ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]

Me, planning consequences:

He could have stabbed it but chose not to I guess. Maybe he thought that would be more cruel?

Yup, that’s some bonafide player logic right there.

My Paladin got eaten by a purple worm once. Then spat back out. Then he jumped back inside because disadvantage and stomach acid was easier to deal with than its basic attacks.

like a reddit thread talking about being able to do 520 damage in one attack, some chatter about a “resentment witch” being able to make power word stun or color spray effectively permanent, and a youtube video by the rules lawyer about “OP builds”, so it seems like there’s at least some system exploitation going on.

Surprisingly, as OP as they seem, they’re entirely in line with the intent of PF2e. 520 damage might seem like a lot, but it takes a specific enemy type, some prebuffing, 4 actions (plus any necessary movement) to prepare, 4 spells from 3 other characters, 2 more actions to execute the attack, and some incredibly lucky rolling - an equal level wizard can just use 2 actions to cast the 10th rank spell Cataclysm, and with similar dice luck deal 420 damage. 480 if the target is swimming. That’s just level 20 PF2e.
Similarly, the resentment witch is just meant to make those conditions permanent - enemies of a higher level than the party have their success level against those saves increased, so while they can be a huge boon, they’re unlikely to do much against enemies they’d really turn the fight against - being able to extend what effects they can land makes incapacitation spells worth potentially wasting on bosses, with the high chance of the spell doing nothing and the ability not even coming into play being the trade off for the power of the ability. Even if the spell does land, it’ll be a lesser version of the effect that is extended.
I don’t watch the rules lawyer, but from his interaction with the PF2e subreddit I’m pretty confident it’s a clickbait title - they’ll be powerful builds, but entirely within the intentions of the system, and ultimately as useful in game as most other builds.

I’d disagree on the second part, because of my other example, PF2e - the original had most of 3.x’s problems, but the code-like specificity of 2e is really showing it’s possible to stop stuff slipping through the cracks. There is a level of interplay between crunch and the possibility of exploitability, but I don’t think it’s as strict as bigger systems and more rules inherently lead to more exploits.

So it is, I’d been looking at the damage and healing rules on 120. I’m sure that’s going to be fun to bring up at the table…

Still, I don’t think that’s as egregious as something like pun-pun or sorlocks short resting to regain spells. There are exploits in other systems, but not at the level or frequency of D&D.

I think you’ve conflated part of those rules - there’s nothing in the medicine skill saying you can only do it once per wound, just first aid. So you can deal/restore 1 damage in between medicine checks, but that’s not what let’s you keep making medicine checks.

Minmaxxing isn’t really the same as rules exploits - you can do those things to become really good at combat, but you’re sacrificing your abilities in other areas, which make up a significant part of the game. It’s not like hiding behind a tower shield to disappear or undead warlocks short resting to stack death ward, where you’re actively taking advantage of wording and rules interactions to achieve unintended effects.

This has a lot of “I’ve only played D&D” energy. I am fascinated to hear your examples of exploits in VtM, or CoC, or even PF2e. Exploits and rules abuse have always been issues in D&D, which is just one of the reasons there are so many systems that aren’t D&D. Plenty of rules can’t be exploited, regardless of how intelligent you are - being clever isn’t a magic spell that just lets you unravel rules to be remade in your image.

The genericness makes it easy to grasp, which can be good for people who don’t or haven’t engaged much with fantasy. It also means the setting doesn’t matter much to people’s stories, allowing them to put whatever they really want in it. It’s just a whatever world for them to plonk adventures down in.

Yeah, it’s named after the luminiferous aether, the invisible medium light waves were theorised to move in. Turns out photons just do that instead.

This is completely standard, Paizo have always given the rules for free and made you pay for the stories and lore.
It’s not even a starter set, it’s the playtest, so you already need to be familiar with Pathfinder 2e in order to use the rules. Definitely not a place for a group to test the waters, they’re looking for serious dweebs to obsess over the maths and mechanics so they can refine it - the playtest adventure(s) are just playgrounds for them to do that it.

Yes, exactly - as I put it to my players, a “person” isn’t able to be inherently good or evil. They’ll have their own morals - particular things they always will or won’t do - but alignment is for things literally made of the concept of that alignment.

You know how the tarrasque constantly regenerates? Well what if you harvested it for meat?

The 3.x tarrasque became a joke, but that was a result of the extensive options combined with people’s system understanding - sure a single wizard could kill it, but that still needed to be played by someone who understood the system. It was a system that gave unlimited options, so if you worked out how to combine enough of them you could break the system wide open, and the tarrasque was a great yardstick for that.

Then you come to 5e’s tarrasque and it’s so badly designed that it’s obvious from a glance that a level 1 character with flight can just hover above it and plink it down with a bow. I’ve seen 3.5’s brought up in comparison to that, but not as an example of difficult fights in a vacuum.

No, equating alignment and morality makes them both meaningless. Morality should be tied to outlooks/philosophies etc, a personal matter of how the individual acts in a situation, while alignment with the forces of good/evil/law/chaos should be a matter of absolute determinism. It’s easy to look at D&D and say it’s wrong, but just because something’s bad in D&D doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad.

Understandable - I prefer lovecraftian and fey creatures for alien thought processes, and use devils more as a foil/mirror to the lawful god of cities, merchants, and wealth, whomst I hate and will take any opportunity to drag.

I’d argue Devils, by their nature of being lawful as well as evil, are often interesting villains because of their “species”, but it’s kinda different when it’s a creature literally made from the primordial essence of Evil rather than just a bad dude.

Counterpoint: The overwhelming majority of curses are either crippling or a complete nonissue. Something like mummy rot will quickly kill a character, and curses that impose penalties on stats or rolls either affect something they use, making the character almost useless, or doesn’t, so doesn’t matter. If you don’t want the party remove cursing a specific curse, just make it more powerful than them.
Counterspelling is bad for a similar reason curses are bad, not remove curse - the overwhelming majority of counterspelling mechanics make it either too easy to too hard. Too hard and it’s just not worth trying, and too easy makes combat a matter of who has more casters.

“How do you spell that?”
“I dunno, how do you wanna spell it?”