Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[Kurald Galain]

The blog says

It sounds like there won't be a lot based on domains.

That very sentence talks about "creating a new domain that's perfect for your world"

So clearly they are keeping other worlds than Golarion in mind.

[Acanous]

They have to be careful with this. They don't want to make the same mistake WOTC made with 4E bashing and insulting 3E. To promote P2 they can't do it by criticizing P1. No offense intended, you might be one of the grognards who doesn't play along and won't switch. The DM of my Pathfinder game is the same. He's hating on the idea of it and won't switch. A fellow player in the game on the other hand is hopeful P2 will fix his personal issues with the system, specifically the fighter in comparison to other warrior classes.

Wizards did a horrible, terrible, no good very bad job with every aspect of 4e’s back end, from poor brick and mortar shop support, overpromising and under delivering on online third party sales, insulting the fans in the marketing, and their more toothy game license... it couldn’t have failed harder if it was a communist state.

P2 doesn’t need to insult P1 to give me a reason.
“We’re expanding on X, simplifying Y and making X faster” could be a reason... I just need a mission statement. Something that’ll let me know what the goal is, that they needed to change the whole system for.

[Scowling Dragon]

If we are not going to make goals to playtest and improve for you may as well not even bother DOING it.
They are not previewing a completed book but a PLAYTEST.

[Acanous]

Basically that. They need stated goals or we can’t know what they’re even aiming at, they’re just shooting and making making noise :p

[137beth]

That very sentence talks about "creating a new domain that's perfect for your world"

So clearly they are keeping other worlds than Golarion in mind.

Fair enough. Also, I really thought I had read in the previous cleric blog that they got a bunch of deity-specific feats, but now I can't seem to find that line, so maybe I just imagined the whole thing. I guess we'll see as more information rolls out over the coming months

[Acanous]

We’re a couple weeks too late for adding homebrew to their dev posts. :p

[skaddix]

Wizards did a horrible, terrible, no good very bad job with every aspect of 4e’s back end, from poor brick and mortar shop support, overpromising and under delivering on online third party sales, insulting the fans in the marketing, and their more toothy game license... it couldn’t have failed harder if it was a communist state.

P2 doesn’t need to insult P1 to give me a reason.
“We’re expanding on X, simplifying Y and making X faster” could be a reason... I just need a mission statement. Something that’ll let me know what the goal is, that they needed to change the whole system for.

I agree the mission statement should be clear.

I think the overall idea is to capitalize on the flaws of 5e which is primarily it being to simple. By finding a balance between more depth and options while streamlining the rules is tricky. But again we shouldn't have to speculate on it.

[skaddix]

Fair enough. Also, I really thought I had read in the previous cleric blog that they got a bunch of deity-specific feats, but now I can't seem to find that line, so maybe I just imagined the whole thing. I guess we'll see as more information rolls out over the coming months

I think they said they wanted to but didn't have space still saving a splat book for Deific Obediances and all that stuff is probably smart from the bottom line prospective.
You can count on such a book to deliver on the cash front. Maybe you toss in some combo of Oracle, Inquisitor, and Warpriest as well.

Granted I am not especially concerned with space taken up in the PHB on how to create your own Domain. Monster/NPC Creation sure. Custom Cleric Domains though that doesn't sound especially difficult to do assuming you got a list of Domains that are prebuilt to work on.

[Eldariel]

I'm just happy if they get the basic combat mechanics right for once; spells, monsters and such you can rework easily enough but basic combat mechanics (in the case of PF, the abomination that is full attack, the silly high speed casting where spells are generally faster than attacking, ability to completely circumvent melee threat by walking around it due to turn structure, etc.) are so deeply ingrained the system (lots of feats and such work off it) that reworking those entails reworking the whole system at which point it's more economical to just make your own, which nobody will bother to learn except for maybe that one guy at your table leaving you with one game at best to work with.

[Knaight]

P2 doesn’t need to insult P1 to give me a reason.
“We’re expanding on X, simplifying Y and making X faster” could be a reason... I just need a mission statement. Something that’ll let me know what the goal is, that they needed to change the whole system for.

The problem is that some of the P1 fanbase will read these as insults - P1 X is overly minimal, P1 Y is overly complicated, P1 X is too slow - and then overreact a bit. Acknowledging design imperfections has not historically been a strong point in the D&D community, for any edition.

[Pex]

The problem is that some of the P1 fanbase will read these as insults - P1 X is overly minimal, P1 Y is overly complicated, P1 X is too slow - and then overreact a bit. Acknowledging design imperfections has not historically been a strong point in the D&D community, for any edition.

True. Consider how hard I defend 3E whenever someone here bashes it unfairly or uncalled for, and it's been out of print for 10 years.

[upho]

Yes. I think the fact that Tabletop games have a fundemental level of investing your own time and encouraging "Modding" (And 3rd party creation) means that people are not as attached to the products on the emotional level that stuff like TV shows and Videogames do.

That may very well be a part of the reason. Also, you're obviously a very mean person if you post well-argued critique about something which may lead to the fanboys having to question their convictions (or blissful ignorance). Such negativity disrespects their feelings, especially if it's based on facts!

Complaining about the echo-chamber caused by an easily made typo is missing the forest for the trees, since "Legendary bonuses" are a mere +3 bonus.

It seems kind of dishonest to say "they didn't say a +2 bonus was legendary, why are you saying being legendary isn't impressive enough" if what they actually said was that a +3 bonus was legendary.

I apologize for not being clear enough when I obviously made this appear as if it was about whether the bonus is +2 or +3. Here's what Kurald first wrote on the matter:

I dislike that they're using superlatives like "becoming legendary" when they really mean "get Spell Focus as a feat". As a mandatory pick, and at level 12.

First, this seems to confuse the spell DC boosts the cleric gets at 12th and 16th with the +3 spell DC boost which "legendary" casting proficiency grants. Second, I'll totally agree with Kurald here if the spell DC bonus rising from +2 to +3 turns out to be the only improvement legendary proficency grants on top of master proficiency, but the devs have indeed mentioned that it should come with quite a few other potentially much more significant benefits (most likely coming from gaining access to new/additional options/effects, it appears). Whatever our thoughts are on the PDT's ability to deliver on that, so far there's not nearly enough reason to not even give them the benefit of the doubt. Third, while I agree the term "legendary" fits poorly with a +3 spell DC bonus, we don't know whether "legendary" will turn out to be perfectly appropriate, and my comment was basically a reminder that Paizo still haven't given us nearly enough useful info to really have this discussion yet. Which is also why I said I don't really care what they call proficiency levels, especially when they still haven't supplied us with nearly enough info to say anything other than basically "legendary is better than master or expert".

And when Cosi next wrote "Calling a +2 bonus legendary is insane" I (perhaps incorrectly) perceived it as if he was basing this on what Kurald had posted. Hence my "echochamber" comment.

Finally, I'm sort of guilty of having a hidden agenda with my second post on this, as it was to some degree meant as a warning not to devalue perfectly valid critique with inaccurate statements. And as I said in my reply to Psyren regarding "axes to grind", a non-small part of the reason I reacted was specifically because I'm also guilty of demanding certain posters to live up to a higher standard than the majority. That's especially true if what they're saying sounds opinionated and therefore risks being easily dismissed by those who disagree.

No I don't, but that's because that's not the place you should start. "What should we name these things" is not a question that you answer with a playtest. The question that should be asked, and the one for which Paizo has not (to my knowledge) provided an answer, is "why do we need five proficiency levels"? Why not just have unlocks key off of ranks? Why specifically five? What's the advantage of having proficiency levels at all? That's what you should be talking about when you're promoting your new ruleset.

Yes, indeed. This was one of the perhaps less obvious points I was trying to make by asking for better names and by providing my own off-the-cuff list of more or less silly suggestions. Paizo even mentioning the names of the proficiency levels at this stage is like asking the readers to make guesses about the proverbial horse they've hidden behind the far less relevant cart. I really think it would've been a lot wiser to present the design goals and the basic mechanical principles (and math) in the first preview. Doing so could certainly have created enough mystery for at least an equal amount of buzz, with people speculating about the details rather than the fundamentals. The IMO backward way they're actually doing it unfortunately seems bound to result in people's expectations becoming disparate and less likely to be met by the actual system when it's fully revealed in August.

In fact, I would go so far as to describe all the PF2e previews as a trick mirror that reflects whatever your own opinions of Paizo are. It's as if there's no substance to the articles at all, only what you read into it.

I agree, at least to some extent. Which is why I've tried hard not to have my opinions on the PDT's design decisions for P1 dictate my interpretations of the few snippets of info we've been given about P2 so far. Unfortunately that's getting harder with every preview blog, so now I'm mostly just working on dialing back my hopes and expectations even further while trying to avoid falling into the proverbial pit of "cynical doom and gloom"...

Go read some threads on The Gaming Den about pretty much any game. By comparison, this forum has a very strong bias against saying things are bad. Also, the people there have a much better understanding of how game design does and should work.

I agree about the game design understanding part, at least in terms of how the "average" discussions on such subjects goes when comparing these two forums. But I've personally not seen much of the bias against voicing critique on this particular sub-forum though.

To Psyren "having an axe to grind" just means "doesn't always agree with the designers". That's why he wants everyone to just shut up and assume that any design decisions that look bad now are simply the worst parts of the game (which the designers have voluntarily released in advance of the other, much better, parts for reasons), rather than being representative of the game.

I wouldn't go that far. I mean, it's not as if Psyren hasn't ever made negative comments about Paizo design decisions, and/or never agreed with another poster's critique. But yeah, IME he's typically a lot less critical than many other posters, myself included. Unfortunately, this polarization seems to be getting worse, with people on both sides increasingly often dismissing/straw-manning/ignoring perfectly valid arguments on the basis of what they believe the poster's general opinion of PF/Paizo is, or even simply on the basis of whether the point argued is critical of PF/Paizo or not. Which inevitably seems to create a downward spiral, with people on both sides apparently feeling like they cannot afford to even recognize valid arguments on details if they go against their general opinion, but have to keep "stemming the tide" of unwarranted praise/critique.

Coincidentally, this also touches on why I personally really want your critique to be as accurate and fact-based as possible, not something easily dismissed as opinionated BS from an "axe-grinder". Especially because such critique helps readers determine whether those responding to it are unreasonably biased or not. Or to put in other words, I'd hate to see this deteriorating into the same kind of dumb, polarized and nuance lacking debate which too often plagues RL politics.

As far as I can tell, my position is exactly what it is "supposed" to be according to Psyren. I have standards for what I consider to be "good design", I want games to meet those standards, and I do not spend money on games that do not. And yet I have no doubt in my mind that I am one of the people he thinks "has an axe to grind".

Unfortunately, I believe you're right here.

@ Psyren and Florian: Cosi's opinions aren't "widely rejected" AFAICT. And if his perspectives make him an outlier, his critique is likely even more worth listening to, as those perspectives are bound to reveal important aspects hidden from those of the mainstream. More importantly, whether his opinions are rejected or not doesn't say much about whether his arguments and points are valid or not. (And I personally agree with a lot of his points, especially the more general ones.)

[Psyren]

@ Psyren and Florian: Cosi's opinions aren't "widely rejected" AFAICT. And if his perspectives make him an outlier, his critique is likely even more worth listening to, as those perspectives are bound to reveal important aspects hidden from those of the mainstream. More importantly, whether his opinions are rejected or not doesn't say much about whether his arguments and points are valid or not. (And I personally agree with a lot of his points, especially the more general ones.)

Well, at the risk of sounding blunt, I don't care for his "critique"; hence him being on my ignore list going on a year now.

I'm just happy if they get the basic combat mechanics right for once; spells, monsters and such you can rework easily enough but basic combat mechanics (in the case of PF, the abomination that is full attack, the silly high speed casting where spells are generally faster than attacking, ability to completely circumvent melee threat by walking around it due to turn structure, etc.) are so deeply ingrained the system (lots of feats and such work off it) that reworking those entails reworking the whole system at which point it's more economical to just make your own, which nobody will bother to learn except for maybe that one guy at your table leaving you with one game at best to work with.

The action changes seem directly aimed at solving these sorts of issues, yes.

If we are not going to make goals to playtest and improve for you may as well not even bother DOING it.
They are not previewing a completed book but a PLAYTEST.

We got the short version in the FAQ; they want a game that's more approachable, and there's a number of key elements of the PF experience (like archetypes) that they wanted to make core. Beyond that, this is their chance to (their words) "open the patient" and basically rework a bunch of things they've wanted to errata for some time.

[Morty]

I'm just happy if they get the basic combat mechanics right for once; spells, monsters and such you can rework easily enough but basic combat mechanics (in the case of PF, the abomination that is full attack, the silly high speed casting where spells are generally faster than attacking, ability to completely circumvent melee threat by walking around it due to turn structure, etc.) are so deeply ingrained the system (lots of feats and such work off it) that reworking those entails reworking the whole system at which point it's more economical to just make your own, which nobody will bother to learn except for maybe that one guy at your table leaving you with one game at best to work with.

They are changing the action economy, so we just need to see how it actually works. Weapon proficiencies will maybe (emphasis on maybe) give characters that use them a range of actions without having to sink feats into it.

For the rest... they won't do anything to AC or constantly-increasing HP, so those will keep weighing the system down. Likewise with the class list. No news about the weapon list, but I don't expect it to change much.

[upho]

Well, at the risk of sounding blunt, I don't care for his "critique"; hence him being on my ignore list going on a year now.

Sorry to hear this is still the case.

We got the short version in the FAQ; they want a game that's more approachable, and there's a number of key elements of the PF experience (like archetypes) that they wanted to make core. Beyond that, this is their chance to (their words) "open the patient" and basically rework a bunch of things they've wanted to errata for some time.

If those are the actual design goals which has guided development work on P2, the game is highly likely to be a joke with poor mechanical consistency and arbitrary numbers all over the place. I really do believe the PDT is a lot better at defining design goals than that. Most importantly, that means translating the largely subjective "vision/mission statements" you mentioned into objective actual goals and objectives, meaning they should be as quantified and as concrete as they possibly can. A few simple examples:

• The number of bonus types should decrease by 30-40% in comparison to P1.
• DR and ER is merged into DR.
• Each class has 3-4 archetypes in the CRB.
• Each class grants access to at least 2 new class feats at every second level.
• No "true" multiclassing; some signature abilities normally restricted to another class are granted by special class feats (à la VMC in P1).
• Permanent PC d20 bonus values (skills, saves, attack bonus etc) should be about 1 + level, with a maximum deviation of +/-2 at 1st level and increasing with max +/-2 per five levels. Passive values (AC, CMD, DC's) should be 10 higher.
• Temporary bonuses have a duration specified in game events, not game time, and are never measured in rounds (ie until taking X action, until start/end of combat, until next short/long rest, etc).
• The number of 1st-level equivalent actions/round possible should increase by at least 1 per 10 PC levels and never exceed 7, of which no more than 3 can be reactions.

These kinds of fundamental design goals and objectives, accompanied with the reasoning behind them, is what Paizo should've previewed first IMO. Not necessarily all of them, but at least those with the most impact on the game.

[Psyren]

Sorry to hear this is still the case.

Don't be, I'm not

Most importantly, that means translating the largely subjective "vision/mission statements" you mentioned into objective actual goals and objectives, meaning they should be as quantified and as concrete as they possibly can.

When the actual playtest starts and the PDT is engaging with the players directly, I expect more of such "here's what we're going for" details, sure. Especially from Mark. Much like they clearly explained the goals behind hybrids and psychic magic during those playtests. Expecting it all to be laid out during the previews, when so many people are eager to pounce on every single word that can be interpreted in multiple ways, seems premature to me.

[Florian]

@upho:

You´re going straight for the same error. People´re always expecting "_the_ car", when all that the company can deliver is "_a_ car", but having the foresight to build it n a way that it can be customized or "pimped" any way you want.

The major selling point of a real mainstream RPG is that it is akin to "pop music" or a VW Golf, not by being that good, that RAW-playable, not by being that complete, but rather by being that non-offensive and that-customizable on, that it hits on the raw number of very divergent customers to latch onto into and keep it being the mainstream.

This is what people like Cosi and possibly you don't understand: The RAW is not the game and was never meant to be. It´s the building blocks to create the actual game out of and that ability matters.

[Cosi]

And when Cosi next wrote "Calling a +2 bonus legendary is insane" I (perhaps incorrectly) perceived it as if he was basing this on what Kurald had posted. Hence my "echochamber" comment.

I will admit that I totally got the number from Kurald. But I will say that, without loss of generality, calling any bonus that leaves you on the same RNG as an untrained NPC legendary is insane.

I really think it would've been a lot wiser to present the design goals and the basic mechanical principles (and math) in the first preview.

Sure. But frankly, I doubt Paizo has any math worth speaking of. This is the company that made the Shifter and the Kineticist, remember, and the Shifter came out last year. There hasn't really been a point where the quality of Paizo's design work has convinced me that they have a terribly effective plan, or even a good understanding of how to create one.

This is what people like Cosi and possibly you don't understand: The RAW is not the game and was never meant to be. It´s the building blocks to create the actual game out of and that ability matters.

Insofar as we can speak of "the game" at all, we necessarily must speak of RAW. Nothing else has any universality. Maybe you rule that spellcasting takes a round per level and therefore observe that Wizards are horrifyingly underpowered. Maybe I rule that they get all their spells at will and observe that they are correspondingly overpowered. But if we want to discuss how powerful casters are in "3.5" or "Pathfinder" or any other game, the only way to do that without exhaustively enumerating each person's houserules in advance is by talking about the rules in the book.

But that's not even the point. The point is that regardless of whether the rules are "the game" or just "building blocks", the rules are the product for which I am being asked to pay actual money. If the people making that product are suggesting that they cannot be expected to deliver a functional product, I am going to treat that in the exact same way I would treat a car company that sold a car without an engine or wheels, or a supermarket that tried to sell me a live cow.

[Scowling Dragon]

This is what people like Cosi and possibly you don't understand: The RAW is not the game and was never meant to be. It´s the building blocks to create the actual game out of and that ability matters.

Can I critique the building blocks since they arrive brittle and misshapen?
People can and do Critique Lego sets for instance. They are selling us a Lego Set "Fantasy Adventure Land". And sure you can repurpose those bricks for anything but they best function for one thing.
If the bricks don't fit together, the instruction manual is misleading, and the whole thing is covered in sticky syrup because somebody axidentally spilled Sprite into the box because nobody was watching quality control then a individual has all the right to critique something.

[upho]

When the actual playtest starts and the PDT is engaging with the players directly, I expect more of such "here's what we're going for" details, sure. Especially from Mark. Much like they clearly explained the goals behind hybrids and psychic magic during those playtests.

Oh, I certainly expect to hear about their goals once the playtest starts, as has largely been the case in previous playtests. And yes, especially from Mark. (I like that guy, btw. As far as I've seen, he really listens to critique and gives as meaningful and detailed replies as he's able to, and I've never seen him being dismissive, arrogant or aggressive even if the critique is sharp and/or presented in a pretty hostile manner.)

Expecting it all to be laid out during the previews, when so many people are eager to pounce on every single word that can be interpreted in multiple ways, seems premature to me.

I think you may have misunderstood my point; Paizo should've started with previewing the overarching goals, basic premises and the reasoning behind them in order to avoid rampant speculation leading to widely different expectations. Meaning especially because "so many people are eager to pounce on every single word".

They way Paizo is actually going about it, people aren't really given much valid info at all since they know very few actual facts about the far more important overall motivations, goals and mechanical/mathematical framework. And withholding these vital contextual facts while revealing specific details is practically asking for trouble later on, as it inevitably will have people more or less subconsciously filling the blanks with their own fantasies and wishes which turn into expectations. If Paizo had done this the other way around, people would instead have different expectations about the details, but at least they'd be on board the same boat as the PDT and they'd have a fairly clear picture of where that boat is heading. As is, I believe there's a high risk people will arrive at a destination completely different from the one they had imagined, forcing them to suddenly having to reevaluate every snippet of info they've been given, feeling cheated and dismissed as fools incapable of analyzing any design decisions beyond the most specific and obvious superficial details. And this is of course on top of the overall motivations, goals and mechanical/mathematical framework - if done right - being the core which shapes the details around it and therefore also what an actually meaningful discussion about the P2 system should focus on.

Note that this does not in any way mean that I was "expecting it all to be laid out during the previews", nor do I believe that would've been advisable.

You´re going straight for the same error. People´re always expecting "_the_ car", when all that the company can deliver is "_a_ car", but having the foresight to build it n a way that it can be customized or "pimped" any way you want.

The major selling point of a real mainstream RPG is that it is akin to "pop music" or a VW Golf, not by being that good, that RAW-playable, not by being that complete, but rather by being that non-offensive and that-customizable on, that it hits on the raw number of very divergent customers to latch onto into and keep it being the mainstream.

This is what people like Cosi and possibly you don't understand: The RAW is not the game and was never meant to be. It´s the building blocks to create the actual game out of and that ability matters.

You're gravely mistaken if you believe that I'm expecting P2 to be a "car" tailored to meet my personal wishes and specific tastes. What I'm expecting, or rather what I demand, is that a car that I pay for should actually be able run, and do so largely according to the specifications and promises made by the manufacturer (fuel consumption, safety, speed etc) when the car is driven and maintained according to the manufacturer's manual and guidelines. I also recognize that I may forfeit my rights to make those demands should I decide to modify the car and perhaps add aftermarket stuff to it, or should I decide to start driving and maintaining it in a way clearly not recommended by the manufacturer.

I will admit that I totally got the number from Kurald. But I will say that, without loss of generality, calling any bonus that leaves you on the same RNG as an untrained NPC legendary is insane.

I totally agree. Let's hope that doesn't turn out to be true.

Sure. But frankly, I doubt Paizo has any math worth speaking of. This is the company that made the Shifter and the Kineticist, remember, and the Shifter came out last year. There hasn't really been a point where the quality of Paizo's design work has convinced me that they have a terribly effective plan, or even a good understanding of how to create one.

Hey! Stop trying to push me into the pit of "cynical doom and gloom"!

Seriously though, I do think at least one individual on the PDT has a good understanding of how to actually define design goals and create an effective plan. Unfortunately, I also doubt the PDT has allowed that understanding to actually guide their work to any noticeable degree. If this turns out to be the case, I also believe P2 has very little chance of actually meeting expectations, and its release may very well ultimately be a financial disaster for Paizo.

As for the shifter and kinny embarrassments, I'm just clinging on to the slim hope that they were accidents caused by the actually competent devs and editors being to busy working on other projects, like P2.

The point is that regardless of whether the rules are "the game" or just "building blocks", the rules are the product for which I am being asked to pay actual money. If the people making that product are suggesting that they cannot be expected to deliver a functional product, I am going to treat that in the exact same way I would treat a car company that sold a car without an engine or wheels, or a supermarket that tried to sell me a live cow.

This.

[Morty]

We've got a blog about weapons. Some of it is good, some of it is less good. In no particular order:

Differentiating weapons is good, but some of the methods used to it... not so much. They're still acting like one-step differences between damage dice matter. And then there's... 1 extra damage per dice when attacking more than once? That's not going to make a difference past the first few levels. Still, encouraging different behaviour with weapons is a good idea at least.

Exotic weapons haven't worked twice already, in 3e and 4e. Third time's the charm? I doubt it.

Critical specialization traits are better and sound actually impactful. Of course, it's all entirely random and passive. The only trait that isn't is the ability to use a staff to defend.

Finesse fighting is a thing for rapiers, because of course it is. Can't condone uniconic weapon use.

Seems like they're making another attempt at versatile weapons that can be held in one of two hands but get better in the latter option. Will they be worthwhile this time?

Given how they tout it with the greatsword, will they be making damage types matter this time? Even if they make sure enemies have resistances and weaknesses... that's still rock/paper/scissors. It just makes warriors swap weapons or decide that exploiting a weakness or avoiding resistance isn't worth giving up their bonuses from proficiency, feats or powerful magic weapon. Or they fight enemies who have no weaknesses and resistances (like conveniently evil humanoids) and it just never comes up at all.

[ComaVision]

Differentiating weapons is good, but some of the methods used to it... not so much. They're still acting like one-step differences between damage dice matter. And then there's... 1 extra damage per dice when attacking more than once? That's not going to make a difference past the first few levels. Still, encouraging different behaviour with weapons is a good idea at least.

It might not be that bad. There seems to be a lot of ways to boost the amount of dice you have (crits, feats, +1) and much less emphasis on flat modifiers (like current Power Attack) so it may actually end up being a meaningful bonus.

Obviously, without knowing all the options I can't say definitively. I'm not ready to dismiss it entirely though.

[137beth]

But that's not even the point. The point is that regardless of whether the rules are "the game" or just "building blocks", the rules are the product for which I am being asked to pay actual money. If the people making that product are suggesting that they cannot be expected to deliver a functional product, I am going to treat that in the exact same way I would treat a car company that sold a car without an engine or wheels, or a supermarket that tried to sell me a live cow.

Well said. Do you mind if I put this quote in my extended sig?




Anyhow, I like that they are making the weapons distinct. I'm a bit skeptical about the implementation, because almost all of the described distinctions between weapons are about how you deal hit-point damage. It seems a lot like the fighter preview.

[exelsisxax]

It does look significantly better than 3/PF weapons, but that's a pretty low bar. More of a floor rod.

[Morty]

It might not be that bad. There seems to be a lot of ways to boost the amount of dice you have (crits, feats, +1) and much less emphasis on flat modifiers (like current Power Attack) so it may actually end up being a meaningful bonus.

Obviously, without knowing all the options I can't say definitively. I'm not ready to dismiss it entirely though.

Perhaps it's true, but it's going to take a lot of those +1 and +2 bonuses to keep up with the ever-increasing hit points.

[Cosi]

I still think that the world where you care about whether you're wielding a Greatsword or a Dire Flail is stupider than the world where you don't, and nothing I see in that post convinces me that they are willing to make weapons interesting enough to change my mind.

One thing worth noting: if you run PF2, you will have to track these things for NPCs. Doesn't that just sound wonderful.

Well said. Do you mind if I put this quote in my extended sig?

Sure.

[Psyren]

Oh, I certainly expect to hear about their goals once the playtest starts, as has largely been the case in previous playtests. And yes, especially from Mark. (I like that guy, btw. As far as I've seen, he really listens to critique and gives as meaningful and detailed replies as he's able to, and I've never seen him being dismissive, arrogant or aggressive even if the critique is sharp and/or presented in a pretty hostile manner.)

Neither he nor any designer should have to deal with hostile people at all, but that's another discussion.

I think you may have misunderstood my point; Paizo should've started with previewing the overarching goals, basic premises and the reasoning behind them in order to avoid rampant speculation leading to widely different expectations. Meaning especially because "so many people are eager to pounce on every single word".

Maybe I'm a cynic, especially when it comes to "fans," but I don't think any amount of this would've helped. There would always be something to excoriate them over, because that's just how Paizo is treated here. Might as well preview what you feel like talking about.

You're gravely mistaken if you believe that I'm expecting P2 to be a "car" tailored to meet my personal wishes and specific tastes. What I'm expecting, or rather what I demand, is that a car that I pay for should actually be able run, and do so largely according to the specifications and promises made by the manufacturer (fuel consumption, safety, speed etc) when the car is driven and maintained according to the manufacturer's manual and guidelines. I also recognize that I may forfeit my rights to make those demands should I decide to modify the car and perhaps add aftermarket stuff to it, or should I decide to start driving and maintaining it in a way clearly not recommended by the manufacturer.

See, I got all that from P1 just fine, or enough of it to be worth my gaming dollar. For those who didn't, by all means hold off and wait, nobody would blame you. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt precisely because they've proven capable of delivering what I want out of a game, or close enough that only minimal effort is needed from me. In no way did Paizo hand me a car that can't run, and if that's what you got, then by all means don't give them another cent.

[upho]

So, seems I get to update the list on the combat parameters primarily improved by melee weapon properties I made in the earlier thread:

Traits

• Agile: attack
• Backstabber: damage
• Backswing: attack
• Deadly: damage
• Finesse: attack
• Forceful: damage
• Monk: other
• Parry: attack (may also improve debuff)
• Reach: other
• Sweep: attack
• Trip: control
• Twin: damage
• Two-hand: damage
• Versatile: damage

Weapon Group Critical Specializations (requires additional investment and hitting AC +10)

• Axes: damage
• Clubs: control
• Daggers: damage
• Spears: debuff
• Swords: attack (and damage with SA)

Spoiler: Combat Parameter Definitions

Show

• Attack: increases wielder's hit and/or crit probability and/or AC (may be revealed to also improve control and/or debuff)
• Control: limits the number and/or types of actions available to the enemy and/or changes its position
• Damage: increases wielder's hp damage output or reduces hp damage taken by the wielder
• Debuff: reduces enemy combat values (ie not primarily its actions or the amount of hp damage it deals to/takes from the wielder)

Note that a few weapon traits/specializations may affect more than one of these parameters, and that the parameters themselves may have some overlap.

In conclusion, approximately 35.7% of the 14 revealed traits primarily improves attack (of which only the parry trait primarily improves AC) and 42.9% improves hp damage, while only 7.1% primarily improves control and none debuff. The remaining 14.3% consists of the monk and reach traits, both of which has the potential to at least indirectly improve any or all of the five defined parameters. The weapon group crit specializations revealed so far are thankfully more evenly spread, with each three included parameter besides damage being represented by one specialization (20% each), and damage by two (40%).

This doesn't look good IMO. If the above is somewhat representative of all melee options in the game, P2 martials are all expected to primarily focus on a single-target striker combat role/style. Just as in P1.

Anyhow, I like that they are making the weapons distinct. I'm a bit skeptical about the implementation, because almost all of the described distinctions between weapons are about how you deal hit-point damage. It seems a lot like the fighter preview.

Indeed. Not to mention most of the revealed weapon traits aren't actually very distinct at all, with 10 out of 14 increasing your hit chance or the amount of hp damage you deal on a hit, only trip primarily improving your control capability and none primarily your debuff capability.

It does look significantly better than 3/PF weapons, but that's a pretty low bar. More of a floor rod.

Heh, floor rod indeed. And I wouldn't say it's significantly better than P1, as the boring lack of meaningful differences still largely remains. But it's an improvement, at least.

[Morty]

In conclusion, approximately 35.7% of the 14 revealed traits primarily improves attack (of which only the parry trait primarily improves AC) and 42.9% improves hp damage, while only 7.1% primarily improves control and none debuff. The remaining 14.3% consists of the monk and reach traits, both of which has the potential to at least indirectly improve any or all of the five defined parameters. The weapon group crit specializations revealed so far are thankfully more evenly spread, with each three included parameter besides damage being represented by one specialization (20% each), and damage by two (40%).

This doesn't look good IMO. If the above is somewhat representative of all melee options in the game, P2 martials are all expected to primarily focus on a single-target striker combat role/style. Just as in P1.

We have yet to see the abilities afforded by weapon proficiencies. I'm not sure if we can expect them to reverse this trend.

[upho]

Maybe I'm a cynic, especially when it comes to "fans," but I don't think any amount of this would've helped.

Well, judging by most of the Paizo blog comments, you may have a point here in thinking that starting with design goals and baseline mechanics might not have worked as well. At least not in terms of creating a buzz for marketing purposes. But I believe that has little to do with overly critical fans, but rather with most fans seemingly not finding basic design stuff as interesting as for example specifics about dwarves, even if it actually tells them very little since they don't know the basic design stuff.

There would always be something to excoriate them over, because that's just how Paizo is treated here. Might as well preview what you feel like talking about.

Are you saying that a lot of posters have already made up their minds and nothing Paizo does will sway them? Seeing how quite a few posters here actually seem to have both good and bad stuff to say about the reveals, I don't think that's true. Moreover, I definitely don't think it's true that this forum specifically has a larger number of posters leaping at every chance to excoriate Paizo. I mean, there's not exactly any shortage of critical comments about P2 also on other forums, including Paizo's.

See, I got all that from P1 just fine, or enough of it to be worth my gaming dollar. For those who didn't, by all means hold off and wait, nobody would blame you. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt precisely because they've proven capable of delivering what I want out of a game, or close enough that only minimal effort is needed from me. In no way did Paizo hand me a car that can't run, and if that's what you got, then by all means don't give them another cent.

I think you're missing the point here, because what I'm talking about isn't subjective. As an example, the P1 system treats a 15th level fighter as just as mechanically capable as a 15th level wizard. (Note that this is factually incorrect should you compare the power of virtually every named fighter and wizard NPC of 10th level or higher written by Paizo themselves, when those NPCs are played as written.)

IOW, it's not really relevant that you personally may be a driver and mechanic experienced enough to make the car worth your dollar, while it's highly relevant whether the car runs as advertised and that the instruction manual is actually correct for people in general, including those buying their first car and those who have barely driven one before.

Personally, I bought the P1 CRB and some of the larger bound books largely because I already had enough 3.5-fu to know I'd be able to make large parts of P1 worth my gaming dollar (and because I wanted to sponsor what I think is a much needed competitor to WoTC's D&D). Meaning when it came to my own ownership of the car, I didn't really care about whether it lived up to the advertised performance or whether the instruction manual contained errors, I already knew most of what to expect and how to both race and pimp that ride anyways. But if I hadn't, I probably would've felt cheated.

As a sidenote, I really want Paizo and Pathfinder to be successful, which is the reason why my critique of P2 mostly focuses on potential issues which most likely won't come as a surprise to me if I buy the actual game. But of course, I'll still be more likely to buy a car which requires me to perform less tuning and pimpin' to suit my tastes than the previous model, not to mention one where I can trust the instruction manual to be relevant and free of major errors.

We have yet to see the abilities afforded by weapon proficiencies. I'm not sure if we can expect them to reverse this trend.

Seems unlikely. The details still unknown to us would have to be significantly different from those revealed for martial combat mechanics in P2 to not have much of the same shortcomings as those in P1.