| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand... have you ever played Quest for the Frozen Flame? There's no place to sell anything and you can't buy anything either.
So you really deeply want crafting lol
If there's no place to buy or sell anything, where are the characters getting the formulas from? The crafting materials? The artisan's toolkits?
Any game in which you can't buy or sell anything is a game in which you can't Craft per the RAW. And any game in which you can buy or sell anything is a game in which you don't need to Craft per RAI.
All you're left with is GM fiat in both cases, just as the developers intended.
Yeah 20 fights per rest is sort of excessive in my opinion. Most I've ever done is 12. Sort of impressed I have to admit.
But yep, we have different approaches and that's fine!
(this experience is mostly with modules from published APs to be clear)
Main reason I imagine we can do this is I've had the same group for 30 years. So coordination is really, really strong from the moment we build the group.
But we still love playing these games after all this time. The imagination is the best game engine of all time.
It sound like you enjoy strategy and seem to be making the wizard work for you.
I still hope we get some positive wizard changes that make your experience even better without breaking the balance of course.
I don't think the wizard is some unfixable mess. I just want a little more of the WIZARD back, just a bit. It's been such a great class for all these editions of this game. I feel like the wizard should have a little bit of a special place in any D&D based game. I know PF2 is really balanced, but I'd prefer the wizard near the top of the PF2 game tier. The wizard is legendary in D&D across all editions.
I know these are old, old names never to be used in PF. But Bigby, Mordenkainen, Elminster, The Blackstaff, The Simbul, Manshoon, so many legendary wizards in the history of D&D. PF2 wizard isn't giving me that legendary feel.
C'mon Buhlman, bring back some of the legendary feel of the wizard.
I have a similar feeling, but its for all the awesome Golarion Wizards that quite literally cannot exist if the class really is as bad as it currently is.Yeah 20 fights per rest is sort of excessive in my opinion. Most I've ever done is 12. Sort of impressed I have to admit.
But yep, we have different approaches and that's fine!
(this experience is mostly with modules from published APs to be clear)
Main reason I imagine we can do this is I've had the same group for 30 years. So coordination is really, really strong from the moment we build the group.
But we still love playing these games after all this time. The imagination is the best game engine of all time.
It sound like you enjoy strategy and seem to be making the wizard work for you.
I still hope we get some positive wizard changes that make your experience even better without breaking the balance of course.
I don't think the wizard is some unfixable mess. I just want a little more of the WIZARD back, just a bit. It's been such a great class for all these editions of this game. I feel like the wizard should have a little bit of a special place in any D&D based game. I know PF2 is really balanced, but I'd prefer the wizard near the top of the PF2 game tier. The wizard is legendary in D&D across all editions.
I know these are old, old names never to be used in PF. But Bigby, Mordenkainen, Elminster, The Blackstaff, The Simbul, Manshoon, so many legendary wizards in the history of D&D. PF2 wizard isn't giving me that legendary feel.
C'mon Buhlman, bring back some of the legendary feel of the wizard.
Who are the famous Golarion wizards? I've never read Golarion lore too closely.
Last time I was really into Lore was during the Golden Era of Forgotten Realms lore when D&D was making awesome boxed sets and some amazing books all the way up to 3E with deep lore.
I noticed Paizo took a few ideas from the excellent FR lore with their breakdown of the peoples of Golarion and they do produce a lot of lore books for the game. You can tell some of them must have really liked the period of D&D Lore when they were putting out all those amazing FR lore books. Some of those books were so good.
I'd still love to see James Jacobs do Specialty priests in PF2. When FR did Specialty Priests for nearly every religion, it really made me love clerics. I know the page count is too much for a niche book focused on a single class. I can see them doing Archetypes for Specialty priests which might be fun to have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who are the famous Golarion wizards? I've never read Golarion lore too closely.
Old-Mage Jatembe is probably among the most famous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah 20 fights per rest is sort of excessive in my opinion. Most I've ever done is 12. Sort of impressed I have to admit.
But yep, we have different approaches and that's fine!
(this experience is mostly with modules from published APs to be clear)
Main reason I imagine we can do this is I've had the same group for 30 years. So coordination is really, really strong from the moment we build the group.
But we still love playing these games after all this time. The imagination is the best game engine of all time.
It sound like you enjoy strategy and seem to be making the wizard work for you.
I still hope we get some positive wizard changes that make your experience even better without breaking the balance of course.
I don't think the wizard is some unfixable mess. I just want a little more of the WIZARD back, just a bit. It's been such a great class for all these editions of this game. I feel like the wizard should have a little bit of a special place in any D&D based game. I know PF2 is really balanced, but I'd prefer the wizard near the top of the PF2 game tier. The wizard is legendary in D&D across all editions.
I know these are old, old names never to be used in PF. But Bigby, Mordenkainen, Elminster, The Blackstaff, The Simbul, Manshoon, so many legendary wizards in the history of D&D. PF2 wizard isn't giving me that legendary feel.
C'mon Buhlman, bring back some of the legendary feel of the wizard.
All this tells me is that Mark Seifter was completely right when he referred to wizard as a Green-Eyed Monster. This obsession that the Wizard must not be balanced because it isn't the best class in the game, and this demand to constantly be better than every other character option available, really just highlights this reality.
You think any dnd wizard can even approach the levels of Elminster or Mordenkainen? The literal mary sues of the dnd world who routinely shatter reality and have even come to our own world in their lore, and that's the benchmakrk you want to use for how the wizard should play like? The most broken characters who got that way because they were PC's when the rules were being Ad Hoc'd at the creation of dnd?
Also, this is supposed to be about early level casters, right? Then why does the conversation always have to center around the wizard? Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, they don't get talked about. It's only ever the wizard, to the point you'd tink the only caster to exist was the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard is the most caster of the casters. It is literally the only thing the wizard does.
It's not the only caster in this game, and I'm tired of you guys treating it like it's the main character of Pathfinder, and everyone else is just supporting characters on the wizard's journey to become a setting-defining entity whom the universe must revolve around.
So far the remaster is shaping up to be a great improvement to all the casters, especially at early levels. New cantrips have a higher damage potential across the board, with either 2 or 3 dice to roll at level 1. Focus spells are getting revamped to have more impactful and immediate effects. Condensing spells that make sense to such as light and dancing lights means you don't need to waste a cantrip slot preparing or learning those individually. They've even turned shocking grasp into an amazing 1st level spell to deal a ton of potential damage and carry a nice debuff effect on a crit fail, which at early level has an equal chance of working as martials do for their abilities.
For the wizard specifically, the new revamped schools now offer thematic ideas for wizards to embody that do a better job pointing people in a direction to lean their spellcasting towards. Which is a big help to new players who would otherwise struggle with what kind of spells to prep and what type of wizard they'd want. It's been part of what's made Sorcerer so good for new players, that the bloodlines offer an immediate "This is what my character does" theming that the wizard lacked unless you were a long in the tooth grognard who knew what an evocation or abjuration even meant.
So I don't get why in this thread, only the wizard gets talked about, and within that discussion, only how the wizard isn't good at high levels of gameplay gets brought up, when this thread title and premise is spellcasters at low levels.
Hell, the Witch deserves to get talked about way more than the wizard because it's still heavily familiar dependent, which is a complicated system for people to utilize while also being int prepared casters.
...Yeah 20 fights per rest is sort of excessive in my opinion. Most I've ever done is 12. Sort of impressed I have to admit.
But yep, we have different approaches and that's fine!
(this experience is mostly with modules from published APs to be clear)
Main reason I imagine we can do this is I've had the same group for 30 years. So coordination is really, really strong from the moment we build the group.
But we still love playing these games after all this time. The imagination is the best game engine of all time.
It sound like you enjoy strategy and seem to be making the wizard work for you.
I still hope we get some positive wizard changes that make your experience even better without breaking the balance of course.
I don't think the wizard is some unfixable mess. I just want a little more of the WIZARD back, just a bit. It's been such a great class for all these editions of this game. I feel like the wizard should have a little bit of a special place in any D&D based game. I know PF2 is really balanced, but I'd prefer the wizard near the top of the PF2 game tier. The wizard is legendary in D&D across all editions.
I know these are old, old names never to be used in PF. But Bigby, Mordenkainen, Elminster, The Blackstaff, The Simbul, Manshoon, so many legendary wizards in the history of D&D. PF2 wizard isn't giving me that legendary feel.
C'mon Buhlman, bring back some of the legendary feel of the wizard.
All this tells me is that Mark Seifter was completely right when he referred to wizard as a Green-Eyed Monster. This obsession that the Wizard must not be balanced because it isn't the best class in the game, and this demand to constantly be better than every other character option available, really just highlights this reality.
You think any dnd wizard can even approach the levels of Elminster or Mordenkainen? The literal mary sues of the dnd world who routinely shatter reality and
That just comes off as either a bunch of misinformation or just completely ignoring all the changes happening in the remaster to continue having a pity party that the wizard can't immediately end a fight via Banishment, Baelful polymorph, Feeblemind, or the typical "I win" playstyle they had in past editions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a role playing game there's a very big difference between a player with forty years of experience and a character with forty years of experience. If your table wants to ignore that, fine, but to me that's not what the game is all about.
This. What is being said here is that my meta-knowledge of the game replaces the system skills. What I do is that if I notice the players do that, I do it for the enemies too, like if they had access to the players capabilities.
Then it also could be applied to socials, if I as player am eloquent and talks convincing then no matters if my character has Charisma -2 and no skill training, right?
Another thing is using common-sense, but no one said you MUST do a RK on every combat. Which differs much about being very useful at the right situation. Just like any skill.
The crafting also depends much of the play style. So if you have the shopping center with everything and unlimited stock differs much compared to if you determine randomly what they have and how many.
The CRB is good for everyone to start playing immediately, but is the GMG what is used to set your game.
So the issue is reduced again to play styles. Then it should target the wider one, and those who play narrower just put aside the things not used or useless. But they must be there for those who use them, as in the other direction it doesn't work.
In a role playing game there's a very big difference between a player with forty years of experience and a character with forty years of experience. If your table wants to ignore that, fine, but to me that's not what the game is all about.This. What is being said here is that my meta-knowledge of the game replaces the system skills. What I do is that if I notice the players do that, I do it for the enemies too, like if they had access to the players capabilities.
Then it also could be applied to socials, if I as player am eloquent and talks convincing then no matters if my character has Charisma -2 and no skill training, right?
Another thing is using common-sense, but no one said you MUST do a RK on every combat. Which differs much about being very useful at the right situation. Just like any skill.
I enjoy roleplaying but roleplaying ignorance to make an RK skill check valuable is not a fun exercise but you do you. Social situations are different and even with smooth talking I will force the diplomacy/deception/intimidation check. But I don't ask for an RK for a logical assumption like fire probably hurts ice creatures or positive energy hurts undead or stabbing a puddle (ooze) with a sword isn't going to get you far. There is a difference between good RP and forcing an irrelevant skill to be relevant. RK doesn't change success or failure, it adds a skill check to something that might otherwise be guessed, that isn't good RP. Forcing players to play dumb to make a mechanic work is for most people a bad experience. Its like saying 'you're first level adventurers please don't use good tactics in combat or even adventuring cause you are only low level and wouldn't have that experience yet,' or 'your characters barely know each other and probably wouldn't naturally know how to work as a team so can you play that?' No one would in their right mind ask their players to do that and expect that would be a good experience, asking players to pretend their character's haven't heard bedtime stories about trolls being stopped by fire or other common monster knowledge is not what I call good RP.
Also I do tend to use unique monsters in my games with custom weaknesses or immunities, problem is RK as written makes that a much much harder check to pass and my players just guess. Much easier to experiment or guess than waste it on redundant checks. For those monsters I generally have lore in the game world for them to find or use gather information to get which is far better than a forced RK check. Much better to roleplay to get lore about creatures and engage with the world than a mechanic that is fall back at best.
I guess tables vary, problem is we have wizards only being moderately good in very specific kinds of games and not the kind that APs are when run as written as opposed to tables to make the wizard feel good. Paizo wants wizard versatility to be a real asset it needs to write APs where it is.
Agree.
But in the case of experimenting, it could get longer than desired. Not sure how much info you give to players, but I don’t say after an attack “you deal X damage”. I annotate with players not knowing how much damage really inflicted, the info I give is how much wounded it looks, if is bleeding, parts broken, things you can get info watching.
In some cases could not be so easy for them to notice that after some attacks it is not getting or getting less damage from some type of attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In reply the NPCs started ignoring the bard and instead negotiated with the party fighter, who had dumped Charisma and was untrained in all social skills. And who always bombed the checks for obvious reasons. It was a silly silly time and pretty soon we all realized we were being ridiculous and stopped.
Doesn't the GameMastery Guide say not to have NPCs exclude people from social situations just because of low Charisma skills?
Seems like I read that somewhere.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
I find RK good to use to know how to easily kill the target if it does not seem obvious. And to know what special attacks it has if the weaknesses seem obvious.
But I have been soured on just guessing based on previous fights with similar creatures when we faced plant creatures that were NOT weak to Slashing.
Ditto Brimoraks and Cold attacks.
Reminded of someone on an old 3.5 forum who'd talk about how NPCs in his games would kill people on sight if they were suspected of using Diplomacy because it's non-magical mind control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to recall knowledge about creatures mostly to understand what they are and why they are present in a situation. Will they have a lair near by with treasure? Are they goons, working for someone else? Is their clothing and equipment give away information about a faction they might be working for? Are they the alpha predator in their eco system, or aren’t hiding from something scarier.
These are recall knowledge checks that can be made after a combat if necessary, but they are also recall knowledge checks that can occur after seeing the creature fly overhead some time, or after stumbling into the carcass of a last meal. Sometimes you can use these recall knowledge checks to figure out if fighting this creature today is a good idea, or if you check out the other passages first and comeback for this one later, perhaps after doing some research back in town or picking up some special gear, or even just memorizing different spells for that day.
In combat, as a caster, I tend to recall knowledge as a 3rd action when I don’t really want to move and I suspect there could be something useful to learn more about, or the creature doesn’t appear to be what it seems.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those recall knowledge checks in exploration or downtime to learn about an area or the world are fine, the ones we were talking about were for choosing saves or weaknesses to target particularly when forced for rp reasons feel bad generally.
Wizards are not even close to the best at RK.
Investigators and Mastermind rogues are way better at it and have feat support for it. They get more skill increases and more skill feats. Arguably inventors cause they get free increases to crafting (an RK skill) are better at RK.
Any class can invest in intelligence and lore/knowledge feats, wizards have a slightly lower opportunity cost as intelligence is their main stat but choosing to increase lores or society/occult has an opportunity cost the same as it does for every other class.
Additional lore as a cheap feat anyone can pick up makes the additional Trained only skills they get for the mandatory increases in Intel the game's math mandates (assuming your wizard doesn't want Acrobatics or Stealth to help their survival or thievery as they are likely to have a higher dex than most other classes if you don't have a rogue) are easily replaced by Additional Lore that grants proficiency increases that even a character with only +1 Int bonus has a higher chance of success from level 7 than a wizard does with their higher int and their extra trained lore all game. Generally you only need 1 or 2 Lores in most games to cover anything that relevant.
If RK is a wizard thing then it should have class support beyond the expectation of high int equals must take these skills. Fighter's and barbarians get support for athletics, rangers for survival and nature, rogues for stealth etc.
Give wizards free lores or feats that interact with RK if that is supposed to be their advantage. Other classes get feat support or free increases to skills that the class is supposed to use or be reliant on.
Luckily, the wizard doesn't have to be the one spending actions on recall knowledge actions to benefit from its effects! If you are in a party with a rogue or an investigator, one would hope they would be happy to spend their third action recalling knowledge for you/as well as you, and then your odds of getting the useful information go up. It is pretty important that characters coordinate their actions and get the collective most out of their combined actions.
All the runelords, Nex, Nethys, Geb, Xanderghul, Jatembe, Arazni (yes that goddess was a wizard), Karamoss (Tech Wizard), Razmir, Aroden (Yes, the God of Humanity was a Wizard), Serren (creator of Serren's Swift Girding and Armor Lock), Aroden (Yes he was a wizard), a number of Pathfinder Society Venture-Captains, Salaphiel (Literally own the tallest tower in Heaven's fifth floor), Zafer XXXVIII (the head djinni), etc.
Damn. Even in Golarion a bunch of legendary mages that get laughed at by the fighter now.
I like to recall knowledge about creatures mostly to understand what they are and why they are present in a situation. Will they have a lair near by with treasure? Are they goons, working for someone else? Is their clothing and equipment give away information about a faction they might be working for? Are they the alpha predator in their eco system, or aren’t hiding from something scarier.
These are recall knowledge checks that can be made after a combat if necessary, but they are also recall knowledge checks that can occur after seeing the creature fly overhead some time, or after stumbling into the carcass of a last meal. Sometimes you can use these recall knowledge checks to figure out if fighting this creature today is a good idea, or if you check out the other passages first and comeback for this one later, perhaps after doing some research back in town or picking up some special gear, or even just memorizing different spells for that day.
In combat, as a caster, I tend to recall knowledge as a 3rd action when I don’t really want to move and I suspect there could be something useful to learn more about, or the creature doesn’t appear to be what it seems.
I like the Arnold in Predator mentality, "If it bleeds, we can kill it."
RK if it don't bleed.
The crafting also depends much of the play style. So if you have the shopping center with everything and unlimited stock differs much compared to if you determine randomly what they have and how many.
The CRB is good for everyone to start playing immediately, but is the GMG what is used to set your game.
So the issue is reduced again to play styles. Then it should target the wider one, and those who play narrower just put aside the things not used or useless. But they must be there for those who use them, as in the other direction it doesn't work.
It's also that the items aren't that interesting or necessary. If you don't have them, it doesn't affect the game much.
Buying healing wands to keep up hit points was a PF1 thing, now use medicine.
Buffs don't last long and wands are 1 extra use. You going to use it on a buff? You can buff a scroll a lot, but why spend the actions if you're not having trouble killing things. Does it really change the outcome of the game?
I like to craft because like to craft. I have another player that builds up crafting because he likes the class fantasy. But it's not particularly beneficial.
The guy who likes the class fantasy I build it up so it feels cool at least. I'll skirt the rules a little with crafting to let him make his cool item, maybe add in some adventure part he can use like a precious metal or a formula.
If we're talking raw mechanical benefit, crafting is skill without a lot of impact unless you have a class feature that benefits from it. Right now the paladin is getting a lot out of crafting repairing his shield quickly between fights.
I do usually get it on my casters so I can make low level scrolls for extra uses of useful low level spells like mirror image against bosses or true strike or see invis. I end up not using the scrolls too often.
PF2 is a team game built with the focus on martials bringing the hammer while casters support the martials while getting their biggest hammer time against groups of enemies where an AoE can really clean the top off a mook hit point pool.
It bleeding is no guarantee you can kill it. Strong evidence it can be killed, but even then, no guarantee.
Then let me add RK if you can't kill it and it bleeds.
We'd rather test the simple method first, then think if the first part don't work.
I'm wondering if DMs make players make RK every time. If you've already faced a black pudding and an ochre jelly, you have a fairly good idea how oozes work. So when you face a fen pudding and decide to start beating on it with bludgeoning weapons, you forcing your players to roll a RK to do this? Or you letting them go, "We've fought a bunch of oozes, so we're pretty sure blunt weapons are best. We're going to use this first and then worry about RK."
I...honestly have no idea. It's not a very martial-friendly AP, though.On the other hand... have you ever played Quest for the Frozen Flame? There's no place to sell anything and you can't buy anything either.
So you really deeply want crafting lol
If there's no place to buy or sell anything, where are the characters getting the formulas from? The crafting materials? The artisan's toolkits?
Any game in which you can't buy or sell anything is a game in which you can't Craft per the RAW. And any game in which you can buy or sell anything is a game in which you don't need to Craft per RAI.
All you're left with is GM fiat in both cases, just as the developers intended.
I can't remember if the current crafting rules are this way, but in the remaster having a formula reduces the time, which implies you can craft without it, and they made no mention of this aspect being notable, so I'm Pretty sure you can craft without a formula it just takes longer
Cantrips were never an issue and making removing the Key stat is not making them better. Less consistent is not better, I'll give you different but not better.
Yes they were, their average damage was above 6, which is above what they're supposed to be at
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It bleeding is no guarantee you can kill it. Strong evidence it can be killed, but even then, no guarantee.
There's all too often a difference between "it can be killed" and "we can kill it". :-)
PF2 is a team game built with the focus on martials bringing the hammer while casters support the martials while getting their biggest hammer time against groups of enemies where an AoE can really clean the top off a mook hit point pool.
I think is not the way to discuss, better put aside like imposing as true what each one consider or plays the game. In example:
I don't allow this type of play myself as a DM and my group doesn't play this way. Once invested in a dungeon or combat scenario, it's usually a triggered situation where it's going to be a continuous series of combats culminating in some very tough combat with sufficient enemies not to be easily taken out easily. My group also believes that it is a more naturalistic situation if they finish a place they've started only departing for rest if absolutely necessary. Probably why I value focus spells so highly because if I blew off spell slots, I'd run out of spells very early in the adventure because we don't leave dungeons for rest for possibly several sessions if the dungeon or combat scenario requires that long.
I may value spell slots higher if I was doing more nova encounters. I usually alert the players if this is the case like doing Kingmaker with so may one hex a day encounters. Then they can blow off the best of what they have and be done with it.
Once in a dungeon or combat scenario, they may do 20 encounters or more before they rest. They don't know which ones will be hard or easy.
It is appreciated that each one would begin telling how plays. In your case is a dungeon-crawler, tactical combat, closer to video-game and whatever each one want to call it. But that differs much of other tables.
I.e. in my case the only way to have the items you want, not uncommon or rare, is having Crafting and with Inventor feat. The shops have few and random items, and there are no runes (using partially the ABP rules from GMG) so each item has its own capabilities non-transferable (AKA old-school style). All that is covered in GMG so is just using what the game expects if want to apply.
Also I remember another discussion here which you giving the importance to focus spells while the other side to the normal spell slots. Thinking about it is normal and expected.
Then there is no point on discussing about what "is" or not good in broadly like valid for everyone.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think comparing modern TTRPGs like Pathfinder 2e to the wargames of Gygaxian-era Chainmail is somewhat falling in line with "DF plays the game quite differently" which will skew his opinion on the matter of wizards, spellcasting, and RK. Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
I see each game just like a set of tools. Then look if are enough to what I want to play. But at least those of type TTRPG I have looked at allows to play with a proper level of what I look for.
It is not like a Heroquest or Descent: Journeys in the Dark which could have something like “classes”, but clearly oriented to one specific way of playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think comparing modern TTRPGs like Pathfinder 2e to the wargames of Gygaxian-era Chainmail is somewhat falling in line with "DF plays the game quite differently" which will skew his opinion on the matter of wizards, spellcasting, and RK. Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
Bc the same handful of people have a perpetual axe to grind. I've pretty much made my peace with casters (and enjoy playing most of them) but some people are like Bosch and can't let it go.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think comparing modern TTRPGs like Pathfinder 2e to the wargames of Gygaxian-era Chainmail is somewhat falling in line with "DF plays the game quite differently" which will skew his opinion on the matter of wizards, spellcasting, and RK. Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
Because people are too afraid to just say "Wizards should be as strong as it was when I liked playing it in older editions." and need to create obfuscated topics where they can say it in coded ways. They don't want to because they know how bad that sounds, and they know people will not agree with them.
That's really all it comes down to. It's why wizard keeps being the main focus of these threads despite wizard being middle of the pact in terms of performance, neither terrible nor exceptional. It's why every talk of casters not being able to be thematic, only ever brings up the wizard, and why when thematic flavor is added to the class, it's balked at as being a nerf. It's also why, despite it being 5 years of the wizard being the academic generalist class fantasy, people still demand it be the "casteriest caster", where in reality PF 2e just doesn't need that. Just like how fighter isn't the "Martialist Martial" and there being plenty of arguments for the validity of Barbarian, Monk, and Ranger doing their own things in the core, so to is the wizard not the greatest example of being a caster, but one style of casters imposed with the druid, cleric, bard, and sorcerer in the Core rules.
It's draining and I would have more respect if they just made a thread called "Make Wizards like they were in Pathfinder 1e" to get it out there in the open. It's what they want, and why a lot of their complaints boil down to "The wizard in this new edition plays differently from the wizard in the old edition."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why have all of the threads just become the same conversation stretched across the General boards?
Because there are only ten or so people who bother posting here? It's the same complaints that haven't been (and can't be, due to design principles) addressed, and now it's just the same arguments hashed out over and over and over. No one listens anymore, just stabbing at strawmen and yelling into the void.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because people are too afraid to just say "Wizards should be as strong as it was when I liked playing it in older editions." and need to create obfuscated topics where they can say it in coded ways. They don't want to because they know how bad that sounds, and they know people will not agree with them.
Are "they" in the room with us right now?