|
I really liked Arivia, and I was really sad to see that she felt the need to leave. I'm glad that we're keeping her memory alive by having arguments between people who really like Pathfinder and want to accuse everybody else of not reading the rules and people who really don't like it and want to find very specific examples of how it's just D&D Garbage Squared, but maybe we could please take it over to the chat thread? Or better yet, the Pathfinder thread?
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:Or better yet, the Pathfinder thread? Please, no. Don't turn the PF thread into another 5E thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Please, no. Don't turn the PF thread into another 5E thread. Well if PF discussion turns into 5e discussion it's an hell of your own creation
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
Roadie posted:One of the subtle things you're missing entirely here is that, because of the tight number scaling and the critical success/miss system, a fighter's debuffs are going to be noticeably more effectively than a wizard's, and that's before even getting to the no-save effects like Intimidating Strike. That is not subtle, nor is it subtle that casters can still do the equivalent at range without feat taxes? What is happening. quote:Sure, the fighter needs to move, but the wizard's spending two actions to do one thing, while the fighter's two-action abilities are generally debuff riders on successful attacks (which are going to be noticeably more successful than wizard spells, as above). So the fighter has to spend multiple actions to do the thing but casters have to spend multiple actions to... do better things. This is better for fighters somehow. quote:Actually, a caster trying to dispel magic an invisible guy has to hit a 25% or 50% miss chance first (compared to Revealing Stab's no-roll-needed or 25% miss chance), then succeed on a counteract check (less likely to succeed than the fighter's attack, and will still straight-up fail if the target effect is of too high a level). The fighter comes out all-around ahead at the minor action economy cost of drawing another weapon. The gently caress kinda scrub-rear end wizard uses Dispel Magic on invis idiots instead of Glitterdust, literally a better spell for the occassion? What is going on here? In a world where a guy is taking Revealing Stab the casters already have Glitterdust on lockdown and laugh at the idiot coming to the party late. quote:No. But if I can stick a knife into a stealthed target and have my friends target them specifically because of the knife sticking out of them that is kind of literally WoW inviso-stealth? Because apparently just stabbing a hiding person is not enough to tell people they're there - you need to leave the knife in so that their magical stealth is negated by the floating knife. quote:Because accurately stabbing invisible creatures, while they're trying to stab you, is hard. You pay a feat tax for letting go of a weapon after stabbing someone with a useful but still banal decrease in penalties applicable. That's dumb and not a mechanical identity, it is paying a feat tax on your character sheet for an edge case. quote:Because you're flipping out over rules you obviously haven't read enough to analyze accurately. Why do people defending PF2 pretend like it's hard to analyze? It's still a 3E clone and amazingly enough I can comprehend those after literal decades of suffering through them at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Please, no. Don't turn the PF thread into another 5E thread.  Turn it into a 4e thread like PF2 did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:So the fighter has to spend multiple actions to do the thing but casters have to spend multiple actions to... do better things. This is better for fighters somehow. I'm not the PF2E defender or anything, but(taken in isolation) this one seems fairly obvious. Fighters are meant to be stuck in and so they are rewarded for being so by having one action cost actions, so they can do more of them if they don't need to move right now. Wizards don't want to be stuck in and even if they were their ability would still cost two actions. It's advantage: fighter, if you are in a situation that a fighter actually wants to be in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I'm not the PF2E defender or anything, but(taken in isolation) this one seems fairly obvious. Fighters are meant to be stuck in and so they are rewarded for being so by having one action cost actions, so they can do more of them if they don't need to move right now. Wizards don't want to be stuck in and even if they were their ability would still cost two actions. It's advantage: fighter, if you are in a situation that a fighter actually wants to be in. The issue, of course, being that at the “roll initiative” point, everyone is generally unengaged, so the ranged characters start out where they want to be and the melee don’t. Range bands usually aren’t equivalent; it is generally more difficult and dangerous to be close to the enemy, for lots of reasons, so most games make it so that if your preferred range band is close, your things are more effective. I’m not a PF2E expert, but historically D&D has been uneven at best at following this adage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:You pay a feat tax for letting go of a weapon after stabbing someone with a useful but still banal decrease in penalties applicable. That's dumb and not a mechanical identity, it is paying a feat tax on your character sheet for an edge case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
Elephant Parade posted:I don't think one bad martial feat implies a caster supremacy problem. Do all Fighter feats look like that? No, there's plenty of interesting ones and fighters poo poo out damage, so this is really someone seizing on a niche feat (which, btw, fighters also have the ability to swap out daily, so you can just take it when you expect to have to deal with stealthy/invisible types). It's the dumbest possible hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Elephant Parade posted:I don't think one bad martial feat implies a caster supremacy problem. Do all Fighter feats look like that? For one of the rather (ahem) striking ones, see Felling Strike:  The "on a critical" part is much more potent than it sounds, because of the intersection of the "10 over is a crit" rule with fighters having a faster weapon proficiency progression than anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Ultiville posted:The issue, of course, being that at the “roll initiative” point, everyone is generally unengaged, so the ranged characters start out where they want to be and the melee don’t. Range bands usually aren’t equivalent; it is generally more difficult and dangerous to be close to the enemy, for lots of reasons, so most games make it so that if your preferred range band is close, your things are more effective. I’m not a PF2E expert, but historically D&D has been uneven at best at following this adage. Dunno if that's a problem in this engine as I understand it. It seems like the mechanics of casters (I'm not all that up to speed on the ranged martial model) are built to be reliable, so that they do the same thing most turns. Move if they have to, then cast. If they don't move, keep an ongoing ongoing. Since it costs 1 action to move and 2 to spell and they have three actions, yes, they can start the fight by doing their whole routine, given a close to medium encounter start. Fighters, who do most things (I think) for one action, are going to move on their first turn, then unless the enemy was more than one move away (this would be a problem for everyone anyway), they still have two actions to do whatever. Heck, if the enemy is far enough away that a short range spell can't get em after a single move, the fighter can get two moves in and still do a thing that turn. The caster cannot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:No, there's plenty of interesting ones and fighters poo poo out damage, so this is really someone seizing on a niche feat (which, btw, fighters also have the ability to swap out daily, so you can just take it when you expect to have to deal with stealthy/invisible types). It's the dumbest possible hill to die on. Darwinism posted:You pay a feat tax for letting go of a weapon after stabbing someone with a useful but still banal decrease in penalties applicable. That's dumb and not a mechanical identity, it is paying a feat tax on your character sheet for an edge case. Elephant Parade fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Aug 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
The thing about both the "leave your knife in an invisible guy" feat and the "shoot down a flyer" feat is that without those feats all you can do is attack for hitpoint damage. Meanwhile, "all" a spellcaster can do is fill up and discharge their spell slots with a vast array of different spells, the total utilitarian scope of which is astronomically huge. And spellcasters, too, get feats that further augment and modify their ability to cast those spells, so they can buy themselves a greater flexibility with dispel magic or a wider glitterdust radius or whatever. It is nice that fighters, specifically, get a flexible feat slot so that they can prepare for running into flying enemies or invisible enemies or whatnot, but why is it only feats that expand their options for dealing with tactically unusual or demanding situations? If you simply deleted all of a wizard or sorcerer's feats there'd still be a full helping of spell slots there with which they can attack, defend, explore, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The thing about both the "leave your knife in an invisible guy" feat and the "shoot down a flyer" feat is that without those feats all you can do is attack for hitpoint damage. Meanwhile, "all" a spellcaster can do is fill up and discharge their spell slots with a vast array of different spells, the total utilitarian scope of which is astronomically huge. And spellcasters, too, get feats that further augment and modify their ability to cast those spells, so they can buy themselves a greater flexibility with dispel magic or a wider glitterdust radius or whatever. Elephant Parade fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Aug 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
I cannot imagine being able to judge the precise balance of a game of PF2E's size and complexity without having played it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
Elephant Parade posted:I dunno. It's plausible, to me, that some people would rather manage a basic attack and several infinite-use abilities than a couple dozen single-use spells that all do different things, because the latter is way more complex and comes with more things to keep track of. Maybe the fighter is too simple, or too weak, but not every class should be as complex as a the wizard, because not every player is looking for that kind of complexity. I've heard this particular argument so many times for actual decades now and I can honestly say the vast majority of people who earnestly buy into this are also the same people who most often play Wizards and other similarly complex classes, it's never really Fighter enthusiasts going "I'd like less options and abilities please." e; the "player who needs simple Fighters so as not to get overwhelmed" is basically akin to the mythical "undecided voter" in that there's a huge amount of concern over catering to them despite the fact that they don't actually seem to exist in significant numbers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
I don't think any PF2 class is actually simple to play with the way that contextual bonuses and penalties and the three-actions-and-a-reaction rationing system work. Certainly not a fighter who's got a spread of interlocking at-will attack modifiers which want to be sequenced in the ideal way and balanced against the need to move or raise your shield or whatever else - and that's before the need to review the class feat list every day to allocate your flex slot(s)!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I don't think any PF2 class is actually simple to play with the way that contextual bonuses and penalties and the three-actions-and-a-reaction rationing system work. Certainly not a fighter who's got a spread of interlocking at-will attack modifiers which want to be sequenced in the ideal way and balanced against the need to move or raise your shield or whatever else - and that's before the need to review the class feat list every day to allocate your flex slot(s)! The closest thing would probably be barbarian, and just dump as much as possible into Intimidate and Athletics-related benefits, but even then you're going to still have Rage and its restrictions, the Intimidate and Athletics actions, and at least another handful of active-use abilities outside of just plain attacking. The actual gameplay loop would be pretty straightforward without much case-by-case thought needed, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 07:53
|
|
|
I feel like this discussion has shifted very much away from the industry of tradgames, and recommend moving it to the chat thread or some other more appropriate thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 10:09
|
|
|
admanb posted:I cannot imagine being able to judge the precise balance of a game of PF2E's size and complexity without having played it. FWIW, I hopped on the Humble Bundle to finally check out PF2e, and it seems to me like the system is really intricately designed. I don't know how well-designed it is, and I am positive I will never play it, but there are indeed about a million moving parts and I'm in agreement that it seems basically impossible to analyze any of its bits and bobs either in a vacuum, or with traditional D&D assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
I play a fighter in Pathfinder 2, and I have to say that I really like it compared to how fighters usually are. PF2 as a whole is a great game, if you are interested in good tactical combat and d&d style adventures. I don't think it is a system I would consider for a more social focused campaign but that is perfectly fine. Playing wizards is fun in most things obviously, but sometimes just playing a regular guy with a sword is... OK? Sometimes I just want to be a cool guy who likes to mix it with monsters and not have to deal with dozens of spells and all the extra work that goes along with it. Admittedly a traditional d20 game wizard is busted as hell, but PF2 is definitely a huge step in the right direction. If the wizard and their shenanigans are totally dominating a story at some point it is up to the gm to give more narrative focus to the other players. Sometimes you have to meet a roleplaying game and its assumptions half way. Really complicated combinations of spells and powers can generate lots of cute effects that are amusing, but it can be a failure of genre emulation. If you are into that kind of thing, play Ars Magica. It is great!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 13:32
|
|
|
edit: Kay
Darwinism fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Toddler post! This forum needs a thread for specifically toddlers besides Auspol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:but maybe we could please take it over to the chat thread? Or better yet, the Pathfinder thread? paradoxGentleman posted:I feel like this discussion has shifted very much away from the industry of tradgames, and recommend moving it to the chat thread or some other more appropriate thread. I agree. This is an official IK post: Please don't do edition wars in the TG as an Industry thread. If you guys want to argue about the relative merits and shortcomings of D&D/Pathfinder, there are threads specific to each game and also the TG chat thread and you could also just make a new thread, which I realize is a foreign concept in TG but it's totally actually a thing. Although if you make a "lets fight about D&D editions" thread and it turns into a real shitfest, It'll wind up gassed, so the second part here is Please don't participate in super long lovely edition wars that go nowhere thanks. It has to be OK to talk about editions of D&D obviously, but everyone needs to try to recognize when a discussion is just circling and not going anywhere or being helpful to anyone. There are entrenched positions and entrenched posters who are not going to change their minds and that status quo is not going to change because of your brilliant takedown of [pathfinder/5e/4e/whatever]. Thanks I love you all please be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I've heard this particular argument so many times for actual decades now and I can honestly say the vast majority of people who earnestly buy into this are also the same people who most often play Wizards and other similarly complex classes, it's never really Fighter enthusiasts going "I'd like less options and abilities please." This is one of those situations where there is one part truth, one part deception. There are a significant number of players who want simple to play classes, a relatively low proportion of which post on message boards. In pre-4e D&D basically the only option these players were offered was fighters or barbarians; in my experience with late 4e there is a significant desire for the simple spellcaster that just points at things and burns them and it's come from both habitual fighter players who want simplicity and like breaking out of the mold and habitual wizard players who are glad to now have a simple to play wizard. Simple is wanted. Simple Fighter/Complex Wizard as a single axis on the other hand is an artifact created by D&D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
I feel like my bones are melting and I feel every atom as it becomes glue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:fighters also have the ability to swap out daily, so you can just take it when you expect to have to deal with stealthy/invisible types I am genuinely curious where this rule comes from, because apparently I was doing PF2 wrong? It doesn't solve much IMO but.... where the hell does it say this? It seems to be a common perception but there's nothing like it in the Fighter rules I see or in the 'daily preparation' rules. I'm relying on the online rules because damned if I'm gonna pay Paizo and my playtest rules are ancient and... don't seem to mention this either?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I am genuinely curious where this rule comes from, because apparently I was doing PF2 wrong? It doesn't solve much IMO but.... where the hell does it say this? It seems to be a common perception but there's nothing like it in the Fighter rules I see or in the 'daily preparation' rules. I'm relying on the online rules because damned if I'm gonna pay Paizo and my playtest rules are ancient and... don't seem to mention this either? From page 143 of the Core Rulebook:  From the bottom of that page, going into the top of page 144:  If you want a source from the online SRD: https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=7    gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Aug 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:From page 143 of the Core Rulebook: Wait it's the ninth level ability? I knew about that! I honestly didn't consider it that relevant because it comes so drat late. gently caress this argument was so stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:gently caress this argument was so stupid. Finally, something everyone can agree on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Wait it's the ninth level ability? lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:so drat late 9th level in Pathfinder 2e is not 9th level in Pathfinder 1e. It's designed for games to actually use the whole level range, rather than most people giving up at level 13 because it's too much of a hassle to run.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 10:05
|
|
|
edit: gently caress it, nope
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Who wants to be the VP of D&D? https://company.wizards.com/content/jobs?gh_jid=4832525002
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
If I've been playing D&D for more than 10 years, does that count as "10+ years of proven experience in business management, marketing management or product management leading and growing the revenue and audience of consumer franchises, preferably game franchises across a broad spectrum of product expressions." lol, having a hard time imagining who would switch to TTRPGs that meets this qualification and who in TTRPGs would want to move to D&D from outside WOTC once they meet it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Chakan posted:If I've been playing D&D for more than 10 years, does that count as "10+ years of proven experience in business management, marketing management or product management leading and growing the revenue and audience of consumer franchises, preferably game franchises across a broad spectrum of product expressions." Someone who hasn't had a a VP title, but has said experience who would go do this VP job for some time before moving to somewhere else that would probably pay/empower them more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Who wants to be the VP of D&D? Is that Mearl's job?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Someone who hasn't had a a VP title, but has said experience who would go do this VP job for some time before moving to somewhere else that would probably pay/empower them more. Yeah if you're an aspiring executive who happens to know about D&D this seems like a great way to leverage it into a position that looks more impressive than it is. Sure we know D&D is mostly brand-camping and trying not to upset the grogs while doing so, but you could write it up really nicely on a resume.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Has D&D ever even had ten consecutive years of being managed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 20:47
|
|
