| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had initially planned to make an update to my Impressions thread, but a month into the playtest and two weeks of downtime makes that kind of thread seem less useful at this stage. For the cliff notes of my final thoughts (on magic items): I think the Rarity system is good in concept, but very gamist in an unsatisfying way, and Resonance seems to exist to solve a problem that didn't really exist in a very clunky, un-fun way.
But the purpose of this thread is mainly to ask Paizo, if they'd be kind enough to respond, what they wish to accomplish with this iteration of the system. What are the basic design goals?
Aside: I'd ask everyone to keep pith to a minimum if you have your own opinions on what you can glean from the text (which I otherwise wholeheartedly welcome); comments like "to make money" or "chase a new audience" aren't helpful and are actively unproductive to the discussion.
I ask because I cannot for the life of me figure out the game PF2 wants to be, really. A lot of its subsystems seem largely at odds with each other, resulting in a hodgepodge of ideas, some of which are actually pretty great, but none of which really complement each other in a satisfactory way.
As an easy example, the streamlining of certain core systems of the game (like the pretty solid revised action economy, or the...less solid Proficiency system) seem to point toward the game wanting to be a more simplified system that is more intuitive to pick up for newcomers.
The issue is that's at odds with a lot of the design in other areas, particularly regarding races, classes, and magic items, all of which are very fiddly and full of minor bonuses or separate resource pools which make the game less friendly in the character creation process.
In short the PLAYING of the game is very newcomer friendly at a basic level (with some exceptions for other subsystems like the death and dying rules which were revised), but the SET UP of the game is not, similar to a board game with very simple rules, but a lengthy and tedious set-up period before each game (like many peoples' houseruled abominations of Monopoly that make the game take 45 minutes to an hour to set up and remove all the nuance from the game itself).
I'm curious what underlying design philosophy led to this. Maybe I missed the mark and I'm completely wrong about what kind of game this was supposed to be, which is fair enough, but I think it would be useful at this stage (now that everyone has had time to sort of form their own opinions first so the devs can see an outside perspective) for a more explicit "This is what we wished to accomplish" statement to help give more guided feedback on how perceived problems should be remedied.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One goal I believe is apparent is standardization of terms. The trait system on feats, spells, and abilities seems poised to head off many rules debates about 'does X ability require y?' by laying out clear guidelines about what kind of actions and effects abilities use. Going forward, this could present a solid framework to reduce the chance that new content authors add abilities that work in a way they aren't supposed to (as was an issue for new content books in PF1). The trade-off is that the book is less readable in a casual manner, but has a more technical feel.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I can tell, the chief design goal is system stability. Many of the game's pieces are modular in order to prevent a bad piece from infecting the whole game. The modifiers are kept small and few so that the maximum variance on a die roll is known without knowing all possible means of modifying that die roll. Many, though not all, effects reference the same set of debuffs in order to ensure that any character capable of creating an effect creates it identically.
This design goal manages expectations for the designers pretty well. Anyone writing modules or running games can make good guesses on what will be doable by any party.
The lack of complementary abilities stems from this modularity. Do to the need to constrain the range of effects allowable in the game, interactions between abilities need to be tightly controlled. The math needs to be worked through with each additional option allowed and any synergies either plotted out ahead of time or removed. The strongest example of this would be the fighter two weapon fighting feats and the need to untrain agile grace in order to take advantage of two weapon flurry. These things would seem like they aught to work together by their purpose and description, but since they can't if balance is maintained, they won't be allowed to.
Spells are designed in a similar fashion. Restricting the duration of spells, and keeping a high action cost, and reducing the number of spells, means that very few will be active at the same time allowing the design team to treat most spells as existing in a vacuum.
It's all very designer friendly. As a player you're dealing with the leftover math though. All the weird extra bits are left on your end, like sloppy electrical work. Things that aught to be done automatically by the system are left for the player to do in order to give players something to do on level up. That part is a little cynical, there aught to be some other reason but I can't see it.
Maybe I'm wrong. That would be nice.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I asked this question several weeks ago -- at least a week before the Paizo website spent a couple of weeks being 80%-100% offline. Alas, no real answer has been forthcoming. I can't help but suspect that the goal of the game is "make it different, and let lots of designers try lots of different things".
Here's the thread from August 8: Is there an explicit list of design goals?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Pathfinder 2nd Edition is an attempt to open up the market for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game by reducing the obstacles to entry, such as unimportant minutae in the rules, lengthy character creation, and endless bookkeeping and min-maxed actions during game sessions. For example, the old action system of move, standard, and swift/immediate actions was replaced by three actions and a reaction. Character creation was converted to ABC: Ancestry, Background, and Class, except that it ended up as A, B, C, and five more steps for details not covered in A, B, and C.
Each simplification begat changes in other rules and those changes rippled through Pathfinder with a life of their own. Resonance is one of the most obvious. It meets the simpification goal, that a whole bunch of 3-uses-per-day and 50-charge magic items and odd-body-slot magic items could simply be governed by a resonance pool. But then to better balance Pathfinder, the designers kept the uses-per-day, charges, and body slots, so no simplification occurred.
Scythia's comment about standardization of terms reminds me that since the designers are redoing the system from the ground up, they are taking this opportunity to make the rules more rigorous, so that rules disputes can be clearly adjudicated.
My feeling is that the purpose of Pathfinder 2nd Edition compared to Pathfinder 1st Edition is Simplification, but during design Simplification became subservient to Balance and Rigor. Choice was often sacrificed in a compromise between Simplification and Balance, even though Choice is the primary purpose of all editions of Pathfinder. We do see aspects of Choice in that class feats offer more choice than class features. And we also see that the playtest rules for Pathfinder are not yet complete, so we see Incompleteness, too, but that is a design side effect rather than a design goal.
Simplification, Balance, Rigor, and Choice.
EDIT: Upon further thought, I noticed an explicit conflict of two goals: Simplification over Choice at character creation. Examples include denying Skill Feats and General Feats until 2nd level, because those feats have a long list, and bundling a character's 1st-level choices together, such as a druid's orders. The less-obvious choices are delayed and only the most likely choices are offered in order to speed up character creation.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one real goal of Pathfinder 2.0 is pretty clear to me: Make adventure creating a more "exact science".
Paizo excels in creating adventures, both for adventure path and society scenarios. However, since there are a lot of variation on Pathfinder 1.0, it was very hard to create adventures that are challenging and "doable" to everyone. An experienced GM could of course adapt the adventure to their group, but it doesn't work in Society game.
With PF 2 this problems is lessened a lot.
For instance, if the adventure expects players to sneak-enter a castle, in PF 1.0 a group with heavy-armored characters will not be able to pass this obstacle. In PF 2.0 they can because everybody get +1 to everything.
The same goes for combat. Since everybody at the same level has a very close attacks bonus, CA, and etc., it's easy to design encounters.
The problem in my opinion is that, although this "standarization" make the adventure design eaiser, it is very unfun to be played.
I prefer to see my players trying alternative solutions to sneak-enter the castel with their fullplate paladin than he just becomes sneaker without any reason.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think PFS balance has more of an impact on this edition than people realize. It is in this medium that balance concerns and silly builds become the most dramatic since GMs are told they can't improvise anything or change any rules in order to accomodate strange characters. With heavy homgenization and super tight math, that means the quests will always be appropiate and nobody will be able to break the game.
As said earlier in this thread, this is the perfect game for Adventure writers and designers since they don't have to account for anything from the PCs and likely have tables that say exactly what they can and can't do (Without even needing to know what build/composition they have, since it matters little). So, good for them, I guess.
On the other hand, it's not really focused on player ease or fun, since that often goes contrary to the above point. Of course the developers will think it's great even when they playtest, there is a big conflict of interest here after all.
EDIT: It doesn't matter as much for GMs playing APs in a home game, since they can eventually figure out what to do before the party starts getting too silly. Even a newbie can realize encounters are being too easy hard or how an obstacle can be skipped/impossible and ajdust accordingly after a few months.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think PFS balance has more of an impact on this edition than people realize. It is in this medium that balance concerns and silly builds become the most dramatic since GMs are told they can't improvise anything or change any rules in order to accomodate strange characters. With heavy homgenization and super tight math, that means the quests will always be appropiate and nobody will be able to break the game.
As said earlier in this thread, this is the perfect game for Adventure writers and designers since they don't have to account for anything from the PCs and likely have tables that say exactly what they can and can't do (Without even needing to know what build/composition they have, since it matters little). So, good for them, I guess.
On the other hand, it's not really focused on player ease or fun, since that often goes contrary to the above point. Of course the developers will think it's great even when they playtest, there is a big conflict of interest here after all.
EDIT: It doesn't matter as much for GMs playing APs in a home game, since they can eventually figure out what to do before the party starts getting too silly. Even a newbie can realize encounters are being too easy hard or how an obstacle can be skipped/impossible and ajdust accordingly after a few months.
Yep, as a GM playing APs in home games and game-store games I have a different prespective. I became skilled enough with Pathfinder 1st Edition that I began creating custom monsters to send against the party and custom feats to let them build the characters the players wanted. The fun for me is seeing what the players do to to story in the Adventure Path. Do they follow it, enhance it, or derail it? How do the individual personalities of the PCs affect the encounters? If I were merely presenting the encounters as written without having them react in consequence to the PCs' actions, I would be bored.
And as a mathematician, the phrase, "super tight math" sounds a rigorously proven theorem, able to handle anything at which I throw it because it is 100% tough and tested. What Pathfinder 2nd Edition uses is limited math that timidly keeps to its comfort zone. I want to boost that math to brawny levels that can handle more fun. Everyone can handle geometric progressions, right? It is not like I have pulled out the calculus. Yet.
By the way, I accidentally cut off the paragraph in my previous post that Pathfinder is about making Choices, that Choices and seeing the consequences of Choices keep roleplaying interesting. That is obvious, right?
I think PFS balance has more of an impact on this edition than people realize. It is in this medium that balance concerns and silly builds become the most dramatic since GMs are told they can't improvise anything or change any rules in order to accomodate strange characters. With heavy homgenization and super tight math, that means the quests will always be appropiate and nobody will be able to break the game.
As said earlier in this thread, this is the perfect game for Adventure writers and designers since they don't have to account for anything from the PCs and likely have tables that say exactly what they can and can't do (Without even needing to know what build/composition they have, since it matters little). So, good for them, I guess.
On the other hand, it's not really focused on player ease or fun, since that often goes contrary to the above point. Of course the developers will think it's great even when they playtest, there is a big conflict of interest here after all.
EDIT: It doesn't matter as much for GMs playing APs in a home game, since they can eventually figure out what to do before the party starts getting too silly. Even a newbie can realize encounters are being too easy hard or how an obstacle can be skipped/impossible and ajdust accordingly after a few months.
Yep, as a GM playing APs in home games and game-store games I have a different prespective. I became skilled enough with Pathfinder 1st Edition that I began creating custom monsters to send against the party and custom feats to let them build the characters the players wanted. The fun for me is seeing what the players do to to story in the Adventure Path. Do they follow it, enhance it, or derail it? How do the individual personalities of the PCs affect the encounters? If I were merely presenting the encounters as written without having them react in consequence to the PCs' actions, I would be bored.
And as a mathematician, the phrase, "super tight math" sounds a rigorously proven theorem,...
I stand corrected~
And yeah, choices in roleplaying, but also in other aspects, such as how you build your character, what spells you pick, etc. They all should have pretty dramatic consequences on where the game goes so no adventure is ever the same even if replayed. Even the choice of race should have big impact on many Golarion communities (Even if most people ignore this).
PFS for the most part has minimzied the impact of roleplaying choices, but not entirely yet. The only step needed before an AI can be a PFS GM in second edition (Exploration tactics are big culprit) is to codify dialogue with NPCs to offer multiple choice like in videogames, though there's already some good software out there for handling natural language conversations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Know Direction interview with Jason and Mona when the playtest was announced is a good insight into what their goals. Interviews in general are your best bet for that level of specificity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This. My last group just wanted to hang out once a month. Had no idea about character optimization, building a character, or even what magic items to buy. At level 5 they were lost.
One small comment on that, buying the Strategy Guide would help beginners and using the automatic bonus progression from Pathfinder Unleashed removes some of the pressure of buying the correct items for beginners as well. The latter puts a lot of work on the GM to nerf the treasure an AP gives out (simpler if you are homebrewing, of course), but it's worth it. Just change the way special abilities for weapons and armors work to something better, like I did. I decoupled them from the characters own enhancement bonus and just raised their price by 50%, which works well with the halved WBL.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The consumer base of in Pathfinder and outside of Pathfinder for over 10 years had been sending signals what an improved product would look like, and one that would make them even more engaged to to the product.
And Paizo analysed these signals over the years, created a product that is meant to respond to said signals, and now we have PF2 as a result of this process. But because this is RPG industry, quality cannot be measured in any sane metric. People play rulesets based on a desired feeling, which makes engineering absolutely useless. Seifer and his math expertise can create progression path that keeps each dice roll somewhat exciting, but can he build a system that makes people get that "correct DnD fantasy feeling"? Well go figure, you might need a poet for that.
The consumer base of in Pathfinder and outside of Pathfinder for over 10 years had been sending signals what an improved product would look like, and one that would make them even more engaged to to the product.
And Paizo analysed these signals over the years, created a product that is meant to respond to said signals, and now we have PF2 as a result of this process. But because this is RPG industry, quality cannot be measured in any sane metric. People play rulesets based on a desired feeling, which makes engineering absolutely useless. Seifer and his math expertise can create progression path that keeps each dice roll somewhat exciting, but can he build a system that makes people get that "correct DnD fantasy feeling"? Well go figure, you might need a poet for that.
Given that Mark Seifter has talked about non-Euclidean page layout, I believe that he can handle insane metrics, too. We engineering types have the poetry of soaring architecture in our souls.
My method of signaling Paizo has been to chronicle my campaigns in the Adventure Path forums. My Jade Regent campaign ripped up the revolution montage in Tide of Honor and rebuilt it as a folk hero story. My Iron Gods campaign ended up as a Western gunslinger story about townsfolk uniting against people threatening their town. My players are very much into playing their characters as sensible people rather than looting murderhobos. All that needs is a roleplaying system where the PCs can say, "Wait, no need for violence. Let's talk first." Which probably is not the correct D&D fantasy feeling, but it leads to fun games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would actually be nice to see a list of goals rather than some over-arching philosophy.
Specifically, each contentious system could be described by what it is attempting to achieve.
To say "this is why resonance works the way it does, and this is what we are trying to achieve with its implementation" or "this is what we are trying to achieve by adding +1/level to everything".
If the Devs came out and said: "we want player choices in feats/class features to be less powerful/diversifying in order to homogenize playstyle and power level across archetypes in all situations of play", then I could at least say that they have achieved their goal... and we may even be able to talk about whether or not that is the kind of goal we are interested in seeing pursued.
The same with +lvl to everything... if they just say that they are trying to ensure that everyone can always participate in every part of an adventure, and that role diversity is something they are trying to avoid to make the sessions more inclusive (and to guarantee that every AP will always have access to the player skills they want) then OKAY. I may not like that idea, but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
I never understand this argument. Compare the customization, diversity and thematic mechanics of 2e to ONLY the core rulebook of 1e. I'm pretty sure the build choices and options are MORE diverse in 2e than in 1e right off the bat. Here's an example: Ranged attacker Rogues are actually pretty viable. There's no range limit on sneak attack anymore. And there are more ways to make creatures flat footed in order to get that sneak attack (intimidate for example, which comes online as early as 4th level and is actually pretty damn strong. I'm running the playtest with an intimidate rogue and it's really impressive.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never understand this argument. Compare the customization, diversity and thematic mechanics of 2e to ONLY the core rulebook of 1e. I'm pretty sure the build choices and options are MORE diverse in 2e than in 1e right off the bat. Here's an example: Ranged attacker Rogues are actually pretty viable. There's no range limit on sneak attack anymore. And there are more ways to make creatures flat footed in order to get that sneak attack (intimidate for example, which comes online as early as 4th level and is actually pretty damn strong. I'm running the playtest with an intimidate rogue and it's really impressive.)but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
Whilst I agree with you, look at it this way. In PF1, you start with a feat of your choice which you qualify for. Starfinder has this same mentality in a system where the feats aren't long necessary trees, and are all significantly stronger. There are more options in PF2 from a what's in the book view, but how much of that each character actually has access to is significantly more limited due to how the system works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never understand this argument. Compare the customization, diversity and thematic mechanics of 2e to ONLY the core rulebook of 1e. I'm pretty sure the build choices and options are MORE diverse in 2e than in 1e right off the bat. Here's an example: Ranged attacker Rogues are actually pretty viable. There's no range limit on sneak attack anymore. And there are more ways to make creatures flat footed in order to get that sneak attack (intimidate for example, which comes online as early as 4th level and is actually pretty damn strong. I'm running the playtest with an intimidate rogue and it's really impressive.)but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
So the mechanics already existed in PF1.
You could make ranged sneak attacks, and cause enemies to be flat-footed.But now you feel that those mechanics are stronger at a baseline level, and that is the same as more customization for you? Not just more powerful?
Well the power level of certain choices has shifted all over the place, (this is not irrelevant at all, but its not even across the board since some archetypes got considerably down-powered) so lets ignore that aspect for the moment, and ask the most relevant question:
Does the character creation and advancement system in PF2 offer me more character building resources or greater freedom in how I spend those resources?
I would argue that you get less choice, and that the choices offered have less impact. As I said I think the goal is to homogenize across all archetypes to ensure that any party makeup has access to everything, but this (in my opinion) is achieved at the cost of role diversity and customization.
That is not to say that such an approach is wrong. Lots of systems do it, but it would be helpful to know that so we aren't arguing over one game while the Devs are actively trying to make another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Pathfinder 2nd Edition is an attempt to open up the market for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game by reducing the obstacles to entry, such as unimportant minutae in the rules, lengthy character creation, and endless bookkeeping and min-maxed actions during game sessions. For example, the old action system of move, standard, and swift/immediate actions was replaced by three actions and a reaction. Character creation was converted to ABC: Ancestry, Background, and Class, except that it ended up as A, B, C, and five more steps for details not covered in A, B, and C.
Each simplification begat changes in other rules and those changes rippled through Pathfinder with a life of their own. Resonance is one of the most obvious. It meets the simpification goal, that a whole bunch of 3-uses-per-day and 50-charge magic items and odd-body-slot magic items could simply be governed by a resonance pool. But then to better balance Pathfinder, the designers kept the uses-per-day, charges, and body slots, so no simplification occurred.
Scythia's comment about standardization of terms reminds me that since the designers are redoing the system from the ground up, they are taking this opportunity to make the rules more rigorous, so that rules disputes can be clearly adjudicated.
My feeling is that the purpose of Pathfinder 2nd Edition compared to Pathfinder 1st Edition is Simplification, but during design Simplification became subservient to Balance and Rigor. Choice was often sacrificed in a compromise between Simplification and Balance, even though Choice is the primary purpose of all editions of Pathfinder. We do see aspects of Choice in that class feats offer more choice than class features. And we also see that the playtest rules for Pathfinder are not yet complete, so we see Incompleteness, too, but that is a design side effect rather than a design goal.
Simplification, Balance, Rigor, and Choice.
EDIT: Upon further thought, I noticed an explicit conflict of two goals: Simplification over Choice at...
Is Pathfinder 2.0 succeeding in these goals?
If the Devs came out and said: "we want player choices in feats/class features to be less powerful/diversifying in order to homogenize playstyle and power level across archetypes in all situations of play", then I could at least say that they have achieved their goal... and we may even be able to talk about whether or not that is the kind of goal we are interested in seeing pursued.
Because the more I read PF2, the more I am liking PF1.
What is the penalty for rejecting Pathfinder 2.0?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't overly enthusiastic about the play test when it came out but the more I fiddle and play with it the more I like it.
Ancestry needs work obviously, but I'm optimistic for the future.
That said, I'll happily make room in my schedule for pathfinder classic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the more I read PF2, the more I am liking PF1.
What is the penalty for rejecting Pathfinder 2.0?
Having to convert new adventure paths back to PF1E. Since I already have a big workload just applying the automatic bonus progression, concordantly nerfing treasure and making a complete translation of all flavor text to German, it's not a bad concept for my own necessities. Even with the inherent incompatibility of certain systems between the two editions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would actually be nice to see a list of goals rather than some over-arching philosophy.
Specifically, each contentious system could be described by what it is attempting to achieve.
Totally agree here.
I feel like the feedback surveys are trying to ask 'how well did mechanic X do at preventing Y on a scale of 1 - 10?' and I'm trying to find how to say 'But I don't want to prevent Y, I want more of it, having it is one of the cool parts of Pathfinder 1E!'
I never understand this argument. Compare the customization, diversity and thematic mechanics of 2e to ONLY the core rulebook of 1e. I'm pretty sure the build choices and options are MORE diverse in 2e than in 1e right off the bat. Here's an example: Ranged attacker Rogues are actually pretty viable. There's no range limit on sneak attack anymore. And there are more ways to make creatures flat footed in order to get that sneak attack (intimidate for example, which comes online as early as 4th level and is actually pretty damn strong. I'm running the playtest with an intimidate rogue and it's really impressive.)but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
So the mechanics already existed in PF1.
You could make ranged sneak attacks, and cause enemies to be flat-footed.But now you feel that those mechanics are stronger at a baseline level, and that is the same as more customization for you? Not just more powerful?
Well the power level of certain choices has shifted all over the place, (this is not irrelevant at all, but its not even across the board since some archetypes got considerably down-powered) so lets ignore that aspect for the moment, and ask the most relevant question:
Does the character creation and advancement system in PF2 offer me more character building resources or greater freedom in how I spend those resources?
I would argue that you get less choice, and that the choices offered have less impact. As I said I think the goal is to homogenize across all archetypes to ensure that any party makeup has access to everything, but this (in my opinion) is achieved at the cost of role diversity and customization.
That is not to say that such an approach is wrong. Lots of systems do it, but it would be helpful to know that so we aren't arguing over one game while the Devs are actively trying to make another.
What are some ways to make someone flat footed from range? Because I can't think of many. Especially not with the core rules. Ranged Rogues were pretty much unplayable in 1e unless you wanted to just be a skill monkey.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the more I read PF2, the more I am liking PF1.
What is the penalty for rejecting Pathfinder 2.0?
I am not suggesting that there is any penalty, or that you should like what has been presented.
I am saying that if we have a list of the design principles that went into each the creation of each major game system (particularly those that are new or radically different) we could give better feedback.
It might be the case, that we just disagree with the premise, and can, as you say, disengage from the product. Pathfinder is a lot of different things to a lot of different people, so if they spoke to what exactly they were trying to achieve we could figure out if its the implementation or the goal that we like or dislike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those claiming that 2e made character creation LESS time consuming, it took my group a solid 2 hours to build ours. Granted most of our players were more used to D&D 3.5 & 5e, but it was kinda ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the more I read PF2, the more I am liking PF1.
What is the penalty for rejecting Pathfinder 2.0?
I am not suggesting that there is any penalty, or that you should like what has been presented.
I am saying that if we have a list of the design principles that went into each the creation of each major game system (particularly those that are new or radically different) we could give better feedback.
It might be the case, that we just disagree with the premise, and can, as you say, disengage from the product. Pathfinder is a lot of different things to a lot of different people, so if they spoke to what exactly they were trying to achieve we could figure out if its the implementation or the goal that we like or dislike.
This is a valid point. :)
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never understand this argument. Compare the customization, diversity and thematic mechanics of 2e to ONLY the core rulebook of 1e. I'm pretty sure the build choices and options are MORE diverse in 2e than in 1e right off the bat. Here's an example: Ranged attacker Rogues are actually pretty viable. There's no range limit on sneak attack anymore. And there are more ways to make creatures flat footed in order to get that sneak attack (intimidate for example, which comes online as early as 4th level and is actually pretty damn strong. I'm running the playtest with an intimidate rogue and it's really impressive.)but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
I have played a Core Rulebook-only Pathfinder 1st Edition character, Abu Gorgoni, my gnome ranger/monk. I added archetypes to him at 4th level once the Advanced Player's Guide was published, but he started core.
Let's look at reconstructing a similar character under Pathfinder playtest rules. Gnome and ranger are given, and the original Abu had taken a campaign feat (this was before campaign traits existed) that corresponded to Hunter background. His backstory was that he was a young gnome from Sanos Forest in Varisia. As a curious Desna worshipper, he wanted to travel and see the world, so he had trained as a ranger (taught by a monk, oddly enough, but gnomes are odd) so that he could live off the land as he wandered. After a brief visit to Magnimar, he went to the Swallowtail Butterfly Festival in Sandpoint (this festival had a cameo mention in The Lost Star) where his true adventure began. He ended up as a cheerful fellow who used his brains rather than his brawn. He became the heart of the party and eventually its leader.
Abu made serious use of his Speak to Animals, Prestidigitation, and Dancing Lights gnome magic, but Abu Two receives only one of those. Let's pick Animal Speaker. Later, Abu expanded Speak with Animal's scope with Vermin Heart, which the gnome ancestry trait Animal Whisperer would cover for Abu Two. From his background, he gains Survey Wildlife skill feat and training in Hunting Lore.
As a ranger, Abu Two needs Strength above 10, so his free gnome ancestral boost cancels out strength. His Hunter background boosts go to Strength and Dexterity. Three of Abu Two's four free ability boosts clearly go to Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence, since Abu was a high-skill ranger. We throw the 4th into Wisdom, because that had been a classic ranger stat. STR 14, DEX 16, CON 12, INT 12, WIS 12, CHA 12. I had made the original Abu smarter, but the only way to do that in the playtest would be to take from Strength. Strength seems more valuable in Pathfinder 2nd Edition than Intelligence.
Abu Two picks the Double Slice ranger feat at 1st level, sooner than original Abu learned two-weapon combat style (Abu switched to archery combat style latter when he gained the monk's Flurry of Blows). For trained skills, Abut Two pickes Acrobatics, Athletics, Diplomacy, Medicine, Nature, Survival, Stealth.
Okay, the design of Abu Two is done for 1st level, except for calculating the numbers and buying gear, such as 19 hit points and two shortswords. Without the size bonus to attacks and AC that PF1 offers and without the full versatility of gnomish magic, Abu Two seems to be a worse hunter and wanderer than the original Abu. With more hit points and his combat style earlier, he does seem better in battle, which will be handy when goblin tribesmen raid Sandpoint.
Worse at his background and better at generic fighting seems less customized.
At 2nd level, Abu Two gains a skill feat. By this time, the original Abu had proven himself as the detective and diplomat in the party, due to his skills. Can the playtest's feats complement this? Group Impression and Hobnobber don't seem appropriate for the downtime diplomacy of Sandpoint. Bargain Hunter and Glad-Hand are not appropriate either, and he lacks the expert proficiency in their prerequisites. Hm, the 2nd-level feats that fit the ranger and detective roles also require expert proficiency and a ranger cannot get expert proficiency before 3rd level. Those feats must be 2nd level for the rogue to take.
Okay, looks like Abu Two would have been a better ranger if he had taken rogue as his class. What a terrible design error--I will leave others to debate whether it is my design error in building a gnome ranger or Paizo's design error in building the ranger class.
Abu Two will learn Train Animal. Lord Foxglove gave him a horse (not a pony) and he wanted to train it.
At 3rd level, Abu Two finally becomes an expert in Survival. If INT 14 would have given it to him earlier, I would have swapped the 14 in Strength to Intelligence. Finally, he can learn those advanced Diplomacy or Survival skill feats. Except he wants to be able to ride his horse, so he instead learns Ride. He isn't interested in mounted combat; instead, he likes riding his horse around the countryside, checking for signs of goblin raiders. Due to the fatigue rules, he needs Ride for that.
On the other hand, Weapon Expertise makes him better with his shortswords.
Okay, the playtest rules are fighting against me when I try to build a responsible character rather than a battle-ready character. I do want more customization. I want as much customization as I had in Core Rulebook 1st Edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is Pathfinder 2.0 succeeding in these goals?
Simplification - Partial Success. The basic rules are simplified, but Rigor added a layer of jargon and Balance added fiddly details.
Balance - Failure. The design relies keeping the challenges within strict limits or balance is lost. And the first +1 weapon, typically gained at mid-level, is more powerful than leveling up.
Rigor - Success. It appears firm enough that the designers could simplify the jargon and still have good rigor.
Choice - Partial Failure. Pathfinder 2nd Edition still has a good amount of Choice, but it definitely channels the characters toward some stereotypical builds. See my comments above about trying to create a cheerful gnome ranger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the unstated goal - to improve Paizo's cashflow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about the unstated goal - to improve Paizo's cashflow?
I am a mathematician, not a businessman. Except I read up on business in order to learn about business analytics.
Paizo's greatest assets are its people. They stay in touch with their customers on many levels. They write great modules. Their splatbook ideas have appeal. The Pathfinder Society and its volunteers reach out to new people frequently.
Because of those people, I expect Pathfinder 2nd Edition to be better than Pathfinder 1st Edition and I expect Paizo will develop a good business plan.
Paizo's second greatest asset is its legacy. Pathfinder gave D&D 3.5 players a new venue for their favorite game without being locked into the past. They have years of written adventure paths. However, its legacy does not have the deep taproots of the Dungeons & Dragons legacy.
I had hoped for enough backwards compatibility between Pathfinder 1st Edition and Pathfinder 2nd Edition that I could adapt the 1st Edition adventure paths to the new rules. That would be too much work with the playtest material because of (1) no multiclassing, (2) different spels and feats, and (3) different rates of gaining feats and abilities. Notice that these three differences are fairly small, but they make more work in adapting the NPCs. That monsters don't have to follow the rules for PCs is a little help, but the lack of correspondence between monster rules and PC rules will make the challenge of adaptions hard to judge and PF2 seems sensitive to inappropriate challenges. Ironically, the big changes, such as the three-action system, are invisible to the modules themselves and will be no effort to adapt.
Without the backwards compatibility, Paizo cuts off Pathfinder 2nd Edition players from a wealth of material that could attract more 2nd Edition players. That decision bewilders me.
Without the backwards compatibility, Paizo cuts off Pathfinder 2nd Edition players from a wealth of material that could attract more 2nd Edition players. That decision bewilders me.
It's a matter of opportunity cost:
Firstly, there's the purely ruthless calculation (relied on by manufacturers everwhere - if the new is incompatible with the old, the new add-ons are inherently more valuable). There is a corresponding cost here by way of alienation of fans who are currently heavily invested. Who knows which way this one pans out overall? I doubt this potential cost of backwards compatibility was forefront in their minds, but it is a factor in theory.
(I'm not sure that drawing in customers to PF2 by allowing PF1 material to still work is a huge plus. When windows came out it was compatible with DOS, but I don't think many found a DOS application they really liked and then decided to invest in windows. Personally, I think backwards compatibility is really a service to longstanding fans to ease the transition to the new, not a marketting tool to lure people from the old to the new. That's not an enormous distinction, but I think it exists).
Secondly (and I think this is the important one), there's the cost imposed in terms of constraints on the new game. Again and again over the years, Paizo staff have made comments to the effect of "yeah, we would have liked to change that but backwards compatibility with 3.5 was such a core design constraint we didn't think we could".
This time around they have not encoded that so fully (though they're still wanting PF2 to feel similar to PF1). As such, their choices of design are far more open - they can keep what they like but don't need to be constrained if there's something they're dead keen on which is incompatible with PF1.
Without the backwards compatibility, Paizo cuts off Pathfinder 2nd Edition players from a wealth of material that could attract more 2nd Edition players. That decision bewilders me.
In one of my playtest groups, I'm converting PFS scenarios.
Mark reassured me that they are quite backward compatible, with the exception of level 0 creatures (because level 0 creatures combine both CR 1/3 and 1/2 creatures).
So far, keeping the original PF1 DCs has felt better (than using PF2 DCs), and there have been many crit fails, it's felt like the 3 stooges. People say they like crit fails but I could do without crit fails on a roll of a "1".
Jury is still out.
What are some ways to make someone flat footed from range? Because I can't think of many. Especially not with the core rules. Ranged Rogues were pretty much unplayable in 1e unless you wanted to just be a skill monkey.
I played a Ranged Slayer once. I used to hide in a tree/bush, fire an arrow, then go somewhere else and hide again. I took some penalties for that, but with enough Stealth and some points in Climb, it worked pretty well.
Could easily be transposed to any environment with hiding places, like a street, or to a Rogue that has more skill points they can use for Stealth and other skills that could help them get to places to hide.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without the backwards compatibility, Paizo cuts off Pathfinder 2nd Edition players from a wealth of material that could attract more 2nd Edition players. That decision bewilders me.It's a matter of opportunity cost:
Firstly, there's the purely ruthless calculation (relied on by manufacturers everwhere - if the new is incompatible with the old, the new add-ons are inherently more valuable). There is a corresponding cost here by way of alienation of fans who are currently heavily invested. Who knows which way this one pans out overall? I doubt this potential cost of backwards compatibility was forefront in their minds, but it is a factor in theory.
Do you remember why Pathfinder exists and D&D 4th edition does not?
Yes.
There is a corresponding cost here by way of alienation of fans who are currently heavily invested.
|
[i]Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.[/]
From pg3 of the playtest doc.