Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[137beth]

Some people are upset that goblins will "now become" a PC race. These people are apparently unaware that goblins have already been a PC race since the popular 2011 series "We Be Goblins", and have been part of PFS since 2012.

So it's a tempest in a teacup, really. Some people don't like goblins - and so what? Numerous people don't like gnomes or half-orcs, either. That's why there are also other races

Oh, I think that is rather simple: Critters in the Bestiaries are monsters, not people, it´s fine to kill monsters without a second thought and you don't even have to fire up your detect evil to be justified at that. Elf or Dwarf? Different matter, no automatic green light like with Duergar and Drow.

Maybe I should clarify: I understand that some people feel that putting goblins in the Core Rule Book makes them a "player race"*, and that some people are unaware of goblins' presence as a "player race"* in the ARG, and that some people don't what that status given to goblins. However, reading the thread on the Paizo forum, there are also people who have specifically stated that they are okay with goblins being a "player race," but not a "core race."

I don't have the Advanced Race Guide, but from what I see of it on the PRD, it categorizes goblins as a "featured race." Is there some in-game thing that makes being a "Core Race" more significant than being a "non-core player race"? Or are people simply getting angry over which book something is printed in? In other words, aside from how early it is available, what is the difference between goblins being in the Core Rulebook as a "player ancestry" and goblins appearing as a player ancestry in the first supplement?

*Whatever that means to you. In a game like Pathfinder 1e or D&D 3.5, where NPCs and PCs use the exact same rules, I'll admit I don't really understand the obsession some people have with separating "player" content from "non-player" content. I understand that in other systems (including PF2, from what we've seen of it), NPCs use completely different rules from PCs, and so it makes sense to talk about some character-building rule as being "for players" and others as being for NPCs. But in PF1, they are supposedly the same.

Some people are mad because we don't care about goblins either way and want paizo to just give us the damn rules drafts already so we can figure out how badly they broke things.

The weird infatuation with what races and classes are in the core rulebook can die in a fire, we still don't know what basically any core rules actually are. It's a matter of priorities.

Now that's a sentiment I can get behind. Exactly which ancestries are in the core rulebook seems way less significant than, say, how tripping works. Or how flight in combat works. Or if hit-dice are still in the game. Or what non-casters can do that isn't hit-point damage. Or how the Downtime system will be changing from how it is in Ultimate Campaign. The question of which ancestries/classes are in core and which will show up again a year later in a splatbook doesn't seem nearly as important as getting the fundamentals of the system sorted out.

[Florian]

I don't have the Advanced Race Guide, but from what I see of it on the PRD, it categorizes goblins as a "featured race." Is there some in-game thing that makes being a "Core Race" more significant than being a "non-core player race"? Or are people simply getting angry over which book something is printed in? In other words, aside from how early it is available, what is the difference between goblins being in the Core Rulebook as a "player ancestry" and goblins appearing as a player ancestry in the first supplement?

I think it´s the expectation how that will shape the Golarion setting. Contrast the earlier material with the later stuff, after they began to heavily integrate the newer player races. Golarion started out very "classic humanocentric", but quickly turned very "colorful" when they began to detail the different realms even more. It´s a massive shift in tone and I had players complaining about not wanting to play a "freak show" as a party.

[Kurald Galain]

just give us the damn rules drafts already

It's called marketing You might as well ask MGM why they put out trailers instead of just showing you the damn movie already.

[Slithery D]

Core races are automatically available in PFS, and Kender-syndrome is a real possibility.

[Psyren]

Core races are automatically available in PFS, and Kender-syndrome is a real possibility.

Yeah, I'm a big proponent of "just don't play with jerks" as a philosophy, but I can totally understand people having misgivings about a race that is known for embodying some of the worst stereotypes of Chaotic Neutral characters. "Kender syndrome" is an apt term.

Having said that, Goblins (even PF Goblins) are nowhere near as bad nor reviled as Kender were; in fact, the Paizo APs and modules that featured/encouraged playable goblins were very popular. That's what cemented goblins as part of their brand (right up there with the golem), and I have no doubt it also informed their decision to make Goblins "core."

[exelsisxax]

It's called marketing You might as well ask MGM why they put out trailers instead of just showing you the damn movie already.

They're going to give us the rules anyway, so that's a terrible marketing strategy. Additionally, they're giving it to us before release occurs. They say they want a thorough playtest, then I want the damn rules. I would like to avoid Edition War II, and that probably requires forcing paizo to throw out their sacred cows for PF2 - this will become virtually impossible if they start doing art design crap on the CRB like layouts.

When the devs reply to requests for actual rules with remarks on timetables for sidebar art for the playtest books, I am gravely concerned about PF2.

[Kurald Galain]

When the devs reply to requests for actual rules with remarks on timetables for sidebar art for the playtest books, I am gravely concerned about PF2.

...why?

They've repeatedly stated that the playtest rules will be released in August, and the final release will be one year later. That gives them plenty of time to collect feedback.

[khadgar567]

...why?

They've repeatedly stated that the playtest rules will be released in August, and the final release will be one year later. That gives them plenty of time to collect feedback.

considering the shifter fiasco we need good long playtest to make sure most of the problems to be ironed out.

[Starbuck_II]

considering the shifter fiasco we need good long playtest to make sure most of the problems to be ironed out.

Can we get a shifter as a core class? Core classes tend to be stronger than base classes (they eventually nerf non-core to make this true).

[Kurald Galain]

considering the shifter fiasco we need good long playtest to make sure most of the problems to be ironed out.

I'm hoping that Paizo's best designers were working on PF2 whereas they had one of the interns make the shifter. And then fired him.

(they eventually nerf non-core to make this true).

Oh wow, it's hilarious what bogeyman stories people make up about Paizo. I hadn't heard this one before

[exelsisxax]

...why?

They've repeatedly stated that the playtest rules will be released in August, and the final release will be one year later. That gives them plenty of time to collect feedback.

But paizo's history with things like the kineticist and shifter demonstrate that their internal playtesting is insignificantly different from a total lack of playtesting, and that their process for examining content in light of feedback are primarily "ignore feedback".

If we start now, we just might be able to hammer things enough to get them fixed before release. Things like starfinder's ship combat simply not working might even get fixed before august, and if we're dedicated and loud enough wizard might not even be strictly superior to martials! It's always best to end on a joke.

[Psyren]

They say they want a thorough playtest, then I want the damn rules.

The playtest hasn't started yet. You know that right?

But paizo's history with things like the kineticist and shifter demonstrate that their internal playtesting is insignificantly different from a total lack of playtesting, and that their process for examining content in light of feedback are primarily "ignore feedback".

So you're excoriating them over a whopping two bad base classes? How many did 3.5 have? Even towards the end we were getting crap like Soulborn, Truenamer, Savant, and Lurk. How many Paizo classes are T4+? (I'm assuming T4 is the baseline for popularity because everybody seems to like Warlock and Barbarian.)

[stack]

I believe Jason Bulmahn (Paizo's director of game design) was the main author of the shifter, but I do not have a citation for that.

[exelsisxax]

The playtest hasn't started yet. You know that right?

I'm mad that i'm not playtesting PF2 right this very moment. A publishing timetable is irrelevant, they aren't publishing a product so they lose nothing with a draft pdf dump.

So you're excoriating them over a whopping two bad base classes? How many did 3.5 have? Even towards the end we were getting crap like Soulborn, Truenamer, Savant, and Lurk. How many Paizo classes are T4+? (I'm assuming T4 is the baseline for popularity because everybody seems to like Warlock and Barbarian.)

Well, those are the "unmitigated and undeniably terrible, in that all design goals were failed and the execution was also as elegant as an appendectomy with a jackhammer" levels of fail. To list other classes that were screwed up on release:

barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, rogue, sorcerer, cavalier, gunslinger, oracle, summoner, vigilante, witch, medium, and psychic.

Some were so screwy they had re-releases, others so bad paizo pretends they don't exist. Fullcasters still just play a fundamentally different game than the rest of the party that can warp a campaign beyond usability, while many have one real capability: deal damage.

I have every expectation that paizo will make the same mistakes, and would like to provide detailed accounts to them as to how they've screwed up, in a likely vain attempt to prevent them from bungling this whole thing.

[Starbuck_II]

The playtest hasn't started yet. You know that right?



So you're excoriating them over a whopping two bad base classes? How many did 3.5 have? Even towards the end we were getting crap like Soulborn, Truenamer, Savant, and Lurk. How many Paizo classes are T4+? (I'm assuming T4 is the baseline for popularity because everybody seems to like Warlock and Barbarian.)

Whoa, don't lump Soulborn and Lurk together. Lurk needed slight tweaks but was a good class.

[Psyren]

To list other classes that were screwed up on release:

Half your list makes no sense (sorcerer, cleric, paladin, oracle, witch? Really?) and the other half, you appear to have a definition of "screwed up" that is unlikely to mesh with my own.

I have every expectation that paizo will make the same mistakes, and would like to provide detailed accounts to them as to how they've screwed up, in a likely vain attempt to prevent them from bungling this whole thing.

I mean, you do you, but given the contents of your list you might be better off just playing a different game entirely I think.

Whoa, don't lump Soulborn and Lurk together. Lurk needed slight tweaks but was a good class.

Divine Mind then

Yeah in the Lurk's case I was more disappointed than truly down on it. A skillmonkey class without trapfinding, less than 6+Int skills, VERY anemic sneak attack progression (I think only the Savant is worse, and at least they had real sneak attack instead of the Lurk's watered-down version) - It was just disheartening. Some of the augments were nice though.

[Knaight]

I'm mad that i'm not playtesting PF2 right this very moment. A publishing timetable is irrelevant, they aren't publishing a product so they lose nothing with a draft pdf dump.

There's a minimal state of readiness that you want before releasing something to the public, even as playtest documents. They may well not be there yet - if you've got entire sections full of text like "[Insert Chapter Here]" or "[Add this stuff]", it's just not ready yet. That's before getting into entire sections written in temporary short hand, the most polished material being thoroughly rough draft, and a near total lack of layout.

Then there's the matter of internal design notes for future releases they might want to be quiet, stuff to the effect of "[Design these mechanics to allow for Mass Combat]", where if the feature ends up not being delivered later they have problems with expectations.

[exelsisxax]

Half your list makes no sense (sorcerer, cleric, paladin, oracle, witch? Really?) and the other half, you appear to have a definition of "screwed up" that is unlikely to mesh with my own.

The ability to cast wish or miracle automatically makes a class borked, as do high level spells in general.

Are you saying that a class with a class feature that includes extremely strict requirements with no context allowed that causes you to lose all your class features is OK? Because I don't. I think that's fractally stupid.

Medium and vigilante can't participate in any but very narrow campaigns. What's a vigilante supposed to do in an exploration campaign? or a planehopping one? or just a campiagn with lots of travel? How does Zorro delve dungeons? How does a Vigilante function at all in a party-based game, really?

I mean, you do you, but given the contents of your list you might be better off just playing a different game entirely I think.

I tried, but they were even worse.

[Kurald Galain]

The ability to cast wish or miracle automatically makes a class borked,

Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.

[Psyren]

Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.

Also, even from a theorycraft standpoint, PF Wish is very different than 3.5 Wish.

I tried, but they were even worse.

Uh... I'm sorry to hear that?

[exelsisxax]

Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.

That's like saying that a manufacturing defect that causes a model of car to explode under certain circumstances isn't a problem because most people don't experience those circumstances, then glossing over the fact that those cars were marketed to be able to perform under those exact circumstances.

[Psyren]

That's like saying that a manufacturing defect that causes a model of car to explode under certain circumstances isn't a problem because most people don't experience those circumstances, then glossing over the fact that those cars were marketed to be able to perform under those exact circumstances.

Your analogy doesn't work on several levels. For one, Wish was in 3.5, so PF bringing it over WAS advertised quite plainly. For two, again, PF Wish was nerfed considerably vs. 3.5. Which means that, for three, if your car exploded, it's because you were the one who filled the tank with hydrogen; at some point, you do have to take personal responsibility for your game not breaking.

[Scowling Dragon]

Maybe this is just hearsay, but what SUPER seriously concerns me is the mention of "We have all the stuff in place already, so most of the playtest is already done"
Don't quote me on this, but that sounds very believable.
Paizo is not very receptive at all to criticism, and what ideas they have in their head quickly overrides the reality on play..And simple numbers and probability as well.

[upho]

We did see one non-damaging action for fighters - a feat that lets them spend an extra action to frighten an enemy with their attack. Other than that, it's just been damage all day long.

Oh, I totally missed this somehow. Thanks! And yeah, it's not much. But at least it's something.

Meanwhile, goblins get the drow treatment in a new blog post. I continue to find it hilarious. The description of their racial characteristics isn't that different from the old one, but it emphasizes being quirky and hilarious, rather than psychotic, pyromaniac vermin. Just like in the 3.5 Monster Manual, elves are graceful and goblins are cowardly despite using the same tactics.

The "drow treatment" really is true in more ways than one. But gobbos actually got that a long time ago. The problem here for many players/GMs who primarily play APs and/or in Golarion largely as written is gobbos being core. A concern I can totally understand (more below), even though it won't affect my games. (I don't play in Golarion, and even though I do use a lot from APs, I still need to change a lot of details and tweak a large majority of creatures.)

I wonder what they'll do to other "monster" races - hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, ogres, gnolls and the like. I suspect they'll remain conveniently evil, because they're not as popular as goblins and thus not marketable.

They'll likely remain pretty much as they are, with some of them probably getting PC rules for use on a "ask your GM" basis in the Bestiary or later releases.

As far as racial traits go... each race gets two ability boosts and one flaw, which are apparently not the same thing as the old +2 bonuses/penalties. And they get one "floating" boost, which can negate a flaw. It still seems like playing a class that requires an attribute your race has a flaw in will be suboptimal. Like a goblin cleric.

Like Psyren suspected in the closed thread, P2 will use the Starfinder model for level-up bonuses; +2 to a stat below 16 or +1 to a stat of at least 16. We don't know whether racial bonuses are also affected by this, but I'd suspect not. And regardless of the racial penalty, I still think this is a significant improvement in comparison to P1.

I can't for the life of me figure out why goblins have a charisma boost, mind you.

That one is a bit weird, I agree. But so was the +2 Int. Either is about as (un)suitable IMO, and either is preferable to +2 Wis if a mental stat bonus is a must.

To be fair, and regardless of edition, many non-goblin PCs are also psychotic, pyromaniac vermin

Heh, indeed...

Core classes tend to be stronger than base classes (they eventually nerf non-core to make this true).

Say what? Where did you get this from?

Aside from a few examples of the opposite of what you're saying (like bloodrager > barb), it seems to me that if a core class is stronger than a comparable later base class, it's mostly just an indirect effect of the core class having existed longer and therefore having more options.

Maybe I should clarify: I understand that some people feel that putting goblins in the Core Rule Book makes them a "player race"*, and that some people are unaware of goblins' presence as a "player race"* in the ARG, and that some people don't what that status given to goblins. However, reading the thread on the Paizo forum, there are also people who have specifically stated that they are okay with goblins being a "player race," but not a "core race."

I don't have the Advanced Race Guide, but from what I see of it on the PRD, it categorizes goblins as a "featured race." Is there some in-game thing that makes being a "Core Race" more significant than being a "non-core player race"? Or are people simply getting angry over which book something is printed in? In other words, aside from how early it is available, what is the difference between goblins being in the Core Rulebook as a "player ancestry" and goblins appearing as a player ancestry in the first supplement?

I suggest you read the Paizo thread again, the issue is thoroughly explained there. But in short, it changes the Golarion setting and NPCs in APs, making it a much greater task to preserve gobbos as being 99.999% crazy baby-eating homicidal pyromaniacs.

And perhaps equally important, having gobbos core removes a large part of their draw as PCs - you're not nearly as much of special snowflake by playing a heroic gobbo in Golarion.

So again, though I personally don't really care either way, I can certainly understand why people are against gobbos being core, and their concerns are most definitely legitimate.

Now that's a sentiment I can get behind. Exactly which ancestries are in the core rulebook seems way less significant than, say, how tripping works. Or how flight in combat works. Or if hit-dice are still in the game. Or what non-casters can do that isn't hit-point damage. Or how the Downtime system will be changing from how it is in Ultimate Campaign. The question of which ancestries/classes are in core and which will show up again a year later in a splatbook doesn't seem nearly as important as getting the fundamentals of the system sorted out.

Agreed. But I also know that this isn't a perspective shared by all, and probably not even a majority.

Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.

I think you know fully well that this isn't an issue limited just to wish or higher levels, but something that arguably starts already at 7th level.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.

I somewhat share this impression. Although I'd also say when it comes to PF and this forum specifically, I'd say it's often actually a lot closer to most real games. Which I think your own magus guide is a pretty good example of, actually.

Regardless, it's also worth keeping in mind that the issue exels talks about is not limited to games with players hanging out on forums. My own regular group's history is an example of that (we first ran into 3.0's C/MD issues back in 2001).

[Kurald Galain]

Oh, I totally missed this somehow. Thanks! And yeah, it's not much. But at least it's something.

We've got a second one: shield block.

Like Psyren suspected in the closed thread, P2 will use the Starfinder model for level-up bonuses;

It's been confirmed that it won't.

I think you know fully well that this isn't an issue limited just to wish or higher levels, but something that arguably starts already at 7th level.

Meh. It's been debated to death in this forum in particular how utterly broken and unplayable 3.5 and PF are, and yet tons of people still enjoy playing them. The obvious conclusion is that most people don't use the goals and methods that our forum users do. Overanalysis is a thing.

(edit) Upon reflection, forum discussions on balance generally assume that (1) all players find it vitally important that nobody ever gets overshadowed, AND (2) all players have the skill, knowledge, and selfishness to play their build to maximum effectiveness all the time, AND (3) all DMs are utterly clueless and incompetent to do anything that contributes to play balance. Think about those assumptions for a moment

[upho]

We've got a second one: shield block.

What exactly does shield block do that isn't related to hp damage?

It's been confirmed that it won't.

It has? Seems someone over at the Paizo boards has been spreading disinformation...

Thanks for the heads-up.

Meh. It's been debated to death in this forum in particular how utterly broken and unplayable 3.5 and PF are, and yet tons of people still enjoy playing them. The obvious conclusion is that most people don't use the goals and methods that our forum users do. Overanalysis is a thing.

What you're saying here and what exels said aren't mutually exclusive in any way. But yeah, hyperbole is a common plague on internet forums, including this one.

(edit) Upon reflection, forum discussions on balance generally assume that (1) all players find it vitally important that nobody ever gets overshadowed, AND (2) all players have the skill, knowledge, and selfishness to play their build to maximum effectiveness all the time, AND (3) all DMs are utterly clueless and incompetent to do anything that contributes to play balance. Think about those assumptions for a moment

I'm not convinced. For example, I'm pretty certain not one single person in my regular group would've agreed with any of the above back when we had C/MD issues. And note that those issues did not mean the game was "utterly broken and unplayable" (well, in one specific case it was actually close to that, but...). In short, I believe the truth is, as usual, somewhere in between.

As an example of this, my personal experience has been that the pretty impressive system mastery most of my players have gained has improved the game significantly, primarily because it has enabled them to keep our "gentlemen's agreement" by balancing their PCs power to that of the rest of the party and the general power level initially agreed upon. Nevertheless, in our current game it's not merely because of setting and story reasons that PoW classes are recommended instead of most Paizo martials, that combat feat house rules similar to these are used, and that spells above 6th are the only things generally not allowed. And yes, the game is not just better balanced because of those changes, but plain better and more fun for everyone involved. Which of course in small part is because those changes have made me a better GM, notably since less of my prep time has to be spent tweaking mechanics-heavy challenges to suit PCs at wildly different levels of power.

I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to expect the game to not require any of the above in order to provide similar great results. And it's also perfectly reasonable to critique the designers for not having been able to create a game which does so to a much greater extent than its predecessor.

But again, I'm also pretty darn certain that in most groups/games these issues aren't even remotely close to as devastating as all the nagging and vitriol on the forums would have you believe.

[Pex]

We've got a second one: shield block.


It's been confirmed that it won't.


Meh. It's been debated to death in this forum in particular how utterly broken and unplayable 3.5 and PF are, and yet tons of people still enjoy playing them. The obvious conclusion is that most people don't use the goals and methods that our forum users do. Overanalysis is a thing.

(edit) Upon reflection, forum discussions on balance generally assume that (1) all players find it vitally important that nobody ever gets overshadowed, AND (2) all players have the skill, knowledge, and selfishness to play their build to maximum effectiveness all the time, AND (3) all DMs are utterly clueless and incompetent to do anything that contributes to play balance. Think about those assumptions for a moment

In my years of playing Pathfinder, I have heard others complain of only three things, only one which I empathize.

1) Too much fiddly bits. The player got annoyed trying to remember all the +1s and +2s that got piled on. He hated doing that math. That plus moving more than 5 ft stopped him from doing what he wanted to do. This is where I empathize. I don't mind fiddly bits, but I can see how it becomes nuisance. Agreement on the 5 ft step issue. This is one thing I like about 5E over Pathfinder.

2) Not enough realism. Even as DM he would go with the rules as they are but complained constantly about lack of facing and was anal about breaking doors and seeing things from a distance. He was playing the numbers, not the game.

3) Disappointed Fighter doesn't get cool things unlike the Paladin who is Superman. He hopes Pathfinder 2 will improve Fighter to be interesting but has decided he'll never play a Fighter again.

No one complained about spells. No one complained about a warrior and a spellcaster in the same party. No one complained about the druid. Players are happy when a spell helps win the battle. Warriors make their Will saves. Monsters make their saves preventing the spellcaster from winning everything. Spellcasters need the warriors and enjoy casting buffs on them. Healing in combat is a viable tactic.

[Kurald Galain]

In my years of playing Pathfinder, I have heard others complain of only three things, only one which I empathize.

I completely agree that PF has way too many fiddly bits (as do 3E and 4E) and this clearly turns some players away. 5E either consciously averts this or moves it to the head of the DM, depending on who you ask. It'll be interesting to see what approach P2 takes (but note that 3E/4E have about ten different types of action, 5E still has six, and P2 seems to have only two).

Realism is a matter of playstyle; I know several DMs who tend to rule that even if combination-so-and-so makes zero sense, then unless the rules explicitly point out that it doesn't work, then it works normally. To be fair, some players find this very funny. Overall, 3E/PF does a fairly good job of modelling a world that is larger than the PCs, and many players care about that (although I'm well aware that many forum users have their own pet peeve where the worldbuilding breaks and causes it to be RUINED FOREVER in favor of any game that doesn't try to model anything at all).

Interestingly, in my area the fighter is the second most popular class in the game, only behind the druid and slightly ahead of the cleric and rogue (which includes u-rogue). The most popular arcane caster is the alchemist. Anecdotal, sure, but I have data of over a hundred players. I suppose ease of play counts for a lot, and the wide selection of archetypes make the PF fighter much more versatile than its 3.5 counterpart.

[Psyren]

It's been confirmed that it won't.

It has? Seems someone over at the Paizo boards has been spreading disinformation...

Thanks for the heads-up.

Someone in the blog too apparently:

"The Best of Your Ability
You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months!"

Got a link Kurald?

In my years of playing Pathfinder, I have heard others complain of only three things, only one which I empathize.

1) Too much fiddly bits. The player got annoyed trying to remember all the +1s and +2s that got piled on. He hated doing that math. That plus moving more than 5 ft stopped him from doing what he wanted to do. This is where I empathize. I don't mind fiddly bits, but I can see how it becomes nuisance. Agreement on the 5 ft step issue. This is one thing I like about 5E over Pathfinder.

Removing all of those would just be making 5e but with no chance of competing with 5e's market. PF needs to be the rules-heavy game, and that means multiple modifiers. I agree that there can be less of them, or fewer bonus types, but if PF isn't the game for those who like at least some math then it's likely going to fail. (I view the curse "Mathfinder" as a compliment.)

2) Not enough realism. Even as DM he would go with the rules as they are but complained constantly about lack of facing and was anal about breaking doors and seeing things from a distance. He was playing the numbers, not the game.

I find it amusing that a guy who complained about fiddly bits wanted to bring back facing of all things

3) Disappointed Fighter doesn't get cool things unlike the Paladin who is Superman. He hopes Pathfinder 2 will improve Fighter to be interesting but has decided he'll never play a Fighter again.

P1 has already given Fighter a bunch of neat stuff, it just took a while. I'm hoping P2 starts them off with that stuff right off the bat.

[calam]

P1 has already given Fighter a bunch of neat stuff, it just took a while. I'm hoping P2 starts them off with that stuff right off the bat.

From what I can tell they seem to be moving the fighter to more of a tank role with suggestions like better attack of opportunity ability and being able to use your shield bonus on others (which seems to now include DR which may be up to your shield hardness which is a little worrying if they keep either the previous shield hardness or damage levels)

I'm personally more worried about the scaling of the class feats like a level 14 fighter feat allows you to use your shield bonus to reflex which sounds like lighting reflexes. They also seem like they are focusing on combat when it comes to class feats and are planning to use the skills system for non combat stuff which relies on the the mastery system and that might make non combat stuff independent of class unless your non combat is magic but there's some indication that mastery is partially dependent on class.