View Profile: CapnZapp - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 09:23 PM
    Yeah, no. You keep saying 5E has all the faults of 3E. You also appear to argue people want bad things. Time to recalibrate your beliefs to reality there bud.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 08:59 PM
    Now I don't know what game you're talking about, or how that relates to NPC build rules... The only game I know where "easy fights still take too long" is 4E, and I'm not defending that edition. If you truly believe that, or it's inverse a) that you "lie" just because your monsters don't follow PC build rules... b) that following PC build rules somehow prevents a DM from "cheating" if...
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 07:21 PM
    Sure. Don't forget about one thing, though: People run the xp-for-gold scheme for (at least*) two reasons: a) they like getting the choice between gear and levels b) they like the way gameplay changes when you no longer need to kill or defeat monsters If all you do is replace "30 xp" written on the back of an Orc with "30 gp" in its pockets, all you get is a). In order to not lose...
    59 replies | 4564 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 07:09 PM
    CapnZapp started a thread PF2 XP for Gold
    My question is "how easy or hard is it to use xp-for-gp in Pathfinder 2?" (based on the playtest and any available info on the completed game) First I should probably explain what xp for gold even is: Instead of getting xp for killing monsters, or even for completing "milestones" (quests), you can spend gold for xp (likely back in your home town). You decide for yourself what's more...
    0 replies | 52 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 06:52 PM
    I'd say you keep focusing on the wrong thing, Tony. What makes you think 4E succeeded where 4E failed, even if all those things were true? That's right - because it wasn't those things that made 4E fail, and it wasn't really those things that people disliked. It was the way they were used in 4E that made people balk. Since the edition wars are long over, and this isn't about 4E anyway,...
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 06:37 PM
    Ha - that's funny. Everybody knows true grognards only love the edition from 20-30 years ago. So 5E isn't up until 2040! :p
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 12:23 PM
    The only phone app I'm using as regards my RPG hobby is the one I'm using right now, the EN World forum app
    3 replies | 46 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 10:43 AM
    If I had the money to buy WotC I would force every dev to edit all monster stat blocks to clearly indicate which spells are Concentration.
    21 replies | 712 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 10:37 AM
    Unfortunately I'd say you were hoodwinked. The full game will come out on Aug 1, which is only two weeks away. Your purchase will be completely obsolete by then. Nobody will discuss it. Nobody will want to use it, since a thousand little things will have been tweaked. (Heck, it was obsolete already six months ago, given the six or so patches that happened during the playtest) ...
    6 replies | 194 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    7 replies | 409 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 10:22 AM
    Sure, when you put it that way. But let me ask you: which is more fun a) a combat encounter that might take a long time to resolve but never feels dangerous and never could pose a threat b) a combat encounter which inadvertently turns out to be impossibly hard; monster AC you can't hit, special attacks you can't defend against or c) a combat encounter that's challenging but not too...
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 10:06 AM
    Yes obviously. I can't believe PF2 is about to redo the same mistake 4E did, by going for a "clear" presentation. The allure and excitement fundamental to D&D is its class-based approach, where each class is its own special snowflake present for you to unwrap. Only a programmer would want to "clarify" that by breaking class abilities down into it's basic parts and them present them in a...
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 09:58 AM
    Sure. However, the D&D community is rather insular and simply uninterested in "other games". So far all those other games could be printed on the Moon, for all their impact on dndish games (read "no impact whatsoever") Rephrased: until those mechanics appear in the official Player's Handbook (or maybe a Pathfinder equivalent) they could just as well not exist at all...
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 09:40 AM
    4E made a lot of unpalatable design choices, and yes, some of them involved characters and monsters, but no, 4E didn't fail because monsters used separate rules from characters. We now have 5E which is wildly successful despite having that. Your conclusion seems unlikely. Sure there was *something* about stat gen people didn't like, but probably not the mere separation between PCs and NPCs. A...
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    3 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:24 PM
    The worst of all worlds is when the ruleset pretends it offers challenge and therefore excitement, when in reality it gives the players a thousand and one tools to completely control the frequency of recharging* and therefore the level of challenge, with just a single exception: time constraints. *) simplistic naive countermeasures such as wandering monsters are so pathetically easy to get...
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    7 replies | 409 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:07 AM
    True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:09 PM
    Okay, so I'm not seeing any replies from people that actually share the sentiment asked about; just speculation on what they might say. Carry on...
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:07 PM
    Can't you just build a different wizard, one that remains a squishie, if telling "squishie stories" is that important to you?
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:05 PM
    A very wise choice :) after all, a player has one (1) character to worry about, while the DM has a dozen. Making PC chargen more crunchy than NPC chargen makes a lot of sense.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:02 PM
    Theoretically, yes indeed. However, we've already got 5E where 1 was sacrificed (but not for the benefit of 3). So it feels like more of a market to offer 1 & 2 :)
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 08:52 PM
    People want incompatible things: 1) deep crunchy charbuild options on the player side 2) simple fast monster creation on the DM side 3) PCs and NPCs being governed by the same rules Sorry, no can do. The only possible way to have 1+3 is what 3.x tried, and it completely killed high-level DMing for me. Ultimately 2 is paramount, so the real choice is between 1 and 3. And my players...
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 05:34 PM
    CapnZapp started a thread PF2 and energy damage
    Traditionally D&D games make choosing fire over other magical energies (electricity, cold, sonic, etc) a given. Fire spells are generally best, plain and simple. About the only real use for something like acid or thunder is when you're up against a Fire Elemental or something else with resistance/immunity to fire. So I'd thought I'd ask: what do you think of this? Does it bug you as it bugs...
    1 replies | 228 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 10:46 AM
    That's actually more common than you'd think, that people misuse the adventure format even though all they want is to read you a story, having no interest or intention to let the players exhibit free will. Also, could we move this thread out of the Pathfinder forum? It's a D&D general topic.
    370 replies | 149385 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 10:32 AM
    To my personal surprise, the thing one of my players said he disliked most about 5E was the need to have X encounters a day. That is, have less and the long-rest classes gain the upper hand; have more and the short-rest classes gain the advantage. Now, what, if any, discussion about encounter expectations is there regarding Pathfinder 2?
    0 replies | 276 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 05:45 AM
    No, you were onto the right answer: people get emotional when it comes to D&D even though once in a while the game itself is blameless; they're only projecting their own insecurities and prejudice. In other words, there's absolutely nothing special about a rapier discussion that's different from discussing Monty Haul, reptile boobs or Satanism. It's just one more thing to get riled up about.
    84 replies | 2401 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 10:01 PM
    "Only fighter" OAs might make sense from a gamist perspective, but how does it stop the monsters from getting to the wizard? The whole point of OAs is deterrence. As a fighter, you don't actually want to use your opportunity attack; you just want the threat of it to make the monster stay put. If OAs no longer are a built-in natural ability, won't that mean monsters break-off from fighters...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:43 PM
    Not sure what you mean by "fluid", but if you mean the opposite of "static", that is, that PF2 characters are able to move about the battlefield more, then I'm all for it. One big drawback of 3.x combat (including games with a similar ection economy, such as WFRP3 and Pathfinder 1) was the way the game made you choose between movement and attacking at full capacity. Why? Since this led to...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 08:05 PM
    Thank you for replying. No game is perfect, but there's a darn big difference between 3E and 5E, say. I think this is chiefly because most players play 5E and wasn't around (or doesn't care to remember) the dark old days of 3E. And the (from Paizo's point of view) vocal PF1 community doesn't demand it either - how could they, they haven't seen anything remotely resembling caster-martial...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 07:55 PM
    Never played PF1 (but played 3.x a lot), will give 2 a go. Reason: 5E doesn't offer enough charbuild crunch for my players.
    20 replies | 1015 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 02:39 PM
    In 5E, the main reason monsters attack frontliners and not backbenchers isn't attacks of opportunities. It is the simple fact the Wizards stay more than 30 ft back. If the monster must choose between only moving (wasting its Multiattack) and actually attacking someone within reach, they choose the latter 9 times out of 10. The only gameplay tactic that doesn't really work anymore because 5E...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:35 PM
    Honestly, it appears you're the only one, based on how you, and you alone, respond to my every post on the subject, always trying to make it about me, rather than the topic discussed. (And, no, you won't get answers this time either... )
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:29 PM
    CapnZapp started a thread Similarities 4E PF2?
    Edit: This is not a troll thread. For the purposes of this thread, assume I am neutral towards 4th edition and that any similarities are neither bad not good. Thank you. I've heard the sentiment "PF2 will be good because it's like D&D 4E" enough times now that I gotta ask: What are the similarities between 4E and PF2? What could be the specific PF2 mechanics (and/or design assumptions) that...
    33 replies | 1033 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 09:44 AM
    If the goal is to retain the 4E-era prominence Pathfinder 1 enjoyed, the only way for Pathfinder 2 not to be a heartbreaker is to adhere just as close to 5E as PF1 adhered to 3E. In other words, it's not about setting. There have been literally hundreds of dndish fantasy settings, and none of them, not even Forgotten Realms, have achieved brand name recognition to survive outside its system....
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 09:36 AM
    If we go by in-game performance, the LotR Ranger is Boromir!
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 09:35 AM
    Funny, I don't remember Legolas melee combat pet...? *Gives Gimli a glance* Oh wait...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 07:20 PM
    That's WotC's job :)
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 11:38 AM
    How so? I mean, having the simple "pre-built" sidekicks at level 1-6 is great and all, but how would the product be less desirable by also having build guidance for higher levels....? (Maybe I misunderstood your point)
    9 replies | 396 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 10:44 AM
    From a white-room numbers point of view, this makes the Beastmaster appear quite overpowered. But 1) it's two creatures, neither of which can survive if half a creature. Of course the pair appears strong! 2) most players will not want to mistreat and abuse their animal friends. The need to keep their pet alive means the feature will not be as overpowered as cold-hearted numbers indicate. But...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 10:32 AM
    As for the Beast, offer (at least) three archetypal critters: Ursine (bears, boars, etc): can wear heavy armor barding, master's hit points + 2/level. Lupine (wolves, dogs, etc): can wear medium armor barding, master's hit points, trip or equivalent special ability (master's save DC). Feline (cats, monkeys, etc): can wear light armor barding, master's hit points - 1/level, master's...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 07:45 AM
    As for a rangery counterpart to Paladin smiting; two ideas: Infuse Trap. Make a snare or place a bear trap. Spend a slot to make the trap magical. Since trap damage is way less direct or assured than smites, damage should be way higher. I suggest three times as high, meaning 1d20 (instead of 1d8) plus an extra d20 for each higher spell level. Plus 1d20 extra against your favored enemies...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:21 PM
    Much to my surprise, I wholeheartedly agree to two Flamestrike posts in a row (see XP given) Yes, the core issue is probably that MMearls & Co vastly overvalue the explore pillar of the game; together with their inexplicable inability to understand what abilities contribute to fun gameplay and which shortcut and negate it.
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:15 PM
    Yep. Thanks. (Of course, if you multiply the 5E races by its classes by its Backgrounds, you'll get a number that blows 1E and 2E out the water )
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:14 PM
    The UA article isn't simply "more detailed/in depth". It's two different systems, two different approaches, with two different results. I definitely like the Essentials approach much better, since the characters are *actually simple*. What would be cool would be to extrapolate a complete levels 1-20 progression of each of the three Essentials sidekicks. Then you'd have something comparable...
    9 replies | 396 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 04:04 PM
    The animal companion needs to be able to enter melee combat and survive, maybe not as primary tank, but certainly the attention of a couple of adds. And the random fireball. And still not be dying, making the pet into an ability that only adds a weak link into the party; something the other players (not so) secretly wish wasn't present at all. In short, the pet needs to soak as much punishment...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 02:32 PM
    I an slightly amused at this sentiment. Recent "core" rulebooks offer well over ten classes, like twelve or fourteen. Historically, D&D has had four, maybe seven, core classes. I still feel both 5E and PF2 are downright generous with their core offerings!
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 09:48 AM
    Now you're getting dangerously close to actively seeking out an argument with me. I've repeatedly said that while I might have preferences (much like everyone else) I have no real stake in what MMearls chooses to focus the class on. Just that whatever that focus is is a real improvement, so that the Ranger becomes actually best at *something*. Except that that something mustn't be "best at...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 08:39 AM
    Well, for what it's worth, had I played a 5E Ranger, I wouldn't have bothered with casting many spells...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:36 PM
    Sure. I won't deny Pathfinder is likely to overengineer things much like 5E underengineered them. I was merely pointing out "competence" does not need to be a monolithic number. Having distinct and separate facets of competence is not inherently redundant or surplus, is all.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 08:25 PM
    Sorry but you don't get to decide my issues are unimportant while yours are. And I don't know what threads you're reading, but you have certainly missed a crap-ton of them, all saying the Beastmaster is essentially :):):):):). What the Ranger most definitely does not need, is MMearls faffing around with relatively unimportant details while missing the greater picture, which is that the...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 08:14 PM
    It's spellcasting is incredibly weak sauce. Compare paladin smiting. The ranger needs way more than known spells - had they been able to convert spell slots to bonus damage on top of their regular damage, that could mean that feature would be worthwhile. As is, nah. Just remove it entirely and hope WotC deems that to be a significant loss, so they make either the attacks or the pet...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 08:09 PM
    Nature vs nurture. Trained vs natural
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 04:45 PM
    If you're saying you have a clear ID for what YOU want the Ranger to be, sure. Otherwise, this and other threads clearly reveal nobody can agree to what the Ranger is and should do; and that the inability of the devs to pick an ID and then give us a strong execution of said ID is really the core reason why people consider it weak. That's funny - I'd say all it needs is one subclass where TWF...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:53 AM
    Oh boy are you in the wrong thread if that's supposed to mean you think the ranger is fine, Tony
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:52 AM
    Generally we're in agreement. Just two nitpicks 1) I never argued they should invent something new and un-inconic. Literally every feature I want them to choose from will be something people consider as iconic. 2) That's literally the meaning of an overhaul! Look, they will never admit the PHB class is simply underpowered. That's why I'm arguing they should drop some abilities to...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:40 AM
    I was responding to "the Fighter needs to be the one good at fighting" argument. Maybe I replied to the wrong post. As for your argument, just being good at fighting in a game where everyone is good at fighting, well - can't help you here, there will always be a huge demand for a hero that essentially has nothing complicated going on. At least choosing Fighter in 5E is much less of a trap...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:32 AM
    Robust maybe, but bigger design space? No, there's no reason unification changes the design space. If anything, having to adhere to one set of parameters instead of three(?) means fewer opportunities, not more. But ease of use, robustness, balance...? Sure. The subclass concept as implemented in 5E is much restricted compared to the prestige class concept. You must start the subclass at a...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:20 AM
    I assume you're still playing OD&D then? In other words, no it isn't
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 12:24 PM
    Returning to the thread topic, all WotC needs to do is pick one or two Ranger concepts, and develop those into actual good and desirable abilities. The rest should be dropped; or at least not stand in the way of the main abilities. So far, being given half-arsed capacity in five different areas only make the result a compromised design. Make it good and the players will come. Then we can leave...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 12:15 PM
    That ship sailed a long time ago. Fighter will be in every edition always. As the most undiluted Hero class with the fewest distractions, it will always be popular.
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 12:11 PM
    In a game where combat is just one out of many secondary activities, sure, I can see that, no problem. The only problem is when someone is talking about D&D where it is utterly obvious the realism in "trained fighters are better than fighting than anyone else" completely falls flat. Since combat is the main activity, by far. Since many years, every class in D&D is designed to be good at...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 12:05 PM
    Tank definitely includes active abilities to ensure all that toughness actually sees use. Simplest example: aggro management in WoW. Those monsters didn't keep hammering the Warrior because they wanted to, but because the Warrior used its abilities judiciously and forced them to.
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 10:20 AM
    The point is that "telling the same stories" is as useless a metric as "you could say that about Edition X". You can pretty much take any Golarion scenario, or an old AD&D scenario, and then run that in everything from OD&D to 5th Edition. The only thing that would constitute a hard roadblock was if the scenario depended on a particular effect that your current rules engine simply cannot...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:12 AM
    Well, you can say that of any pairing of dndish games: you can play the same sort of stories and characters in AD&D and 5E, for instance. At least if you squint hard enough; no transition is flawless. Just one example: the way scrolls in 5E can only be used by the class that knows the spell, meaning you can't plant a Speak With Nature scroll to make sure a role-playing encounter can take place...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:43 PM
    When it comes to the "feat overload" issue, it is possible that either A) the playtest was organized that way specifically for playtest purposes; that is, newcomer friendliness wasn't a priority (which for a playtest, fair enuff) and/or B) that Paizo realizes a reader should be able to get a "feel" for any given class just by browsing those pages of the classes chapter, without having to...
    117 replies | 6664 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 07:37 AM
    Are you aware you're linking to Google AMP? Accelerated pages that often break certain functionality? You should be able to access the original article on the actual web site. Once you have that URL, try giving that to Translate :)
    330 replies | 21799 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 07:34 AM
    In a strict sense, yes of course, since no video game is ever a 100% faithful simulation of a ttrpg ruleset. But I don't think the context here is about PHB vs expansion content. It is about adding bits and bobs - such as making the fighter more interesting, as already discussed. Sure they might throw in a lot of extra races and classes from D&D's history for free... But why would they? ...
    330 replies | 21799 view(s)
    3 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 07:27 PM
    Again, that shows just how clever the WoW Hunter class was
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 07:25 PM
    Yes, the proposed Ranger abilities come across as written by someone with zero clue. I mean, when you can give an ability a casual glance and *immediately* say "that will ruin the game" something is off - professional devs are supposed to familiarize themselves with the various ways their product is played...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 05:29 PM
    No. The only real cost of Guidance is its cost in the action economy. During combat this cost (=making a Cleric, an otherwise very capable character do nothing else) is actually quite significant and I have zero problems with the cantrip. Outside of combat, however, this cost approaches zero, which highlights the real issue: your ability to spam the cantrip endlessly. In short, a cantrip...
    132 replies | 65338 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 05:26 PM
    The problem with that is that it enables me to argue there's little difference between a +2 proficiency bonus and a +6 one. Each +1 bonus matters. When you have players that minmax well, guidance is the straw that breaks the camel's back. 1/8 is not trivial.
    132 replies | 65338 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 05:19 PM
    I am honestly baffled someone can think 4E is anywhere near the experience of playing AD&D/d20/5E... but since that seems to be the case, I guess there's nothing else for me to do but take my hat off as well...
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 12:47 PM
    Yes. "You can never be surprised" is a piss-poor ability that never should have entered the game, since it short-circuits stories. I wonder how long it will take before MMearls admits this. At least they seem to realize "You can't get lost" and "You can't be tracked" means no wilderness challenge.
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 12:39 PM
    Being able to get +2.5 on anything anytime has a huge impact on play. MUCH more than killing some random monster. It would be much better to make it a 1st level spell, so it couldn't be spammed. Even if the bonus would also be increased. Guidance is too close to a static bonus. The game doesn't need them - it is easy as it is. Much more fun in having discrete bonuses that you choose...
    132 replies | 65338 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 12:08 PM
    CapnZapp replied to BECMI for 5e?
    Actually, given the overall meh-factor on most (not all, but most) high-level abilities that aren't spells, and how the game feels like content is thinner at the upper half, I think they could just pick the best ideas of any potential Epic book (as opposed to "most overpowered") and integrate that into the high levels of the ordinary book. That is, keep the 20 levels. But stock them with more...
    35 replies | 1607 view(s)
    3 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 09:51 AM
    Too many suggested ideas forget that ruining the surprise isn't a good thing. Don't give the Ranger abilities to auto-detect terrain, hazards or creatures. At the very most, make it (high level) spells. An ability that allows Rangers to short-circuit scenarios and mysteries already at level 1 makes me want to have the designer mentally examined. What the heck!? Mod Edit: Removed...
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 10:59 AM
    The peak can still have been reached. Unless you want to argue that as long as a single new gamer joins up, it hasn't. OTOH that's absurd. Now then; let me flag that's all I have to say on that particular tidbit. Please do tell your thoughts on the rest of my post. I mean, you focused in on such a small detail it's almost weird. I'm not going to reply further on that - it's simply not...
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 10:53 AM
    It was probably Tony Vargas. On the other hand, he sees 4th edition in everything everywhere, so I've learned to simply ignore that. Let me reassure you I'm playing 5E because it resembles d20 without the annoying crud, and also because none of fundamental flaws of 4E aren't there. All I wish is for deeper crunch on the player side.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 10:49 AM
    You *really* need to consider what a discussion forum is for. Hint: it's not to only discuss scientifically proven facts. If you're frustrated why I keep ignoring these replies, now you know why. You really need to stop taking it personal. I didn't come over to your house and strangled your kitten. I am merely questioning the business strategy of a business corporation.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 10:45 AM
    The Ranger will fail until it's actually good. Then it won't matter if it has spells, companions or whatnot.
    352 replies | 12297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 10:43 AM
    ...and we're up to six hundred posts on a decades old row with absolutely nothing to show for it!! See you in another couple of hundred posts! *good job* *sarcasm*
    641 replies | 17995 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:43 AM
    I look forward to a complete breakdown, where you can see exactly how the various versions differ with no lookup needed. Maybe on a rules wiki somewhere
    113 replies | 5019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:41 AM
    The committee part referred to the removal of the restriction from the playtest. (That is, you got it backwards. The idea was that if 5E had been designed by the same committee, Attunement would not have survived into the final product) Cheers
    32 replies | 1674 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:32 AM
    Without having any idea of what a pugmire is, you have a point: yes of course there will be gamers content with 5E. But these "casuals" will never play a Pathfinder game. (That's not a slight. I am convinced I am staying objective fact when I say Paizo will never appeal to someone who truly believes the light level of crunch in 5E is "just right"; unless they make a completely new game, of...
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:25 AM
    On paper, a relevant point. In practice, seldom relevant.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:22 AM
    That is literally the reason for every new edition of an existing game ever. The skill is always how to sell the new edition while drawing the attention well away from this fact.
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:21 AM
    The obvious place to start recruiting is among existing 5E gamers. Without knowing for sure, I feel the vast majority of prospective gamers of this generation has already been recruited. That is, thinking that Paizo has the clout to generate a meaningful number of NEW gamers is a pipe dream. They should have taken efforts to make their game palatable to 5E gamers, because that IS the...
    165 replies | 11226 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
12,991
Posts Per Day
2.21
Last Post
Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E? Today 09:23 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
90
General Information
Last Activity
Today 09:24 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 25th June, 2003
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
1
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thursday, 18th July, 2019


Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019



Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Page 1 of 18 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 12:50 PM - Aldarc mentioned CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    CapnZapp, that's certainly true, which is one reason why many other RPGs out there are more conscientious about time pressure mechanics. E.g., running out of light/torches in Torchbearer, countdown clocks in Blades in the Dark, and randomized countdown rolls in Index Card RPG. The countdown clocks in Blades, in particular, is pretty genius. Everytime the PCs go into downtime mode to recover, the countdown clocks for their surrounding factions will continue ticking. Not just one, but all of them. Eventually they will trigger, with or without the PCs addressing it, changing the game states. The world around the players advances regardless of their resting. Ignore these things at your own peril, and the situation will boil.
  • 02:04 AM - Parmandur mentioned CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    ...nothing like 4e, and very similar to 4e. So that complicates the issue. I'm with you. PF1 was born of an opportunity to pick up the torch of 3.5 D&D dropped by WotC in the form of the OGL/SRD, leverage their Dragon/Dungeon subscriber list, and sell to the winning side in the edition war. There are no such opportunities, today. 5e has it's own OGL, 4e does not; Paizo has no existing relationship with past fans of 4e; and there's no anti-5e edition war. There's no /reason/ for Paizo to in any way intentionally evoke 4e. The only possible source of similarity might be in that with nothing else to leverage, Paizo might resort to merely trying to make PF2 a better game than PF1 in it's own right. It's worth noting that a lot of people who have been working on PF2 were working at WotC eleven years ago, working on 4E. It's not just an unrelated group who might come to similar solutions, it's the same people approaching problems they worked on before. As to your question, CapnZapp in terms of what people are gesturing towards as re.inding them of 4E (good or bad, fairly or unfairly) compared to PF1, I would point to: 1. The action economy, which is a major shift from 3.X ways of doing things, and obviously pretty core to the play experience. 2. The per level addition to all checks, which takes 4E's approach but with even bigger numbers. This is in addition to a 5E style multitiered proficiency system, which has apparently gotten bigger numbers since the playtest. 3. The Feat-a-Palooza approach to PC building within a Class framework bears more than a superficial resemblance to the 4E power catalogs (though the stylistic resemblance is potent).

Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019

  • 07:30 PM - Umbran mentioned CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    What the... CapnZapp "Keep it clean: Don't use obscenities or profanity, don't use clever tricks to run around the profanity filters"
  • 02:52 PM - lowkey13 mentioned CapnZapp in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    Now, when I say it's close to 4e, I'm talking about the mechanics. 2 step resource recovery, a multitude of preroll mechanics, virtually all classes being built around a suite of special abilities (typically spells for most of the classes). Very little niche protection. Overnight HP recovery and virtually unkillable PC's. And that's just off the top of my head. When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at? Mechanically, it's a completely different game. So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e? Is it though? Completely different? I mean, I'd start by noting that just above us, CapnZapp states he's playing 5e because it resembles d20 (3e) without the annoying crud, so there's that. But for my terms, using the DMG (slow natural healing) combined with self-restraint at the table (archetypes from the 1e PHB) and no variant rules from the PHB (no feats, no MCing) leads to a very 1e-feeling game, so much so that we pretty much run 1e adventures exclusively. The slow healing takes care of the healing, and we have instituted an additional house rule (system shock of DC 15 if you get knocked down below 0hp, variant of DMG p. 273, anything below -10 is insta-death). TBH, with that, the only real difference left is the at-will cantrips; we are currently engaged in an ongoing, and lengthy, debate about what to do with those.

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019

  • 10:23 PM - Matthia05718273 mentioned CapnZapp in post If you could put D&D into any other non middle ages genre, what would it be?
    A CR3 Archer from Volo's Guide to Monsters fires twice per round, and deals an average of 8 damage per hit. If the person advancing on them has a low AC, which a character in a Western setting will, they can take down an average-HP character from a 3rd level party in two turns - so, unless their opponent wins initiative and is close enough to close the distance in one turn, yes they can kill them before being punched in the face. I guess someone would counter by saying that a character would wear armor to close the difference. Meaning the rules solution to this problem is simply, make armor more cumbersome than it is (you can't close the distance as fast), or make it not as useful (the AC increase is not as good, especially compared to making yourself more dexterous). I gotta say this thread is a little exhausting to read. Hasn't CapnZapp already admitted that he thinks D&D can handle firearms, he just prefers different systems?
  • 12:49 PM - MarkB mentioned CapnZapp in post If you could put D&D into any other non middle ages genre, what would it be?
    CapnZapp I still feel that your argument that D&D favours moving to close in to melee rather than using cover feels more like theory crafting than actual gameplay practice. But even conceding that it might occur in standard D&D, I still don't see that it will be a factor in a Western setting. In a Western setting, ranged combat is king. Your primary damage dealers are pistols and rifles and shotguns, with things like knives and tomahawks coming in second and also being throwable. So, in this setting, where's the motivation to charge into melee? What purpose is there in a character running around in the open? Sure, the HP model may somewhat mitigate the downside of such a tactic, but what's the upside? Why wouldn't people make tactical use of range and cover in those circumstances?

Sunday, 23rd June, 2019

  • 04:13 PM - Fenris-77 mentioned CapnZapp in post If you could put D&D into any other non middle ages genre, what would it be?
    CapnZapp I think you're mistaking my point for something it's not. The lack of understanding specifically indexes the inability (by design) of HP to simulate damage from any real world weapons - HP as simulation. One big subset of arguments about HP and firearms is how while they might work for melee they don't for firearms (as a simulation). They don't 'work' for either, the only difference is the extent to which people don't realize that they don't work for melee (again, as a simulation). In both cases they are a heavily fictionalized account of combat. It's not that I don't understand the complaints, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for them - HP is what it is and asking it do something very different from what it's designed to do is always going to messy and complicated. Maybe worth it as a hack (who doesn't love a good rules hack) but don't complain that it doesn't fit like a glove. So, to sum up, I am only addressing some specific points about the value of HP as simulation as regards m...

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 05:41 PM - TwoSix mentioned CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    ...hit effects remains the same. A 5th level fighter with the Dual Wielder, Crossbow Expert, or Polearm Master all have the same number of possible hits. I'm not sure that this should be in the DW Feat - it doesn't fit. I do like the idea of extra damage and I think you might channel the Two Weapon Rend feat from 3E - something like "When you hit a target with two non-ranged weapons with which you are proficient in the same round and are using Strength as the modifier you do +5 damage." Only +5 damage and not +10 because there's no negative modifier (and you're getting double stat bonus damage anyway). And round, not turn as the Bonus Action from TWF can be separate from the Action, plus it allows the PC to get the bonus damage from using a Reaction. Again, nah. Assuming a world in which martials have access to GWM and SS, the -X/+X mechanic is necessary. It lets attacks scale better with both accuracy and on-hit effects. (You could of course do a complete redux of feats, like CapnZapp did a few years ago, but one of my criteria was to keep the design as parsimonious as possible. So no GWM/SS fixes here.) And +5 on a disadvantaged attack (since it requires two different attacks to hit) is absurdly weak. Assuming roughly standard hit rates, that's maybe a +2 damage bump per turn that doesn't scale with Extra Attack. Totally defeats the point of the design. One of my main criteria is that the feat redesign should sit on the safe shelf as GWM or PAM or SS. It needs to be competitive without blowing them away (<10% delta in either direction, ideally). Now, running some numbers, I have some concerns about Tier 1 deltas for strong Tier 1 builds like VHuman Fighter 1/Barb2. The delta is about 1.6 DPR between someone taking Dual Wielder and GWM at level 3 (23.3 to 21.7, assuming point buy, Reckless/Rage, and a 1 in 3 proc rate on GWM). GWM/PAM pull ahead at level 6, though, even with the Dual Wielder bumping Str to 18. (42.2 to 40.7). I might need to make a li...

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 12:09 PM - robus mentioned CapnZapp in post Would campaign skeletons address the lack of adventures for minor settings?
    CapnZapp raised an interesting point in the Expanse thread on the lack of adventures for settings once the rulebook is published. Now we all know writing a comprehensive adventure path/campaign is hard (and frequently fails to please everyone all of the time). But is there an opportunity for something simpler (a campaign skeleton say?) which GMs could flesh out as they go? I frequently find that I like the general idea of a campaign and then get frustrated with the details provided. (Often the details seem confusing or at odds with the campaign, or just included to for funsies and not really contributing anything). A campaign skeleton would basically act as an adventure outline identifying the villain and major antagonists and the general structure (hooks to get into the adventure and the major plot points). I'm thinking something like a 5 or 10 page outline? Adventures are generally easy to conjure on short notice: you know the party and their level, so throwing obstacles at them isn't too...

Wednesday, 22nd May, 2019

  • 07:34 PM - Mercurius mentioned CapnZapp in post Game of Thrones Spin-offs: News & Speculation
    CapnZapp, good thoughts but I'd go further and say in an ideal world we'd get a Malazan series, or a proper attempt at Earthsea, or something else entirely. But you know how the biz works: you leverage a brand that works, and HBO is going to try to make as much money as possible off "Game of Thrones" as they can...and GRRM will laugh all the way to the bank, even if it veers further and further from his original vision.

Tuesday, 21st May, 2019

  • 05:00 AM - pemerton mentioned CapnZapp in post If there's one game where stat differences are justified, what game would that be?
    I'm far more interested in the value he feels this adds to the game.By this you're meaning not just gendered roles/classes/playbooks, but sex-based stat penalties? My guess - from the discussion of Conan in the OP - is that CapnZapp wants the play experience that would result from gendered classes/playbooks, but (1) isn't too familar with a wide range of RPGs beyond a certain sort of D&D, and (2) has a certain sort of "simulationist" sensibility that leads to a preference for process-driven mechanics (men are stronger, so give them a stat mod) rather than just cutting to the chase and having gendered classes/playbooks.
  • 04:28 AM - pemerton mentioned CapnZapp in post If there's one game where stat differences are justified, what game would that be?
    you've framed it in the context of wanting to make a game where "men are from mars" because you think that's how "things are IRL" CapnZapp didn't say that's how things are iRL. To the contrary, The point isn't to moralize or repress someone's real-life gender identity. The point is that in this world, and in particular my take on it, "men come from Mars, women come from Venus".The phrase this world referst to the imagined world of the RPG, not real life. I doubt I would play the game that CapnZapp posits. I do play RPGs which, as part of their presentation of mediaeval life, note the significance of certain gender distinctions (Burning Wheel has some lifepaths that are women only; Prince Valiant has a discussion of assumed gender roles, and how this might bear on the incorporation of women PCs into the game). I agree with the suggestion by you and steenan that what CapnZapp is looking for would probably be better achieved by having gendered lifepaths or gendered "playbooks" (to use the PbtA terminology). In a D&D-type game, this would be gendered classes. Mazes and Minotaurs is a semi-spoofy OSR-ish RPG that do...

Monday, 20th May, 2019

  • 12:00 PM - Aldarc mentioned CapnZapp in post State of the mystic
    Having a Psion class is a good call. I agree with CapnZapp that a lot of past psionic archetypes could easily be ported to subclasses of preexisting classes: * Psychic Warrior: Fighter Subclass * Soul Knife: Monk or Rogue Subclass * Wilder: Sorcerer Subclass * Ardent: Bard or Cleric Subclass

Sunday, 5th May, 2019

  • 08:30 PM - Aldarc mentioned CapnZapp in post Paizo To Make Kingmaker Bestiary... For D&D 5E!
    CapnZapp, you seem to be sending mixed messages. On the one hand, you seem to think that Paizo missed their opportunity to make products adapted directly for 5E as is. On the other, you bemoan that Paizo is not making "5E Advanced." But I suspect that if Paizo made either then their profits would fizzle out even faster. Why would the market bother with Paizo if they did either especially when many tables do not allow 3pp materials? By producing materials for 5e, Paizo would be making themselves niche among niche rather than carving out a more unique niche for themselves.
  • 03:50 PM - Hussar mentioned CapnZapp in post Paizo To Make Kingmaker Bestiary... For D&D 5E!
    I think the point that CapnZapp was trying to make is that Pathfinder is a pretty small slice of the RPG market. Considering that the RPG market without WotC producing any new books is about 15 million dollars (and that included 3e and 4e at the time), it's not really too much of a stretch to think that Pathfinder's market share isn't really large. I realize that the common wisdom is that WotC is the 600 pound gorilla, but, really, we don't know how the market slices up.

Friday, 3rd May, 2019

  • 05:09 PM - Oofta mentioned CapnZapp in post "straight" rolls in D&D
    If you have a sub-plot of removing the alignment change aspect, consider an alternative. Make it an incredibly difficult task. Make it a quadruple deadly encounter if you have to. If the party fails, it's not a TPK, the only long term result is that they missed their one shot to "fix" the item. They can't even destroy it if they wanted to. At that point they have a dilemma. Continue to use the item risking becoming evil NPCs or never use it again, but that risks the item calling out to a more amenable party. Let them know ahead of time what's going to happen. There's a McGuffin that can be used to destroy the item once they know what's happening but it might, maybe, just possibly be able to change it as well. As far as LE being allowed in the party, I agree with CapnZapp. Just because a person is lawful doesn't mean they won't (or shouldn't) sooner or later kill off other PCs. It's just that when they do it they'll let you know that "it's nothing personal".

Tuesday, 16th April, 2019

  • 01:54 PM - Sadras mentioned CapnZapp in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    Look, @CapnZapp, I get what you are looking for, but, frankly, it's just not feasible in the 5e ruleset. It really isn't. The fact that no game system or designer has pulled it off or done any better than Gygax kind of indicates it can't be done. How good any magic item is depends on to many intangibles. Despite me not 100% agreeing with @CapnZapp regarding rarity, I don't believe the above statements are quite true. I mean what you need is a base for the cost of magic, it should not be so difficult to tabulate. Then what you need are (1) multipliers for high and low magic campaigns, (2) Consumable or Permanent enchantments, (3) Utility and (4) Rarity (Tiered - perhaps as per @S'mon's post). It just requires some work which I think WotC would rather not invest but I think it would be worthwhile in the long run, but that is just me. @CapnZapp, funny enough despite all the negative feedback you endure on this board for the issues regarding Rests, Feats and Magical Items I certainly appreciate...
  • 09:31 AM - Hussar mentioned CapnZapp in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    Look, CapnZapp, I get what you are looking for, but, frankly, it's just not feasible in the 5e ruleset. It really isn't. 3e and 4e both took their mechanics from how earlier editions of the game were being played. If you played AD&D, you were absolutely dripping in magic items. Either from playing AD&D modules, or using the random treasure charts, AD&D presumed a huge number of magic items in the group. They might not have been powerful items, but, you did have a bunch of them. I mean, all you have to do is look at the 1e paladin who was limited to only ten magic items. 4 weapons, a suit of armor, a shield and 4 more magic items. That was the hard limit for paladins. Yikes! That's about what you'd expect on a 10th or 12th level 3e character in a very high magic campaign. So, 3e and 4e welded the magic items into the character building rules. You were presumed to use magic items to build your character. The problem is, players being the pragmatists that they were, spent their cash o...

Sunday, 14th April, 2019

  • 04:02 PM - Maxperson mentioned CapnZapp in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    That's a good thing. Giving PCs easy access to magic items was a bad idea in 3E and 4E. Note WoTC barely follows their own rules for items, money and encounters. Whether it's good or bad is entirely opinion based. For you and I it's bad, and for CapnZapp it's good. He has rules in Xanthar's for buying magic items now, and if he doesn't like that brand of strawberry ice cream, he has the ingredients for the strawberry ice cream he wants, so he can make his own.

Friday, 29th March, 2019

  • 12:54 AM - Ovinomancer mentioned CapnZapp in post What is a "Reputation Comment"
    Before I say something negative, I try to put myself in someone else's shoes. In this case, I would try to remember that Morrus has to respond to a lot of stuff, moderate comments, deal with extraneous stuff on the board, and have a life too. Especially when other people (like Nagol, for example) can also fill in details. :) OTOH, I also remember that I don't always practice what I preach, so there's that. And that's more important than responding to CapnZapp?! Pull the other one, it's got bells on!


Page 1 of 18 1234567891011 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Thursday, 18th July, 2019

  • 09:44 PM - Saelorn quoted CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    Now I don't know what game you're talking about, or how that relates to NPC build rules... The only game I know where "easy fights still take too long" is 4E, and I'm not defending that edition.In that case, you have (a2) easy fights that resolve quickly and the players get to show off how awesome they are, and you have (b2) impossible fights that the players avoid in order to show off how wise they are. The choice between your given options, (a) (b) or (c), was disingenuous. In reality, the choice between (a2) and (b2), or (c), is a lot less one-sided. If you truly believe that, or it's inverse a) that you "lie" just because your monsters don't follow PC build rules... b) that following PC build rules somehow prevents a DM from "cheating" if they really want to... I really have nothing to say to you...I'm not talking about that. Those are honest choices, which a system can use or not, and players can accept (or reject) at face value. I'm talking about the illusion of objectivity, wher...
  • 09:09 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    What makes you think <5E> succeeded where 4E failed, even if all those things were true?I believe I said that. It didn't get rid of the things that were complained about, it put /back/ the things that those stalking-horses were really about. This just feels like you're bitter about the fate of 4E, tbh….You have no idea. I'm a bitter, cynical, old man on my best day, discussing the most innocuous things. I turn it down to 11 when I'm here. Since the edition wars are long over, and this isn't about 4E anyway, let me skip the details and just establish that 4E and 5E looks, feels and plays very differently.Heh. A trivially true, high-level statement that offers no information. listen to me when I tell you that 5E feels like a proper successor to 3E while truly fixing its most egregious faults 5e /brought back/ the faults of 3e - and, more importantly, those TSR era - some of them to a lesser degree, but bringing back an issue, is not fixing it. And, as someone who appreciated 3e for ...
  • 09:04 PM - Xaelvaen quoted CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    Edit: This is not a troll thread. For the purposes of this thread, assume I am neutral towards 4th edition and that any similarities are neither bad not good. Thank you. I've heard the sentiment "PF2 will be good because it's like D&D 4E" enough times now that I gotta ask: What are the similarities between 4E and PF2? What could be the specific PF2 mechanics (and/or design assumptions) that makes anyone say this? And are these people the same ones that see similarities between 5E and 4E? (That is, are the alleged similarities between PF2 and 4E stronger or weaker than the ones between 5E and 4E?) What (other than personal wish lists) could suggest PF2 will play like 4E and not like PF1 (and therefore 3.x?) I am genuinely curious. Too many people here and at Reddit and elsewhere say this. No edition-bashing intended. The final product isn't out yet, obviously, but from the playtest I found practically nothing to resemble 4E. I found it just a different version of 3.5 in all comparisons, wi...
  • 08:26 PM - Saelorn quoted CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    But let me ask you: which is more fun a) a combat encounter that might take a long time to resolve but never feels dangerous and never could pose a threat b) a combat encounter which inadvertently turns out to be impossibly hard; monster AC you can't hit, special attacks you can't defend against or c) a combat encounter that's challenging but not too challenging, so you actually have a reason to deploy your abilities in smart ways and are encouraged to actually team-work to make the sum of your party greater than its partsYour first problem is that easy fights, which pose no threat, take a long time to resolve. Your second problem is that the PCs are apparently locked into inescapable death matches, against their will. If you fix those two problems, then contriving the third situation won't seem like the only option. Remember all of that takes place behind the DM screen. As a player you shouldn't deny the DM good tools just because you want to live in a bubble of illusion the great game you're...
  • 07:36 PM - Saelorn quoted CapnZapp in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    So take your pick. If you are the DM, Saelorn, and you still pick #3, I can respect that.I chose #1, and as soon as it became apparent that PF2 wouldn't support that, I wrote up my own game to fill the obvious niche in the market. It's on drivethruRPG.com. It's great. Of course, complexity and crunch are all relative. The real benefit of writing your own RPG is that you can make things exactly as complex as you want, so my PCs (and NPCs) are roughly as complex as 3.0 characters before the supplements hit. There's a lot you can do with multi-classing, but the character concept is much more important than how you manipulate the system into representing that concept.
  • 06:39 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    Ha - that's funny.It's effing hilarious.
  • 05:53 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    4E made a lot of unpalatable design choices, and yes, some of them involved characters and monsters, but no, 4E didn't fail because monsters used separate rules from characters. We now have 5E which is wildly successful despite having that.Most of the things people complained loudly about in 4e, 5e retains in at least some measure. Fighters casting spells, wizards being 'nerfed' (relative to 3e), martial healing, overnight 'natural healing,' dissociated mechanics, etc, etc... ...nor was it "presentation" - PF2 need have no worries on that score - Essentials desperately scrambled to give a mussed, fluff-heavy presentation, sand-box adventure, etc, to no avail. No, 5e returned to meeting longtime D&D expectations. Random lethality at 1st level segueing into a 'sweet spot' followed by increasingly wildly powerful magic (LFQW), beating the game using 'smart play' (CaW) because it gives you the tool to recharge your resources at will (5MWD), magic items making you 'just better' if the DM g...
  • 03:22 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    All that means is you prefer to play with a master DM who has internalized all the DM know-how. That does not bring new gamers into the hobby.I suppose it doesn't, by itself. A TT gaming renaissance, being able to research the game on-line without the top hits being rants about how wrong and evil and not-D&D it is, the name recognition and rep of the "First RPG," these things bring new folks in to try (or at least, don't keep) D&D for the first time. A master DM who has internalized all the DM know-how, is just waiting for them, he didn't bring them there - but he will surely do a better job /retaining/ them, not letting them leave after a couple hours thinking "wow, that sure was a confusing, boring, stupid, game, I'll never play that again!" it would mark you out as a grumpy old grognard, and their time is... well not now [emoji39] Actually, the last 5 or so years have been a great time to be a grognard! OSR has had a big influence on the hobby, D&D has finally recaptured it's 80s ...
  • 03:08 PM - robus quoted CapnZapp in post How do you keep track of spells for multiple NPCs?
    If I had the money to buy WotC I would force every dev to edit all monster stat blocks to clearly indicate which spells are Concentration. Heck, just bold or underline would do the trick!
  • 10:55 AM - Samloyal23 quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook
    Unfortunately I'd say you were hoodwinked. The full game will come out on Aug 1, which is only two weeks away. Your purchase will be completely obsolete by then. Nobody will discuss it. Nobody will want to use it, since a thousand little things will have been tweaked. (Heck, it was obsolete already six months ago, given the six or so patches that happened during the playtest) Unfortunately it isn't even a good start or a good introduction either - you've purchased a playtest, a beta; if anything, the final rulebook should add the newbie-friendly language they didn't bother with for the playtest. Also, the playtest was free online but also was published. Which a year ago was kind of reasonable. You'd use it to follow along in the public playtest process that happened last fall. Now? Selling the playtest document is a rip-off. Just my luck... Lol.

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 08:13 PM - Saelorn quoted CapnZapp in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.Not when the topic of discussion is Pathfinder 2E, and whether or not it will do to Paizo what 4E did to WotC. Using wildly different rules for PCs and monsters is a strong shift away from Simulationism and toward Gamism, and one of the major reasons why 4E died so horribly was that much of their target audience was not on-board with that shift. D&D players, at least in the 3E-era, wanted rules that told us how the world was supposed to work. While you could make an argument that this is no longer true of current D&D players, it should still be true of Pathfinder 1E fans, which means they will remain highly resistant to that sort of change. Ergo, Pathfinder 2E is making exactly the same mistake that D&D 4E made, by mis-judging their audience.
  • 04:23 PM - GrahamWills quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Not sure what you mean by "fluid", but if you mean the opposite of "static", that is, that PF2 characters are able to move about the battlefield more, then I'm all for it For me, this was my definite experience playing in the PF2 playtest. Combats were by far the most fluid of any D&D game I've experienced. Three actions per turn combined with the big incentive to roll 10+ higher than your opponent and land a critical (plus the desire for that NOT to happen to you), plus moving opportunity attacks to a special thing some people do rather than a thing everyone does made a big difference. Some typical rounds were: • Move form behind cover, stab opponent in back, run off to new cover • Hit opponent, move to new opponent, hit opponent • Cast self-buff, move to enemy, hit enemy The spell system, with variable effects based on how many actions you take casting, also makes for fun decisions: I can use a 3-action heal to heal everyone, but only Bob really needs it. Maybe I should move to Bob, cast a...
  • 01:13 PM - zztong quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Can't you just build a different wizard, one that remains a squishie, if telling "squishie stories" is that important to you? As a player, you could make decisions that lead to a wimpier wizard. You could short your Constitution and Dexterity, avoid armor, and never raise a shield. This would keep your AC and hit points as low as possible. The system will still augment your AC by +1 per level, so you'll eventually grow to be immune to rabble, but you can arrange to be at a moderate risk of suffering a critical hit that will take a big chunk of your hit points. As a DM, you always have the option to make house rules to better model your setting.

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 09:03 PM - Saelorn quoted CapnZapp in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    Ultimately 2 is paramount, so the real choice is between 1 and 3. And my players clearly want 1. Since I the DM want (nay need) 2, the only sacrifice possible is to give up 3.That covers your players at your table, sure, but those aren't the only players or table under discussion. Sacrificing 1 for the benefit of 3 is an equally valid solution.
  • 01:10 PM - zztong quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    For this idea to work, PF2 OAs must work differently. Yes, or you look at the Wizard differently. Wizards aren't necessarily easy meat when a combatant gets into the backfield. Their AC improves with level, just like the Fighter. One Feat at 2nd level and they're wearing armor just like a Fighter. Wizards don't necessarily stay in the backfield. I tried both Wizard/Fighter and Wizard/Ranger multi-classes and sometimes I ended up _tanking_ in the Playtest. This is one reason why I don't think PF2 tells the same stories as PF1. PF2 seemed to walk away from the classic weak, vulnerable Wizard and the "protect/sack the quarterback" mantra.
  • 01:34 AM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    The whole point of OAs is deterrence. As a fighter, you don't actually want to use your opportunity attack; you just want the threat of it to make the monster stay put.The 4e Fighter's "Combat Superiority" OA spoiled the target's movement if it hit. They're mark-punishment interrupt, OTOH, did not, but could be in response to a shift or attack that didn't normally provoke. Consensus was the features made them very 'sticky,' even by defender standards. If monsters and creatures in general don't have OAs how will they know they're fighting something that has 'em?It could be automatic when they're in the fighter's Threatened area? For this idea to work, PF2 OAs must work differently. Maybe like Sentinel; they stop the monster dead in it's tracks?Haven't used feats much when running 5e, just AL, and in AL it always seemed to be the Heavy Armor feat that attracted variant humans. ::shrug:: Sentinel is a lot like Combat Superiority was, though, and my experience there was that enemies rarel...

Monday, 15th July, 2019

  • 07:35 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Similarities 4E PF2?
    [I]Edit: This is not a troll thread.Well, in the sense that flames won't stop it from regenerating... ;P For the purposes of this thread, assume I am neutral towards 4th edition and that any similarities are neither bad not good. Thank you. ...we'll see... (That is, are the alleged similarities between PF2 and 4E stronger or weaker than the ones between 5E and 4E?)That's an interesting question. 5e has more than a few little details lifted straight from 4e, and more than a few more re-named, bowdlerized, or otherwise reduced to an acceptable post-edition-war level. The result is /both/ absolutely nothing like 4e, and very similar to 4e. So that complicates the issue. I am genuinely curious. Too many people here and at Reddit and elsewhere say this. No edition-bashing intended.I'm with you. PF1 was born of an opportunity to pick up the torch of 3.5 D&D dropped by WotC in the form of the OGL/SRD, leverage their Dragon/Dungeon subscriber list, and sell to the winning side in th...
  • 03:31 PM - zztong quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Not sure what you mean by "fluid", but if you mean the opposite of "static", that is, that PF2 characters are able to move about the battlefield more, then I'm all for it. Yes, static vs fluid was what I was thinking. I had a longer, more thoughtful lengthy response but manged to wipe it out. If it shows up, you'll know why I have a seemingly duplicate post. I see three AOO systems: PF2, D&D5, D&D3. I think each caters to different goals. Pick the one you want. Related to movement: If you want something more cinematic with a focus on a small number of characters then PF2 AOOs are probably best. Duels, 2-on-1, and 2-on-2 combats are more mobile in real life, but that patterns doesn't continue into greater numbers. I like D&D3 AOO better for larger engagements, like clashing warbands and adventures with many characters. The D&D5 approach of AOOs for leaving an opponent's "Zone of Control" (my term) is an interesting compromise. Related to responding to other kinds of risky activities (drinki...
  • 01:06 AM - Arilyn quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Thank you for replying. No game is perfect, but there's a darn big difference between 3E and 5E, say. I think this is chiefly because most players play 5E and wasn't around (or doesn't care to remember) the dark old days of 3E. And the (from Paizo's point of view) vocal PF1 community doesn't demand it either - how could they, they haven't seen anything remotely resembling caster-martial equality... I fear Paizo isn't sufficiently aware 5E is the new gold standard, having taught a generation of gamers that you can have good D&D fun without casters utterly eclipsing martials, and that most of it's upcoming customers will balk if LFQW is alive and well. We'll see, not on August 1, but when players have started to fully grok the system. I fear any checks on caster dominance Paizo might have added is too little once minmaxers learn how to circumvent them... Dark old days of 3e seems a little extreme. Makes it sound like players were floundering around in the dark ages, until the glorious renai...

Sunday, 14th July, 2019

  • 06:59 PM - Arilyn quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Honestly, it appears you're the only one, based on how you, and you alone, respond to my every post on the subject, always trying to make it about me, rather than the topic discussed. (And, no, you won't get answers this time either... [emoji854]) I'll answer. Paizo does not expect to recapture the eminence of PF1 because that was an unusual situation. Pazio knows trying to directly compete with WOTC is foolish. They have updated their game, because 1st edition is old. The panic coming from PF fans is normal. There has also been a lot of excitement. Copying 5e would be a big mistake, as there is already a hugely popular 5e out there with the advantage of carrying the D&D label. I don't think not having a perfect balance between casters and non-casters is going to kill the game. It really isn't a huge issue for most players, anymore than any of the other imbalances rampant in F20 games. Except 13th Age. It's darn near perfect.:)


CapnZapp's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated
High Level Shopping
High Level Shopping
243 0 1 Monday, 14th January, 2019, 06:37 PM Monday, 14th January, 2019, 06:37 PM
[ToA] The many and fabulous bazaars of Port Nyanzaru
The second iteration in convenient PDF form.

General discussion: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?595068-ToA-The-many-and-fabulous-bazaars-of-Port-Nyanzaru

Design discussion: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?627782-many-an...
806 0 1 Friday, 4th May, 2018, 06:50 PM Friday, 4th May, 2018, 06:50 PM

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites