| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking about creativity, it's still you letting me do something. If I say I don't wanna do this combat let's just teleport away, then it's my power that lets me go away, or my diplomacy modifier that lets me persuade attackers to go away. If I just talk through my PC and have no mechanical justification for anything that happens later, then you are letting me do something, I am not doing something because I can.Yes, you need mechanical options in order to achieve things in games. But frankly, most of those things are achievable in PF2, and those that aren't in the playtest almost certainly will be in the final game, since most are spells and they're explicitly gonna be powering up utility spells.
I really don't care about "empowering the GM" aspects of PF2 (secret rolls as default, rarity as it's been written, extra nerfed utility magic, the vague skill DCs and uses). I get why they're doing it but it's not what I liked about PF (or 3.5 before that).Almost every single thing you list is being changed for the final version of the game. Secret rolls are becoming optional, as mentioned utility magic is being powered up, and Skill DCs are changing radically.
So...most of this seems to be going away. Leaving, in terms of restrictions, mostly the math stuff other people have been talking about.
That's why I'm still here, rather than somewhere else. I won't stop complaining about the playtest things until I see they're not doing it again, though :D
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't care about "empowering the GM" aspects of PF2 (secret rolls as default, rarity as it's been written, extra nerfed utility magic, the vague skill DCs and uses). I get why they're doing it but it's not what I liked about PF (or 3.5 before that).
Those things don't help me as a GM, so I don't see the point, either. For example, my players have more fun rolling the secret rolls themselves and then roleplaying their PC's ignorance. Utility magic lets me give the players more exploration and mysteries to add variety to the campaigns.
My duties as the GM are:
1. Build encounters. I rely on Paizo adventure paths, but even with them, I have to design a few encounters myself. The adventure path and campaign setting books have articles that describe an interesting setting, and I select creatures from the Bestiary and build NPCs that fit the setting. The main way this could be easier is if NPCs were easier to create. Paizo's suggestion of half-creating NPCs in PF2 with only the details that matter in the planned encounter don't work for me, because my players love to convert combat into diplomacy, diplomacy into gather information, temporary encounters into permanent relations, and friends into recruits. For example, the bard in Affair at Sombrefell Hall tried to organize the NPCs to protect them from the undead. But they could not be organized because they lacked stats, except for skills. Thus, she started exploiting their skills, "Prof. Oscilar and his students, try to recall knowledge about these monsters!" (By the way, I think she broke the Recall Knowledge action when her new minions made dozens of rolls.)
2. Describe the setting. Once again the adventure paths come to my rescue. I don't expect that to change, except that the PF2 rules could let Paizo write higher-level adventures.
3. Run the NPCs and monsters in encounters. I admit that I preferred NPCs who spent their PF1 feats on numerical bonuses rather than special abilities, becuase numbers don't require special tactics. With the numerical bonuses moved to proficiency, all the feats will be special.
4. Explain the rules to the players. The simpler rules of PF2 should make that easier. In contrast, the Playtest Rulebook required reading pieces of a rule that were spread across two or three chapters.
5. Adjust the plot based on player interests. This is an advanced GMing technique, changing the story on the fly during the game session because I realize the players would have more fun that way. Some recent comments by Mark Seifter suggest that PF2 will have added flexibility that will make that task easier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I did get my answer on that it wasn't a common complaint, I'm just surprised that people are HAPPY about a free action becoming an action .-. I mean, since when are people ever happy about stuff that is technically a nerf of sorts?
Because it was traded for a buff-- no longer having a limited amount of rounds. Couple that with it FEELING more like performing and people are happy with the trade.
Eh, I did get my answer on that it wasn't a common complaint, I'm just surprised that people are HAPPY about a free action becoming an action .-. I mean, since when are people ever happy about stuff that is technically a nerf of sorts?
Well a different game after all... In PF1 a +1(Going up to 4 in the late game) competence bonus is well... Not great? In PF2 a +1 is much more meaningful even in late game.
It does not feel like a nerf, nor it feels like a buff to me. It feels better and less confusing to use.
Eh, I did get my answer on that it wasn't a common complaint, I'm just surprised that people are HAPPY about a free action becoming an action .-. I mean, since when are people ever happy about stuff that is technically a nerf of sorts?Because it was traded for a buff-- no longer having a limited amount of rounds. Couple that with it FEELING more like performing and people are happy with the trade.
Or, taken another way: given that bards no longer have limited rounds (yay, at level one I can sing a whole magical song), what would free action look like? Bards would just kind of… have a soundtrack following them around. It wouldn't feel like the character was doing anything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also add that bards also got improvements in the action economy of STARTING a performance. The PF1 bard couldn't start a performance and cast a spell in the same round until level 7. They couldn't perform, attack, and move until level 13. Considering the opening rounds of a fight are often its most important (slightly less so now that rocket tag has been cut back, but still) getting those improvements to round 1 are really nice.
|
Thing is though, while I don't have strong opinion on 2e bards(because I haven't played any of the classes in 2e, I gm'd the game :p I) I did play Reign of Winter through with a bard and I never actually run out of bardic performances through the whole campaign iirc(I think maybe at early parts? when there were fewer of them? But even then early parts had lot of traveling so not much of combat per day and I can't remember if I run out of them in first book's only dungeon).
Also, never got feeling that that inspire courage bonus wasn't worth it, that is just news to me, lot of time people hit enemies barely because of it and damage bonus too was nice ._. Heck my bigger problem was "There is really no reason to ever use any other performance" especially since some of them are really hard to calculate on fly on a live table.(on roll20 games its easy to just do buffs on advance, but even then inspire greatness is bit confusing to figure out how to fill it with the whole "add two hd" thing) Plus in general that inspire courage has no limit on how many creatures you buff while lot of other performances did
So umm, yeah, but yeah I guess it does help life of a bard in early game if you do dungeon crawling lot in the game. It is kinda sad though I don't think in 2e it stacks with barbarian rage and such so it feels less useful for some classes.
|
Thing is though, while I don't have strong opinion on 2e bards(because I haven't played any of the classes in 2e, I gm'd the game :p I) I did play Reign of Winter through with a bard and I never actually run out of bardic performances through the whole campaign iirc(I think maybe at early parts? when there were fewer of them? But even then early parts had lot of traveling so not much of combat per day and I can't remember if I run out of them in first book's only dungeon).
Also, never got feeling that that inspire courage bonus wasn't worth it, that is just news to me, lot of time people hit enemies barely because of it and damage bonus too was nice ._. Heck my bigger problem was "There is really no reason to ever use any other performance" especially since some of them are really hard to calculate on fly on a live table.(on roll20 games its easy to just do buffs on advance, but even then inspire greatness is bit confusing to figure out how to fill it with the whole "add two hd" thing) Plus in general that inspire courage has no limit on how many creatures you buff while lot of other performances did
So umm, yeah, but yeah I guess it does help life of a bard in early game if you do dungeon crawling lot in the game. It is kinda sad though I don't think in 2e it stacks with barbarian rage and such so it feels less useful for some classes.
Feelings and ideas are nice and all, but math says that action economy is king and beyond early levels +atk bonuses go high sky so quick that a +1 bonus doesn't matter anymore.
Thing is though, while I don't have strong opinion on 2e bards(because I haven't played any of the classes in 2e, I gm'd the game :p I) I did play Reign of Winter through with a bard and I never actually run out of bardic performances through the whole campaign iirc(I think maybe at early parts? when there were fewer of them? But even then early parts had lot of traveling so not much of combat per day and I can't remember if I run out of them in first book's only dungeon).
Yeah, if you used Lingering Performance and you were in the mid-levels you pretty much wouldn't run out most likely. But! It was an issue at early levels, and Lingering Performance became a bit of a feat tax. And perhaps most importantly, at all levels you now don't have to bother tracking it. Which is a huge quality of life improvement for players, frankly.
All those benefits together feel worth spending an action each round.
Also, never got feeling that that inspire courage bonus wasn't worth it, that is just news to me, lot of time people hit enemies barely because of it and damage bonus too was nice ._. Heck my bigger problem was "There is really no reason to ever use any other performance" especially since some of them are really hard to calculate on fly on a live table.(on roll20 games its easy to just do buffs on advance, but even then inspire greatness is bit confusing to figure out how to fill it with the whole "add two hd" thing) Plus in general that inspire courage has no limit on how many creatures you buff while lot of other performances did
On this I agree, Inspire Courage felt pretty relevant in PF1. Even if your martial's attack bonus hit on a 2 for their first attack, an accuracy boost could really help with iteratives. This was especially true if they started wracking up penalties from things like Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, or Power Attack.
It is kinda sad though I don't think in 2e it stacks with barbarian rage and such so it feels less useful for some classes.
I also agree with this, though the real benefit of Inspire Courage is the accuracy boost, not the damage. The barbarian REALLY appreciates that accuracy bump because they already do the most damage on an actual hit. Still, it feels silly that they can't get that extra +1 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feelings and ideas are nice and all, but math says that action economy is king and beyond early levels +atk bonuses go high sky so quick that a +1 bonus doesn't matter anymore.
Which edition are you talking about here?
In PF1, when I tried to calculate it, high level bardic performance (at level 13, say) gave the martials around +40% to their damage output for minimal action economy cost.
In PF2, AC and attack bonuses scale at much the same rate, so a +1 remains about as relevant at any level.
Thing is though, while I don't have strong opinion on 2e bards(because I haven't played any of the classes in 2e, I gm'd the game :p I) I did play Reign of Winter through with a bard and I never actually run out of bardic performances through the whole campaign iirc(I think maybe at early parts? when there were fewer of them? But even then early parts had lot of traveling so not much of combat per day and I can't remember if I run out of them in first book's only dungeon).
You don't run out of bardic performance rounds during combat after a bit, but the feeling is weird because the actual time is very short. You have to be about level 7 before you can sing a magical song start to finish. And forget a magical play or concert, even at level 20. You'd need to get some bardic masterpieces for that.
That's my deal. I would suspect other people are happy not needing to track rounds that eventually don't matter mechanically.
I myself favor PF2's once-per-turn action to maintain a bard song. It feels more like performing. And as Captain Morgan said, "I'll also add that bards also got improvements in the action economy of STARTING a performance." The PF1 standard action to start a bardic performance is the equivalent of two PF2 actions. So the PF2 bard has more options on his 1st turn, and does not lose ground until the 3rd turn.
People are pointing out that PF1's limit on rounds of bardic performance stopped mattering past low levels. Isn't that a flaw in the rules, to have a restiction that required bookkeeping but almost never matters? Furthermore, those rounds of bardic performance were enough only because combat was short. What about non-combat uses of bardic performance, such as singing Inspire Competence while an ally inches along a narrow mountain ledge? The skald class has Song of Marching, which is designed to last hours by fudging what "round of bardic performance" means.
Song of Marching (Su) At 3rd level, a skald can use raging song to inspire his allies to move faster without suffering from fatigue. By expending 1 round of raging song, the skald invigorates allies within 60 feet, who may hustle for the next hour; this movement counts as a walk (not a hustle) for the purpose of accruing nonlethal damage and fatigue. The skald must continue to perform the song for the remainder of the hour, otherwise its effects end, but only 1 round of raging song is expended for that hour.
Sadly, Song of Marching would not work in under PF2 playtest rules due to the messed up fatigue rules during exploration mode. Singing and riding at the same time would fatigue the bard in ten minutes. Oh wait, for characters without an animal companion mount, riding fatigues them in ten minutes, due to having to make both Command Animal and Handle Animal checks. I hope Paizo fixes those fatigue rules.
I would also like that Lingering Composition requires a Performance check, because that ought to make the lingering effect feel like the skill of the bard. Unfortunately, it has two flaws. First, the DC of the Performance check is the "high-difficulty DC of a level equal to the highest-level target of your composition." Thus, the bard's absolute proficiency bonus does not matter; instead, it is proficiency relative to his level, which greatly undermines the meaning of proficiency bonus. Second, keeping track of whether the bard has started his bard song (in PF1 some bards prefer to cast a spell first) is difficult for other players. Adding a random element of a Performance check risks that the bard might randomly drop his bard song because the lingering failed, making tracking the bard song even more difficult.
I really don't care about "empowering the GM" aspects of PF2 (secret rolls as default, rarity as it's been written, extra nerfed utility magic, the vague skill DCs and uses). I get why they're doing it but it's not what I liked about PF (or 3.5 before that).Those things don't help me as a GM, so I don't see the point, either. For example, my players have more fun rolling the secret rolls themselves and then roleplaying their PC's ignorance. Utility magic lets me give the players more exploration and mysteries to add variety to the campaigns.
My players take the "method acting" sort of approach - they are very good roleplayers and get deep into their characters, but have a hard time separating in character/out of character knowledge. I may be the only GM I know whose players have asked me to implement secret rolls, even before PF2e was a thing.
But I definitely agree that secret rolls being something that is obviously called out as GM choice/table variation is good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the OP's original point. This is something I have found amazing. On their own site they have simply made very general comments.
Mathmuse pulled together some quotes to show that Paizo had talked about the design plans
Welcome to the next evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!
Just shy of 10 years ago, on March 18th, 2008, we asked you to take a bold step with us and download the Alpha Playtest PDF for Pathfinder First Edition. Over the past decade, we've learned a lot about the game and the people who play it. We've talked with you on forums, we've gamed with you at conventions, and we've watched you play online and in person at countless venues. We went from updating mechanics to inventing new ones, adding a breadth of options to the game and making the system truly our own. We've made mistakes, and we've had huge triumphs. Now it is time to take all of that knowledge and make the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game even better.
...
New, but the Same
Our first goal was to make Pathfinder Second Edition feel just like the game you know and love. That means that as a player, you need to be able to make the choices that allow you to build the character you want to play. Similarly, as a Game Master, you need to have the tools and the support to tell the story you want to tell. The rules that make up the game have to fundamentally still fill the same role they did before, even if some of the mechanics behind them are different.Building a Character
It's worth taking a moment to talk about how characters are built, because we spent a lot of time making this process smoother and more intuitive. ...Playing the Game
We've made a number of changes to the way the game is played, to clean up the overall flow of play and to add some interesting choices in every part of the story. First up, we have broken play up into three distinct components.
The problem is that this is just motherhood and apple pie.
There may have had interviews and/or said things on other sites. But I expected this site to be where I go for that information
Mathmuse did show that the blogs on proficiency and feats had some high end objectives. But I have been disappointed in the lack of information on what was it about Ed 1 which requires a new edition and what they are trying to achieve.
As the playtest is now over I doubt we will get anything
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Backwards compatibility with 3.5 requires math that is fundamentally broken in ways that become more and more inescapable past 10th level."
I'm not sure they've outright said that, but from everything they've posted and the actual design of the playtest, it's fairly clear that is the primary mechanical motivation for the new system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It slumped in sales and rose no prospect of winning new customers over the competition. There, your "what about PF1 requires a new edition".
I wouldn't say it slumped in sales PF1 is still selling well, but yeah it will at some point decrease in sales after all you can't live on a player base that new players do not come. And 5e doing well along with their starfinder doing great just gives them some leeway to release PF2 without risking everything.
I enjoy secret roles and many new strange and unusual monsters as a player, because I have a lot more fun with puzzles and problem solving when faced with things that I, as the player, don't actually know or know what to expect from them. I am not a fan of the idea that general basic monster weaknesses shouldn't be common knowledge in a world where not knowing how to fight them is death. One of the things I really like about PF2 is the rarity system, although I think it needs a way to include whether monsters themselves are rare and unknown, or rare, but the stuff of legends that everyone talks about and tells stories to their children about. For example, I feel like a character would really have to be living under a rock not to know that the red dragons generally breathe fire. But now my party sees a giant red sleeping lizard, that looks kind of dragon-like, but has no wings. Do we try casting resist fire on ourselves before going into the cave or not? Is a much more fun debate when we don't know for sure what the creature is.
As far as secret rolls and character specific knowledge, I feel like it is pretty unreasonable as a GM to include things like puzzles into a dungeon if they are not actually puzzles intended for the players to think through rather than the characters. If you are wanting to play it that way, you might as just ass well say, there is a strange puzzle in this room, your character can make an intelligence check to see if they figure it out or not.
"Backwards compatibility with 3.5 requires math that is fundamentally broken in ways that become more and more inescapable past 10th level."
I'm not sure they've outright said that, but from everything they've posted and the actual design of the playtest, it's fairly clear that is the primary mechanical motivation for the new system.
I see qhere you're coming from but again that's not broken, that's a feature.
I myself hate what it can lead to if misused. Just like freedom. Freedom can lead to awful things if used for bad ends.It's still inherently neutral. I like freedom. I like order, too. It depends on your priorities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse pulled together some quotes to show that Paizo had talked about the design plans
Due to my training as an academic and statistican I like to make sure my arguments are based on actual data. That gives me the patience to find the quotes.
The problem is that this is just motherhood and apple pie.
Yes, the Playtest Preview blogs were loaded with hype. And the developers were careful to dodge preview topics that could have caused unhappy contraversy, such as the playtest rules for wands. But even with the previews limited to the sweetness of apple pie, the developers gave information.
As the playtest is now over I doubt we will get anything
They had a valid reason to not explain during the Playtest, because they did not want to bias people's opinions. Their goal was not simply to test whether their design fit their goal. Paizo also wanted to know whether their goal fit what players wanted.
The most common result of the Paizo designers explaining their design decisions now would be some people hollering, "That is not what I wanted!" Those of us who like the design decisions will nod and post how we like it, but we will do that even without the explanation. Paizo is so far into the PF2 creation that we fans would not be able to contribute. I remember two major research projects (one was the Apache Accumulo database) where I had been loosely involved at the beginning, but then the invention sped up so quickly that all I could do was step back and watch and plan for using the result. Pathfinder 2nd Edition is at that stage now.
The best place to explain the design decisions would be a series of historical articles written in 2020 AD about the process of creating Pathfinder 2nd Edition, after it is a proven success that silenced the naysayers. I hope Paizo will write them.
I see qhere you're coming from but again that's not broken, that's a feature.
I myself hate what it can lead to if misused. Just like freedom. Freedom can lead to awful things if used for bad ends.
It's still inherently neutral. I like freedom. I like order, too. It depends on your priorities.
Feature for some, broken for others. The critical point, I think, is that it is broken for Paizo; they have clearly reached a point where they would rather design a new system than continue to face what they see as the limitations of the existing system.
And ultimately I think that has to be reason enough for anyone. If Paizo isn't having fun designing for their own system anymore, it's time to move on, especially with the Adventure Paths being their flagship product.
There is also the financial reason that Mathmuse said, which is part of the equation as well, but it's very clear from Paizo's stated goals that the mechanical reason is a big driving force for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An sadly, they have chosen to nerf everything into a bland, joyless mush, where everyone sucks, no one is powerful and altering the math wont change that feeling of classes being this stodgy concrete you are dragging around.
Hm, I guess we playtested different games, because I enjoyed myself mostly and don't share your experience. Also changing the math will have an effect on success rates, which should have an impact on how you feel about how well a character performs. But I guess you have already decided for yourself how the changes will play out, even without having seen them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An sadly, they have chosen to nerf everything into a bland, joyless mush, where everyone sucks, no one is powerful and altering the math wont change that feeling of classes being this stodgy concrete you are dragging around.
I, too, strongly disagree with this. The 'everyone sucks' thing is pretty much purely a math thing, the actual Class Designs mostly feel very fun and effective. I mean, Ranger and some Sorcerers have power level issues, and Paladin and Alchemist could use some cleaning up, but for the most part, the Classes feel pretty nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean - this is still a game where a 20th level wizard can wade naked through an army of 1st level orcs and kill them all with his bare hands one by one, without the aid of any magic.
I'm pretty sure ridiculous characters doing world shattering things will still be part of it. The big difference as I see it is going to be that it will still be possible to actually challenge those characters if you want to.
I agree that the playtest has significantly less versatility of character concept than PF1e. But I think that's a matter of content rather than design; I would be amazed if five years from now PF2e doesn't have the same level of versatility. Probably even more, considering that multiclasses that were terrible before (fighter/wizard) are actually viable characters now.
Heck, in the playtest wizard multiclassed as fighter was so strong as to be almost broken.
I don't think it will be. The hybrid classes have enough love behind them that I imagine many of them will return in 2e. At the very least, I guarantee we will see a magus; probably a slayer also, and maybe hunter. Brawler probably not, but who knows?
What we won't see is the hybrid classes in the core rules, and that makes sense. Most of them didn't come out until years into 1e's lifespan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three of my friends have wanted to GM, started campaigns, and then quit because the workload was too much.
Hehe ya I hear you. This is why my group and I are always looking for Paid GMs.
Becoming a paid GM is something I'd love to do - I really enjoy GMing and I've had lots people tell me I'm good at it.
But I really wouldn't know where to start, and I currently live in a city small enough that basically everyone who plays Pathfinder is already in one of my games. :P
Thanks, I will do that.
Although another aspect of the problem is that I'm not a huge fan of running online games compared to in person.
But still, I will definitely check that out and I appreciate the advice.
Probably because pigeonholing fighters into heavy armor describes only a few fighters. Lets use GOT as an example. Red Viper? Not heavy armor and not a rogue since he uses a spear. Members of the Nights Watch? I dont see much heavy armor. The Unsullied rock leather.
I think Oberyn proves the need for fighters to have heavier armor. The Mountain was heavily armored and Oberyn wore a shirt. Oberyn was squishy and Oberyn doesn't use a spear anymore. The Mountain was protected by his heavy armor, The Mountain wears heavier armor now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oberyn lost that fight because he's an idiot, not because of insufficient armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oberyn lost that fight because he's an idiot, not because of insufficient armor.
As much as I agree with this statement, I think that Mountain would have cleaved him in half if it was a realistic battle, if super dexterous warriors in little or no armor weren't romanticized so much.
Oberyn lost that fight because he's an idiot, not because of insufficient armor.
Oberyn lost that fight because he was an idiot and because he wasn't wearing a helmet. They literally hang a lantern on that by having Tyrion urge him to wear armor, specifically saying "You could at least wear a helmet."
And yes the Mountain is still with us because of the magics worked on him, but he was alive at the end of that fight - because he had armor on.
Oberyn lost that fight because he's an idiot, not because of insufficient armor.Oberyn lost that fight because he was an idiot and because he wasn't wearing a helmet. They literally hang a lantern on that by having Tyrion urge him to wear armor, specifically saying "You could at least wear a helmet."
And yes the Mountain is still with us because of the magics worked on him, but he was alive at the end of that fight - because he had armor on.
Not really. He was alive because Oberyn toyed with him. Dude had ample opportunity to kill the Mountain, armor and all. And I'm not sure that would have changed if Oberyn wore armor. Once Gregor got a hold of him the fight was over, and armor wouldn't change that.
If we are going to put it in Pathfinder mechanical terms, the Mountain won because he had more HP than Oberyn thought he did, or some ability like Ferocity. The decisive moment involved him playing possum and Oberyn assuming the mountain was immobilized from the injuries/poison.
(I don't actually have a huge problem with our current armor paradigms, mind, I'm just correcting this specific example.)
If we are going to put it in Pathfinder mechanical terms, the Mountain won because he had more HP than Oberyn thought he did, or some ability like Ferocity.
Ah... so the higher AC of the armor was of no value to the Mountain in that fight where three blows glanced off of his armor?