Search results

I don't think they're making the same mistakes WotC did with community relations as far as disparaging people who liked the previous edition. They're certainly dropping the ball at "making a game that 3.PF fans like", though.

I'm not happy with the multiclassing rules, as I said on the "Just one more week thread" because I didn't realize this one had been made:

Not really. You can take the feats that they publish, but they don't compare well to the actual class features. Look at how these feats gimp you: Not only are you dependent on the feats as they are written against the features themselves, but you are constrained by how often you get feats to...

I will eagerly download the pdfs, but I will have to be content living vicariously through you guys, since there's little chance I'll get to play it; my group just isn't all that enthused to leave 5E behind. ETA: Just caught myself up on the multiclassing thread on the Paizo boards. My...

By releasing Pathfinder 2 and discontinuing support for PF1, they WILL split their base at least a little. It's impossible to get everyone to follow you. I don't foresee a rift as great as the one caused by 4E, but there will be stragglers. It remains to be seen if releasing PF2 was a mistake...

First the bit about actually being able to use your shield costing you an action, and now these fiddly rules about shield durability, and then how a heavy steel shield is only good for one hit, it's not really inspiring the warriors to deviate from the tried and true 2H style. One would think...

It's bad/geeky enough that you're talking to him in metagame terms as if he were a PC, but to suggest that he's literally growing warts on his face or something for every word you disagree with him over is hilarious.

I believe this to be true as well, I just don't think they'll make major changes to the game if they conflict too much with their vision of the game (See their treatment of psionics. People were clamoring for 3.5 psionics, and they said "no way, we don't like 3.5 psionics" and gave us slot-based...

I know, I was merely pointing out that the shield cantrip grants you the Shield Block reaction as if you were holding an actual shield (and tells you what its hardness for the purposes of that reaction is), which includes the possibility of "trample" damage, and no matter how much damage magic...

Yes, but it doesn't completely negate magic missile like it used to (at least it doesn't say that it does, so we have to assume it doesn't). It interacts with magic missile as a normal Shield Block reaction does, which only negates damage up to the Hardness of the shield used (which is 4 for Ezren).

Most of my AD&D experience was homebrew, high danger, and high magic Monty Haul, but strangely didn't include much cure spells on a stick. That DM liked handing out custom healing items in potion form, potions of super healing (heals to max for imbibing character) and ultra healing (heals to max...

Really? Spells-on-a-stick-with-limited-charges have been around IIRC since at least 2E. Wands of lightning bolt, fireball, and magic missile in particular. Why would wands of cure light wounds be an exploit? Is it niche protection for the cleric?

"Most hits won't dent"? With hardness 5, only the weakest of hits will not dent.

I'm sure that no matter what rule is proposed, that a justification in the lore/mechanics could be pulled from one's posterior. In PF2's lineage, magic item use has never worked this way, so slaughter of this sacred cow needs to be justified for me to endorse it, and the justifications I've seen...

Stop reminding me that I can't find my copy of Castlevania SOTN after my recent move.

I think the bookkeeping argument they're using to sell Resonance is just a smoke screen for "we really just don't like CLW wand spam". I like tracking item charges, in the sense that this item has a certain amount of juice in it, and when its gone, the item no longer works. It makes sense. It...

This post is great at answering the question of "Why was Charisma chosen as the stat that influences Resonance?". I happen to agree with the premise "If we're going to saddle the game with the concept of Resonance, then Charisma is a good stat to influence it", but I vehemently disagree that...

It sure is, I'm just helping them to design the best game possible. They are claiming that opening up spontaneous heighten to all the sorcerer's spells leads to analysis-paralysis. That may be, but that is a player problem, not a rule problem.

If we take Paizo at their word, that PF2 has been in development longer than 5E has been out in the wild, then I doubt PF2 would be all that "5e-like TSR-era-evoking".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by explaining this. I know how the rule works, I just don't like it. The sorcerer has very few spells he can know, so everything that limits his flexibility will be keenly felt. Limiting him to only 2 spells per day that he can spontaneously heighten is too...