Repetition and 2e / "Taking20"s Break Up Letter


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 671 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Depends on who and for what the publicity for.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been good publicity for some Pathfinder youtubers, particularly NoNat1s. He's a quality creator, and his channel is full of really useful stuff... but his response to Taking20 is his biggest video by at least twice the views of the next biggest. And that's just in a week.

That said, Cody is a streamer with a subscriber base that no one affiliated with or making videos on Pathfinder can come near matching. That means his takes will sound like truth to the bulk of his viewers. If just a third of those viewers would have checked out PF2 on his suggestion, it would be a major shot in the arm to a smaller game like this compared to D&D.

The problem with this as bad press is there really isn't any good press yet that exists on the same scale. No one with a quarter million plus subscribers is offering any more positive takes. So his complaint videos more or less are going to be the algorithmically primary entry point for anyone curiously searching for Pathfinder 2e on youtube.

That's why I'm annoyed. People hunting for clicks don't really care the damage they could do to communities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
That's why I'm annoyed. People hunting for clicks don't really care the damage they could do to communities.

Its not his responsibility to care about the longevity of Pathfinder 2e or its community, unless every content creator over a certain threshold (and who is the arbiter of that threshold?) becomes laden with the responsibility to be generous with their criticism of every niche tabletop product--and Pathfinder is less niche than others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:


I don't get why he is having a problem with a TPK. I've rarely have problems with published modules. But I have't played the one he is talking about. I'd expect a seasoned gorup of players to do better. I get that you can have bad luck (I rolled 4 natural 1s in a row recently).

The group I am in has been playing PF2 once a week for a little over a year now and during that time we have had one TPK and two near misses where the GM had to intervene by nerfing mobs on the fly. We definitely aren't expert players by any means but I feel like our party all has reasonably competent players.

From what I can see, the math in PF2 is tuned very well to expected outcomes. It's balanced very well on the averages but because of the critical rules it can be very swingy on the tails of the dice distributions and because of that it doesn't take much bad luck to down multiple characters or produce a TPK. I personally don't have a problem with this as I like the excitement the critical (+10/-10) rules produce but I can see that it might frustrate some people. I have suggested to our GM that they be more liberal in handing out Hero points to compensate for some of the luck swings.

On an unrelated note Gortle, I really like your class guides (especially the one for sorcerer) and I really respect your opinions!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
That's why I'm annoyed. People hunting for clicks don't really care the damage they could do to communities.
Its not his responsibility to care about the longevity of Pathfinder 2e or its community, unless every content creator over a certain threshold (and who is the arbiter of that threshold?) becomes laden with the responsibility to be generous with their criticism of every niche tabletop product--and Pathfinder is less niche than others.

Isn't it? You and I might just view the responsibilities of the public eye a bit differently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Depends on who and for what the publicity for.

To be honest, I don't think Paizo has to worry much about Cody's videos. They will turn some people away from PF2 and attract others out of curiosity. The only thing we can be sure of is that they increase PF2 visibility.

And the extra visibility given to Youtube channels like NoNat1s actually deserves Cody's. As everyone is saying in this thread: Don't feed the troll. The best way to give someone credit is to increase its visibility.

Also, a big feud bolsters sales.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy PF2e as a player because I enjoy tough combat and tactical combat. I’m coming from 5e so the player options are also a huge plus. I really like that a Fighter in this edition has so many options besides just making a regular attack

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
I thought there was no such thing as bad publicity...

That is Marketing people's motto. Does not make it an absolute truth.

Also people whose job depends on publicity, good or bad, will never admit that bad publicity can hurt sales. Something about being both judge and party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is basically a case of a #1 best seller having sales tank because Oprah criticized the book.

It is a serious and legitimate concern.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Depends on who and for what the publicity for.

To be honest, I don't think Paizo has to worry much about Cody's videos. They will turn some people away from PF2 and attract others out of curiosity. The only thing we can be sure of is that they increase PF2 visibility.

And the extra visibility given to Youtube channels like NoNat1s actually deserves Cody's. As everyone is saying in this thread: Don't feed the troll. The best way to give someone credit is to increase its visibility.

Also, a big feud bolsters sales.

It's a bit different when the "troll" already has a bigger audience than you. You're not really feeding them by responding at that point.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was thinking that some of the well made arguments in this thread should be posted in the video comments then upvoted by everyone here to increase their visibility.

Cody keeps telling everyone that we aren't making good faith arguments or showing viable evidence. We are, we're just not doing it outside our own echo chamber community.

Many of the commenters are also claiming that we are insulting Cody and his followers just because they don't like our game, so we must refrain from meeting their expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

This is basically a case of a #1 best seller having sales tank because Oprah criticized the book.

It is a serious and legitimate concern.

Remember when the movie The Golden Compass tanked because of religious backlash?

Thankfully, it's being well adapted now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
That's why I'm annoyed. People hunting for clicks don't really care the damage they could do to communities.
Its not his responsibility to care about the longevity of Pathfinder 2e or its community

Probably not, but anyone who has the power to damage a community has a responsibility to get their facts right.


Ravingdork wrote:

This is basically a case of a #1 best seller having sales tank because Oprah criticized the book.

It is a serious and legitimate concern.

According to this paper: "This paper uses detailed weekly data on sales of hardcover fiction books to evaluate the impact of New York Times book reviews on sales. In order to weigh the relative propensity of reviews to inform and to persuade, the analysis utilizes a measure of review opinion obtained through a systematic reading of each review. The estimates indicate that in the case of book reviews, any publicity is good publicity: even negative reviews lead to increases in sales. We interpret this finding as evidence that book reviews serve largely to inform consumers about books' content and characteristics (including the books' existence). However, positive reviews have a larger impact on sales than negative reviews, suggesting that reviews also have a persuasive effect."

So, it seems way more complicated than just saying that bad reviews are bad. I won't say that bad reviews are necessarily good, but I think Cody's impact on PF2 sales is currently unknown and can be positive. I even think (but it's a personal opinion) that Cody made a mistake in attacking PF2. You always bash bigger, not smaller, as right now he has published 2 videos when there are already more than 2 times that number of videos pointing fingers at him. For most PF2 youtubers Cody just cast Hero's Feast as they have low notoriety and can now drain from Cody's fanbase thanks to the sudden spotlight he directed at them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

I was thinking that some of the well made arguments in this thread should be posted in the video comments then upvoted by everyone here to increase their visibility.

Cody keeps telling everyone that we aren't making good faith arguments or showing viable evidence. We are, we're just not doing it outside our own echo chamber community.

Many of the commenters are also claiming that we are insulting Cody and his followers just because they don't like our game, so we must refrain from meeting their expectations.

If anybody actually attempts this, maybe let us know here and link us to your comment so that we can offer full support.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
That's why I'm annoyed. People hunting for clicks don't really care the damage they could do to communities.
Its not his responsibility to care about the longevity of Pathfinder 2e or its community
Probably not, but anyone who has the power to damage a community has a responsibility to get their facts right.

I'm sure that's what we'd all prefer, but our preferences are not their responsibilities.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kasoh wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
That's why I'm annoyed. People hunting for clicks don't really care the damage they could do to communities.
Its not his responsibility to care about the longevity of Pathfinder 2e or its community
Probably not, but anyone who has the power to damage a community has a responsibility to get their facts right.
I'm sure that's what we'd all prefer, but our preferences are not their responsibilities.

If you tarnish another's reputation in a fixed medium, such as a video recording, and don't have your facts straight, it's called libel. Though not illegal, it is considered repugnant enough to be considered a tort in many countries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cody's video is nowhere near libel.


SuperBidi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This is basically a case of a #1 best seller having sales tank because Oprah criticized the book.

It is a serious and legitimate concern.

According to this paper: "This paper uses detailed weekly data on sales of hardcover fiction books to evaluate the impact of New York Times book reviews on sales. In order to weigh the relative propensity of reviews to inform and to persuade, the analysis utilizes a measure of review opinion obtained through a systematic reading of each review. The estimates indicate that in the case of book reviews, any publicity is good publicity: even negative reviews lead to increases in sales. We interpret this finding as evidence that book reviews serve largely to inform consumers about books' content and characteristics (including the books' existence). However, positive reviews have a larger impact on sales than negative reviews, suggesting that reviews also have a persuasive effect."

So, it seems way more complicated than just saying that bad reviews are bad. I won't say that bad reviews are necessarily good, but I think Cody's impact on PF2 sales is currently unknown and can be positive. I even think (but it's a personal opinion) that Cody made a mistake in attacking PF2. You always bash bigger, not smaller, as right now he has published 2 videos when there are already more than 2 times that number of videos pointing fingers at him. For most PF2 youtubers Cody just cast Hero's Feast as they have low notoriety and can now drain from Cody's fanbase thanks to the sudden spotlight he directed at them.

Especially if he continues to make his points as flawed as he did with his second video. Calm and rational rebuttals will most likely be suggested to people who see the initial video and inform them that his arguments are more emotional then they are rational through examples and counter points.


Yeah he does miss a few things that 5e has that would shift the analysis a bit. For example with the pf2e ranger losing more damage going into melee compared to the 5e ranger but a lot of 5e ranger spells only work on ranged weapons, or do something that favours ranged weapons, zephyr strike for example stops opportunity attacks against you which is much more useful for ranged attacks compared to melee ones. So just attacking with the weapons will produce better results for 5e but spellcasting is also standard for rangers in 5e so its feels important to include.


Ravingdork wrote:
If you tarnish another's reputation in a fixed medium, such as a video recording, and don't have your facts straight, it's called libel. Though not illegal, it is considered repugnant enough to be considered a tort in many countries.

One google of Opinion and Fair comment privileges later, I will say that it seems more complicated than that and I don't want to pretend to be a lawyer and find out how to calculate the intent or actual harm of a Youtube hottake.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MEATSHED wrote:
Yeah he does miss a few things that 5e has that would shift the analysis a bit. For example with the pf2e ranger losing more damage going into melee compared to the 5e ranger but a lot of 5e ranger spells only work on ranged weapons, or do something that favours ranged weapons, zephyr strike for example stops opportunity attacks against you which is much more useful for ranged attacks compared to melee ones. So just attacking with the weapons will produce better results for 5e but spellcasting is also standard for rangers in 5e so its feels important to include.

He also misses that his ‘Legolas’ Ranger could trip the wight just fine with assurance and just being Trained in Acrobatics; in spite of having an 8 strength for some reason. He also uses the Precision Hunter’s Edge(which he called the ‘Ranged’ Hunter’s Edge) in his example, but if your player is spamming ‘attack rotations’ then obviously the Flurry Edge will be better;

Turning : +12/ +7/ +2 into +12/ +9/ +6

But apparently pointing that out is considered arguing in bad faith to him.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This is basically a case of a #1 best seller having sales tank because Oprah criticized the book.

It is a serious and legitimate concern.

According to this paper: "This paper uses detailed weekly data on sales of hardcover fiction books to evaluate the impact of New York Times book reviews on sales. In order to weigh the relative propensity of reviews to inform and to persuade, the analysis utilizes a measure of review opinion obtained through a systematic reading of each review. The estimates indicate that in the case of book reviews, any publicity is good publicity: even negative reviews lead to increases in sales. We interpret this finding as evidence that book reviews serve largely to inform consumers about books' content and characteristics (including the books' existence). However, positive reviews have a larger impact on sales than negative reviews, suggesting that reviews also have a persuasive effect."

So, it seems way more complicated than just saying that bad reviews are bad. I won't say that bad reviews are necessarily good, but I think Cody's impact on PF2 sales is currently unknown and can be positive. I even think (but it's a personal opinion) that Cody made a mistake in attacking PF2. You always bash bigger, not smaller, as right now he has published 2 videos when there are already more than 2 times that number of videos pointing fingers at him. For most PF2 youtubers Cody just cast Hero's Feast as they have low notoriety and can now drain from Cody's fanbase thanks to the sudden spotlight he directed at them.

Especially if he continues to make his points as flawed as he did with his second video. Calm and rational rebuttals will most likely be suggested to people who see the initial video and inform them that his arguments are more emotional then they are rational through examples and counter...

Emotional, however irrational, sometimes especially irrational, gets far more traction than calm and rational, especially on the internet. One of the wondrous paradoxes of the modern world.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm mostly just annoyed at this point towards his fans who are like "Yeah Cody, take it to establishment!"...as if Wizard of the Coast WASN'T the establishment?

Also reminded me of why I hided this thread in first place and avoid following up on this at all x'P Everytime I do it just frustrates me


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:
Gortle wrote:


I don't get why he is having a problem with a TPK. I've rarely have problems with published modules. But I have't played the one he is talking about. I'd expect a seasoned gorup of players to do better. I get that you can have bad luck (I rolled 4 natural 1s in a row recently).

The group I am in has been playing PF2 once a week for a little over a year now and during that time we have had one TPK and two near misses where the GM had to intervene by nerfing mobs on the fly. We definitely aren't expert players by any means but I feel like our party all has reasonably competent players.

From what I can see, the math in PF2 is tuned very well to expected outcomes. It's balanced very well on the averages but because of the critical rules it can be very swingy on the tails of the dice distributions and because of that it doesn't take much bad luck to down multiple characters or produce a TPK. I personally don't have a problem with this as I like the excitement the critical (+10/-10) rules produce but I can see that it might frustrate some people. I have suggested to our GM that they be more liberal in handing out Hero points to compensate for some of the luck swings.

On an unrelated note Gortle, I really like your class guides (especially the one for sorcerer) and I really respect your opinions!

Yes crictical hits are rough and I think they keep the game interesting.

The dying rules are pretty generous to the players. There are very few save or die area of effect spells in the game. Hit point numbers are higher than ever. Healing is cheap and anyone can have basic healing or a potion. Optimising your AC is fairly easy. Yes there are hero points too.

My primary group are veterans and tend to improve their movement rates as well, so they can disengage easily.

Maybe its just becasue I've occasionally played some old school D&D versions where zero was dead and that was it.

My one near TPK was when I put 4 Bebilith against 5 PCs who were one level lower. It was always going to be a very rough encounter for them, and was never fair by the rules. The players escaped and counted it a victory.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

Slight variations in the examples don't change the underlying problem in that the choice the player has before them are consistently limited by a specialized character who is simply best at option A or some variation there of.

Illusion of choice can happen for a bunch of reasons but one of them is that specialization in a specific action(bow attack) will lead to that action being used more often because of the math of the game.

The other problem he brings up is the system being too complicated and a complicated system combined with significant specialization in action isn't fun for him or his players as it creates a burden while limiting options.

I will add my opinion here. A system that hides choices behind many pages of rules isn't as good as a system that is very upfront about the choices the player has. If a system wants to have serious specialization (bow user) then there needs to be clear choices to make in combat on top of that primary choice. A game should be built around building these choices for players and then communicating their importance to them. If PF2 has some secret set of choices that Cody and his group of experienced players simply don't see that is also a problem.

From a GM point of view this really matters as they have to build encounters around the decision matrix of the players.

I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there. The real flavor of a game is what is built on top of that initial choice.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

Slight variations in the examples don't change the underlying problem in that the choice the player has before them are consistently limited by a specialized character who is simply best at option A or some variation there of.

Illusion of choice can happen for a bunch of reasons but one of them is that specialization in a specific action(bow attack) will lead to that action being used more often because of the math of the game.

The other problem he brings up is the system being too complicated and a complicated system combined with significant specialization in action isn't fun for him or his players as it creates a burden while limiting options.

I will add my opinion here. A system that hides choices behind many pages of rules isn't as good as a system that is very upfront about the choices the player has. If a system wants to have serious specialization (bow user) then there needs to be clear choices to make in combat on top of that primary choice. A game should be built around building these choices for players and then communicating their importance to them. If PF2 has some secret set of choices that Cody and his group of experienced players simply don't see that is also a problem.

From a GM point of view this really matters as they have to build encounters around the decision matrix of the players.

I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there. The real flavor of a game is what is built on top...

I disagree. We are demonstrating that the level of specialization is much closer to non-spec than in other editions.

Additionally, the game forces you to expand horizontally by limiting stacking of bonuses and selections in specific categories. You get skills, ancestry feats, general feats, etc that force horizontal growth.

And, lastly, isn't that the point of specialization?. Like, that is the same for anything. If I specialize in martial arts in Shadowrun, I'm gonna punch a lot of guys. It seems like a nonsense argument, especially in comparison to 5e, which gives you so few options and little horizontal growth.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm of the belief that so long as there are some effective rebuttals to the video, the overall effect is positive...

Stangler wrote:
I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

It's a funny criticism, in that I think that 5e players who are dissatisfied by 5e actually will be intrigued by Cody's 2nd video. Instead of seeing "Illusion of Choice," they've got to be thinking to themselves, "Oh? So I can continue to make choices after Level 4 that make me better at the main thing I do? Sounds fun! And what's this 3 actions per turn thing?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Stangler wrote:


I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there.

This isn't really true. There are multiple different routes to using a bow, and as those diverge there are choices. Even within the same class there a multiple ways you can go to pursue that end and thus be involved in choice.

I mean lets go to the Ranger. I'm assuming the worst case for my point in the Crossbows aren't allowed to count as a divergence choice for a "bow user." That still leaves at level 1, the pretty solid choice between Flurry and Precision, the choice between Gravity Weapon, Hunted Shot, Monster Hunter or even an Animal Companion; all of which can augment or supplement that weapon choice. So thats 8 different Bow builds for 1 class at level 1 before we even take into account the numerous Ancestry choices that could be used to further differentiate it AND with banning crossbows from the consideration.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

...

But how would you even go about demonstrating that the problem doesn’t exist, though? You can’t do a mathematical analysis of all possible scenarios; one alternative would be to draw from experiences playing 2e to show that the system is interesting and not repetitive, which many people *have* been doing. Even so, it’s still going after a sliding target. If 50% of actions are spent making a bow attack, is that too repetitive? What about 70%? 85%? What if most turns are comprised of basically the same set of actions, but the sequence allows for several different variations on the set of actions? Are the variations interesting enough, then?

I’m of the opinion that ultimately the exact numbers don’t actually matter that much, the experience of those numbers is going to matter more. People are using a lot of numbers and complicated examples to explain their own experiences, and the original examples are being “nitpicked” because they’re discordant with peoples’ experiences with the system.

At the end of the day, it’s a lot like trying to convince a friend that a movie they loved (or hated) is actually really terrible (or amazing). It’s a not literally impossible task, but you can give a lot of examples and explanations and they won’t seem to do much of anything.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Stangler wrote:

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

Slight variations in the examples don't change the underlying problem in that the choice the player has before them are consistently limited by a specialized character who is simply best at option A or some variation there of.
...

I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there.

I disagree. We are demonstrating that the level of specialization is much closer to non-spec than in other editions.

Additionally, the game forces you to expand horizontally by limiting stacking of bonuses and selections in specific categories. You get skills, ancestry feats, general feats, etc that force horizontal growth.

And, lastly, isn't that the point of specialization?. Like, that is the same for anything. If I specialize in martial arts in Shadowrun, I'm gonna punch a lot of guys. It seems like a nonsense argument, especially in comparison to 5e, which gives you so few options and little horizontal growth.

Like I already said, slight variations in the math doesn't change the problem of specialization.

5 steps to get to being good at a bow vs 1 step is simplification of one choice. 10 steps to get to being equally good at everything is 10 steps to get a single watered down choice.

When objectively looking at a game system specialization can be a good choice in character creation but when it comes to combat the primary choice has already been made and an additional layer of choices need to be included.

Does that exist in Pathfinder?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF2? Definitely. For example, the many skills (and skill feats) that have a combat use.

Also, where in your analysis appears the importance of tactics which is one of PF2's strengths ?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I made a video about the example Taking20 gave in his last video, showing how wrong he was in the options you had.

https://youtu.be/nTsFZ-GbxMM


Malk_Content wrote:
Stangler wrote:


I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there.

This isn't really true. There are multiple different routes to using a bow, and as those diverge there are choices. Even within the same class there a multiple ways you can go to pursue that end and thus be involved in choice.

I mean lets go to the Ranger. I'm assuming the worst case for my point in the Crossbows aren't allowed to count as a divergence choice for a "bow user." That still leaves at level 1, the pretty solid choice between Flurry and Precision, the choice between Gravity Weapon, Hunted Shot, Monster Hunter or even an Animal Companion; all of which can augment or supplement that weapon choice. So thats 8 different Bow builds for 1 class at level 1 before we even take into account the numerous Ancestry choices that could be used to further differentiate it AND with banning crossbows from the consideration.

What is the impact of those choices? Is the impact clear? Is one choice simply better than the others in terms of DPR? If one is inferior why? Is it clear?

If the primary choice of the player is that they want to be good with a bow then how are those choices navigated?

Imagine it like algebra. A good system will reduce the equation to the essence of each choice to reduce the number of variables.


The Raven Black wrote:

In PF2? Definitely. For example, the many skills (and skill feats) that have a combat use.

Also, where in your analysis appears the importance of tactics which is one of PF2's strengths ?

So can you demonstrate how these skill feats provide this layer?

What is the cost benefit analysis of the player?

How can there be this entire layer that is not in Cody's analysis? IS it hidden? Is there a cost to using the skills that makes it less worth it?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stangler wrote:

When objectively looking at a game system specialization can be a good choice in character creation but when it comes to combat the primary choice has already been made and an additional layer of choices need to be included.

Does that exist in Pathfinder?

This is exactly why the video is so confusing to so many of us who have been playing the game from the beginning. Specialization in actions from character build almost never exceed the advantages that can be found in tactical play in PF2. There is no ultimate set of actions for any one character to take every encounter of every AP and trying to do so is very likely to get you and your party killed. Especially when trying to do your combat routine comes at the cost of actions to figure out what you are fighting and taking advantage of the environment you are fighting in.

Especially in AoA, sometimes, your party gets it wrong, or acts on bad information, because the encounters and dungeon design is very robust and full of little ecologies that typical "kill and loot" parties are going to miss, and you will get punished for it, but that is part of the game.

It is confusing to hear that combat in PF2 is repetitive and boring but also too difficult, because that seems to imply a contradiction in experience. In attempting to explain why he felt that was possible, he exposed a serious problem in the way many players approach encounters in PF2, which is in trying to assume that the party knows how to handle the situation before actually making recall knowledge checks and seeking out hidden features and enemies that might make things easier. It happens to my party all the time too, but we acknowledge the fault is on us making assumptions about encounters, not the system for having dynamic enough encounters that you can't just rush them all the same way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am just amazed someone says moving isnt a choice. Since 1 action = move and it can drastically change a battle and a player can choose not to do it for a different action.

I agree for a new player nothing is really explained, do any games with lots of choices explain tactics?

Yes a player who specializes in a bow will want to use a bow... that is just silly. What other game do you not do this?

I do get the feeling that some people do want to do as much damage as possible with 3 actions and this leads to this sort of behavior. I actually love that PF2 has pushed teamwork.

IMO the only optimal things for a precision ranger on most turns would be...

When they need to mark a target their normal optimal choice is...

Hunt Prey + Hunted Shot + Anything.

Then when they have a target they can...

Hunted Shot + Anything + Anything

I really dont see how you can come to the conclusion every turn shoild be shoot as many times as possible.

5e Ranger pretty much HAS to just do move + hunters mark + attack. They do get to throw spells in every once and awhile I guess. But a 2e Ranger can do that too witha dedication.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Stangler wrote:
I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making

Points require evidence.

The evidence presented is a rigid example that he believed favored his position when in reality it only demonstrates how he doesn't understand the optimization of the system is not dependent on using Class Feats all the time.

The most optimal thing to do in the circumstances isn't even what he did (and he blatantly misses certain portions of the rules like not applying Precision damage to melee strikes with the Precision Edge).

He has to prove his point of view, and he can't do it without trying to cherry pick a super specific build (bow using ranger) and he still fails to prove it with his own example.

This is literally the inverse of schroedinger's wizard argument of previous editions in that if he can frame a perfect scenario where there is "nothing to do" it therefore proves that is a commonality and that doing anything outside that is "sub-optimal" and therefor not doing it is being "punished".

But he fails to prove that even in his given circumstances.

Everyone else has covered the other portions that deserve rebutting, but we do not have to uphold his "point" when he didn't provide a shred of evidence to corroborate the premise.

And when you fail to prove your point when you're the one creating the scenario itself (and improperly using the rules in the scenario that was made up literally just to prove their point), you get to be rebuked and told you're wrong.

Quote:
I will add my opinion here. A system that hides choices behind many pages of rules isn't as good as a system that is very upfront about the choices the player has.

What is the definition of "hides"? Cody clearly knows he can trip. He clearly knows he can go against Reflex DC.

What Cody didn't know is that his Class Feat wasn't the most optimal use of the turn.

Why wasn't that known? Because they didn't take into account all the things they did know and instead acted upon perceived notion of what they thought was optimal.

This is no different than making a blunder in chess, a bad bet in poker or any other game where you make a "less" ideal decision.

Now whether the system is responsible for the player knowing that they should be looking at all options before making decisions is something the game could use some help with sometimes (a GM or even an intuitive player can usually get this across) but decisions are ultimately up to the players for a reason.

The mentality of "I have to use this Feat every single turn or I'm not optimal" is a flawed premise. There are far too many variables in actual play to make that argument, and even in Cody's example he didn't identify the "most optimal" use of the turn when he had knowledge that could have lead him to other avenues than Hunted Shot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Stangler wrote:

When objectively looking at a game system specialization can be a good choice in character creation but when it comes to combat the primary choice has already been made and an additional layer of choices need to be included.

Does that exist in Pathfinder?

This is exactly why the video is so confusing to so many of us who have been playing the game from the beginning. Specialization in actions from character build almost never exceed the advantages that can be found in tactical play in PF2. There is no ultimate set of actions for any one character to take every encounter of every AP and trying to do so is very likely to get you and your party killed. Especially when trying to do your combat routine comes at the cost of actions to figure out what you are fighting and taking advantage of the environment you are fighting in.

Especially in AoA, sometimes, your party gets it wrong, or acts on bad information, because the encounters and dungeon design is very robust and full of little ecologies that typical "kill and loot" parties are going to miss, and you will get punished for it, but that is part of the game.

It is confusing to hear that combat in PF2 is repetitive and boring but also too difficult, because that seems to imply a contradiction in experience. In attempting to explain why he felt that was possible, he exposed a serious problem in the way many players approach encounters in PF2, which is in trying to assume that the party knows how to handle the situation before actually making recall knowledge checks and seeking out hidden features and enemies that might make things easier. It happens to my party all the time too, but we acknowledge the fault is on us making assumptions about encounters, not the system for having dynamic enough encounters that you can't just rush them all the same way.

You just tried to explain something that you claim exists in PF2 but you didn't really point to anything concrete and certainly not a clear mechanic.

It is not clear the real nature of the problem but there is definitely a problem. There either exists a layer of complexity that players are missing and those who see it have a hard time pointing to, or it doesn't' really exist at all.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Stangler wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Stangler wrote:


I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there.

This isn't really true. There are multiple different routes to using a bow, and as those diverge there are choices. Even within the same class there a multiple ways you can go to pursue that end and thus be involved in choice.

I mean lets go to the Ranger. I'm assuming the worst case for my point in the Crossbows aren't allowed to count as a divergence choice for a "bow user." That still leaves at level 1, the pretty solid choice between Flurry and Precision, the choice between Gravity Weapon, Hunted Shot, Monster Hunter or even an Animal Companion; all of which can augment or supplement that weapon choice. So thats 8 different Bow builds for 1 class at level 1 before we even take into account the numerous Ancestry choices that could be used to further differentiate it AND with banning crossbows from the consideration.

What is the impact of those choices? Is the impact clear? Is one choice simply better than the others in terms of DPR? If one is inferior why? Is it clear?

If the primary choice of the player is that they want to be good with a bow then how are those choices navigated?

Imagine it like algebra. A good system will reduce the equation to the essence of each choice to reduce the number of variables.

The advantages or each is not always clear no. And while in a white room some options are "superior" in DPS terms, those build options lend themselves to different styles of play and different risk reward weightings. This is depth and choice. Boiling things down to the simplest either or doesn't increase choice, it reduces it.

Precision + Gravity is about getting one very good shot each round, and then getting to use your other actions in different ways. Monster Hunter enables you to support the opening assault of all your allies, reducing your own DPS contribution (heaven forbid) but bolstering theirs, and allows you to reap the benefit of that support before the battle even begins (a hard thing to calculate.) Taking an Animal Companion can give you a host of additional options depending on which one you choose. These aren't illusions and aren't PF1 style pure maths enhancers. They tangibly effect the options you have at your disposal during play.

Now I'm a forever GM but I've used those abilities to build different enemies, and I can tell you the difference in encounter between a Precision + Animal Companion (Horse) bow user and a Flurry + Animal Companion (Bear) bow user is night and day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

FWIW, if every repugnant video were removed from Youtube, it would mostly be music videos and cute animals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The algebra does exists. But the variables are very GM and scenario dependant and make a lot of assumptions about play style. Which means it just descends into an argument about how often each scenario occurs. People are just going to disagree.

For example Flurry versus Precision. If you are just standing next to your enemy and going attack attack attack. Flurry is mathematically a better choice the numbers have been crunched for typical ACs. Go look it up on this board. But if you aren't getting all those extra attacks all that often, or if you are getting an occasional reaction based attack (no MAP) then Precision looks better. There are various level break points as well. So which is better? Its not clear, but there is no shortage of opinions out there.

Then there are several more layers of complexity on top of that. Add an animal companion in? Ranged or melee? Only few feats are compulsory for each style.

You have asked a very big question to want a specific answer for. It doesn't seem reasonable given the quality of the original question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Additionally, the game forces you to expand horizontally by limiting stacking of bonuses and selections in specific categories. You get skills, ancestry feats, general feats, etc that force horizontal growth.

This is for the most part correct, but there is one place where the game strongly discourages diversifying, and does so so strongly that the rest pales in comparison: magic weapons. Each weapon upgrade is a huge increase in damage, and that means that switching to a backup weapon or tactic is a huge loss. This is the main damage increase PCs get as they level up (other than the invisible accuracy increase - I say invisible, because as your accuracy goes up, so does enemy AC, so you don't see that unless you suddenly fight a bunch of low-level creatures and note that you do much better against them now). In other words, if your main attack is your +1 striking bow and you have to switch to a +1 shortsword, you're losing out on a LOT of damage.

In 5e, by comparison, the main level-based damage increase is the ability Extra Attack, doubling the damage of most martial characters at level 5. At level 11, fighters get a third attack, and other martials tend to get some other damage increase. Notably, Extra Attack and its ilk are generally not tied to a particular weapon or tactic. So the archer who switches from their +1 bow to a non-magic short sword doesn't lose out on anywhere near as much damage.


What a GM can think of is not always the same as what a player can. Specially when you consider that a GM spends considerably more time reading the rules than the average player.

Also having abilities that have some use, does not make their use clear or good. Which is very much a problem in PF2 where the effectiveness of feats are 90% dependent on the current encounter.

Math enhancers tend to be easier to understand because its easy to see +X to Y. Debuffs are slightly more difficult, because you are not getting an immidiate benefit, but setting up for potential benefit. Meanwhile, getting new actions is incredibly complex, and what might seem good now may in fact turn out to be useless later.

*****************

One great example is the complete disdain at Combat Expertise in PF1. So many people look down at that feat as nothing but a useless tax. But that feat can be a life saver for any character who uses it.

In PF2 things are more complicated because one person might try to do something. But miss that its the wrong choice for the character. This is specially true for specialists who get increasingly diminishing returns.

PF2 is not a game where you want to specialize what so ever, but people like to specialize and become "that cool person who is awesome at X".

Which is what I think Cody failed to explain. People wanting to be specialists get trapped trying to make it work, and end up in a rut.

********************

P.S. Magic weapons/items are another example of how things become weird.

The game expects you to have X runes on your weapon by Y level. This forces you to specialize to keep up with the runes. But doing so makes your secondary weapons worse, which means your versatility is worst off. But then the game wants you to be very versatile, which means trying to enhace all your weapon; But that just can't happen.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Stangler wrote:
I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making

But the examples are the foundations of his point... and if the examples are wrong or misleading, that's worth pointing out.

Saying "oh you're just nitpicking" reads more like a convenient way to avoid criticism.

Which sort of seems to be a recurring theme here. When someone points out a flaw with a claim or example, well then suddenly that's no longer a valid topic of discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Stangler wrote:
I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making

Points require evidence.

The evidence presented is a rigid example that he believed favored his position when in reality it only demonstrates how he doesn't understand the optimization of the system is not dependent on using Class Feats all the time.

The most optimal thing to do in the circumstances isn't even what he did (and he blatantly misses certain portions of the rules like not applying Precision damage to melee strikes with the Precision Edge).

He has to prove his point of view, and he can't do it without trying to cherry pick a super specific build (bow using ranger) and he still fails to prove it with his own example.

This is literally the inverse of schroedinger's wizard argument of previous editions in that if he can frame a perfect scenario where there is "nothing to do" it therefore proves that is a commonality and that doing anything outside that is "sub-optimal" and therefor not doing it is being "punished".

But he fails to prove that even in his given circumstances.

Everyone else has covered the other portions that deserve rebutting, but we do not have to uphold his "point" when he didn't provide a shred of evidence to corroborate the premise.

And when you fail to prove your point when you're the one creating the scenario itself (and improperly using the rules in the scenario that was made up literally just to prove their point), you get to be rebuked and told you're wrong.

Quote:
I will add my opinion here. A system that hides choices behind many pages of rules isn't as good as a system that is very upfront about the choices the player has.

What is the definition of "hides"? Cody clearly knows he can trip. He clearly knows he can go against Reflex DC.

What Cody didn't know is that his Class Feat wasn't the most optimal use of the turn.

Why wasn't that known? Because they didn't take into account all...

His argument wasn't that he found the perfect optimization of the Ranger at a certain level. You are just arguing the exact outcome of the math as opposed to the general conclusion of the math.

More complicated math doesn't create choice, it just requires more math to see it.

Like I said, I think people quibbling the math don't really understand the conversation.


Yeah nitpicking the examples is fine. The problem is assuming that your own examples invalidate the others. Which is usually not true.

Specially in a game where the same build can feel completely different base just on what you rolled.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stangler wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Stangler wrote:

When objectively looking at a game system specialization can be a good choice in character creation but when it comes to combat the primary choice has already been made and an additional layer of choices need to be included.

Does that exist in Pathfinder?

This is exactly why the video is so confusing to so many of us who have been playing the game from the beginning. Specialization in actions from character build almost never exceed the advantages that can be found in tactical play in PF2. There is no ultimate set of actions for any one character to take every encounter of every AP and trying to do so is very likely to get you and your party killed. Especially when trying to do your combat routine comes at the cost of actions to figure out what you are fighting and taking advantage of the environment you are fighting in.

Especially in AoA, sometimes, your party gets it wrong, or acts on bad information, because the encounters and dungeon design is very robust and full of little ecologies that typical "kill and loot" parties are going to miss, and you will get punished for it, but that is part of the game.

It is confusing to hear that combat in PF2 is repetitive and boring but also too difficult, because that seems to imply a contradiction in experience. In attempting to explain why he felt that was possible, he exposed a serious problem in the way many players approach encounters in PF2, which is in trying to assume that the party knows how to handle the situation before actually making recall knowledge checks and seeking out hidden features and enemies that might make things easier. It happens to my party all the time too, but we acknowledge the fault is on us making assumptions about encounters, not the system for having dynamic enough encounters that you can't just rush them all the same way.

You just tried to explain something that you claim exists in PF2 but you didn't really point to anything concrete and certainly not a clear

...

Clear mechanics of how tactical choices are as valuable as build choices? I feel like this thread is full of specific examples, but there are even times where a bard might be better moving into flanking with a powerful melee ally in a critical round of combat rather than inspire courage again and not move into flanking, because the +2 to attack might be more important than a +1, especially in later rounds of combat when both the ally and the monster might be one hit away from dying.

Even shove is an impossible action to value in a white room because it does no damage, but pushing a well armed or shield wielding enemy off of even a 10 or 15ft cliff can mean forcing the creature to think about dropping their weapon or falling into a position where they waste multiple actions getting up and then getting back into position. I see these exact kind of situations come up in play often because my party looks for them and asks about how they can interact with the environment. As a GM, I probably encouraged this from the beginning by introducing dynamic map elements of tables and other objects I could move and manipulate on the battle map and had enemies interact with them as well.

Over and over again though, I see parties forget to recall knowledge on creatures they are observing from stealth before moving in (myself included), for example, and that is a big mistake because it means forcing those actions into competition with other actions and often result them in choosing not to recall knowledge even though there is almost always something that can be learned that could be leveraged effectively in combat. Even a fighter might benefit from learning that an enemies Fort save is 3 points lower than their AC and has a action that could be disrupted by being grappled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Another thing GMs might be doing that might lead to players into thinking that attacking 3 times is their best course of actions is by having enemies make 3 attacks against the party.

From a GM perspective it can feel like an easy choice to have an enemy attack three times because it move things along quickly, but what it can result in is players seeing enemies landing lucky third attack crits that really can be devastating to the PCs, and think that is what they should do too, instead of moving with a third action into a position that forces the entire battle to become more dynamic as well (like starting to run to get more allies, or close a door that blocks line of sight, or climbs a tree with a climb speed the party might not know about).

Silver Crusade

14 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FWIW, if every repugnant video were removed from Youtube, it would mostly be music videos and cute animals.

That sounds awesome.

351 to 400 of 671 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Repetition and 2e / "Taking20"s Break Up Letter All Messageboards