|
Serf posted:so like a printed book or a pdf? A physical printed book. Yes, but not their whole catalog. Kai Tave posted:Steam does it all the time. I'm not talking about "Buy an unfinished thing and get the finished version later too if and when it's finished." I'm talking about "Buy an unfinished thing, and then spend money on it all over again if I want the finished thing."
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Ranged on one side: those Pathfinder fans who can find it within themselves to acknowledge that kt can do with a tune-up. On the other, those who refuse to contemplate any step further away from rote mimicry of D&D 3.5. Begun, the Clone Wars have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:Oh, mechanically, they’re both hosed I mean, arguably they made the bare-minimum attempt, and it was the unwillingness to make a real attempt that was why they made it worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:I remember that it changed some of the fluff to make the idea of it more palatable. It didn’t succeed, but There Was An Attempt He changed the way the fluff was presented... in the first chapter. Then you get to the storytellers section and it as much as tells you "Those are the lies I was forced to tell you so I could print the book."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:A physical printed book. Yes, but not their whole catalog. yeah that's wild. i'll pick up an unfinished pdf if i trust 'em, but i would not buy a literally unfinished printed book unless they promised to mail me a completed version later at no extra cost
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Fantasy Flight have done physical beta editions for Star Wars, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:Fantasy Flight have done physical beta editions for Star Wars, iirc. I've seen softcover versions of the jedi supplement on shelves for a long-rear end time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:Fantasy Flight have done physical beta editions for Star Wars, iirc. I have one for Age of Rebellion that I picked up at GenCon. Honestly it's pretty much the same as the regular book, just a softcover, and presumably with some minor differences in stats and equipment that I haven't bothered to look up since whoops I never ended up running Age of Rebellion 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I've seen softcover versions of the jedi supplement on shelves for a long-rear end time. I have one. It came with a bunch of loose playtest character sheets in the back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
I’ve never seen open development result in any serious changes or ground-up reworks of blatantly bad ideas. Either fans like what is put out in the initial release and maybe want some tweaks to this or that pet issue, or they just hate it from the word go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't foresee major changes with these paytests. Fine-tuning numbers or maybe fixing a blatant breakpoint, but this isn't a legit playtest in the sense that the test can have a failing grade assigned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
The recent L5R gives me hope. They seemed responsive to a lot more of the complaints than I expected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The action economy changes in general seem pretty drastic. The action economy changes already exist: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/unchained-action-economy/ Every character gets 3 "Acts", and doing things costs 1, 2, or 3 Acts, with most things costing 1 Act
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:The recent L5R gives me hope. They seemed responsive to a lot more of the complaints than I expected. That's a different story. I'm referring to playtests where people are being encouraged to pay in and invest before the game is finished.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:The recent L5R gives me hope. They seemed responsive to a lot more of the complaints than I expected. As long as the Crab are still the best, and strongest
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:How much did PF1 change in playtest? Did they actually change the design at all? I feel like this deserves a longer write-up, but I do have a copy of the original Pathfinder Alpha playtest, and as a quick example: * The Fighter does not yet have Bravery in the playtest * The Bonus Feats ability in the playtest does not have the clause that allows the Fighter to trade them out * Armor Training in the playtest gave the Fighter a +1 armor bonus to AC, and a -1 reduction of the armor check penalty. More armor training let you select a new armor type to gain this bonus in, but you could select the same armor type multiple times (why wouldn't you?) to gain the bonus multiple times, for a total of +4 armor bonus to AC and a -4 reduction in the armor check penalty. In comparison, the Core Fighter's Armor training reduces the reduces the armor check penalty and increases the maximum allowed Dex bonus. * Weapon Training in the playtest gave the Fighter a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls with a selected weapon group. You could select the same weapon group multiple times to get the bonus again, for a total of +4 if you kept picking the same weapon. In comparison, the Core Fighter's Weapon Training always makes you pick a new group, but the old group has its bonus increased by one, so you'd have one group at +4, a second group at +3, a third group at +2, and a fourth group at +1. As well, the bonus would apply to Combat Maneuver checks made while using these weapons. * In the playtest, Armor Mastery, a level 19 ability, gave the Fighter DR 10/- while wearing a specific selected armor type. In Core, Armor Mastery gives the Fighter DR 5/- as long as they're wearing any kind of armor. * Weapon Mastery was unchanged from playtest to Core: The Fighter selects any one weapon, and any critical threats made using that weapon are automatically confirmed, and the critical damage multiplier is increased by 1, and the Fighter cannot be disarmed from that weapon. This is a level 20 ability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The action economy changes already exist: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/unchained-action-economy/ The thing that alarmed me the most is that it effectively gives monsters the ability to attack twice at 1st level. (Technically 3 times, but a -10 is so bad as to be ignorable at 1st, I think.) And I suppose so does a wizard. I'm interested in seeing what sort of benefit the Fighter receives to compensate for this. Well, in as much as I can still muster interest for d20, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The action economy changes already exist: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/unchained-action-economy/ And, of course, "draw weapon" takes an action, but "ready spell components" doesn't. R E A L I S M
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
Roadie posted:And, of course, "draw weapon" takes an action, but "ready spell components" doesn't. I've heard that in PF2, spells require one action to cast per component type (V, S, M). So that at least would handle that part in the future. Then again, I fully expect that the vast majority of spells in PF2 are suddenly all V, S only. So that you can cast + move in the same turn, exactly like things are right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:That's a different story. I'm referring to playtests where people are being encouraged to pay in and invest before the game is finished. No one has to pay to join the Pathfinder 2e playtest. The materials will be available online for free as well as the physical copies being sold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 08:25
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:I've heard that in PF2, spells require one action to cast per component type (V, S, M). So that at least would handle that part in the future. It's highly likely that casters will get spells that give them extra actions to do teleporty poo poo as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The thing that alarmed me the most is that it effectively gives monsters the ability to attack twice at 1st level. (Technically 3 times, but a -10 is so bad as to be ignorable at 1st, I think.) I don't know how much (or less) they're going to change things for PF2, but at least as far as the PF1 Unchained version goes: Yes, you're correct that this allows all characters to do a two-to-three attack multi-attack at level 1. It's arguably a large buff to monsters and a nerf to martials, since now every class can attack the maximum number of times (thrice), and martials lose their fourth attack at +16 BAB and beyond. Another distortion is that classes that rely heavily on Swift Actions, such as Investigators, tend to lose under this model because formerly Swift Actions always cost 1 Act. In the few discussions I've seen about these rules, people tend to side towards needing to "recreate" Swift Actions anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:I’ve never seen open development result in any serious changes or ground-up reworks of blatantly bad ideas. Either fans like what is put out in the initial release and maybe want some tweaks to this or that pet issue, or they just hate it from the word go. It happened with the Dark Heresy 2E playtest - the original version was a much more radical revision but they toned it down when people yelled about it losing cross-compatibility with old editions and other FFG 40K RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:And I suppose so does a wizard. I'm interested in seeing what sort of benefit the Fighter receives to compensate for this. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The thing that alarmed me the most is that it effectively gives monsters the ability to attack twice at 1st level. (Technically 3 times, but a -10 is so bad as to be ignorable at 1st, I think.) The point of Pathfinder is for casters to  all over martial classes.The only thing fighters will get to compensate for it is more nerfs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
I hope they take away the ability for a Wizard to sleep away from his Wizard Fort and regain spells. Being forced to really ration magic use would change the face of Pathfinder. I love sleeping 8 hours uninterrupted during the middle of slaughtering the inhabitants of a spooky castle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:I hope they take away the ability for a Wizard to sleep away from his Wizard Fort and regain spells. Being forced to really ration magic use would change the face of Pathfinder. I love sleeping 8 hours uninterrupted during the middle of slaughtering the inhabitants of a spooky castle. Ooh then they could release a feat, "Deep sleeper" which restores that ability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Ooh then they could release a feat, "Deep sleeper" which restores that ability. After playing a Fighter for a few years, I am ready for a change. Still remember the first enemy who could cast mind affecting magic.  It never stops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Warthur posted:It happened with the Dark Heresy 2E playtest - the original version was a much more radical revision but they toned it down when people yelled about it losing cross-compatibility with old editions and other FFG 40K RPGs. That was honestly an argument against the playtest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Yeah, imagine if they did an open playtest for WFRP 3E we never would have got that and subsequently not got Star Wars. Though now I'm wishing for an update of the former with the additional streamlining of the latter. gently caress all those cards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Arivia posted:No one has to pay to join the Pathfinder 2e playtest. The materials will be available online for free as well as the physical copies being sold. That's why I said "encouraged" and not "forced". Yes, they'll be free, but you don't push flip-mats unless you want people to buy them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I feel like this deserves a longer write-up, but I do have a copy of the original Pathfinder Alpha playtest, and as a quick example: So they nerfed it into oblivion, is what I'm getting here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I don't know how much (or less) they're going to change things for PF2, but at least as far as the PF1 Unchained version goes: I assume they'll probably do something like giving Fighters a free attack action (with or without penalties) when they hit a certain level or a 2 Act attack that makes three hits or something. There's certainly the room there at least to do something like that I think. Of course, there's similarly the space which allows Wizards to potentially reduce the number of components in a spell by 1 to a minimum of 1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:After playing a Fighter for a few years, I am ready for a change. Back in the days of Living City, any and all fighters got preemptively charmed by someone in the party at the start of every mod. It was even more important once they printed an item (a neogi slave collar) that you could never get off that make you never need food, sleep, or air, but you no longer got saves against charm effects. almost every fighter in the campaign wore one. It was only one per table, but who the hell had more than one non-caster at their table?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
We always ran Team Four Specialist Clerics for LC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:We always ran Team Four Specialist Clerics for LC. Mystra, Azuth, and who else? I was Selune.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
(Reposting from the PF thread.) A ton of info. And  My greatest hit? They are intentionally keeping LFQW, but trying to reduce the gap. You know, a little. (They will fail, and  that this is an intentional design goal.)quote:* Tighter math at high level. Fighter will hit more often still, Paladin's AC is still high, but gap between them and wizards isn't so great that the monster just squashes the wizard, or the wizard invalidates everyone with their spells. Still an expanding gap as you go up in levels, but not as drastic. (Bonner) My second greatest hit? Don't worry! This game will still be super complicated and we're going to poop out supplements, like, non-stop! http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5039-Here-s-a-TON-of-Pathfinder-2-Info-from-the-Know-Direction-Podcast
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:My greatest hit? They are intentionally keeping LFQW, but trying to reduce the gap. You know, a little. (They will fail, and That quote seems to suggest that they think fighters are too good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
I think by pure math, fighters still throw damage around like nobody's business, it's just that they're incapable of doing anything else and idk if they care to realize it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I think by pure math, fighters still throw damage around like nobody's business, it's just that they're incapable of doing anything else and idk if they care to realize it. Pathfinder has had that fixed for years with a bunch of different stuff. Talking about some of the common problems with classes in actual Pathfinder games - monsters that only the fighter can hit, paladins that can’t be damaged, wizards that overcome most challenges - is a good sign. They’re paying attention to where their system doesn’t work and fixing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:08
|
|