I don't think PF2 needs to be simpler, and so far it doesn't seem to be (You seen that Wizard blog?). What it does need is to be more streamlined, consistent and under control. The 4 following are the issues I have with PF1 and hope are fixed for 2, some of which already seem to be improved from the blog previews.
As it stands, it is very difficult to teach PF1 to a new person. Though the base chassis is reasonable, things like traits, 5-ft-steps, full attacking and some AOO scenarios seem to really confuse them. These were important core concepts that affected every character, but were either really arbitrary/complicated or required too much browsing to get anything done.
Then there is the fact that the balance of the game seems to follow a chi-squared distribution, where it starts with kinda useless mages, get balanced on later single-digit levels and then collapses shortly after with everyone having wildly different levels of competence that challenges became rock/paper/scissors. This issue is not very easy to fix without rewriting some systems like BAB and Magic, it needed to be done.
Third, hyper-optimization made it so only 1 player in a group with the proper build was enough to raise the bar so much that most other characters were invalidated if you wanted to have an enjoyable game where everyone contributed. I think optimization is pretty fun, but it should be perhaps be reined in or pointed in other directions that allow both new and experienced players to have fun together.
Finally, the disparity in magic items combined with the economy of the game resulted (though I'm not sure this is what the developers intended) in characters getting surprisingly easy access to the best equipment in the game, which was also pretty much the same for everyone. They achieved this just by amassing gold found in adventures and selling whatever equipment their GM dropped. This made like 90%+ of magic items, some which were really cool, never see play even if you gave them to the characters. I'm not quite sure Resonance is going to fix this without also changing some assumptions about the in-world economy.
And No, characters were not "expected" to have all these items to face level-appropiate challenges. Average PF1 character, as it is, was already way stronger naked than what the CR system expected anyways.
|
I want the Pathfinder Society to have an AWESOME Online presence in the form of some kind of space where PCs can interact online, discuss their games, and find ANY scheduled PFS event ANYWHERE in the World.
I want regional support for local game stops to encourage weekly games, and a fleet of brand new Venture Captains ready to teach new players in every comic shop.
I want more consistent FAQ's in PF2. Yes, I'm aware that FAQ's don't directly bring in money, but not doing them can slow down money that would come in.
I also want people to be civil to the devs when a ruling is made that they don't like or agree with. I definitely don't agree with every PF1 FAQ ruling, and I'm sure that if I move over to PF2 I won't agree with all of those eithre.
I want to be able to kick the door open, parry the first orc with my rapier, shoot the second one with a bolt of arcane power and then watch the rogue somersault past me to skewer orcs 3 and 4 with a dagger in each hand, thereby clearing a path for the rest of the party to charge the necromancer at the back of the room
That's the pre-credit sequence BTW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That means this new version has to offer something compelling enough for people to make the leap.
PF2 has one thing that 5e IMO lacks severely: customisation options.
Of course you could get some feats and pick an archetype at lvl 3, but that basically was everything (and picking feats reduced the number of attribute points you would have - srsly?)
Here you get as it seems at least one thing to pick at every level, sometimes multiple things and each helps you to customize your character
I think thats a pretty great advantage
|
|
That means this new version has to offer something compelling enough for people to make the leap. I'm not sure incremental game mechanic improvements will be enough.
I actually responded to this request in another thread. Response re-posted here for completeness:
What I want to know is what about this new edition will entice people to make the jump.Evidence suggests it provides three major things as compared to 5E:
1. Vastly increased customization. For a lot of 5E characters, all your meaningful choices are made by 3rd level (maybe 5th if you have a Feat you need), and you never made all that many to start with (Class, Race, Archetype...very little else, even Background tending not matter all that much). PF2 has at least one serious choice every level you gain, and at least a couple more even at 1st level (Feats almost every level, Skills actually being something you can invest in over time, etc.).
2. Higher Power Level/Character Level Matters More. In PF2 you add your full character level to, well, a lot of things including attacks and AC, meaning that level matters a lot more in terms of character abilities. The opposite of bounded accuracy, high level characters can waltz through low level enemies like they are nothing. In a related matter, high level martial characters get to do stuff like run on air, leap twenty feet up and drag flying enemies down with them, and similar epic feats. It's just a lot less 'low key' in some ways than a lot of 5E stuff.
3. Content. Paizo don't seem to be planning to slow down their book schedule, which means you're going to be getting way more hardcover rulebooks for PF2 than D&D5E. Plus the Adventure Paths. Plus all the other stuff. 5E's mostly had a fairly sedate release schedule. PF2 seems unlikely to follow suit in that regard. It also gives you access to Golarion, which is a fun world as kitchen sink fantasy worlds go, and already has a lot of information available about it.
Additionally, and this may only matter to me, but the monster design for PF2 seems more concerned with giving them things to do outside of combat, which is something fundamentally lacking in a lot of 5E monsters (and was always the reason I could never run that game).
So I think that's a series of good reasons for many people to switch over.
What they need to figure out is how to make the transition to their new edition easy.
Well, from what we've seen the basic system is actually dead simple (the action economy is much simpler, for example), and has a unified mechanic in the Proficiency rules (with which you add your Level to just about everything).
There are a few more moving parts added on (in the form of Feats and the like) than in D&D5E, but the basic PF2 system strikes me as even simpler than 5E's. That's ignoring the aforementioned Feats of course, but even with them it strikes me as a similar level of system complexity.
It's much more complex to create an optimal character or otherwise dive really deep into the system simply because of all the options and their inevitable interactions, but that's also all not strictly necessary to play the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would I like out of PF2e...very easy to convert back to P1e or from P1e to PF2e.
I mean, like AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e type simple, or BX D&D to AD&D type simple. No, they are not the same rules and game, but close enough that it is almost excessively easy to do so.
I want it as easy to convert P1e to PF2e as it is for one to convert D&D 3.5 to P1e.
If they do that, cool.
AT this point though, whatever they come up with finally they better nail it to keep the old fans (and bring in new fans). If they upset enough of the old fans it will spread via word of mouth (ala 4e), and people will speak with their money.
In the end, it doesn't matter how loud people are on the forums...money will eventually speak louder than words...and if the silent gamers who pay most of the money walk...that's going to be a disaster for PF2e.
Whether that requires backwards compatibility like I'd like, OR something entirely new and different, whatever comes out I hope that Paizo Nails it (as in, get's it perfectly right the first time around).
Seeing the indications of how Starfinder is doing from Amazon...I personally don't think taking cues from SF is the way to go about it, but then, I'm also not privy to the research and survey's that Paizo has handed out in regards to the design of PF2e.
One would imagine that with the research they may have a pretty good idea (or one would hope that is what they are doing) of what will sell and do well with PF2e in the current game market.
Yeah, you are right - I pretty much in the end wish for PF2 to be successful.
I love PF, it has a great world and lots of opportunity for adventure.
A colorful cast and a sh*tload of customisation options.
I am pretty sure we will get that all with time due, so in the end my main thing I want from PF2 (besides the stuff the usually di) is to be successful enough to make it all happen (maybe even successful enough to speed up the schedule, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;) )
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
LG only paladins and no goblin pcs in core
I want a setting that captures my imagination. What pulled me from Pathfinder to D&D 5th edition was the Ravenloft setting. Although Hasbro didn't release a setting rule book like 2e, it's organized game play pretty much had scenarios in Ravenloft. What a refreshing break.
I'd like Paizo to come out with settings like TSR did for 2e. I'm still blown away by Dark Sun.
The second thing I want is the ability to find local games. This new version has to be good enough that people will be willing to run it. This ultimately means that some people will want to shift back to Pathfinder from 5th edition D&D. That means this new version has to offer something compelling enough for people to make the leap. I'm not sure incremental game mechanic improvements will be enough.
I'm confused. Pathfinder already has its own setting. Is this just a "Golarion sucks, give us something else" post?
|
I think they've got me covered, but the only big thing I want is streamlined monster creation rules.
The PF1 monster creation rules are an interesting minigame, but I don't think playing it is a great use of prep or writing time. And determining how balanced monsters are by how well people do at that minigame doesn't serve Pathfinder as a whole well.
Clarification and simplification of any rules that should be basic. Sneak Attack from Stealth: can you do it with a full attack, or just once, or whatever?
What are the limits on Charm Person? If you critically fail the save, what exactly can you be compelled to do? Today in PFS1, a lodge VO says "it is from the charm school, not compulsion" and was allowing a character to be instructed to run from the fight, but could use move actions to return the very next round, and requiring the caster use a standard action to give further instructions. This even after the character failed the Will save in round 1, and then an opposed Charisma check in round 3 (round 2 the fighter won the opposed Charisma check to avoid attacking the party [which I think is a valid command, but others disagreed]).
It's a level 1 spell that's been around 30 years, and we still cannot agree on how to run it.
Some way to limit spell access. Ever expanding spell lists are a huge part of the problem for Vancian casting. Also, G only paladins and no goblin pcs in core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two biggest things that I would like from PF2 are:
1) No goblins as PCs in the core.
2) Incremental change/evolution of PF1 rather than major radical changes.
I'm aware that what we've seen to date indicates that I'm unlikely to be happy with PF2, at least the playtest version due out shortly. I've signed up for a playtest game at GenCon and for the purchase of a hard copy of the playtest rules, so I'm not refusing to engage with PF2 during the playtest period. However, I am approaching all this with a distinct lack of enthusiasm. I'm much more "I hope this isn't as bad as I fear," rather than "I hope this is as a cool as it sounds."