Is "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" a better game then "Pathfinder 1st Edition"?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, someone earlier mentioned being frustrated that the art was getting less whimsical and too gritty.. my impression has been kind of the opposite. I've found a lot of the art to be kind of too whimsical for my taste, from the oddly cartoony shapes many characters have to the almost chibi aesthetic they've gone for most small races. The kobold redesign in particular is real rough for me.

Though I think part of my issue with the art is that I wish the style was more consistent. There's some vibrant, detailed full color pieces, then a page over there'll be a character portrait in very soft, desaturated tones that make it look like colored pencil and and next to that is a very cartoony piece that emphasizes shapes and lines over detailing.
None of these are inherently bad, in fact they're all pretty good on their own (except the kobolds), but they look a little incongruous all next to each other.

magnuskn wrote:
The way he was mentioning tier lists recalls for me the homogenization which happened between 3.5 and 4E, the goal of which was to do away with class imbalances.

That's fair, and I agree in that instance.

It doesn't even really work, either, because 4e is a hot mess when it comes to balance.

Quote:
In a sense this is what happened with 1E and 2E as well in what I've seen so far

I'm not sure I agree as much there, though. Like I said, PF1 only really differentiates itself between classes of characters, an oracle will play differently than a barbarian, but you have to squint to really see the differences between the typical oracle or cleric or a barbarian, fighter and swashbuckler outside their aesthetic choices.

I'm kind of underwhelmed with the sorcerer, but that aside it feels like PF2 has done an okayish job giving different classes different ways to approach the same problem. Rangers, Fighters and Barbarians are still gonna all hit things with sticks, but there's enough variety in their class based actions and feats that they don't appear quite as samey as PF1's full attack paradigm.


Squiggit wrote:


It doesn't even really work, either, because 4e is a hot mess when it comes to balance.

If you are saying it doesn't work because PF 2e is balanced well, I'm going to have to disagree there. So far the balance has been around what I expect of Paizo, I think that they lack of feats has made less outliers, so people aren't noticing it as much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:


I'm not sure I agree as much there, though. Like I said, PF1 only really differentiates itself between classes of characters, an oracle will play differently than a barbarian, but you have to squint to really see the differences between the typical oracle or cleric or a barbarian, fighter and swashbuckler outside their aesthetic choices.

I'm kind of underwhelmed with the sorcerer, but that aside it feels like PF2 has done an okayish job giving different classes different ways to approach the same problem. Rangers, Fighters and Barbarians are still gonna all hit things with sticks, but there's enough variety in their class based actions and feats that they don't appear quite as...

I fear we will have to disagree here. I think even the different beatstick classes in PF1E played very differently from each other in many regards. I got three of them in my current Shattered Star campaign (Paladin, Fighter and Bloodrager/Dragon Disciple) and they do vastly different stuff from each other when they do their respective shticks. A flame oracle will play very differently from a battle oracle or even a life oracle as well.

Anyway, I think we are getting a bit into the weeds here and off-topic to Lord Fyre's original intent.


I prefer looking at new RPG rules without the art.

I will definitely be cannibalising PF2 for my 3rd Ed/PF and 5th Ed games.

I really dig Perception not being a skill, and monster special attacks (marilith, etc).

Cutting out +Level from PF2 is nice; I have house-ruled 3rd Ed/PF as such (removed BAB and saving throw bonuses as they are).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I have not played the new edition yet, but looking at the rules makes me believe this is a valuable evolution of Pathfinder.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

GRuzom wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

"THAN", not then.

those are different words with VASTLY different meanings ...

Thank You. I missed that error.

Grammar matters!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
I have not played the new edition yet, but looking at the rules makes me believe this is a valuable evolution of Pathfinder.

It's a bit too revolutionary for me, at this point, but it's growing on me.

The ubiquity of feats thing still irks me.

It's a bit clinical, like a game designed for designers.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
It's a bit clinical, like a game designed for designers.

As a long time Champions player, I can assure you that the "clinical" nature of the rulebook will be a big benefit when looking up a rule during play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Different. Not better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
I have not played the new edition yet, but looking at the rules makes me believe this is a valuable evolution of Pathfinder.

It's a bit too revolutionary for me, at this point, but it's growing on me.

The ubiquity of feats thing still irks me.

It's a bit clinical, like a game designed for designers.

I'm a big fan, though I've been a big fan since the initial pitch of the idea since my response to it was "oh, every class works like the barbarian now" and I thought that was great.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Arachnofiend wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
I have not played the new edition yet, but looking at the rules makes me believe this is a valuable evolution of Pathfinder.

It's a bit too revolutionary for me, at this point, but it's growing on me.

The ubiquity of feats thing still irks me.

It's a bit clinical, like a game designed for designers.

I'm a big fan, though I've been a big fan since the initial pitch of the idea since my response to it was "oh, every class works like the barbarian now" and I thought that was great.

Wait. What??


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think it's a cleaner game, mechanically.

I think a lot of work has been put in to remove the idea of One True Build.

I think it took a couple of my favorite class concepts and made them a lot more conceptually sound and coherent.

So, on balance, right now I think it's a definite improvement. That said, I remain open to changing my mind after logging some play. Doesn't seem likely, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:

I think it's a cleaner game, mechanically.

I think a lot of work has been put in to remove the idea of One True Build.

I think it took a couple of my favorite class concepts and made them a lot more conceptually sound and coherent.

So, on balance, right now I think it's a definite improvement.

Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My stance is that it is a better designed and organized game. The rules are pretty clearly stated in most cases, and the corner-case issues that cropped up in 1e (Forced Movement and AoOs, Detect Magic vs Illusions, etc) are all addressed explicitly in the rules. There seems to be a better balance between various classes, but one which does not make them too homogeneous either.

Any attempts to discern which is "better" beyond that come down to personal preferences, I think.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Baby Samurai wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:

I think it's a cleaner game, mechanically.

I think a lot of work has been put in to remove the idea of One True Build.

I think it took a couple of my favorite class concepts and made them a lot more conceptually sound and coherent.

So, on balance, right now I think it's a definite improvement.

Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.

I don't think that is what happened here.

This still leads to some interesting effects though. Everyone adding the level to their attack bonus kind of feels like a nerf upon the martial classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
I have not played the new edition yet, but looking at the rules makes me believe this is a valuable evolution of Pathfinder.

It's a bit too revolutionary for me, at this point, but it's growing on me.

The ubiquity of feats thing still irks me.

It's a bit clinical, like a game designed for designers.

I'm a big fan, though I've been a big fan since the initial pitch of the idea since my response to it was "oh, every class works like the barbarian now" and I thought that was great.

I'm not sure what this means. Especially since even the barbarian doesn't work like a barbarian now (which is a vast improvement).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
I have not played the new edition yet, but looking at the rules makes me believe this is a valuable evolution of Pathfinder.

It's a bit too revolutionary for me, at this point, but it's growing on me.

The ubiquity of feats thing still irks me.

It's a bit clinical, like a game designed for designers.

I'm a big fan, though I've been a big fan since the initial pitch of the idea since my response to it was "oh, every class works like the barbarian now" and I thought that was great.
Wait. What??

Every class has multiple unique customization options like the Barbarian, Rogue, etc. As opposed to say, the Paladin who's abilities are quite set in stone before you factor in archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:

I think it's a cleaner game, mechanically.

I think a lot of work has been put in to remove the idea of One True Build.

I think it took a couple of my favorite class concepts and made them a lot more conceptually sound and coherent.

So, on balance, right now I think it's a definite improvement.

Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.

I don't think that is what happened here.

This still leads to some interesting effects though. Everyone adding the level to their attack bonus kind of feels like a nerf upon the martial classes.

Martials get higher in proficiency sooner, and so they keep an healthy distance from non-martials in their ability to fight.

This distance is +2 or +4 most of the time, instead of diverging like BaB did in PF1. This means that at higher levels you don't have fighters auto-hitting everything, and wizards who are comlpetely hopeless with weapons.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
wanted the iconics to wear more clothing
Paizo did it exactly right. Making the artwork PG rather than PG-13 reaches a broader audience and extends the lifetime of the game.
Yeah, hard disagree on that. Paizo...

Sorry about the quoting, the forums cut it off, not me.

As a matter of fact, I wish the rest got quoted because I think you hit the nail on the head - I agree RPGs are getting more Puritanical / politically correct ... because they're getting popular.

And we disagree because I think that's a good thing but I get the feeling you don't.

I understand I "have" to play with women and kids and people I don't know well. I would say I get to play with women and kids and people I don't know well.

In return for whatever sacrifice that is, the game is popular enough that not one, but TWO for-profit companies are putting out material monthly. There are seven weekly games within reach, each with 2-5 tables. I found enough people at my company who play that we have a lunchtime game.

Would I time travel back to the Good Old Days where I gave that all up, but could use the phrase "serving wenches" without someone getting pissed off? No.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
It's a bit clinical, like a game designed for designers.

If it helps, this is literally true - Paizo has said multiple times that one of their main goals with PF2e was to design a system that was easier and more fun for them to design for.

Regarding 2e being more "homogenized" than 1e... man, I had that impression at first, but in fact it's gone hard in the other direction.

There are whole lists of things that one class can do that any other class can't, and even races. Like, if you want to be a monk and also amazing with a longsword, you need to be an elf. If you want to attack six times per turn, you need to either be a fighter or a ranger. Fighter, ranger, monk and rogue all have two-weapon-fighting feats but they all work meaningfully differently in play. Fighters and no other class can be proficient with every weapon simultaneously. Champions are the only class (as far as I can tell) that can manage three offensive reactions per turn.

The extent to which each class plays wildly differently from each other class is one of the things that has most impressed me about 2e, especially since at first blush I was concerned about it seeming homogeneous due to the proficiency system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
GRuzom wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

"THAN", not then.

those are different words with VASTLY different meanings ...

Thank You. I missed that error.

Grammar matters!

Let's eat grandma.

vs

Let's eat, grandma.

Good grammar saves lives!


Late to the party, but I certainly think PF2 is a better game. I have issues with several things, some will be fixed and others are probably more long-term, but not nearly as many issues as I have with PF1. Even limiting PF1 to just core. That said, if money is tight I'd probably save up money to buy CRB/Bestiary PDFs until after GMG rules are online free to see if the GM tools indicate if the game will be better or worse for your group in the long run. No need to sacrifice much immediately to jump in. Your PF1 content isn't going anywhere and you can run games from the free rules before you buy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Nyarlathotep wrote:

Depends on what (if anything) you think is wrong with PF1.

Speaking for myself, I think PF1 is drowning under the weight of all the supplements, player companions and subsystems introduced over a 10 year run so I'm looking forward to running PF2.

I think it is but time will tell.

I recognize there is no accounting for taste but I don't really get the broad complaint that 1E published too much material. "Oh no! This game has so many options, I can make characters I've never seen in any other RPG! How will I cope if a party isn't a dwarf fighter, elf ranger, halfling rogue, and human wizard?"

If there are specific options that a person don't like, that's fair, don't use them. But I refuse to accept then idea that every product after the Core Rulebook incrementally broke Pathfinder. Is every product after Core 2E making 3E neccessary?

I can buy an argument that releases after 1E Core (by both Paizo and other RPG publisher) have illustrated weaknesses with 1E Core. But those weaknesses would exist even if 1E Core was the only 1E book ever created.

A fair comparison between the editions would probably show that the 2E Core/Bestiary books are marginally better than their 1E counterparts.

The comparison that exists in reality is that 1E has 10 years of material available, has many, many more character options, enough published adventures to keep a game group going for decades, and most of the print material can be found for half off the cover price.

Wake me up when 2E lets me make a Dhamphir Occultist.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just finished my first partial pass through the rules.

There are several things that I significantly dislike about the rules (and yes, I did complain about them in the playtest, why do you ask? :-)).

So, I was going to say that my first impression was negative.

But then I realized that I have 1/2 a dozen characters that I REALLY want to try out and play :-). Which is a pretty good sign.

And the things that I dislike are actually fairly minor. They may or may not impact my enjoyment (time will tell).

So I think I'm going with "With any luck, yes it will be a better game. But its hard to tell this soon"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends on what your looking for. It's definitely a "cleaner" designed game when it comes to rules interactions I guess, but there is a lot I seem to dislike about PF2e so it's still a matter of taste when it comes to the fact "different games are going to interest different people".

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:


Watery Soup wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
wanted the iconics to wear more clothing
Paizo did it exactly right. Making the artwork PG rather than PG-13 reaches a broader audience and extends the lifetime of the game.
Yeah, hard disagree on that. Paizo...

Ummm, magnuskn … the art of the Iconics was always PG. Even the somewhat infamous illustration on page 253 of the Pathfinder 1st Edition Core Rulebook is technically still PG.

Beyond that, the art is going to be a matter of taste. (And, as I noted earlier, we are in the minority.) As to the "more adult themes," this too is a matter of taste - for example: For far too many people, non-heterosexual, and/or non-cisgender people are "adult themes."

Does your group actually use the Iconics? If not, then Seoni's art doesn't much matter.

In any adventure, it shouldn't be too difficult to modify it to your group's tastes.

magnuskn wrote:
Also, nobody is asking for R-rated stuff in their Paizo published fantasy artwork. But I find the slow puritanization of fantasy which seems to be going on (and the same happening on a civil society level as well) to be really off-putting.

Not quite "puritanization" so much as a rebalancing of social power between men and women (as well as whites and non-whites.) As a (55 year old) cis-gender white male, I am experiencing that shift much as you are - yes, the world no longer revolves around us. :(

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Just like PF1 the rules will be available online free on the archive.

as well as on the fan-supported SRD, which also include 3rd Party Publishing content at http://pf2.d20pfsrd.com


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Watery Soup wrote:

Sorry about the quoting, the forums cut it off, not me.

As a matter of fact, I wish the rest got quoted because I think you hit the nail on the head - I agree RPGs are getting more Puritanical / politically correct ... because they're getting popular.

And we disagree because I think that's a good thing but I get the feeling you don't.

I understand I "have" to play with women and kids and people I don't know well. I would say I get to play with women and kids and people I don't know well.

In return for whatever sacrifice that is, the game is popular enough that not one, but TWO for-profit companies are putting out material monthly. There are seven weekly games within reach, each with 2-5 tables. I found enough people at my company who play that we have a lunchtime game.

Would I time travel back to the Good Old Days where I gave that all up, but could use the phrase "serving wenches" without someone getting pissed off? No.

I'm going to assume here that you made general examples and were not trying to attribute negative stereotypes to me.

My gripes are on the level for the whole of western modern society, which I think has gotten much more puritanical overall. Which I see as a step back from where it was even a decade ago. There are other aspects of society which have improved (acceptance of minorities, recognition of climate change and so on), but the social media pressure on people to behave "correctly" and twitter mobs (or other social media campaigns) harassing people who deviate from whatever new consensus is formed this week is having an overall negative effect on artistic expression and free will.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Ummm, magnuskn … the art of the Iconics was always PG. Even the somewhat infamous illustration on page 253 of the Pathfinder 1st Edition Core Rulebook is technically still PG.

Hm, you tell Mama Graul that. :p

Lord Fyre wrote:
Beyond that, the art is going to be a matter of taste. (And, as I noted earlier, we are in the minority.) As to the "more adult themes," this too is a matter of taste - for example: For far too many people, non-heterosexual, and/or non-cisgender people are "adult themes."

Luckily western society overall has moved in the complete opposite direction, where non-acceptance of those groups is seen as the morally incorrect thing.

Lord Fyre wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Also, nobody is asking for R-rated stuff in their Paizo published fantasy artwork. But I find the slow puritanization of fantasy which seems to be going on (and the same happening on a civil society level as well) to be really off-putting.

Not quite "puritanization" so much as a rebalancing of social power between men and women (as well as whites and non-whites.) As a (55 year old) cis-gender white male, I am experiencing that shift much as you are - yes, the world no longer revolves around us. :(

Eh, I am as much unhappy about Seoni getting covered up as I am about Sayan getting covered up. It's the overall "OMG, showing skin is BAD!" attitude which irks me to no end.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Also, nobody is asking for R-rated stuff in their Paizo published fantasy artwork. But I find the slow puritanization of fantasy which seems to be going on (and the same happening on a civil society level as well) to be really off-putting.

Not quite "puritanization" so much as a rebalancing of social power between men and women (as well as whites and non-whites.) As a (55 year old) cis-gender white male, I am experiencing that shift much as you are - yes, the world no longer revolves around us. :(

Eh, I am as much unhappy about Seoni getting covered up as I am about Sayan getting covered up. It's the overall "OMG, showing skin is BAD!" atttitude which irks me to no end.

Looking at the art in the rest of the book, your concern her appears a but overblown.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So far, yes. But it's early on still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Also, nobody is asking for R-rated stuff in their Paizo published fantasy artwork. But I find the slow puritanization of fantasy which seems to be going on (and the same happening on a civil society level as well) to be really off-putting.

Not quite "puritanization" so much as a rebalancing of social power between men and women (as well as whites and non-whites.) As a (55 year old) cis-gender white male, I am experiencing that shift much as you are - yes, the world no longer revolves around us. :(

Eh, I am as much unhappy about Seoni getting covered up as I am about Sayan getting covered up. It's the overall "OMG, showing skin is BAD!" atttitude which irks me to no end.
Looking at the art in the rest of the book, your concern her appears a but overblown.

The iconics are the iconics. Non-named NPC's are one-shot appearances.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

magnuskn wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Also, nobody is asking for R-rated stuff in their Paizo published fantasy artwork. But I find the slow puritanization of fantasy which seems to be going on (and the same happening on a civil society level as well) to be really off-putting.

Not quite "puritanization" so much as a rebalancing of social power between men and women (as well as whites and non-whites.) As a (55 year old) cis-gender white male, I am experiencing that shift much as you are - yes, the world no longer revolves around us. :(

Eh, I am as much unhappy about Seoni getting covered up as I am about Sayan getting covered up. It's the overall "OMG, showing skin is BAD!" atttitude which irks me to no end.
Looking at the art in the rest of the book, your concern her appears a but overblown.
The iconics are the iconics. Non-named NPC's are one-shot appearances.

But, how important are the Iconics really?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
But, how important are the Iconics really?

In terms of art? Pretty important, they show up a whole lot.

Personally, I like Seoni's new look. It's not actually much more covering, she just got a cape folks. I'm a lot less sold on Sajan's new outfit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also a new bodice, or at least a much less revealing one. :p

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
Also a new bodice, or at least a much less revealing one. :p

Somewhat. About half of the concealment is the cloak, though.

And besides, the reason for her lack of clothing was always cited as her liking to show off her tattoos, which are still visible. In-universe, her getting a shiny new magic cloak explains pretty much the whole outfit.

Sajan's outfit change is just odd and confusing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm kinda not a fan of Seoni's hair. In PF1 it was almost white, which made her look kind of unearthly in a way I think works really well for sorcerers.

She looks noticeably paler too.

I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.

Though at least for me it's Amiri and Lini that are the worst off from their updates.

Well, them and Damiel, since he didn't even survive the update.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.

Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.


Lord Fyre wrote:
GRuzom wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

"THAN", not then.

those are different words with VASTLY different meanings ...

Thank You. I missed that error.

Grammar matters!

Ha ha, that was fun:-)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.
Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^

A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Hopkins wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.
Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^
A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.

Just saying, there's no difference between a sorc running into combat in a bikini and a full robe (replace bikini with banana hammock if you're feeling more male instead). Unarmored is unarmored.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Diego Hopkins wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.
Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^
A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.
Just saying, there's no difference between a sorc running into combat in a bikini and a full robe (replace bikini with banana hammock if you're feeling more male instead). Unarmored is unarmored.

Which is why I'm glad arcane spell failure due to armor is no longer a thing. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
I'm going to assume here that you made general examples and were not trying to attribute negative stereotypes to me.

Correct - I apologize if I come across like I'm trying to say there's something wrong with you.

I more or less agree with your assessment of the world. I just think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

For example:

Quote:
... the social media pressure on people to behave "correctly" and twitter mobs (or other social media campaigns) harassing people who deviate from whatever new consensus is formed this week is having an overall negative effect on artistic expression and free will.

Agree. The mobs are a negative when they're on target, and a double negative when they're off target. But we get a bunch of positives, too - the expanded popularity is huge both in terms of exposing us to new artists and new players.

Is there a way to have a popular game where artistic expression and free will isn't limited? I suspect the answer is no.

We see it all the time in other artistic media - graphic novels, books, movies, etc. - all of them get "sanitized" before they're released to a wide audience. My wife asked me what the difference between a dwarf and halfling was, I said Gimli and Frodo and she knew exactly what I was talking about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't care about Seoni new outfit the old one was just over the top sexualised, but it is a shame for Sajan. He looks less Shoanti now, I think.

However some of that PG thing just wrecked my favorite monsters: Ogres were way better before. Now they look like generic cannibal monsters, but no more consanguinity or mutations, that's a shame. Same for the Succubus, who looks like a Tieffling courtisan rather than the lust demon.

I think that being more conservative for players is okay, but some monsters should keep the atrocity/maturity they deserved, in the core representation.

I am afraid when the art of Noctila & Sorshen are going to come out. They both use lust power.

And it is not for the sake of it, just that if you want to have some mature thematic and monsters, it should be ok for these few monsters to be represented in terrible ways. That is what make them monsters and opponents.

I remember a time when Goblins hide for trying to catch and eat childrens... Now they eat pickles for god's sake.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Seoni still shows a whole lot of leg, and a good portion of butt at the start of the Sorcerer section.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SteelGuts wrote:

I don't care about Seoni new outfit the old one was just over the top sexualised, but it is a shame for Sajan. He looks less Shoanti now, I think.

However some of that PG thing just wrecked my favorite monsters: Ogres were way better before. Now they look like generic cannibal monsters, but no more consanguinity or mutations, that's a shame. Same for the Succubus, who looks like a Tieffling courtisan rather than the lust demon.

I think that being more conservative for players is okay, but some monsters should keep the atrocity/maturity they deserved, in the core representation.

I am afraid when the art of Noctila & Sorshen are going to come out. They both use lust power.

And it is not for the sake of it, just that if you want to have some mature thematic and monsters, it should be ok for these few monsters to be represented in terrible ways. That is what make them monsters and opponents.

I remember a time when Goblins hide for trying to catch and eat childrens... Now they eat pickles for god's sake.

Sajan was never shoanti, he's vudrani. And his PF2 art update is one of my least liked. He lost so much muscle and the ab/pecs window.

Also, both Sorshen and Nocticula have left their lustful selves in PF1 along with their evil alignments and revealing outfits.

EDIT:

And to be a little on topic. For me it's not a better game. The codification of EVERYTHING is a drawback. Ancestries have been pruned too much from the races (still hate having half-elf and half-orc in the human ancestry btw). Martial stuff is great (kinda iffy on the champion). Caster classes most important feature has been gutted though: spells only scaling by spell slot feels awful, the number of spells has gone way down (supplemented by at-will and encounter powers though, which I'm mostly postivie about, even though only damage cantrips and shield feel worthwhile, both dancing lights and prestidigitation are worse than in PF1 and don't scale at all), they have toned down most buffs as well as flight and teleportation (both my favorite kind of magic), duration and number of targets of spells down across the board, upping base spell levels (teleport, purify food and water!!!, fly...), the uncommon tag is a plague upon the spell chapter...

(Yes, I'm salty)

When I play, I play mainly spellcasters, and I don't know if I can enjoy PF2's take on those classes. I'll still try them though, as I want to want to keep giving Paizo my money.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Also, both Sorshen and Nocticula have left their lustful selves in PF1 along with their evil alignments and revealing outfits.

They have? I'm not sure I've seen anything confirming this. Both are CN now, certainly, and probably less inclined to be manipulative a%*%!*$s, but I've seen no evidence either is exactly chaste or disinclined to revealing outfits. Where's that info found?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Nocticula has artwork in the last book of Tyrant's Grasp (she doesn't appear in the AP, it's bonus material).

She has definitely left the "Oh my goddess I hope no one sees me reading this" look behind, and she doesn't dress in a very revealing manner, but she's still clearly a succubus.

Also her holy symbol references her former... let's be generous and call it "outfit"... which I found hilarious.

As far as her portfolio, it is artists, outcasts, and midnight; she does seem to be trying to distance herself from her former identity as a lust demon and instead position herself as a chaotic-emo alternative to Shelyn, but I don't see anything sex-negative about her writeup.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, I knew this thread would get awful, but this is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

51 to 100 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Is "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" a better game then "Pathfinder 1st Edition"? All Messageboards