Anti-PF 2.0 Griping Echo Chamber


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Customer Service Representative

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've removed a post. Please don't curse, we have minors on the forum, thanks!

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Are they searching for Gold?

Oh, little ones, not dudes with picks...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Like, the gnome racial weapon in particular ought to be all about the wacky tricks and embarrassing your foe - not about "1d8 damage with reach".

Nah, you've got it backwards. The REAL reason is that Gnome run orphanages canonically produce almost all the paladins in Golarion, and so the players have to be given MASSIVE incentives to have Gnomes in their background. In PF1 that was handled by Fey Foundling, in PF2 its handled by the Gnome flick mace. But the goal is world building.

Given its the internet and intent isn't always clear : The above is meant as a joke.

Gnomes are so generous to build all those orphanages for all the future fighters and paladins of the world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, of course gnomes are building orphanages for the paladins. Somebody has to. We can't have another "goblin baby threads" epidemic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Gnomes are nice people. The world could use more gnomes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This isn’t specifically PF2 but TTRPG gripe: Fix broken mechanics and undertuned classes! The model is apparently develop it and forget it, on to the next thing.

Dex vs Str Animal Companions
Alchemists
Witches
Fighter vs anything
Spell accuracy
Recall knowledge
Druid form size issues
And plenty more…

I’ll add, in reference to the discussion on flickmace, trait balancing. Die size > reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ; other stuff. Reach weapon trait should add a penalty for adjacent squares. Fixed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rnphillips wrote:

This isn’t specifically PF2 but TTRPG gripe: Fix broken mechanics and undertuned classes! The model is apparently develop it and forget it, on to the next thing.

Dex vs Str Animal Companions
Alchemists
Witches
Fighter vs anything
Spell accuracy
Recall knowledge
Druid form size issues
And plenty more…

No money in fixing old things.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
rnphillips wrote:

This isn’t specifically PF2 but TTRPG gripe: Fix broken mechanics and undertuned classes! The model is apparently develop it and forget it, on to the next thing.

Dex vs Str Animal Companions
Alchemists
Witches
Fighter vs anything
Spell accuracy
Recall knowledge
Druid form size issues
And plenty more…

No money in fixing old things.

And yet they fixed non-scaling Armor Proficiencies and too low spell attacks. Which were very high on posters' list of then gripes.

But they try to do it without breaking the system. I guess this approach takes more time.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's only no money in it until the problems pile up and they lose customers. Customer retention is horrifically undervalued by a shocking number of people around here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heather F wrote:
I've removed a post. Please don't curse, we have minors on the forum, thanks!

Sorry about that! I tried to asterisk everything but I guess I missed a spot. Do you have a copy of that on hand I could clean up and then repost, or should I start from scratch?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lack of a 1 handed reach spear/polearm.

Theres a lot of complaints about how optimal flickmace is, but more importantly spear + shield is a classic combination, there was even a feat for it in pathfinder 1e. Would be nice to see it return as an option either as a martial weapon with a d6 die, or as an archetype that gives spears and polearms two handed when wielding a shield in the other hand.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Well, it isn't incompatible with PFS or anything, but there are definitely some things about the system that aren't what you would do if you were building it with the main goal of fitting easily into an org play format.

The GM being able to say "yes, this makes sense for that specific character" is core to the rarity system, so it doesn't work as smoothly when rulings have to be done as global conditions. This also extends to flexibility that's built into some character options, like when the Champion's Steed Ally allows for Ninal companions without the Mount ability, at GM discretion (this works great to allow fitting companions for a particular champion in a normal game, but would be impractical to micromanage a list of "characters that meet x condition can have animal y" as a PFS rule). The impact of having a level spread inside the party is large with 2E's base math.

The reduction in the space between optimization floor and ceiling is double-edged for this question. It's a huge improvement in that having their characters vastly outperformed by a similar character with a finely tuned collection of obscure feats and archetypes combinations was not the best experience for new players. It comes with the downside of it being more difficult to be self-sufficient enough to make awkward party compositions work well.

Similarly, you've got the increased reliance on GM discretion over legalistic readings of fiddly RAW. This is a good direction, in general (though it overlaps with rules that are also hard to tell what the intent is sometimes, which is actually a problem), but it also drives an increase in Table Variation, when two GMs trying to adjudicate the system situation end up with different takes on how it should work.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ganigumo wrote:

Lack of a 1 handed reach spear/polearm.

Theres a lot of complaints about how optimal flickmace is, but more importantly spear + shield is a classic combination, there was even a feat for it in pathfinder 1e. Would be nice to see it return as an option either as a martial weapon with a d6 die, or as an archetype that gives spears and polearms two handed when wielding a shield in the other hand.

Fully agreed. One handed spears have been a staple of human hunting, combat, and warfare throughout history. They should have just embraced it instead of making a one handed reach weapon the purview of gnomes and whip fetishists.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Scaling DC assumes maximum resources applied to all skills/checks even though that isn't given in the game.
Paizo chose points at which to step back the table so that if you did put every possible advancement into a skill your % chance of success against your level of a DC would increase as your level rose. to succeed at a DC for your level at level 1 would be 50% reduces to only 25% at level 20 if you didn't focus into it most characters can only focus on 3 skills max and 1 only if all the party has to do the get from point a to point b skills (acrobatics and athletics)

resistance items with out a counter
+ to ac is countered by + to hit
you have items that have increase to saves without a opposite like spell penetration

no plus to hit for spells
expendable resource & less accurate


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heather F wrote:

I have had to pop in and remove some comments and quoted content. A reminder that the original post does not break any forum rules. If you feel you cannot positively contribute to the conversation, or keep from becoming argumentative and disrespectful, as Tonya previously stated, you do not have to participate in the conversation.

Indeed. I am both disappointed and not surprised that there are people who don't understand this concept.

And yes, I kinda lied. I didn't actually hide the thread. I just wanted to point out that it is an option.

For my own contribution to the thread, I'll just troll all of you ;-)

My biggest gripe with PF2 is that it is written in English. That makes it a lot harder to notice when there are problems like Minion having no clear rules when not in combat, or that 'your spell list' is not defined. It also causes confusion when terms collide like level, level, level, and level; action and action; or even synonyms like attack and hostile action.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know it's been said before, but I'll repeat it: I feel like the system is mad at me for wanting to generalize.

Want to be a healing cleric? Wis and Cha. Want to still be able to afford backstory skills like Lore (herbs) and Craft (for cooking)? Well, I'll definitely need Int. Want to have some martial capability as a vicious ex-bandit, but be fairly unarmored, since I'm more a swashbuckling/sneaky type? Str and Dex are basically mandatory, even if I don't worry about HP. Well, that's five abilities there. I ended up having to dump Str and Con for it, even though a big part of the original concept involved her being pretty in shape and capable in a melee. Oh, and a 16 AC, since I could only wrangle a 14 Dex and can't wear much of any armor without compromising my Stealth.

I wish I could safely leave my Wis and Int at 14, but it feels like this system really punishes every point below 18.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is impossible to make a good generalist but the result IMO is that you have to work with your fellow PCs because everybody has at least one or two weak areas.

So, while I too feel constrained when building, I think it's a feature, not a bug, and the price to pay so that each party member brings something special to the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I took Cooperative Nature and sought to be a jack-of-all trades explicitly to work with my partymembers. Why else does anyone play a jack of all trades?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When 2e was first announced I was so happy and into it, I got really discouraged in 1e with things like some PC's getting 50 AC at level 5 or other crazy builds. 2e seemed like it would reign the numbers in to make it more balanced, and it delivered on the numbers front. Where it went too far is cutting away a lot of the fun factor that doesn't really affect balance all that much.

Most of my favorite classes or class features in 1e are sort of available in 2e, but they all have an asterisk.

Want to play a shapeshifter? In 1e forms lasted a really long time and were strong by themselves. In 2e they only last a minute and have to be cast at the highest level or are don't measure up (or you're a druid, which means you have to keep up with your handwraps and better hope the minute is enough for you to do your thing. And really hope you don't have to end it early and cast a spell, because you likely only have a single focus point).

What about something like a gloomblade? Well the closest thing is soulforger, which you still need to buy and upgrade your weapon and it can be destroyed like any other weapon. And all this extra fluff you have to do.

I have little faith in kineticist when it does come out thanks to the psychic playtest too, as it seems (this isn't definite but likely to my eyes) that the only way to make its semi spamable focus spells stronger is to make them regular focus spells. If anything stronger than 10d6 at 20 is too strong for a semi spamable spell... That's around 35 damage, for two actions, at 20. That's nothing. If that's what kineticist is going to look like... Well I've already gotten back into starfinder instead of 2e but that would be the final nail in the coffin for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
My biggest gripe with PF2 is that it is written in English. That makes it a lot harder to notice when there are problems like Minion having no clear rules when not in combat, or that 'your spell list' is not defined. It also causes confusion when terms collide like level, level, level, and level; action and action; or even synonyms like attack and hostile action.

If only more of us were fluent in COBOL. Alas.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
My biggest gripe with PF2 is that it is written in English. That makes it a lot harder to notice when there are problems like Minion having no clear rules when not in combat, or that 'your spell list' is not defined. It also causes confusion when terms collide like level, level, level, and level; action and action; or even synonyms like attack and hostile action.
If only more of us were fluent in COBOL. Alas.

I miss a good old GOTO statement.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
My biggest gripe with PF2 is that it is written in English. That makes it a lot harder to notice when there are problems like Minion having no clear rules when not in combat, or that 'your spell list' is not defined. It also causes confusion when terms collide like level, level, level, and level; action and action; or even synonyms like attack and hostile action.
If only more of us were fluent in COBOL. Alas.
I miss a good old GOTO statement.

I'm a big fan of the computed COMEFROM statement myself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm so glad that people are understanding my sense of humor.

Personally I would like to see some of the CRB written in predicate logic. That would be amusing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:

Scaling DC assumes maximum resources applied to all skills/checks even though that isn't given in the game.

I don't agree. Let's say you want to hit on a 10. In order to do that at level 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, what do we need?

Level 1: DC 15, or +5. Since we can only have trained, that's a 14 in the stat required.
Level 4: DC 19, or +9. For trained, that's a 16 required, or a 14 with a +1 item. For expert, that's a 12 required, or a 10 with +1 item.
Level 8, DC 24, or +14. From here on out, we can assume a +1 item since those are level 4-5. Trained needs 16 in stat, expert needs 12 in stat, master needs 8.
Level 12, DC 30, or +20. As +2 items start at level 9, we'll assume them here. Trained needs 18, Expert needs 14, Master needs 10.
Level 16, DC 35, or +25. Trained needs 20, Expert 16, Master 12, Legendary 8.
Level 20, DC 40, +30. Trained needs 22, Expert needs 18, Master 14, Legendary 10. Note that we can also have a +3 item at this point, decreasing stat required by 2.

So really, you can hit the DC over half the time with a 14-16 and Expert, as long as the item from a few levels back is there. If you're fully invested, by higher levels you'll easily have a +5 on the required DC, even if it's equal level to you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
CrimsonKnight wrote:

Scaling DC assumes maximum resources applied to all skills/checks even though that isn't given in the game.

I don't agree. Let's say you want to hit on a 10. In order to do that at level 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, what do we need?

Level 1: DC 15, or +5. Since we can only have trained, that's a 14 in the stat required.
Level 4: DC 19, or +9. For trained, that's a 16 required, or a 14 with a +1 item. For expert, that's a 12 required, or a 10 with +1 item.
Level 8, DC 24, or +14. From here on out, we can assume a +1 item since those are level 4-5. Trained needs 16 in stat, expert needs 12 in stat, master needs 8.
Level 12, DC 30, or +20. As +2 items start at level 9, we'll assume them here. Trained needs 18, Expert needs 14, Master needs 10.
Level 16, DC 35, or +25. Trained needs 20, Expert 16, Master 12, Legendary 8.
Level 20, DC 40, +30. Trained needs 22, Expert needs 18, Master 14, Legendary 10. Note that we can also have a +3 item at this point, decreasing stat required by 2.

So really, you can hit the DC over half the time with a 14-16 and Expert, as long as the item from a few levels back is there. If you're fully invested, by higher levels you'll easily have a +5 on the required DC, even if it's equal level to you.

relevant stat at 14 and only remained trained in that skill Since we are only using trained which is the cap for most character skills (not a hard cap just a practical cap).

Level 1: DC 15, with a character bonus of +5. , that's a 14 in the stat required. (agreed), success on 10+
Level 4: DC 19, with a character bonus of +8(possibly +9). For trained, that +1 item. we can't guaranty a plus 1 item on all skills, success on 11(10)+
Level 8, DC 24, with a character bonus of +12(possibly +13). For trained, that +1 item. we can't guaranty a plus 1 item on all skills, success on 12(11)+
Level 12, DC 30, with a character bonus of +16(possibly +18) now with +2 items possible, success on 14(12)+
Level 16, DC 35, with a character bonus of +20(possibly +22), success on 15(13)+
Level 20, DC 40, with a character bonus of +24(possibly +26), haven't seen many plus 3 skill items , success on 16(14)+


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, since I have to start from scratch it seems, I'll also add on to what I said earlier before it got removed for colorful language(That I thought I kept clean, but apparently not). I want a wider breath of PC options at mid levels. You can do crazy things at high levels, you can even do crazy things at high levels in 5E, but 5E is notorious for "samey" feelings at low levels, even across different classes. Mid levels (~6 - ~12) is in a rather dry position of more eccentric player options, you get SOME things that look like a Marvel/Shonen MC doing their thing, but by and large it's mostly mundane +Xs and "you can combine these actions together and spend 1 less AP to do it!". You fight fantastical creatures that do fantastical things, and if you're lower than 10th level and not a spell caster you have... stick... that may or may not be pointy... SPEAKING OF STICK! The devs seem conservative with weapon traits, and particular combinations that don't seem that crazy (agile + forceful notwithstanding, that'd be broken, and Monks can do it!), and they also have room to make particularly... creative traits that do... interesting things (I'm generalizing because no examples spring to immediate mind, except maybe playing with the +/-10 system).

Essentially, I feel like Paizo painted themselves into a box creativity wise in the name of balance, and I want to see what would happen if they broke out of that for just one piece of published material that makes you feel like a Kubo/Oda/Kishimoto character.

Sovereign Court Director of Community

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post for sexual commentary, a post that quoted the removed one, and quite a few that quoted the reply. Thank you for keeping the thread on the topic and not devolving to arguements! Your actions are greatly appreciated!

Sovereign Court Director of Community

4 people marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Heather F wrote:
I've removed a post. Please don't curse, we have minors on the forum, thanks!
Sorry about that! I tried to asterisk everything but I guess I missed a spot. Do you have a copy of that on hand I could clean up and then repost, or should I start from scratch?

The best way to get copies of deleted posts is to email community@paizo.com with a link to the thread. We don't always catch replies in threads if there aren't flags we are handling! Soo many forums, so little time!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Random thing, and I'm not quite sure if this is the place for it, but... there's little way for me to tell from the outside of a given third-party product is completely nutbar without buying the thing. As this thread indicates, there are a few gripes with the system, and many of them aren't going to get addressed by Paizo directly any time soon because that would take a lot of time and effort that they need to be spending on other things, and 3PP are actually a decent way to get fixes for a bunch of those (especially gripes like "X doesn't have enough interesting feats"), but sometimes what they want to "fix" is, effectively, "the game is too balanced". Alternately, they might be trying to be balanced, but really not very good at it. It feels like there's very little way for someone who's not deep in the community to distinguish between the products that are high-quality expansions on the original (I hear good things about PF1 Spheres of Power, for example) and something that someone just kind of threw together (badly) because they though it would be cool, and did the bare minimum respect-for-copyright stuff that they needed to do to get in the door literally.

I could easily be wrong. I'm certainly not deep enough in the various branches of the community to know All The Things. Indeed - I'd be happy to be wrong... but "buy it and read and find out" isn't all that appealing here, if that is the answer.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

Random thing, and I'm not quite sure if this is the place for it, but... there's little way for me to tell from the outside of a given third-party product is completely nutbar without buying the thing. As this thread indicates, there are a few gripes with the system, and many of them aren't going to get addressed by Paizo directly any time soon because that would take a lot of time and effort that they need to be spending on other things, and 3PP are actually a decent way to get fixes for a bunch of those (especially gripes like "X doesn't have enough interesting feats"), but sometimes what they want to "fix" is, effectively, "the game is too balanced". Alternately, they might be trying to be balanced, but really not very good at it. It feels like there's very little way for someone who's not deep in the community to distinguish between the products that are high-quality expansions on the original (I hear good things about PF1 Spheres of Power, for example) and something that someone just kind of threw together (badly) because they though it would be cool, and did the bare minimum respect-for-copyright stuff that they needed to do to get in the door literally.

I could be wrong. I'd be happy to be wrong... but "buy it and read and find out" isn't all that appealing here, if that is the answer.

Dustin Knight runs a review stream of stuff from Pathfinder Infinite and other 3rd party. You might check it out, since I think Dustin has a pretty good handle on the balance of the game and gives pretty fair reviews (he's also a contributor to Paizo).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was in that boat myself. I picked up some 3P material for PF1E, and its wonky writing and lopsidedness frustrated me, and I haven't gone back to 3P since.

I'm gonna look into some for this edition though, mostly using the stuff the designers write for 3P as a starting point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:


So author lack of foresight to mention that the DC will increase on repeated uses and that failure stops you from making attempts to get more information takes an action that should be incredibly appealing to players to use to get some hints as to what kind of things to do that have better odds of being good for their character/party and turns it into "I wasted an action"

I actually have argued that it's a misreading of the rules that a failure means you cannot try again. I think only on a failure after you've already succeeded once does that section apply since it's literally titled Additional Knowledge. The word successful may have been edited out. Should probably read as, "Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a successful check to Recall Knowledge". In the recall knowledge action description itself there is no failure outcome which seems like a glaring omission if it was intended indeed that a PC can't try again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Exton Land wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:


So author lack of foresight to mention that the DC will increase on repeated uses and that failure stops you from making attempts to get more information takes an action that should be incredibly appealing to players to use to get some hints as to what kind of things to do that have better odds of being good for their character/party and turns it into "I wasted an action"
I actually have argued that it's a misreading of the rules that a failure means you cannot try again. I think only on a failure after you've already succeeded once does that section apply since it's literally titled Additional Knowledge. The word successful may have been edited out. Should probably read as, "Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a successful check to Recall Knowledge". In the recall knowledge action description itself there is no failure outcome which seems like a glaring omission if it was intended indeed that a PC can't try again.

I was going to say you have a good point there, but then I thought about it just the few seconds longer that it took for the reply box to open up and I see your point but that'd be even worse than the way I read it because it would then be even more lacking in clarity and still makes the sage-like character at risk of not feeling worth the effort and investment because a single success (even a critical one) could easily not be enough information for a player to feel done trying to Recall Kknowledge and then hit by the double-dip of disincentive by way of increased difficulty and "if you fail you're done" (whether it's period, or because you've succeeded before).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I dislike most about PF2 is something I never would have thought to love until I played starfinder.

In PF2 a level X PC is roughly the equal of a level X NPC. They have similar AC, attack, saves, etc.

In starfinder, that isn't the case. NPCs have high attack, low AC, and PCs have high AC, low attack (if they have on level armor... a starfinder issue admittedly).

Which means a PC vs. an NPC is up to the dice + lvl difference just like PF2, but if you have a minion in starfinder (via summon or animate dead) it actually has a decent chance of hitting a PC level threat, and could even hit a boss NPC at a 25%+ chance.

Which is just super nice. It also means mind controlled PCs aren't super threatening to their party, but mind controlled mooks are useful to the group, etc.

It just has a lot of knock on effects I wish they could have figured out how to incorporate it into PF2.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In stark contrast to the post right above, my biggest gripe about PF2 (to be fair, all "modern" RPGs in genera including 5E) is that they moved towards PC-NPC Asymmetry a bit too much for my sensitive intestines.

It's especially jarring to see NPCs of playable ancestries having unexplained statistic bonuses despite the lack of a (loot-able) magic weapon/armor. Although, if the ABP OPTIONAL rules were the standard (as someone someone implied it was to be if not for the final survey before launch going wrong) for players too, this one could be handwaved easily.

And at least it's not like Starfinder, where NPCs don't even have Stamina Points (my #0 gripe with THAT system), absolutely crushing any hope for a faithful cosmic simulation (most visible when healing spells treat PCs and NPCs like either party were carbon based life and the other silicon based) unto oblivion...

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

The thing I dislike most about PF2 is something I never would have thought to love until I played starfinder.

In PF2 a level X PC is roughly the equal of a level X NPC. They have similar AC, attack, saves, etc.

In starfinder, that isn't the case. NPCs have high attack, low AC, and PCs have high AC, low attack (if they have on level armor... a starfinder issue admittedly).

Which means a PC vs. an NPC is up to the dice + lvl difference just like PF2, but if you have a minion in starfinder (via summon or animate dead) it actually has a decent chance of hitting a PC level threat, and could even hit a boss NPC at a 25%+ chance.

Which is just super nice. It also means mind controlled PCs aren't super threatening to their party, but mind controlled mooks are useful to the group, etc.

It just has a lot of knock on effects I wish they could have figured out how to incorporate it into PF2.

And now I remember all those posts angry at PF2 monsters who dared to have higher attacks than PCs. And the PF2 designers explaining it was done on purpose for exactly the reason you gave (more satisfying for players and GMs).

It feels strange.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:

In stark contrast to the post right above, my biggest gripe about PF2 (to be fair, all "modern" RPGs in genera including 5E) is that they moved towards PC-NPC Asymmetry a bit too much for my sensitive intestines.

It's especially jarring to see NPCs of playable ancestries having unexplained statistic bonuses despite the lack of a (loot-able) magic weapon/armor. Although, if the ABP OPTIONAL rules were the standard (as someone someone implied it was to be if not for the final survey before launch going wrong) for players too, this one could be handwaved easily.

And at least it's not like Starfinder, where NPCs don't even have Stamina Points (my #0 gripe with THAT system), absolutely crushing any hope for a faithful cosmic simulation (most visible when healing spells treat PCs and NPCs like either party were carbon based life and the other silicon based) unto oblivion...

The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever.

Fair enough. A staunch "natural simulationist" (so much that despite entering the TTRPG world with 4E (Essentials) was quickly swayed towards PF1 and GURPS of all things due to their heavy(? consistent might be a better term) world simulating) like me is a rarity among actual players, yes...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever.
Fair enough. A staunch "natural simulationist" (so much that despite entering the TTRPG world with 4E (Essentials) was quickly swayed towards PF1 and GURPS of all things due to their heavy(? consistent might be a better term) world simulating) like me is a rarity among actual players, yes...

count me among your kind as well. I've always enjoyed when I as GM get to use the same rules as my players. It just feels good when you build that perfect encounter the same way they built their characters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever.
Fair enough. A staunch "natural simulationist" (so much that despite entering the TTRPG world with 4E (Essentials) was quickly swayed towards PF1 and GURPS of all things due to their heavy(? consistent might be a better term) world simulating) like me is a rarity among actual players, yes...
count me among your kind as well. I've always enjoyed when I as GM get to use the same rules as my players. It just feels good when you build that perfect encounter the same way they built their characters.

If you want to do that, you’d need to pick out Ancestry Feats, General Feats, Skill Feats, & Class Feats for Every. Single. Monster.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever.
Fair enough. A staunch "natural simulationist" (so much that despite entering the TTRPG world with 4E (Essentials) was quickly swayed towards PF1 and GURPS of all things due to their heavy(? consistent might be a better term) world simulating) like me is a rarity among actual players, yes...
count me among your kind as well. I've always enjoyed when I as GM get to use the same rules as my players. It just feels good when you build that perfect encounter the same way they built their characters.

Building NPCs like PCs is a perfectly RAW method in PF2.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
If you want to do that, you’d need to pick out Ancestry Feats, General Feats, Skill Feats, & Class Feats for Every. Single. Monster.

Yes, that is how monsters were built back in 3.x and PF1. You also had to assign skill points, pick spells, give them equipment, recalculate saves and HP if a feat interacted with that, but it's part of the job under such a system. Even then, a lot of it can be automated by picking a specific set of feats for certain types of monsters. If you've only built encounters in PF2 it's daunting, but it's how I started out.

151 to 200 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Anti-PF 2.0 Griping Echo Chamber All Messageboards