log in or register to remove this ad

 

Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and support for other playing styles/subgenres

I get what you are saying, but I'd respectfully disagree with the conclusion. The things you've stated here aren't necessarily required knowledge, known only by hoary old players. These are the that things the game is designed to want you to do. If there was no incentive to recall knowledge, why would "waste time" doing it for example?
There are two ways a player can be incentivized to use Recall Knowledge:
  • either to gain a benefit; or
  • to avoid a penalty.

My point is that Recall Knowledge seems to be balanced to incentivize the players to avoid a penalty: overall, spell effects seem weaker than weapon attacks unless you successfully target a weakness.

To my mind, it seems a lot of what you said can be reduced to "The game plays differently, leading me to bounce off it". I really don't mean that in an offensive way here (I appreciate text is crap at conveying tone). A lot of these "tricks and knowledge expectations" (paraphrasing yourself), actually seem to have thrown more "experienced players" than totally new ones (hence many in the old guard having a negative reaction).
I’m not sure I agree with that. I think that experienced PF1 players had their own different issues with the game, but I don’t think any of the examples I gave are things that would be unexpected to long time players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
Seems like a fair portrayal of how well players pay attention sometimes. 😂

I always love the reverse, which is the GM overexplaining things to the point of hilarity. I always remember the example of "Buck Fever" for GURPS 3E in their Compendium II:

Player: "I'm taking aim with my rifle at the IRA terrorist."

GM: "You have trouble focusing; somehow the sights and the target won't align, sweat stings your eyes and the faces of the hostages keep sweeping across your vision. The rifle quivers in your hands. Somehow, the old, familiar feel from hours on the range is gone; your trigger finger seems to be on someone else's hand."

Player: "Is this a subtle indication that my skill is being negatively affected by stress?"
 

transmission89

Adventurer
There are two ways a player can be incentivized to use Recall Knowledge:
  • either to gain a benefit; or
  • to avoid a penalty.

My point is that Recall Knowledge seems to be balanced to incentivize the players to avoid a penalty: overall, spell effects seem weaker than weapon attacks unless you successfully target a weakness.


I’m not sure I agree with that. I think that experienced PF1 players had their own different issues with the game, but I don’t think any of the examples I gave are things that would be unexpected to long time players.
That’s fair. I get that. I just know from my experience and some fellow players were initially thrown as we were used to static combat because of AoO and gated feats that made it pointless to do certain “tricks” unless you built into it.

Once we grokked it, we found it quite liberating for new school play.
 

Edit: Also worth noting that Battle Assessment can give you knowledge unique to a certain creature as well (since resistances and saves can be modified by magical items and such), which I don't think I'd allow for a generic Recall Knowledge check.
I wonder about this last point. In the adventure I played, I did not use RK on any individuals (for the reasons you specify), but to be honest, RK is really unclear as to whether this is the correct way to interpret this action.*

*Specifically, being a narrative player, I give greater weight to how an action is called/described in the book than others may. From that perspective, if an action is called Recall Knowledge, it doesn’t make sense to me to use it if there is no chance that you would know the person.

*Likewise, the Lie to me feat between those who thought it should be usable in most circumstances and those who taught that it should be usable only if the person with the feat was in conversation with the liar.
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
Want to call out about recall knowledge- the description actually alludes to the player trying to recall specific facts several times.
You might know basic information about something without needing to attempt a check, but Recall Knowledge requires you to stop and think for a moment so you can recollect more specific facts and apply them.
And here:
You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply
Here we see it alluding to information within the statblock:
For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem, whereas Crafting could tell you about its sturdy resistance to physical attacks.
There's also a bit about assesing the skill of an acrobat with acrobatics that feels like its talking about their actual acrobatics skill, with the way the system discusses NPCs.

Finally, take a look at this feat that has a couple of variants and a spell that all accomplish a version of it. It really only makes sense if the player is the one asking questions and theyre really specific pieces of information the GM can just reference. This is supported by the critical success verbage in recall knowledge as well, that requires a specific piece of information contrasted with additional context chosen by the GM.

Its recalling knowledge about a creature, statblock info is knowledge, so absent any guidance, or a house rule by the GM, that exempts statblock info... it really can do that. There are other feats that imply this too, like the Investigator's "Known Weakness"

Creature identification, as far as i can tell, is written to purely to name the damn thing, and then calls out extra info to guide the GM into giving them a little common knowledge about the creature. It is not Recall Knowledge.

in example, If we were to use it on the Cap, a GM might think it would be sufficient to identify him as a troll, but the way its written also heavily pushes them to tell us he is weak to fire. This would be a completely seperate action, than us asking about his weakest save or ability score using the distinct recall knowledge skill. Its a patch to make identification a little better.
 

It's not about venting about the system, it's constantly venting about the system and telling us we're all wrong. And I mean that latter part literally, as they've literally declared victory in his arguments before.
I’m pretty sure that would be less of an issue if there were more PF2 threads posted.

Part of the issue seems to be that the ENWorld PF2 community is so small that one person who has issues with PF2 contributes something like 20% of the posts on the forum.
 

This caught my attention:

Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?"


Dammit Judy, Erik just told you it is an undead! ;)
Hey, Judy is just avoiding metagaming! Don’t shame her for that! 😃
 

transmission89

Adventurer
I’m pretty sure that would be less of an issue if there were more PF2 threads posted.

Part of the issue seems to be that the ENWorld PF2 community is so small that one person who has issues with PF2 contributes something like 20% of the posts on the forum.
This is true, but as a corollary, if I was a new pf2 player, or prospective new player, what do you think my impression of the community/system be upon seeing that? Would I be so inclined to get involved and create posts of my own?
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
This is true, but as a corollary, if I was a new pf2 player, or prospective new player, what do you think my impression of the community/system be upon seeing that? Would I be so inclined to get involved and create posts of my own?
There have been posts recently calling that out from a new player perspective, so we don’t need to speculate (except the extent to which it has happened). Who wants to give a game a try when almost every discussion gets turned into someone’s soapbox?
 

Its recalling knowledge about a creature, statblock info is knowledge, so absent any guidance, or a house rule by the GM, that exempts statblock info... it really can do that. There are other feats that imply this too, like the Investigator's "Known Weakness"
So, would you allow RK on a named NPC the characters don’t know anything about?
 

JmanTheDM

Explorer
Interestingly (to me at least) there was a thread over at /r/[pathfinder...???] subreddit. the difference was stark and instantly relatable back to the PF2 forum discussions here on enworld.

over on /r the question asked was (grossly paraphrased)
"what are the things that bug you about Pf2?"

and then there proceeded to be dozens of comments and replies to individual rules, subsystems and minutia that bugs players. without exception, the comments were framed as:

"I don't like rule X because of the following reason" and then a short exposition of why rule X feels broken to the user making the post. the replies sometimes commiserate with the OP, or pushed back by perhaps showing a gap in knowledge or why / how that certain issue can be handled in place.

here, the message is: [exaggerated language used to emphasis the difference between the 2 posts - but only IMO slightly exaggerated]
"Paizo utterly broke PF2 for the following reason. X is simply crap and it beggars belief why Paizo would ever implement this broken rule when they have 5e to reference in full. Its obvious to anyone that Paizo didn't spend even 1 second learning about other rules, else they wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake in game design. here is the only logical way to handle this broken system which should have been used to begin with"

the difference is stark. in /r the criticism was about the system or rule, but framed as a personal opinion. in enworld, the criticism was about the system or rule but framed is ad hominem towards the publisher. one is constructive, the other is destructive. to engage with the enword mode, by default, one who agrees with the criticisms is also objectively also agreeing that the company is (at best) incompetent or (at worst) actively sabotaging their IP.

/r invites engagement while here demands acquiescence

so, in the spirit of not only outlining a problem but also laying out a solution, I propose a subtle language shift that may see increased engagement. May I suggest the following templated example:
"Hey everyone, I'm struggling with Crafting, I'm finding that its really hard to achieve goal X through the use of this skill. anyone else having similar issues? one thing that I though might help would be to modify X by introducing Y. what do you think?"

Cheers,

J.
 
Last edited:


The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
So, would you allow RK on a named NPC the characters don’t know anything about?
Yeah, the uncommon, rare, and unique tags boost the DC, by RAW, for recall knowledge checks on them, but itd be a houserule if you couldn't do it at all.

Notably, it would vary depending on how unique the NPC actually is, if they're pretty much a Troll King whose gotten a name in the story then that's just an Troll King and its fairly reasonable the players would be able to estimate things like how well they would be able to dodge a fireball based off what they've read about the leaders of Troll Kind.

If its a named character, custom stat block, where the person isn't well represented by a generic anything, then we would slap the unique tag on them and increase the DC accordingly, but hey, maybe you've heard of them.
 




BigZebra

Explorer
I actually liked this thread, before it was derailed to be about CapnZap, who the "derailors" then declared to be a troll.

I own the CRB and the Beginner Box - and currently play 5e. There are some stuff I like about PF2, but I also see quite some issues. Hence I like reading these threads about the system. Not sure why it had to be derailed. You may disagree with the original poster, but he seems to be bringing up issues he doesn't like about the system. What is wrong with that? His posts aren't really what I find problematic in this thread.
 
Last edited:

transmission89

Adventurer
I actually liked this thread, before it was derailed to be about CapnZap, who the "derailors" then declared to be a troll.

I own the CRB and the Beginner Box - and currently play 5e. There are some stuff I like about PF2, but I also see quite some issues. Hence I like reading these threads about the system. Not sure why it have to be derailed. You may disagree with the original poster, but he seems to be bringing up issues he doesn't like about the system. What is wrong with that? His posts aren't really what I find problematic in this thread.
The answer to your questions can be found in page 6 when someone else asked the exact same questions.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I actually liked this thread, before it was derailed to be about CapnZap, who the "derailors" then declared to be a troll.
Unfortunately, the administration of this site has decided that derailing threads ("topic-napping"?) isn't moderated.

I have had several threads successfully derailed by people that can't cope with criticism against their favorite game. For instance, I was one of the earliest whistle-blowers (AFAIK of course) against Great Weapon Master (the 5th Edition feat) as being far too good. Only recently has this become accepted wisdom. Another thread about the gaping lack of a working magic item economy (again, in 5E) was even successfully closed after people managed to make the thread about me instead of the actual topic, effectively shutting down discussion entirely. Yet today, the fact "gold is worthless" is a relatively common complaint.

So... yeah. Sorry about that.

The perception of Paizo's rules quality will likely have shifted in, say, two years time. In the meanwhile, there's nothing I can do except try my best to ignore the personal attacks. I am aware I could be better at that task.
 

transmission89

Adventurer
Unfortunately, the administration of this site has decided that derailing threads ("topic-napping"?) isn't moderated.

I have had several threads successfully derailed by people that can't cope with criticism against their favorite game. For instance, I was one of the earliest whistle-blowers (AFAIK of course) against Great Weapon Master (the 5th Edition feat) as being far too good. Only recently has this become accepted wisdom. Another thread about the gaping lack of a working magic item economy (again, in 5E) was even successfully closed after people managed to make the thread about me instead of the actual topic, effectively shutting down discussion entirely. Yet today, the fact "gold is worthless" is a relatively common complaint.

So... yeah. Sorry about that.

The perception of Paizo's rules quality will likely have shifted in, say, two years time. In the meanwhile, there's nothing I can do except try my best to ignore the personal attacks. I am aware I could be better at that task.

This is, to be honest, to me, really disappointing to read this. Especially after we’ve had that pleasant exchange of ideas and view points earlier this morning in the other thread.

As was stated on the prior page of this thread (multiple times, by many different people) it’s not about the system criticism. Its not that people cannot handle or don’t want to hear criticism. It’s about how you do it. That is what shuts down the discussion when you declare in absolutes in quite frankly, a rather caustic way.

You demonstrated on the other thread this morning fantastically and eloquently, how you can stay true to your opinion, and frame it in a way that invites discussion, a friendly exchange of viewpoints and understanding even if we politely disagree at the end of it.

I much prefer that @CapnZapp to the one presented here, and really enjoy conversing with that one, even though it’s obvious we disagree on many points.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top