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

[Justice and Rule]

Since we’re discussing creature identification again, one should note that Recall Knowledge does not tell you a monster’s weakest saves. You need a rogue with Battle Assessment to find out that. Recall Knowledge for creature identification is poorly specified and of limited practical use.

No, this is wrong. Battle Assessment is a Perception check, thus you can have a Rogue who has no Knowledge skills but can instinctively know what your weaknesses are.

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.

 

[transmission89]

Oh Jesus, now we resort to self victimisation, one of the last few refuges of the scoundrel. The only ad hominem I’ve thrown is this recent one declaring you a troll, yet it is an accurate one.

I am perfectly capable of acknowledging flaws in the system (I have done so, literally no one has declared this system as perfect here). Nor is this my favourite game. I have indeed engaged in these threads, discussing different game design factors (including ones at your behest). If perhaps you feel a certain degree of hostility, allow me to hold a mirror up as to how you come across (a collection from across multiple threads). I shall use 5e as the subject as that is what you are using as a measuring stick against pf2.

A critique of 5e dungeons and dragons - a homage to our dear captain

5e is objectively, completely and utterly a failure of a game. This is irrefutable and based on no bias of my own. Most particularly, in comparison to my beloved B/X.
I cannot believe, that in a post B/X world, wotc developed this. It’s like they weren’t even paying attention to the lessons learnt.

I shall use B/X as my measuring stick of success criteria here (though wotc has never declared that this is their basis) but please, in any response, do not bring up B/X, the relativism and what aboutism does my head in.

5e is complete, over engineered crap. THREE books alone for the core of the game! It’s beyond ridiculously over designed, needlessly complicated and engineered. In a post B/X world of two slim books that contain every thing you need, nearly a thousand pages of material is just ridiculous, and for what? All these words for poorly defined rules that require numerous conflicting tweets to actually explain what is supposed to happen. This is a complete failure on wotc’s part.


Firstly, the DMG. Absolute crap. Can any one tell me honestly how we run a dungeon crawl with this? All those pages and no procedure laid out. Traps and hazards are mentioned as examples, but not in enough detail. How do players interact with these?

The PHB. What an absolute mess! Everything is over engineered and convoluted. Actions, bonus actions, interact actions? Over 6 seconds? Whats the point? 10 second rounds were perfectly logical. Nice and round. Plus, just move and do an action. That’s it. No need for all these user hostile types of actions. This is just a complete failure of over engineering.

Skills, why do we need all these skills telling us what we can do, how we can do it etc? It’s like there’s a core idea here, but this just adds unnecessary clutter and complications. Complete failure.

Feats. Crap. User hostile. You have to trawl through this list to realise there are two or three good ones, the rest are awful And poorly designed. This takes up too many pages in an already crowded book.

Magic. The magic in this system is just crap. It’s ridiculous how much they’ve limited it. Charm person lasts an hour?! A wish with enough stipulations that you might as well not bother? This is definitely hostile to magic users (I mean wizards, what’s up with that name change?). Also, a limit of three magic items? It’s like they were trying to nerf the magic balance a bit, but went so far, they’ve completely upset the mood and feel of the game. An utter failure.

Monsters. Ugh, the hit point bloat, the size of the stat blocks and for what? Combat drags on. It takes far too long and gets away from the dungeon exploration purpose (which as I’ve said above, it doesn’t even properly detail). An absolute failure of design with unnecessary complication that detracts from the game.

This is all completely objective fact. I will only discuss these cherry picked examples, I will entertain no other form of discussion. Your response must also be objective (by which I mean must have written rule book citations with no actual opinion from yourself, else that is subjective). Rest assured, should you still be able to respond, my goal posts do have wheels and I am quite adept at pushing them.

You may think I really dislike this game, so this will be the only evaluative piece I do on it as I’ve found it not for me. You are quite mistaken. I shall make a new thread on each topic outlined above at least once a week.

Anyone who criticises this approach is just resorting to personal attacks and not worth responding too.

——————————————————————————————————————

This. This is what you are constantly presenting to the forum.
Also, whilst I have left 5e, I actually don’t think it as bad as I’ve posted above, purely for effect.

 

[kenada]

No, this is wrong. Battle Assessment is a Perception check, thus you can have a Rogue who has no Knowledge skills but can instinctively know what your weaknesses are.

I’m not sure I follow. I wasn’t saying you needed Battle Assessment for the knowledge check. Like you say, it involved a Perception check. What I was saying is that you need that feat to get specific information like weakest saves.

All that creature identification gives you is, “one of (the creature’s) best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes.” You get a bit more on a critical success, “something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.”

Using Recall Knowledge to get specific information (such as weakest saves) may be a popular way to run it, but that’s not how creature identification is written to work. Hence, it’s poorly specified and of limited practical use. It’s (also) arguably a regression from PF1 where you could get that information (and more with a high enough roll).

 

[dave2008]

A critique of 5e dungeons and dragons - a homage to our dear captain

Just in case you don't know, CZ's critique of 5e is equally as strong and he left 5e to try PF2.

EDIT: Also, Capp identifies pretty specific issues he sees with a game, and often suggestions on how he thinks it could be fixed. Neither of which you your mock 5e review did.

 

[kenada]

Oh Jesus, now we resort to self victimisation, one of the last few refuges of the scoundrel. The only ad hominem I’ve thrown is this recent one declaring you a troll, yet it is an accurate one.

I am perfectly capable of acknowledging flaws in the system (I have done so, literally no one has declared this system as perfect here). Nor is this my favourite game. I have indeed engaged in these threads, discussing different game design factors (including ones at your behest). If perhaps you feel a certain degree of hostility, allow me to hold a mirror up as to how you come across (a collection from across multiple threads). I shall use 5e as the subject as that is what you are using as a measuring stick against pf2.

A critique of 5e dungeons and dragons - a homage to our dear captain

5e is objectively, completely and utterly a failure of a game. This is irrefutable and based on no bias of my own. Most particularly, in comparison to my beloved B/X.
I cannot believe, that in a post B/X world, wotc developed this. It’s like they weren’t even paying attention to the lessons learnt.

I shall use B/X as my measuring stick of success criteria here (though wotc has never declared that this is their basis) but please, in any response, do not bring up B/X, the relativism and what aboutism does my head in.

5e is complete, over engineered crap. THREE books alone for the core of the game! It’s beyond ridiculously over designed, needlessly complicated and engineered. In a post B/X world of two slim books that contain every thing you need, nearly a thousand pages of material is just ridiculous, and for what? All these words for poorly defined rules that require numerous conflicting tweets to actually explain what is supposed to happen. This is a complete failure on wotc’s part.


Firstly, the DMG. Absolute crap. Can any one tell me honestly how we run a dungeon crawl with this? All those pages and no procedure laid out. Traps and hazards are mentioned as examples, but not in enough detail. How do players interact with these?

The PHB. What an absolute mess! Everything is over engineered and convoluted. Actions, bonus actions, interact actions? Over 6 seconds? Whats the point? 10 second rounds were perfectly logical. Nice and round. Plus, just move and do an action. That’s it. No need for all these user hostile types of actions. This is just a complete failure of over engineering.

Skills, why do we need all these skills telling us what we can do, how we can do it etc? It’s like there’s a core idea here, but this just adds unnecessary clutter and complications. Complete failure.

Feats. Crap. User hostile. You have to trawl through this list to realise there are two or three good ones, the rest are awful And poorly designed. This takes up too many pages in an already crowded book.

Magic. The magic in this system is just crap. It’s ridiculous how much they’ve limited it. Charm person lasts an hour?! A wish with enough stipulations that you might as well not bother? This is definitely hostile to magic users (I mean wizards, what’s up with that name change?). Also, a limit of three magic items? It’s like they were trying to nerf the magic balance a bit, but went so far, they’ve completely upset the mood and feel of the game. An utter failure.

Monsters. Ugh, the hit point bloat, the size of the stat blocks and for what? Combat drags on. It takes far too long and gets away from the dungeon exploration purpose (which as I’ve said above, it doesn’t even properly detail). An absolute failure of design with unnecessary complication that detracts from the game.

This is all completely objective fact. I will only discuss these cherry picked examples, I will entertain no other form of discussion. Your response must also be objective (by which I mean must have written rule book citations with no actual opinion from yourself, else that is subjective). Rest assured, should you still be able to respond, my goal posts do have wheels and I am quite adept at pushing them.

You may think I really dislike this game, so this will be the only evaluative piece I do on it as I’ve found it not for me. You are quite mistaken. I shall make a new thread on each topic outlined above at least once a week.

Anyone who criticises this approach is just resorting to personal attacks and not worth responding too.

——————————————————————————————————————

This. This is what you are constantly presenting to the forum.
Also, whilst I have left 5e, I actually don’t think it as bad as I’ve posted above, purely for effect.

What’s even worse is that clerics are allowed to have not just one but two spells. They haven’t even proven to their deity yet that they’re worthy of casting a spell once per day, but they actually get two and cantrips. Apparently 5e rolled on the harlot table and got nothing but cheap trollops for the deities.

 

[transmission89]

Just in case you don't know, CZ's critique of 5e is equally as strong and he left 5e to try PF2.

I get that absolutely. My point here wasn’t to specifically target 5e. It was to point out the absurdities of his arguments (using hyperbole and absolutism) with his vocabulary to highlight that just by swapping out the two systems in discussions, the exact same arguments can be made pretty much word for word.

EDIT: And for the suggestions to fix the issues in the mock review, just append “do it like b/x did“ at the end of every line.

No system is perfect. Every system has flaws. Every system has good aspects (except FATAL but shh). But guaranteed, if I’d posted that review as genuine of 5e, comparing it to b/x, you best believe I’d be catching hell to pay).

The root of the issue, is, as a player, can you accept the system’s warts and derive entertainment from it? If not, if It’s not for you, after making a thread describing why you’ve bounced off it, why waste time and energy constantly making negative threads on it?

If there are elements you find insufferable but still wish to play it, why not make a thread stating the problem with that aspect, whilst providing your home solution as a starting discussion point?

Making a new thread every week saying: this aspect is crap, end of, is just pointless and as i said, borderlines trolling.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I’m not sure I follow. I wasn’t saying you needed Battle Assessment for the knowledge check. Like you say, it involved a Perception check. What I was saying is that you need that feat to get specific information like weakest saves.

No, but what I'm saying is while that will give you specifically what you want, but does not restrict getting such information simply to that feat. What that feat does is gives a Rogue the ability to get specific information as well as not have to rely on a Knowledge Skill (which means they don't need to invest heavily in Knowledge skills to keep up given that their Perception is going to be damn good).

All that creature identification gives you is, “one of (the creature’s) best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes.” You get a bit more on a critical success, “something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.”

Using Recall Knowledge to get specific information (such as weakest saves) may be a popular way to run it, but that’s not how creature identification is written to work. Hence, it’s poorly specified and of limited practical use. It’s (also) arguably a regression from PF1 where you could get that information (and more with a high enough roll).

I don't think I agree to that view on it. "One of it's best known attributes" could absolutely reference a save, like an Ogre's stupidity (and thus weak Will save). I know you've talked about being prescriptive, but this feels more proscriptive to me given the breadth of what they the subject they are talking about.

Just in case you don't know, CZ's critique of 5e is equally as strong and he left 5e to try PF2.

Ehhhhhhh I don't see them starting a bunch of threads in the D&D Forum, nor linking back to their critiques of the system in posts there. Honestly it's less about their critique of the system and more that it is constantly brought up all the time no matter what.

What’s even worse is that clerics are allowed to have not just one but two spells. They haven’t even proven to their deity yet that they’re worthy of casting a spell once per day, but they actually get two and cantrips. Apparently 5e rolled on the harlot table and got nothing but cheap trollops for the deities.

Hey, don't talk about Lathander like that!

 

[transmission89]

What’s even worse is that clerics are allowed to have not just one but two spells. They haven’t even proven to their deity yet that they’re worthy of casting a spell once per day, but they actually get two and cantrips. Apparently 5e rolled on the harlot table and got nothing but cheap trollops for the deities.

You’re right, I’ve missed that. I’ll make a new forum thread on that topic next week! Along with the two starter boxes (I mean both are beginner level boxes set in the same location). It’s that much of a failure, they had to do it twice. That can be the only possible explanation.

 

[dave2008]

Ehhhhhhh I don't see him starting a bunch of threads in the D&D Forum, nor linking back to his critiques of the system in posts there. Honestly it's less about his critique of the system and more that it is constantly brought up all the time no matter what.

That is because he doesn't really post in the D&D forums anymore. As I mentioned he is no longer playing D&D. If you search for his post from 2015-2019 you will see what I mean.

 

[dave2008]

I get that absolutely. My point here wasn’t to specifically target 5e. It was to point out the absurdities of his arguments (using hyperbole and absolutism) with his vocabulary to highlight that just by swapping out the two systems in discussions, the exact same arguments can be made pretty much word for word.

EDIT: And for the suggestions to fix the issues in the mock review, just append “do it like b/x did“ at the end of every line.

No system is perfect. Every system has flaws. Every system has good aspects (except FATAL but shh). But guaranteed, if I’d posted that review as genuine of 5e, comparing it to b/x, you best believe I’d be catching hell to pay).

The root of the issue, is, as a player, can you accept the system’s warts and derive entertainment from it? If not, if It’s not for you, after making a thread describing why you’ve bounced off it, why waste time and energy constantly making negative threads on it?

If there are elements you find insufferable but still wish to play it, why not make a thread stating the problem with that aspect, whilst providing your home solution as a starting discussion point?

Making a new thread every week saying: this aspect is crap, end of, is just pointless and as i said, borderlines trolling.

What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.