Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.

[Wonton]

https://twitter.com/Sphynxian/status...21610685206533

This sums up why when 2ed comes out I am taking a year off from PF

Damn. After digging through a few of those tweet threads and doing some research, I've definitely lost some respect for Paizo. =\
Just seems like another example of game designers in an ivory tower going "we know what's right" and ignoring both internal and external feedback.

Weirdly, I've found in software development that client management doesn't want to test alpha/beta versions with the actual users with any regularity. They'll grab an intern off the street, pair them with the project manager, and use them to test.

This annoys the developers because they aren't getting feedback from the users for 99% of the development time, they're getting feedback from a manager who isn't a hard core user. Then by the time there is user testing the manager has pet ideas or personal sacred cows in the design and those have to stay because job, but they often aren't what the users actually need or want.

We could be seeing something similar here.

I play WoW and I am VERY familiar with this philosophy, as it's exactly how Blizzard does it. Ask for feedback and pretend to listen. Change some minor things around to appease the fanbase. But never bother changing any unpopular core systems, because you're a designer with 15 years of experience and they're just the plebs who play it. It's not your fault they can't see the genius of your design.

Ego is a massive problem in game design, unfortunately.

[Minion #6]

Their working on them, alright? It might not be perfect, you might not agree with how they implemented it. But they are listening, and working on the system, which is the main points.

Only in the loosest possible sense. They're repainting the car because we're complaining about the engine.

EDIT: There's a better analogy below my post.

[NomGarret]

Only in the loosest possible sense. They're repainting the car because we're complaining about the engine.

To be fair, they are addressing things that were brought up. Your metaphor would be more applicable if they addressed problems with resonance by tweaking size bonuses. I’d say it’s more like they tweaked the engine to make it more efficient in response to people asking why they installed a steam engine in the first place.

[Recherché]

Yeah, to add another metaphor to the discussion, the reason I want to know the design goals is so I can know if the car is seriously lost and I could possibly help guide it back on track or if the car is on the right route but just going to a completely different location than where I want to go. In the latter case trying to guide it to my preferred destination would just make things more muddled.

[Rhedyn]

https://twitter.com/Sphynxian/status...21610685206533

This sums up why when 2ed comes out I am taking a year off from PF

It's best to disregard JP (the person your tweet is quoting), she's toxic and can barely hold down a job regardless of which industry she claws into.


https://mobile.twitter.com/delafina7...938048?lang=en

This is her celebrating someone dieing of cancer because she thought he was sexist (he wasn't).

Paizo is significantly worse for ever having worked with her.

[Minion #6]

Yeah, to add another metaphor to the discussion, the reason I want to know the design goals is so I can know if the car is seriously lost and I could possibly help guide it back on track or if the car is on the right route but just going to a completely different location than where I want to go. In the latter case trying to guide it to my preferred destination would just make things more muddled.

It boggles the mind that people think that players knowing the design goals is somehow not important. The whole point of them elaborating on the design goals is so that we would know what is negotiable and what is not. Not only that, we'd know if the game was even trying to do something we liked in the first place. If they genuinely do want to move to a 5e-esque paradigm of tight maths, lowered power curve, and "tension"* on each roll, that's fine by me. I'll just play another game.

*Again, high whiff rates on individual rolls =/= tension. That's frustration. It doesn't matter how much random chance is involved in minor rolls, those rolls will still stay minor.

[Da Beast]

*Again, high whiff rates on individual rolls =/= tension. That's frustration. It doesn't matter how much random chance is involved in minor rolls, those rolls will still stay minor.

I feel like it actually discourages the investment into the game that tension comes from. If everything is 50-50 then I can't reliable plan anything so why get invested? Tension should come from the story and how I chose to approach the situation; if I wanted my tension to come from simple dice rolls I'd find a casino and blow a couple rules books worth of money at the craps table.

[Rynjin]

It's best to disregard JP (the person your tweet is quoting), she's toxic and can barely hold down a job regardless of which industry she claws into.

I dislike JP as much as the next guy, but she's absolutely right in this case. Buhlman and Jacobs especially are openly contemptuous of people on the forums (though again, glass houses; Price was as bad as any of them).

[Rhedyn]

I dislike JP as much as the next guy, but she's absolutely right in this case. Buhlman and Jacobs especially are openly contemptuous of people on the forums (though again, glass houses; Price was as bad as any of them).

Regardless, I don't trust bad sources of information even if they are agreeing with what I think.

[Minion #6]

Regardless, I don't trust bad sources of information even if they are agreeing with what I think.

Bad source does not necessarily mean bad info. The outright contempt from Buhlman and Jacobs (i.e. describing dislike of Resonance as being "hyperbolic" and telling people off for it) to anyone that thinks their ideas aren't purest mountain springwater fresh and lovely kinda confirms her on this point, even if she's wrong on others. I wouldn't take her as a sole source, sure, but it's more evidence.

[catman04221985]

Well as they say a broken clock is right twice a day. Also I agree with the guy more so than JP.

[Storyteller_Arc]

I mean... considering the fact that they didn't just make Untrained be more of a penalty but changed the actual maths of the skill checks in order to make them easier overall, and already, the actual chance of succeeding level-appropriate challenges was pretty much never a flat 50/50%. As well as them working on implementing mundane items that will give you item bonuses to skills so that you don't have to rely entirely on magical items and can potentially get ahead of the curve...

On top of them admitting that they messed up Resonance from a systematic level, that trying to use it to replace the slot system, and as a means of stopping the CLW spam, was tying too much mechanically to a single system and that it would be best for them to remake the Resonance system for future playtesting...

I don't think any of the analogy's really work.

[Caelestion]

Bad source does not necessarily mean bad info. The outright contempt from Buhlman and Jacobs (i.e. describing dislike of Resonance as being "hyperbolic" and telling people off for it) to anyone that thinks their ideas aren't purest mountain springwater fresh and lovely kinda confirms her on this point, even if she's wrong on others. I wouldn't take her as a sole source, sure, but it's more evidence.

A lot of the posts since P2 was announced have been hyperbolic, many stunningly so. It's the inevitable nature of edition warring.

[CasualViking]

Given Buhlman's and Jacob's history, does anyone - anyone - seriously doubt that those two have a serious listening deficiency?

[Caelestion]

Well, since you asked, yes.

Granted, I know nothing about the history because I got bored of reading about Internet controversies years ago, but I'm also inclined not to believe anything that comes across as "aggrieved fan didn't get what they want".

[Minion #6]

I for one am getting pretty sick of having my concerns and dislikes dismissed as "hyperbole" or "edition warring" or "not getting what you want" or (I mean, not here, this is more a Paizo forums slash Reddit thing) just plain "toxic".

[Kish]

I don't get why "not getting what you want" is supposed to be a legitimate criticism anyway.

If a for-profit company doesn't give you what you want, you keep your money. Of late, I've encountered a lot of this bizarre idea that people should feel a moral obligation to support corporations for some reason.

[Caelestion]

I for one am getting pretty sick of having my concerns and dislikes dismissed as "hyperbole" or "edition warring" or "not getting what you want" or (I mean, not here, this is more a Paizo forums slash Reddit thing) just plain "toxic".

I wasn't calling anyone out specifically, but feel to take offence anyway.

[Minion #6]

I wasn't calling anyone out specifically, but feel to take offence anyway.

I could say the same to you.

[Caelestion]

Given that three of the four things you mentioned I've recently said whilst quoting you, I can't imagine that there are many people who would think that you weren't calling me out, at least in part.

[Minion #6]

Oh, oops! I can see why you thought that was addressed at you then - your comment above did prompt it, but I didn't (consciously, at least) realise anything more than the second-to-last was something you specifically had said.

That being said, all those things are still bad arguments, and don't get anyone anywhere. Dismissing criticism is not addressing criticism, after all.

EDIT: To expand, as far as I can tell, what you're expressing is "I don't care about those complaints" for various reasons. This is of course a true statement, but it isn't actually anything that gets the conversation anywhere. Your not caring about those complaints does not make them any more or less valid. The complaints still exist, no counter-evidence has been provided. And really the only one of those arguments that could be evidenced is that of "hyperbole" in that it could be demonstrated that there are claims being made somewhere that are exaggerated from some sort of objective truth. The others are just presumptions of bad-faith motive - in other words, valueless and empty internet mind reading.

[Caelestion]

In fairness, my response that could be summarised as "I don't know, so I don't care" was in response to Casual Viking.

As regards to hyperbole, one such comment that remains uppermost in my mind was a chap on the Paizo forums declaring that if anyone anywhere was playing a non-LG paladin, it would affect his personal ability to play paladins. (This is not an exaggeration.)

[Minion #6]

Not hugely relevant to what we were discussing but man, I'd love Paladin to become a more flexible "Divine Champion" or something like it. Dedicated to the specific philosophies of their deities, no matter the alignment. Even True Neutral deities should get in on the action! I realise there would be a bit more work involved in writing a deity from that point, as you'd have to elaborate on what would be an appropriate code every time, but I think that would be worth the effort. There's elements of this with the "Anathema" idea in PF2, but I'd love even more of it.

[Kish]

There are already divine champions who are dedicated to the specific philosophies of gods regardless of their alignment. They're called clerics.

Shoving paladins into the same niche would leave the "champion of pure Good" niche empty, to no gain that I can see. Thus, I would much rather they severed the connection between paladins and religion entirely, such that you can be a paladin who worships Iomedae, or Sarenrae, or Nocticula as the Redeemer Queen, or Asmodeus if the Redeemer Queen-paladin is looking at you and saying "Wow, you're deluded"...but no "paladin of Iomedae" any more than you currently have a "wizard of Iomedae."

[Serafina]

Not hugely relevant to what we were discussing but man, I'd love Paladin to become a more flexible "Divine Champion" or something like it. Dedicated to the specific philosophies of their deities, no matter the alignment. Even True Neutral deities should get in on the action! I realise there would be a bit more work involved in writing a deity from that point, as you'd have to elaborate on what would be an appropriate code every time, but I think that would be worth the effort. There's elements of this with the "Anathema" idea in PF2, but I'd love even more of it.

Having Paladins of a True Neutral deity shouldn't be hard! After all, "True Neutral" just means that they hold one or more principles as more important than anything on the alignment axis - which is to say, as more important of how much good or bad it does for people, or how exactly you go about it.

So a Paladin of Nethys? Nethys just values magic above all things - so the paladin code would be above that, preventing anything from impeding magic studies, protecting spellcasters, and so on. Moral conflict, if desired, would come from this also applying to evil and chaotic spellcasters as much as to good and lawful ones, and having to maintain a true neutral alignment because you're supposed to uphold balance.

Pharasma? Her big thing is the afterlife, so you have to stop anything that interferes with that. It's also the perfect anti-undeath paladin.

Gozreh could just take inspiration from the Ancients-Paladin from 5E.

Now it's not necessarily perfectly fitting for all deities, and in many ways the design space is already taken by the Inquisitor - but that also proves that you can very much have "Champion of a Faith" for any faith. It is extremely restrictive to keep the Paladin tied to "lawful good knight in shining armor", and a bunch of desirable class features, and thus elevate one alignment and worldview above all others because it's the only one that deserves that class while all others either get none, or another class for it.

[Caelestion]

I've long been a fan of variant paladins and speciality clerics, so lots of different anathema codes would be an excellent idea to include as far as I'm concerned.

[Morty]

Not hugely relevant to what we were discussing but man, I'd love Paladin to become a more flexible "Divine Champion" or something like it. Dedicated to the specific philosophies of their deities, no matter the alignment. Even True Neutral deities should get in on the action! I realise there would be a bit more work involved in writing a deity from that point, as you'd have to elaborate on what would be an appropriate code every time, but I think that would be worth the effort. There's elements of this with the "Anathema" idea in PF2, but I'd love even more of it.

5E has done that with its paladins, and the books somehow didn't catch on fire, so yeah, PF2e's adherence to paladins as LG-only is confusing.

[Cosi]

Shoving paladins into the same niche would leave the "champion of pure Good" niche empty, to no gain that I can see.

Is "champion of pure Good" really a niche that needs a dedicated class for it? We don't have specific classes for "angry warrior from an arctic land", "angry warrior from a jungle land", and "angry warrior from a desert land", we just have a Barbarian. Is the game really better if Paladins are specifically Good people with healing and defensive magic rather than people with healing and defensive magic who are allowed to be Good? What's the benefit in forcing that association at the class level, rather than allow it to be either a flavorful choice (as alignment frankly should be), or a smaller mechanical one like an archetype or a feat?

[PhoenixPhyre]

5E has done that with its paladins, and the books somehow didn't catch on fire, so yeah, PF2e's adherence to paladins as LG-only is confusing.

One wrinkle about that is that 5e paladins aren't tied to a god at all. You don't have Paladins of <insert deity>, you have paladins who swore a particular set of oaths, and they draw their power from the oath itself (or their confidence in/obedience to their oath). You can be a totally atheist paladin in 5e (with all the risks of that if you're in FR, but fine in most places).

The oaths do tend to fit best with certain alignments, but don't restrict based on that:

* Devotion (the classic "knight in shining armor" oath) -> LG (mostly)
* Ancients (focus on joy and beauty and resisting darkness) -> CG/NG
* Vengeance (smite those particular wicked people more than most) -> various darker shades (although it's quite flexible).
* Conquest (rule with an iron fist) -> LE, LN at best
* Redemption (see the good in all, mercy > justice) -> NG/CG
* Crown (oath to the mortal authorities, law-and-order) -> Lawful (the exact variant depends on who/what you swore to).

[Morty]

One wrinkle about that is that 5e paladins aren't tied to a god at all. You don't have Paladins of <insert deity>, you have paladins who swore a particular set of oaths, and they draw their power from the oath itself (or their confidence in/obedience to their oath). You can be a totally atheist paladin in 5e (with all the risks of that if you're in FR, but fine in most places).

The oaths do tend to fit best with certain alignments, but don't restrict based on that:

* Devotion (the classic "knight in shining armor" oath) -> LG (mostly)
* Ancients (focus on joy and beauty and resisting darkness) -> CG/NG
* Vengeance (smite those particular wicked people more than most) -> various darker shades (although it's quite flexible).
* Conquest (rule with an iron fist) -> LE, LN at best
* Redemption (see the good in all, mercy > justice) -> NG/CG
* Crown (oath to the mortal authorities, law-and-order) -> Lawful (the exact variant depends on who/what you swore to).

I'm aware, and consider it a good thing.