|
Years ago in a SA design challenge I made an OSR where instead of adding up +2s, eveything favorable let you add a D4 to the roll, but -2s only cancelled a die. I couldn't get it playtested when they added playtest requirements to the challenge tho, so I have no idea how that would work in practice.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
That's basically Sanguine's cardinal system except the usual modifier is +d8 or +d12 and it's a dicepool system with d12s as the top die and 3 as a common fixed TN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I did in fact hear something a lot like this from a guy I know who writes for Paizo's adventure paths (really wonderful guy, he's a coach at my fencing club). He said something like '4e was actually ahead of its time, maybe too much for us to recognize it when it came out, so you'll see some ideas from it in Pathfinder 2e' or something like that. Yeah. It’s very good in the same way 4e was good, but it’s important to note that it is also its own game. It’s not a strict clone, and it’s much farther from 4e than the strict compatibility of 3e/PF1. The GameMastery Guide really put it into focus for me: it’s a game with rock solid math and core design and very much a focus on the gaming end of GNS so that you can run around and do whatever you want and the basic elements of the game are there to support you. Here’s how rolls, math, numbers, play modes, victory point systems work. It’s still a combat game. It’s still a kill things and take their stuff game. But it is willing to support whatever you want to do in that range. It will show you the math, show you how things work, and let you change them to fit however you’d like. It is the most incredibly freeing, fun, good version of modern D&D “rules not rulings”, and it is so so well designed. e: here’s an example, the victory point system I mentioned? You can boil that down to skill challenges. But it also gives you the tools to do so much more with all kinds of skills and ideas, it’s really good. e2: here’s a crazy comparison. An absolutely crazy absurd one. You know what the bald-faced here’s all these rules some ideas about how to assemble them and the tools to do so approach reminds me of? STRIKE. Except without everything creatively terrible uninspiring and boring about Strike. Arivia fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Mar 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Note that if you come to Pathfinder 2E expecting 4E martials you will be incredibly disappointed to find Pathfinder martials with a little bit of 4E worded like it took umbrage with 5E's clarity and conciseness. Look at it. LOOK AT IT. Look On My Works Ye Mighty posted:DOUBLE SLICE [TWO-ACTIONS]FEAT 1 Yes I am bitter about more broken promises why do you ask
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Note that if you come to Pathfinder 2E expecting 4E martials you will be incredibly disappointed to find Pathfinder martials with a little bit of 4E worded like it took umbrage with 5E's clarity and conciseness. Why are you using d20pfsrd still it’s getting even worse and I didn’t think that was possible Also I’m not sure why you’re upset at a basic introductory feat for fighters being a basic introductory feat for fighters And I also don’t know why you’re upset at clear technical language. There’s exactly one sentence of descriptive text in there. Fighters get to do plenty of cool things, just like everyone else. I’m fairly certain 4e powers were about that exciting at 1st level too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Also I’m not sure why you’re upset at a basic introductory feat for fighters being a basic introductory feat for fighters What was an at-will melee attack for fighters in 4e is turned into a feat, for one. Attacking with two weapons as a fighter, what should be the penultimate class about fighting, shouldn't have poo poo like this locked behind a feat. quote:And I also don’t know why you’re upset at clear technical language. There’s exactly one sentence of descriptive text in there.  4e's power block is clear and concise. PF 2e is not. It takes precious time and space to reiterate basic rules that I'm sure are covered elsewhere--and if not, they need to be. It also lacks a penalty for fighting with two weapons, which should be a given since it's for a fighter, but PF is still doing the nonsense of making people give a poo poo about penalties for multi-attack when all it does is slow down gameplay and dis-incentivize people using said rules. It's the exact same poo poo 3.X did, and what PF1e did, and shows an utter lack of interest in removing some of the stupidity and sacred cows from an ancient system. If I'm wasting a feat slot on an attack, it should just remove the goddamn penalty altogether. Or maybe not have the penalty there in the first place and just make the person taking the feat do it better than normal people. Also: Arivia posted:You know what the bald-faced here's all these rules some ideas about how to assemble them and the tools to do so approach reminds me of? STRIKE. Except without everything creatively terrible uninspiring and boring about Strike. Will you just let it go already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
The fact that they had to specify that you had to have each weapon in a different hand says so, so much about Pathfinder players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The fact that they had to specify that you had to have each weapon in a different hand says so, so much about Pathfinder players. Thank you. For some reason that really stuck out at me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The fact that they had to specify that you had to have each weapon in a different hand says so, so much about Pathfinder players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Arivia, I know you’re passionate about PF2, and I feel the same way, but sometimes the tone you take when people say they don’t like it helps turn the thread more against it than they already are. Like, I read the feat, and thought it was clear enough for me. But,berating a person who has problems with it doesn’t make anybody more eager to try out the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Yes maybe I was being unfair about how boring and badly written PF2E Fighter feats are wait what's that I still have the Fighter page up and eyeballs in my head to see things with well okayquote:IMPOSSIBLE VOLLEY [THREE-ACTIONS]FEAT 18 Woah a level 18 feat that lets you make a single burst attack, with attack penalty. That also ticks up your multiple attack penalty counter, so pretty explicitly making attacks after this (if you can swing them) worthless. Also again holy poo poo that wordcount to say "Make a burst 10' attack at -2 to hit." quote:DETERMINATION [ONE-ACTION]FEAT 14 Amazing, a level 14 fighter can get a lovely self-only dispel (with a will save hahahahahahaha). Again, holy poo poo the wordcount and all the situations they felt it was necessary to flesh out to prevent I guess hyphz' group from taking advantage of... once a day stopping a debilitating effect at level 14. quote:BOUNDLESS REPRISALSFEAT 20 Conversely at level 20, the capstone frigging feats, they read like someone hit a deadline and left placeholders in. Two flavors of "you can act a little bit more," be still my beating heart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:It also lacks a penalty for fighting with two weapons, which should be a given since it's for a fighter, but PF is still doing the nonsense of making people give a poo poo about penalties for multi-attack when all it does is slow down gameplay and dis-incentivize people using said rules. It's the exact same poo poo 3.X did, and what PF1e did, and shows an utter lack of interest in removing some of the stupidity and sacred cows from an ancient system. Not quite. PF2e has a very unusual action economy where every character gets 3 actions of any type per round - so even your 1st level wizard can take three attacks with his staff if he wants. The multi-attack penalties are standardised, 0/-5/-10, and so merging two of them together can be a pretty good deal. It also does a lot for caster balance, since most spells require 2-3 actions and thus can only be done once per round, while if you don't deal sharpish with the dude with the sword next to you, he can offload 3 attack actions into wrecking your poo poo. Evil Mastermind posted:The fact that they had to specify that you had to have each weapon in a different hand says so, so much about Pathfinder players. They're actually just totally haywire on what they give details on. Like, they rushed out an errata block which included "You know where it says that to poison a weapon you need a hand free? That doesn't apply if the hand is holding the bottle of poison, dumbass" (in nicer words), but they still haven't addressed things like the retraining rules allowing invalid combinations or excessive multiclassing by Fighters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Arivia, I know you’re passionate about PF2, and I feel the same way, but sometimes the tone you take when people say they don’t like it helps turn the thread more against it than they already are. The something else, the item of contrast, the opposition, the, you might say, actual issue, is of a different quality. Quality is itself potentially an issue, or problem, but for this we look to its traditional mate, or enemy, that known as Quantity. Specifically, of words. There are too many. A simple statement, a description capable of imparting the desired information with considerably greater brevity, also known as conciseness, is expanded to a degree not required for, and indeed detrimental to what is, for the most part, a tome of reference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Not quite. PF2e has a very unusual action economy where every character gets 3 actions of any type per round - so even your 1st level wizard can take three attacks with his staff if he wants. The multi-attack penalties are standardised, 0/-5/-10, and so merging two of them together can be a pretty good deal. That sounds stupid and open for all kinds of abuse by poorly-worded abilities and spells.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:That sounds stupid and open for all kinds of abuse by poorly-worded abilities and spells. In play it's much more balanced and effective than 3.5/PF1 because everyone uses a unified action economy and there are no wasted actions. Gone are the days of the level 1 fighter saying "I swing, I miss, and I guess...I do nothing else with my other two actions."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Hey, not sure if this is the right place to ask so feel free to direct me to a better thread: My girlfriend and I are in quarantine for another week. We are occasional board gamers, have played stuff like Pandemic and 7 wonders. We have a big box that says Axis and Allies 1942 on it. I just spent an hour reading the manual and setting up the board. It's uh, well uh, we have a week to burn so here goes. Are there any house rules or tips for a 2-player game I should know?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:Hey, not sure if this is the right place to ask so feel free to direct me to a better thread: I played it as a child and vaguely remember it'll burn your week. It's an old game designed in an old way. You're gonna mash together big groups of soldiers and roll dice to determine who dies. It'll be random, and pretty bad. Maybe you can find a good two-player game like Tash Kalar instead
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
People who were in my 13th Age game where you fought a giant mecha dragon in a two-phase fight, did that battle work? I was looking over the stats and I was wondering if it was any fun. Here is the stats for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The fact that they had to specify that you had to have each weapon in a different hand says so, so much about Pathfinder players. Also I suspect that might be Pathfinder Society in particular. Thinking about some of the "interesting" addenda to the D&D 5e adventures as a result of organized play..
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:Hey, not sure if this is the right place to ask so feel free to direct me to a better thread: Yeah I can think of worse games certainly, but if you have the option of amazoning something better up I certainly would go with that. Like, I would make my own shogi set or something in your position before I tried to play that for a solid week. Woof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The fact that they had to specify that you had to have each weapon in a different hand says so, so much about Pathfinder players. *sighs, and turns to the spell section to find a way to grow more arms*
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Also that 1st level fighter feat thing is effectively an at will power, because they changed the entire structure of how feats work. Like, there are still problems with it, but "you have to spend a feat on it!" isn't really one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:Hey, not sure if this is the right place to ask so feel free to direct me to a better thread: I can't think of a better way to burn waaay to much time than that game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Main thing that's bugged me when I read over Pathfinder 2e is that they're still writing monsters with player spells. Like instead of all the information I need to run the monster being there in the statblock and unique to that monster, instead they just give you the names of the spells that monster has prepped for the average day. That's much duller than giving each monster unique powers, and a lot more cross-referencing than the DM should have to do. The other thing is that spellcasters are still King of poo poo Mountain when it comes to ability variety, whether they're players or monsters. A player wizard at level 1 has like seven spells, five of which can be cast over and over. A player fighter at level 1 can hit you with an axe and block with a shield. Same applies to monsters. A level 3 frogman wizard has ten spells he can use on you, plus a couple of sonic attacks he can do. A level 4 boar monster can charge you. Gort fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Mar 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
My immediate takeaway from PF2e is that you're proficient in stuff or not, so as in 3e, your competence in facing level appropriate challenges only gets narrower as you advance. In fact my whole problem with PF and 5e is that it's still basically 3e and I played 3e for like 5 years and I never want to play it again and... I don't have to. I have never ever had a reason to play 3e besides "No one you know IRL is playing anything else" and that hasn't been true since 2006.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:Main thing that's bugged me when I read over Pathfinder 2e is that they're still writing monsters with player spells.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:My immediate takeaway from PF2e is that you're proficient in stuff or not, so as in 3e, your competence in facing level appropriate challenges only gets narrower as you advance. I don't know if that's meant literally, but there are four levels of proficiency at most things in PF2e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Note that if you come to Pathfinder 2E expecting 4E martials you will be incredibly disappointed to find Pathfinder martials with a little bit of 4E worded like it took umbrage with 5E's clarity and conciseness. I'm glad I'm not the only person who found this confusing. It counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty? Does that mean the second Strike takes the normal penalty? Or does it mean that these two attacks are made normally and the third action you take on your turn (which may be a Strike action) will take a -10? The section on multiple attacks seems to say that both the Strike action and an attack roll made as part of a different kind of action qualify for this, which would seem to mean that Double Slice lacks any language that would exempt it from that rule. And yet, I'm not sure what the point of this feat would be if it didn't give you a no-penalty second attack. I really think this is poor rules writing. Nickoten fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Mar 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:I'm glad I'm not the only person who found this confusing. It counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty? Does that mean the second Strike takes the normal penalty? Or does it mean that these two attacks are made normally and the third action you take on your turn (which may be a Strike action) will take a -10? Pretty sure it's supposed to be the latter, but it would not surprise me if they managed to gently caress that up. And the point if it didn't work like that is that it means you're only affected by resistance once, rather than twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
senrath posted:Pretty sure it's supposed to be the latter, but it would not surprise me if they managed to gently caress that up. You’re right, it would mean you could slash a skeleton twice but only have your damage halved or whatever once! I don’t want to believe that’s what this feat does, but... maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:You’re right, it would mean you could slash a skeleton twice but only have your damage halved or whatever once! I don’t want to believe that’s what this feat does, but... maybe? It's a first level feat for a martial, it's entirely possible that either option was intended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
senrath posted:Also that 1st level fighter feat thing is effectively an at will power, because they changed the entire structure of how feats work. Like, there are still problems with it, but "you have to spend a feat on it!" isn't really one of them. No it's still a huge problem when Fighters use their class feats to get powers and casters are given full power sets and then use their class feats to ignore class restrictions or enhance their class powers. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:I'm glad I'm not the only person who found this confusing. It counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty? Does that mean the second Strike takes the normal penalty? Or does it mean that these two attacks are made normally and the third action you take on your turn (which may be a Strike action) will take a -10? This is pretty clear when taken in the proper context (ie: with the rest of the core rulebook.) The second Strike does not take the increased penalty as noted in the second sentence of Double Slice. You are right, the third attack if any you make will take a -10. Double Slice gives you a second attack at your current penalty (-5 in most situations) and does combine damage for the sake of resistances. @Slimnoid: there are no basic rules being reiterated in the feat entry. I think the line about only combining once is a repeat and is redundant though. Also I’m not going to apologize for giving Strike some credit where credit is due. @Evil Mastermind: of course you have to have a weapon in each hand! It’s a feat for two-weapon fighters! What else do you expect? @Darwinism: all of those look like good useful interesting feats to me. I’m okay with level 20 feats being become the ultimate tank with all those reactions or become even better at hurting things with an extra action each round. @Gort: conversely, using spells makes it a lot easier to keep player and monster capabilities common, both in and out of combat. PF2 doesn’t necessitate enemies or NPCs being built like PCs, but it’s happy to share some capabilities between the two. It was one of 4e’s biggest problems that everything had customized combat-only stats; now I have a lot more room to be freewheeling in every kind of mode for antagonists. @Halloween Jack: the PF2 math is really tight so it never breaks apart like you’re describing and what happened in 3e/PF1. Instead you’re always challenged by thighs within about a five level range; if you really specialize you can punch above your weight at like legendary proficiency. The math behind proficiencies is laid out in the GMG in case you want to tinker with it; pulling level out makes lower-level creatures stay dangerous much longer and allows for a less super heroic feel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Instead you’re always challenged by thighs within about a five level range; if you really specialize you can punch above your weight at like legendary proficiency. Lotta Chun-Li in this game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:No it's still a huge problem when Fighters use their class feats to get powers and casters are given full power sets and then use their class feats to ignore class restrictions or enhance their class powers. That really feels like a different problem, though, and your initial post made it seem like you thought feats still worked like they did in 3.5 and PF, where they were this super limited resource that you only got a few of. Edit: I think this is more of a semantics thing between us, rather than any meaningful disagreement. Casters just being better in general is still a problem, but fighters having to spend their fighter feats on fighting better doesn't seem like the problem to me? The problem is that casting is just too different and powerful in comparison, which to me is a separate (and much bigger issue) from where you spend your feats. senrath fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Mar 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
senrath posted:That really feels like a different problem, though, and your initial post made it seem like you thought feats still worked like they did in 3.5 and PF, where they were this super limited resource that you only got a few of. ....they are and they do. You get one class feat every other level and a freebie at level 1, 11 choices over 20 levels worth of sessions is not a resource I'd call abundant. The fact that there are other types of feats, a good move, doesn't change the number of class feats you get either or really matter since everyone is working with those as well. And for martials, class feats dictate what you are capable of doing beyond a really basic level. While being poorly written and honestly weirdly full of weapon cord feeling penalties for powers that are not that good to begin with. Also the fact that PF2E martials have to assemble a functional class from (poorly written) parts while casters are given a whole class that is then directed into different specialties is part of the same problem imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
Ah yes, the "you don't agree on the exact phrasing of a problem and thus you must be wrong" approach. Let's see how it plays out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
Does PF2 have the equivalent of Come and Get It? If not, I'm not interested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 07:52
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Does PF2 have the equivalent of Come and Get It? If not, I'm not interested. Yes, but it's Barbarian only and requires 2 feats and being at least level 14 to do (assuming you mean the whole "let yourself get hit and retaliate in kind" type thing).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
senrath posted:Yes, but it's Barbarian only and requires 2 feats and being at least level 14 to do (assuming you mean the whole "let yourself get hit and retaliate in kind" type thing). lol jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 07:57
|
|
