A critique of PF 2nd ed


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
So, for the playtest, it makes a lot of sense to focus on the untested and more generally applicable Class-Agnostic Archetypes.

That's what I'm thinking, they have only shown a universal and prestige (and talk about specific, you even have to be a chick) Archetype, not a class-specific one.

Liberty's Edge

Chest Rockwell wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
So, for the playtest, it makes a lot of sense to focus on the untested and more generally applicable Class-Agnostic Archetypes.
That's what I'm thinking, they have only shown a universal and prestige (and talk about specific, you even have to be a chick) Archetype, not a class-specific one.

Yep. And they've stated explicitly there will be no Class-Specific Archetypes in the playtest.

But have also stated there's clearly design space for them and the reason they aren't testing them is that they know they work (well, and that they take up more room). Given this, I'd be shocked if we don't get some Class-Specific Archetypes eventually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
So, for the playtest, it makes a lot of sense to focus on the untested and more generally applicable Class-Agnostic Archetypes.
That's what I'm thinking, they have only shown a universal and prestige (and talk about specific, you even have to be a chick) Archetype, not a class-specific one.

Yep. And they've stated explicitly there will be no Class-Specific Archetypes in the playtest.

But have also stated there's clearly design space for them and the reason they aren't testing them is that they know they work (well, and that they take up more room). Given this, I'd be shocked if we don't get some Class-Specific Archetypes eventually.

Total, but the problem might be if you cannot choose an Archetype at 1st-level, for some.

Liberty's Edge

Chest Rockwell wrote:
Total, but the problem might be if you cannot choose an Archetype at 1st-level, for some.

There's no evidence of this. The two previewed Archetypes are restricted in this way, but nothing in the write-up of how Archetypes work in general so restricts them.

And many PF1 Archetypes didn't have any effects at 1st level either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Class archetypes take up at least half a page. We’ve got twelve classes. That’d be six pages to provide each class with just one archetype. What feedback would they get? Nothing they didn’t already know from years of class archetypes. And sure, that’s six pages, but now you have people spending time testing something that you don’t need testing, and features getting less testing because they’re being traded out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How much testing do we need for feat chai So? They've been around even longer than archetypes after all. The only thing that hasn't been tested is people's tolerance for them when Paizo puts the name of a popular mechanic against feat chains.


Well calling them merely feat chains is a bit odd. It's the only mechanism we know of by which class feats can be used for other things so it's more than that.

Plus they seem like an incredibly neat way of replicating prestige classes. That's more than just a feat chain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I DESPISED Prestige Classes. There were mechanical issues, of course, but mostly because they seemed the epitome of everything wrong with 3.0s design philosophy. Specifically, the idea that weird conglomerations of abilities made characters 'interesting' rather than their personalities or actions.

As for PF2, its biggest problem for me is a return to that kind of thinking. Placing too much emphasis on the abilities characters have and too little on what they use them for. Part of this is probably due to the nature of the previews themselves, but if that does prove to be the case I think we'll probably stick to the 1st edition.

Scarab Sages

OP, you indicate in the original post, as if it were a foregone conclusion, that Pathfinder fixed the issue in 3.5 of early character identity. That in 3.5 the only way to have a unique character identity was with prestige classes, and that in Pathfinder they fixed that by allowing the primary classes to grant you unique character identity.

I'm not sure I agree that the Pathfinder Core Rulebook did any such thing, insofar as your suggesting; changed the rules enough to significantly change the way character creation and character play worked at low levels.

Can you elaborate on why you feel so?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Total, but the problem might be if you cannot choose an Archetype at 1st-level, for some.
There's no evidence of this.

Tons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

Personally, I DESPISED Prestige Classes. There were mechanical issues, of course, but mostly because they seemed the epitome of everything wrong with 3.0s design philosophy. Specifically, the idea that weird conglomerations of abilities made characters 'interesting' rather than their personalities or actions.

As for PF2, its biggest problem for me is a return to that kind of thinking. Placing too much emphasis on the abilities characters have and too little on what they use them for. Part of this is probably due to the nature of the previews themselves, but if that does prove to be the case I think we'll probably stick to the 1st edition.

That is an inherent issue of RPGs. The amount of "Role Play" that happens is entirely dependent on the group. Some people want a minis battle game, some people want collective story time, and some people want both. You can't force people to care more about their character's actions or motivations than they do.

What you are looking for is a Narrative Driven RPG. That is something DnD and Pathfinder have never been. I would argue that this is a good thing, as Narrative Driven RPGs suffer MUCH more from a bad player(either someone who sucks at roleplaying or someone who wants to be disruptive) than games like DnD and Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Total, but the problem might be if you cannot choose an Archetype at 1st-level, for some.
There's no evidence of this.
Tons.

Just none that you bother to mention or provide....


j b 200 wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Total, but the problem might be if you cannot choose an Archetype at 1st-level, for some.
There's no evidence of this.
Tons.
Just none that you bother to mention or provide....

Cute, we'll see how 1st-level plays out...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also, if you like 1st edition, keep playing it. They've stated that the PDFs will remain available. And the softcovers will remain in print for the foreseeable future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group extensively uses the adventure paths. Will Paizo keep producing those for PF1e as well? If not I have a vested interest in making PF2e the best game it can be for my group.


I'm personally tired of PF1. It's flaws have become obvious and I was hoping that Paizo would be "remaking" Pathfinder to fix these flaws while retaining the general feel of the game.

That doesn't appear to be the case...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
My group extensively uses the adventure paths. Will Paizo keep producing those for PF1e as well? If not I have a vested interest in making PF2e the best game it can be for my group.

Nope. But have you really exhausted all the APs already? Have you tried third party adventures?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
My group extensively uses the adventure paths. Will Paizo keep producing those for PF1e as well? If not I have a vested interest in making PF2e the best game it can be for my group.

Supposedly you'll be able to modify them on the fly. I'm not sure about that, but with a little work just about any adventure from any game system can be modified for a game.


The community will also be free to collaborate on conversions mind you. There's nothing stopping someone who wants to continue with PF1 from meeting up with other like minded individuals on the forums and teaming up to lessen the conversion workload and then posting the results on the forums or elsewhere for the interested parties.

People already do the same for a variety of different IP's in PF1 whether they fit the fantasy mold or not. I don't see why Edition changes would be any different in that regard.

Dark Archive

Chest Rockwell wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Total, I can see that, but crits favour monsters more than characters, so while I do not want confirmation rolls, I do not mind a crit-range of, like you said, 5th Ed, of 18-20, max, but I would also not double extra damage dice from features such as Sneak Attack and Smite, etc, just double the base weapon damage dice is enough.

Actually, sneak attack not doubling on a crit is one of my pet peeves with Pathfinder/3e. If anyone should benefit from using more precise weaponry, it should be the rogue.

Also, from a balance point of view: rogues get sneak attack to make up for lower base damage. In 5e, rogues essentially get sneak attack instead of multiple attacks, so a crit makes things more swingy but doesn't really unbalance things overall.

it becomes a problem when used against the PCs, +10d6 is an excessive spike, to me.

Also, yes, Sneak Attack makes up for Extra/Iterative Attacks (which is no longer a thing in PF2), but I don't think either should have spikes like that, and it puts those with abilities like Sneak Attack way ahead.

At a level when you're getting 10d6 sneak attack (level 19+), +10d6 (35 average) is not excessive.

One thing that I've found constantly prevalent is people getting impressed or intimidated by large numbers of dice. It needs to be considered in the context of the typical amount of HP available at that level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Also, if you like 1st edition, keep playing it. They've stated that the PDFs will remain available. And the softcovers will remain in print for the foreseeable future.

If you like Pathfinder, but you have identified areas for improvement, then shouldn't you push for version 2 of Pathfinder to go in the direction that you would most enjoy?

Why should the "tear the system down and throw something together on the ashes" crowd be the only crowd heard here?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Also, if you like 1st edition, keep playing it. They've stated that the PDFs will remain available. And the softcovers will remain in print for the foreseeable future.

If you like Pathfinder, but you have identified areas for improvement, then shouldn't you push for version 2 of Pathfinder to go in the direction that you would most enjoy?

Why should the "tear the system down and throw something together on the ashes" crowd be the only crowd heard here?

I second this. The people here that are telling us who have issues with PF2 to go pound sand have no more say in what should become of PF2 than we do. If a sufficient majority of people want a mechanic to change, it should change, or else Paizo risks losing business or, at best, wasting millions on developing, marketing, and distributing an unpopular game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

'Majority rules' is a pretty terrible metric for game design. Especially when it's easy to show that of the people who play the game, only a small percentage post of these boards, only a percentage of those post in the playtest section and only a percentage of those are for or against any specific change or idea.

So a minority of a minority of a minority really shouldn't have -that- much influence on final decisions. Testing goes a lot farther. Outrage merely looks big (and I say that has someone who doesn't like several things about PF2. Or at least the stream of consciousness and scattered impressions of snippets of PF2).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Personally, I DESPISED Prestige Classes. There were mechanical issues, of course, but mostly because they seemed the epitome of everything wrong with 3.0s design philosophy. Specifically, the idea that weird conglomerations of abilities made characters 'interesting' rather than their personalities or actions.

As for PF2, its biggest problem for me is a return to that kind of thinking. Placing too much emphasis on the abilities characters have and too little on what they use them for. Part of this is probably due to the nature of the previews themselves, but if that does prove to be the case I think we'll probably stick to the 1st edition.

That is an inherent issue of RPGs. The amount of "Role Play" that happens is entirely dependent on the group. Some people want a minis battle game, some people want collective story time, and some people want both. You can't force people to care more about their character's actions or motivations than they do.

What you are looking for is a Narrative Driven RPG. That is something DnD and Pathfinder have never been. I would argue that this is a good thing, as Narrative Driven RPGs suffer MUCH more from a bad player(either someone who sucks at roleplaying or someone who wants to be disruptive) than games like DnD and Pathfinder.

Not really. I actually tend to find that narrative-based RPGs (or at least those with narrative mechanics, like FATE) tend to result in rather dull stories hence my preference for Simulationism which tends to be a bit more flexible as characters aren't wholly defined by their cliches/aspects, etc.

In any case, the point was more that it's not really a matter of roleplay (one can roleplay perfectly well with no rules at all), but of the system itself - giving 20 different ways to hit things with a stick a la DnD4 adds complexity to the game, but does nothing to actually improve the playing experience. A lot of the stuff from PF2 previews seems to be similar. I can appreciate that some people find that sort of thing 'cool', but aside from being a wholly subjective value, these sorts of mechanical gimmicks lose their charm very quickly.

It's quite possible I simply dislike modular design as I've found both the last two versions of DnD very disappointing for pretty similar reasons despite their being very different games in almost every other respect, but ultimately we'll see if PF2 is worthwhile in another month.


@Captain Morgan

Your comparison of the racial feats just made me realize how weird the CRB Gomes are compared to what Pathfinder did with them. Bonus vs fighting giants? wut?

Them 3.5 holdovers sure lasted a long while, about time we finally get rid of them. I also highly doubt all gnomes are trained for battle with those weapons by PF, they seem pretty peaceful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Keen Senses: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception checks. This one doesn't seem any better I'll admit, despite giving you a scent type boost.

Recall that perception is also going to be your initiative skill in a lot of situations. A +2 to perception is really quite nice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

@Captain Morgan

Your comparison of the racial feats just made me realize how weird the CRB Gomes are compared to what Pathfinder did with them. Bonus vs fighting giants? wut?

Them 3.5 holdovers sure lasted a long while, about time we finally get rid of them. I also highly doubt all gnomes are trained for battle with those weapons by PF, they seem pretty peaceful.

I feel like the definition of peaceful in a world where monsters might roar out of the woods at some point and travel to a large city may well be met with highwaymen is different than peaceful in a modern western nation.

The concept of every ablebodied person having a little basic training to form a militia in a quasi-medieval setting isn't terribly far fetched.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

I feel like the definition of peaceful in a world where monsters might roar out of the woods at some point and travel to a large city may well be met with highwaymen is different than peaceful in a modern western nation.

The concept of every ablebodied person having a little basic training to form a militia in a quasi-medieval setting isn't terribly far fetched.

It's not them having combat training that's weird, it's them having it vs. giants specifically. Which gnomes have no real history with in Golarion.

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / A critique of PF 2nd ed All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion