What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[Ignimortis]

I like PF1 a lot. DSP does great work in it, but the game works just fine in general, in my opinion. Of course, I don't share the dim view some take on 3.5's "rougher" mechanics. I think they're largely fine in real play, not having seen caster supremacy be a problem except when either the caster player was cheating about how his powers actually work, or the non-caster was deliberately refusing to engage in the game. (And I have seen non-caster PCs be as big problems when the player is the same kind of cheater.)

There are problems, yes. They're not, to me, so big as to ruin the game. They also can be house ruled much more easily than they can be fixed overall, if only because house rules can work for a particular table or game where the problems they would introduce just don't come up for table- or game-specific reasons.

My general opinion is that D&D-likes have peaked with late 3.5 (and even that wasn't a high peak, there are plenty of problems with the game, but at least it had the right spirit by 2006 or so). I find that the parts of PF1 that work are the parts of 3.5 that've worked fine anyway (in particular, how flexible the math is), but the parts of 3.5 that are great often never made it into PF1 (a lot of new class mechanics, the attempts to make feats more impactful, etc), while the dull sacred cows have.

My gripes with Pathfinder (both editions) can be best expressed as "why does everyone try to copy the 3e PHB for 20 years now, it's one of the worst books of the edition content-wise, and yet you keep doing it over". Pathfinder, being a non-D&D product, could've actually moved some ground. Instead it insists on trying to get the 3e PHB experience right for more than a decade now. For instance, PF2 is a decent game, provided that all you want out of D&D is low-level 3e (in feel and ability scope) grid-focused teamwork-heavy tactical combat with lots of character building. It's also possibly the dullest TTRPG I have ever played, and I count Shadowrun's 5e Matrix play among those.

[animorte]

Phoenixphyre beat me to it but they way it's organized that ~60% is very dependent on the feat chain you picked and i do mean chain. It doesn't support changing directions after you start down a path. Mostly due to the action system

You want to be good at blocking with a shield then you better make sure you take these 3-9 feats or it will quickly fall off.

Thanks. I will likely never touch it. Ridiculous amounts of feat chains just to keep your choice relevant was my least favorite thing about 3.5e (also unnecessary skill maths, though at least that was much more satisfying).

[Snowbluff]

My general opinion is that D&D-likes have peaked with late 3.5 (and even that wasn't a high peak, there are plenty of problems with the game, but at least it had the right spirit by 2006 or so). I find that the parts of PF1 that work are the parts of 3.5 that've worked fine anyway (in particular, how flexible the math is), but the parts of 3.5 that are great often never made it into PF1 (a lot of new class mechanics, the attempts to make feats more impactful, etc), while the dull sacred cows have.

My gripes with Pathfinder (both editions) can be best expressed as "why does everyone try to copy the 3e PHB for 20 years now, it's one of the worst books of the edition content-wise, and yet you keep doing it over". Pathfinder, being a non-D&D product, could've actually moved some ground. Instead it insists on trying to get the 3e PHB experience right for more than a decade now. For instance, PF2 is a decent game, provided that all you want out of D&D is low-level 3e (in feel and ability scope) grid-focused teamwork-heavy tactical combat with lots of character building. It's also possibly the dullest TTRPG I have ever played, and I count Shadowrun's 5e Matrix play among those.

This hits the nail on the head for me. I think PF1 is elevated by adding 3PP content to fill in the missing, weird alternate mechanics that 3.5 added over time, but it otherwise is just 3.5 really. Later 3.5 is full of really slick new classes and awesome feat categories that put Weapon Focus and PF's Prone Shooter to shame.

PF2 was an exciting opportunity, on the onset anyway. But when I examine it in hindsight, I get the feeling they didn't want to change a whole lot. They just wanted to do the motions and get back to their status quo in terms of mechanics, to the point we have BAB attack penalty tacked onto their shiny new 3 action system as MAP.

[warty goblin]

PF2 was an exciting opportunity, on the onset anyway. But when I examine it in hindsight, I get the feeling they didn't want to change a whole lot. They just wanted to do the motions and get back to their status quo in terms of mechanics, to the point we have BAB attack penalty tacked onto their shiny new 3 action system as MAP.

5E dropping the iterative attack penalty is honestly a marvelous piece of design. It keeps the math simple, fits with the design philosophy of not needing to hunt up tons if fiddly bonuses (the only way an attack at -10 matters) and plays right into the core fantasy of the fighter - hitting things with a whacking big sword. Not getting one decent shot, followed by a pathetic series of increasingly futile follow-ups, but making big, powerful strikes.

So naturally PF2 can't get rid of it. If you don't have a bunch of bonuses or penalties or number things that let you pull other switches in the game, how can you even begin to have fun? Fun isn't interacting with the game world, fun is pressing a button to change the numbers briefly.

[Pex]

Thanks. I will likely never touch it. Ridiculous amounts of feat chains just to keep your choice relevant was my least favorite thing about 3.5e (also unnecessary skill maths, though at least that was much more satisfying).

It's a style choice. Some people really want to be Shield Masters, so taking the specific feats that do that when they become available is a feature or whatever your shtick is. A different character of the same class may go two-weapons, two handed weapons, or one handed no shield. No one is supposed to be able to do everything, but if you want to diversify your character a bit the option is there even within a single class. A Rogue can be a Scoundrel, Thief, or Enforcer taking feats along the way that emphasize those playstyles. However, if a Scoundrel wants to pick up some Thief or Enforcer stuff he can. It's like multiclassing within your own class. Other classes have similar concept. If you don't always want to use a shield as a fighter you can choose other fighting styles, but you can't then complain you're not as good with shields as the one who took the higher level shield feats remaining focused in shield use.

It really isn't that much different in 5E. You pick your subclass. All your abilities are chosen for you. A few give you choices limited in number.

5E dropping the iterative attack penalty is honestly a marvelous piece of design. It keeps the math simple, fits with the design philosophy of not needing to hunt up tons if fiddly bonuses (the only way an attack at -10 matters) and plays right into the core fantasy of the fighter - hitting things with a whacking big sword. Not getting one decent shot, followed by a pathetic series of increasingly futile follow-ups, but making big, powerful strikes.

So naturally PF2 can't get rid of it. If you don't have a bunch of bonuses or penalties or number things that let you pull other switches in the game, how can you even begin to have fun? Fun isn't interacting with the game world, fun is pressing a button to change the numbers briefly.

True, the attack penalty is annoying, but if you think your third attack will miss anyway then it's better to use that action or two using feats that provide a bonus or rider effect on one attack that will hit because there is no multi-attack penalty. Just doing "I attack" every round is boring. Warrior classes are given Nice Things to do.

[Ignimortis]

5E dropping the iterative attack penalty is honestly a marvelous piece of design. It keeps the math simple, fits with the design philosophy of not needing to hunt up tons if fiddly bonuses (the only way an attack at -10 matters) and plays right into the core fantasy of the fighter - hitting things with a whacking big sword. Not getting one decent shot, followed by a pathetic series of increasingly futile follow-ups, but making big, powerful strikes.

So naturally PF2 can't get rid of it. If you don't have a bunch of bonuses or penalties or number things that let you pull other switches in the game, how can you even begin to have fun? Fun isn't interacting with the game world, fun is pressing a button to change the numbers briefly.

I mean, the 3.5/PF1 full attack math compared to AC growth was such that at level 11 you almost automatically hit your first attack before good positioning and buffs/debuffs, and your third attack thus has a 50% or so chance to hit. It begins to be pronounced exactly around the time you get your second attack on full BAB classes - you start off at level 1 by hitting average AC on a 7 or 8, but by level 6 you're hitting your first attack against average AC on a 3 or 4 or so, and to-hit keeps improving against same-level average AC.

PF2 tightened the math a lot, to the extent that you are never guaranteed a hit unless fighting something severely below your level, and your typical first attack against a same level creature on a non-Fighter hits on an 8 or a 9 before positioning or buffs. This makes the third attack absolutely useless unless you have some means of reducing the multiple attack penalty - but also means that you can quite often just spend the whole round missing, the same issue 5e has sometimes (fighting an AC20, CR5 Roper at level 4 or 5 is extremely unpleasant, for instance). Part of 3.5's fun was the assured competence of higher-level characters who might not hit their whole salvo, but at least do something - or channel their expertise into getting a single more powerful strike (martial maneuvers or PF1's Vital Strike) to hit with a 95% chance of success.

And 5e made a fumble of its' own - your damage feels increasingly less powerful over time. What seemed to be quite decent at level 5 (I do 2d6+5, two times per round! that might kill a slightly lower-level monster in two Attack actions!) falls behind HP growth very quickly, and at level 17, getting three attacks for 2d6+8 feels like fighting with a toothpick - because at that point a typical enemy has HP in the hundreds, and you'd need to whack them ten times before they even start to feel it.

It's a style choice. Some people really want to be Shield Masters, so taking the specific feats that do that when they become available is a feature or whatever your shtick is. A different character of the same class may go two-weapons, two handed weapons, or one handed no shield. No one is supposed to be able to do everything, but if you want to diversify your character a bit the option is there even within a single class. A Rogue can be a Scoundrel, Thief, or Enforcer taking feats along the way that emphasize those playstyles. However, if a Scoundrel wants to pick up some Thief or Enforcer stuff he can. It's like multiclassing within your own class. Other classes have similar concept. If you don't always want to use a shield as a fighter you can choose other fighting styles, but you can't then complain you're not as good with shields as the one who took the higher level shield feats remaining focused in shield use.

And due to underlying mechanics, you are pretty much stuck with your choices. Want to be a 2H warrior with a greatsword? Congratulations, now you cannot trip, disarm, shove, and all those other basic maneuvers that require a free hand - until you pick up several feats that make it possible. PF2 design is prone to "you start off with the ability to do X, but without feats it's either bad or outright unusable".

True, the attack penalty is annoying, but if you think your third attack will miss anyway then it's better to use that action or two using feats that provide a bonus or rider effect on one attack that will hit because there is no multi-attack penalty. Just doing "I attack" every round is boring. Warrior classes are given Nice Things to do.

Sadly, these "nice things" are usually the ability to just do regular maneuvers slightly better action economy-wise or success-wise. The primary 2H feat, Power Attack, is arguably worse than attacking twice. The primary TWF feat, Double Slice, is marginally better than attacking twice (you don't suffer a penalty for attacking a second time until you're done with both attacks). The Knockdown feat also just lets you Trip someone when attacking (but at the same 2-action cost) without a penalty for attacking before the Trip attempt. Etc, etc.

There are a few outliers, but they're usually class-specific and so high-level you won't be using them for long. For instance, a Fighter does get to teleport and attack - at level 20 (if they take a feat that is, technically, a lot worse than their default level 20 feat). My Harbinger has been doing that as a maneuver at level 3, and could do it at-will at level 9. My Swordsage has been doing that since level 9, too. A Fighter also gets the (chance to pick up an) ability to deflect (not reflect, deflect) arrows and eventually spells - at level 10 and level 18 respectively. My Warblade has been doing that as a maneuver since level 3. And what's more, it didn't take up one of very limited (11 feats over 20 levels) feat slots - even the simplest Warblade learns 13 maneuvers and 4 stances over 20 levels that can be later switched for better versions instead of being in "trees" that only give you full functionality by feat two or three.

Classes that are not Fighter get even fewer cool abilities, with pretty much one or two schticks that go beyond "I hit good and maybe do a basic combat maneuver I could do at level 1". Even then, a lot of those abilities are simply disappointing mechanically - you can now cause damage to creatures you shove into walls! How much damage? STR mod (maxes out at 7)? In a game where enemies get into triple digit HP by level 8? Monk is the exception for getting quite a few cool abilities, as usual, but I cannot build a Monk that performs well in heavy armor and with a zweihander.

PF2's martials only get nice things when compared to 5e martials or 3e's core martials. They are still maddeningly low-fantasy and low-scale, designed mostly to be single-target DPR machines with anything else they do being largely incidental.

Some skill feats are quite good, though. But everyone gets skills and skill feats.

[Satinavian]

My general opinion is that D&D-likes have peaked with late 3.5 (and even that wasn't a high peak, there are plenty of problems with the game, but at least it had the right spirit by 2006 or so). I find that the parts of PF1 that work are the parts of 3.5 that've worked fine anyway (in particular, how flexible the math is), but the parts of 3.5 that are great often never made it into PF1 (a lot of new class mechanics, the attempts to make feats more impactful, etc), while the dull sacred cows have.

I personally think that PF1 is the better incarnation, even first party only. That is to no small part because of all the new 6/9 casters that for me hit a sweet spot in power/versatility/theme. I am not sure why 3.x basically stopped after the bard here. The heavy reliance on archetypes as alternative to multiclassing (which kills your higher class abilities) was nice as well. As were the sorely needed unchained updates to certain classes.

But nothing i can play in PF2 feels even remotely like a PF1 6/9 caster. It is all one-trick-ponies.

[Ignimortis]

This hits the nail on the head for me. I think PF1 is elevated by adding 3PP content to fill in the missing, weird alternate mechanics that 3.5 added over time, but it otherwise is just 3.5 really. Later 3.5 is full of really slick new classes and awesome feat categories that put Weapon Focus and PF's Prone Shooter to shame.

PF2 was an exciting opportunity, on the onset anyway. But when I examine it in hindsight, I get the feeling they didn't want to change a whole lot. They just wanted to do the motions and get back to their status quo in terms of mechanics, to the point we have BAB attack penalty tacked onto their shiny new 3 action system as MAP.

I have heard rumors that PF2 started due to the desire of Paizo higher-ups to basically get PF1 CRB again, but balanced in a way that would make it easy to DM and impossible or almost impossible to cheese or break in any significant way. Not sure how much substance is behind that, but it certainly fits the end result.

I personally think that PF1 is the better incarnation, even first party only. That is to no small part because of all the new 6/9 casters that for me hit a sweet spot in power/versatility/theme. I am not sure why 3.x basically stopped after the bard here. The heavy reliance on archetypes as alternative to multiclassing (which kills your higher class abilities) was nice as well. As were the sorely needed unchained updates to certain classes.

But nothing i can play in PF2 feels even remotely like a PF1 6/9 caster. It is all one-trick-ponies.

1PP-only, PF1 loses a lot of what made 3.5 attractive to me - namely, classes that don't rely on magic to be cool. Sure, I do consider that Paizo probably has done their best work making Magus, Alchemist and Bloodrager, but none of these are particularly stand-out design-wise. Just decent partial casters with niches previously done in a more complex manner (Duskblade, Runescarred Berserker). Archetypes are nice, although I do prefer prestige classes for the actual feel of it.

I certainly do agree on PF2 being full of one-trick ponies. Paizo is seemingly stuck at the idea that fitting into a single niche like "single-target DPR" or "buff dispenser" should cover about 80% of your character power budget.

[stoutstien]

Thanks. I will likely never touch it. Ridiculous amounts of feat chains just to keep your choice relevant was my least favorite thing about 3.5e (also unnecessary skill maths, though at least that was much more satisfying).

Give worlds without numbers a read. I've found it balances feats, class, and interactions with the world options well enough for a starting point.
It's not balanced in the sense of modern game play compared to the world but all the player options are within reason of each other.

It actively promotes specialist but only to a point then it becomes very expensive to continually investment compared to a more diversified approach. Quite a eloquent way to support archetypes and class identity but not roles and action focus.

[Witty Username]

I've been reading Five Torches Deep this week, take a look at that?

Honestly, even if your not looking for a new system Five Torches is worth a look, I have been swiping stuff from it for 5e for a bit now (mostly dungeon and encounter stuff)

[Kurald Galain]

I have heard rumors that PF2 started due to the desire of Paizo higher-ups to basically get PF1 CRB again, but balanced in a way that would make it easy to DM and impossible or almost impossible to cheese or break in any significant way. Not sure how much substance is behind that, but it certainly fits the end result.

As far as I can tell, this is just an internet rumor; I've been very active with PF1 and have seen literally zero indication that DMs were complaining that PF1 is so hard to DM, or that adventure writers were complaining it's so hard to write adventures for (and Paizo has written a ton of PF1 adventures).

So yeah, most likely a case of "designers gonna design" and this rumor is only a justification-after-the-fact from the internet. That said, you are quite correct that it fits the end result.

[Luccan]

So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

I haven't seen that, I've seen the opposite mostly, but I can imagine why. A lot of people picking up or championing Pathfinder recently seemed to imply it's different than D&D and that's just not the case. Pathfinder is D&D by a different name. Specifically 3.5, which some deride as too crunchy. And on the other hand given many people want D&D players to play or be open to other games, I could see a kind of pushback to essentially saying "upset with the D&D company? Here's D&D from a different company!"

[Snowbluff]

1PP-only, PF1 loses a lot of what made 3.5 attractive to me - namely, classes that don't rely on magic to be cool. Sure, I do consider that Paizo probably has done their best work making Magus, Alchemist and Bloodrager, but none of these are particularly stand-out design-wise. Just decent partial casters with niches previously done in a more complex manner (Duskblade, Runescarred Berserker). Archetypes are nice, although I do prefer prestige classes for the actual feel of it.

I certainly do agree on PF2 being full of one-trick ponies. Paizo is seemingly stuck at the idea that fitting into a single niche like "single-target DPR" or "buff dispenser" should cover about 80% of your character power budget.

Indeed, but archetypes aren't even a PF1 thing. It's just a rebranding of alternate class features that 3.5 has.

As far as I can tell, this is just an internet rumor; I've been very active with PF1 and have seen literally zero indication that DMs were complaining that PF1 is so hard to DM, or that adventure writers were complaining it's so hard to write adventures for (and Paizo has written a ton of PF1 adventures).

So yeah, most likely a case of "designers gonna design" and this rumor is only a justification-after-the-fact from the internet. That said, you are quite correct that it fits the end result.

I've gotten the impression some of the changes were for PFS, but that's probably just a rumor. I've heard it said at times that Paizo doesn't want to foster an optimizer community as well. "Designers gonna design" does sound right, kinda like when an application receives a lot of changes for seemingly no reason, removing important options while nesting others in new menus that weren't needed, etc.

[warty goblin]

I've gotten the impression some of the changes were for PFS, but that's probably just a rumor. I've heard it said at times that Paizo doesn't want to foster an optimizer community as well. "Designers gonna design" does sound right, kinda like when an application receives a lot of changes for seemingly no reason, removing important options while nesting others in new menus that weren't needed, etc.

They may also have, after years of people whinging about balance, reached the truly bizarre conclusion that people want balance.

[kyoryu]

So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

I'm not "triggered" by it.

I don't like it. It's a great game for a lot of people, but not for me. (1e. I'm kinda curious about 2e). Pathfinder (like D&D 3.x) does a very good job at doing a lot of the things that I don't really care about in roleplaying games. Other people do care about those things, and so I'm glad it exists for them.

There are other games that are good.

It shouldn't be seen as the default option to 5e.

[Satinavian]

Indeed, but archetypes aren't even a PF1 thing. It's just a rebranding of alternate class features that 3.5 has.

True. But it is how they are used.

3.5 had a ridiculous amount of prestige classes, most of them utterly forgettible, also generally accessible rather late and often laden with prerequisites that made you plan your whole build in advance. Pathfinder hardly used prestige classes but heavily leaned on archetypes instead. In addition it introduced lots of archetypes that worked as proper alternative to multiclassing, swapping a signiture ability for another (like vivisectionist or mutation warrior). It still retained regular multiclassing so you could build lots of fun combinations that were online before level 10.

[Kurald Galain]

They may also have, after years of people whinging about balance, reached the truly bizarre conclusion that people want balance.

Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

...and the irony is that the clearly-less-balanced 5E thoroughly eclipses PF2 in popularity, just like how the less-balanced PF1 eclipsed 4E.

So still a case of "designers gonna design". Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

Or even if most players want it, that they agree on how they want it. Or what they're willing to sacrifice to get it. A common issue (not just in game design) is that people are really good at pointing out problems, but really crappy at actually pointing to the correct solution. If there even is an unambiguous "correct" solution. Which there frequently isn't--you can't please everyone when they have mutually-incompatible desires.

In this case, I'd personally prefer a bit more balance than 5e has. But what I mean by that is specifically that the wizard class is crappily designed and has no thematics and all the broken spells. I'm fine with, say, sorcerers (generally). And I want stronger thematics as a core part of that. 4e-style mechanical, top-down, balance-at-any-cost doesn't interest me. And I'm not willing to give up a free-flowing, rules-lighter, lower-crunch (both terms relative, not absolute) game to get better balance.

And as a DM I like the "ok DM, this one's up to you" approach to the DM side. I don't want rules and regulations and crunch for everything.

I'd prefer just taking a scalpel to the few spells that cause issues, cutting back the wizard list so that there's room to actually have some kind of unifying mechanic/thematic that isn't just "I have all the spells and cast them better than anyone". Spells-as-primary-class-features sucks IMO.

Instead, PF2e went full in on the "doing point-buy, but only sorta, and mostly falsely" form of balance. Lots of options, most of which are either false choices (you'd never want them for 90% of builds and that's obvious) or just plain don't do much. And a very heavy focus on crunch.

[warty goblin]

Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

...and the irony is that the clearly-less-balanced 5E thoroughly eclipses PF2 in popularity, just like how the less-balanced PF1 eclipsed 4E.

So still a case of "designers gonna design". Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

I think the general lesson is most people who play RPGs just wanna hang with some buds, eat pretzels and pretend to stab orcs in a reasonably familiar, not too taxing ruleset. The important thing is that the ruleset is just the reagent to the good bits - friends, pretzels, fantasy adventure nonsense - and are therefore mostly important by being unobtrusive. Gratuitous imbalance is a problem, but that's a low bar, particularly when playing with socially functional adults who aren't minmaxing for every bit of power possible because that's not actually the point of the game for them.

But for a lot of the hard-core subset who go online to talk about them, the rules become an end even of themselves. So on the one hand balance becomes super important to this group, because number one, it's something to talk about endlessly, and number two, it's a clear way to compare and contrast different rules in the futile, never ending quest for that perfect RPG. But because the rules, and mastery of the rules is now the end goal, balance is paradoxically also a bad thing because it undermines the expression of rules mastery inherent in breaking the game. A balanced game can't be optimized, therefore there's no reason to get invested in those rules, and by fixing one flaw the game paradoxically becomes worse.

Pathfinder 1E got big because 4E was unfamiliar and very formal in its rules, which is bad for the orc and potato chip ordinary player, and also balanced so bad for the rules aficionados. Pathfinder by contract might be a bit complex but coming off of 3 5 was very familiar, while also being fantastic for the rules gearheads because, well, just look at all that stuff to play with. But 5E did an end run around Pathfinder 1E by being familiar, but less complex, more casual in its rulings not rules philosophy and de-emphasizing rules mastery. So if you're the sort of player who doesn't care about rules even of themselves, 5E is much better than Pathfinder because it cuts straight to letting you stab orcs.

Pathfinder 2E is very invested in rules for the sake of rules. My recollection of reading the rulebook is that it was like 5 pages of general rules, and a couple hundred of abilities and spells and feats, so in effect the only way to do anything more complex than walking across the room was to take a class and buy an ability that turned on some rule snippet for your character. So that right there makes it less appealing than 5E for a pretzel and adventure player. But it is also very restrictive, with tight, balanced math, the thing the gearheads say they want but never seem to actually like. Which leaves it in the unenviable position of being a gearhead game without much reward for nerding out over it.

[Snowbluff]

True. But it is how they are used.

3.5 had a ridiculous amount of prestige classes, most of them utterly forgettible, also generally accessible rather late and often laden with prerequisites that made you plan your whole build in advance. Pathfinder hardly used prestige classes but heavily leaned on archetypes instead. In addition it introduced lots of archetypes that worked as proper alternative to multiclassing, swapping a signiture ability for another (like vivisectionist or mutation warrior). It still retained regular multiclassing so you could build lots of fun combinations that were online before level 10.

I get where you're coming from, but there are ACFs in 3.5 that are literally ability swaps between classes.

Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

...and the irony is that the clearly-less-balanced 5E thoroughly eclipses PF2 in popularity, just like how the less-balanced PF1 eclipsed 4E.

So still a case of "designers gonna design". Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

If only there was some kind of axiom that would have predicted this.

All kidding aside, I do think there is something to this. I think there may have been an issue at some point where game balance was considered over expression. The result is something where people aren't able to work creatively, for better or worse, to their taste.

I've never played a well balanced system, or at least, a system that doesn't fail to meet the standards of people who complain (the term I'll use since I don't want to besmirch anyone who is genuinely distressed) about balance. I know people like to rag on 5e for having unbalanced casters, but relative to how they worked in 3.5 they are way more in line, but despite this 3.5 is my favorite because there's a lot more varied content. Not that 5e isn't great (it's fantastics and I would gladly smash it into 3.5 for a frankenstein system), but my enjoyment does seem to be inversely proportional to balancing at times.

And as a DM I like the "ok DM, this one's up to you" approach to the DM side. I don't want rules and regulations and crunch for everything.

I want to point out that this is something I've noticed as well. I've played a lot of games whose rules are more oriented towards social encounters (Masks comes to mind), and I definitely feel more constricted in how I roleplay when there's more mechanical consequences in this situation.

[Rynjin]

Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

And, notably, Mark Seifter was a major figure in PF2's development.

Love the guy as a person, he's great. As a designer he has a lot of cool ideas that he feels the need to shackle as hard as humanly possible with pure mathematics, and it makes a lot of the stuff he designs feel very stifled and almost sterile. See: PF1 Kineticist as the first indicator of this issue.

[Segev]

Indeed, but archetypes aren't even a PF1 thing. It's just a rebranding of alternate class features that 3.5 has.

Sort of. Archetypes are rooted in the same principle: that you can trade out one feature for another of hopefully-equal value for better flavor and customization. However, archetypes both come with a bigger limitation, and got expanded to do more ambitious things.

The limitation is that archetypes are all-or-nothing. You take the archetype if you want it, but you must take EVERY feature of the archetype, and may not keep any of the features it trades in for in lieu of features from the archetype you like less. Some of the archetypes seem balanced around this to an extent, trading weaker features for stronger ones at one level, only to trade stronger ones for weaker ones at another. Sometimes they get this balance wrong, and an archetype is just stronger or just weaker, but they do seem to try.

The expansion into more ambitious areas is that archetypes are often used to "hybridize" classes, almost as a substitute for multiclassing. Where 3.5's alternate class features were all on-theme for the class they were trading into, some archetypes can be stripped-down versions of an entire different class, redesigned a bit to synergize better with the base class whose features the archetype is replacing. One vigilante archetype swaps in a bunch of summoner spellcasting and a mutable familiar with some unique modifications to the vigilante's core tools to make a Magical Girl class out of it. (This one is sadly not well done, mechanically, but is an interesting example of attempting to use archetypes to make a whole new theme to a class.)

[Ignimortis]

They may also have, after years of people whinging about balance, reached the truly bizarre conclusion that people want balance.

There's balance and then there's balance. The general issue with balancing is that everyone's first thought when it comes to "easy ways to balance" is "make everyone play the same", and the second thought is "what you can't homogenize, just tune to the general lowest performer". PF2 is balanced around Fighter. Fighter is incredibly good in PF2, numerically, because it is now a numbers game most and foremost, and Fighter has the numbers, while not losing out on anything else most of the time.

I find that designers like to balance to the previous floor rather than the previous ceiling or even the midpoint. See: 5e being basically designed around Champion Fighter - you could drop all casters from the game and give the party of all martials a wand of Restoration, and they'd still be able to fight all of the MM properly. PF2 reining in casters so that they're support to the Fighter and an all-martial party is probably more capable than an all-caster party...

3.5 had a ridiculous amount of prestige classes, most of them utterly forgettable, also generally accessible rather late and often laden with prerequisites that made you plan your whole build in advance. Pathfinder hardly used prestige classes but heavily leaned on archetypes instead. In addition it introduced lots of archetypes that worked as proper alternative to multiclassing, swapping a signature ability for another (like vivisectionist or mutation warrior). It still retained regular multiclassing so you could build lots of fun combinations that were online before level 10.

I'd be halfway through or even done with most prestige classes by level 10. The fact that they don't exactly start working before level 5 or 6 is intended. Not all archetypes work straight out of the gate, too.

I think that Prestige Classes should've had a bit more of..."+1 previous class progression" in them, applicable not only to spells, but classes in general. So your Prestige Class still gives you some Fighter features if you levelled into it from Fighter, and if you continue to Fighter, your Fighter level is considered to be, say, Fighter level+(Prestige_Class_X level/2).

Spells-as-primary-class-features sucks IMO.

We have our differences in how we want games to be, but I'd sign this for sure. And add "Especially if it encroaches on other class features, i.e. your non-caster class feature allows you to produce an effect of a spell, verbatim".

And, notably, Mark Seifter was a major figure in PF2's development.

Love the guy as a person, he's great. As a designer he has a lot of cool ideas that he feels the need to shackle as hard as humanly possible with pure mathematics, and it makes a lot of the stuff he designs feel very stifled and almost sterile. See: PF1 Kineticist as the first indicator of this issue.

That...might explain things. IIRC, Seifter left Paizo at some point last year?

[animorte]

We have our differences in how we want games to be, but I'd sign this for sure. And add "Especially if it encroaches on other class features, i.e. your non-caster class feature allows you to produce an effect of a spell, verbatim".

Agreed, that's annoying. It's one of the reasons I like the design of Channel Divinity. Sure, plenty of them are similar to spells (because there happen to be a kajillion spells), but they each give a description of effects taking place as opposed to, "you cast <insert spell here>."

[ahyangyi]

I think that Prestige Classes should've had a bit more of..."+1 previous class progression" in them, applicable not only to spells, but classes in general. So your Prestige Class still gives you some Fighter features if you levelled into it from Fighter, and if you continue to Fighter, your Fighter level is considered to be, say, Fighter level+(Prestige_Class_X level/2).

I think that's the reason why Stargazer and Exalted are so loved in Pathfinder 1e. I wish more prestige classes (e.g., Eldritch Knight) worked that way.

The expansion into more ambitious areas is that archetypes are often used to "hybridize" classes, almost as a substitute for multiclassing. Where 3.5's alternate class features were all on-theme for the class they were trading into, some archetypes can be stripped-down versions of an entire different class, redesigned a bit to synergize better with the base class whose features the archetype is replacing. One vigilante archetype swaps in a bunch of summoner spellcasting and a mutable familiar with some unique modifications to the vigilante's core tools to make a Magical Girl class out of it. (This one is sadly not well done, mechanically, but is an interesting example of attempting to use archetypes to make a whole new theme to a class.)

The right way to make Vigilante is the pf2e way: make it into an archetype that everyone can pick, instead of making it a class that can "fake" about 7 other classes.

That said, I do love the hybridize thing. Eldritch Scion was something I wish could happen more in the game.

And, notably, Mark Seifter was a major figure in PF2's development.

Love the guy as a person, he's great. As a designer he has a lot of cool ideas that he feels the need to shackle as hard as humanly possible with pure mathematics, and it makes a lot of the stuff he designs feel very stifled and almost sterile. See: PF1 Kineticist as the first indicator of this issue.

Alas, I think I generally love tight and tactical mechanics. But there is something I never understood: why did the 4e/pf2e designers thought it was good to balance their design around "55% accuracy / hit on a 10"?

It wasn't a tradition (3.5e/pf1 didn't do this). And in many tactical games, the accuracy usually depends on the circumstances (cover), not your "build".

The very thought that you need to devote a large chunk of resources just to hit things 55% of the time is terrible, to be honest.

[Ignimortis]

Alas, I think I generally love tight and tactical mechanics. But there is something I never understood: why did the 4e/pf2e designers thought it was good to balance their design around "55% accuracy / hit on a 10"?

It wasn't a tradition (3.5e/pf1 didn't do this). And in many tactical games, the accuracy usually depends on the circumstances (cover), not your "build".

The very thought that you need to devote a large chunk of resources just to hit things 55% of the time is terrible, to be honest.

In PF2, getting to hit the average same-level target on an 8 or so is the default (as in, you don't need to invest anything to get there, and, in fact, can't invest anything to go beyond). It wobbles anywhere from 7 to 10 at some points, but that's pretty much the entire range.

As for why they designed it that way, I think at least in part that 1) for PF2, someone was infatuated with the idea of making critical hits be "roll >= AC+10" 2) in general, it makes for very easy forced tactics - hitting on a 8 or a 9 is unacceptable, therefore players WILL play in a way to mitigate the low basic to-hit - flank the target, use buffs/debuffs to improve the odds, etc. In the end, it works, but due to the crit formula and the intended balance, you cannot have "powerful, but imprecise" or "precise, but not very strong" attacks, as precise attacks will crit a ton (and someone WILL abuse that with crit weapons), and imprecise attacks won't be worth it.

[Rynjin]

There's balance and then there's balance. The general issue with balancing is that everyone's first thought when it comes to "easy ways to balance" is "make everyone play the same", and the second thought is "what you can't homogenize, just tune to the general lowest performer". PF2 is balanced around Fighter. Fighter is incredibly good in PF2, numerically, because it is now a numbers game most and foremost, and Fighter has the numbers, while not losing out on anything else most of the time.

I find that designers like to balance to the previous floor rather than the previous ceiling or even the midpoint. See: 5e being basically designed around Champion Fighter - you could drop all casters from the game and give the party of all martials a wand of Restoration, and they'd still be able to fight all of the MM properly. PF2 reining in casters so that they're support to the Fighter and an all-martial party is probably more capable than an all-caster party...

It's wild, yeah. I made my first "balance is not homogeneity" rant as far back as 2009, on the SPUF forums for Team Fortress 2. It's not a complicated concept and yet some people think it is.

That...might explain things. IIRC, Seifter left Paizo at some point last year?

Basically everyone with any talent or morals has left Paizo for greener pastures, yeah.

[Kurald Galain]

Alas, I think I generally love tight and tactical mechanics.

Me too; but while I would call 5E and particularly PF2 "tight", I don't think either of them can rightfully be called "tactical". 3E and 4E (and PF1) have a lot of tactical mechanics but aren't particularly "tight".

The very thought that you need to devote a large chunk of resources just to hit things 55% of the time is terrible, to be honest.

I agree. I also like that in 3E/PF, the spread is much larger, so some level-appropriate monsters have a high armor class and on the other hand there's oozes with terribly low AC. So this goes from "hit on a 2+" to "you'd better start flanking and debuffing or else you hit on a 16+". This is more interesting than nailing down every level-appropriate monster between "hit on a 9+" and "hit on an 11+"

[Willie the Duck]

For a lot of the instances I've seen first hand, it was less of a reflexive trigger against it and more of a snapping point against constantly being pestered to swap out of 5e "because pathfinder's way better".

In as much as anyone is "triggered*" by it, I think it is because such individuals have run into a zealous PF aficionado claiming either that it does everything from play better to wash your car and do your taxes, or that it is just plain 'better' than conversation-pertinent alternative. That's pretty normal for internet conversation (see also: Stars Wars/Trek boosters, Marvel/DC, Consoles/PCs, favorite authors, etc.). I think Pathfinder specifically has picked up some tension and energy associated with the D&D 3e-->4e transition and all the hurt feelings and gnashing of teeth that instigated. Also some general notion that PF is a better game because it isn't produced by WotC/Hasbro (certainly true for the last month or so, but the sentiment existed before then).
*side issue: I wish the colloquial use of this term would just die.

Regarding the game, I'm always at a loss at how people treat it as such a different or unique entity*. I feel like this is true if and only if the scale is defined by D&D alone. Once you measure you crunch on a scale from Fudge or Freeform Universal RPG on one end and Aftermath, Eclipse Phase, GURPS or Hero System (depending on how you define crunch), all the D&Ds and PFs fit into a tiny band of the spectrum. If balance discussions start including RIFTS or the like, again D&D and PF don't seem so far apart. Certainly in terms of character build choice none hold a candle to the generic systems (plus any without levelling, where you automatically gain X alongside your increase in Y). Tactically, there are any number of games with more on-battlefield decisions mattering, sometimes sliding into 'are we sure this is an RPG and not a wargame?' territory. Thus when there are discussions that boil down to 'you should play D&D5/PF2 instead of the other, because the one I prefer is great at _____,' it seems like a non-starter to me, as they both hold very middle-ground positions on any given preference-measure.
*this is true of D&D 4e as well, to be honest, although it is more of a departure than PF or PF2.

[kyoryu]

Thus when there are discussions that boil down to 'you should play D&D5/PF2 instead of the other, because the one I prefer is great at _____,' it seems like a non-starter to me, as they both hold very middle-ground positions on any given preference-measure.
*this is true of D&D 4e as well, to be honest, although it is more of a departure than PF or PF2.

It's Coke and Pepsi. Sure, they're not the same, but they're both fundamentally cola. And if I don't want cola in general (either at the moment or in general), then it's frustrating at times being told that Pepsi is the only alternative to Coke and vice versa.

Sometimes I want lemonade, or water, or iced tea, or orange soda, or Dr. Pepper.