Reasons why I no longer trust Paizo to produce 2E


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rangers actually got to skip PBS thanks to their combat style. They only took it if they were dedicated archers and not switch hitters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Travis Enright wrote:


[list]

  • Survey writing is difficult

  • Oh, I don't know about that...


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    oholoko wrote:
    ErichAD wrote:


    I consider that slightly preferable to some 2handers getting nothing and some archers getting nothing.

    Well PF1 characters weren't functional in combat without feats. Right now you can play an sorcerer archer level 1 with just being an elf and a ancestry feat, you will be no ranger, fighter or rogue. But you will do a lot better without the silly rules that 2e does away with...

    So you start with nothing "and that's a good thing"? Silly indeed. You make a guy and you pick up a bow, that's not an archer that's equipment.

    Paizo Employee

    10 people marked this as a favorite.
    ErichAD wrote:
    oholoko wrote:
    ErichAD wrote:


    I consider that slightly preferable to some 2handers getting nothing and some archers getting nothing.

    Well PF1 characters weren't functional in combat without feats. Right now you can play an sorcerer archer level 1 with just being an elf and a ancestry feat, you will be no ranger, fighter or rogue. But you will do a lot better without the silly rules that 2e does away with...

    So you start with nothing "and that's a good thing"? Silly indeed. You make a guy and you pick up a bow, that's not an archer that's equipment.

    Whereas in PF1 you got the illusion of gaining abilities that are baked into the core of the Playtest. PF1 had a lot of taxes that made you think you were getting good at something when really you were just leaping the hurdles to do that thing with any kind of effectiveness. The playtest removes most of those hurdles and allows you to start out with the tools you need instead of forcing you to buy them as you go. A sorcerer archer may not have archery feats but they have the widest array of spell choices available to any class for assembling spells that can support and enhance their archery, as well as having a reasonable chance of actually hitting things. When feats like Magical Striker come online they even get a cool ranged-Spellstrike style option that they can use to be a sorcerer and archer simultaneously and effectively. That's an option that didn't exist in PF1 without a large number of splatbooks and very narrow build choices. A cleric of Erastil with a longbow can grab spells that buff their accuracy, improve their positioning, and otherwise increase their effectiveness without spending any class feats on archery-specific abilities, and you don't need an archetype just to make sure you can effectively shoot stuff before 5th level.

    If you want to be a master archer in the playtest, yes, there are certain classes that have significant advantages, like fighter and ranger. But to be a competent archer all you need is a bow and some complimentary tactics and options (like spells, sneak attack, skill feats, or whatever) and you're not required to focus so heavily on it you lose out on your other abilities. I think that each class having their own specific way that they can do a combat style like archery effectively while still retaining their core identity is good, and arguably significantly better than anyone who wants to use a bow being forced down the exact same feat chain regardless of how good a fit it is for their class. YMMV.


    8 people marked this as a favorite.

    Removing one means of character differentiation in favor of others isn't an upgrade. It isn't fun sitting down and making a character only to discover that most of your choices aren't related to your intent with the character and you may as well randomize them. Except your race and first race feat which are spoken for, but that's a problem that exists in PF1 as well.

    I'm not too concerned about being forced into jumping baked in illusionary hurdles of choice. Getting a bunch of character unrelated and sort of boring choices is worse.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I might be late to respond, but I think Marvin's points are very salient. And as such, they deserve a response.

    Marvin the Marvellous wrote:

    I am probably going to be stepping 'in it' when I say this but...

    To the people who feel that 1e was perfect...

    Noone, not even the designers back when it was released, believed it was perfect.

    Marvin the Marvellous wrote:

    It wasn't. Not even close, and getting farther from with every new release.

    I love Pathfinder. My group and I have been playing it for years, but the shear weight of the materials available was making the system too difficult to manage. Fundamentally, the problem was balance oriented. A lot of the material outside the core books seemed thrown together with little thought to game balance. I found myself approving a few books only, and even then barring a whole lot of material because it was OP'ed for the level. And even then, the barrage of player requests about this, that or other feat or power was non stop.

    Bolding has been added for emphasis. I feel exactly the same way. It's actually possible to point to the publication that started this trend.

    The Advanced Player's Guide. Specifically the Witch, Alchemist and Oracle.
    Giving characters at-will abilities with a save DC of 10+half-character-level+primary modifier was the start of the imbalances of Pathfinder.

    But when you're releasing a new system, it stands to reason that existing material should not be automatically included.

    Marvin the Marvellous wrote:


    I might be the only one who has had this experience, but I doubt it.

    My experience with 2e is limited, but from what I van tell going through and making my own material up to run levels between the playtest material, is this new system has some built in checks to help balance that and I think its way overdue.

    There are checks built into Pathfinder. They were ignored. Notice how it's almost impossible to get Dex-to-Damage in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder. Notice how it's very difficult to get high-DC at-will abilities in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder.

    The checks were there. That they weren't followed is a lesson that hopefully the developers have learnt. And any revision that doesn't carte blanc allow all the existing splatbooks would have the same effect.

    Marvin the Marvellous wrote:


    Its not the same. It takes a bit of getting used to. It has some rough edges and it needs more material.

    But I think it will rock.

    And here lies the problem. You're comparing the "bad parts" of Pathfinder (that the splatbooks cause imbalance) with the "good parts" of PF2 (that there are no splatbooks to cause imbalance).


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    ErichAD wrote:

    Removing one means of character differentiation in favor of others isn't an upgrade. It isn't fun sitting down and making a character only to discover that most of your choices aren't related to your intent with the character and you may as well randomize them. Except your race and first race feat which are spoken for, but that's a problem that exists in PF1 as well.

    I'm not too concerned about being forced into jumping baked in illusionary hurdles of choice. Getting a bunch of character unrelated and sort of boring choices is worse.

    Sure, I can be the only one who's able to jump hurdles, but that's only because everyone else has weights tied to their ankles.


    Cyouni wrote:
    Sure, I can be the only one who's able to jump hurdles, but that's only because everyone else has weights tied to their ankles.

    Me and my friends were actually talking about that the other day xD

    Silver Crusade

    19 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    in◆⃟ wrote:

    I might be late to respond, but I think Marvin's points are very salient. And as such, they deserve a response.

    Marvin the Marvellous wrote:

    I am probably going to be stepping 'in it' when I say this but...

    To the people who feel that 1e was perfect...

    Noone, not even the designers back when it was released, believed it was perfect.

    Marvin the Marvellous wrote:

    It wasn't. Not even close, and getting farther from with every new release.

    I love Pathfinder. My group and I have been playing it for years, but the shear weight of the materials available was making the system too difficult to manage. Fundamentally, the problem was balance oriented. A lot of the material outside the core books seemed thrown together with little thought to game balance. I found myself approving a few books only, and even then barring a whole lot of material because it was OP'ed for the level. And even then, the barrage of player requests about this, that or other feat or power was non stop.

    Bolding has been added for emphasis. I feel exactly the same way. It's actually possible to point to the publication that started this trend.

    The Advanced Player's Guide. Specifically the Witch, Alchemist and Oracle.
    Giving characters at-will abilities with a save DC of 10+half-character-level+primary modifier was the start of the imbalances of Pathfinder.

    But when you're releasing a new system, it stands to reason that existing material should not be automatically included.

    Marvin the Marvellous wrote:


    I might be the only one who has had this experience, but I doubt it.

    My experience with 2e is limited, but from what I van tell going through and making my own material up to run levels between the playtest material, is this new system has some built in checks to help balance that and I think its way overdue.

    There are checks built into Pathfinder. They were ignored. Notice how it's almost impossible to get Dex-to-Damage in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder. Notice how it's...

    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e didn't come from splatbooks or from Alchemist (I'm really curious which Alchemist ability was an at-will gamebreaker, tho).

    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e was inherited from 3/3.5, it existed right there in the Core Rulebook and manifested itself in Cleric, Druid and Wizard being presented as anywhere close to balanced and equally valid choices to Rogue and Monk.

    That and core spells such as color spray, sleep and scry+fry combo. Everything that Paizo put out in splatbooks was simply gravy on the top of fundamental problems that came with the 3.5 chassis.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    in◆⃟ wrote:
    Giving characters at-will abilities with a save DC of 10+half-character-level+primary modifier was the start of the imbalances of Pathfinder.

    That's how it should have been for spells from the beginning (I house-ruled, thus, long ago). Having DCs for lower level spells suck donkey bottom is not a balancing factor/check of 3rd Ed/PF1.


    23 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Gorbacz wrote:

    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e didn't come from splatbooks or from Alchemist (I'm really curious which Alchemist ability was an at-will gamebreaker, tho).

    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e was inherited from 3/3.5, it existed right there in the Core Rulebook and manifested itself in Cleric, Druid and Wizard being presented as anywhere close to balanced and equally valid choices to Rogue and Monk.

    That and core spells such as color spray, sleep and scry+fry combo. Everything that Paizo put out in splatbooks was simply gravy on the top of fundamental problems that came with the 3.5 chassis.

    The problem with that ideology is that if you want to equalize everyone, you end up with a goop of a system where everyone feels the same. We know where that leads, because we are here because of just such a decision by another well-known RPG company.

    Classes are inherently different in D&D/PF. You know that you are playing a different kind of character when you roll a Rogue than when you are playing a Sorcerer or a Bard or an Alchemist. But that makes playing those classes interesting in the first place.

    The solution the devs found for PF2E to hit all casters with five nerfhammers at the same time make the new edition inherently unappealing to a substantial part of their customer base. The better solution would have been (IMO, of course) targeted nerfs at problem spells (like the ones you mentioned), buffs for martials to have a more significant impact later in the campaign and buffs for monsters to compensate.

    I really must wonder where you specifically would have stood if that were the direction they would have gone in. Given that you are mostly concerned with accessability for new players. The new mechanics as they are don't make the game inherently less complicated than last edition, IMO. Just less enjoyable for a segment of the customer base.

    Silver Crusade

    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Excuse me, but I don't have time for "what-if" conversations. Too busy playtesting, two games coming up this week :)


    13 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Alrighty then. Have fun! Two PF1E games for me this week. :)

    Grand Lodge

    Gorbacz wrote:


    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e didn't come from splatbooks or from Alchemist (I'm really curious which Alchemist ability was an at-will gamebreaker, tho).

    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e was inherited from 3/3.5, it existed right there in the Core Rulebook and manifested itself in Cleric, Druid and Wizard being presented as anywhere close to balanced and equally valid choices to Rogue and Monk.

    That and core spells such as color spray, sleep and scry+fry combo. Everything that Paizo put out in splatbooks was simply gravy on the top of fundamental problems that came with the 3.5 chassis.

    Marvin's post had no complaints about the Core Rulebook being unbalanced. Their complaints were directed at the splatbooks.

    Whether the Core Rulebook issues were actually issues is immaterial to this discussion (but has been discussed at length elsewhere).


    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    Leafar Cathal wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:


    If I wanted to get someone with 0 experience into the game, I would use Basic D&D, 2nd Ed AD&D, or 5th Ed.

    Let's face it: introducing someone to 5e will just make them to stay there. Unless someone really enjoy more complexity (which, in my experience, most don't), people will stick with 5e. It's the trend. People are talking about 5e, streaming 5e, podcasting 5e, it's the best seller fantasy RPG. It has D&D in it's name.

    Tabletop RPG isn't a niche anymore. Either you make it easier for people to get on (and GM it) or your product will disappear.

    Yes, which is all the more surprising they would go with such a fiddly, micro-laden system. I was hoping for more streamlining.

    More streamlining begs the question, why not just play 5e? They are in this place now of not really being custmosable, riddled with MMO mechanics to force characters into fixed roles, a feat tax of a 'Multiclass' system, which isn't multiclassing, at all,just a feat tax to gate what were core combat and casting feats for 'reasons', the horrible general and skill feats (why are they a thing? Get rid of them totally and save the page count for things worth the name feat)..yea, oh and the Golarion 'super caster overlords' such as the whispering tyrant or the runelords? Given the state of spells right now, why haven't they been cut to mince meat? Pure casters are awful right now.


    11 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Ssalarn wrote:
    ErichAD wrote:
    oholoko wrote:
    ErichAD wrote:


    I consider that slightly preferable to some 2handers getting nothing and some archers getting nothing.

    Well PF1 characters weren't functional in combat without feats. Right now you can play an sorcerer archer level 1 with just being an elf and a ancestry feat, you will be no ranger, fighter or rogue. But you will do a lot better without the silly rules that 2e does away with...

    So you start with nothing "and that's a good thing"? Silly indeed. You make a guy and you pick up a bow, that's not an archer that's equipment.

    Whereas in PF1 you got the illusion of gaining abilities that are baked into the core of the Playtest. PF1 had a lot of taxes that made you think you were getting good at something when really you were just leaping the hurdles to do that thing with any kind of effectiveness. The playtest removes most of those hurdles and allows you to start out with the tools you need instead of forcing you to buy them as you go. A sorcerer archer may not have archery feats but they have the widest array of spell choices available to any class for assembling spells that can support and enhance their archery, as well as having a reasonable chance of actually hitting things. When feats like Magical Striker come online they even get a cool ranged-Spellstrike style option that they can use to be a sorcerer and archer simultaneously and effectively. That's an option that didn't exist in PF1 without a large number of splatbooks and very narrow build choices. A cleric of Erastil with a longbow can grab spells that buff their accuracy, improve their positioning, and otherwise increase their effectiveness without spending any class feats on archery-specific abilities, and you don't need an archetype just to make sure you can effectively shoot stuff before 5th level.

    If you want to be a master archer in the playtest, yes, there are certain classes that have significant advantages, like fighter and ranger. But to be a competent...

    So much this. Feat taxes don't make the game more customizable. It makes it less. If you need some feats to make a simple build work like an Archer, then you're not making choices. You're making a single choice that locks you down a feat path. I've already seen many different types of Archers in the playtest. (Cleric multiclass fighter, straight Ranger, an intimidate Rogue) They all felt very different but were all competent at archery. That's impossible with the core rulebook of 1e. every single archer takes the same feats, and ends up feeling the exact same in gameplay.

    Grand Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rob Godfrey wrote:


    More streamlining begs the question, why not just play 5e? They are in this place now of not really being custmosable, riddled with MMO mechanics to force characters into fixed roles, a feat tax of a 'Multiclass' system, which isn't multiclassing, at all,just a feat tax to gate what were core combat and casting feats for 'reasons', the horrible general and skill feats (why are they a thing? Get rid of them totally and save the page count for things worth the name feat)..yea, oh and the Golarion 'super caster overlords' such as the whispering tyrant or the runelords? Given the state of spells right now, why haven't they been cut to mince meat? Pure casters are awful right now.

    Yet, besides all the "flaws" you mentioned, 5e managed to be the most successful RPG ever. And that's huge. It might not be for you, I get that... But people play it, enjoy it, stream it. It's the most played game on roll20. Can you say the same about 1E at the moment? I can't even find Pathfinder players (I do have a policy to never mix experienced players with newbies, because experienced players usually steal newbies niches and spotlight), it's been years since I've met a new Pathfinder GM, most of them just give up. I see Pathfinder disappearing day after day. I've lost a bunch of players to 5e (they even try to persuade me to GM 5e for them), besides not having a proper SRD, besides not having an official PDF support, besides charging again for material you're already bought (Beyond). Besides all it's flaws, people moved on.

    I don't see the point of "why not just play 5e". I'm a Paizo enthusiast, I want them to be on top. I want to see Pathfinder everywhere. Paizo is miles ahead of Hasbro. It might not be the same game - but new players are way more receptive to playtest than 1E. It's easier to teach, to just jump on and play.

    I agree that the rules presentation is horrible at the moment and they need to make spells more interesting. The nerf hammer was just too much - but I do believe Paizo is working on that, the same way they're trying to fix Resonance, which was highly unpopular.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:
    pauljathome wrote:
    Dire Ursus wrote:
    Every archer gets point blank shot... Wow so much variance.

    I agree that all Core Archers get Point blank shot.

    But my Cleric of Erastil Archer is quite different than my shapeshifting druid archer who is, in turn, different from my Ranger Archer. I found the Core Fighter too boring to ever make a fighter archer but he'd be different too :-).

    I can make more different viable Archers in PF1 than I can in PF2 Playtest.

    I would agree if you replace "viable" with "optimal".

    However, my impression of PF2e is that any character with a Dex of 16+ who picks up a bow they are trained in is viable as an archer. That seems to be an intentional conceit of the system.

    Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    tivadar27 wrote:
    MaxAstro wrote:
    pauljathome wrote:
    Dire Ursus wrote:
    Every archer gets point blank shot... Wow so much variance.

    I agree that all Core Archers get Point blank shot.

    But my Cleric of Erastil Archer is quite different than my shapeshifting druid archer who is, in turn, different from my Ranger Archer. I found the Core Fighter too boring to ever make a fighter archer but he'd be different too :-).

    I can make more different viable Archers in PF1 than I can in PF2 Playtest.

    I would agree if you replace "viable" with "optimal".

    However, my impression of PF2e is that any character with a Dex of 16+ who picks up a bow they are trained in is viable as an archer. That seems to be an intentional conceit of the system.

    Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.

    This is not my experience at all. Other classes have ways to boost their combat effectiveness without just having higher proficiency. Spell casters have spells. The rogue has trickery and sneak attack damage (and intimidate if you go for that build). All of these are things the classes have baked in that don't require spending resources to specialize. Very viable.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    tivadar27 wrote:
    Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.

    50% chance if you are fighting a monster of equal level.

    PF2e is fairly clearly built on the assumption that the majority of your encounters will be against multiple creatures lower level than you - in which case you are hitting much more reliably - or single creatures of your level - in which case action economy is in your favor enough that a 50% miss chance is fine.

    Keep in mind that Doomsday Door is an overspecced, intentionally brutal module that shouldn't be representative of what typical challenges in an Adventure Path will be.

    EDIT: It's also fairly unfair to assume that the person who is building their character as an archer won't have a magical bow.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:
    tivadar27 wrote:
    Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.

    50% chance if you are fighting a monster of equal level.

    PF2e is fairly clearly built on the assumption that the majority of your encounters will be against multiple creatures lower level than you - in which case you are hitting much more reliably - or single creatures of your level - in which case action economy is in your favor enough that a 50% miss chance is fine.

    Keep in mind that Doomsday Door is an overspecced, intentionally brutal module that shouldn't be representative of what typical challenges in an Adventure Path will be.

    EDIT: It's also fairly unfair to assume that the person who is building their character as an archer won't have a magical bow.

    i dunno, assuming any level of wealth/gear is nebulous at best--particularly when someone gets the words "low magic" into their heads (not realizing the entire system is built off that assumption).


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:
    50% chance if you are fighting a monster of equal level.

    The shift from Challenge Rating to Level is one of the best simplifications in the playtest but...for whatever reason...it seems to be a major sticking point. Many complaints have to do with being on par with monsters on the same level when, in my opinion, this explicit design is refreshing.

    Now - the Bestiary needs some work and re-balancing. Most creatures need at least one exploitable saving throw and most creatures should have their Perception dialed down. But I welcome same level challenges being, generally, on par with the player characters. It seems intuitive.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dire Ursus wrote:
    Ssalarn wrote:
    ErichAD wrote:
    oholoko wrote:
    ErichAD wrote:


    I consider that slightly preferable to some 2handers getting nothing and some archers getting nothing.

    Well PF1 characters weren't functional in combat without feats. Right now you can play an sorcerer archer level 1 with just being an elf and a ancestry feat, you will be no ranger, fighter or rogue. But you will do a lot better without the silly rules that 2e does away with...

    So you start with nothing "and that's a good thing"? Silly indeed. You make a guy and you pick up a bow, that's not an archer that's equipment.

    Whereas in PF1 you got the illusion of gaining abilities that are baked into the core of the Playtest. PF1 had a lot of taxes that made you think you were getting good at something when really you were just leaping the hurdles to do that thing with any kind of effectiveness. The playtest removes most of those hurdles and allows you to start out with the tools you need instead of forcing you to buy them as you go. A sorcerer archer may not have archery feats but they have the widest array of spell choices available to any class for assembling spells that can support and enhance their archery, as well as having a reasonable chance of actually hitting things. When feats like Magical Striker come online they even get a cool ranged-Spellstrike style option that they can use to be a sorcerer and archer simultaneously and effectively. That's an option that didn't exist in PF1 without a large number of splatbooks and very narrow build choices. A cleric of Erastil with a longbow can grab spells that buff their accuracy, improve their positioning, and otherwise increase their effectiveness without spending any class feats on archery-specific abilities, and you don't need an archetype just to make sure you can effectively shoot stuff before 5th level.

    If you want to be a master archer in the playtest, yes, there are certain classes that have significant advantages, like fighter and

    ...

    It's true that point blank shot/rapid shot/precise shot are often near mandatory (except arguably for rangers/slayers who can bypass PBS), but for me that doesn't mean it's all doom and gloom, or that every Archer is the same.

    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.

    If however you accept the premise that PBS/RS/PC are In fact requirements for any archer, the feat tax will be completed by level 5 at WORST, sooner for humans or anyone with access to more feats. And then there's the fact that a fighter, magus, ranger, slayer, warpriest, cleric, monk and paladin all have really different class based avenues for customization.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rob Godfrey wrote:
    More streamlining begs the question, why not just play 5e? They are in this place now of not really being custmosable, riddled with MMO mechanics to force characters into fixed roles, a feat tax of a 'Multiclass' system, which isn't multiclassing, at all,just a feat tax to gate what were core combat and casting feats for 'reasons', the horrible general and skill feats (why are they a thing? Get rid of them totally and save the page count for things worth the name feat)..yea, oh and the Golarion 'super caster overlords' such as the whispering tyrant or the runelords? Given the state of spells right now, why haven't they been cut to mince meat? Pure casters are awful right now.

    A few questions for you.

    1) What MMO roles are you seeing? I can't see any tanks, and I can't see any healers (the channel ability of clerics is on top of their others, exactly to avoid forcing people to build for healing only). Skills are a free choice. Please explain what mechanics are you talking about.

    2) What can be considered multiclassing? I guess, just the way you are used to, which didn't work when used naively, nor in most other cases. To me, what PF2 is doing IS multiclassing, and a much better version of that.

    3) Do you like that casters can easily bend the narrative to their will?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Zolanoteph said wrote:

    It's true that point blank shot/rapid shot/precise shot are often near mandatory (except arguably for rangers/slayers who can bypass PBS), but for me that doesn't mean it's all doom and gloom, or that every Archer is the same.

    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.

    If however you accept the premise that PBS/RS/PC are In fact requirements for any archer, the feat tax will be completed by level 5 at WORST, sooner for humans or anyone with access to more feats. And then there's the fact that a fighter, magus, ranger, slayer, warpriest, cleric, monk and paladin all have really different class based avenues for customization.

    Well it's hard to compare the playtest documents level of customization with CRB and APG when the playtest document is not even completed. Paizo have stated several times that there will be more class feats for certain classes and generally more content in the final version, alluding that paladins would get some archery support in those.

    I think even with the amount of support currently in the playtest that you can build quite different archers, and I don't mind that not every class feat for every class is build toward a singular strategy for the class. Say currently a paladin archer might also be a bit more of a caster with various domain powers (he has the free hand for casting), the fighter excels at multishots or on various specialized shots, rangers are all about the number of attacks, sorc/wizards are all about getting that one strong attack with magical striker/ true strike and a rogue might use certain tactics to get the opponent flat-footed for his shot. If you don't like the niche for the class, you then have the option to multiclass to get your archery closer to the way another class is doing it.

    For further customization in pathfinder 2 I would assume that the amount of class feats for each class would be close(r) to equal for the most classes in the final version, instead of having 67 for fighters and 24 for bards. Fighters might still be the highest but around 30-40 for the most classes don't seem unrealistic to me; but time will tell.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Zolanoteph wrote:
    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.

    Yep, and Zen Archery (Wis modifier to ranged attacks), Charming the Arrow (Cha modifier to ranged attacks), and Manyshot, etc, etc; the sun does not rise and set on 3 feats.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    Zolanoteph wrote:
    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.
    Yep, and Zen Archery (Wis modifier to ranged attacks), Charming the Arrow (Cha modifier to ranged attacks), and Manyshot, etc, etc; the sun does not rise and set on 3 feats.

    I thought those where 3.5 feats... From splatbooks that came years after the core.


    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Leafar Cathal wrote:
    Rob Godfrey wrote:


    More streamlining begs the question, why not just play 5e? They are in this place now of not really being custmosable, riddled with MMO mechanics to force characters into fixed roles, a feat tax of a 'Multiclass' system, which isn't multiclassing, at all,just a feat tax to gate what were core combat and casting feats for 'reasons', the horrible general and skill feats (why are they a thing? Get rid of them totally and save the page count for things worth the name feat)..yea, oh and the Golarion 'super caster overlords' such as the whispering tyrant or the runelords? Given the state of spells right now, why haven't they been cut to mince meat? Pure casters are awful right now.

    Yet, besides all the "flaws" you mentioned, 5e managed to be the most successful RPG ever. And that's huge. It might not be for you, I get that... But people play it, enjoy it, stream it. It's the most played game on roll20. Can you say the same about 1E at the moment? I can't even find Pathfinder players (I do have a policy to never mix experienced players with newbies, because experienced players usually steal newbies niches and spotlight), it's been years since I've met a new Pathfinder GM, most of them just give up. I see Pathfinder disappearing day after day. I've lost a bunch of players to 5e (they even try to persuade me to GM 5e for them), besides not having a proper SRD, besides not having an official PDF support, besides charging again for material you're already bought (Beyond). Besides all it's flaws, people moved on.

    I don't see the point of "why not just play 5e". I'm a Paizo enthusiast, I want them to be on top. I want to see Pathfinder everywhere. Paizo is miles ahead of Hasbro. It might not be the same game - but new players are way more receptive to playtest than 1E. It's easier to teach, to just jump on and play.

    I agree that the rules presentation is horrible at the moment and they need to make spells more interesting. The nerf hammer was just too much - but I do believe...

    I was listing flaws with the playtest, currently I am genuinely struggling to see how the Playtest offers things 5e doesn't, the entire stick of PF was being complicated and allowing you to build anything you liked (maybe optimisation followed set paths, but optimising also made super heroes, which has it's moments), with the playtest optimisation keeps you at 50% chance of failure, and I at least feel like the monsters are far more powerful, versatile, skilled, and fun, than the PCs. Who are strait jacketed behind 'dedications feat gates' and the removal of general combat feats forcing things like the truly awful Ranger TWF feats (the errata one, that is far, far worse than what it replaced, because secondary attacks at full MAP are a trap option in the first place, PCs are to weak and pathetic to hit monsters more than once a turn) Seriously the Playtest needs to set itself apart in ways that are fun from, mainly 5e, but also, WFRP that does 'weak, pathetic, squishy mortals in a world of monsters' better as well, or hell the Call of Cthulu Roman setting does as well.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    oholoko wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    Zolanoteph wrote:
    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.
    Yep, and Zen Archery (Wis modifier to ranged attacks), Charming the Arrow (Cha modifier to ranged attacks), and Manyshot, etc, etc; the sun does not rise and set on 3 feats.
    I thought those where 3.5 feats... From splatbooks that came years after the core.

    That would describe PF1, in it's entirety.

    Anyway, you do not need these 3 feats in order to be an effective archer; you may not be dazzling, but you are perfectly functional. I guess many now want their cake and Edith, too.

    Dark Archive

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    I hope Paizo makes a good game.
    For the most part I’m not a fan of the playtest so far and I can think of 3 things that could totally fix it.
    But I feel that paizo has a set game plan and it won't deviate too much from the feedback.
    That is why I'm looking at 2nd/playtest as an entirely different game.
    I don't know if 1st is genuinely better or if this is just nostalgia, but it is obvious that we are losing A LOT of customizing in character creation and that's my biggest bother
    But again I'll see it as a different game, I'll still keep participating in the playtest, but if 2nd ed is what I've see so far my groups probably going to stick with 1st


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    oholoko wrote:


    I thought those where 3.5 feats... From splatbooks that came years after the core.

    That would describe PF1, in it's entirety.

    Anyway, you do not need these 3 feats in order to be an effective archer; you may not be dazzling, but you are perfectly functional. I guess many now want their cake and Edith, too.

    Well you kind of do need 2 feets to even be an archer in pf. I mean precise shot makes archer playable, but about the rest of the feats PF2 might get them in due time.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Leafar Cathal wrote:
    I can't even find Pathfinder players (I do have a policy to never mix experienced players with newbies, because experienced players usually steal newbies niches and spotlight)

    Is that a general policy, or based on the behavior of your experienced players? Because that's not a good policy to have when introducing newbies to the game. What you want are experienced players who will build around what the newbie wants to play and let them shine, which is something a table of all newbies has a hard time doing.

    That will make it a lot harder to introduce people to the game. Although yes, at this point 5e has largely taken the spotlight.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:
    tivadar27 wrote:
    Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.

    50% chance if you are fighting a monster of equal level.

    PF2e is fairly clearly built on the assumption that the majority of your encounters will be against multiple creatures lower level than you - in which case you are hitting much more reliably - or single creatures of your level - in which case action economy is in your favor enough that a 50% miss chance is fine.

    Keep in mind that Doomsday Door is an overspecced, intentionally brutal module that shouldn't be representative of what typical challenges in an Adventure Path will be.

    EDIT: It's also fairly unfair to assume that the person who is building their character as an archer won't have a magical bow.

    You could be correct that this is the expectation. If so, I don't understand why they're playtesting largely something that's *not* the expectation/not a relevant mode of play. Doomsday Dawn has about half the encounters with opponents that are at or above your level, which you seem to be pointing out. Has your point here been stated anywhere?

    Also, seeing as we were promised "you can tell the same stories you used to tell in PF1", then I think it's valid to be mislead about this. One big boss with a couple low level minions against a party of 4-6 was a pretty common paradigm in PF1e, and it'd be a shame if 2e doesn't allow this narrative to continue naturally.

    EDIT: The initial argument was "anyone who picks up a bow can be an archer", if you were building an archer already, that's not really what was being discussed.


    11 people marked this as a favorite.
    Nettah wrote:
    Zolanoteph said wrote:

    It's true that point blank shot/rapid shot/precise shot are often near mandatory (except arguably for rangers/slayers who can bypass PBS), but for me that doesn't mean it's all doom and gloom, or that every Archer is the same.

    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.

    If however you accept the premise that PBS/RS/PC are In fact requirements for any archer, the feat tax will be completed by level 5 at WORST, sooner for humans or anyone with access to more feats. And then there's the fact that a fighter, magus, ranger, slayer, warpriest, cleric, monk and paladin all have really different class based avenues for customization.

    Well it's hard to compare the playtest documents level of customization with CRB and APG when the playtest document is not even completed. Paizo have stated several times that there will be more class feats for certain classes and generally more content in the final version, alluding that paladins would get some archery support in those.

    I think even with the amount of support currently in the playtest that you can build quite different archers, and I don't mind that not every class feat for every class is build toward a singular strategy for the class. Say currently a paladin archer might also be a bit more of a caster with various domain powers (he has the free hand for casting), the fighter excels at multishots or on various specialized shots, rangers are all about the number of attacks, sorc/wizards are all about getting that one strong attack with magical striker/ true strike and a rogue might use certain tactics to get the...

    Not gonna lie, you lost me at "class feat". The existence of class feats as replacements for generally accessible combat feats is one of my deep foundational problems with 2E.

    I don't know what's worse, the streamlining and siloing of options or the assurances that one day, after the official release or with some splat book, X class will finally be given permission to use Y righting atyle. I don't want special permission to access basic fighting styles.

    I mean it's probably clear from what I've said that I have a libertarian approach to gaming. But beyond that, I think there's a general appeal to discovering a feat/class ability interactions that the designers may not have intended.

    Everything I read about 2E makes character building sound scripted: At level 3 you can choose A,B,C or D. For me it's just too damn sterile and formulaic.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tridus wrote:
    Leafar Cathal wrote:
    I can't even find Pathfinder players (I do have a policy to never mix experienced players with newbies, because experienced players usually steal newbies niches and spotlight)

    Is that a general policy, or based on the behavior of your experienced players? Because that's not a good policy to have when introducing newbies to the game. What you want are experienced players who will build around what the newbie wants to play and let them shine, which is something a table of all newbies has a hard time doing.

    That will make it a lot harder to introduce people to the game. Although yes, at this point 5e has largely taken the spotlight.

    In my experience, mixing a group of newcomers with experienced players makes the gap unbearable. The experienced players will build their characters the best they can - it's not a flaw, but it sometimes takes the spotlight of newcomers. Try to compare the first time wizard, who haven't take a look at metamagic yet to a sorcerer with lesser rods, higher DC, more slots (which is class design, no complaints here), higher overall damage, fireball oriented, better crowd controls, persistent spell, loads of summons, just because the sorcerer player had more game knowledge - it gets frustrating. The Wizard will always feel behind and telling them "welp, you're good with illusions!" doesn't make it better.

    Silver Crusade

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    I never run a table of entirely new players. When I am running a table for new people, I purposely fill a seat or two with experienced people I can depend on to explain things from the player side.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Redelia wrote:
    I never run a table of entirely new players. When I am running a table for new people, I purposely fill a seat or two with experienced people I can depend on to explain things from the player side.

    Same here. I usually have a mix of experienced players, novices, and new players. Doomsday Dawn is an exception to that - I'm running one group with only a novice and some new players. It's definitely been harder so I'm bringing an experienced player in (who is also a GM).

    But I think it largely depends on who the experienced players are. Many of mine are GMs themselves and tend to advise/encourage new players.

    Paizo Employee

    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Zolanoteph wrote:


    It's true that point blank shot/rapid shot/precise shot are often near mandatory (except arguably for rangers/slayers who can bypass PBS), but for me that doesn't mean it's all doom and gloom, or that every Archer is the same.

    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.

    If however you accept the premise that PBS/RS/PC are In fact requirements for any archer, the feat tax will be completed by level 5 at WORST, sooner for humans or anyone with access to more feats. And then there's the fact that a fighter, magus, ranger, slayer, warpriest, cleric, monk and paladin all have really different class based avenues for customization.

    Focused Shot, the feat that lets you add your Intelligence to damage when firing your bow as a standard action, actually has Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot as prerequisites. So it's not really an alternate path, it's just an alternate step in the chain once you're two feats in. And YMMV, but I'd consider not having the basic loadout to actually start being an archer until 5th level kind of terrible; that's a quarter of the way to max level and halfway through the levels that most people actually get to play through. For a lot of groups it can take an entire year to hit 5th level, so if you're trying to be a non fighter or ranger archer that's a year of not having basic competence in what you want to do. Compared to e.g a playtest sorcerer who can cast true strike and make two attacks with a bow at 1st level without spending any feats, that seems pretty good. Magical Striker further supplements the build with bonus accuracy and damage at 4th level instead of 5th, and feats like Counterspell or Familiar can both help enhance your archery build without needing to go outside of class (Counterspell is handy for giving you a reaction that works at range and can help keep you free and unencumbered to continue firing, while a familiar can serve as scout and support for a variety of purposes).

    Personally I think that a class being able to do something without needing to sacrifice their core identity is a huge positive; I'm not a fan of the one-dimensional characters in PF1 who are forced to sacrifice being well-rounded to be good at one thing. The playtest allowing classes to retain their niche and definition while still having a strong combat option is one of my favorite things about it. I don't see "archer" as a character concept, unless the character is an NPC; archer just denotes that you decided to pick up a bow. How good you are at archery is something that each class has their own unique dials and options to adjust; an optimized rogue who practices archery will do so differently than a fighter, who will do so differently from a ranger, who will do so differently than a sorcerer, and I think that's a significant benefit of the playtest.

    Sovereign Court

    22 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

    Regarding the idea that "characters (primarily archers) are more viable in PF2 because of less feat taxes"... couldn't PF2 have just fixed that and similar feat-tax issues without throwing the rest of the system out in the process? It seems rather myopic to hold that one example up as proof that PF2 is a superior system.

    I dunno. Just me?

    Grand Lodge

    13 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    Yeah, but we don't need a whole new edition for that.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ssalarn wrote:
    Zolanoteph wrote:


    It's true that point blank shot/rapid shot/precise shot are often near mandatory (except arguably for rangers/slayers who can bypass PBS), but for me that doesn't mean it's all doom and gloom, or that every Archer is the same.

    First, there are exceptions. There are feats like (what's it called again?) which lets you take a single shot as a standard action and add your intelligence modifier to the damage, which is an interesting alternative to rapid shot, especially if you have an interesting feat or class ability that eats your move action (quick channel, combat advice, hunter's bond with allies, etc). Similarly, shot on the run precludes you from standing still and using rapid shot.

    If however you accept the premise that PBS/RS/PC are In fact requirements for any archer, the feat tax will be completed by level 5 at WORST, sooner for humans or anyone with access to more feats. And then there's the fact that a fighter, magus, ranger, slayer, warpriest, cleric, monk and paladin all have really different class based avenues for customization.

    Focused Shot, the feat that lets you add your Intelligence to damage when firing your bow as a standard action, actually has Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot as prerequisites. So it's not really an alternate path, it's just an alternate step in the chain once you're two feats in. And YMMV, but I'd consider not having the basic loadout to actually start being an archer until 5th level kind of terrible; that's a quarter of the way to max level and halfway through the levels that most people actually get to play through. For a lot of groups it can take an entire year to hit 5th level, so if you're trying to be a non fighter or ranger archer that's a year of not having basic competence in what you want to do. Compared to e.g a playtest sorcerer who can cast true strike and make two attacks with a bow at 1st level without spending any feats, that seems pretty good. Magical Striker further supplements the build with bonus accuracy...

    I agree with you more than you may suspect. I do think there is a degree of build uniformity with the prevalence of feats like rapid shot and power attack, and I do think that feat taxes are a bit obnoxious. I just don't think it's a *huge* deal.

    In a perfect world I think rapid shot should've been a feat without prereqs, and more optimal easilly accessible options should've been made to represent a different and more methodical style of archery so that not every Archer had to be another rapid shot clone.

    But I still don't see the taxes being all that horrible. I'm playing a level one elven Archer archaeplogist Bard, and running around with nothing but point blank shot its still pretty fun. And while I see how great things like rapid shot and power attack are, I refuse to accept the premise that they're "mandatory" as stated earlier. Maybe they are for winning the DPR olympics, but there are some really cool things you can do with the right feats and class features that prohibit you from full attacking.

    I do agree that if you're a class/race with zero bonus feats having to wait until level five to use a ubiquitous archery feat chain is irritating. But there are always alternative paths that are decent, like the elven wizard with weapon focus (longbow) and arcane strike by level 3. Or the archer who doesn't want to stack too many minuses to hit and takes deadly aim instead of rapid shot (from level one). Or the guy who only secondarily uses a bow and takes opening volley, using ranged attacks to soften the enemy up for a charge.

    The problems you see in the system are real, but there are fun solutions.


    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kalindlara wrote:

    Regarding the idea that "characters (primarily archers) are more viable in PF2 because of less feat taxes"... couldn't PF2 have just fixed that and similar feat-tax issues without throwing the rest of the system out in the process? It seems rather myopic to hold that one example up as proof that PF2 is a superior system.

    I dunno. Just me?

    Also, this.


    oholoko wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    oholoko wrote:


    I thought those where 3.5 feats... From splatbooks that came years after the core.

    That would describe PF1, in it's entirety.

    Anyway, you do not need these 3 feats in order to be an effective archer; you may not be dazzling, but you are perfectly functional. I guess many now want their cake and Edith, too.

    Well you kind of do need 2 feets to even be an archer in pf.

    Not really, it's just handy to have a decent Dex, and a bow.

    Liberty's Edge

    Kalindlara wrote:

    Regarding the idea that "characters (primarily archers) are more viable in PF2 because of less feat taxes"... couldn't PF2 have just fixed that and similar feat-tax issues without throwing the rest of the system out in the process? It seems rather myopic to hold that one example up as proof that PF2 is a superior system.

    I dunno. Just me?

    I feel like the 3 action system is enough to re-balance ranged vs melee that precise shot can be eliminated from the game. People have been playing first edition with the 3 action system for over 3 years now. Seems to work just fine.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Deighton Thrane wrote:
    Kalindlara wrote:

    Regarding the idea that "characters (primarily archers) are more viable in PF2 because of less feat taxes"... couldn't PF2 have just fixed that and similar feat-tax issues without throwing the rest of the system out in the process? It seems rather myopic to hold that one example up as proof that PF2 is a superior system.

    I dunno. Just me?

    I feel like the 3 action system is enough to re-balance ranged vs melee that precise shot can be eliminated from the game. People have been playing first edition with the 3 action system for over 3 years now. Seems to work just fine.

    Have they really been though?

    I honestly have not read or heard of anyone using the 3 action system from unchained until after the playtest started and I lurked this website and reddit quite often. Seems like most groups only used the updated classes from Unchained and didn't bother porting other things over. I've heard a couple cases of people using the armor DR rules but most of the time it seems they gave up on it since it made the game unbalanced especially at low levels.

    edit: Also I like how an irrefutable benefit of the playtest is finally brought up and then the only retort is "Well you could've just put that in 1e instead." as if it's suddenly the only benefit that the playtest puts forward.

    Fwiw, I played with elephant in the room rules before (basically gets rid of feat taxes) and it ended up completely unbalancing the game for us. Made combat ridiculously swingy, and it actually became really hard to pick feats. So yeah imo for such a large change a simple unchained v2 like book would not be enough to remove this problem.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kalindlara wrote:

    Regarding the idea that "characters (primarily archers) are more viable in PF2 because of less feat taxes"... couldn't PF2 have just fixed that and similar feat-tax issues without throwing the rest of the system out in the process? It seems rather myopic to hold that one example up as proof that PF2 is a superior system.

    I dunno. Just me?

    Really doubt they could do that, PF1/3.5/3e have a big problem with feat trees and i think it might be needed because the way feats are done. But yeah besides archers i think most things grew better with PF2, DC table being less confusing, crafting making more sense, feat trees now make sense...


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    Any chance of starting new threads for the increasingly tangential discussions here and circling back to the OP's points?

    Layout/Readability of the Playtest book

    Quality of the surveys/conclusions drawn from them

    "Confirmation bias" and inauthentic responses on the forums

    Declaration of, and no indication of considering changing, their timetable.

    I think the developers might get some useful mechanic feedback out of the archery discussion - for instance - but it's buried in the back of this thread. Also it's drifting into the rambling territory where threads get closed.


    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gorbacz wrote:

    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e didn't come from splatbooks or from Alchemist (I'm really curious which Alchemist ability was an at-will gamebreaker, tho).

    Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e was inherited from 3/3.5, it existed right there in the Core Rulebook and manifested itself in Cleric, Druid and Wizard being presented as anywhere close to balanced and equally valid choices to Rogue and Monk.

    That and core spells such as color spray, sleep and scry+fry combo. Everything that Paizo put out in splatbooks was simply gravy on the top of fundamental problems that came with the 3.5 chassis.

    Yep

    You are right. There were some serious issues with 3X/1E.

    And yet it was one of the most successful games of all time.

    There are serious issues with 2E. And there is justification for a open-minded assessment to conclude that the number of people walking away is a threat to the viability of 2E.
    A repeat of the success of 1E isn't even fair to discuss. That bar is unrealistic for anything and would be lightning striking twice.

    So, on the one hand, we have a game that hit major home runs despite the known issues. On the other hand we have a game that is completely unproven in the marketplace (and bear in mind 4E made Mearls a NYT bestselling author).

    And that other games is raising a lot of red flags. And despite nice changes to things such as Resonance, the mechanical elephant in the room remains ignored. And the steady drumbeat of "not working for us" gets met with the same "see no evil" response that contributed to the ultimate doom of 4E.

    You may be 100% right about 1E. That does nothing to prop up 2E.

    1E is ready to be replaced. I'm eager and excited.
    Show me a game that I like less but nails broad marketplace appeal and I'll say congrats. (Congrats 5E, you are a great game I'll play any day. I like PF more, but you are awesome. And, moreso, you have really nailed the heart of the market, Bryon's personal tastes completely notwithstanding).

    But show me a game that is already bleeding fans, and I'll show you a game that may very well sell like hotcakes Day 1, but won't come close to matching the success of that terribly unbalanced 1E.


    Someone said wrote:

    Any chance of starting new threads for the increasingly tangential discussions here and circling back to the OP's points?

    Layout/Readability of the Playtest book

    Quality of the surveys/conclusions drawn from them

    "Confirmation bias" and inauthentic responses on the forums

    Declaration of, and no indication of considering changing, their timetable.

    I think the developers might get some useful mechanic feedback out of the archery discussion - for instance - but it's buried in the back of this thread. Also it's drifting into the rambling territory where threads get closed.

    Well that can only be discussed until a certain point. Almost all of the questions have been answered by the Paizo staff already. Having a thread to suggest that the amount of browsing of the rulebook between classes, powers, feats etc is a dime a dozen. They have talked about survey data in several twitch cast. Would it be good for us if Paizo had a better presence on the forums, sure, (including a blue post like system like blizzard) but you don't need several pages of discussion to get the point across.

    Regarding the deadline Paizo have stated that if they aren't where they hope to be in terms of writing the final core book they will have to postpone, but they don't think there are indications that it is necessary yet.

    101 to 150 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Reasons why I no longer trust Paizo to produce 2E All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.