| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*I have several threads for all of my thoughts, but they are also collected--with a statement of the aims of my analysis--here in this Google Doc.*
General:
- “Flat” probability.
Not addressed! Expect a low-level specialist to beat a high-level generalist. Yes, the proficiency levels are gated, and based on level, but stats still mean a lot, and in fact it’s easier than ever to get a high stat (or several high stats) at character creation. The gating is some fancy and fun math, but relying on a single die--and letting people stack modifier after modifier--means there will still be situations where you more or less auto-succeed or auto-fail.
- No proper rules for crit fails, no interesting rules for crit fails or crit successes.
Addressed! This almost makes up for the lack of “degrees of success” in the basic single-die-plus-flat-numbers system being used. These rules are easy to understand, pervasive, and pretty balanced.
- Ability scores mean nothing (only modifiers) and vary in power/utility.
Partially addressed! Ability scores are still in the game, still mean nothing, essentially. They still vary wildly in utility, though this is at least more dependent on character class, and there are now at least 2 classes for each “main” ability (barring CON, of course). The new ability score generation method steals ideas from “lifepath” style systems, and leads to better built-in optimization, though it also results in something like the equivalent of 25-point-buy as the standard.
- “Level” means too many damn things.
Not addressed! I suspect this is a hurdle we’ll never get some players over.
- Healing is less efficient than dealing damage.
Partially addressed! There are more ways to heal and be healed, but damage scales up plenty quick, and with character classes now giving flat HP boni at each level, by the middle of a campaign there will be a decent gulf between the “tanks” and “glass cannons” in terms of durability, so you’ll either want to get hit or get out of the way.
- Big imbalance in favor of player skill over character skill.
Partially addressed! It would be unfair not to note how the action symbols, the flatter power progression, gating at levels, simpler monster stats, and the use of feats for everything all help make player choices simpler. And yet we still have prepared casters, spell/power durations measured in minutes instead of per-encounter, too many weapons, and condition after condition after condition.
- (Subset of above) not a lot of mechanics to support storytelling openly or give players control over the story beyond their actions in combat.
Not addressed! Hero Points get half a page.
- Paizo-specific classes (the ones that really make it Pathfinder and not DnD 3.5) all come late to the party.
Partially addressed! The alchemist is included, which is rad, and a perfect choice, if they had to include only 1 “new” base class. But they don’t. They don’t at all have to include only 1 new base class. And they don’t have to stick to the original DnD3e set. They could have done a lot that would have made this PAIZO’S Pathfinder 2, like including the magus or summoner or witch in place of the wizard, or including the oracle instead of the cleric, or one of the occult classes in for the paladin.
- Archetypes “fix” the problems with many classes, but at the cost of increased complexity.
Addressed! They’re just feat paths. That’s it. They’re beautiful.
*I have several threads for all of my thoughts, but they are also collected--with a statement of the aims of my analysis--here in this Google Doc.*
- Paizo-specific classes (the ones that really make it Pathfinder and not DnD 3.5) all come late to the party.
Partially addressed! The alchemist is included, which is rad, and a perfect choice, if they had to include only 1 “new” base class. But they don’t. They don’t at all have to include only 1 new base class. And they don’t have to stick to the original DnD3e set. They could have done a lot that would have made this PAIZO’S Pathfinder 2, like including the magus or summoner or witch in place of the wizard, or including the oracle instead of the cleric, or one of the occult classes in for the paladin.
I doubt there will be an Oracle, except possibly as an Archetype, since the Sorcerer is now the all-magic spontaneous caster.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt there will be an Oracle, except possibly as an Archetype, since the Sorcerer is now the all-magic spontaneous caster.*I have several threads for all of my thoughts, but they are also collected--with a statement of the aims of my analysis--here in this Google Doc.*
- Paizo-specific classes (the ones that really make it Pathfinder and not DnD 3.5) all come late to the party.
Partially addressed! The alchemist is included, which is rad, and a perfect choice, if they had to include only 1 “new” base class. But they don’t. They don’t at all have to include only 1 new base class. And they don’t have to stick to the original DnD3e set. They could have done a lot that would have made this PAIZO’S Pathfinder 2, like including the magus or summoner or witch in place of the wizard, or including the oracle instead of the cleric, or one of the occult classes in for the paladin.
I disagree, I think the Oracle has a pretty unique design space that the Sorcerer is unable to fill.
Curses and their affects are interesting enough that they on their own could be worth bringing in Oracles. Imagine that the Blackened Curse still penalizes combat (maybe limiting them to untrained in any weapon proficiency) but they still get a +2 when working with Fire based spells.
Most gods would grant access to the Divine list, but other gods would probably grant access to other lists (Erastil = Primal, Nethys = Arcane, Pharasma = Occult) leading to a different flavor of caster entirely when combined with their curses.
*Edited for clarity
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Oracle has a pretty unique design space that the Sorcerer is unable to fill.
Curses and their affects are interesting enough that they on their own could be worth bringing in Oracles. Imagine that the Blackened Curse still penalizes combat (maybe limiting them to untrained in any weapon proficiency) but they still get a +2 when working with Fire based spells.
Most gods would grant access to the Divine list, but other gods would probably grant access to other lists (Erastil = Primal, Nethys = Arcane, Pharasma = Occult) leading to a different flavor of caster entirely when combined with their curses.
*Edited for clarity
I actually think Curses would fit better as an Archetype (or Archetype like) mechanic. You get a curse that gives a small benefit and a bigger disadvantage, then you can take feats in the future related to the Curse. Not sure why Oracles have to be the only ones who are cursed.
I doubt there will be an Oracle, except possibly as an Archetype, since the Sorcerer is now the all-magic spontaneous caster.
I disagree, I think the Oracle has a pretty unique design space that the Sorcerer is unable to fill.
Curses and their affects are interesting enough that they on their own could be worth bringing in Oracles. Imagine that the Blackened Curse still penalizes combat (maybe limiting them to untrained in any weapon proficiency) but they still get a +2 when working with Fire based spells.
Most gods would grant access to the Divine list, but other gods would probably grant access to other lists (Erastil = Primal, Nethys = Arcane, Pharasma = Occult) leading to a different flavor of caster entirely when combined with their curses.
Curses also incentivize story and roleplaying, which may be my favorite thing about the oracle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark has said that the choice for which APG class to make into a base class came down to virtually a coin toss between Alchemist and Oracle.
That being the case, it's almost certain we will get an Oracle class at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the sorcerer divine spellcaster fill a different niche than the orcacle, from a roleplaying perspective, not just mechanically.
Divine sorcerers are people with angelic or demonic blood (and possibly other options in the future). They can be atheist, for all that matter. Oracles are people chosen by the gods for some reason. They are (or can be) normal people, and they have a link to the gods/divine philosopies themselves, not just "someone in my family in a distant past had some fun with outsiders after a party".
Mark has said that the choice for which APG class to make into a base class came down to virtually a coin toss between Alchemist and Oracle.
That being the case, it's almost certain we will get an Oracle class at some point.
This is interesting. I would be curious why they are still "holding back" in that way. (Not suggesting any of us on the boards have the answer, necessarily.)
I can see both sides:
- On the one hand, go ahead and test the baseline first. Set a control group.
- On the other hand, ufck the 3.0 core classes; they had their day in the sun, and some of them wasted it.
When it comes to classes, this playtest is still a playtest of Wizards of the Coast's ideas, which is the most annoying thing about it. Paizo is acting like a stepdad who takes up the old dad's hobbies to try to better appeal to his new stepchildren.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark has said that the choice for which APG class to make into a base class came down to virtually a coin toss between Alchemist and Oracle.
That being the case, it's almost certain we will get an Oracle class at some point.
This is interesting. I would be curious why they are still "holding back" in that way. (Not suggesting any of us on the boards have the answer, necessarily.)
I can see both sides:
- On the one hand, go ahead and test the baseline first. Set a control group.
- On the other hand, ufck the 3.0 core classes; they had their day in the sun, and some of them wasted it.
When it comes to classes, this playtest is still a playtest of Wizards of the Coast's ideas, which is the most annoying thing about it. Paizo is acting like a stepdad who takes up the old dad's hobbies to try to better appeal to his new stepchildren.
[outrage]don't you talk about monk and rogue like that! they didn't deserve what was done to them!
[outrage]don't you talk about monk and rogue like that! they didn't deserve what was done to them!
Ha! I like a lot of how they were developed over the long history of PF1. I remain unconvinced that they have been moved as far as they should be or could be.
Other thoughts on classes, in terms of how they do or do not live up to the potential here in PF2e to fix long-established problems?
From the Google Doc:
Weapons and armor use outdated and confusing terminology.As an addendum to this, I would add the existence of breastplate and chain shirt. They both feel like options from a piecemeal armor system that found their way into a non-piecemeal system. All you'd really have to do to remove the armor types that only exist in fantasy worlds is:
- Remove the piecemeal armors and studded leather
- Replace Leather as an armor with leather scales, lamellar, and plate, which all use it as a material
- Make padded a serious choice
- Introduce an untreated leather jerkin (what most people imagine when they hear "leather armor") as the new joke option
- Remove the full/half plate distinction, because it's basically the same distinction as masterwork.
"Best in class" options at every level of weapons and armor.I don't see what the problem is with this. Or rather, if they're introducing equipment levels from Starfinder, I think it's reasonable to have a variety of level 1 options, then add a level 2 option (or even potentially level 3, for something like plate) as that thing most characters will want to upgrade to when given the chance.
First point: I love, and believe I concurred with you on this point in another thread.
Second bit: My issue with "best in category" options, when they're so much clearly better, is that it degrades player choice. Having a Starfinder-style thing where, AMONG level 2 weapons, there are some that deal good burst damage and some that are more accurate (etc.) but all are clearly upgrades from level 1 weapons: THAT would intrigue me.