Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 01:18:33 AM
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.
Where is the toast guy with his heart breaker?

Seconded

While also summing up many gamers in the hobby. Their favored edition is not different or derivative at all. Simply because it's a favored edition. Just like Wotc is greedy etc.. yet favored publisher XYZ who does the same thing is above reproach.

Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM
Greetings!

Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Because a number of them are overrated hacks anyways.

Monte Cook, for example, believed D&D martial classes were too powerful compared to casters. 

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 08:41:31 AM

Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM
Greetings!

Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Because a number of them are overrated hacks anyways.

Monte Cook, for example, believed D&D martial classes were too powerful compared to casters. 

Greetings!

*Laughing* "Overrated hacks!" That's true, isn't it?

Martial classes are too powerful compared to spellcasters? *laughing* Geesus. You know, though, that reminds me. In much of Monte Cook's work, you know all of his weird supplements, Monte does seem to have a strong bias in favor of spellcasters. They are like the uber-powerful Gumby, getting all kinds of cool spells and special effects. Martial characters, in contrast, often seem like dressed up hired labor for him. I've noticed that about a good number of NPC's and such in his supplements through the years.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on December 16, 2020, 09:23:13 AM

Greetings!

*Laughing* "Overrated hacks!" That's true, isn't it?

Martial classes are too powerful compared to spellcasters? *laughing* Geesus. You know, though, that reminds me. In much of Monte Cook's work, you know all of his weird supplements, Monte does seem to have a strong bias in favor of spellcasters. They are like the uber-powerful Gumby, getting all kinds of cool spells and special effects. Martial characters, in contrast, often seem like dressed up hired labor for him. I've noticed that about a good number of NPC's and such in his supplements through the years.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

In 2E, the martial versus caster tradeoff was that most martial classes could attract followers easily.

Fighters would gain a henchman fighter of 5th-7th level with some solid gear, 10-40 0-level follower troops, and 10-30 elite soldiers (1st-2nd level). This occurred at 9th level and the fighter did not need to have a stronghold built or held.

Rangers attract 2d6 followers at 10th level (which are random critters and possibly powerful in their own right).

Clerics attract 20-200 0-level fighters (fanatics) but can't replace them (2E clerics really didn't have the gish aspects seen in 3E, so we can kinda forgive this one). This only occurs once the cleric has established a place of worship and advanced to 8th level or better.

Thieves can gain 4d6 random followers, but their loyalty tends to be a bit suspect.

Bards can build a stronghold to attract followers, gaining 10d6 0-level fighters at 9th level.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think 3E was a massive downgrade in overall power for martial classes.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 09:48:59 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think 3E was a massive downgrade in overall power for martial classes.

That would be because it was. The single biggest culprit was the full-attack mechanics (i.e. can't use it if you take more than a 5' step, each additional attack gets a cumulative -5 penalty to hit... both of which were notably removed from 5e), but the second biggest was definitely the loss of the followers (there was the leadership feat, but it was optional, depended upon Charisma to determine numbers and the number and effectiveness of the followers was a joke with the way threats scaled in 3e). The third culprit would be the change in saving throw math where high level fighters went from having a good chance of evading harmful spell effects to exceedingly vulnerable to effects that required Reflex or Will saves.

Meanwhile casters had many of their restrictions reduced (generic spell component pouches/eschew materials to eliminate the need to track components; concentration checks/defensive casting/5' steps to make it easier to get spells off even when threatened by an adjacent combatant; the math meaning that spells got harder to save against at higher levels instead of easier so "save or dies" that bypass hit points became superior to hit point damage... particularly when hp bloat was factored in).

It was a whole bunch of little things that if one were added to 2e in isolation wouldn't have amounted to much, but in aggregate turned 3e into the "casters & caddies" edition.

To be fair though, a lot of the changes could be good even in aggregate IF they were properly counterbalanced. There's nothing wrong with a magic system that can be safely used at-will in melee (vs. the "wizard as artillery with limited shots" approach of older D&D)... but one would expect in such a system that magic's punch would be more in line with the effectiveness of melee combat rather than retaining the punch of artillery.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 10:40:47 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 09:48:59 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think 3E was a massive downgrade in overall power for martial classes.

That would be because it was. The single biggest culprit was the full-attack mechanics (i.e. can't use it if you take more than a 5' step, each additional attack gets a cumulative -5 penalty to hit... both of which were notably removed from 5e), but the second biggest was definitely the loss of the followers (there was the leadership feat, but it was optional, depended upon Charisma to determine numbers and the number and effectiveness of the followers was a joke with the way threats scaled in 3e). The third culprit would be the change in saving throw math where high level fighters went from having a good chance of evading harmful spell effects to exceedingly vulnerable to effects that required Reflex or Will saves.

Meanwhile casters had many of their restrictions reduced (generic spell component pouches/eschew materials to eliminate the need to track components; concentration checks/defensive casting/5' steps to make it easier to get spells off even when threatened by an adjacent combatant; the math meaning that spells got harder to save against at higher levels instead of easier so "save or dies" that bypass hit points became superior to hit point damage... particularly when hp bloat was factored in).

It was a whole bunch of little things that if one were added to 2e in isolation wouldn't have amounted to much, but in aggregate turned 3e into the "casters & caddies" edition.

To be fair though, a lot of the changes could be good even in aggregate IF they were properly counterbalanced. There's nothing wrong with a magic system that can be safely used at-will in melee (vs. the "wizard as artillery with limited shots" approach of older D&D)... but one would expect in such a system that magic's punch would be more in line with the effectiveness of melee combat rather than retaining the punch of artillery.

I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.

It's been a while.

Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.

It's been a while.

No, you're correct about the high level henchman (initially earned XP separately can could be up to level-1 to you in 3.0e, but changed to a flat your level-X (max of level-2) based on your leadership score in 3.5e); but it also granted followers who, in 3.0e could only be warriors, experts or commoners or any class in 3.5e and depending on your leadership score could be up to level 6 (though most would be level 1).

It was a real mess and between Cha being a recommended "dump stat" for Fighters while Clerics, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers needed good scores largely resulted in spellcasting types often having more followers than Fighters who once had "gathers the most followers the most easily" as a defining class feature.

IF the DM actually allowed the Leadership feat that is. 3e's "Back to the Dungeon" mantra meant that the expectation was you'd have just the PCs delving into dungeons (vs. the AD&D approach of having numerous hirelings and henchmen involved in the delves).

Is there any hard evidence, or even medium level evidence, that PF2 isn't selling well?

It's not that I don't believe it. It's that I would like to see some evidence.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 12:37:57 PM

Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.

It's been a while.

No, you're correct about the high level henchman (initially earned XP separately can could be up to level-1 to you in 3.0e, but changed to a flat your level-X (max of level-2) based on your leadership score in 3.5e); but it also granted followers who, in 3.0e could only be warriors, experts or commoners or any class in 3.5e and depending on your leadership score could be up to level 6 (though most would be level 1).

It was a real mess and between Cha being a recommended "dump stat" for Fighters while Clerics, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers needed good scores largely resulted in spellcasting types often having more followers than Fighters who once had "gathers the most followers the most easily" as a defining class feature.

IF the DM actually allowed the Leadership feat that is. 3e's "Back to the Dungeon" mantra meant that the expectation was you'd have just the PCs delving into dungeons (vs. the AD&D approach of having numerous hirelings and henchmen involved in the delves).

Yes. The Dragonlance-esque "adventuring party joined at the hip". That trend started with Dragonlance, but was not officially embedded in the rules until 3e.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 08:32:31 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 01:18:33 AM
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.

Where is the toast guy with his heart breaker?

If you rip the engine out of a pickup, bolt a seat to the hood and rig horses to pull it, is it still functioning as a pickup truck or is it now a wagon? If I take the head of an axe and use fire and hammer to reshape it into a knife blade... is it still an axe head?

Is Palladium Fantasy still D&D because it uses a d20 to hit and for saves, other polyhedrals for damage rolls and has hit points?

At a certain point sufficient changes have been made to something such that it is no longer the previous thing and is now something different.

Now, one can argue that changing something to look identical to something that was first created by someone else isn't terribly creative and that something was just a previous iteration of the thing changed that it's still that thing... but that's something you'd have to assess a bit more individually.

"Stars Without Number" for example, uses base mechanics in line with TSR editions of D&D, but it's redirection towards the science fiction genre marks it much more as an original work than as just D&D.

Since when has Palladium Fantasy been considered to be OSR?

Where exactly are you trying to move those goal posts?

Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 02:09:06 PM
Yes. The Dragonlance-esque "adventuring party joined at the hip". That trend started with Dragonlance, but was not officially embedded in the rules until 3e.

True, the "Never split the Party" meme only started with 3e and was never a thing before that.

Quote from: Mistwell on December 16, 2020, 02:01:29 PM
Is there any hard evidence, or even medium level evidence, that PF2 isn't selling well?

It's not that I don't believe it. It's that I would like to see some evidence.

Not selling well in relation to what?

No one here has inside access to Baizuo financials, or their original sales projections for PF2.

As to 'Evidence'...

'Evidence' = Proof to whatever standard you feel satisfied with?

Or

'Evidence' = according to the dictionary definition of the word?

Just trying to firmly nail down your goalposts here.

The hardest evidence I've seen (which is by no means great) was the last Roll20 figures released that showed it was still being played less then Pathfinder.

Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 02:09:06 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 12:37:57 PM

Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.

It's been a while.

No, you're correct about the high level henchman (initially earned XP separately can could be up to level-1 to you in 3.0e, but changed to a flat your level-X (max of level-2) based on your leadership score in 3.5e); but it also granted followers who, in 3.0e could only be warriors, experts or commoners or any class in 3.5e and depending on your leadership score could be up to level 6 (though most would be level 1).

It was a real mess and between Cha being a recommended "dump stat" for Fighters while Clerics, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers needed good scores largely resulted in spellcasting types often having more followers than Fighters who once had "gathers the most followers the most easily" as a defining class feature.

IF the DM actually allowed the Leadership feat that is. 3e's "Back to the Dungeon" mantra meant that the expectation was you'd have just the PCs delving into dungeons (vs. the AD&D approach of having numerous hirelings and henchmen involved in the delves).

Yes. The Dragonlance-esque "adventuring party joined at the hip". That trend started with Dragonlance, but was not officially embedded in the rules until 3e.

We always played 2e as adventuring parties and never used followers.  We dumped Charisma all the time.  It was a joke. 

There's no question 3E made the balance worse between casters and martials.  But it wasn't really all that great at high levels in 2e either.  One of the key differences was that 3E really sped up advancement.  You were getting to to those high levels a lot more quickly.  And then when you add in prestige classes - which you could only get at mid levels, then it creates an incentive to actually begin there.

One of the other things was that the simulationist side of 3E really screwed a lot with martial characters.  There were so many things that the rogue couldn't sneak attack for example.  This made a lot of sense but rogues didn't exactly have other options.

3E is actually quite a good system played up to around level 8 with largely human or humanoid opponents.
   

Quote from: TJS on December 16, 2020, 04:14:32 PM
We always played 2e as adventuring parties and never used followers.  We dumped Charisma all the time.  It was a joke. 

There's no question 3E made the balance worse between casters and martials.  But it wasn't really all that great at high levels in 2e either.  One of the key differences was that 3E really sped up advancement.  You were getting to to those high levels a lot more quickly.  And then when you add in prestige classes - which you could only get at mid levels, then it creates an incentive to actually begin there.

One of the other things was that the simulationist side of 3E really screwed a lot with martial characters.  There were so many things that the rogue couldn't sneak attack for example.  This made a lot of sense but rogues didn't exactly have other options.

3E is actually quite a good system played up to around level 8 with largely human or humanoid opponents.
   

One of the things I told my group before we abandoned 3E entirely was that if we ever do it again, there is going to be exactly one house rule:  You can only take a major or moderate caster class every other level.  Because the only way I'm going to run the game with 12th level characters that are wizards, clerics, druids, etc. is if they are no more than 6/6 wizard/rogue or fighter/cleric or whatever mix you want to play.  We didn't have a campaign that we wanted to play using 3E that way into the higher levels.  So it became a moot point.