Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[upho]

Stuff.

Well, let's put it this way, AFAICT you seem to agree there is a clear power difference between casters and non-casters in P1. Yet you'll find absolutely nothing published by Paizo so far which actually tells you that this is the case, but plenty of stuff which at the very least strongly indicates that Paizo believes even their own equal CR fighter and wizard NPCs are at least as balanced as monsters of the same CR. And these omissions and grossly misleading indications and descriptions makes for a poor instruction manual. WoTC realized as much, even if their solution obviously wasn't very great.

Regardless, I'm not going to discuss this further with you if you continue making arguments of the same poor standard as those you've made so far. Nitpicking details while refusing to meet the obvious point does not make for a meaningful discussion.

Arguing with Psyren about this is pointless. He is fully committed to the position that balance is dumb and bad, and seems convinced that "the rule is sometimes wrong, therefore it is totally meaningless" is a sufficient argument for this point. You will never convince him otherwise because accepting that the game is supposed to be balanced would imply that the existing imbalance is a failure of the designers.

Honestly, I'm tempted to fully agree with you. I mean, arguing against the fact the P1 books completely fail to recognize the C/MD issue is just utterly futile and pointless. As is arguing against the fact the books instead largely denies the existence of any such issue.

On the other hand, you can keep arguing until he blocks you for being "toxic". Maybe if he does that to enough people he'll eventually realize the problem isn't the rest of the forum.

Yeah, although I think the problem here is that Psyren believes there's so much misdirected and/or poorly argued critique and general negativity against Paizo and PF that he feels compelled to defend against it spreading through the echo-chamber and only point out the positive. It's unfortunate that this defense has apparently made him increasingly zealous and less willing to admit any critique is justified, seemingly having him dismiss actually valid and nuanced critique as unjustified echo-chamber hyperbole and hate. This is of course only my personal impression.

@ Psyren: Listening to well-founded critique is not just good but often vital for the long-term survival of a game, often more so than praise and high current popularity ratings. Recognizing such critique and discussing how to solve the related issues does not mean you're somehow automatically also buying any of the hyperbole describing PF as a complete failure or even a poor system. Nor does doing so mean you're somehow automatically thinking the PDT is a bunch of incompetent fools who don't have a clue about how their own system actually works, or that you think everything Paizo does or says is bad per default. Note how this swings both ways, and that you're actually doing both the game and Paizo a disservice by dismissing the actually valid critique.

TL/DR: It's OK to think and admit PF has both good and bad parts, just as it's OK to think and admit Paizo does some things right and some things wrong. Not doing so is however not OK, at least not if you want reasonable people to listen and value what you're saying instead of dismissing you as a biased "axe-grinder" (of either stripe).