Results 1,231 to 1,260 of 1479
-
2018-11-13, 06:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
-
2018-11-13, 06:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
The closest any D&D variant ever got to not having a wide range of PC power levels was 4ed and that aspect of it was highly unpopular, and as long as there are a wide range of PC power levels, optimization affects (a, not e, btw) the core math; you can aim at one party's level or at another party's level.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2018-11-13, 07:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
The 3e baseline is the best baseline for a D&D-ish game that has ever been proposed. You could certainly do better than it, but starting from it is in no way in tension with creating a modern system. 4e has some ideas you could pillage, and I think a streamlined version of 4e could also be a good game, but if you want something that is recognizably D&D and also good, 3e is your best starting point. Certainly you'd want to make changes, but those changes are things like "you need subsystems for things that aren't combat" or "open multiclassing can't be anything other than a dumpster fire and needs to die", not "none of the subsystems do what you want them to do" (4e) or "almost nothing is properly defined' (5e) or "it's 3e, but with dumber math and worse DMing advice" (AD&D).
Depends what you mean by "niche protection". There are certainly good reason for classes to have distinct identities. People would like saying "I'm a Paladin" or "I'm a Necromancer" to provide useful information, and if those classes have unique abilities, that's an easy way to achieve it.
No, that aspect of it was not unpopular. What has unpopular was that there wasn't a wide variety of characters, not that the variety of characters it offered wasn't imbalanced enough. The "4e was bad because it was balanced" meme is a dumb meme that serves only to justify making bad games. If you balance a game, it does not magically become boring and terrible. It just becomes balanced.
-
2018-11-13, 09:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Thank you for restoring my sanity!
They still want to reward optimization with some mechanical benefit, but also attempt to mitigate the warping effect it has on the meta. Tight math is one way to achieve that.
A lot of the changes that PF2e makes feel like they are aimed right in the center of D&D 3e and 4e philosophy; take the skill system - it’s less granular than 3e (per-level skill ranks), but more than 4e (static +5 trained bonus), with the slowly-scaling, level-gated proficiency advancement.
It also takes some ideas from directly from each edition: 3e (Vancian Casting), PF1e (Unchained RAE), 4e (Level Scaling, Saves as Defenses - called DCs in PF2e) and 5e (the standardization of proficiency across saves, AC, attacks, and skills, and the tight math)
It remains to be seen if Paizo can pull off synthesizing these ideas into a coherent whole. Again, I wish we would have seen an updated bestiary during the playtest because the dysfunctional math highly detracts from the playability of the system.
Exactly!
-
2018-11-14, 03:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- [location_joke]
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
I mean niche protection in the sense of role protection, which from what I've seen from PF2 is the sense it's being used by Paizo. I'm all for classes having unique abilities and identities. But I'm not for having specific (mundane) party roles or (mundane) fighting styles locked to single classes. Party roles and fighting styles should be things that many classes can access.
Last edited by Minion #6; 2018-11-14 at 04:35 AM.
Spoiler5e is the placebo RPG. It doesn't do much, and literally everything it does do is done better by other RPGs. Despite all the evidence though, some people still swear by it.
-
2018-11-14, 05:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Or, in other words, it's fine if one guy casts spells that he has to prepare everyday while the other guy casts spells he always have ready thanks to his octopus lineage. What would be not as OK would be if you arbitrarily took half the spelllist and gave it to the Wizard and then gave the other half to the Sorcerer. Or even worse, if you limited things like mounted combat and being able to raise your shield to a single class.
Maybe, just maybe, classes should be defined by their special abilities and not by the incompetence of other classes at basic things.
-
2018-11-14, 05:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- [location_joke]
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Pfff, no system would eeeever make tactics as basic as rapidly raising your shield, mounted combat, fighting with two weapons, charging in a straight line, making extra attacks when your enemy gives you an opportunity, effective use of a bow, or anything like that behind class gates. Surely not. Surely there could be some sort of pool of these things, of these feats of combat, that anyone could access. Riiiiight?
Last edited by Minion #6; 2018-11-14 at 05:49 AM.
Spoiler5e is the placebo RPG. It doesn't do much, and literally everything it does do is done better by other RPGs. Despite all the evidence though, some people still swear by it.
-
2018-11-14, 05:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
I don't know freedom sounds overrated. All Paladins must be Sword and Board Tanks. Rangers can be a certain Good Elf or a certain Dark Elf if they want a bow or dual blade action, etc.
But yes why the brains at Paizo thought giving even less Freedom then 5E was a good idea confuses me. Seems like freedom is an advantage that should be exploited.Last edited by skaddix; 2018-11-14 at 05:57 AM.
-
2018-11-14, 07:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
- Location
- Tokyo, New Jersey
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
-
2018-11-14, 07:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Good thing you have plenty of choices with your classes now, isn't it?
Heck, you can even multiclass even better than before, so it's even better than Pathfinder 1st Edition! Not to mention its only the playtest, who knows how much better and more freedom will be given during the full release?
-
2018-11-14, 08:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Yeah, that's dumb. But I honestly don't really expect much. It's clear to me that Paizo doesn't really have a coherent plan or theory of what they're doing. Game design is hard, and there are very good reasons to expect that the people doing it will end up being bad at it.
Or, how much worse it will be during the release. If you're going to ask that people hold their judgments until they see the final product, you should also hold your praise. After all, PF 2e could just be 400 pages of racial slurs, or a system with only one class that offers no choices during character creation or progression, or an exact reproduction of PF 1e, or any number of other things that you might like less than the current playtest. It's fine to admit we can't be certain, but you have to apply that uncertainty evenly.
-
2018-11-14, 08:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- [location_joke]
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Not only that, if we can't criticise it based on what we are presented in the playtest, it's equally invalid to praise it based on what is in the playtest. According to some though, apparently us disliking something aobut playtest version of it is not enough evidence that it's bad, unless they like it, in which case it's evidence that it's the best possible version of anything d20 related ever no backsies.
Spoiler5e is the placebo RPG. It doesn't do much, and literally everything it does do is done better by other RPGs. Despite all the evidence though, some people still swear by it.
-
2018-11-14, 08:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
One could argue about many of those points but I'd just like to point out that the existence of choices in 2e doesn't preclude those choices from being bad and their design questionable. The issue I and many others have with PF2e is that at the same time it gives you a lot of choices in the form of many selectable feats and skills at nearly every level, it also cuts options by making a lot of things that used to be basic options into class exclusive feats, like the aforementioned AoOs and charge. When I said that giving a class identity by removing options from other classes, that's what I meant.
And now, before you say it, yes, I'm aware that you can multiclass. But multiclass in 2e is a weird little thing and even if it wasn't, having to take a dedication feat and then another feat just to be able to do something that used to be standard fare in 1e doesn't fly with many people.
As for what the system "may be", I agree that there's still room for them to change things but a lot of that, especially class design, might just stay the same. They've had a lot of feedback already and made many changes in the system based on those. I am highly skeptical about them changing core assumptions of the system this late in the game.
-
2018-11-14, 09:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
I don’t appreciate this generalizing of every supporter of PF2e’s position with such hyperbole. It’s possible to be optimistic about the game’s progress without taking such a ridiculous position. I understand you’re targeting a specific poster here, but there are others that share an optimistic view of the playtest and 2e’s future and you are misrepresenting all of us by using the actions of one poster who is easily baited into petty fights to discredit the entire position. That’s not cool.
I’m also interested, did you watch the Twitch stream or read the summary thread with designer commentary about character optimization assumptions? Midnightninja and I spent a lot of time digging up the information for you, so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t just ignore it outright.
-
2018-11-14, 09:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Avatar made by Mehangel - "Neigh?"
-
2018-11-14, 09:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- [location_joke]
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
I apologise, yourself and a few others have been more than lovely, wanting to make effort to catch me up on things that I've missed - ideally, that would be the sort of person I can focus on. In fact, more generally, that's a problem I have. It goes without saying that your personal optimism for (and I hope enjoyment of) the playtest is a much better position than the one that infuriates me, even if I don't hold that position myself.
I actually did read the summary thread - although I didn't go on Twitch - and I'm glad that they've taken these things into account. If it comes out and they have resolved the maths issues they have encountered... well, I still don't think I'd run it, but I'd be willing to at least play if a friend wanted to run it. Which would be a marked improvement. I still don't know if I'd like it very much, but I do know that I probably wouldn't hate it. A lot of the restrictiveness and overnerfing of magic would still be present, but those are moderately smaller issues than the maths ones to me. Those are just my preference, where the maths issues are more basic functionality.Last edited by Minion #6; 2018-11-14 at 09:27 AM.
Spoiler5e is the placebo RPG. It doesn't do much, and literally everything it does do is done better by other RPGs. Despite all the evidence though, some people still swear by it.
-
2018-11-14, 09:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
... No. You don't have to apply that uncertainty evenly. Because its a playtest. The entire point is to release material, get feedback on what people like and what people dislike, and adjust the game according to that feedback.
I mean, I'm not saying you can't criticize it. The entire point of a playtest is to get criticism! Just, don't go writing it off wholesale, and making sweeping judgements when its not a finished product. You got to take everything with a grain of salt.
Like, Attack of Opportunity being a class feat now, I fully agree that is not a good decision, that it restricts you unfairly and unusually when just allowing everyone to have access to it as a reaction makes a lot of sense. But beyond Attack of Opportunity specifically, I fail to see what areas people are having their choices being taken away from them? Because as far as I can see, Pathfinder 2nd Edition has much more choice than Pathfinder 1st Edition does when comparing the two core handbooks.
Ah, no.
Making the spells significantly more power, but increasing the chance that they would actually be successful, even by a small amount like 10%, is far, far from a 'relatively peripheral' improvement. Its a grand change that affects every single individual and party member.
-
2018-11-14, 10:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
I mean, look at the Fighter feat lists. They monopolize a lot of what have been traditional staples of other classes. TWF has loong been "a rogue thing" but attacking with two weapons requires Dual Slice, which is Fighter specific. The Paladin charging in his horse has always been a classic image, but charge now requires a Fighter specific feat. Any class used to be able to pick up exotic weapon proficiencies but now that's Fighter only. And that's looking only at the Fighter. If you pick the rogue, he has gibs on Quick Draw so if I want to play a Iaijutsu practicioner, I need to get a Rogue dedication which honestly makes no sense. Why make those things specific to those classes?
That's what I meant when I said that defining a class by taking away things to others and then using a slap-a-dash "multiclass" solution is no good. I'm fine with my unarmored ronin not having a magical mount, being able to rebuke undead, being a sneak assassin or casting spells. But I sure as hell want her to be a martial and to be real fricking fast at drawing her sword.Last edited by ThatMoonGuy; 2018-11-14 at 10:43 AM.
-
2018-11-14, 12:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Yep, we can agree that the spells-per-day nerf was excessive. At the very least I'd like to see them bring back bonus spells for high casting stats. This would solve another issue that casters have - casters that don't rely on save DCs generally have little utility for their casting stat, since most spell attack rolls are still made with STR/DEX (touch or ranged touch attacks, specifically) or don't require rolls at all (buffs, healing, utility).
Additionally, I'd like to see more spells with extended durations and ranges, the nerfs to those aspects of spellcasting are also excessive in my view - at the very least, more spells need hour-long and day-long duration. As for range, an easy fix I see would be to give more spells variable-casting-speed, with more actions equating to a longer range. In general, the three-action economy and variable-casting-speed spells are extremely underutilized in the playtest, and a fertile design space for future development in the final product.
Last, save-or-lose spells need to all model the playtest Color Spray, where they have no effect on a critical save, a minor effect on a save, a strong effect on a failed save, and a devastating effect on a critically failed save. I never enjoyed the binary nature of control/debuff spells in 3.5/PF1e and I enjoy the additional design space that's opened up as a result of the new critical system, but more spells need to utilize it.
As for the strength of individual spell effects, it's difficult to discuss that unilaterally. Are there specific examples of spells that you feel are overnerfed?
Next, there's a thread on the Pazio boards that talks about the "niche protection" concern, and general lack of flexibility in character build options in the playtest-as-written: The Customization Bottleneck Within this thread, there's a lot of good player/GM feedback and developer responses from Jason Bulmahn acknowleging the shortcomings of the playtest on this front. IMO, Paizo is aware of many of these concerns and are examining ways to rectify them. My favorite suggestion from that thread? Separate the universal "combat feat" options into "Combat Style" archetypes that every character has access to, and additionally, give extra feat slots to each character to invest in these kinds of archetypes. What heartens me about this kind of solution is that it does not require scrapping the entire system as a whole - there are plenty of ways to utilize the existent elements of the playtest (features as feats, archetypes, proficiency) to solve the problem in a satisfactory way.
And your frustration with the playtest is equally valid as my optimism. To be honest, I share many of the same gripes that you do! The difference is, I'm still excited by the base chassis that the playtest offers. I can see how extensible and easy to modify it will be, and I'm hoping that they take advantage of that flexibility in the final product.
Again, check out the thread regarding the customization bottleneck in character creation. There's developer feedback addressing this exact complaint - nothing concrete, but they acknowledge that this is a definite problem that needs to be fixed.
I appreciate all of the criticism that's been brought up here! It's all valid, some of it I fully agree with, and it's really important to bring it up - so Paizo can fix the problems. The source of my continued optimism for the playtest stems from a few core reasons:
1. The core chassis of the game is very extensible and flexible, if fully utilized. To name a few flexible mechanics: The variable-casting-speed system, Skill Feats, the three-action-economy, the well-codified action system, the degrees-of-success style critical system, rituals, archetypes.
2. An underlying focus on raising the optimization floor across-the-board. Especially if/when the math gets rebalanced to reflect this, optimization will be a reward for system mastery, without creating an immense power disparity between unoptimized and optimized characters. My personal sweet spot would place optimized characters around 50% more effective/efficient than non-optimized characters - tangibly better, but not leaving unoptimized characters in the dust.
3. The response and willingness to change by the Paizo developers. As far as I'm aware, the only major game system they've declared as "set-in-stone" is the +1/level proficiency advancement, and even then, they've discussed releasing optional rules to remove it or modify the rate at which it scales.
As of today, the only major concern that I have for the playtest is that it is too short - I'd like to continue the playtest process well into 2019, but their schedule and the GenCon 2019 release date puts a restrictive timebox on how long they can spend iterating the rules.
Anyways, if PF2e isn't for you, that's perfectly fine. I just would like to discuss the playtest without the conversation devolving into fighting and bickering. All sides, regardless of support for or distaste of PF2e should be able to express their views freely. The high level of discourse on this forum is one of the major reasons I keep coming back. That, and it's the best PbP community I can find on the web.
-
2018-11-14, 01:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
If they push PF2e to 2020 and do another round of play testing, I'll give it another gander.
Right now? I'll glance through the free rules and see if it looks fun upon release. Because right now, it doesn't and I don't understand its appeal* or how anyone in this process though what they were doing was a good idea.
*compared to other existing games not just PF1.Last edited by Rhedyn; 2018-11-14 at 01:48 PM.
-
2018-11-14, 01:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
The issue of the bottleneck is a pretty real one but isn't quite the same thing I was talking about. My gripe is that I really don't think it's necessary to lock some options (Quick Draw, Attacks of Oppotunity, Charge) behing classes. This feels like a cheap way of differentiating them from one another.
I like the idea of class feats, skill feats and ancestry feats but don't think the feats themselves have been well thought out, specially the ones that force you to multiclass in order to achieve things that used to be common. The "bottleneck" problem only makes this worse by increasing the opportunity cost of things, but the baseline issue is just "why only such class get such ability?". I cna understand only Wizards and Sorcerers getting to cast spells or only rogues getting sneak attack. That's fine and dandy. But things like Quick draw? Why in the name of of all that's holy is this Rogue only?
In my ideal world, the PF2e feats would be really awesome and really class specific things like Bane, Rebuke Undead, Familiars and Rage. Those things are iconic to their classes. But the more general feats shouldn't be gated like that. I think this is a very baseline issue that has to do with questionable class optimization and the Fighter is the class that shows this the most. It's pretty damn hard to define the "Fighter" as a class because "Fighting well" is a prerrogative of any martial class. Fighting is literally their job. It's easy to picture a Barbarian as a huge guy who goes around charging, grabbing and pushing people but that kind of build is more adequately represented by the Fighter. Hence why I feel the image of the Fighter is just no good because all it's doing right now is stealing things from other classes. The class itself is detrimental to the system but since it is one of the classic D&D classes, it has to be kept. So now instead of having a system and figuring out which classes make sense in it, they have the classes and must make them exist somehow. This is the conflict of goals I mean and it plagues a lot of the playtest and due to how they're thinking the system and how pervasive those issues are, I don't really see them being amended at all.
-
2018-11-14, 02:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Forgot the sarcasm filter? I'd be horrified to hear that was your opinion, though your second comment seems to clear that out.
There's a difference between freedom of options and effectiveness of the choices. A TWF Paladin is possible in PF1e (and even in D&D 5e), but it's effectiveness is debatable. In PF1e, you have very few feats to work with, most of which conflict with other feats you'd like, AND you need to arrange your ability scores to meet the key prerequisites (Dex 13 -15, which is a tall order for a fighting style on a class where Dexterity is less useful because of the armor it wears), for the benefit of extra attacks, all of which have a small chance to land unless you use your Mark. In 5e, TWF support is limited (one Fighting Style, one Feat), but it's still doable; that TWF in 5e is mostly pointless because you can find other ways to get that extra attack is the main issue. For Paladins, it's a toss-up; they lack the Fighting Style to support TWF, they can't use the Smite spells on them, but they can get that extra attack to really go nova with Divine Smite, plus they always get that extra damage from Imp. Divine Smite as they progress. On the other hand, they can get access to a feat that grants an extra attack plus other benefits (Polearm Master), on weapons the Paladin might find more use.
On the other hand, a Fighter certainly has support to be TWF. A Rogue definitely has more support to get TWF (less on 5e, but Rogues don't get that many attacks anyways, so an extra chance to land that SA is always welcome). Even a Barbarian could make use of TWF, though they're aimed towards something. Freedom of options rewards system mastery, because you can see the underlying connections between the mechanics and pull off impressive stunts that others might not see; in fact, it improves overall system mastery because, as you reveal it to others, you end up expanding people's knowledge about the system. Even a "for fun" build provides useful data about the system.
On the other hand...
I haven't gotten to this part of the discussion, but I find "plenty of choices" to be debatable.
It's been mentioned before, but the paradigm shift from "combat styles as feats" to "combat styles as class feats" is detrimental, at least IMO. In 1e (and, for the most part, as it was in 3.5 and to an extent still is in 5e, though in this case Fighting Styles restrict your choice of options somewhat*), your choice of combat style resided on your choice of feats. If you wanted to specialize in two-handed weapons, you went with Power Attack. If you wanted to fight with two weapons, you took the TWF chain. If you wanted Sword & Board...you took Imp. Shield Bash and then split your feat choices between TWF (for offense...and also, WTF?) and Shield Focus/Specialization, until you got Shield Master and Bashing Finish as the branch blenders. The key here, though, was that EVERY class could choose them. The class features made certain choices better than others, and some class features made those choices for you (i.e., a Monk's Unarmed Strike progression, a Ranger's bonus feat choices). That leads to iconic perceptions, which eventually define the feel of the class. It's odd to see a Ranger that isn't TWF or Archery, but it shouldn't be like such. (In fact, a Ranger specializing in capturing equipment, such as a net or bolas, would be an interesting archetype to follow; gauchos in Argentina and Brazil are essentially this kind of Ranger).
Combat styles as class feats, on the other hand, opens up a nasty can of worms. Sure, it recognizes that some options are just bad or wrong, or perhaps it recognizes that some options are more favored than others. However, it creates restrictions that shouldn't happen. So a Fighter gets a wide variety of combat styles (Fencing, THF, TWF, Archery/Throwing, Sword & Board), but must focus on one almost to the exclusivity of others. Paladins...don't get that choice. It's either Magic Sword, Sword & Board or Special Mount. Your Magic Sword can be a two-hander, but you don't get any more support for it than a Magic One-Handed Sword, or a Magic One-Handed Axe. Heck, even the Critical Specialization effects that you praise are woefully limited (you MUST take the Magic Sword, and it only works for your Magic Sword, and any other weapons that resemble your Magic Sword) for this class. Sword & Board doesn't get as many options as the Fighter gets, and some of them are gained later; speaking of which, SnB lost their offensive capabilities (you can't use your shield as a weapon anymore, AFAICR). And Special Mount...just makes your mount special, it doesn't make your attacks any better than anyone on a mount.
Those, plus the Mercy line and the Powers, are the options the Paladin gets. You need to go deep in one or two of these options. What's the difference from 1e, where you also got hamfisted into limited options? It's mostly the same reason why 5e is popular**; it gives the illusion of options, and if you gain enough system mastery, you can turn that illusion into reality. PF2e shows them so simply and cleanly, you can't help but notice you don't have any options at all. Even if you could prove you have options, it won't feel as such (making convincing someone else far, far more difficult), and most importantly, it won't motivate experimenting in order to toy with these expanded options. And, when those options aren't as enticing or, in some cases, even worthwhile, it leaves a bad taste on the mouth.
FYI, I went with Sword & Board and Powers as Class Feats as a build exercise to get a feel for the system, and I felt the Paladin too restricted compared to what I could do with the 5e Paladin on the same levels. The ability to cast and maintain Bless from 2nd level, or get an Extra Attack by 5th, or give every ally by 7th level my Charisma modifier as a bonus to all saves, or the ability to deal extra damage to every weapon by 11th, feels a ton more relevant than +2 to saves or negate the -2 penalty on Retributive Strike, a +1 to attack rolls and a single skill of your choice and a choice of Ancestry feat that already stopped being relevant alongside your expected ability boosts, Mettle on Fortitude saves and...whatever it is that expert proficiency in Armor brings alongside a +1 to skills and a choice of feat that isn't as enticing, or the same thing as 7th level except you finally get something decent in Aura of Justice, except Retributive Strike is painfully bad. And while 2nd level is one of the levels where the Paladin gets "options", I didn't even mention the options the 5e Paladin gets. Note, that is on a system where you can choose between an Ability Boost OR a Feat, but not necessarily both, and on a system that doesn't offer choices at nearly every level; that said, those choices are sometimes far, far more meaningful. Feats, for one, are extremely worthwhile, and sometimes even offset the loss of an Ability Boost by offering half that bonus PLUS something else. Perhaps what I want to clarify here is that 5e can reward long-term planning, while PF2e...at least in the class and build I want to play, doesn't.
And, before you say anything else; if I point out these things, it's because I'd like to see PF end up being better. If PF2e flops and Paizo can't continue selling books, it'll be detrimental for the tabletop roleplaying business at all, because you won't see any more ideas. I think 4e is a great example of this; they went too bold, and almost completely flopped. I'm not a fan of PF1e, so there IS bias behind; I don't mind if someone tells me they want me to play PF, there's stuff there I'm interested in, but I'd prefer 3.5 or 5e instead. However, I recognize things that I'd love to see in 3.5, so in the end, it helps. 3.PF would be a better option IMO, since I could then mix and match the good stuff I like from PF from the stuff I loved from 3.5, and make the build I really want. In a way, I'd like to see something from PF2e that I could say, "damn, this is really good!", but I just don't see it, from what I've seen.
*: Fighting Styles in D&D 5e restrict your options, but only minimally. Archery grants a heavy boost to attack rolls, but you don't need Archery to be a good archer, since the Sharpshooter feat is very good on its own. Two-Weapon Fighting only lets you add your STR or DEX to the bonus attack; the real stuff that lets you be a good TWF user is on the Dual Wielder feat. The Protection style is somewhat weak compared to the awesome Shield Master feat. About the only good combination is Great Weapon Fighting + Great Weapon Master. Heck, you could go Sword & Board and get the Duelist feat, which is great to simulate Fencing, and be good offensively and defensively. In that regard, they feel like Critical Specializations, except they're always active, and they don't necessarily restrict you from focusing on a particular combat style; hence, you could, if you wanted, take the Dual Wielder feat on a Paladin and get most of the benefits from TWF, just missing out on STR or DEX to attack rolls but instead add the benefits from your Divine Smite, Improved Divine Smite and the Divine Power spell, which is a pretty fair comparison. Of course, you could get Polearm Master and get an extra attack with the same benefits, plus the bit on Opportunity Attacks, and get a Fighting Style that supports it; again, it's not the best idea to get TWF on a Paladin, but it's both doable AND mostly effective.
**: Speaking of 5e and "illusion of options", where it seems to get none; first, you get the concept of feats, and the choice of subclasses, that can make pretty distinct characters from one another; second, the true point of comparison is the concept of perception. Adding 4e into the mix, it's what made 4e so loathed; it could have been a very balanced system, but it felt wrong. 5e, on the other hand, for those who like it, feels right. And you can definitely trust that feeling is a big part on a person's choice of system.Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
On Lawful Good:
T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.
-
2018-11-14, 02:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Likewise, I'd feel more optimistic about PF2 if they aimed for a release at GenCon 2020 instead of 2019, because I feel they've rushed this project way too fast without not even time for open playtest and feedback.
Even if they continue in this direction, which is a game I would not play, gives them more time to work out the kinks and create a better product for those who would like to play this game.
-
2018-11-14, 03:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Okay, due to the fact that the Pathfinder Playtest Handbook doesn’t seem to actually be updated with the significant changes that have occoured over the Playtest, meaning that whilst I believe some of the more specific examples that have been given have already been addressed by the updates, I’m going to address the broader issue that people have when it comes to player choice in the game of Pathfinder 2nd Edition, and the arguement about whenever or not Pathfinder 2nd Edition has actively handicaped you, rather than actually allowing for greater choices, and having those choices being meaningful and important.
And, to a degree, I must admit that I agree with these sentiments.
When I think of ‘class feats’, I think of taking abilities like Pathfinder 1st Edition’s Rogue Talents or Rage Powers, and making them more universal across the classes. Having abilities such as Turn Undead, or Favoured Enemy, or even Inspire Greatness as these class feats. Powerful, unique feats that really stand out as being class specific, feats and abilities that belong to this class, and this class alone, without forcing them to be able to play with only a very small set of playstyles.
Because of this, seeing feats being repeated over multipule occasions. Feats such as Sudden Charge, Double Slice, Quick Draw, and even Sense the Unseen, was very disapointing to be. It dilutes what makes the classes special, what makes them stand out from the rest, and make you want to go ‘Yes, this is what I want to play!’. It instead makes the choices and the classes more generic, making them feeling less meaningful, less impactful as they have in the past, and yes, in some specific cases, the inclusion of these feats as class feats to specific classes, means that certain types of builds or themes, are restricted to certain types of classes, which in turn limits your creativity.
That’s only in specific cases however, and not in general.
Still. The general sentiment of the class feats being mismanaged, is a sentiment I agree with. 3.5 Homebrew classes often had martial classes like a Ranger, Samurai or Paladin gain bonus fighter feats, and Pathfinder went further and codified these ‘bonus fighter feats’ into its own category - Combat feats, and from there, had further categories, such as Style Feats, Teamwork Feats, and Critical Feats, for example. I don’t think we need to go as far as Pathfinder has done so, in the various different catogiries. But I fully believe that the feats at this moment, are too limited and restricted, and there should be different feat pools, such as ‘Combat’ or ‘Divine’ or ‘Metamagic’. With the classes getting a mixture of class specific feats, as well as being able to pick feats from these feat pools at certain levels, in order to give the classes much wider flexibility and choice in what they can do.
And make AoO avaible to everyone again. That’s just silly.
As for whenever or not 5e classes are stronger, and give you more choices as you go through the levels? Well... I think it differes from class to class, but I think Level 1 P2E classes are stronger, (through nothing compared to 4the Edition), then afterwards 5E does take over, up to around levels 8-10, where P2E classes pick up the slack and take over in terms of options avaiable.
-
2018-11-14, 03:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
In my ideal world, they would remember that originally, classes like Ranger and Paladin were sub-classes of Fighter... so in the current era of customizable classes, they should be examples of what you can do with the Fighter class, rather than being classes of their own.
For example:
Paladin would not be a class. But you can make a Paladin character. To do so, you start with the Fighter chassis. You spend your feats on "knight stuff" (which includes getting a horse, or, at least, getting horse-using skills and feats), "cleric multi-class" feats, and the other iconic Paladin stuff (taking a Vow which gives you a bonus feat you wouldn't normally get, which you can spend on getting "smite evil" and/or "Charisma to saving throws" and/or "immunity to disease/fear".
Ranger would not be a class. But you can make a Ranger character. To do so, you start with the Fighter chassis. You spend your feats on... gosh, whatever a Ranger is supposed to have. I dunno? Two-weapon fighting? Tracking abilities? Nature stuff (possibly from Druid multi-class feats).
Barbarian would not be a class. But you can make a Barbarian character. To do so, you start with the Fighter chassis. You spend your feats on raging, damage resistance, illiteracy (okay, it's a drawback that gives you a bonus feat that you otherwise might not be able to access... this might be the only way to get the Rage feat), nature stuff, uncanny dodge, etc.
All of these "Fighter options" would ideally be listed as examples of how to make a character, so if someone wants to just create an off-the-rack Paladin, they can take this particular list of feats and choose exactly those feats. But nobody would be locked into a particular design choice.
"Fighter" should be the chassis that enables you to build ANY kind of fighting guy, instead of being a "fighting guy who doesn't get the cool stuff that all the other fighting-guy classes get".Last edited by SimonMoon6; 2018-11-14 at 03:37 PM.
-
2018-11-14, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.
-
2018-11-14, 03:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
That's the thing a lot of people are asking themselves. I even saw some posts on Paizo forum suggesting "feat points", which would basically just make PF2e a very weird Point Buy system. Classes are traditional and have always been part of what makes this game's identity, though, so you can't just throw that away. That said, I could see a variant of d20 that works sorta like Shadowrun. You wanna be a Mage? Just pay the Point Buy cost of it. You wanna be really good at poking people with a pointy stck? Sure, sir, we have that in store.
You can even maintain the concept of "levels" since this would allow for the other mechanics like proficiencies to remain useful. That makes for a pretty cool system, if you ask me, but it would sure as hell be hell to balance* and most definetely would not be Pathfinder.
EDIT: On that note, what would be cool would be to see some sort of class making guideline by Paizo, sort of like their race builder from 1e. That way you could mix and match things like proficiencies, hit dice and some types of special abilities and balance it all through a point buy system. Although that may be asking way too much, I guess.
*Trust me, I've been there. It's hell to balanceLast edited by ThatMoonGuy; 2018-11-14 at 04:02 PM.
-
2018-11-14, 05:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
As I've mentioned before, it's really not that "not Pathfinder" or really hard to balance. I managed pretty well in my spare time on my own, with only a few hiccups largely born from backporting existing features (leaving some redundant features like Bravery and aura of Courage to overlap at the same point value). Surely Paizo could manage it with a team of 4-6 devs (I forget how many there are these days, but I know they have at least Buhlman, Seifter, McFarland, and one other guy).
-
2018-11-14, 07:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
-
2018-11-14, 09:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.
Yes. Precisely. The point is to release material. So people can judge you based on that material, not the possibility that you could write better material at some later date. The idea that we must confine our criticism to only what we have seen Paizo release, but may lavish our praise based on what we can imagine them releasing is absurd.
TWF isn't really a "Rogue thing". Conceptually it's a "Ranger thing", since they get free TWF feats. Mechanically it's a thing you do if you have a source of bonus damage that applies to all your attacks. Rogues are certainly an example of that, but so are Bardblades or certain kinds of Gish.
No. The critical system is a tire fire. It needs to be eliminated entirely, not have more stuff based off it. If you want incremental effects, give spells an effect on a passed save. Requiring every spell have three scaling effects also makes designing new spells a lot more work than it needs to be. The idea that a die roll should be an exciting event is one of the worst in modern game design.
The thesis of the OP is basically correct. "Everything is feats" is a bad design paradigm, and if I didn't have such a low opinion of professional game designers, I'd be shocked that it made it as far as playtests. "Everything is feats" is exactly the sort of thing that sounds like a good idea, but fails apart when you think about it in any detail. If you have only one kind of resource, there's only one kind of tradeoff you can make. Everything has to have the same cost, and roughly the same benefit. In a system where feats are the primary avenue of character customization, it's very difficult to add a character option that is worth more than a feat, but not an entire class (e.g. Dragonmarks). I also think that making one choice from each of several lists is likely to be easier than making multiple choices from the same list, which makes it easier to capture the combinatoric explosion you get from letting people pick multiple times.
1. The core chassis of the game is very extensible and flexible, if fully utilized. To name a few flexible mechanics: The variable-casting-speed system, Skill Feats, the three-action-economy, the well-codified action system, the degrees-of-success style critical system, rituals, archetypes.
No, it shouldn't. That's not how a classed system works. There isn't a class for "any type of fighting guy" any more than there is a class for "any type of adventurer". Your system should have enough flexibility between multiclassing, archetypes, and feats to support the overwhelming majority of martial characters without needing a "build a class" class.
The system you are describing is potentially a functional system, but it's not a class-based system. I'm not sure such a thing could really be sold as D&D, though I do think it has potential. Personally, I think the key to making it work is to reverse the Class -> Ability flow the D&D has traditionally had and instead go with Ability -> Class. So you pick up a bunch of abilities, and if you have a certain number of Nature abilities you can be a Druid. Or if you also had some Martial abilities, you could be a Ranger instead.
For that matter, how exactly does it work in PF 2e? I'm way too lazy to dig through this entire thread and all the various posts just to find an explanation that might be out of date. Is it still open multiclassing? Is it some kind of subclassing system? Is it in either "you'd be stupid to do it" or "you'd be stupid not to do it" territory?