|
I very much enjoy the "4 ability boosts" system. Not really seeing the "sameness" that people are talking about. Sure, if you go all in on your class's main thing then pump up the save stats, things can look kind of similar. Although even then, you have 12+ stat differences characters' stats (str vs int on a fighter and wizard, for instance)
But the second you start looking for cool stuff you stat array can start looking very different. Multiclassing, using skill feats like Bon Mot, not maximizing your main stat... you can end up with a lot of differences and everyone feeling like they could use more boosts.
And you definitely *can* leaves stats at 10 if you so choose, or slack of on some of your save stats because a couple points here or there aren't going to break you.
I agree. I prefer 2E's ability score boosts over 1E's mandatory stat-boosting items. As complaints that they make characters too similar, by level 5 level contributes more to your roll than ability scores do. The same is true (to a lesser extent) for proficiency ranks.
Now save stats are generally better than non-save stats, and Wisdom in particular has too much going for it IMO. But I've seen enough PCs to know that it isn't true that PCs end up with the same ability scores.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about "if everyone's super" was the villain for a reason, an investment in just being better than everyone else as a grounds for wanting to be super is unhealthy. The Incredibles, in the movie are a team, in the family everyone is super, and it doesn't make any of them lesser.
I knew that phrase by the Syndrome character was somewhat "wrong" in an instinctive manner, but couldn't describe it well with words. And this was a very good explanation of my gut feeling on that statement.
I believe that while some wish fulfilling power fantasy is healthy for your mental stress, such comparisons are better done against the general NPC population in the setting instead of fellow players...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about "if everyone's super" was the villain for a reason, an investment in just being better than everyone else as a grounds for wanting to be super is unhealthy. The Incredibles, in the movie are a team, in the family everyone is super, and it doesn't make any of them lesser.I knew that phrase by the Syndrome character was somewhat "wrong" in an instinctive manner, but couldn't describe it well with words. And this was a very good explanation of my gut feeling on that statement.
I believe that while some wish fulfilling power fantasy is healthy for your mental stress, such comparisons are better done against the general NPC population in the setting instead of fellow players...
My wish fulfillment is about being relied on and trusted by others as a member of a team that kicks ass together, having a secure place in that group, and of mutual improvement through friendly rivalry with others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is precisely why I quit PF2.
As somebody who DM'd a couple of PF2e sessions (I was running Plaguestone via Roll20) you've summed up a couple of the reasons I didn't jive with the system. I'm most used to DMing for low to mid-level 3.x characters (3 to 10) and playing stuff like Red Hand of Doom (usually with heavily edited encounters to deal with very skewed parties) or a pure sandbox game where I'd build out encounters as we went and only really plan a session or two ahead if I even planned that far. PF2e while looking similar at a glance just didn't feel right and I think a lot of your statements - as well as those of others - have shown just why things felt so strange.
Coming from 3.x and players who had a boring job where they'd pass time by building new characters while folding boxes I'd rather my players start a bit broken and let me gradually bring the challenge level up over a few sessions as we dial into how the party at the table solves problems.
I'm a very permissive DM who wants to let players play anything, as long as it doesn't break the game completely, and PF2e just feels like my players are in straight jackets. For example, I'll never get to see a Troll Paladin who uses a ring of sustenance to keep his instincts in check in this system. I certainly won't get the joy of running an adversarial evil party who don't coordinate well most of the time and who'd let another party member perish just for a chance to steal their magic boots, it just isn't something PF2e seems to want to support.
I think for all the fun that can be had with PF2e the tight math just makes it too difficult to get wierd with it and that's a shame.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I feel pretty free to express character concepts with the game and more content keeps rolling out. I like the tight math bc as a dm I don't have to worry about adjusting encounters for a party of 3 power gamers and one rp buff. Encounters just work AND the players have a toy box to work with. Everybody wins when the structure of the system lends itself to a heathy game. I've said it before but I feel this system is the best compromise I've seen to the wishes of both sides of the dm screen. It's loads of fun to run or play. Definitely the best of all the d20 systems ive played
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is precisely why I quit PF2.As somebody who DM'd a couple of PF2e sessions (I was running Plaguestone via Roll20) you've summed up a couple of the reasons I didn't jive with the system. I'm most used to DMing for low to mid-level 3.x characters (3 to 10) and playing stuff like Red Hand of Doom (usually with heavily edited encounters to deal with very skewed parties) or a pure sandbox game where I'd build out encounters as we went and only really plan a session or two ahead if I even planned that far. PF2e while looking similar at a glance just didn't feel right and I think a lot of your statements - as well as those of others - have shown just why things felt so strange.
Coming from 3.x and players who had a boring job where they'd pass time by building new characters while folding boxes I'd rather my players start a bit broken and let me gradually bring the challenge level up over a few sessions as we dial into how the party at the table solves problems.
I'm a very permissive DM who wants to let players play anything, as long as it doesn't break the game completely, and PF2e just feels like my players are in straight jackets. For example, I'll never get to see a Troll Paladin who uses a ring of sustenance to keep his instincts in check in this system. I certainly won't get the joy of running an adversarial evil party who don't coordinate well most of the time and who'd let another party member perish just for a chance to steal their magic boots, it just isn't something PF2e seems to want to support.
I think for all the fun that can be had with PF2e the tight math just makes it too difficult to get wierd with it and that's a shame.
I'll be frank, the fact that pf1 punishes you for building for flexibility instead of hyper-specializing your one routine, and the huge disparity between optimized builds and standard ones (lets not even get to the unoptimized ones) is more of a straight jacket than how pf2e handles it.
There is so many times where I wanted to try something gimicky or unique in pf1, or even a 'bad touch' frostbite magus centered around debuffs, only to realize that that doing so would be shooting myself in the foot. I then go for what I thought was 'optimal', only to get blindsided by a unchained monk able to solo encounters because he was running a meta build. And even if he wasn't able to quite solo the encounter, there was a wizard who would just 'save or suck' everything with standard god-wizard paired with sacred geometry. Even the magus in the party, who went for the standard scimmy shocking grasp build, was overshadowed because he didn't go for all of the parts of said build, namely magical lineage and that accuracy arcana.
I'll admit, I'm hesitant about the weapon accuracy on non-martials, and I think warpriest should've gotten more to compensate, but after seeing a bladed scarf fighter in action, and playing a champion with a sorcerer dedication, I feel like I have real flexibility in what characters can do in pf2e.
As a player I feel pretty free to express character concepts with the game and more content keeps rolling out. I like the tight math bc as a dm I don't have to worry about adjusting encounters for a party of 3 power gamers and one rp buff. Encounters just work AND the players have a toy box to work with. Everybody wins when the structure of the system lends itself to a heathy game. I've said it before but I feel this system is the best compromise I've seen to the wishes of both sides of the dm screen. It's loads of fun to run or play. Definitely the best of all the d20 systems ive played
My group usually tended to build their characters as a group so major power disparities rarely happened. When we did play with more RP-focused players who dropped in for a session they would have issues but it was rarely anything I could patch up as a DM by buffing their character or building something with the same theme and flavor that was just mechanically better than what they had brought to the table. If your baseline was a group that didn't do this and a DM that wouldn't straight up buff/rebuild an RPer's character to match the group I can see why you'd have issues with balance.
I also find myself liking class and d20 based systems less and less these days. I've even stripped the very minimal class-locked content out of Cybperunk 2020 and will do the same with Cyberpunk RED when I get the chance to run it. When I want a full-fat crunchy d20 system I'll go to 3.x/PF1 mashed together, for anything else I'll handpick a system to suit my game idea.
I'll be frank, the fact that pf1 punishes you for building for flexibility instead of hyper-specializing your one routine, and the huge disparity between optimized builds and standard ones (lets not even get to the unoptimized ones) is more of a straight jacket than how pf2e handles it.
There is so many times where I wanted to try something gimicky or unique in pf1, or even a 'bad touch' frostbite magus centered around debuffs, only to realize that that doing so would be shooting myself in the foot. I then go for what I thought was 'optimal', only to get blindsided by a unchained monk able to solo encounters because he was running a meta build. And even if he wasn't able to quite solo the encounter, there was a wizard who would just 'save or suck' everything with standard god-wizard paired with sacred geometry. Even the magus in the party, who went for the standard scimmy shocking grasp build, was overshadowed because he didn't go for all of the parts of said build, namely magical lineage and that accuracy arcana.
I'll admit, I'm hesitant about the weapon accuracy on non-martials, and I think warpriest should've gotten more to compensate, but after seeing a bladed scarf fighter in action, and playing a champion with a sorcerer dedication, I feel like I have real flexibility in what characters can do in pf2e.
My table never ran the tier 0 and tier 1 broken stuff, they didn't find it all that interesting, so we found that there was always a ton of room for an off-meta build to shine. It helped that none of my players just wanted to plug and play something off of the CharOP boards as they found satisfaction in brewing their own builds. In this, I was very lucky and I can see how playing the system differently would lead to a very different experience.
What I can say is that a group like mine who wanted to explore the mechanical breadth of the system and who brewed builds as a team could really get a lot out of the system in a way that few games can offer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that hasn't really been broached (not to keep this thread going much longer), is sort of who PF1 and PF2 are for. Not who they cater to, but rather which group of players you're likely to pull out the Core Rulebook for.
I love PF1 and would happily still run a game or even campaign of it, but it's not going to be my first choice for a bunch of new players. Honestly, as an introductory game, it worked well enough at the time, but now the myriad rules interactions are really daunting for someone just coming in. Those of us who came from 3.X happily lauded CMB and CMD as huge improvements to the insanity that was Grappling or Tripping someone in 3.X, but trying to explain the PF1 Grapple rules now feels silly.
I also have a group of players like Verdyn. Not a one of them built CharOp. Everyone would show up for game night, character sheet in hand, order some pizza, drink some beer, and have a good time. I also did a LOT of work on my end to make games challenging, but not deadly for them. Our bard spent his feats on Heavy Armor Proficiency, we had a 1 level multiclass... everything, we had a gun-toting monk, and we had a lot of fun. I routinely had to adjust APs down or completely rewrite their characters from scratch if they wanted to have a successful roll. And weirdly enough, that isn't the group that I would play PF2 with. They don't want a game where they do more than full-attack and would roll their eyes when I suggested using Aid or nonlethal tactics. The game for them was never in the rules, but in the fun at the table.
It was, however, for me, a headache. I knew my players' characters not just better than them, but I knew things they never knew about them. "Don't forget your feat gives you a free attack now," "Actually, you can't step after that attack," "No those effects don't stack, I'm sorry." Running PF2 now with a group who came here as their first introduction to the hobby or coming from 5e has been wonderful. My players all contribute evenly to combat and social encounters and no one has felt "useless," with the exception of a champion who spent a few days not rolling above an 8.
PF1 isn't going anywhere on my shelf, but it's something I pull out for a group that knows the system or is interested in a zany one-shot. PF2 may not be to everyone's taste, but it certainly has a much easier entry that allows for players to explore the full breadth of the rules without feeling left behind.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both systems have strengths and weaknessess.
I think if we go by the challenges the players will be facing:
PF1) Makes you think you're actually a Hero
PF2) Makes you think you're actually an adventurer
Both are fine, pf1 have more unique options but pf2 is the more balanced game where everyone can be expected to contribute around evenly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that hasn't really been broached (not to keep this thread going much longer), is sort of who PF1 and PF2 are for. Not who they cater to, but rather which group of players you're likely to pull out the Core Rulebook for.
Well said! I agree with what you've said here in that I wouldn't even try to bring new players into 3.x/PF1 these days. I would onboard them with D&D 5e or PF2. After a while of that, I'd ask if they wanted to try something that's similar but more complicated. If they said yes, then we could run a one-shot where I build their concept for them and see how that goes.
In this regard, I think D&D 5e is a better system than PF2 because it's far easier to pick up and play and has better name recognition. PF2 feels like it fell into a valley between sublime simplicity (for the players at least) in D&D 5e and hard-coded crunch (PF1, Rolemaster, Rune Quest, etc.) ending up feeling like the RPG version of Gloomhaven more than its own thing.
To those that have played both PF2 and Gloomhaven am I being unfair to PF2 with this comparison? I've played far more of the latter than the former.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those that have played both PF2 and Gloomhaven am I being unfair to PF2 with this comparison? I've played far more of the latter than the former.
Having played Gloomhaven, PF2, PF1, but lacking in 5e experience, I think that the comparison is more surface level. While Gloomhaven and PF2 are going to be crunchier when compared to 5e (I assume, this is where my lack of experience fails me), PF2 doesn't at all have a board game mentality whatsoever. Looking at rules with movement like various Steps, Shoves, and the like quite pale in comparison to Gloomhaven where movement is a huge core part of gameplay. Where you move and how you move opponents is much more critical to the actual gameplay than PF2. This follows as it's primarily a board game with roleplaying elements where PF2 is a roleplaying game that uses board game elements (much as many TTRPGs do) for tactical short-hand.
Not to pull in yet another game into the discussion, but Gloomhaven shares more elements with 4e which has a focus on the minutiae of combat elements being much more separate from the roleplaying elements. That is to say, having set actions available to you and not allowing more freeform encounters. Obviously, 4e handles "Actually, could I drop the chandelier on them?" much better than Gloomhaven, but - to me - many of the elements outside of combat didn't factor into my choices in combat. I've heard people say that PF2 is much the same in this regard, but I disagree. I have an anecdote, but unfortunately it comes from Agents of Edgewatch, so is slightly spoilery.
The magus acted quickly, hurling a spark of flame into a group of the creatures that now started to shake and rattle in their glass prisons. A sudden explosion rocked the room, singeing the leshy as they struggled. "You said flammable, not combustible!" the magus shouted, ears ringing.
In moments, the leshy was covered with tiny gnashing monsters, their grey skin writhing as they began to pierce the champion's plated armor. The sorcerer paused, flames dancing on his fingers. "I have a shot, but if I take it..." Everyone knew the implication. "Get clear!" he shouted.
The leshy lashed out at the abominations all over them, managing to pull two free, leaving only a single one clinging to their shield. They ran past their teammates, shouting, "Do it, just do it!" A moment later, the sorcerer's spell ripped through the room as a plume of fire consumed the undead.
This was a recent encounter my players had that the mechanics of PF2 meshed perfectly with not just the story, but what my players intended and what their characters were aware of and could do.
Mechanically, our leshy champion felt this room was off and asked to Seek. They rolled high, beating the pickled punks' Stealth, putting us in initiative with the leshy going first. They asked me what the creatures were, so I told them they could make a Recall Knowledge check with Religion, something they were reasonably good with. With a success, I told them that they were combustible because of the chemicals involved in creating them. The sorcerer and the magus were thrilled, ready to pop off their produce flames and be the heroes.
The magus went next and their produce flames lit up half of the room and took out a chunk of the champion's hit points. Now everyone started to worry. The pickled punks then swarmed the champion, three of them attaching to the leshy and making a massive pile of undead swarming over the liberator. The sorcerer knew he could probably end the encounter with a good produce flames, but he didn't want to risk exploding the champion and still having to deal with the monsters. He Delayed until after the champion.
Now, my champion is a player that came over from 5e. She asked me how she could get the punks off of her and discovered, "Wait, Athletics to Escape? I'm great at that." Moments later (and a particularly lucky roll on that second Escape check with MAP), they had one left on them and ran just as the sorcerer exploded the rest behind them.
Many of my games go this way, with players saying, "I'd like to do ___," to which my response is, "Of course, it's a ____ check." It's still very much Pathfinder, but those options are more hardcoded and have as much weight in combat as a Strike (typically). Again, I don't know much about 5e other than what I've read and what my players tell me. It looks like a fine system and definitely one I would recommend for people new to the hobby who bounced of PF2. My former 5e players haven't noted much difference, honestly. The champion in the group says that they love how many options they have and has deep dived into character creation and the multitude of different builds they could make. My monk player, coming from 5e, keeps going on about how skills "do something," which is funny. She's been doing a lot of Feinting and Tripping in combat and generally likes outplaying the opponent, which - in fairness - is something the monk is particularly good at. This is also the same player that will take that -8 third Strike and somehow get a wild 20 to just prove all math wrong, so she might just be running on that high.
At the end of the day, yes, PF1 hasn't disappeared, but I will say that my number of groups that I want to pull it out for has shrunk. I don't see it as a more complicated, rules-heavy game, but rather a system you really have to grok fully and go into with a plan. Those groups, the ones who approach me and ask for a game of PF1, absolutely. People looking to play a weekly session so they can play as a personalized character, that's filled by PF2 for me.
And yeah, for board game night, honestly Gloomhaven doesn't come out much at my place. We're about deception games here. We've already got fantasy games covered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's very different from my group. We mainly play MtG and Gloomhaven and play occasional and sadly short-lived, usually one of us ends up being busy for a few weeks and we lose momentum, D&D 5e, and Cyberpunk campaigns. I think PF2 might be too rules-heavy versus 5e for this group to want to switch, especially given that we enjoy Gloomhaven.
My old group of high school friends, now scattered to the four winds, mainly played D&D 3.5, Cyberpunk, and 40k with dips into cardgames like Munchkin. This is the group that I let play some insane characters in 3.x and I think they'd have stuck with that over PF2.
For my groups, I'm not sure where PF2 fits without falling into a crack between games we already play. Though obviously, this isn't a universal feeling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my groups, I'm not sure where PF2 fits without falling into a crack between games we already play. Though obviously, this isn't a universal feeling.
I think this is always a really good question that a GM or even board game host should ask themselves: "Why this game?" And I think many voices - either here or on other sites - like to think that the answer should always be "Because it's better than X or Y game," or that it's just flat out the best. Personally, I like to think that each game and each edition really has their strengths and weaknesses, but the thing that will always get me to play a certain game is having a group of people who want to play that game.
As a GM and someone who (pre-2020) hosts a lot of game nights, I definitely have a bit more control in this regard, but it still stands. I ran 4e for maybe 3 or 4 years because my players loved it. The shine of that system wore off fast for me, but if I saw that group again, I would pull out 4e for them because it is the exact thing they like. I tried to get them into PF1, but they bounced off that, much like my 3.X group bounced off of 4e. I think diehard fans are actually easier to talk into a new system or game than someone only casually interested. I've heard it expressed before, but, "Why should I have to learn a new system? I like this system," comes up. The last thing I want to do is ever be a salesman to a group of friends who are content. But as a GM, if I'm looking for something different, the game I run, plan, and design ends up being a bit more to my personal preference. That's when I let the system sell itself.
(Also, not that it matters to discussion, but my current PF2 group also has a smattering of lighter TTRPGs we run through for off-days or days with missing players: Everyone is John, Dread, Gamma World 7th edition, Paranoia, Lasers and Feelings. We even made a vow to get together for a "Dallas TV Show" roleplaying game once Covid was in the past a bit more. Although I plan to completely overhaul things to allow for over the top goofiness.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, not that it matters to discussion, but my current PF2 group also has a smattering of lighter TTRPGs we run through for off-days or days with missing players: Everyone is John, Dread, Gamma World 7th edition, Paranoia, Lasers and Feelings. We even made a vow to get together for a "Dallas TV Show" roleplaying game once Covid was in the past a bit more. Although I plan to completely overhaul things to allow for over the top goofiness.
Not to derail things more than they already have been, but I'd love to run a FATE game that lets players play Shonen-style anime brawlers. I think a rules-light setting that plays off of keywords could be a good fit for the flexible nature of the fight scenes in the genre. Though I do worry that the lack of crunch might fail to be engaging... I wonder if there's anything good between pure FATE formlessness and something as 'rules heavy' as a dungeon world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, not that it matters to discussion, but my current PF2 group also has a smattering of lighter TTRPGs we run through for off-days or days with missing players: Everyone is John, Dread, Gamma World 7th edition, Paranoia, Lasers and Feelings. We even made a vow to get together for a "Dallas TV Show" roleplaying game once Covid was in the past a bit more. Although I plan to completely overhaul things to allow for over the top goofiness.Not to derail things more than they already have been, but I'd love to run a FATE game that lets players play Shonen-style anime brawlers. I think a rules-light setting that plays off of keywords could be a good fit for the flexible nature of the fight scenes in the genre. Though I do worry that the lack of crunch might fail to be engaging... I wonder if there's anything good between pure FATE formlessness and something as 'rules heavy' as a dungeon world.
Oh, man, I have a list of "to play" games that has been growing since March 2020. I haven't looked at anything too rules crunchy as of late since my poison of choice for crunch has been 3.X -> PF1 -> PF2. However, there is a massive number of games out there and I know I've seen plenty that look to be "shonen but crunchy." I say find one, set up a night, look your players square in the eye, and announce, "All according to keikaku."
EDIT: I'm sorry, despite living in Japan, I actually know nothing about anime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, man, I have a list of "to play" games that has been growing since March 2020. I haven't looked at anything too rules crunchy as of late since my poison of choice for crunch has been 3.X -> PF1 -> PF2. However, there is a massive number of games out there and I know I've seen plenty that look to be "shonen but crunchy." I say find one, set up a night, look your players square in the eye, and announce, "All according to keikaku."
EDIT: I'm sorry, despite living in Japan, I actually know nothing about anime.
Same but my current group hates learning new rules so I have to be especially picky about bringing in a new system to learn. That's another reason why PF2 is a no-go as it's like D&D 5e but with a lot of initial learning curve attached. If I'm going to 'force' a new game on them I want it to be an unabashed hit.
Both systems have strengths and weaknessess.
I think if we go by the challenges the players will be facing:
PF1) Makes you think you're actually a Hero
PF2) Makes you think you're actually an adventurerBoth are fine, pf1 have more unique options but pf2 is the more balanced game where everyone can be expected to contribute around evenly.
I don't think that way at all. I don't get this type of thinking. Being a hero has exactly zero to do with power level. Being a hero is what you're setting out to do. A hero is saving people even if he's some Sam Gamgee character in Lord of the Rings or Superman.
Sam Gamgee wasn't any kind of powerful, but he was a hero.
So this whole idea people keep trying to sell that power=hero is rubbish. They don't want to admit they like power gaming and feeling like a superhero in fantasy world.
But plenty of fantasy characters are heroes without anywhere near the power of PF1 characters. In fact, most fantasy heroes are nowhere near PF1 power levels. Not even close.
PF1 was a game for players that like high magic worlds with an anime or superhero type of fantasy power level. That's completely different from feeling like a hero which can be any power level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it's the opposite. Gloomhaven is too clearly a board game and 5e is far too lacking in meaningful decision making, PF2 sitting between them is what draws me to it.
PF2 is probably one of my favorite systems ever, as long as you want to play a concept PF2 is willing to support... which is largely my biggest criticism of the system too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me it's the opposite. Gloomhaven is too clearly a board game and 5e is far too lacking in meaningful decision making, PF2 sitting between them is what draws me to it.
PF2 is probably one of my favorite systems ever, as long as you want to play a concept PF2 is willing to support... which is largely my biggest criticism of the system too.
I can easily see how just a slight shift in gaming needs could easily cause PF2 to come into focus and D&D 5e and Gloomhaven fall into static. For all my complaints, I can see that PF2 is extremely solid mechanically and that its keyword conditions and 4-degrees of success open up a lot of cool design space. I just wish it could cater to playstyles outside of its very narrow focus on strict mechanical balance and team-based tactical combat.
I also have this feeling that Level-Up will be exactly what I want for 5e and that it could end up eating PF2's lunch and taking that number two spot in TTRPGs... I want to root for Paizo because they have been such a boon to the RPG community but when you're not as big as WotC or Games Workshop it's easy to fall, just ask the Warmahordes community about how that feels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both systems have strengths and weaknessess.
I think if we go by the challenges the players will be facing:
PF1) Makes you think you're actually a Hero
PF2) Makes you think you're actually an adventurerBoth are fine, pf1 have more unique options but pf2 is the more balanced game where everyone can be expected to contribute around evenly.
I don't think that way at all. I don't get this type of thinking. Being a hero has exactly zero to do with power level. Being a hero is what you're setting out to do. A hero is saving people even if he's some Sam Gamgee character in Lord of the Rings or Superman.
Sam Gamgee wasn't any kind of powerful, but he was a hero.
So this whole idea people keep trying to sell that power=hero is rubbish. They don't want to admit they like power gaming and feeling like a superhero in fantasy world.
But plenty of fantasy characters are heroes without anywhere near the power of PF1 characters. In fact, most fantasy heroes are nowhere near PF1 power levels. Not even close.
PF1 was a game for players that like high magic worlds with an anime or superhero type of fantasy power level. That's completely different from feeling like a hero which can be any power level.
That's your opinion man.
Don't get me wrong, Sam ended up being a hero. But he was a hero despite his lack of strength or capabilities. It makes for a compelling story to read/watch.
However, it's a lot less fun to play that story (at least in my opinion).
Because of the history of D&D 3.0/3.5 and PF1, going into PF2 I (and a lot of people) thought the game play would still be closer to that level. In those editions you're closer to Superman than you are to Samwise.
But PF2 would have you play....Batman without any of his really special gear that lets him overcome insurmountable problems. Batman is, on the surface, one of the weakest superheroes. He's human, and limited to human capabilities. Sure he's strong for a human, and smart for a human, but still human. In many scenarios he's succeeding by the skin of his teeth. You're Batman fighting mutants and you don't get any of your special gear to overcome it. So you have to use tactics and traps and work with 3 other Batmen to defeat the enemy.
That's what PF2 felt like to me.
And that's simply not the game I'm interested in.
That's your opinion man.
Don't get me wrong, Sam ended up being a hero. But he was a hero despite his lack of strength or capabilities. It makes for a compelling story to read/watch.
However, it's a lot less fun to play that story (at least in my opinion).
Because of the history of D&D 3.0/3.5 and PF1, going into PF2 I (and a lot of people) thought the game play would still be closer to that level. In those editions you're closer to Superman than you are to Samwise.
But PF2 would have you play....Batman without any of his really special gear that lets him overcome insurmountable problems. Batman is, on the surface, one of the weakest superheroes. He's human, and limited to human capabilities. Sure he's strong for a human, and smart for a human, but still human. In many scenarios he's succeeding by the skin of his teeth. You're Batman fighting mutants and you don't get any of your special gear to overcome it. So you have to use tactics and traps and work with 3 other Batmen to defeat the enemy.
That's what PF2 felt like to me.
And that's simply not the game I'm interested in.
I don't think Derevin would object that PF1 better fulfills the fantasy of being a superhero. In fact, he makes that exact argument in his post. What he was saying was that "superhero" is not the only kind of hero available to play or design for.
What you like or dislike is of course your own taste, but I don't feel like you actually disagreed with what DF was actually arguing. Edit: Okay, maybe the part where he says "That's completely different from feeling like a hero which can be any power level."? And perhaps you, personally, can't feel like a hero at less than superhero power level (again, your taste is your taste, find the game that pleases you), but plenty of other people can and do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're Batman fighting mutants and you don't get any of your special gear to overcome it. So you have to use tactics and traps and work with 3 other Batmen to defeat the enemy.
Is your expectation that you should by design be playing a lone wolf vigilante figure in a team based tactical game?
Honestly I'm starting to think Mythic rules should become a priority after all. There seems to be a real want for Gonzo-level play that could be key to getting more people interesting in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'm starting to think Mythic rules should become a priority after all. There seems to be a real want for Gonzo-level play that could be key to getting more people interesting in PF2.
The thing about PF2, is that most classes get pretty gonzo abilities, it is just that the whole system is built on level being a signficant factor in when those abilities manifest. Are people going to be using powerful magical swords and flying around problems all day? That is a great game to start at 10th level. If you want to give your players wings and let them fly all day long starting at level 1, you can, but the published adventures are not going to support players with those powers.
Paizo is very driven by their adventure lines. Introducing a bunch of player facing options that completely obliterate the narrative balance of their published adventures is not a good design decision.
Eventually having a mythic tier book could make sense, but every option in it is going to have to be rare at its most accessible, and it would really have to coincide with an AP and probably a module or two designed to specifically utilize those options because those options will break the game narratively and mechanically when used with other APs (giving even one, but especially more than 1 mythic tier to PF1 PCs was game shattering - solo gaming material).
You don't really want to confuse people too early in the system's development as far as making encounter design charts and the phenomenal GM tools that PF2 has become totally useless, because players are flying and teleporting around from level 1.
I don't really see how it would be confusing. Did people regularly get misled by Mythic spells and feats?
Eventually having a mythic tier book could make sense, but every option in it is going to have to be rare at its most accessible, and it would really have to coincide with an AP and probably a module or two designed to specifically utilize those options because those options will break the game narratively and mechanically when used with other APs (giving even one, but especially more than 1 mythic tier to PF1 PCs was game shattering - solo gaming material).
With all due respect, look at the comments in this and other threads. That is exactly what some players and GMs would like to see.
Having a superhero/gonzo rulebook to drop into (or exclude from) a game for a campaign or AP, much as the original mythic rules were intended, seems to fit exactly in Paizo's paradigm for their rulebook line.
For someone not familiar with PF1E, what are mythic rules? Is that like epic levels from 3.5 or epic destinies from 4E?
Somewhat.
Unlike Epic, that started at level 20 and progressed, Mythic was a supplemental method of leveling. So you could, for instance, be Level 1 but Mythic 10, or Level 20 but Mythic 1. At each Mythic Tier (which went 1-10), you gained Mythic abilities that were deliberately "game breaking", which was saying something for PF1. Well, that might be unfair. Deliberately higher powered, but not tied to your specific character level. An example Tier 1 ability would be:
Deep Understanding (Ex) (Mythic Adventures pg. 15): You automatically identify any arcane spell cast within 60 feet of you if it’s on your class’s spell list and you’re of a high enough level to cast it. Whenever you attempt to identify a non-artifact magic item using detect magic, you automatically learn its properties and command words in the first round of the spell (no Spellcraft roll needed), but you can’t automatically determine whether it’s cursed.
Probably the best way to get a sense of it is to read the introduction, which is on the PRD here or here.
http://legacy.aonprd.com/mythicAdventures/mythicHeroes.htmlhttps://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Mythic%20Rules&Category=Optional %20Rule%20Systems
And then there's more stuff here for specifics.
https://www.aonprd.com/Mythic.aspx
Both systems have strengths and weaknessess.
I think if we go by the challenges the players will be facing:
PF1) Makes you think you're actually a Hero
PF2) Makes you think you're actually an adventurerBoth are fine, pf1 have more unique options but pf2 is the more balanced game where everyone can be expected to contribute around evenly.
I don't think that way at all. I don't get this type of thinking. Being a hero has exactly zero to do with power level. Being a hero is what you're setting out to do. A hero is saving people even if he's some Sam Gamgee character in Lord of the Rings or Superman.
Sam Gamgee wasn't any kind of powerful, but he was a hero.
So this whole idea people keep trying to sell that power=hero is rubbish. They don't want to admit they like power gaming and feeling like a superhero in fantasy world.
But plenty of fantasy characters are heroes without anywhere near the power of PF1 characters. In fact, most fantasy heroes are nowhere near PF1 power levels. Not even close.
PF1 was a game for players that like high magic worlds with an anime or superhero type of fantasy power level. That's completely different from feeling like a hero which can be any power level.
That's your opinion man.
Don't get me wrong, Sam ended up being a hero. But he was a hero despite his lack of strength or capabilities. It makes for a compelling story to read/watch.
However, it's a lot less fun to play that story (at least in my opinion).
Because of the history of D&D 3.0/3.5 and PF1, going into PF2 I (and a lot of people) thought the game play would still be closer to that level. In those editions you're closer to Superman than you are to Samwise.
But PF2 would have you play....Batman without any of his really special gear that lets him overcome insurmountable problems. Batman is, on the surface, one of the weakest superheroes. He's human, and limited to human capabilities. Sure he's strong for a...
It's not an opinion. I've read your replies. You definitely prefer the superhero high fantasy of PF1. That's fine. It's a preference and that game exists for those with that preference.
There are very few fantasy heroes like PF1 unless you're playing high fantasy. Maybe Raistlin. Maybe the Asedai in the Wheel of Time. Some of the characters in the Malazan series, though some are even tougher than PF1 characters. Perhaps some of the ancient Greek heroes like the demigod Hercules. Lots of characters in anime, too many to name. But anime is often high fantasy or superhero like powers.
You just prefer that PF1 superhero feel at high level with the 30 plus main stat, the +5 weapon, the stacked feats from 10 years of splatbooks, and all the other parts that make it the high fantasy game it was.
A hero and a superhero are different. You can be a hero in any a genre of any game and it depends more on what you're doing, than all your abilities. A high fantasy sword and sorcery game is the D&D genre in PF1 and 3E and really D&D since probably 2nd edition where the power levels really shot up.
You are most assuredly still a hero in PF2. You are still very tough. But you don't get to carve through the enemy easily like you do in PF1. That seems to be the issue for some players.
Its' not an issue for me. I like the players being challenged and having to work together with their abilities to win. It is a standard trope of fantasy to have a group of people come together to accomplish something greater than they could accomplish alone. It is in fact the foundation of heroic fantasy fiction. PF2 does a much better job of it than PF1.
But as the saying goes, to each his own. Some want to play the power fantasy of PF1 and D&D to 2nd edition. I can't fault them for it as I played it as well when I played a character. It was fun at times to be so powerful that you didn't need anyone else for much, especially if you were a caster. And even as a martial doing 100s of points of damage a round, sometimes up to a 1000 or more depending on how you built.
But as a DM it sucked to have a game so one-sided in favor of player builds after 10 years of splatbooks that you had to take extreme measures to provide challenging combats that took hours of planning. If your DM still enjoys doing that or if you DM and you still enjoy doing that, have at it. Not my cup of tea as a DM any more. PF2 is much easier on DMs everywhere. The knobs you turn to get that feel for various fantasy levels are much easier to manipulated in PF2 than they ever were in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord of the Ring can very well be seen as an extremely long escort quest with the protagonist being the NPC. It a great story, but the players are not Sam.
The other way to see it, at least in PF1, is that Sam was a Lucky Halfling Ranger Guide Skirmisher/Halfling Opportunist. Literally one of the most supportive combinations you can make outside of pure caster caster. You literally stand back and aid another.
But I don't see how he would be made in PF2.
It would be easier to make Sam in PF2 than in PF1. But yes, D&D and PF are there own genre. They are unlike any fantasy I've read. You sort of take an idea from a fantasy book you like and do your best to make a similar version in D&D and PF1. But the reality is these fantasy games tend to be so wide in what they try to cover, they never mirror a single book series. They toss a lot in from a variety of sources and the let players build.
PF2 has much better tools for building a challenging story than PF1 as you level. In PF1 it became a nightmare of players not even interested in fantasy fiction any longer. They were just trying to stack every optimal ability and magic item to the point of ridiculousness and looking at the DM like he was some servant there to serve their power fantasy who had to let them do what they want because the rules said so. Do you have any idea how tiresome that was as a DM to have argue about abilities that Paizo put in the game that were ridiculously in favor of the players and made creating challenging adventures like homework for a DM? Less storytelling and more figuring out how to counter all these varied ridiculous abilities the players had.
Why would many of us DMs want to go back to that? So some players can live their power fantasy again? No way, man, Forget that.
No more beast totem barbarians with reach weapons, come and get me with a triple stat belt, 500 hit points while raging with damage resistance, supernatural while wearing a wisdom headband looking ridiculous while chopping every enemy to bits on their attack rounds while looking at the DM with those "It's not my fault, it's Paizos. They made these feats."
Or god wizards or casters casting a suite of spells before the combat to make the battle trivial and counter everything some regular monster can do or group can do while making themselves unkillable while having Spell Perfection, Quicken Spell, and the like making the opponent save against their spell ten times and take the lowest roll or be turned into a pinata for the martials to hack apart in 6 seconds.
No, that wasn't fun as a DM. Heck no. Not interested in going back to that. Saw that for like 10 plus years and it reached its peak when some 3E designer released the Archamge Archetype that added like +6 to spell DCs for that Elminster and Seven Sisters high fantasy caster domination feel, then it had to be reigned in and modified just to make it somewhat manageable. Then the 3E and Paizo designers just gave up trying to manage it at some point because too many moving parts to do so.
Then there is the Mythic rules. It took the already mythic power levels of PF1 characters and just said, "Why even try Mr. DM? The players are supposed to destroy everything easily. They're mythic." I let the players steamroll everything until I quit running the game. Too much work for no real return with the mythic rules. Everyone was Superman in the Mythic rules.
PF2 is not perfect. There are things I don't love about it. But as a DM, so easy to run. It has enough for players to make fun characters and is many times easier to DM. So the overall package offers enough to players and so much more to DMs to make it far less of a chore to run to much higher levels.
For someone not familiar with PF1E, what are mythic rules? Is that like epic levels from 3.5 or epic destinies from 4E?
The Mythic rules were an attempt by Paizo to mirror I think anime and super high fantasy fiction. The players were demigod level power and could eventually become like a god with worshippers.
As a DM it was impossible to run by the book. Just an insane rule set that took already highly powerful characters and turned the knob to 20. I gave up in the second module of the AP they designed to use with the rule set. It was hard to design a monster that lasted longer than a round or two.
So you basically get godlike powers right away. Sounds fun as a player but a hellish nightmare as a DM lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even the videogame attempt to represent mythic power is placing incredibly strict restrictions on what you can do with it and takes away the idea of an entire party of mythic heroes.
"Mythic Tier" and collaborative team play are not very compatible. I made it most of the way GMing through the 3rd book of that AP and nothing survived 1 round. Few things survived a single player's turn.
And in those rare occasions where they faced a mythic foe that went before them (which was pretty easy for the party to make impossible), it was just as bad in reverse.
It was a lot of fun to theory craft around. It was entertaining to play for the very occasional 1 off, and it was an absolute slog of looking up rules/bonus types and what can be done with what, that made GMing no fun at all. It was so unbalanced, it was much easier to run as a theater of the mind, "Say what ridiculous thing you want your character to do...Ok, you just did that." Rather than spend an hour consulting the rulebooks to figure out that, yes, the character just did that thing that didn't feel like it should be possible.
If you want gonzo powers, just make the PCs 2 or 3 levels higher than normal for what they're facing.
Super easy in this edition. No real need for a mythic rule set to feel powerful.
In PF1 you can make a martial who is a terrifying blender of killing stuff super efficiently- you do an amazing amount of damage, but for anything else you basically need to rely on other people or gear.
In PF2 you're never going to wreck the competition in the same way, but you're going to be able to do a whole lot of more interesting (and perhaps gonzo) things than "hurt people and break stuff."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want gonzo powers, just make the PCs 2 or 3 levels higher than normal for what they're facing.
Super easy in this edition. No real need for a mythic rule set to feel powerful.
I feel like if I want gonzo powers I also want the enemy to have gonzo powers but maybe I'm in the minority here
But how exciting is Dragonball Z really if these beefed up mega-strong protagonists are fighting like, normal dudes
|
If you want gonzo powers, just make the PCs 2 or 3 levels higher than normal for what they're facing.
Super easy in this edition. No real need for a mythic rule set to feel powerful.
I feel like if I want gonzo powers I also want the enemy to have gonzo powers but maybe I'm in the minority here
But how exciting is Dragonball Z really if these beefed up mega-strong protagonists are fighting like, normal dudes
I'm interested in hearing what's missing from this idea if you start at higher levels? It seems like PF2 is designed around an escalation in how fantastical your powers are - low-level spells are mostly summoning grease or small bursts of fire, high-level spells summon several meteors to destroy your opponents. Low-level (but fantastical) martial abilities let you morph some part of your body, or see spirits; high-level martial abilities have you turning into dragons, petrifying people with a punch, etc. If the gonzo abilities are found in the higher level ranges, and you want to maintain balance, why not just start at those level ranges?
Alternatively, if you wanted to do a full 20 levels or something, one could try some sort of homebrew where you get access to those gonzo abilities early (not something like turn into a 15th level dragon, just turn into a 1st level dragon), and your enemies are the higher level enemies with their stats (but not abilities) adjusted down to be appropriate. It'd be a fair bit of work, but it seems like you could take something like a Wyrmwraith, adjust their stats, lower their breath weapon damage, change spells, etc, and be left with a very high-fantasy enemy that a 2nd level PC with access to something like Champion's Celestial Form could fight.
The whole "Just start at a higher level and fight under-leveled foes kappa" argument doesn't work when entire classical character archetypes aren't supported by PF2. You literally can't play a horde necromancer, a scry-and-die mage, a knowledge devotion divine metamagic divine power cloistered clericzilla, a my ammo is a blackhole hulking hurler, a manipulate the gods diplomancer, and many other fun if completely game warping varieties of total nonsense. If you can't drop a 15th level character into the DCU and make Superman drop a load in his outside-the-pants underwear you've probably been pulling your punches.
None of those are classic archetypes, save maybe the horde necromancer as a villian, not a hero. And Pathfinder is not meant to run DCU.
If you ever cruised the CharOp boards they certainly were.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
kappa
Sir, we're going to have to ask you to take a break from the internet.
Seriously, though, we're two years into PF2 now and a lot of the stated design goals are very much to get away from these standards that suck up fun at the table. That's not to say that the builds aren't/weren't fun, especially for the person playing them, but that they trivialized encounter design (like scry-and-die) or just were a slog to get through (minion masters who swarmed the board to no effect other than to slow everything to a crawl).
I would agree with you that if you're looking for over-the-top insanity, just lowering NPC levels/raising PC levels isn't the solution for players, but asking for the game to be something it's 100% not designed to be is getting old.
I'm on the side of people who are getting frustrated with posters who keep repeating claims about why they're not playing PF2. They aren't new people making these claims or even new reasons for it. They've made their points, people have explained why the mechanics are the way they are, and it's up to them as to whether or not the game is for them. But to keep having these discussions over and over about what this game isn't has gotten to be so old, uninteresting, and frustrating. Like those of us who enjoy this game will happily point out places where it can use improvement and even talk about changes, but we get so lost in these non-productive cycles of the same posters wanting a product that already exists and isn't this.