Take up of Second Edition

[John Lynch 106]

As I mentioned in the other thread on this subject:

I moved cities at the start of the year. Late last year Pathfinder was being played regularly in public games. It all dried up in the first couple of months of this year. No big deal I thought. It should pick up when PF2 launches. Wrong.

I tried to get a PF2 game off the ground. Got some initial interest. But it quickly passed. People complained that it was too complex compared to D&D 5e or not as good as PF1e.

I know of zero PF2e games being played (and there are no more PF1e PFS games being played).

There just seems to be little to no Pathfinder interest, and it seems to have been loosely correlated with the playtest. Looking back, D&D 5e has been a much bigger player than Pathfinder for some time in this city. But there was still regular public games of Pathfinder until recently with me having no luck at getting a Pathfinder group (for either edition).

[CorvusMask]

It kinda sounds like case of being heavily dominated by 5e area and that playtest's didn't really give good first impression to them. That said I'm skeptical about there being lot of hardcore 1e players since they wouldn't have switched to 5e just because 2e started. I mean seriously, 5e by RAW without homebrew kiiiiiiiiiiiiiinda sucks.

No seriously, at level 1-2 you die too easily, after level 9 you dominate everything in bestiary and ALL bestiary monsters are really arbitrary. Comparing monsters between same CR shows that some of them are really overpowered compared to other monsters of same CR. Like compare to CR 1 quickling to literally everything else... Yes it does have s%%#ty AC which makes it glass canon, but it has 120 feet movement(btw, in D&D 5e you can continue movement after attacks. So umm, yeah) and three attacks with +8 accuracy and 1d4 + 6 FRICKING damage so it always does 7 at minimum. How the frick this is cr 1?!?

...AHem, sorry about getting sidetracked. But yeah about 2e.

Like 2e isn't too complex to play than 5e(5e is super simple system to play, but in actual combat? Yeah no, only difference is that you get more choices at level 1 in character generation. You get more options in combat yeah, but players don't really have more to remember than in 5e.), but playtest document wasn't well formatted :P And while you could debate PF1e appeals for different tastes than 2e(it doesn't really, unless your tastes is "Rocket tag in ultra high levels") and "not as good" is subjective too, it doesn't really sound like they have actually read or played the release version.

Like in that kind of scenario the choices are either to wait for more 2e content to be released or have a group of friends there that you can convince to give them chance.

Or you could do the "easier" thing and recruit complete group of interested newbies, in my experience newbies are easier to convince to try out new systems even if they really want to play D&D since they don't have pre-established ideas.

[John Lynch 106]

I didnt gall them hardcore PF1 gamers. They were just PF gamers. When the new edition was announced they had a choice:
* Play an unsupported edition
* Switch to the new edition when it came out
* Switch to a more popular game
* Give up on gaming

I dunno what happened (I didnt meet them). All I know is PFS died close to the start of this year and almost zero locals have expressed interest in any type of Pathfinder game (the one table I got decided to move on pretty quick).

Meanwhile 5e's popularity has not taken a hit and continues to grow.

It takes diehard fans to evangelize and push a game to get it off the ground and to keep it going. It seems those who were doing it for PF1e decided to stop at the start of this year. Which was always a risk with the new edition. Alienate the diehard fans and your new edition wont succeed.

That said this seems to have strictly been a local phenomena.

[CorvusMask]

Ah sorry there, yeah, you didn't call them that, but I got caught up on one of my pet peeves because I always find it confusing when group switches edition just because they aren't supported anymore. Mostly because 1) very few groups have played all aps 2) not all groups even use the setting books or even know about all content 3) if they play homebrew games, then lack of new content isn't issue.

(That and upon recently actually starting to read up on 5e in order to run it for group of newbies, I've realized that from behind the GM screen, system actually is really wonky. From player side I just noticed that characters get kinda creation wise samey when you play multiple characters(like when they die) or campaign in row and kinda thought it might be more fun from GM side, only to realize on GM side that lots of rules are messy. Its simple to play and run, but balance is weird and some of guidelines are overly complicated)

Though I guess they might have been PFS 1e players which would explain it also ._. Since if they weren't interested in 2e, they don't really have much choice since it is really easy to run out of 1e PFS since playing them all is actually doable especially if they started long time ago. Either way, sorry for getting distracted.

Hope you have better luck with 5e recruiting at least! And sorry again for getting distracted by my venting out my 5e confusion

[Rysky]

I still really can't grasp the mindset of someone who supposedly loves an edition of a game and playing it completely dropping gaming all together after a new edition comes out.

It's not an MMO where the servers were shut down, you still have the books and campaigns.

[Ediwir]

Rysky wrote:

I still really can't grasp the mindset of someone who supposedly loves an edition of a game and playing it completely dropping gaming all together after a new edition comes out.

It's not an MMO where the servers were shut down, you still have the books and campaigns.

Hey, I’ve been playing 3e for years after 4e hit. Pathfinder wasn’t translated for a few years and English was... not common. I didn’t even know PF existed until a while after.

‘Support’ means very little. The SRD is still there, and that’s all the support you really need.

I COULD suggest a possible explanation.
The GMs switched because the system doesn’t cause them headaches, and won’t go back. Players refused to switch, for various reasons. So the games died because nobody wants to GM first edition.

[Gorbacz]

Yeah, the "I'm not going to play a game with 10 years of first-party and 3pp support behind it anymore because it's not going to be supported" folks should sit down and have a talk with the "I have more than enough PF1 material to last a lifetime" people.

[Malk_Content]

Rysky wrote:

I still really can't grasp the mindset of someone who supposedly loves an edition of a game and playing it completely dropping gaming all together after a new edition comes out.

It's not an MMO where the servers were shut down, you still have the books and campaigns.

I find it odd too. I didnt like nwod Mage or Vamp (actually did like new Changeling) so I just ran oWoD instead for those two.

[Steve Geddes]

I’m one of those people.

Soon as PF2 was announced I gave away my PF1 stuff. For me, most of my hobby is buying and reading books about my chosen setting/system. I get to play maybe three hours a week, if I’m lucky but I spend much, much more time and effort on the hobby.

The dynamic part that keeps me engaged is a flow of new releases, upcoming releases, occasional interaction with designers. Posting on the forums, etcetera. All of that dies or declines to a trickle when a game is no longer supported. For me, the mass of books on the shelf is kind of old news - it’s usable material for gaming night, but it’s not interesting to me any more. The ongoing new stuff is what excites me.

If I was ever in the position of all the games I was currently stopping and nothing new taking their place that tickled my interest, there’d be a good chance I’d quit gaming.

[Gorbacz]

Steve, you're ... weird, BUT - if there's anything PF1 fans could be frustrated at, it's that there weren't more people like you.

[Ediwir]

Agreed. GMs grow the hobby, players keep it going... but it’s dedicated fans like you that keep the books coming.
Hopefully we get plenty of new Steves supporting pf2’s longterm publishing :)

[SuperBidi]

I also understand dropping an old edition while it's no more supported.
No more support means:
- No more new material (for those who love new books, Steve is not the only one).
- Declining number of players, which will make it harder and harder to find new tables.
- The need to answer weird questions when you recruit new players like: Why don't you play the new version like everyone else? Or, if noone plays the new version: Why do you still play this old game everyone has abandonned?
- New games that you don't invest on during that time. I like to be an early adopter, as I can speak about strategies, find new funny character builds and all of that. Late adopters can complain on the forums that "casters have been overnerfed", and everyone will just bash them because it's been hashed and rehashed.

And, sometimes, it's just an excuse. Like players being bored of PF1 and suddenly having a very valid reason to look for something else.

[Steve Geddes]

Gorbacz wrote:

Steve, you're ... weird, BUT - if there's anything PF1 fans could be frustrated at, it's that there weren't more people like you.

Well, thanks! However, I'm not that sure it is that weird, really.

I suspect there's a lot of the forum regulars who have been here over the years for whom the actual playing of the game is a small part of their enjoyment of the hobby. So it seems reasonable to me that "ability to continue to play the game" is actually of minimal importance to them continuing to enjoy it.

[Gorbacz]

For me, every gaming purchase is valued purely on ROI I get in terms of gameplay. This is also why artbooks, strategy guides, globes, t-shirts, mugs, and all the other non-gaming stuff are completely lost on me. Will I run this adventure? Will somebody from my team play this class? I won't run this AP, but is there enough smoking hot quality support material in it for me to have use out of it anyway? Oh and the APs give me the sweet sweet discount for everything else, so let's keep them even if it means having Giantslayer on my shelf.

This means that I might end up with books I'll barely/never use, but as long as they have any potential of being used, they're a worthwhile purchase.

[Steve Geddes]

Heh, I didn't think we would ever play it, but I bought a starfinder CRB via the subscription, a deluxe one for me to read and a deluxe one for me to collect. (Same with the PF2 CRB). I even bought two of the RotRL collector editions so I could use one but still have a pristine one on the shelf.

I think your approach is more rational, but I get a certain amount of pleasure from looking at my mint, collector editions of various games I've picked up over the years (many of which I eventually manage to get signed down the track).

[Malk_Content]

I like my books as books as well. I've still got all my old pf1 books because I love them even if I'm never going to use the mechanics within. They are great objects of art afterall. As my wife would exasperatedely tell you, I'd rather build anew book shelf than throw one out.

I can understand Steve's position but that is just a different value weighting. For a group who still wants to pf1 it is still without a doubt, the most robustly supported rpg to have ever existed. You dont need to find new people constantly to play with, you need 3 to 5 others that also want what you want abs that's it.

[MaxAstro]

I'm somewhere between Steve and Gorbacz. I own lots of APs that I'll never have time to run (especially since I don't plan on running 1e any more) and I enjoy reading them for inspiration. But outside of APs, I rarely buy material unless I have an immediate use for it.

[Masked Participant]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Steve, you're ... weird, BUT - if there's anything PF1 fans could be frustrated at, it's that there weren't more people like you.

Well, thanks! However, I'm not that sure it is that weird, really.

I suspect there's a lot of the forum regulars who have been here over the years for whom the actual playing of the game is a small part of their enjoyment of the hobby. So it seems reasonable to me that "ability to continue to play the game" is actually of minimal importance to them continuing to enjoy it.

*stands up, shifts nervously*

Hello everyone. My names is...well, not Steve. But I am a Steve and, like many of you, I've come to terms with that. To accept the reality of it.

Anyways, I just wanted to thank you for coming and showing your support, it means a lot to us Steves. And also to say this: You are not alone. And you are not weird. There are many more Steves like yourselves supporting the hobby out there. You being here proves that.

You are not alone. Thank you.

*sits down*

XD

[Steve Geddes]

I think we can all agree Gorbacz is weird though.

[Harles]

I don't know what to think of PF2 yet. I've had the books for months but I haven't been able to get a game going yet. (Hopefully that will change next month.)
I'm kind of nervous about it. My group is very entrenched in 5e. We tried a game of 4e and Savage Worlds, and they both fell apart after a few sessions. The only system I've had any luck in a long term campaign with in recent years is 5e.
I'm afraid that the experience of PF2 might be too close to 4e and meet a similar fate. As it is now, I feel like my group's patience with me wanting to try new systems is growing very thin.

[Bill Dunn]

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I do feel a bit of a reluctance to take up PF2, this despite my enjoyment of PF1.

I haven't had much time to play it - just a bit at GameholeCon last month (I hope to have more time to try it at GaryCon in 2020). And there are things I definitely like... but there are things that still nag me about it. I know that's going to be true of all games but it's hitting me especially hard this time. So for my pros and cons:

1) I really like the 3 action feature.
2) I like the idea of having different skill tiers.
3) I like the different options for spells and degrees of saves/fumbles, some different options if a spell is cast with 1 action, 2, or 3.

-1) I'm not sure I'm too keen on everyone making multiple attacks from 1st level/1 HD.
-2) I'm not keen on using the different skill tiers more broadly just because it was a cool idea for skills (I'm finding it really problematic for armor).
-3) Too many crits - when we played at Gamehole, there was a lot of yo-yo mode going on between PCs dropping due to crits and healing.
-4) I very much appreciated 5e's approach to bounded accuracy and am not loving the level-up vs monster treadmill. It was one of the things I didn't like about 4e and I don't think I really like it here either.

I guess I shouldn't necessarily be too surprised. While the playtest and delivery of PF1 had me thinking that the Paizo developer simply understood where I was as a gamer and inhabited the same preference space, as PF developed more and more fiddly classes, I started to get a bit frustrated with the game and direction of development. And maybe now PF2 just tipped over that edge. I'm not sure yet.

So, adoption is not smooth with me. I'm right now in that space of whether I want to shift to PF2 for my main PF group, stay with PF1 since I have plenty of AP material to play yet, or focus on 5e and convert/use the PF APs with it since then I get to avoid the fiddlier classes and spells (and general bloat) that I don't really appreciate in later PF1 books.

[Davor Firetusk]

I understand the collecting impulse to be sure, but there is a big financial issue in supporting that many subscriptions, but even having cobbled together a huge fraction of 1E stuff through gifts, second hand and Humble Bundled I still have a few thousand pages of reading left...

In short there is a substantial time it takes to develop system mastery even if 2E is easier to GM, it is still going to take time to learn which is time not playing. That is my biggest issue with the take-up.

[CorvusMask]

Bounded accuracy is actually thing I really dislike in 5e <_< Much prefer the "higher level creatures have better ac and attack bonuses than lower level" ones since it avoids the "This cr 9 creature is much stronger than this cr 10 one both stat wise and ability wise" thing that is present in both 5e and PF 1e.

...I really am in need for "Let's complain about things about 5e" thread xD

[The-Magic-Sword]

I am absolutely the kind of player who likes the have new material coming out to get excited for, partially because I really enjoy the char op side of the game, but also because something about a living game with an active community discussing it, growing it, and receiving support is much better.

[Ediwir]

Y'all make me miss my bookshelves so much :/ I moved continent and now 70% of my stuff is unusable, wrong language...

[Samurai]

Ediwir wrote:

Y'all make me miss my bookshelves so much :/ I moved continent and now 70% of my stuff is unusable, wrong language...

So long as you can read it, it's still usable, for ideas if nothing else.

[Ravingdork]

Samurai wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Y'all make me miss my bookshelves so much :/ I moved continent and now 70% of my stuff is unusable, wrong language...

So long as you can read it, it's still usable, for ideas if nothing else.

This is why I haven't sold off my first edition collection like so many others. There are far too many ideas; too much useful info within them that can inspire and inform future campaigns and characters.

[Ruzza]

Ediwir wrote:

Y'all make me miss my bookshelves so much :/ I moved continent and now 70% of my stuff is unusable, wrong language...

I hear ya. Switched countries two years ago and left my entire collection of books with a friend. Excited to build anew with 2e, though!

[Xazil]

Anecdotal of course. I GM a face to face and 2 Fantasy Grounds (FG), and play two other Fantasy Grounds. I mention the FG because it automates the PF1 bonus 'bloat' making it a lot more manageable.

Face to Face has moved from DnD5E to PF2, I wouldnt GM PF1 higher levels because of the GM work levels. But 5E seems too simple and played out as we played from their play test onwards. PF2 has been well accepted. I ran Kingmaker 4 in PF2 playtest and consider the released rules much better than playtest.

FG Return of the Runelords. Currently in Book5 and planning on continuing to finish it on PF1.

FG Age of Ashes. Just finished book 1 and planning to continue onwards.

Playing FG PF1 Frog God campaign, about to finish and GM planning on running his next game as a converted to PF2 Frog God Northlands campaign.

Playing FG PF2 Frog God Rappun Athuk campaign by same GM as above also coverted.

So the summary is that my groups as a whole are now moved to PF2 as more complex than DnD5E and simpler/better than PF1.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Query, how much less complicated do people feel pf2e is core to core than pf1e?

Personally I feel that the complexity is barely lower (in play) thanks to areas where pf2e increases in complexity. But consistency and cohesion in the rules is higher in pf2e.

Kinda like fixing plumbing, doing it with greasy hands will make the task more tedious than if they were clean. But not more complex.

[Nocte ex Mortis]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think we can all agree Gorbacz is weird though.

Well, I mean, he is a sentient bag of devouring... which gives me a great idea for a NPC. How would one deal with a NG Bag of Devouring...

[Tremaine]

Rysky wrote:

I still really can't grasp the mindset of someone who supposedly loves an edition of a game and playing it completely dropping gaming all together after a new edition comes out.

It's not an MMO where the servers were shut down, you still have the books and campaigns.

depends why you loved it, if it's the system and a specific group, and that group goes to a system you don't enjoy, (and so far I don't enjoy pf2, the chaining of feats to classes feels like a straight jacket, and the role enforcement is monolithic and crushing, that's without the issues I have with archetypes as a concept, +lvl to everything and the 3 action system among others, the 'striker, defender and utility class split was awful in 4e and remains awful here, the sick joke that is war priests or champions [really good to take advantage of your enemies weapon getting caught in Your allies guts, or to torment them with visions of hell, or drive allies into a frenzy to force them forward.. Seriously hate champions reactions, morally, they all seem evil as sin, or designed to force you into a tank role, with.. 2 feats that support the classic fist of God paladin]) so.. Yea of the group I play with moves on, chances are I'll stop playing, Roll20 and FG groups all seem to fizzle, so not worth the effort their, and not travelling to the next city to look for another group, I have other things I could be doing, I love PF1, I have either systems I really enjoy, but as it stands if PF2 is the only game in town, pass.

I lurk here in the hopes something turns up that allows me to 'get' pf2, so far, nope.

[Rysky]

"Seriously hate champions reactions, morally, they all seem evil as sin, or designed to force you into a tank role"

… okay.

[Captain Morgan]

I think if you don't like the 3 action system you're too small of a minority to have much hope I'm afraid. It seems to be the most popular part of the system by a large margin.

[Lanathar]

That post complaining about 2E is quite difficult to read as it seems to be all one sentence when paragraphs would help. It is a shame because there might be some more parts to explore in there

But leaving that aside I am intrigued what it is about the 3 action system you don’t like since as Captain mentions it is probably the most popular part even amongst those who don’t really like the new game

[Fumarole]

Hey give 'em credit, at least it wasn't in all caps.

[Vidmaster7]

So I could probably stop buying new editions and since I make up my own games and content and rarely play pre-built games I can basically run the same edition for the rest of my life if I chose to. My first DM still plays 1st edition AD&D and has no desire to ever change. Most of my friends would be fine playing PF1 for pretty much ever with the occasional break for something else to change things up. I mostly want to move to PF2 because I think the mechanics would fit well with some of my players play styles and it seems easier to DM. Their was things in PF1 that I didn't like. for example when one of my players feels he isn't effective because a class or archetype isn't balanced well with another. I hate seeing something that I love the concept for but the mechanics fall short (the hulking brute for example). So with a new edition I like to hope they will clear up those issues. Also the new skill system is super nifty.

[Samurai]

Vlorax wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Well, Gorbacz inspired me to finally write the review I've been procrastinating on for months.

I gave it one star, too much demanding to be PC and with a numerically inferior potentiality for multiclassing, obviously!

/s

Same, had to give it 1 star and then complain about verisimilitude and succubus's wearing too many clothes while yelling that they told me not to be offensive!

Ediwir wrote:

Same. With no changes to the lore between edition, Golarion still uses the same solar system. One star.

I had held off until now as well, but I was a little bit kinder than you 1-star folks: I gave it 3 stars, and it's as honest a review as I can give. It has potential and some good ideas, but it needs a lot of work, either lots of House rules and/or GM handwaving.

[Rysky]

The /s means sarcasm.

Or was there a pun in what you said?

[Samurai]

Rysky wrote:

The /s means sarcasm.

Or was there a pun in what you said?

I knew the 1-star review posts were jokes/sarcasm. My review was honest as I could make it though, not an anti-PC comment in the whole thing.

[swoosh]

Samurai wrote:

I had held off until now as well, but I was a little bit kinder than you 1-star folks: I gave it 3 stars, and it's as honest a review as I can give. It has potential and some good ideas, but it needs a lot of work, either lots of House rules and/or GM handwaving.

TBH I'd say your houserules have done a good job highlighting just how coherently and well put together the base game actually is.

[Gorbacz]

237 revues. Poor Starfinder!

[Nocte ex Mortis]

Starfinder has the unfortunate role of being the Star Wars: Saga Edition for Pathfinder 2E. A lot of good ideas, some uneven balancing issues, and the absolute worst enchanting for weapons and armor that I’ve ever had to use in a D&D-based system.

[mach1.9pants]

Gorbacz wrote:

Steve, you're ... weird, BUT - if there's anything PF1 fans could be frustrated at, it's that there weren't more people like you.

Well he IS an Ozzie, so maybe weird for us but not so for Platypus land! ;-)

[mach1.9pants]

But I'm a Steve too, tons of gaming stuff, 90% is for reading. I play 5E with my kids, so the Books and DDB for that get used. Everything else is for my reading.

[Tremaine]

Lanathar wrote:

That post complaining about 2E is quite difficult to read as it seems to be all one sentence when paragraphs would help. It is a shame because there might be some more parts to explore in there

But leaving that aside I am intrigued what it is about the 3 action system you don’t like since as Captain mentions it is probably the most popular part even amongst those who don’t really like the new game

The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack, it has removed the fun of two weapon fighters and flurries huge pile of attacks (low chance of success I admit, but something about rolling 6 or more different coloured d20s for an attack routine is great), and I liked the feel of the war gaming legacy turn structure, the move action, standard action and action of opportunity felt 'right' for a fantasy rpg.

My issue with the MC archetypes is: they fail at multiclassing, you aren't sacrificing one progression for another, you can't represent someone who has turned their back on a career with it, because they keep improving at that first class, so Brother Cadfael would have kept levelling as a fighter, even as he was living as a Benedictine, and gaining xp as an investigator, so they don't achieve an in story goal, and end up just being a feat tax on weapon skills, one that locks you into a 3 feat investment, especially if you want to join a knightly order or similar.

My issue with the rock solid role enforcement is the same in pf2 as it was with 4e, if I want the tank/dps/debuff/healer split, I have a computer, and MMOs do it better, it is a set of mechanics lifted from MMO and CRPG gaming and forced onto the tabletop, and it damages the classes it touches, my examples, because the annoy me the most, are Champions and War Priests. Champion has gone from the crusader of ADnD (seriously seeking out a Holy Avenger was part of the code of morality, as was forsaking all other weapons to use it), who in art was portrayed as standing alone against the demonic, who in DnD 3.x was even more the righteous hand of divine power, smiting evil and standing while others could not, but with more concepts validated by the feat system opening up archery, and weapon styles that previously hadn't been possible, to now be the guy who hangs back hoping his enemies leave an opening as their weapons get stuck in his allies, if he wants to make best use of his reaction.

War Priests are a joke, they took one of my favourite mechanics fron PF1, the 1-6 caster with secondary resources, (be that WP with fervor, Magus with Arcana, Hunter with their stances or w/e) and used it as the name for a class that has zero feats related to, well, the War part of the name, and is stuck with 1-9 casting. They are the classic cleric and them being given that name makes it clear, those fun classes of PF1 aren't coming back.

Those issues will do for now.

Sorry about the formatting of the orgininal post, it was stream of consciousness a little, I hadn't intended to do a 'and this is what I don't like about PF2 dump.

I visit this forum in the vain hope I will read a post that makes the system click for me, something I have missed that makes it possible for me to look past those issues enough to actually enjoy it, because I don't live in a big city where finding a group playing classic is possible, and I like Golarion as a setting, but as it stands of its PF2 or nothing, I chose doing another hobby. My experience with Roll20 etc has been bad, not through meeting bad people, just that timezones and real life commitments fizzle those groups fairly quickly.

[Squiggit]

Tremaine wrote:

The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack

Full attack style iteratives were the one of the worst things that could ever happen to martials. They consistently helped to hold martials as an entire archetype back throughout the entire life of 3.x and PF1. Ana ll around terrible mechanic.

You phrase this as though getting rid of them has somehow left martials worse, but that's simply not true, it's almost purely an upgrade, both in terms of relative power this edition and in term of overall mechanical functionality.

Quote:

My issue with the rock solid role enforcement

This one I question on a fundamental level. What 'rock solid' role enforcement?

[Gorbacz]

239 reviews, including one by the one and only Ravingdork, complete with dorky raving and pictures. Man, you should do more of these!

[Ediwir]

Squiggit wrote:

Quote:

My issue with the rock solid role enforcement

This one I question on a fundamental level. What 'rock solid' role enforcement?

I think he means the fact that classes have specialties. Y'know, fighters have the highest attack bonus, barbarians have the highest hp and flat damage, champions have the best AC and teamwork powers, and so on, and it's difficult to poach them from a different class.

We should make them all "fighter, but better" like it was in 1e. Just don't forget power attack.

(jokes aside, I expect some role muddling once class archetype start getting added to the mix. I just hope it's done well, I like that not every class can do everything the other classes do - makes it meaningful)

[Tremaine]

Squiggit wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack

Full attack style iteratives were the one of the worst things that could ever happen to martials. They consistently helped to hold martials as an entire archetype back throughout the entire life of 3.x and PF1. Ana ll around terrible mechanic.

You phrase this as though getting rid of them has somehow left martials worse, but that's simply not true, it's almost purely an upgrade, both in terms of relative power this edition and in term of overall mechanical functionality.

Quote:

My issue with the rock solid role enforcement

This one I question on a fundamental level. What 'rock solid' role enforcement?

From experience with the 3 action system, hard disagree that it is an upgrade, it felt boring, flat and uninteresting, everyone had 3 actions, everyone was the same...bleughh. It was boring in unchained, boring in playtest, and boring in live. I loved the challenge and payoff of setting up those full round attacks, now? Everyone can do it, everyone bounds around like super mario...no solid battle lines shattering in a charge, no collapse in disarray, no getting cut to pieces if you are dumb enough to try to run past an enemy (unless they have a specific class with a specific feat)

On rock solid role enforcement: Their are, for champions 3 feats that aren't tied to either healing or tanking with their reaction, and those are arguable. (Smite is a tick until they hit you, blade spirit feats are ok for this, the Oaths are tied to reactions ,so part of the problem, that champions feats are tied to provoking aggro, not striking down evil)

Champions are bound to the tank role, no matter if that is utterly and totally anathema to what your vision of paladins is, you have that or heal as the supported play styles, nothing that supports, properly, being the right hand of a wrathful deity, either the near frenzy and rage of Good/Chaos axis, the cold burning wrath of the law/good axis, or the judgement and compassion of the pure good of n/g axis.