Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kayman" data-source="post: 7885591" data-attributes="member: 7017973">&quot;PF2E does establish balance. It demands and mandates mathematical balance. I find this obligation of math to be at the root of its failure.&quot;You are confusing things, balanced on the principle that each class has its qualities and flaws, but never balanced for any situation in the game. A warrior will be totally dominant over a wizard depending on the situation and vice versa. Something completely impossible in PF1, the wizard (cleric, druid, etc ..) will always be superior in ALL game situations from the 8th or 9th level onwards.&quot;PF2E says: what level are you?&nbsp; OK in order to be “balanced” the number we allow must be pretty close to X.....&quot;At this point you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the PF2 system (which highlights my point that you can only criticize something from empirical experience). The fighter in PF2 is DOMINANT in his ability with the sword as he passes levels, even in relation to other martial classes. The difference is that now (correctly in my opinion) each class becomes DOMINANT in what it purports to be.&quot;But a character outside of their wheelhouse can be massively off this mark. And there can be major &quot;lack of balance&quot; when two things which, when considered from a purely narrative evaluation are not at all balance are placed alongside each other.&nbsp; I call this “getting the narrative right”.&quot;Again you prove my point that empirical experience is needed. Due to the math of PF2, any class that is &quot;outside of their wheelhouse&quot; will have an infinitely greater disadvantage&nbsp; (exactly because of the mechanics you don't accept: untrained, trained, expert, master and legendary). Again I repeat, the game offers distinct potential for each class and never in its mechanics proposes to make them equal.One more thing, I played PF1 to exhaustion, had wonderful experiences, and was a supporter of the system. But it is not coherent to deny the immense flaws it presented (such as total dominance in all game situations for the magic classes). In my humble opinion PF2 solved this serious problem without misrepresenting the essence of Pathfinder.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kayman, post: 7885591, member: 7017973"] "PF2E [I]does[/I] establish balance. It demands and mandates mathematical balance. I find this obligation of math to be at the root of its failure." You are confusing things, balanced on the principle that each class has its qualities and flaws, but never balanced for any situation in the game. A warrior will be totally dominant over a wizard depending on the situation and vice versa. Something completely impossible in PF1, the wizard (cleric, druid, etc ..) will always be superior in ALL game situations from the 8th or 9th level onwards. "PF2E says: what level are you? OK in order to be “balanced” the number we allow must be pretty close to X....." At this point you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the PF2 system (which highlights my point that you can only criticize something from empirical experience). The fighter in PF2 is DOMINANT in his ability with the sword as he passes levels, even in relation to other martial classes. The difference is that now (correctly in my opinion) each class becomes DOMINANT in what it purports to be. "But a character outside of their wheelhouse can be massively off this mark. And there can be major "lack of balance" when two things which, when considered from a purely narrative evaluation are not at all balance are placed alongside each other. I call this “getting the narrative right”." Again you prove my point that empirical experience is needed. Due to the math of PF2, any class that is "outside of their wheelhouse" will have an infinitely greater disadvantage (exactly because of the mechanics you don't accept: untrained, trained, expert, master and legendary). Again I repeat, the game offers distinct potential for each class and never in its mechanics proposes to make them equal. One more thing, I played PF1 to exhaustion, had wonderful experiences, and was a supporter of the system. But it is not coherent to deny the immense flaws it presented (such as total dominance in all game situations for the magic classes). In my humble opinion PF2 solved this serious problem without misrepresenting the essence of Pathfinder. [/QUOTE]

Verification