View Profile: CapnZapp - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    2 replies | 102 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Today, 11:07 AM
    True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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...
    13 replies | 513 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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?
    115 replies | 6165 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 :)
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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...
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 191 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 149014 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 262 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    66 replies | 1703 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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.
    16 replies | 783 view(s)
    1 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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... )
    115 replies | 6165 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...
    13 replies | 513 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....
    115 replies | 6165 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 07:20 PM
    That's WotC's job :)
    352 replies | 12140 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 | 389 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 )
    115 replies | 6165 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 | 389 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 | 12140 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!
    115 replies | 6165 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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.
    147 replies | 10059 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 08:09 PM
    Nature vs nurture. Trained vs natural
    147 replies | 10059 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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
    115 replies | 6165 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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...
    115 replies | 6165 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 | 21634 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 | 21634 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 | 12140 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 | 12140 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 | 65253 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 | 65253 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...
    147 replies | 10059 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 | 12140 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 | 65253 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 | 1566 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 | 12140 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...
    147 replies | 10059 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.
    147 replies | 10059 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.
    147 replies | 10059 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 | 12140 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 | 17811 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 | 4975 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 | 1653 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...
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:25 AM
    On paper, a relevant point. In practice, seldom relevant.
    147 replies | 10059 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.
    147 replies | 10059 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...
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 10:03 AM
    Because you are dissatisfied with the little crunch there is in 5E...? I believe there is a market opening for a dndian game with more crunch. I do not believe there is a market for the various and many kinds of silliness 3.x/d20/PF offers. The difference? 5E. It might be simple (too simple), but it comprehensively represents an upgrade of 3E without falling into the 4E pitfalls.
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 09:33 PM
    I believe they should have went for an Advanced 5th Edition for their game. That is, a game that uses 5E's advances in fixing d20 as a base, then opening up a select number of subsystems to add crunch. Not literally using 5E, of course, but similar enough to entice the huge market of 5E gamers looking for a bit deeper mechanics. The biggest risk of the actual PF2 is if comes across as a...
    147 replies | 10059 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 09:41 AM
    Okay, so it should now be possible to write up these as "classes" so we can compare and contrast exactly how much simpler this is than the UA Sidekicks. And the PHB classes.. And the good old d20 NPC classes of the DMG...
    113 replies | 4975 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 09:35 AM
    By this time is should be readily apparent to all of us WotC can't write "ranger" abilities. They don't have a clue is the only conclusion when these abilities allow you to trivialize or entirely skip the challenges you signed up for Ranger to focus on. As for proficiencies, just about the only path forward I see is to split up Expertise to restrict Rogues to urban usage and give Expertise to...
    352 replies | 12140 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 09:30 AM
    I don't disagree. However, I note that list is chalk full of examples of things that simply don't cut it as unique class abilities: some are skill proficiencies, some are what 5E calls background or weapon style, some are spells there's no reason a druid can't cast, some can be implemented through multiclassing... That is, there's far too much dreaming about literary characters here, and...
    352 replies | 12140 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 09:00 PM
    Do we have complete details on Essentials sidekicks yet?
    113 replies | 4975 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 08:58 PM
    Had 5E asked a community about Attunement I'm sure it too had been rejected. Sometimes design-by-committee isn't all that.
    32 replies | 1653 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 08:51 PM
    Interesting that I've noted at least one responder who has made smug remarks insinuating inconsistency while entirely missing the point here: a restriction on ranged fire that has close to zero impact can clearly be done away with to simplify the game without in any way shape or form making ranged fire more overpowered.
    28 replies | 1067 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 08:47 PM
    You could almost call it... the Hunter BROOM *lifts sunglasses*
    352 replies | 12140 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:50 PM
    I like thread necromancy, if performed with skill and elegance.
    132 replies | 65253 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:46 PM
    This means a covering creature, say your Fighter ally, is safe provided his AC is equal to or higher than the targeted monster's AC. I've simplified this and instead say "enemies can only hide behind other enemies, not your allies" The case when a high AC monster wants to use a low AC hero for cover is so uncommon I don't have any qualms about not supporting it (mechanically that is; with a...
    28 replies | 1067 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 10:20 AM
    First and foremost, the Ranger needs to be good at what he does, whatever that is. Okay, so you say spells are central to the concept? Well, make it a full caster, like the Bard, then! It is the feeling of compromise that dooms the Ranger; the cloying smell of designed-by-committee!
    352 replies | 12140 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 07:05 PM
    They finally fixed the Bard once they managed to shed the notions a) if you want to be good at many things you must suck at them all, and b) "bardiness" must be implemented thru wonky musical special abilities with a lot of restrictions going on. It is the same with the ranger. WotC needs to 1) decide on a strong concept instead of worrying about disappointing some part of the fan base 2)...
    352 replies | 12140 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 10:18 AM
    Yeah, Aragorn is obviously a Fighter who just happened to take the Survival and Herbalism proficiencies. Don't get me wrong, I definitely think there's design space for a "Ranger", but basing it so heavily on Strider-Aragorn is awfully narrow...
    352 replies | 12140 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
12,976
Posts Per Day
2.21
Last Post
Someone Living Near Paizo Has the PF2 Books and Is Answering Questions and Posting Photos Today 11:14 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
90
General Information
Last Activity
Today 11:14 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 25th June, 2003
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
1
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019


Monday, 15th July, 2019


Sunday, 14th July, 2019


Saturday, 13th July, 2019


Friday, 12th July, 2019


Wednesday, 10th July, 2019



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

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 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!

Saturday, 16th February, 2019

  • 04:55 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned CapnZapp in post Variants/Subclass for a DPR Rogue
    CapnZapp thanks for the comments. The issue I have is, I’m not convinced of the severity of damage output gap that you’re referencing. I do see a gap in combat optimized feat heavy games, but not one that merits doubling SA damage per round. I also don’t have much trouble in such games keeping my rogue alive in melee. My level 12 thief isn’t DPR king, because I chose to make him an untouchably slippery eel of a skirmisher. The rogue is better at using skillful movement than anyone else. I’ve got expertise in acrobatics, athletics, stealth, and deception, and use them all in nearly every fight. Frequency descends from “every fight” to “many fights”, in roughly the listed order. As a Lightfoot halfling, I can hide in plain sight, though, which helps. Anyway, I think that increasing crit frequency, or adding a flat damage bonus to all attacks that qualify for SA (so, you’re nearly always getting 2-5 extra damage, even when you’ve already used your SA as a dual wielded) A thrown weapons...


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

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.:)
  • 05:11 PM - Matrix Sorcica quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    PS. Another reason PF2 could fail would be 5) if feats doesn't come across as "helping you customizing your character", but instead come across as absolutely mandatory core building blocks of that character, with two undesirable effects: 5a) that you can't get a look and feel of your character class just by browsing that segment of the classes chapter - that core abilities are hidden away in long boring lists of feats somewhere else in the book. 5b) how this utterly betrays the promise of streamlined character creation, if players perceive looking at feat lists to be essential in building their characters. There is nothing simple and streamlined about grokking the entirety of the Playtest feat catalogs. 5c) Requiring feats to even be able to do combat trade offs, like taking a penalty to hit to gain a bonus to damage. This 3.x/PF1 thing needs to die in a fire. This especially targets martials, ime.
  • 04:25 PM - MockingBird quoted CapnZapp in post Sidekick rules
    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) It doesn't make it less desirable. I honestly dont have an answer. Knee jerk reaction and probably my subconscious trying to justify not buying it. Truthfully I'll probably still buy it.
  • 12:22 PM - Aldarc quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    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.CapnZapp, why do you keep letting your @$$ do all the talking when it comes to PF2? And I fear PF2 is going in directions that won't appeal to a large portion of current D&D gamers unless they learn from 5E's successes with caster-martial balance and NPC ease of use.When will you get it in your head that this is a complete non-issue for probably the hypermajority of players?
  • 01:23 AM - SkidAce quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    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 it will never be possible to create a Beastmaster with a worthwhile pet unless the pairing is stronger than any single ally. 1+1 doesn't necessarily need to =2, but certainly >1!!! So add a sidebar explaining that any group (or DM) uncomfortable with two creatures hogging more than a single share of the spotlight should not allow the subclass, and at least make it right for all those that couldn't care less. Personally, if I were playing in your group, and you wanted an animal companion, I would want the pair of you to be stronger than my character, simply because you're playing two characters, a...

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

  • 07:35 PM - bedir than quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    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 (mirroring the smite undead bonus). Idea 2: Infuse Poison. Much like a smite, spend a spell slot for extra damage, in this case 1d12 poison damage. At maybe level 12, gain ability to infuse psychic poison for +1d8 Psychic instead (since far too many high-level foes are immune to poison). This way, if you care about DPR you can pick the Ranger. If you don't care about DPR, nothing will have changed since you will keep casting the actual Ranger spells. Couldn't these just be Ranger Spells?
  • 07:34 PM - Xeviat quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    That's WotC's job :) I live up the freeway from WotC. Consider all my work to be my application. LOL.
  • 03:34 PM - Xeviat quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    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 (mirroring the smite undead bonus). Idea 2: Infuse Poison. Much like a smite, spend a spell slot for extra damage, in this case 1d12 poison damage. At maybe level 12, gain ability to infuse psychic poison for +1d8 Psychic instead (since far too many high-level foes are immune to poison). This way, if you care about DPR you can pick the Ranger. If you don't care about DPR, nothing will have changed since you will keep casting the actual Ranger spells. I'm still very tempted to remove Hunter's Mark and Hex as spells and make a version of them into Ranger and Warlock features. I like the idea of expending a spe...

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 08:39 PM - Flamestrike quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    Much to my surprise, I wholeheartedly agree to two Flamestrike posts in a row [emoji846] (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. It's more the exploration pillar is A) rarely used and often hand-waved, and B) when it is used, it's all too easily circumvented from mid levels onwards. For a low level Tomb of Annihilation campaign with a hardcore DM, having a Ranger with 'Favored Terrain: 'Jungle' and Favored enemy 'Dinosaurs, Undead and Yuanti' is amazing. It's just waaay too situational and rapidly is outclassed by 'we teleport and I cast Heroes feast'
  • 03:47 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    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 sucking all the fun out of woodland challenges". Which means that never getting lost or having an always-on fool-proof radar is not only not a power ability (it's a ribbon) but an incredibly uncool and unfun one at that. Other than that I don't care to feed the parts of your post that comes across as trolling - your wilful ignorance of the abyssal suckyness of the Beastmaster, and your complacency in how much better the Paladin's abilities interact and augment each other. As the game's two main half casters, I see absolutely zero reason to let WotC get away with the Ranger being incredibly milquetoast compar...
  • 03:26 PM - Remathilis quoted CapnZapp in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    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!Going by the "first book only" model. OD&D: 3 (fighting-man, magic-user, cleric) Basic: 7 (fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user, elf, dwarf, halfling). The Rules Cyclopedia reprinted all the above and added mystic (monk) Ad&d 1e: 10 (plus bard) 2e: 9 (counting all specialist wizards as one and not counting specialty priests) 3e/Pathfinder: 11 4e: 8 5e: 12 PF2e: 12

Thursday, 11th July, 2019

  • 10:34 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    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 significantly stronger... No. Not only does a spell-less ranger survey poorly, it's completely unnecessary to do so, as anything other than an optional variant that stands alone. (ie, you drop it and get X ability set instead) The ranger's spellcasting is perfectly normal. It shouldn't mimic the Paladin, nor should the class hyperfocus on DPR. The game isn't built for DPR CharOP powergaming, and that's a good thing. The Ranger has too many of it's good spells with the concentration tag, and not enough known spells. Spellcasting doesn't need to carry the Rangers damage output to be a worthwhile feature. Every subcla...
  • 10:01 PM - Garthanos quoted CapnZapp in post What is the Ranger to you?
    That's funny - I'd say all it needs is one subclass where TWF and Hunter's Mark doesn't trip each over, and a second class offering a sturdy combat pet that survives at least as well as any other party member! [emoji846] And one where my Aragorn isn't casting spells.
  • 08:27 PM - Saelorn quoted CapnZapp in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    Nature vs nurture. Trained vs naturalI'm not saying that you couldn't make the distinction, if you really wanted to. I'm saying that, if you do make the distinction, and you include separate modifiers for each, then they are redundant for the task of distinguishing a character's competence within a given level. A simpler alternative would be to only use the proficiency bonus, say that it represents some combination of natural talent and learned skill, and only use that one bonus (in addition to the level bonus). It would prevent issues where (for example) the cleric is more perceptive than the ranger, when their Wisdom gap is greater than their proficiency gap. It would also solve the annoying old problem where the only way to truly specialize was to have both the maximum ability modifier and the maximum skill bonus.


CapnZapp's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated
High Level Shopping
High Level Shopping
242 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...
803 0 1 Friday, 4th May, 2018, 06:50 PM Friday, 4th May, 2018, 06:50 PM

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites