| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So on the most recent blog post, the design goals for the game were finally listed out and are as follows:
1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.
2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.
3. Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).
4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.
5. Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.
From the Halfway to Doomsday blog post
I'm making the thread for two reasons: first, since not everyone is aware of or reads the blog posts, it might be helpful to keep those people in the loop with regards to the game design behind the scenes. Second, it would (hopefully) focus discussion in here as opposed to the comments on a blogpost which has material apart from the stated design goals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2: The most story-focused GM I know has a campaign that focuses on a mesmerist, a psychic with the vampire template, a barbarian with a chainsaw, and an arcanist who has read up on exactly how to achieve lichdom (the Eternal Apotheosis ritual, for reference). Only one of these is even close to being renderable under the current rules.
...
5: As somebody here almost entirely for the massive amount of options and off-the-wall/against-type characters that can be made, I'm not sure I feel welcome.
Tip: you may not find what you're looking for in a new game. What you want is an existing game with lots of source books.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think the second goal means “you’ll be able to build all your PF1 characters in PF2”.
I think it means that the APs and modules for PF2 will be the same genre as those in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Throwing out my opinion on this topic
1. I think thy are largely succeeding on this one. It was far easier to teach PF2 than it was to teach PF1. Most of this is due to the action economy but part is due to the precision of the language (though they don't always get it right). I worry that the over-technical language detracts from the flavor though.
2. Sure, though the overall power level has been reduced I don't think it would be hard to tell similar stories.
3. They have done some of this though they are holding on to some sacred cows. Also they didn't incorporate advantage/disadvantage from dnd 5e. It's a simple system that could have been used for something. Maybe legendary proficiency grants advantage on checks or something.
4. They have done this okay but I think they nerfed spell casters in the wrong way. Spell-casters were OP in PF1 due to having a wide-variety of powerful spells. In PF2 they still have a wide-variety of spells but overall they are way less powerful. I would prefer if spell were actually still powerful but an individual spell-caster had a lot fewer of them (not per day but known/spellbook/some limit on divine casters). Kind of like what spheres of power did.
5. While it's simpler than PF1 it still is going to be a lot of peoples second game coming from 5e since that is just the TTRPG landscape thees days. I think if they want to get players they should make sure it is an easy jump from 5e to PF2.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point 1: Not that I've noticed. Granted, I'm very familiar with 3.x and this is somewhat new so there may be some familiarity issues at work here, but PT certainly doesn't strike me as easier to learn. Like Vic, this seems to me to be the densest version yet.
I don't have any solid data to back this up, but it's been my impression from reading playtest reports that PF1 preconceptions are an issue for a lot of playtesters, and that new players are having an easier time with it than veterans. Not sure how widespread a phenomenon it really is, however.
I do think, though, that a whole lot of the problems with apparent complexity have to do with the book's layout, which has been widely and correctly criticized for being super user-unfriendly. I imagine that piece, at least, will have some serious work done on it between now and the final release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Point 1: Not that I've noticed. Granted, I'm very familiar with 3.x and this is somewhat new so there may be some familiarity issues at work here, but PT certainly doesn't strike me as easier to learn. Like Vic, this seems to me to be the densest version yet.I don't have any solid data to back this up, but it's been my impression from reading playtest reports that PF1 preconceptions are an issue for a lot of playtesters, and that new players are having an easier time with it than veterans. Not sure how widespread a phenomenon it really is, however.
Anecdote to be sure but that's what I found. The learning curve wasn't that steep but both the complete newbie and the PF1 experienced players had to learn the new system. Familiarity in PF1 doesn't help with learning PF2 any more than familiarity with RPG video games. Some players found that frustrating.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think the second goal means “you’ll be able to build all your PF1 characters in PF2”.
I think it means that the APs and modules for PF2 will be the same genre as those in PF1.
Spot on. The idea that a core rulebook would contain all of the options that a 10-year run of the previous edition would out of the gate is ridiculous.
The fact that your post needed to be written to clarify things is mind-boggling. Stories do not equal characters. Characters are necessary elements in stories.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think every design stated by Bulmahn is spot on. I am not sure if they have yet attained their goals but I can get behind each of them.
Also, thanks to Paizo for clarifying those goals and putting them out there.
This also clarifies what is constructive feedback. The listed goals should help us give feedback focused on helping the dev team achieve their listed goals rather than fill the forum with discordant noise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Not good. The rules are awkward and system mastery is only required to make the game run faster, not to customize more
2. Complete success
3. Good degree of success
4. Success, but it comes at the cost of not allowing any room for deliberate imbalance, which is definitely a fun part of the game that is now not available (unless you willingly nerf yourself, which is the only deviaton allowed by the system)
5. I don't see this. The game has so many technical terms and book keeping it's very clunky to run.
I don’t think the second goal means “you’ll be able to build all your PF1 characters in PF2”.
I think it means that the APs and modules for PF2 will be the same genre as those in PF1.
That isn't what they said. They said: "tell the same stories and share in the same worlds", and if we assume they mean 'the same' when they say 'the same' P2 explicitly can't do that for all games/worlds that P1 supported.
If you are right and they just seriously mis-formulated, it's a very vague and mostly meaningless goal. If they meant, say, "a game where people with pseudo-historical tech and some form of magic can go around and kill things" or something of the sort, then fine, they did it. But there are a LOT of things that could be done with a game and fulfill those criteria, and P2 covers far fewer possibilities than P1 did.
If your interpretation is correct, we need a more detailed and specific formulation of point 5 to determine if they succeeded.
We won’t be able to tell if they’ve succeeded until the game is released.
However, my point was really that there’s no point measuring.whether a goal has been met without understanding what was meant.
I think the second design goal is about genre and style of campaign settings and adventures, not PCs. People shouldn’t read it and assume that they will definitely be able to continue to play their occultist (or whatever) if they switch to PF2. Nor should they declare this goal to have not been met if they struggle to build their PC once the game is out.
Whether continuity of campaigns should be a goal or not is another matter. I just don’t think the stated goal is about ensuring such direct continuity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'll weigh in:
1. I think they haven't quite gotten this right, in part because I think their focus on ease of learning got a little muddied with elegance in design. Like how every spontaneous caster gets the same number of spells known as spell slots (well, initially, as they changed it so this actually isn't 100% accurate, with the bard having 1 more first level spell known, after the 1.1 update), so they only need one chart, or prior to the removal of signature skills, having the same number of signature skills as base skill choices, so a new player can just opt to choose those as their base skills. But I don't think it solves the ease of learning/play that much. While there were some steps that actually do help with this, like the 3 action system, there's still a lot to learn, arguably more than PF1e, just based on how PF is just by its nature a fairly crunch-heavy game. And on the customization side, I get that it's unfair to compare a game with nearly 10 years of supplements to a playtest version of a CRB, but that doesn't mean there aren't still places where certain abilities seem needlessly siloed in a class, or given as class features, that are only useful to some characters in that class (AoO and better armor proficiency are useless to an Archer fighter, whereas if a Ranger wants to use a Longbow without penalty, they have to MC fighter)
2. I think this, they've accomplished, but it'd be hard not to, assuming it's something desired by the design team, as telling the same stories is fairly easy if you make sure not to do drastic changes like making every caster use PF1e Kineticist mechanics, or removing weapon attacks from the game.
3. Remains to be seen, as the "best ideas" differ from person to person, and this design goal even accounts that the core book might not have all of them. I think some of this is accomplished, such as making the unchained action economy core, or giving all classes class feats, or making skill feats a core part of the game, but without knowing what is on the horizon, it's hard to say whether this is fulfiling the goal.
4. More balanced, sure, but mistuned in places so it doesn't feel like characters "thrive in their defined role" but are just alright if they invest heavily, and fall behind if they don't. Also, I think there's a bit of a design philosophy issue with me, on the notion of 'defined role' as I think Pathfinder is pushing niche protection a bit too hard. I don't think Pathfinder should become classless, or effectively classless, but a big draw in PF1e was playing off type. Most of this is in the niches of combat roles, as a fighter just never would have enough skill points to be a skill monkey, or the like, but Archer Paladins, or the like were still things you could do. I think 1e arguably improved in terms of skill, as skill feats and the removal of signature skills mean The fighter could specialize in stealth and lockpicking and deception (almost) just as well as a rogue.
5. Sure. I don't see many places where this isn't accomplished, except for the nature of any high-crunch game necessitating a little higher of a barrier of entry to those new to the hobby, but even so, it's still probably more accessible than 1e
|
|
Many events with spells that we had are simply not possible anymore because of the nerfs, the rarity system, the vast changes to effects. No caster now has enough spells to have pulled off what certain characters in our P1 games have done. Many many encounters could not in any way be done in P2 and have the same results as they did in P1. Resonance makes certain other situations that occurred in P1 absolutely impossible.
Do you have any specifics? I'd like to hear your perspective on this. What events, character actions, etc.? Can you think of particular examples?
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any solid data to back this up, but it's been my impression from reading playtest reports that PF1 preconceptions are an issue for a lot of playtesters, and that new players are having an easier time with it than veterans. Not sure how widespread a phenomenon it really is, however.
This has very consistently been my experience. New players or casual gamers who had previously dropped Pathfinder because of its density and complexity have been greatly enjoying the new system, while some of the more experienced players and those who have been using the PF1 framework since D&D 3E can get frustrated by the changes. When I sat down to run The Lost Star with a group of new players, the four of them were able to take the two copies of the playtest that I had and make all their own characters in about an hour total; the last time I sat down to character-build with those players in PF1 it was about a 5 hour session and not everyone left with a finished character. Flipside, my roll20 group are all experienced Pathfinder players who came over from 3.5 and it took about 3 hours for them all to get their characters built where normally it would have taken about an hour.
I've noticed that how people conceptualize their characters can greatly affect build time as well; if the character concept is "I want to play a elven hunter who was outcast from her people and now wanders the world making her living as a hired soldier" players seem to be able to put their characters together very quickly and intuitively. If the concept is "I want to deal the absolute maximum amount of combat damage possible while swinging a giant hammer" it can take quite a bit longer. I suspect that if you build from broad character concept following the same flow as the book (Ancestry, Background, Class, Details) it goes a lot quicker, while if you're used to a fairly common style of character building in PF1 where you pick a cool feat or mechanic and then try to form a character around optimizing that mechanic, it will take a lot longer due to how everything is laid out. That's largely just my assumption based on the anecdotal evidence available to me though, YMMV.
The playtest overall has led to a significant net gain in people playing Pathfinder in my area but I can't speak to what it might look like on a broader international scale. I went from 6 groups of 5-6 players each at the height of Pathfinder's popularity around here to 1 group of four meeting every other week at the start of the year. Since the playtest came out we're back up to 3 regular weekly groups with 6 players in two and 4 players in the other as well as one group of 5 meeting every other week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess for my 2c:
1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.
So this is two parts, the simpler to learn/play part, and retention of customization and rules mastery part. At the very basic mechanical level, PF2e IS simpler to pick up and play. However, the really bad layout of the playtest and the way everything is turned into keywords makes it really hard to navigate, since you have to flip through the book to check and double-check what every word means. PF1e has the same problem, where every time someone in a game uses a status effect the GM has to double-check exactly what that status effect does and affects, but it's not to the same level that PF2e does it since it's generally applied more sparingly. As for the customization and rules mastery, I personally feel like those go hand in hand. More customization rewards system mastery because you're able to create the character you want from the available options. If all the options are kept at a relatively even playing ground then the only issues are making the exact thing you want. The most "optimal" barbarian is a standard greatsword-wielding charge maniac, but with rage powers alone you can create a beefy tank monster, someone who can harry opponents, an area controller, and it even has options that make a Barbarian/Caster hybrid possible, all in the core rulebook. There's an easy out for players who want something simple or who don't know what they want to make or how to make it, but those rules exist for more experience players. To PF2e's credit, this is kind of replicated in the rules currently, but it still feels like everything's too segregated to really allow for someone to get into the game's guts and make something unique. Customization and depth sure, but right now it feels more like it's barely deep enough to reach your shoulders while standing up, where before you could go scuba diving.
2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.
I don't really feel like this would affect the design of the game much, beyond keeping the power curve in the world roughly the same as before.
3. Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).
Mixed results. Some parts of it have obviously shown back up from Unchained, such as the 3-action system and affliction tracks and the Unchained Rogue's abilities, but other really interesting and unique class options are missing. Stuff like Masterpieces for the Bard, Advanced Armor and Weapon Training options for the Fighter, or any of several dozen cool abilities that used to be in an archetype. The best ideas from PF1e for each class, combined together to be the options for the new base forms of the class for PF2e. Right now it feels more like just a reboot of the core rulebook.
4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.
This is probably the most achieved goal so far, though it does feel like characters are getting TOO stuck in their own roles.
5. Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.
Like #2, I don't really think that's much of a game design thing. That's more of a marketing thing if anything I feel.
|
1. There's still some work to do here, but I've found it somewhat easier to teach and play. And that's even with the weirdness of Doomsday Dawn hopping levels and classes every two weeks.
From behind the GM screen, monsters are substantially easier and even the things giving me problems are improved compared to PF1.
2. No problem here.
3. There's a lot that could fit in here. But I'd include archetypes being both core and substantially more flexible, retraining/downtime being core, class feats in place of unwieldy lists and locked-in abilities, and rarity codifying something GMs were sort of expected to do but had no guidance on.
4. This isn't some theoretical balance where everyone is the exact same, that's for sure. But we've seen characters built towards various roles and only a few didn't work.
Batting average is surprisingly good compared to new folks with PF1, but could do better. And one we had problems with (ranger 1.0) is already doing substantially better, so I'm not super worried.
5. This has worked out. Our rules-wonkiest players are happy and our brand new player is happy. If anything, the only ones having problems are the players who sort of know PF1.
Cheers!
Landon
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.) The rules read as byzantine as the ones for the Kineticist did in Occult Adventures. The classes seems significantly more straightjacketed into "roles" as well. So far everything I've heard is that mastering the rules just yields being able to keep up with the monsters. I'd have rule this design goal so far as a failure.
2.) The new rules are basically incompatible with the stories of older AP's and it's all in the all-encompassing spell nerfs. The overwhelming single caster enemy archetype who is pre-buffed up to the gills? Dead, since most buffs last one minute now. The archmage who rules a nation through his marvelous spellcasting abilities (something of a thing in Golarion history, see: Runelords, Tar-Baphon)? Dead, because all spells have been overnerfed that the very idea of that kind of ruler is laughable now. So, yeah, failure number two so far.
3.) I'm not sure where "level to everything" was one of the new optional features they included anywhere. "All spells are quadruple nerfed into the ground" also wasn't seen anywhere. But the new action economy and some other stuff from Pathfinder Unchained was included, so half a success for that design goal.
4.) Since casters have been nerfed vehemently and (some) martials have been improved a bit, I'd have to rule that as a success. I personally don't think balance should overrule fun, though (which I know is a highly personal feeling) and PF2E so far feel very much like "nerf fun for balance" to me. As a caster fan that balancing certainly sucked the fun out of those classes for me. But that would be quibbling, since this particular design goal is about balance and party contribution. So, design goal met.
5.) Well, "except conservative white straight males who feel attacked by statements of this sort" is the unspoken subtext. As a lefty I sympathize with this design goal, but I'm well aware that there are people who feel alienated by it. It is not really about game mechanics, so IMO it's more of a philosophical point than a "design goal".
Summarizing the first four points, for me that's only a 37,5% success rate so far. It'd be good to know if there is even a chance of the core design still being changed.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the blog post thread, I mentioned that I didn't think most of the games I had played of PF1 wouldn't be translatable to PF2. I even went so far as to suggest that PF1 APs will not translate. Which, to at least some extent is hyperbole, but I do stand by it.
To a large extent, this is due to the magic changes. But, frankly, the whole system takes part. But, yes, various changes to how magic works breaks parts of plots and encounters in APs, whether that be rendering any plot points involving enchantment magic less believable or infeasible, not allowing escape tactics with teleportation nerfs, or simply making "X casts these buff spells prior to combat given the chance" rather completely impossible. And of course, none of that accounts for spell level changes.
Even ignoring magic, the system as a whole doesn't exactly encourage stuff to operate similarly enough. There's a noticeable power gap between the playtest and PF1, and that's got nothing to do with optimization in PF1. The playtest's 50/50-at-same-level nature just makes characters less effective. And what the math results in, frankly, would make me nervous to run boss encounters.
But, really what I don't get is this dismissal of "I can't play my PF1 character in PF2" in regards to the second design goal. I mean, sure, no, you're not going to be able to play the exact same character. But, is it not a problem that a close-enough version of core archetypes isn't available? Or that the version you get just isn't as good? Or heck, just can't be made thanks to combat styles being class locked?
Player characters are the way that players interact with the game, the game world, and the story that is being told. If a design goal is be able to "tell the same stories," PCs need to be able to be similar to their PF1 counterparts. After all, it's a bit hard to have a story about a paladin of Erastil when you can't exactly be an archer paladin or any other PF1 CRB concept the system doesn't actively support.
A paladin should be able to have the same narrative moments of smiting down evil. Spellcasters should get those moments when a failed save swings an encounter. The skill monkey should get moments where he is just that good that he easily succeeds at an important check. Everyone should be able to have their power moments.
I don't think the system as is supports that. I don't think I can have three PCs narrowly escape a TPK with teleport and later return to rescue their fallen party members. I don't think that my WotR party's scythe bard would get the amazing time of confirming a crit against the boss encounter, while three levels under it. I don't think that I could have as many characters that managed to live through ridiculous circumstances. I just don't think that many stories that I've had with my gaming group could ever happen with this ruleset.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.
#1 - For this, I feel like Paizo is about 70% of the way there; the character creation up to choosing class is awesome, but once feat choices come in (class feats, skill feats, extra ancestry featsm spell choices) it begins to get dicey on the learning curve. It is compounded by a myriad list of actions to take (verbal component, somatic component, material component, seek, handle animal/control animal, shield raise PLUS shield block, etc.) then topped by a list of conditions that rival the list of Conditions in Spycraft 2.0:
http://sc2srd.rpgnet.be/combat/conditions.htmlPF2 seems to at times be walking two roads: one is the D&D5-ish and OSR-ish road of "more rulings, less rules"; the other is the road of extreme specificity, as exemplified in the magic item activations and the trait tags. Spycraft 2 is a good comparison to some of the specificity that PF2 aims for at times; that game had great potential to me, but in the end I quit playing it because it strayed into territory that was just TOO rules-crunchy.
(Also, you want to talk about feat categories? http://sc2srd.rpgnet.be/feats.html)
2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.
#2 - This one is a bit ambiguous, because what the designers mean by "tell the same stories" and what quite a few posters here mean by this term seems very different. What some posters interpret this is as "to be able to take the exact same features and levelling choices as existing characters in PF1" because so many of the responses seem to come back as "I had a story about my character and his conjured manservant - because I cannot summon monster for that exact type of creature any more and because even if I could he couldn't act independently of me, I can no longer tell the same type of stories."
What the designers instead seem to be getting at is: high magic, low magic, gritty feel, sword-and-planet, sword-and-sorcery, intrigue, wilderness treks, dungeon delves, moral dilemmas, thrilling narrow victories, dominating weaker foes and having a good time doing it, etc. Style of story, rather than "the EXACT SAME story." Because frankly, unless the rules set did not change, you CANNOT tell the exact same story.
3. Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).
#3 - To an extent, I feel like Paizo has done this, but I don't envy Paizo's "rock and hard place" - they made their bread on a system that was based on denying large-scale revisions and going for smaller innovations. Now, that choice puts them into conflict with a lot of their audience who stayed because of this eschewal of core changes.
4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.
#4 - This, in fact, is the goal which causes the most friction in my eyes; role-blending and role boundary crossing had come to be a staple of PF1, as had the reinforcement of wizards' and clerics' (and Druids') supremacy in the core rules. Changes to adjust spellcasters into more dependent roles, much as their counterparts in low-level AD&D used to be, was going to be take poorly by a lot of fans and there was no way around it if this was a goal. I think the nerf-bat to spells is a bit TOO strong (especially to utility spells) but I don't believe it needs to be walked back dramatically in order to make casters feel happy.
5. Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.
#5 - From a standpoint of "removing gatekeepers" rules-wise, I agree. I think the PF1 community, as a whole, is comparatively one of the most gender,ethnicity, and sexuality-diverse RPG communities out there. Doesn't mean we don't stop trying, but I don't even see this as a goal of game rules as it is the goal of Paizo for all possible customers. (Except the undead. I discriminate highly against the undead, and may their foul unnatural members die in a fire.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has very consistently been my experience. New players or casual gamers who had previously dropped Pathfinder because of its density and complexity have been greatly enjoying the new system, while some of the more experienced players and those who have been using the PF1 framework since D&D 3E can get frustrated by the changes.
I've had a very similar experience with my newcomers, but I (8 years of Pathfinder-Gming experience, but little playing experience) and the veteran players (all with several years of experience, but all of us have moved away from the system for different reasons) felt pretty much the same way as the newcomers. Our group felt that buidling characters and getting into the game is much easier and more straight forward than in PF1, which is a huge upside to me, because I could invite people as guest players into a PF2 game without them feeling overwhelmed or alienated.
I've noticed that how people conceptualize their characters can greatly affect build time as well; if the character concept is "I want to play a elven hunter who was outcast from her people and now wanders the world making her living as a hired soldier" players seem to be able to put their characters together very quickly and intuitively. If the concept is "I want to deal the absolute maximum amount of combat damage possible while swinging a giant hammer" it can take quite a bit longer. I suspect that if you build from broad character concept following the same flow as the book (Ancestry, Background, Class, Details) it goes a lot quicker, while if you're used to a fairly common style of character building in PF1 where you pick a cool feat or mechanic and then try to form a character around optimizing that mechanic, it will take a lot longer due to how everything is laid out.
I agree with your assessement here. I was invited to play in a PF1 campaign recently and it's the first in a year or so that I have touched PF1, after having sworn of off it as a GM. I decided on a concept that would fit the theme and the campaign, but then you have dozens of different routes you could take and this lead me to having spent more time on building a level 3 PF1 character, than building a level 13 PF2 character. So it seems to me that it is much easier to build a character for PF2, if you have a narrative and story in mind, which more and more players in the hobby are wanting to focus on, I'd say, instead on focusing on stuff like system mastery, which might be more appealing to the people who are still playing PF1.
The playtest overall has led to a significant net gain in people playing Pathfinder in my area but I can't speak to what it might look like on a broader international scale.
I think this is one of the implict goals: Making PF2 more accessible to a wider audience. It seems like this goal might split the "hardcore" base of fans though, because I get the impression that some people would just want a new Pathfinder version that is what PF1 was to 3.5.
In the blog post thread, I mentioned that I didn't think most of the games I had played of PF1 wouldn't be translatable to PF2. I even went so far as to suggest that PF1 APs will not translate. Which, to at least some extent is hyperbole, but I do stand by it.
Could you maybe provide an example of that? Because the only things that I can think of that I would need to run those APs are the subsystems for the different APs, but those were obviously often released in tandem with the AP itself.
But, really what I don't get is this dismissal of "I can't play my PF1 character in PF2" in regards to the second design goal. I mean, sure, no, you're not going to be able to play the exact same character. But, is it not a problem that a close-enough version of core archetypes isn't available? Or that the version you get just isn't as good? Or heck, just can't be made thanks to combat styles being class locked?
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Saying I can't play X, Y or Z and then choosing examples that have been released at best 2 or 3 years ago feels not only disingenuous, but also misses the point that the systems wants you to allow to tell a wide range of stories and narratives, instead of focusing on the number of builds (which there are still quite a few in my opinion).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last time I decided to invite new people to Pathfinder, I promised we would use only the Core rules, to make it simple.
We wasted 4 hours to create the characters. People weren't so intested in playing after that. We played two sessions and the group dismissed after that. I invited the same people to play 5e and we were already playing after one hour character creation. For most "modern" groups, Pathfinder is just too much. I didn't know anyone interested in GMing it for a while.
I understand when people complain about customization and the things that changed, I really do. I was expecting a Pathfinder 1.5 as well - a mix of Core Rulebook with less feat taxes + character creation of Strategy Guide - not an overhaul of the system. Still, it would be hard to market it as a new product. To be honest, I welcome the changes, if it means more people are playing the game. At the moment, I see 1 Pathfinder group for each 8~9 5e groups.
Pathfinder groups are falling apart and the sales reflect that. Paizo, as a company, needed to do something in response. It's good to see the goals and I'm optmistic about it. I believe they'll deliver a good game - different, but good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might as well throw my hat in.
Goal 1) Mixed. It's easy to learn up to a point. This is however due to play test quirks, terminology, and lay out. This part can be ironed out(AC is a DC check I'm sorry wuuuuuuuut?) so I won't hold it against them too much. At actual release this kind of stuff should be fixed. However I think there's going to be less customization given how everything seems more tied to classes and dedications now. And the flexiblity of story is more a GM thing. Doesn't matter what Paizo does, if a GM can't pivot doesn't matter. And people are always going to min max so I don't know how rewarding you feel like you need to make that. So yeah, Goal 1, mixed.
Goal 2) Wat? Ummmmmm, I don't see how you can tell new stories. Or retale old stories. Not with what we have. Again some of that will come with time(Advanced Race guide, hello Tieflings), but more to the point, I don't see how the changes allow you to tell new stories. Put a different way, New stories that you couldn't do in PF1. If you're going to redo the world, yeah okay new stories. But.. why couldn't we do that in PF2? And that's just in Paizo's own setting, never mind the homebrews. I don't see PF2 adding new stories but I don't see it taking stories away in the long term. Might be hard to transfer some things but that's about it. Goal 2 is more a head scratcher.
Goal 3) 50/50? It'd be nice to have you SAY what Innovations you're using rather than taking a guess. Proficiency kinda reminds me of ABP, just a static bonus you'll grow into. But you seemed to ditch what else it did(Cough, Magic items COUGH). I also don't like to have to Wait for other innovations you seemed to have picked up after doing this for awhile. Same time I don't like some of the new ones(Hello Resonance and Dedications), so I'd like to see this defined some more. Goal 3, toss up.
Goal 4) 50/50. It seems you want both, specialized characters and classes but also to help outside of said class. This is good, I don't believe character X should ONLY be allowed to do Y checks because they are the highest. At the same time I think putting everyone near the same numbers makes it harder to stand out in your role, or makes everyone feel samey. This has to be handled well, and thus far I don't think it is.
Goal 5) Huh? Okay, so I don't think I've ever had a problem with Pazio itself or Pathfinder the system making me feel welcomed. In any way. At first yeah, but that was due to it being confusing mess(Side note I showed PF2 to a non table top friend and he thought it was confusing). New player getting into a system, making that easier to handle is a good goal. No it's the community I very much dislike, PFS at the top of that list. The Min Max, the hyper bonuses, the guide worshipers, the people that say you are badwrongfun at the drop of a hat. Is this a problem with PF1? Probably. But I don't see how PF2 is going to change that. So while Paizo hasn't felt like they've been exclusionary, I can't say the same about the community I've actually played with.
So yeah. Think you need more work. I admire what you say you want to do Paizo; but I still don't have a reason to switch over. In fact I have several reasons not to. I'll hang around to see what I can do to help but my will to test is starting to crumble.
I very much enjoy a Starfinder actual-play-podcast called Roll For Combat. The host recently interviewed James Jacobs, the creative director for Pathfinder. That interview can be found here. The entire interview is fantastic. I note that at the 55:30 mark, they talk a little bit about 2nd edition rules. If I understand correctly, Mr. Jacobs is more focused on the stories of Pathfinder and Golarion rather than the rule mechanics, so I enjoyed his perspective.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.I think the character creation rules at the beginning is the guide that needs a treatment much like the layout for the Strategy Guide, with page numbers for the particulars in a chart. like page x for fighter, page x for rogue and such. Right now, I am guessing that the rules as about a third of what will be available in the final book, though page count could be an issue. With some tweaks and adjustments, I think this goal can be realized.
With some looking at magic nerfs, my own line of thinking is that keeping with some of the traditions of magic in the old game while working with streamlining spells so that we don't have multiple copies of the same spell over and over again makes the story telling aspect go in line with the past conventions. I believe that Vancian casting could have been done away with while still Preparing slots (Known Spells) like the Arcanist, but it seems we will need to wait another 10 to 15 years for this to evolve. The biggest change will be magic items and how they are used and crafted. If this can be done right, it will be the defining aspect of the edition, and allow for a story telling that might only defer a bit instead of having a higher or lower magic campaign.2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.
Working off of number one, the biggest failure on this front is the continued inclusion of Vancian Casting. ("Fire and Forget") Ignoring and working with that, though, it seems that this goal is fractured, but workable. The Archtypes are really incorperated Prestige Classes, a better working of the Paragon inclusion of the 4venture edition. It is a good way to use multiclassing while keeping the main class going (specially when Casters still go up in spell level and get new spells) BAB is simply full on for all classes. Skills being consolidated was a good start, but need some work to be able to put more than stunts and proficiencies into them. (some way to raise them up, to become better than "proficient") Some of the mechanical PF1 givens are now niches for classes or need something else to effect (AoO's being in the forfront) I believe this is where the most work needs to be done to get this system tweaked out for the final product.3. Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).
As we go into this and that, this goal needs to be, and needed to be, on the forefront of every system produced, otherwise we have Assassins from 1st edition running ruffshod on the game and making every other option secondary. The problem, which I think Paizo is mostly avoiding, is making it so that every option is the same as the other for the sake of balance. This was the main flaw and downfall of 4th edition, and the reason it has such a short lifespan. PF1 went in the other direction, giving out great and powerful options or getting some truly lousy options that should not have seen print. Most of these were spells, archtypes and feats that went above or below the line, and there are a few classes that also get this way. (though most classes were balanced through errata) For PF2, the structure of the playtest is a good start, and should make for a balanced game while providing a wealth of possibilities for the character to explore. I think it surpasses what the Core Rulebook had for sure and will give the competition a run for it's money.
4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.
5. Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.
For the most part, this is a statement that is a story driven goal more so than a design one. I seen some of the androgyny of the races included in Starfinder as a nod in this direction for the political skewed meaning of this statement. A lot of PF1 society play has seen more than a fair share of inclusion of this sort that is on the verge of groans and amusement rather than the expected oohs and aahs. Anyone can sit down and enjoy this game without being playacted to, so I believe concentrating on the basics would be the best way to provide us this ruleset, and having inclusive content should be balanced with some of the norms that are prevalent in society instead of having them pushed aside almost to their exclusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once Teleport comes online, it has seen tons of use. Last year our off-target Teleport landed us in the middle of the ocean (and the requisites for off-target Teleport in P2 were fulfilled, incidentally), but we managed to get home thanks to it having a short casting time. Floundering about in a raging storm trying to spend 10 minutes casting the spell while people in heavy armor roll 1s on their Swim check...sounds like a TPK to me.
Hey, another great argument why that particular nerf to Teleport (and, in conjunction tot hat, the one to Dimension Door) are counterproductive. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
5. While it's simpler than PF1 it still is going to be a lot of peoples second game coming from 5e since that is just the TTRPG landscape thees days. I think if they want to get players they should make sure it is an easy jump from 5e to PF2.I think this is really important for Paizo to keep in mind. When PF1 came out, the majority of the 3.X veterans who served as the gateway for new players to join the hobby adopted it, which meant it was still a lot of new players’ first system. If you were a newcomer looking to get into the hobby, and you knew someone who played, there was a good chance you’d ask them to teach you, and there was also a good chance they’d tell you “You’ve probably heard of D&D, but D&D has kind of drifted away from what made it cool lately. You should try this other game called Pathfinder that’s like an unofficial spiritual successor to D&D. It’s what most of us have switched to.” Whereas, nowadays, a potential new player is probably more likely to look to streaming games like Critical Role than to veteran players, and most of those are D&D 5e. Plus, while many of the 3.X vets are still playing Pathfinder, some have gone back to D&D, as have a significant portion of the OSR crowd. So now, new players are more likely to play D&D first again, which puts Pathfinder in a very different position than it was when it started. Instead of being the 3rd party game that does D&D better than D&D does in a time when popular wisdom says D&D has lost its way, Pathfinder is the 3rd party game based on an outdated version of D&D in a time when D&D is doing better than it has done in decades. It can no longer sell itself on being the better version of D&D, so it has to find its own unique selling point. It will probably be most new players’ second game, so to keep them, it has to do something they can’t get from their first.
That's a very good point. I love PF1, and enjoy the hell out of SF, but a lot of the people I play with are big into 5e. I'm not, but I see the appeal.
Honestly? So far PF2 is just 5e with extra steps. Low magic, emphasis on doing things only one or two ways, but still as complicated at PF1 was when it was only the CRB.
I'm playing a 3.5 game with another player who learned on 5e. The dude regularly comments: "Wait I/you can do what now?" in regards to spellcasters, and what even low level magic items are capable of. None of us are optimized, but there's still crazy stuff you can do in the high magic world of 3.5/PF1 without optimized builds.
I think PF2 would do much better if it was a high magic version of 5e than it will as a low magic version of PF1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charitably put, these are generalized mission statements. Less charitably, they are meaningless platitudes.
What I would (yes, still!) like to read is a design goal with regard to a specific system. Ideally, with an explanation of how, in the designer's mind, the new system achieves this goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see a thread title say "lets talk about ___" My mind goes to a certain salt and pepper song.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s talk about text?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the blog post thread, I mentioned that I didn't think most of the games I had played of PF1 wouldn't be translatable to PF2. I even went so far as to suggest that PF1 APs will not translate. Which, to at least some extent is hyperbole, but I do stand by it.Could you maybe provide an example of that? Because the only things that I can think of that I would need to run those APs are the subsystems for the different APs, but those were obviously often released in tandem with the AP itself.
Late reply, but generally the instances I was thinking of apply to NPC magic-use in APs. Though, in addition to that, the change in capabilities, whether magic-based or class-based or skill-based, would definitely cause translation issues. And, of course, there's the toted example of "why should I be scared of Karzoug now?" But, beyond that:
Though this particular case could be more of 1 hour vs. multiple given that it's the BBEG of the first book using the spell against some expert that's a ship captain. But at a DC 16 (meaning critical failure is only so likely) in the new Bestiary, the scenario has its believability reduced.
Though, considering it again, in SS's case, it's the lack of rules for Serpentfolk advancement at higher HD (or I suppose level for PF2) that would mess with the challenges in the later books. Not an impossible thing to accommodate for, but still something.
A lot of what I spoiler'd is pretty easy to fiat, admittedly, but I think that having the 'behind the scenes' parts of adventures still be reasonable scenarios is important to keep a sense of immersion. I'd have to go to my AP books for other examples. It's been a while since I ran SS and CotCT, and thus far WotR (only just finished Book 1) has minimal issues... other than the whole "paladins can't smite" thing... Wow, that's actually pretty bad now that I think of it.
...wait. Feather Fall only targets one person now and only lasts 1 minute!? Okay. Nevermind what I said. Wrath of the Righteous is actually just a TPK machine if Feather Fall is one person only.
I guess that pile's going to be a bit bigger under PF2 rules. Assuming silver dragons don't get to cheat with their SLAs.
Late reply, but generally the instances I was thinking of apply to NPC magic-use in APs. Though, in addition to that, the change in capabilities, whether magic-based or class-based or skill-based, would definitely cause translation issues. And, of course, there's the toted example of "why should I be scared of Karzoug now?" But, beyond that:
Thank you for providing a couple of examples, sadly I haven't played or run any of these, so I'll have to answer based only on the information that you've given.
Honestly I don't see any, or at worst only minor, problems with these examples, because I (and I'd also say my players) have always accepted that the game, especially magic, isn't always symmetrical. With that I mean that the NPCs, monsters and enemies, and by an extend the GM, has tools at their disposal that the PCs and the players don't get.
Why be scared of Karozug? Because he is a milenia old wizard, who uses a school of magic that has been long lost and mostly forgotten. With his Rune Magic he could have Rituals and rare spells that not many people have access to and I like that the new rarity system of spells actually reflects that narrative better than ever before. It doesn't necessarily mean players don't have access to those tools, they just have to work hard for those to get them. It also means there is now room for campaign specific spells, which I'm kinda excited about, because why would everyyone around Golarion have the same magic and why would it manifest everywhere in the same way? It doesn't and shouldn't, that's why we got Rune Magic and Occult Magic from PF1. You could also introduce new flavours of Magic to make a region feel more exotic, like Tian Xia for example.
The dragon example is another one where I'd say narrative trumps the rules for me: Why wouldn't a hundreds (I don't know the actual age of dragon) of years old dragon have more potent abilities and spells, than a regular wizard? This still feels consistent and coherent and thus doesn't break the verisimilitude of the setting, nor of magic in general.
But I can see that people can have a problem with these scenarios, if the value the rules and RAW much stronger than me, but I mostly prefer if the GM has some wiggle room for the narrative's and story's sake. That's why I also enjoy that the Playtest puts more decisions straight up in the hands of the GM, because a system can hardly micro-manage people through the rules, so it has to put some trust in the person running it.