Wow. Over 500 posts already? That's averaging about 21 posts a day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have always said that 4th edition had some good ideas within it's framework, but that the failing it had was in the execution. Healing Surges, Defenses, and the blocks of two (Three for the Wizard) types of powers/abilities.
It's failing was that it lost the flavour of the original game. Powers in D&D4 began to bear little relationship to the class concept. Everything began to feel like it was created with a cookie cutter.
Part of the charm of original D&D or PF1 is that there where interesting corners and implications to the rules. There was some reward for system mastery.
The problem had always been the carbon copy of the classes into the same cut out with different names. Then Essentials happened and broke the system.
Broke in what sense? Mechanically it mostly worked.
PF1 is the continuation of the more robust system that the new shiny (4th edition) moved away from in favor of balance. Now we have the new edition from the brand that is simple but limited in scope. My overall feeling is that most here will stick with the Pathfinder game for both the better setting (FR was ruined by the time jump) and more robust system in PF2.
Robust is not a term I would use to describe any of the versions of D&D or PF. But if you must use it PF2 is far more robust than anything that its gone before. Robust in the sense of mechanically solid, balanced, most options work OK, and its not easily broken.
I will agree PF2 has taken a lot of stuff from 4e for better or worse.
The biggest things PF2 has over 4e is that it is very much tied to the setting. This means that PF2 avoided one of the pitfalls of 4e in that the classes do not appear to be cookie cutter. However, looking closer, you can see that there are a lot of parts that make PF2 classes cookie cutter: Level structure, static features, and duplicated feats.
Which I personally am perfectly fine with, since those uniform elements operate in the background. What I didn't enjoy in 4e was the uniformity of the At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers for every single class. And the existence of minor actions led to a lot of metagamey thinking. In PF 2e the classes still feel different in how they interact with the three-action economy, and it feels more "natural" to me.
That said, I do want to give 4e another shot, as 2e has made me want to give it another look.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is, at the very least, more fertile ground to till by "learning from what 4e did well, and poorly, and iterating on that" than there is in yet another 3.x retread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I think PF2 is also the spiritual successor of PF1, pretty intensely, as it is the system designed to tell the stories that the folks that have been writing golarion adventures want to tell. Which is a big part of why I got over any resentment I had about wanting a system that didn't scale up so fast in power level. Golarion is a place where people can have a meteoric rise in power relatively quickly when they take center stage in a major story. I don't really think PF2 is more and one previous system than a response to the lessons of previous systems, centered around building a world and a game system that best fits the stories paizo wants to tell about Golarion.
You know I expected people to adamantly disagree with me, partly because 4E is the edition everyone hates (except me, it’s still my favorite) and doubly so because the reason Pathfinder exists at all is due to people hating 4E so much they wanted 3.x to go on forever seemingly. Yet here we are agreeing and everyone being like “yeah it IS the 4E spiritual successor and it is very great” :o
It's not that suprising that after years of wrestling with the 3.x framework, Paizo devs and WotC devs came to many similar conclusions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making a character in PF2 is a breeze to do by hand. Certainly FAR more so than PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I expected people to adamantly disagree with me, partly because 4E is the edition everyone hates (except me, it’s still my favorite) and doubly so because the reason Pathfinder exists at all is due to people hating 4E so much they wanted 3.x to go on forever seemingly. Yet here we are agreeing and everyone being like “yeah it IS the 4E spiritual successor and it is very great” :oIt's not that suprising that after years of wrestling with the 3.x framework, Paizo devs and WotC devs came to many similar conclusions.
I didn't mind D&D4, my real criticism of it was some powers were totally dominant, and it just didn't feel like D&D. But yes we can learn from things that didn't work.
The systems are not that similar. Everyone knows that a large part of the reason PF1 was so successful was the negative reaction from fans to D&D4. Essentally the core of Paizo's customer base are people who didn't like D&D4 enough to change systems over it.
Yes there is effectively a short and long rest, and the main point of customization is the powers/feats. Even D&D5 has short and long rests. PF2 like PF1 gives you a lot more classes, feats and options - which is what I like about it the pure flexibility. (No I don't buy the illusion of choice naysayers). The core part of PF2 is the action system and the proficiency system, which makes it unique.
Pathbuilder 2 is free and works quite well.
I use both this and AoN, as both answer different needs IMO.
Not on this Mac it doesn't. :-)
That said, I agree that AoN is very useful, and that I tend to refer to it rather than actual books for most things.
I do use Herolab Online for character generation. Yeah, it's not free, and it's not perfect. But it works for me, mostly, and the Wolflair has been responsive when I've reported problems (most of which, it turns out, were my fault, not the software's).
Making a character in PF2 is a breeze to do by hand. Certainly FAR more so than PF1.
Yeah, I can basically build 1st level characters in my head if I'm familiar enough with the heritages and 1st level feats that are relevant.
If I'm going to build like an 8th level character from scratch, that's going to take some work but that's always taken work (most of which is "gearing the character" which happens to be simpler now.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well one thing that is for sure, is that Pathbuilder has spoiled me to the point of not wanting to make new characters that aren't included in the app (such as many of the playtest classes).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to say though that no amount of trouble creating a PF2 character compares to how much time I spent on "figuring out the exact alternate racial traits I need to pick to play the dwarf I want" in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to say though that no amount of trouble creating a PF2 character compares to how much time I spent on "figuring out the exact alternate racial traits I need to pick to play the dwarf I want" in PF1.
Very true!!!
PF1 often took me several hours to make a single mid- to high-level character (roughly a whole day). By contrast, even without app assistance, I can make a PF2 character inside of an hour (and in less than 10 minutes with said apps).
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I think thats not because PF1 is more difficult to build but because of the sheer amount of possible options.
Yeah, no.
If PF2 had twice the options of PF1, it would still be an order of magnitude easier to build characters for. Feats are separated by category and by level to limit the number that you need to care about at one time, there are no long chains of largely unrelated feats that you need to plot for levels in advance, and you don't need to weigh feats that do neat tricks against vital math fixers.
It is built from the ground up a much more efficient and extensible system, and it shows - the fact that building is even easier with Pathbuilder is just an added bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A thing I want to try sometime is "make characters by telling a story about this person" and the have the group work backwards to figure out their character sheet.
Something like "I was a bartender who got a little too into mixology, to the point where I was blowing things up by accident, and sometimes when you do that you upset people who aren't noteworthy for being understanding. Fortunately for me, these sorts of people don't tend to invest in good locks or particularly alert security" tells me that this is a bomber alchemist with the barkeep background who is trained in Thievery and Stealth, so I'm almost done with a level 1 character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I think thats not because PF1 is more difficult to build but because of the sheer amount of possible options.Yeah, no.
If PF2 had twice the options of PF1, it would still be an order of magnitude easier to build characters for. Feats are separated by category and by level to limit the number that you need to care about at one time, there are no long chains of largely unrelated feats that you need to plot for levels in advance, and you don't need to weigh feats that do neat tricks against vital math fixers.
It is built from the ground up a much more efficient and extensible system, and it shows - the fact that building is even easier with Pathbuilder is just an added bonus.
Funny story, I was introducing someone to PF2 last week and got through character creation okay, but when they learned that they essentially get a feat every level (out of different buckets, sure) the response was "I have to go feat shopping /every/ level?"
The fact that the feat pools don't have as much in them was not an ameliorating factor.
That's certainly a valid reaction if coming from 5E or new to tabletop gaming entirely, but the context of the discussion is comparing to PF1. If they have this sort of reaction to PF2's character building then PF1 will give them brain damage.
I've got to say my reaction would be "So, 4-5 choices when you level is actually too much for you?"
I mean, I realize some people playing class systems don't really want to have options but its always strange to see it in the wild.
If someone doesn't like something, its not my place as the GM to try to make them feel bad about it or denigrate their feelings on the matter--especially if I want them to keep trying a new system with which they are uncomfortable.
This is a matter of correct framing. Instead of "need to go feat shopping every level" you just need to frame it as something similar to "You get to make your character unique at every level".
Given the reaction, I take it that the player is not someone that likes or is willing to read deeper into the systems, nudges towards interesting options and a explanation may definitely take some of the burden out of the player while they get used to it. Just a couple levels in and some reading ahead and the player is liked to look forward for a level up, either to get some interesting skill feat or the next step for their class path.
But I think thats not because PF1 is more difficult to build but because of the sheer amount of possible options.Yeah, no.
If PF2 had twice the options of PF1, it would still be an order of magnitude easier to build characters for. Feats are separated by category and by level to limit the number that you need to care about at one time, there are no long chains of largely unrelated feats that you need to plot for levels in advance, and you don't need to weigh feats that do neat tricks against vital math fixers.
It is built from the ground up a much more efficient and extensible system, and it shows - the fact that building is even easier with Pathbuilder is just an added bonus.
Funny story, I was introducing someone to PF2 last week and got through character creation okay, but when they learned that they essentially get a feat every level (out of different buckets, sure) the response was "I have to go feat shopping /every/ level?"
The fact that the feat pools don't have as much in them was not an ameliorating factor.
Point him to D&D5 there is less balance but it is simple. Once you have chosen your sub class you almost have no choice if you are not a caster...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like pointing out as 1e gm who has run multiple aps to high levels that as GM its really frustrating to prep hours your homebrew and then halfling with slingstaff full attacks, automatically hits with anything but nat 1 and deals 40 damage with each hit to wipe out your homebrew in single turn.
And that wasn't even the optimal character :P That was my players taking it easy, they leave truly broken stuff for oneshots.
1e math just doesn't work so all talk about "at least you can negate bad luck with build" makes me response with "Well yeah, because you can eliminate need for rolling at all almost!" :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like pointing out as 1e gm who has run multiple aps to high levels that as GM its really frustrating to prep hours your homebrew and then halfling with slingstaff full attacks, automatically hits with anything but nat 1 and deals 40 damage with each hit to wipe out your homebrew in single turn.
And that wasn't even the optimal character :P That was my players taking it easy, they leave truly broken stuff for oneshots.
1e math just doesn't work so all talk about "at least you can negate bad luck with build" makes me response with "Well yeah, because you can eliminate need for rolling at all almost!" :P
Until you homebrew your own NPC Caster and win initiative and greater possess their cleric who had to roll a 15 or higher, despite it being their strongest save, and they have no one else in the party who can exorcise you, and then they get upset at how powerful magic is when they don't get to control it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly the reason why nobody truly likes auto fails/auto successes :P
The players ONLY like it when they are the ones doing it. And nobody likes GMs who do it themselves because it would be "unfair" as players can't design entire scenario on them automatically succeeding every roll ;P(well from certain point of view)
Anyway, there is lot to like in 1e, but I call out anyone who tries to argue that it is a good thing player can just have so high bonus on attacks or skills that they automatically defeat anything from bestiary with exact same maneuver each time.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know I expected people to adamantly disagree with me, partly because 4E is the edition everyone hates (except me, it’s still my favorite) and doubly so because the reason Pathfinder exists at all is due to people hating 4E so much they wanted 3.x to go on forever seemingly. Yet here we are agreeing and everyone being like “yeah it IS the 4E spiritual successor and it is very great” :oIt's not that suprising that after years of wrestling with the 3.x framework, Paizo devs and WotC devs came to many similar conclusions.
True, but I think they would have been MUCH better served if they instead decided to create a "successor" for the far more popular 5e rather than the failed 4e. Unlike 3.5, where fans clamored for someone to keep publishing for it (which Paizo did successfully), very few gamers have fond, loving memories of 4e games and are asking for more...
So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Pathfinder ever starts catering to the same crowd as 5e Paizo is done as a company. Hell, it could be a better experience for that group and it would still fail - 5e's got mainstream name recognition on its side, the only way for Pathfinder to find success is to cater to people who are dissatisfied with Wizards' product.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.
Have you tried playing it without 5+ pages of houserule/homebrew?
Yeah, a GM having a page or two of rulings, clarifications and even a couple of game shifts is not the same thing as a GM having a single house rule that completely changes everything about the game. As a player if I am getting into a campaign with a GM that has no document of rulings on the game I am probably asking a lot of questions in session 0 about the aspects of the game that are still nebulous, especially if any character is leaning towards choosing them. In PF2 this is usually pretty minor stuff like “how do you handle the acid damage from a spell like acid splash?”
In PF1, it was usually a pretty lengthy conversation involving more major game concepts like “how do illusions work in your world?”
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if, hypothetically, the GM in question had 20+ pages of houserules and hadn't played without them? Not to speak for Malk, but I believe their quote was: "If a DM offered me a game with even a single page of houserules after having never played Vanilla, I'd say no."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that 5e and Pathfinder are completely opposite in design mentality.
5e wants everything to be down to advantage/disadvantage, and doesn't really want players to make choices. A character at level 10 isn't that much more powerful than a level 1.
Pathfinder wants players to make choices and customize even if it ultimately results in a more complex game. A character at level 10 will utterly destroy level 1s without even trying.