Main Thing You Want From PF2?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Nice simple question.

IN general I want a fixed 3.5 that is easier to run basically the game I wanted in 2008 rather than 4E. At the time I wanted something a bit more like SWSE+ 3.5 hybrid. After playing SWSE again recently that need a math overhaul as well.

Easier to DM is also a big thing after playing 5E and clones. Something we can play as an alternative to 5E which killed PFS here and Pathfinder in general. Reality is its competing with 5E if you can't get the players because they are playing 5E no point getting it. Doiesn't mean you have to copy 5E but ease of running it is my number 1 priority. Things like goblins and alchemists don't even register in relation to that.

Fixing the underlying math problems and complexity of it is more important than the exact class designs etc. A fixed 3.5 10 years ago was what I wanted, these days I would probably want Paizo to go a bit further than what I wanted back then.

Skills and BAB overhaul is important the broken spells and stacking need to be fixed up to and including the removal of the spells from the game a'la 5E.

3.5 style multiclassing I can buy that, micro feats that is different than 5E but I can also buy into that-as long as the feats don't have so many terrible options. I also like the idea of fort/ref/will over 5E system. BAB and 3.X multiple attacks can die in a fire along with some classes getting 2 skills and others 8- AD&D and 5E did it better her with the difference being 3 or 4 proficnecies and 4-6 skills.

I also like the way 3.X handles its armor and weapons over 5E but things like crits can be smoothed out with X2 and X3 perhaps being replaced with extra dice of damage.3.X armor and weapons are a bit more interesting than 5E which more or less has 2 types of armor (studded leather and plate) along with a handful of weapons that matter. If bows are god with things like rapid shot, crossbows and rifles perhaps can go big on extra dice of damage.

I don't want to see OF2 versions of the 5E -5/+10 feats or 3.5/PF power attack which has mostly the same issues.

That is mostly it, and the over riding goal is mathematical simplicity while having a bit more complex game than 5E that is easy to run and still feels like 3.X/D&D. That early Pathfinder feel before the glut (I only use APG and Ultimate Combat/Magic that is it). I d o not really recognise a lot of the later PF splat book stuff. I want have the option to play it with my 10 year old nieces and nephews.

And the gunslinger seems to me to be a fighter feat chain or archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A talking cat familiar at level one.

This is fantasy, I was promised a talking cat.

Spoiler:
At this point, that really is the main thing. It's one of the things I like most about 5e. For a spell slot, accessible by a feat if need be, I can get a minor character to play alongside my main character.

Further things that would be nice:
Plenty of distinctive Sorcerer bloodlines, preferably with some passive bloodline abilities, not just spellpoint spells. Four castings of each spell level eventually for the class.

Alignment restrictions loosened or even removed for Monk. Monk lets me fight without using hands, which makes me want the character to play a flute at the same time, which really feels like a CG or CN character to me.

As soon as can be managed, more ancestries. The core ones wear a bit thin quickly.

The ability to pick out fun items without worrying too much about saving up for things.

Cool archetypes, and lots of them. Eventually, I'd like to see archetypes that trade out fixed features of a class, not just give you more class feat options. The latter is really good, but shouldn't be used exclusively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

A talking cat familiar at level one.

This is fantasy, I was promised a talking cat.

Why not;).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I do want from PF2 is, like you said, more carefully thought-out math, but with variety and dynamism that was lacking in the too-balanced system of D&D 4E. I also really hope the game takes a slight step back from 'builds.'

By that I mean, often min-maxing leads people to making characters like peacocks. I've got the biggest dang tail feathers, but I can't do anything else interesting. I much prefer characters who have, sure, a primary shtick, but it doesn't work against everything, so they also have interesting fallback options.

Power Attacking With a Big Sword should not always be optimal. Maybe it's a narrow hallway, so the guy should pull out a dagger. Maybe you design trolls so the fighter wants to dual wield torch and axe. Maybe he's actually good enough at grappling (and the game mechanics aren't punishing) so he can try to actually grapple a troll while the rest of the party scrambles to start a fire.

I played a brawler up to 17th level. I could pick any fighter feat I wanted, basically. But usually I just flurried and power attacked. No 'cool trick' I could pull would end the fight faster than just punching off hit points.

I want monsters where you can't just hit it and win as fast as if you do something cool, then hit it.

As a game design wonk, the 'three action economy' really looks good. There are so many ways it can make the game more dynamic and exciting without adding too much complexity, because you can now introduce strong powers that cost more actions, and because 'action denial' tactics won't be as devastating as they were in PF1 (and, I'll say, 4e).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Quick DM prep time. Easy to learn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want character building to be open enough to cover a lot of character concepts, while also having enough depth so that character creation in itself can be fun by putting pieces together.


Milo v3 wrote:
I want character building to be open enough to cover a lot of character concepts, while also having enough depth so that character creation in itself can be fun by putting pieces together.

This is also what I want. I am worried the design has been a bit too much kneejerk in response to dipping though. Guess the playtest will reveal how its gonna look.

Paizo Employee Designer

16 people marked this as a favorite.

I want Pathfinder fans and new Pathfinders alike, here and elsewhere, to be excellent to each other as we work on discovering, understanding, and improving the new game together.


Planpanther wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I want character building to be open enough to cover a lot of character concepts, while also having enough depth so that character creation in itself can be fun by putting pieces together.
This is also what I want. I am worried the design has been a bit too much kneejerk in response to dipping though. Guess the playtest will reveal how its gonna look.

I too want what Milo said.

Also, while I think I share Plan's specific concern (level 1 stuff getting pushed back to higher level requirements) I never really got the vibe that this was to prevent people from dipping or multiclassing. PF1 already gave you lots of reasons to single class if you weren't a gunslinger. The multiclass builds that are actually problems seem veeeeery few and far between.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As someone who is the GM 95% of the time:

I want the players choices to matter, so they become invested in a creation that is theirs while being simple to execute without harming game flow.

I want my prep time to be reduced without resorting to pure intuition and hand waving.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The OP hit a lot of what I'd have liked to have seen i PF2.

I wanted "Pathfinder, Version 2.0", not a brand new system with Pathfinder's name on it.

Fix some bugs, unnecessarily complex rules (grappling) and re-balance the classes/spells/feats.

I also wanted ULTIMATE customization, in the form of a "classless" option, where you "buy" class features from any list by spending feats and meeting prerequisites.

I really want homebrew guidelines in either the CRB, or a Homebrew Handbook.

Finally, I wanted rules that were loose enough that characters can do anything that sounds physically possible (or magically if they have the ability) without the rules getting in the way. The LAST thing I want to do is tell a player "no' because the rules specifically forbid an action when "realistically" they would totally be able to do it.


As a player who went from 3.5 to PF to 5E what I’m looking for is a battle system as quick as 5E but who’s character customisation doesn’t end at 3rd level.

The 3-action turn has me very excited for combat. Once players know what they are doing combat turns should move pretty quick and stay that way at all levels. With all the general, race and class feats plus big ability boosts I feel there’s lots of options for every class.

The only other thing I could ask for is better class balance. We’ll have to hope the play test can iron that out where required.


Zardnaar wrote:
And the gunslinger seems to me to be a fighter feat chain or archetype.

The problem is the armour and weapon proficiencies, a Gunslinger should not really be proficient in amour and martial melee weapons, they should have a monk-like unarmored defence feature. Though, depending on how customisable the new Fighter is, maybe it will work.

As for what I want, I too was hoping PF1 went further with changes than it did, but I understand why they refrained, but now they seem to be addressing many of the things I wanted axed/changed 10 years ago: BAB, spell DCs, Saving Throws, Skills, overpowered spells, stacking, flat-footed AC, dripping with magic bling.

The only things I am not so keen on, are retaining TAC, and the large numbers, its just an aesthetic thing, but I would rather roll 1d20 + 11 vs. DC 20, than 1d20 + 21 vs. DC 30. Though, with the 4 tiered success system (S, F, CS, CF), it makes sense.

Smooth to DM is key, PF1/3rd Ed can get unwieldy. Oh, and less rocket-tag, which looks like they are addressing, max hit points for everyone now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want it to be an engaging role playing system first, and a balanced fantasy party-based combat simulator second.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RangerWickett wrote:
Power Attacking With a Big Sword should not always be optimal. Maybe it's a narrow hallway, so the guy should pull out a dagger. Maybe you design trolls so the fighter wants to dual wield torch and axe. Maybe he's actually good enough at grappling (and the game mechanics aren't punishing) so he can try to actually grapple a troll while the rest of the party scrambles to start a fire.

This would be a goal for me too - both tactically (same fighter has good reasons to use other approaches at times) and strategically - for me one of the flaws of PF1 is that high str + 2 handed weapon + power attack easily gives a build that always works and does a lot of damage. Being a dex based fighter / sneak attacker / sword & shield user takes a ton of effort to get to a comparable level but even then frequently runs into circumstances that stop them working, while the greatsword guy gets to keep on chopping away.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

I would like to see a system for errata, FAQ and staff advice put in one place to make finding answers easier. And have the answers broken down by those categories but still in the same place.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mostly pathfinder 1e with some minor clean ups and re-balancing. Nothing drastic, no changes for change sake. I still want D&D 3.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:
Mostly pathfinder 1e with some minor clean ups and re-balancing. Nothing drastic, no changes for change sake. I still want D&D 3.5.

I think then you are betting on the wrong horse

Silver Crusade

Easy to play & easy to run without getting too bogged down in details & little rules that contradict each other or don't work like similar rules or are scattered piecemeal throughout the book and not built into a coherent system. The efforts to streamline and rationalize the system (e.g., the action system, the "learn it once apply it everywhere" design behind the classes). So I'm pretty encouraged. I'm sure I won't lose the customization and depth of character options that I know & love. But I'd love a system that plays more smoothly at the table.


Shorten the list of conditions (dazed, dazzled, etc).


thflame wrote:


I also wanted ULTIMATE customization, in the form of a "classless" option, where you "buy" class features from any list by spending feats and meeting prerequisites.

I think you are pretty much going to get this. Wizard will be the new master class and you just cherry pick away the best parts of every other class via feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to revel in the flames of battle, to bathe in the blood of the fallen. To crush my enemies, to see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of their women. To become harder, better, faster, and stronger than any opponent, and then go even further beyond. Worlds will shatter at my touch and all shall know despair!

Or we could just try find out who killed an old friend, and go on journey of memories as we find out not only how our friend died, but how he lived.

Or we could just meet in a tavern and see where it goes from there.


Phantasmist wrote:
Mostly pathfinder 1e with some minor clean ups and re-balancing. Nothing drastic, no changes for change sake. I still want D&D 3.5.

You may want to look elsewhere then, as PF2 is being designed with very little 3.5 influence.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Zardnaar, if you're wanting a system that simple to learn and use, you should try Cypher System.
I just want a system that is still robust, while being easy to teach new players.


Ched Greyfell wrote:

Zardnaar, if you're wanting a system that simple to learn and use, you should try Cypher System.

I just want a system that is still robust, while being easy to teach new players.

I know Zardnaar well enough by now to know that is not what he is wanting. Correct me if I am wrong, Zard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some support in the system where Damage>All, so that as mentioned by RangerWickett "punching off hitpoints" is not always the optimal solution.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Rules that are easier to parse and understand.

The rules for Stealth and Sneak Attack are a mess in PF1. They need to be easier to deal with and make more sense. Even Starfinder rules on this need improvement.

The rules for Mounted Combat have all sorts of weird interactions to the point that I have to ask some questions at each table before playing my cavalier. The way that some GMs interprete them, you can’t have both the horse and a rider with a lance attack on a charge.

The rules for brace weapons not requiring you know ahead of time that you are going to be hit by a charge.

Better definition of what hurts a swarm and real options for a martial character to hurt a swarm of diminutive creatures. There are lots of discussions of how much damage a flask of alchemist’s fire does to a swarm, 1 point because only splash damage can affect them or 150% of 1d6.

I am really hoping they went through the FAQ documents and tried to find what sort of things have caused a lot of questions, and then worked on how to explain those things better.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BretI wrote:

Rules that are easier to parse and understand.

The rules for Stealth and Sneak Attack are a mess in PF1. They need to be easier to deal with and make more sense. Even Starfinder rules on this need improvement.

The rules for Mounted Combat have all sorts of weird interactions to the point that I have to ask some questions at each table before playing my cavalier. The way that some GMs interprete them, you can’t have both the horse and a rider with a lance attack on a charge.

The rules for brace weapons not requiring you know ahead of time that you are going to be hit by a charge.

Better definition of what hurts a swarm and real options for a martial character to hurt a swarm of diminutive creatures. There are lots of discussions of how much damage a flask of alchemist’s fire does to a swarm, 1 point because only splash damage can affect them or 150% of 1d6.

I am really hoping they went through the FAQ documents and tried to find what sort of things have caused a lot of questions, and then worked on how to explain those things better.

It sounds like there are simple rules for how to start combats stealthed, at least.

Charging doesn’t exist as a normal action, so brace weapons in the style of PF1 probably aren’t a thing.

Mounted combat should probably be more straightforward with the new action economy. If we assume it follows companion rules, you spend one action directing it for two of its actions. Whether or not it can attack depends on how it spends those actions.

They’re cutting down on immunities and vulnerability. Swarms will generally have weakness to AoE damage (flat bonus damage, making alchemist’s Fire much better), and resistance to weapon damage (do enough damage and you can power through).


I wanted revised 3.x/PF, not a new gaming system. But since that ship has sailed and I actually like the new base system for PF2, I want everything NOT gated behind a feat or behind an action tax. Some things should be free.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

For my desire to run games to be rekindled. There were some huge problems that PF1e had that I had houseruled at my table, and players became increasingly attracted to broken combinations between the early pf designs and the post unchained designs. If PF2e can reinvigorate my GM mojo, then it will succeed for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
necromental wrote:
I wanted revised 3.x/PF, not a new gaming system. But since that ship has sailed and I actually like the new base system for PF2, I want everything NOT gated behind a feat or behind an action tax. Some things should be free.

Some actions will be free, though I imagine not many. Almost certainly we'll get feats that will let us get more free actions.

As to the feat tax, with 30+ feats per character over the course of 1-20, it shouldn't be too bad at first. I'm a little worried about later in the game's life, when feats become increasingly niche and accidentally lock what we're previously actions behind a feat. I would rather they look at additional actions that everyone can do as default, the way the intrigue library and influence rules were added on top, rather than requiring a feat to play at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The main thing that I want is to be able to make as wide a variety of characters as I could in PF1. Not eventually. Not in five years.

Right out the gate, I need to be able to convert just about every character I have.

It's okay if it's a bit of a stretch for some of them, or the level ranges change slightly, but I won't accept "Not possible".

Divine kobold dudes who turn into dragons, arcane casters who dabble in the divine or vice versa, priests who excel in unarmed combat, dual shield fighters, inexhaustible elemental blasters, part-vampires...


AnimatedPaper wrote:

Some actions will be free, though I imagine not many. Almost certainly we'll get feats that will let us get more free actions.

As to the feat tax, with 30+ feats per character over the course of 1-20, it shouldn't be too bad at first. I'm a little worried about later in the game's life, when feats become increasingly niche and accidentally lock what we're previously actions behind a feat. I would rather they look at additional actions that everyone can do as default, the way the intrigue library and influence rules were added on top, rather than requiring a feat to play at all.

Well since you have to buy back some of your class/race features you had in PF1 with those feats they are not as numerous as they seem. The same if you have to buy actions to be free (although that's actually a fair balance point).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

True, but there's no rule saying you have to buy back the exact abilities you had before. Think of it as a couple dozen archetypes right out of the box, since each permutation of class feats (and the order you pick them) would have been a discreet archetype for many classes, although closer to being business as usual for classes like the barbarian or unchained-monk.


WatersLethe wrote:

The main thing that I want is to be able to make as wide a variety of characters as I could in PF1. Not eventually. Not in five years.

Right out the gate, I need to be able to convert just about every character I have.

It's okay if it's a bit of a stretch for some of them, or the level ranges change slightly, but I won't accept "Not possible".

Divine kobold dudes who turn into dragons, arcane casters who dabble in the divine or vice versa, priests who excel in unarmed combat, dual shield fighters, inexhaustible elemental blasters, part-vampires...

It's not really possible for the PF2 CRB to cover the volume of material PF1 has built up over the last 10-years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

The main thing that I want is to be able to make as wide a variety of characters as I could in PF1. Not eventually. Not in five years.

Right out the gate, I need to be able to convert just about every character I have.

It's okay if it's a bit of a stretch for some of them, or the level ranges change slightly, but I won't accept "Not possible".

Divine kobold dudes who turn into dragons, arcane casters who dabble in the divine or vice versa, priests who excel in unarmed combat, dual shield fighters, inexhaustible elemental blasters, part-vampires...

It's not really possible for the PF2 CRB to cover the volume of material PF1 has built up over the last 10-years.

During PF1's infancy, backwards compatibility meant a pretty seamless transition from 3.5e to PF. Whatever wasn't printed especially for Pathfinder was often almost directly importable. Over the years Paizo put out some great stuff and more and more 3.5e content became obsolete and rarely seen in Pathfinder games.

Now we're getting ready for a new version of Pathfinder, the game which has become synonymous with "You can make any character concept you can think of". Without backward compatibility, I can't make use of the decade of work they've put into PF1e which is fine as long as I can still make an absolutely massive number of concepts work.

If I wanted to play a streamlined game with limited build concepts, I'd play 5e.

I don't intend to wait 10 years to get a Shapeshifting class again, only for it to be gutted because they're preparing for PF3e.

If I can't make a truly vast array of characters right off the bat, then I'm going to stick with PF1e and maybe poach some new rules here and there.


Weather Report wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:

Zardnaar, if you're wanting a system that simple to learn and use, you should try Cypher System.

I just want a system that is still robust, while being easy to teach new players.
I know Zardnaar well enough by now to know that is not what he is wanting. Correct me if I am wrong, Zard.

Na still want ti to be D&D. By D&D that includes Pathfinder, clones things like that.

Somwthing descended from 3.5 thats different to 5E thats simple to run would be the best way to describe it. Something a bit more complex than 5E but burnig down the worst aspects of 3.X in terms of mechanics. keep things like fort/ref/will saves, micro feats and 90% of the spells are probably fine as well.

Tweak skills and feats would be one area a clean up would be great in.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to look at the list of class feats for the various martial classes and think to myself, "Woah, I can do that now? That's so cool!".


Zardnaar wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:

Zardnaar, if you're wanting a system that simple to learn and use, you should try Cypher System.

I just want a system that is still robust, while being easy to teach new players.
I know Zardnaar well enough by now to know that is not what he is wanting. Correct me if I am wrong, Zard.

Na still want ti to be D&D. By D&D that includes Pathfinder, clones things like that.

Somwthing descended from 3.5 thats different to 5E thats simple to run would be the best way to describe it.

Yeah, we're on the same page; I have houseurles to lean 5th Ed a bit towards 3rd Ed/PF1, and vice versa. Maybe somewhere between all the editions/versions of D&D and PF, is some ideal game!


I just want a solid easily taught game with more customisation and a stronger sense of progression then 5e


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For me 5e initially succeeded with the idea of presenting a nice easy package to get you into the action. I was expected bolt ons to add complexity and depth later, such that I can start a new player with core for the first couple of characters and then blow their mind with options. Those options never came.

That is where a big hope for PF2E comes in for me. The options don't need to be there are the start (they'd be nice) but I fully expect them to be expanded upon regularily

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Mostly pathfinder 1e with some minor clean ups and re-balancing. Nothing drastic, no changes for change sake. I still want D&D 3.5.
You may want to look elsewhere then, as PF2 is being designed with very little 3.5 influence.

That's a pretty Extreme view.

I find this kind of comment both offensive and counterproductive. I also strongly hope that Paizo isn't following the same tact with this.

It's like saying "If you like what we've been doing for the last ten years, go away. We don't care about your opinion, and we don't want you as a customer."

Over the past few months, many posters who shared views with Phantasmist have stopped posting on this forum, turning it more and more into an echo chamber of people who want a revolutionary change to the game. And the demands are getting more and more extreme.

I hope that this changes when the playtest is released.


Malk_Content wrote:
For me 5e initially succeeded with the idea of presenting a nice easy package to get you into the action. I was expected bolt ons to add complexity and depth later, such that I can start a new player with core for the first couple of characters and then blow their mind with options. Those options never came.

Yep, and as the chassis is so easily hackable, I was expecting these "modules" they spoke of, to take the game in different directions (more like another edition, and other variants), almost 4-years later and they still haven't covered many classic monsters and spells, definitely an edition where you need to take it in your own hands to get things done.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ecidon wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Mostly pathfinder 1e with some minor clean ups and re-balancing. Nothing drastic, no changes for change sake. I still want D&D 3.5.
You may want to look elsewhere then, as PF2 is being designed with very little 3.5 influence.

That's a pretty Extreme view.

I find this kind of comment both offensive and counterproductive. I also strongly hope that Paizo isn't following the same tact with this.

It's like saying "If you like what we've been doing for the last ten years, go away. We don't care about your opinion, and we don't want you as a customer."

Over the past few months, many posters who shared views with Phantasmist have stopped posting on this forum, turning it more and more into an echo chamber of people who want a revolutionary change to the game. And the demands are getting more and more extreme.

I hope that this changes when the playtest is released.

Its going to be hard to put my PoV on this matter in a way that doesn't sound condescending, dismissive or hypocritical. If it comes off as any of that I'm sorry and know it was meant to be avoided.

I really hope people who don't like a lot of what has been presented, disagree with the fact the PF2E needs to exist or aren't unboard with the design goals for whatever reason DO get involved with the playtest and DO make themselves heard. Even someone who has liked nearly everything that has been presented so far (don't like that Quality gets superseded by potency, don't like alignment restricted base classes, don't like Ability Scores existing as a vestigal aesthetic) I think having dissenting voices and critisim can only make the end product better. Maybe not better for me or any given individual but better overall.

That said if you dislike the majority of what the playtest offers, I would say temper your expectations for how many changes will suit you. After all if the devs have to choose between making a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h and i changes to suit you while others are only asking for j,k and l it is far more likely they will choose that latter. The less of a complete redesign a person asks for, the more likely they are to get it. I also think it is perfectly valid for folks to say, at the end of this process not during, that if you don't like how it ended up you still have a game you like 90%+ let us have ours.

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.


Ecidon wrote:
It's like saying "If you like what we've been doing for the last ten years, go away. We don't care about your opinion, and we don't want you as a customer."

To me it's like they're saying: "If you uncritically like what we've been doing for the last ten years, keep playing Pathfinder 1. There's a mountain of material for it now and I doubt you've played it all. If, on the other hand, you find that our current system is too complicated to introduce to new players and has lots of balance issues of the sort people are endlessly complaining about in these forums, we're attempting to fix all that with an elegant new system. We hope you'll try it out and see what you think."


And yet it hurts to not be included, especially in the evolution of something you truly enjoy. It's not hard to see why some might feel like they're being left behind.

But the injured are inconvenient. It's also easy to see why some might get frustrated with people who want different things out of a game than them.

It goes without saying that the best policy is to not be a butt, but the unsaid is forgotten far too often. Pain is pain, but life is complicated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I too want Pathfinder2, not an entirely new system with a Pathfinder logo.
I want the maths on show, with a clear family tree tracing back to D&D3.5. I do want the complicated to be simplified, but I want the genuinely and legitimately complex to be left alone. I want many rich character options in strongly differentiated classes.
And like Mark, "I want Pathfinder fans and new Pathfinders alike, here and elsewhere, to be excellent to each other as we work on discovering, understanding, and improving the new game together."


Polymathis wrote:

I too want Pathfinder2, not an entirely new system with a Pathfinder logo.

I want the maths on show, with a clear family tree tracing back to D&D3.5. I do want the complicated to be simplified, but I want the genuinely and legitimately complex to be left alone. I want many rich character options in strongly differentiated classes.

I agree with this 100%. But, I think these last two goals, simplification and rich character options, should take priority over legacy. If they require a break with D&D3.5, the designers should not hesitate to do so.

Also, in my mind, rich options imply that the existing classes and options must be re-balanced. When a given option is clearly superior to all others in 90% of situations, then it's not an option anymore.


Malk_Content wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
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.

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Main Thing You Want From PF2? All Messageboards