Go4TheEyesBoo's page

Frozen Yakman wrote:

My personal resistance to 2e is it suffers from the same bad design decision that both DnD4 and and DnD5 took. Under the d20 System and derived games, the attitude was here's the mechanics, make the character you want to play. Under PF2/DnD4/DnD5 the decision was made to be here's the characters we, the designers, want you to play, you're not allowed to customize them; be happy with that. The decision to remove multiclassing (feat classing wasn't multiclassing in DnD4, and it still isn't multiclassing in PF2), class locking most mechanics, and designers start saying nonsense like "niche-protection" fully cemented that opinion.

Sometimes I'm really baffled by people's opinions. I don't see how 3.X's and PF1's multiclassing gives us that much more freedom and liberates us from the designers' choices. If the old multi-classing was that great then why did we need hundreds of prestige classes or respectively hundreds of archetypes to access and replace class features? And how are archetypes that different from the current multiclassing of 4e and PF2? You just swap out class abilities... Also doesn't 5e literally use pretty much the same multiclassing as we were used from PF1 (haven't touched 5e for a couple of years)? So why throw it in with 4e and PF2?

You're not going to have a lot of luck understanding it. Most of the people that praise the old 3.5/PF1 "freedom of choice" were intentionally making what most people on this forum write off as "suboptimal characters", characters that were unique and fun to play, but not as cookie cutter uber powerful as they could be. I've come to the conclusion that there's two types of people on these forums, ones that limit the pool of viable builds to hyperoptimized tier 1 characters, and people who can find enjoyment playing any build. And these two types of people basically talk over and around each other. The people in the former group welcome PF2 because they didn't really lose anything from PF1, because I assume they were always playing a minmaxed tier 1 build (probably a wizard with DCs maxed through the roof or a fighter with every drop of BAB available). The people in the latter group, however, did lose freedoms.

An example build you might not find in PF2: Monk 1 (for AC)/Paladin 2 (for smite+saves), Wizard 1 (for Mage Armor + Shield + Enlarge + other utility), Fighter 4 (for Weapon Spec), Barbarian 1 (for fast movement), maybe a prestige class for the rest of the levels? I've done mix-n-match stuff of this sort all the time, and the typical board reaction is "reeeeeee, you're not getting your full BAB" or "reeeeeee, you're giving up level 9 spells", therefore people don't consider them "viable characters." Which is just crap. Most of my Pathfinder games are played in the level 5 - 10 range regardless, so none of that nonsense typically ever mattered. And even if it did, they were still fun characters.

Also contrary to popular opinion, there were tons of multiclass caster builds that were fun and competitive as well, due to the existence of Magical Knack (and if you had a cool DM, you could import Practiced Spellcaster from 3.5)

I think part of the problem is that a large portion of Pathfinder first edition players recognized the flaws in first edition (including the god-awful action system) and were really looking forward to a second edition that mostly stayed the same, but fixed all those issues that are way too systemic to be houseruled away. And instead, they got something alot closer to 4E/5E. So basically, they'll never get a fixed version of their system, nor will they get new content. Hence, some degree of resentment towards Pathfinder 2E.

To be fair, I'm somewhat in that camp. The 3-action system, for instance, I would absolutely love to have in PF1. Yet it's nigh-impossible to just plug it in without a full system overhaul. I tried doing the Unchained action system in a campaign and it just didn't work. Too many bandaids. This is also true of alot of the 3rd party system conversions of PF1. It especially irks me when people point to the 3-action system to show how much better PF2 is than PF1 -- I'm freakin aware of that...I wanted that in PF1 damnit.

But alot of people really like 2E, and more power to them. I don't wish ill on the future of Pathfinder. I just don't think there's a place there for me. Maybe when some splat books come out. Who knows. I think I'm in the fifth stage of grief.

It was never fun GMing for "mostly overpowered Builds" where PCs would one shot everything. It was even less fun playing on a table with a "less than optimized" character (And to be fair I have seen a few new players (in PFS) driven away after there first game because of this too) with someone running a "mostly overpowered Builds".

I suppose it helps I always play with the same crew then, because player power differences were always sorted out in Session 0. Either everyone was playing less than optimized or everyone was playing overpowered, and then I just scaled the adventure difficulty up or down to match. I could imagine how it would be more frustrating with rando's coming into your group every other week.

Technically correct, and still 90% of the discussion is about builds nowadays, not about character, and Stormwind Fallacy shall be damned, that changed not only the discussion, it also changed the game, and at least for some of us, it changed the game into a very wrong direction.

You know, my biggest beef with the focus on optimizers and min-maxers is that it's a problem that was already solved at a table of friends who aren't dicks. We generally have the underlying assumption at our PF1 table that people try to stay within spitting distance of the same power level. The people who have the knowledge to truly do gamebreaking things hold back and also try to help the inexperienced builders produce a better character with suggestions. And Rule 0 is always there if the GM wants to further cap a minmaxer or hand out additional bonuses to weaker characters.

People have found ways to break nearly every D&D system out there, and I don't doubt they'll find a way to break PF2 either. I really hate how the Stormwind Fallacy was a focus of this rebuild. I would have rather they fixed the mechanics (unchained action economy, mobility, rocket tag, modifier math overload, etc, etc) to make a better underlying chasis and leave the build options open (instead of class gating and using "rarity" to generally force people down a few "one true paths"). PF2 has alot going for it, but I'm sad to see this is the direction they've chosen -- it didn't work for 4E, and I think it's going to generally be a step back for Pathfinder. I know they're trying to please everyone by existing in that space between PF1 and 4E/5E, but it's just a bad tactic. I was reading a post a few days ago here (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/b9r8tq/how_is_pathfinder_2e_shaping_ up/): "The appeal of PF1 comes from combing classes, archetypes, traits, feats, spells and items to some unique (and mostly overpowered) builds". And I fully agree with that sentiment. In the new system, you're pretty much gonna pick 1 or 2 classes and mindlessly walk through their entire class feat list.

However, I also want to clarify: what makes all those dips appealing to you, and what about them are you losing out on other than having lots of class names on your sheet?

Mainly because I prefer interesting builds over the typical Wep Focus/Wep Spec/Power Attack/etc DPS-optimized powergame nonsense. Typically I like to go for some kind of flavor concept and then build a competitive char around it. It doesn't need to be minmaxed to the hilt, as long as it holds its own. Hell, I've dipped with spellcasting classes before to make builds more interesting. One time I thought have a dual black blade build sounded pretty badass, so I went Bladebound Kensai Magus 3/Blade Adept Arcanist 3. BAB was s$$&e, spellcasting progression was f@~$ed, couldn't really cast with a sword in both hands, but man was it fun to play (and to RP). Sawtoothed Sabre + Slashing Grace is really the only thing that kept it competitive. At some point I was going to get a Glove of Storing to help with casting issues, but the campaign ended before I got the cash.

One time I made a UMD build, wanting a jack-of-all-trades character that could just use any item he comes across, regardless of restriction, so I found anyway I could to jack the UMD skill. I forget how I made him relevant...I think that was my dual wand using character that ventured into 3.5E and 3rd party content (Two-Wand Technique, Wand Casting, Wand Dancer, Wandstrike). We had a cool GM who let us use maximum creativity and almost unlimited resources as long as we weren't trying to be dicks breaking the game. Come to think of it, that was a pretty s!!*ty char, power wise -- again, fun to play though.

Had one char built around the concept of dropping various clouds (Obscuring Mist, eventually moving to Stinking Cloud/Cloudkill) and fighting inside of it with Fogcutting Lenses on. Think he was a Wyrwood. Or I found some other way to get poison immunity. Bit of a one-trick pony (didn't really have a counter for area casters from a distance), but was fun.

Tried to make a blind character once, like Daredevil-esque. Basically just a self-imposed flaw. I think the GM gave me a free feat for it though. Went up the Blind-Fight chain of feats + Blinded Blade Style. Most of the build was finding a way to get Blinded Master at the earliest level possible ;P Even then, it was a brutal char to play.

So yeah, for fun is generally why I mix a bunch of different stuff together. As you can see from my examples, I even had to venture into non-Pathfinder material to get some of my play ideas to come to fruition. So there's really no upper limit on the amount of options I like to have when creating builds.

But long story short (too late), sometimes to make those kind of unusual builds even remotely viable at an early/middle level, you need to dive into a bunch of classes just for bonus feats. Hell, I've dipped Kensai 1 on many melee builds just to get Exotic Wep Prof + Weapon Focus, with no intention of using any Magus abilities whatsoever. I would not at all be opposed to Human Monk 2/Fighter 2/Kensai 1 for my first 5 levels just for all the bonus feats.

I do find the argument that dedications limit customization odd because they are one of the places where valid customization has so obviously increased.

In PF1e, Fighter 6/Wizard 6 is an invalid character concept. Full stop. You are a bad character, you are not going to contribute as meaningfully as other characters.

In the playtest, a 12 level Fighter who takes as many Wizard feats as possible is a completely viable character, and probably gives up less than a fighter in PF1e loses from giving up six levels.

But I'm not talking about multiclassing spellcasters, which was a system flaw that frankly deserved fixing. I'm talking about dipping martials (or even general combat feats), which was viable throughout PF1 and was actually a way to make them interesting. Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Monk 1 was viable as early as level 3. Monk 1 (Scaled Fist), Paladin 2, Gunslinger X (Mysterious Stranger) was viable. Or say something interesting like Fighter 5/Rogue 1/Oracle (Warsighted/Clouded Vision Curse) w/ an interesting play on Blinding Sneak Attack/Racial Heritage(Tiefling). Ooo, Dual-Curse Oracle would work great in that build too...but I digress...

The point is that any of the above builds would not be options in PF2, since anything more than maybe 2 classes is fairly prohibitively not an option (or at least heavily penalized by the system). And even then you're punished for looking outside your class with the Dedication feat tax.

And those restrictions seem needless. If devs had an issue with class dipping to gain powerful low level abilities (say, monk AC bonus), then rebalance the power which should never be a level 1 power. Fix the overpowered ability, don't limit the choices. Hell, look at the way Duelist PrC AC bonus works...people don't dip that as much as they do Monk since the AC bonus is dependent on Duelist levels to get the maximum benefit.

Tridus wrote:

The system mastery power gap in PF1 is massive.

And? Any game with actual options and meaningful choices is going to have a learning curve. When you "reduce the size of the system mastery power gap", you also directly reduce the options and customization of said game. If you have various ways to build something, there are ALWAYS going to be better or worse ways to do so. For a lot of people, most of the fun is in the construction and seeing how various parts fit together and when you remove that to reduce the "power gap", the also reduce their fun.

That system mastery power gap can be addressed in a new system without limiting choices or relegating people to known and expected roles. But very few systems took the freedom direction. 4E and 5E certainly did not (hell 4E literally DEFINES roles in the Handbook itself: controller, striker, etc -- they're pretty much telling you what you're gonna do as a character). In all the new systems, there's way fewer character options there compared to 3E/PF1, even with the splat books that have been released to date. The system itself is designed to put people into boxes.

The fix isn't to narrow access substantially so that it's harder to access multiple broken feats. The fix is to not have broken feats. And that's not as hard a task as some think. Frankly, alot of it is as easy as not allowing exponential abilities (such as doublers), limiting anything that automatically bypasses other things, limiting immunities, etc. You could iron out alot of the power gap just by addressing these few things. Build versatility doesn't need to be watered down to achieve that. It's a step too far.

If you're mad that you feel the ceiling is being lowered, it's probably because you're the type who only wants to play on the bleeding edge and demolish encounters they have no business dealing with. You worry that the ceiling being lowered will make you bump your head, ala. Your playstyle is being attacked, but let me be clear. Your "playstyle" IS under attack, because it's destructive and anti-social.

Fully agreed

Just because the gap is closing in NOW WAY means that customization will be cut back,

Since when? Are they or are they not moving away from a huge general feat list and moving towards gated class feats? The entire dedication/archetype system is built towards limiting the dips you can take (first having the Dedication feat as pretty much a "feat tax" to even access anything outside your initial class, and then the additional requirement for minimum number of feats in one class before adding another). How is that NOT cutting customization way back?

The common theme in all of the PF1 build complaints has nothing to do with choice and everything to do with the fact you can make super specialized characters that break the game (while other less knowledgable people have a hard time doing the same). You don't fix that problem by limiting choice. You do it by fixing the abilities. Take charge builds, for instance, which rely on multiple feats that multiply damage exponentially. You CAN take all the abilities that double damage and lock each behind a class gate, so no class can ever get access to more than one of them (which appears to be the PF2 direction). Or you put in a rule that says anything that multiplies damage can't stack (or has diminishing returns), and let people build however they want to build. Fix the broken ability, not the diversity. If the hyper specialized super knowledgeable builds are only doing ~30% more damage than the rest of the party rather than 500%, the problem is solved.

Some of my favorite PF1 builds are mishmashes of a number of classes. And my intent was never to be gamebreaking. It was to do something interesting. Like when I recreating Kain from Final Fantasy with a charge/jump build. Or my spear Fighter AO expert than I dipped into 3 levels of Aberrant Sorcerer to gain Enlarge Person + Long Limbs. Or the Lich cold immune evoker that could drop cold-eschewed fireballs at it's feet. If I wanted to go "truly broken", I could just look up any number of "maximize your DC" wizard builds, or "power attack/weapon spec/etc/maximize-your-damage" fighter builds or pretty much any Summoner/Eidolon build, pre-nerf. But that was never my desire or intent. Maybe some people play with people whose only concern is finding the most optimal builds. I just want a competitive build that is interesting/unusual and plays fun. If you're going to back me into a corner of having to play the same cookie-cutter sword-and-board fighter every other Joe Sixpack is playing, picking from one of maybe 9 variants of build, I'm not gonna have a good time. For me, it's just that simple. Half the fun is the research and imagination that goes into the design/build process.

I don't want PF1.5, I hate PF1 and I don't want to deal with it, it's got a stupid grappling flowchart and umpteen bonus types of which some stack but others don't and it's hard to remember which, to-hit and AC are straight f@$*ed, there's "flavor" options that are dominated by a few clearly superior choices thus actually removing flavor from the game, multiclassing is a massive pain in the ass and it utterly screws up class progression meaning you can't ever get those capstone features or level 9 spells, there's the entire tier system that has classes stratified so far apart in overall effectiveness that a variation of more than one tier in the same party can result in one player completely outclassing another by accident, classes only mechanically fit with specific races and you're only gimping yourself if you play something other than human or the two race with decent stat spreads...

Why do you assume "PF1.5" would have those things you don't want to deal with? The people clamoring for PF1.5 want exactly that: the removal of fiddly bits and broken things. It would be a system change, not PF1 with bandaids/mods. The only difference is that they want minimal addition of "new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics" or "needlessly limiting character options/flexibility". For instance, there's little reason to minimize character choices by locking people into "role boxes" of feats behind class gates. Or Resonance. Or "level bonus to everything". PF1.5, as people desire it, would have none (or less) of the things you complain about. It'd probably strap on most of the Unchained changes, simplify the grapple mechanic, fix the move/Full-Attack static combat issues by going to 3-action system, rework/rebalance some spells, fix multiclass progression issues, etc, etc. I don't know why you feel a "PF1.5" would be as fiddly as PF1. I know for a fact PF1 wasn't as fiddly as D&D 3.5. PF2, as currently proposed, feels the same as what happened when D&D went from 3.5 to 4E. Namely, in an attempt to simplify and rebalance, it over simplified the mechanics and generally eliminated all character diversity. Not enough crunch, not enough choice.

Honestly, I see alot of value in PF2 changes, as written. There's alot of good ideas there, seriously. 3 action system, in particular, was long overdue. I just feel Paizo went too far. Those of us who want to get creative in our builds and create unique characters don't really have options anymore. If they kept ~75% of PF2, and basically eliminated a handful of things currently in the system (particularly the class role locking), I could likely get behind the system. But I don't see that happening, because these system changes look like they've made a hard enemy of system savants that like to class dip and get silly with their builds. It's the lazy way of fixing the OP minmax problem: namely, make the build choices so limited and flatten the system so much that becoming OP is nearly impossible. The more difficult way of fixing the problem is to leave characters with plenty of diverse choices and to fix the overpowered abilities themselves (for instance, push certain class abilities higher into their level progression, or nerf broken feats/spells/abilities, etc). When you take the easy route, you fix the problem of OP chars at the expense of your player base that likes to build creative and playful and flavorful outside-the-box characters that straddle lots of class concepts. People like myself, sadly.

Pathfinder 1 was already easy enough to make into your own "Pathfinder 1.5" that creating a whole new "Pathfinder 1.5" wouldn't generate anything that people haven't already done for themselves.

That's actually not true at all, because I've tried many times in fact to do that with the PF1 system. We have a list of house rules that stretch a mile long at this point, and some things are literally unfixable.

The big one is immobility (with regard to static combat since moving anywhere wastes your full-attack action, which pretty much wastes your turn). _Everything_ in the system is balanced for that mechanic and simply can't be changed or house ruled without breaking everything. We tried a "everybody has pounce", where you can always move and full-attack, and it was game-breaking, even with HP totals doubled and tripled across the board. Anything with a crazy amount of appendages (ala dragons/eidolons) were beyond broken.

Another one I've wanted fixed (which have been addressed in other systems) are reshuffling things like flight and teleport later into the play curve (or weakening their effects). But again, that's incredibly hard to "tack on" when the entire system is designed around the expectation of you having certain abilities at certain levels.

Another one we've tried is nerfing all save-or-dies to "save-every-round". That's worked _somewhat_, but it's also thrown balance way out of whack, and spell levels often make no sense with the nerfed variants. Dropping the spell level could work for PCs, but not for monsters, so CRs make even less sense afterward.

It's issues like that across the board. There's just way too many deep ingrained mechanical issues wrong with the system. There was a desperate need for a true successor to PF1 that keeps the crunch while redesigning the core brokenness of 3E/PF1. Heck, redesigning and rebalancing the system to fix the move/full-attack problem alone while keeping literally everything else the same would have been worth it for me to throw my money at the new system.

I had a deep craving for a PF 1.5, and was mega-disappointed by the reality of this release since it threw the baby out with the bath water. I've found myself seeking out other systems that fill that "midweight crunchy, yet not overly simplified" niche (maybe Savage Worlds?), because I don't see a way forward with Pathfinder 2.0, and PF1 has just been broken for too long. It exists where D&D 2E was when PF1 came out.

Studies show that speed scales more with body length than with size. And even that has limits due to the aforementioned square-cube law. Muscle cross section doesn't scale at the same rate as volume when scaling proportionally. So bigger things, although having longer strides, will have less available muscle strength to propel themselves (most of their strength will be applied merely supporting their own weight).

There's a number of other biomechanical issues that come into play at the larger sizes. Slower reaction time due to longer signalling pathways, blood pressure issues, respiration issues, heat dissipation issues, etc, etc. We handwave a great deal in the name of fantasy.