Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8435743" data-attributes="member: 70468">It literally does. I cited where they said how one can make rulings, but you dismissed it as the designers’ not understanding their own game.That’s just how 3e-style games work. Your level matters less than the choices one makes via customization.Again, this is nothing new. 3e and Pathfinder 1e are the same way. Look at <a href="https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/equipment-trick-combat/" target="_blank">equipment tricks</a> in PF1 or the <a href="https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?444052-The-Jumplomancer-are-you-serious" target="_blank">silly stuff one can do in 3e</a>. There’s a trick where you can counterbalance your climb with an anvil! Why should that require a feat, right?But that’s kind of the point. The designers of 3e wanted to give to non-casters what casters have had from the beginning with their spells: specific elements of the game that afforded them a definite benefit. What you’re arguing for is a more rulings-oriented approach. It’s fine to want or prefer that kind of approach, but a game isn’t flawed just because it doesn’t do that (or does it in a way one dislikes).3e is a better comparison than 4e. Having very little structure outside of combat, 4e has much more in common with 5e than it does with PF2. I’m also certain 3e has more feats, especially once one includes PF1, than 4e ever did.So Paizo should have gone with the meaty feat design of 5e? The 5e designers intentionally rejected the design of feats from 3e. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad approach, and it would make choices more “meaningful” in that there would be fewer choices with more benefits per choice, but I don’t think that kind of change was have gone over well with Pathfinder’s target audience (those who like character building and customization as it was done in 3e and PF1).My issue is with taking a strict view on feats and their impact on the game while ignoring other elements of the game that don’t support that narrative. I don’t find arguments that the designers don’t understand their own game very compelling when it comes across as a way to reduce the game only to its “bad stuff”.Oh, come on. You should know I’ve offered my own criticism of PF2. I could go on about how it screwed up by handling skill actions the way it did, or how the proficiency and DC treadmills are a fundamental design mistake, but it’s obvious those things aren’t problems for those who like the game. I expect many people would consider the latter table stakes for a system. If I did that, people would be right to dismiss me as a OSR troll.So I think criticism is fine, but so is criticism of that criticism. That many of us here don’t agree with your assessment or don’t see the game in the same negative light that you do doesn’t mean you are disallowed from expressing that opinion. It’s just going to result in an endless discussion when neither side is likely to be convinced by the other.Sure, but you have to accept that some people might actually want that as a feature. They’re not being contrary or trying to suppress criticism of the system when they express that. What they’re saying is these purported problems are not actually problematic for them, or they’re desirable features.Honestly, I’ve been trying to get at the core of why you dislike PF2. I think that’s more interesting than just articulating and litigating over whatever perceived problems it has. As far as I can tell, it comes back to wanting: 1. meaningful character customization, and 2. a heavy deference to the GM to make rulings to allow heroic characters to do their thing. Am I making a bad inference?If that’s the case, then I don’t think systems with a lineage back to 3e will every be satisfactory. The things you cited as problems were done intentionally in order to empower the players (not to reduce the space for GMs to be permissive but to provide balance against GMs who would not be). I don’t see those ever changing without creating a new system that targets a different audience. Is it really surprising that those who stuck with PF1 don’t particularly like 5e? If you did that, they’d just stick with the old thing until someone iterated it, but it’d still have those problems because the people playing those games consider them features.I’ve suggested it to [USER=42040]@Retreater[/USER], but I’ll also suggest it to you. You should check out Worlds Without Number. While it bills itself as an OSR-adjacent game, the core character customization is via foci (feats, basically) that are meaty and impactful. The game assumes by default that characters are competent, and skill checks are reserved for exceptional situations with interesting outcomes for success and failure. As the game says, don’t make the PCs look incompetent at their role in life. It’s very much a “say yes or roll the dice” kind of game. It’s a bit lethal by default, but you can change that with the heroic rules.The biggest issue I think you’d have with it, based on our discussions here, is that it’s absurdly verbose. I’ve described it before as Gygaxian. WWN does a good job of designing with the spread in mind, but it still uses a ton of words to say things that don’t need that many. You can see in the <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/stars-worlds-without-number-general-thread.680245/" target="_blank">thread here</a> where I’ve asked questions about some fairly basic things, or other elements were not understood correctly because the answer is in an unexpected place (e.g., how bonus skills work when you take a foci after gaining a level).</blockquote>

Verification