Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7600301" data-attributes="member: 12731">Sorry, there are several reasons why you will not get any answers using your current approach.#1 Your posts directed at me are almost exclusively aggressive ones. Nothing about your stance gives me any indication you are interested in listening. In fact, you come across as judge, jury and executioner, but I have news for you: this is not a courtroom and I am not on the stand! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />#2 Since the playtest we don't know much more than &quot;spells will be considerably beefed up&quot;. Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it?Tell you what, direct me to an official blog or twitch or whatever where the devs of PF2 talk about LFQW and specifically agree it is a huge problem in Pathfinder 1 and what measures they have taken to address the issue, and we have a common ground for further discussion. Same with DM workload.Fair warning though: I do not believe it exists because I am secretly convinced nobody at Paizo priorities these issues or even considers them to be problems in the first place. I am aware of exactly zero evidence Buhlmann &amp; Co are developing their game in the context of the advances 5E brought to the table, or any indications of 5E concepts they feel they must incorporate in their game as well (whether by similar or different implementations matters less). But again, I might be wrong. (In fact, I would love to be wrong because that would mean PF2 moves from the category of &quot;hard pass&quot; to &quot;cautiously exited&quot;.)Another fair warning: even if you do find it you still need to dial down your debating style enough for me to reasonably expect you to listen to my arguments, or you are still not presenting me with any enticement to respond. Regards,Zapp</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7600301, member: 12731"] Sorry, there are several reasons why you will not get any answers using your current approach. #1 Your posts directed at me are almost exclusively aggressive ones. Nothing about your stance gives me any indication you are interested in listening. In fact, you come across as judge, jury and executioner, but I have news for you: this is not a courtroom and I am not on the stand! :) #2 Since the playtest we don't know much more than "spells will be considerably beefed up". Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it? Tell you what, direct me to an official blog or twitch or whatever where the devs of PF2 talk about LFQW and specifically agree it is a huge problem in Pathfinder 1 and what measures they have taken to address the issue, and we have a common ground for further discussion. Same with DM workload. Fair warning though: I do not believe it exists because I am secretly convinced nobody at Paizo priorities these issues or even considers them to be problems in the first place. I am aware of exactly zero evidence Buhlmann & Co are developing their game in the context of the advances 5E brought to the table, or any indications of 5E concepts they feel they must incorporate in their game as well (whether by similar or different implementations matters less). But again, I might be wrong. (In fact, I would [I]love[/I] to be wrong because that would mean PF2 moves from the category of "hard pass" to "cautiously exited".) Another fair warning: even if you [I]do[/I] find it you still need to dial down your debating style enough for me to reasonably expect you to listen to my arguments, or you are still not presenting me with any enticement to respond. Regards, Zapp [/QUOTE]

Verification