The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 323
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    It's painful, but sometimes that's the best way to find out what most people actually want. WotC listened to the online echo chambers that valued balance above all else and we got 4e. Only after it cratered (no offense 4e fans) were they truly able to get the feedback they needed to make 5e, and that proved to be a roaring success. I expect a similar progression with PF2 going into PF3 and SF2, both of which I expect to look a lot more similar to PF1 than P2 currently does, and make better use of digital tools.
    I get what you're saying, but I don't think 3.5>4th and PF1>PF2 is a good comparison. 4e wasn't an inherently bad move. Its idea was to make things a little more MMOish/video gamey at a time when MMOs were very popular, and to remove the wonky/legacy elements of 3e design. It maybe made things a little too homogenous, should have payed more lip service to brand continuity, and as it turned out the reaction wasn't great. But it had a reason to exist and it was trying to do something.

    PF2 has much less of a reason to exist and is a much more foreseeable failure. Possibly it came out of the idea that people played PF because they like character customization, so people would like much more modular character customization. Of course, what people actually liked about it is that it's a way of playing an "improved" version of a game they already like.

    Any attempt to develop genuine PF brand loyalty would have to be either about continuing to refine the existing system, or solidifying the game's function as the off-brand "improved" D&D. But trying to use the PF brand to sell a different system that has no connection with what's going on in D&D shows a more basic misunderstanding than 4e did.
    The Age of Warriors (revived 2019) - Huge fanmade TOB sequel. Content needs PEACH and input.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayDeath View Post
    I know.

    Its jsut that I see quite a big potential for Paizo to...shall we say be much less successful, and hence many a product not to come out.

    And the only store here hosting Pathfinder has switched to PF exclusively already ...so yeah, less a "oh woe is me" and more a "Oh, woe may be Paizo..." ^^
    Eh, Starfinder is still #2 at least - I think they have a cushion to figure things out before they have to start pawning the silverware.

    And even if they don't... well, my P1 and 3.5 books aren't going anywhere

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    I get what you're saying, but I don't think 3.5>4th and PF1>PF2 is a good comparison. 4e wasn't an inherently bad move. Its idea was to make things a little more MMOish/video gamey at a time when MMOs were very popular, and to remove the wonky/legacy elements of 3e design. It maybe made things a little too homogenous, should have payed more lip service to brand continuity, and as it turned out the reaction wasn't great. But it had a reason to exist and it was trying to do something.

    PF2 has much less of a reason to exist and is a much more foreseeable failure. Possibly it came out of the idea that people played PF because they like character customization, so people would like much more modular character customization. Of course, what people actually liked about it is that it's a way of playing an "improved" version of a game they already like.

    Any attempt to develop genuine PF brand loyalty would have to be either about continuing to refine the existing system, or solidifying the game's function as the off-brand "improved" D&D. But trying to use the PF brand to sell a different system that has no connection with what's going on in D&D shows a more basic misunderstanding than 4e did.
    I wasn't comparing the design goals so much as the impetus. Paizo had some echo chambers/blind spots of its own, one of the more prominent being the PFS audience, and fell into a similar trap of listening to the loudest voices instead of the most numerous. Like WotC, they had no reason until having failed to ever think that they were aimed the wrong way.

    Whether they capitalize on this and make a Coke Classic-style comeback remains to be seen, but I think it's doable.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Like WotC, they had no reason until having failed to ever think that they were aimed the wrong way.
    What I'm saying is exactly that a priori 4e was not doomed to failure but a priori PF2 was. PF doesn't have the brand strength to try something like this in the first place.
    The Age of Warriors (revived 2019) - Huge fanmade TOB sequel. Content needs PEACH and input.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    What I'm saying is exactly that a priori 4e was not doomed to failure but a priori PF2 was. PF doesn't have the brand strength to try something like this in the first place.
    I don't agree, they're the second most well-known in the market; I think you're underestimating their brand.

    Besides, whether we think they could or should have tried this is a moot point - they did try it, and there's nothing we can do now except see what they do next.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Paizo had some echo chambers/blind spots of its own, one of the more prominent being the PFS audience, and fell into a similar trap of listening to the loudest voices instead of the most numerous. Like WotC, they had no reason until having failed to ever think that they were aimed the wrong way.
    I actually hung out around the CharOp boards for WotC when 4e was being planned, so I saw where things were going (and got shouted down a lot when I argued why they were bad ideas), but I have never been on Paizo's boards and I don't hang out around PFS folks much. What were the loud voices there shouting for? I'm not sure if I can judge PF2's success or failure at achieving those stated goals without knowing them, but I am already looking askance at it because I can't divine those goals from what PF2 has done. PF2, like I said, feels like it had some interesting ideas and innovations but wasn't bold enough to really exploit them, and so wound up trying to repurpose it back to being something "more familiar" and erring on the side of minimal power handed out to PCs.

    I have a hard time believing that "don't give us cool stuff" and "we want smaller numbers for attacks, but bigger numbers for skills" was the "loud voices" echo chamber, so I'm not sure what it was.

    Can anybody offer insight, please?

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    What I'm saying is exactly that a priori 4e was not doomed to failure but a priori PF2 was. PF doesn't have the brand strength to try something like this in the first place.
    Why not? It's been the most popular RPG brand in the world for a few years (until 5E took over); that's plenty of strength. From a marketing perspective, it certainly makes sense to build a new product to compete with 5E better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I actually hung out around the CharOp boards for WotC when 4e was being planned, so I saw where things were going (and got shouted down a lot when I argued why they were bad ideas), but I have never been on Paizo's boards and I don't hang out around PFS folks much. What were the loud voices there shouting for?]
    I've been very active in PFS and have never heard voices shouting for this. As near as I can tell, the whole theory that "they did it for PFS" (or "they did it for the APs") is just internet speculation and not based on anything Paizo has said.
    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!

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Arutema's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Uh, P1 hasn't gone anywhere and they're even still making material for it, it just won't be hardcover releases. No need to get out the bagpipes yet.
    The upcoming softcover releases for PF1 are simply reprints of earlier hardcovers with no changes or errata. No new first-party mechanics or adventures or even needed updates *cough*Ultimate Wilderness*cough* are coming. It's dead Jim.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Sir Chuckles's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Eisenworth View Post
    It feels like you might have nitpicked the worse options.
    My rogue at level 15 will have climb speed and swim speed equal to his base land speed, that's nothing to scoff at from Athletics and two skill feats, his stealth and exploration will benefit greatly.

    With medicine he can cure a dozen people of permanent status like Blindness with a basic med-kit. Or literally fall from orbit and suffer no damage with just Acrobatics.

    From class feats, he can hide in plain sight, or dispel magic with his strikes. At 18th level a rogue can choose to be able to sneak through a hole the size of a coin. If that's not legendary enough, it could be that people are used to the bloat and expect mythic level shenanigans perhaps?
    Part of my issue with all these abilities are that they are feats and that, even then, you've actually oversold them. You can cure a dozen people of Blindness. (teacher voice)Operative word being can.(/teacher voice) You have to beat the effect's DC and also spend an hour attempting it. And you only get one attempt per day per target.

    Even without spells, many of those effects are reproducible at far lower levels. For two class feats from Swashbuckler, you can get Climb and Swim speeds, +5ft of movement, +1 to multiple skills, 2d6 precision damage, +20ft to Jump distance, and a -10 to all Jump DCs.
    Again, at fourth level.

    If that's not proof positive that Paizo has issues, I dunno what is.

    Additionally, I really take issue with the naming scheme of "Legendary". I'm literally Legendary at Medicine but can't do anything with that besides a slightly higher bonus without dedicating another feat to it. Someone tried to explain to me that being Legendary at a skill doesn't mean you're Legendary at all parts of the skill. Being a Legendary Thief doesn't mean you're Legendary at Pickpocketing. You need the feat for that. Which is just...weird to me.

    Which really sums up how I feel about PF2. Why is it so needlessly fiddly? Why are there so many complex moving half-parts? Why is every cog the size of a pin needle? It's a wholly unapproachable system to just about any newcomer to TTRPGs and confusing to parse even for us long-time players. Why does it exist? Why does it gate off so many things? Why did it release a boatload of cross-class Dedication Feats so strictly tied to Golarion lore and mechanically awful?

    Why?
    Currently Playing:
    -

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    As near as I can tell, the whole theory that "they did it for PFS" (or "they did it for the APs") is just internet speculation and not based on anything Paizo has said.
    Well, I mean, it's hardly unfounded speculation. You could see how having a very narrow band of expected capabilities would make PFS and APs much easier to design and run.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Well, I mean, it's hardly unfounded speculation. You could see how having a very narrow band of expected capabilities would make PFS and APs much easier to design and run.
    I have seen zero evidence that there have ever been problems designing and/or running PFS and APs.
    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!

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I have seen zero evidence that there have ever been problems designing and/or running PFS and APs.
    Just because there haven't been problems, doesn't mean they can't try and make it more streamlined?
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    For some reason, Paizo is convinced that their Frankenstein flesh golem of a setting that is Golarion is an active selling point and people actually care about it.

    Also, I'm reminded of a Tweet someone from Paizo (I think JJ) let off a couple of months ago; can't find it anymore but it was something to the extent of "I don't get why people are giving us flak for PF2, I mean what do they expect, that we go back to PF1? Not happening."

    As for why PF2 even exists and what its design goals are -- hard to tell, since Paizo flat out refused to disclose them. I can see why they needed a fresh start because the PF Bloat has become immense, and is now at a point that is probably worse than 3.5's at the end of its production cycle. I had hoped for a PF2 that would be basically a de-bloated PF1, so why did they produce something so very different?
    I can imagine two theories, not mutually exclusive:

    Concerning PFS, and AP design in general, I think PF2 does make some sense: it is extremely predictable. With PF1, an adventure author has no way of knowing in advance whether a 12th-level character will walk around on his little stubby dwarven legs and do 1d12+3 damage per round at +22 attack bonus with a crossbow, or fly and teleport and dish out >200DPR with attack bonuses >+30. With PF2, they know exactly what capabilities any character will have at any given level. So as adventure designer you know what you can throw at players and how hard it will be for them to overcome these challenges.

    Secondly, it might appeal to players who enjoy 5E's low power level and "bounded accuracy" randomness (i.e. a die roll will always mater), but prefer precise rules for every kind of situation rather than 5E's fuzzy "rulings not rules" approach.

    Of course, you can't have it all: predictability and meaningful customization are by necessity mutually exclusive. So as they advertise offering plenty of customization, while determined to keep the results predictable, it necessarily means that these choices are, at the end of the day, meaningless.
    Might I add that at this point, the entire hyperbolic nomenclature with "Legendary" and "Incredible" and "supreme" etc just feels like mockery.
    Let me give you a brief rundown of an average Post-3E Era fight: You attack an enemy and start kicking his shins. He then starts kicking your shins, then you take it in turns kicking until one of you falls over. It basically comes down to who started the battle with the biggest boot, and the only strategy involved is realizing when things have gone tits up and legging it.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    For some reason, Paizo is convinced that their Frankenstein flesh golem of a setting that is Golarion is an active selling point and people actually care about it.
    And they are entirely correct on this point. Paizo's strength has always been writing stories, not rules. Golarion is very popular, and Paizo adventures are generally miles ahead of what WOTC is publishing.

    As for why PF2 even exists and what its design goals are -- hard to tell, since Paizo flat out refused to disclose them.
    They posted their design goals about a year ago. We're well aware what they are. The question is whether the design meets these goals.

    With PF1, an adventure author has no way of knowing in advance whether a 12th-level character will walk around on his little stubby dwarven legs and do 1d12+3 damage per round at +22 attack bonus with a crossbow, or fly and teleport and dish out >200DPR with attack bonuses >+30.
    As I posted above, there is zero indication that this is or has ever been a problem (for actual players, as opposed to forum theory).
    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!

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    First off, thanks for the link, I wasn't aware that they actually did publish this. During playtest last summer, they actively refused to, and then I stopped caring.
    That said, well, half of what they list is rather wishy-washy and has little if anything to do with game design. As for the other half, that can be discussed.

    Secondly, concerning Golarion, I must only know a different kind of players. Only one of them enjoys delving deep into the fluff, the others simply don't care or actively dislike Golarion. Personally, I think some elements of the world are fine, but on the whole Golarion is not a setting, it's a conglomeration of about one or two dozen settings. They work well when used as intended: isolated from each other. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. That makes it difficult to argue that the setting matters at all.
    Last edited by Firechanter; 2019-12-04 at 04:54 AM.
    Let me give you a brief rundown of an average Post-3E Era fight: You attack an enemy and start kicking his shins. He then starts kicking your shins, then you take it in turns kicking until one of you falls over. It basically comes down to who started the battle with the biggest boot, and the only strategy involved is realizing when things have gone tits up and legging it.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    If PF1 was based on 3.5e, PF2 seems like it's based more on 4e. Aesthetically, its classes are presented almost the exact same way, with pages and pages of class-specific powers sorted by level and everyone using the same basic progression for everything. They cribbed the feat-based multiclassing system and the scaling, proficiency-based skill system from 4e. And everything has tags, and rules are generally tight and unambiguous, etc.

    I've only ever built one PF2 character, but honestly, it felt a lot like I was making a 4e character, except instead of choosing from different varieties of cool and impactful combat powers each level, I was choosing from different varieties of marginal numerical bonuses. To put it another way, in 3.5e terms, PF2 is the fighter to 4e's warblade.
    It does rather look like they took some 4E design elements, but the wrong ones. And focused on the form rather than the function. So they use 4E-style formatting and language for abilities that firmly avoid 4E's actual selling points, such as cool and impactful martial powers or per-encounter abilities in general. They even made barbarian rage and monk's stunning fist into at-will randomized abilities. And, of course, everything is feats.

    This is despite having Path of War and Spheres of Might to draw on - or even their own stamina points. Maybe their customer data indicated most players don't want anything of the sort. Which wouldn't surprise me, particularly given 5E's success. Heavily downplaying resources other than per-rest ones might be an attempt to distance PF2E from 5E, I suppose.

    I would experience a profound sense of schadenfreude if Paizo were to crash and burn over this, but I likewise don't think they will. Their first attempt at making their own mechanics instead of cribbing someone else's popular ones isn't very inspiring, though.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-12-04 at 06:46 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Albions_Angel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South West UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    I do wonder if we are all expecting the wrong thing from PF2 as PF1 and 3.5e players. Thats not so say I think PF2 gets it right, I think it might be more miss than hit this time. But...

    Ok, so lets set some things out.

    3.5e and other d20 products are... complicated. Lets not drag up the complex/complicated argument, lets just say theres a lot of rules, and a lot of maths, and that can be intimidating for new groups. Sure, there are balance issues but at most tables, they dont matter. Most tables wont have the wizard taking all the right spells, or even good spells.

    4e is also complicated, but in a different way. Its a different kind of roleplaying game. I dont know a whole heap about it, only that 3.5e players tend to dislike it.

    Then there is 5e. 5e is 3.5e and 2e and bits of 4e, but really, really easy to access. Its CRAZY successful. It has done more to pull in NEW players than any other edition. Period. Its shallow but thats its strength. I hate it, but millions of others LOVE it for that exact reason.

    Now lets take a sample group, that I think is fairly representative of PF2s target audience.

    My girlfriends gaming group started with 4th. They liked it but found it clunky. When 5e came out, they took to it like a duck to water. They have played nothing else since its release. And you know what, they are starting to get bored. Even with UA, they have just about covered every possible combination, and are growing frustrated with certain aspects. But my attempts to get them into 3.5e or PF1 have fallen flat. There is just too much there. Too much to learn all at once, when I am the only one that knows it in a group of 8.

    But the two main DMs in that group have been reading PF2. And they like it. A lot. Its got the ease of 5e, with more options to play with, and elements of 4e that they liked. There are obvious paths for feat chains, but the ability to break out of them if you need, something you cant do with 5e (archetypes lock you in HARD). Multiclassing is easier. You can focus on becoming a better fighter OR a better Orc, or BOTH. And they dont have to trudge through hundreds of spat books to do it.

    Now, I think when they try it, it will become obvious that its not all it says it is, but thats actually not the point. Its the RIGHT DIRECTION for them. I think this will backfire for the devs, but its literally what a lot of 5e players are looking for, now they have cut their teeth on the "easy mode".

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    What do you mean by "randomized" in terms of class abilities? Rage gives some piddly fixed bonuses (and a penalty).
    "+2 damage, -1 AC" certainly doesn't feel like "frothing at the mouth, unstoppable berserker juggernaut" to me, anyway.
    Let me give you a brief rundown of an average Post-3E Era fight: You attack an enemy and start kicking his shins. He then starts kicking your shins, then you take it in turns kicking until one of you falls over. It basically comes down to who started the battle with the biggest boot, and the only strategy involved is realizing when things have gone tits up and legging it.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    What do you mean by "randomized" in terms of class abilities? Rage gives some piddly fixed bonuses (and a penalty).
    "+2 damage, -1 AC" certainly doesn't feel like "frothing at the mouth, unstoppable berserker juggernaut" to me, anyway.
    Hm, it seems I was working off an older version of the ability from the playtest. They've simplified it a lot since then. But my point is that even the iconic and traditional "impressive but limited" non-spell abilities were reworked into something you can do at will. With effects scaled down appropriately.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-12-04 at 06:57 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    But my point is that even the iconic and traditional "impressive but limited" non-spell abilities were reworked into something you can do at will. With effects scaled down appropriately.
    It's not really that they increased the frequency and decreased the potency.

    Rage in P1 was already effectively unlimited, because the limit is so high that in practice you'll never run out (except at level 1 maybe). So it didn't need the nerf it got (from +2 hit and damage in P1, to +0 to hit / +2 to damage in P2).

    Monk stunning fist in P1 has a daily limit, but in P2 it is instead limited to once per round and cannot be used in conjunction with other effects (like Power Attack). That's a lateral move, not a real increase. So this, too, didn't need the nerf it got (in P1 you lose a turn, drop your weapon, and take a defense penalty; in P2 you lose one action with no further drawbacks).

    So yeah, both are weaker, and I don't see a good reason for that. It's not like those abilities were overpowered in P1.
    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!

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GrayDeath's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Heart of Europe
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post

    They posted their design goals about a year ago. We're well aware what they are. The question is whether the design meets these goals.
    Wasnt aware they finally did that, but, well. Except for point 4 (which they did hit spot on, if not in a way I personally like) and point 5 which, if one is open to fiddly semimodular games instead of something like say Fate, or SW or whatever, they kinda hit, their points are a lot of hot air (or Politician talk if you prefer).
    Writing little, saying nothing of factual value.


    Sigh....
    A neutron walks into a bar and says, “How much for a beer?” The bartender says, “For you? No charge.”


    Later: An atom walks into a bar an asks the bartender “Have you seen an electron? I left it in here last night.” The bartender says, “Are you sure?” The atom says, “I’m positive.”

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    It's not really that they increased the frequency and decreased the potency.

    Rage in P1 was already effectively unlimited, because the limit is so high that in practice you'll never run out (except at level 1 maybe). So it didn't need the nerf it got (from +2 hit and damage in P1, to +0 to hit / +2 to damage in P2).

    Monk stunning fist in P1 has a daily limit, but in P2 it is instead limited to once per round and cannot be used in conjunction with other effects (like Power Attack). That's a lateral move, not a real increase. So this, too, didn't need the nerf it got (in P1 you lose a turn, drop your weapon, and take a defense penalty; in P2 you lose one action with no further drawbacks).

    So yeah, both are weaker, and I don't see a good reason for that. It's not like those abilities were overpowered in P1.
    Stunning fist is also an incapacitation effect, making it that much harder to land on enemies of a higher level than yours. So yes, it's hard to argue with that.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Albions_Angel View Post
    I do wonder if we are all expecting the wrong thing from PF2 as PF1 and 3.5e players. Thats not so say I think PF2 gets it right, I think it might be more miss than hit this time. But...

    Ok, so lets set some things out.

    3.5e and other d20 products are... complicated. Lets not drag up the complex/complicated argument, lets just say theres a lot of rules, and a lot of maths, and that can be intimidating for new groups. Sure, there are balance issues but at most tables, they dont matter. Most tables wont have the wizard taking all the right spells, or even good spells.

    4e is also complicated, but in a different way. Its a different kind of roleplaying game. I dont know a whole heap about it, only that 3.5e players tend to dislike it.

    Then there is 5e. 5e is 3.5e and 2e and bits of 4e, but really, really easy to access. Its CRAZY successful. It has done more to pull in NEW players than any other edition. Period. Its shallow but thats its strength. I hate it, but millions of others LOVE it for that exact reason.

    Now lets take a sample group, that I think is fairly representative of PF2s target audience.

    My girlfriends gaming group started with 4th. They liked it but found it clunky. When 5e came out, they took to it like a duck to water. They have played nothing else since its release. And you know what, they are starting to get bored. Even with UA, they have just about covered every possible combination, and are growing frustrated with certain aspects. But my attempts to get them into 3.5e or PF1 have fallen flat. There is just too much there. Too much to learn all at once, when I am the only one that knows it in a group of 8.

    But the two main DMs in that group have been reading PF2. And they like it. A lot. Its got the ease of 5e, with more options to play with, and elements of 4e that they liked. There are obvious paths for feat chains, but the ability to break out of them if you need, something you cant do with 5e (archetypes lock you in HARD). Multiclassing is easier. You can focus on becoming a better fighter OR a better Orc, or BOTH. And they dont have to trudge through hundreds of spat books to do it.

    Now, I think when they try it, it will become obvious that its not all it says it is, but thats actually not the point. Its the RIGHT DIRECTION for them. I think this will backfire for the devs, but its literally what a lot of 5e players are looking for, now they have cut their teeth on the "easy mode".
    I wonder if the popularity of 5th is really because of it's simplicity, or simply because of the growing streaming culture that let people actually watch a gaming session and see how fun it actually is? Not to mention the much bigger effort that went into marketing for 5e compared to previous editions. I wonder if 3.5 had been released during the same time, with the same marketing behind it, whether it might also have been just as popular?

    As an aside, I don't think 5e's "simplicity" is really such a huge part of it's success, and really, is it THAT simple as people make it out to be? And is 3.5 really THAT complicated? Or does it merely have so much source material that people FEEL like it's more complicated than it really is? I've had this discussion on a few occasions with my friends, and I've actually come to the realization that 3.5 isn't actually that complicated if you don't want it to be. The base mechanics are all rather straightforward, and really, almost identical to 5e in many ways, the only thing is that there's more numbers to keep track of, you have BAB, base saves, and skill ranks, instead of one universal proficiency modifier, but those only really come into question at level up, and the rest of the time, it's all just neatly on your character sheet.

    But the difference is that 3.5 CAN be complicated, and I've definitely seen a culture that ENCOURAGES making complicated characters, and trying to eek out every little bonus, and I think that has always been 3.5's appeal. Not that it is complicated, but rather that it's as complicated that as you want it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayDeath View Post
    Wasnt aware they finally did that, but, well. Except for point 4 (which they did hit spot on, if not in a way I personally like) and point 5 which, if one is open to fiddly semimodular games instead of something like say Fate, or SW or whatever, they kinda hit, their points are a lot of hot air (or Politician talk if you prefer).
    Writing little, saying nothing of factual value.


    Sigh....
    It's almost like... they didn't actually state their true design goals? Hmm, wonder why that might be? Surely they didn't do it to have something to point to for the people who were getting angry about them not revealing their design goals, right?
    Last edited by Crake; 2019-12-04 at 01:58 PM.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    For some reason, Paizo is convinced that their Frankenstein flesh golem of a setting that is Golarion is an active selling point and people actually care about it.
    I assure you, a great many people do care about Golarion. Firechanter might not, but that's not a viable data point to make setting decisions around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    They work well when used as intended: isolated from each other. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. That makes it difficult to argue that the setting matters at all.
    And this is straight-up false; the interplay between nations, powers, and of course divinities is a big part of what makes Golarion appealing. It's a setting that can accommodate intersectional adventurers just as readily as self-contained ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Heavily downplaying resources other than per-rest ones might be an attempt to distance PF2E from 5E, I suppose.
    Uh... wouldn't that move them closer to 5e? Everything there is "per-rest."

    Quote Originally Posted by Albions_Angel View Post
    Now, I think when they try it, it will become obvious that its not all it says it is, but thats actually not the point. Its the RIGHT DIRECTION for them. I think this will backfire for the devs, but its literally what a lot of 5e players are looking for, now they have cut their teeth on the "easy mode".
    I think P1 has enough patches, fixes and solid content that P2 could just be a streamlined version of that with the chaff cut out. Take a bunch of the clarifications they've provided in FAQ and books like Ultimate Intrigue/Campaign and make them baseline, along with a bunch of the stuff from Unchained. Design a great experience from levels 1-15 and then make everything past that be a glorious, partially-balanced mess the way it is now. Embrace being the rules-heavy, high-magic, yet still accessible and open-source Android alternative to 5th edition's iOS.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I wonder if the popularity of 5th is really because of it's simplicity, or simply because of the growing streaming culture that let people actually watch a gaming session and see how fun it actually is? Not to mention the much bigger effort that went into marketing for 5e compared to previous editions. I wonder if 3.5 had been released during the same time, with the same marketing behind it, whether it might also have been just as popular?

    As an aside, I don't think 5e's "simplicity" is really such a huge part of it's success, and really, is it THAT simple as people make it out to be? And is 3.5 really THAT complicated? Or does it merely have so much source material that people FEEL like it's more complicated than it really is? I've had this discussion on a few occasions with my friends, and I've actually come to the realization that 3.5 isn't actually that complicated if you don't want it to be. The base mechanics are all rather straightforward, and really, almost identical to 5e in many ways, the only thing is that there's more numbers to keep track of, you have BAB, base saves, and skill ranks, instead of one universal proficiency modifier, but those only really come into question at level up, and the rest of the time, it's all just neatly on your character sheet.

    But the difference is that 3.5 CAN be complicated, and I've definitely seen a culture that ENCOURAGES making complicated characters, and trying to eek out every little bonus, and I think that has always been 3.5's appeal. Not that it is complicated, but rather that it's as complicated that as you want it to be.
    A lot of it is obviously marketing, but that has always been the case for D&D. And you've actually hit the nail on the head here - 5E isn't just simpler but also appearing simpler. It cuts away a lot of the illusion of complexity 3.5/Pathfinder are wrapped up in and pares things down to basic elements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Uh... wouldn't that move them closer to 5e? Everything there is "per-rest."
    Yes, short rests or long rests. Even with short rests being extended to an hour when compared to 4E's five minute ones, they're still a distinct pacing method. PF2E, as far as I can tell, seems to have either daily or at-will abilities, with some "once per every X minutes" in-between. Those are effectively per-encounter ones, I suppose.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-12-04 at 02:20 PM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    I assure you, a great many people do care about Golarion. Firechanter might not, but that's not a viable data point to make setting decisions around.
    As I wrote further down, my sample is "pretty much everyone I ever played or talked about PF with IRL". Most of these people don't care about Golarion at all, and the small remainder who likes to delve into it would be just as happy with any other fleshed-out setting you show them. None of them said anything like "oh, please let's play in Golarion, I like the setting so much", ever.

    And this is straight-up false; the interplay between nations, powers, and of course divinities is a big part of what makes Golarion appealing. It's a setting that can accommodate intersectional adventurers just as readily as self-contained ones.
    How does that happen? The individual APs focus on one setting. The events may change the setting significantly. (Rulers changing, kingdoms being created or erased, etc.) But the APs do not interact with each other. How one AP ended bears no impact on what happens in the next one, at least for the APs I know (which is, admittedly, less than half so feel free to enlighten me).
    Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a bad thing. I am not a fan of metaplot-heavy settings that expect you to keep book whether you're currently writing August 3417 or January 3418. I know settings like that and find them rather terrible. But it's not like this is par of the course everywhere.
    Let me give you a brief rundown of an average Post-3E Era fight: You attack an enemy and start kicking his shins. He then starts kicking your shins, then you take it in turns kicking until one of you falls over. It basically comes down to who started the battle with the biggest boot, and the only strategy involved is realizing when things have gone tits up and legging it.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2018

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Regarding PF2's failure or otherwise, while general comparable sales figures are hard to come by it's not hard to check on Amazon and see a book's sales rank, then convert that to an approximate current (not total) figure for sales via that channel. By that measure D&D 5e is a monster which has near 20 times PF2's current sales, though a couple months ago it was only 10:1 in 5e's favor. Savage Worlds has about half PF2's current sales on Amazon, Starfinder about a third. Everything else I could think of was lower down the sales ranks.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    As I wrote further down, my sample is "pretty much everyone I ever played or talked about PF with IRL". Most of these people don't care about Golarion at all, and the small remainder who likes to delve into it would be just as happy with any other fleshed-out setting you show them. None of them said anything like "oh, please let's play in Golarion, I like the setting so much", ever.
    The plural of anecdote is not data; "Firechanter and his IRL friends" is not a meaningful data point for setting decisions either, I'm thankful sorry to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    But the APs do not interact with each other.
    In PFS they absolutely do. There is continuity and storylines that roll from one "season" of APs to the next, and the world evolves as a result. This is no different than how other RPGA sanctioned play like Living Greyhawk and Mark of Heroes worked.

    If you're just talking about home games - well yeah, of course changing the world is up to each individual GM in that case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    They posted their design goals about a year ago. We're well aware what they are. The question is whether the design meets these goals.
    Agreed, they did give a clear (if broad) sense of what they were after. With that said, the issues I have with their list:

    Spoiler
    Show
    1) is a fine goal. I think they missed a big opportunity for accessibility in the form of digital solo play. However simpler P2 might be (I personally don't think it is at all, but I'm biased since I didn't have a lot to learn to pick up P1) one thing that's certain is that it's more complicated than 5e.

    2) is far too broad to be a design goal. You can tell Golarion stories using any system that can do swords and magic, from FATE to GURPS, it tells us absolutely nothing about the system itself.

    3) is by far the best selling point for a Pathfinder 2 (for me at least), but they didn't have to scrap PF1 to do it. I would have much preferred a 1.5 that uses Unchained mechanics like Stamina, Simplified Spellcasting and Revised Crafting.

    4) all you need for this one is a higher opportunity cost to spellcasting, which Simplified Spellcasting would have done. 5e pulled this off extremely well - not only are spell slots and caster powers like wildshape much more limited (but easier to regain during the day), but the Concentration mechanic makes piling on a bunch of buffs to take martial jobs impossible.

    5) Like #2, this is not a design goal - simply having a new edition number will encourage new people to try it. At best, it seems to be implying perhaps that PF1 wasn't welcoming to all?


    Quote Originally Posted by Alexvrahr View Post
    Regarding PF2's failure or otherwise, while general comparable sales figures are hard to come by it's not hard to check on Amazon and see a book's sales rank, then convert that to an approximate current (not total) figure for sales via that channel. By that measure D&D 5e is a monster which has near 20 times PF2's current sales, though a couple months ago it was only 10:1 in 5e's favor. Savage Worlds has about half PF2's current sales on Amazon, Starfinder about a third. Everything else I could think of was lower down the sales ranks.
    My usual source is ICv2, but I didn't yet find the post-PF2-launch numbers. Pre-launch, the top two were 5e and Starfinder, while P1 had slipped to 5th place behind Star Wars and... something.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    The thing about the goals is they are so broad and subjective, it’s hard to really glean anything useful from them. There’s nothing in there that gives a sense of what the devs thought wasn’t working in P1 that should be improved, only some general areas of strength to build on and areas where there’s always room to improve. Now, maybe one lesson they took from the 4e development process was not to be too open about what you feel doesn’t work, since it’s going to end up being someone’s favorite thing you’ve just trashed, but this approach is not without its own troubles.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    This is obviously an emotional response, but I guess I just feel like saying "OK, look, I really enjoy playing 3.X. How many different companies do I need to explain that to?"

    I wonder if they could have just upped the whole Unchained thing into a 3.9ish ruleset.

    Put me down as someone who does care about Golarion and Adventure Paths. It felt zoney at first, but has really evolved into one of my favorite worlds. That said, Midwives to Death did have some issues.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Sir Chuckles's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What's pathfinder 2e like?

    On PF2-5e comparisons:

    Although the clearly did make a push to appeal to 5e players, people coming in from 5e have been a large portion of the vocal confusing on the system, at least in other discussion areas. Partly because PF2 does not have bounded accuracy by 5e's meaning of it, where the same goblin from 10 levels ago can still hit and injure you, though is still less of a threat due to new abilities you have. PF2's "bounded accuracy" maintains 3.PF's rising numbers, as evidenced by the way proficiency add your level, but instead creates flat under-the-chassis math. Yes, you have +10 more to hit, but all the enemies also have at least the same to AC.

    I've seen some people saying that ease-of-access is comparable, but it's largely not. PF2 is clunky as heck in play. Just as, if not more, clunky than 3.PF. Although the action system should have streamlined things, the things that Paizo did with it, such as the constantly variable action abilities and frequent use of Reactions for key abilities, it tends to clog up a player's turn. Building a character is a bit a of a nightmare even in core only. The way every feat is a line means you're automatically forced to plan like you're playing Path of Exile means choices you make at creation will affect every single choice down the line. Cayden Cailen save you if you open up the dozens of "Prestige Dedications" or your GM enforces feat rarity.
    Currently Playing:
    -

Posting Permissions

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