The Main Problem of PF2


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:

A good new edition simply removes all the mistakes and weak spots of the previous one but retains the overall feel of it.

What is your opinion about 3rd edition, compared to Ad&d 2nd edition?

In many regards 3e was a completely new system, a good system but still a new system, even if all new concepts had been tested beforehand in Gamma World and the the Player's Option books.


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

Thanks to the OP for this thread. It describes exactly my concern about PF2e. I think Paizo would be better off creating a revised PF1.5/D&D3.75 rather than striking out (in more ways than one) with the PF2e which has been presented to us. I will take part in the PF2e playtest but without much enthusiasm.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So here's the thing, I think that PF2e offers some really great and amazing ideas:
* The three action economy
* The way shields and multiattack interact with those
* The +/-10 critical system
* Scaling proficiencies
* Lots of choices in individual classes

These are all super innovative and I love them... That being said, the rest is pretty lackluster, and as currently presented, it's pretty easy to run 5e with the first three of those added (multiattack now reduces the penalty of your later attacks by 3, for example), and I think you wind up with a better overall system... That's a *big* problem, from my point of view, as 5e is also an overall simpler system, which makes it a draw. Pathfinder 2e might actually be *more* complicated than 1e as presented currently.


Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:

A good new edition simply removes all the mistakes and weak spots of the previous one but retains the overall feel of it.

What is your opinion about 3rd edition, compared to Ad&d 2nd edition?
In many regards 3e was a completely new system, a good system but still a new system, even if all new concepts had been tested beforehand in Gamma World and the the Player's Option books.

I'm confused, not sure if I understood your answer. So DnD 3rd edition was not DnD?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
...I feel like --on a larger scale -- the two significant changes are really proficiency and class feature acquisition/progression rates, ...
And these two things are the main problem. The proficiency system completely changes the feel of the game. It removes the flexibility of the old skill system and leads to really weird effects.

I actually like the proficiency system for SKILLS (Just skills) Though I would have gone with like, half level, rather than FULL LEVEL, which just seams like a weird kind of one upsmanship over 5e's proficiency system...

And with real multi-classing, and maybe a feat the problems with signature skills are largely overcome.

I also like the way that skills have found their way into combat as a way to buff spells, or enhance other abilities.

I would also probably roll a lot of the skill feats back into the skill itself...

The biggest problem with the prof. system as iI see it, is that it has essentially done away with the middle road combat classes, which is probably why bard got full spell progression (which also doesn't sit well with me [bard = jack of all trades, master of NONE, imo])


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

So here's the thing, I think that PF2e offers some really great and amazing ideas:

* The three action economy
* The way shields and multiattack interact with those
* The +/-10 critical system
* Scaling proficiencies
* Lots of choices in individual classes

These are all super innovative and I love them... That being said, the rest is pretty lackluster, and as currently presented, it's pretty easy to run 5e with the first three of those added (multiattack now reduces the penalty of your later attacks by 3, for example), and I think you wind up with a better overall system... That's a *big* problem, from my point of view, as 5e is also an overall simpler system, which makes it a draw. Pathfinder 2e might actually be *more* complicated than 1e as presented currently.

I absolutely agree, though I would roll the "ready shield" action, into a "fight defensively" action.

I also feel that the multi-attack penalty rules might be more complicated than they are worth (maybe just drop them and deal with more lethal melee?)...

My problem with the class (and race) choices, is that they seem to remove flavor from classes (and races) and force you to buy it back. This also has the effect of making the classes difficult to groc at first glance, which is not great for new players, or just daydreaming about builds)

A better route would have to just present the core path, and present options to swap class features later (ya know, like Paizo has done a MILLION times)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem of PF2 was that absolutely no matter what they put out, there would be a huge kneejerk angry reaction to it.

For proof, please see the insanely long thread on the main forums discussing the possibility of a second edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

FWIW, I have never once been interested in Pathfinder as a system until now, and I never thought I would be. I playtested for 5ed, and didn't like it; PF2 tentatively looks promising. Paizo probably won't eat WotC's lunch again, but they have a good opportunity to become the provider of heavy crunch gaming now that WotC is firmly entrenched as a rules light, adventure-heavy provider. There's a good chance PF2 can attract people who want more mechanics than 5ed provides.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Triune wrote:

The main problem of PF2 was that absolutely no matter what they put out, there would be a huge kneejerk angry reaction to it.

For proof, please see the insanely long thread on the main forums discussing the possibility of a second edition.

That, and the perennial PF1 forum uprisings over the years anytime errata has tried to keep the wheels from coming off the system. Change in any form has tended to result in pitchforks and torches.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Combat action system is fine
Spells seem fine
Advancement section seems fine except that the archetypes are lacking and multiclassing looks bad. New XP system is actually a nice change
Running the game section looks fine
treasure section is fine, except I still don't agree on Resonance cost for Potions and scroll
Option for both Simplified monsters and complex monsters is fine. I don't need mob goblin to be complicated. But I want to see everything when it comes to the Warboss.

system wise it looks good

character creation however is bad.

Ideally I would rip out everything from Ancestries to Feats. (maybe keep the skill system.) and just use PF1 for character creation. Little bit of tweaking like we saw in Unchained. Give fighters a way of fiddling with the combat action system like getting freebies with certain actions (EX: Free Trip on hit if you are a Polearm master) or reducing the action cost on others. Bake Stamina combat for fighters as a default

but the core parts of the system look fine to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


You missed the part where WotC offered PF players an unfamiliar 5e and took them away from Paizo in droves. I mean, 5e is far cry from PF, yet it ate Paizo's market share for breakfast.

Did they? I don't think many PF players switched to 5E. I think 5E players are new entrants. At least anecdotally. Which makes sense. There are more 5E players than there ever where Pathfinder players, so most of them must be new blood, no?

I gave 5E a go, but I'm never going to play it again. If my groups switched to it I would quit the group, it falls under the minimum threshold of fun where I can do other things entirely to have more fun. Fortunately they think the same as me pretty much.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fluff wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


You missed the part where WotC offered PF players an unfamiliar 5e and took them away from Paizo in droves. I mean, 5e is far cry from PF, yet it ate Paizo's market share for breakfast.

Did they? I don't think many PF players switched to 5E. I think 5E players are new entrants. At least anecdotally. Which makes sense. There are more 5E players than there ever where Pathfinder players, so most of them must be new blood, no?

I gave 5E a go, but I'm never going to play it again. If my groups switched to it I would quit the group, it falls under the minimum threshold of fun where I can do other things entirely to have more fun. Fortunately they think the same as me pretty much.

Anecdotally I've lost 5 players out of 20 to 5e, and the ones who remain keep nagging me to switch to 5e.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Anecdotally I've lost 5 players out of 20 to 5e, and the ones who remain keep nagging me to switch to 5e.

That's unfortunate. 5e is smoother and all, but I really felt like I had almost no control over the outcome of the game compared to PF. Seemed like I had to petition the GM to keep the game outcome from falling to the dice all too often.

5e does some good things, but it's definitely not what I hoped it would be from its popularity.


I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks

I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like how they simplify the skills not as many, however I feel that some classes still need to have at less 4 skills and should not have a big different in the bonus points on most of them.

Like Witch Of Miracles said, if the party has trained with party's rogue in stealth they should have a higher bonus in sneaking into the dungeon maybe like +17 plus any minus to certain armor.

Also I feel the most of the Occultism skill could be placed in both Arcana and Religion skills. The bard class should have stay with its special arcane spells

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks
I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.

So much this.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks
I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.

Yea that was a problem along with some class/race combinations being so good that other people shouldn't bother investing in it cause they could never get close to matching you.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
"Barbarossa Rotbart" wrote:
A good new edition simply removes all the mistakes and weak spots of the previous one but retains the overall feel of it.

The main weak spots of PF1 are (arguably) things like:

- There is a massive difference in power level between optimized and unoptimized characters, in part due to the level of freedom players are given, and this leads to internal party power imbalance or makes published adventures either too easy or too hard.

- High-level play becomes unbalanced due to too many modifiers, extra attacks, metamagic spell combos, etc.

- Casters have a lot more flexibility and narrative power than martials, to the point that many skills become largely irrelevant.

- Players are incentivized to equip all their characters with the same old items (Cloak of Resistance, Belt of Stat Bonus, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, etc.), making magic equipment feel mundane.

- The rules are really complicated and this makes it hard for new players to get into the game.

I don't think you can fix these things without changing the feel of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks
I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.

Not only compared to other classes, but for yourself too, it was pretty difficult to remain relevant if you wanted to be competent in certain areas, particularly in the physical skills. Rogues, and other multi-talented classes with tons of skills could do it, but less fortunate classes could not. Not only the poor fighter. Take a Barbarian, for example. You have 4 skill ranks per level. If you wanted your Barbarian to be really athletic and mobile, you probably would need to spend points in Acrobatics, Climb, Swim and Stealth. That's before we count things like Survival, Perception, Intimidate or Ride. So in the end you had to put just 1 point in many of them, while maxing the rest. Which meant you were pretty mediocre at, say, climb and swim (which your character concept should not be), because you had to pour ranks in the others, or they became useless (you can't have 1 rank in skills that are rolled opposite rolls at lvl 10, or you are useless. So stuff like Perception, intimidate, Acrobatics or Stealth "required" many ranks).

Consolidated skills, and auto-skill ranks make it easier to be capable at multiple things.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but that (and the lock out party) is the reasoning behind it, imho


4 people marked this as a favorite.

so the solution is Everyone is good at it, and the one guy is slightly better at it?

the old "Everyone is Special, so Nobody is" solution


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

so the solution is Everyone is good at it, and the one guy is slightly better at it?

the old "Everyone is Special, so Nobody is" solution

Not really. The solution is "everyone has a pretty decent chance to make it, and the one who is good at it can do pretty awesome stuff with it that has nothing to do with the DC".

For example, everybody can try to disguise as peasants and enter Nottingham Sheriff's Archery Tournament, even Little John the fighter, so the group can play the adventure to save Lady Marian. But a skilled character, with Legendary Impersonator, could become the Sheriff of Nottingham in 6 seconds. I think that's pretty special.

Now, you might not agree with the solution, and preffer the party not to do the mission of saving Marian (or more probably in PF1, use magic). But the solution, is that one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
"Barbarossa Rotbart" wrote:
A good new edition simply removes all the mistakes and weak spots of the previous one but retains the overall feel of it.

The main weak spots of PF1 are (arguably) things like:

- There is a massive difference in power level between optimized and unoptimized characters, in part due to the level of freedom players are given, and this leads to internal party power imbalance or makes published adventures either too easy or too hard.

This is mostly due to overly strong and trap options. This could have been fixed by buffing weak feats/class abilities and nerfing or removing powerful ones. This would not require a brand new system.

Quote:
- High-level play becomes unbalanced due to too many modifiers, extra attacks, metamagic spell combos, etc.

See above.

Quote:
- Casters have a lot more flexibility and narrative power than martials, to the point that many skills become largely irrelevant.

Limit utility spells and grant martials more cool abilities. Again, this doesn't require a new system.

Quote:
- Players are incentivized to equip all their characters with the same old items (Cloak of Resistance, Belt of Stat Bonus, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, etc.), making magic equipment feel mundane.

The static boosting item benefits could easily be rolled into character progression. Resonance, or something like it, would fix the CLW wand spam.

Quote:
- The rules are really complicated and this makes it hard for new players to get into the game.

Have you read through the playtest book yet? It honestly feels MORE complicated. Not to mention, simplifying problem mechanics could be done without rebuilding the game from the ground up. See grappling rules from 3.5 to Pathfinder for a great example. Not to mention that 5e holds the corner on "simple" right now and Paizo isn't going to be able to compete with their brand recognition or marketing team any time soon. If simple is Paizo's goal, they have both failed miserably (as of now) and metaphorically brought a pool noodle to a wizard's duel.

Quote:
I don't think you can fix these things without changing the feel of the game.

We aren't talking about "feel" (which is very subjective, by the way), we're talking about the core of the system that we all know and understand.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thflame wrote:


This is mostly due to overly strong and trap options. This could have been fixed by buffing weak feats/class abilities and nerfing or removing powerful ones. This would not require a brand new system.

Power Attack is a no-brainer for a 2h Fighter.

It's a trap option for Wizard.

A new player will not notice that and will shoot himself or herself in the foot by picking Power Attack.

How does "buffing weak abilities" or "removing powerful ones" fix that?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

so the solution is Everyone is good at it, and the one guy is slightly better at it?

the old "Everyone is Special, so Nobody is" solution

Full Metal Jacket game balance.

"Here, you are all equally worthless."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

Quote:
- Players are incentivized to equip all their characters with the same old items (Cloak of Resistance, Belt of Stat Bonus, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, etc.), making magic equipment feel mundane.

The static boosting item benefits could easily be rolled into character progression. Resonance, or something like it, would fix the CLW wand spam.

it doesn't actually.

You just carry a Box of CLW wands instead.
Once you run out of Resonance you pull out the Box, Use a wand till you fail the roll. Set the now non-functioning wand aside till tomorrow and move on tothe next wand.

As long as you don't roll a 1 you can keep doing this until you've used up all the wands in the box for the day.
The wands are just 27 GP a each (IE: 270 GP by PF1 standards) with only 10 charges so a bit more expensive than the 750 gp in PF1, but nothing in the rules says you lose a charge when the roll fails, so they are better choice than potions once you are out of resonance. If you have more than one person in the group who can cast Heal you are in good shape cause each of them can use the wands till they fail, effectively doubling you potential heals.

Alternatively you hire a shmuck or two to guard the camp while you are in the dungeon and when you get out you have him use the wands on you till his resonance is out.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
thflame wrote:


This is mostly due to overly strong and trap options. This could have been fixed by buffing weak feats/class abilities and nerfing or removing powerful ones. This would not require a brand new system.

Power Attack is a no-brainer for a 2h Fighter.

It's a trap option for Wizard.

A new player will not notice that and will shoot himself or herself in the foot by picking Power Attack.

How does "buffing weak abilities" or "removing powerful ones" fix that?

There is a certain point where you have to assume that your players are competent enough to read an ability, understand what it does, and realize that it is a bad option for what they want out of their character.

What is the alternative? You prevent the wizard from taking Power Attack, even if he really wants to eventually play a greatsword wielding eldritch knight? That's worse than letting a dumb player grab a feat not meant for his build, in my opinion.

The former limits character options and potentially prevents a player from making the character they want, the latter can be fixed by retconning the choice and letting the new player pick a new ability in its place.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes in games you just can't do something if you pick a certain role or class.

That's fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

so the solution is Everyone is good at it, and the one guy is slightly better at it?

the old "Everyone is Special, so Nobody is" solution

Not really. The solution is "everyone has a pretty decent chance to make it, and the one who is good at it can do pretty awesome stuff with it that has nothing to do with the DC".

For example, everybody can try to disguise as peasants and enter Nottingham Sheriff's Archery Tournament, even Little John the fighter, so the group can play the adventure to save Lady Marian. But a skilled character, with Legendary Impersonator, could become the Sheriff of Nottingham in 6 seconds. I think that's pretty special.

Now, you might not agree with the solution, and preffer the party not to do the mission of saving Marian (or more probably in PF1, use magic). But the solution, is that one.

I would assume the solution without dipping into magic is, NOT to have everyone enter the contest and possibly all get grabbed if things go south. Character has bad disguise check? Well they have all their points into handle animal, go see if they can do something with the horses should things go south. Bard has stupid Bluff check, why do they need a disguise? And probably so on.

How any GM doesn't want the team to go on the mission of saving Marian, I don't know. Unless it was a side thing that got waaaaaaay out of hand and now the GM has to get back on track.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:

Sometimes in games you just can't do something if you pick a certain role or class.

That's fine.

Hitting Harder is not something that should be Class-Gated.

Fighting with two weapons is not something that should be Class-Gated.

Intimidating a guy should not be Class-gated

Calling on the power of the Gods, sure I can see that as something to be Class-Gated.

but Quickdraw, why is that Class-Gated?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
thflame wrote:


This is mostly due to overly strong and trap options. This could have been fixed by buffing weak feats/class abilities and nerfing or removing powerful ones. This would not require a brand new system.

Power Attack is a no-brainer for a 2h Fighter.

It's a trap option for Wizard.

A new player will not notice that and will shoot himself or herself in the foot by picking Power Attack.

How does "buffing weak abilities" or "removing powerful ones" fix that?

There is a certain point where you have to assume that your players are competent enough to read an ability, understand what it does, and realize that it is a bad option for what they want out of their character.

What is the alternative? You prevent the wizard from taking Power Attack, even if he really wants to eventually play a greatsword wielding eldritch knight? That's worse than letting a dumb player grab a feat not meant for his build, in my opinion.

The former limits character options and potentially prevents a player from making the character they want, the latter can be fixed by retconning the choice and letting the new player pick a new ability in its place.

That point where you can assume system mastery is few years down the road of playing the game. Remember, we're talking about attracting new players. I have people who play PF since 2012 and they still would pick Power Attack for a Wizard. A game where you have to helicopter over the players and constantly tell them "this option is bad, don't take it" is not a fun game.

The alternative is to introduce a proper gish class/archetype.

And honestly, I sincerely hope that you didn't just label every person who every picked Power Attack for a non-EK Wizard as "dumb".


Honestly power attack for a Wizard while very very suboptimal could work with the non touch attack spells. However, they really shouldn't be in melee and an Arcanist would make much better use since they get mage armor, Shield of Faith, and some Temp HP without using a single spell.

Also even with touch attacks you would need power attack to gain Cleave for Chill Touch and other multi touch spells.


Greylurker wrote:
thflame wrote:

Quote:
- Players are incentivized to equip all their characters with the same old items (Cloak of Resistance, Belt of Stat Bonus, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, etc.), making magic equipment feel mundane.

The static boosting item benefits could easily be rolled into character progression. Resonance, or something like it, would fix the CLW wand spam.

it doesn't actually.

You just carry a Box of CLW wands instead.
Once you run out of Resonance you pull out the Box, Use a wand till you fail the roll. Set the now non-functioning wand aside till tomorrow and move on tothe next wand.

As long as you don't roll a 1 you can keep doing this until you've used up all the wands in the box for the day.
The wands are just 27 GP a each (IE: 270 GP by PF1 standards) with only 10 charges so a bit more expensive than the 750 gp in PF1, but nothing in the rules says you lose a charge when the roll fails, so they are better choice than potions once you are out of resonance. If you have more than one person in the group who can cast Heal you are in good shape cause each of them can use the wands till they fail, effectively doubling you potential heals.

Alternatively you hire a shmuck or two to guard the camp while you are in the dungeon and when you get out you have him use the wands on you till his resonance is out.

Few problems with this:

1) The issue with CLW wand spam was that CLW wands are more cost effective than stronger healing wands in PF1. Resonance makes you use better wands to get better healing.

2) If you ever fail a Resonance check by 10 or more or roll a natural 1, you can't use Resonance any more that day. Your first Resonance Check is a DC 11 flat check and that DC increases by 1 every time you try to spend Resonance. I ran a program a long time ago when the Resonance mechanic was first introduced and I found that, on average, you would get ONE additional use out of magic items after you ran dry on resonance. Given your example, each of your allies would yield one extra cast of Heal 1, assuming Heal is on their spell list.

3) Hiring some poor shmuck costs money. The better the shmuck, the more it costs. Trained shmucks cost even more money. The worse the shmuck, the more likely he is to fail a Resonance check or get eaten by a random passing monster while you're off adventuring. Not to mention that you have to make it back to your shmuck to get his help. Hiring a parade of civilians to follow your PCs through untamed wilds to help them raid a dungeon is not within the realms of what I would call "even remotely likely to happen".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
3) Hiring some poor shmuck costs money. The better the shmuck, the more it costs. Trained shmucks cost even more money. The worse the shmuck, the more likely he is to fail a Resonance check or get eaten by a random passing monster while you're off adventuring. Not to mention that you have to make it back to your shmuck to get his help. Hiring a parade of civilians to follow your PCs through untamed wilds to help them raid a dungeon is not within the realms of what I would call "even remotely likely to happen".

Counter points;

1) Will leadership be in Core? Not playtest I mean release.

2) Hello Summon and Familiars. Will Imp still continue to be proven as the King of Familiar use when Improved Familiar sees print?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
A game where you have to helicopter over the players and constantly tell them "this option is bad, don't take it" is not a fun game.

Do you think that a game where the optimal answers are simply obvious will deliver more long gaming reward?

And, are you speaking of the game you play? If so, why do you choose to play a "not a fun game" with some many options out there?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't think it has one problem.
I do think it has a lot of small problems.

I do think that PF1E has died of old age. It can be celebrated for its glorious life. I'm not being critical. And I might still play it for years to come. But as a market viable thing, it has been an amazing success.

Does the fact that PF1E is done shed any light on the merits or issues with 2E? Nope.

Does the history of other games shine any light? Some, but only a little.

First, people ALWAYS scream bloody murder when a new edition is announced and that never makes a hill of beans difference.

But, look at the build up to 3E. There were plenty of people complaining and defending old school. But there was an very strong consensus of excitement and 3E did well. Look at the build up to 5E and there were plenty of people complaining about "going backwards". But there was a very strong consensus of excitement and 5E is clearly doing very well. Look at the build up to 4E and you will see a couple dozen hot topics with deep contention and a lot of highly wary people. And 4E hurt for marketshare.

I'm afraid I know which of those models the reaction to 2E is showing.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Need I remind some of you how badly designed D&D 5ed is, I will list some of the major issues, and if you think about this these could have been simple to design in the core system, albeit they failed, and just because someone makes a lot of sales does not mean your mechanics are trash. I don't care whos sale are what I'm a GM and player, and I want an awesome game, PF2 is very close to my perfect game.

1. Hit dice / Long rests, too easy to heal up, there is no attrition.
2. Plate Armor is badly designed, get the best AC, dump stat DEX, swim like Michael Phelps, climb with ease, move as fast as someone with no armor. Many spells have to defeat your armor class, why does ray of enfeeblement have to get through your armor?
3. Gold become meaningless
4. If you don't use Intelligence as a class its a dump stat, tons of players just dump stat intelligence, it doesn't help your skills or languages.
5. Spells either suck real bad and no one ever uses them, or its a spell everyone takes, e.g. Healing word, bless, polymorph, etc.
6. There is no touch armor class, 5ed has no mechanic for touch attacks, all they had to do is use Dex saves for touch attacks.
7. The death and dying rules, players bounce up and down with healing, monsters play wacka-a-mole.

Just to name a few.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Maps Subscriber

I feel that, so far, the play test is not hitting it's intended goal of streamlining play and being more new player friendly. I am a pretty experienced gamer and even I found several parts of the play test material confusing. So if I were to hand this over to my casual players to read over and build a character they would throw up their hands and not want to try.

I feel there is still too many floating conditions and modifiers in the game. It doesn't feel smooth and relaxed in tone. It already feels like choice overload may be a concern which would slow down play. Not to mention as a GM I would find this edition harder to run than PF1 or 5E.

So I would recommend trimming the crunch down somewhat, make character building easier, make GMing easier, reduce the amount of floating conditions and modifiers, and tighten up the cross hairs on what your target audience is.

I don't know about everyone else, but in my circles, people would be happy with a game that falls somewhere between PF1 crunch and 5E ease of play.


Gorbacz wrote:
That point where you can assume system mastery is few years down the road of playing the game.

Not really, takes way less time.


Ellestil wrote:
I feel that, so far, the play test is not hitting it's intended goal of streamlining play and being more new player friendly. I am a pretty experienced gamer and even I found several parts of the play test material confusing. So if I were to hand this over to my casual players to read over and build a character they would throw up their hands and not want to try.

Nice, this captures a lot of what is going on.


Greylurker wrote:

so the solution is Everyone is good at it, and the one guy is slightly better at it?

the old "Everyone is Special, so Nobody is" solution

At first level, a Fighter wearing Splint Mail, a DEX of 12, and no Stealth Training has a -4 to Stealth rolls. At first level, a Rogue wearing Leather Armour, a DEX of 18, and Stealth Training has a +4 to Stealth Rolls. Still a big difference, but not as extreme as the +3 vs. +27 example.

The TEML system, with its small increases, means that skill bonuses aren't going to be astronomical. And there are many magic items like Diadem of Intellect that give a greater bonus to those with low scores, as opposed to topping off an already high score.


thflame wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
thflame wrote:


This is mostly due to overly strong and trap options. This could have been fixed by buffing weak feats/class abilities and nerfing or removing powerful ones. This would not require a brand new system.

Power Attack is a no-brainer for a 2h Fighter.

It's a trap option for Wizard.

A new player will not notice that and will shoot himself or herself in the foot by picking Power Attack.

How does "buffing weak abilities" or "removing powerful ones" fix that?

There is a certain point where you have to assume that your players are competent enough to read an ability, understand what it does, and realize that it is a bad option for what they want out of their character.

What is the alternative? You prevent the wizard from taking Power Attack, even if he really wants to eventually play a greatsword wielding eldritch knight? That's worse than letting a dumb player grab a feat not meant for his build, in my opinion.

The former limits character options and potentially prevents a player from making the character they want, the latter can be fixed by retconning the choice and letting the new player pick a new ability in its place.

Both systems have the retraining option, which is nice.

I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think that thanks to the actual system of multiclassing/archetypes/prestige class in PF2 this kind of combination is doable without the feeling of being underwhelmed in comparison to the overall power level of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fluff wrote:
Did they? I don't think many PF players switched to 5E. I think 5E players are new entrants. At least anecdotally.

Anecdotally, there are definitely people who went 3.x -> Pathfinder -> 5e. I'm one of them. Well, to be honest it was more like 3.x, to Pathfinder, to "Damn, this thing is too complicated and fiddly even for me. But I want to use all this material I have. Perhaps I should write my own game and include just the good stuff? Or maybe go retro and play 2e? Or one of the other bazillion games out there?" to 5e.

But yeah, a big portion of the 5e players are new ones. I recall seeing someone quote Mearls saying that the 5e player base is about 50/50 right now - 50% are players who started playing in the last three years, and the other 50% are ones who started before that.

Dark Archive

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

DnD got some media exposure via tvs / movies / etc.

WotC sales of DnD improved considerably.

Paizo sales declined. Just about everyone that will buy the Core book *have* bought the Core book.

Solution: Paizo creates PF2.

A simple update would not cause re-purchase of Core, Bestiaries, etc.

If the rules are made completely different however, so that the two systems are entirely incompatible?

New sales are guaranteed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My main problem is what I would describe as an overreliance on class when it comes to character options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PHB? MM? Why are you speaking in tongues?

Also, more seriously, I own a copy of both the 3.0 as well as the 3.5 PHB, plus the PF CRB of course. the 3.5 PHB could be considered a minor update, the CRB as well. Still, I bought them.

4E and 5E were completely different and incompatible. I do not own the PHBs to that systems. Why would I, if they are not compatible to the system of my choice?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
That point where you can assume system mastery is few years down the road of playing the game.
Not really, takes way less time.

One thing to keep in mind is that I suspect Paizo will produce additional material for PF2e in a manner similar to PF1e. That's just common business sense. So after a few years, PF2e is going to be as complicated and messy as PF1e in terms of player options and potential power gaps as more feats, classes, etc. become available through Ultimate Second Edition, Advanced Second Edition, the Second Edition Players' Companion, and so on.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 was my first forray into RPGs and since then I have played everything I can get my hands on Cyberpunk, AD&D, Whitewolf, Exalted, etc but PF1 had a special place in my heart. With that when I finally decided to return to PF1 many years later the game had changed so drastically it was hard to find a startong point. For My friends who continued to play that now had unchanged and occult class options and that made it hard for a player to return. The core rules were there but muddled under so,much that it didnt feel like a good fit. Now fast foward to D&D 5e the devs there made a game that had rules and easy ones to follow and look at the steam that game is,generating or even look at the sales between Starfinder and PF1. This is a playtest of a new rules system this is a new system and I think many people are mad because this wasnt an expansion of PF1. But,if you look at PF2 as a new independent property you can see it's merrits (yes there are flaws but again it's a Playtest). Look at Stsrfinder amazing new idea and its still set in the pathfinder universe and are there issues sure I still hate the item level stat stuff but it is a great new system and i think what we have here is something similar. So don't hate PF2 for not being an expansion of PF1, look at it and when you point out flaws point them out in the context of the new system and not as well in PF1 it wasnt like that. Dont be that person who,cant get over their ex and compairs everything to that old relationship. But as always keep up the good work and be awesome to each other


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
jquest716 wrote:
Dont be that person who,cant get over their ex and compairs everything to that old relationship.

The problem with this analogy is that I'm actually very happy with my current relationship. I'm no more looking for a new spouse/partner than I am desirous of a radical, revolutionary PF2e of the sort presented in the playtest document.

51 to 100 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / The Main Problem of PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.