| 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.
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.
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.
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. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not played the new edition yet, but looking at the rules makes me believe this is a valuable evolution of Pathfinder.
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!| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. |
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 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 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.
Wait. What??
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. |
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.
Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.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.
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. |
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 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 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. |
Wait. What??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 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.
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. |
Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.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.
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.| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, hard disagree on that. Paizo...wanted the iconics to wear more clothingPaizo did it exactly right. Making the artwork PG rather than PG-13 reaches a broader audience and extends the lifetime of the game.
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. |
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. |
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. |
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".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, hard disagree on that. Paizo...wanted the iconics to wear more clothingPaizo did it exactly right. Making the artwork PG rather than PG-13 reaches a broader audience and extends the lifetime of the game.
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. 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.
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 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. :(
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. |
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. |
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
Beyond that, the art is going to be a matter of taste. 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.
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 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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 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. :(
Looking at the art in the rest of the book, your concern her appears a but overblown.
So far, yes. But it's early on still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the art in the rest of the book, your concern her appears a but overblown.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.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 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 iconics are the iconics. Non-named NPC's are one-shot appearances.
The iconics are the iconics. Non-named NPC's are one-shot appearances.Looking at the art in the rest of the book, your concern her appears a but overblown.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.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 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. :(
But, how important are the Iconics really?
Also a new bodice, or at least a much less revealing one. :p
|
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. |
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.
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:-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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:
... 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.
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. |
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.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. |
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.