Pathfinder 2 Release

[Rynjin]

Y

In other news, I made a thread on Paizo to ask the devs about their design goals: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ol4?PF-2-design-goals#1 In case you don't know, they didn't want to part with their list, for us knowing it would influence the feedback. Of course it would influence it. Then we would have known if what you do is actually what you want and not just waver about the things, not knowing if a certain change is good or bad. But what my primary interest is - because I doubt the devs will answer - how long the thread survives their moderation.

I also made that thread a while back.

They aren't likely to lock or delete it at this stage, merely ignore it. It's a question they have no interest in answering.

I legitimately miss the days SKR would berate people on the forums, because at least he gave useful information and valuable insights while haranguing forumites.

[Divine Susuryu]

I also made that thread a while back.

They aren't likely to lock or delete it at this stage, merely ignore it. It's a question they have no interest in answering.

I legitimately miss the days SKR would berate people on the forums, because at least he gave useful information and valuable insights while haranguing forumites.

I recognise that thread! The only answer we really ever got was some sort of marketing "well we want a game everyone can play, easy to learn hard to master, streamlined and still complex" that meant literally nothing concrete or measurable in any way. There's not really any evidence that there's any concrete goal for the game other than "we believe that changing market conditions require a new product launch".

[Blackhawk748]

I recognise that thread! The only answer we really ever got was some sort of marketing "well we want a game everyone can play, easy to learn hard to master, streamlined and still complex" that meant literally nothing concrete or measurable in any way. There's not really any evidence that there's any concrete goal for the game other than "we believe that changing market conditions require a new product launch".

That's...that's the design goal of Kings of War. As in, the Mantic designers said exactly the same thing, minus the "everyone can play" thing, because its a War Game, not everyone wants to play a wargame.

Except Kings of War did that, by and large, while PF2E doesn't look like it did that. I mean, sure its simple, but mastering this doesn't seem terribly difficult or even worth it.

[Particle_Man]

That is not the same as a true trap option, which is at best trash in almost all situations (like Vital Strike), or even actively makes your character worse (like the whole chain of Feats coming off of Vital Strike).

Although Mythic Vital Strike makes up for it.

I guess I am confused by 2e. If they want to silo abilities and have niche protection, I guess I can see it. But I don’t get what the rationale is for the particular abilities that get silo’d. I mean, take the rogue (thief) being the only one to get dex to damage. Is that more iconic than sneak attack, which one can do a little of with a feat? In 1e yes the unchained rogue had the dex to damage thing at level three, but there was also another way to do it via a feat chain. 3.5 had a way to do it with three feats (or one, plus a single level of swordsage).

I see neither the simplicity of D&D 5e nor the breadth of customizable chargen choices of D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e. It seems to be marketed towards people that divide “iconic class abilities that need niche protection” in exactly the way the game developers do and, well, people vary on that. I am beginning to think that they should have either simplified greatly or gone all-in on the customization, perhaps assigning points to abilities a la GURPS and then providing suggested templates for classes.

[Pex]

Most Talent-likes aren't traps in the traditional sense in any case, barring Rogue Talents (which ARE almost universally trash...there's a reason it's a class they printed a straight upgraded version of).

Many Talent-likes are SITUATIONAL, certainly, but do have a niche where they're very strong in some kinds of campaigns.

Defoliant Bomb is generally trash, for example, but is the kind of Discovery that would be a legitimate pick in some published adventures (like Kingmaker or Serpent's Skull) and similar styles of homebrew game.

That is not the same as a true trap option, which is at best trash in almost all situations (like Vital Strike), or even actively makes your character worse (like the whole chain of Feats coming off of Vital Strike).

Here's an example of not everyone agreeing on what is weak. I do not think Vital Strike is trash. Of course you don't use it when you can make a full attack, but if you're only getting one attack for your action anyway, such as because you moved, use the feat and get in a bit more damage.

[EldritchWeaver]

In SoM, Vital Strike has far more mileage now, too.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
I legitimately miss the days SKR would berate people on the forums….

A few days ago I posted a question about SKR on the Paizo forums, since there had been a reference upthread that I didn’t understand.

My question and the preceding reference were deleted in minutes. Followed by commentary from an employee to the effect that I was in the wrong to raise the question at all.

Originally Posted by Particle_Man
I guess I am confused by 2e.…. I see neither the simplicity of D&D 5e nor the breadth of customizable chargen choices of D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e.

I’m certainly baffled by some of the design choices I’m reading about in this thread. They seem to range from mildly wonky to actively counterproductive, and I can’t really see myself spending the time and effort necessary to understand and work with those changes.

Fact is, this thread has convinced me like no other that PF2 is not for me. It seems to be a radical overhaul for the sake of making a radical overhaul, which may be job security for the developers, but hardly enticing to me as a prospective player. I'll spend that money filling in the gaps in my 1E collection.

[Rynjin]

Here's an example of not everyone agreeing on what is weak. I do not think Vital Strike is trash. Of course you don't use it when you can make a full attack, but if you're only getting one attack for your action anyway, such as because you moved, use the feat and get in a bit more damage.

The issue with Vital Strike is that mathematically the payoff is weak for what you're paying, and only gets weaker as you level.

It is theoretically worthwhile for Fighters, who can grab it at 6 and then retrain it at 10th (when it starts to really show its age) but to keep for your whole character's lifespan?

The only people it's worth it AT ALL on are big 2H fighter bois, who can eke out an extra 2d6 damage from it.

We can easily use the conversion that the system math is based on that 3 damage is equal to 1 attack bonus. You are getting an extra +7 damage on average out of it.

By the math why not just use Furious Focus (another Feat that still isn't super great, actually)? While at 6th level it only gets you +2 attack (worth 6 damage, making Vital Strike MARGINALLY better), by 8th level it's giving you +3 (worth 9 damage), and continues to get better from there. And ALSO works when you do get to Full Attack, not just when you can't.

That's why Vital Strike is a trap; it looks good on paper but even when you factor out its drawbacks and wonky action usage meaning it doesn't combo with ANYTHING, it is statistically worse than another already questionable Feat that comes online 5-6 levels earlier, except in the very specific corner case circumstance you've finagled your Gm into letting you play a Large character or are going that goofy Ooze Druid build, since 3d8 or higher damage dice does out-value Furious Focus' bonus at every level.

A few days ago I posted a question about SKR on the Paizo forums, since there had been a reference upthread that I didn’t understand.

My question and the preceding reference were deleted in minutes. Followed by commentary from an employee to the effect that I was in the wrong to raise the question at all.

Was it "water balloons" or "Rolf the Dhampir"?

[Blackhawk748]

A few days ago I posted a question about SKR on the Paizo forums, since there had been a reference upthread that I didn’t understand.

My question and the preceding reference were deleted in minutes. Followed by commentary from an employee to the effect that I was in the wrong to raise the question at all.

That sort of stuff, the intense hatred for Gunslinger's and Barbarians doing high damage (y'know the one thing they are good at), and the Devs seeming to make of all their decisions based off of feedback from people who have an extremely tenuous grasp of optimization is why I refuse to be on the Paizo forums

I do not to well with threads being silently offed without explanation and in some cases refusal tk even admit the thread existed

[Divine Susuryu]

...people who have an extremely tenuous grasp of optimization...

It's endemic to RPG communities of all stripes to a certain extent. There seems to be a belief that the actual "game" aspect of an RPG doesn't and shouldn't matter. I'd argue it's less about having a tenuous grasp of it than an abject refusal to even consider it. There's a reason that RAW is not the default mode of discussion. It's frustrating because that sort of attitude just leads to much worse game design in the long run.

[Blackhawk748]

It's endemic to RPG communities of all stripes to a certain extent. There seems to be a belief that the actual "game" aspect of an RPG doesn't and shouldn't matter. I'd argue it's less about having a tenuous grasp of it than an abject refusal to even consider it. There's a reason that RAW is not the default mode of discussion. It's frustrating because that sort of attitude just leads to much worse game design in the long run.

But games for that exist! Apocalypse World and Fate immediately spring to mind, and they do it fairly well. This is a class based system which is definitely on the crunchier end of the spectrum. In fact it's part of why I play them.

I'm not even asking for high end OP just realizing that Gunslinger's do LITERALLY ONE THING and getting angry at them for that is unreasonable. God it's the Lore Warden all over again

[Divine Susuryu]

But games for that exist! Apocalypse World and Fate immediately spring to mind, and they do it fairly well. This is a class based system which is definitely on the crunchier end of the spectrum. In fact it's part of why I play them.

I'm not even asking for high end OP just realizing that Gunslinger's do LITERALLY ONE THING and getting angry at them for that is unreasonable. God it's the Lore Warden all over again

Games for that exist, but they aren't D&D or to a lesser extent Pathfinder, and hence don't really have the brand power, so a lot of people haven't heard of them. Even ignoring that, people are loyal to their preffered game to a fault, and will try and hammer that square peg into a round hole for a long long time.

AW I'm not a huge fan of, as it seems too conducive to misery-fests (and has dumb stuff like a "success at a cost" for doing something unseen being "you're seen"), but FATE and derivative systems I will endlessly recommend.

[Mehangel]

The issue with Vital Strike is that mathematically the payoff is weak for what you're paying, and only gets weaker as you level.

I just wanted to reiterate that Vital Strike (and the rest of the feat chain) isn't necessarily a "trap option" for characters built off of the attack action, like those using Spheres of Might.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
Was it "water balloons" or "Rolf the Dhampir"?

Neither. I don’t recall the exact words now, just a reference to something SKR had said.

Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu
…people are loyal to their preffered game to a fault….

To be fair, there are other factors besides loyalty. One reason I never really looked at 5E is that I simply do not have the free time available to learn an entirely new system. I’m still learning all the fine differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Given that I’m relatively new to Pathfinder, I feel a bit like the rug’s been pulled out from under me. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a “betrayal,” but it’s definitely annoying, and I can't deny the feeling of a door being shut in my face. I liked the idea that new content was coming out, however hit or miss it might have been, and that I could bring whatever I liked directly into my game.

So I will stick with 1E because that’s the system I know, and I will gently tap various pegs into various holes as needed to run the game that my players and I enjoy. Is this “optimal”? Probably not. But I have no time, money or emotional energy to pick through PF2, much less other game systems I’ve barely even heard of. Some other system may have the perfect blend of secret gaming sauces, but I’ll stick with the working man’s buffet that’s served me well thus far.

[Blackhawk748]

Games for that exist, but they aren't D&D or to a lesser extent Pathfinder, and hence don't really have the brand power, so a lot of people haven't heard of them. Even ignoring that, people are loyal to their preffered game to a fault, and will try and hammer that square peg into a round hole for a long long time.

AW I'm not a huge fan of, as it seems too conducive to misery-fests (and has dumb stuff like a "success at a cost" for doing something unseen being "you're seen"), but FATE and derivative systems I will endlessly recommend.

I mean, yes, its why I hung onto 3.5 for so long, but I do venture out into Savage Worlds if I want a simpler game or a lower powered one.

AW is what it is, it was designed with that in mind and so I don't hold it against the system. They are fairly upfront about what they intend and I appreciate that. That being said, I do prefer Fate if I wanna go super light,and I just don't understand why PF 2E decided to go as soft as they did. There is a not small group of gamers who like mechanical complexity to their game and the big companies constantly pushing this "easier to understand" game is annoying.

If I wanted that I'd be playing Savage Worlds, which does it much better.

[Rynjin]

I just wanted to reiterate that Vital Strike (and the rest of the feat chain) isn't necessarily a "trap option" for characters built off of the attack action, like those using Spheres of Might.

There's not really any point in discussing 3rd party options when speaking about any particular combat option as it exists in the base game.

[upho]

That's why Vital Strike is a trap; it looks good on paper but even when you factor out its drawbacks and wonky action usage meaning it doesn't combo with ANYTHING, it is statistically worse than another already questionable Feat that comes online 5-6 levels earlier, except in the very specific corner case circumstance you've finagled your Gm into letting you play a Large character or are going that goofy Ooze Druid build, since 3d8 or higher damage dice does out-value Furious Focus' bonus at every level.

Slightly OT, but VS has actually got quite a few good supporting options during the last two or three years or so, and can definitely be made really powerful without the need of GM convincing or goofy slime druids. Aside from the fact that the Improved and Greater versions do exist, check out for example Divine Fighting Technique (Gorum's Swordmanship) and especially Cerberus Crush (and keep in mind that this can definitely be effectively used by say enlarged Titan Mauler barbs swinging strong jaw-ed Huge butchering axes for up to at least a 48d6 damage die at 16th). Of course, making VS competitive with the stronger full attack combos does of course require a lot of specific investments, but so does virtually any combat style than can be made powerful. And while Furious Focus doesn't have quite the same great potential as the Vital Strike chain, it isn't nearly as weak as it may first appear either, especially for AoO styles (note that it's limited to the first attack made in every turn, not that of every round).

More on topic, I think the above is a quite good example of how comparably little impact PF2's player options have. The numbers, and perhaps even more the number of possible viable adventuring tools available to a PC and a party, are all strictly limited to a preset narrow level-dependent span, allowing for very little meaningful mechanical diversification or specialization. Especially within each class.

Was it "water balloons" or "Rolf the Dhampir"?

Just thinking about these make me laugh out loud, while it simultaneously makes me kinda sad. And worried about SKR's blood pressure...

That sort of stuff, the intense hatred for Gunslinger's and Barbarians doing high damage (y'know the one thing they are good at), and the Devs seeming to make of all their decisions based off of feedback from people who have an extremely tenuous grasp of optimization is why I refuse to be on the Paizo forums

It's endemic to RPG communities of all stripes to a certain extent. There seems to be a belief that the actual "game" aspect of an RPG doesn't and shouldn't matter. I'd argue it's less about having a tenuous grasp of it than an abject refusal to even consider it. There's a reason that RAW is not the default mode of discussion. It's frustrating because that sort of attitude just leads to much worse game design in the long run.

This is unfortunately something which I also believe has at least indirectly negatively affected PF2. And I believe the one big elephant in the room to blame for a large majority of the issues I'm having with PF2 is PFS. Or rather Paizo's focus on PFS, having them sacrifice far too much of the game's attractiveness to facilitate a smooth running of their primary marketing vehicle.

[Divine Susuryu]

More on topic, I think the above is a quite good example of how comparably little impact PF2's player options have. The numbers, and perhaps even more the number of possible viable adventuring tools available to a PC and a party, are all strictly limited to a preset narrow level-dependent span, allowing for very little meaningful mechanical diversification or specialization. Especially within each class.

<snip>

This is unfortunately something which I also believe has at least indirectly negatively affected PF2. And I believe the one big elephant in the room to blame for a large majority of the issues I'm having with PF2 is PFS. Or rather Paizo's focus on PFS, having them sacrifice far too much of the game's attractiveness to facilitate a smooth running of their primary marketing vehicle.

Add in AP design considerations and your second point explains your first. It's a lot easier to run PFS and design APs if you know that all possible characters will have their bonuses in a very small range, for one. For another, if all the abilities are low impact and have very little ability to change the flow of a narrative, then linear stories become much easier to tell.

[Particle_Man]

This is making me nervous that a metaplot is in the offing.

[Silvercrys]

This is making me nervous that a metaplot is in the offing.

Not in the offing, it's basically already here.

PF 2e's setting is the same as PF 1e's (Golarion) and is "updated" or "timeskipped" forward from Pathfinder 1e's setting, and assumes that all adventure paths were successfully completed as if they were actually driving some larger meta-narrative forward.

I tend to stick to homebrew "kitchen-sink" settings so I tend to ignore metaplot stuff, particularly for Golarion because my "default" deities are still Greyhawk ones, but they certainly seem intent on advancing the clock forward as adventure paths are released (and played by PFS members, presumably).

[Ilorin Lorati]

That's been the case since the original Pathfinder launch. One year in the real world means a one year time adjustment for the setting; all the previous adventures, etc. are considered completed, though they tend to be only vaguely mentioned (presumably because not everyone does adventures in order).

[upho]

Add in AP design considerations and your second point explains your first. It's a lot easier to run PFS and design APs if you know that all possible characters will have their bonuses in a very small range, for one. For another, if all the abilities are low impact and have very little ability to change the flow of a narrative, then linear stories become much easier to tell.

Indeed. And maybe this turns out to be a net positive for people who mostly or only play PFS, as their sessions and character mechanics won't be plagued by nearly as much table variance or need for checking up PFS houserules, while most modules will at least be more consistently decently challenging regardless of the other random party members participating. But I very much doubt even PFS players will find these potential gains to be worth the sacrifices.

For those who don't play PFS, like myself, these design goals unfortunately have a distinctly negative impact on the game. I guess the thing that really irks me is that this didn't have to be the case, because the whole premise that the quality of PFS is so dependent on having a minimum of mechanical variation and maximum predictability appears to be very poorly researched, while the considerable drawbacks those design properties come with seem to have been largely ignored. It reeks of knee-jerk reactions to the fact that related issues have been so common in PFS using PF1.

This is making me nervous that a metaplot is in the offing.

There is. I've heard from reliable inside sources that Paizo's next step is to replace all GMs in PFS with a special AI they've co-developed with Google, and PF3 is already being planned to be sold exclusively as an online subscription service including said AI. Naturally it'll sport micro-transactions for cool magic items, more powerful options, detailed combat maps and full player control of character building, plus more substantial fees for access to new APs or for making your virtual GM sound less like a greasy Speak & Spell from 1979. All accompanied by a ton of personalized advertising presented by an innovative piece of content management software able to sense excitement levels so as to interrupt the most intense moments and receive maximum attention, of course. The expected release of the "Deluxe VR LARP" version is 2030 btw...

(Seriously though, I wouldn't be surprised if an actual metaplot is "in the offing"...)

[Pex]

The issue with Vital Strike is that mathematically the payoff is weak for what you're paying, and only gets weaker as you level.

It is theoretically worthwhile for Fighters, who can grab it at 6 and then retrain it at 10th (when it starts to really show its age) but to keep for your whole character's lifespan?

The only people it's worth it AT ALL on are big 2H fighter bois, who can eke out an extra 2d6 damage from it.

We can easily use the conversion that the system math is based on that 3 damage is equal to 1 attack bonus. You are getting an extra +7 damage on average out of it.

By the math why not just use Furious Focus (another Feat that still isn't super great, actually)? While at 6th level it only gets you +2 attack (worth 6 damage, making Vital Strike MARGINALLY better), by 8th level it's giving you +3 (worth 9 damage), and continues to get better from there. And ALSO works when you do get to Full Attack, not just when you can't.

That's why Vital Strike is a trap; it looks good on paper but even when you factor out its drawbacks and wonky action usage meaning it doesn't combo with ANYTHING, it is statistically worse than another already questionable Feat that comes online 5-6 levels earlier, except in the very specific corner case circumstance you've finagled your Gm into letting you play a Large character or are going that goofy Ooze Druid build, since 3d8 or higher damage dice does out-value Furious Focus' bonus at every level.

Or you have Furious Focus and Vital Strike and get the benefits of both. It's fine with me if Vital Strike is more valuable to two-handed weapon users than others. I don't need a feat to be universally awesome for everyone in all occasions to consider taking it when it suits me.

Personally I find Furious Focus to be more valuable to 2/3 BAB classes since it enables them to benefit from Power Attack easier. The downside is how long it takes to get it and Power Attack, so a cleric will have to wait a bit. The trick is to have a class that gets bonus feats. With bias I'm playing in a new game as a War Priest, so I can get both at 3rd level. Certainly later on when these classes get multiple attacks they are unlikely to hit with their iterative attacks, but that was true even without Power Attack if percentage less so. It doesn't hurt to try and go for the luck, but because of the odds there is incentive not to rely on it and use the flexibility of moving or doing move-equivalent actions. Since you're only doing one attack anyway Vital Strike becomes attractive as well to get in a bit extra damage you weren't having missing with the iterative attacks.

[Rynjin]

Or you have Furious Focus and Vital Strike and get the benefits of both.

Opportunity cost is a big thing. Every feat you spend on Vital Strike is one you don't spend on Hurtful, or something similarly nuts. Or just interesting Feats instead of +numbers, which is basically what Vital Strike is.

That's what makes it a "trap". Except in verrrrrrry niche circumstances it's worse than almost any other option, even though it LOOKS okay on paper.

[Pex]

Opportunity cost is a big thing. Every feat you spend on Vital Strike is one you don't spend on Hurtful, or something similarly nuts. Or just interesting Feats instead of +numbers, which is basically what Vital Strike is.

That's what makes it a "trap". Except in verrrrrrry niche circumstances it's worse than almost any other option, even though it LOOKS okay on paper.

Except when someone disagrees with you and finds spending a feat on Vital Strike to be worth the cost, not caring what other Feat exists.

[Rynjin]

Except when someone disagrees with you and finds spending a feat on Vital Strike to be worth the cost, not caring what other Feat exists.

That...doesn't matter. You can prefer a crap option (I love Monks, for example), but we're talking about how good the Feat is by objective measures; numbers and relative impact compared to other options. We're talking about game design, not personal preferences.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Mostly a new game system gives you something new to learn, the actual improvements are marginal at best. I never had much to complain about in the old system. Why do game designers like to write new core rulebooks all the time? New editions take time to learn, when you play the game, you find yourself unfamiliar with the new rules and unsure when in the books to look for them.

I'd much rather they'd write new adventures than new editions of the core rules. But I guess they saturated the market with their first edition, so they had to write new core rules so they can sell new rulebooks. I'm sticking with 3.5, and it has D20 Modern which is mostly compatible with it, the new edition doesn't have d20 Modern, i'd say the same thing about D&D 4th edition and 5th edition.

[Psyren]

That...doesn't matter. You can prefer a crap option (I love Monks, for example), but we're talking about how good the Feat is by objective measures; numbers and relative impact compared to other options. We're talking about game design, not personal preferences.

Objectively, Vital Strike is inferior to full attacking, but it's also objectively superior to standard action attacks. Full-attacking every round isn't always an option. And making your attacks larger (or count as being larger) doesn't take that much "finagling."

[Rynjin]

Objectively, Vital Strike is inferior to full attacking, but it's also objectively superior to standard action attacks. Full-attacking every round isn't always an option. And making your attacks larger (or count as being larger) doesn't take that much "finagling."

We, uh, went over that already.

The issue with Vital Strike is that mathematically the payoff is weak for what you're paying, and only gets weaker as you level.

It is theoretically worthwhile for Fighters, who can grab it at 6 and then retrain it at 10th (when it starts to really show its age) but to keep for your whole character's lifespan?

The only people it's worth it AT ALL on are big 2H fighter bois, who can eke out an extra 2d6 damage from it.

We can easily use the conversion that the system math is based on that 3 damage is equal to 1 attack bonus. You are getting an extra +7 damage on average out of it.

By the math why not just use Furious Focus (another Feat that still isn't super great, actually)? While at 6th level it only gets you +2 attack (worth 6 damage, making Vital Strike MARGINALLY better), by 8th level it's giving you +3 (worth 9 damage), and continues to get better from there. And ALSO works when you do get to Full Attack, not just when you can't.

That's why Vital Strike is a trap; it looks good on paper but even when you factor out its drawbacks and wonky action usage meaning it doesn't combo with ANYTHING, it is statistically worse than another already questionable Feat that comes online 5-6 levels earlier, except in the very specific corner case circumstance you've finagled your Gm into letting you play a Large character or are going that goofy Ooze Druid build, since 3d8 or higher damage dice does out-value Furious Focus' bonus at every level.

Opportunity cost is a big thing. Every feat you spend on Vital Strike is one you don't spend on Hurtful, or something similarly nuts. Or just interesting Feats instead of +numbers, which is basically what Vital Strike is.

That's what makes it a "trap". Except in verrrrrrry niche circumstances it's worse than almost any other option, even though it LOOKS okay on paper.

[Psyren]

We, uh, went over that already.

Right, even in your own post you mention situations/level-ranges where VS is mathematically superior; not every feat is made for optimized level 20 builds.