Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.

[137beth]

The playtest for Pathfinder 2e is live.

Previous thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554908-Pathfinder-2-Blog-Critical-Success-and-Failure)

[Remuko]

The playtest for Pathfinder 2e is live.

Previous thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554908-Pathfinder-2-Blog-Critical-Success-and-Failure)

I'm very sad. this isnt the title everyone was agreeing on for this thread :(


Pathfinder 2 II: If it ain't broke, still fix it.

That's what people wanted it called :(

[Rynjin]

I guess one of the people that voted for that name should've made the thread, eh?

[Pex]

It's also a biased title, implying the idea the edition playtest shouldn't exist. It's a valid personal opinion for those who have it, but if it is to be discussed respectfully the thread title should not impose the opinion nor any opinion.

[Milo v3]

It's also abit weird since PF2e is very much not a clone of 1e.

[137beth]

I have issued errata for the thread title due to popular demand.

[Scowling Dragon]

Divorced from specific mechanics Paizo has to bite the bullet and explain what its Target Demo and game design ideal is.

Otherwise these playtest are utterly worthless. Yes it will piss people off but that's gonna happen regardless. Honesty at least ensures that the game demo you court will end up recipricating.

[Florian]

Divorced from specific mechanics Paizo has to bite the bullet and explain what its Target Demo and game design ideal is.

Otherwise these playtest are utterly worthless. Yes it will piss people off but that's gonna happen regardless. Honesty at least ensures that the game demo you court will end up recipricating.

Why should any sane game designer do this, when we know what will happen?

[Scowling Dragon]

Why should any sane game designer do this, when we know what will happen?
Because it will happen anyway. Not saying it is an illusion of stability.

[Cosi]

Why should any sane game designer do this, when we know what will happen?

How else is anyone supposed to say whether they've succeeded or not? Absent a coherent statement of their goals, the only possible metric is "do I like this", which leaves Paizo forced to address criticism from every direction on every topic. Are casters too good? Too bad? Absent a statement to how strong they can be, who can possibly say? Thus, absent such a statement, anyone who wants anything designed any way other than "exactly as it is currently implemented" has equal standing to complain.

[Slithery D]

How else is anyone supposed to say whether they've succeeded or not?

Popularity and sales. Those are their design goals.

[Cosi]

Popularity and sales. Those are their design goals.

"Sell well" is a worthless criteria for a playtest you aren't selling. If that's their goal, this exercise is pointless. They have some intermediate design goals that they think will make the product sell well, and those are the ones that are important in the context of a playtest.

[Slithery D]

"Sell well" is a worthless criteria for a playtest you aren't selling. If that's their goal, this exercise is pointless. They have some intermediate design goals that they think will make the product sell well, and those are the ones that are important in the context of a playtest.

[Scene: 1984, a surburban mall]

Marketer: Sir, would you like to participate in this taste test of various colas and tell us which you like best?

Cosi: Sure, what are your flavor goals?

Marketer: Excuse me?

Cosi: I can't tell you what I think about the colas unless I know what your goals are. Does each manufacturer want their cola to taste sweet, sour, unique, subtle, overpowering, what?

Marketer: Sir, I just want to know which one you like best and would be most likely to buy.

Cosi: That's ridiculous, how can I know which one I like best and would buy unless I know whether the taste profile matches up with their intent? Tell me your flavor design goals or this is a useless exercise.

Marketer: Sir, this is a McDonald's drive thru.

[Cosi]

Wow, it's almost like "RPG" is not a flavor of soda, and your analogy is completely incoherent. Also, sodas do in fact advertise their flavor in terms beyond "you'll totally like it and buy a lot, it's great". Orange soda is supposed to taste of orange, and if it instead tasted like Coke that would be failure on its part even if more people happened to like Coke. But, no, I'm an idiot for wanting to know what I'm buying in anything but the broadest terms before I buy it.

[Florian]

But, no, I'm the idiot for wanting to ....

Yes, you are.

[Cosi]

Yes, you are.

A well articulated defense of your position.

[Ilorin Lorati]

From my understanding, Paizo does want to hear feedback in every direction for each portion. If they asked people to only give feedback in regards to their design intent, the actual playtest would be largely worthless if and when their design intent for a specific section simply doesn't jive with their intended market.

[Cosi]

From my understanding, Paizo does want to hear feedback in every direction for each portion. If they asked people to only give feedback in regards to their design intent, the actual playtest would be largely worthless if and when their design intent for a specific section simply doesn't jive with their intended market.

Feedback on design intent is valuable as well. Both "this idea is implemented poorly" and "this is a bad idea" are good pieces of feedback. But they demand radically different responses, and without knowing what the ideas in question are, that feedback is difficult to give and impossible to disambiguate. Particularly given the distaste for serious analysis Paizo expressed in the 1e playtest. If you find the Fighter too complex, is that because the mechanics are poorly written, or because the design direction provides too many knobs? Either, both, or neither could be correct, but without some knowledge of what the Fighter is supposed to be doing, how are you meant to evaluate that? What changes would be appropriate to suggest?

[Ilorin Lorati]

Suggest the changes based on your own personal expertise on the matter, because in the grand scheme of things, designing fighter to be "simple to play" doesn't matter - they're still going to get feedback pointing in both directions: that fighter is too complex and that fighter is too simple. Giving a extraneous design intent is going to unnecessarily poison the well about what works and what doesn't and place Paizo in the unenviable position of defending their decisions rather than just collecting data/issues and making changes.

If you need to have a design intent to give feedback, assume that, unless otherwise told, the design intent is exactly how the mechanic works in its current iteration.

[Cosi]

Providing insight into the process doesn't "poison the well". It's doing the exact opposite by allowing people who aren't interested in what you're doing to ignore it rather than making futile efforts to turn it into something else. Consider, for example, the question of what RNG to use. Using 3d6 or a dicepool instead of d20 is a valid design choice. Shadowrun, for example, uses a dicepool. Do you think suggesting that PF 2e abandon the d20-based RNG is useful feedback? Would suggesting that PF 2e should be a game about WWI trench warfare be helpful for you or Paizo?

[Rhedyn]

PF2e is more Pathfinder than 1e, but "more Pathfinder" to me means pretending that endless fiddly math abilities are somehow interesting than a few abilities that actually do things. And I like 1e.

There is just big difference between liking PF1e polymorph and accepting that the 3.5 version was a tad too unbalanced and thus needed a nerf.

[blackwindbears]

Yes, you are.

Jesus, is this really the level of discourse that's acceptable here?

[ComaVision]

You guys are going to get the thread locked again.

On topic: I find it crazy that the Paizo site is still down. They're supposed to be giving feedback and errata (new dying rules this week) and instead I can't even read other players experience with the Playtest.

Does anyone that has run the second playtest scenario have some thoughts on it? I'm running it this Saturday so I'm curious, in particular, about how the manticore is playing out for groups.

[blackwindbears]

Using 3d6 or a dicepool instead of d20 is a valid design choice. Shadowrun, for example, uses a dicepool. Do you think suggesting that PF 2e abandon the d20-based RNG is useful feedback? Would suggesting that PF 2e should be a game about WWI trench warfare be helpful for you or Paizo?

No it wouldn't be useful feedback and you'd be shouting into the wind. However, if 90% of their feedback suggested moving to a 3d6 dicepool, that would be useful in telling them something.

It's pretty improbable, but they may not want to cut off a possibly important result just because it was improbable.

[Scowling Dragon]

Again what is the problem with gosh darn design goals!
It's like making a movie without a genre otherwise.

A whole is more then just the sum of its parts.

[Florian]

Does anyone that has run the second playtest scenario have some thoughts on it? I'm running it this Saturday so I'm curious, in particular, about how the manticore is playing out for groups.

Generell: There seems to be an error in the "Purchase Gear" section. With the sums presented for this adventure, you can´t even outfit anyone relying on heavy armor.

The Manticore battle depends on prior skill use. We came equipped for the whole outdoor stuff, including non-magical healing, so we had no particular problems traversing the mountain and reaching the peak. The Manticore was actually quite simple, as it is too slow to maneuver out of effective ranged weapon and spell range, so it was a pretty straight-forward battle.

[Rhedyn]

Again what is the problem with gosh darn design goals!
It's like making a movie without a genre otherwise.

A whole is more then just the sum of its parts.

For anyone who believes that there can only be ONE RPG, RPGs can't have design goals. The goal is to be the best RPG.

From the perspective of, "There are myriad of RPGs designed for particular taste and desires" the idea of having design goals has merit. Like the difference between being a cake company or a pop company vs being The Food company. The Food company does not have a "design goal" beyond, "Get everyone to buy our stuff".

[Slithery D]

Pretty hard to know what feedback to give Paizo unless they release a survey asking questions they want answered.

[Gnome da Ploom]

Divorced from specific mechanics Paizo has to bite the bullet and explain what its Target Demo and game design ideal is.

I keep seeing some variation in "Paizo should explain..." In actuality, Paizo should provide as little information as possible to avoid skewing playtest results. A playtest is generally intended to test whether game mechanics work as intended, without external explanations. If the mechanics are explained further outside the playtested materials, the designers don't know if the results are due to the rules as written. Playtesters don't need to know the target demographic or "design ideal" to provide feedback on the playtested materials. (However, it IS likely that Paizo would want to know demographic information about the playtesters in case there are differences in test results and feedback between groups.)

The foregoing aside, Paizo has clearly stated numerous times that they want to reduce barriers to entry for new players by reducing the complexity of the game, while continuing to provide the depth, richness, and character design choices available in Pathfinder 1.0.

[ComaVision]

Pretty hard to know what feedback to give Paizo unless they release a survey asking questions they want answered.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but each playtest scenario has 3 surveys related to it, in addition to Paizo collecting feedback on their forums (when they're up...) and PFS Playtest scenarios.

[Pex]

The so called design goals are clear to me. They want everyone to be able to make an interesting decision on character build every time they level. Instead of the designers telling players what their character can do, players get to choose the abilities they have from a given set based on class. Players are to feel like they are making progress as they level in terms of game mechanics because the character is always increasing in power. You're going from zero to superhero, and you're not really starting at zero.

They also want to clear up game jargon. There will still be labels for things but not as many as before and maybe more intuitive.

Given the opportunity, they're also testing changes in abilities to conform to the new jargon and power level.

[Scowling Dragon]

The foregoing aside, Paizo has clearly stated numerous times that they want to reduce barriers to entry for new players by reducing the complexity of the game, while continuing to provide the depth, richness, and character design choices available in Pathfinder 1.0.

So which one is more important? Which should take priority. So far Id say they failed at both in fun and interesting ways.

[Rhedyn]

They also want to clear up game jargon. There will still be labels for things but not as many as before and maybe more intuitive.
They need to work on this.

[Rynjin]

The so called design goals are clear to me. They want everyone to be able to make an interesting decision on character build every time they level. Instead of the designers telling players what their character can do, players get to choose the abilities they have from a given set based on class. Players are to feel like they are making progress as they level in terms of game mechanics because the character is always increasing in power. You're going from zero to superhero, and you're not really starting at zero.

They also want to clear up game jargon. There will still be labels for things but not as many as before and maybe more intuitive.

Given the opportunity, they're also testing changes in abilities to conform to the new jargon and power level.

The design intent is clear, but the choices made to get them there are baffling. More Timmy options for classes, so new players can take horrendous traps at every level now. The terminology is less intuitive (Traits? Descriptor was a far more intuitive word), and requires the memorization of certain symbols in addition to just the names of the action type. Lowered power across the board, with even fewer interesting game changing options from classes.

The whole thing is just frustrating.

[Rhedyn]

The whole thing is just frustrating. If the design goal was to frustrate me into a level apathy that I previous did not know of, then Paizo are sublime experts at their craft and should be commended for the sheer elegance by which they can subtly torment a psyche.

EDIT: Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.

[OgresAreCute]

If the design goal was to frustrate me into a level apathy that I previous did not know of, then Paizo are sublime experts at their craft and should be commended for the sheer elegance by which they can subtly torment a psyche.

EDIT: Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.

I really love shapeshifting, so I got pretty excited when I saw PF actually made a dedicated 1-20 shapeshifter class. Didn't last long, to say it like that.

[Rynjin]

If the design goal was to frustrate me into a level apathy that I previous did not know of, then Paizo are sublime experts at their craft and should be commended for the sheer elegance by which they can subtly torment a psyche.

EDIT: Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.

I was initially pretty optimistic about the whole thing, and had a lot of nice things to say at the start of my impressions thread on their site, because the basic (and I mean MOST BASIC) chassis of the system sounds good. I really like the idea of the revised action economy, the proficiency system COULD be great with a bit of work, and a whole host of other things (like conglomerating redundant spells like Hold Person/Animal/Fey/Monster into just "Paralyze" that can be upcast into those different spells) show promise. I even like the basic idea of all classes having their own Rogue Talent-esque features that make up a good chunk of their progression, and seemingly unpopularly I like the new attribute generation system resulting in more balanced statlines.

But the more I read, the more I started to get dragged down by the details of HOW these things were implemented and Paizo's usual seeming inability to take feedback. That coupled with the astounding aura of apathy from even their hardcore fans (this was already the slowest moving playtest for Paizo I've ever participated in, even BEFORE they decided their site was going to be down for maintenance for two weeks in the middle of it) and my inability to muster up either the energy or the players to run a playtest game (I floated the idea with my usual group but the idea of replacing my usual Saturday game with a PF2 playtest was basiclaly treated as a joke by all but one guy) has me feeling down about the game

[Kish]

Jesus, is this really the level of discourse that's acceptable here?
There's a report button in the lower lefthand corner of every post.

[NamelessNPC]

Generell: There seems to be an error in the "Purchase Gear" section. With the sums presented for this adventure, you can´t even outfit anyone relying on heavy armor.

The Manticore battle depends on prior skill use. We came equipped for the whole outdoor stuff, including non-magical healing, so we had no particular problems traversing the mountain and reaching the peak. The Manticore was actually quite simple, as it is too slow to maneuver out of effective ranged weapon and spell range, so it was a pretty straight-forward battle.

I found both "big" elementals to be really tough. The smaller ones were more of a nuisance.
My DM seems to think monsters are op.

[Florian]

Jesus, is this really the level of discourse that's acceptable here?

Sometimes, there's no way to avoid that.

Look, for PF1, you could simply grab one of the APs, fine-comb it for the mechanical elements and get a very good picture about how the game is intended to be played, which, frankly, is far different from what people on this particular board talk about how the game should be played.

Same with PF2, grab the playtest mini campaign and actually look at how the character mechanics are supposed to interact with how the game is intended to be played. In addition, take a close look at what the exact scenario prerequisites and feedback questions are, so you can actually glean a look at the underlying intentions.

I see much theory talk, but only very few talk about the module and how the rules should be used, which is interesting, because there's a shift happening there, more over to group skills and such, which makes the whole yada-yadda about being able to "contribute" into nonsense.


I found both "big" elementals to be really tough. The smaller ones were more of a nuisance.
My DM seems to think monsters are op.

You mean the Lesser Fire/Water Elemental? Yeah, elementals are surprisingly good, compared to the PF1 version. But it was also good to see how "weakness" now works, adding blanked damage bonus.

[Milo v3]

After playing the first part of Doomsday Dawn, most of the group is a fan of the new action economy, but one of the other players and I both are neutral on it simply because we played classes that are effectively banned from using the new action economy which was disappointing.

[Alexvrahr]

... they decided their site was going to be down for maintenance for two weeks in the middle of it
Despite the 'Scheduled Maintenance' screen I'm pretty sure this is a screwup rather than a decision. It's the reason I'm here, I post as avr there usually. My long-disused account of that name on this forum has an unknown password and is attached to a dead email account.

PF2 as it currently stands is a terribly dull and unattractive game, but with the low amount of positive feedback they were getting before their forums went down something is sure to change. If nothing else the number of TPKs reported really is too high for a working game.

Also the Shifter is bad. My opinion of their ability dropped like a rock after that and they show no intention of ever fixing that or even knowing how.
Paizo is allergic to ever admitting they were wrong. It's why the kineticist's so hard to work out - rather than rewrite it to make it clearer, they just kept adding more epicycles. That said the adaptive shifter archetype is a decent fix to the shifter base class in my opinion. It must have slipped through while the higher-ups were distracted by designing their new edition.

[Ironeyes]

They put up a temporary page where you can download the playtest and latest updates. I'd post the link but my post count isn't high enough:

paizo dot com / download / surveys

[EldritchWeaver]

They put up a temporary page where you can download the playtest and latest updates. I'd post the link but my post count isn't high enough:

paizo dot com / download / surveys

Reposting for convenience: http://paizo.com/download/surveys

[Rhedyn]

Paizo is allergic to ever admitting they were wrong. It's why the kineticist's so hard to work out - rather than rewrite it to make it clearer, they just kept adding more epicycles. That said the adaptive shifter archetype is a decent fix to the shifter base class in my opinion. It must have slipped through while the higher-ups were distracted by designing their new edition.
Aside from being overly complex/hard-to-learn, the kineticist is actually a cool class that is fun to play, nearly to the same levels as the 3.5 warlock.

Adaptive shifter is closer to being a "good class" but the wildshape duration is too short. It's complete nonsense that Shifter's have to get a worse version of wildshape than a druid. Unacceptable.

[dascarletm]

requires the memorization of certain symbols in addition to just the names of the action type.

This I am curious about. There are only a couple symbols and I found them really intuitive. The number of sideways chevrons indicates how many actions, and if it isn't filled in it is free. The only other symbol is reaction.

[Slithery D]

Even though the Paizo forums are down, the link to the playtest was updated with errata yesterday. Version 1.1 (http://paizo.com/download/PZO2102%20001-029-1.pdf) includes changes to the dying rules, fixes to counterspelling/spell identification, added some familiar abilities, got rid of resonance for a Bag of Holding, and much more.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Yeah, I found them fairly intuitive. The free action less so, but useful for the intended purpose.

One thing I do really like about the playtest rules are the multiclassing/archetypes. You have to admit it's a lot more elegant than losing core class features to multiclassing. A fighter can easily pick up wizard spells at the cost of some fighter feats, and it works out the same for clerics and other classes. Having something to effectively combine abilities would be perfect.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by ComaVision
On topic: I find it crazy that the Paizo site is still down.

I was just about to post about this. What’s going on with their site? It’s been nearly a week now.

[ComaVision]

I found both "big" elementals to be really tough. The smaller ones were more of a nuisance.
My DM seems to think monsters are op.

That makes sense. The big elementals are Level APL+1 and the minor ones are Level APL-1.


PF2 as it currently stands is a terribly dull and unattractive game, but with the low amount of positive feedback they were getting before their forums went down something is sure to change. If nothing else the number of TPKs reported really is too high for a working game.

I think the quite high attack bonuses (+6 for Level 0 enemies) coupled with up to 3 attacks a round and auto-confirm crits just allows for damage to spike up like crazy. I think I had a couple rounds in Scenario 1 where the first group of goblins all did 3 bow attacks. Lo and behold, 12 attacks a round yields some "deadly" crits. Before the site went down (again) I saw Mark Seifter mentioning that they apparently messed up some of the math and it will be corrected. I'm not sure if that counts Level 0 creatures, or some other range of creatures.


Even though the Paizo forums are down, the link to the playtest was updated with errata yesterday. Version 1.1 (http://paizo.com/download/PZO2102%20001-029-1.pdf) includes changes to the dying rules, fixes to counterspelling/spell identification, added some familiar abilities, got rid of resonance for a Bag of Holding, and much more.

Thank you! I had read that they were coming out with new death rules and I was really hoping to get them before I DM scenario 2.

[Slithery D]

Thank you! I had read that they were coming out with new death rules and I was really hoping to get them before I DM scenario 2.

Glad to be of service! It looks like they basically made it so that any HP healing wakes you up and removes the dying condition, but at the (minimal) price of making you slow for 1 round at a level equal to your previous dying condition. Whack a mole is back, but often without enough actions to let you pick up your stuff and standup (let alone move or attack) before they put you back down.

[137beth]

They released an update to the playtest. (http://paizo.com/download/PZO2102%20001-029-1.pdf)

[Rhedyn]

I was just about to post about this. What’s going on with their site? It’s been nearly a week now. My guess, it was to cut down on the feedback...

[Calthropstu]

Sometimes, there's no way to avoid that.


You can always avoid it if you're the one starting it.


That aside, I am not averse to trying out the playtest but will pay attention here and elsewhere in order to guage whether it's worth investing the time in.

[Morty]

I was initially pretty optimistic about the whole thing, and had a lot of nice things to say at the start of my impressions thread on their site, because the basic (and I mean MOST BASIC) chassis of the system sounds good. I really like the idea of the revised action economy, the proficiency system COULD be great with a bit of work, and a whole host of other things (like conglomerating redundant spells like Hold Person/Animal/Fey/Monster into just "Paralyze" that can be upcast into those different spells) show promise. I even like the basic idea of all classes having their own Rogue Talent-esque features that make up a good chunk of their progression, and seemingly unpopularly I like the new attribute generation system resulting in more balanced statlines.

But the more I read, the more I started to get dragged down by the details of HOW these things were implemented and Paizo's usual seeming inability to take feedback. That coupled with the astounding aura of apathy from even their hardcore fans (this was already the slowest moving playtest for Paizo I've ever participated in, even BEFORE they decided their site was going to be down for maintenance for two weeks in the middle of it) and my inability to muster up either the energy or the players to run a playtest game (I floated the idea with my usual group but the idea of replacing my usual Saturday game with a PF2 playtest was basiclaly treated as a joke by all but one guy) has me feeling down about the game

That's more or less my impression. Many of the things they're trying to do aren't bad, but the ways they're going about them are either awkward or just overly cautious. Streamlining all the selectable class features into feats is a good idea in a general sense, but the end result is a list of feats that inherits PF1 feats' fiddliness and unevenness. And in many cases you can only pick from a given set of feats once, unless you want to sacrifice a higher-level pick. Skill feats are a very good idea that is once again bogged in minutiae. Non-spellcasting classes need more abilities they don't need to spend feats on.

[137beth]

Paizo.com is back up, for at least a few minutes until it crashes again.

[Rynjin]

Despite the 'Scheduled Maintenance' screen I'm pretty sure this is a screwup rather than a decision.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. They made the decision years ago to use outdated infrastructure and under-invest in their tech, and now it's biting them in the ass.

[Slithery D]

Paizo.com is back up, for at least a few minutes until it crashes again.

And so it begins, uh, happens for the fourth time this week.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well to be fair so did WOTC site crash.

I mean maybe Paizo should have taken their website down two weeks in advance to ensure something like that didn't happen but thats not the point of a playtest. Its to function as marketting.

[Ironeyes]

My guess, it was to cut down on the feedback...

I don't think so. If it was just the forums I might be inclined to agree, but I'm pretty sure their storefront was down as well. Doesn't make much business sense to lose out on sales just to avoid negative feedback.

[Rhedyn]

Doesn't make much business sense to lose out on sales just to avoid negative feedback.What do you call internally playtesting a game for 2 years before you let your ravenous customers have a go at it?

Or the 9 or so months build up of terrible blogs with scant actual rules?

[Caelestion]

I call that an internal playtest and building up hype. Why - what do you call them?

[Cosi]

You would think, if they were trying to build hype, the previews would have included better rules.

[stack]

You would think, if they were trying to build hype, the previews would have included better rules.

If they playtested them for 2 years, I doubt they think they are so bad. Whether or not the market agrees is another question, obviously.

[Ironeyes]

What do you call internally playtesting a game for 2 years before you let your ravenous customers have a go at it?

Or the 9 or so months build up of terrible blogs with scant actual rules?

I'd call it something you clearly don't care for. But it's not at all the same thing as their online storefront being down.

In the former case you might be unwilling to give them money for their (online) product. Which is perfectly fair; it's your wallet to vote with as you please. In the latter, however, you couldn't possibly give them your money even if you wanted to with every shred of your being.

Apples and internal combustion engines.

[Astofel]

I feel like I'm in the minority that actually likes PF2 so far. I've only been able to play through the 1st playtest scenario so far, but I had a lot of fun with my half-orc ranger and his pet dinosaur. The action economy is smooth and intuitive, save for a few things like changing your grip on a weapon taking an entire action. The sorcerer being able to choose their own spell list is cool, and I'm looking forward to trying out an occult sorcerer in the 2nd scenario, whenever my group actually finds the time to get together again. I do however share the common criticism that a simple +1 is not enough to feel legendary, something like a list of abilities that only legendary characters can pull off. More skill feats with legendary as a prerequisite might help with that, right now the vast majority of them require only trained or expert.

Martials being able to do wacky stuff is great too. A particular standout is the 18th-level rogue feat that grants you the ability to clip through the terrain, but I'd like to see other classes get more similar abilities as well. Most of all the thing I like about PF2 as opposed to PF1 is that I can actually see myself running it as a GM. Even as a player in PF1 I found it difficult to keep track of all the circumstance bonuses and whatnot, and being a GM requires an even greater level of system mastery than being a player. But this is all just the opinion of someone who predominantly plays 5e and has only dabbled in PF1, so what do I know.

[Ignimortis]

Is it just me, or is there an over-abundance of rules in the PF2 playtest that say "The GM determines the DC/how long X takes/etc"?

[Caelestion]

I feel like I'm in the minority that actually likes PF2 so far.

I like the implementation of several things and the concept/ideas behind many more. Some are too clunky and need reworking, but that's the point of a public play-test, after all.

[Rhedyn]

I call that an internal playtest and building up hype. Why - what do you call them?
With games you playtest early and often. Playing with employees and select sycophants from your forums is not good feedback.

I understand delaying the announcement of PF2e because as soon as that was announced mainly people cancelled their subscriptions and became Paizo anti-fans.

It's the months of boring blog post that really rub me the wrong way. As soon as you announce the game, release what you have and start iterating. All the blog post did was highlight to me that Paizo has no idea what fun abilities are. I do not care how you rewrite the game, +1 on a d20 roll is not a fun ability.

But the big downside of all that internal playtesting is that PF1 suffered. The last class they released, the Shifter, was just terrible and would cause anyone to really question if Paizo knows what they are doing anymore.

[Caelestion]

I'd agree that numerical boosts are not sexy, even in a bounded system. Using a term like "select sycophants" just makes you look like you can't control your loathing for Paizo.

[Rhedyn]

Using a term like "select sycophants" just makes you look like you can't control your loathing for Paizo.Or you could look into it and realize that that is exactly what happened.

[Caelestion]

Even if it actually happened (and I have only the word of someone who clearly loathes the new version), you phrasing it like that doesn't make it look less like a conspiracy theory.

[Rhedyn]

Even if it actually happened (and I have only the word of someone who clearly loathes the new version), you phrasing it like that doesn't make it look less like a conspiracy theory. Getting really upset about phrasing gives you something in common with the moderation on Paizo forums.

Yes, I painted Paizo's ability to subject themselves to real criticism in a bad light. And I for one think it deserves to be placed in a bad light. There is no "harmless" way to phrase their dysfunction.

[Caelestion]

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that you're damaging your ability to be taken seriously (at least in my eyes and potentially in others). If you don't care about that, carry on. It's no skin off my nose, after all.

[Rhedyn]

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that you're damaging your ability to be taken seriously (at least in my eyes and potentially in others). If you don't care about that, carry on. It's no skin off my nose, after all.
I thought my cartoon Beholder avatar well established that nothing here is all that serious.

Maybe serious for people like Paizo who make a living off this kind of stuff. But for me, all I am doing is weighing the important matters of what kind of books will be decorating my coffee tables (Which at the moment is the Rules Cyclopedia, Savage Worlds and soon a GURPS book).

[CasualViking]

The so called design goals are clear to me. They want everyone to be able to make an interesting decision on character build every time they level...Players are to feel like they are making progress as they level in terms of game mechanics because the character is always increasing

On those counts, PF2 is a failure. Mike Mearls level failure. Not just "throw everything out and go back to the whiteboard" failure, but "fire everyone" failure.

If I had downloaded the PF2 playtest off some dude's blog, I would consider it bad {scrubbed}

It's pretty clear that the fundamental design decisions for PF2 are either terrible or completely absent. It looks like Cargo Cult game design to me.

[Rhedyn]

{scrubbed}

*looks at the several half finished personal attempts at just that

*sweats

I just haven't made the time for dating yet!

[ComaVision]

I like the overall design of PF2. I like the idea of everything being feats rather than having lists of ACFs or Archetypes that change different parts and some can be combined while others can't.

What I don't like is that they've hard-coded some parts of classes that I don't want hard-coded (like Paladins = shield users). Also, when they announced the new skill system with feats I had high hopes that it might allow some functionality for martials like Spheres of Might did, and it kind of does but level 15 is too late.

[Scowling Dragon]

{scrubbed}

I'm not one whos against colorful insults (Philosophy of mine), but I believe this sort of thing is against board rules. I just don't want you to get in trouble.

[Psyren]

I'd agree that numerical boosts are not sexy, even in a bounded system. Using a term like "select sycophants" just makes you look like you can't control your loathing for Paizo.

That.


They released an update to the playtest. (http://paizo.com/download/PZO2102%20001-029-1.pdf)

I just don't understand. Starfinder dying rules are far easier and simpler than this. Starfinder health makes more sense too. And they have Resolve Hero Points in this edition. Why aren't they just using that?

[Kyrell1978]

I just don't understand. Starfinder dying rules are far easier and simpler than this. Starfinder health makes more sense too. And they have Resolve Hero Points in this edition. Why aren't they just using that?
Totally agree here. I thought Starfinder was pretty solid, but they are going a little overboard on the "let's make changes just to make changes" stuff.

[Morty]

I like the overall design of PF2. I like the idea of everything being feats rather than having lists of ACFs or Archetypes that change different parts and some can be combined while others can't.

What I don't like is that they've hard-coded some parts of classes that I don't want hard-coded (like Paladins = shield users). Also, when they announced the new skill system with feats I had high hopes that it might allow some functionality for martials like Spheres of Might did, and it kind of does but level 15 is too late.

Yeah, the idea to make all those selectable features class feats was good. Making almost every class feature a feat, less so.



I just don't understand. Starfinder dying rules are far easier and simpler than this. Starfinder health makes more sense too. And they have Resolve Hero Points in this edition. Why aren't they just using that?


Totally agree here. I thought Starfinder was pretty solid, but they are going a little overboard on the "let's make changes just to make changes" stuff.

In this case I'd say it's the opposite. They're unwilling to make the same change in PF that they did in SF. Probably because they felt the players wouldn't accept it.

[Caedes]

I came to terms with PF2 yesterday as I was messing around with updated playtest rules, my tables 3rd TPK and a system that reminds me more of an amalgamation of 4th/5th edition than Pathinder itself.

The moment when I came to terms with it is when one of my players said "I am not calling this Pathfinder 2. I am calling this Phil." Then it dawned on me. This isn't a new edition of Pathfinder. This is essentially a new system with the wrong name.

Once I separated how I thought about the game and completely divorced it as being "Pathfinder", I started having a little fun with it.

I also realized this system will not replace Pathfinder 1 or 3.5 at my table. As my players and myself enjoy the number crunch and we enjoy that kind of play. We, won't go to this system for the same reason we tried and did not move to 4th or 5th edition. It is not what we consider fun. It is a departure of what we do find enjoyable.

So my recommendation to everyone that is finding "Pf2" hard to swallow. Give it a new name. Like "Phil". And try it again.

[Rynjin]

Even looking at it as its own thing...the main issue with PF2, or "Phil" or "Hyper Deluxe Fantasy Superstars" is it's not a good system in its current state.

[Pex]

Is it just me, or is there an over-abundance of rules in the PF2 playtest that say "The GM determines the DC/how long X takes/etc"?

Yeah it's there. It's one of the alleged good things of 5E they're poaching (my sarcasm). Fortunately as a player you get to know DCs. There are sample DCs in tables to work with. Even if two DMs disagree on a level or difficulty of a task their difference in DC value will likely be only by 1 or 2 because of the guidelines, so whatever your build choices you don't need to read the DM's mind about the campaign before the game begins. You know what you need to succeed on various specified tasks. They won't change based on who is DM that day. "The GM determines the DC" is because the GM creates the scenario, not fiat of having to come up with a number on the spot right then and there.

[Kyrell1978]

I came to terms with PF2 yesterday as I was messing around with updated playtest rules, my tables 3rd TPK and a system that reminds me more of an amalgamation of 4th/5th edition than Pathinder itself.

The moment when I came to terms with it is when one of my players said "I am not calling this Pathfinder 2. I am calling this Phil." Then it dawned on me. This isn't a new edition of Pathfinder. This is essentially a new system with the wrong name.

Once I separated how I thought about the game and completely divorced it as being "Pathfinder", I started having a little fun with it.

I also realized this system will not replace Pathfinder 1 or 3.5 at my table. As my players and myself enjoy the number crunch and we enjoy that kind of play. We, won't go to this system for the same reason we tried and did not move to 4th or 5th edition. It is not what we consider fun. It is a departure of what we do find enjoyable.

So my recommendation to everyone that is finding "Pf2" hard to swallow. Give it a new name. Like "Phil". And try it again.
I'd call that a pretty big failure in and of itself. If you are alienating a large part of your fan base to the the point that they don't want to make the change that's not a good sign.

[Gnaeus]

I'd call that a pretty big failure in and of itself. If you are alienating a large part of your fan base to the the point that they don't want to make the change that's not a good sign.

I’m a long term fan, with competitive PF trophies, who has introduced my child to gaming through PF. I’m not just alienated, I’m so furious I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like PF2. They aren’t welcome in my house. I can’t help thinking that there is something seriously wrong with them and they might injure my children.

[Kyrell1978]

I’m a long term fan, with competitive PF trophies, who has introduced my child to gaming through PF. I’m not just alienated, I’m so furious I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like PF2. They aren’t welcome in my house. I can’t help thinking that there is something seriously wrong with them and they might injure my children.

See....not good. I don't hate the new system that much but I'm not a huge fan. I really like starfinder and wish they would have gone in that direction if they were going to revamp the system.

[Zman]

In general I like P2. It definitely has the potential to be my favorite system. Currently that is modified 5e. P2 isn't perfect, and there are some things that need to be refined, and there are a couple of things that need to be fixed.


Pros:
Action Economy: 3 Actions is simple, and outside of some problems with switching grip etc works very well.

Spell Balance: Super solid, nothing overtly broken. Could use some more spells that can be heightened or have variable casting modes. Good start.

Bound System: The underlying system of P2 is a very solid and tight bound system. Its really better than 5e's.

Feat-based Multiclassing: This is my preferred way to multiclass.



Cons:
Level Scaling: They ruin the beautiful bound system with +lvl to proficiency scaling. This is very easily fixed and I'm really pushing for official variant rules. The amount of work required for these modifications isn't that much, only really an inconvenience with the bestiary.

Magic Weapons: Damage dice tied to the magic weapon potency is just frustrating. It is far better to make additional damage dice dependent on levels ie 4/8/12/16/20. It greatly increases the variety of weapons and you'll see things like a fighter carrying a handful of masterwork javelins at late levels. As it currently stands you'll use the best weapon you have, the one you dumped an outsized portion of your WBL into.

Monster Skills: Monster skills are too good, especially perception. Their underlying math gives too many assumed bonuses and proficiency to Monster skills. Perception is the biggest offender. AC and to hit and saves/DCs are fine.

Sorcerer: Sorcerer's bloodline powers should be optional feats at those levels requiring the selected bloodline. Gives Sorcerers more flexibility and ability to multiclass, less shoehorned builds.

[Ignimortis]

In general I like P2. It definitely has the potential to be my favorite system. Currently that is modified 5e. P2 isn't perfect, and there are some things that need to be refined, and there are a couple of things that need to be fixed.


See, that's the thing, PF 2e (if you strip out the level auto-scaling) resembles 5e far more than it does PF. I still can't fathom why Paizo would try and make their own 5e instead of double-refined 3.5/PF, unless they intend to keep supporting PF 1e after 2e's release. I mean, if they could drag half the 5e players to their side, that'd be nice, because I do think that WotC needs a shake-up, but, well, is this really what Paizo thinks they should do with the Pathfinder brand?

[Nigeretalbus]

-Snip-


I agree with you on basically everything.


I generally like most of the mechanical structure of PF2

- the 3-action system feels elegant and intuitive, while also allowing you to "do stuff!" as soon as Level one. No more Jumping through hoops to move & attack more than once, no more taking 3 feats and waiting 4 levels for Spring attack...you can do it instantly!

- the multi-classing and general feat-system probably needs some more refinement (especially in the skill feat & ancestry feat department, imo), but is mostly a very solid skeleton that can be fleshed out further by future books and is a HUGE help to design new content - you no longer need to learn entire subsystems of mechanics for a new class, but can instead rely on a (quite flexible!) framework that is provided to you.

- the Crit Success/Success/Fail/Crit Fail system looks interesting; there needs to be some fine-tuning here, though...Facing a higher-level monster is extremely dangerous because they casually crit you very, very often.

- the use of descriptors (or Tags, or "Traits" as they're called atm) seems like a design choice that requires some memorization from players - this is perfectly normal when learning new rules, and may seem "annoying" at first to veterans/experts of PF1 who enjoyed the fact that they could transpose most of their D7D 3.5 knowledge mostly seamlessly to apply to PF1...but PF2 is an entirely new game indeed, at least as far as mechanics are concerned.

- I think skills in general need more reworking; at the very least, I'd expect each skill to have the following:
* An Untrained use
* A use that requires Trained Proficiency
* A use that requires Expert Proficiency
* A use that requires Master Proficiency
* A use that requires Legendary Proficiency

Then, I'd expect Skill feats to follow the following format:

a) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they provide training in a skill of your choice (Currently available as Skill Training, req. 12 INT

b) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they require training in a skill of your choice and make that skill into a Signature Skill

c) Skill Feats tied to specific Skills; each Skill having at least 8 Skill feats:

1(or more) feats that require Trained Proficiency and augment a (Untrained or Trained)Skill use according to your Skill Proficiency:
(Examples: Quick Identification or Group Impression)

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Trained Proficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(or more) feats that require Expert Proficiency and augment a (Trained or Expert)Skill use according to your Skill Proficiency:

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Expert Proficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(or more) feats that require Master Proficiency and augment a (Expert or Master)Skill use according to your Skill Proficiency:

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Master Proficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(or more) feats that require Legendary Proficiency and augment a (Master or Legendary)Skill use:

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Legendary Proficiency.


This way, you have meaningful choices at each level of proficiency no matter wether you choose to get relevant skill feats or not, you have a simple format that applies to all skills/skill feats...and you'd have a way easier time to design new content.

Simple examples of "skill augmentations" could be ways to mitigate (Critical) Failure and increase chances for (Critical) success;
a simple Augmentation feat at Expert level could, for example, treat all Crit Fails of a Trained-only use as Fails instead at Expert; treat all Successes as Crit Successes at Mastery, all Fails as Successes at Legendary.

This would represent growing competence in a SPECIFIC Trained-only skill use as you learn to mitigate obvious mistakes and become more and more skilled at performing that action...

[Da Beast]

Something a little more specific than "is this system a travesty unworthy (or perhaps too worthy) of the name pathfinder" I'm hoping to get some feedback on, is two weapon fighting worth it for rogues?

For starters, its just weird to me that rogues don't have access to two weapon fighting innately when all through out 3.0/.5/pathfinder its been in iconic piece of what they do. Taking it away and gating it behind a fighter multiclass feels like they're trying way too hard to niche protect the fighter as the only guy who's good with weapons to the detriment of other classes. Rogues are skill monkeys yes, but they're also supposed to have some skill as agile, quick witted fighters and two weapon fighting complements that thematically as well as mechanically. What's more, they've allowed some overlap in mechanical abilities with other classes, just not in this particular case. Rangers share double slice (the particular ability I'd like to pick up) with fighters, and it hasn't destroyed the identity of either class. If rangers can share a weapon skill that's integral to the classic identity of their class with fighters without it destroying the identity of either, then why can't my rogue? What's more, fighters already have mechanics signifying them as the chief weapon user, being the only class to gain legendary weapon proficiency. If forcing rogues to go through a fighter multiclass to get two weapon fighting feats is about niche protection then that seems like an admission that proficiency bonuses are too weak to feel like a meaningful feature. Why not give rogues access to two weapon fighting feats at a higher level? It cements fighters as the true master of whatever style they choose to focus on (which does seems fair, if all I do is focus on learning to fight with two weapons I'd expect to be better at it than someone who dabbles while also learning all manner of skill tricks) without robbing rogues of their iconic fighting style. They did exactly this with blind fight, giving rogues access at level 6 and fighters at level 10, two weapon feats could use the same treatment. All in all this just seems like a perplexing and poorly thought out decision.

With that being said, how is the actual implementation? Taking fighter dedication to open up double slice is hard to see as anything other than a feat tax. As a rogue I already have athletics as a signature skill and their are no rules for trading out redundant signature skills, so this is a waste. I'll get proficiency with medium and heavy armor but as a dexterity based class I want to wear light armor which I'm already proficient in and this doesn't improve my proficiency with that, so another waste. Proficiency with martial weapons is okay but rogues already get proficiency with a few martial weapons and the handful of new ones that I wasn't already proficient with and that I can use for sneak attack don't increase in proficiency with the rest of my weapons at level 13 unless I spend another feat. All in all, fighter dedication seems to amount too "you can use a star knife or main gauche from levels 2 to 12". If you want to keep using your new weapons you'll need to spend a level 12+ class feat to keep some but not all of your martial weapon proficiencies on par with your rogue weapons. This last part could be fixed by changing weapon tricks to upgrade all weapons you're proficient in to expert level, but its hard to see Paizo implementing that given how attached they seem to be to coding a certain identity into a class. Most of the feats competing with fighter focus at level 2 aren't anything special, but mobility would be nice on a melee rogue who wants to get into position to flank and activate sneak attack and all of them seem more fun than a feat tax to get something your class should have had to begin with. Beyond picking up double slice at forth level the only two weapon feats a rogue can even pick up from the fighter multiclass are twin parry at level 8 and twin riposte at level 20, neither of which stand out as particularly appealing options. Twin parry is weaker with most of the weapons rogues will want to use in their off hands aside from a main gauche, which can already do a slightly weaker version of the same thing and suffers from the feat tax problem already mentioned to keep its proficiency on par with your normal rogue weapons and by level 20, when twin riposte becomes available, rogues should have better reactions than getting a single attack (with no guaranteed sneak attack damage) against an opponent who critically fails an attack roll against you.

Finally, I have concerns about how the new magic weapon rules will interact with all this. Bounded accuracy makes every +1 to hit too important to pass up and the new system of potency runes adding weapon damage dice makes high level magic weapons a vital part of your damage output. Put these together and the end result is any weapon focused character is pretty much required to pick up the best weapons they can possibly afford and those are expensive, possibly the most expensive thing your character will buy. Having so few abilities related to two weapon fighting a rogue can actually take means that a two weapon fighter rogue will be doubling the cost of their most expensive item to improve a single, level 1 feat that they had to get at level 4 after paying out a feat tax to get it. The cost issue seems a little more baked into the system with so much of a martial character's power being tied into their magic weaponry but its hard to deny it makes two weapon fighting less palatable.

All in all this seems like a needlessly large investment of feats and money for "make a secondary attack without the multiple attack penalty and if it hits ignore resistances once per round". I still plan to try out a two weapon fighting rogue in my next play test session hope to have some more positive revisions afterwards, but I won't hold my breathe. I can't help but feel like this is a poorly thought and poorly implemented decision that I hope is fixed before the final product comes out.

[Nigeretalbus]

Concerning TWF Rogues:

In D&D 3.5 & PF1, Sneak Attack was the reason Rogues could contribute meaningfully in combat; and the best way to leverage sneak attack was to generate as many (Sneak) Attacks as possible; and this meant either Ranged attacks (throwing alchemical fire/acid, Archery with Sniper Goggles & (Greater) Invisibility) or TWF.

I would encourage everyone to actually "test" wether this still holds true for PF2 Rogues or if they actually benefit more from different combat styles.



Just looking at the available options, here's what I imagine a PF2 Rogue to do:


a)Use a Finesse Weapon & High Dex to take Advantage of Dex to Damage
This can be
• a Dagger (Versatile, can be thrown as well)
• a Whip(One-Handed, provides REACH; Nonlethal isn't too terrible - a KO enemy is still neutralized and can be killed at leisure after combat) - Requires Human Ancestry Feat: General Training -> Weapon Proficiency
• a Rapier / Sap / Shortsword
• a racial Weapon (Dogslicer, Elven Curve Blade, Filcher's Fork) - Requires appropriate Ancestry Feat: Weapon Familiarity(Goblin/Elf/Halfling)

b)Also use ranged attacks, because high Dex leads to accurate ranged attacks (compared to STR-Focused Melee combatants)
• Shortbow & Hand Crossbow (Depending on your STR score / how many hands you want to use when attacking) are options here; throwing darts & certain melee weapons is also possible

c)Try to use movement and the general rarity of AoOs in PF2 (in fact, very few monsters HAVE the ability to AoO or something similar!!) to set up flanking or emulate Spring Attack (move-attack-move) in order to stay healthy and tactically relevant - Free-action speaking to diss intelligent monsters is a valuable RP option here as well

d)If you want, you can even use a Shield - Requires Human Ancestry Feat: General Training -> Shield Proficiency
• This offers you the action "Raise Shield" for +2 AC and the Reaction "Shield Block" - usually a much better idea than a third attack at -10 penalty (or -8 if you use an agile weapon)

"Sneak attack" is a bonus when flanking, attacking a flat-footed opponent (usually because a teammate used Bottled Lightning, a Fighter ally used Combat Grab or a Mage used an appropriate spell...

Sneak attack basically REWARDS Teamwork & Tactical Movement, offering a "bonus incentive" to do so.

We have 2d6 Sneak attack now, so the DPR difference between Attacks and Sneak Attacks is much higher. Again, let's look at some additional options we have now:

a)Fear:
With Dread Striker allowing you to treat frightened foes as flat-footed(=> Sneak Attack!), you can choose to use Skill Feats to boost Intimidate and possibly use You're Next to Intimidate more often. Also ask your party members to use stuff such as Intimidating Strike (Fighter Feat 2), Intimidate attempts(Skill checks), Spells (Cause Fear) and/or items (Fear gem, 4th level consumable) to both debuff enemies and set up Sneak attacks.

Such actions are - again - likely much better than a third attack at -10 penalty. And again, TEAMWORK suddenly makes everything work better...

b)Poison:
With Poison Weapon, you can make your first attack (with the highest accuracy) deal (potentially) more damage. Debuffing the enemy (via FEAR, for example...or having other allies inflict debuffs such as Entangled (hello there, Tanglefoot Cantrip!) might help for the poison to "stick" - though I haven't read through all debuffs yet, this is merely conjecture.

If you have an Alchemist Friend, he can use his Alchemy to create poisons for free, iirc...maybe you can borrow some of these poisons? OMG TEAMWORK IS OP, PLZ NERF
(Of course, an Alchemist with Rogue-Multiclass to use Poison Weapon can likely use higher-DC Poisons because of an Alchemist Class Feat and become much better at attacking with Poisoned Weapons...but we're talking about 5th-level Rogues right now, not 8th-level Alchemists)

c)More Actions:
Action Economy is king, always. And as Rogue, you have a few tricks to boost your action economy:
• You're Next, Reactive Pursuit allow you to Demoralize or Stride as a Reaction
• Quick Draw, Running Reload allow you to combine two actions

d)Sabotage & Combat Maneuvers(Athletics: Shove, Trip, Grapple, Disarm):
• Sabotage allows you to damage opponent's items - denting, possibly breaking them. Opponent's wizard is wielding a special wand/using a Shield?
Go ahead, use your Thievery skill to try and dent/break it! You can even do it three times per turn, AND Sabotage doesn't have the Attack trait, so you don't take any penalties for repeating the action!
Remember, a normal, not-fragile item can take 1 dent and be fine, two dents and it's broken, three dents and it's destroyed. Hmm...how many actions per turn do you have again in PF2 ?? That's right, 3 actions!
• Combat Maneuvers:
Unfortunately, these Actons DO have the attack trait and suffer M(ultiple)A(attack)P(enalties), but they can be situationally useful.
Disarm is very bad, though, and probably needs to be changed - another reason to playtest and give valuable feedback...

Our Rogue still has 2d6 Sneak attack, but...a bunch more options. Some of his old options even got better!
a)Gang up
Suddenly, flanking becomes a whole lot easier! *How much* easier, you ask? Why, just take Cavalier Dedication for a trusty Mount, use the Ride General Feat to solve Action economy problems when commanding animals, and suddenly you can move 40'-80' atop your trusty Horse, gain flanking all the time in melee, and still have two actions per turn left to stab your opponent!

Of course, you could also be a TEAM PLAYER, skip the horse, and just stand next to your Party's Paladin / Shield-Based Fighter to enjoy the Protection of Shield Warden / the deterrent of Retributive Strike while ALSO flanking like that...

b)Twist the Knife
Tired of missing all the time because of MAP? Well, enjoy this! If you've successfully STABBED(=sneak attacked) someone this turn, you can use an action to inflict some PERSISTENT DAMAGE (which is incredibly hard to get rid of...DC 20 flat check, anyone? Does Team Evil have a Healbot somewhere?) without rolling at all(except for the delicious damage roll, of course)

c)More Action Economy
• Nimble Roll, Opportune Backstab, Sidestep give you new options for your Reaction. Have fun stabbing, evading, moving or even letting enemies hit each other!
• Skirmish Strike allows you to Step & Strike (or Strike & Step...) as one action.

d)General Improvements
• Improved Poison Weapon makes you better at...using poison in combat. More damage, less waste.
• Sly Striker offers you 1/2 Sneak Attack damage on targets that are not flat-footed.
• You have Debilitating Strike now...this means your Sneak attacks ALSO debuff opponents (entangled OR enfeebled 1)
• With Tactical Debilitation or Vicious Debilitation, you have more options when debuffing opponents! If you manage to stab someone multiple times, you get to apply lots of love(=various debuffs that ruin his/her/its day)
[Debuff list for Sneak Attack:
• Entangled (-10 speed, 20% chance to fail actions with the manipulate trait)
• Enfeebled 1 (-1 to atk/dmg/STR-based checks)
• Cannot Flank (Tactical Debilitation)
• Cannot use Reactions (Tactical Debilitation)
• Sluggish 1(-1 to atk/AC/DEX-based checks, Reflex saves) (Vicious Debilitation)
• Weakness 5 to either Bludgeoning/Slashing/Piercing (Vicious Debilitation)]

e)More Multiclassing options:
At this point, I won't call out all of the possible combinations and extra abilities you can gain from Multiclassing. You have plenty of choices, from Spells to various class feats to animal companions to very powerful defensive proficiencies (in case of Gray Maiden Dedication). This will become even better after the playtest, as more Archetypes are released.
Choose yourself, and enjoy your freedom to create a character as you wish - IMO, the one of the core Strengths of Pathfinder that has remained, although in a different mechanical framework

We have 3d6 Sneak Attack and Double Debilitation now. Let's have a short look at what the Rogue class has to offer:
a)Instant Opening
Voila, we have the ability to point at an enemy and MAKE HIM FLATFOOTED against our rogue's attacks...UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN.
That's potentially 5 attacks. (two now, three next turn).

b)Defensive Roll
For the squishier Rogues, you can take 1/2 damage from lethal blows once every 10 minutes.

c)Felling Shot
For the Ranged rogues, if you want fliers to fall out of the sky. Works amazingly well with Instant Opening.

d)Critical Debilitation
This one requires a critical success (also known as critical hit) on an Sneak Attack roll. If you do crit, you get some amazing debuffs for your opponent.
(Slow = opponent loses some actions
Paralysis = Opponent loses ALL actions)

e)General Improvements
• Double Debilitation means you can debuff twice as hard now
• 3d6 Sneak attack means 2d6 persistent dmg from Twist the Knife

To follow later...

[EldritchWeaver]

a) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they provide training in a skill of your choice (Currently available as Skill Training, req. 12 INT

b) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they require training in a skill of your choice and make that skill into a Signature Skill

Skill Training shouldn't have a Int requirement at all. Also, signature skills need to go completely. Currently, they block character outside your class focus. A feat to grant just signature status is just a feat tax, since by itself it does not provide a mechanical benefit. (Same goes for Adopted, which also needs to give something in addition like the ancestry feats.)

[Nigeretalbus]

Signature Skills are the PF2 Equivalent to PF1's "Class Skills" - and if you look closely, what was the difference in PF1 between Class and "Cross-Class" Skills?

A +3 Bonus.

The difference between a Signature Skill and a "Normal Skill" in PF2 is +2 (The difference between Expert(+1) and Legendary(+3)).

So you have a smaller numerical difference compared to PF1.

Furthermore, demanding that "Signature Skills need to be abolished" is mechanically equivalent to demanding "BAB differences should be abolished, because they make creating Gishes Harder in PF1". This is especially true since Combat Maneuvers are Skill-based now and some Class feats also use Skills to attack.

Sometimes, mechanical differences can have their place - and IMO, Signature Skills ("Class Skills") do have theirs.

[Caelestion]

Signature Skills don't do anything other than limit your skill levels after Expert, but given that you can raise a mere handful of skills to Master or beyond by the simple maths of how many skill training slots you can get, they serve only to tell you which skills you can't increase. Either they need to do something interesting or they should go.

[Rhedyn]

See, that's the thing, PF 2e (if you strip out the level auto-scaling) resembles 5e far more than it does PF. I still can't fathom why Paizo would try and make their own 5e instead of double-refined 3.5/PF, unless they intend to keep supporting PF 1e after 2e's release. I mean, if they could drag half the 5e players to their side, that'd be nice, because I do think that WotC needs a shake-up, but, well, is this really what Paizo thinks they should do with the Pathfinder brand?
What's really funny, is that through the lens of "a variant on 5e", I like PF2 a lot and think it just needs to cut some terminology, remove the weird symbols on actions, and reduce HP along with the hyper damage scaling of magic weapons.

It's as a version of 3.5 that I find PF2e woefully boring.

[Nigeretalbus]

Signature Skills don't do anything other than limit your skill levels after Expert, but given that you can raise a mere handful of skills to Master or beyond by the simple maths of how many skill training slots you can get, they serve only to tell you which skills you can't increase. Either they need to do something interesting or they should go.


Cross-class skills in D&D 3.5 don't do anything other than make increasing them more expensive in terms of Skillpoints, but given that you can raise a mere handful of skills to values that matter by the simple maths of how many skill points you can get, they serve only to tell you which skills you can't increase. Either they need to do something interesting or they should go.

Technically, Signature skills do not limit your skill levels; Instead, they do the opposite - they allow you to transcend the (global/normal) limits of usual expertise.

If you want to abolish Signature skills by making them ubiquitous - that is, turn EVERY SKILL into a Signature skill - then you're likely encouraging more focused characters and less diverse characters, concerning their skills. Currently, these "skill ceilings" fulfil the role of forcing a player to spread their skill increases instead of investing all of them into a single skill.

Furthermore, some Feats (Paladin Class feat: Hospice Knight, various Archetype Feats) grant you more signature skills, so you can expand the number of signature skills beyond what you initially get at level 1.

[Zman]

Something a little more specific than "is this system a travesty unworthy (or perhaps too worthy) of the name pathfinder" I'm hoping to get some feedback on, is two weapon fighting worth it for rogues?

For starters, its just weird to me that rogues don't have access to two weapon fighting innately when all through out 3.0/.5/pathfinder its been in iconic piece of what they do. Taking it away and gating it behind a fighter multiclass feels like they're trying way too hard to niche protect the fighter as the only guy who's good with weapons to the detriment of other classes. Rogues are skill monkeys yes, but they're also supposed to have some skill as agile, quick witted fighters and two weapon fighting complements that thematically as well as mechanically. What's more, they've allowed some overlap in mechanical abilities with other classes, just not in this particular case. Rangers share double slice (the particular ability I'd like to pick up) with fighters, and it hasn't destroyed the identity of either class. If rangers can share a weapon skill that's integral to the classic identity of their class with fighters without it destroying the identity of either, then why can't my rogue? What's more, fighters already have mechanics signifying them as the chief weapon user, being the only class to gain legendary weapon proficiency. If forcing rogues to go through a fighter multiclass to get two weapon fighting feats is about niche protection then that seems like an admission that proficiency bonuses are too weak to feel like a meaningful feature. Why not give rogues access to two weapon fighting feats at a higher level? It cements fighters as the true master of whatever style they choose to focus on (which does seems fair, if all I do is focus on learning to fight with two weapons I'd expect to be better at it than someone who dabbles while also learning all manner of skill tricks) without robbing rogues of their iconic fighting style. They did exactly this with blind fight, giving rogues access at level 6 and fighters at level 10, two weapon feats could use the same treatment. All in all this just seems like a perplexing and poorly thought out decision.

With that being said, how is the actual implementation? Taking fighter dedication to open up double slice is hard to see as anything other than a feat tax. As a rogue I already have athletics as a signature skill and their are no rules for trading out redundant signature skills, so this is a waste. I'll get proficiency with medium and heavy armor but as a dexterity based class I want to wear light armor which I'm already proficient in and this doesn't improve my proficiency with that, so another waste. Proficiency with martial weapons is okay but rogues already get proficiency with a few martial weapons and the handful of new ones that I wasn't already proficient with and that I can use for sneak attack don't increase in proficiency with the rest of my weapons at level 13 unless I spend another feat. All in all, fighter dedication seems to amount too "you can use a star knife or main gauche from levels 2 to 12". If you want to keep using your new weapons you'll need to spend a level 12+ class feat to keep some but not all of your martial weapon proficiencies on par with your rogue weapons. This last part could be fixed by changing weapon tricks to upgrade all weapons you're proficient in to expert level, but its hard to see Paizo implementing that given how attached they seem to be to coding a certain identity into a class. Most of the feats competing with fighter focus at level 2 aren't anything special, but mobility would be nice on a melee rogue who wants to get into position to flank and activate sneak attack and all of them seem more fun than a feat tax to get something your class should have had to begin with. Beyond picking up double slice at forth level the only two weapon feats a rogue can even pick up from the fighter multiclass are twin parry at level 8 and twin riposte at level 20, neither of which stand out as particularly appealing options. Twin parry is weaker with most of the weapons rogues will want to use in their off hands aside from a main gauche, which can already do a slightly weaker version of the same thing and suffers from the feat tax problem already mentioned to keep its proficiency on par with your normal rogue weapons and by level 20, when twin riposte becomes available, rogues should have better reactions than getting a single attack (with no guaranteed sneak attack damage) against an opponent who critically fails an attack roll against you.

Finally, I have concerns about how the new magic weapon rules will interact with all this. Bounded accuracy makes every +1 to hit too important to pass up and the new system of potency runes adding weapon damage dice makes high level magic weapons a vital part of your damage output. Put these together and the end result is any weapon focused character is pretty much required to pick up the best weapons they can possibly afford and those are expensive, possibly the most expensive thing your character will buy. Having so few abilities related to two weapon fighting a rogue can actually take means that a two weapon fighter rogue will be doubling the cost of their most expensive item to improve a single, level 1 feat that they had to get at level 4 after paying out a feat tax to get it. The cost issue seems a little more baked into the system with so much of a martial character's power being tied into their magic weaponry but its hard to deny it makes two weapon fighting less palatable.

All in all this seems like a needlessly large investment of feats and money for "make a secondary attack without the multiple attack penalty and if it hits ignore resistances once per round". I still plan to try out a two weapon fighting rogue in my next play test session hope to have some more positive revisions afterwards, but I won't hold my breathe. I can't help but feel like this is a poorly thought and poorly implemented decision that I hope is fixed before the final product comes out.

Rogues may not have access to Double Slice through their class, but they do have innate TWF support. As do all classes. It’s the agile property, you fight Rapier/Shortsword. Your first attack is with your deadly rapier, the remaining attacks are with your agile shortsword. This reduces your MAP to -4/-8 on your successive attacks.

And if you really want couple Slice, which is probabaly worth it, it costs two feats instead of one and you’ll gain Access to martial weapons too. And be able to snag AoO at 6th level, and get all those weapons to expert at 12th. If you want your Rogie to fight better, a little dip into Fighter helps. But, Rogues are fully capable of fighting twf and have incentive or agile for MAP, to do so.

[Zman]

What's really funny, is that through the lens of "a variant on 5e", I like PF2 a lot and think it just needs to cut some terminology, remove the weird symbols on actions, and reduce HP along with the hyper damage scaling of magic weapons.

It's as a version of 3.5 that I find PF2e woefully boring.

Why would they make “another variant of 3.5?” They’ve already cornered the market on that with P1. Why wouldn’t they try and have the better 5e. Be the company that has the better version of Wozard’s flagship. You’re already the company that has the better version of their tried and true.


As someone who loathes 3.P, I don’t think I’d like P2 if it was what you want.

[Rhedyn]

Why would they make “another variant of 3.5?” They’ve already cornered the market on that with P1. Why wouldn’t they try and have the better 5e. Be the company that has the better version of Wozard’s flagship. You’re already the company that has the better version of their tried and true.


As someone who loathes 3.P, I don’t think I’d like P2 if it was what you want.
Because Paizo's existing and most interested fan base does like 3.5.

But even if their goal is to make 5e+ then they should just do that and stream line even more things. I don't hate the bones of 5e. It's the endless specific things the game does that turns me off to the system. If you are going to have less stuff, it better be more balanced, and IMHO 5e is less balanced than 3.5 (as in you have to start making custom foes sooner for the game to stay interesting)

[Peat]

So which one is more important? Which should take priority. So far Id say they failed at both in fun and interesting ways.

Verily.

Making choices every level just isn't new player friendly. No way to dress that one up. Particularly when the new player has good reason to suspect there'll be traps along the way.

At the same time, I've no particular interest in investing in a system that's removed my favourite way of multiclassing (I admire the elegance of what they've done, but dislike that it's the only way) and is locking certain classes into certain builds (no my Paladin doesn't want a shield).

[Florian]

Oh man, 3.P now had a longer run than than even AD&D 2nd managed. Time for something new, and good riddance of the last 3.5 grognards.

[Ignimortis]

Oh man, 3.P now had a longer run than than even AD&D 2nd managed. Time for something new, and good riddance of the last 3.5 grognards.

You'll never be rid of us or our system...as long as nobody publishes something actually superior to 3.5/PF 1e on all counts.

P.S. AHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Caelestion]

Nigeretalbus, I don't like cross-class skills in 3.0/3.5 either.

[Rhedyn]

Oh man, 3.P now had a longer run than than even AD&D 2nd managed. Time for something new, and good riddance of the last 3.5 grognards.
d20 is a genre of RPGs, it'll never be "gone".

Nor is it old enough to have grognards...

[Slithery D]

Verily.

Making choices every level just isn't new player friendly. No way to dress that one up. Particularly when the new player has good reason to suspect there'll be traps along the way.


Yeah, they really need to introduce some costless downtime retraining to take away the fear of trap options, or something.

[Morty]

I don't know if rogues need Double Slice to effectively use two weapons, but either way I don't think putting weapon style feats as class feats is a good idea. This is the kind of thing that should be handled by proficiencies, with different classes getting them at a different pace so that fighters are still the first to grab them (because that's their one special thing).

[Florian]

P.S. AHAHAHAHA!!!!!

*Shrugs*

I´m active in this hobby a bit over three decades now and I've learned quite a bit about how the mainstream works and why it is important to the hobby as a whole. While I'm an avid PF1 fan, I can accept it when there's a need for the mainstream to move forward and I have to chose between being a grognard, there's more than enough material for a lifetime, or switching to the new "new" and be done with it. I certainly play mainstream systems because that is where you find the major player base and don't have a problem with it, but I also have my "fringe" or "OSR" groups, which just don't see any significant growth, but are there.

[Scowling Dragon]

By the Way has anybody checked out Unity? (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/244253/Unity-RPG-Core-Rulebook?src=hottest)

Its like 5e mixed with 4e and a bunch of modern hipster elements based on a 2d10 roll. Totally not my thing but it was very nearly my thing.

[Rhedyn]

By the Way has anybody checked out Unity? (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/244253/Unity-RPG-Core-Rulebook?src=hottest)

Its like 5e mixed with 4e and a bunch of modern hipster elements based on a 2d10 roll. Totally not my thing but it was very nearly my thing.If we are just throwing out game recommendations

Free Savage Worlds Test Drive (https://www.peginc.com/store/savage-worlds-test-drive-lankhmar/)

For me, it's a game as easy to run/play as 5e but with the depth and customization of 3e. You just have deal with some things being more abstract than you are use to (Like hit points not being a thing).

[Scowling Dragon]

Has anybody tried Mutants and Masterminds? (https://mutantsandmasterminds.com/)

Its a D20 Superhero system based on point by and so far the best one I have seen so far for replicating that Superhero Feel.

I wanna try running a Swords and Sorcery Campaign with it someday.

[Kyrell1978]

Has anybody tried Mutants and Masterminds? (https://mutantsandmasterminds.com/)

Its a D20 Superhero system based on point by and so far the best one I have seen so far for replicating that Superhero Feel.

I wanna try running a Swords and Sorcery Campaign with it someday.

I haven't tried that one but I liked both Aberrant by White Wolf and Heroes Unlimited by Palladium.

[zlefin]

so did any of the playtest addenda/addons/errata ever include some pregen chars?

[ComaVision]

so did any of the playtest addenda/addons/errata ever include some pregen chars?

There are pregens, as well as a bunch of level 1 sample characters that were posted on another forum. I think you get the pregens from the Playtest downloads.

[NamelessNPC]

I’m a long term fan, with competitive PF trophies, who has introduced my child to gaming through PF. I’m not just alienated, I’m so furious I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like PF2. They aren’t welcome in my house. I can’t help thinking that there is something seriously wrong with them and they might injure my children.

You don't consider this a little bit over the top? I'm assuming, for your benefit, the last two sentences are just hyperbole, and still.
You are "furious"? Because they made a game and you don't like it? Are you for real? I'm just sick of the stereotype of the rage quitting angry nerd that throws a tantrum because they think they own some game or movie. Grow up.
And just keep playing pf1. There, you don't need to be angry anymore

[Cosi]

You don't consider this a little bit over the top? I'm assuming, for your benefit, the last two sentences are just hyperbole, and still.
You are "furious"? Because they made a game and you don't like it? Are you for real? I'm just sick of the stereotype of the rage quitting angry nerd that throws a tantrum because they think they own some game or movie. Grow up.

ITT: People overreacting to hyperbole. Both this and the response to the comment by that Viking guy.


And just keep playing pf1. There, you don't need to be angry anymore

It's entirely legitimate to be upset by the direction a product you like is going. PF 2e could be a condensing of the good parts of 1e that made improvements, integrated good non-core material, and set a stronger foundation going forward. Instead, it's completely replacing the system with something that is much worse and appeals to an entirely different set of tastes. It's the same mistake WotC made with 4e. When you have a popular product, you don't need radical change.

[NamelessNPC]

It's entirely legitimate to be upset by the direction a product you like is going. PF 2e could be a condensing of the good parts of 1e that made improvements, integrated good non-core material, and set a stronger foundation going forward. Instead, it's completely replacing the system with something that is much worse and appeals to an entirely different set of tastes. It's the same mistake WotC made with 4e. When you have a popular product, you don't need radical change.

Yes, it's legitimate to be upset. I'm just commenting on the intensity: saying that if you like pf2 you are a bad person is just so, so immature.
I mean, for real, Cosi, you have an adult that says "I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like pf2"; how can you have a conversation with and take seriously someone who says things like that?

[Mehangel]

Yes, it's legitimate to be upset. I'm just commenting on the intensity: saying that if you like pf2 you are a bad person is just so, so immature.
I mean, for real, Cosi, you have an adult that says "I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like pf2"; how can you have a conversation with and take seriously someone who says things like that?

Honestly, there are a lot of things that I as a person do everything in my power to disassociate myself with. While my viewpoint may not match up with the poster in question, I can definitely see the appeal in wanting to disassociate oneself from people who lack the sense of knowing when a play test or a game is not just bad, but dysfunctional. What sort of people are so blind that they accept **** paizo releases and give it such praise. Just saying.

[Cosi]

My view is basically twofold.

First, it's an Internet comment. If you think that is a 100% serious reflection on his character as a person, you have not spent enough time on the Internet (which apparently spellcheck wants me to capitalize). Go read some reddit posts or something.

Second, I don't think he's being 100% unreasonable. Obviously, it's not serious, and I think it is fair to say that you would be less likely to be friends with someone who praised things that were bad. Particularly because its reasonable to assume these are people you know through gaming. If I had a friend I only saw at wine tastings, and they started pushing really crappy wine, I would stop being friends with him. From this perspective, the only real question is how accurate his assessment of PF 2e is, and that's a fairly subjective one.

Third, I just think Internet hyperbole is a healthy thing to have on Internet forums, and would like to see less people trying to shut it down.

[zlefin]

There are pregens, as well as a bunch of level 1 sample characters that were posted on another forum. I think you get the pregens from the Playtest downloads.

were those an add-on? cuz when I downloaded the playtest download awhile back there weren't pregens. would they be there if I redownload it? or is there some alternate dwonload that has it?

[CasualViking]

Clearly, liking PF2 is a gateway to watching Fox News. It is entirely reasonable to quarantine yourself from such people whenever feasible.

(Warning: May contain nuggets of actual truth)

[Kyrell1978]

Clearly, liking PF2 is a gateway to watching Fox News. It is entirely reasonable to quarantine yourself from such people whenever feasible.

(Warning: May contain nuggets of actual truth)

What about people who watch fox news but don't like pf2, or people that don't watch any news and only kind of like pf2, or people who saw a fox on the news and actively dislike pf2?

[Da Beast]

Concerning TWF Rogues:

In D&D 3.5 & PF1, Sneak Attack was the reason Rogues could contribute meaningfully in combat; and the best way to leverage sneak attack was to generate as many (Sneak) Attacks as possible; and this meant either Ranged attacks (throwing alchemical fire/acid, Archery with Sniper Goggles & (Greater) Invisibility) or TWF.

I would encourage everyone to actually "test" wether this still holds true for PF2 Rogues or if they actually benefit more from different combat styles.



Just looking at the available options, here's what I imagine a PF2 Rogue to do:

--snip--

Sneak attack isn't just about maximizing attacks anymore, its become iconic to character archetype. Most fantasy games treat it as a standard option at this point, look at either Dragon Age or World of Warcraft for examples. I think its fair to say that most gamers picking up the game will expect rogues to have some two weapon support and be perplexed when they don't find it. I am aware that the class has other combat options, I'm just saying that for two weapon fighting to not be one of them makes it feel like something is missing.


Rogues may not have access to Double Slice through their class, but they do have innate TWF support. As do all classes. It’s the agile property, you fight Rapier/Shortsword. Your first attack is with your deadly rapier, the remaining attacks are with your agile shortsword. This reduces your MAP to -4/-8 on your successive attacks.

And if you really want couple Slice, which is probabaly worth it, it costs two feats instead of one and you’ll gain Access to martial weapons too. And be able to snag AoO at 6th level, and get all those weapons to expert at 12th. If you want your Rogie to fight better, a little dip into Fighter helps. But, Rogues are fully capable of fighting twf and have incentive or agile for MAP, to do so.

Simply alternating between weapons without any specific abilities feels lackluster for a two weapon fighting character, especially in a system where you get about a dozen or more abilities related to every facet of your character as you level up. Also, if the only payoff is you get to have different weapon properties on your first vs second and third attacks than this really makes the cost of maintaining multiple level appropriate weapons feel too high. I'm also going to point out again that those martial weapons are only good until level 13 at which point they fall behind without spending another, higher level feat just to keep them on par with the handful of martial weapons you're already proficient with.

While I'm at it I'll add the minimum feat requirement before you pick up another archetype as another issue. If I want my rogue to be a twin dagger wielding pirate I need to devote six levels worth of feats to picking up low level abilities from fighter before I can start to pick up some pirate abilities, which at this point are themselves very underleveled.

[Peat]

*Shrugs*

I´m active in this hobby a bit over three decades now and I've learned quite a bit about how the mainstream works and why it is important to the hobby as a whole. While I'm an avid PF1 fan, I can accept it when there's a need for the mainstream to move forward and I have to chose between being a grognard, there's more than enough material for a lifetime, or switching to the new "new" and be done with it. I certainly play mainstream systems because that is where you find the major player base and don't have a problem with it, but I also have my "fringe" or "OSR" groups, which just don't see any significant growth, but are there.

Is there a need to move forwards though? Who decides when its needed?

If a game maker announcing a new and different edition was proof alone, Pathfinder wouldn't exist.

[Caelestion]

And if public support was enough, the publishers could spin money out the air and install replicators in every office.

[Florian]

Is there a need to move forwards though? Who decides when its needed?

Ok, stop me when I bore you with details:

TTRPGS have a very specific lifecycle and it´s not exactly easy to keep an edition profitable and the company behind it financially afloat. Consider how your common, "classic", TTRPG differs from any other consumer product: The books are more or less endlessly reusable and once you have the core functionality together, there's not that much incentive to keep on buying a line, unless you're a fan.

Paizo already managed the feat to have a very solid and stable production run, especially when compared to how WotC managed 3.0/3.5/4.0, still PF1 is nearing the point of diminishing returns, when the product range doesn't manage to carry the overhead cost of the company. Consider how the whole lines were structured: The hardcover lines, "Ultimate", add core sub-systems, while stuff like the "Companion" line is done on the cheap via freelancers and next to no editing to build upon this, while the supporting stuff for APs got moved to the "Campaign" line to push sales, while at the same time, the "Bestiary" section of the APs is again done by freelancers and not edited to reduce overhead.
Also consider that by now, we've reached the point that PF1 is going into "self-canibalism"-mode by recycling "splat" material into hardcover books, aka Adventurer Guide and such.

So, I can´t speak for Paizo, that's for sure, but I know some people working for the two local "top dogs" and that's pretty similar, just on a slightly smaller scale.

[Kyrell1978]

Ok, stop me when I bore you with details:

TTRPGS have a very specific lifecycle and it´s not exactly easy to keep an edition profitable and the company behind it financially afloat. Consider how your common, "classic", TTRPG differs from any other consumer product: The books are more or less endlessly reusable and once you have the core functionality together, there's not that much incentive to keep on buying a line, unless you're a fan.

Paizo already managed the feat to have a very solid and stable production run, especially when compared to how WotC managed 3.0/3.5/4.0, still PF1 is nearing the point of diminishing returns, when the product range doesn't manage to carry the overhead cost of the company. Consider how the whole lines were structured: The hardcover lines, "Ultimate", add core sub-systems, while stuff like the "Companion" line is done on the cheap via freelancers and next to no editing to build upon this, while the supporting stuff for APs got moved to the "Campaign" line to push sales, while at the same time, the "Bestiary" section of the APs is again done by freelancers and not edited to reduce overhead.
Also consider that by now, we've reached the point that PF1 is going into "self-canibalism"-mode by recycling "splat" material into hardcover books, aka Adventurer Guide and such.

So, I can´t speak for Paizo, that's for sure, but I know some people working for the two local "top dogs" and that's pretty similar, just on a slightly smaller scale.

There are a number of ways to do this though. They just released Starfinder and could have gone with support to both of those systems, there is a severe lack of any truly playable d20 Cyberpunk games out there also that they could have integrated into the mix, you could even do a Steampunk game like Iron Kingdoms if you wanted. There was no absolute reason why they had to make changes to their flagship game, it was just the path that they chose.

[Rhedyn]

Ok, stop me when I bore you with details:

TTRPGS have a very specific lifecycle and it´s not exactly easy to keep an edition profitable and the company behind it financially afloat. Consider how your common, "classic", TTRPG differs from any other consumer product: The books are more or less endlessly reusable and once you have the core functionality together, there's not that much incentive to keep on buying a line, unless you're a fan.

Paizo already managed the feat to have a very solid and stable production run, especially when compared to how WotC managed 3.0/3.5/4.0, still PF1 is nearing the point of diminishing returns, when the product range doesn't manage to carry the overhead cost of the company. Consider how the whole lines were structured: The hardcover lines, "Ultimate", add core sub-systems, while stuff like the "Companion" line is done on the cheap via freelancers and next to no editing to build upon this, while the supporting stuff for APs got moved to the "Campaign" line to push sales, while at the same time, the "Bestiary" section of the APs is again done by freelancers and not edited to reduce overhead.
Also consider that by now, we've reached the point that PF1 is going into "self-canibalism"-mode by recycling "splat" material into hardcover books, aka Adventurer Guide and such.

So, I can´t speak for Paizo, that's for sure, but I know some people working for the two local "top dogs" and that's pretty similar, just on a slightly smaller scale.

Well... Paizo decided to work on 2e for the last couple of years rather than being laser focused on producing 1e content.

Let's compare 2015 releases to 2017 releases:
2015 per Wikipedia:
2015
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 5
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Class Guide
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Occult Adventures
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Strategy Guide

2017
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Book of the Damned
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 6
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: GameMastery Guide

Back when they were focused on PF1e, they released game changing content with classes that were pretty well balanced with each other. With their 2e focus, product quality dipped and it's no real surprise that 5e started making real headway.

Paizo screwed 1e just from a lack of attention when it needed the most support compared to the competition.

[Peat]

Ok, stop me when I bore you with details:

TTRPGS have a very specific lifecycle and it´s not exactly easy to keep an edition profitable and the company behind it financially afloat. Consider how your common, "classic", TTRPG differs from any other consumer product: The books are more or less endlessly reusable and once you have the core functionality together, there's not that much incentive to keep on buying a line, unless you're a fan.

Paizo already managed the feat to have a very solid and stable production run, especially when compared to how WotC managed 3.0/3.5/4.0, still PF1 is nearing the point of diminishing returns, when the product range doesn't manage to carry the overhead cost of the company. Consider how the whole lines were structured: The hardcover lines, "Ultimate", add core sub-systems, while stuff like the "Companion" line is done on the cheap via freelancers and next to no editing to build upon this, while the supporting stuff for APs got moved to the "Campaign" line to push sales, while at the same time, the "Bestiary" section of the APs is again done by freelancers and not edited to reduce overhead.
Also consider that by now, we've reached the point that PF1 is going into "self-canibalism"-mode by recycling "splat" material into hardcover books, aka Adventurer Guide and such.

So, I can´t speak for Paizo, that's for sure, but I know some people working for the two local "top dogs" and that's pretty similar, just on a slightly smaller scale.

I get all of that. I get that there needs to be a new big game edition for Paizo to stay upright, and that Pathfinder is the obvious candidate.

But what I don't get is why that new edition has to be a revolution rather than an evolution, or why the end of Paizo's product cycle here means the mainstream has to move on in terms of what games they have. Because those two things don't appear to follow on as things that have to happen.

[Morty]

Sneak attack isn't just about maximizing attacks anymore, its become iconic to character archetype. Most fantasy games treat it as a standard option at this point, look at either Dragon Age or World of Warcraft for examples. I think its fair to say that most gamers picking up the game will expect rogues to have some two weapon support and be perplexed when they don't find it. I am aware that the class has other combat options, I'm just saying that for two weapon fighting to not be one of them makes it feel like something is missing.

Simply alternating between weapons without any specific abilities feels lackluster for a two weapon fighting character, especially in a system where you get about a dozen or more abilities related to every facet of your character as you level up. Also, if the only payoff is you get to have different weapon properties on your first vs second and third attacks than this really makes the cost of maintaining multiple level appropriate weapons feel too high. I'm also going to point out again that those martial weapons are only good until level 13 at which point they fall behind without spending another, higher level feat just to keep them on par with the handful of martial weapons you're already proficient with.

While I'm at it I'll add the minimum feat requirement before you pick up another archetype as another issue. If I want my rogue to be a twin dagger wielding pirate I need to devote six levels worth of feats to picking up low level abilities from fighter before I can start to pick up some pirate abilities, which at this point are themselves very underleveled.

Of all the things that people say remind them about 4E in PF2E, this is the one I actually think does resemble it... except not in a good way. One of 4E's problems was its restrictiveness. D&D has never been flexible or permissive, since classes and levels tie our hands. But 4E kind of double down on it in some ways... such as that you couldn't properly dual-wield without having a class or class option that allows it. Here we seem to see something similar.

[ComaVision]

were those an add-on? cuz when I downloaded the playtest download awhile back there weren't pregens. would they be there if I redownload it? or is there some alternate dwonload that has it?

I've gone and checked now. The pregen characters are an option under the PFS downloads on the main playtest page.

[Pex]

Clearly, liking PF2 is a gateway to watching Fox News. It is entirely reasonable to quarantine yourself from such people whenever feasible.

(Warning: May contain nuggets of actual truth)

I shall help you by putting you on my ignore list. Wouldn't want to corrupt your mind with ideas from people you disagree with.

[Kish]

I shall help you by putting you on my ignore list. Wouldn't want to corrupt your mind with ideas from people you disagree with.
That's not how an ignore list works. Doing that will keep CasualViking out of your mind, not the other way around.

[Cosi]

Is there a need to move forwards though? Who decides when its needed?

More importantly, who gets to decide which direction is "forward"? It's certainly true that Paizo is (presumably) now going to be releasing content for PF 2e and not PF 1e, but does that inherently make PF 1e "the past" of RPG design? Does that make the specific changes in 2e "the future" of RPG design?

[Kyrell1978]

More importantly, who gets to decide which direction is "forward"? It's certainly true that Paizo is (presumably) now going to be releasing content for PF 2e and not PF 1e, but does that inherently make PF 1e "the past" of RPG design? Does that make the specific changes in 2e "the future" of RPG design?

There is a large enough fan base of the original 3.x system that if they really "move on" from it, I foresee another development company taking a large swath out of the market by making an interesting gaming world and publishing a large amount of material with a few subtle changes to the system under the OGL. Hmmmmmm.........it's almost like we've seen this before.

[Rhedyn]

There is a large enough fan base of the original 3.x system that if they really "move on" from it, I foresee another development company taking a large swath out of the market by making an interesting gaming world and publishing a large amount of material with a few subtle changes to the system under the OGL. Hmmmmmm.........it's almost like we've seen this before.
Yup. I think it's time someone else took the reigns of 3.x. Paizo has been poor stewards of late.

I'll be interested to see how the next company tackles the problem. Realistically, if anyone could do it, my guess would be Dreamscarred Press, but so far they haven't shown any inclination towards that.

[Alent]

More importantly, who gets to decide which direction is "forward"? It's certainly true that Paizo is (presumably) now going to be releasing content for PF 2e and not PF 1e, but does that inherently make PF 1e "the past" of RPG design? Does that make the specific changes in 2e "the future" of RPG design?

Clearly, "Forward" is away from Paizo, since they're going to officially end Pathfinder Society play and turn it into the Path2fer society, which will mean whoever successfully introduces organized d20 play from here is going to be "the future". Good for those of us working on fantasy heartbreakers, bad news for Paizo, I guess.

Actually, on a tech note, how has Paizo managed to be this bad at technology and survive? I would've expected a fillable character sheet or an app, instead they managed to create a game that only an app can keep straight while refusing to write first party apps... :smallconfused:

[Rynjin]

More importantly, who gets to decide which direction is "forward"? It's certainly true that Paizo is (presumably) now going to be releasing content for PF 2e and not PF 1e, but does that inherently make PF 1e "the past" of RPG design? Does that make the specific changes in 2e "the future" of RPG design?

I don't see PF2 being the future of RPG design. It's too unfocused.

Maybe, like 4e, it will prove to be a stepping stone to a much better designed smash hit system (much as I dislike 5e's design, it's very clear in what it wants to be and accomplishes most of its design goals), but I foresee lean times ahead for Paizo. Maybe death of the company if its side projects like PF: Kingmaker also fail. Last time I had a feeling this bad about a company I was working for Marbles: The Brain Store; I bailed 3 months before the whole company went bankrupt "unexpectedly".

Hopefully I'm wrong, because I'd very much like a great game from Paizo, but their playtests are usually point of no return for major issues, with a lot of PF2's problems being systemic, and public perception even among hardcore fans is skewed towards negative feelings or apathy.

[ComaVision]

Actually, on a tech note, how has Paizo managed to be this bad at technology and survive? I would've expected a fillable character sheet or an app, instead they managed to create a game that only an app can keep straight while refusing to write first party apps... :smallconfused:

Baby steps, they should start with actually having their website up for a whole day first.

[CasualViking]

Yup. I think it's time someone else took the reigns of 3.x. Paizo has been poor stewards of late.

I'll be interested to see how the next company tackles the problem. Realistically, if anyone could do it, my guess would be Dreamscarred Press, but so far they haven't shown any inclination towards that.

I would throw wads of cash and my lace panties at a Dreamscarred Press kickstarter for that.

[CasualViking]

Well... Paizo decided to work on 2e for the last couple of years rather than being laser focused on producing 1e content.

Let's compare 2015 releases to 2017 releases:
2015 per Wikipedia:
2015
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 5
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Class Guide
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Occult Adventures
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Strategy Guide

2017
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Book of the Damned
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 6
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: GameMastery Guide

Back when they were focused on PF1e, they released game changing content with classes that were pretty well balanced with each other. With their 2e focus, product quality dipped and it's no real surprise that 5e started making real headway.

Paizo screwed 1e just from a lack of attention when it needed the most support compared to the competition.

Then again, Advanced Class Guide was a pile of **** when it dropped and the errata for that one is thicker than your average RPG supplement - whereas Weapon Master's Handbook, a floppy 64-pager by a cheap freelancer, is hailed as some of the best stuff in years.

[Zman]

Just a point for those predicting doom for Paizo. Maybe, just maybe, there are a number of people like me out there who do not like 3.P, liked 5e, and see lots of potential in P2.

Of course any real change is going to upset and create a lot of vocal opposition. Pathfinders most loyal base came from 3.5. They are crystallized. Now, there exists wide swaths of potential market out there. We’ve seen 5e going one direction, does anyone really think tripppling down on 3.5’s old customer base is a winning strategy? Until something replaces P1, they’ve still got that customer base and can release a dribble of content or let 3rd party keep the flame alive. But, they need something new, they need to sell core books to a wide swath of consumers and need to do that in a way the opens their reach up to new consumers.

Another 3.P remake and refinement would satisfy the 3.P fanatics, maybe, but it in and of itself doesn’t open up new markets. Speaking as someone who was spending $0 of Paizo Pathfinder products, I will spend $100+ the day P2 drops. Think about that. And I can be an influencer, more than one person in my group will do the same. Are we completely isolated? Nope. And we’ve got one person who dislikes Pathfinder, ive already convinced them to give P2 a look.

The future is opening new markets. There probably isn’t a future in tripling down in a rule set customer base established almost two decades ago.

[ComaVision]

I would throw wads of cash and my lace panties at a Dreamscarred Press kickstarter for that.

I'd love to see Drop Dead Studios tackle it.

[QuadraticGish]

I would throw wads of cash and my lace panties at a Dreamscarred Press kickstarter for that.


I'd love to see Drop Dead Studios tackle it.

Why not both cooperating? I keep throwing money at my monitor but nothing is happening yet.

[Rynjin]

Just a point for those predicting doom for Paizo. Maybe, just maybe, there are a number of people like me out there who do not like 3.P, liked 5e, and see lots of potential in P2.

The issue is that word. "Potential". That tells me that even as a defender of PF2, you don't see this as a good product in its current state.

The thing is, if Paizo keeps to their trend for playtests, this is essentially the finished product. PF2 in its current state is what will be released, with some minor changes here or there to egregiously broken non-core systems.

Maybe they'll surprise by breaking SOP on this one, but that's part of the reason people like myself are apprehensive; playtests are historically marketing ploys for Paizo, not truly made for useful feedback to be heard and acted upon.

Loud enough complaints may be enough to get through, but Paizo have become very tone police-y in recent years, so everything needs to be couched in neutral language to even have a chance of being heard.

I never thought I'd long for the days of SKR sending nasty e-mails and verbally abusing critics in the playtest threads, but at least the man obviously read (and just as obviously acted on) any useful feedback, no matter how expressed. I'm not confident the rest of Paizo will do the same, ignoring feedback from *******s with a point, and fooling themselves into believing calmly expressed feedback isn't a big deal because it doesn't have passion behind it.

[Morty]

I occupy a separate position in this argument in that I believe Pathfinder does need severe changes and upgrades, and I would applaud Paizo for doing that instead of recooking old material... but I don't think they're doing enough, nor are they doing a good job.

[Rynjin]

I occupy a separate position in this argument in that I believe Pathfinder does need severe changes and upgrades, and I would applaud Paizo for doing that instead of recooking old material... but I don't think they're doing enough, nor are they doing a good job.

That's where I am too, BTW. I've houseruled PF to the point i'm good with it, and play a bunch of other systems too. A brand new and different system would be great...if it were good.

[Cosi]

I occupy a separate position in this argument in that I believe Pathfinder does need severe changes and upgrades, and I would applaud Paizo for doing that instead of recooking old material... but I don't think they're doing enough, nor are they doing a good job.

I don't think there's anyone who thinks PF is perfect. I certainly don't. Frankly, if someone is going to do yet another iteration on 3e, I think they should probably discard most of the changes Paizo made. But PF 2e is just not very good. It manages to hit the uncomfortably ineffectual middle on a number of design choices, and is to radical of a departure to really be considered an incremental improvement.

[Rhedyn]

Then again, Advanced Class Guide was a pile of **** when it dropped and the errata for that one is thicker than your average RPG supplement - whereas Weapon Master's Handbook, a floppy 64-pager by a cheap freelancer, is hailed as some of the best stuff in years.
The advance class guide was buggy, BUT it had some good stuff in it.

Which is more than I can say for the shifter.

[Peat]

There is a large enough fan base of the original 3.x system that if they really "move on" from it, I foresee another development company taking a large swath out of the market by making an interesting gaming world and publishing a large amount of material with a few subtle changes to the system under the OGL. Hmmmmmm.........it's almost like we've seen this before.

And if it does happen, does that mean that its no longer in mainstream gaming's interest to move on?




The future is opening new markets. There probably isn’t a future in tripling down in a rule set customer base established almost two decades ago.

And yet Vtm 5e and WFRP 4th ed thunder towards us with rules sets basically old as dirt. Their publishers clearly believe you can still get new blood in with old rules - that or that a popular game's base is good for ever.


I'm not against the idea of a radical departure. Really not. And I like D&D 5e. Just some of the logic used to justify it as the only sensible commercial decision seems a bit shoddy.

Tbh, if we're going radical, why not dispense with classes if they're all going to be feat chains? Why not dump Zero to Hero (instead of a more intense looking zero). Those things would have interested me.

[Pex]

That's not how an ignore list works. Doing that will keep CasualViking out of your mind, not the other way around.

Works for me.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind Dream Scarred Press taking the reins and become an established mainstream company in its own right as opposed to being considered 3rd party. It'll mean their psionics system will be official, and I'll finally get to play it. :smallbiggrin:

[Alexvrahr]

I haven't heard that Dreamscarred Press are, but there's an outfit called Purple Duck Games who are producing their own RPG based off PF1, the Porphyra RPG. There's probably at least one other group that will try to take advantage of Paizo dropping PF1.

[Zman]

The issue is that word. "Potential". That tells me that even as a defender of PF2, you don't see this as a good product in its current state.

The thing is, if Paizo keeps to their trend for playtests, this is essentially the finished product. PF2 in its current state is what will be released, with some minor changes here or there to egregiously broken non-core systems.

Maybe they'll surprise by breaking SOP on this one, but that's part of the reason people like myself are apprehensive; playtests are historically marketing ploys for Paizo, not truly made for useful feedback to be heard and acted upon.

Loud enough complaints may be enough to get through, but Paizo have become very tone police-y in recent years, so everything needs to be couched in neutral language to even have a chance of being heard.

I never thought I'd long for the days of SKR sending nasty e-mails and verbally abusing critics in the playtest threads, but at least the man obviously read (and just as obviously acted on) any useful feedback, no matter how expressed. I'm not confident the rest of Paizo will do the same, ignoring feedback from *******s with a point, and fooling themselves into believing calmly expressed feedback isn't a big deal because it doesn't have passion behind it.

Not sure you got my stance quite right. In ya current incarnation it’s leaps and bounds better than 3.P. It’s better than 4e.
It’s better than 5e in that it’s easy to remove level scaling and it’s bound system is solid. The amount of house rules required for P2 is significantly smaller than that for 5e.

I’m happiest with P2 of the lot. Not perfect, but better. Significantly.

[D-naras]

Not sure you got my stance quite right. In ya current incarnation it’s leaps and bounds better than 3.P. It’s better than 4e.
It’s better than 5e in that it’s easy to remove level scaling and it’s bound system is solid. The amount of house rules required for P2 is significantly smaller than that for 5e.

I’m happiest with P2 of the lot. Not perfect, but better. Significantly.

I keep seeing you say that and while I agree, I think that in order to keep the critical success/failure rule they got going on, then you should also lower it to 5 over or under the DC to have crits happen with any frequency.

[Zman]

I keep seeing you say that and while I agree, I think that in order to keep the critical success/failure rule they got going on, then you should also lower it to 5 over or under the DC to have crits happen with any frequency.

No, no, no. My suggestion changes nothing for equal
Level enemies. The 10 over functions exactly the same. Against higher and lower level enemies there is some change which reduces the freuwnecy of Crit Successes and fails a bit. Bit, those changes are tiny compared to your five suggestion.

One of the best things about my siggestion, is that against an equal level enemy, nothing chsnges.

[D-naras]

No, no, no. My suggestion changes nothing for equal
Level enemies. The 10 over functions exactly the same. Against higher and lower level enemies there is some change which reduces the freuwnecy of Crit Successes and fails a bit. Bit, those changes are tiny compared to your five suggestion.

One of the best things about my siggestion, is that against an equal level enemy, nothing chsnges.

Yeah I realize that. And I am also sure that you've worked out the math and I can see how it easily turns into a bounded system. But in that bounded system, the current crit system seems to not really work, except on exceptionally low and high rolls, which can be fine but in PF2's case, it seems to be pretty ingrained in the system and an important part of the character's evolution.

[Cosi]

Actually, on a tech note, how has Paizo managed to be this bad at technology and survive? I would've expected a fillable character sheet or an app, instead they managed to create a game that only an app can keep straight while refusing to write first party apps... :smallconfused:

Because almost no gaming companies are good at technology. It's not like their competitors have super amazing online infrastructure, and the fact that they have a SRD is actually a big step for them relative to the competition. If I my speculate as to why, I'm pretty sure it's because they're in the same city as Microsoft but can't offer as much money as Microsoft.


Just a point for those predicting doom for Paizo. Maybe, just maybe, there are a number of people like me out there who do not like 3.P, liked 5e, and see lots of potential in P2.

And maybe there are an even larger number of people who like the features of PF 1e. I just don't see how a company whose success is due to a competitor dropping a popular product and pivoting in a radical and unpopular new direction thinks dropping a popular product and pivoting in a radical new direction is a smart plan.


Now, there exists wide swaths of potential market out there. We’ve seen 5e going one direction, does anyone really think tripppling down on 3.5’s old customer base is a winning strategy?

Similar mechanics don't require the same customer base. Also, by far the largest market is "people who've never heard of D&D". The vast majority of people who aren't playing PF are doing so not because they know and dislike the mechanics, but because they have no idea it exists. As a primary example, China is rapidly industrializing, and has a population something like four times that of the US. If your game can get a Chinese translation that's even half as popular as it is in the US, you're looking at tripling your money. And don't neglect the people -- like myself -- who don't buy PF products but would by something if we thought it represented a substantial improvement on 3e + Houserules.


And if it does happen, does that mean that its no longer in mainstream gaming's interest to move on?

You could move on to a more refined version of 3e. Really, that's what 4e should have been. Bring in splat classes that people like (ToB, fixed list casters, Warlock), kick out or upgrade some bad core classes, and tweak the rules to make the game run smoother. You don't need a radical departure like Bounded Accuracy to make progress, and in many ways radically restructuring the system isn't progress. A van isn't "more advanced" than a car, it's a different product. You could add things like Skill Challenges, or more developed mass battle and economics rules as well. That's the way forward -- making your product better instead of repeatedly turning it inside out.


Tbh, if we're going radical, why not dispense with classes if they're all going to be feat chains? Why not dump Zero to Hero (instead of a more intense looking zero). Those things would have interested me.

My idea would basically be to flip what PF 2e is doing. Instead of getting a class that tells you which abilities you can select with your interchangeable slots, you pick the abilities first and that qualifies you for a class.

[RedWarlock]

So, how many fantasy-heartbreaker homebrewers out there are reading these threads and comparing the complaints against their own mechanics? “My rules do that better. And I avoided that problem by.. And this thing you just described? I do that!” (At least in theory..)

My own system favors the “complex build, simple in-play” style. It tries to marry the complex powers structure of 4e with more in-depth build mechanics like 3e. Really need to buckle down and get a few more playable classes going, and throw it up for review somewhere...

[Morty]

That's where I am too, BTW. I've houseruled PF to the point i'm good with it, and play a bunch of other systems too. A brand new and different system would be great...if it were good.


I don't think there's anyone who thinks PF is perfect. I certainly don't. Frankly, if someone is going to do yet another iteration on 3e, I think they should probably discard most of the changes Paizo made. But PF 2e is just not very good. It manages to hit the uncomfortably ineffectual middle on a number of design choices, and is to radical of a departure to really be considered an incremental improvement.

PF2e does occupy a weird spot where it's different enough to offend long-time fans, but not different enough to really fix things. And then some decisions it makes are just puzzling.

[NomGarret]

So there’s a test which, for me at least, P2 has yet to pass. This is a test of whether a system is not only good, but good enough to make me switch rather than use one of the many other games I already own to accomplish the same aim. Now, this is not a measure for whether some mysterious untapped Chinese market may find it appealing, this is about what place it has for established gamers.

Are there certain archetypes (races, classes, builds) that are possible in the new system that are not possible in a system I already own?

Are there certain archetypes (races, classes, builds) that are significantly more appealing than their counterparts in systems I already own? (Better balanced, build comes online sooner, more tactically appealing, etc.)

Are there campaign styles that are facilitated in a way that I would run it in the new system but wouldn’t otherwise in a system I already own? An all-rogue heist game, all-dwarf party, or a no-magic setting would be examples.

[Kyrell1978]

So there’s a test which, for me at least, P2 has yet to pass. This is a test of whether a system is not only good, but good enough to make me switch rather than use one of the many other games I already own to accomplish the same aim. Now, this is not a measure for whether some mysterious untapped Chinese market may find it appealing, this is about what place it has for established gamers.

Are there certain archetypes (races, classes, builds) that are possible in the new system that are not possible in a system I already own?

Are there certain archetypes (races, classes, builds) that are significantly more appealing than their counterparts in systems I already own? (Better balanced, build comes online sooner, more tactically appealing, etc.)

Are there campaign styles that are facilitated in a way that I would run it in the new system but wouldn’t otherwise in a system I already own? An all-rogue heist game, all-dwarf party, or a no-magic setting would be examples.
I like this idea, but if I used this test I never would have switched from AD&D, Gamma World, and Star Frontiers.

[NomGarret]

I like this idea, but if I used this test I never would have switched from AD&D, Gamma World, and Star Frontiers.

I didn’t switch right away. I switched when I could play warlocks and goliaths.

[stack]

One of my biggest concerns is that non-casters lack engaging mechanics. Obviously over time there will be more interesting stuff, but I don't want to wait 5 years for fun things to slip into a player companion. As it stands, is there any reason not to multiclass into caster? I can build a more mechanically engaging character at level 1 with Spheres of Might than at level 5 with PF2.

[Alexvrahr]

Yes, class feats often are useful. I tried my hand making a rogue who uses poisons and he was going to need his class feats until level 8 at least. After that I guess he could multiclass.

There may be other classes for which multiclassing is a no-brainer but rogue isn't one.

[Kyrell1978]

I didn’t switch right away. I switched when I could play warlocks and goliaths.

That's a fair point then.

[Chromascope3D]

One of my biggest concerns is that non-casters lack engaging mechanics. Obviously over time there will be more interesting stuff, but I don't want to wait 5 years for fun things to slip into a player companion. As it stands, is there any reason not to multiclass into caster? I can build a more mechanically engaging character at level 1 with Spheres of Might than at level 5 with PF2.

Yeah, but is it really fair to compare the vanilla experience of a new edition with third party content from the old one? It's not like vanilla Pathfinder 1.0 had the most engaging martial options either.

[RedWarlock]

Yeah, but is it really fair to compare the vanilla experience of a new edition with third party content from the old one? It's not like vanilla Pathfinder 1.0 had the most engaging martial options either.

No, using SoM isn't fair, but this shouldn't be as stripped-down as PF 1.0, either. It should be contrasted against 1st-party PF 1e as it stands now (1.9?), refining the best of the mechanics across the board. Ideally, The Paizo devs should be learning from what martials can do across the board in the current PF rule-set, and isolating those best options into the refined 2e version. (And, to be honest, if SoM is that widely known, they should at least be looking at what it does that they don't, and considering those options in their own flavor. I don't know that it is, though.)

[Peat]

Yeah, but is it really fair to compare the vanilla experience of a new edition with third party content from the old one? It's not like vanilla Pathfinder 1.0 had the most engaging martial options either.

Maybe it isn't fair, but the point of a new edition is to fix the mistakes of the first and distill the bloat down to the best, not to repeat the mistakes and leave the best behind.

Arguably its got worse. PF1 Paladin is a pretty fun class straight outta core and I'm hearing nothing but negativity about the PF2 Paladin. Options to make any martial work around TWF or Reach and AoO have gone. PF1 Ranger had some good switching hitting options right out of the gate but are now more focused on a single mode of combat - plus your Animal Companion is no longer free, but sucking up a bunch of feats to prevent you from being good as well.

Maybe I'm missing something here. But if I am, its not very obvious.

[Alent]

Just a point for those predicting doom for Paizo. Maybe, just maybe, there are a number of people like me out there who do not like 3.P, liked 5e, and see lots of potential in P2.

...

The future is opening new markets. There probably isn’t a future in tripling down in a rule set customer base established almost two decades ago.

A future is definitely to be found by opening new markets, but this doesn't open a new market. They're telling PFS players to tear up their character sheets effective Aug 2019, they're avoiding technology, they're making a game that can't realistically be used by celebrity streamers/youtubers due to the complexity being viewer-unfriendly, they're not introducing backwards compatibility features for 3e/4e/5e... The game isn't creating a market, it isn't targeting an existing market, and is firing their current market.

I forecast doom and gloom because this is clearly financial suicide.


Because almost no gaming companies are good at technology. It's not like their competitors have super amazing online infrastructure, and the fact that they have a SRD is actually a big step for them relative to the competition. If I my speculate as to why, I'm pretty sure it's because they're in the same city as Microsoft but can't offer as much money as Microsoft.

Ironically, being in the same city as MS means there's a lot of smaller tech companies available, close at hand. It should be easier and cheaper for them to move on getting an app built... Even in the worst case, Indian outsourced software development is just a skype away, so... yeah... I have no idea what keeps them from getting into the tech side of things.

Like, for me, an interactive html5 character sheet is my current code goal, and only my free time and relative inexperience at writing an interactive web app stands in the way. (Javascript always behaves differently than I expect. infernal language. At least I finally get some of the object structure now...)


You could move on to a more refined version of 3e. Really, that's what 4e should have been. Bring in splat classes that people like (ToB, fixed list casters, Warlock), kick out or upgrade some bad core classes, and tweak the rules to make the game run smoother. You don't need a radical departure like Bounded Accuracy to make progress, and in many ways radically restructuring the system isn't progress. A van isn't "more advanced" than a car, it's a different product. You could add things like Skill Challenges, or more developed mass battle and economics rules as well. That's the way forward -- making your product better instead of repeatedly turning it inside out.

Agreed. This is the approach I've more or less adopted- start with 2 mostly new classes for every subsystem, picking subsystems based on what has distinct flavor and is fun. I fear I may have gotten too aggressive with some things (skills, mainly), but all in all I'm really feeling good about the foundation of what I've been working on.

I also agree that bounded accuracy isn't progress. I've joked for years about playing "the crazy cat lady"- an elderly elven lady with her entire WBL sunk into 5 cp housecats and her base class solely picked for handle animal and any beneficial AoE buffs it can provide. 5e is the only system where the stupid idea is actually viable all the way to level 20. Bounded Accuracy is like the inverse law of bad critical failure systems. You know, that old razor about 100 fighters attacking target dummies? :smallsigh:


So, how many fantasy-heartbreaker homebrewers out there are reading these threads and comparing the complaints against their own mechanics? “My rules do that better. And I avoided that problem by.. And this thing you just described? I do that!” (At least in theory..)

My own system favors the “complex build, simple in-play” style. It tries to marry the complex powers structure of 4e with more in-depth build mechanics like 3e. Really need to buckle down and get a few more playable classes going, and throw it up for review somewhere...

I did that during the blog posts at first, then I realized how messed up Resonance was going to be from just what they'd revealed to that point and just... stopped to go work on my own system because every new blog post just became more and more disinteresting.

My own system's gotten to where I need to do some proper writeups on a few more recent changes, proofread a bunch of stuff, then start posting the system to the homebrew section here. I really need the playtest help since I get to play so rarely. (Starting up a Playtest game with friends in a week or so, we'll see how well that holds up, I guess.)


PF2e does occupy a weird spot where it's different enough to offend long-time fans, but not different enough to really fix things. And then some decisions it makes are just puzzling.

This is a pretty apt summation. I am still trying to figure out why the developers of Heroic Fantasy Simulators are hell bent on making games where a zerg swarm of dirt farmers are superior to a few good heroes. It's like suddenly everyone went wrong genre savvy on us.


Yeah, but is it really fair to compare the vanilla experience of a new edition with third party content from the old one? It's not like vanilla Pathfinder 1.0 had the most engaging martial options either.

Vanilla Pathfinder had a compatibility doc for adapting 3.5 stuff to it, so this is an unfair comparison given that you could easily have all your old characters, complete with PrCs right there in PF with minimal effort. This has no such feature because the system is so deliberately incompatible. This makes the decision to sunset first edition pathfinder in PFS all the more glaring...

[Florian]

Maybe I'm missing something here. But if I am, its not very obvious.

Yes, very much so. I said it before: The PF1 model had the whole combat styles lumped into feats, not really into class features, so the various "standard blocks" are practically identical in PF1, with only slight variations - Power Attack/Furious Focus/Critical Focus tends to be more or less the same, the difference between Smite Evil, Rage and Weapon Training is only between various degrees of burst damage vs. static damage, that´s basically it.

That is gone with PF2. Instead of having those standard combat styles in feats, but all class features for free, now you have to build your style from class and multiclass features, with more or less all classes having roughly the same number of slots to do so.

[Peat]

Yes, very much so. I said it before: The PF1 model had the whole combat styles lumped into feats, not really into class features, so the various "standard blocks" are practically identical in PF1, with only slight variations - Power Attack/Furious Focus/Critical Focus tends to be more or less the same, the difference between Smite Evil, Rage and Weapon Training is only between various degrees of burst damage vs. static damage, that´s basically it.

That is gone with PF2. Instead of having those standard combat styles in feats, but all class features for free, now you have to build your style from class and multiclass features, with more or less all classes having roughly the same number of slots to do so.

I don't see how that addresses my criticism that Martial classes are able to select from less options than before and feel less powerful.

In any case, I got all of that. It's abundantly clear how they've changed things in the way you describe. What isn't clear is how its a good thing that improves Martials.

[Kish]

"you have to build your style from class and multiclass features, with more or less all classes having roughly the same number of slots to do so" is giving me 4ed flashbacks.

[Ignimortis]

Yes, very much so. I said it before: The PF1 model had the whole combat styles lumped into feats, not really into class features, so the various "standard blocks" are practically identical in PF1, with only slight variations - Power Attack/Furious Focus/Critical Focus tends to be more or less the same, the difference between Smite Evil, Rage and Weapon Training is only between various degrees of burst damage vs. static damage, that´s basically it.

That is gone with PF2. Instead of having those standard combat styles in feats, but all class features for free, now you have to build your style from class and multiclass features, with more or less all classes having roughly the same number of slots to do so.

You know what actually made these things work well and also buffed martials? That's right, Path of War. Your class gets access only to certain disciplines (and they cover basically every single archetype of weapon usage available), but you can switch some of them up and build your own style, while actually having options related to your archetype. Neat, huh?

What I'm dazzled by is that people won't do that, because apparently giving martials powers is "like 4e", and somehow turning everything into AEDU with serial numbers filed off (D&D 5e with at-will, short rest and long rest, which are annoyingly less usable in the end) or giving every class the same progression pattern of "hey, you get class feats...that you trade for class features", which is absolutely not what 4e did.

In fact, so far from what I've seen, PF 2e seems to discard most of the things that are good about PF 1e to try and do its' own thing...which means cribbing the worst parts of 4e and 5e and adding a unique Paizo twist on top, which is rarely for better.

[Morty]

What I'm dazzled by is that people won't do that, because apparently giving martials powers is "like 4e", and somehow turning everything into AEDU with serial numbers filed off (D&D 5e with at-will, short rest and long rest, which are annoyingly less usable in the end) or giving every class the same progression pattern of "hey, you get class feats...that you trade for class features", which is absolutely not what 4e did.


It really isn't what 4E did, because 4E kept feats, powers and class features separate while also front-loading classes and giving them their core features at level 1 - where PF2e has you pay a feat for almost everything or wait several levels. Unless, of course, it's a spell, because you get those same as always.

[stack]

Yeah, but is it really fair to compare the vanilla experience of a new edition with third party content from the old one? It's not like vanilla Pathfinder 1.0 had the most engaging martial options either.

Lack of engaging martial options in core Is a major issue with PF1. Comparing a dedicated 3pp product for a mature system to a playtest for a new system isn't fair either. And credit where it is due, you no longer need two feats before you are automatically punished for tryig a combat manuever (though i have reservations about the new system also).

I was also comparing level 1 to level 5. That number may actually be higher, I haven't done much with PF2 builds. My concern is that the design team doesn't view this kind of thing as an issue. Maybe they are right; people on boards like this are a small percentage of their audience and WotC has no trouble getting people to play champion fighters. I suppose that is good for 3pp writers, but I rather have the core system be more engaging.

Edit - as to the comment regarding if Paizo is aware of SoM, I would expect they know the name (purely because one of the authors of SoM works at Paizo now) but looking at the playtest I doubt the design philosophy weighs heavily on them. I don't know how many of them spend time reading 3pp. There is a lot of it.

[Caelestion]

Despite the fact that I have never played 4th Ed and never wish to, I will still argue that it did a few things right. "That's like 4th Edition" shouldn't automatically be a black mark against something.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by RedWarlock
…fantasy-heartbreaker homebrewers….

...What is a “fantasy-heartbreaker” homebrewer? Not sure what this is supposed to mean.


Originally Posted by Morty
PF2e does occupy a weird spot where it's different enough to offend long-time fans, but not different enough to really fix things.

For my part I’m not offended by P2E, just utterly disinterested in learning what amounts to a new system. I’ve only fully switched over to Pathfinder a couple of years ago, and that’s all the rules change I have time for. If P2E genuinely doesn’t address the issues from 3.5/PF in any meaningful way, as seems to be the consensus so far, then I have absolutely no time or money to spend on it.

I don’t hate Paizo for this, but it pretty much ensures I won’t be sending them any more money. Nothing personal. I asked for a PF Spell Compendium and got nothing but silence, so I’ll just muddle through with the books that I have.


Originally Posted by Alent
I've joked for years about playing "the crazy cat lady"- an elderly elven lady with her entire WBL sunk into 5 cp housecats and her base class solely picked for handle animal and any beneficial AoE buffs it can provide.

O gawd. Now I want this in my campaign.

.

[Florian]

@Palanan:

That's basically someone rewriting his personal favorite system to include house rules and what the person thinks would be the "best" update options, often without any sense of compromise, ie. 3.Florian.

[RedWarlock]

Despite the fact that I have never played 4th Ed and never wish to, I will still argue that it did a few things right. "That's like 4th Edition" shouldn't automatically be a black mark against something.

I strongly agree. 4th edition might not have been to many people's taste, but some people go around acting like the system murdered their loved ones, strangled their dog, and burned down their home, and its existence was a great trauma to their lives.

I really enjoyed the system, and I saw some of the steps it took as natural progressions from late-3e concepts. Putting everyone on the same power-gain progression was an attempt to put an even distribution of power between the different classes, and while it had flaws, it was open to refinement (like Essentials).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Florian
That's basically someone rewriting his personal favorite system to include house rules and what the person thinks would be the "best" update options, often without any sense of compromise, ie. 3.Florian.

Okay, thanks. 3.Florian would be interesting to see.

:smalltongue:

[Ignimortis]

Despite the fact that I have never played 4th Ed and never wish to, I will still argue that it did a few things right. "That's like 4th Edition" shouldn't automatically be a black mark against something.


I strongly agree. 4th edition might not have been to many people's taste, but some people go around acting like the system murdered their loved ones, strangled their dog, and burned down their home, and its existence was a great trauma to their lives.

I really enjoyed the system, and I saw some of the steps it took as natural progressions from late-3e concepts. Putting everyone on the same power-gain progression was an attempt to put an even distribution of power between the different classes, and while it had flaws, it was open to refinement (like Essentials).

Oh, absolutely. It could've been better, but it also could've been worse. What I dislike is taking 4e's concepts (or any system's concepts) and then making them actively worse or more annoying while retaining just enough to make the cribbing noticeable.

For instance, 5e basically has the AED part of the AEDU system down pat...except it's at-will, short rest, long rest, and short rests are hard to come by in some games, while encounter powers just reset each combat. Yes, 4e was far more "gamist". But for some mechanics that meant good execution. The major problem with 4e I have is that everyone's on the same progression and same power structure. Yes, that balances things out. But it also makes all classes very similar to one another in some sense. Some differentiation might've helped immensely.

[Kyrell1978]

Oh, absolutely. It could've been better, but it also could've been worse. What I dislike is taking 4e's concepts (or any system's concepts) and then making them actively worse or more annoying while retaining just enough to make the cribbing noticeable.

For instance, 5e basically has the AED part of the AEDU system down pat...except it's at-will, short rest, long rest, and short rests are hard to come by in some games, while encounter powers just reset each combat. Yes, 4e was far more "gamist". But for some mechanics that meant good execution. The major problem with 4e I have is that everyone's on the same progression and same power structure. Yes, that balances things out. But it also makes all classes very similar to one another in some sense. Some differentiation might've helped immensely.

4th ed really did murder my family though. :smallfrown:

[zergling.exe]

Oh, absolutely. It could've been better, but it also could've been worse. What I dislike is taking 4e's concepts (or any system's concepts) and then making them actively worse or more annoying while retaining just enough to make the cribbing noticeable.

For instance, 5e basically has the AED part of the AEDU system down pat...except it's at-will, short rest, long rest, and short rests are hard to come by in some games, while encounter powers just reset each combat. Yes, 4e was far more "gamist". But for some mechanics that meant good execution. The major problem with 4e I have is that everyone's on the same progression and same power structure. Yes, that balances things out. But it also makes all classes very similar to one another in some sense. Some differentiation might've helped immensely.

4e encounter powers require a 5 minute rest to recover. The may be called "encounter" but that doesn't mean they automatically reset each encounter. Though I believe 5e has 1 hour short rest periods? 5 mins is a lot better.

[Kish]

Isn't 4ed also the edition that introduces short rests? Not that I know what they reset, offhand.

[darkdragoon]

on being different:
I do think ultimately you have to step away from the old clunker. But of course, most of the alternatives didn't want to and largely still don't. They just want that ONE WEIRD TRICK. And they've had a publisher that has been willing to put out its own comfort food and reheat leftovers with maybe some odd dishes from the many freelancers and hobbyists that can now churn out "official enough" material.

5e has taken this weird sort of almost minimalist position to where it seems like they could have Mike and a couple hand puppets put out one book a year as long as it's OKish. Perhaps 4e's biggest sin was not waiting until after Hasbro decided that anything beyond Transformers, MLP and MTG is house money anyway.


Crit spec:
It looks like everybody that actually cares gets enough proficiency to get by if they can survive to level 3. With a pretty cheap trinket in case of "you picked axes and swords, so of course you roll nothing but spears."

[zergling.exe]

Isn't 4ed also the edition that introduces short rests? Not that I know what they reset, offhand.

Technically ToB introduced them, with 1 full minute of no combat being the time it takes to recover maneuvers between back-to-back fights.

End of the Encounter: When an encounter ends, a martial adept automatically recovers all expended maneuvers. Even a few moments out of combat is sufficient to refresh all maneuvers expended in the previous battle. In the case of a long, drawn-out series of fights, or if an adept is out of combat entirely, assume that if a character makes no attacks of any kind, initiates no new maneuvers, and is not targeted by any enemy attacks for 1 full minute, he can recover all expended maneuvers. If a character can’t avoid attacking or being attacked for 1 minute, he can’t automatically recover his maneuvers and must use special actions to do so instead.

4e codified the term and made them recover encounter powers and hit points by spending healing surges.

[Kyrell1978]

Technically ToB introduced them, with 1 full minute of no combat being the time it takes to recover maneuvers between back-to-back fights.


4e codified the term and made them recover encounter powers and hit points by spending healing surges.

Good Lord, I had forgotten about the healing surges, I wasn't a big fan of those.

[Morty]

As far as I can tell, short rests were lengthened to an hour in 5E because people complained about them being too unrealistic, too easy, etc. So it's kind of emblematic of how far 5E was truly allowed to go. Of course, PF2E seems to be doing its best to avoid any kind of per-encounter mechanics, even if they crop up sometimes.

[Raven777]

I strongly agree. 4th edition might not have been to many people's taste, but some people go around acting like the system murdered their loved ones, strangled their dog, and burned down their home, and its existence was a great trauma to their lives.

I really enjoyed the system, and I saw some of the steps it took as natural progressions from late-3e concepts. Putting everyone on the same power-gain progression was an attempt to put an even distribution of power between the different classes, and while it had flaws, it was open to refinement (like Essentials).Lot's of people's problem with 4e is that it stands as the poster boy for the "MMORPG-ization" of D&D. The ironning out of all the deeply engaging wrinkles, crevices, dead ends, subsystems and, dare I say, exploits, in the name of *massive finger quotes* Balance. In hindsight, that's also something Paizo's Pathfinder is guilty of through another vector, that being literal frequent and continuous code rules patches.

[NomGarret]

Lot's of people's problem with 4e is that it stands as the poster boy for the "MMORPG-ization" of D&D. The ironning out of all the deeply engaging wrinkles, crevices, dead ends, subsystems and, dare I say, exploits, in the name of *massive finger quotes* Balance. In hindsight, that's also something Paizo's Pathfinder is guilty of through another vector, that being literal frequent and continuous code rules patches.

Which is another instance of criticism on a macro level which, while perfectly valid, shouldn’t invalidate every smaller decision that made up that composite. I hope that we can view things like feats not being unnecessarily long chains as a decision of its own without “4e ergo bad.”

[Kish]

The only information I see encoded in "feats not being unnecessarily long chains" is that the speaker considers it superior to something else. Not a good match for the appeal to objective phrasing.

[Alexvrahr]

D&D 4e did manage to lose more than 90% of the D&D 3.5 player base so there's a lot of blame to spread around. I don't think it was any one thing which made it fail which makes that worse. It does make any innovation they introduced suspect, no tho' not necessarily bad.

In the specific case of different class paths being distinguished from each other by class feats (PF2)/class powers (4e) chosen, yes there's a parallel, and I hope there will be a retraining option later to let you back up decisions which aren't working out, but it doesn't feel like any sort of gamebreaker to me.

[deuterio12]

D&D 4e did manage to lose more than 90% of the D&D 3.5 player base so there's a lot of blame to spread around. I don't think it was any one thing which made it fail which makes that worse. It does make any innovation they introduced suspect, no tho' not necessarily bad.

Do remember that 4e failed not only because of the game rules themselves but also because of many horrible business/marketing decisions:
-No free srd (which was supposed to be replaced by an online subscription system that ended up never being completed).
-No OGL meaning virtually all 3rd party companies jumped ship, that's the reason Paizo decided to go with Pathfinder, as trying to "update" to 4e would've been financial suicide.
-As 4e was previewed, the wotc devs started insulting 3rd edition left, right and center, including how you should get rid of all your previous edition books and never look back, including the rewarding of people who bashed previous editions (remember 4vengers?)

Paizo doesn't seem to be doing any of the above at least.

[Ignimortis]

4e encounter powers require a 5 minute rest to recover. The may be called "encounter" but that doesn't mean they automatically reset each encounter. Though I believe 5e has 1 hour short rest periods? 5 mins is a lot better.

Huh. My memory must be fuzzy, then again, I didn't play much of 4e. I think we just waived that rule about 5 minutes, because there were no encounters that had a break less than 5 minutes between them.

5e's short rests, though, are the opposite - there are almost no cases where you can take an hour for short rest but can't afford eight hours for a long rest, unless specifically enforced by the DM with a timed mission or something.

[Serafina]

Lack of engaging martial options in core Is a major issue with PF1. Comparing a dedicated 3pp product for a mature system to a playtest for a new system isn't fair either. And credit where it is due, you no longer need two feats before you are automatically punished for tryig a combat manuever (though i have reservations about the new system also).I'm sorry, but in many ways, it IS a fair comparison.
Because Paizo has been doing this for a decade or so now. And they have experience with three previous editions, two of which they've created.

At this point, they should be well capable of not making basic mistakes, such as making some classes almost completely useless outside of combat. They've seen the effects more than often enough, they've made more than enough attempts to fix it on their own, there have been more than enough D&D-related fixes to that very problem they can get inspired by.
At this point, they should be quite capable of including "advanced" systems in their core content, such as "nice things for martials". There have been dozens of examples, they did some on their own - and sure that was in a different system, but a lot of that design experience should still translate.
At this point, they should be capable of learning from their mistakes. And hey, in some cases they are - spellcasting seems a lot more balanced, though in a lot of cases at the cost of being less fun - but their pace is positively glacial.

[T.G. Oskar]

Yes, very much so. I said it before: The PF1 model had the whole combat styles lumped into feats, not really into class features, so the various "standard blocks" are practically identical in PF1, with only slight variations - Power Attack/Furious Focus/Critical Focus tends to be more or less the same, the difference between Smite Evil, Rage and Weapon Training is only between various degrees of burst damage vs. static damage, that´s basically it.

That is gone with PF2. Instead of having those standard combat styles in feats, but all class features for free, now you have to build your style from class and multiclass features, with more or less all classes having roughly the same number of slots to do so.

I'm not sure if I spoke about this on the earlier (fused) thread, but this is a good moment to point out an observation about that.

Yes, PF1e did "feat chains", where you had to spend up to 4 feats to develop the proper traits of the combat styles. While they were largely undefined, you got which feats helped which combat style: Weapon Finesse (and to an extent Combat Expertise) for Fencing, Power Attack for 2H, Imp. Unarmed Strike for Unarmed, Imp. Shield Bash and Shield Focus for Sword & Board, Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot for every Ranged weapon, and so on. The more feats you devoted into that combat style, the better you're supposed to be in that style - adding, say, Furious Focus to Power Attack meant you hit better when using PA, to give an example. The key thing to understand here is that, while Martials were locked into spending a ton of feats for a combat style, they had at least the illusion of choice. You wanted a Paladin that could wield two weapons? Sure - you had to spend points on Dex, which made an already MAD class even more MADant (not MADder because you don't say "dependantder", right?), but you could go for the TWF feat chain. Or, take TWF and go Shield Master, and fully establish as a SnB character. Was it optimal? Not really, but it could still work nonetheless. Some classes had their fighting styles baked in: Monks were pretty much locked into Unarmed combat, whereas the Ranger had its choice of combat styles but worked better as a Ranged character. Others had it implicitly: Barbarians worked best with a 2H weapon, Paladins preferred Mounted Combat because their Divine Bond gave them a sweet mount, and so forth. Still, even if unoptimal, you could still do a different build, and see how well you could make it work. Archetypes helped with that. The Fighter was unique in that it was meant to be capable of truly mastering all combat styles - Two-Handed Fighter for Two-Handed combat, Shield Fighter for Sword & Board, and Pit Fighter for Unarmed (IIRC), for example.

PF2e outright removed that illusion, and shoehorned the combat styles they consider iconic for each class. Fighters have a wider variety of access to combat styles, but notice how the Paladin is either THF (Blade Ally), Shield (Shield Ally) or Mounted Combat (Steed Ally); Rangers can dip into TWF, but they are mostly Ranged. Rogues, even though they aren't meant to be focused on combat, are pretty much locked into Finesse combat. Barbarians are pretty much meant for THF. If you want an alternative, at least in core, you can't - you can't make a Paladin excel in Ranged weapons as a Fighter would, because the only true advantage you get is adding properties to your weapon. Retributive Strike and its advantages can't be done with Ranged weapons, because of their Trigger, so you're losing on their only fixed class feature, and potential improvements thanks to the Blade Ally feat chain. At least in PF1e, if you wanted to go Ranged, there was the illusion of an option (just get PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot and a good bow) which got expanded a bit more (the Divine Hunter, for example). Not only does that illusion, which is a big selling point*, was removed, but they've created a new illusion of having a ton of class features to choose, when in reality they just took those packages you mention and forced them into certain classes, locking them from variety - and all in an effort to protect the niche of the Fighter of being "best Martial class".

To stress that point - consider one of the three combat styles given to the Paladin (Shield). In PF1e, that's not really the most viable option, even though a Sword & Board Paladin is almost textbook in how iconic it is - the ability score and feat requirement are just prohibitive for them, and locks them from feats that expand the utility of their class features or grant more options (Unsanctioned Knowledge, the Mercy feat chain, etc.) People that move from PF1e to PF2e might feel a bit jarred to see that their favorite builds might not work as well anymore, because the combat style they relied on doesn't really work. And even then, you can't use a shield as a weapon, unlike in PF1e, unless you're a Fighter. And...even then... Rogues unable to access TWF outside of Multiclass feats, Rangers being locked to two combat styles rather than experimenting...the execution is not the best.

*: Here, I must refer to 5e. No matter what you think about it, it's selling well. Real well. One of the reasons I consider it sells so well is because it caters to the feel, not necessarily the math. 5e bounded accuracy is extremely swingy, and with Advantage/Disadvantage is even swingier; you can argue their math is not a strong point. However, it feels like you're playing a simpler 3e, and doesn't feel like you're playing 4e, so it sells. That sense of the game you're playing is one of their bigger selling points (that, plus marketing, plus taking a cue from Paizo and creating robust adventure modules, plus brand loyalty, plus simplicity in mechanics, makes it a hot seller). PF2e doesn't feel that much like Pathfinder, and that feeling of unfamiliarity might alienate their customers. As I've ended up thinking about 4e - maybe 4e might have sold a lot more if it wasn't branded "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition", but a whole new game that only superficially resembled it.

[OgresAreCute]

even more MADant (not MADder because you don't say "dependantder", right?)

Multiple Ability Dependantant :smallamused:

[khadgar567]

I don't understand you guys as every one of you try to toot your own horn about how perfect edition will be but none of you sit the f down and say keep this, this and this solve following problems with these options from those companies. No you gents just enter hulk smash mode and try to preemptively burn the product that basicly came past month. Are we in that much of burn the witch with out trial mode. Calm down and start putting realy usefull feedback will ya like what parts of first edition you realy like to keep( mine the whole class design) what new concepts they need to introduce( for me just gave green light to sphere system).

[Rhedyn]

I don't understand you guys as every one of you try to toot your own horn about how perfect edition will be but none of you sit the f down and say keep this, this and this solve following problems with these options from those companies. No you gents just enter hulk smash mode and try to preemptively burn the product that basicly came past month. Are we in that much of burn the witch with out trial mode. Calm down and start putting realy usefull feedback will ya like what parts of first edition you realy like to keep( mine the whole class design) what new concepts they need to introduce( for me just gave green light to sphere system).
It doesn't matter how useful our feedback is, Paizo actively feels harassed by feedback much less will actually listen to it.

I'm not sure how to fix 3.5, but PF2e isn't doing it. 3.5's biggest problems are how hard it is to run. The balance aspects are only relevant in comparison to how hard it is to run. But it's only hard to run because everyone can do cool and amazing things. PF2e largely solved "that problem" by making a really boring game.

Perhaps they didn't really need to fix 3.5. They just needed to keep supporting it. I know our group dropped all plans for Pathfinder campaigns with the 2e announcement because we know no more substantial content was going to come out for Pathfinder and the Shifter was really disappointing.

It's sad that Paizo decided to kill their game and stopped putting in any effort. They may have won back some of the 5e crowd after they got burnt out. But they got scared after 2 years of 5e success and basically abandoned Pathfinder to work on 2e.

I do not have confidence in this company anymore.

[Florian]

Oh, noes! Another company drops 3.5 for good and doesn't cart about supporting a 20 year old product anymore! The world will end!

And this is why the folks over at Paizo will prolly ignore a lot of feedback, because right now, it´s only trolling against any progress.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Alexvrahr
D&D 4e did manage to lose more than 90% of the D&D 3.5 player base so there's a lot of blame to spread around.

Are there any surveys or other information to support this particular number? Or is that just your guess?

I’m certainly not arguing that 4E lost a great many 3.5 players, just interested in whether there’s any precise information on the numbers involved.


Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar
…Rangers can dip into TWF, but they are mostly Ranged.

Which is a little ironic, or maybe just misguided, because the original iconic ranger, Aragorn, was the inspiration for TWF and hardly ever used a bow.

Forcing rangers to be ranged sounds like a terrible design decision. One more reason to breeze right past this edition.

[Morty]

Ironically enough, a level 1 ranger using a longbow is going to have to pick either an animal companion or the very bad Monster Hunter feat. Fighters get Point Blank Shot, but rangers do not, at least not on level 1.

[stack]

I'm sorry, but in many ways, it IS a fair comparison.
Because Paizo has been doing this for a decade or so now. And they have experience with three previous editions, two of which they've created.

At this point, they should be well capable of not making basic mistakes, such as making some classes almost completely useless outside of combat. They've seen the effects more than often enough, they've made more than enough attempts to fix it on their own, there have been more than enough D&D-related fixes to that very problem they can get inspired by.
At this point, they should be quite capable of including "advanced" systems in their core content, such as "nice things for martials". There have been dozens of examples, they did some on their own - and sure that was in a different system, but a lot of that design experience should still translate.
At this point, they should be capable of learning from their mistakes. And hey, in some cases they are - spellcasting seems a lot more balanced, though in a lot of cases at the cost of being less fun - but their pace is positively glacial.

I'm not convinced that the design team agrees with me that the problems I see are problems. If they have had 'two years of internal playtests', then I suspect they are content with the general place martial characters are in. I expect they simply want a different game than I do. Oh well.

[zlefin]

I don't understand you guys as every one of you try to toot your own horn about how perfect edition will be but none of you sit the f down and say keep this, this and this solve following problems with these options from those companies. No you gents just enter hulk smash mode and try to preemptively burn the product that basicly came past month. Are we in that much of burn the witch with out trial mode. Calm down and start putting realy usefull feedback will ya like what parts of first edition you realy like to keep( mine the whole class design) what new concepts they need to introduce( for me just gave green light to sphere system).

I'm not seeing wha tyou're seeing; I've seen tons of useful feedback in this thread and its predecessor.

and it's not hulk smash mode if it's objectively bad, or there are numerous serious problems, which are detailed.

[Florian]

I'm not seeing wha tyou're seeing; I've seen tons of useful feedback in this thread and its predecessor.

and it's not hulk smash mode if it's objectively bad, or there are numerous serious problems, which are detailed.

I'm seeing a lot of 3.5 grognards, some of them not even playing PF1, talking about 3.5 and not about PF2. That is getting so annoying I actually hope for folks like DSP to come out and announce their own kickstarter, just to get rid of the whole fans.

[deuterio12]

Are there any surveys or other information to support this particular number? Or is that just your guess?

I’m certainly not arguing that 4E lost a great many 3.5 players, just interested in whether there’s any precise information on the numbers involved.


It's probably impossible to get hard precise numbers, but basically before 4e D&D PHBs sold in the order of millions (something like 200k per year between 3rd and 3.5), while 4e PHB sold hundreds of thousands total, aka a whole order of magnitude lower. And 4e didn't even have a free srd. That was probably the main reason why wotc started to get desperate with stuff like making magic missile auto-hit again then just announced a new edition.

[Rhedyn]

Oh, noes! Another company drops 3.5 for good and doesn't cart about supporting a 20 year old product anymore! The world will end!

And this is why the folks over at Paizo will prolly ignore a lot of feedback, because right now, it´s only trolling against any progress.*rolls around in Savage Worlds supplements in delirious euphoria

I'm sorry what were you going on about? PF2e is a great thing. It convinced me to discover better systems with just its announcement. (Well that and 5e being a hot mess of half baked ideas)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by deuterio12
It's probably impossible to get hard precise numbers….

I know in some cases the numbers are out there. A couple of years ago one of the Paizo blogs mentioned that the first print run of the Advanced Class Guide was 100K copies. There was also a longer blog entry discussing the economics of printing hardcovers, planning for the initial pulse of interest and gradual tail-off for each of the supplements while relying on “evergreens” like the CRB for a steady income stream.

I wish I could find those blog entries now—they were really interesting and gave some good insight into the logistics of game publishing. There has to be more information like that out there, for 3.X as well as Pathfinder.



Originally Posted by Florian
I'm seeing a lot of 3.5 grognards, some of them not even playing PF1….

At this point I’m fully invested in Pathfinder, to the point I rarely even look at my 3.5 books.

So, can I be a P1 grognard? Or better yet, a P1E fighter?

:smalltongue:

.

[NomGarret]

The only information I see encoded in "feats not being unnecessarily long chains" is that the speaker considers it superior to something else. Not a good match for the appeal to objective phrasing.

Oh, I make no pretense of objectivity. We can be as subjective as we want about which decisions are good or bad. I'm just hoping we can reach those opinions on their own merits and without unnecessary guilt by association.

[Ignimortis]

I'm seeing a lot of 3.5 grognards, some of them not even playing PF1, talking about 3.5 and not about PF2. That is getting so annoying I actually hope for folks like DSP to come out and announce their own kickstarter, just to get rid of the whole fans.

Not sure I'm following your logic right now. There's a game called Pathfinder (1st edition now) that is a spiritual successor to D&D 3.5. Therefore, when we're talking about a 2nd edition of whatever is Pathfinder is supposed to be, we can compare it to 1st edition and D&D 3.5, because that's where we started.

PF 2e is not going to be judged on its' own merits, because we already have an established standard which is still relevant to the discussion. And so far it seems that PF 2e isn't fixing the problems largely perceived by the 3.PF community in the earlier material.

[Kish]

Oh, I make no pretense of objectivity. We can be as subjective as we want about which decisions are good or bad. I'm just hoping we can reach those opinions on their own merits and without unnecessary guilt by association.
Again: Fix the beam in your eye.

[Chromascope3D]

Which is a little ironic, or maybe just misguided, because the original iconic ranger, Aragorn, was the inspiration for TWF and hardly ever used a bow.

Forcing rangers to be ranged sounds like a terrible design decision. One more reason to breeze right past this edition.

I think Aragorn actually two-handed a bastard sword. Legolas was the one who switched between bows and TWF.

...Which is why it's silly that Ranger once again has no THF options :p

[Kish]

Indeed. Dual-wielding rangers came from a much less noble source than Aragorn: Drizzt Do'Urden, who dual-wielded because it was a drow fighting style, and whose ranger teacher was puzzled that he would fight with two long blades without getting himself tangled up in them.

[Peat]

I'm not convinced that the design team agrees with me that the problems I see are problems. If they have had 'two years of internal playtests', then I suspect they are content with the general place martial characters are in. I expect they simply want a different game than I do. Oh well.

At which point, it is a fair comparison because we're not necessarily talking about Knowledge so much as Intent. If Paizo wanted a PF2 that gave more power to Martial classes, we'd be seeing that.

Instead they seem to want less power for all. Which sucks. Maybe it turns out that after the nerfbat's been applied all round they come out ahead on the game, but I really doubt that.

[catman04221985]

From pg. 3 of the playtest- Using these playtest rules, you can build any
kind of sword and sorcery story imaginable. So to me most of the nerfs and features are doing as advertised. But I quite enjoy DSP, and SOP/SOM.

[Morty]

I think Aragorn actually two-handed a bastard sword. Legolas was the one who switched between bows and TWF.

...Which is why it's silly that Ranger once again has no THF options :p

This is one of the reasons I'm puzzled by people who talk about how PF2e is such a radical change from PF1e/3.5. It's not radical if they're still holding on to the silliest traditions.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Chromascope3D
I think Aragorn actually two-handed a bastard sword.

He did, but he also fought the Ringwraiths at Weathertop “with a flaming brand of wood in either hand.” Pretty sure I read somewhere, possibly an old Dragon article, that this was the original genesis for the TWF style.

[Florian]

He did, but he also fought the Ringwraiths at Weathertop “with a flaming brand of wood in either hand.” Pretty sure I read somewhere, possibly an old Dragon article, that this was the original genesis for the TWF style.

That would be more than laughable.

[Rhedyn]

From pg. 3 of the playtest- Using these playtest rules, you can build any
kind of sword and sorcery story imaginable. So to me most of the nerfs and features are doing as advertised. But I quite enjoy DSP, and SOP/SOM.Haha they do not even know their genre.

[Kish]

Just out of curiosity, what are you implying the genre should be, there? Sorcery and More Sorcery?

[Rynjin]

Just out of curiosity, what are you implying the genre should be, there? Sorcery and More Sorcery?

High Fantasy. They're distinct genres.

Sword and Sorcery is the likes of Conan as far as genre conventions; relatively small scale stories that do involve magic, but generally in a more diminished role as far as story (sword and sorcery tales are often, but not always, low magic settings as well).

High fantasy tends to be higher stakes, and often focus on globally (or AT LEAST nationally) important events. While not always high magic (A Song of Ice and Fire is a good example of a setting that is Low Magic, High Fantasy) they do tend to be.

D&D has long skewed toward the latter. Even 5e, which is relatively low power, tends to want the PCs to face off against enemies that threaten the fate of countries or the whole world (and is where the system math starts to clash with the tone of the officially published modules and previous events of the Forgotten Realms).

[Caelestion]

The stories of Conan, Fafhrd the Grey Mouser and so on were some of the main sources of inspiration for Gary Gygax. Just because high-level adventures skew towards the grand tales of saving the world doesn't mean that all adventures are like that by any means.

[catman04221985]

Just out of curiosity, what are you implying the genre should be, there? Sorcery and More Sorcery?
I prefer I guess high fantasy. I enjoy doing what I believe as cool and impactful things. For example As a fighter I like in SOM Around lv 6 I can possibly get a climb speed. I was hope for something like that kind stuff at the latest lv 10. In the playtest its lv 15.

[Rynjin]

The stories of Conan, Fafhrd the Grey Mouser and so on were some of the main sources of inspiration for Gary Gygax. Just because high-level adventures skew towards the grand tales of saving the world doesn't mean that all adventures are like that by any means.

Gary Gygax stopped being the driving force behind D&D almost 40 years ago. The game has evolved, and recent editions have been much higher fantasy oriented in tone and high magic in power level. Changing this isn't necessarily bad, but it is a change, and not one I prefer.

[Cosi]

"you have to build your style from class and multiclass features, with more or less all classes having roughly the same number of slots to do so" is giving me 4ed flashbacks.

And just like 4e, they're making the mistake of eliminating all the things that make classes distinct, but keeping classes. If everyone has unified resource management, there is zero reason for classes to be on rails, and fairly little for them to exist at all (at least, in a form recognizable from PF or 3e).

It's almost like they would have benefited from making their design goals explicit, rather than presenting the rules as fiat acompli.


Lack of engaging martial options in core Is a major issue with PF1. Comparing a dedicated 3pp product for a mature system to a playtest for a new system isn't fair either.

I think it's fair to say that Spheres of Power, or Tome of Battle, or Path of War, or <arbitrary fan fix> is how martials should be done and ask that they have that level of competence. Asking for the level of versatility of a dedicated subsystem is unfair, but it's totally reasonable to ask that there be a martial build on par with what you can do with access to all of PF 1e. A new edition is supposed to be a refinement of the best supplemental material, so it's reasonable to expect that there will be some gesture towards support for those ideas.


I really enjoyed the system, and I saw some of the steps it took as natural progressions from late-3e concepts. Putting everyone on the same power-gain progression was an attempt to put an even distribution of power between the different classes, and while it had flaws, it was open to refinement (like Essentials).

Unified resource management basically fixes class imbalance by abolishing classes. Like everything else about 4e, its class structure was designed to facilitate shovelware development.


Lot's of people's problem with 4e is that it stands as the poster boy for the "MMORPG-ization" of D&D. The ironning out of all the deeply engaging wrinkles, crevices, dead ends, subsystems and, dare I say, exploits, in the name of *massive finger quotes* Balance. In hindsight, that's also something Paizo's Pathfinder is guilty of through another vector, that being literal frequent and continuous code rules patches.

This idea is honestly the worst thing about 4e. The game is not even balanced (frankly, when you consider its more limited scope, its less balanced than 3e), and yet it's convinced people that the problems the game had were the result of trying to achieve balance. So now people argue about how we shouldn't fix the Fighter in PF, because if we did we'd end up with 4e. That's a laughable argument, and it makes the games its made about worse. And it exists pretty much entirely because of 4e. 4e was such a colossal failure that it destroyed the D&D brand and made other games worse just by existing.


It doesn't matter how useful our feedback is, Paizo actively feels harassed by feedback much less will actually listen to it.

Well, this was exactly what happened with the playtest for 1e, so I'm not sure this should be considered news to anyone. Like, we could have had a system that had the smartest people in the entire (vast) 3e community identifying and fixing balance issues and rules exploits. Instead, those people were chased off quite explicitly and Paizo instead solicited feedback that made them feel good.


I'm not sure how to fix 3.5, but PF2e isn't doing it. 3.5's biggest problems are how hard it is to run. The balance aspects are only relevant in comparison to how hard it is to run. But it's only hard to run because everyone can do cool and amazing things. PF2e largely solved "that problem" by making a really boring game.

My view is that 3e's balance problems are less about what happens in game, and more about what they prevent from happening. There is a really cool, high powered game where choices have epic consequences and shake the setting like something out a of a Zelazny novel, but the classes that aren't casters basically can't do anything in that game. Which means that if anyone wants to play a Barbarian, you can't play that game. A good 3e fix would fix that, by providing more explicit rules for non-combat interactions (something neither PF 1e, 4e, 5e, or PF 2e show any real chance of doing successfully) and by providing non-combat tools to all classes (ditto). Combat imbalance exists, but it's a lot less important, in no small part because even if a Fighter is less valuable to the party than a Wizard, he's still doing something that you can draw a clear through line to "winning" from.


Oh, noes! Another company drops 3.5 for good and doesn't cart about supporting a 20 year old product anymore! The world will end!

And this is why the folks over at Paizo will prolly ignore a lot of feedback, because right now, it´s only trolling against any progress.

Radically transforming the premise of the game isn't progress. Progressive change would be refining PF 1e, not going in a completely different direction. The idea that an edition change is somehow supposed to be a complete ground-up restructuring is something that is unique to D&D, which only came into full effect in the transition to 4e. Before that point in D&D, and at every point in other TTRPGs, a new edition has meant a refinement in the mechanics of the old edition.

Certainly, Paizo is free to throw away the work they've done, the things they build their name on, and the parts of their game the community likes. But don't act like wanting them to not do that is trolling. It's just asking that they treat this edition change like the vast majority of RPG edition changes ever have been treated.


I'm seeing a lot of 3.5 grognards, some of them not even playing PF1, talking about 3.5 and not about PF2. That is getting so annoying I actually hope for folks like DSP to come out and announce their own kickstarter, just to get rid of the whole fans.

It seems to me that the input of people who liked 3e and aren't giving Paizo money right now is more valuable than yours. You already by PF 1e, so they don't need to do anything to get your money. On the other hand, someone (like myself) who felt that PF 1e failed to improve on the mechanics of 3e enough to justify switching could potentially become a new customer if Paizo were to make a PF 2e that actually delivered an experience that was better than, but similar to, 3e + houserules. Really, this is the exact same argument you didn't complain about when it came from the perspective of a 5e player, so maybe there's some additional opinion here you should make explicit. Other than "people who disagree with me are idiots", obviously.

[Rhedyn]

High Fantasy. They're distinct genres.

Sword and Sorcery is the likes of Conan as far as genre conventions; relatively small scale stories that do involve magic, but generally in a more diminished role as far as story (sword and sorcery tales are often, but not always, low magic settings as well).

High fantasy tends to be higher stakes, and often focus on globally (or AT LEAST nationally) important events. While not always high magic (A Song of Ice and Fire is a good example of a setting that is Low Magic, High Fantasy) they do tend to be.

D&D has long skewed toward the latter. Even 5e, which is relatively low power, tends to want the PCs to face off against enemies that threaten the fate of countries or the whole world (and is where the system math starts to clash with the tone of the officially published modules and previous events of the Forgotten Realms).

Even 5e is high fantasy and high magic comparatively.

Like (as but one example) I don't need to worry about my firebolt permanently twisting my flesh as I slowly lose my grasp on either sanity or humanity.

[Midnightninja]

One of my biggest concerns is that non-casters lack engaging mechanics. Obviously over time there will be more interesting stuff, but I don't want to wait 5 years for fun things to slip into a player companion. As it stands, is there any reason not to multiclass into caster? I can build a more mechanically engaging character at level 1 with Spheres of Might than at level 5 with PF2.

^^^So much this.

I recently told a friend about SoM.* He loves monks and grappling (and is frequently disappointed by the options available for either). Compare a PF2e Monk's Level 10 feat
Sleeper Hold (http://pf2playtest.opengamingnetwork.com/classes/Monk/#Sleeper_Hold_Feat_10)
Requirements You have a creature grabbed or restrained.

Attempt an Athletics check to Grapple the creature.

Success The target is sluggish 1 through its next turn.

Critical Success The target falls asleep for 1 minute, though it remains standing and doesn’t drop what it holds.
to the SoM wrestling sphere's Chokehold (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/wrestling#toc2) which is available as early as level 1
Whenever you control a grapple against a creature, that creature is unable to breathe or speak, though they may hold their breath in response to being grappled. Each consecutive round they spend grappled by you counts as a number of rounds equal to your practitioner modifier against the total number of rounds they may hold their breath before they are forced to make Constitution checks to avoid suffocating. For every 4 points of base attack bonus you possess, each passing round counts as an additional +1 round when determining how long they can hold their breath.


I'm not convinced that the design team agrees with me that the problems I see are problems. If they have had 'two years of internal playtests', then I suspect they are content with the general place martial characters are in. I expect they simply want a different game than I do. Oh well.

I came to this realization when looking at the Starfinder soldier last year. They're the only class in the game that doesn't have a class feature related to skills, and god help you if you want to meaningfully contribute outside of DO ALL THE DAMAGE. Upho's concerns in the last thread about about damage myopia was pretty insightful.



From pg. 3 of the playtest- Using these playtest rules, you can build any
kind of sword and sorcery story imaginable. So to me most of the nerfs and features are doing as advertised. But I quite enjoy DSP, and SOP/SOM.


Haha they do not even know their genre.

I think catman hit the nail on the head. They know exactly what genre they're going for. They just very quietly announced it. What catman wrote really helps explain the general scaling back of everything in the playtest.

There's a thread on the paizo forums (surprisingly they're back up and seem to be pretty stable) called What Is The Goal Of This Game? (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs428u9?What-Is-The-Goal-Of-This-Game) (I'm pretty sure started by one of the posters here) with a couple of posts that seem to get to the heart of a lot of the decisions.
From what I can tell, the chief design goal is system stability. Many of the game's pieces are modular in order to prevent a bad piece from infecting the whole game. The modifiers are kept small and few so that the maximum variance on a die roll is known without knowing all possible means of modifying that die roll. Many, though not all, effects reference the same set of debuffs in order to ensure that any character capable of creating an effect creates it identically.

This design goal manages expectations for the designers pretty well. Anyone writing modules or running games can make good guesses on what will be doable by any party.

The lack of complementary abilities stems from this modularity. Do to the need to constrain the range of effects allowable in the game, interactions between abilities need to be tightly controlled. The math needs to be worked through with each additional option allowed and any synergies either plotted out ahead of time or removed. The strongest example of this would be the fighter two weapon fighting feats and the need to untrain agile grace in order to take advantage of two weapon flurry. These things would seem like they aught to work together by their purpose and description, but since they can't if balance is maintained, they won't be allowed to.

Spells are designed in a similar fashion. Restricting the duration of spells, and keeping a high action cost, and reducing the number of spells, means that very few will be active at the same time allowing the design team to treat most spells as existing in a vacuum.

It's all very designer friendly. As a player you're dealing with the leftover math though. All the weird extra bits are left on your end, like sloppy electrical work. Things that aught to be done automatically by the system are left for the player to do in order to give players something to do on level up. That part is a little cynical, there aught to be some other reason but I can't see it.

Maybe I'm wrong. That would be nice.


I think PFS balance has more of an impact on this edition than people realize. It is in this medium that balance concerns and silly builds become the most dramatic since GMs are told they can't improvise anything or change any rules in order to accomodate strange characters. With heavy homgenization and super tight math, that means the quests will always be appropiate and nobody will be able to break the game.

As said earlier in this thread, this is the perfect game for Adventure writers and designers since they don't have to account for anything from the PCs and likely have tables that say exactly what they can and can't do (Without even needing to know what build/composition they have, since it matters little). So, good for them, I guess.

On the other hand, it's not really focused on player ease or fun, since that often goes contrary to the above point. Of course the developers will think it's great even when they playtest, there is a big conflict of interest here after all.

EDIT: It doesn't matter as much for GMs playing APs in a home game, since they can eventually figure out what to do before the party starts getting too silly. Even a newbie can realize encounters are being too easy hard or how an obstacle can be skipped/impossible and ajdust accordingly after a few months.

Considering how little variance they've allowed in the rolls and how constrained everything feels, making a system that they can't break later and that is very predictable for all levels of play really helps PFS and AP writing.

I introduced him to it by showing him the artwork in the book that has a guy suplexing a dragon. Somehow, the SoM authors were reading my mind.

[T.G. Oskar]

I don't understand you guys as every one of you try to toot your own horn about how perfect edition will be but none of you sit the f down and say keep this, this and this solve following problems with these options from those companies. No you gents just enter hulk smash mode and try to preemptively burn the product that basicly came past month. Are we in that much of burn the witch with out trial mode. Calm down and start putting realy usefull feedback will ya like what parts of first edition you realy like to keep( mine the whole class design) what new concepts they need to introduce( for me just gave green light to sphere system).

Umm...don't seem to understand your point. So - all of the people posting here are solely praising or burning the system? I understand your request to focus on how it could improve, but a viable way to work with this is to point the flaws in the system.

If the game had no flaws, then there'd be no discussion for improvement; the system would be at its best, and any attempt at "improvement" would just ruin it. Likewise, if the game was entirely flawed, then redoing it would be the best way to improve it - the game's ruined, might as well remake it and hope it's better this way. If the game's flaws were recognized equally by everybody, then they'd be easier to point out and fix.

However, everyone has a different opinion on what they consider a flaw on the system, and what they consider the opposite (a win). One poster may like the class system, another might like most of it but not all (say, maybe how the proficiencies improve), another may be ambivalent about it (like how casters are presented, but not martials), another may dislike most of it but see potential (class feats don't really seem to grant options, but if they reworked it in a different way, you'd see a ton of fun builds laid down easily), some may loathe it altogether, and a handful might just hate the system so much they're bashing it for the sake of it. Every one of the previous examples has a point, and even the hater might have a valid point. The idea is that, with discussion, you can refine all those opinions into a consensus, which will eventually lead to an improvement. That's what playtests are for.

Paizo, however, has a tendency to not understand how a playtest works. Compare to WotC and what they're doing with 5e. Say what you like about the game, say what you like about Mearls, but the team does seem to work on feedback. Pretty much everyone realizes parts of the 5e Ranger suck, and while it's still on the backburner, there's a revision to the class. Pretty much everyone wants psionics in the game, and they developed the Mystic, which is still incomplete and awaiting a final revision (which may end up making it close to what it was in 3e, for what it's worth). The new archetypes are revised and altered before they go into print, and by the time that happens, you can notice the changes (for good or ill). Paizo...well, when they present the "playtest", it's like when Blizzard presents a new character - it's more of a preview than a playtest, a product that's for the most part finalized, that all it needs is basically some feedback to prove the concept works. Over the years, Paizo has proven that it's...a bit allergic to feedback, happier to nerf than to buff, and only barely accepting when they're wrong about something (consider how long it took for most of the weapons that require Weapon Finesse could add their Dex to damage, for example, and even then it's a bit mindbending to see how they did it). Most of the people that post here, fans or haters, are at least aware of that, and know that Paizo might not implement the changes they want. The hope is that, by pointing it loud enough, the developers actually listen and do the right changes. However, there's not much consensus when your hopes are low, though many people can agree on a few things (like Paladins and their issue with reactions, for example).

This thread, and the previous one, aren't really burning or praising the system without providing feedback. I'd say quite the contrary. Even in my case, which is mostly moaning; I'm not a fan of PF1e, and despite seeing a few cool things in PF2e (Resonance could work well if it worked more like Essentia, for example, or how Actions work), I know it's not gonna be my cup of tea. If I make someone point out flaws in my logic, or even refine it, and that leads to a discussion? All the better, because it's another head adding to the discussion.

Unless you mean how people are complaining about how DSP could make a better PF2e/3e follow-up? DSP has earned a lot of dev cred because they're pretty good about playtesting. That's a parallel discussion, though.


Which is a little ironic, or maybe just misguided, because the original iconic ranger, Aragorn, was the inspiration for TWF and hardly ever used a bow.

Forcing rangers to be ranged sounds like a terrible design decision. One more reason to breeze right past this edition.

As others mentioned, Aragorn was more of a swordsman than a ranged character (he favored melee weapons and his iconic weapon is the reformed Narsil, for one). The term "Ranger" does refer to the Dunedain, but the execution is very much Legolas. Do note that Legolas, while focused on ranged attacks, also used TWF.

That said, D&D "Rangers" were more Hunters, and Hunters tend to go ranged to pursue their game. That's why they get Animal Companions in the first place, and have kept it in pretty much every system. Rangers as they exist in D&D (and by extension, Pathfinder) combine the LotR Ranger's knowledge of terrain and healing, the fighting styles of Aragorn and Legolas, and the concept of the game hunter, complete with animal companion that drove out the game itself. Think of a modern Ranger as...a game hunter wielding a single-shot Remington hunting rifle with a hunting knife or maybe a handaxe/tomahawk as emergency melee weapons, with a trusty hound on its side, that also had proficiency in first-aid, survival skills, navigation with map/compass/straightedge and GPS, and to top it off, was a Green Beret or Spetznaz and keeps all of that training. Rangers are meant to be pure badasses, but for the most part, ranged combat is kinda their thing (particularly in these times, where firearms >> pretty much everything else).

Not giving options besides a focus on Ranged or TWF is a flaw, though.

[Morty]

He did, but he also fought the Ringwraiths at Weathertop “with a flaming brand of wood in either hand.” Pretty sure I read somewhere, possibly an old Dragon article, that this was the original genesis for the TWF style.

This may be the third explanation I've seen for this, but nowadays rangers dual-wield because they always have and designers think people will be upset if it's gone entirely. So even if they're no longer locked into either dual-wielding or archery, the dual-wielding is still there. Like in PF2e or D&D 5e.

[skaddix]

DnD Rangers are more Robin Hood inspired if you ask me. Yes Yes He Stole...but he and the Merry Men spent most of their time in the woods.

Dual Wielding is associated with Rangers and Rogues and Thieves. Although the weapons they tend to Dual Wield differs.

But yes granted you could certainly compress most of the Melee Characters into Fighter especially Ranger.

[Peat]

The stories of Conan, Fafhrd the Grey Mouser and so on were some of the main sources of inspiration for Gary Gygax. Just because high-level adventures skew towards the grand tales of saving the world doesn't mean that all adventures are like that by any means.

They were a big influence, but that doesn't mean that what came out of the pot particularly resembles them.

If I had my druthers, there'd be a recognised sub-genre of fantasy called Gygaxian Fantasy, for fantasy books particularly influenced by what came out of D&D. It's a blend of S&S and LotR (and Vance and Anderson and a few others) - a lot of S&S heart but tied to LotR's trappings, scale and vision of Good vs Evil (although executed with somewhat S&S sensibilities) with some choice cuts from the rest of fantasy.

But since it isn't a recognised term, I'd argue D&D is definitely set up for High/Epic Fantasy (which it hugely influenced), not S&S. Nevermind the scale of the adventure - there's too many people in a gaming party to map to classic S&S and magic is too common, too powerful and too nice. I'd say about 90% of the sorcerers and what not in the original S&S were villains.


Rhedyn is right. They don't know their genre, even if they think they know it. If they really want S&S, they need to nuke magic far further into the ground - and also make martials far handier outside of combat. S&S heroes survive as much by their cunning and skills as their mighty thews. What they have is a confused mess, in which relatively realistic warriors try to hew their way through the world while next to them the magic users saunter through due to having unlocked the secrets of the cosmos.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Morty
This may be the third explanation I've seen for this….

Well, this is based on an old memory of an old Dragon article, which unfortunately I can’t quote as to issue or page. If you have a specific source I’d be glad to see it, since I’m genuinely interested in the origins of the class concept.


Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar
Do note that Legolas, while focused on ranged attacks, also used TWF.

He’s a TWF monster in the movies, but I don’t recall if he was explicitly TWF in the books.

[Morty]

They were a big influence, but that doesn't mean that what came out of the pot particularly resembles them.

If I had my druthers, there'd be a recognised sub-genre of fantasy called Gygaxian Fantasy, for fantasy books particularly influenced by what came out of D&D. It's a blend of S&S and LotR (and Vance and Anderson and a few others) - a lot of S&S heart but tied to LotR's trappings, scale and vision of Good vs Evil (although executed with somewhat S&S sensibilities) with some choice cuts from the rest of fantasy.

But since it isn't a recognised term, I'd argue D&D is definitely set up for High/Epic Fantasy (which it hugely influenced), not S&S. Nevermind the scale of the adventure - there's too many people in a gaming party to map to classic S&S and magic is too common, too powerful and too nice. I'd say about 90% of the sorcerers and what not in the original S&S were villains.


Rhedyn is right. They don't know their genre, even if they think they know it. If they really want S&S, they need to nuke magic far further into the ground - and also make martials far handier outside of combat. S&S heroes survive as much by their cunning and skills as their mighty thews. What they have is a confused mess, in which relatively realistic warriors try to hew their way through the world while next to them the magic users saunter through due to having unlocked the secrets of the cosmos.

I don't think D&D has known what genre it is or wants to be for a while, if it ever did. So I wouldn't lay it entirely at Paizo's feet.



He’s a TWF monster in the movies, but I don’t recall if he was explicitly TWF in the books.

All the books mention on the subject is Legolas using a knife once he ran out of arrows.

[Peat]

I don't think D&D has known what genre it is or wants to be for a while, if it ever did. So I wouldn't lay it entirely at Paizo's feet.


That's part of why I argue for it being its own genre. It is its own thing.

And while Paizo do have certain legacy issues to grapple with in terms of deciding what its emulating and its only fair to note that, I think its also only fair to note that within their own section of the D&D ballpark they can make their own rules and to a certain extent have.

[Rhedyn]

I would say D&D fantasy can be it's own genre. Most D&D settings and editions have a lot of conceits likes all the backbending it takes to justify dungeons and PCs going into them.

Outside of just calling it D&D Fantasy, High Fantasy with rock hard magic systems if a good enough descriptor.
Even lowest fantasy versions like B/X (or the BE in BECMI) still have warriors rolling around in magic gear with casters using spells with impunity. Even versions like 5e are fairly High in terms of genre. Arguments could be made that 4e is the highest we've had so far, even outstripping 3e.

S&S though is not D&D and the closest it ever was to D&D was during some of the 1e and 2e days where magic was a lot more dangerous to use.

[catman04221985]

Umm...don't seem to understand your point. So - all of the people posting here are solely praising or burning the system? I understand your request to focus on how it could improve, but a viable way to work with this is to point the flaws in the system.

If the game had no flaws, then there'd be no discussion for improvement; the system would be at its best, and any attempt at "improvement" would just ruin it. Likewise, if the game was entirely flawed, then redoing it would be the best way to improve it - the game's ruined, might as well remake it and hope it's better this way. If the game's flaws were recognized equally by everybody, then they'd be easier to point out and fix.

However, everyone has a different opinion on what they consider a flaw on the system, and what they consider the opposite (a win). One poster may like the class system, another might like most of it but not all (say, maybe how the proficiencies improve), another may be ambivalent about it (like how casters are presented, but not martials), another may dislike most of it but see potential (class feats don't really seem to grant options, but if they reworked it in a different way, you'd see a ton of fun builds laid down easily), some may loathe it altogether, and a handful might just hate the system so much they're bashing it for the sake of it. Every one of the previous examples has a point, and even the hater might have a valid point. The idea is that, with discussion, you can refine all those opinions into a consensus, which will eventually lead to an improvement. That's what playtests are for.

Paizo, however, has a tendency to not understand how a playtest works. Compare to WotC and what they're doing with 5e. Say what you like about the game, say what you like about Mearls, but the team does seem to work on feedback. Pretty much everyone realizes parts of the 5e Ranger suck, and while it's still on the backburner, there's a revision to the class. Pretty much everyone wants psionics in the game, and they developed the Mystic, which is still incomplete and awaiting a final revision (which may end up making it close to what it was in 3e, for what it's worth). The new archetypes are revised and altered before they go into print, and by the time that happens, you can notice the changes (for good or ill). Paizo...well, when they present the "playtest", it's like when Blizzard presents a new character - it's more of a preview than a playtest, a product that's for the most part finalized, that all it needs is basically some feedback to prove the concept works. Over the years, Paizo has proven that it's...a bit allergic to feedback, happier to nerf than to buff, and only barely accepting when they're wrong about something (consider how long it took for most of the weapons that require Weapon Finesse could add their Dex to damage, for example, and even then it's a bit mindbending to see how they did it). Most of the people that post here, fans or haters, are at least aware of that, and know that Paizo might not implement the changes they want. The hope is that, by pointing it loud enough, the developers actually listen and do the right changes. However, there's not much consensus when your hopes are low, though many people can agree on a few things (like Paladins and their issue with reactions, for example).

This thread, and the previous one, aren't really burning or praising the system without providing feedback. I'd say quite the contrary. Even in my case, which is mostly moaning; I'm not a fan of PF1e, and despite seeing a few cool things in PF2e (Resonance could work well if it worked more like Essentia, for example, or how Actions work), I know it's not gonna be my cup of tea. If I make someone point out flaws in my logic, or even refine it, and that leads to a discussion? All the better, because it's another head adding to the discussion.

Unless you mean how people are complaining about how DSP could make a better PF2e/3e follow-up? DSP has earned a lot of dev cred because they're pretty good about playtesting. That's a parallel discussion, though.



As others mentioned, Aragorn was more of a swordsman than a ranged character (he favored melee weapons and his iconic weapon is the reformed Narsil, for one). The term "Ranger" does refer to the Dunedain, but the execution is very much Legolas. Do note that Legolas, while focused on ranged attacks, also used TWF.

That said, D&D "Rangers" were more Hunters, and Hunters tend to go ranged to pursue their game. That's why they get Animal Companions in the first place, and have kept it in pretty much every system. Rangers as they exist in D&D (and by extension, Pathfinder) combine the LotR Ranger's knowledge of terrain and healing, the fighting styles of Aragorn and Legolas, and the concept of the game hunter, complete with animal companion that drove out the game itself. Think of a modern Ranger as...a game hunter wielding a single-shot Remington hunting rifle with a hunting knife or maybe a handaxe/tomahawk as emergency melee weapons, with a trusty hound on its side, that also had proficiency in first-aid, survival skills, navigation with map/compass/straightedge and GPS, and to top it off, was a Green Beret or Spetznaz and keeps all of that training. Rangers are meant to be pure badasses, but for the most part, ranged combat is kinda their thing (particularly in these times, where firearms >> pretty much everything else).

Not giving options besides a focus on Ranged or TWF is a flaw, though.

This point right here is why I am not supporting the playtest. They internally playtested for two years and are just refining it. I feel like they are just going to tweek little by little but as a whole its done. In not so many words paizo is going to do what paizo is going to do.

[Caelestion]

This point right here is why I am not supporting the playtest. They internally playtested for two years and are just refining it. I feel like they are just going to tweek little by little but as a whole its done. In not so many words paizo is going to do what paizo is going to do.

Please edit the quotes more selectively. That said, the bolded section was always going to happen, because it's a meaningless statement.

[Ignimortis]

Please edit the quotes more selectively. That said, the bolded section was always going to happen, because it's a meaningless statement.

I think that meant "well, it's Paizo, what'd ya expect".

[catman04221985]

True true. I was just trying to explain my thoughts.

[darkdragoon]

A vocal segment of the CO board was unhappy with the playtest 4e document (codename Orcus) which is quite pertinent for the discussion now although I don't know that say, a chunk of the society is going to go traitor legion like what happened then.


The power schedule arguments make no more sense than trying to claim all 3rd level spells are the same (and indeed must be via circular logic) or that Duelist is better than Ur-Priest because it has more class features. A more appropriate argument for 4e is "the good powers are mostly low level."

For PF2
Given how the skill feats are tied, I don't know that they even need to be their own track. Even if everybody is judicious in their background and multi into Rogue for Skill Mastery I don't know that you can seemingly become all that competent in stuff that isn't already in your wheelhouse.

[Cosi]

The power schedule arguments make no more sense than trying to claim all 3rd level spells are the same (and indeed must be via circular logic) or that Duelist is better than Ur-Priest because it has more class features.

While many have similar mechanics, relatively few casting classes have identical ones. What 4e does would be like having Abjurer, Diviner, Conjurer, Enchanter, Evoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, and Transmuter each be their own class, using the exact same "prepare spells out of your spellbook",

And while Duelist isn't more powerful than Ur Priest, that isn't really what "better" means in this context. I certainly think you could make a case that Duelist is better designed than Ur Priest, and that's the criteria we're discussing here.

[darkdragoon]

There is no innate Law of Symmetry here.

In practice the 4e wizard is the strongest controller because they have more useful powers. The spellbook gives them flexibility other classes don't have. Being arcane also has its advantages such as more "first one's free" options and wands, especially later on when the latter become dirt cheap unless you splurge for one of the few noteworthy epic powers.

Essentials is the Terence and Philip version of classes but the Mage is the closest of the offshoots. At worst, it loses the nastiness of Orb of Imposition on that one save for passive bonuses to more powers. Now, if somebody only saw part of the school bonus and Enigmatic Mage then I could see "the only difference between Pyro bro and Necro bro is which resistance you can ignore and whether you get ______'s Rain of Fire or ______'s Black Gate."


On the flip side, the Seeker is reliant on optimizing (ranged) basic attacks because its idea of control doesn't really get much better than "slowed and can't shift" at level 1. Yet there is still enough of that to be cromulent.


You don't have Pre-Crisis Superman, but you don't Arms Fall Off Lad either. There's far more "what do you mean I can't get staffs of Wishes" and "so rust monsters don't totally ruin my gear, what is this, Dragon Ball Z" Do you really want to have "this manticore owns you" more than "so they came up with an epic wall that's harder to climb"

[Kish]

The second paragraph there is the only one that isn't filled with so much jargon that I don't know what you're trying to say.

[darkdragoon]

I have neither the time nor patience to teach horses how to drink water on top of the 10 year old "Warlocks only have trois quotidiens and Pit Fighter is a stupid name anyway!"

Others are already doing the "so like, all the monsters have better skills than you, and the PCs will have trouble finding their pants, much less a hidden trap of LOL YOU DIE."

But let's use 5e:
Do you think Beastmaster being a Level 3 Archetype means it is inherently just and right? I doubt it. In fact, you probably would say it's not as good as the other Ranger ones. Or maybe even Eldritch Knight. Because you compare them.

[Recherché]

I have neither the time nor patience to teach horses how to drink water on top of the 10 year old "Warlocks only have trois quotidiens and Pit Fighter is a stupid name anyway!"

Others are already doing the "so like, all the monsters have better skills than you, and the PCs will have trouble finding their pants, much less a hidden trap of LOL YOU DIE."

But let's use 5e:
Do you think Beastmaster being a Level 3 Archetype means it is inherently just and right? I doubt it. In fact, you probably would say it's not as good as the other Ranger ones. Or maybe even Eldritch Knight. Because you compare them.

Insulting people for not understanding you rarely helps a debate let alone your side of a debate, especially when you're using fairly obscure terms that have not previously been presented. And to be honest I don't understand your last two posts and if you're going to not bother translating uncommon phrases from French into English I'm not going to bother fighting through the mess of words.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by darkdragoon
I have neither the time nor patience....

This in itself is insulting and unhelpful. When you alienate everyone in a discussion, no one will be interested in listening any further.

[EldritchWeaver]

In addition, that states that he can waste our collective time to save time for himself. @darkdragoon, if you can't be bothered to invest time for our benefit, the biggest time saver is not to post at all.

[Cosi]

Alright, just for fun let's see if we can figure out what this guy means.


There is no innate Law of Symmetry here.

No idea. Not even sure what this is responding to.


In practice the 4e wizard is the strongest controller because they have more useful powers. The spellbook gives them flexibility other classes don't have. Being arcane also has its advantages such as more "first one's free" options and wands, especially later on when the latter become dirt cheap unless you splurge for one of the few noteworthy epic powers.

Also no idea. Maybe this is supposed to be a rebuttal of the idea that classes working the same makes them similar?


Essentials is the Terence and Philip version of classes

I'm fairly sure Essentials didn't contain any fart jokes, so I have no idea what this means.


Now, if somebody only saw part of the school bonus and Enigmatic Mage then I could see "the only difference between Pyro bro and Necro bro is which resistance you can ignore and whether you get ______'s Rain of Fire or ______'s Black Gate."

I think this is a claim about classes being different. But it's not really backed up by much.


On the flip side, the Seeker is reliant on optimizing (ranged) basic attacks because its idea of control doesn't really get much better than "slowed and can't shift" at level 1. Yet there is still enough of that to be cromulent.

Coherent, but basically irrelevant to discussion. Also random buzzword for no reason.


You don't have Pre-Crisis Superman, but you don't Arms Fall Off Lad either.

I think this means "they compressed the power range". Which is just not true, because the Yogi Hat Ranger (redirect damage to companion + both you and your companion have to take lethal damage for either to die = immortal character). When you compare like to like (i.e. accounting for the total omission of planar binding), 4e is less balanced than 3e.


Do you really want to have "this manticore owns you" more than "so they came up with an epic wall that's harder to climb"

I'm confused by this part. It sounds like he's in favor of 4e's rubber band DCs? But that mechanic is really, really immersion breaking for no reason.


"Warlocks only have trois quotidiens and Pit Fighter is a stupid name anyway!"

"trois quotidiens" means "three dailies" in French (the fact that this is in French for no reason really sells me on this post being some kind of performance art). Therefore, I think this is a reference to the problem in early 4e where Warlocks didn't have enough powers to work properly. I don't remember the details, because once it became clear to me that I was never going to play 4e (and particularly once it became clear that most other people also weren't going to), I stopped paying much attention to its particular flaws.

The Pit Fighter thing is in response to the notion that having a Paragon Path with a dumb concept is dumb. Which just kind of falls flat on your face when you look at the rich history of classes with worse concepts being worse. The Fighter has never really been on par with the Wizard. That's not because you can't make a martial on par with the Wizard -- the Cleric is right there -- it's because "Fighter" is a bad concept, and that results in the class being bad.


Others are already doing the "so like, all the monsters have better skills than you, and the PCs will have trouble finding their pants, much less a hidden trap of LOL YOU DIE."

This is a dis on some edition's skill system, but it's not clear which.


Do you think Beastmaster being a Level 3 Archetype means it is inherently just and right? I doubt it. In fact, you probably would say it's not as good as the other Ranger ones. Or maybe even Eldritch Knight. Because you compare them.

I think this is another assertion that concept doesn't matter. Except that falls flat on its face when you look at the dramatic and persistent mechanical inequality between Fighters and Wizards.

Having read the posts, I'm pretty sure they're supposed to be understood as some kind of conceptual art installment in the medium of "gaming forum post" rather than as a coherent argument. The complete lack of quotations or citations, hence stripping them of any context also pushes in this direction.

[Morty]

Hate to interrupt a good dogpile, but... casters aside, I would consider a 4E fighter and 4E paladin far more different from one another than they can ever be in 3E. If 4E classes are identical to one another, how do you call two classes whose most common, and often only, combat action is exactly the same? But for some reason it never seems to come up.