|
The funny part is, I would be wholly unsurprised to hear that in the new edition, longbows were a trap option, and the real ranged combat meta was water balloons.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
At the time of the great overlap, a contingent of 7 year olds was transported from their july 4th bbq block party to the elemental plain of fire. There were no survivors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
I never got why trap options were a thing in DnD, Pathfinder and other tabletop games. It's not like the game is competitive or anything. If someone wants to play an option they found in the books, might as well not make them feel horrible for picking that option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
Nomadic Scholar posted:I never got why trap options were a thing in DnD, Pathfinder and other tabletop games. It's not like the game is competitive or anything. If someone wants to play an option they found in the books, might as well not make them feel horrible for picking that option. Verisimilitude and historical accuracy > "fun"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:They do mention progressive penalties to attack. If you hit at say -10 for your third attack, then flailing at the enemy isn't exactly an ideal tactic if you could be doing other things. Unfortunately, flailing at the enemy to just stab 'em three times is ideal. In the podcast after using the Sudden Charge thing, that player decides to try and be clever and use a Grapple to avoid the penalty on the iterative attacks... and gets told immediately that also has the penalty. No point in trying anything else since there's a 5% chance to auto-hit on a nat20 still, which isn't necessarily the case for other stuff. You want to do a clever and sensible thing? Welp, too bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Nomadic Scholar posted:I never got why trap options were a thing in DnD, Pathfinder and other tabletop games. It's not like the game is competitive or anything. If someone wants to play an option they found in the books, might as well not make them feel horrible for picking that option. if you ain't better than a newbie, son, who are you better than?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 11:20
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:At the time of the great overlap, a contingent of 7 year olds was transported from their july 4th bbq block party to the elemental plain of fire. There were no survivors. 7 year olds just straight murdered everything on the elemental plane of fire, eh? Nomadic Scholar posted:I never got why trap options were a thing in DnD, Pathfinder and other tabletop games. It's not like the game is competitive or anything. If someone wants to play an option they found in the books, might as well not make them feel horrible for picking that option. It's so that grognards can feel superior to casuals or some poo poo like this no doubt. Probably also wankery over realism in an elfs and dragons game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 11:33
|
|
|
Nomadic Scholar posted:I never got why trap options were a thing in DnD, Pathfinder and other tabletop games. It's not like the game is competitive or anything. If someone wants to play an option they found in the books, might as well not make them feel horrible for picking that option. The secret is that trap options are rarely made intentionally. It is usually instead the result of devs not giving a poo poo about balance rather then them doing it on purpose. That whole "Ivory tower game design" thing Cook once wrote was absolute horseshit - him running excuses to claim that 3e was totally intended to be so ridiculously unbalanced. Nobody WANTED 3.x crossbows to be terrible while designing it - it's just the question of "is this actually a viable mechanical choice" was never asked, at any point. "Oh, uh, it's totally meant to be terrible" came after the fact. Of course then you have to wrestle with the fact that these excuses were peddled out so much that now everyone, even the ones who first started using it as an excuse, actually believes it. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 11:33
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:That whole "Ivory tower game design" thing Mearls once wrote was absolute horseshit That was Monte Cook, but otherwise yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The secret is that trap options are rarely made intentionally. It is usually instead the result of devs not giving a poo poo about balance rather then them doing it on purpose. That whole "Ivory tower game design" thing Mearls once wrote was absolute horseshit - him running excuses to claim that 3e was totally intended to be so ridiculously unbalanced. Nobody WANTED 3.x crossbows to be terrible while designing it - it's just the question of "is this actually a viable mechanical choice" was never asked, at any point. "Oh, uh, it's totally meant to be terrible" came after the fact. "I would, in fact, prefer if you attributed malice to this incompetence"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That was Monte Cook, but otherwise yes. Whoops, good catch; thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Verisimilitude and historical accuracy > "fun" As has been pointed out, it's the whole "rewarding system mastery"/ivory tower game design thing that Cook reeled off as an excuse. Warthur fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
There was actually huge backlash against 4e explicitly for being balanced. "If all your choices are good..." something about communism and participation trophies. Nerds loving love lovely design because they can find the holes and be rewarded for exploiting them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
It doesn't matter anyway because the game isn't pvp.* *Say's someone who absolutely treats character creation as a pvp game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
All this hate on 4E D&D (and no doubt there'll be a lot about 2E Pathfinder) has made me think about when I first started hearing all the hate. I used to say "There are no systems so bad that they can't be made enjoyable by a good GM." Then I played a scholar in Adventures in Middle Earth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Trying to find a hole in the game design only to get brutally owned by it turning out to be garbage is one of my fondest .txt files and playing around with the system is legit fun like that imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Except most trap options have nothing to do with anything resembling realism or historical accuracy. (EDIT: to add an example, the whole "crossbows are trash" thing. From a verisimilitude point of view, if crossbows were that inferior they'd have never seen widespread use.) From a verisimilitude point of view, what made crossbows superior to bows was their ease-of-use in a mass setting, since they could deliver a lot of what you needed out of bows but without having to train your peasants for nearly as long. This is rather reflected in how pretty much every class in D&D can use a crossbow, even those without martial training like Sorcerers and Wizards. But that doesn't translate when you're only ever operating one dude at a time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
my favorite part of actually realistic pathfinder mechanics is their treatment of demiliches and if you look at 4th century paintings in southern spain, you'll find that
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
moths posted:There was actually huge backlash against 4e explicitly for being balanced. "If all your choices are good..." something about communism and participation trophies. No, wait, that's just half the story. They were quoting the villain in The Incredibles. As 'proof' that 4e was garbo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Unfortunately, flailing at the enemy to just stab 'em three times is ideal. In the podcast after using the Sudden Charge thing, that player decides to try and be clever and use a Grapple to avoid the penalty on the iterative attacks... and gets told immediately that also has the penalty. No point in trying anything else since there's a 5% chance to auto-hit on a nat20 still, which isn't necessarily the case for other stuff. You want to do a clever and sensible thing? Welp, too bad. Okay yeah this part doesn't sound good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Unfortunately, flailing at the enemy to just stab 'em three times is ideal. In the podcast after using the Sudden Charge thing, that player decides to try and be clever and use a Grapple to avoid the penalty on the iterative attacks... and gets told immediately that also has the penalty. No point in trying anything else since there's a 5% chance to auto-hit on a nat20 still, which isn't necessarily the case for other stuff. You want to do a clever and sensible thing? Welp, too bad. Arthil posted:Okay yeah this part doesn't sound good. I don't remember hearing anything that would have suggested that 2E took away the chance for auto success on combat maneuvers. In Pathfinder, right now, combat maneuvers are specifically attack rolls. If you replace an iterative attack with, say, a disarm attempt, that disarm suffers the same bonuses penalties the iterative attack would have. It also always fails on a natural 1 and likewise always succeeds on a natural 20.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Doesn't the playtest podcast indicate that instead of natural 1s and 20s being autofail and autosuccess, 2E uses a model of 10+ under target 10+ over target? If that's the case, then you could be in a position where there is not a 5% chance in either direction for match-ups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
GaistHeidegger posted:Doesn't the playtest podcast indicate that instead of natural 1s and 20s being autofail and autosuccess, 2E uses a model of 10+ under target 10+ over target? If that's the case, then you could be in a position where there is not a 5% chance in either direction for match-ups. e: lol some compiled info from that podcast posted:
Elysiume fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Is the squawrk race still usable? I haven't played pathfinder in at least 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:Is the squawrk race still usable? I haven't played pathfinder in at least 5 years. The what now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:The what now?  Squawk sorry i misremembered the race name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Those were never a thing in Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
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 dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:I thought it said that 10 under/over was something, but 1s and 20s were too. Maybe they're adding critical fumbles for 10 under, 10 over is a crit, and 1s/20s are just normal guaranteed misses/hits without crit effects? Blasts don’t scale by CL now (just like Starfinder). Metamagic, more actions, or casting at a higher variable spell level is necessary to make a Fireball relevant at 10th level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:A ton of info. And You do realize this is the Pathfinder thread for people who actually play the game right? Like all of that is pretty reasonable as someone who actually plays the game. If you just want to clown around and look down your nose because ew Pathfinder I suggest you go somewhere else dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You do realize this is the Pathfinder thread for people who actually play the game right? Since when?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:(just like Starfinder)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Since when? Since like ever? We’ve had our disagreements but the people posting here actually play the game. Meanwhile since the edition release this forum has been running over with people just chortling and going “Pathfinder 2e? oh I’d never stoop to that” and similar glurge. Dwarf’s just repeating that poo poo with some new sniping as an obvious non-player who doesn’t like it at all. We don’t need that in here too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Arivia posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
We played an ongoing PF campaign for a year and it did leave me wishing they'd go back and reissue everything as a unified whole. I'm tentatively excited for the results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
I mean if you don't get why an impending 2nd edition would suddenly make this thread a lot more interesting, and also bring in interested outsiders with varying degrees of contempt and/or admiration for Pathfinder then I just don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:I mean if you don't get why an impending 2nd edition would suddenly make this thread a lot more interesting, and also bring in interested outsiders with varying degrees of contempt and/or admiration for Pathfinder then I just don't know what to tell you. The problem is when you’re coming in with a chip on your shoulder and some preconceived ideas about what you think the problems with Pathfinder are and no idea what the game is actually like. Someone in the industry thread just mentioned fighters only dealing damage as if Pathfinder was still core 3.5 or something. That’s a cute idea because in reality there’s the lore warden, that familiar archetype, advanced training, and combat stamina. I’m sure I’m forgetting some other stuff too. This is a different game with its own player base and years of its own path broken. People responding to it from one experience years ago or whatever really don’t know poo poo and are just complaining because it’s fun to look down on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
I don't think "Fighters are poorly balanced against Wizards in a game which uses modified D&D 3e rules" is a crazy enough statement to warrant complaints about people having chips on their shoulder or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Also, everyone, we're not getting any concrete info until the con builds inevitably leak and if nothing comes out of Garycon we won't get any real rules until Paizocon in May. Let's all just keep our poo poo together and not get into lovely edition arguments, because we won't be getting much for months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
cargohills posted:I don't think "Fighters are poorly balanced against Wizards in a game which uses modified D&D 3e rules" is a crazy enough statement to warrant complaints about people having chips on their shoulder or whatever. I think when you're deliberately misreading a quote from Mark Seifter of all people about balance in Pathfinder because it doesn't say what you want it to say there's obviously some bias going on. Beyond that, snarking about the amount of support Pathfinder as a product line receives really shows you're not interested in the system as its audience. Good support has been the entire reason for the line from Pathfinder #1, let alone the actual RPG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:05
|
|