|
Arivia posted: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. If you think he's wrong, make the argument, instead of turning this into a discussion about tone in TG for the 11,000th time.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:If you think he's wrong, make the argument, instead of turning this into a discussion about tone in TG for the 11,000th time. I made it in the Industry thread since I figured most people in here would understand that creatures that can only be hit by the fighter, a paladin that can't be hit, and wizards doing a lot of poo poo overruling everyone else are all issues commonly encountered in play. If anyone's going to know that at Paizo, it'll be Mark Seifter, the best pure numbers designer they have right now. Tightening up the math as a general project is a good idea that can fix a lot of things - it just does a lot more than simply dealing with dwarf74's pet issue of LFQW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Seifter personally gave birth to the Kineticist though so I'm pretty sure the Paizo office has an anti-math field surrounding it
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Eox posted:Seifter personally gave birth to the Kineticist though so I'm pretty sure the Paizo office has an anti-math field surrounding it Man I ain't saying no one's perfect. But you look at where they are and their responsibilities and go from there. It's like how James Jacobs telling us about how APs are balanced was pretty meaningful because he's responsible for that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
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. Presumably not everything suffers from the same penalties. My point was that using any of those 'cheap' abilities, like defensive fighting, swift action stuff and the like probably have their place in the realm of "I'll do this rather than swing again and miss" instead of "I'll attack, but in a different way."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
As long as the wizard can gain a new way to shape the entire narrative by learning a single spell, while the fighter has to dedicate his entire build and half his character resources to do the same thing, Pathfinder will be a janky nightmare that I only play because of inertia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
I finally started playing Pathfinder this year since the only popular alternative is D&D Next (with its human trash consultants.) It's ok. I don't hate it, but it's such a slog and there's at least two decades of legacy cruft. I really want 2.0 to represent a massive improvement. I'd absolutely love a well designed game that I can actually get people to play. I know it won't be exactly what I want, and I'm not their target audience - I can already hear shrieking from the alternate future where it becomes a fast playing, accessible, streamlined system instead of a bathroom reader exercise in system mastery. There's just so much goddamn baggage. I don't see any way they can "fix D20" with this, which people have been either attempting or denying necessary (with equal zeal) since 3.0. And I think in the end they'll bolt some nice things onto the frame and call it a day. They're not positioned to do anything else. It's going to be PF1e with some house rules and a fresh FAQ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Yeah, Pathfinder isn't my cup of tea, but coming into the PF thread specifically to poo poo on it isn't really helpful. And telling Arivia to defend the game against this is kind of a worthless point because she knows the game is broken. People are allowed to wnjoy bad thungs and edition warring up this thread rather than speculating on changes is just a big pain. Edit: actual content I'm all for cleaning up Pathfinder a bit, let's see what these martial manuevers are before we lose our minds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Pathfinder can be fixed by limiting casters to 2-3 schools and putting Path of War in the core book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Eox posted:Pathfinder can be fixed by limiting casters to 2-3 schools and putting Path of War in the core book. How does this solve casters trivializing encounters and getting somewhat better at fighting things while fighters just get better at fighting things?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
If you can't trivialize encounters using Path of War then buddy, you don't know what you're doing
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Eox posted:If you can't trivialize encounters using Path of War then buddy, you don't know what you're doing I suppose I should clarify that I haven't read Path of War. Does it give fightery types more noncombat applications? Edit: I should also clarify that when I say encounters, I mean also things skill tests or just generally solving any problem within a game. shades of blue fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
The whole thing is on the SRD minus some stuff like the undead-based discipline Unquiet Grave and the two supplementary classes the Medic and the Rajah. The options aren't nearly as directly useful as spells like Knock and such, but most disciplines have some stances and maneuvers that allow you to do some gnarly poo poo out of combat. The Rajah released with a discipline called Radiant Dawn which has an effectively spammable AoE Breath of Life as a capstone, and the Medic gets to heal more or less any status condition up to and including Dead. edit: Veiled Moon is from vanilla PoW and it especially has the most out of combat utility, what with turning ethereal, teleporting, gaining scent and blocking hostile teleports. It also has the funniest one-two combo where you forcibly turn someone incorporeal for big damage with one strike, then force them back to corporeality for bigger damage with another. Eox fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I made it in the Industry thread since I figured most people in here would understand that creatures that can only be hit by the fighter, a paladin that can't be hit, and wizards doing a lot of poo poo overruling everyone else are all issues commonly encountered in play. If anyone's going to know that at Paizo, it'll be Mark Seifter, the best pure numbers designer they have right now. Tightening up the math as a general project is a good idea that can fix a lot of things - it just does a lot more than simply dealing with dwarf74's pet issue of LFQW. I keep waiting for the Pathfinder that "no really, fixes 3E" to appear, given all the loose talk. It's been ten years so far and they're already pandering to the toxic element of the fanbase in the loving FAQs for 2E. When you get past all the marketing that the weirdos and toxic players that you don't want at your table eat up, they made D&D 3.5 over again with a modicum of improvements that ultimately mean nothing to the larger whole of how 3E works and repeatedly demonstrated they don't know balance or how to use feedback any better than Wizards did. That much should be obvious. Balancing classes in 3E is not an equation that you need Will Hunting and John Nash to solve. It's not a multi-year quest to achieve partial deliverables. The multi-year quest has actually been to market first and be innovative only within the constraints of what an increasingly toxic fanbase wants. That so many people are still clinging to a deeply flawed and tired system released during the Clinton administration is more on Pathfinder and Wizards than the players, though. I would like to give PF 2.0 a shot, I gave Starfinder an honest try. That experience didn't inspire confidence in this; all the things I loving hate about 3E came rushing back, and in many ways Starfinder regresses from baseline 3.0 with a whole boatload of bad rules and needless density. I'm no longer a 20-year-old just looking for a college game of whatever anymore, I expect better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
The actual way to make non-casters better outside combat would be to vastly expand skill unlocks to the point where someone skilled enough can accomplish the supernatural - someone stealthy enough can act as if they were invisible, someone is diplomatic enough that they can charm people, someone is a good enough liar to mind trick people, ect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:The actual way to make non-casters better outside combat would be to vastly expand skill unlocks to the point where someone skilled enough can accomplish the supernatural - someone stealthy enough can act as if they were invisible, someone is diplomatic enough that they can charm people, someone is a good enough liar to mind trick people, ect. Swifter seems to imply that they're in favor of this: Mark Seifter posted:It's a fundamental design goal that someone with enough martial prowess, especially if they're legendary (but not precluding those who are not) can do unbelievable and completely unrealistic-in-the-real-world things. So much so that down the line we've gotten questions back about some of the more powerful skill feats "Can you really do Extreme-Thing-X just because you're that good at the skill?" Yes. Yes you can. Obviously whether they effectively implement it is a separate question, but it seems like a good sign that this (and not, say, keeping martial s limited to the confines of what an Olympic athlete can pull off) is they're stated design philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:The actual way to make non-casters better outside combat would be to vastly expand skill unlocks to the point where someone skilled enough can accomplish the supernatural - someone stealthy enough can act as if they were invisible, someone is diplomatic enough that they can charm people, someone is a good enough liar to mind trick people, ect. Yeah, but then the wizard can still do that without major character investment because spells cost like 400 gp at most instead of the vast majority of his skill points. Alternately, the wizard can pick one of those things to invest in and still have spells on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Does the current edition work reasonably well in the level range most of the Pathfinder Society scenarios are written for? The biggest complaints seem to be about complexity going through the roof as balance dies at higher levels, so is low level play a lot better?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Does the current edition work reasonably well in the level range most of the Pathfinder Society scenarios are written for? The biggest complaints seem to be about complexity going through the roof as balance dies at higher levels, so is low level play a lot better? Sadly, no. At low levels characters are horribly swingy and casters can still do more, just less often. Plus martials don't get anything fun to do, because they don't have enough feats to get their poo poo together. Also you're playing PFS so you're just watching a bunch of cutscenes you can't press start to skip and then rolling dice and doing math and then realizing that you have to play more PFS if you want to play a character who isn't poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
Eh, I'd say it works well enough if you're in a group of friends that are trying to just have a good time. It's not the best game in the world, but it's good enough to get you there. Pathfinder Society can't guarantee that (and in fact you're probably going to run into some real weird assholes out there, let's be real), so I can't suggest it if you're not going in with friends already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:Obviously whether they effectively implement it is a separate question, but it seems like a good sign that this (and not, say, keeping martial s limited to the confines of what an Olympic athlete can pull off) is they're stated design philosophy. People are pessimistic because you actually can't pull off what an Olympic athlete can pull off with just attributes and skills in the game as is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Does the current edition work reasonably well in the level range most of the Pathfinder Society scenarios are written for? The biggest complaints seem to be about complexity going through the roof as balance dies at higher levels, so is low level play a lot better? Yes, low level play is a lot better than high level play. Are you talking about PFS specifically or just running PFS scenarios as one shot adventures, not as public play?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Does the current edition work reasonably well in the level range most of the Pathfinder Society scenarios are written for? The biggest complaints seem to be about complexity going through the roof as balance dies at higher levels, so is low level play a lot better? PFS adventures don't run farther than level 12 for exactly this reason
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Eh, I'd say it works well enough if you're in a group of friends that are trying to just have a good time. It's not the best game in the world, but it's good enough to get you there. Pathfinder Society can't guarantee that (and in fact you're probably going to run into some real weird assholes out there, let's be real), so I can't suggest it if you're not going in with friends already. Tbf, anything works well enough if you're in a group of friends trying to have a good time. PF adding or subtracting to it depends on your friends' dispositions toward it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
I think it sucks that a Dev is basically saying "yes we have more shifter support but I can't tell you what" in one of the shifter topic threads in General Discussion. I just want the drat class + archetypes to fulfill the thing they're supposed to be good at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/83cabr/i_just_played_2e_at_garycon/quote:I played this mornings charity game with Stephen from paizo. I was not allowed to take pictures, but I'm allowed to talk about my experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Are they actually trying to make weapons interesting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Are they actually trying to make weapons interesting? That's something that would interest me if they can pull it off (and yes, I realize that's an "if" the size of the Empire State Building).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:Yes, low level play is a lot better than high level play. Are you talking about PFS specifically or just running PFS scenarios as one shot adventures, not as public play? I'm planning on trying PFS (and/or SFS) as organized play specifically just because it seems more likely to happen than getting a group of friends together to play it unfortunately. I figure the worst that can happen is I have a weird evening and decide not to do it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Are they actually trying to make weapons interesting? Seems like it. I'm curious how many tags there are for weapons and their variety. Swiss-Army Fighter/Martial might very well be a thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
Malfeas posted:Sadly, no. At low levels characters are horribly swingy and casters can still do more, just less often. Plus martials don't get anything fun to do, because they don't have enough feats to get their poo poo together. I don't really feel this is accurate, at least with my experience in PFS. Martials are king poo poo of the mountain at low level, due to their ability to survive a slight gust of wind, and their ability to deal decent, consistent damage. You aren't going to see any technical builds at low level, but there is a certain joy to be had in the realm of 'I hit it until it dies'. Casters can't really 'do more' outside of edge cases (sleep, color spray) that may or may not work. One nice thing about PFS is they use the breadth of the available monsters that the game provides, which fucks over a lot of specialized builds. Most of the 'save or end encounter spells' that exist at low level will get stopped hard by a lot of monster types, particularly in seasons 6 or 8, where the monster of the year were robots and elementals respectively. As far as the cutscene thing?  If your PFS GM doesn't suck rear end and run the letter of the book, there are plenty of opportunities for creative thinking and roleplaying. You'd basically have the same problem with any pre-written adventure out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
Selachian posted:That's something that would interest me if they can pull it off (and yes, I realize that's an "if" the size of the Empire State Building). It will be +1/-1 stuff, it won't mean a thing. And even in the examples given it's mainly 'use the right weapon to reduce the penalty from trying to do something cool'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Arivia posted: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. Most of the people in this thread who are openly critical of PF are either still playing the game despite its flaws, or played it in the past but stopped at least in part because of those flaws. Most people in this thread want Pathfinder to be better, even if we don't have much hope on Paizo's ability to address or even recognize the system's most egregious failings. If PF has problems in its core rules, and subsequent non-core material introduced optional workarounds for those flaws, that doesn't change the fact that Pathfinder still has flaws in its core rules - and because the fixes aren't core, most people who actually play the game will never see those fixes. That's epecially true for the groups that are playing solely off of the actual print rulebooks instead of picking and choosing from the entire breadth of the SRD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Let me assure you that my gripping about PF comes from running it for folks, not just snipping from my high 4e horse (but boy, remembering that height is what makes it sting more.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 22:44
|
|
Ash Rose posted:Let me assure you that my gripping about PF comes from running it for folks, not just snipping from my high 4e horse (but boy, remembering that height is what makes it sting more.) Yeah I think PF is trash and part of me just enjoys mocking things I think are trash, but it's also one of the most popular games and the easiest thing to find a group for where I live, so I would like to see a PF 2e I think is good, even if I have very little faith in that happening.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Caros posted:I don't really feel this is accurate, at least with my experience in PFS. Caros posted:Martials are king poo poo of the mountain at low level, due to their ability to survive a slight gust of wind, and their ability to deal decent, consistent damage. You aren't going to see any technical builds at low level, but there is a certain joy to be had in the realm of 'I hit it until it dies'. Personally I do enjoy playing martials. I had a ton of fun playing a splintersoul vigilante in a Hell's Rebels game before I moved. But the reason I said "do more" instead of "are insanely powerful" is because casters can do more. Maguses are, from first to fourth level, 1 BAB down from fighters, but can also shoot lightning or grow larger or detect magic. Mesmerists fill a similar niche to rogues, but their precision damage is more easily triggerable and they can also detect magic or bypass social interaction with charm person. Which, even if it fails, a rogue cannot do. Until martials can innately detect magic and make things glow and mind control people and shoot grease from their hands at 1st level, a caster can Do More, even if they aren't the best in the world at what they're doing. Caros posted:As far as the cutscene thing? I have played in a couple PFS games in two different cities in two very different parts of America. It's entirely possible that these very different GMs all happened to have the exact same flaw of sticking to the script by complete chance, but I feel like that's systematic at that point. But once again, that's my experience and it's a pretty lovely sample size, all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Yeah I think PF is trash and part of me just enjoys mocking things I think are trash, but it's also one of the most popular games and the easiest thing to find a group for where I live, so I would like to see a PF 2e I think is good, even if I have very little faith in that happening. I really really hope it does, and there are glimmers of good ideas spread throughout, like that they seem to have a system for generating antagonists that is not just, 'make a character from scratch' and you assign them a role and can fiddle with their stats after the fact to make them unique. Almost like they took the idea from a better game or something...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Does the current edition work reasonably well in the level range most of the Pathfinder Society scenarios are written for? The biggest complaints seem to be about complexity going through the roof as balance dies at higher levels, so is low level play a lot better? In my experience, level 6 is where the martial-caster gap first becomes really apparent. That's the level where casters learn to fly while martials forget how to move and attack properly in the same turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You do realize this is the 5e thread for people who actually play the game right? Like all of that is pretty reasonable as someone who actually plays the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
How big is third party support in Pathfinder these days? I know as far as online communities go, Dreamscarred Press is maybe the only reason more mechanically minded 3e forums like Giant in the Playground still talk about Pathfinder, but Pathfinder's quite a bit bigger then GitP. I doubt any third party publisher is going to declare Pathfinder 2e across their line, but it will be interesting to see how they handle a potential playerbase split.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 06:32
|
|