PF2: Where 3.5 comes to die, not thrive! (My initial thoughts)


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

19 people marked this as a favorite.

That's probably a bit dramatic, but it is a clickbait world. :)

Likes:
More dice rolling on damage, less static damage
Backgrounds feel better roleplay-wise than PS1 traits to me

Dislikes:
No Strength Rogue option (too cookie cutter)
No advantage to mounted combat (probably a disadvantage in the long run)
Ancestry Feats feel like a feat tax to get back what I used to get for free
I'm suspicious of how combat maneuvers will actually work (I think they will be more die dependent therefore less reliable therefore used less)

Summary:
I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8. I'm really trying to not be a hater, but this really doesn't feel like the same game to me. I'm still going to participate in the playtest, in order to give it a fair shake, but my confidence and expectations are low right now.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I don't want to get into an edition fight here, so I will be direct. No it is not 3.8. PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could. 5th ed is crushing Paizo in market share at this point. They are not trying to make another 3.5, they are taking the Pathfinder engine and making a NEW edition. That means taking risks and making changes. The 3.5/PF1 die hards will still be playing PF1 regardless of what happens with this Playtest.

I am also of the opinion that they will be opening up the options more in the full game. I think the playtest is intentionally restrictive to make sure classes fill there niches properly. That is speculation though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cfoot wrote:
That's probably a bit dramatic, but it is a clickbait world. :)

I enjoyed this comment.

Quote:

Dislikes:

No Strength Rogue option (too cookie cutter)

In my view, objections like this are mainly due to the differences between a playtest and an actual, finished game. Presumably, if the core game is working right, adding in a strength rogue should be a doddle (even if it doesn't make it into the CRB, Paizo are likely to continue with their twenty or so supplements per year model - it's been working pretty well).


16 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand why Paizo is going this direction, its just not what I (personally) hoped for. I disagree that PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could go.


Cfoot wrote:
I understand why Paizo is going this direction, its just not what I (personally) hoped for. I disagree that PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could go.

Fair enough. And there are plenty who agree with you. I am not here to fight about it, just explaining why I think they went the way they did.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope that taking away what helped to make Paizo a success does not end up ending Paizo. The lessons of the past are not always appreciated.


There is absolutely a strength rogue option. The very first Class Feat on the rogue list, Bludgeoner, lets you use Sneak Attack with one-handed clubs and maces without the finesse trait. Amd you Slow the target when you crit with such a weapon, which is pretty rad too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
There is absolutely a strength rogue option. The very first Class Feat on the rogue list, Bludgeoner, lets you use Sneak Attack with one-handed clubs and maces without the finesse trait. Amd you Slow the target when you crit with such a weapon, which is pretty rad too.

Thank you for pointing that out, however, allowing you to use a one-handed club is hardly the makings of a strength rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I sort of washed out of Pathfinder back when there was the angry breakup with 4e. I liked the idea of an integrated world that 4e represented, pulling in all the setting vanilla content 3.5 had come up with and giving it a clever place to live in the Fallen Lands. But I never really loved 4e's mechanics (powers were bad) and the new feel of the game. I jumped in the 5e playtest with high hopes of forming D&D back into that thing I loved that never really seemed to love me back. I ended up feeling like my feedback really got listened to and I can see my imprint on the edition.

As a big fan of Polyhedron, Dragon magazine, and Dungeon as well as an early adopter of Pathfinder back in the glory days of Rise of the Runelords (happy to say I was there for the first Paizocon) I really look forward to being able to leave a stamp on the new edition of this game as well.

I like the dice rolling mechanics--not sure if the Deadly quality is a new thing...but I really like it.

I like the backgrounds. Ish. I wish we got to really engage with them. The ones in the module feel really railroady. I hope the idea isn't to have Backgrounds be the way we armbar the characters into going on the main adventure. As a concept though I loved Backgrounds in 4e and 5e and I think the implimentation of them in Pathfinder looks hopeful. I wish they had a little more heft to them, they feel a little light mechanically. It would be nice if a player felt like they came one-third from each of their components, A B and C. Right now it feels like mostly A and C and B is kind of a garnish.

I am really troubled by the Rogue. It feels easily the most generic and boring of the classes as well as looking the most broken. I have yet to see one in play, but the one we've built for the module has almost every skill and the prospect of a skill feat every level and rogue feat every other is looking ominous. The fact that they get as many class abilities front loaded at 1st level seems a bit much as well. It would be nice to see options for an assassin rogue (which is the default stealth stabber), but also an infiltration rogue, a impersonation rogue, a hustler rogue, a locksmith rogue that are all different right off the bat.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I hope that taking away what helped to make Paizo a success does not end up ending Paizo. The lessons of the past are not always appreciated.

That will make me sound like a fanboy but I'm pretty confident that they know exactly what they are doing. Especially in the case of Lisa Stevens, who has a good track record when it comes to having big success in a quite small pond.

This said, in this age of s&#%storms and overall negativity, Paizo may be doomed no matter what they do, because let's face it, the 3.5 audience is shrinking and shrinking, so staying true to the roots might not be an option, but trying out new things faces the risk of said negativity.

At this moment, though, I'm pretty confident that it will work out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cfoot wrote:
I understand why Paizo is going this direction, its just not what I (personally) hoped for. I disagree that PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could go.

Me too, they did not go far enough to fix/polish 3rd Ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I hope that taking away what helped to make Paizo a success does not end up ending Paizo. The lessons of the past are not always appreciated.

Yeah, I really hope this does not turn out be Paizo's New Coke, but WotC went through it and ended up with a thriving game, maybe it's a lesson they need to learn, before the really good PF3 comes out!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cfoot wrote:
I understand why Paizo is going this direction, its just not what I (personally) hoped for. I disagree that PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could go.

Taking it as far as financially viable.

For example Starfinderr is outselling PF1 but PF1 is more popular at online tables.

More or less means sales of PF1 are flat but it has a larger player base. Everyone who wants to buy PF1 probably already owns it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like Paizo might be stuck between a rock and a hard place.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
It sounds like Paizo might be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Who knows there may be a massive divergence between the forums and what people say in surveys.

Depends on who participates in the playtest, hard core players make a lot of noise.

Based on the old WoTC forums 5E was dead on arrival. Yeah.

Problem is for Paizo is that its 10 years old based on an almost 20 yer old set of rules. Everyone who wants to buy Pathfinder probably has it already new sales are probably minimal.


Cfoot wrote:

That's probably a bit dramatic, but it is a clickbait world. :)

Likes:
More dice rolling on damage, less static damage
Backgrounds feel better roleplay-wise than PS1 traits to me

Dislikes:
No Strength Rogue option (too cookie cutter)
No advantage to mounted combat (probably a disadvantage in the long run)
Ancestry Feats feel like a feat tax to get back what I used to get for free
I'm suspicious of how combat maneuvers will actually work (I think they will be more die dependent therefore less reliable therefore used less)

Summary:
I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8. I'm really trying to not be a hater, but this really doesn't feel like the same game to me. I'm still going to participate in the playtest, in order to give it a fair shake, but my confidence and expectations are low right now.

The problem with added damage dice is the time it takes to add them up (not an issue for me, but I know others can have this problem of intense shorthand math addition), and it creates very "swingy" results. You can hit as hard as 78 damage in a single attack with a +5 Greatsword with 22 Strength, or as weak as 12 (6 dice + 6 Strength). Yes, you are most likely to hit the averages, being 45 damage, but outliers do exist, they can come up more often than not, and this honestly served as the #1 reason why using Cure spells (generally in combat) was a waste of time and resources; the benefits were too swingy to warrant an appropriate expenditure for it. This also creates the idea that "was this attack action really worth it" paradigm, even though you hit and did what you were supposed to do, but it turns out it wasn't because you didn't roll good enough on damage, an arbitrary reason why you didn't do your job of defeating the bad guy? Sure, the same argument of "didn't roll good on your attack roll" can apply, but a character can better gauge if they can realistically hit an enemy (due to needing only one dice and estimating which number they need, and what bonuses they can hit on average) compared to if they can realistically kill an enemy based on how hard they can hit (rolling numerous dice with numerous results that can either overkill him or underkill him; good luck with trying to take an enemy alive with how swingy those results are).

I do agree with the Background stuff; Traits in PF1 were gateways to broken options, even though traits were originally designed to do the exact opposite, and simply provide a little bit of flair to your character (I even remember this being listed in the original Traits write-up, but it eludes me right now). I'm glad Backgrounds retain this option, and didn't go the broken route that is PF1 traits.

Haven't gotten to Rogue yet, but I can say that in PF1, Strength Rogue was always an inoptimal option, simply due to the limitations it has. If you were gonna go that route, Slayer would've been a better choice, even with UCRogue options, or even Ranger if we're talking Core Only. Rogues have always been the "Dexterous and Agile" kind. There are other similar issues, such as no Battle Bard/Cleric, to which point we just have to understand that there are niches that certain classes don't fulfill anymore.

Mounted Combat was either overly complicated for the same thing as playing normally (a giant beatstick), or was overly powerful to be borderline banned (because free flying and stupid amounts of burst damage trivialized 90% of encounters). I'm not saying it should be useless, but I'm not surprised they went with that route considering their solution to problems was "nerf into oblivion" in PF1, which will probably carry over to PF2.

Ancestry Feats are meh most of the time, depending on which ancestry you pick. Some ancestries have some of the worst feats (Dwarfs have a couple good ones, and the rest are actually worse than taking anything at all!), and some have some of the best (Humans and Elves being able to move 35 feat at any given time is pretty powerful, among other things).

I haven't read a lick of combat maneuvers, but considering they haven't even been previewed or anything, I'm of the opinion that they sucked too much or weren't cool/developed enough to warrant a preview (which says a lot about the state they are in). Of course, the only thing they had to say about Combat Maneuvers was that there are "Combat Maneuvers that rock," in the initial PF2 announcement, which just baffles me to no end as to why they weren't previewed if that truly is the case.

Of course, one thing you do need to understand is that PF2 was never intended to be a direct follow-up of PF1 or 3.X. You might as well take everything you know of PF1 and throw it out the window if you want to properly understand the goals and ideals of PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at how some of the ancestry f ew aps work it looks like the developers watched too many ancestry.com commercials as these were being developed.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, one thing you do need to understand is that PF2 was never intended to be a direct follow-up of PF1 or 3.X. You might as well take everything you know of PF1 and throw it out the window if you want to properly understand the goals and ideals of PF2.

I agree and that's what I find the most ironic of all; a company that pretty much came to exist due to those 'rebelling' against the changes in D&D4 is now making drastic changes as well...but I agree, I'm guessing it has to do with market share...

I haven't checked out the Rogue yet but I made a PF2 Ranger yesterday for the playtest and I was disappointed in the changes made there. Seems like they've nerfed the Ranger and pretty much made the longbow obsolete...hopefully that'll get ironed out in the playtest...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I’d like to push back at the notion that the 3.5 model or chassis was no longer viable financially or mechanically.

I would say the biggest problem from PS1 was the bloat and power creep. The introduction of a new version would fix that automatically by wiping the slate clean from all the splat that had accumulated. (The same way PS1 did with 3.5).

Then in my PS2=3.8 version of Pathfinder you build upon the innovations and successes you have had over the last 10 years while also correcting and clarifying some problem areas.

Like…
1) You have 20 Core classes instead of 11 or 12 including Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Oracle. (I could give you the rest of my list but I think these are widely accepted as great designs.) These classes are real improvements to 3.5 that have forever improved the game.
2) The Hunter spontaneous casting of Druid spells. I wouldn’t have the Hunter class in my 20, but I would have Nature Oracles cast spontaneously from the Druid spell list.
3) The Bloodrager Caster Level paradigm for classes that don’t get spells at 1st level (if I had any within the new edition). CL should equal level of the casting class.
4) Each character begins with a Teamwork feat and gains a new one at 7th. (I feel like they never got to cultivate the full potential of Teamwork feats.) And each character gets Skill focus in one skill at 3rd and 9th level.
5) All spells continue to scale when possible. All spells work off of the casting stat of the spell caster. (Oracles use charisma for Spiritual Weapon etc.)
6) No more dipping Paladin for Divine Grace. Change the wording to be something like the Duelist Canny Defense ability. (You may add 1 point of your Charisma bonus per Paladin level to your saves. Or 1 point per 2 levels.)
7) No more 6 arrows in 6 seconds. Manyshot is a standard to shoot 2 arrows at 2 separate targets and is available at 1st level. (This is more thematic anyway. The only reason to put 2 arrows on at one time is to split them.) Rapid shot doesn’t stack with Haste. But I would add more trick shot feats for archery to counterbalance the power loss. (And arrows overcome DR the way they used to, arrow from a +5 Bow overcomes alignment DR.)
8) No stacking bonuses. You get the highest one available (except for Bards whose Inspire Courage stacks with the highest bonus available.)
9) Spirited Charge isn’t available till 9th level and Lances deal double damage on a Spirited Charge like everything else. Horse Animal Companion/Mounts hooves are no longer secondary attacks, so that your Mount is at least on par with the abilities of the Heavy Horse you can buy.
10) Spears can be used one-handed.
11) Etc.

These aren’t supposed to be great ideas, they are meant to show that you could continue to build on the successes of the 3.5 model and improve the game through common sense corrections and clarifications. I think people would buy that kind of PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otha wrote:

I haven't checked out the Rogue yet but I made a PF2 Ranger yesterday for the playtest and I was disappointed in the changes made there. Seems like they've nerfed the Ranger and pretty much made the longbow obsolete...hopefully that'll get ironed out in the playtest...

To be honest, it looked a lot like they looked at the slayer and were like, "oh, this is a Ranger that just doesn't suck" and ran with it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cfoot wrote:
"lot's of good stuff"

I agree with you.

PF2 ideally for me would have been a patch/bug fix of PF1.

Implementing new mechanics to fix broken ones, deleting stuff that was OP and expanding on stuff that needed expansion would have been great.

I really don't think the new engine was necessary, and I honestly don't see the target audience.

To me, PF2 is MORE complex than PF1 with fewer options (even in just the CRB). The only real advantage I'm seeing of PF2 over PF1 is "bounded accuracy" making bad characters harder to make and OP characters virtually impossible.

The only issue here is that "bad" characters are still around, because anything outside of the class tropes appears to be a trap option.

For example, sneak attack is limited to certain weapons. This makes anyone who has ever played a rouge that uses a odd weapon can't play that character. (Technically, you CAN, but there isn't much of a point.)


I do stand corrected on mounted combat. I just read under the Horse entry of animal companions that if you move and attack while mounted you get to add +1 per damage dice rolled. It still might not be worth it but that is something for those of us who like mounted combat.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cfoot wrote:

I’d like to push back at the notion that the 3.5 model or chassis was no longer viable financially or mechanically.

I would say the biggest problem from PS1 was the bloat and power creep. The introduction of a new version would fix that automatically by wiping the slate clean from all the splat that had accumulated. (The same way PS1 did with 3.5).

Then in my PS2=3.8 version of Pathfinder you build upon the innovations and successes you have had over the last 10 years while also correcting and clarifying some problem areas.

This was my hope and wish also. Essentially, Paizo could treat the last ten years as an extended playtest and incorporate what's been learned into an evolutionary PF1.5/D&D3.75.

Also, Paizo could have used this as an opportunity to address many of the FAQ requests that were never dealt with, such as those involving mounted combat. I would much, much rather see Paizo create a better and cleaner PF1 rather than embark on a revolutionary PF2.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"More dice rolling on damage, less static damage" is a bad thing in my opinion. Dice damage should be left to Caster and Static Damage to Martial. Martial class should always have higher averages damage with minimum fluctuations, and Caster should be the opposite.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with GLD if you are arguing that PF2 isnt PF1 then why are you here. Pazio was very open with saying PF2 is a new system and not 3.8 or a patch to PF1. I remember when a lot of people were saying D&D 5e was DOA but look at the speed and fame it has gained. You have to understand people playing PF1 own everything already and the sale of books is shown since its being over taken by Starfinder. If you enjoy PF1 keep on keeping on but if you cant accept a new edition with new rules that arent 3.5 then why keep posting these hate post. Pazio isnt going to go oh snap we made a mistake we need to switch everytjing back to 3.5. Please review the game for what it is and not in the lens of PF1.


BlackRazor77 wrote:
"More dice rolling on damage, less static damage" is a bad thing in my opinion. Dice damage should be left to Caster and Static Damage to Martial. Martial class should always have higher averages damage with minimum fluctuations, and Caster should be the opposite.

I don't agree with Casters having varied damage, because I think varied damage is bad period. It's the biggest difference between why Cure Critical Wounds sucked and the Heal spell was outright awesome, and that difference is even worse compared to Mass Cure Critical compared to Mass Heal (yes, Heal is one spell level higher, but it still heals for so much more for just a single spell level increase).

I'd honestly be okay with some weapons simply doing flat damage per swing, or having a lesser die roll with a flat bonus on top of it for more consistent benefits, and it makes for a great balancing point between weapon choices. "This weapon has more consistent damage, but this other weapon has X benefit, but less consistent damage as a result."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
jquest716 wrote:
I agree with GLD if you are arguing that PF2 isnt PF1 then why are you here. Pazio was very open with saying PF2 is a new system and not 3.8 or a patch to PF1. I remember when a lot of people were saying D&D 5e was DOA but look at the speed and fame it has gained. You have to understand people playing PF1 own everything already and the sale of books is shown since its being over taken by Starfinder. If you enjoy PF1 keep on keeping on but if you cant accept a new edition with new rules that arent 3.5 then why keep posting these hate post. Pazio isnt going to go oh snap we made a mistake we need to switch everytjing back to 3.5. Please review the game for what it is and not in the lens of PF1.

Yeah man. I know I'm in the minority on this in Pathfinder communities, but 5e is lit. Harkens back a lot to the more straightforward nature of Second Edition and brings D&D back to its roots. Not to say it's better than Pathfinder, but they're different and both enjoyable in their own ways.

Like, if you want to keep playing the same game you've had for 15 years, you can do that. Nobody will stop you. But this is something new. Paizo is distancing itself from its D&D roots and establishing its own identity and I support that.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of 5E's success has to do with media deciding that Nerd Culture is 'in' at the moment. People rightfully associate RPGs with that and D&D is the instantly recognizable brand in that field.
If people on a TV show are playing RPGs, they are playing D&D, because it is known by the casual viewer, D&D therefore is the first and logical choice for a RPG they try if they decide to give it a chance. That 5E is very simpel and easy to understand without too many brain hurty thingies...helps.
PF, no matter what edition, will never have the same brand recognition, but at least PF1 had a very specific niche carved out for itself right from the start. The target group was clear.
I'm not sure yet who the target group for PF2 will be. The 3.5 Diaspora will be driven away for the most part or will stick with PF1 either converting future APs or go to 3rd parties or make up their own adventures. The 5E crowd, I'm not sure, but I have a hunch they mostly will stick with 5E

Scarab Sages

I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm


Hythlodeus wrote:

A lot of 5E's success has to do with media deciding that Nerd Culture is 'in' at the moment. People rightfully associate RPGs with that and D&D is the instantly recognizable brand in that field.

If people on a TV show are playing RPGs, they are playing D&D, because it is known by the casual viewer, D&D therefore is the first and logical choice for a RPG they try if they decide to give it a chance. That 5E is very simpel and easy to understand without too many brain hurty thingies...helps.
PF, no matter what edition, will never have the same brand recognition, but at least PF1 had a very specific niche carved out for itself right from the start. The target group was clear.
I'm not sure yet who the target group for PF2 will be. The 3.5 Diaspora will be driven away for the most part or will stick with PF1 either converting future APs or go to 3rd parties or make up their own adventures. The 5E crowd, I'm not sure, but I have a hunch they mostly will stick with 5E

Agreed, mostly. D&D is a GREAT introductory RPG for new people. And even as a guy who's been playing table top RPGs since he was 6 years old, I still have a good time with it. 5E is my go to when a friend says, "Hey, I wanna try that D&D stuff," or if I'm running a game on short notice and don't wanna devote time to a whole lot of crunch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jquest716 wrote:
I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm

Oh god, Shadowrun. How do you do it? How does anyone do it? I love the lore, but man is that game brutal on crunch. Just this past month, I tried to finally give it a go after enjoying the video games for years and spent days figuring out all the little rules, building characters, so on and so forth. I love the priority mechanics for character building and sifting through all the gear and options is a great way to waste an entire day.

But actually playing it is just such a slog. I gave up after a few sessions after I found a HERO System conversion that transfers the whole economy, Matrix, Spells, races etcetera from Shadowrun. HERO is no less complicated than Shadowrun if we're being fair, but I've been playing it long enough that I have house rules, tricks and all the tables memorized to counter-balance the crunch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cfoot wrote:

That's probably a bit dramatic, but it is a clickbait world. :)

Likes:
More dice rolling on damage, less static damage
Backgrounds feel better roleplay-wise than PS1 traits to me

Dislikes:
No Strength Rogue option (too cookie cutter)
No advantage to mounted combat (probably a disadvantage in the long run)
Ancestry Feats feel like a feat tax to get back what I used to get for free
I'm suspicious of how combat maneuvers will actually work (I think they will be more die dependent therefore less reliable therefore used less)

Summary:
I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8. I'm really trying to not be a hater, but this really doesn't feel like the same game to me. I'm still going to participate in the playtest, in order to give it a fair shake, but my confidence and expectations are low right now.

The problem with added damage dice is the time it takes to add them up (not an issue for me, but I know others can have this problem of intense shorthand math addition), and it creates very "swingy" results. You can hit as hard as 78 damage in a single attack with a +5 Greatsword with 22 Strength, or as weak as 12 (6 dice + 6 Strength). Yes, you are most likely to hit the averages, being 45 damage, but outliers do exist, they can come up more often than not, and this honestly served as the #1 reason why using Cure spells (generally in combat) was a waste of time and resources; the benefits were too swingy to warrant an appropriate expenditure for it. This also creates the idea that "was this attack action really worth it" paradigm, even though you hit and did what you were supposed to do, but it turns out it wasn't because you didn't roll good enough on damage, an arbitrary reason why you didn't do your job of defeating the bad guy? Sure, the same argument of "didn't roll good on your attack roll" can apply, but a...

I've said for years that they need to support themselves on adventure paths and modules (i.e. new things for your characters to go do) instead of new rules (i.e. new things a character can do) and sales of core rules (market saturation is a thing).

So you get a good set of core rules, and publish a Great adventure every year and rely on that to be your cash cow.


TxSam88 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cfoot wrote:

That's probably a bit dramatic, but it is a clickbait world. :)

Likes:
More dice rolling on damage, less static damage
Backgrounds feel better roleplay-wise than PS1 traits to me

Dislikes:
No Strength Rogue option (too cookie cutter)
No advantage to mounted combat (probably a disadvantage in the long run)
Ancestry Feats feel like a feat tax to get back what I used to get for free
I'm suspicious of how combat maneuvers will actually work (I think they will be more die dependent therefore less reliable therefore used less)

Summary:
I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8. I'm really trying to not be a hater, but this really doesn't feel like the same game to me. I'm still going to participate in the playtest, in order to give it a fair shake, but my confidence and expectations are low right now.

The problem with added damage dice is the time it takes to add them up (not an issue for me, but I know others can have this problem of intense shorthand math addition), and it creates very "swingy" results. You can hit as hard as 78 damage in a single attack with a +5 Greatsword with 22 Strength, or as weak as 12 (6 dice + 6 Strength). Yes, you are most likely to hit the averages, being 45 damage, but outliers do exist, they can come up more often than not, and this honestly served as the #1 reason why using Cure spells (generally in combat) was a waste of time and resources; the benefits were too swingy to warrant an appropriate expenditure for it. This also creates the idea that "was this attack action really worth it" paradigm, even though you hit and did what you were supposed to do, but it turns out it wasn't because you didn't roll good enough on damage, an arbitrary reason why you didn't do your job of defeating the bad guy? Sure, the same argument of "didn't roll
...

Any system with opposed die rolls is inherently bad. that's what makes D&D/Pathfinder so good, it's all about single die rolls vs target numbers. simple, straightforward and most importantly, quick.


Quote:
Any system with opposed die rolls is inherently bad. that's what makes D&D/Pathfinder so good, it's all about single die rolls vs target numbers. simple, straightforward and most importantly, quick.

I can hear the Shadowrunners weeping in the distance.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GLD wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
I agree with GLD if you are arguing that PF2 isnt PF1 then why are you here. Pazio was very open with saying PF2 is a new system and not 3.8 or a patch to PF1. I remember when a lot of people were saying D&D 5e was DOA but look at the speed and fame it has gained. You have to understand people playing PF1 own everything already and the sale of books is shown since its being over taken by Starfinder. If you enjoy PF1 keep on keeping on but if you cant accept a new edition with new rules that arent 3.5 then why keep posting these hate post. Pazio isnt going to go oh snap we made a mistake we need to switch everytjing back to 3.5. Please review the game for what it is and not in the lens of PF1.

Yeah man. I know I'm in the minority on this in Pathfinder communities, but 5e is lit. Harkens back a lot to the more straightforward nature of Second Edition and brings D&D back to its roots. Not to say it's better than Pathfinder, but they're different and both enjoyable in their own ways.

Like, if you want to keep playing the same game you've had for 15 years, you can do that. Nobody will stop you. But this is something new. Paizo is distancing itself from its D&D roots and establishing its own identity and I support that.

"Hey you want to play this game"

"Isn't that out of print? Agh, why would I play that game. Hey DnD has support let's play that".

Hyperbole, maybe. But given most my games are on roll20, the community seems well not dead but the amount of games offered really crashed after DnD 5 took off. And when PF2 takes of(If. Hope so for Paizo's sake), it's going to be even harder to get people into PF1.

More so when most the comments online these days are about just how old, broken, unfun, and trash 3.5/Pathfinder is.

I can play it all I want, no one's stopping me. Getting a GROUP together in a few years..., that's going to be harder.


MerlinCross wrote:
GLD wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
I agree with GLD if you are arguing that PF2 isnt PF1 then why are you here. Pazio was very open with saying PF2 is a new system and not 3.8 or a patch to PF1. I remember when a lot of people were saying D&D 5e was DOA but look at the speed and fame it has gained. You have to understand people playing PF1 own everything already and the sale of books is shown since its being over taken by Starfinder. If you enjoy PF1 keep on keeping on but if you cant accept a new edition with new rules that arent 3.5 then why keep posting these hate post. Pazio isnt going to go oh snap we made a mistake we need to switch everytjing back to 3.5. Please review the game for what it is and not in the lens of PF1.

Yeah man. I know I'm in the minority on this in Pathfinder communities, but 5e is lit. Harkens back a lot to the more straightforward nature of Second Edition and brings D&D back to its roots. Not to say it's better than Pathfinder, but they're different and both enjoyable in their own ways.

Like, if you want to keep playing the same game you've had for 15 years, you can do that. Nobody will stop you. But this is something new. Paizo is distancing itself from its D&D roots and establishing its own identity and I support that.

"Hey you want to play this game"

"Isn't that out of print? Agh, why would I play that game. Hey DnD has support let's play that".

Hyperbole, maybe. But given most my games are on roll20, the community seems well not dead but the amount of games offered really crashed after DnD 5 took off. And when PF2 takes of(If. Hope so for Paizo's sake), it's going to be even harder to get people into PF1.

More so when most the comments online these days are about just how old, broken, unfun, and trash 3.5/Pathfinder is.

I can play it all I want, no one's stopping me. Getting a GROUP together in a few years..., that's going to be harder.

Well with all the people on here complaining about how 3.5 is dying, I find it hard to believe there aren't any people out there to play with.

And if people have started to sour on 3.X, what better reason than that Paizo to move on from it? It's an unfortunate outcome for people who still love it but that doesn't make it valid criticism. Basically, and I know how callous this sounds but it is simply the best possible way to put this, that sounds like a you problem.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I trust that Paizo has the good business sense to track the market and know whether PF 1E was still viable or not. And for everyone arguing for Paizo to do a 1E.5 or something...any benefit you get from players sticking around will be offset by A) People refusing to rebuy a slightly tweaked rulest; B) probably not addressing the fact people were leaving in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tithron wrote:

Ok, I don't want to get into an edition fight here, so I will be direct. No it is not 3.8. PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could. 5th ed is crushing Paizo in market share at this point. They are not trying to make another 3.5, they are taking the Pathfinder engine and making a NEW edition. That means taking risks and making changes. The 3.5/PF1 die hards will still be playing PF1 regardless of what happens with this Playtest.

I am also of the opinion that they will be opening up the options more in the full game. I think the playtest is intentionally restrictive to make sure classes fill there niches properly. That is speculation though.

The fact that 5e is crushing it, only makes it more baffling that paizo would seemingly try so hard to emulate 4e...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
A) People refusing to rebuy a slightly tweaked rulest

Disproven by the very existance of PF


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BlackRazor77 wrote:
"More dice rolling on damage, less static damage" is a bad thing in my opinion. Dice damage should be left to Caster and Static Damage to Martial. Martial class should always have higher averages damage with minimum fluctuations, and Caster should be the opposite.

I don't agree with Casters having varied damage, because I think varied damage is bad period. It's the biggest difference between why Cure Critical Wounds sucked and the Heal spell was outright awesome, and that difference is even worse compared to Mass Cure Critical compared to Mass Heal (yes, Heal is one spell level higher, but it still heals for so much more for just a single spell level increase).

I'd honestly be okay with some weapons simply doing flat damage per swing, or having a lesser die roll with a flat bonus on top of it for more consistent benefits, and it makes for a great balancing point between weapon choices. "This weapon has more consistent damage, but this other weapon has X benefit, but less consistent damage as a result."

Math says that the more dice you roll, the more likely you will get an average result.

It can still be swingy, but let's remember that a d20 roll has already decided among zero damage, normal damage and double damage (possibly with additional effects), so the damage roll itself is inherently less meaningful.
Unless you roll max damage for a critical, yes. That's like the triple-20-of-death.


GLD wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm

Oh god, Shadowrun. How do you do it? How does anyone do it? I love the lore, but man is that game brutal on crunch. Just this past month, I tried to finally give it a go after enjoying the video games for years and spent days figuring out all the little rules, building characters, so on and so forth. I love the priority mechanics for character building and sifting through all the gear and options is a great way to waste an entire day.

But actually playing it is just such a slog. I gave up after a few sessions after I found a HERO System conversion that transfers the whole economy, Matrix, Spells, races etcetera from Shadowrun. HERO is no less complicated than Shadowrun if we're being fair, but I've been playing it long enough that I have house rules, tricks and all the tables memorized to counter-balance the crunch.

Your afraid if Shadowrun after playing Hero? Is it 5th?

Crazy man. I can revel in making a starting rigger for hours but 30 pages into READING Hero 5th I get a migraine and gave up. Never have made it past chapter 2... I still give it a try once in awhile when I'm feeling saucy.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.

I was watching one of the seminars from GenCon on Twitch (Paizo 18 and onwards, I think it was called) and I'm fairly sure they said there will be Pathfinder 1 tables next year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.

People still play OSR games 30+ years after they have gone out of print. Online they are more popular numbers wise than 4E.

Depends if you are a DM or player or both. If I want to run AD&D my group plays AD&D (or ACKs or C&C). One of my players switched to DM/GM sometimes so I get to play.

Last time I played AD&D as a player was with some PFS fellas, I had a PF player play 2E AD&D tweaked to use BAB and a better human (no level limits) with our group as his Mymidon Fighter and he liked it. It also helped that his fighter was better relative to what he was facing in 2E than the PF one.

I have not resorted to playing online yet but may have to though playing AD&D is getting harder and its for when I burn out on 3.X or 5E and want to take a break.


Cfoot wrote:


I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8.

A new edition is not just a new PHB. It's a chain of new products, and the change of rules must be deep enough to explain why the new books couldn't be made under the previous edition. Paizo, admittedly, had the chance to publish a 3.75 edition because of the schism caused by 4e, and pf1 came with a specific campaign setting (Golarion) and finally, as a third party publisher they could change what they wanted compared to WotC. But now they are going to be the successor of themselves and after so many books, it would be hard to justify, going with a "3.8" edition, much more than a new PHB, DMG, and, possibly, a new APG.

My main gripe is that pf2 seems to me more "Paizo 4e" than "Paizo 5e" or "Paizo 3.8". I liked, and still like, basic, 2e, 3e, pf1, 5e. Never liked 4e though. I hope I will change my mind about pf2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skystarlit1 wrote:
GLD wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm

Oh god, Shadowrun. How do you do it? How does anyone do it? I love the lore, but man is that game brutal on crunch. Just this past month, I tried to finally give it a go after enjoying the video games for years and spent days figuring out all the little rules, building characters, so on and so forth. I love the priority mechanics for character building and sifting through all the gear and options is a great way to waste an entire day.

But actually playing it is just such a slog. I gave up after a few sessions after I found a HERO System conversion that transfers the whole economy, Matrix, Spells, races etcetera from Shadowrun. HERO is no less complicated than Shadowrun if we're being fair, but I've been playing it long enough that I have house rules, tricks and all the tables memorized to counter-balance the crunch.

Your afraid if Shadowrun after playing Hero? Is it 5th?

Crazy man. I can revel in making a starting rigger for hours but 30 pages into READING Hero 5th I get a migraine and gave up. Never have made it past chapter 2... I still give it a try once in awhile when I'm feeling saucy.

Hero is harder to learn but easier to play than Shadowrun. It's still bonkers complicated, but a standard attack is still just two rolls and only basic math. I roll, compare my accuracy to your defense. If I hit, I roll damage and subtract your armour.

Unlike Shadowruns's, do I hit, do you dodge, how effective is your armour? Add my hits to the damage, subtract my AP value from your armour divide by the phase of the moon.

And as a fan, I will fully admit that the Hero books are poorly laid out and written with all the excitement of an algebra text book. As far as presentation and communication goes, Shadowrun obliterates it.


Nathanael Love wrote:
GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.

I get it, that's kinda sucky and I'm sympathetic. I don't do Con or Society play or anything. I'm an anti-social dude and I only really enjoy RPGs when I'm playing with friends in a more personal setting. So I was writing from that perspective, as a guy that just plays with people I know, rather than in any officially supported capacity, so I didn't think about that.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
GLD wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.

I get it, that's kinda sucky and I'm sympathetic. I don't do Con or Society play or anything. I'm an...

My friends don't GM, or when they GM the game lasts 3 or fewer sessions before they remember GMing is work and stop. I also GM every single week at the local PFS.

Conventions are the ONLY time I get to play instead of GMing, so if there aren't Pathfinder 1 PFS tables at Gen Con and the few local cons I can make it to, I don't get to play at all.

And even if there are PF1 tables at Gen Con next year (since PF2 releases next year) will they be there the year after? (Ect.)

Yes, I can keep running in whatever system I want to, but I have to find a table if I ever want to play a character. . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GLD wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm

Oh god, Shadowrun. How do you do it? How does anyone do it? I love the lore, but man is that game brutal on crunch. Just this past month, I tried to finally give it a go after enjoying the video games for years and spent days figuring out all the little rules, building characters, so on and so forth. I love the priority mechanics for character building and sifting through all the gear and options is a great way to waste an entire day.

But actually playing it is just such a slog. I gave up after a few sessions after I found a HERO System conversion that transfers the whole economy, Matrix, Spells, races etcetera from Shadowrun. HERO is no less complicated than Shadowrun if we're being fair, but I've been playing it long enough that I have house rules, tricks and all the tables memorized to counter-balance the crunch.

shadowrun is amazing, it is super crunchy, and can be complex. however once you get, of all the games, I think mechanically it gives the greatest immersion because of it's simlulation-esue aesthetic. the biggest problem is the rulebook much like this playtest, is just not well thought out, with rules appearing in different sections.

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / PF2: Where 3.5 comes to die, not thrive! (My initial thoughts) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.