Pathfinder 2 Release

[TotallyNotEvil]

Reading the Reddit post made me hyped, as it essentially reads as "here's how we fixed 5e".

But the thread has poured a bucket of cold water over it.

At least it seems easily fixable, but "this just needs some good ol' power creep" is just far too funny.

[Kurald Galain]

Add in AP design considerations and your second point explains your first. It's a lot easier to run PFS and design APs if you know that all possible characters will have their bonuses in a very small range, for one. For another, if all the abilities are low impact and have very little ability to change the flow of a narrative, then linear stories become much easier to tell.

Bear in mind that PFS and Adventure Paths are exceedingly popular (and not all of them are linear, either). Plus there is the fact that the most popular RPG on the market (i.e. 5E) has a much smaller range of bonuses and modifiers than P2 does. I can hardly blame Paizo for catering to what's popular, even though my personal tastes are different from that.

You misunderstand. I'm not complaining why compiling wildlife statistics is dependent on Survival, I'm complaining why this is a skill feat and not just part of Survival? I managed to think up one scenario for that feat: Help out a druid doing a survey. But that is one scenario. And I don't think there is another one different enough to be not a boring repeat.

Fair enough, I thought your question was why not everybody could learn how to do that.

I think the general design philosophy is good, i.e. that "skill feats" allow you to do things with a skill that most people cannot. I'd agree that this particular example (counting animals) shouldn't have been a skill feat. Rather, I'd take a leaf out of Exalted and make survival skill feats like

• (Expert) You can find food for up to ten creatures in one hour, in any terrain on the prime material
• (Master) You can track swimming creatures under water. No, I don't know how that works either, you're just that awesome.
• (Legendary) You can survive without food and drink indefinitely, and are immune to fatigue and exhaustion.

[Gnaeus]

Plus there is the fact that the most popular RPG on the market (i.e. 5E) has a much smaller range of bonuses and modifiers than P2 does. I can hardly blame Paizo for catering to what's popular, even though my personal tastes are different from that.]

Goddess! Why on earth not? That’s the “all restaurants are Taco Bell” theory of game marketing. It doesn’t matter if Taco Bell is popular, if I want it I’ll go to Taco Bell. The last thing I want is for Teds to look at Taco Bell and market low end burritos rather than bison steak.

Metaphor aside, I think it is absolutely fair to blame them for “follow the market leader” when their entire success model was supporting disaffected fans of that same brand. Even if PF2 were as good at being 5e as 5e, which it isn’t, it still would sell copy by not being 5e. They should be offering a game system which addresses different fans, or the same fans when they want to play something with different design goals.

[Kurald Galain]

Metaphor aside, I think it is absolutely fair to blame them for “follow the market leader” when their entire success model was supporting disaffected fans of that same brand.

Yes. And they're not following the market leader. 5E firmly believes in rulings-not-rules, and in almost no decisions on your build after level one, and in the notion that every PC can do every task by just rolling well. P2 is clearly in the opposite camp on all of these.

[Gnaeus]

Yes. And they're not following the market leader. 5E firmly believes in rulings-not-rules, and in almost no decisions on your build after level one, and in the notion that every PC can do every task by just rolling well. P2 is clearly in the opposite camp on all of these.

5e has an actual multiclassing system. Every single level in 5e gives more options than PF2 gets in their entire career. PF2 is 5es clone after a dog urinated in the cloning tank.

[Kurald Galain]

Metaphor aside, I think it is absolutely fair to blame them for “follow the market leader” when their entire success model was supporting disaffected fans of that same brand.

5e has an actual multiclassing system. Every single level in 5e gives more options than PF2 gets in their entire career. PF2 is 5es clone after a dog urinated in the cloning tank.

I don't follow you. You appear to dislike that P2 makes some of the same choices as 5E (e.g. PC damage output falls in a certain range) and also dislike that P2 makes certain choices differently (e.g. feats every level instead of buffet-style multiclassing). If being similar to 5E is wrong and being different from 5E is also wrong... that appears rather contradictory.

[Crake]

I don't follow you. You appear to dislike that P2 makes some of the same choices as 5E (e.g. PC damage output falls in a certain range) and also dislike that P2 makes certain choices differently (e.g. feats every level instead of buffet-style multiclassing). If being similar to 5E is wrong and being different from 5E is also wrong... that appears rather contradictory.

It's almost like 5e is an imperfect system, and certain parts are good (the parts pf2 didn't copy) and other parts are bad (the parts that pf2 did copy), at least in Gnaeus' opinion.

[Asmotherion]

i still have a neutral oppinion on PF2. Seems interesting as a system but it's a lot diferent than 3/3.5/PF.

i'd highly suggest a different category to be made for it instead of discussing it in the 3.X category.

Overall i'd be willing to give it a try if i found a group for it but 3.5/PF are still more to my taste.

[stack]

It's a big toolbox for developers and has lots of content that isn't very exciting, so as a 3pp author I am pleased.

[upho]

Yes. And they're not following the market leader. 5E firmly believes in rulings-not-rules, and in almost no decisions on your build after level one, and in the notion that every PC can do every task by just rolling well. P2 is clearly in the opposite camp on all of these.

5e has an actual multiclassing system. Every single level in 5e gives more options than PF2 gets in their entire career. PF2 is 5es clone after a dog urinated in the cloning tank.

While I wouldn't yet rate PF2 as harshly as Gnaeus, he undeniably has a very valid point. I'm writing for 5e, and while I certainly struggle sometimes to bring meaningful differentiation between player options while remaining in the system's limited mechanical design space (especially when it comes to martial combat), that limited space and the relatively few PC build options in the system are both distinctly different and far less as problematic than the issues created by the superficially similar designs in PF2. The primary reasons for this are:

1. 5e has far fewer but generally also more mechanically meaningful options and in-game choices than PF2's huge pile of counterparts of negligible impact. For example, many of PF's class feats resemble 5e feats split into three and offered in a no-brainer chain, with the actually meaningful benefits too often found in the final third feat gated behind previous investments and a relatively high level. The same is too often true also when adding class abilities to the mix. I doubt the melee combat versatility of even a high level PF2 fighter can notably exceed that of a same level 5e Battle Master, despite the former having easily more than three times as many related options to choose from and easily more than three times as many opportunities to do so from 1st to 20th.

2. More importantly, one of the PDT's official design "goals" for PF2 was "maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder", which has at least two important implications. First, it implies that the game was intended for the same playstyle as that of PF1, which has a several magnitudes greater focus on the mechanical bits than 5e has. So while 5e's few and relatively simple player options are pretty perfectly matched with its intended playstyle, PF2's relative lack of mechanically meaningful player options certainly don't match the above design goal. (Hence much of the critique in this thread.) Second, this design goal implies that PF2 was intended to compete in the same "mechanics-heavy meaningful player options" market niche (in addition to other market niches) as PF1 did, and consequently the system's inability to meet this goal may very well result in a marketing mismatch issue serious enough to cause PF2 to flop. In contrast, 5e had no similar design goal, but instead clearly prioritized other market niches, and WoTC made damn sure the system could compete in those niches through years of carefully revised and refined design and very extensive playtests.

TL/DR: 5e has few but relatively meaningful options while PF2 has tons of relatively meaningless options, and far too many are nothing more than thinly disguised automatic progressions. 5e's system is very well designed for its intended playstyle, while PF2's system has far too much in common with 5e's to meet the stated design goal.

[Serafina]

It's a big toolbox for developers and has lots of content that isn't very exciting, so as a 3pp author I am pleased.

I'd probably be quite excited about a proper Martial System for PF 2E.
After all, it can slot in right there into the TEML Proficiency system, the abundancy of class feats reminds of Spheres of Might, Master and Legendary are perfect for the truly epic effects, and the Dedication-system allows you to craft subclasses that have access to more supernatural effects à la Path of War.

Something like that, together with some actually interesting classes? Well yes, that could be quite pleasing.

[Blackhawk748]

It's a big toolbox for developers and has lots of content that isn't very exciting, so as a 3pp author I am pleased.

I mean, that will be great for you as all you have to do is make something that looks vaguely interesting and is made competent mechanically. They made this real easy for you guys.

1. 5e has far fewer but generally also more mechanically meaningful options and in-game choices than PF2's huge pile of counterparts of negligible impact. For example, many of PF's class feats resemble 5e feats split into three and offered in a no-brainer chain, with the actually meaningful benefits too often found in the final third feat gated behind previous investments and a relatively high level. The same is too often true also when adding class abilities to the mix. I doubt the melee combat versatility of even a high level PF2 fighter can notably exceed that of a same level 5e Battle Master, despite the former having easily more than three times as many related options to choose from and easily more than three times as many opportunities to do so from 1st to 20th.

This seems like a continuing issue from PF1E, which may have given more feats, but then made the Feat Chains longer, so we wound up more or less back in the same square.

2. More importantly, one of the PDT's official design "goals" for PF2 was "maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder", which has at least two important implications. First, it implies that the game was intended for the same playstyle as that of PF1, which has a several magnitudes greater focus on the mechanical bits than 5e has. So while 5e's few and relatively simple player options are pretty perfectly matched with its intended playstyle, PF2's relative lack of mechanically meaningful player options certainly don't match the above design goal. (Hence much of the critique in this thread.) Second, this design goal implies that PF2 was intended to compete in the same "mechanics-heavy meaningful player options" market niche (in addition to other market niches) as PF1 did, and consequently the system's inability to meet this goal may very well result in a marketing mismatch issue serious enough to cause PF2 to flop. In contrast, 5e had no similar design goal, but instead clearly prioritized other market niches, and WoTC made damn sure the system could compete in those niches through years of carefully revised and refined design and very extensive playtests.

This is the biggest issue in my mind here. If PF2E was billed as "Our version of 5e" then this wouldn't be quite so bad, but we were promised "PF1E but better" and this certainly doesn't seem to be the case.

[malloc]

That's...that's the design goal of Kings of War. As in, the Mantic designers said exactly the same thing, minus the "everyone can play" thing, because its a War Game, not everyone wants to play a wargame.

Except Kings of War did that, by and large, while PF2E doesn't look like it did that. I mean, sure its simple, but mastering this doesn't seem terribly difficult or even worth it.

No game has 3.5's depth of customization on release...3.5 has YEARS of splat. The important part, to my eyes, is that PF2 has the potential to give more customization than 3.5 with analogous splat support.

Haven't hit the spell lists yet; that's going to be the goal this weekend.

I've been through the classes and for the most part, I have to disagree with people here: while the options are certainly on the "safe" side of balance, I think that there are things in multiple classes that I find interesting, both on a flavor and a mechanics axis. No, the options aren't as potent as 3.5's...is that necessarily a bad thing? Because a 7th level character from 3.5 could beat up a 7th level character from PF2?

PF2 feels a lot more like E6 (again, haven't read the spells so...build strength and martial/caster parody could be HILARIOUSLY out of whack if the spell lists are good) in that characters feel a little more capped in terms of "scaling", and instead advance through feat selection. If you like E6, this seems like a great system.

Will this replace 3.5's place in my heart? No, but it doesn't have to be one or the other--I can like them both for their own merits. From what I can see, PF2 will require a fair bit of homebrew until some splat starts coming out. Once it's sitting at about the content level of 5e (2 additional books released with class features, or there about), I could see PF2 being an incredibly interesting system to play and, if they go for a few more adventurous feat options, to build for.

PF2 feels like it's in a strange place in the market, however. I don't think it really caters to 3.PF players, specifically, nor does it have the mass-appeal (read: ease) of 5e. It's at this strange place where it's very complex with moderate crunch, and requires a lot of setup for a payoff that doesn't feel as extensive as 3.PF (again, I think a function of the respective amount of splat, but that's what it's up against). But I have to say, I think on a game design framework, this is my favorite chassis system I've ever read. My roommate and I were building a system that is very similar in design to this; I think we're just going to scrap and instead homebrew some PF2 materials, which would save a lot of time on an official rules writeup. The one big difference between our system and PF2's is that instead of giving loot as rewards, we were essentially giving background/ancestry feats as rewards. If I run a PF2 campaign, I may consider including that feature, as in the design process it was one of the elements that had us the most excited.

[Segev]

To speak just design theory, and not directly to PF2, I'd like to address the concept of meaningful choices and breadth of options in-play. This touches on both the points made above about how a 5e Battle Master has wider varieties of options in play than an equivalent-level PF2 character, and on one of the things that bugs me about the Ancestries vs. the classic races in PF1.

Let's say that there are two online music stores that sell customized playlists. Albumaker has a system wherein they offer a small list of "genre albums" that you can purchase. When you buy one, you get a matrix of songs, and select one song from each row of the matrix to make a playlist. You can change which song in each row you've selected any time you want, and the music will play row after row and then cycle back. They have 10 choices of albums you can buy.

Musichoice decries the lack of options, and has thousands of choices to choose from for what you want to buy. But each choice is exactly one playlist, fixed and unchangeable. You want a different song in one spot? You have to buy an entirely different playlist with the song switched out.

If PF1's version of a race automatically gets Features A, B, C, and D, and PF2's version of a race gets the choice between any one of A, B, C, and D, PF2 has more choices! ...at character generation. Not more in play.

And I think a lot of the complaints about PF2 center around this: it feels like they decreased choices IN PLAY by increasing choices at character generation through the means of taking things that used to be complete packages and saying, "Now, you can have only ONE of these on any given character. It's so customizable!"

And that's not always a bad design decision. Limitations are part of what make characters interesting. On the opposite extreme, a wizard who can cast any spell in the game at will is more boring than a wizard with the kinds of built-in limitations that most D&D editions impose. All wizards that can cast any spell in the game are mechanically identical, and that's boring. But it's possible to go too far the other direction. Very, very possible.

[Gnaeus]

It's almost like 5e is an imperfect system, and certain parts are good (the parts pf2 didn't copy) and other parts are bad (the parts that pf2 did copy), at least in Gnaeus' opinion.

I do agree with that, but it’s more than that.

If I want to run Scourge of the Slave Lords/Against the Giants, and I don’t want to worry about planar binding or permanent flight or uberchargers or Christmas trees of items, 5e or PF2 will get me there. Better than 3.5. Now 5e would do it cleaner but PF2 has similar game concepts.

But if I want to play an open world sandbox with my high op group with a Daevic/swashbuckler/swordsage and a dhampir with a vampiric praying mantis mount and a dragon, 3.PF will handle that and 5e or PF2 won’t. I want a steak, and 5e offers me a taco, and PF2 also offers me a taco, but with rat meat, and no market leader is selling the steak. Yeah, I’m mad about the rat meat, but if their taco was just as good I’d still be upset.

[Blackhawk748]

I do agree with that, but it’s more than that.

If I want to run Scourge of the Slave Lords/Against the Giants, and I don’t want to worry about planar binding or permanent flight or uberchargers or Christmas trees of items, 5e or PF2 will get me there. Better than 3.5. Now 5e would do it cleaner but PF2 has similar game concepts.

But if I want to play an open world sandbox with my high op group with a Daevic/swashbuckler/swordsage and a dhampir with a vampiric praying mantis mount and a dragon, 3.PF will handle that and 5e or PF2 won’t. I want a steak, and 5e offers me a taco, and PF2 also offers me a taco, but with rat meat, and no market leader is selling the steak.

I mean this is a bit hyperbolic but this is how I feel. The top two gaming studios are fightting over the same market while the people who like complex mechanics are over here going "So all we really have is GURPS or Exalted?"

I mean, both systems are fine, but they aren't in that sort of weird sweet spot 3.5/PF was in with being crunchy, but not taking literal hours to make a character at the low end. And farnkly, that annoys me. They keep trying to get all of these New People to come into the hobby, and thats great, but what about those of us that are already here? What, do they think that I'm just gonna buy it because Paizo or WotC is slapped on it?

This is why I buy stuff from Savage Worlds, they give me a great many options but they never forget what their main goal always was or who their main audience is.

[exelsisxax]

I wonder if anyone tried to pitch a "pathfinder, but based on Unchained and streamlined with the chaff thrown out" in any of the early brainstorming meetings. That's literally the kind of thinking that brought their company into existence, just coming from 3.5 rather than their own game. I wonder what kind of nonsense had to happen to get them to completely abandon their foundational strategy in favor of getting somehow creative enough to make 200 ****ty feats without coming up with anything new or interesting for the game as a whole.

[NomGarret]

There's not really any point in discussing 3rd party options when speaking about any particular combat option as it exists in the base game.

It’s helpful when you’re trying to figure out how to make a certain option or mechanic work when you’re designing a new system for it. If the development had drawn a bit more from 3pp, they might have avoided some of the troubles it ran into. Continuing the Spheres comparison, we see bonus talents at first level, letting you start off with a wider variety of tricks or at least a slightly better developed trick. How much would P2 benefit from an additional class feat and an ancestry feat at 1st level?

[Particle_Man]

I am beginning to wonder if a new company will arise to offer a game like Pathfinder 1e, just like Pathfinder was a game like 3.5.

Also, there is a d20 game that offers tons of choices while being fairly simple mechanically - Mutants and Masterminds. A GM can work for a certain theme (there are splatbooks like Warriors and Warlocks for those that want a Fantasy Feel, especially since many powers can be tagged as "magic" and others as basically Training and/or Big Damn Hero) and can ban certain options or power levels that wouldn't fit their game. They can even have suggested templates for ways to spend points that fit iconic patterns in the theme. So you don't even have to go as far as GURPS or Exalted (not to knock those games, but some people in a d20 mode might not want to learn a whole new system but rather learn a fairly adjacent system).

[upho]

It's a big toolbox for developers and has lots of content that isn't very exciting, so as a 3pp author I am pleased.

I'd probably be quite excited about a proper Martial System for PF 2E.
After all, it can slot in right there into the TEML Proficiency system, the abundancy of class feats reminds of Spheres of Might, Master and Legendary are perfect for the truly epic effects, and the Dedication-system allows you to craft subclasses that have access to more supernatural effects à la Path of War.

I mean, that will be great for you as all you have to do is make something that looks vaguely interesting and is made competent mechanically. They made this real easy for you guys.

It's a big toolbox for developers able and willing to ignore the very narrow power/versatility spans the 1PP material and much of the base system is based on. But those who aren't will unfortunately also find it virtually impossible to design any options significantly more meaningful than those in the CRB. There's certainly not nearly enough room for adding anything remotely as mechanically diversified and meaningful as PoW or Spheres without also making a large majority of the 1PP material incompatible. And I'd assume a 3PP interested in creating such options would unfortunately also be stuck between a need for dropping any pretenses of 1PP compatibility on one hand, and the possibly serious problems of creating their own and potentially competing version of the system on the other.

So at least for the time being I'm actually feeling relieved to be a 3PP author of 5e material which "only" has to be reasonably aligned with WoTC's, and not PF2 material which has to be aligned with Paizo's .

This seems like a continuing issue from PF1E, which may have given more feats, but then made the Feat Chains longer, so we wound up more or less back in the same square.

Nah, a lot of people greatly exaggerated that issue even when only the CRB existed, likely because they hadn't (yet) grasped the many differences between most of the PF feat benefits and those of their assumed 3.5 predecessors (Improved Trip being IIRC the sole example of this critique being well-founded). In truth, for example most of the "Greater" combat maneuver feats in the CRB grant more substantial benefits than 3.5's "Improved" versions. Looking at the feats existing in PF today, regardless of whether PF has far more numerous and typically longer PF feat chains than 3.5, the idea that this would somehow make PF feats in general less powerful than 3.5 feats is comical. And ironically enough, this is especially true in the case of combat feats, the very category which has been - and still often is - claimed to be weaker in PF and frequently mentioned as an example of how PF has exacerbated 3.5's D/MC issues.

The weakness of the individual feats in PF2 is what stands out to me, and that also happens to runs counter to the general development of especially combat feats when looking at the entirety of PF1's lifetime. This development is not rarely obvious enough experienced players can often make very good guesses of how old a feat or martial class options is, simply by looking at how potent it is and how much it directly affects hp damage given or taken in attacks. It's sad to see the devs decided to go back to square one and start all over with weak one-dimensional hp damage feats and martial class options again, seemingly blind to the huge positive effect the different and more powerful PF1 combat feats and martial options had on the game.

This is the biggest issue in my mind here. If PF2E was billed as "Our version of 5e" then this wouldn't be quite so bad, but we were promised "PF1E but better" and this certainly doesn't seem to be the case.

Precisely. And even should I personally remain uninterested in having PF2 replace any of the systems I play or work with, and as least as long as there are no other believable D&D-style TTRPG alternatives to WoTC's latest editions, I'd really like to see PF2 succeed.

[Gnaeus]

I am beginning to wonder if a new company will arise to offer a game like Pathfinder 1e, just like Pathfinder was a game like 3.5.

Also, there is a d20 game that offers tons of choices while being fairly simple mechanically - Mutants and Masterminds. A GM can work for a certain theme (there are splatbooks like Warriors and Warlocks for those that want a Fantasy Feel, especially since many powers can be tagged as "magic" and others as basically Training and/or Big Damn Hero) and can ban certain options or power levels that wouldn't fit their game. They can even have suggested templates for ways to spend points that fit iconic patterns in the theme. So you don't even have to go as far as GURPS or Exalted (not to knock those games, but some people in a d20 mode might not want to learn a whole new system but rather learn a fairly adjacent system).

I hope so.

And I appreciate and will investigate the suggestion. GURPS is a great system, and I will be using it for my next campaign, but it doesn’t closely match D&D like any of the other systems. I love it for chargen but it isn’t a good tactical combat game. It’s one of those systems where avoiding combat is better. And Exalted? Admittedly it’s been years, and it is also a thing I enjoyed, but I remember it being largely being a Rock Paper Scissors game about whose unblockable attack matches up against whose unstoppable defense. Nothing but respect for either, and I like both better than PF2, but I wouldn’t use either for a 3.pf style dungeon crawl. I’ll look at M&M

[Mehangel]

I am beginning to wonder if a new company will arise to offer a game like Pathfinder 1e, just like Pathfinder was a game like 3.5.

Obviously, you have not heard about Porphyra RPG?

[exelsisxax]

Obviously, you have not heard about Porphyra RPG?

Has anyone seen movement there in recent months? It looks like it died to me. But hopefully they can actually do a good job and not just shove out a 3.p clone with nothing fixed.

[Divine Susuryu]

Has anyone seen movement there in recent months? It looks like it died to me. But hopefully they can actually do a good job and not just shove out a 3.p clone with nothing fixed.

Even then, good luck trying to get people to agree on what should and shouldn't be fixed. Opinions will range from people like myself with "bring the power to T3 at minimum" to people who think that T3 is far too powerful in the first place, and more in both directions. Once you get past that, then there'll be the players who want very low complexity options vs the players who want high complexity, and so on and so forth.

[Blackhawk748]

Even then, good luck trying to get people to agree on what should and shouldn't be fixed. Opinions will range from people like myself with "bring the power to T3 at minimum" to people who think that T3 is far too powerful in the first place, and more in both directions. Once you get past that, then there'll be the players who want very low complexity options vs the players who want high complexity, and so on and so forth.

Considering the point here is to keep the complexity on the higher end of 3.5, you'd focus on that. So classes would idealy be around Tier 3-4 to allow for some level of niche protection (not that that is necessarily a huge deal, its just a nice bonus) as well as maximum individuality per class. On top of that it still allows for rather simple classes for those who want lower complexity while not forcing everyone to play simple things

[Kurald Galain]

If PF1's version of a race automatically gets Features A, B, C, and D, and PF2's version of a race gets the choice between any one of A, B, C, and D, PF2 has more choices! ...at character generation. Not more in play.

But wait, only activated abilities offer a choice in gameplay. Getting a static +2 to e.g. perception does not offer a choice in gameplay. An issue with 3E races is that almost none of their features offer any choice in gameplay.

...not that P2 fixes that, though. But for races/ancestries it's not so much "more build choice, less play choice" as "more build choice, same lack of play choice".

[Gnaeus]

But wait, only activated abilities offer a choice in gameplay. Getting a static +2 to e.g. perception does not offer a choice in gameplay. An issue with 3E races is that almost none of their features offer any choice in gameplay.

...not that P2 fixes that, though. But for races/ancestries it's not so much "more build choice, less play choice" as "more build choice, same lack of play choice".

Assuming that you were set on dwarf/elf/human to begin with. If you want a marrulurk or a dragon it’s less build choice/same lack of play choice.

And I’m not sure why we are comparing them to 3e rather than PF1. PF1 offered lots of choices in racial abilities, all available at first level.

[NomGarret]

Comparing CRB to CRB, P2 has more racial/ancestry choices out of the gate. P1 didn't really hit the same quantity until APG, so let's be fair before falling into "one book vs. entire run of content" comparisons. As to choices in play, I'm tempted to agree with Kurald that the racial abilities rarely make gameplay choices. A bonus to this or that check might shift you up in the party ranking of "who makes this check?", but realistically we're comparing the options that grant SLAs. I haven't delved deep enough to get a feel for how much staying power cantrips will really have as you level up, but I think that's where the difference will lie.

4e, IMO, did a pretty good job of this. Whether it was the Eladrin choosing when to teleport, the Dragonborn choosing when to use their breath weapon, or even the races like Half-orc or Deva whose ability was just a bonus, there was an in-game choice of when to use it.

[Segev]

Comparing CRB to CRB, P2 has more racial/ancestry choices out of the gate. P1 didn't really hit the same quantity until APG, so let's be fair before falling into "one book vs. entire run of content" comparisons.

Like I've been saying, there's potential for this to be fixed within the established structure with later books.

As to choices in play, I'm tempted to agree with Kurald that the racial abilities rarely make gameplay choices. A bonus to this or that check might shift you up in the party ranking of "who makes this check?", but realistically we're comparing the options that grant SLAs. I haven't delved deep enough to get a feel for how much staying power cantrips will really have as you level up, but I think that's where the difference will lie.

That's fair. It just remains my position that the things they reduced from "all of the above" to "one or two of the above" weren't worth much to begin with, so making me waste time picking one of them rather than giving me all of them or just removing them entirely is almost an insult. It's a nerf to which attention is being called, and it's pretending it's a boon instead of a nerf in the process. It bothers me because it feels scammy. I know it's not, not really, but it's either really silly design, or it's dishonestly trying to pretend more cleverness went into the design than did. And because marketing always tries to talk up things, it amplifies the "I'm being sold a bill of goods" sense one gets from any sort of marketing.

4e, IMO, did a pretty good job of this. Whether it was the Eladrin choosing when to teleport, the Dragonborn choosing when to use their breath weapon, or even the races like Half-orc or Deva whose ability was just a bonus, there was an in-game choice of when to use it.

This, I can agree with. I dislike a lot about 4e, but the races and the core structure were actually improvements on 3e.

[Gnaeus]

Comparing CRB to CRB, P2 has more racial/ancestry choices out of the gate. P1 didn't really hit the same quantity until APG, so let's be fair before falling into "one book vs. entire run of content" comparisons. As to choices in play, I'm tempted to agree with Kurald that the racial abilities rarely make gameplay choices. A bonus to this or that check might shift you up in the party ranking of "who makes this check?", but realistically we're comparing the options that grant SLAs. I haven't delved deep enough to get a feel for how much staying power cantrips will really have as you level up, but I think that's where the difference will lie.

Still no. P1 had dozens, if not hundreds more playable options the moment they printed the beastiary. Core beastiary p313.