules system.
- Optional variant rule systems, like removing alignment, not adding level to skills, using skill points instead of proficiency, and yes, dual classing ("gestalt").
I don't think an optional variant rule system that is not normally assumed to be in play, can really be called power creep. Since it's not something players normally have access to.
Agreed, Ascalaphus, especially since there is a big difference between "convince the GM to let me use this strong option" and "convince the GM to build the entire campaign around this strong option".
Having a player see something in a book, say "I want that", and then have the GM build an adventure or two around that can be pretty epic.
It's largely been my experience that most GMs will simply say no rather than go through all that extra trouble.
They're already GMing for you. Why should they break their back even more just because you want a specific feat, spell, or ability?
Another thing worth noting - Paizo absolutely has design guidelines around what kind of bonuses are appropriate for future printing. They may not be public, and they may change in the future, but they exist for at least some categories of things, like the non-existence of item bonuses to spell attacks.
And also importantly, the design team (and particularly Mark) are much more involved in the development process for adventures and whatnot than has happened in the past.
These things, combined with rarity and the deliberate structure of PF2's math, make me fairly optimistic that even the most egregious-seeming math bonuses will stay in line with, say, a fighter with level-appropriate gear and a high level heroism spell. And then those probably won't stack with anything else, and require GM permission/deliberate inclusion.
These things, combined with rarity and the deliberate structure of PF2's math, make me fairly optimistic that even the most egregious-seeming math bonuses will stay in line with, say, a fighter with level-appropriate gear and a high level heroism spell. And then those probably won't stack with anything else, and require GM permission/deliberate inclusion.
The elimination of a dozen or so bonus types helps this as well. In P1 there was moral, luck, enhancement, profane, sacred, dodge, shield, armor, deflection, competence, circumstance, trait, un-typed, racial. I'm sure there are more. A +1 is pretty cheap and since all of them stack, it was pretty easy to get a +5 in just about anything with some forethought.
In P2 there is circumstance, item, and status. That's it. It really helps to draw in the possible range of numbers a given PC can attain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a very sad mindset to have.
I adore when my players offers my plothooks, so much fun to build around.
It's nice when the plot hooks the players are offering are somehow related to the themes of the adventure. Like there's a difference between "we're doing a circus adventure, so I want to be able to take one of these circus-related archetypes" and "we're doing a circus adventure, so I want to find a volcano so I can impress a fire spirit."
Likewise if we're doing an adventure on a remote volcanic island, "impressing the spirit of the volcano" is much easier to work in than "joining the circus."
That's a very sad mindset to have.
I adore when my players offers my plothooks, so much fun to build around.
It's nice when the plot hooks the players are offering are somehow related to the themes of the adventure. Like there's a difference between "we're doing a circus adventure, so I want to be able to take one of these circus-related archetypes" and "we're doing a circus adventure, so I want to find a volcano so I can impress a fire spirit."
Likewise if we're doing an adventure on a remote volcanic island, "impressing the spirit of the volcano" is much easier to work in than "joining the circus."
I guess it depends, how linear and focused is the game meant to be by default? Taking a side trip to a volcano to impress a fire spirit doesn't seem like a huge deal unless your campaign is maybe *too* focused on a single plot line. We're doing an epic campaign right now, but there's time in between main plot points for the players to do stuff, right now my players are headed into the Turathi Expanse (homebrew setting) to get one of their number into the hellknights, while another searches for clues on becoming a runescarred. Other members of the party currently need to go to other places as well, for things like relics.
At the very least since I don't think that sort of game should be the default (in comparison to games that have a little wiggle room for player driven exploration, engaging with character backstory, and so forth), I think it would be ok to either handwave that requirement entirely or have it been accomplished in the character's backstory somehow, or even just ban the option as "not a part of this story."