Are PF2 rules robust enough for a tactical RPG (Computer)

[graeme mcdougall]

So obviously they are enough for a CRPG (Classic RPG) which is party-based a la Pathfinder Kingmaker or Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous.

But I'm talking about computer RPGs where turn-based battle is the main focus, like Shining Force, Final Fantasy Tactics & Fire Emblem.

The reason I ask is that I recently completed Fire Emblem 3 Houses. It was a fun game & I enjoyed it. But all the way through I was thinking:

- The action system is basically this: You get 1 standard action & 1 move. But your turn ends as soon as you do the standard action. If you want to move, you have to do it first.

And it struck me how antiquated & limited this is compared to PF2's 3-action system. Or even PF1's system.

I think there's enough in the PF2 rules to make a great Tactical RPG & I hope it's obvious that in terms of lore, items etc Pathfindr as a brand easily has what it takes.

Of course, there might not be any money in tactical RPGs, but I was just thinking out loud.

[Seisho]

I think this would be great but I would let the whole thing grow a bit

And I would certainly hope that there's no another kingmaker debacle

A tactical rpg would certainly be more adequate to represent the game then one of those old rpgs like nvn, baldurs gate and...well, the kingmaker rpg

[Ssalarn]

Seisho wrote:

I think this would be great but I would let the whole thing grow a bit

And I would certainly hope that there's no another kingmaker debacle

A tactical rpg would certainly be more adequate to represent the game then one of those old rpgs like nvn, baldurs gate and...well, the kingmaker rpg

Kingmaker is a hugely popular game that made almost a million dollars on Kickstarter and then went on to sell significantly more after release. Wrath of the Righteous, a direct sequel using the same engine, drew more than twice the number of backers and more than twice the funding, clearing over two and a quarter million once late backers pledged in.

It's a debacle in the way that the loaf of bread ruined by penicillin was a debacle, such a bad idea that it was immediately reiterated to an even larger and more invested audience :P

[Themetricsystem]

I SUSPECT they've mixed up their video games here and are instead thinking of Pathfinder Online which makes a lot more sense but then again they DID bring it up in the context of BG.... I dunno man.

Maybe this is just a personal opinion thing but I have to agree with you that the Kingmaker PC game was AWESOME. A bit buggy during the first several builds that lasted for a few months, but overall and in the end it resulted in a REALLY awesome game even if it did have to diverge from the 1st Ed mechanics and math somewhat to have it make sense from the purely gamist perspective.

[Unicore]

I enjoyed BG and Kingmaker, but I would still rather not see PF2 converted into a real time movement video game. The three action economy is too beautiful to get muddled up in the chaos of having a bunch of characters moving around at once. A tactical RPG like Final Fantasy tactics or X-com would be a lot of fun though and probably work well with the system.

[Captain Morgan]

I just started Divinity Original Sin II (I think, that title is too long) and it uses an action point based turn structure which is quite like the 3 action economy. I haven't played it enough to be sure I like it, but the game has garnered amazing reviews. So, sure, can't see why it wouldn't work as a video game.

[siegfriedliner]

I do wonder if the balance of pathfinder 2e would be a problem. A lot of the buzz on youtube for games like original sins and kingmaker comes around builds which unlike pathfinder 1e is mostly irrelevant in 2e.

[AnimatedPaper]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I just started Divinity Original Sin II (I think, that title is too long) and it uses an action point based turn structure which is quite like the 3 action economy. I haven't played it enough to be sure I like it, but the game has garnered amazing reviews. So, sure, can't see why it wouldn't work as a video game.

Agreed. Also cast times and the action economy is pretty close, so if it works for WoW...

It would be fun if you could make it so reactions were queued up in priority to automatically trigger, to simulate off turn power.

[Kyrone]

Fireaxis Xcom is basically a 2-action system with moving and shooting with the shooting sometimes being replaced by a grenade or or some ability and is an extremely popular game.

Chimera Squad even use some sort of Initiative system as well instead of blue/red team turn.

I could totally see PF2 working in a system similar, I would love something with permanent death, base management and PF2 combat in a game.

[breithauptclan]

The Fire Emblem games are actually a bit of an outlier in the genre in that they don't let you choose the order of actions - you have to move first if you are going to move.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

It would be fun if you could make it so reactions were queued up in priority to automatically trigger, to simulate off turn power.

Final Fantasy Tactics and its successors would let you set a reaction skill that would happen any time it was triggered (even multiple times between character turns). You only got to set one, though the characters often had several to choose from.

[Ssalarn]

siegfriedliner wrote:

I do wonder if the balance of pathfinder 2e would be a problem. A lot of the buzz on youtube for games like original sins and kingmaker comes around builds which unlike pathfinder 1e is mostly irrelevant in 2e.

I think the opposite is probably true. PF2 builds directly affect your action combinations and tactical choices, which is the kind of variety you want in a video game. PF1's number-crunching is the kind of thing you don't really want to carry too much of into a video game, because it can stagnate play. You don't hear the same level of interest in number crunching if the base game isn't engaging enough to capture a wide enough audience. World of Warcraft is a pretty good example of this; for most of the time you're playing a new character, growth is about developing your tactical niche and unlocking new abilities. It's not until you've played 90% of the game that the number crunching really starts becoming relevant and high end build strategies become the thing you focus on. In that regard, PF2 is much more of a modern game in that everyone has basic competency assumed and players of all skill levels will spend most of their early levels developing a tactical style for their character; the little number boosters you go to feats and items to grab are most relevant after you've built out your character into whatever their niche is going to be.

By contrast, a PF1 fighter focusing on numeric buffs like Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Weapon Specialization, etc. will get notably stronger, but your actual playstyle won't change at all over the course of several levels, which is generally the opposite of what you want in a video game. PF2 tacks all the static buffs into the base progression and then spends class feats on modifying playstyle and tactical choice, which tends to be more in line with what you expect from a successful modern video game. PF2's early level focus is expanding your tactics and capabilities first, while PF1's focus is about boosting numbers first and then maybe boosting tactical options once the numbers have reached the desired thresholds.

These things can work hand in hand and aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but PF2's "I leveled up so now I can move twice, stab an enemy, and then suplex them into the dirt" is much more in line with the growth and performance of modern games than PF1's "I leveled up so now my playstyle and tactical options are exactly the same except now the numbers are slightly bigger", at least when looking at fighters and the like.

breithauptclan wrote:

The Fire Emblem games are actually a bit of an outlier in the genre in that they don't let you choose the order of actions - you have to move first if you are going to move.

More reflective of their origins. The other big SRPGs that originated around the same time, like Shining Force and Langrisser, worked the same way.

[KrispyXIV]

I'm torn.

On one hand, I think PF2Es action system and class balance would be fantastic in a turn based PC game, similar to Divinity Original Sin 2, or the absolutely excellent turn based mod for Pathfinder Kingmaker.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly content with Owlcat continuing to adapt and release 1E APs with the tools they already have where they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel each time...

I mean, I'm happy either way, honestly...

[Seisho]

I admit I might not be quite up to date about the kingmaker game
All I remeber was horrible balance and the fact that the game had some things muddled up about skills and the same movement and 'turn' system like all the old school dnd games

To properly work a PF2 game would (imo) need either a Divinity Original Sin like combat engine or something like in classical tactical rpgs or the x-com reboot series

[Malk_Content]

So the thing that really bugged me about kingmaker and the pacg adaptation is they were built as complete products rather than platforms for easily expanded content. All I want from the card game is new characters and modules, but there isnt. A PF2 tactical video game built on the idea of easily adding new content would leverage paizos strongest asset (their adventure and module writing) that they are already producing. Make it easy on yourself to add them and I'll happily pay to add PFS seasons to my game.

[masda_gib]

I would totally buy a PF2 XCOM!

When PF2 3-action system came out it reminded my of tactic games like Hidden&Dangerous. The fact that there is a Take Cover action like in some modern shooter did its part, too. :)

I think a game of quick mission with some strategy & story interludes to connect them would play nice.

In XCOM Chimera Squad you can choose your entry point to the scene and each gives different bonusses (or penalties). In a PF2 tactic game you might choose your exploration tactic before a mission for that.

[Malk_Content]

masda_gib wrote:

I would totally buy a PF2 XCOM!

When PF2 3-action system came out it reminded my of tactic games like Hidden&Dangerous. The fact that there is a Take Cover action like in some modern shooter did its part, too. :)

I think a game of quick mission with some strategy & story interludes to connect them would play nice.

In XCOM Chimera Squad you can choose your entry point to the scene and each gives different bonusses (or penalties). In a PF2 tactic game you might choose your exploration tactic before a mission for that.

Thatd be a nice way to bring in skills actually.

Imagine going into a wilderness scenario. With no one trained in Nature you get one choice if spawn location. With Nature you get three. With Expert Nature you get the same but one location now has "Found Medicinal Herbs" giving you an extra healing consumable and another "Good Vantage Point" pre revealing some enemies. Do similar things for other skills.

[Timeshadow]

I would love this. I hope to see it happen someday soon. (I love the X-COM games)

[KrispyXIV]

Seisho wrote:

I admit I might not be quite up to date about the kingmaker game

All I remeber was horrible balance and the fact that the game had some things muddled up about skills and the same movement and 'turn' system like all the old school dnd games

The difference between the game on release and the game today is night and day. Most of the bugs are patched, and the difficulty shifts are more transparent. Unlike a lot of modern games, it's just plain hard unless you learn or know the Pathfinder system. The monster stats aren't based on PNP, but that adjustment is necessary to account for some of the realities of PC gaming (such as the ability to just Quick Load and try an encountet again).

As well, the mod community has done some fantastic work. The mod Call of the Wild added a ton of missing classes and content (Summoner, Oracle, Witch, plus lots more) and the Turn Based mod is so good its the basis of the Turn Based mode in the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous.

I highly reccomend it.

[HumbleGamer]

It could be nice.

They should also release a map editor if they decide to do so. It could definitely be win win.

[RPGnoremac]

I believe it would be a great video game, mainly since I have played quite a bit of tactical RPGs and Pathfinder 2e mechanics are far superior to many of them. Most have a basica move+attack.

Pathfinder 2e has so many options with just the core rules and when the APG releases the options will be insane. That combined with the 3 action economy would make the game amazing.

Personally I would love either a full tactical rpgs like X-Com/Final Fantasy Tactics or even a CRPG with turn based combat (Divinity/Pillars of Eternity 2).

[Gorbacz]

A turn-based RPG based on Pathfinder 2e by Larian Studios would be my dream. Almost makes me feel bad about them doing Baldur's Gate 3 now ;)

[AnimatedPaper]

breithauptclan wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

It would be fun if you could make it so reactions were queued up in priority to automatically trigger, to simulate off turn power.

Final Fantasy Tactics and its successors would let you set a reaction skill that would happen any time it was triggered (even multiple times between character turns). You only got to set one, though the characters often had several to choose from.

That's mostly how I'd like to see it working, yeah, but I do think having two or three set in a priority would work too. Or 1 by default, but in battle some of your actions can "bump" your set reaction to a lower priority and put a different one on top. Setting one would encourage a bit of pre-battle thinking, but letting your in combat actions jiggle it lets those options, like aid or shield remain useful.

[MaxAstro]

I've been pretty vocal on these forums that I desperately, desperately want an X-Com style PF2e game.

Take some inspiration from Darkest Dungeon too - have the premise of the game be that you are managing a Pathfinder Lodge. That would be an absolute dream, to me.

[WatersLethe]

MaxAstro wrote:

I've been pretty vocal on these forums that I desperately, desperately want an X-Com style PF2e game.

Take some inspiration from Darkest Dungeon too - have the premise of the game be that you are managing a Pathfinder Lodge. That would be an absolute dream, to me.

Same. Turn based, grid or hex based, and painstakingly true to the tabletop game would be my ideal pathfinder videogame.

I would like it if it could literally be used like a virtual tabletop.

[tqomins]

MaxAstro wrote:

I've been pretty vocal on these forums that I desperately, desperately want an X-Com style PF2e game.

Take some inspiration from Darkest Dungeon too - have the premise of the game be that you are managing a Pathfinder Lodge. That would be an absolute dream, to me.

Yes, absolutely.

[Malk_Content]

From a coding perspective PF2 is put together very nicely. It's practically set out every term one would need to define (and how) to build the framework for entities and actions.

Further thoughts on skills in a video game that, by necessity, limits your agency in deploying skills. Knowledge skills are great when they first reveal information about an enemy but if you play the game again you've probably not forgotten that so they lose value. Perhaps then they can give you a glimpse at the enemies next turn, like Slay the Spire. For example you are fighting some Assassins, Society telling you that enemy A us going to "target the lowest HP enemy they can reach" and B "attack the nearest enemy" would let you into a little positioning puzzle where you can manipulate ai targeting.