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

[T.G. Oskar]

I've been advocating for a change of philosophy in regards to this well. Though my request has been for developers to depower casters rather than turn non casters into anime super heroes. I'm more interested in ritual magic than hand waving bibbidi babbidy boo standard action meteor swarms.

I don't like that casters set the tone so much that because they're given overpowered abilities that everyone has to play catch up to match them.

I'm not going to sit here and hold my breath though. I'm probably in the minority on that one.

You'd probably not be surprised. A minor thing, though.

Note that all the heroes I mentioned are comic book superheroes. I didn't mention at any moment "anime" superheroes (no Goku, no Naruto, no Kenshiro, no Pegasus Seiya, no Natsu or the Fairy Tail guild), and anime can have gritty dark heroic characters (see: Guts) or pretty mundane heroes (see: Parn from Record of Lodoss War, which is coincidentally inspired by D&D).

Also, note that some people prefer to play characters based on their favorite video games. These are the current inspirations; books aren't always the main inspirations, or the key ones. No system will allow, to give a random example, a party comprised of Pakse, Parn, Guts and Iron Bull. (Purposedly an all-melee party) Perhaps it'll allow for the inspirations to flow through (a sheepfarmer's daughter turned mercenary turned Paladin, a young farmboy turned soldier, an orphaned mercenary with a dark streak, and an outcast from his own race who fights as a...what else, mercenary, and actually leads such a band), but not make them exactly as you'd want to...and this is a relatively easy example. When your party wants to play Goku, Superman, Harry Potter and Cole Turner...on a pseudo-medieval, early Renaissance fantasy world...

Thing is, sometimes, those "inspirations" aren't bad, as long as you can keep them as. such; inspirations. Some of them won't fly, no matter what (if your campaign doesn't have an "Asian" flavor, there's no way you can have Goku on the party, not even as a brawler-type character, even though he's no Monk, not even by a hair's breadth), but some could be adapted. A system that empowers "mundanes" into "awakened mundanes" helps with that transition a lot.

...Maybe it's just a peeve of mine to hear "anime" being tossed as something bad because it's used as a synonym for "outlandish". The MCU is rather outlandish as of late, and anime can be gritty without being outlandish...and let's not speak about Doctor Strange or John Constantine, which is outlandish as you can't imagine. Or the Eternals. That goes without saying that books can't be outlandish, either.

In my games I tried to explain away the ridiculousness of super powered mundanes by saying that everyone had magic inside them. It was just different kinds. A high level fighter had a strong fighting spirit that was channeling something akin to transmutation magic in order to move and hit so fast. He also had a thick layer of abjuration magic around him that absorbed damage on a consistent basis. The fighter wouldn't describe it that way - but an analytical observer versed in a multitude of knowledges might assure him that's the "science" of it.

A rogue with a high enough stealth modifier was tapping into "the void" something more powerful than even illusion magic. Same with high bluff and Diplomacy checks has traces of enchantment.

When and if magic left the world, it would affect more than just the mages. It would leave everyone depowered.

That's a definitely good start; saying that magic is inside of you, and that you just manifest it differently, is a solid way to go. You can resume it as "Fighters are a PCI (sp?) slot, Wizards are a USB slot"; one is easier and more available, the other is more specialized but works better for what you need.

However, "magic leaving the world" is something I can't really stomach. Maybe 'magic and technology are in imbalance, and one tends to overpower the other". Probably because I like kitchen-sink worlds where everything can coexist, but given that I equate magic with energy, that'd be tantamount to say "a huge amount of mass and energy just disappeared, got obliterated". I mean...sure, magic doesn't play well with the Laws of Physics, in particular the Laws of Thermodynamics (and that's saying it lightly), but to have Physics suddenly reassert itself in such a brutal way, by essentially violating one of its core tenets, just doesn't fly by me. Now, saying that Mana, or magical energy, can't be tapped in the same way as before...that's reasonable. Magic can still exist, but something went so bad that none of the ways that could be used to harness it will work anymore. Perhaps a few items remain (Artifacts), creatures that depended on Magic will die (a mass extinction), and the universe will experience supernatural events that can't be explained, as a result of magic being so prevalent in the atmosphere but nothing being able to harness it. There's ways to handle such a cataclysmic event (whether catastrophic or just paradigm changing) without just saying "magic is gone"; the thing, though, is that once that happens, it might not be that everything that was powered by magic suddenly gets downsized to normal. This affects the "awakened mundanes", where they got a boost rather than being fully empowered, and may still unconsciously tap into those resources because they're already considered as normal.

Again, something really minor, but I felt I needed to say it. A reason why I say "mundanes" getting powers at high levels being handled by templates or something along those lines, as I ascribe to the idea of them to become demigods or supers in some regard. And, as you may realize, not all demigods and supers harness magic.

Pf2e is starting to remind me of 4th edition. It just feels so sterile.

Sterile...doesn't seem to fit the bill. I mean, I'm not a fan of 4e. Never played it, but made the exercise of building a character for it, one I felt it could feel my playstyle, and it was a chore. Maybe because you need the tools (no longer) provided by WotC to build them, or because I couldn't meet all the numbers to make it play well on a standard table (though I was assured that wasn't always the case), or that I was turned off by the absolute reliance on magic items, far more than 3e or PF, without the certainty that I'd get the item I actually wanted, and probably got something I couldn't use, but had to just to get the right numbers. In any case, "sterile" doesn't really describe my issues. PF2e...well, that one does.

I mean, perhaps you might refer as how "mechanically sterile" 4e feels, but that's because the chassis for 4e skills is too standardized (the first few classes had the same chassis, differing mostly on their 1st level abilities). Powers are what meant to made them different, and a cursory reading made some powers mere upgrades of others, leaving you with a small list of abilities that made each class different (a Paladin doesn't play at all as a Fighter doesn't play at all as a Warlord). Couple that with some features being mechanically weak or outright traps, and you could justify feeling "sterile".

PF2e, with less options than 4e, exacerbates this. Judging by 4e as a complete system, the possibility for PF2e to have a breadth of options beyond what you could get from the Core rulebook is possible (in particular, a ton more class features, as well as more multiclass feats that work as Prestige Classes or Archetypes), but the "core" options aren't very uplifting at a first look. Some books were designed to provide options meant as "patches" to systemic flaws (apparent or otherwise; see: Paladin and Divine Sanction, or Paladin and at-will powers that could be used as part of OAs), while others were meant to expand options. However, first impression made a big dent, and PF2e seems to go on the same boat.

Balance isn't that important. D&D 5e is one of the worst balanced editions of D&D and it is the most popular. Balance is a tool/illusion. It's not why people play RPG systems.

YMMV on what made 5e so popular (you can read on this thread that 5e rides on brand recognition, but judging by 4e, that's debatable), but it makes me remember Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Even now, this game (alongside Super Smash Bros. Melee) is popular on competitions, and it's pretty much a decade old. Why?

Because of "balance in imbalance". There's defined tiers of characters (God-Tier relegated to Magneto, Cable and Sentinel, for example), with each tier playing on its own field, but each character had something that could be used as an advantage; something that made skill worthwhile. A newbie playing with Cable, Magneto and Sentinel and just button-mashing could fare well, but not beat, a team comprised of...what, Amingo and Marrow, maybe?...played by a pro, because the pro would know the way the God tier characters played, and how to counter them. Thus, skill becomes just as important, if not more, than the characters themselves. Knowing the game was important, raw skill and training just as much, and who you chose was almost equally as important. And because of this, and how pros went for the challenges, you could see matches where the underdog characters could edge a win, just because the pro found out a strategy to cancel the God tiers...until they threw a curveball by switching chars.

3e and PF are roughly on the same wavelength; system mastery makes the game fun. The problem is that it made it harder for developers to follow through (a reason why Red Hand of Doom is still considered one of the best modules for 3.5; it always makes you feel overwhelmed, even though a Tier 1 party could devastate them). Paizo's strength is on their Adventure Paths, and the level of detail; working with a system that helps them churn Adventure Paths (and translate them) easier should end up making more detail, and printing new Core books (which are absolutely necessary to play the game) and new splats does so as well. That's a given. Developers (old and new) won't always hit the Holy Grail, the true balance between "system mastery" for the players and "ease of development" for the devs, where developers can churn out challenging, interesting Adventure Paths with great stories while players get to master the system and create the characters they want, without feeling overwhelmed by the options or underwhelmed by the options they choose. I feel that kind of balance can only be landed on by accident. Attempting to strive for numerical balance won't help.

And as an addendum: even with...what, four splats thrown by WotC (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Volo's Guide to Monsters, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes), options are still pretty scarce. SCAG has a bit of everything, but mostly a (literal) handful of race options, a few new subclasses and only FOUR cantrips; Volo's provides new race options, Xanathar's is the first true "expansion"-style splat, and Mordenkainen's...offers more race options. Volo's and Mordenkainen's are more Monster Manuals/Bestiaries than anything else, with a lot of fluff. WotC must be doing something more than brand recognition to have people hooked on it, when options are pretty clear-cut. IMO, it's because system mastery is easy to learn and get, there's not so many options flowing around, and the existing options aren't so bad as to be completely useless (there are some stinkers lying around, though). I say WotC nailed it by taking the game to social media, making it mainstream, more than brand recognition or ease of system mastery.

[exelsisxax]

Pathfinder Paladins aren't limited to melee, FYI, but I get your general point.

Still, I think everyone can agree that replacing the iconic Smite Evil, even if not a perfect representation of Paladins in most fantasy, with "can block with shield" is baffling.

The replace part is confusing, making them good with shields makes sense(as an option at least - I don't know why it isn't a fighter and paladin bonus feat). "guy with big shield" is the other paladin thing.

Come to think of it, do martials get ANY nice things at all this time around? They even lost save and BaB advantages.

[Morty]

It's simple in GURPS because they use 3d6 all the time(for everything now?). It isn't simple in a D20 game, because you don't use 3d6 for anything. You use a D20. D20 are also roll-over systems, and it is objectively bad to mix the two like that.

All this does is curve the probability and slow the slow people down more.

Personally, I'm beginning to think that the flat d20+X model just isn't going to work any better than 3E or 5E. Curving the probability is exactly what the system should strive for. 5E tried, with rogues adding extra dice to skill rolls, but of course it was too weird and got cut.

[Rhedyn]

Come to think of it, do martials get ANY nice things at all this time around? They even lost save and BaB advantages.

Monsters are tough with high damage and saves.

The optimal character is one who is never attacked by the enemy and doesn't use saves, so utility caster. Even though they nerfed casting to little pieces, you just counter that with the more 5 minute work days.

[exelsisxax]

Personally, I'm beginning to think that the flat d20+X model just isn't going to work any better than 3E or 5E. Curving the probability is exactly what the system should strive for. 5E tried, with rogues adding extra dice to skill rolls, but of course it was too weird and got cut.

Why? Where's the advantage to a normal rather than flat distribution for this type of game? Flat makes for easier figuring of probabilities, both against static targets and rolled contests, a smoother progression, and faster resolution(do you NOT know someone who takes half the combat time because they suck at math?).

What the game actually needs is to shed the numerical bonus treadmill, condense the variety of options available from PF1 into more significant, less number fiddly chunks rather than chopping them into smaller and smaller feats, while filtering out all the trash accumulated over the years. Redesign classes to support ACF style choices from the start, make skills more powerful, and cut down on derived stats like saves and all the AC types.

There's so many great things you could do with a game, if it weren't a mechanics wasteland like 5e or a bad videogame like PF2. Changing the dice fixes nothing.

[skaddix]

Making them good with shields is not an issue to my mind the problem is pingeonholing all Paladins into having to go sword and board.

The lack of options is my issue with P2E...good options at least. 5e GIVES more freedom if I want to be defensive I can go Ancients if I want damage I go Vengeance. With P2E I am stuck playing a tank.

[Seerow]

Why? Where's the advantage to a normal rather than flat distribution for this type of game? Flat makes for easier figuring of probabilities, both against static targets and rolled contests, a smoother progression, and faster resolution(do you NOT know someone who takes half the combat time because they suck at math?).

What the game actually needs is to shed the numerical bonus treadmill, condense the variety of options available from PF1 into more significant, less number fiddly chunks rather than chopping them into smaller and smaller feats, while filtering out all the trash accumulated over the years. Redesign classes to support ACF style choices from the start, make skills more powerful, and cut down on derived stats like saves and all the AC types.

There's so many great things you could do with a game, if it weren't a mechanics wasteland like 5e or a bad videogame like PF2. Changing the dice fixes nothing.

Changing the dice does legitimately solve a lot of the problems people have with the skill system. It probably isn't the best option for D&D/PF just because the d20 is the ultimate sacred cow, but honestly a bell curve RNG instead of a linear one would go a long way to matching player expectation from a skill system with the reality. You can have lower numbers and keep people on the same RNG while still letting experts be noticably better than novices. I would love to see a game that uses something similar to Shadowrun for its core skill system, but with D&D style leveling and overall power progression.





...but that pipe dream aside, there's still a lot that could be done with a D20 rng that is better than what we have in PF2. I actually like the core conceit of a flat scaling amount based on level in addition to a bonus from skill ranks. The problem is right now the flat scaling amount is too high, and the effect of training is too low. This is something that can be tuned. Something as similar as half level as the flat bonus, and doubling the benefit of training (so -2 to +12 instead of -2 to +6). Someone upthread suggested a skill feat with every skill rank, if skill feats are going to continue being as lame as they are in this playtest, then giving that would not hurt anything (though potentially a TON of book keeping since you get a lot of skill ranks).

Alternatively if you wanted to make something more interesting you could make a larger list of things locked behind each tier of skill training, and give that automatically when you skill up.. but then make hitting those maximum skill ranks have a trade-off. Imagine if you got X skill ranks per level but raising skills to higher levels cost more ranks. So a legendary rank requires 12 skill points to go from Master to Legend, or you could use that same 12 ranks to gain basic training in 12 skills or journeyman training in 6, or so on. It encourages branching out and having a broad base of useful skills, but if you give sufficiently awesome stuff to do with those higher ranks, you'll see people pushing towards the top ranks in a handful of skills (how many depends on how you tune skill gain vs the increasing costs, but I'd aim for a skill based character getting legendary in 2-4 skills at max level, with other characters getting 0-2).




On the topic of Magic and how it interacts with the world/PCs, I'm a fan of the interpretation of innate magic. I was really hopeful when PF2 first announced Resonance because it sounded a lot like what I've been looking for... but then it fell flat due to a half-baked implementation. I'd love to see a take on it where you get a lot more resonance, but it is used for literally everything Magical. Got a supernatural template? Give up some resonance for it. You a spellcaster? You invest resonance each day into your casting ability. Got a Magic Sword? Resonance to bond it and get access to any non-passive abilities it may possess. But yeah, give everyone a baseline of resonance to start from, then some combination of Bloodlines (hey a use for those bloodline feats!), Magic Items, and Class Features to use it. Need to balance out caster power at high levels? Up the resonance cost of their spellcasting at those levels, so mundanes without those special abilities get more other stuff to compete with it.


Anyway I'm going to stop rambling now about things I want to see in a system, I'll leave y'all to complaining about what we are getting.

[exelsisxax]

Changing the dice does legitimately solve a lot of the problems people have with the skill system. It probably isn't the best option for D&D/PF just because the d20 is the ultimate sacred cow, but honestly a bell curve RNG instead of a linear one would go a long way to matching player expectation from a skill system with the reality. You can have lower numbers and keep people on the same RNG while still letting experts be noticably better than novices. I would love to see a game that uses something similar to Shadowrun for its core skill system, but with D&D style leveling and overall power progression.

It certainly cannot solve any problems, because the current problems, like 'skill X does nothing' are undeniably beyond fixing by a math adjustment. The number fiddling, exact DC/bonus scaling, effect size, progression schedule, etc. can be worked out after skills are permitted to matter. Until then, you're polishing a turd.

[Rhedyn]

What the game actually needs is to shed the numerical bonus treadmill, condense the variety of options available from PF1 into more significant, less number fiddly chunks rather than chopping them into smaller and smaller feats, while filtering out all the trash accumulated over the years. Redesign classes to support ACF style choices from the start, make skills more powerful, and cut down on derived stats like saves and all the AC types.

See to me, you are describing Savage Worlds, but they also don't have classes, HP, or the d20 as a core mechanic.

I wouldn't count on Paizo. Their devs actually use the trash options in home games and they think those are fun/useful. Or maybe they are just saying that. Idk PF2e doesn't feel like a game someone wanted to make to play, it feels like a game someone made to sell books.

[Seerow]

It certainly cannot solve any problems, because the current problems, like 'skill X does nothing' are undeniably beyond fixing by a math adjustment. The number fiddling, exact DC/bonus scaling, effect size, progression schedule, etc. can be worked out after skills are permitted to matter. Until then, you're polishing a turd.

I said it solves most problems not all. The big sticking point developers were trying to fix with bounded accuracy (first 5e's version and now PFs level based version) is to keep players on the same rng together even when one specializes far more than another. This is an important part of skills such as stealth, and currently driving a major trend in tabletop game design. Yes skills should be better designed at their core and have more uses, especially at higher levels, but the core problem of fixing the rng isn't exactly one that you should ignore.

[exelsisxax]

See to me, you are describing Savage Worlds, but they also don't have classes, HP, or the d20 as a core mechanic.

I wouldn't count on Paizo. Their devs actually use the trash options in home games and they think those are fun/useful. Or maybe they are just saying that. Idk PF2e doesn't feel like a game someone wanted to make to play, it feels like a game someone made to sell books.

Eh, I was not impressed after checking it out. Seems gimmicky and slow with the cards and the skill system is pretty handwavy. Lots of people are obviously into it, but i'm not one.

I have no hope of paizo producing an acceptable game, but that's what they need to do to start making a good one. Haven't they admitted that the game is designed for AP writers already?

I said it solves most problems not all. The big sticking point developers were trying to fix with bounded accuracy (first 5e's version and now PFs level based version) is to keep players on the same rng together even when one specializes far more than another. This is an important part of skills such as stealth, and currently driving a major trend in tabletop game design. Yes skills should be better designed at their core and have more uses, especially at higher levels, but the core problem of fixing the rng isn't exactly one that you should ignore.

That isn't the main problem, and characters shouldn't always be on the same scale. If you dump a thing, you should suck at it, and someone who specializes should be good at it. It is a good thing that a character can auto-succeed while others have a hard roll. Putting everyone on the same area of a bell curve is a trend because there's a current wave of games with little to no character differentiation or advancement, so it is a rational decision. In a fantasy adventure and heroics game, that would be a foolish decision that hinders the point of the game.

[Rhedyn]

Eh, I was not impressed after checking it out. Seems gimmicky and slow with the cards and the skill system is pretty handwavy. Lots of people are obviously into it, but i'm not one.

Card initiative is actually much much faster than writing down initiative, even when you take into account doing it every round. I would steal that system for other games, if I wasn't running just Savage Worlds all the time.

Tricks and Tests of Wills are getting changed to Support and Test next edition (on Kickstarter right now, to be released this year), the big thing is that any skill could* be used to provide a buff or debuff as strong as most spells.

*What you describe to the GM has to make sense to them

The skill system is lighter than 3.X and has a tad more crunch than 5e for certain skills like stealth and climb. But yeah Savage Worlds is a mid-crunch game not a heavy crunch game. Aside from GM difficulty mods which I don't use, most skills boil down to the GM question of "can this skill do this?" which from the skill description and player input via trying to do the thing, I come to my answer.
It doesn't do the 3.X thing of telling you everything you can do with that skill.

[FatR]

But WHY does that have to be level scaling to everything? Why can't perception just be a skill that higher-level characters may, as the result of being high level and experienced, have more ranks/training in?

I think that wizards should get NO BaB, reflex, fort, or health from class levels. A level 20 wizard should be worse at swordsmanship than your average 1st level fighter, buffs aside. It's not like rogues and barbarians are getting partial spellcasting progression, but wizards have been getting partial combat progress for free.

No. This argument has nothing going for it except for the insistence that classes too narrow to describe even low-powered fantasy characters should remain competitive to level 20. But why? Remember, "game balance" cannot be the answer. Balance is just something a game designer should try to approach after deciding on actual content of his game - stories it should tell, and gameplay it should provide. The failure of 4E and the sorry sate of PF2 should have illustrated amptly enough that you should not put the cart before the horse.

And aside from balancing the game? Not merely there are examples of high-end wizards in fantasy who are very competent physical combatants, or even downright monstrous powerhouses, the significant majority of them are. Dr.Strange is a a skilled martial artist, and Lina Inverse can outfence an average adventurer, it is just that given their magic, their mundane martial skills are about as useful to them as they are to a fighter pilot - for general conditioning and extreme edge cases only.

And so it should be. Barbarians and rogues (which are extremely narrow classes even by standards of non-magical fantasy protagonists anyway) are inherently low-level characters. Indeed, a huge part of whole allure of warriors taking on wizards in fantasy had always been the fact that Conan or Black Company grunts are clearly underdogs in this contest. Martial characters don't get nice things, because DEFINITION of a martial character in a setting with high magic is "a guy who has no nice things". The problem is, in stories a writer can always give his protagonist specific tools and plot coupons necessary to overcome an opponent stronger than him, enchantments to save Conan from Thoth-Amon's demon or Master of the Black Circle's magic, special weapons and backing of mighty wizards on their own side to deal with one of the Taken. In RPG sessions, not so much. Particularly, when wizards are supposed to be protagonists too. But on the other hand, you cannot discard warriors from your kitchen sink fantasy game either. What to do?

The original DnD solution, understandably, was the Christmas Magic Tree. If in stories that inspired us warriors needed magical equipment to survive, let's give them magical equipment. Unfortunately this solution was implicit, rather than explicit. You could see it from frequency of treasure on monsters and in dungeons, and from how treasure tables were skewed towards equipment useful for warriors. But the game did not flat out told people that Fighters have a class feature of "Magic sword" that progresses to "Artifact sword" at level 12. So developers of later editions did not get the memo.

Now PF2's solution is nerfing magic to the ground. Which not only breaks continuity with previous editions of DnD, but with the entire fantasy genre as well.

The actual solution in my opinion would be mandatory martial superpowers from a certain low level, 5-6 at most. By now there are heaps of examples and inspirations for those in the pop culture, from books to games. But even though those have been written several times by now, edition after edition rejects them. Or tries to combine them with nerfing magic to the ground (as 4E), so the final outcome remains unsatisfying. I'm not sure for what reason, except perhaps that it is hard to write adventures for characters that have actual abilities and therefore aren't as easy to railroad.

[Rhedyn]

Now PF2's solution is nerfing magic to the ground. Which not only breaks continuity with previous editions of DnD, but with the entire fantasy genre as well.

What's funny is that magic is still OP just less fun to use in PF2e.

What has always made D&D magic strong is the ability to exploit it. Sure you plug some exploits, but the best method is to deincentivize looking for those exploits. A bunch of minute duration spells and high monster saves means only the exploits are useful.

The biggest problem character in 3.X was the wizard, not so much because they were strong, but because they were weak. A PF wizard not exploiting the system at high levels is dead. Meanwhile a druid can get by for a long time forgetting they even have spells. Even though druids tend to be far and away the strongest class, they cause relatively few problems. Why? They don't need to find and use magic exploits.

[Koshiro]

And so it should be. Barbarians and rogues (which are extremely narrow classes even by standards of non-magical fantasy protagonists anyway) are inherently low-level characters. Indeed, a huge part of whole allure of warriors taking on wizards in fantasy had always been the fact that Conan or Black Company grunts are clearly underdogs in this contest. Martial characters don't get nice things, because DEFINITION of a martial character in a setting with high magic is "a guy who has no nice things".

The thing is: Wizards, sorcerers, magic-users, whatever in those stories don't work like D&D magic-users, do they? Specifically, they are not mana-powered artillery pieces who can, for a time at least, replicate all the combat abilities of mundane fighters and then some, by means of spells.

But since they are exactly that (and more) in D&D, one could and should very well argue that they do not need a generous helping of mundane combat skills on top of their magical combat skills.
Now, of course, that does not work in a 3.x system without adjustment for a slew of reasons: The way an "adventuring party" is supposed to operate; the "Fantasy Vietnam" atmosphere in which you are constantly under threat of ambush; the ubiquitous magic which means that smart enemies will identify and single out magic-users rather than ignore the unarmed old codger in a robe; and finally, quite simply, the grid-based combat system which has little provisions for blocking people's way or for shielding friends from attackers.

There are possible ways out of this: You can reduce the power of magic across the field; that, as you say quite correctly, is not really true to the high fantasy and sword&sorcery genres.
You can try to balance mundane characters' combat abilities with magical characters' by giving the former a considerable boost. Has been tried under late 3.5 and by 4e, but IME only sets off an arms race in supplements.
Or you could, and that is probably the most sensible as well as the least likely solution, steer away from the premise that all characters can and will equally participate in the combat minigame.

[Rhedyn]

Or you could, and that is probably the most sensible as well as the least likely solution, steer away from the premise that all characters can and will equally participate in the combat minigame.

My favorite RPG system has a way to measure combat ratings for character's and monsters. It has nothing to do with "level" because you can build a character that is merely useful in combat but not focused on it at all (Like you could play a cheerleader in the new edition and be useful even if you never put a point into combat skills)

[Koshiro]

My favorite RPG system has a way to measure combat ratings for character's and monsters. It has nothing to do with "level" because you can build a character that is merely useful in combat but not focused on it at all (Like you could play a cheerleader in the new edition and be useful even if you never put a point into combat skills)

What's it called?
Or is it a homebrew?

[Rhedyn]

What's it called?
Or is it a homebrew?

Savage Worlds!

[EldritchWeaver]

I have no hope of paizo producing an acceptable game, but that's what they need to do to start making a good one. Haven't they admitted that the game is designed for AP writers already?

When I mentioned to the Paizo guy that it makes no sense to make it easy to create adventures, if no one is willing to play them, he agreed with my reasoning. He also promised to take my feedback to the devs. Let's see if it helps.

[Rhedyn]

If Paizo delays launch another year and has another round of play testing, then I'll have hope for them.

[Segev]

What about PF2 makes it "designed for AP writers?"

Serious, non-rhetorical question; I genuinely don't know enough about PF2 nor AP to make the connections.

[OgresAreCute]

What about PF2 makes it "designed for AP writers?"

Serious, non-rhetorical question; I genuinely don't know enough about PF2 nor AP to make the connections.

I think the idea was that less crazy options and everyone having more or less the same bonuses means that power level and abilities are very predictable and so it's easier to make an AP without it being too easy for veterans or too hard for beginners. Something like that.

[Segev]

I think the idea was that less crazy options and everyone having more or less the same bonuses means that power level and abilities are very predictable and so it's easier to make an AP without it being too easy for veterans or too hard for beginners. Something like that.

Ah, yes, that would explain it.

It would also explain the rather damning comparisons I'm seeing people make regarding it being "like 4e."

[Rhedyn]

It would also explain the rather damning comparisons I'm seeing people make regarding it being "like 4e."

Our group started finding PF to be too demanding so we actually have a D&D 4e campaign lined up.

Once you get out of the mindset of "I need vancian casting" and benefit from being able to judge 4e D&D as a complete system (rather than just the core rulebook), 4e starts looking pretty great.

[Manyasone]

Our group started finding PF to be too demanding so we actually have a D&D 4e campaign lined up.

Once you get out of the mindset of "I need vancian casting" and benefit from being able to judge 4e D&D as a complete system (rather than just the core rulebook), 4e starts looking pretty great.

Maybe. But at this moment people who dislike vancian casting and want to stay with pf1e will use or are already using the spheres system. Or have to be introduced to it. Pathfinder gave us, at least, some brilliant third party publishers

[Rhedyn]

Maybe. But at this moment people who dislike vancian casting and want to stay with pf1e will use or are already using the spheres system. Or have to be introduced to it. Pathfinder gave us, at least, some brilliant third party publishers

Our group only has two big problems with PF

1. It's too hard to GM for. Lot's of rules, hard to run without a rules guru at the table. Very difficult to even understand what every player can do as everyone sort of has their own math engine going.

2. Way too easy to just make a trash character. A few of the players just don't want massive system mastery to be a competent adventurer.

[Manyasone]

Our group only has two big problems with PF

1. It's too hard to GM for. Lot's of rules, hard to run without a rules guru at the table. Very difficult to even understand what every player can do as everyone sort of has their own math engine going.

2. Way too easy to just make a trash character. A few of the players just don't want massive system mastery to be a competent adventurer.

That's fair. To each is own, mate

[Rhedyn]

That's fair. To each is own, mate

I should also add that PF2e solved neither of these problems.

[Cosi]

The thing is: Wizards, sorcerers, magic-users, whatever in those stories don't work like D&D magic-users, do they? Specifically, they are not mana-powered artillery pieces who can, for a time at least, replicate all the combat abilities of mundane fighters and then some, by means of spells.

I mean, maybe not in those specific stories, but it's not like there aren't super-mages who are also very skilled swordsmen. Anomander Rake, Rand al'Thor, and Anasurimbor Khellus are all on roughly the same power level as D&D mages while still possessing physical combat abilities at least on par with mundane warriror types.

Or you could, and that is probably the most sensible as well as the least likely solution, steer away from the premise that all characters can and will equally participate in the combat minigame.

That's a terrible solution. D&D is basically a combat simulator with other stuff wrapped around it. People who don't contribute effectively in combat are going to spend the majority of most sessions frustrated as the majority of D&D is combat.

[Deadkitten]

Note: this isn't specifically about you per-se, Deadkitten, but I want to use this as a springboard to talk about something I've noticed.

I keep seeing this idea that 3.PF numbers are "hard to calculate." Am I the only one who doesn't find these numbers hard? Now, if you were talking about the magnitude of the number of modifiers, I could understand, as that's tracking multiple variables and whether they apply or not to a given situation. But just the magnitude of the numbers themselves? You should have your full bonus already added together before the session, so it's just double digit addition. Maybe triple digits under some very specific and unlikely conditions. And one of the numbers you are adding will be 20 or below too. We've all been doing maths that's about that hard since our early school years, surely.

Also, as I'll say forever, low numbers on a flat RNG gives too much swinginess and not enough differentiation between levels of skill. As d20 games use a 20 point scale RNG that has a flat distribution, each +1 is only 5%, which is only visible across the very long term.

First of all no worries. No offense taken.
Second, my first experience with 3.5 let alone any tabletop was making an 8th level gestaly character because the GM mistakenly thought I was mote experienced. That character was a mess, I didn't even know the save progresssion was basic addition, I thought that you just got a set number based on level. Muliclassing baffled me. After about the 3rd character I figured it out right at the end of the campaign. Now that was a failing of the DM at that time to not give me a proper rundown of building a character but I eventually managed and became probably one of the top optimizers in my group over the years.

I basically agree that essentially, the mulitple steps to determine your bonus has to go. These days its hard for us to get together as a group anymore cause life happens. And we have profound difficulty attracting new players to a game. Its much easier for us to get a game of World of Darkness going cause character creation is so much easier than 3.5 or Pf. Despite the system having its glaring flaws new people just see it as less daunting because almost every creation step in WoD is basically just A+B.

I just dont see the point of using big numbers when a smaller range can work fine as well. Provided that the same probability applies to both that is. I mean, some people don't like that Skrim elliminated all stats except for 3, but it was done because the stats essentially added up to those 3 totals anyways so there was no point in adding extra steps to it.

I mean, I'm definitely not great at expressing what I'm thinking for this subject but I'm basically willing to sacrifice some degree of complexity to ease in new players just so I can actually play for once. I kinda want Pf to end up somewhere between 5th and Pf 1E perhaps.

Im willing to at least try it. A good system can be boring and a bad one can be fun, for me I won't know for sure until I try it. And all I can do until then is give my opinion on which direction to change some facet of the playtest. But I'm meandering a bit too much and will leave it there.