This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Pathfinder 2.01  (Read 4932 times)

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2019, 09:36:55 PM »
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112739
Maybe, just maybe, if they had spent more time writing the damn rules and revising them instead of writing a frigging sermon about how people should play this wouldn't be necessary.

Also am I crazy or some of the "errata" is due to politically incorrect language?

Sure seems like PC newspeak to me.

No, just sounds like they are trying to head off at the pass any potential rules laywering or gaming of the system. You see it now and then in board game design too when a designer starts to obsess over stuff like this to the point you get paragraphs devoted to trying to cover every possible way someone could fuck with just one element, let alone several. Ive seen far far worse.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2019, 09:41:54 PM »
Quote from: finarvyn;1112741
I think that the problem is that many RPGs don't seem to go through much playtesting, and they use a print run as a playtest substitute. Strange in the case of Pathfinder, as there was a playtest version you could buy in advance of the real thing, but when a game has strange rules errors it often points out something that should have been caught in playtest..

Its not that. Its the problem that between playtesting and print any number of goofs may happen as you approach print time. And the chances of goofs increase the more you rush after playtest. Or the more you tweak based on feedback but dont playtest THAT.

So you end up with possibly rules artifacts left in the manuscript, or during print something just gets lost. Or whomever was doing layout goofed, and so on. These can end up creeping in and no way to spot them till after. Now magnify that potential for problems for every single tweak or addition/change.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2019, 09:45:40 PM »
Quote from: Shasarak;1112747
That is a funny story about when you play test the game, decide to change the rules based on that play testing and yet the wrong rules still make it through to the final product.  Or in this case both the playtest rules and the new final rules.

Exactly. Or hopefully exactly. But yeah they may have also been diverting too much attention into being woke and making a "safe place" than to proofreading or spot checking.

But odds are it is the age old problem of rules artifacts sneaking into the final, or bits of the final getting lost during layout.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2019, 10:21:24 PM »
Quote from: Omega;1112756
Exactly. Or hopefully exactly. But yeah they may have also been diverting too much attention into being woke and making a "safe place" than to proofreading or spot checking.


I think some people are a bit too sensitive to "Wokeness" until they literally start seeing it everywhere even in game mechanics.


Quote
But odds are it is the age old problem of rules artifacts sneaking into the final, or bits of the final getting lost during layout.


Yeah I can not imagine publishing a 500+ page book with no mistakes.  Heck it is hard enough to make a forum post with no mistakes.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2019, 10:45:35 PM »
Quote from: Shasarak;1112726
The errata to backpacks says:

"The first 2 Bulk of items in your backpack don't count against your Bulk limits."

So I am not sure how anyone can interpret that as making Plate Mail weigh less or in fact getting confused about which item is where.

Then you're not following. I was saying, based on the reactions others are having to the complexity of tracking items in the container and out of the container. Your bulk literally changes every time you draw a weapon from a sheath, which you would need to know if you're using that system, which means everything needs to be tracked based on where it is or could be. That people are instead HAND WAIVING that you just reduce weight by 2 and call it a day. Which can lead to the abuse of items outside the container weighing less. From a tracking standpoint, it seems to be a system that isn't very functional on a practical basis.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 10:49:43 PM by Mistwell »

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2019, 12:59:57 AM »
Quote from: Shasarak;1112747
That is a funny story about when you play test the game, decide to change the rules based on that play testing and yet the wrong rules still make it through to the final product.  Or in this case both the playtest rules and the new final rules.

That sounds a lot like the FFG playtesting experiences I had. Several things were pointed out as being wrong, the playtest coordinator and the author agreed that they were wrong, but the errors still made it through to the final products. I found it rather annoying.

ZetaRidley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2019, 01:30:53 AM »
Quote from: Shasarak;1112747
No, in this case it is because you are crazy.  In more simple terms you can roll a failure or a critical failure (or a success or critical success) and they dont want you to be able to turn a critical failure into a success (or I guess a failure into a critical success which is also a two step change)



That is a funny story about when you play test the game, decide to change the rules based on that play testing and yet the wrong rules still make it through to the final product.  Or in this case both the playtest rules and the new final rules.

Ugh. I've always viewed critical successes and failues as being just over wrought meme garbage. Totally disruptive, and unrealistic. How does Pathfinder 2e handle this? Critical fumble tables?

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2019, 02:18:50 AM »
Quote from: ZetaRidley;1112766
Ugh. I've always viewed critical successes and failues as being just over wrought meme garbage. Totally disruptive, and unrealistic. How does Pathfinder 2e handle this? Critical fumble tables?

Critical Success is either ten more then your DC or a nat 20 (if that would normally be a success).  A Critical Failure is either ten less then your DC or a nat 1 (if that would normally be a failure).

In the base game weapon Critical Hits do double damage and Spells may have additional effects on a Critical Success or less effects on a Critical Failure.

I cant see any reason why you could not use your own Critical Tables or Pathfinder Critical Hit Decks.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2019, 02:33:03 AM »
Quote from: Shasarak;1112759
I think some people are a bit too sensitive to "Wokeness" until they literally start seeing it everywhere even in game mechanics.


In Paizo's case thats because they are very woke and have stated so. Hence whatever they do gets scrutinized through that lens because its a lens of their own crafting.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2019, 01:57:38 PM »
Quote from: Shasarak;1112726
The errata to backpacks says:

"The first 2 Bulk of items in your backpack don't count against your Bulk limits."

So I am not sure how anyone can interpret that as making Plate Mail weigh less or in fact getting confused about which item is where.


Ok, I re-read the bulk & backpack rules for Starfinder. If you have a "common" backpack, it raises your strength by 1 for purposes of encumbrance. If you have an industrial backpack, it raises your strength by 2 for purposes of encumbrance. Also, it can hold up to 2 bulk worth of items. Which is important if you're going to carry more than what you can grab with your two (or four in the case of some aliens) mitts.

So, the backpack itself has two seperate, but related, effects. By specifiying what's in the pack is what's effected by the reduction of encumbrance is where it seems they went wrong.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Graytung

  • Newbie
  • *
  • G
  • Posts: 38
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2019, 09:55:12 PM »
I'm actually perplexed as to why people are giving time and effort to PF2, but then people will generally play what they enjoy. However, it almost seems to me that many of the people supporting it are just desperate to see it succeed.

I played pathfinder 2 for about 6 weeks, because I have a history with the 1st edition. The book is just a mess when it comes to editing, layout, writing, and game design. If a 'nobody' wrote the pathfinder 2 book and it was called something else, I honestly think it would have been laughed at or forgotten by now.

I'm actually surprised the errata is only 5 pages. They need a 2nd printing already imo.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 09:59:54 PM by Graytung »

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2019, 10:23:32 PM »
Quote from: Omega;1112768
In Paizo's case thats because they are very woke and have stated so. Hence whatever they do gets scrutinized through that lens because its a lens of their own crafting.

There are some companies which might be fairly described as "very woke", like Ben and Jerry's. But Paizo is not one of them. They're a pretty ordinary content-related company.  This isn't "very woke".

Fergurg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • F
  • Posts: 76
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2019, 10:45:55 PM »
Quote from: Mistwell;1112836
There are some companies which might be fairly described as "very woke", like Ben and Jerry's. But Paizo is not one of them. They're a pretty ordinary content-related company.  This isn't "very woke".

You're kidding, right?

Besides the whole section dedicated to promoting the X Card and the whole "choose your pronouns" bit in 2nd edition, we have the declaration that all good societies allow homosexual marriage, a traditionally Lawful Good god being changed to Lawful Neutral because of the doctrine that mothers should be the stay-at-home parent (and the product manager stating that he should have been declared evil for that reason), an atheist nation whose key to stability and prosperity is oppressing all religions, about a third of the population being homosexual or transsexual, stating that it is impossible to be both evil and working against slavery, and literally declaring the demon of tyranny to also be the demon of misogyny.

I would ask what more needs to happen to be considered "woke" but I can't figure how what more "wokeness" they can cram into their setting.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2019, 12:16:07 AM »
Quote from: Fergurg;1112839
You're kidding, right?

Besides the whole section dedicated to promoting the X Card and the whole "choose your pronouns" bit in 2nd edition, we have the declaration that all good societies allow homosexual marriage, a traditionally Lawful Good god being changed to Lawful Neutral because of the doctrine that mothers should be the stay-at-home parent (and the product manager stating that he should have been declared evil for that reason), an atheist nation whose key to stability and prosperity is oppressing all religions, about a third of the population being homosexual or transsexual, stating that it is impossible to be both evil and working against slavery, and literally declaring the demon of tyranny to also be the demon of misogyny.

I would ask what more needs to happen to be considered "woke" but I can't figure how what more "wokeness" they can cram into their setting.

I am not kidding. You're pretty sheltered if you think this is "very woke". This is very mild.

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Pathfinder 2.01
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2019, 11:17:04 AM »
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112739

Maybe, just maybe, if they had spent more time writing the damn rules and revising them instead of writing a frigging sermon about how people should play this wouldn't be necessary.


Agreed and seconded then again it's not the first time where Paizo screwed up with RAw and requiring major errata to make a product fully useable.

Advanced Class Guide hardcover was a much worse offender imo. They were in such a rush to get it out for a Gencon release that the cover had Adventure Path write on it. At least 9-10+ errata. Which would have been more if they did not use small font for the errata. With some classes being unusable or made worst post errata. Instead of apologizing doubled down on trying to use Gencon as an excuse for such a poorly edited product. As apparently unless they released that book at Gencon rather than doing the smart thing of holding back until it was properly edited they would be in the poor house.

Granted the errata is not as bad as Shadowrun 6E, yet I'm starting to get tired and quitr franky lose patience and goodwill towards the same companies who repeat the same mistakes over and over. Thank god for PDfs as unlike the old days of gaming one is no longer stuck with a poorly edited product.

As to the topic at hand not sure if it is because I'm tired of the new edition train, becoming more responsible, losing interest in buying new rpgs or simply going towards a personal gamers mode of non-interest. I don't hate Paizo or 2E Pathfinder I just have a lack of interest, same thing with 5E another lack of interest. I have 1E, 2E and Pathfinder 1E do I need yet another variation of D&D with the serial numbers filed off. It's not to say I no longer buy new rpgs I do and would. They also need to be much better than the previous version. I am probably going to buy the new Savage Rifts books as find the system much better than Palladium Books set of rules. I'm also tired of waiting for Kevin not doing it and nor the countless excuses of the dwindling fanbase who want to see no changes yet expect a miraculous recovery any new day...any day.now.