Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 7816143" data-attributes="member: 957"><p>The devil is very much in the details here. The phrase "applied it across the board" carries such vast change that to compare the idea to prior editions is meaningless.</p><p></p><p>And, as an aside, if it is such a trivial change, then why in the world would they do something makes no significant impact and yet alienates a lot of fans? The answer is clearly that it isn't remotely a trivial change.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Meh, given the last minute change to untrained, this is somewhat true. But the system still pushes toward assumption of a lot of proficiencies. As written it still is an odd move that is grating to those who dislike spindly nerd wizards being great at climbing and barbarbians with +13 to engineering and knowledge of religious rituals. </p><p></p><p>The final version is on a place that houserules can work through it pretty well.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In combat there is a complete and total difference. And it is reasonable to see the changes as a lose/lose proposition.</p><p>Adding level to AC has no match in prior versions and flies completely in the face of the opening hand wave comment about "present in and versions of D&D-PF". The idea that "you should be able to land a blow" is not remotely a fact, but rather entirely one of taste. So if you don't share that taste, PF2E is telling you "too bad". </p><p></p><p>And, of course, this applies just as well to nerdy wizards as it does to "master swordsmen". The L1 orc can't hit a L5 wizard any better than he can the L5 "master swordsman". But put that same "master swordsman" in an anti-magic field 30x30 room with a naked L10 wizard and that wizard land easy blow after easy blow on the nose of that super-stud "you shouldn't be able to" hit, while the "master swordsman" can't seem to catch this naked guy with no fighter levels and no magic powers.</p><p>And you might call that an absurd corner case. But I want to "BE" that cool guy in the game. And I know when that orc is whiffing on me as the swordsman it is NOT because of any cool modeling of "master swordsman" happening here. It is because the same math that says the no-magic-wizard can hit me in the nose is applying here. In effect the game is rigged to ignore everything about what makes me cool and instead assure that the orc misses me purely because I have the number "5" in the right cell on my character sheet.</p><p></p><p>Characters who should not be awesome based on their narrative are "awesome" anyway, and characters who really should be awesome are simply doing what any other character with that number would do. Lose/Lose</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 7816143, member: 957"] The devil is very much in the details here. The phrase "applied it across the board" carries such vast change that to compare the idea to prior editions is meaningless. And, as an aside, if it is such a trivial change, then why in the world would they do something makes no significant impact and yet alienates a lot of fans? The answer is clearly that it isn't remotely a trivial change. Meh, given the last minute change to untrained, this is somewhat true. But the system still pushes toward assumption of a lot of proficiencies. As written it still is an odd move that is grating to those who dislike spindly nerd wizards being great at climbing and barbarbians with +13 to engineering and knowledge of religious rituals. The final version is on a place that houserules can work through it pretty well. In combat there is a complete and total difference. And it is reasonable to see the changes as a lose/lose proposition. Adding level to AC has no match in prior versions and flies completely in the face of the opening hand wave comment about "present in and versions of D&D-PF". The idea that "you should be able to land a blow" is not remotely a fact, but rather entirely one of taste. So if you don't share that taste, PF2E is telling you "too bad". And, of course, this applies just as well to nerdy wizards as it does to "master swordsmen". The L1 orc can't hit a L5 wizard any better than he can the L5 "master swordsman". But put that same "master swordsman" in an anti-magic field 30x30 room with a naked L10 wizard and that wizard land easy blow after easy blow on the nose of that super-stud "you shouldn't be able to" hit, while the "master swordsman" can't seem to catch this naked guy with no fighter levels and no magic powers. And you might call that an absurd corner case. But I want to "BE" that cool guy in the game. And I know when that orc is whiffing on me as the swordsman it is NOT because of any cool modeling of "master swordsman" happening here. It is because the same math that says the no-magic-wizard can hit me in the nose is applying here. In effect the game is rigged to ignore everything about what makes me cool and instead assure that the orc misses me purely because I have the number "5" in the right cell on my character sheet. Characters who should not be awesome based on their narrative are "awesome" anyway, and characters who really should be awesome are simply doing what any other character with that number would do. Lose/Lose [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2e
Top