Halfway to Doomsday

Playtest questions only investigate wether the game is running according to plans

They don't ask wether the rules are fun or enjoyable or feel easy to use or well designed, or any other important question...

Have you even done any of the surveys dude? Like half the questions are about "how difficult was x" or "how easy was it to do x". The other half are about whether you prefer the new system compared to PF1e or if you would rather something different. Which is in fact asking whether it's " fun or enjoyable or feel easy to use or well designed".

magnuskn wrote:

Ephialtes wrote:

You can still assume that those very vocally blaming Paizo to not listen to them how bad PF2 is will probably not upvote a post by a dev. It is quite a fair assumption that those upvotes don't come from that alu hat wearing crowd cursing PF2 at every turn because it is not exactly PF1.

I'd say that is a very individual and wrong assumption. I regularly upvote if I think the post contributes positively to the discussion. A dev weighing in, even if s/he says something I disagree with, counts about 90% as something like that. Hell, I even give Gorbacz the occasional upvote, because he says something which contributes positively to a discussion.

This! I regularly upvote developer posts.

Why is everyone calling it upvotes? People use it for different things. Some people use it as an upvote, some people (like me) use it more to bookmark specific posts because the search option is usually more trouble than its worth when I'm trying to find an unofficial FAQ answer that I half-remember from 7 months ago.

I totally disagree, what you posted doesn't even really make sense (maybe it is unfamiliarity with the system).

I was referring to the effects of bounded accuracy, which makes the difference between high level and low level characters in a confrontation significantly lower, as others have suggested.

Level matters in 5E, sure, but the difference between 5th and 12th level is much smaller than in PF1, and PF2 is much closer to PF1 in this regard than 5E is.

Levels matter in 5th Ed, innate spellcasting is a thing, and the core chassis, being much more like 3rd Ed/PF1, supports Golarion far more than the Playtest rules, so far.

Innate spellcasting is a thing, but not one most demons or devils possess a lot of, nor do any dragons whatsoever. The same is true of many other monsters, making creating monsters that actually operate by the assumptions of Golarion an unreasonably huge GM project.

You can do spot-fixes on individual monsters, I suppose, but having to do that remains an issue with using 5E to represent Golarion.

Also, magic/spells work much more like in PF1, so, Golarion might require some apocalyptic explanation of why the multiverse has suddenly changed so drastically.

I disagree. Honestly, all that's changed in terms of spells conceptually are a few durations and their odds of success versus on-level opposition. Nothing keeps a 20th level Wizard from nuking cities and the like, or mind controlling people more or less at will...and those kinds of effects are what the setting (as opposed to the play experience) requires of magic.

The mechanical changes have been large, but what they do in-world hasn't shifted all that much.

Deadmanwalking is far more familiar with both PF1 and 5E than me or you. He's also capable of disagreeing with people without insinuating their lack of knowledge or comprehension.

For the record, I actually wouldn't dream of claiming to know more about 5E than most people who've played it (PF1 is another matter...I know a lot about PF1). I've read the books for 5E (including the Monster Manual), and have played in a game of it that lasted a couple of months or so (eventually called on account of terrible DM), and am a pretty good rules analyst, but I'm the usual GM for my group and I can't bring myself to GM 5E due to monster design issues (there's a distinct lack of utility powers to reflect their in-world role), so I haven't played it all that much.

I do know a lot about many games, but 5E is one of the ones I'm less in-depth on (now, if you wanna talk old school White Wolf games, my knowledge verges on encyclopedic...or did once, I'm rusty these days).

I do know enough to back up what I was saying (or I wouldn't have said it), but I'm pretty sure Vic knows more about 5E than I do. That said, I also rather suspect I know more about Golarion and its setting assumptions than he does, and I know enough about 5E to know in what ways it doesn't meet them.

Additionally, I suspect some of that exchange was just a difference in definitions rather than a rules disagreement of any sort.

Not at all, but I appreciate why you would say that (the attempts at gang culture around here is rather creepy). I like and respect DMW's posts and knowledge, but I do not agree that he is more "familiar" with PF1 and 5th Ed than I am (you may, of course, speak for yourself), or many others around here. He may have some different and interesting mathematical insights and what-have-you, but, so do a lot of people.

I think my knowledge of PF1 is above average, and my knowledge of Golarion is way above average (I really like Golarion)...but yeah, I'm not an all-knowing font of wisdom or anything.

P.S. I apologise to DMW for my exchange with G, nothing personal, as I said, I like your posts - critiques/analyses, etc, one of the best. No hard feelings.

Nah, it's cool. Just in my own right, I don't really feel the need for apologies from anyone, I think Gorbacz was reacting to what he perceived as a tonal issue more than anything (which I can understand, even if I wouldn't have done the same in this instance), and your posts are totally fine. I'm certainly not infallible or all-knowing, after all...

I'd be happier if everyone just took a step back and got along better of course, but that's completely unrelated to me being the topic of the argument.

Nah, it's cool. Just in my own right, I don't really feel the need for apologies from anyone, I think Gorbacz was reacting to what he perceived as a tonal issue more than anything (which I can understand, even if I wouldn't have done the same in this instance), and your posts are totally fine. I'm certainly not infallible or all-knowing, after all...

I'd be happier if everyone just took a step back and got along better of course, but that's completely unrelated to me being the topic of the argument.

Right on, unfortunately I disagree about the motive for reaction from G (not much faith these days!), but I definitely see some of what you are saying about Golarion, and while I still have my own views about the whole PF1/5th Ed/Playtest/Golarion deal, it's probably more simple than it seems. If we really talked about it, would hash out very quickly (where we are both coming from).

I will say, 5th Ed needs some rules-porting/house-ruling spanking to whip it into shape in some regards (like putting back more innate utility spellcasting for fiends and such). They neutered some monsters; the playtest versions of some were better.

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

Playtest questions only investigate wether the game is running according to plans

They don't ask wether the rules are fun or enjoyable or feel easy to use or well designed, or any other important question...

Have you even done any of the surveys dude? Like half the questions are about "how difficult was x" or "how easy was it to do x". The other half are about whether you prefer the new system compared to PF1e or if you would rather something different. Which is in fact asking whether it's " fun or enjoyable or feel easy to use or well designed".

For the record, I've done every survey up until now and I generally agree with Sephiroth's sentiment here. The surveys appear to be trying to capture *particular* things, which makes sense, but at the same time, if your issue is *not* with one of those things, then the surveys feel extremely dissatisfying. For example, resonance *as a concept* has never bothered me. The need to track resonance, slots, and attunement has. That's not asked about anywhere in the initial surveys, only how much resonance you used/if you ran out. This is just one example, there are many more.

The open ended surveys, obviously, have more freedom, but it's unclear if freeform responses there will be taken any more seriously than freeform responses here...

@DMW: I appreciate the clarification about system and world knowledge. I, as well, was not speaking out-of-hand. I've got a pretty deep knowledge of Pathfinder, having played roughly once or twice a week for the last 7 years (a mix of Society and Adventure Paths). While I'm reasonably new to 5e, I've played consistently for about a year now, so I have a decent knowledge base there.

All this being said, yeah, PF2e feels like a revolution, 5e feels like an evolution. That's probably why 5e feels closer to PF1e for me (traditional multiclassing, save-or-suck is still a thing, magic weapons/armor operate as they used to, hit rates > 50%, ...). Yes, there are areas of difference, and there's nothing wrong with building a new game with a different feel entirely, but it's entirely unclear to me if that was the intent.

Right on, unfortunately I disagree about the motive for reaction from G (not much faith these days!),

Fair enough. I admit I try and always assume the best of intentions where possible in internet conversations, due to how hard tone is to convey.

but I definitely see some of what you are saying about Golarion, and while I still have my own views about the whole PF1/5th Ed/Playtest/Golarion deal, it's probably more simple than it seems. If we really talked about it, would hash out very quickly (where we are both coming from).

Definitely. My point isn't really that PF2 is a superior system or anything (though I hope it will be superior for me by the time it's done), just that certain fundamental assumptions of it are a much better fit for Golarion than the fundamental assumptions of 5E.

I will say, 5th Ed needs some rules-porting/house-ruling spanking to whip it into shape in some regards (like putting back more innate utility spellcasting for fiends and such). They neutered some monsters; the playtest versions of some were better.

This is by far my biggest issue with 5E and why I can't run it. Few monsters have the abilities they actually need to interact with the world to create classic stories and tropes of the kind they are known for. They lack the mechanical tools to actually perform their story role outside combat.

@DMW: I appreciate the clarification about system and world knowledge. I, as well, was not speaking out-of-hand. I've got a pretty deep knowledge of Pathfinder, having played roughly once or twice a week for the last 7 years (a mix of Society and Adventure Paths). While I'm reasonably new to 5e, I've played consistently for about a year now, so I have a decent knowledge base there.

All this being said, yeah, PF2e feels like a revolution, 5e feels like an evolution. That's probably why 5e feels closer to PF1e for me (traditional multiclassing, save-or-suck is still a thing, magic weapons/armor operate as they used to, hit rates > 50%, ...). Yes, there are areas of difference, and there's nothing wrong with building a new game with a different feel entirely, but it's entirely unclear to me if that was the intent.

To clarify my point: That's all system stuff. It's relevant to the play experience, and certainly might make you prefer 5E to PF2 (it doesn't for me, but to each their own), but it has very little to do with the argument I was making when you get right down to it.

The argument I was making is that 5E doesn't do a very good job of reflecting the world of Golarion, and that PF2 does a far better one. Whether someone has Rogue 2/Fighter 3 or is a Fighter with Rogue Dedication matters a lot systemically, but isn't an in-world issue at all, while the degree of power a 5th level character has as compared to a 1st level one is an in-world issue in many ways.

And thus, for all its systemic changes, PF2 still looks like it's gonna come a lot closer to reflecting the world assumptions of Golarion than 5E can without really extensive house rules.

tivadar27 wrote:

@DMW: I appreciate the clarification about system and world knowledge. I, as well, was not speaking out-of-hand. I've got a pretty deep knowledge of Pathfinder, having played roughly once or twice a week for the last 7 years (a mix of Society and Adventure Paths). While I'm reasonably new to 5e, I've played consistently for about a year now, so I have a decent knowledge base there.

All this being said, yeah, PF2e feels like a revolution, 5e feels like an evolution. That's probably why 5e feels closer to PF1e for me (traditional multiclassing, save-or-suck is still a thing, magic weapons/armor operate as they used to, hit rates > 50%, ...). Yes, there are areas of difference, and there's nothing wrong with building a new game with a different feel entirely, but it's entirely unclear to me if that was the intent.

To clarify my point: That's all system stuff. It's relevant to the play experience, and certainly might make you prefer 5E to PF2 (it doesn't for me, but to each their own), but it has very little to do with the argument I was making when you get right down to it.

The argument I was making is that 5E doesn't do a very good job of reflecting the world of Golarion, and that PF2 does a far better one. Whether someone has Rogue 2/Fighter 3 or is a Fighter with Rogue Dedication matters a lot systemically, but isn't an in-world issue at all, while the degree of power a 5th level character has as compare3d to a 1st level one is an in-world issue in many ways.

And thus, for all its systemic changes, PF2 still looks like it's gonna come a lot closer to reflecting the world assumptions of Golarion than 5E can without really extensive house rules.

I think we disagree here. For example:

At least, this is how I view it. Changing the way that combat works and how characters fundamentally can be built, while they affect the system, also influences the population of the world and how the world "feels", so for me, those are very much world changes.

With respect to level mattering being your criteria, I'd argue it matters significantly more in 2e, and significantly less in 5e than in 1e... So, just moving in opposite directions, one doesn't feel particularly closer or further away to me. Strictly mathematically speaking, PF1's progression, on average, is 3/4ths level, 5e's is 1/5th level, 2e's is level+1/7 (approximately how often your skill ranks increase).

You go with your biggest customer base, and hope that the others come with you. Some will, some won't.

There's a maxim that 80% of the purchases of a business come from 20% of the customers; let’s call them Group A. The remaining 20% of the purchases of a business come from 80% of the customers; let’s call them Group B.

Applying that to Paizo, that probably means that the AP subscribers, whether or not they occasionally buy other Pathfinder books from Paizo or elsewhere, are their Group A. Obviously, the number of Group A people has shrunk over the last decade. Maybe they started with around 15,000-20,000 subscribers initially, and are now possibly at between 8,000-12,000 subscribers. Even if those numbers are wrong- and they probably are- the point is that Group A people have each spent thousands of dollars at Paizo, or proportionally, for those who became customers in the last few years. Some people from groups A and B will be regular PFS players, and some not. Group B might be the bigger customer base, but really, Group A is the most important sector to Paizo, IMO.

A decade ago, WotC did not cater to their Group A; they had a production-led product, ie. the game they wanted to sell, and made several other mis-steps. Naturally, WotC’s Group A declined, and Paizo gained from it when they launched the Pathfinder RPG.

These playtest documents were also production-led IMO, and while they may or may not be willing to listen and change a little or a lot, if 30%-80% of their current Group A is unhappy after next summer, we will see what happens then. Presumably, they will sell a lot of initial core rulebooks, monster books, new AP books, and so on in the short term, just as happened with initial 4e and Starfinder sales. (Although Starfinder is doing nicely enough for them that the game has a small staff.) Are Paizo also making mis-steps? Yes.

I think it would be good if Paizo could take more account of the Group A’s with their surveys, as long as it is verifiable, since anyone could lie and say how much they’ve spent, or might spend in the future with them.

I think we disagree here. For example:

* Changing how multiclassing works is a system change, changing that it's no longer possible to be a half-rogue/half-wizard is a world change.

I'd agree, if that were no longer possible...but it is. It looks different mechanically now, but you show me a Wizard/Rogue in PF1 built using the corebook and I'll bet I can make a character capable of most of the same stuff in PF2 (I'd say everything, but there are some spells still missing).

* Changing calculations to hit is a system change, changing it so that non-fighters can't get better than a 50% hit chance on enemies of their level is a world change (it changes how the game/world/combat feels).

Here I disagree. It certainly makes the game feel different, but it's not a meaningful change in outcomes, and thus not a world change.

* Changing stat allocation is a system change, changing it so that it's impossible to build an effective strength-based rogue is a world change.

Here again I'd agree, if it were true. I'm not actually convinced it is. Combat math is tight, but not so tight that starting with a 16 is the end of your career. I'd like it to be a tad less tight, but a Str-based Rogue is quite viable (at least post 1.3 errata, anyway).

At least, this is how I view it. Changing the way that combat works and how characters fundamentally can be built, while they affect the system, also influences the population of the world and how the world "feels", so for me, those are very much world changes.

I strongly disagree inasmuch as you need to effect outcomes to be world changes. Not having Wizard/Rogues or Str-based Rogues would indeed be world changes by my definitions (those characters existing is an outcome, after all) but the exact details of how a combat round go are not (though who wins is, at least generally speaking).

With respect to level mattering being your criteria, I'd argue it matters significantly more in 2e, and significantly less in 5e than in 1e... So, just moving in opposite directions, one doesn't feel particularly closer or further away to me. Strictly mathematically speaking, PF1's progression, on average, is 3/4ths level, 5e's is 1/5th level, 2e's is level+1/7 (approximately how often your skill ranks increase).

PF2 does indeed have level matter more in many ways...but not nearly to the degree that 5e has it matter less. Numbers go up by level quite a bit in PF1. 3/4 is only correct if you ignore all the ancillary bonuses.

In PF1, I can easily raise a particular bonus by 50 or more going from 1st to 20th (especially in skills), or not have them go up at all.

In PF2 it's more like 30 at a maximum, but standardized so everything goes up by at least 19.

In 5e, it goes up by between 0 and 6. Or thereabouts.

Now, there are occasional exceptions where the PF1 math is a tad closer to 5E, but they're very occasional rather than the norm.

@DeadManWalking: I can attest to trying to build a "combat cleric" and "combat sorcerer" as those are two builds I tried out in the playtest. They felt deeply dissatisfying, as I was double-penalized for not having a strength bonus and not having a (reasonable) opportunity to increase my weapon proficiencies. Against any sort of reasonable challenge, I was typically hitting on a 12-14 or higher, and criticalling only on a natural 20.

I think we just disagree here. I've only had experiences in one of these venues directly, so I won't claim to speak strongly on more than that. I don't know if you've tried out any of the builds I've described, but having run the numbers (and looking at the spreadsheet of to-hit chances), they do seem to be deeply dissatisfying.

The new critical system makes it almost a requirement for any combat type to have >50% chance to hit, as that also increases your chances to critically hit, which essentially makes your build "viable". I claim that these builds are all unviable because, unlike classes that can get master and legendary proficiencies in their weapons, they are at least 15% behind in their ability to hit things.

Yes, you can play them, but they're fundamentally "trap" builds, which is entirely what this system is looking to get away from.

PF2 does indeed have level matter more in many ways...but not nearly to the degree that 5e has it matter less.

This one rings false, to me, PF2 seems all about the Level.

@tivadar27: I've seen a combat Cleric work just fine, and a combat Sorcerer, I think, actually works better than in PF1 (at least beyond the very earliest levels), just because 1/2 BAB really sucks.

Both have issues (which I hope the playtest fixes) and really benefit from taking Fighter Dedication...but now we're back to mechanical differences rather than world ones. I mean, who cares if that's the Class Feat combative Clerics and Sorcerers need as long as there's a good build for them?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PF2 does indeed have level matter more in many ways...but not nearly to the degree that 5e has it matter less.

This one rings false, to me, PF2 seems all about the Level.

True, but in many ways so was PF1. I'm not arguing Level isn't verging on all-important in PF2, but it was almost as much so in PF1.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

PF2 does indeed have level matter more in many ways...but not nearly to the degree that 5e has it matter less.

This one rings false, to me, PF2 seems all about the Level.

True, but in many ways so was PF1. I'm not arguing Level isn't verging on all-important in PF2, but it was almost as much so in PF1.

But the nice thing about PF2, is how easy it is to omit or mess with the +Level deal, something that is trickier in PF1.

DMW:

Thanks for your reasoned posts.

Might have to do with people there posting under real names (mostly), since that usually means you moderate yourself far more ;-)

Oh, you sweet summer child. :-) If only.

For multi-classing, I'm not so sure that it does feel the same in PF2 as in PF1, at least as it currently stands. I've made a theurge-type character for part 4, and she feels more like a wizard with some kind of divine archetype than a wizard/cleric. PF2 multi-classing seems to model the concept of a character with a primary class and a smattering of a second class quite well, but I haven't been having much luck trying to get a more 50-50 split. (For cleric abilities, she just has a few divine spells, and...that's it.)

I'm glad for all the surveys, though. Update 1.3 was a positive one for me, so I'm hoping to see more things adjusted too.

Combat sorcerer is way better chassis this edition. Better "BAB," better melee powers, Magical Striker being a pretty big step up from arcane strike, single action True Strike. It is also way easier to gain weapon proficiency without sacrificing the stuff that makes you a better sorcerer.

The biggest limitation I can think of is just missing really good PF1 spells.

Speaking of XXI century, social media and diversification of communication channels, Jason teased update 1.4 due this Monday.

But the nice thing about PF2, is how easy it is to omit or mess with the +Level deal, something that is trickier in PF1.

Absolutely. I'm just noting why I feel the two editions are fairly close in terms of how much it matters.

DMW:

Thanks for your reasoned posts.

You're quite welcome. Always nice to feel appreciated. :)

For multi-classing, I'm not so sure that it does feel the same in PF2 as in PF1, at least as it currently stands. I've made a theurge-type character for part 4, and she feels more like a wizard with some kind of divine archetype than a wizard/cleric. PF2 multi-classing seems to model the concept of a character with a primary class and a smattering of a second class quite well, but I haven't been having much luck trying to get a more 50-50 split. (For cleric abilities, she just has a few divine spells, and...that's it.)

I actually agree that it feels different, but Mystic Theurge (which was a Prestige Class, not just some multiclassing) aside, I'm really pretty sure that anything you could do with PF1 multiclassing in the corebook, you can also do with the PF2 style (though, examining it, I'm inclined to think Divine Breadth is kinda underpowered, as are similar Feats for other Multiclass Archetypes). Which was my point in regards to world stuff still working.

Also, this problem is very specific to those trying to multiclass multiple spellcasting classes (which, frankly, given how much that sucked mechanically last edition without specific Prestige Classes, is not something I feel is a huge problem to work and feel different). Making something that feels like a blend of Rogue and Fighter or the like is quite a bit easier.

Gorbacz wrote:

Might have to do with people there posting under real names (mostly), since that usually means you moderate yourself far more ;-)

Oh, you sweet summer child. :-) If only.

For multi-classing, I'm not so sure that it does feel the same in PF2 as in PF1, at least as it currently stands. I've made a theurge-type character for part 4, and she feels more like a wizard with some kind of divine archetype than a wizard/cleric. PF2 multi-classing seems to model the concept of a character with a primary class and a smattering of a second class quite well, but I haven't been having much luck trying to get a more 50-50 split. (For cleric abilities, she just has a few divine spells, and...that's it.)

My Animal Druid with Rogue Dedication felt OK after getting Trapfinder and Sneak Attacker, but that did take too many levels in my opinion and I am not sure Sneak Attacker is really all that good. I felt Rogue-like, and the skill options were fun (once 1.3 came out and I ret-conned into that version), but the combat option from Rogue was pretty weak at the level it finally came online (I bounced back and forth between Rogue and Druid Feats). Of course, I still had all my Druid spells and 3 Druid feats, so definitely not 50/50. In some ways it is nice to not lose spell progression. In other ways, i wish i could trade a bit of spell progression in order to get some of the Archetype stuff faster.

I should note that I felt plenty powerful, although I did miss some of the better buffs from PF1. But I also did not gain the Rogue stuff as early as I would have liked.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

But the nice thing about PF2, is how easy it is to omit or mess with the +Level deal, something that is trickier in PF1.

Absolutely. I'm just noting why I feel the two editions are fairly close in terms of how much it matters.

This is where we disagree. I think Level has a much bigger emphasis in PF2, than in 5th Ed. Partly due to the 4-tiers of success system, and the threat range of monsters.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

But the nice thing about PF2, is how easy it is to omit or mess with the +Level deal, something that is trickier in PF1.

Absolutely. I'm just noting why I feel the two editions are fairly close in terms of how much it matters.

This is where we disagree. I think Level has a much bigger emphasis in PF2, than in 5th Ed. Partly due to the 4-tiers of success system, and the threat range of monsters.

I meant PF2 and PF1 when I said 'two editions'. I definitely agree it matters far less in 5E than in PF2, and think that's true if comparing 5E to PF1 as well.

IMO the part of the rules that makes many PF1 builds just not possible in PF2 is actually not ruleset but setting-based, namely the changes in authorized alignments for Clerics (several more restrictive and none more open) and, in a bit lesser way, the change in the kind of energy channeled.

Speaking of XXI century, social media and diversification of communication channels, Jason teased update 1.4 due this Monday.

"Heritages," eh? Looks very interesting. I know we already have the "heritage" trait, but perhaps they're breaking it out in some way?

Hopefully, we'll find out more on their Twitch broadcast tonight?

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

But the nice thing about PF2, is how easy it is to omit or mess with the +Level deal, something that is trickier in PF1.

Absolutely. I'm just noting why I feel the two editions are fairly close in terms of how much it matters.

This is where we disagree. I think Level has a much bigger emphasis in PF2, than in 5th Ed. Partly due to the 4-tiers of success system, and the threat range of monsters.

I meant PF2 and PF1 when I said 'two editions'. I definitely agree it matters far less in 5E than in PF2, and think that's true if comparing 5E to PF1 as well.

Well, now we are in total agreement; so, there we have it.

I actually agree that it feels different, but Mystic Theurge (which was a Prestige Class, not just some multiclassing) aside, I'm really pretty sure that anything you could do with PF1 multiclassing in the corebook, you can also do with the PF2 style (though, examining it, I'm inclined to think Divine Breadth is kinda underpowered, as are similar Feats for other Multiclass Archetypes). Which was my point in regards to world stuff still working.

Also, this problem is very specific to those trying to multiclass multiple spellcasting classes (which, frankly, given how much that sucked mechanically last edition without specific Prestige Classes, is not something I feel is a huge problem to work and feel different). Making something that feels like a blend of Rogue and Fighter or the like is quite a bit easier.

Yeah, it was a prestige class, but I seem to remember at some point early on, the multi-classing of PF2 was framed as a way to be able to do multi-class casters without prestige classing. (I might well be mis-remembering that, though.) Maybe my feeling comes from the fact that you have to pick either casting or domains starting out, combined with the fact that you get fewer spell-slots overall.

I do agree that blending the more martial characters is easier, but I generally found that to be the case in PF1 as well.

See I strongly disagree that more/the same is possible with multiclassing. You get maybe 1/4th the power of your archetype. Yes, you can take feats at 1/2 level, and if that was true for class abilities, then I'd agree, but just a few examples:
* Regular rogue: 1d6 sneak attack at 1st, 4d6 at 17
Archetype rogue: 1d4 at 2nd level, 1d6 at 20
* Regular Fighter: Expert Prof to Start, crit specs at 3, Legendary at 13
Archetype fighter: Expert Prof at 12, no crit specs.
* Any Caster Regular: 3-4 spells per day per level, 9th level spells at 17
Archetype Caster: Spend 5 feats, get 2 spells per day and 8th.

Caster *sorta* measures up, but you're spending at least half your feats to get there, the rest are WAY off.

Yeah, it was a prestige class, but I seem to remember at some point early on, the multi-classing of PF2 was framed as a way to be able to do multi-class casters without prestige classing. (I might well be mis-remembering that, though.)

I seem to remember something like that, but I'm not even sure it was from anyone at Paizo.

Maybe my feeling comes from the fact that you have to pick either casting or domains starting out, combined with the fact that you get fewer spell-slots overall.

You do get more from your primary Class, but this is a slight issue, especially at lower levels.

I do agree that blending the more martial characters is easier, but I generally found that to be the case in PF1 as well.

Yep. Definitely easier.

See I strongly disagree that more/the same is possible with multiclassing. You get maybe 1/4th the power of your archetype. Yes, you can take feats at 1/2 level, and if that was true for class abilities, then I'd agree, but just a few examples:

Uh...I never said you could. I said that you could manage something with PF2 multiclassing to match any character made with PF1 multiclassing (of the corebook classes).

What their base Class is will vary significantly depending on what you want to do with them, however.

I know I am late to the party, but what I see in 2e so far is that it has a lot of illusion about it. The biggest illusion is that of progress in leveling. The +1 bonuses from level simply don't serve anything but to be a inflation of numbers, and even at times miscommunication what a character is capable of. The +10 in a skill/ac/attack from level is less important (and rightfully should be) than one's proficency.

In regards to skills, some skills can't even be fully utilized without being at least trained. However I can imagine players expecting having +10 means they have at least a chance at picking a lock, when in truth they can't even attempt the check.

Another illusion present in the game is the illusion of choice. Many of the features that used to be generally available are locked behind classes now and they aren't even things that were actually unique to those classes. Things like Double Slice, Power Attack, etc are feats that aren't explicitly Fighter or Ranger staples. They're things that arguably anyone with the right training should be able to accomplish (all martial classes).

What I find happens here is this leads to repetition amongst classes. Wizard and Sorcerer share a few class features with the same name, this should be a clear indicator that this are not traits of either class but traits that are inherent in arcane casters (or perhaps casters in general).

I think opening up class feats to some "universal" class feats would be really powerful and allow for a higher level of customization. Combat feats and spellcasting feats that any class that meats the pre-reqs can swap out at anytime without having to dedicate to a particular multiclass or archetype.

That all said, I really do enjoy the playtest so far and it has a lot going for it. It's fun and easy to play, it just has a lot going on and I think the attempts at lowering the barrier of entry and attempts to balance things have caused some decisions that make choices truly not feel like choices.

In 1e, there was so many options regardless of class. Two domains, 1 or even 2 bloodlines, general feats, traits to flesh out backgrounds, ability to outright take levels in other classes and high flexibility in skill specialization or generalization that could be finely tuned by the player.

Instead of skill feats that are largely lackluster, open up the choice for players to take more class feats, general feats or skill feats at their leisure. And pull some of the less archetypal ones out of the classes and make them generally available.

I know the goal is to release more content and start adding in more and more classes/archetypes/prestiges that can flesh out the different possibilities but as it stands when directly comparing 1e to this playtest there are substantially less choices you can make, even ignoring the fact that many of the 2e choices are "obvious" to the point that there isn't a terribly large amount of decision making.

Anyways, that's my overall feedback. I think it's important to note that Pathfinder is successful because its playerbase loves the sheer volume of content and customization available in the system. I know Paizo understands that, but don't let your judgement be clouded by the noble goal of simplifying this system. People have stuck with Pathfinder for two reasons, customization and content. 5e, while widely successful, fails in both of those respects compared to Pathfinder. So you really need to hold those to heart.

I actually agree that it feels different, but Mystic Theurge (which was a Prestige Class, not just some multiclassing) aside, I'm really pretty sure that anything you could do with PF1 multiclassing in the corebook, you can also do with the PF2 style (though, examining it, I'm inclined to think Divine Breadth is kinda underpowered, as are similar Feats for other Multiclass Archetypes). Which was my point in regards to world stuff still working.

Uh...I never said you could. I said that you could manage something with PF2 multiclassing to match any character made with PF1 multiclassing (of the corebook classes).

What their base Class is will vary significantly depending on what you want to do with them, however.

I don't understand what you're arguing here. My point is you can't make a 50/50 rogue/warrior. That's something I want to "match" from PF1. I've put out evidence for why it's impossible. Are you saying I can match it? If so, how do you mean?

I think M/C here feel more like 65/35 than 50/50. That being said, some of the stuff you can do with a Rogue M/C seems pretty cool to me.

My Elven Sorc Archer will probably go Rogue dedication now that races eventually give weapon expertise. That gives me skills, armor, surprise attack and I can then nab some mobility feats or maybe that sweet skill mastery feat.

I can see a Rogue nabbing Fighter dedication for double slice for sure. If hes a strength rogue, he might even make use of the medium armor prof.

By the time the rogue is 6, ranger looks like an awesome dedication as well. MAP with an agile weapon gets real low against a hunted target and that twin takedown if fairly awesome.

Plenty of other possibilities for roguishness. They have said more feats for every class will be published in the PF2 CRB. That means even more build possibilities.

All this talk of I cant do X or Y that I could do in PF1 seems off to me. Lots of build possibilities in PF2 and more to come.

All this talk of I cant do X or Y that I could do in PF1 seems off to me.

To the degree that PF2e is an "evolution" of PF1e as it claims, one should be able to more or less duplicate PF1e characters. The difficulty of recreating PF1e builds seems to be evidence of PF2e radical, non-evolutionary design relative to PF1e.

Its a different game with different mechanics. Assuming you could make the exact same builds is just off, sorry.

Its a different game with different mechanics. Assuming you could make the exact same builds is just off, sorry.

This is exactly my point, which I regard as a major problem and which seems to contradict Paizo's claim "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."

Data Lore wrote:

All this talk of I cant do X or Y that I could do in PF1 seems off to me.

To the degree that PF2e is an "evolution" of PF1e as it claims, one should be able to more or less duplicate PF1e characters. The difficulty of recreating PF1e builds seems to be evidence of PF2e radical, non-evolutionary design relative to PF1e.

Is anyone actually going to show a CRB build for this at any point, or are people going to continue to talk around it constantly?

Data Lore wrote:

Its a different game with different mechanics. Assuming you could make the exact same builds is just off, sorry.

This is exactly my point, which I regard as a major problem and which seems to contradict Paizo's claim "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."

It doesnt contradict it at all. Having been through several edition changes of plenty of other rpg properties, this is how it is.

Sorry, but this is nowhere near a major problem or a problem at all really.

pjrogers wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

All this talk of I cant do X or Y that I could do in PF1 seems off to me.

To the degree that PF2e is an "evolution" of PF1e as it claims, one should be able to more or less duplicate PF1e characters. The difficulty of recreating PF1e builds seems to be evidence of PF2e radical, non-evolutionary design relative to PF1e.

Is anyone actually going to show a CRB build for this at any point, or are people going to continue to talk around it constantly?

I did that back on September 3, What is The Goal of This Game comment #38. I attempted to recreate my CRB-only gnome ranger, Abu Gorgoni.

My conclusion was, "Worse at his background and better at generic fighting seems less customized."

pjrogers wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

Its a different game with different mechanics. Assuming you could make the exact same builds is just off, sorry.

This is exactly my point, which I regard as a major problem and which seems to contradict Paizo's claim "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."

It doesnt contradict it at all. Having been through several edition changes of plenty of other rpg properties, this is how it is.

Sorry, but this is nowhere near a major problem or a problem at all really.

D&D3.5e to PF1e was an evolutionary change. PF1e to PF2e does not appear to be an evolutionary change to me.

I would note that "problem" is a clearly subjective term. To me (and I suspect others), this is a "problem." To you, it is obviously not, and that's just groovy.

Now we are getting into semantics and interpretation. Thats just pointless back and forth in my book.

Data Lore wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

Its a different game with different mechanics. Assuming you could make the exact same builds is just off, sorry.

This is exactly my point, which I regard as a major problem and which seems to contradict Paizo's claim "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."

It doesnt contradict it at all. Having been through several edition changes of plenty of other rpg properties, this is how it is.

Sorry, but this is nowhere near a major problem or a problem at all really.

D&D3.5e to PF1e was an evolutionary change. PF1e to PF2e does not appear to be an evolutionary change to me.

I would note that "problem" is a clearly subjective term. To me (and I suspect others), this is a "problem." To you, it is obviously not, and that's just groovy.

I agree that so far, the playtest is a bit too revolutionary for me. Though, as a playtest, they are testing some more extreme concepts, so who knows what might be reined in or removed entirely. While 4th Ed was also revolutionary, some of it we knew was coming (from DDM, SWSE, ToB), and upon opening the book I did not feel quite as unfamiliar and alienated as I do with the playtest CRB. I would also like more Wow-factor, there is some spice missing, and a bit too micro (choices, options), would like more macro.

I know I am late to the party, but what I see in 2e so far is that it has a lot of illusion about it. The biggest illusion is that of progress in leveling. The +1 bonuses from level simply don't serve anything but to be a inflation of numbers, and even at times miscommunication what a character is capable of. The +10 in a skill/ac/attack from level is less important (and rightfully should be) than one's proficency.

In regards to skills, some skills can't even be fully utilized without being at least trained. However I can imagine players expecting having +10 means they have at least a chance at picking a lock, when in truth they can't even attempt the check.

Another illusion present in the game is the illusion of choice. Many of the features that used to be generally available are locked behind classes now and they aren't even things that were actually unique to those classes. Things like Double Slice, Power Attack, etc are feats that aren't explicitly Fighter or Ranger staples. They're things that arguably anyone with the right training should be able to accomplish (all martial classes).

Emn1ty provides an insightful point about illusion in the design. I had noticed some mechanics that don't live up to their hype, but I assumed they were simply design flaws. But what if the illusion is a deliberate piece of the design?

Roleplaying is a storytelling game, so it is part illusion by nature. The rules of Pathfinder, both editions, mimic real-life medieval combat with numbers and special actions. A good mimicry feels like the telling of a real event. A feeble mimicry feels like a label pasted to a game element. We see the cardboard backdrop and remember that the play is only a play. Illusion is best when it works. It is noticed when it doesn't work.

A fighter can be a knight, mercenary, caravan guard, a soldier, an elite swordmaster, a bandit, a pirate, or a gangster thug, all without changing the class. On the flip side of the coin, the difference between a fighter, a barbarian, and a ranger is a few mechanics that don't necessarily come up in a short encounter. Little elements of style create enough illusion to separate the roles.

The introduction to a fighter on page 86 says, "You combine your actions through clever combinations of opening moves, finishing strikes, and counterattacks whenever your foes are unwise enough to drop their guard." Those are the elements of style that define a fighter.

In constructing a 1st-level fighter, I have a choice of one of those, which will have to stand as a signature move that represents all the special strikes and moves I will learn later. The choices are:
1. Combat Grab - Nudging my opponent with a free hand during my attack leaves him flat-footed for a moment afterwards.
2. Double Slice - Attacking with two weapons reduces the penalty on the second attack.
3. Furious Focus - Missing on my second attack doesn't count as an attack.
4. Point-Blank Shot - My longbow no longer has its unrealistic penalty on close attacks.
5. Power Attack - I can combine two attacks into a single attack for almost double damage.
6. Reactive Shield - I can hastily use my shield when needed instead of in advance.
7. Sudden Charge - I can move farther if I both move and attack.

Compare this to the matching feats in Pathfinder 1st Edition.
1. Combat Grab is a new idea. Good work.
2. Double Slice is like Two-Weapon Fighting, which allowed two penalized attacks in the place of one attack.
3. Furious Focus turbocharged Power Attack in PF1.
4. Point-Blank Shot was mostly a feat tax in PF1.
5. Power Attack sacrificed accuracy to hit for much more damage.
6. Reactive Shield is new, because using shields was automatic.
7. Sudden Charge sort of restores the Charge special attack everyone had.

Point-Blank Shot is disappointing in both editions and Combat Grab is new, so Pathfinder 2nd Edition plays straight there. Reactive Shield and Sudden Charge are sleight of hand, offering back something that had been pickpocketed. The remaining three, Double Slice, Furious Focus, and Power Attack are promises of PF1 glory that do not live up to the promise.

When my PF1 character learned Two-Weapon Fighting, he made two attacks instead of one. That was a signature combat style (literally a combat style, since he was a ranger). A PF2 character with Double Slice makes the same number of attacks as a character without Double Slice. The difference is that he holds two weapons instead of one and has a lower multiattack penalty with that second weapon. That is a reasonable attempt to mimick the feel of Two-Weapon Fighting, but it lacks the impact of a signature combat style.

In the short run, naming a PF2 feat "Power Attack" gives the illusion that PF2 has Power Attack. But the PF1 Power Attack favors a character with a high attack bonus and the PF2 Power Attack favors a character with a low attack bonus. An illusion that puts a feat in the wrong role is not an illusion I want in the game.

This is a discussion of the goals of Pathfinder 2nd Edition. How do these illusions fit the goals?

1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.

The half-empty feats promised customization and failed to deliver.

2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.

The same names help the stories sound the same. The same names in the same roles would be better.

4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.

Goals 3 and 5 didn't relate to illusion. Goal 4 uses the antithesis to illusion, "meaningful." Meaningful contribution cannot be an illusion. It must be a solid game element or narrative element.

Cyouni wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

All this talk of I cant do X or Y that I could do in PF1 seems off to me.

To the degree that PF2e is an "evolution" of PF1e as it claims, one should be able to more or less duplicate PF1e characters. The difficulty of recreating PF1e builds seems to be evidence of PF2e radical, non-evolutionary design relative to PF1e.

Is anyone actually going to show a CRB build for this at any point, or are people going to continue to talk around it constantly?

I did that back on September 3, What is The Goal of This Game comment #38. I attempted to recreate my CRB-only gnome ranger, Abu Gorgoni.

My conclusion was, "Worse at his background and better at generic fighting seems less customized."

Looking at that, the biggest hangups seem to be ancestry (which is probably solved on Monday) and skill feats.

The main thing on the second being that Paizo should really be clarifying the exploration rules - the camels in Pale Mountain's Shadow are noted to improve speed by quite a bit, but if we follow the way most people are reading it (fatiguing after 10 minutes to use a mount, therefore requiring you to only be going at that speed half the time), it would actually decrease speed.

Side note: Charge is still 100% doable in the Playtest without Sudden Charge - move twice + attack is automatic, plus being able to move around corners - it's just people like having a thing with charge in the name.

Mathmuse wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Is anyone actually going to show a CRB build for this at any point, or are people going to continue to talk around it constantly?

I did that back on September 3, What is The Goal of This Game comment #38. I attempted to recreate my CRB-only gnome ranger, Abu Gorgoni.

My conclusion was, "Worse at his background and better at generic fighting seems less customized."

Looking at that, the biggest hangups seem to be ancestry (which is probably solved on Monday) and skill feats.

The main thing on the second being that Paizo should really be clarifying the exploration rules - the camels in Pale Mountain's Shadow are noted to improve speed by quite a bit, but if we follow the way most people are reading it (fatiguing after 10 minutes to use a mount, therefore requiring you to only be going at that speed half the time), it would actually decrease speed.

Most problems look like little flaws of the type that playtests identify and correct. The Exploration rules came up with a simple principle--two actions per turn can be tiring after 10 minutes--that did not work in every case. More playtesting will identify the exceptions so that they can be corrected.

The hangups with the ranger might be a difference in views. I like to play a ranger as a martial class that focuses on skills. Paizo's view seems based on Hunt Target.

Now we are getting into semantics and interpretation. Thats just pointless back and forth in my book.

On the back of the playtest rulebook, it says "JOIN THE EVOLUTION!," and the first line of the playtest webpage, reads "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!"

Paizo is claiming that PF2e is an evolutionary development, so I think that judging the accuracy of this claim is anything but "pointless."

Side note: Charge is still 100% doable in the Playtest without Sudden Charge - move twice + attack is automatic, plus being able to move around corners - it's just people like having a thing with charge in the name.

Charge is also 99% doable in Pathfinder 1st Edition without the special attack named Charge, since it is mostly a move and an attack with a few trivial bonuses and penalties thrown in. The practical use of Charge was the special version of that special attack that allowed a move and attack in a surprise round. PF2 lacks surprise rounds, so that does not matter.

The flavorful use of Charge was roleplaying a character charging with a loud battlecry. It was a nod to the illusion of roleplaying, that charging into battle ought to be more than a move and an attack. Pathfinder 2nd Edition needs a few more nods like that, that don't cost a feat.

Having to use up a feat for an action that is mostly flavor is wasteful of feats. Or it would be if it were at the expense of good feats. However, Pathfinder 2nd Edition reduced the power of feats, so its best feats are half flavor and half the power of a PF1 feat.

Cyouni wrote:

Side note: Charge is still 100% doable in the Playtest without Sudden Charge - move twice + attack is automatic, plus being able to move around corners - it's just people like having a thing with charge in the name.

Charge is also 99% doable in Pathfinder 1st Edition without the special attack named Charge, since it is mostly a move and an attack with a few trivial bonuses and penalties thrown in. The practical use of Charge was the special version of that special attack that allowed a move and attack in a surprise round.

The practical use of charge in PF1 is "that guy's 50 feet away and I only have a 30 foot move;" being able to move and attack in a surprise round was mostly icing on the cake. Given that you can do exactly that same thing - move 50 ft to someone and then attack them, and do it without having to worry about "charge lanes" - in the playtest, I think the new edition has it covered just fine.

Data Lore wrote:

Now we are getting into semantics and interpretation. Thats just pointless back and forth in my book.

On the back of the playtest rulebook, it says "JOIN THE EVOLUTION!," and the first line of the playtest webpage, reads "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!"

Paizo is claiming that PF2e is an evolutionary development, so I think that judging the accuracy of this claim is anything but "pointless."

The dictionary definition of evolution is, "a process of gradual development in a particular situation or thing over a period of time."

Releasing a new edition is not a gradual development. Responding to issues and changing rules during a playtest can be a gradual development. Welcome to the evolution: it's the playtest itself.

Data Lore wrote:

Now we are getting into semantics and interpretation. Thats just pointless back and forth in my book.

On the back of the playtest rulebook, it says "JOIN THE EVOLUTION!," and the first line of the playtest webpage, reads "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!"

Paizo is claiming that PF2e is an evolutionary development, so I think that judging the accuracy of this claim is anything but "pointless."

As a biologist, I am just interpreting this more as a punctuated equilibrium model of evolution :P

Most problems look like little flaws of the type that playtests identify and correct. The Exploration rules came up with a simple principle--two actions per turn can be tiring after 10 minutes--that did not work in every case. More playtesting will identify the exceptions so that they can be corrected.

The hangups with the ranger might be a difference in views. I like to play a ranger as a martial class that focuses on skills. Paizo's view seems based on Hunt Target.

I think part of the problem is that the niches of the rogue and ranger sort of overlap. In 1E, they were both a form of martial that also had a focus on skills, but the ranger was assumed to be more wilderness/hunting versus the rogue's urban/sneaking. Especially now that the BAB differential is gone, the rogue is heavily focused into skills, while I feel the ranger's niche is somewhat less defined.

Mathmuse wrote:

The hangups with the ranger might be a difference in views. I like to play a ranger as a martial class that focuses on skills. Paizo's view seems based on Hunt Target.

I think part of the problem is that the niches of the rogue and ranger sort of overlap. In 1E, they were both a form of martial that also had a focus on skills, but the ranger was assumed to be more wilderness/hunting versus the rogue's urban/sneaking. Especially now that the BAB differential is gone, the rogue is heavily focused into skills, while I feel the ranger's niche is somewhat less defined.

And the niches of Barbarian and Fighter sort of overlap because a barbarian's rage is unlimited in PF2, so the class is no longer about rage management. Paizo anchored the barbarian in exotic totem powers and the fighter in expert proficiency.

And the niches of Bard and Occultist Sorcerer sort of overlap because they are both Charisma-based spontaneous occult casters. Paizo anchored the bard in musical cantrips called compositions and the occultist sorcerer in bloodline powers.

Paizo can handle closely related classes. The classes need to be anchored in a defining style.

Rogue class has a solid anchor in Sneak Attack and independence from high Strength. This justifies the high Dexterity to support the Dexterity-based skills: Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery. Hunt Target is not enough to be an anchor for ranger. It is not related to the Wisdom that aids the ranger's iconic skills, Nature and Survival, nor the Strength that would be helpful in combat. The new Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown feats improve the impact of Hunt Target, but they don't add definition.

Look at a post by MaxAstro and N N 959, Footprints are a Myth, comment #30. That is an example how Hunt Target can anchor a ranger:

N N 959 wrote:

The real problem isn't that its limited to Survival (since many classes got an extra trained skill). The problem is that it doesn't do anything but follow tracks, which is rarely needed.

What if it worked like in Lord of the Rings. Remember this scene?

Aragorn tracks Mary and Pippin Why can't tracking work half this good for Rangers?

Come on Paizo, this is PF2. There's nothing stopping you guys from bringing the Ranger's MO of tracking to life beyond simply following footprints. Anyone trained in Survival can follow footprints. But a Ranger should be able to actually decode them, and it should count for something (auto-recall Knowledge checks, bonus to Perception/surprise, info on number and status, etc).

It's right there for the taking, Paizo.

So much this.

I want my Ranger to find some tracks, immediately activate Hunt Target against the creature who left those tracks, tell the party the weaknesses of the creature I'm tracking, and then get bonuses to set an ambush and exploit those weaknesses when I finally catch up to the poor bastard.

That would be a fantastic direction to take the ranger, in my opinion.