| Physicskid42 |
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, this post will be super long and I need to explain the background but I think that it will be really illuminating on the fundamental pros and cons of 2e.
So, I just wrapped up my pathfinder 2e campaign. I was the dm and everyone had a really good time. It was a city building campaign and I had to homebrew a lot of the features like a slime-based sewer system but it was still a great campaign. In our group, we switch dm every time we finish or wipe. In this case, my friend got to be the dm and he is a big fan of 3.5. I had always been a big defender of 2e and we would often get into arguments about it. However, having the opportunity to play both games back to back I've had an epiphany about why the games play differently and why both are fun in different ways.
One of the goals of the design of 2e was to make it more balanced, and by most accounts, it was a success. 2e is probably the most balanced d20 system ever. I think this is a good thing for the most part. A lot of things done to make the game more balanced are great. I love skill feats. I love that martials, by default have supernatural strength. I think that the action economy is great. In almost every mechanical way, I think 2e is superior to 1e/3.5. But…there was still something missing; there was a type of joy I got from 3.5 that I just wasn’t getting in 2e.
For context, in my 3.5 campaign, I am playing a dread necromancer. I had acquired an undead template and I was trying to figure out a way to animate myself. I figured out a way to do it by using my familiar to tie up someone else, have summoned Allips lower their will, use soul jar to steal their body, and use revive undead on my own body. It cost me 5000 gold, a negative level, and a human sacrifice. I had essentially created my own ad-hoc evil ritual. That was the kind of thing I think that 3.5 does the best and I think that 2e is lacking.
I think that in ttrpgs there are actually two mechanical levels, a micro, and a macro. The micro-level deals with the mechanics as they pertain to the current situation. It's all the things we generally think about as mechanics. Pathfinder 2e excels at this. They even have good mechanics for roleplaying situations with their system of points for mysteries and such. Macro mechanics though are different. I think a lot of people conflate this with roleplaying but they're not the same thing. Roleplaying is the flavor of the campaign guided by player decisions, it usually doesn’t hugely affect the game other than maybe talking your way past a fight or two. Macro mechanics are about changing the game world. Creating golem armies, forming spy networks, cursing, or blessing strongholds with magical effects. Tunneling through dungeon walls, dominating other people's minds.
This has all been very theoretical until now so let me give a concrete pathfinder example. In 1e one of the characters I wanted to make was an information broker intrigue oracle. They would get a tone of abilities that would work with the role, like stealthy casting and a daily use of rumor monger. One of my main ideas was to use Enter Image and distribute statuettes of my character that would serve as spy cameras and communication devices with minions. I tried remaking this character in 2e and there was just no way I could even get close at present.
I think that there are a few key design decisions that 2e has made, largely in the name of balance, that hurt its macro design.
- There just aren’t a tone of open-ended non-numeric spells in general, especially at low level.
- The vast majority of spells like invisibility and illusory disguise don’t last long. Most also have tiny ranges unlike in 3.5/1e when high-level spells could have areas that affected entire cities.
- The new rules for minions mean it's almost impossible to create autonomous minions. No golem messengers, no undead workers. It's combat or they just go crazy.
- There aren’t many at-will abilities. The only character I could find with something like an at-will disguise ability was a witch archetype whereas they were easy to make in 3.5/1e. I was a little disappointed that the final version of the summoner still didn’t really have access to unique monster traits like swallow whole or rock throwing.
- Few noncombat archetypes and abilities. The only archetype I could find with unique non-combat abilities was the Dandy. The rouge doesn’t have any noncombat-based subclass either. There aren’t a lot of unique strange class features either, like the witches moving hut.
- Not a lot of material on permanent enchantments or structures. It would be hard at present for players to build their own dungeon, let alone the level of detail and options in something like the old 3.5 stronghold builders' guide.
I don’t think these problems are unsolvable though. In fact, I think that 2e's existing mechanical chassis can fix most of them. Here are my suggestions.
- Make rituals a bigger part of the game. Right now most of them are super rare and prohibitively expensive.
- Allow the creation of autonomous minions. If the combat balance thing is a problem just make it a rule that a player can't direct them in combat.
- Make more esoteric, non-numeric spells and have them last more than an hour.
- Add more skill feats, particularly at the master and legendary tier.
- Make it easier for players to create their own hazards, complex and simple. Right now this is possible but there aren't a lot of robust rules for it.
This is all just my opinion. I leave it to you. What do you think? What's your opinion on micro vs macro design? Is pathfinder 2e lacking in macro play? Are my suggestions good ones? Love to hear everybody's thoughts.