The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 939
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    I do think casters are probably fine in the context of the system. Even if they aren't as good at battlefield control as they used to be (which, to be clear, they used to basically end encounters on their own with one or two spells) they still have some strong effects and utility spells that can bypass encounters and puzzles... particularly at higher levels.

    I think their goal was to make this more of a team oriented game. It feels very much like what some 4e proponents have been saying; that more people would have liked the system if it hadn't been packaged the way it was.
    Well, the problem with nerfing battlefield control is that at some point it just becomes a waste of time. Why cast a spell that gives one creature -1 to hit, when you could cast an area blast spell instead? At that point, all of combat becomes a damage race, which is just less diverse and interesting.

    For all its controversy, one thing 4E does fairly well is battlefield control. It is not afraid to give a 5x5 damage-and-stagger spell just at char.level 3 (compare to P2's web, which does no damage and reduces speed by 10'). If P2 wizards "still have some strong effects ... at higher levels", then that means (1) lower levels are boring for casters, and (2) most people never play at high levels anyway.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    On that note, can I just say that PF2 in general (and the SRD in particular) is quite possibly the most clunkily-worded, poorly-laid-out RPG product I've seen to date?
    Novice to RPGs then? This is far from the worst and a vast improvement to the playtest version. Could it be improved? Most definitely. Is it the worst? Hardly.

    In general, any system that lets you trade out moving for more attack power (whether that's 3e/PF1 full attack, PF2 one-attack-per-action, various aiming feats/class features that let you aim as a move action, etc.) is going to result in less mobile combat unless you compensate somehow, like 4e's panoply of forced-movement powers, the late-3e explosion of swift-action moves, and similar.
    You're not getting more attack power. You are getting increasingly less attack power. More attacks? Yes. More attack power? No. Furthermore, the tightness of the math discourages using all your actions on attacks, because that increases the possibilities for critical failures. In my own playtest encounters that I ran with my group, I actually saw a lot of mobile combat. A lot more than what I ever saw with PF1 (if not also 5e). But it has empowered a lot of the fighter types with a lot more round-by-round tactical choices than I have seen with earlier d20 editions.

    Also known as the "convince the DM to let me use my highest modifier through contortions of logic" rule.

    But seriously, having played a lot of Fate, where any skill can be used with any action depending on how you describe it and any Aspect can be applied to any circumstance if the GM agrees it applies, I've seen a lot of this kind of "flavor lawyering" take place there (not even in a "I'm munchkining the rules" kind of way, just in a "Of course Batman can logically apply Stealth to practically everything" kind of way) and adding that to PF2 seems like it just adds pointless epicycles to the initiative roll.
    My experience with lots of Fate GMing and the PF2 playtest differs from yours then (or maybe I have better players). The idea that players are trying to "convince the DM to let me use my highest modifier through contortions of logic" is ridiculous. This rule is a GM-facing rule that allows the GM initiative in the narrative actions of the game. The GM decides what is the appropriate initiative check for a player. Were the players using a skill before the combat encounter or not? If the players were not using Stealth, then they don't get to use it so it defaults to Perception. If the players were not using Survival, then they don't get to use it so it defaults to Perception. The GM decides the when and what about player initiative.

    In general, the consolidation of all class-based spell lists into four generic ones does reduce variety and uniqueness there, so while the sorcerer benefits everyone else suffers.

    And you've basically been able to make a divine sorcerer for a while, as long as you don't mind writing "Favored Soul" or "Oracle" on your character sheet.
    And an Occult or Primal Sorcerer? It reduces uniqueness only so far as a class is defined by having a particularized class spell list. However that has rarely been the case. Typically a class is defined by the rest of their class chassis, which helps them express how they do things. But it also means big improvements for classes other than Sorcerers to too. Instead of having to worry whether or not new spells will be added to your class spell list or not, now you will be the beneficiary of new spells added if it's added to the one of four spell lists that you are using. But if you want to argue that "everyone else suffers," then we will need something more substantial than your hot air to back that up.

    4e said exactly the same thing, and we saw how that worked out.
    So bad that 5e and 13th Age continued the idea with retooled versions of ritual spells to great success? Gotcha.

    Oh, I think it's quite obvious that PF2 pulls from the worst parts of 4e and 5e in many respects. I just haven't been making many such direct comparisons because it also has its own unique flaws to talk about first.
    Just to let you know, your opinions are masquerading as facts. You may want to have that looked at.

    But since you mention it, it is pretty darn strange that an RPG whose raison d'etre is "We hate 4e, let's not do that" decided to go to the 4e well for its next edition.
    Malarkey. The raison d'etre of PF1 was never "we hate 4e, let's not do that," it was "how do we keep our company's boat floating after losing our Dungeon and Dragon magazine privileges and revenue stream?" That was the reason it was created. What became Pathfinder was pitched by Jason Bulmahn at the emergency "WTF can Paizo do now to save ourselves?" meeting with Erik Mona and Lisa Stevens for this purpose. This further let them continue publishing their adventure paths. They were only able to this because of the d20 OGL. Pathfinder certainly benefited from the Edition Wars - which have reared their ugly head once again in many of these posts - but hate of 4e was never the reason for Pathfinder's existence.

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticallyPsyco View Post
    On that note, while I adore 4e, I do so because of its highly tactical and varied combat (largely due to its movement, forced movement, and opponent marking options), as well as powers and flavor that lend themselves very well to cinematic, larger-than-life action. How's Pathfinder 2E hold up on those fronts?
    Not well. Martials have little forced movement outside of the standard bullrush, etc. The ones they do have are all on the same bullrush chassis of opposed checks with penalties/bonuses for size differences or you get no effect.

    Casters have almost zero effects they didn't already have, just worse. Their forced movement usually consists of pushing straight backwards.

    There are some cool movement powers here, though, Barbarians with the Dragon Instinct can grow wings and Monks can do a flying kick... Except the flying kick actually uses two actions and you only get one attack with no bonus at the end so it's literally the same thing as jumping next to the opponent (including having to make a jump check to successfully clear the distance, yes) with one action and using the other to make a regular attack.

    Sigh. The more closely I read stuff like this the worse it looks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Well, the problem with nerfing battlefield control is that at some point it just becomes a waste of time. Why cast a spell that gives one creature -1 to hit, when you could cast an area blast spell instead? At that point, all of combat becomes a damage race, which is just less diverse and interesting.

    For all its controversy, one thing 4E does fairly well is battlefield control. It is not afraid to give a 5x5 damage-and-stagger spell just at char.level 3 (compare to P2's web, which does no damage and reduces speed by 10'). If P2 wizards "still have some strong effects ... at higher levels", then that means (1) lower levels are boring for casters, and (2) most people never play at high levels anyway.
    Yes, we mostly agree. I'm not saying casters are good, they just still have some okay options and regain some of their power later. I'm trying (and mostly failing) to find a silver lining here, I'm sure you can see I'm not super fond of the system in general and the more I dive into it the less I like how they implemented ~everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobard View Post
    You're not getting more attack power. You are getting increasingly less attack power. More attacks? Yes. More attack power? No. Furthermore, the tightness of the math discourages using all your actions on attacks, because that increases the possibilities for critical failures. In my own playtest encounters that I ran with my group, I actually saw a lot of mobile combat. A lot more than what I ever saw with PF1 (if not also 5e). But it has empowered a lot of the fighter types with a lot more round-by-round tactical choices than I have seen with earlier d20 editions.
    I've combed through the rules and equipment chapters on the SRD and can't find any penalty for critically failing an attack roll vs just failing it (other than reducing your roll by 10 if you roll a natural 1). I did find a reference for doubling your damage if you score a critical success (i.e. if your attack roll exceeds their AC by 10) but there is no penalty for rolling a 1 other than reducing your roll by another 10 that I can find.

    Which means, yes, mathematically you are still incentivized to make as many attacks as possible because even if you only hit with that third attack 5% of the time it's still another chance to deal damage. Your experience with players being more mobile either means they are incorrectly assessing their options, aren't optimizing their actions for damage, or is due to the removal of attacks of opportunity from most monsters rather than the three action system actually encouraging it.

    It's more flexible than move+one attack vs full attack, for sure, I don't think anyone is arguing it isn't, but it could be better and doesn't fully solve the moving vs attacking dilemma because attacking is always, always, always going to be superior to moving (or doing anything else). Dead is the most powerful status condition and particularly in PF 2e the best way to inflict it is by hit point damage.

    As far as round by round tactical options for martials, DnD 4e, Path of War, Tome of Battle, and Spheres of Might are all clearly superior to PF 2e in this respect. At minimum they should have put the tactical options into a combat feats list and just given all martials access to the list -- or failing that, actually let multiclassing with a martial get you powerful combat feats at higher levels the same way you get full wand use of 9th level spells as well as a daily 7th and 8th level spell from multiclassing with a caster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobard View Post
    And an Occult or Primal Sorcerer? It reduces uniqueness only so far as a class is defined by having a particularized class spell list. However that has rarely been the case. Typically a class is defined by the rest of their class chassis, which helps them express how they do things. But it also means big improvements for classes other than Sorcerers to too. Instead of having to worry whether or not new spells will be added to your class spell list or not, now you will be the beneficiary of new spells added if it's added to the one of four spell lists that you are using. But if you want to argue that "everyone else suffers," then we will need something more substantial than your hot air to back that up.
    I actually prefer the consolidated spell lists, as you say it helps future proof later spellcasting classes so they can just add spells to a tradition's spell list and not have to worry about forgetting a class.

    However, it's pretty clear that the big name classes are receiving a nerf relative to other spellcasters from it for that exact reason (they no longer have a unique spell list), and it contributes to the classes being/feeling similar because the main difference between a Cloistered Cleric and a Sorcerer with the Divine Tradition and any other class that comes along and gets access to the Divine Tradition are their spontaneity vs prepared casting and what class feats they can access.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobard View Post
    Malarkey. The raison d'etre of PF1 was never "we hate 4e, let's not do that," it was "how do we keep our company's boat floating after losing our Dungeon and Dragon magazine privileges and revenue stream?" That was the reason it was created. What became Pathfinder was pitched by Jason Bulmahn at the emergency "WTF can Paizo do now to save ourselves?" meeting with Erik Mona and Lisa Stevens for this purpose. This further let them continue publishing their adventure paths. They were only able to this because of the d20 OGL. Pathfinder certainly benefited from the Edition Wars - which have reared their ugly head once again in many of these posts - but hate of 4e was never the reason for Pathfinder's existence.
    Obviously the Pathfinder split occurred because Paizo wanted to continue selling products and they wanted a system they could control without the possibility of WotC pulling the rug out from under them again, not because they themselves hated 4e.

    But they intentionally chose to sell and market their products to people who didn't want to transition to 4e. They specifically marketed Pathfinder to 3e players as an improvement on the 3e rules that was backwards compatible with all of their existing 3e material.

    Not only are they now abandoning that player base, they are doing so by incorporating many (most?) of the very things that that player base disliked about 4e into their new edition of Pathfinder.

    I don't think anyone is edition warring here. I'm not seeing any irrational hatred of 4e or PF 2e, just people making comparisons to explain why they don't like it and wondering why Paizo took pointers from it when the players they started out catering to didn't like it.

    The simplest explanation, and the most obvious, is that they no longer care about 3e players and are now marketing to PFS players and GMs who were already on a pretty tight leash due to organized play requirements.

    The new edition will be absolutely fantastic for them, no need to track prestige class reqs for players dropping in to your group or worrying about "munchkin" builds that a player across the table might be using to heavily out damage your straight classed fighter with power attack using a shield. I'm sure it will sell well, though maybe not as well as Paizo is expecting.
    Last edited by Silvercrys; 2019-08-10 at 11:39 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    Black Tentacles gives you a spell attack against their Fort DC rather than allowing a save (not quite sure how good or bad that is, yet) and inflicts the Grappled condition (which is Immobilized + Flat-footed) while dealing 3d6 damage, and affects creatures in a 20-ft burst. The tentacles have an AC equal to your Spell DC and 12 HP, but if they spend all their actions breaking the tentacle, another one tries to grab them when they end their turn in the effect. They can also attempt an escape against your Spell DC, of course.
    Rolling an attack versus a save is straight up from 4e. There it was like attacking touch AC, though, since a save would often be lower than AC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Storyteller_Arc View Post

    7. Multiclassing. Seriously. The multiclassing in this edition is by far the easiest and less painful. You don't lose any of the core class features of your class as you level up. A wizard/fighter/rogue multiclass is still a full-casting wizard. But trading out some of their spellcasting tricks for some fighting and roguey stuff, which is great.

    8. Rituals = Skills. So non-spellcasters can get in on the narrative changing powers such as resurrection. Which is fantastic. Also makes it unlikely you'll get one single character as the 'Ritualist', or so I hope. We'll have to see how it works out.

    9. Weapon choice is actually meaningful. With all the different tags and abilities. The choice between a longsword and an axe, or a spear and glaive really make a difference. Compared to original Pathfinder where it really didn't matter to much? Unless you were going crit-fishing, and that just meant you were stuck to swords. Really helps martial characters define themselves even more.

    That's all from the top of my head.
    7. Multiclassing is ripped from 4e's multiclass feats.

    8. Rituals were introduce in 4e.


    9. Weapon tags/groups were a big deal in 4e. Some feats only affect, say, spears.

    Anyone up for petitioning for moving PF2 to 4e?

    EDIT: It looks like people have caught on to this. I guess I was still a few pages behind the discussion. ^^'
    Last edited by Snowbluff; 2019-08-10 at 11:21 AM.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    I would be fine if it got moved to 4e or its own subforum (or general RPG discussion, for that matter) if mods decide the thread is off topic for 3e/d20 system, but I'd rather have at least this one thread here, personally, as a comparison to Pathfinder 1e is relatively germane even if the system itself more closely resembles DnD 4e.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Arutema's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    The simplest explanation, and the most obvious, is that they no longer care about 3e players and are now marketing to PFS players and GMs who were already on a pretty tight leash due to organized play requirements.

    The new edition will be absolutely fantastic for them, no need to track prestige class reqs for players dropping in to your group or worrying about "munchkin" builds that a player across the table might be using to heavily out damage your straight classed fighter with power attack using a shield. I'm sure it will sell well, though maybe not as well as Paizo is expecting.
    As a PFS GM, I disagree. People play and GM PFS because it kept 3.5-derived organized play alive.

    This new system is not for players or GMs, it is for Paizo's adventure writers, who can now be assured the math and magic system keep PCs on a short leash.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    Yes, we mostly agree. I'm not saying casters are good, they just still have some okay options and regain some of their power later. I'm trying (and mostly failing) to find a silver lining here, I'm sure you can see I'm not super fond of the system in general and the more I dive into it the less I like how they implemented ~everything.
    Yeah, I'm in the same place. I started pretty enthousiastic about the whole feat setup; and then I started reading through feats and found there's only two or three skill feats I'm interested in, out of a long list. And then I noticed the issue with spells...

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    7. Multiclassing is ripped from 4e's
    P2 and 4E share at least one designer. Re-using your earlier designs isn't "ripping"

    Quote Originally Posted by Arutema View Post
    This new system is not for players or GMs, it is for Paizo's adventure writers, who can now be assured the math and magic system keep PCs on a short leash.
    That's a pretty weird assumption, considering Paizo adventures are exceedingly popular and successful, and have been so for over a decade without any of the writers being bothered by P1's power level. You ever hear of Hanlon's Razor?
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    upho's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Agreed. It is not my experience in P1 that caster/martial balance is a serious problem, at least at levels 1 through 10 (and people rarely play above that anyway).
    Well, at least it definitely appears to be a less common serious problem than in 3.5 during especially those levels. But I think the main difference between 3.5 and P1 in this regard is that the issue has somewhat fewer dimensions in P1, meaning that there's a bit less risk of the "full casters outfighting the fighter"-thing (disregarding the synth), less of the mentioned "casters have exclusive access to effective control tools"-thing and none of the most OP 3.5 caster stuff (DMM persist, unchecked binding, wish shenanigans etc). But for example minionmancy is arguably even stronger in P1, and casters still have decidedly greater overall "adventuring power" and versatility also during most of the first 10 levels, while a martial able to actually replace a full caster in a controller combat role has to be pretty darn high-op, and will still be less versatile in that role (even if a couple of related styles can be made broken effective in higher levels).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    That seems like a fair summary of the thread so far. I still really like the ideas of the three-action system, the four success levels, TEML, and feat-based racial abilities (and I wouldn't miss the ribbons); but find the implementation rather lacking.
    That's the opposite how I feel about 5E: there, I strongly dislike the idea of bounded accuracy, but I find its implementation fairly solid.
    In both cases that just means I'll stick with P1 for the foreseeable future
    I feel very much the same, with the possible difference that I don't find the 5e mechanics nearly as important. Or rather, since they work reasonably well for their intended purposes, usually capable of staying in the background and resolving game situations without breaking immersion or verisimilitude, there's little reason to complain. That said, I still do my best to sneak in more interesting tactical options and mechanical variety in the stuff I'm writing...

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    As far as spells so, I'm generally in favor of weakening "battlefield control" ones, because they've been a dominant tactics in D&D for years, except for 4E. 5E takes steps to weaken them, but a well-placed Web is still devastating. That being said, it's entirely possible that PF2E went overboard with it. I'd have to dig in and compare them a bit.
    I think a major issue is that they didn't compensate with any other abilities. In effect, the PC options on the whole just end up granting less possibilities for tactical combat and smart teamwork. Or to put in another way, when I run P1 games I can have the party face opposition way above recommended level if I offer them an opportunity to play it smart and make the most of their strengths. In P2, both the limited number span of combat statistics and the limited impact of actions/abilities make that impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    BFC spells add variety to combat that would otherwise just be “i attack 3 times, my turns done”
    Yes, at least in a system that also insists on keeping effective control options away from non-casters. As other posters have hinted at, this wasn't the case in 4e, and not necessarily in P1 either. (Although I must say even 4e wizards did shine more than any other class in that role.)

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    {scrubbed}
    Fixed. :P

    Might get to some of the complaints tomorrow. Not sure.

    Considering the crowd I'm working with here, not sure it's worth my time. It's not just PF2 hate, but 4E hate that rubs me the wrong way. 4E is a great game with many cool mechanics and changes to the formula that make it an amazing fun game to play, and really help empower players no matter how they decide to build their character. But a lot of people just aren't willing to acknowledge this, decrying it as a **** game simply because it wasn't what they wanted.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2019-08-11 at 10:19 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    I like 4E. It's the best D&D edition ever released, as far as I'm concerned. But I am unimpressed with PF2E and I'm sceptical of its supposed similarity to 4E. Yes, it does have some elements taken directly from there. But there are also key aspects where it directly strives to be unlike it - martial characters have no expendable resources or powers that aren't feats and per-encounter abilities are downplayed in general.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Storyteller_Arc View Post
    It's not just PF2 hate, but 4E hate that rubs me the wrong way.
    This thread actually seems rather in favor of 4E. If anything, it seems like the consensus is that PF2 isn't close enough to 4E.

    Well, that and people who have been playing a nearly 20 year old game aren't jumping for joy at the idea of playing something different.

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    I actually quite like 4e as well. At the very least, I don't dislike as strong as many others, and my favorite character from my fave game was my Drow Sorcerer Dagger Master, Drathrundrial.
    Quote Originally Posted by upho View Post
    (disregarding the synth)
    Alchemist too, it's a 1 to 1 comparison to Summoner. (SNA versus SM, Mutagen Beastmorph versus evolutions, both get simulacrum...)

    And cleric, too. I had a build that hit for a grand of damage as a cleric archer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    P2 and 4E share at least one designer. Re-using your earlier designs isn't "ripping"
    Nah, it's still lifted from it. It's just your own idea you've moved instead of someone else's. This would explain the similarities, however.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    I mean yeah, none of these systems are perfect.

    4e is a great game for people who enjoy it (including me, when I can actually find people to play it with) and I'm sure PF 2e will be one for the people who enjoy it. Also probably including me when my primary group transitions to it.

    But I wish it wasn't the game that it is, and I'm not going to be purchasing books for it because the system itself doesn't interest me beyond actually playing it at the table because the only thing to really optimize is which feat to take at which level.

    Heck, optimizing in 4e core only was infinitely more interesting than optimizing this in my opinion.

    Whoever said they should have just done fantasy Starfinder was probably correct. Maybe stretch the official levels out to 30 and put the higher level spells up there with a note that PFS characters retire at level 20.
    Last edited by Silvercrys; 2019-08-10 at 06:39 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Hmmm. Guess I had been misjudging this thread then. At least in this regard.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Arutema View Post
    This new system is not for players or GMs, it is for Paizo's adventure writers, who can now be assured the math and magic system keep PCs on a short leash.
    Either this was their intended goal, or they somehow weren't intending to do that but arrived precisely at that result through sheer fluke of design decisions. I'd rather assume it's the first than the second, as the second implies an insane degree of incompetence on the part of Paizo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Storyteller_Arc View Post
    Considering the crowd I'm working with here, not sure it's worth my time. It's not just PF2 hate, but 4E hate that rubs me the wrong way. 4E is a great game with many cool mechanics and changes to the formula that make it an amazing fun game to play, and really help empower players no matter how they decide to build their character. But a lot of people just aren't willing to acknowledge this, decrying it as a **** game simply because it wasn't what they wanted.
    Can we keep off the condescension on those who don't like PF2 or 4e? Yeah, we don't like them, and we're as entitled to not like them as you are to like them.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    That's pretty insightful. I do agree that what a purported three-action system does not need is a ton of exceptional activities that arbitrarily count as two or three (or zero) actions instead.

    For instance, giving spells two actions because they have a vocal and somatic component sounds cute in theory; but in practice 3E/PF players don't remember which spells have which components anyway. And it means that in P2, most spells are one action-that-does-not-provoke and another action-that-does. Smooth gameplay, it ain't. Since they've massively reworked spells anyway, they could have rebalanced them for being one action each.

    Aside from that, the "flourish" keyword is a kludge. It means that this particular action can only be done once per turn, for arbitrary reasons that appear to mimic the "swift" action (was was 1/turn in 3E/PF).

    Maybe I should check out SWSE, but I'm not a fan of the setting
    They needed spells to take two actions to maintain play of cast one spell and move, since moving is an action. Their excuse for the two actions are verbal and somatic components each costing an action, which I find a silly excuse. They should have said casting a spell costs two actions just because unless a specific spell says otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Okay, so I've been doing a basic bit of thinking about the maths, and I'm not a big fan of the results.

    As we all know, PF2 uses a +10/-10 system for crits. It's something that was well-received, but I actually think it's bad for the health of the game longterm. This is all to do with the humble +1.

    In 3.X, a +1 changes your success state on only 1 possible die roll. Longterm it makes a difference on one in every 20 rolls, so missing out isn't a huge deal. In PF2, however, this is a bit different. Your +1 changes your success state on 2 rolls - your success/failure point and your critical point, be it for success or failure. In the case of moving from success on a 10 to on a 9, it changes it at 3 points, as you move from 1 possible crit fail to 1 possible crit success. As a critical success is obviously better than a success, and a critical failure obviously worse than a failure, the value of a +1 is slightly over twice that of that in 3.X. Do note though that it still only turns 1 number from failure into a success, so the small effect of it on actual failure rates will remain the same.

    This adds up super fast. Someone who has forfeited +3 worth of bonus across their career will only fail 3 times more every 20 rolls compared to another who got that bonus, but will also get a critical failure or miss a critical success that the other would have got 3 times as well on those 20 rolls.

    One of the most common complaints about 3.X is already about bonus stacking and number management, but this pushes it even further. Bonus micromanagement was also perhaps one of the biggest complaints about 4th edition.
    Last edited by Divine Susuryu; 2019-08-11 at 08:07 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    {scrubbed}
    Last edited by Peelee; 2019-08-11 at 10:13 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Storyteller_Arc View Post
    4. Exp to level up. A rather small thing honestly. But just needed 1kxp per level, and the XP you gain reflecting the challenge you face makes a lot of sense and saves room and time. Because really, there's little difference between needing 1k exp to level up and getting 100s of exp per encounter. Or 100k exp to level up and getting 10ks of exp per encounter. Plus, you actually have rules for non-combat exp rewards, which is fantastic.
    Paper Mario did this in 2000, with 100 "star points" (exp) needed to level up at each level. It's good to see that Pathfinder has finally caught up to video games from 20 years ago.

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    That's a good point about +1s. Doesn't it basically mean that every +1 you get also increases your threat range by 1? Because if your attack bonus is +20 vs AC 30 (i.e. you hit 50% of the time), increasing your attack bonus to +21 also gives you a crit on a 19. +22 gives you one on an 18. Etc.

    That's actually really strong, but the system might be balanced a little towards higher ACs so you only hit on a 15+ where it doesn't matter quite as much. But if that's the case then your second and third attacks basically only hit on a natural 20, so I doubt that's where they balanced around.

    Yeah, I don't think there's really any good way to have it work out. I guess it makes Fighter the objectively best crit fisher though since he gets bigger proficiency bonuses than anyone else... Oh, except the Ranger still gets that massive flurry reduction for multiple attacks.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    One of the most common complaints about 3.X is already about bonus stacking and number management, but this pushes it even further.
    I have to disagree.

    You're not wrong about the maths, that a +1 or -1 modifier is stronger than it was in the past due to the Degree of Success model that Pathfinder 2nd Edition is using. But, you need to look at the fact that P2E is built around this fact, and so the number of different ways that you can actually gain a permanent, static bonus to any of yours rolls is very strictly limited. Level, Ability Score, and Proficiency Tier. That's pretty much it. Pretty sure there are no generic feats like Weapon Focus around that just gives you a +1 to attacks with said weapon. The feats are more about giving you extra options and uses of your abilities than making them directly stronger.

    The system rewards people for specialization, it doesn't just make you more likely to succeed in a task, but also more likely to succeed wellwith a task. But it also means that a generalized character isn't able to succeed in the same tasks as well. Maybe not to the same point as a specialist, but well enough that you aren't forced to be a specialist to be successful at a task 70%+ of the time.

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    Okay, so I've been doing a basic bit of thinking about the maths, and I'm not a big fan of the results.

    As we all know, PF2 uses a +10/-10 system for crits. It's something that was well-received, but I actually think it's bad for the health of the game longterm. This is all to do with the humble +1.

    In 3.X, a +1 changes your success state on only 1 possible die roll. Longterm it makes a difference on one in every 20 rolls, so missing out isn't a huge deal. In PF2, however, this is a bit different. Your +1 changes your success state on 2 rolls - your success/failure point and your critical point, be it for success or failure. In the case of moving from success on a 10 to on a 9, it changes it at 3 points, as you move from 1 possible crit fail to 1 possible crit success. As a critical success is obviously better than a success, and a critical failure obviously worse than a failure, the value of a +1 is slightly over twice that of that in 3.X. Do note though that it still only turns 1 number from failure into a success, so the small effect of it on actual failure rates will remain the same.
    Interestingly, this effect was made more extreme from the play test to the final result, as the TEML bonuses were increased. Now, a +1 bonus being the only difference between an expert and a master certainly doesn’t inspire much, but as you point out, a 15% chance of improving an outcome is bigger than a 5% increase.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Storyteller_Arc View Post
    The system rewards people for specialization, it doesn't just make you more likely to succeed in a task, but also more likely to succeed wellwith a task. But it also means that a generalized character isn't able to succeed in the same tasks as well. Maybe not to the same point as a specialist, but well enough that you aren't forced to be a specialist to be successful at a task 70%+ of the time.
    Can you explain this to me? You say that a generalised character isn't able to succeed in the same tasks as well, but then you go to say that you aren't forced to be a specialist. And even then, your maths must be off because if you're succeeding 70% of the time, you're critically succeeding 20% of the time, and to reach that level you absolutely would have to be either specialising in that thing or the thing itself would have to be lower-than-appropriate DC.

    Quote Originally Posted by NomGarret View Post
    Interestingly, this effect was made more extreme from the play test to the final result, as the TEML bonuses were increased. Now, a +1 bonus being the only difference between an expert and a master certainly doesn’t inspire much, but as you point out, a 15% chance of improving an outcome is bigger than a 5% increase.
    It's only a 15% improvement if critical successes are worth twice regular successes, and critical failures are worth twice failures. Even then, only in the case of success on 10 to success on 9 is it 15%, otherwise it's a 10%. On average it's a 10.25%.
    Last edited by Divine Susuryu; 2019-08-11 at 09:21 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Divine Susuryu View Post
    Can you explain this to me? You say that a generalised character isn't able to succeed in the same tasks as well, but then you go to say that you aren't forced to be a specialist. And even then, your maths must be off because if you're succeeding 70% of the time, you're critically succeeding 20% of the time, and to reach that level you absolutely would have to be either specialising in that thing or the thing itself would have to be lower-than-appropriate DC.
    Okay, so let's take the Simple DCs for a minute: untrained 10, trained 15, expert 20, master 30, legendary 40.

    Let's compare a Level 13 Bard, a generalist, and Level 13 Barbarian, a specialist when it comes to Weapon Usage. Without any sort of buffs or Magic Items.

    A Level 13 Bard is an Expert with his chosen weapon, and let's give them a 18 in their attack score. Meaning they have a total bonus of 13 + 4 + 4 = 21. So they have a 100% chance to succeed with expert tasks and a 60% chance to crit. 60% chance to succeed a master task with a 10% chance to cirt, and a 10% chance to succeed with a Legendary Task.

    A level 13 Barbarian is a Master with his chosen weapon, and has 20 in their Attack score. Meaning they have a total bonus of 13 + 5 + 6 = 24. 75% to Crit with an Expert Task. 75% chance to succed with a Master Task, with a 25% chance to crit, and a 25% chance to succeed a Legendary Task.

    So, while the 70% chance for a generalist to succeed with an appropriate level DC (assuming Level 13 = Master DCs in general) was a mistake. I believe the maths should hopefully prove my point. A generalist still has a higher-than-average chance to succeed in a task that they put some time and effort into being able to do. Meaning they are rewarded with the ability to perform in that role.. But a specalist will outclass them not through succeed more often than not, but by critically succeeding more often than not.

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    I've combed through the rules and equipment chapters on the SRD and can't find any penalty for critically failing an attack roll vs just failing it (other than reducing your roll by 10 if you roll a natural 1).
    Check your PF2 Bestiary. Critical failures are not necessarily linked to anything like critical fumbles,* but player critical failures on attacks can trigger the use of enemy reaction abilities.

    * However, it was announced at GenCon that critical fumble tables will be included in one of the books that will release within the next year.

    Which means, yes, mathematically you are still incentivized to make as many attacks as possible because even if you only hit with that third attack 5% of the time it's still another chance to deal damage. Your experience with players being more mobile either means they are incorrectly assessing their options, aren't optimizing their actions for damage, or is due to the removal of attacks of opportunity from most monsters rather than the three action system actually encouraging it.
    You are also forgetting that players flanking make it easier to hit (and thereby critical hit), so a lot of movement is also about positioning for better attacks, but opponents are also not standing still either, especially if they are also utilizing tactics. Plus, enemies will also have three attacks, which gives them opportunities to crit as well. So raising a shield helps mitigate against enemy crits.

    I actually prefer the consolidated spell lists, as you say it helps future proof later spellcasting classes so they can just add spells to a tradition's spell list and not have to worry about forgetting a class.

    However, it's pretty clear that the big name classes are receiving a nerf relative to other spellcasters from it for that exact reason (they no longer have a unique spell list), and it contributes to the classes being/feeling similar because the main difference between a Cloistered Cleric and a Sorcerer with the Divine Tradition and any other class that comes along and gets access to the Divine Tradition are their spontaneity vs prepared casting and what class feats they can access.
    I don't think that "nerf" means what you think that it means.

    It means that the main difference between classes lies in the design of the classes and their available class features rather than their respective class spell lists.

    Not only are they now abandoning that player base, they are doing so by incorporating many (most?) of the very things that that player base disliked about 4e into their new edition of Pathfinder.
    Over-exaggerate much? It seems disingenuous to say that Paizo is somehow abandoning their fanbase, especially when their fanbase was already bleeding. However, my point still stands firm: the raison d'ętre for Pathfinder was never about any supposed hatred of 4e. Regarding the bold, if you are going to make a positive claim like that, then I believe that they say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and you are going to need something to back that claim up. And just to let you know, just because something is in 4e does not mean that is also in PF2 does not mean that people hated that thing in 4e. Because there are also MANY THINGS in 5e that were also brought over from 4e that you rarely will hear people who hated 4e raise a peep about.

    The simplest explanation, and the most obvious, is that they no longer care about 3e players and are now marketing to PFS players and GMs who were already on a pretty tight leash due to organized play requirements.
    "No longer care" makes them sound callous or insensitive to 3e players. The people who are playing 3e and have not switched over to Pathfinder by this point, of which we can get a hint of those statistics elsewhere, probably would not have been interested in further developments by Paizo in the Pathfinder line of products. Pathfinder effectively became its own brand through its ten years of incremental changes to 3e, its Golarion setting APs, and their supplemental products. I think that their goal was more about

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    What do you think that their goal was more about? Don’t leave us hanging!

    Light the lamp not the rat LIGHT THE LAMP NOT THE RAT!!!

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Particle_Man View Post
    What do you think that their goal was more about? Don’t leave us hanging!
    Oops. Editing error.

    I think that Paizo's goal was more about consolidating and streamlining their Pathfinder product lines and various subsystems so that they themselves could have a fresh start. I honestly think that they were trying to create a product that was built on the 3e d20 engine but that could better incorporate the innovations that Paizo made (e.g., three action economy, archetypes, traits/backgrounds, various classes, alternate racial traits, etc.). IMO, PF2 represents a system that is designed with the best parts of Pathfinder in mind while also trying to hammer out a number of the kinks in the d20 system that they inherited.

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobard View Post
    You are also forgetting that players flanking make it easier to hit (and thereby critical hit), so a lot of movement is also about positioning for better attacks, but opponents are also not standing still either, especially if they are also utilizing tactics. Plus, enemies will also have three attacks, which gives them opportunities to crit as well. So raising a shield helps mitigate against enemy crits.
    Symmetrical tactics cancel out, and dominant strategies will emerge. We saw this with "I full attack" in PF1e, after all - the best option for both parties 90% of the time was to stay still with the enemy at the edge of your attack range and make as many attacks as they can. I suspect this dominant strategy will involve Heroism heightened as high as you can take it (as that +1/+2+/3 status bonus has to come from somewhere), most likely from a cleric so they can double up as a healing tap. After that, you probably want fighters for crit fishing due to the damage and critical effects. We'll have to wait and see if shield raising is a better option than simply attempting to kill them faster with your last attack, but I am sceptical in the long run unless you can't hit them at all with the 3rd attack. Flurry rangers are possible, but the action cost has the same issue as the shield raising where it may just be better to continue attacking unless you can't hit at all on the 3rd.

    Putting attacks in the same pool as things like movement, shield raising, or hunt target only makes doing those things relatively worse, not better, as they're competing with the action type that actually directly moves the combat closer to completion. This is part of why move/standard/swift worked so well - not all actions are made equal. PoW is probably the my favourite paradigm to approach melee combat from simply due to it using the action system to more interesting and dynamic effect than just full attacking every turn.

    While looking into this, I forgot the stupid "If you're X class, roleplay it Y". Whoever thought that was a good idea should heck right off. Awful prescriptivist garbage.

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Remuko's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by 137ben View Post
    Paper Mario did this in 2000, with 100 "star points" (exp) needed to level up at each level. It's good to see that Pathfinder has finally caught up to video games from 20 years ago.
    The oldest I can think of is the original Shining Force game on the Sega Genesis in the early 90s. 100 exp for each level resetting to 0 on level up. Bigger the level gaps between you and an enemy more/less exp you got (if youre higher than them you get less, if theyre higher you get more).

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    upho's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    TL;DR: I think that a basic N-action system is flawed even in theory for the kinds of things they're using it for, and a tiered action system with trading-down would be a better option in most cases.
    I still believe large parts of the issues you mention are effects of the poor implementation, and perhaps especially the PDT's unwarranted fear of including meaningful exceptions. For example, the hard limit of one reaction outside your turn (or at most one attack plus a second reaction in the case of the fighter) seriously limits fighting styles and viable martial combat functions/roles in combination with the one-dimensional related options. It doesn't even allow for anything able to match a basic reach-trip "pseudo-defender" 3.5 fighter style, much less anything even in the same universe as say control/defense focused 4e fighter or P1 bloodrager styles.

    Quote Originally Posted by HeraldOfExius View Post
    This thread actually seems rather in favor of 4E. If anything, it seems like the consensus is that PF2 isn't close enough to 4E.
    Well, at least that P2 copied too many of 4e's worst concepts and basically only one of the actually good or great ones (rituals).

    Quote Originally Posted by HeraldOfExius View Post
    Well, that and people who have been playing a nearly 20 year old game aren't jumping for joy at the idea of playing something different.
    I dunno, IME people who hang out in this subforum seem to be pretty open to new games and ideas, and many also play both new and old TTRPGs other than 3.5/P1. And many also include new 3PP stuff (especially from DSP and DDS) in their P1 games which may bring some pretty radical changes. If anything, I think the enormous wealth of quality 3.5/P1 material, quite a lot of it released during the last 5 years, is a far more common reason for any reluctance to play something different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    I actually quite like 4e as well. At the very least, I don't dislike as strong as many others, and my favorite character from my fave game was my Drow Sorcerer Dagger Master, Drathrundrial.
    Considering the many times I've agreed with your opinions about P1 stuff in the past, I'm not surprised to hear you say this.

    And yeah, I also like 4e. Or rather, I love the varied tactical combat with teamwork emphasis 4e focuses on, even if I'm less enthusiastic about some other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    Alchemist too, it's a 1 to 1 comparison to Summoner. (SNA versus SM, Mutagen Beastmorph versus evolutions, both get simulacrum...)
    Well, it's true that also an alchemist can overshadow the fighter class in general melee prowess, at least if we're talking about damage focused builds. But even with the help of SNA minions, a beastmorph won't match say a Bloodrider bloodrager supercharger in a melee damage role (= 2 TPR (tarrasques per round) or more), and an alchemist doesn't have nearly as many and strong melee control options as barbarian or bloodrager. If we assume a game including PoW options for a more fair comparison to 3.5, the alchemist will certainly remain good but it won't "outfight" any full bab classes. And despite the many similarities, a beastmorph is decidedly weaker than a synth in both melee and ranged, and especially in overall combat power (the synth's evos, possible stats, spell list and SM SLA are much stronger than the alchemist counterparts).

    And cleric, too. I had a build that hit for a grand of damage as a cleric archer.
    Again, I believe that's mostly true if we're comparing to the fighter class rather than all other full bab martial classes, and only if we're comparing builds focusing on damage (like archers). For example, a Bolt Ace gunslinger could easily outdamage a cleric archer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercrys View Post
    4e is a great game for people who enjoy it (including me, when I can actually find people to play it with) and I'm sure PF 2e will be one for the people who enjoy it. Also probably including me when my primary group transitions to it.

    But I wish it wasn't the game that it is, and I'm not going to be purchasing books for it because the system itself doesn't interest me beyond actually playing it at the table because the only thing to really optimize is which feat to take at which level.

    Heck, optimizing in 4e core only was infinitely more interesting than optimizing this in my opinion.
    Unfortunately, I think this is mostly a sign of P2 lacking the quality of 4e also in arguably far more important regards. Most notably in how much fun and variety the mechanics add to the game when played, an area in which both 3.5/P1 and 4e shines (while 5e doesn't really have to). Having merely functional mechanics is far, far from enough when designing a game with the explicit goal of "maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder".

    Quote Originally Posted by Storyteller_Arc View Post
    Hmmm. Guess I had been misjudging this thread then. At least in this regard.
    I think you may also be misjudging how most people here reason in general. Although our tastes and preferences vary of course, we at least try to judge things on their own merits and to make the most relevant comparisons in discussions, while we frown upon posts stating subjective "feelings" as facts or opinions which have no basis in sound arguments. As an example, just because quite a few posters here like 4e, it doesn't mean that they believe 4e to be without flaws or necessarily the best edition. And if anything, I'd say people here love to discuss game design, especially the flaws of 3.5/P1 and how to best fix them (for example in a new edition).

    And again, the main reason for the critique of PF is that it doesn't meet its stated goal and in turn people's expectations. And that is unfortunately a very serious flaw, and it's especially annoying to many as they can clearly see how many of the design concepts show great promise and how the issue could've been avoided with a different implementation. And yes, people can be quite harsh in their judgments, but that is typically a sign of high standards and maybe a bit of disappointment, not some unfounded dog-piling on P2 (or Paizo for past mistakes).
    Last edited by upho; 2019-08-11 at 01:36 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •