Main Thing You Want From PF2?
I don't want to be a "downer" for Paizo or those fans who are looking forward to PF2e, but I don't really want anything beyond house rules for PF1e that could be enabled/disabled in Hero Lab.
I'm all for innovation in game systems, but PF2e complicates my local gaming situation. We're going to get spread out further over multiple game systems because its unlikely PF2e will be universally liked. Where there had been three PF1e games, there will likely become a PF2e game, a PF1e game, and a D&D5e game.
In some ways, this is actually good. Variety is healthy. If other local DMs are breaking away from the herd, I'm likely to do so as well. I'm likely to "go grognard" and return to some now-vintage rules.
I kind of wonder if it might have been better for Paizo to focus on releasing adventures for PF1e and D&D5e, instead of starting a PF2e effort. Yep, that's arm-chair quarterbacking. It will be interesting to see how things ultimately turn out for Paizo. I don't begrudge them anything. We just might be parting ways in pursuit of different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a game that resembles a modern release that doesn't have the same problems we've been dealing with for 30+ years. I want them to leave the shackles of 3.x behind and really develop their own identity. I don't want new issues to be created due to the old issues or adhering to the old way.
For example, goblins as a playable race or a new core race line up that includes goblins are not a problem. Hot gluing goblins to the old core race line up is a problem. If things are going to be changed, change them. Half measures will create more problems than they fix. For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f@!%ing argument about them.
For example I don't get the love for Call of Duty, but I do love FPS games. For CoD to be a game I enjoy not only would 50% of it have to change, but so would the core game design elements that created those elements. I have been a playtester for CoD in the past. I have given my criticisms and at the end of the day when CoD didn't get changed to the style of game I enjoy I was perfectly happy to go play one that was.If you liked COD, and got a chance to playtest the next version, and you found out it was instead super Mario world, you'd probably have some complaints. You probably wouldn't appreciate folks telling you to go play your old COD or some other game much either.
Not sayin; just sayin.
Then again, it's not like games haven't notably changed their presentation/gameplay and been loved in spite of that. Just to pull one out near and dear to my heart, the 3d Metroid games (aka the Prime series). Spinoffs have also broken genres entirely and are basically franchises of their own now (ie stuff like Mario Cart)
Also saying that PF1->2 is the equiv of CoD to SMB is a bit hyperbolic. You're probably looking more to the effect of previous God of Wars to the current one. New and shiny with a ton of updates and shifts in the previous gameplay formula, but still maintains the feel of its predecessors. The Prime series is another example of that same gist.
ugh, I knew continuing with the COD analogy was going to be a bad idea. Lets use yours about change sometimes being better. Dragon age 2 nearly shelved the franchise, and Mass Effect Andromeda did shelve the franchise, so sometimes change can be detrimental.
Honestly, im not making any judgement about PF2 at the moment. Some folks are concerned about changes being for the worse. There are better ways to engage those folks than, "if you dont like it play something else."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A balance between a variety of different but effective build options without making every build feel the same way.
I'd like to be able to build an effective archer without having to take the same 6 feats every single time, but I also don't want to be able to build an effective archer by closing my eyes and pointing at a list of ranged feats every level.
Also, obviously I'd like martials to be a little more effective compared to casters, but I don't mind if casters are still a little stronger in the late game.
I know that's an extremely complex task, but I have high hopes for the new system. Here's hoping it's more like Persona 5 and less like Dragon Age 2.
For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.
Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
"It was a problem before so a problem it shall remain." Is exactly what I don't want from 2e. If you want an "iconic" experience, 1e and numerous other previous D20 editions are still there. Let's fix and update the decades old sacred cows. There is little need for a slightly stream lined version of 1e.
"It was a problem before so a problem it shall remain." Is exactly what I don't want from 2e. If you want an "iconic" experience, 1e and numerous other previous D20 editions are still there. Let's fix and update the decades old sacred cows. There is little need for a slightly stream lined version of 1e.For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
Never said it was right, just giving insight as to why they still keep around the problem children.
Also, there may not be a need, but based on numerous vocal posters, there certainly is a desire for a streamlined PF1. Unfortunately, I think there won't be much support for the "D&D 3.875" that is PF1.5, so...
|
|
Updated Spells
Some of the spells in PF1 are the same spells from D&D 2nd ed and don't really work in a v3.5+ system anymore.
It will be so nice to finally have an updated spell list designed for this edition.
Upcasting
It looks like I probably won't get this one or possibly a nerfed version...but 5ed style casting is fun and plays really well.
I hope they change their mind on this one by playtest end and allow flexible casting because currently Upcasting's benefit is only really saving some print space by combining similar spells.
Closer Power Levels
The biggest problem in Pathfinder for me is the vast power disparity in a party. I'm ok with the power gamer guy doing up to 50% more damage than the other guys in the party but currently in PF1 I often see 1 character do as much (or more) damage as the rest of the party combined which isn't much fun for the rest of the party.
Better PC Customization
I really like the concept of class and ancestry feats and giving each pc a lot of customization opportunities.
For many PF1 classes there weren't too many relevant options.
Quicker and Balanced High Level Combat
At higher levels each person's turn can take quite a while and combats are often dictated by who wins initiative (rocket tag).
It is looking like the PF2 turn should be more streamlined and will hopefully be balanced a little better.
I think they could have done this if they were willing to downsize their company to only those that would be needed to do that. But that is of course not something at all appealing to any company, especially one that has a decent portion of higher ups who are all about the creation of mechanical content.
I think they made the right choice, Pathfinder and Paizo need to grow not shrink, and stagnation will only lead to the latter.
Yes, I don't begrudge anyone the ability to make a living and certainly don't want to see Paizo downsize. I once survived a 50% layoff at a company and its a sad time for everyone.
Hopefully the AP content will still be appealing to you.
While I play in games that run APs, I largely run a home-brew setting with my own adventures. I usually only buy rules. Paizo probably cannot afford to consider me part of their target audience.
Like I said in the previous post, Paizo and I are probably headed in different directions. If I'm going to convert my home-brew setting and material to a new game system, I'd probably go back to D&D 3.5e to get away from PF1e's slightly higher power levels and back to a set of rules where I didn't think I needed Hero Lab support. That way I could more-easily apply house rules.
For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
Like the assumed masochism of acting like iconic elements are objectively badwrongfun?
Like the assumed masochism of acting like iconic elements are objectively badwrongfun?For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
Have you not been paying attention to the last 30+ years of arguments? Yes, core rules only LG paladins are a problem. A problem not worth having. Especially if people's best excuse is that "Well we had paladins before". But I'd be happy hearing your explanation of why we should continue to deal with the LG only paladin problem and what value besides "legacy" it provides.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We actually don't know that the core rules will only have LG Paladins. That depends on what people say in the playtest.
The playtest will only have LG Paladins, but honestly, despite my desire for CG Paladins, I think that's a good choice. If there were CG Paladins in the playtest that were actually mechanically different, you wouldn't get a playtest of the mechanics at all. You'd instead get a giant Alignment argument. Avoiding that is a good goal for a playtest.
I mostly want to see a game that still has a lot of interesting build options and rules for system mastery, but also narrows the gap between optimized builds and un-optimized builds. A lot of what makes Pathfinder special to me is the fact that there are so many interconnecting options to tinker with and I like looking at where novel combinations lead both in terms of game effectiveness but also in terms of roleplaying.
For instance, a friend and I theorycrafted a monk/Druid multiclass build that involved doing kungfu while wildshaped into a dinosaur. It did not make me the most powerful character in the party, but it was fun and viable enough and was not at all the sort of character I would have imagined if the rules interactions had not led me to consider it.
We actually don't know that the core rules will only have LG Paladins. That depends on what people say in the playtest.
The playtest will only have LG Paladins, but honestly, despite my desire for CG Paladins, I think that's a good choice. If there were CG Paladins in the playtest that were actually mechanically different, you wouldn't get a playtest of the mechanics at all. You'd instead get a giant Alignment argument. Avoiding that is a good goal for a playtest.
Oh yeah, we've really avoided that alignment argument this way. "We might do other alignments maybe later if we feel like it" does not strongly point to paladins of other alignments being in Core. Besides being an old man tired of hearing the same argument, it's another sign that Paizo is clinging too much to "legacy". To me, D&D 5e is a series of half measures. They wanted to do things differently, but were too worried about changing things up too much. I'd rather not see that for 2E. Too early to call for sure, but there have been worrying signs.
I don't want to be a "downer" for Paizo or those fans who are looking forward to PF2e, but I don't really want anything beyond house rules for PF1e that could be enabled/disabled in Hero Lab.
I'm all for innovation in game systems, but PF2e complicates my local gaming situation. We're going to get spread out further over multiple game systems because its unlikely PF2e will be universally liked. Where there had been three PF1e games, there will likely become a PF2e game, a PF1e game, and a D&D5e game.
In some ways, this is actually good. Variety is healthy. If other local DMs are breaking away from the herd, I'm likely to do so as well. I'm likely to "go grognard" and return to some now-vintage rules.
I kind of wonder if it might have been better for Paizo to focus on releasing adventures for PF1e and D&D5e, instead of starting a PF2e effort. Yep, that's arm-chair quarterbacking. It will be interesting to see how things ultimately turn out for Paizo. I don't begrudge them anything. We just might be parting ways in pursuit of different things.
Locally, Pathfinder seems to be about dead, with 5E completely replacing it. While I would prefer a tweaked version of the Pathfinder system perhaps, If a new easier to run system that still maintains the release schedule and complexity of the existing game is produced, maybe I can finally actually play the game, versus simply buying books as collector items (which honestly is sort of what the hardcovers are for me at this junction)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, we've really avoided that alignment argument this way. "We might do other alignments maybe later if we feel like it" does not strongly point to paladins of other alignments being in Core.
The actual mechanical discussion of how the Class works will not inevitably turn into an alignment argument now. The issue is not avoiding such arguments entirely, it's allowing some actual mechanical analysis to be done as well.
Besides being an old man tired of hearing the same argument, it's another sign that Paizo is clinging too much to "legacy". To me, D&D 5e is a series of half measures. They wanted to do things differently, but were too worried about changing things up too much. I'd rather not see that for 2E. Too early to call for sure, but there have been worrying signs.
I disagree, but the only proof we'll ever see either way will be the final version, so there's little I can say about this at the moment.
Like the assumed masochism of acting like iconic elements are objectively badwrongfun?For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
When said iconic elements are the source of numerous problems and grievances that would otherwise not occur if such a thing didn't exist? Yes. Yes it is. And people still put up with it despite now having the potential to change it, hence a guilty pleasure.
The actual mechanical discussion of how the Class works will not inevitably turn into an alignment argument now. The issue is not avoiding such arguments entirely, it's allowing some actual mechanical analysis to be done as well.
I mean but it will though. You said it yourself we don't know if LG will be the only paladin in core, that depends on player response. What that does is give the players who don't want LG only incentive to raise as much hell as possible to ensure that Paladins of other alignments are in core. I don't care how good or bad the LG Paladin mechanics are, I don't want LG only paladins in the core rules. I don't want LG only paladins period. Plenty of other players feel the same. By making the playtest LG only, they have politicized it. And I fail to see how not allowing the mechanics of the other alignment Paladins to be tested encourages more mechanical analysis.
Have you not been paying attention to the last 30+ years of arguments? Yes, core rules only LG paladins are a problem. A problem not worth having. Especially if people's best excuse is that "Well we had paladins before". But I'd be happy hearing your explanation of why we should continue to deal with the LG only paladin problem and what value besides "legacy" it provides.Like the assumed masochism of acting like iconic elements are objectively badwrongfun?For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
I was referring more to the shot at vancian casting, but why dont you step back from that ledge and we can discuss pallys. How the pally should be handled is really a matter of what the definition of pally means to the user. Paizo should have either opened the class up to all alignments, or demoted the class to prestige. The chosen path currently, is problematic, I agree with you there. Keeping with tradition isnt problematic itself, its just not your preference. Stating as much is fine, stating as much is fact, is not.
I was referring more to the shot at vancian casting, but why dont you step back from that ledge and we can discuss pallys. How the pally should be handled is really a matter of what the definition of pally means to the user. Paizo should have either opened the class up to all alignments, or demoted the class to prestige. The chosen path currently, is problematic, I agree with you there. Keeping with tradition isnt problematic itself, its just not your preference. Stating as much is fine, stating as much is fact, is not.Have you not been paying attention to the last 30+ years of arguments? Yes, core rules only LG paladins are a problem. A problem not worth having. Especially if people's best excuse is that "Well we had paladins before". But I'd be happy hearing your explanation of why we should continue to deal with the LG only paladin problem and what value besides "legacy" it provides.Like the assumed masochism of acting like iconic elements are objectively badwrongfun?For realsy, why are they choosing to keep the Paladin problem in the game? I'd rather have no Paladin's in the core rule book than have another f!%*ing argument about them.Because Paladins are such an iconic legacy to the genre that benching or removing them will end up hurting more than helping.
On top of that, it's a guilty pleasure at this point, to the level of assumed masochism.
It's the same arguments for why vancian casting still exists.
Paladins being LG only adds no mechanical benefit to the game. Paladins being LG only does add mechanical problems to the game. There is nothing you can do with LG only that you could't do with G only. This means that mechanical problems are being left in the game to suit the preferences of people who like LG Paladins at the expense of everyone else. The only excuse ever given seems to be legacy, which is an argument that has no weight. So yeah, keeping with tradition does seem to be, factually, a poor mechanical decision. One which raises unnecessary questions like "Why is LG so much better than the other 8 alignments that they get their own core class?" And really, if your argument is "Everyone's opinion holds weight" get a new argument. I'll ask again, what benefit, besides legacy, does keeping paladins as LG only provide? What about the Pathfinder preview requires a LG only restriction instead of merely a G only restriction?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean but it will though.
No, that will be a separate debate.
You said it yourself we don't know if LG will be the only paladin in core, that depends on player response. What that does is give the players who don't want LG only incentive to raise as much hell as possible to ensure that Paladins of other alignments are in core. I don't care how good or bad the LG Paladin mechanics are, I don't want LG only paladins in the core rules. I don't want LG only paladins period. Plenty of other players feel the same. By making the playtest LG only, they have politicized it. And I fail to see how not allowing the mechanics of the other alignment Paladins to be tested encourages more mechanical analysis.
No. People will absolutely argue this to death but almost nobody is gonna respond to someone saying "Righteous Ally is a good ability, it does X and Y, but if you pick a shield you fall behind the other options because of Z." with "YOU MUST ALLOW CG PALADINS!"
Mechanics discussions will mostly stay on mechanics stuff.
However, if you had CG Paladins there'd be mechanics stuff like this brought up "The CG Paladin is a bit weaker than the LG Paladin at the moment because of X." (or vice versa) which would immediately devour the thread in an Alignment War about how the CG Paladin should be weaker, or nonexistent.
In other words, I'm not saying that there won't be alignment discussions, I'm saying they'll mostly be separate from the mechanical ones. Which would not be true if they had mechanically different LG and CG Paladins available.
And they definitely want Paladins of different Alignments to be mechanically different.
Paladins being LG only adds no mechanical benefit to the game. Paladins being LG only does add mechanical problems to the game. There is nothing you can do with LG only that you could't do with G only. This means that mechanical problems are being left in the game to suit the preferences of people who like LG Paladins at the expense of everyone else. The only excuse ever given seems to be legacy, which is an argument that has no weight. So yeah, keeping with tradition does seem to be, factually, a poor mechanical decision. One which raises unnecessary questions like "Why is LG so much better than the other 8 alignments that they get their own core class?" And really, if your argument is "Everyone's opinion holds weight" get a new argument. I'll ask again, what benefit, besides legacy, does keeping paladins as LG only provide? What about the Pathfinder preview requires a LG only restriction instead of merely a G only restriction?
FFS, this is exhausting. No a LG only pally is not a poor mechanical choice, its a style preferential choice that doesn't effect mechanics. You may not like that, but hey, its, like, your opinion man.
No. People will absolutely argue this to death but almost nobody is gonna respond to someone saying "Righteous Ally is a good ability, it does X and Y, but if you pick a shield you fall behind the other options because of Z." with "YOU MUST ALLOW CG PALADINS!"
Yes they will. Every thread will be "Righteous Ally is a good ability", "Yeah but it isn't a Lawful ability. Tell me again why this has LG restriction". People have already been responding like that with the Paladin preview. What incentive is there to do anything other than complain about the LG restriction if you don't want to see that in core? Is Paizo going to turn the car around?
And they definitely want Paladins of different Alignments to be mechanically different.
Just, you know, not enough to play test it.
FFS, this is exhausting. No a LG only pally is not a poor mechanical choice, its a style preferential choice that doesn't effect mechanics. You may not like that, but hey, its, like, your opinion man.
Hahaha alright go waste someone else's time then. Paizo has stated they want to use other mechanics, and possibly chassis, for the other alignments but whatever it's only a style preference.
Prestige Classes. Multiclassing. No 'trap' options(though this one seems to have flown the coop already) or feat taxes.
A different design philosophy for the companion line would really help with the trap options. Some of the worst designed options being released for the least tested product which also doesn't receive errata is just going to cause problems. Honestly just doing away with the "We don't do errata until reprints" philosophy would go a long way. It's always frustrating to have to explain to someone that that "really cool feat" might not even come up in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- More options for martials to do things besides "I hit so-and-so 3 times", such as improved maneuvers or perhaps some powerful techniques that use some sort of resource. Though granted, Paizo is on the right direction I think.
- A closer gap between skills and magic. It feels awful when a skilled character's talents are suddenly irrelevant when magic (not just prepared spells, but scrolls such as the ones for pass without a trace, wands of knock, ect) ends up being the better option all of the time. This issue issue is one of the main reasons behind the martial/caster disparity. I am hopeful that resonance and legendary skills will solve this, but I want to learn more about how master and legendary skills come into play.
- Better balance between prepared casters and spontaneous ones. Personally if it weren't for the delayed spell-slot rank progression for the latter or the pricier items to accommodate them, I would think that the balance between the two is better than it is in 5e. I know some people don't like true vancian, but it created a trade off between the flexibility of being able to change your spell-choices each morning, and being able to cast what you know without having to fill a slot ahead of time for that specific spell. Still, since wizards and sorcerers are sharing the spell-list again, I would love to see some more emphasis on blood-line powers, passive and active, to differentiate the two. I would love for "Form of the Dragon" to be a high level bloodline power.
- A short rest system, or a short 10 minute to 1 hour type of rest like in 5e and Starfinder. It feels a lot more intuitive than the CLW wand spam, and it helps alleviate the 15 minute adventuring day or the forced dedicated healer role. Adding extra benefits from the heal skill to these short rests would be great.
- An Artificer/Technologist class. I'll admit, I am a sucker for dungeonpunk stuff, and I like inventors. I also want to see the gunslinger take on (at least some) these aspects instead of just being a fighter with a gun. I am curious on how grit is going to function in Pathfinder 2e's future. That being said, I wonder if Alchemist can get feats to be built as an inventor of gadgets and technology instead of the emphasis on bombs and potions.
Main Thing You Want From PF2?I don't want to be a "downer" for Paizo or those fans who are looking forward to PF2e, but I don't really want anything beyond house rules for PF1e that could be enabled/disabled in Hero Lab.
I'm all for innovation in game systems, but PF2e complicates my local gaming situation. We're going to get spread out further over multiple game systems because its unlikely PF2e will be universally liked. Where there had been three PF1e games, there will likely become a PF2e game, a PF1e game, and a D&D5e game.
In some ways, this is actually good. Variety is healthy. If other local DMs are breaking away from the herd, I'm likely to do so as well. I'm likely to "go grognard" and return to some now-vintage rules.
I kind of wonder if it might have been better for Paizo to focus on releasing adventures for PF1e and D&D5e, instead of starting a PF2e effort. Yep, that's arm-chair quarterbacking. It will be interesting to see how things ultimately turn out for Paizo. I don't begrudge them anything. We just might be parting ways in pursuit of different things.
They already made exactly what you asked for though. It is the Unchained book. A lot of the things we are getting in PF2 have their roots in Unchained. Unchained can be enabled/disabled in hero lab. What else were you hoping for exactly? More classes could have used an unchaining, but there are already sooooo many house rule options in there. The big one I can think of is the World is Square feat tax house rules, but that already exists as something you can enable in hero lab.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want to see from PF2 is a system that 100% of current Pathfinder players consider an Improvement to Pathfinder.
This is, unfortunately, impossible. I have literally seen people whose idea of an 'improvement' is diametrically opposed to my own. We definitionally cannot both be satisfied with the new system.
The final answer to what happens when you grapple a succubus.
Primarily, rules that are (mostly) universal for all creatures (as in 5E, including different but at least similar to PC abilities for humanoid NPCs, but all CR based variables like polymorph choices, turn undead, and enemy proficiency bonus remapped to HD). I moved away from 5E when it seemed more inconsistencies popped up in newer splats (like playable monsters not having features which their NPC brethren had all the time).
Secondarily, the Total Termination of 5 Minutes Work Day. Many a woes are tied to this hideous phenomenon, I sincerely believe.
What I want to see from PF2 is a system that 100% of current Pathfinder players consider an Improvement to Pathfinder.
That is, a system where noone can say "PF1 is better than PF2 in this aspect". None of this "If you prefer PF1, play PF1" attitude.
I accept that keeping up with ten years' worth of character options is unlikely, so I'd be willing to use Pathfinder Core Rulebook + APG as a benchmark.
Won't happen.
PF2 will be successful if it sells more than the current sales of PF1. They could lose 50% of the playerbase and still do OK (this is what happened with 1E-2E, D&D going under was not 2E's fault as such however).
You don't need the current buyers at the height of PF1, you need to sell more than your current sales. Anyone still playing PF probably already has the core rules and due to the copious amount of splat available only the most hard core will be buying it. Ultimate Cmpaign was the lst splat I bought (unused and unread as a PDF). A couple of humble bundles which had some PF stuff for conversion (adventures).
Either way PF1 sales are probably not that great anymore. Amazon is one comparison you can use as well.
Perhaps 5E has made the pie bigger or some 5E player might alternate or return to PF2 IDK. There optins basically are.
1. Get lapsed PF players back (a lot who are playing 5E)
2. Recruit 5E players who have never player PF.
3. Attract new players.
For 1,2 and 3 the recurring theme would likely be a game easier to run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Main reason for tradition is you risk losing more players than you gain by dumping things. You can tweak it or add non Vancian options IMHO or may Paladins any alignment or whatever removing Paladins (or any fo the 121 classes) or dumping vancian bad idea. Even 10% pissed off is still around half your player base groups (1 DM 4 players, 10% is 1 player every two groups).
Then you have questions like "Am I even playing D&D" (see 4E).
Pathfinder= D&D BTW (along with the OSR clones). Its a glorified 3.5 clone at the end of the day.
Make it simple, keep some good things from 3.5 (microfeats, fort//ref/will etc), make it easier to run and try not to annoy to many people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Main reason for tradition is you risk losing more players than you gain by dumping things. You can tweak it or add non Vancian options IMHO or may Paladins any alignment or whatever removing Paladins (or any fo the 121 classes) or dumping vancian bad idea. Even 10% pissed off is still around half your player base groups (1 DM 4 players, 10% is 1 player every two groups).
Then you have questions like "Am I even playing D&D" (see 4E).
Pathfinder= D&D BTW (along with the OSR clones). Its a glorified 3.5 clone at the end of the day.
Make it simple, keep some good things from 3.5 (microfeats, fort//ref/will etc), make it easier to run and try not to annoy to many people.
I don't think it's an issue of pissing off 10% of your player base. It's that there are now multiple, complete versions of the 3.x system. Versions that have too much released for them. If 2e is merely a slightly streamlined version with the same 30 year old bugbears, why bother with it? We have 1E, we have unchained, we have 3.x, and we have more modern releases. 2E needs to find an identity, it needs to provide a reason to use it for the next 10 years.
I don't think it's an issue of pissing off 10% of your player base. It's that there are now multiple, complete versions of the 3.x system. Versions that have too much released for them. If 2e is merely a slightly streamlined version with the same 30 year old bugbears, why bother with it?
Sales. I'd probably pay for some products made for a slightly streamlined version with the same 30 year old bugbears. I may, or may not, pay for an entirely new product.
Its a gamble on Paizo's part. They've got the market data. They probably know their customers. I don't begrudge them the right to manage their business, take care of their employees, etc. More power to them.
At the same time, they can't dictate what I like or what I'll use. I get to pick based on what I feel works best for me. The thread is "what would we like to see?" I (and perhaps a few others) would like to see a slightly streamlined version with the same 30 year old bugbears, but I recognize that product may not be what is best for Paizo.
To be fair, Paizo still wants to appear to support PF1e, but it isn't clear if that means they will actually release new material for PF1e.
To be fair, Paizo still wants to appear to support PF1e, but it isn't clear if that means they will actually release new material for PF1e.
I believe Erik Mona is on record as saying that once PF2E is released, they will no longer actively support new PF 1 material.
You can buy the existing stuff, and I am sure they will allow 3pp folks to keep producing PF1 books, but don't expect new PF1 books from them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Paizo still wants to appear to support PF1e, but it isn't clear if that means they will actually release new material for PF1e.
I believe Erik Mona is on record as saying that once PF2E is released, they will no longer actively support new PF 1 material.
You can buy the existing stuff, and I am sure they will allow 3pp folks to keep producing PF1 books, but don't expect new PF1 books from them.
Depends on what you mean by support. They will keep producing pocket edition rule books for 1e as long as folks keep buying them. And I am sure they will keep a section of their forums open for PF 1e stuff. But I don't expect any new material from them.
On OP question:
Personally from the new edition I hope it is easier to learn without loosing too much complexity. I have many gamer friends who only know DnD 5e and see Pathfinder as too complicated to bother learning. So compared to 5e I hope PF 2e offers a large degree more character customization (not hard to do since 5e is stifling in that regard) but does so in a way that is approachable by 5e players. Compared to PF 1e I hope 2e is easier to learn/teach but with similar (or only slightly less) character customization options. I think these goals align pretty well with the Devs but I have no idea if they will succeed or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Primarily, rules that are (mostly) universal for all creatures (as in 5E, including different but at least similar to PC abilities for humanoid NPCs, but all CR based variables like polymorph choices, turn undead, and enemy proficiency bonus remapped to HD). I moved away from 5E when it seemed more inconsistencies popped up in newer splats (like playable monsters not having features which their NPC brethren had all the time).
Secondarily, the Total Termination of 5 Minutes Work Day. Many a woes are tied to this hideous phenomenon, I sincerely believe.
The second isn't REALLY a system problem per se though, unless you completely eliminate depletable daily resources. It's more of an adventure design issue. I mean, there are things which can offset it like short rest mechanics or stronger cantrips. But realistically the best thing to prevent nova sleep nova sleep nova repeat is to have meaningful time constraints.
I think in a system that has spell casters who go harder than martials a limited amount of times per day, you do need to make casters run dry sometimes.
Primarily, rules that are (mostly) universal for all creatures (as in 5E, including different but at least similar to PC abilities for humanoid NPCs, but all CR based variables like polymorph choices, turn undead, and enemy proficiency bonus remapped to HD). I moved away from 5E when it seemed more inconsistencies popped up in newer splats (like playable monsters not having features which their NPC brethren had all the time).
Secondarily, the Total Termination of 5 Minutes Work Day. Many a woes are tied to this hideous phenomenon, I sincerely believe.
The second isn't REALLY a system problem per se though, unless you completely eliminate depletable daily resources. It's more of an adventure design issue. I mean, there are things which can offset it like short rest mechanics or stronger cantrips. But realistically the best thing to prevent nova sleep nova sleep nova repeat is to have meaningful time constraints.
I think in a system that has spell casters who go harder than martials a limited amount of times per day, you do need to make casters run dry sometimes.
I'm really hoping there is a short rest mechanic and that cantrips are useful enough to rely on. Though I'm not concerned with them so much as with less spells per day making the 5 minute work day worse. Because you are right, that is not entirely a system problem. Time constraints work but really tie the DM's hands, story telling wise, if they have to constantly rely on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really hoping there is a short rest mechanic and that cantrips are useful enough to rely on. Though I'm not concerned with them so much as with less spells per day making the 5 minute work day worse. Because you are right, that is not entirely a system problem. Time constraints work but really tie the DM's hands, story telling wise, if they have to constantly rely on that.Primarily, rules that are (mostly) universal for all creatures (as in 5E, including different but at least similar to PC abilities for humanoid NPCs, but all CR based variables like polymorph choices, turn undead, and enemy proficiency bonus remapped to HD). I moved away from 5E when it seemed more inconsistencies popped up in newer splats (like playable monsters not having features which their NPC brethren had all the time).
Secondarily, the Total Termination of 5 Minutes Work Day. Many a woes are tied to this hideous phenomenon, I sincerely believe.
The second isn't REALLY a system problem per se though, unless you completely eliminate depletable daily resources. It's more of an adventure design issue. I mean, there are things which can offset it like short rest mechanics or stronger cantrips. But realistically the best thing to prevent nova sleep nova sleep nova repeat is to have meaningful time constraints.
I think in a system that has spell casters who go harder than martials a limited amount of times per day, you do need to make casters run dry sometimes.
To be fair, there are some other tools to discourage 5 minute work days but they aren't necessarily fun or easy on a DM. Attacking players in the middle of the night rarely leaves you with happy players.
I think powers are going to help a lot though. The cleric heal pool looks pretty potent, for example. Powers are probably also easier to balance around than abundant spell slots since they will have a more limited range of effects.
Ideally, I think a wizard should be able to use magic in every round of combat even if lost of those rounds are cantrips and powers. Spell slots will be rationed between really shifting the momentum of combat and utility. And then if the end of the day features a major boss fight, something like Focus Conservation can let you unleash a final volley of spells that lets you leave it all out on the field.
I'm really hoping there is a short rest mechanic and that cantrips are useful enough to rely on. Though I'm not concerned with them so much as with less spells per day making the 5 minute work day worse. Because you are right, that is not entirely a system problem. Time constraints work but really tie the DM's hands, story telling wise, if they have to constantly rely on that.Primarily, rules that are (mostly) universal for all creatures (as in 5E, including different but at least similar to PC abilities for humanoid NPCs, but all CR based variables like polymorph choices, turn undead, and enemy proficiency bonus remapped to HD). I moved away from 5E when it seemed more inconsistencies popped up in newer splats (like playable monsters not having features which their NPC brethren had all the time).
Secondarily, the Total Termination of 5 Minutes Work Day. Many a woes are tied to this hideous phenomenon, I sincerely believe.
The second isn't REALLY a system problem per se though, unless you completely eliminate depletable daily resources. It's more of an adventure design issue. I mean, there are things which can offset it like short rest mechanics or stronger cantrips. But realistically the best thing to prevent nova sleep nova sleep nova repeat is to have meaningful time constraints.
I think in a system that has spell casters who go harder than martials a limited amount of times per day, you do need to make casters run dry sometimes.
To be fair, there are some other tools to discourage 5 minute work days but they aren't necessarily fun or easy on a DM. Attacking players in the middle of the night rarely leaves you with happy players.
I think powers are going to help a lot though. The cleric heal pool looks pretty potent, for example. Powers are probably also easier to balance around than abundant spell slots since they will have a more limited range of effects.
Ideally, I think a wizard should be able to use magic in every round of combat even if lost of those rounds are cantrips and powers. Spell slots will be rationed between really shifting the momentum of combat and utility. And then if the end of the day features a major boss fight, something like Focus Conservation can let you unleash a final volley of spells that lets you leave it all out on the field.
I mean: even the things you are listing aren't going to stop some yahoo wizard blowing all five of his top level spell slots and then demanding that the party rest for the night. Depending on time constraints, that may end up being the optimal strategy and I currently worry PF2E is still going to have that issue.
4E/Starfinder 10 minute rest system is the main way I've seen others approach balancing against the 5 minute work day. That kind of stuff incentivises players to substitute away from daily resources lest their per-rest resources be wasted. There are also more generic "per encounter" resources and systems that only build your special combat resources through actual combat (Spellbound Kingdoms and the AGE systems are two very different examples of this).
I have not seen any hints of such systems in the playtest thus far. I am guessing that GM's and player groups in general should be left to discourage first fight total novas.