| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This right here, 5e and 3.5 multiclassing is consistently too strong or too weak because of the way it screws with core progression, but PF2e multiclassing is just right since even if its not adding that much power to you, your core progression still keeps you viable, so you can just piss all the feats away if you really want to.
I like PF2 multiclassing a lot but I'd say they're materially different in a lot of ways and not great for comparisons.
PF2 is really good for adding a certain flavor to an existing character or moving them in a direction outside their wheelhouse, but doesn't allow the true hybridization or change in direction the older variation of multiclassing has.
Like in a PF1 game I'm playing right now we have a Wizard going into Eldritch Knight and there's a serious character progression where he's becoming relatively less proficient with spells and expanding his martial capabilities as he develops. There's a significant transformation and it plays into the character's story rc.
In PF2 a Wizard can never, for instance, forgo learning 9th or 10th level spells because they're learning how to fight. They'll never significantly improve with weapons beyond the ways any wizard does either as a result. That's just not something that's possible with PF2 as a system.
So while I like PF2 multiclassing, I also get the sentiment because there are a lot of things it will never accomplish, even if there are a lot of things it does quite well too.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely wasn't sold on PF2-style multiclassing initially, but I've since changed my mind on it. The key factors, for me, are:
1: I want to be able to do impactful and unique things early on in a character's career - you don't want to be waiting to 5th level for bard songs, or champion reactions, etc.
2: I want the game to be balanced, especially when involving options that are pretty fundamental thematically to a character - I don't want every rogue to feel like they have to do a 2-level dip in champion, for example
3: I want the classes to feel differentiated - I don't want a champion, a rogue, and a fighter to feel very similar in their mechanics.
And I don't think one can fulfil all three of those with traditional multiclassing. PF1 functionally threw out the balance, giving some classes impactful abilities very early and making them excellent to dip into - Swashbuckler comes to mind - and others were functionally useless to multiclass into. The advantage of the PF2-style multiclassing to me really is in #1 - the ability to give impactful abilities early on. You couldn't give monk Flurry of Blows at level 1 in PF2 if anyone else could just do a one-level dip to pick it up, same for Champion's reactions, and many other options. There are definitely areas where it doesn't cover things as well as PF1-style multiclassing, but IMO it's worth the cost. You get the impactful abilities early, and a narrative like the wizard sacrificing their skill in casting over time could be modelled by changing from a wizard multiclass Fighter into a Fighter multiclass Wizard at some point - not the cleanest solution, but given the rarity, I'd much rather keep my 3 points above fulfilled :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of stuff here already so the obligatory "The 'Anniversary Edition' CAN'T be 5.5 because we already have that(Tasha's and Multiverse)" might already be here!
I'm also not changing what I want to play, and I REALLY hope my group doesn't get a wild hair and want to play whatever crap that WotC pushes out to great loads of money because they are "The World's most POPULAR TTRPG"(unfortunately). My love of D&D died when they announced 4E, was MILDLY resuscitated when I heard about 5E, but since then it has just dropped more and more with each product they announce(of course after a small initial bit of excitement because TTRPGs(D&D mostly) has been a HUGE influence on me for the better part of 30 years(most of my life))!
I just don't have it in me to care about it anymore, "fool me once..." and all that!
Translation: 3.0e D&D arrived at the point in your life just before you became set in your ways of doing things and highly protective of what and how you do. This means that while every previous edition of the game was a fresh and exciting new experience, every subsequent one was an inferior copy of the Best Thing Ever. This is because Douglas Adams' law on technologies applies to RPGs as well:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that’s introduced between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you'll love to play it.
3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
This is why so many, like you, had no problems jumping from 1e to 2e to 3e/PF1, but when 4e hit, it was an abomination against the true order of things, as was 5e. No surprise here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha! I buck your trend. :p
I refused to play 2E (came out in my teens), didnt like 3.5 (30s). Then enjoyed all of 4E, PF and 5E (mid 30s to mid 40s).
Find my pigeonhole, toothy bag!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha! I buck your trend. :p
I refused to play 2E (came out in my teens), didnt like 3.5 (30s). Then enjoyed all of 4E, PF and 5E (mid 30s to mid 40s).
Find my pigeonhole, toothy bag!
You're from 'Straya, everything is upside down there, duh.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Curses. Never argue with a lawyer.
(I appreciate the DA reference, btw. Never heard that before).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big mechanical shift for the coming edition seems to be “your Background gives you a free starting Feat.”
I think Pathfinder’s complexity niche is still plenty safe, and the Radiant Citadel settings don’t begin to approach the depth of something like the Mwangi book (though I do like it!). Paizo’s not overtaking the biggest corporate giant in the game, but I think their corner of the market is fine.
I think they will have feats that require levels also. They talked about having more powerful feats that way. There was an unearthed arcana few months back where they had this. Also think will tweak some subclasses like the champion. I do agree backgrounds to give feat and probably stat increase.
An independent built from ground up rework of 5e was level up Advanced 5e by EN Publishing. I think I like this better than 5e.
PF2 still favorite d20 system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D wants to go broad. Videogames have gone mainstream, and TSR is trying to get tabletop RPGs to go mainstream too... which is why they arent' going to turn int eh water and try to eat Paizo's lunch.
Pathfinder is small compared to mainstream D&D, and that's really not likely to change. That's okay. "Small compared to a mammoth" isn't a problem. By being that small, though, Pathfinder isn't really their competition. They're going to be building to keep long-time D&D gamers coming back, and to get new people in the door, and that's going to mean a game that's a lot less complicated than PF2.
One of the disappointing things to me about 5e was the sheer lack of customizability. There simply aren't anything like as many build choices in the life of a 5e character as there are in a PF2 character. That's by design on both sides, though, because most people who come in the tabletop door aren't going to want that many choices.
So... basically, D&D is going to be out there, and it's going to dominate the market, mostly by dint of having made the market, and PF2 is going to be here for those of us who find the results inadequate to our needs but still want that sweet sweet RPG fix.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like come what may, Pathfinder will continue to be the crunchier ruleset (which some people like) with the more actively evolving/detailed setting. The fact that Paizo's adventure path is a monthly magazine that expands and develops the world is something that the esteemed competition is simply unwilling to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like come what may, Pathfinder will continue to be the crunchier ruleset (which some people like) with the more actively evolving/detailed setting. The fact that Paizo's adventure path is a monthly magazine that expands and develops the world is something that the esteemed competition is simply unwilling to do.
I believe that was part of the market research when 5E came out. Feedback was that D&D players didnt want lots of books.
Early on they had a plan of two books per year, but they abandoned that as demand outstripped expectations by an order of magnitude. No doubt it felt like they were leaving basically free money out there.