|
Jimbozig posted:So if I've spent my feats on synergies that allow me to most effectively set up debuffs and then take advantage of them... what choices am I going to make in combat? Aren't I always just going to choose "1. Set up debuffs. 2. Take advantage."? The funny thing here is that PF2 fighters really feel like MMO characters, because each one has got a "rotation": a sequence of moves of escalating power that you optimally follow rigidly, but which the vicissitudes of tactical combat might interrupt your ability to cleave to perfectly, either because an enemy AoE requires you to move out of the way while you want to stand still or an ally is down and you need to use an action reviving them or whatever. But, they don't feel enough like MMO characters, because usually an MMO character with a basic, circulating rotation is going to have dramatically powerful abilities that either have really long cooldowns or cost a lot of a special resource your regular rotation generates, such that you actually have some kind of alpha strike or super move in your pocket to deploy when the situation calls for it. If you're a 2E Fighter, everything's on the GCD. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 1, 2020 |
#
?
May 1, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The funny thing here is that PF2 fighters really feel like MMO characters, because each one has got a "rotation": a sequence of moves of escalating power that you optimally follow rigidly, but which the vicissitudes of tactical combat might interrupt your ability to cleave to perfectly, either because an enemy AoE requires you to move out of the way while you want to stand still or an ally is down and you need to use an action reviving them or whatever. This is unrelated to the PF2E discussion, but are you familiar enough with Spellbound Kingdoms to say how it would stack against an idealized version of this tabletop MMO style? I keep trying to mine flowchart combat for my own games but it always ends up feeling either too rote or insufficiently unique to make the whole thing worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:(and the PF2E stuff the Fighter gets is GOOD, which is also an important factor to consider) GOOD stuff posted:DOUBLE SLICE [2 ACTIONS]FEAT 1
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:
I always forget about the 5e battlemaster.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:This is unrelated to the PF2E discussion, but are you familiar enough with Spellbound Kingdoms to say how it would stack against an idealized version of this tabletop MMO style? Fraid not. I got really into FF14 a while back so I actually do have a bunch of scattered thoughts about how to incorporate my favorite MMO mechanics into various RPGS (I made my Exalted PCs fight the air dragon Garuda, who had an adds phase, for instance), up to and including how to make an actual tank/healer/dps combat paradigm that doesn't suck rear end to execute in a turn-based pen-and-paper context, but I've never actually rolled my sleeves up and started a design doc or whatever. Octavo posted:I always forget about the 5e battlemaster. I don't blame you. What's hosed up is that at least some of the architecture is there to make it good, or at least passable. You'd just need tiers of higher-level maneuvers and maybe a pool of per-day Mastery Dice that add special effects to maneuvers you spend them on and are somehow tied to your action surge stockpile or your hit dice or something.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:As far as I know there aren't many games out there that are just Spelljammer with the serial numbers filed off right now, so in my opinion there's two main ways to go if you don't want to just run it in your standard D&D or D&D-alike: I'm actually pretty comfortable with finding my own systems, but thank you. I'm more wondering if "advantures in the weird astral sea" is a setting that's been explored in... the last 30 years?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
There's always Troika, which is very much derived from the 'sailing the infinite spheres on a ship of crystal and brass' type pulpy sci-fantasy that Spelljammer seems to be derived from. e: and Broken Worlds, which is a less artsy take on the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Did you quote from the actual final rules this time or are you still criticizing the playtest as if it was the final product
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Did you quote from the actual final rules this time or are you still criticizing the playtest as if it was the final product If that’s playtest material I hope it got nerfed in the final version. I mean, a fighter could potentially do that all day!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:I'm actually pretty comfortable with finding my own systems, but thank you. I'm more wondering if "advantures in the weird astral sea" is a setting that's been explored in... the last 30 years? You might want to check out Swashbucklers of the 7 skies for ideas. http://evilhat.wikidot.com/s7s
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
So if I was going to run Paranoia for my role-playing group, what would be the best edition to use? I have access to a lot of the original books and materials and the main set for the latest edition.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
DocBubonic posted:You might want to check out Swashbucklers of the 7 skies for ideas. http://evilhat.wikidot.com/s7s I will look into that, thank you! Broken Worlds and Troika are my jams (and UVG), but I wasn't familiar with Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Did you quote from the actual final rules this time or are you still criticizing the playtest as if it was the final product Ferrinus posted:I don't blame you. What's hosed up is that at least some of the architecture is there to make it good, or at least passable. You'd just need tiers of higher-level maneuvers and maybe a pool of per-day Mastery Dice that add special effects to maneuvers you spend them on and are somehow tied to your action surge stockpile or your hit dice or something. Meinberg posted:I think that PF2 fighter feats are actually fairly well designed. A lot of them revolve around setting up debuffs and then taking advantage of those debuffs, and a fair amount of them are situationally very powerful but aren’t powerhouses in general usage. I wouldn’t necessarily call PF2 “elegant” but for what it is, it’s fairly well designed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:So if I was going to run Paranoia for my role-playing group, what would be the best edition to use? I have access to a lot of the original books and materials and the main set for the latest edition. XP. Nothing before is as good, everything after is worse. Note that the first line in the GM's section of XP is "nothing matters, do whatever is funniest and matches your chosen playstyle." You do not need to give a poo poo about knowing all the rules or getting the canon of Alpha Complex right. Check out the Little RED Book if you want to get a good baseline.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
My opinion on Pathfinder is that it's a product created by vultures that bankrolled one of the biggest scams in the buisness, and now I can't imagine trying to convince the numerous new players streaming has brought in that D&D with the numbers filed off is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
That feat is actually good enough basically all other martials seethe and desire it. That and the ranger version are both things recommended as highly important and a reason to take their archetypes at all when multiclassing. It's a bit boring, but it IS a level 1 feat. I'd also rather the weird and highly technical text that makes its interactions completely clear than the naturalistic language that plagues 5e. In practice what that is is "Attack twice at your current MAP, but apply precision damage and resistances only once." Mechanically, it's good. Whether it's INTERESTING is a completely different argument, and not one I've made a position on there. Edit: It's interesting to contrast that feat with the Power Attack feat, also a 1st level choice: quote:Power Attack Two Actions Feat 1 Now at first glance it seems better, since the damage dice increases with your level, but due to the weird equipment system in PF2, being able to hit with two different weapons might trigger a whole host of knock-on effects, not to mention Double Slice being less all-or-nothing. Infinity Gaia fucked around with this message at 21:52 on May 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Leraika posted:There's always Troika, which is very much derived from the 'sailing the infinite spheres on a ship of crystal and brass' type pulpy sci-fantasy that Spelljammer seems to be derived from. Broken World is the K6BD PBTA right? I wouldn’t call the K6BD setting less artsy than Troika, though Troika is more modern art and theater than K6BD’s moebius prints and excellent comics.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:That feat is actually good enough basically all other martials seethe and desire it. That and the ranger version are both things recommended as highly important and a reason to take their archetypes at all when multiclassing. It's a bit boring, but it IS a level 1 feat. I'd also rather the weird and highly technical text that makes its interactions completely clear than the naturalistic language that plagues 5e. In practice what that is is "Attack twice at your current MAP, but apply precision damage and resistances only once." It's also equivalent to an At-Will attack power from 4e but more verbose, with penalties, and also requiring a feat to access.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:So if I was going to run Paranoia for my role-playing group, what would be the best edition to use? I have access to a lot of the original books and materials and the main set for the latest edition. -If you want to avoid some of the issues of swinginess in chargen (which is a feature but if they're not used to Paranoia, it can be very disheartening to see that they have a really bad skill in Wetware or whatever and won't ever try those skills), use the point-buy system to make the characters but roll for the rest of their little lifepath choices (mutant power, secret society, service sector, etc). Also that way if you're rolling with a large group of players you'll have someone for each of the approaches. Probably let them pick their own skill specialties and drawbacks. -Use the Mandatory Bonus Duty questionnaire sheet and then give them the roles they're least suited to. The sheet is always fun for roleplaying, giving them the wrong roles is fun for giving them a curveball to work with (alternately just give them the roles they're most suited to because hey why not keep them motivated towards a certain style of play). -If you want advice for a module to run: Heroes Of Our Complex, the one where the mission is to kill a prominent media figure by dragging his drug-addled rear end around with your crew as the UVs and Friend Computer keep putting the group in increasing levels of barely-justified danger because nobody knows how many backup clones the media figure has. It's a good level of absurdity and everyone is more or less fundamentally on the same side of completing the mission goal (except for societies who want to save him) so the clear tangible goal of "murder this guy and keep murdering this guy" is something solid to work towards at the table. Plus you can flex your own roleplaying muscles and voices by giving him a douchey voice and keep thinking "man, gently caress this guy".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Lovecraft Country trailer for August release on HBO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWEASasO-tI Not thrilled with JJ Abrams or the idea that they show the monster but I am still hopeful. I did see an orrery in the background of one of the shots so hopefully it delves into some cosmic horror along with the monster splat.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:It's also equivalent to an At-Will attack power from 4e but more verbose, with penalties, and also requiring a feat to access. It's a different system, and it doesn't ACTUALLY have any penalties. Resistance only applying once is just to simplify math, the -2 only applies if you're dual wielding a full size weapon in your offhand. The 4E version required two different targets, IIRC? But maybe there was a different one for hitting twice on the same guy. There's also the fact that feats mean different things in the two systems. In PF2 feats are simply how everyone gains... Everything. It's just weird calling them that when they're basically core class features you're simply picking one of from a selection, rather than something more or less optional and extraneous to the class identity. The verbosity is simply because PF2 tries to make everything as absolutely mechanically consistent as possible, which does lead to some clunky language to avoid gotchas and interpretation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:It's totally cool to like things, even if other nerds don't. Good news! Pathfinder 2e is really good at this! Everything on the GM's side is very cleanly exposed and laid out so that you can easily and quickly make decisions about difficulty, challenge, reward, etc. It even gives advice on quickly adapting, reskining, or improvising creatures, items and so on! I can look at 3 tables and get a level-appropriate DC for whatever my players are doing, no sweat. (I want to look at 3 just because that's the different ways to approach the problem, depending upon which capabilities of my players I want to stress.) Coolness Averted posted:The problem is the bigger picture. I'm saying casters get tools that can negate or counteract the penalties of a lower score still -or interact with the world as if they had a higher score -something a martial character doesn't get to do. That's incorrect. Spellcaster versatility is significantly reduced, and spells no longer replace or countermand other parts of the system. For example, Charm can make the target friendly and prevent it from attacking you (you the caster, specifically). Friendly is just its opinion of you; it won't do anything unless you make a request of it using the Diplomacy skill. Knock doesn't automatically unlock a door; it allows you to make a check to unlock something at a bonus. You can instead give that same bonus to someone else, and it's much better if you give it to the people with training in Thievery or Athletics instead. Floating Disc holds less Bulk than you can, in a significantly difficult manner (you have to be able to fit and balance the objects on the disc). Mage armour is I guess vaguely useful? It's adding the bonus of wearing magic armour to you, but it's nowhere near actually wearing armour, just the same as your clothes with a potency rune attached to it. It certainly won't make you as good as say a champion with proficiency in heavy armour. Fly is now a 4th level spell and gives you a very slow fly speed for 5 minutes. All your melee combatants in your party have similar aerial compatibilities either by then or a level later, including Athletics skill feats, monk teleporting and so on. Invisibility is not a perfect status like it was in 3e. It's very dependent upon your own Stealth, and can be discovered by anyone using the Seek basic action. (This came up last session! A wizard tried to escape using invisibility, but the ranger's animal companion was able to find him quite easily with scent being a precise scent and the rest of the party finished him off.) No, there are no ability score stat buffing spells. By polymorph I'm guessing you mean polymorph yourself spells, not baleful polymorph. (If you're not aware, polymorph was systematically disassembled throughout 3e, and Pathfinder 1e never even had a polymorph self spell.) The first of those that gives significant combat abilities would be aerial form (a 4th level), which makes you an okay but not amazing combatant for a minute, compared to a monster of the same level. It's okay? It's definitely not obsoleting the actual people who fight with weapons in your party. If I'm looking at narrative-altering powers that change up how I play the game, I'm looking just as much if not more so at class and skill feats. Jimbozig posted:The problem with only getting per-turn powers goes like this: when you get a new per-turn power, it's either better than your current ones, worse, or it's about as good. If it's better, then you just use it every turn and it makes your character boring. If it's worse, it's just useless. Now unless the game is very simple, it's hard to prevent feats and synergies from making one power better than the others. So the most likely outcome of this is a fighter that does essentially the same thing every turn forever. So the class that I can think of comes the closest to the one-trick pony you're describing would be the ruffian rogue, which is very big on using Intimidate to debuff an enemy with the Demoralize action and then attack them while they're weakened. If I make the most obvious feat/skill choices for them and choose things to make Demoralize better at every opportunity, I get this, and also noting the times I have to choose other things: 1st - rogue's racket (ruffian, gets critical specialization to critical success attacks against flat-footed opponents), 2 other skill feats, sneak attack 1d6, You're Next (can Demoralize another enemy when you kill one as your once-per-round reaction) 2nd -expert in Intimidate, Intimidating Prowess (status bonus to Demoralize), Brutal Beating (critical hits frighten the target) 3rd - general feat, skill increase, skill feat (maybe take Intimidation Assurance to take 10 on rolls against low-level enemies, none of my other abilities would work with this at all) 4th - Dread Stalker (frightened enemies are flat-footed to me, so I can sneak attack them just with that condition), skill feat, skill increase 5th - Charisma/Str/Dex/??? ability boosts, ancestry feat, skill feat, skill increase, sneak attack 2d6, increased weapon proficiency and critical specialization on critical hits 6th - rogue feat, skill feat, skill increase 7th - master in Intimidate, Battle Cry (Demoralize an opponent when I roll initiative; demoralize an opponent on a critical hit at Legendary), general feat 8th - rogue feat, skill increase, Terrified Retreat (Demoralized enemies may run away on critical success) 9th - ancestry feat, skill feat, skill increase 10th - Charisma/Str/Dex/??? ability boosts, rogue feat, skill feat, skill increase 11th - general feat, skill feat, skill increase, sneak attack 3d6 12th - rogue feat, skill feat, skill increase 13th - ancestry feat, increased weapon proficiency, skill feat, skill increase 14th - rogue feat, skill feat, skill increase 15th - Charisma/Str/Dex/??? ability boosts, legendary in Intimidate, Scared To Death (Can use Intimidate to kill enemies, lots of limits, frequently just frightens instead, comparable to Finger of Death), general feat, skill feat, skill increase 16th - rogue feat, skill feat, skill increase 17th - ancestry feat, skill feat, skill increase, sneak attack 4d6 18th - rogue feat, skill feat, skill increase 19th - general feat, skill feat, skill increase 20th - Charisma/Str/Dex/??? ability boosts, rogue feat, skill feat, skill increase I left out a lot of other rogue features such as getting debilitating and then instant death attacks, but even still, that's not a one-trick pony in any way even though I've prioritized being the best at frightening things so I can kill them at every opportunity. That's a shitload of other encounter and exploration options for my character, and I definitely have lots of space to make fun decisions every round.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 23:18
|
|
or GM prep for that matter, and whether that prep lets me have fun and do cool stuff with the system and toys I've worked on, or if I'm trying to bend the system into what I want and wind up just hand-waving or ad-libbing. Like if I have to fight against the encounter math, or constantly fudge everything to make the scene exciting I'll just go with a system that's a better framework for ad-libbing and doesn't require me to track as much because it acknowledges the other stuff is just fluff.
|
Splicer posted:Final product I'm calling Darwinism in particular out because he's made a habit of quoting the playtest rules in misleading ways to make the system look bad, and then pouting and calling it unfair when I ask him to present the same argument but in the final text. There's nothing wrong with Double Slice, but he's lost his credibility to make an argument based off an unsourced quotation. Splicer posted:OK so I'm a fighter and I'm in a fight I really care about and want to do extra well in. What on my sheet helps me out here? What did I give up during character creation or advancement to get it? For a fighter, my big daily choice is using Martial Flexibility during my daily preparations to choose fighter feats that I gain for that day (in addition to my usual feats I have all the time). If I'm going dragon hunting, I can take say Felling Strike to cause it to fall to the ground, or Determination to shrug off its frightening presence. I can also use my hero points during that fight to reroll important rolls (I get at least one a session.) Ferrinus posted:Ah, I thought about actually opening up the wiki and checking to make sure that either there was nothing with "Flourish" at level 1, but I was pretty sure I was remembering right. Amusingly, I had forgotten that such basic actions as putting your shield up were considered limited-availability special skills! This is a giant strawman, and you know it. No one is engaging in some sort of 5e-style fighters are just as good as wizards over a long day thing here, that's all you. We're saying that fighters are just genuinely good, period. You're also trying to criticize the system for being unrealistic (with Shield Block) while arguing that the "realism" of martial combatants fighting on forever isn't enough. You don't have a consistent argument, and you're contradicting yourself. Would you prefer a realistic system or one that's fun to play and well-designed? Pathfinder 2e works to be the latter, not the former. There's no blanket prohibition, and there's a lot of content missing in that Core Rulebook. It's stuffed to bursting as it is, and I'm fine with the core rules having basic feat chains like "fight with sword and shield real good" for the designers and players to build on from there. If I want something more dedicated, I have examples to look at like the Aldori Duelist from one of the supplements: http://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=14 Also two of the martial characters (champions and monks) do get focus points and spells already. e: I forgot to look it up before I posted this but it's a response to this quote so I'm editing it in. Also so I don't triple post. Regarding encounters per day: good news, unlike D&D 5e, Pathfinder 2e is flexible. Encounters come in a variety of difficulties, and one of the goals of playtesting was that extremely difficult encounters where the players go all-out with all of their daily resources don't feel overwhelming or end up unbalanced. They succeeded in my experience so far: extreme encounters are a bit more swingy in the favour of the opponent (it's easier for them to get critical successes due to being generally higher level) but it's not rocket tag or anything. The GMG even discusses how your distribution of encounter difficulties should change to match the setting, tone, and type of adventure you're running! quote:Why, yes: D&D 5E. They mostly suck rear end, but it was at least judged that battlemaster maneuvers (not to mention action surge) were potent enough that you shouldn't be allowed to do them every six seconds from morning to evening. Obviously maneuvers suck rear end for a number of reasons, but at least playing a fighter doesn't automatically shut you out of ever having an ability so strong or dramatic that it needs to be rationed out. Good news! Fighters get to make that same kind of decision making and narrative control too. You're assuming that spells (not even rituals) are the only way to make narrative changes; that's your fault, not Pathfinder 2e's. Arivia fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
Arivia posted:
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
Arivia posted:This is a giant strawman, and you know it. No one is engaging in some sort of 5e-style fighters are just as good as wizards over a long day thing here, that's all you. We're saying that fighters are just genuinely good, period. You're also trying to criticize the system for being unrealistic (with Shield Block) while arguing that the "realism" of martial combatants fighting on forever isn't enough. You don't have a consistent argument, and you're contradicting yourself. Would you prefer a realistic system or one that's fun to play and well-designed? Pathfinder 2e works to be the latter, not the former. You seem to be misreading me. I'm not criticizing shield block as unrealistic or fighters as underpowered. I fully believe you that PC fighters are well-balanced and handy to have on your team, just as I fully believe that the damage output of a 5E fighter is high enough to merit their inclusion in a high-level party. Comparative DPR amortized over low-encounter days versus high-encounter days does not particularly concern me here (although, to be sure, fighters that actually got powers would be much easier to balance for short days vs. long ones) My concern is, as ever, that - actually, just look at my response to the second part of your post. quote:Good news! Fighters get to make that same kind of decision making and narrative control too. You're assuming that spells (not even rituals) are the only way to make narrative changes; that's your fault, not Pathfinder 2e's. No, they do not, because they cannot respond to a deadly threat by drawing on their mightiest powers. They can just pick the most appropriate at-will attack for the situation and deploy it, and if they're lucky it'll be the exact same at-will that they use by default against any kind of threat because it's their A-B-C action sequence that generates the most damage (rather than generates less damage, but that's a sacrifice you have to make because it's the only way to prevent your opponent from flying out of reach or whatever). A wizard can gauge the situation they're in and choose whether to cast Burning Hands or Sleep, but they can also choose whether to cast Burning Hands or Fireball. Fighters can't do that second thing; they can't ever, ever take an action that's so dramatic and decisive that it'd be unfair if they were able to just do it again, for free, next round. (Besides spending a hero point, I guess? But everyone gets those.) This is a core ideological underpinning of Pathfinder and the central priority that allowed Paizo to soak up the fraction of the player base that was alienated by D&D 4E's paradigm shift.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Helical Nightmares posted:Lovecraft Country trailer for August release on HBO I highly recommend reading the book this is based on if you haven't already, it's great. It does a great job mixing cosmic horror, more traditional supernatural elements, and weird fiction and uses them as a backdrop to explore racism in Jim Crow America. Also (spoilers from the book based on what we see in the trailer) those monsters probably won't feature heavily into the plot of the show as a whole.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I might be missing something because I don't know enough about PF2, but I don't see anything on the list that actually gives you more choices. I see more stuff that happens - when you scare them, they might run; when you scare them, you can sneak-attack them; when you scare them, they might die. But like, isn't the whole thing just scaring them and then attacking them? What else can you do? I'm pointing out that the basic "trip-chain fighter" common to 3e doesn't work the same way in PF2: ie, it doesn't eat all your choices and require a single-minded dedication towards. You have many more options built into your character by default, and can therefore make more choices during play, instead of being stuck on one gimmick. Ferrinus posted:No, they do not, because they cannot respond to a deadly threat by drawing on their mightiest powers. They can just pick the most appropriate at-will attack for the situation and deploy it, and if they're lucky it'll be the exact same at-will that they use by default against any kind of threat because it's their A-B-C action sequence that generates the most damage (rather than generates less damage, but that's a sacrifice you have to make because it's the only way to prevent your opponent from flying out of reach or whatever). I disagree. Unless you can point to a specific statement on the record that Pathfinder 2e's rules designers didn't want fighters to have limited availability powers, you're chasing after an assumption based on a very limited sample size. Your "core ideological underpinning" is trying to prove a negative quality solely through the absence of the positive, which is a logical fallacy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
big thanks to jimbo and ferrinus for showing me why i actually shouldn't run pf2e
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Arivia posted:For a fighter, my big daily choice is using Martial Flexibility during my daily preparations to choose fighter feats that I gain for that day (in addition to my usual feats I have all the time). If I'm going dragon hunting, I can take say Felling Strike to cause it to fall to the ground, or Determination to shrug off its frightening presence. Arivia posted:I can also use my hero points during that fight to reroll important rolls (I get at least one a session.) Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:38 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This isn't what I asked, I asked what I can do when I'm in a fight and want to go the extra mile, not how I can tailor my character in advance to tailor my all-day-every-day to one particular encounter in that day. If you're like "hey I need very specifically a fighter daily power to use in this specific fight" no, there isn't one, and no one really gives a poo poo. You can set up all the hoops to jump through you'd like before you consider the game worthy, but that's your choice. It plays well and is fun as it is, I'm not going to fault it for not living up to your very specific ideas of how D&D should be fixed. quote:Is this a Fighter unique thing or a thing that the casters get as well as their ability to hurl big dailies? Everyone receives hero points, although individual players can receive them at different rates depending upon how they play.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You're making a bad comparison, then, as the ability to prepare for specific fights and circumstances is a major strength of prepared Vancian casting like the wizard has. Arivia posted:If you're like "hey I need very specifically a fighter daily power to use in this specific fight" no, there isn't one, and no one really gives a poo poo. You can set up all the hoops to jump through you'd like before you consider the game worthy, but that's your choice. It plays well and is fun as it is, I'm not going to fault it for not living up to your very specific ideas of how D&D should be fixed. Arivia posted:Everyone receives hero points, although individual players can receive them at different rates depending upon how they play.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You're making a bad comparison, then, as the ability to prepare for specific fights and circumstances is a major strength of prepared Vancian casting like the wizard has. That's not quite the comparison that's being asked. It's asking what are the cool rare abilities a fighter has baked in. Not that needs to be prepared. It's the "oh poo poo, we just stumbled across the boss fight, I'm going to do this cool thing that I can only do 1/day[1]". It's the ability to spike in awesomeness when the story requires it. Most games that have a mechanic like a per/day or per/session spike in awesomeness don't tie it to your archetype. Modern game design has moved on from that. Blades in the Dark, Heart/Spire, Torchbearer, Genesys, 2d20, off the top of my head, all have mechanics that allow any archetype to use their "once per X" cool abilities. Some games don't have "once per X" cool abilities, and that's fine, too. I think what people are pointing out is that 1/X abilities for some archetypes (namely, wizards), and not for other archetypes (namely, fighters) is often considered outdated and beholden to a certain type of grodnard. [1] or 1/session or 1/rest or 1/time the GM has a beer.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I disagree. Unless you can point to a specific statement on the record that Pathfinder 2e's rules designers didn't want fighters to have limited availability powers, you're chasing after an assumption based on a very limited sample size. Your "core ideological underpinning" is trying to prove a negative quality solely through the absence of the positive, which is a logical fallacy. My evidence for PF 2e's devs not wanting fighters to have limited availability powers is indeed the fact that fighters conspicuously have no limited-availability powers. In fact as far as I know no martial classes do, or if they do get any it's like one high-level thing like that skill feat that lets you try to scare someone to death once a day (which in fact you can spam but not on the same target). Pathfinder was the game for revanchists who griped about "dissociated mechanics" as a cover for their actually just being annoyed that fighters got to do cool things and while 2E conspicously fixed a bunch of balance and usability problems in the edition transition it very pointedly did not fix that central issue... because these people know on which side their bread is buttered. To be clear, I don't actually know or care what's going in Logan Bonner's heart of hearts. Perhaps all the Pathfinder devs badly want fighters to have powers but, oops, wouldn't you know it, their hard drive crashed and the deadline was up. Maybe the next supplement will finally add Come and Get It and Force the Battle to the fighter feat list! But it won't. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 01:09 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
I went looking around the wiki. There is a fighter daily! It's the Determination ability that Arivia mentioned, which, once a day, lets you shake off an effect or maaaaybe counteract a spell, and comes with a million exceptions, and you still take damage. This is the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" incarnate. Splicer fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I went looking around the wiki. There is a fighter daily! It's the Determination ability that Arivia mentioned, which, once a day, lets you shake off an effect or maaaaybe counteract a spell. You also still take any damage. Lamer than Action Surge. 5E does it again, folks!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Lamer than Action Surge. 5E does it again, folks! But I'm sure there's more coming any day now!!!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:Broken World is the K6BD PBTA right? I wouldn’t call the K6BD setting less artsy than Troika, though Troika is more modern art and theater than K6BD’s moebius prints and excellent comics. Yeah, that's basically what I meant by 'artsy'. Less grounded might be a better phrase? Idk I'm bad at words today. Troika is the weird gonzo scifantasy of the 70s, Broken Worlds is the weird gonzo scifantasy of the 2010s.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:That's not quite the comparison that's being asked. It's asking what are the cool rare abilities a fighter has baked in. Not that needs to be prepared. and I am very very tired of going around in circles about this with Splicer and Ferrinus where they set an arbitrary bar that the game must meet in order to prove that it's not grognardy or whatever to them. It's not based in play experience or any actual study of the rules themselves; it's just an arbitrary qualification based off of things they don't like from other systems. I just genuinely don't care about arguing against a strawman they have set up, no matter how important they insist it is.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
You can like a thing even if other nerds don't
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:You can like a thing even if other nerds don't Oh I do! I also like discussing and criticizing games, and that's why I like talking about them. It's just exhausting when all you're getting from specific people is sophistry.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:29
|
|