It is a system that rewards narration and it plays hard on Narrativism in GNS.That means it's on the players to be creative and explain in better detail how their character is solving problems. This is encouraged with their hero point system, Inspiration. It encourages role playing.
I've found when playing it, tackling the problem with the same mentality of 3.x, and following the steps is the best way to explain it to my DM, it's how I get my points at least. I guess whether you agree or disagree with that tells us something about your play style.
Seems good, though I am a fan of the half - race stuff being the human niche for racial variants.
Makes sense to me because humans seem to be the only race that can cross breed, unlike other races. Though some people don't like that and want half elf/ dwarf characters and the like.
Racial plane touched races were the weirdest thing in PF1 because they existed, but only changed your size and age maturity and nothing else. That's something that definitely could be looked at.
Any character can wield any weapon somewhat effectively so long as they are trained with it, and most of their class features are tied to the mechanics of the game rather than flavor options. Longswords upgrading dice two handed is their power attack, light weapons using DEX universally is their Weapon Finesse, etc.
Getting rid of feats however makes the game a lot more theatre of the mind and forces players and DMs to use colorful language rather than mechanical options on the character sheet to invoke this.
I sorta agree.
I pushed for the current change to Ancestry, and I'm glad to see it. I do think more heritage options like this would benefit the game, but not necessarily in core.
However, I do like the idea of looking at stuff like the Drow noble (and the feat chain to create it in PF1) to give us a baseline for what power scale the ancestry feats could be giving.
The racial feat chains from PF1 could easily be incorporated here, with base humans getting less options, but more versatility in getting generic options more often.
Look at concepts like the racial combat styles available to dwarves and elves, or even the chain of aasimar feats you have here.
That's where Ancestry feats should end up.
Good stuff, +1.
Ignoring the parts of PF1 that functioned better than PF2 is not going to make a better game.
PF2 is quite the ambitious project, because unlike PF1 there is no backward compatibility with 10+ years of products, this is an important factor in making sure that all the holes in this edition are patched up.
Honestly, pathfinder 1.5 would probably sell better, but would more than likely inherit more problems than it solves. You also basically got it when you bought Unchained. I used the Unchained RAE from day 1 and even publicly shared my house rules to clean it up and make the already printed materials actually compatible with it.
Mathematical comparisons to PF1 I'll agree are not helpful, because PF2 is using a whole new numerical architecture. Whenever I make math posts, I keep that in mind. It's about function more than fashion in that respect.
Breadth of option comparisons to PF1 seem to be where the contention is. It's not about being able to do x damage by y level, but rather about having the choice of doing q damage, r damage, or p damage at y level, but the game decides only certain classes get access to r, p, or q. Gaining access to this requires feat taxing in the new multiclass system which sacrifices class identity and functionality. That's a valid complaint, and the comparison to PF1 implies that it should not be impossible to fix for PF2.
Resource management is the underlying killer of the new edition. PF1 dumped new resources to manage on you all the time, instead of interrupting the ones from the core chassis of the game. They're trying to find a way to incorporate those superfluous resources into the main game for all characters and that's mostly where the disruption in the game's functionally is coming from.
That and the new rules directly working against each other stifling creativity on part of the players. The iconic characters don't even do what they intend well because of all the conflict. Bounded math ultimately negates the +/- 10 crit system for instance. The hidden design paradigms of the game which we uncovered in the math make posters like me feel duped by what Paizo was trying to sell us when they announced the game however many months ago.
Potency scales too high for the damage to work, even between d6 and d12 weapons.
Deadly is the attempt to fix this, but given how little crit chance you actually have it's not very useful.
People can like fistfulls of dice, but when I play tested with starknife throwing, it became clear how useless my 'optimized crit fighter' was compared to a paladin just swinging a d12 weapon.
It didn't feel fun to need crits just to compare to the other guy's average hit. I multiclassed rogue, and built up Dread Striker for crit chance. Double Slice and a +3 to hit still didn't help.
The math just doesn't work. At least in PF1 magic weapons could be a bit lower in + and still be effective weapons.
I do like that idea with just pumping up a high quality gauntlet and using the Doubling Rings to get your golfbag build to be effective, but said golf bag is going to have a lot of the same weapons in it because of how punishing the math is. Additionally, every class but the fighter only increases their weapon proficiency with a single weapon group, so no switch hitting and no changing your style when you find cool loot.
So, in meeting a design goal of telling the same stories, would it be fair to say that the last few power levels could be chopped off, and then you could level up faster, making something like RotRL play from 1-20, while retaining the same power balance?
Sure, but items that retain utility like this need a level of system competence to understand in order to know that making say, a 10th level character may still want to grab these even though they would have come online way sooner.
Compare that to the difference in a +2 and a +3 weapon, and it's obvious that the +3 weapon is better.
So I'm not sure how well I think the system is actually functioning.
I'm now curious about the balance levels of power in the APs, since I don't play them, don;t they usually only ever get to like 16th level tops?
Do you ever get to 9th level spells?
I like the idea of "e6 edition" where your "level" merely determines your feats (and thus character complexity) but the power balance of the game remains relatively similar.
I think however, that may be the underlying mechanism for 5e.
Depends on the system, but I think keeping one form of levels matters and making sure the rules make sense. If something like D&D 5th existed or there was a one-shots only kind of game where accuracy and such was bounded in a game that's designed around the e6 paradigm that might actually work. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what that playstyle is.
Item levels don't feel attached to the item, they feel arbitrary. I don't hear Doubling Rings and think "oh boy a 3rd level item!" I think it's an item designed to help me use two magical weapons, and it retains its usefulness far beyond 3rd level.
Though in my own setting, I have spell levels represented as a form of mathematical complexity, explaining magic as an exploitation of energy waves coming from a specific type of star and influencing matter at various energy levels (like the energy levels which determine the complexity of an atom).
I put a lot of effort into trying to make my own setting make sense, still doing some of the silly bits of math that no one would think to do.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Thanos is mostly known from the comics for the Infinity Gauntlet story, where he gets his hands on all the infinity stones and then snaps his fingers, killing half the universe.
In the film, Thanos is obsessed with being "Perfectly balanced, as all things should be."
By the end of the film, he snaps his fingers and kills half the universe-as in the book. The joke my player made was that Paizo snapped their fingers and half their customers dissipated.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
1. So far this is the most complex iteration/version of D&D/PF1, so far, to me, byzantine and a very technical read. I would not introduce a new player to this system, as is.
I do find the immense volume of keywords to cause problems, because I'm stuck constantly flipping through pages and pages to find definitions of the keywords instead of being able to understand the abilities outright.
I like the idea, but the execution needs work. It feels like it was written by a programmer, and it plays like a computer program. (That might be a goal, in case they want to do a MMO again later on with this system implemented.)
2. I am not sure about that, if that means Golarian, or in general.
I never really played the APs or modules, I use my own setting because I like having more narrative control. It is easier to have more challenges that aren't invalidated by the PCs abilities at certain levels, but part of the fun for me was including those benchmarks as being the gates to what makes certain challenges 'high level' things. My favorite big ending to a campaign had the PCs using Interplanetary Teleport to get to the moon where the Lich's lair is, and needing to use spells and items to make sure they could survive in the airless, radioactive environment. They also had to fight a Lunar Dragon who guarded the entrance to the fortress. Obviously this is impossible now.
3. I would like some examples, all I am seeing is pretty much the Unchained RAE.
Retraining from Ultimate Campaign, and the Backgrounds replacing the profession skill seem to be what they're referring to here. I think. Fighters getting martial flexibility is certainly something that wasn't core.
4. The "defined role' line seems to contradict a lot of what was previously stated.
Yeah, this is where all the Thanos jokes are coming from for me. I'd totally pay for that Coppertone skin changing purple stuff and ship it to them if Jason would be willing to wear it for his inevitable Design Musings video on game balance.
5. Again, not welcoming to new players, this seems like a game for advanced players.
For sure, I've been recruiting newbies and it's getting difficult to teach them how complicated the system is. It's daunting even for advanced players thanks to layout and clutter. I noticed in the rules survey there actually is a question on removing the 'everyone gets this' stuff from the class tables and I like that.
The tables themselves feel empty to me, because I'm used to the spreadsheet laying out exactly what resources my character has so I can look at it and read it like a graph and understand what my character class gives me.
The fact that you're calling it a 'mistake' for me to prioritize the game over the politics is blatant flaming and yet again you are the poster attempting to derail and ruin a discussion I want to have about the content of the game.
If the politics is a discussion you want to have, start your own thread and we can discuss it there, I want to talk about the game, because like I said, bringing politics into it takes away from that as you are clearly demonstrating. Take the discussion elsewhere.
My last thread got derailed and sucked into a hyperbolic crapshoot while I was at work and I got home to it being closed, let's not do that again.
In the aftermath of our efforts to get the devs talking we have a new blog with the goals of the game finally being communicated clearly to us, and they are as such:
Simpler to learn is correct. I do like how easy it is to teach the d20 engine to people, and I've been praising it since the blog era. The customization is a flat out falsehood however, narrow paths that branch out into predesignated feat chains bring the very worst aspects of what came before, instead of having a list of meaningful choices I can freely choose from at each of my levels. I do feel like I'm 'rewarded' for mastering the rules, but only after doing a long mathematical analysis to realize that builds that aren't built to be optimized and using d12 weapons simply fall short. Batman does not function in this system, I've tried.
Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).
Impossible. Complete failure to meet this goal. Goblins are good guys now? How would that go over with the first encounter in RotRL? Magic is neutered, meaning the same amount of encounters per day, and the narrative significance of spellcasting are completely different. This plays like Sword & Sorcery where PF1 was High Fantasy. You can't switch genres and still expect the same stories, that's a literary axiom.
It's only balanced if you're in an environment where every player is making the absolute most powerful build possible, any deviation from that and the 'balance' falls apart against the players. My starknife fighter/rogue multiclass couldn't do anywhere near as much damage as the stock paladin with a bastard sword, even though I built for Feinting to enable me to crit more often (which I did). Defining the roles is gaslighting for something, I'm sure. While balance matters to make sure you aren't killing trees unnecessarily when you release the final product, you gotta make sure that the actual playing of the game isn't tailored to one specific gaming philosophy, like power-gaming or [whatever name you want to use for its antithesis].
I don't feel welcome. I'm Hispanic, and I've dealt with silly nonsense my whole life, like getting called names, being accused of cheating in Spanish class in school, you name it, I've dealt. I'm familiar with the idea of racism and such. What I've learned is pushing people on these things often leads to you not being invited to game anymore, because either you ruined the experience for everyone by deciding your personal needs were more important than the game, or because they genuinely thought they hurt your feelings too much and don't think you like them enough to show up to the game anymore. The language has also been used as an open license for blatant racism/sexism/bigotry/hate speech targeting a specific group of people (whom I shall not refer to, but I definitely have gamed with and do game with regularly) that Paizo seems to not care about offending. I find the need for such language harmful, though I respect and laud the goal, I think there must be a better way to communicate it other than literally telling people they don't deserve to play the game in the rulebook. This shouldn't be political, it has nothing to do with politics, and giving people a licence to interject it derails conversations and ruins the experience.
I can attest from experience that this build will not be playable. Barbarians don't get proficiency increases until level 13, so you'll be swinging at level +3 until 5th, then level +4, and the math of the game is such that you literally cannot land critical hits save for landing a nat 20.
And given the lower damage dice of your weapons, you won't feel like your character is contributing because you will be failing at your attempts more than you succeed, this is shown both in practice and in theory.
You really need to have the highest stat possible, and I mean need by its textbook definition. I've tried such builds myself a few times over, and they failed to perform in every scenario I attempted (lvl 1, 4, and 12).
When the game has such tight math behind it, the freedom of choice we think we have really is just there to pad out the length of the book.
I see this got productive. Really appreciate being accused of conspiracy theories and what not when I say that the game plays like it's intended for organized play. If you couldn't tell that I was referring to the limited options and how optimization doesn't actually destroy the encounters anymore but it's instead the assumed norm.
Hero points? Yes they can easily be dealt out for organized play. Organized play is now and will always be about rewarding out of game decisions, hence you need to buy the books to play the class/ archetype/ options.
The game as written would do fine for organized play, you can't make broken characters.
Bring back leadership so I can use my class feature.
On a serious note, this made me laugh audibly.
I want enemy/ PC parallelism, it would fix the math, but require a complete rewrite of the entire game where giving some classes a little boost here and there might be substantially less work.
Which is kinda where I'm at with this, why advocate for the game I want when the devs have a different path in mind?
Jason says it's not built for organized play, but I want to know what aspects of this aren't directly influenced by it here. It's been a criticism of Paizo for literally years that they care about the PFS crowd more than home games, and despite what they're telling us here, they aren't showing it in their actions or their products.
I doubt Jason will come back here for the conversation, and I have no idea what I'm supposed to look forward to next week. My players have given up on the play test as of yesterday. They do seem interested in what I'm working on as an aside tho.
Dire Ursus wrote:
At first it was about realizing which Skill feats we wanted, but could not qualify for with signature skills, but it got much harder to do builds once we started looking at how to do items and how to distribute wealth.
The alchemist never actually finished his character, we decided to wing it and start playing because we had all been sitting there for an extra hour waiting for him to get done.
Then there's the problems that come from needing to constantly flip back and forth in the book to reference what all your abilities could do and it makes it much harder than having say, the domain powers' descriptions actually listed with the cleric to compare the options, instead we have to sift through all the spells to find them, or turn the page back and forth over and over again.
Then there's the reading that comes into figuring out which feats exist to fulfill a concept, and I have had players flat out turn a 180 on a build after realizing their concept is not possible in the book as written because of how restrictive it is.
I think Ancestry feats need to go, I don;t like how they stagnate an complicate the character creation process, and it feels like I'm forced to take them because the devs want to make sure I take them lest they be wasted ink, which they feel like when I compare them to being able to just take the feats I want in PF1.
You'll never get better tactics than using PF1's RAE with the vast variety of characters and viable combat styles, along with the lack of superfluous action taxes that eat away over half your turn just to hold your weapon correctly and use a class feature.
The new action economy has a good framework, but they're micro-managing too much and the game doesn't play well. My players got sick of me telling them "no you can't do that" over and over and over and over again when they're just trying to move, use class feature, and attack.
Character creation is difficult because you have 4 different boxes of feats to track and you get no freedom with them. That means you have to read all four sections and figure out what the best combos are, instead of picking one feat that you want for 1st level, plus maybe a bonus feat that your class gives you.
Character creation is the longest process of this play test.
I'm not gonna call myself the core fan base. I will say that the pieces fit when viewing most aspects of the game in the light of organized play. It certainly plays that way.
But again, it seems our opinions on what makes the game work at its best must be vastly different.
I'd like to have some sort of goal or knowledge about what the team is working on to know what to test/play next.
It's not impossible that the few of us here who like the OP are a minority compared to the survey results.
We can state the problems with proficiency to be summed up as:
1) the game's bounded math requiring similar/ homogenous results on the d20 roll doesn't lend itself well to a class based system, unless you get more abilities to modulate that die roll (5e's solution)
2) keeping the rules for Nat 1 and 20 negate the +/-10 system in so much as the binding in the d20's roll should not be necessary
3) proficiency itself is not a baseline assumption of the game's chassis, rather it is seemingly distributed at random for the classes at levels that otherwise would be 'dead' which leads to several builds lacking in capacity to participate in the critical system.
Proficiency was sold to us as being a mechanic which improves you, but it doesn't. It's assumed in the game's math, which results in a game where anyone not playing with those assumptions baked into their character creation process will fail more than they succeed. This more than likely is what's causing my non cookie cutter builds to feel weak by comparison. I truly believe the baseline assumptions of the game should not include proficiency at all, and instead use 0 as the baseline, that way getting +1 and above actually does improve you. I also think the math should be loosened up so individual characters (and classes generally) can modulate their rolls modifiers with active choices that affect their capacity to roll well. The rogue is actually in pretty good shape in this regard as Dread Striker guarantees +3 okk a success and +4 on a crit (which falls exactly into the range I described when I did my math thread) I whole heartedly believe more actions like this which toggle the hit/crit ratio will fix the game more than forcing a rewrite of the entire book.
Mathematically, if a class like the paladin got a smite ish ability which added CHA to hit and damage, then taxing an action to use it would reduce the value of that bonus because it eats into your ability to roll multiple attacks. It's a tactic which makes your primary attack worth more, and it makes it worth focusing on. It's also mathematically balanced around making the crit range equal to landing a second hit, and that creates a situation where your total damage potential is less than swinging three times, but more consistent. That consistency is what makes the game feel right when you invest in a character's abilities.
I was under the impression in the blog era that the crit system was meant to be triggered often, so martial builds would be seeing it a lot more and have cool things happen, analogous to spells. Given how HP scales up on enemies, my concerns about encounter design have been more or less confirmed. The math doesn't work.
I'd rather not, and I'm not sure Paizo appreciates edition waring and telling people to go play other people's games on their forums.
One of my players went to GenCon and it was asked upon the devs how they came to the decisions on how to make the new edition, and they flat out said it was from PFS surveys.
This is an edition designed for and around PFS, it's not only evident in how the rules are written, but in how they are executed where cookie-cutter builds are not just expected, but mandated with the illusion of choice for other things which are not functional at the table.
Given the changes to things like classes such as the ranger and rogue in 1.3, it would seem the area where I'm focused in is not the area where the game is being focused. I see the changes here and from them I can derive that there is a conflict in what my input would be compared to what I infer the design goals to be.
Considering the biggest changes I've seen in 1.3 are around those specific issues as well as the skill table changes, I'm not sure I'd want to fight for another change to it if it's going to be wasted effort.
If I continue to play test, I'll want more knowledge on what the focus area really is and on what issues Paizo cares most about addressing.
Mark has a great track record, and Stephen too on Facebook (which I also frequent) of at least dropping in with 'noted.'
I'm just not sure I'm the one that does matter here. It's no one's fault, I'm not upset, but it may just be time to find my own path. I've been reading the 3.5 SRD a lot lately.
The fact that it both costs a Spell Point (a very limited resource in PF2) and requires a difficult DC check at all levels makes it not scale with you. It would make more sense to me if it either:a) used a flat DC which is harder to hit at the level you gain the ability, meaning you get only an additional +1 a set % of the time, which then probabilisticly improves as you level so that when you reach higher levels you succeed at it more to show your progress
b) didn't require a perform check at all and instead automatically improved itself either upon gaining higher proficiency or reaching some level threshold as certain feats scale in this edition.
That would remove the coin flip scenario and actually create an effect that made you feel like you got better at it as you leveled up, but the fact that it costs a limited resource and still includes a 50-50 shot of not really being that substantial given said resource, it just doesn't feel right from a gamism perspective.
Instead of making Hunt Target a more universally applicable ability regardless of combat style choice, the combat styles you get access to is specially tailored for the class and forces it or nothing else to be functional at the table, hence my statement that I cannot customize my character
I still don't quite understand this. Are you saying that the ranger combat styles are so effective in their synergy with hunt target that a ranger would be (relatively) ineffectively built if not making use of them? Is that different from the ranger's combat styles in 1e other than the fact that we have 3 to work with in 2e vs however many in 1e?
I think this underlines another fundamental issue I see in the design space, we're specifically comparing the rulebook exclusively to the CRB for PF1 in this context, but the ranger in PF1 from the APG on had a plethora of combat styles they could freely choose from which was supplemental to the class build (which honestly I felt should be incorporated to all martial classes). Given the ranger's expanded options by the end of PF1, I would think it better to consider the identity of the class in its fully expanded and evolved role at the end of PF1 rather than trying to recreate a replica of PF1's classes juxatopsed onto the rules architecture of PF2. Standardizing martially oriented classes into being able to choose from a list of Combat Styles ripped from the expanded ranger role would have been ideal for me personally. As presented, the ranger cannot do all the things it could in the previous edition, like the ever so famous switch-hitter build given the lack of support for taking general combat feats and the action taxes involved in switching and using weapons.
I don't think I'm wrong when I say that the +/-10 crit system is meant to be a game mechanic tailored to the fighter class specifically, with the intention being that fighters have the most access to it and thus fighters are the only class in the game who gain access to the critical specialization effects of more than one weapon group (or single weapon in certain classes).
I think it's pretty evident that spells were intended to focus on the bottom of the four tiered success system for their more relevant texts to the players and that critical success was meant more for the attack/critical hit engine of the game.
I don't hate the proficiency system of having +/-10 be the relevant modifiers should they appear on the die roll, but the Thanos esk perfectly balanced 50-55% success rate being balanced off fully optimized characters will lead to this edition not really having that much of a variety in the characters that will end up getting played.
I don't think binding tha math around a different number system like +1/2 level or +1/3 level will change much, unless the ability for your rolls to give you more of a success/failure rate is also there.
I like having nat 1 and 20 auto crits because it means you can have much more variety in the middle without having to worry about always balancing the d20 roll around that coin-flip rate. Given that the rate is based off full optimization, I think that for proficiency to really showcase its relevance, we need to have the base DC/AC ranges to always be based on the Trained proficiency (+0) and the other relevant numbers to be based on the average for any given stat at that particular level.
For example, at level 5 the range for any given stat is from 8 to 19, or a -1 to +4. The average is 1.5, so a DC for a simple task ought to be around 16-17. (Compared to 1.3's 18 DC for medium difficulty) Experts at this level will see marginal success rates over trained, but untrained is going to hope for a higher roll.
At level 10, this changes to the range being 8 to 20, or an average of 2. So the bounded DC should be 22 (compared to 24 in 1.3's update).
If proficiency is not assumed in the math considering DCs and ACs then proficiency will actually matter, and as that average increases the DCs will scale to represent that.
It would hypothetically make the proficiency mechanics actually functional as they are sold to us in that they make your character better for investing into them, rather than by mandating them to be perfectly balanced at 50-55% efficiency.