Pathfinder Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous Beta Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Grunker]

Grunker your argument is pointless, you can make it about any situational bonus, and then wonder, why did you pick a situational bonus instead of a generic one.

Care to elaborate, because that makes no sense to me? The situation weapon focus demands is "only equip this weapon type." There's no similar cost to, let's say, Dazzling Display. It gives you a new choice to use in combat, which is situationally useful. How is my argument applicable to it? Or for a more direct situational example - Point Blank Shot. How is my argument applicable to that?

Then don't pick it.

next time you argue that some aspect of a game is shit, i'll remember that you think "you can just abstain from interacting with it" is a valid counterargument

 

[Parabalus]

No, my question is "what benefits does a specialization system have." I realize there's probably no way to make meaningful arguments in favour of specialization without all these strawmen, but you could at least try

It's great for larping.

Most games you can choose what character (=weapon) you want at the start, and use exclusively that weapon throughout.

Difficulty tuning is lenient enough that you needn't bother with exploring all available options.

 

[Grunker]

No, my question is "what benefits does a specialization system have." I realize there's probably no way to make meaningful arguments in favour of specialization without all these strawmen, but you could at least try

It's great for larping.

Most games you can choose what character (=weapon) you want at the start, and use exclusively that weapon throughout.

Difficulty tuning is lenient enough that you needn't bother with exploring all available options.

Like I replied to NJClaw I think the larping-argument is valid, but very minor compared to the cost

 

[Sharpedge]

The same benefits of all the other feats in this game: if you want to create and play a specific type of character they allow you to do so.

"Hey, I want to play a guy who mastered the dueling sword! Cool, I can do that!"

A system asset has two jobs: be an interesting mechanic and be appealing to the player. I suppose there's a very minor argument that specializing does the latter (though picking +1 attack bonus never made me feel like my characters were masters of a weapon, like Desiderius and Shadenuat completely correctly state, the boni from specializing in PF are very minor).

But mechanically it's only downside. The bonus is uinteresting, and the cost is to discourage that character from actually playing with the cool shit you designed in your game, or being clever with weapon selection against enemy types.

In what way allowing this is detrimental to the rest of the game?

I argue why it's detrimental in my post. If you disagree with something just quote it

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting. Mechanically there is nothing forcing you to take it. There are a lot of other feats you could possibly pick which are in most cases better than a weapon specialization, so the opportunity cost for picking it is higher than if you had picked something else. You could argue that we should "protect the people who don't realize that a 5% bonus is tiny" but this is the Codex, where the majority of people are wanting more old school games where protecting the casuals is not the goal. If the bonus was actually good, the argument would make a lot more sense. If it was say +10 to hit and damage then after number crunching it would look significantly better than any other option and choice would feel restricted, but as it currently stands the only people who feel like their choice is restricted is those who don't realize how minimal the feat is.

 

[fantadomat]

Yes,remove any choice from rpgs,we should get only set number of prechosen feats that are optimal for the build!!! Go kill yourself you fucking autistic faggots! RPG genre is better without tryhard retards

 

[Grunker]

It's also kind of disingenuous to act like we're only talking about specialization in isolation here given that the feat is a requirement for more general purpose feats, Dazzling Display obviously being the big one. Though I do concede the fact that this could be solved by changed the prerequisites rather than nixing specialization.

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting.

If it is uninteresting, why have it in the game?

If it is so small as to be meaningless (which it must be in order have absolutely no effects on incentives), it is a problem in terms of the primary argument of specialization proponents; that it makes you feel like a master of said weapon type.

I don't think I could make my own case better than the counterargument "you're right in theory but the feat is shit and probably a waste of the opportunity cost so it doesn't matter".

 

[Shadenuat]

The situation weapon focus demands is "only equip this weapon type."

The situation at which it is effective is relative to state of weapons available at every current moment of the game and different playthrough and party composition you might have. (simply, meta)
Point blank, you can use close to every combat; Dazzling is a bit closer, and in Wrath, you indeed might find it not as much of a win button it was in PK. It is, btw, part of the challenge at beating the game - choosing the right tools. Stacking even that extra little +1 with nice weapon early can give you an extra edge, but is it a good choice in the long run? What if that little power in the beginning leads into neat feat later? What if your party is not interested in this feat? You choose.

I am not saying it's perfect or the best narrative way of showing weapon prowess (as I said, I liked umbrella specs in POE1). But the way Wrath is designed, it is not detrimental to player's choice imo. Its itemization takes care of both approaches you might want, be it generic or specialised one. The guy in video most likely haven't found/realised it yet.

 

[Grunker]

The situation weapon focus demands is "only equip this weapon type."

The situation at which it is effective is relative to state of weapons available at every current moment of the game and different playthrough and party composition you might have. (simply, meta)
Point blank, you can use close to every combat; Dazzling is a bit closer, and in Wrath, you indeed might find it not as much of a win button it was in PK. It is, btw, part of the challenge at beating the game - choosing the right tools. Stacking even that extra little +1 with nice weapon early can give you an extra edge, but is it a good choice in the long run? What if that little power in the beginning leads into neat feat later? What if your party is not interested in this feat? You choose.

I am not saying it's perfect or the best narrative way of showing weapon prowess (as I said, I liked umbrella specs in POE1). But the way Wrath is designed, it is not detrimental to player's choice imo.

Like I said, I think your first argument is sort of self-defeating; by arguing the effect is tiny, you also argue against the primary reason for the existance of weapon focus.

As for you latter part, I think I might be on Desiderius et al's team there. Personally I enjoy weapon groupings more, but part of me knows this is only because it's less annoying than specializing. In principle I think weapon groupings are kind of the worst of both worlds: you keep specialization so you annoy the anti-specialization crowd, but you also water it down so much that the people who actually want to feel like masters of a certain weapon don't get that larp-fix.

 

[Shadenuat]

I am a pseudo HEMA faggot, so for maximum verisimilitude to me, weapons must be just tools that can break and you change all the time depending on enemy and area of a fight. Only "specialists" would be some city dueling school teachers masters, traveling duelists etc. with mega particular background and roleplaying options.

 

[Sharpedge]

It's also kind of disingenuous to act like we're only talking about specialization in isolation here given that the feat is a requirement for more general purpose feats, Dazzling Display obviously being the big one. Though I do concede the fact that this could be solved by changed the prerequisites rather than nixing specialization.

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting.

If it is uninteresting, why have it in the game?

If it is so small as to be meaningless (which it must be in order have absolutely no effects on incentives), it is a problem in terms of the primary argument of specialization proponents; that it makes you feel like a master of said weapon type.

I don't think I could make my own case better than the counterargument "you're right in theory but the feat is shit and probably a waste of the opportunity cost so it doesn't matter".

I answered this in another post further up, the reason its there is verisimilitude. Some people want to play pretend that they are the master of X weapon, so this gives them a small bonus as a participation award for their larping, without affecting the overall state of the game.

 

[Tacgnol]

Grunker you may have already posted this, but what would you suggest replacing weapon focus chains with?

From my perspective:

Paizo already gave fighters weapon training groups which give broad and fairly powerful bonuses along a whole family of weapons. The feat chain is just for extra specialisation and bonuses, and also pre-reqs for a few fairly niche feats.

They are for characters who really want to specialise in a specific weapon.

 

[Grunker]

I am a pseudo HEMA faggot, so for maximum verisimilitude to me, weapons must be just tools that can break and you change all the time depending on enemy and area of a fight. Only "specialists" would be some city dueling school teachers masters, traveling duelists etc. with mega particular background and roleplaying options.

What does HEMA mean? I looked up the acronym when you used it the other day but I didn't see anything that made sense

 

[Shadenuat]

historical european martial arts

 

[Grunker]

It's also kind of disingenuous to act like we're only talking about specialization in isolation here given that the feat is a requirement for more general purpose feats, Dazzling Display obviously being the big one. Though I do concede the fact that this could be solved by changed the prerequisites rather than nixing specialization.

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting.

If it is uninteresting, why have it in the game?

If it is so small as to be meaningless (which it must be in order have absolutely no effects on incentives), it is a problem in terms of the primary argument of specialization proponents; that it makes you feel like a master of said weapon type.

I don't think I could make my own case better than the counterargument "you're right in theory but the feat is shit and probably a waste of the opportunity cost so it doesn't matter".

I answered this in another post further up, the reason its there is verisimilitude. Some people want to play pretend that they are the master of X weapon, so this gives them a small bonus as a participation award for their larping, without affecting the overall state of the game.

But then your argument is self-defeating. If your argument for this being a good addition to the game is that it allows players to feel like they're mastering a weapon, it explicitly defeats this argument to answer my own with "it's such an insignificant bonus it doesn't matter." Then there's not much feeling of mastery, is there?

Grunker you may have already posted this, but what would you suggest replacing weapon focus chains with?

From my perspective:

Paizo already gave fighters weapon training groups which give broad and fairly powerful bonuses along a whole family of weapons. The feat chain is just for extra specialisation and bonuses, and also pre-reqs for a few fairly niche feats.

They are for characters who really want to specialise in a specific weapon.

I don't think the chains contribute anything positive - and if you do want to create something around the Weapon Mastery-fantasy, I think it needs to have a deeper design. Ultimately though I wouldn't implement one if I had the choice, because I think it's one of the unsolvable problems of game design - you reduce the amount of interesting options if you make it too strong, and you defeat the purpose of the entire system existing in the first place if you make it too weak.

 

[Tacgnol]

It's also kind of disingenuous to act like we're only talking about specialization in isolation here given that the feat is a requirement for more general purpose feats, Dazzling Display obviously being the big one. Though I do concede the fact that this could be solved by changed the prerequisites rather than nixing specialization.

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting.

If it is uninteresting, why have it in the game?

If it is so small as to be meaningless (which it must be in order have absolutely no effects on incentives), it is a problem in terms of the primary argument of specialization proponents; that it makes you feel like a master of said weapon type.

I don't think I could make my own case better than the counterargument "you're right in theory but the feat is shit and probably a waste of the opportunity cost so it doesn't matter".

I answered this in another post further up, the reason its there is verisimilitude. Some people want to play pretend that they are the master of X weapon, so this gives them a small bonus as a participation award for their larping, without affecting the overall state of the game.

But then your argument is self-defeating. If your argument for this being a good addition to the game is that it allows players to feel like they're mastering a weapon, it explicitly defeats this argument to answer my own with "it's such an insignificant bonus it doesn't matter." Then there's not much feeling of mastery, is there?

That's more of a CRPG issue though. Some of the feats it gives you access to on the tabletop are quite interesting.

Like the one that lets you reduce the intensity of fortification or crit immunity.

 

[Grunker]

It's also kind of disingenuous to act like we're only talking about specialization in isolation here given that the feat is a requirement for more general purpose feats, Dazzling Display obviously being the big one. Though I do concede the fact that this could be solved by changed the prerequisites rather than nixing specialization.

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting.

If it is uninteresting, why have it in the game?

If it is so small as to be meaningless (which it must be in order have absolutely no effects on incentives), it is a problem in terms of the primary argument of specialization proponents; that it makes you feel like a master of said weapon type.

I don't think I could make my own case better than the counterargument "you're right in theory but the feat is shit and probably a waste of the opportunity cost so it doesn't matter".

I answered this in another post further up, the reason its there is verisimilitude. Some people want to play pretend that they are the master of X weapon, so this gives them a small bonus as a participation award for their larping, without affecting the overall state of the game.

But then your argument is self-defeating. If your argument for this being a good addition to the game is that it allows players to feel like they're mastering a weapon, it explicitly defeats this argument to answer my own with "it's such an insignificant bonus it doesn't matter." Then there's not much feeling of mastery, is there?

That's more of a CRPG issue though. Some of the feats it gives you access to on the tabletop are quite interesting.

Like the one that lets you reduce the intensity of fortification or crit immunity.

There's also Greater Penetrating Strike in Wrath though that is restricted to fighters.

 

[LannTheStupid]

The problem is the basic argument "specialization is bad because I do not know what I will find" is not stupid, but actively harmful. If there is no risk there is no reward. If there is no frustration there is no learning. If everything is for everyone then there is nothing for anyone.

This is the philosophy of "make easy difficulty in Sekiro" people.

 

[Tacgnol]

It's also kind of disingenuous to act like we're only talking about specialization in isolation here given that the feat is a requirement for more general purpose feats, Dazzling Display obviously being the big one. Though I do concede the fact that this could be solved by changed the prerequisites rather than nixing specialization.

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting.

If it is uninteresting, why have it in the game?

If it is so small as to be meaningless (which it must be in order have absolutely no effects on incentives), it is a problem in terms of the primary argument of specialization proponents; that it makes you feel like a master of said weapon type.

I don't think I could make my own case better than the counterargument "you're right in theory but the feat is shit and probably a waste of the opportunity cost so it doesn't matter".

I answered this in another post further up, the reason its there is verisimilitude. Some people want to play pretend that they are the master of X weapon, so this gives them a small bonus as a participation award for their larping, without affecting the overall state of the game.

But then your argument is self-defeating. If your argument for this being a good addition to the game is that it allows players to feel like they're mastering a weapon, it explicitly defeats this argument to answer my own with "it's such an insignificant bonus it doesn't matter." Then there's not much feeling of mastery, is there?

That's more of a CRPG issue though. Some of the feats it gives you access to on the tabletop are quite interesting.

Like the one that lets you reduce the intensity of fortification or crit immunity.

There's also Greater Penetrating Strike in Wrath though that is restricted to fighters.

Well I suppose the argument to be made is that sure, surface specialisation is kinda boring, giving only +2 attack and 4 damage, but it unlocks additional options like the ability to ignore DR or crit enemies that can't be crit.

It's not "My guy is such a badass specialist of the longsword that he hits slightly harder" it's "My guy is such a specialist of the longsword he can damage invulnerable enemies and crit things without weak spots."

That's the true reward for specialisation. The base feat chain is just the initial cost of gaining those abilities.

 

[Shadenuat]

Not every feat can or should be equally mega intredasting.

 

[Sharpedge]

It's also kind of disingenuous to act like we're only talking about specialization in isolation here given that the feat is a requirement for more general purpose feats, Dazzling Display obviously being the big one. Though I do concede the fact that this could be solved by changed the prerequisites rather than nixing specialization.

Your argument has the following problem: the only people who are discouraged from experimenting are those that don't realize that the bonus is small and uninteresting.

If it is uninteresting, why have it in the game?

If it is so small as to be meaningless (which it must be in order have absolutely no effects on incentives), it is a problem in terms of the primary argument of specialization proponents; that it makes you feel like a master of said weapon type.

I don't think I could make my own case better than the counterargument "you're right in theory but the feat is shit and probably a waste of the opportunity cost so it doesn't matter".

I answered this in another post further up, the reason its there is verisimilitude. Some people want to play pretend that they are the master of X weapon, so this gives them a small bonus as a participation award for their larping, without affecting the overall state of the game.

But then your argument is self-defeating. If your argument for this being a good addition to the game is that it allows players to feel like they're mastering a weapon, it explicitly defeats this argument to answer my own with "it's such an insignificant bonus it doesn't matter." Then there's not much feeling of mastery, is there?

Grunker you may have already posted this, but what would you suggest replacing weapon focus chains with?

From my perspective:

Paizo already gave fighters weapon training groups which give broad and fairly powerful bonuses along a whole family of weapons. The feat chain is just for extra specialisation and bonuses, and also pre-reqs for a few fairly niche feats.

They are for characters who really want to specialise in a specific weapon.

I don't think the chains contribute anything positive - and if you do want to create something around the Weapon Mastery-fantasy, I think it needs to have a deeper design. Ultimately though I wouldn't implement one if I had the choice, because I think it's one of the unsolvable problems of game design - you reduce the amount of interesting options if you make it too strong, and you defeat the purpose of the entire system existing in the first place if you make it too weak.

Placebo effect, the people its there for (larpers) are one type of player. They are in most cases not concerned with the absolute power of their choices and are making them more for the flavor than anything else. Even if another option could strictly do the same thing better, it doesn't have the right flavor for them and so it isn't the choice they will make.

 

[fantadomat]

specialization

Stop bitching about it fag,there is like 50 other feats you could chose,you are annoying!

 

[fantadomat]

the people its there for (larpers) are one type of player.

You mean like 95% of people that play RPGs. God forbids that you decide to roleplay in a roleplaying game,oh the horror. Everyone should play the optimal way,just have a single build possible,even better,the games give it to you! You just lick the levelling button and see what get.

 

[Grunker]

Well I suppose the argument to be made is that sure, surface specialisation is kinda boring, giving only +2 attack and 4 damage, but it unlocks additional options like the ability to ignore DR or crit enemies that can't be crit.

The dance of these last couple of pages:

"I think specialization is awkward because it reduces the utility of experimenting with interesting weapon options and brings no benefits."

"No it doesn't, because the feats are so minor they don't matter in the least, and the benefit is to be the fantasy of truly mastering a weapon."

"But if they don't matter, they don't fulfill that fantasy?"

"AHA! BUT THEY DO MATTER!"

I imagine we can spin that roundabout till we're all dead without having completed Wrath of the Righteous

 

[fantadomat]

surface specialisation is kinda boring

Hmm i would go with increasing cumulative bonuses for specializations. Like +1 hit/dam for specialization,+2hit/dam for expertize and +3hit/dam for mastery ,etc etc.

 

[Tacgnol]

Well I suppose the argument to be made is that sure, surface specialisation is kinda boring, giving only +2 attack and 4 damage, but it unlocks additional options like the ability to ignore DR or crit enemies that can't be crit.

The dance of these last couple of pages:

"I think specialization is awkward because it reduces the utility of experimenting with interesting weapon options and brings no benefits."

"No it doesn't, because the feats are so minor they don't matter in the least, and the benefit is to be the fantasy of truly mastering a weapon."

"But if they don't matter, they don't fulfill that fantasy?"

"AHA! BUT THEY DO MATTER!"

I imagine we can spin that roundabout till we're all dead without having completed Wrath of the Righteous

If you really want to start an autism war I suggest you post this question on the pathfinder society discord.