fanatic66's page

The treadmill issue is well known and predates Pathfinder 2E. However, I think this a flaw with the adventure design more so than the system. One of the pitfalls of a system that adds your level (or half level for D&D 4E), is that it can lead to immersive breaking situations like "20th level characters are facing 20th level guards for no reason other than to create a balanced encounter". However, this is just bad and lazy adventure design. High level heroes should only be facing threats worthy of their time. Or if they face weaker threats, such as 20th level party vs city guards, then it should be more of a "see how powerful you've become that you can mop the floor with the same people that gave you trouble X levels ago...". Instead of fighting starving thieves at 10th level, you should be facing devil assassins. Instead of facing city guards at 20th level, you should probably be facing the Eternal Sentries that guard the City of the Gods.

If you want a system where you can throw low level threats at the party for most of the campaign, then Pathfinder 2e doesn't work great for that. You can make troops out of low level threats, but ultimately, I think Pathfinder 2e shines when telling "0 to hero" stories where by the end, the heroes are truly epic individuals that can take on elder dragons, mythic beasts, demon lords, demigods, etc. If you want a more grounded story, then either cap the level your players can reach (campaign ends at 5th/10th level), use no proficiency bonus variant rules, or play a different system. I haven't run or read Agents of Edgewatch, but judging from this thread, perhaps it should have been a level 1-10 AP like some of the newer ones if the AP's story is very grounded.

Gaulin wrote:

The design of some monsters really bug me. I like being the sort of player that's prepared for as much as possible, but some monsters match up against some classes in such a way that there's very little counterplay. Things like a melee inventor against a balor means you can't attack it. Or a caster against a lesser death (and yes I know those are extreme examples but there are some similar lower level things that do similar). All of those situations where the game is like, oh don't worry, your weapons can't be targeted, you don't have to worry about them breaking. Or you don't have to worry about AoOs anymore. Until you do, and then you're out of luck.

This is a criticism I can get down with. I cut out 90% of fights against monsters who are immune to precision damage because they make things so unfun for the rogue in my game.

This is a good call. With some martial classes be highly dependent on precision damage, it seems unfair for a Rogue's effectiveness to dip significantly against certain monsters.

I don't mind alignment in general, but I don't really like... say, champion reactions being alignment driven. The subtle coding that you can't have a CG hero meting out divine vengeance or a LG champion offering glimpses of redemption feels unnecessary and pigeonholing to me.

And imo alignment damage would be better served as just... another damage type. Juggling the weirdness with neutral deities is annoying and I don't like the cosmic gaminess of, say, a neutral follower of a good deity being better equipped to fight denizens of the lower planes than a good follower of that same deity... because an LN follower of Torag can deal Good damage without being susceptible to Evil damage themselves.

100% agree. I’m not sure why dealing divine punishment is only the purview of LG champions.

I would have also prefer 5e’s radiant/necrotic damage as opposed to alignment damage mess that we have, but I understand not everyone wants more streamlined mechanics. At the very least, we could keep the 4 alignment damages but let them hurt anyone (unless you have resistances or immunities), and rename them, so good to radiant and your evil to necrotic. That way you can keep 4 damage types but remove the alignment connotations and restrictions. Radiant/good damage harms everyone but maybe celestials have resistance and immunity to radiant.

My biggest gripe is alignment. It’s given too much mechanical weight. I prefer alignment, if it stays in the game, to be purely narrative. Because of my gripe with alignment, I really dislike the Champion class and how most divine casting works in regards to alignment damage.

Champion class seems overly restrictive compared to d&d 5e’s Paladin. Evil champions are cartoon villains while we still don’t have neutral champions. Even once we get neutral champions, the design space for the champion class is filled up because all the alignments will be covered, and Paizo designed the champion subclasses around alignment. Seems overly restrictive from a design perspective in addition to overly limiting as a player option.

Alignment damage makes for weird use cases and breaks my immersion. Why are divine casters of neutral deities screwed out of so many divine spells? Is it because neutral characters are immune to alignment damage? Why not just remove alignment damage and avoid this weird use case? For immersion breaking, divine lance is a pseudo detect opposite alignment spell that deals damage. Why wouldn’t important figures hire a priest to blast everyone with good divine lance to determine if they’re evil or not. Seems like a good way for a monarch to check visitors being meeting with them. Alignment damage also screws over certain character types. What if I want to play a character like Teen Titans Raven (demonic sorcerer) that uses my dark magic for good? Doesn’t work well in this system because in a traditional campaign, my enemies will be evil and therefore immune to my evil damage spells I gain from my demonic bloodline.

I also wish clerics were more individualistic. The deity granted spells are nice but not enough. I would love 5e style gods that grant a whole slew of thematic spells to really make a cleric of one god feel different from a cleric of another god.

I tend to love playing divine characters so these stuff bugs me more than probably most people to be fair.

As someone that only runs campaigns in my own world, I much prefer books with a heavy focus on rules. But that's just me. I know there are plenty using Golarion for either homebrewed campaigns or AP, so more lore is probably appreciated for them.

Everyone does not need to abide by PFS standard though. Only those who play PFS do.

Exactly, and if PFS play is a niche part of the player base, I wouldn't worry too much about PFS standards.

fanatic66 wrote:

Are there any statistics for % of players that play PFS vs not? I'm from 5E where their version of PFS (Adventure LEague) is not used as the standard everyone needs to abide by. Most games I assume are not in PFS or AL (5E Adventure League), and therefore can have an inventor that uses guns (with a willing GM). Especially since Inventor are already uncommon to begin with

"What % of players play PFS" is one important question.

"What % of players had a PFS game as their first PF2 game" is another.

Unfortunately, I don't have any sort of answer either of those. I'm just noting that when you're in a position where you're considering the first, it's also worth considering the second.

The second question is interesting, but also beckons a follow up question, "How many people that started with FPS and keep playing PF2e, stick with PFS or move on to home games?" My guess is that the % of people (first timers or not) playing PFS is not the majority (similar to AL for 5E) of PF2e players, and is more of a niche player base. But I could be wrong.

Are there any statistics for % of players that play PFS vs not? I'm from 5E where their version of PFS (Adventure LEague) is not used as the standard everyone needs to abide by. Most games I assume are not in PFS or AL (5E Adventure League), and therefore can have an inventor that uses guns (with a willing GM). Especially since Inventor are already uncommon to begin with

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

So...are you going to engage with the suggestions that were offered to you or are you just here to complain until the cows come home?

Since the somewhat interesting premise of this thread has devolved into trying to satisfy you when you're mostly incompatible with the system tries to do, I mean.

I have engaged with them and found them wanting. I've yet to see anything else proposed that even attempts to meet my needs. I'm going to be a tough sell but the right build could do it. I basically want a 3.x/PF1 style smite paladin or a battle cleric that actually feels like a martial and not a speed bump that heals people and swings as a 3rd action.

I think some have already made RAW suggestions to play a divine smiter, but if you're willing to try homebrew, I have some options for a divine smiter character as a big fan of the concept:

• Templar Archetype: A cleric class archetype to turn the cleric into a Magus like class with less spellcasting for better martial prowess.
  
• Eldritch Scion Archetype: Inspired by the 1E archetype of the same name, this class archetype turns the Magus into a Charisma spontaneous caster that can pick a sorcerer bloodline to determine their spell list. Want to play an angelic holy warrior? This has got you covered.
  
• Avenger class: Inspired by the D&D 4E class of the same name, the Avenger is the offensive version of the champion: a mobile skirmisher that brings divine wrath against their foes. This class has gone through a lot of updates and play testing to get this IMO a balanced version. If the champion is too defensive for you, then I would try out the Avenger.
  

The Raven Black wrote:

You realize that 3.5/PF1 has 17 years worth of content vs PF2's 2 years, right ?

Yes, I also realize that Pazo is releasing content at a glacial pace by comparison to those years. 3.0, the fairest comparable we can make, had 16 rulebooks (they didn't really do PF2 style adventure guides), 56 companion magazines, and 11 adventures. This is compared to PF2 which has 8 rules-heavy books and 11 rules-light adventure guides alongside 37 adventures or adventure paths. It's fair to say that even an apples to apples comparison has PF2 behind D&D 3.0 on the actual rules content.

I'd also argue that D&D 3.0 was more experimental in what it tried to cover with its Epic Level Handbook, Manual of the Planes, and Stronghold Builder's Guidebook releasing early into its lifecycle alongside proto Savage Species content published in Dragon. With Savage Species itself only missing our cutoff date by a mere 2 months.

Glacial pace?!? Be glad you never played 5E. I played 5E for years and the pace of content release for that system is terribly slow. Paizo's release pace is honestly almost too fast for me. I love all the new classes but I don't nearly have the time to play every new thing or get excited about it, because there's always something new around the corner.

With that said, the 3E/PF1E era had so much content at such a fast pace, but that contributed to the edition(s)'s lack of balance over time. PF2e is a tightly balanced system, and I imagine it takes longer than the 3E/PF1E era to release content while also ensuring it won't break the game. PF2e hasn't even been out for 3 years yet and we already have 20 classes (5E has only gotten one new class in its almost 8 year life!). Give Paizo some time, as they are making new stuff really fast. Plus there is a growing number of quality homebrew and 3PP starting to create content too.

I say axe alignment altogether so that judgements of moral character and worth are judged solely by the reader weighed against the actions and beliefs of the thing they're reading about. You'll avoid half (but not all) of the issues.

Might be because I come from 5E but how I wish alignment in this system was treated more like 5e alignment: narrative tool with little to no mechanical implications. I started playing with the old Baldur’s Gate games and 3E, and I have a fondness for alignment, but I really dislike how mechanically intensive it is in PF2e.

Elevate kobolds to the glory they deserve!

One can like PF2e and not like the APs, as they are separate. I personally really like the system for its mechanics and character options, but I prefer my own world and homebrew campaigns over Golarion and APs.

But to the OP’s question, I’m not sure if unionization will help you like the APs more, but the more recent APs have gotten better reception from fans. In general, I would stick with Pathfinder 2E if you and your group enjoy the system, not because of the APs. 5e is a fine system, but if you want the crunch and options of Pathfinder, without the bloat and imbalance of Pathfinder 1E, stick with 2E.

You all seem to have VERY different experiences with familiars than I. I positively love them.

It's true their abilities were reduced in this edition, particularly in encounters. Even so, my familiars have successfully acted as messengers, scouts, spies, saboteurs, trackers, night watch, shoppers, and a variety of other useful roles.

My wizard's bird familiar (with touch telepathy) would make use of my comprehend languages spell to eavesdrop on people's conversations, then report back to me what they heard simply by landing on my shoulder.

My cat familiar would trail suspects and perform stake outs while my witch rested for the night. When morning came, she would grant it speech so that it could tell her about the suspect's lair and/or plans.

My sorcerer's mouse familiar would sneak into the enemy camp at night and wittle the hours away nibbling on bow strings, backpack straps, belts, ropes, and tack in preparation for the party's pre-dawn ambush.

Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.

I just have little to no interest in a familiar outside of having a cute buddy. I really getting magic from a patron and exploring they relationship but the witch class’s being the familiar class dampers my interest in it.

Temperans wrote:

Or imagine if instead of getting random thesis. You instead got some really cool focus spells based on you chosen school. Spells that are free to be much strong as they would be the core of the class. You know... like the previous version of Wizard. The current thesis could all had just been class archetypes that replace the bonus spell from school

So... Witch.

Without the familiar baggage. I want to like the witch (I love the 5e warlock's themes), but I'm not into familiars, and not a fan of some of the class's power budget being devoted to having a better than average familiar.

I would love a focus on updating older classes with new class feats or “subclasses”.

Not official but for 5e converts, you can use my Dragonborn ancestry, which I've had people use before. Might satisfy that draconic humanoid itch for some

Hey, I love Critical Role stuff. If you want to take a look, I have done some 5e conversions in the past, including Dragonborn and Dunamany (including Chronurgist, Graviturgist, Echo Knight, and Dunamancy spells).

When I GM, I prefer homebrew campaigns as a big part of the fun for me is world building and coming up with storylines. Modules are a good source of inspiration though!

As a player, I don't mind modules but I do tend to find they lean too heavily on combat. I'm personally not a big fan of dungeons, but they are fine in moderation, but sometimes modules have too many dungeons for my liking. But a GM can definitely cut down the amount of combats (my group uses milestone leveling so missing XP isn't a problem).

To defend the 4e Realms’s honor somewhat: there’s a nation perched on the land around (and into) a massive rift into the Underdark, populated by an alliance of dwarves, renegade drow, and the largest remnant of the god of invention’s faith.

They’re just to the south of an ancient artificer empire recently returned to the surface, a belligerent empire of undead, a merchant republic of geniekin, and a militant outpost of alien dragonfolk.

It ruled.

4E realms had some interesting tidbits, but overall I hated it. The time skip killed of many ongoing novel storylines and felt very forced and unnecessary. Also killing off many of gods simply sucked IMO. The drow, a personal favorite of mine, had any nuance stripped away and reduced to just evil Lolth worshippers. This decision by WotC would ironically come to bite them in the butt years later when people got tired of always evil drow.

If it wasn’t for the fun gameplay of 4E, I probably would had skipped it entirely out of spite for killing the Realms. I’m guess I’m more bitter about it than I realized lol.

fanatic66 wrote:

FowlJ wrote:

fanatic66 wrote:

And not to throw shade at the players, but I don't think a more crunchy system would suit them.

I mean, the Critical Role cast was playing Pathfinder, the first season of the show was them converting their long running PF1 home campaign to 5e because they felt it would stream better.

I otherwise agree though that they've pretty strongly associated themselves with D&D and WotC as a brand in a way I don't especially see them going back on.

The first season was entirely 5e. Only their home game before was Pathfinder and they played very infrequently back then. I think some of the cast would have a hard time adjusting at this point to a crunchier system. They still get tripped up by 5e mechanics after playing it for years. This isn’t a jab at the CR crew because I love their campaigns. I just think PF2e is more mechanically intensive then they need.

No, it was Pathfinder. That's why Percival was a gunslinger and the party had a bunch of PF1-converted magic items, among other things. The entire part of the campaign they streamed was 5e, but the stream started at 9th level in the middle of an ongoing adventure, not at the beginning of the campaign.

I think we are saying the same thing. I know their home game was Pathfinder but they switched to 5e for the stream and have been only doing 5e or narrative lite systems (one shots) for the last 6 years or so. And just judging how some of the crew still stumble over 5e which is a simpler game than PF2e, I think it would be a hard adjustment to streaming PF2e.

A correction but Critical Role started with Pathfinder 1e in their home game, then switched to 5e when they started streaming. I think Matt Mercer said it was because of how simpler 5e is to run. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, as 5e is still simpler than Pathfinder 2E. I love the show but the players would have a tough time with more crunchy ruleset of Pathfinder IMO.

Charisma is one of my favorite stats. I love having options in social encounters and this edition made charisma skills so strong (demoralize, bon mot, feint). I don’t think it’s mechanically weak at all.

I think people just don't "get" the class design idea of PF2. The core classes (with the exception of Alchemist) are supposed to be the most powerful. The expanded classes from other books are there to fill a character concept for role playing reasons. Generally these non-core classes are slightly less powerful than the core classes overall, and are much trickier to build optimally.

Has Paizo ever stated that? That seems like a big assumption on your part. Why not keep all classes the same power level?

Honestly I wish alignment damage wasn’t a thing to prevent the awkwardness of neutral divine casters but that ship has sailed.

A good bandaid solution as proposed earlier is to let clerics of neutral gods pick an alignment or perhaps either positive or negative.

I've made a smaller update to my Warlord class to boost Helpful Word and give some quality of life buffs. As always, you can see all the changes in the change log on the last page of the PDF.

Here's the updated PDF for the Warlord v4.5

I wouldn’t mind seeing more AOE stuff for martials. Part of me wishes all classes had a focus pool for big flashy abilities, but not necessarily magical. Let Fighters or Rogues for example can some badass abilities they can only do once an encounter like focus spells for other classes.

As i mentioned earlier, at least you'll have dragon synthesist summoners to fill your "being a dragon" needs.

I’m never going to say no to o more draconic options, but that’s not the same IMO. Dragon Form shouldn’t have awkward heightening and it’s something I hope gets addressed in an errata

fanatic66 wrote:

This could be a good use case for homebrew along the lines of 5e, where thematic subclasses for a class sometimes get a small additional spell list.

So ... Focus spells. Or Deity-granted off-list spells (Divine Access feat).

No, I mean something more along the lines of granted spells from sorcerer bloodlines. Although instead of automatically knowing the spells, the spells get added to the list of spells an Oracle can learn. So for a Tempest Oracle, maybe they get 9 spells of air, water, and electricity (1 for each spell level from 1st to 9th level). So, for example maybe Tempest get lightning bolt as a 3rd level spell option. At 5th character level, a Tempest Oracle can choose to learn two spells from the divine list or one spell from the divine list and lightning bolt.

Divine Access is a nice feat but it’s only a few spells (up to 3), which really isn’t enough IMO. It feels almost mandatory for certain oracles if you want to lean into your theme like the OP does for tempest. I rather Divine Access be a nice to have but not necessary to make Oracles feel thematic.

With that said, I still like Oracles and will probably try one down the line. But I also don’t think my suggested change will make Oracles suddenly overpowered. However, it’s just a suggestion for tables inclined to homebrew and wanting more thematic Oracles.

This could be a good use case for homebrew along the lines of 5e, where thematic subclasses for a class sometimes get a small additional spell list. This is similar to how sorcerer bloodlines get access to their own thematic spells. You could do something similar for Oracles to make sure each Oracle subclass has appropriate spells. Divine Access would then be a supplemental option, not a necessary feat tax.

UtaUta99 wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Most classes pay with feats for similar things, like bloodlines etc.

But yes witches need more things in the base class.

I get it, I just don't think something so clearly important to a classes identity should be an "optional" feat, because we all know 99% of the time a witch or sorcerer is taking their lesson/bloodline when they get the chance, so it's barely an "option"

Not necessarily true. A lot of sorc focus spells are pretty bad and not worth the feat. It's a different story for the witch because you can choose your lessons but even then, most are really bad. Though witch doesn't really have anything better to take at those levels in the first place.

That's an issue with sorcerer feats not being well balanced, not whether lesson/bloodlines should be core features vs feats. Personally I rather have core "subclass" features being part of the class, with extras being in feats, but Paizo didn't go that direction for all classes.

Just wanted to post that I made some big changes to the Warlord class to make it play smoother. I also added 12 new feats, bringing the total to 78 total feats, which is more than each of the APG classes!

Here's the updated PDF for the Warlord (v4.4)

Always enjoy your high-effort work fanatic66. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you!

I actually just made another big update to my Warlord class after some constructive feedback from reddit. Here's also the updated Warlord PDF

Hey all! You might have seen my homebrew before, including both of these classes, but if not, I’ve created two classes inspired off of older D&D 4E classes: the Warlord] and the Avenger. The Warlord is a non-magical support class focused on being a commander in battle. The Avenger is a holy assassin, the offensive alternative to the more tanky Champion. Both classes fulfill niches not currently covered in Pathfinder 2E, and I think could make great additions in your campaigns.

Both classes have through plenty of revisions. In terms of this newest update, the Avenger had a small update, while the Warlord had a much larger one. After looking through the Warlord, it lacked the same number of options as the Avenger. So I went ahead and added over a dozen new feats, and updated some older feats to not be dependent on prior feat choices to help open up the class. The Warlord also gets a new “subclass”: Esoteric Leadership, which focuses on buffing casters. If you are interested in the change logs for each class, see the last page of each PDF.

Class PDFs

• Avenger: Hunt down the foes of your deity with divine wrath!
• Warlord: Lead your allies to victory!

richienvh wrote:

Now that we have Magus, Summoner and Gunslinger, I think the Kineticist, the Occultist and the Inquisitor are the ones that get the most requests.

Personally, I would love to see a Commander/Warlord/Tactician class (with the Marshal Archetype being what the Martial Artist is to a Monk).

What “leadership styles” would you envision ? Beyond inspirational and dread that currently exist ?

Easy enough if you look at the old 4E Warlord class. I've homebrewed a Warlord class myself inspired by the original class. You could have an official Tactician/Commander class have a different key ability score (Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom) depending on their type of leadership. An inspiring/dread Commander uses Charisma. A tactician, chess like Commander uses Intelligence. Lastly, a more commando type Commander could rely on Wisdom.

I prefer to run my own setting. Part of the fun for me as a DM is world building.

Could you recreate minions in this system the same way 4E did it? Or the party runs a gauntlet through L-4 (or -5) enemies that many don’t pose too much a threat but they can still drain resources and possibly land a few hits to soften up the PCs before the boss at the end of the bridge?

Not to toot my own horn too much but I homebrewed an Avenger class based off the original 4E version. I’ve had some people playtest and and have run some mock encounters myself, and the class seems balanced and fun.

Here’s the link: Avenger class

For my Avenger, I used the Swashbuckler chassis with some champion and monk thrown in for good measure. It’s very focus spell heavy and doesn’t have traditional spell casting.

See, I took the Arcane Cascade feature (converting spell energy into a boost) was more like the feat Spell Shroud, but you might be right that its just Bespell Weapon as a class feature. Either way, the info drop on the Magus has me dumped. Sounds like things are changing for the better!

fanatic66 wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins

For sure, its a step in the right direction but 5E handled Paladins/Champions in a much better way IMO.

Meh, 5e removed most flavorful aspect of paladins in favor of "eh they are just all alignments now", aka they didn't add anything to replace code of honor

I’m in the camp of alignment shouldn’t have a heavy mechanical weight so I’m fine with that. I think the oaths are really flavorful and let you interpret them in different ways. I would love if Paizo released a class archetype for the champion that was oath based and not alignment restricted but I know that’s likely a pipe dream

I'm much more happy with 2e champions than 1e paladins

For sure, its a step in the right direction but 5E handled Paladins/Champions in a much better way IMO.

fanatic66 wrote:

A lot of the problems with bounded accuracy can simply be solved with giving epic level creatures immunity to non magical weapons. 5E already does that with certain creatures and really should have done it for more like powerful fiends and older dragons. This could even match the DR of earlier editions with a demon lord only can be hurt by a +3 weapon (using PF2e as an example). this is difficult in 5e because magic items aren’t a built in assumption technically.

I'd be happy with just cold iron or silver or some other item that is hard to find. What are the chances a 100 orcs could all get those weapons? Im cool with the death of +1,2,3,... items. I prefer magic items to do cool things as opposed to do more numbers.

You should really take a look at two variants for 2E: proficiency without level (bounded accuracy), and automatic bonus progression (the +1-3 bonuses from magic items are built into your character). I do agree that +1-3 items are boring.

I find it difficult to play Starfinder at all. The lack of content, rough low levels, inflexible class options, and the unsatisfying spellcasting classes are already strikes against it. Now, I come to it wishing it had 2nd Edition Pathfinder's action economy system.

I still look forward to the books coming out, including the nanocyte.

I played a 1 shot of Starfinder and dived into the setting beforehand. The setting is cool and I love the Solarian. But after playing 2E, Starfinder would feel way too clunky. The 3 action economy would help that game and frankly most TTRPG games. I wish 5E had the 3 action economy

fanatic66 wrote:

It's infuriating as a long time 5E fan that WotC has a glacial pace of content, but I see their point. D&D is booming more than ever and I think they are too scared to do anything that might compromise that spectacular success. To be fair to them, 5E is now like the gateway drug for TTRPG, so keeping it casual with not an overwhelming amount of content might make sense. Even if it irks more hardcore enthusiasts like myself.

Thankfully 5E has a great homebrew community with honestly some better content than what WotC produces. But I would still want some official content.

I should really get over it but I've rarely allowed any homebrew or 3rd party stuff into my games. I'd usually rather work with my players to get them what they want in a way that's tailored to us or try to brew a working build-out of existing material. I know this isn't fair and that homebrew has come a long way from what it was in the early 2000s but sometimes these habits stick.

Honestly, if you're playing 5E and not using homebrew, I feel like you are missing out. The benefits of the system being simple and WotC's glacial pace of new content are that there is a large demand for quality homebrew. There are still plenty of duds and OP stuff, but there's a lot of highly reviewed and curated homebrew content including new classes, subclasses, monsters, ancestries, feats, spells, etc.

Salamileg wrote:

I agree with this pretty strongly actually. 5e at its core is a really good system imo (with some glaring flaws that can be worked around) but WotC has absolutely refused to do anything interesting with it.

I have no idea why they're sticking with one major rule book per year with everything else being an adventure or a setting guide with each offering maybe a handful of new spells and items to their buyers. I don't think they'd want to go back to a 3.x book every month or two breakneck pace - even if I'd love that - but even a substantial rule book every quarter would be a huge upgrade over the current paucity of major updates.

It's infuriating as a long time 5E fan that WotC has a glacial pace of content, but I see their point. D&D is booming more than ever and I think they are too scared to do anything that might compromise that spectacular success. To be fair to them, 5E is now like the gateway drug for TTRPG, so keeping it casual with not an overwhelming amount of content might make sense. Even if it irks more hardcore enthusiasts like myself.

Thankfully 5E has a great homebrew community with honestly some better content than what WotC produces. But I would still want some official content.

I don't think the Battlemaster is a great case for the strengths of 5E. I would try to make a martial Fighter. Many of the stuff the Battlemaster can do, a PF2E Fighter can do with the right skills, and without as many limits. And the nice thing is that any martial (or caster for that matter) can do combat maneuvers. It's not limited to a specific subclass of a specific class and the frequency isn't gated behind short rests.

However, I think the heart of your Steffan's post does point to a certain issue PF2E has. Besides focus points and spells, few abilities have a "cooldown", which means you can spam them all day long. That is really cool, but the downside is that their power level can feel meh because the abilities are balanced around the fact there are unlimited in frequency. 5E abilities usually are limited to X times per short or long rest, which means they can be more impactful, but at the cost you can't do them all the time. There are some exceptions, but that's the general design. Some players like having strong abilities and resource management, while others don't.

Resource management also comes with design difficulties such as the infamous 5 minute adventure day. One of the flaws of 5E for me is the poor balance of short rest vs long rest classes. Since the game is designed around the average adventure day (6-8 encounters), the balance suffers if you just run 1-3 combats a day. This lets people go nova with their abilities, and favors long rest classes that have more powerful abilities limited to X times per long rest. PF2E elegantly gets past this issue by making abilities limitless except for spells (for the most part). So you can run 1-3 encounters in PF2E without having to worry about short rest classes get screwed over.

Now, if you like to run dungeons or long adventuring days, then disregard my last paragraph, but I don't like those type of games. And from I've read online, not many others do.

With all that said, I would like to have more impactful abilities in PF2E that are on "cooldown", but the designers would have to be careful to prevent the game from evolving into 5E's problem adventure day design.

You may get lots and lots of feats in PF2, but the list of choices is pretty much pick 1 of 3 after first level. Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting. PF2, so far for me, has shaped up to be the ultimate one trick pony edition.

"Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting." Eh, I don't know if that's true. If you're only facing high level enemies, then yeah, but ideally you're facing a mix of low level to high level enemies. One of the strengths of PF2E over 5E is that you have more options as a martial class. In 5E, a Fighter really can't do much but just use their action to attack every turn. They get more attacks as they level up, but its ultimately just the same thing every turn. In PF2E, a Fighter can do more than just attack. They have more tactical options such as flanking (not a thing in 5E), many combat maneuvers depending on their skill choices, and other skill applicable actions like Treat Wounds or Recall Knowledge. A flail&shield Fighter with good athletics and intimidation can raise a shield, trip, demoralize, and attack. Their 5E version can't do anything but attack.

I do agree with a previous poster that PF2E feats are less powerful in scope. Instead of broad brushstroke changes like 5E abilities/feats, PF2E features/feats are more like small, detailed updates. Which makes sense as you get way more feats with PF2E than 5E. In 5E, you only get a handful of features, and maybe a feat or two, so you want each new ability to feel really impactful since its so scarce.

I do miss some of the over type abilities from 5E though. Being able to play a shadow Monk teleporting from shadow to shadow like a magical ninja isn't really possible in PF2E. Yeah, you can use the Shadow Dancer archetype, but it takes a while to come online and is much more limited.

5E is simpler no doubt, but I do like the cool abilities you get from your subclass. With PF2E's "subclasses", you might an ability, focus spell or two, but that's it. Everything is also significantly toned down for the most part in regards to magical abilities. A subclass like the Shadow Monk is way too magical for PF2E. Now on the flip side, once you pick a 5E subclass, you're locked barring multiclassing, which can be boring. Meanwhile with PF2E, you get new feats to customize your character fairly often.