Yeah. He must be a rookie. I had my first TPK in the adventure he's running at 3rd level.It’s been about a week since I saw the video, but didn’t Taking20 say that his party had had a TPK at level 9, and that it had been his first TPK in like a decade?
He has a really indepth analysis about a third of the way through, but he's still getting some things wrong.Cody posted another response video.
Also, lampshading that you're beating a dead horse does not excuse beating a dead horse.
Whatever it is that you get out of rpg supplements: sparking new ideas, or new mechanics to play with, or new lore... every new supplement is an injection of stuff to play with. When games stop getting new books, you don't get new toys. But hey! Look over there! That RPG has new supplements! New toys to play with! Lets try that one!To be honest I can’t comprehend why people feel they can bo longer play a game because they stop putting out new books for it. Blows my mind. I think it makes them easier to play because canon closed.
While that is true for some, it is true for others that we can play the game foe years (decades) with only the core books.Whatever it is that you get out of rpg supplements: sparking new ideas, or new mechanics to play with, or new lore... every new supplement is an injection of stuff to play with. When games stop getting new books, you don't get new toys. But hey! Look over there! That RPG has new supplements! New toys to play with! Lets try that one!
Really if you want to play a game where players don’t feel they have to shell out money for all these supplements to be equal to other players just use the PHB. It also allows for quicker character generation and it is easier to create a new character when you die in the middle of a session and get back in.While that is true for some, it is true for others that we can play the game foe years (decades) with only the core books.
But Paizo is definitely making it much harder to enjoy core-book-only PF2 than WotC for 5E.
I describe my playtest experience with PF2 like this; PF1 is a role-playing game with a strong boardgame element. PF2 is a boardgame with a bit of a role-play element. This is the same trend (if not as extreme) as the move from 3.5 to 4E. To me, it is incomprehensible how Paizo, who grew big from players disatisifed with 4E, could recruit a lot of 4E designers and release a PF2 that moves in the same direction 4E did. This is my personal opinion and I don't claim it to be true for everyone.
I don't know pf2 to really comment too deeply on his first video but will say that he makes good points about the illusion of choice & players being forced to make certain choices in build/combat in both systems in it. His second video about illusion of choice he makes a lot of very good points though, particularly the one about system defenders seeming to miss the point deliberately or dismiss the whole thing as a powergamer charop issue. 5e is especially bad about the illusion of choice just in other areas like feat & spell selection. Probably by dumb luck he stumbled into a 5e combat example where it seems like a player really has choices by presenting a longbow with a once presented on a tactical grid with a 150/600 range starting at a 20-30sh foot distance, but in nearly every other case including just the ranger being further away* at the start the combat is pretty much move into range & rockemsockem robots till one side dies
*like on the other side of the open door an extra 30-60ft away)
Battle mats don't cover 600 ft. Modules rarely use that scale, especially when the companies sell tiles, flip mats, etc. If you're playing a standard adventure on a tactical grid, you're likely in a 30-40 ft room in a dungeon. And it's probably a square or rectangle. Unless you get freaky and it's a circle or an easily drawn polygon. This is the industry standard of design for the RPG business, and it has been for 40 years.Probably by dumb luck he stumbled into a 5e combat example where it seems like a player really has choices by presenting a longbow with a once presented on a tactical grid with a 150/600 range starting at a 20-30sh foot distance, but in nearly every other case including just the ranger being further away* at the start the combat is pretty much move into range & rockemsockem robots till one side dies
A physical battle mat might not cover six hundred feet... but they tend to cover quite a bit more than 30-30ish and your point highlights the mindboggling levels of wtf thst go into making a !50/600 longbow.Battle mats don't cover 600 ft. Modules rarely use that scale, especially when the companies sell tiles, flip mats, etc. If you're playing a standard adventure on a tactical grid, you're likely in a 30-40 ft room in a dungeon. And it's probably a square or rectangle. Unless you get freaky and it's a circle or an easily drawn polygon. This is the industry standard of design for the RPG business, and it has been for 40 years.
If you're outside you might be on a road on an ambush or in a forest with a handful of trees.
People who suggest they regularly use multi-levelled battlefields with complex terrain, hazardous zones, and rich tactical depth are either being disingenuous or are exceptions to every game I've played in, published adventure I've read, and printed battle map I've seen.
Cody's setup was fine. It was a little simple for demonstration purposes, but if we're all honest, it's a standard sample fight in any d20 system. And for most players most of the time, it's accurate.
If people want to get on here and pretend every battle in their game is like the opening of Bayonetta, I find it hard to believe.