Jump to content


Recommended Posts

I'm going to say something horrifyingly offensive to myself:

I want you all to have fun. Even if it is with an edition that doesn't agree with me. I can be wrong. If someone invites me, I'll probably give it a try.

 

I'm just going to nuke what I said earlier.

 

I find it very, very odd what they have decided to do with the cleric and paladin. Not sure I am into it. I'll have to play to know.  But it seems strange to me that it is now feat based to pick up a domain. And I don't think I like that at all.

 

I don't think I like where fighter is going. I understand people really enjoy the whole, more feats, more stat bumps or whatever, but in a world where a DOMAIN is a feat. I am concerned. It seems very unbalancing. I guess there is part of me that was never onboard with the 3e skill trees through feats. It felt too limiting and compromising.

 

Are they trying to make more feats than ever before? I have a feeling they are trying to introduce too many class variants from the get-go rather than testing and making them unique, again.

 

That being said. it will be different. I just hope they read their audience before it goes to print.

Edited by Adept Legacy
edition shaming, irrelevant.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, no, I don't like the crazy feat trees either. 3e was my first edition, and then I went to PF because 4e just looked terrible, so feat trees were all I knew for a long time. Then came 5e, where feats are optional, but fun, and I fell in love. Seriously, 5e is pretty much everything I want in a game. My glancing at this is out of curiosity.

 

I don't like that they're going "everything is feats!" either. Honestly, if they want to keep with emphasizing feats, I'd love to see a feat tree where feats improved with you based on what level you pick them up at and your current level. So instead of a traditional tree, your choosing Cleave at level 1 means at level 5 it turns into Great Cleave, and at level 10 it turns into Whirlwind or whatever. But if you took Cleave at level 5, you don't get Great Cleave automatically, you get it at level 10. So then it makes it feel a little bit like your character is practicing and getting better at what they already know automatically, and getting a new feat means you're learning something wholly new, not something that's an incremental improvement.

 

Kind of like how 5e handles certain spells, namely the attack cantrips. Those get more damage based on your caster level, meaning they're always useful.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Unruly said:

 

Kind of like how 5e handles certain spells, namely the attack cantrips. Those get more damage based on your caster level, meaning they're always useful.

They actually get more damage based on character level, not caster level.  Making Warlock one of the most popular dips for CHA based characters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Unruly said:

Not sure I get the distaste, based on the blog post. Is it because there's currently only Lawful Good? Because I trust Paizo to be good on their word that other alignments are coming later on.

 

That said, the generic code does seem to kill non-Lawful Good paladins. Having "No evil" and "No hurting the innocent" as #1 and #2 seems antithetical to any evil Paladin, so you'd think that they would have included something about "evil paladins will, of course, have different codes."

Not a distaste for the paladin so much as the structure that they are hanging all the classes off of.

 

I should have been more specific that my dislike was less specific. ::P:

 

Too... structured... maybe?

 

The Auld Grump

5 hours ago, Unruly said:

Oh, no, I don't like the crazy feat trees either. 3e was my first edition, and then I went to PF because 4e just looked terrible, so feat trees were all I knew for a long time. Then came 5e, where feats are optional, but fun, and I fell in love. Seriously, 5e is pretty much everything I want in a game. My glancing at this is out of curiosity.

 

I don't like that they're going "everything is feats!" either. Honestly, if they want to keep with emphasizing feats, I'd love to see a feat tree where feats improved with you based on what level you pick them up at and your current level. So instead of a traditional tree, your choosing Cleave at level 1 means at level 5 it turns into Great Cleave, and at level 10 it turns into Whirlwind or whatever. But if you took Cleave at level 5, you don't get Great Cleave automatically, you get it at level 10. So then it makes it feel a little bit like your character is practicing and getting better at what they already know automatically, and getting a new feat means you're learning something wholly new, not something that's an incremental improvement.

 

Kind of like how 5e handles certain spells, namely the attack cantrips. Those get more damage based on your caster level, meaning they're always useful.

This is a lot closer to why I am disliking P2 - though I like P1 more than 5e.

 

I like some of the changes, but the underlying structure for character generation, where so much is hardwired in... not even a little bit.

 

The Auld Grump

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to spend a lot of effort FORCING the player to make good, balanced choices.

 

But sometimes it is FUN to take the less good option.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your angle on this, but even then, it looks like it encourages even more bookkeeping. I already have my spell list for that!

 

That being said, I've pretty much stuck to the party face / spellcaster and these ideas while they seem to fit the system mechanically, seem strange and new to me, in a game system that was supposed to be strange and not in any way new to me.

 

Sometimes you sand things and get a polished sheen. Other times, you sand things and end up with a beach made out of tinfoil.

Spoiler

*adjusts tiny tin foil hat*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been so busy with work the last few months that I completely missed this announcement.  I am relatively new still to Pathfinder and I did buy a bunch of the rule books in the last year so that is a little frustrating. I will likely stick the PF1 for a while since there is still a huge amount of content I have not explored and that is what I am most familiar with.  The reality is that in general I am usually pretty flexible with the rules anyway since I prefer story driven gaming over mechanics so whatever the changes there are I can adapt and I will eventually  switch to PF2.  I don't know why people get upset about these changes. Evolution is a good thing and frankly 10 years is a long time to not change.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 6:48 AM, Baldur8762 said:

I don't know why people get upset about these changes. Evolution is a good thing and frankly 10 years is a long time to not change.    

 

Because change isn't always for the better, especially if it's just change for the sake of change. And that's something you see all the time just about everywhere you look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 6:48 AM, Baldur8762 said:

I have been so busy with work the last few months that I completely missed this announcement.  I am relatively new still to Pathfinder and I did buy a bunch of the rule books in the last year so that is a little frustrating. I will likely stick the PF1 for a while since there is still a huge amount of content I have not explored and that is what I am most familiar with.  The reality is that in general I am usually pretty flexible with the rules anyway since I prefer story driven gaming over mechanics so whatever the changes there are I can adapt and I will eventually  switch to PF2.  I don't know why people get upset about these changes. Evolution is a good thing and frankly 10 years is a long time to not change.    

Change is not always evolution.

 

4e D&D was a radical departure that did not, in any way, improve the game.

 

I am withholding opinion on P2, but I am not thrilled by the changes I see.

 

If the game suffers from the changes then it will not be evolution, but instead a harmful mutation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archetypes being replaced with feats.

 

Hurray.

 

Back down to about 2.5. Half a step above 4e.

 

No, really, Paizo - replacing archetypes with feats, and making noises like you are doing the same thing as you did in P1 is not fooling me.

 

Not even bothering to voice my concerns on their Blog - they have chosen the road that they want to travel.

 

The Auld Grump - I am getting a 4e vibe off of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like Paizo may be doing exactly what WotC did with 4e - listening to a subset of very vocal fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played 2.0 at Origins.. it was interesting.. there was still too much fumbling for information because the character sheet on the pre-gens isnt laid out well.. add the traits that each weapon has (Forceful, sweeping, deadly, etc) and it takes time to figure out how things work.  

 

I haven't read any articles yet, but Kyra was stuck with Lore(Farming) based on her background which was completely useless.. and honestly, if we had not been fighting undead, Cleric still sucked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5e is tremendously popular because it's designed for people that I am not. There seem to be quite of few of those people. ::D: This is great for those people (and I don't begrudge them their fun in any way), but it makes 5e entirely uninteresting to me. I specifically don't want a game where the reins are held so tightly by the publisher.

 

Right now I'm cautiously pessimistic about PF2. It looks like it was designed by people who want all of those things that I don't want and that I'm playing PF1 to avoid. "Some people are using magic items in ways that we think are wrong, so we're going to change the rules to make that impossible without house rules." "Some people are making characters in ways that we think aren't as interesting as the ways that we want them to make characters, so we'll show them the better way." And so on. I suspect that the rules will work well for many people, but I'm not convinced that those people aren't already being well served by 5e.

 

That said, I've seen a few things that I intend to pilfer unashamedly from PF2 (I particularly like the new initiative rules, for instance), and I expect to find more when we get the playtest books.

 

To be fair, PF is a compromise for me. What I'd like to be playing is Hero, where I can make exactly the everything that I want, but that requires a group that is willing to participate in that kind of mechanical complexity, and I don't have that right now. What we do have is a group that works pretty well and is willing to playing PF, so that's what we're playing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SamuraiJack said:

 and honestly, if we had not been fighting undead, Cleric still sucked

 

That phrase does not compute. Cleric is, and has been, a powerhouse in 3.X and PF if done correctly. At least by my experience. Party buffs, some battlefield control, healing on demand, a decent HP pool, good armor and weapon choices... The problem is that too many people expect the cleric to be a heal bot all the time, when a cleric is best served by wading into the fight to sling buffs and offensive magics, then healing afterwards. 

 

3 hours ago, Doug Sundseth said:

5e is tremendously popular because it's designed for people that I am not. There seem to be quite of few of those people. ::D: This is great for those people (and I don't begrudge them their fun in any way), but it makes 5e entirely uninteresting to me. I specifically don't want a game where the reins are held so tightly by the publisher.

 

5e is actually under the OGL again. They didn't release all the core classes and races under it, so there isn't an SRD that's worth a damn, but the rules themselves are still OGL as opposed to the GSL that 4e was under. They've even, in very limited fashion, opened up the Forgotten Realms for third-parties. The difference this time, I think, is that most of the third-party stuff has been done in digital format through the DM's Guild website. DM's Guild has its own publishing/licensing agreement that is what lets people have some access to the Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft, and it technically allows for the entirety of the D&D rules as opposed to just the rules available in the SRD. 

 

It's more of a hold than they had on 3.x, but less of a hold than they had on 4e. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that while the OGL version of 5e doesn't technically have access to the entirety of the 5e rules WotC can't legally block you from using the rules. Because game rules aren't copyrightable, and that's a principle that's written into American copyright law and which has been upheld in court repeatedly. What they can do is go after you for using certain names, terms, etc, which are copyrightable and which the OGL doesn't release to you. So you can't use "Mind Flayer" or "Illitihid" bur you could make an identical stat block for a monster called a "Brain Peeler" and they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on.

 

Again, not a lawyer, but the person who wrote the following quotes, which I pulled from a document on the American Bar Association's website about why video game rules cant be copyrighted, is. They're very relevant to what I've just stated.

 

"Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act states: “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of 
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or 
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such 
work.”1 In using the word “or,” the statute lists these exclusions—ideas, procedures, processes, systems, 
methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries—disjunctively. Thus, each has independent force and effect. This means that neither ideas nor functional elements—such as procedures, processes, systems, or methods of operation—are copyrightable."

 

"In the context of games, § 102(b) means that rules, game mechanics, and any other functional elements—in addition to the overall idea—of a game are not copyrightable. The Copyright Office factsheet on games explains exactly this: Copyright does not protect the idea for game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.6


This is consistent with early cases, which held that game rules and the overall systems created by game 
rules were uncopyrightable. For example, in Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. v. Gruber, the First Circuit held that the rules and overall system for a lottery game “Bank Night” could not be copyrighted, reasoning: “However good and valuable an idea, plan, scheme, or system is, the moment it is disclosed to the public without the protection of a patent, it becomes public property[.]”7 There are a litany of cases that fol-
lowed suit, such as Whist Club v. Foster, which explained: “In the conventional laws or rules of a game, as distinguished from the forms or modes of expression in which they may be stated, there can be no literary property susceptible of copyright.”8"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Unit04
      My friend is playing a fighter in a Pathfinder game, so I decided to take a break from my Batman game to paint up a figure for her, though I decided to paint two.  
       
      I asked her what her favorite color is, and she said "Blue", so I painted up a mini with lots of blue.  If I paint her again I think I'd pick out the fleur-de-lis in a different color, to make it stand out some more.  
       

    • By Neatpete
      The new Kickstarter got me motivated to dig up some old bones. I realized after all these years I have never painted a dragon, so I got after it. Rather happy with how this came out.
       

    • By Floyd Ryan
      This is Barzillai Thrune, the major villain from the Pathfinder Hell's Rebels campaign. I painted him as a service to my DM because we are currently playing that campaign and my intuition tells me that it will be needed some day. The mini is extremely faithful to the original Wayne Reynolds art and I also used the same colour scheme, but I regret using my standard unimaginative "block of acryl paste" base. With the burning mace the mini would be excellent for OSL experiments and there are two fine versions of it on the forum with lighting effects, but I thought to late about the idea and was reluctant to add it to the almost finished mini.
       
       




    • By Floyd Ryan
      So here is my take on the famous Pathfinder Sorceress Seoni. I mostly kept to the original color scheme but wanted to find out how a green dress would look.
       
       



    • By Brianuk
      I don't play Pathfinder but really liked the idea of Kul Inkit being a barbarian outfitted from a crashed spaceship. I tried to include spaceship grey and bright orange to suggest this. 


  • Who's Online   13 Members, 1 Anonymous, 153 Guests (See full list)

×