I Love 2e, but I am starting to notice a problem. . .


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like they're never going to stop making new classes. Since they're in the business of selling books and "I'm interested in the new class" is a reliable selling point than "hey, they made a new Barbarian instinct" or "It's got more gnoll feats." In fact, it's probably a better use of column inches than support for a specific class or a specific ancestry (since maybe you don't like gnolls or barbarians).

So for the missing bits of existing classes it might be useful to look at what specifically you're wanting to do on a given class that you're not currently able to. I'm still after my druid who is about decay and I want to be able to make a Champion who is an animist, or worships their ancestors, or participates in a shamanic tradition.

The thing about ancestry feats is that it's a question of "where do you put them" but the thing about classes is that the devs may legitimately think they're near complete (what else could you want to do with a fighter?)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
P.S. I still don't understand why most of the dev team stays off of these forums. We are always so positive.

Even in my own short time here, there have been enough not-so-positive postings on this forum, that I'm not surprised they stay off of here. And from the horror stories I've heard from before I've been here, I'm especially not shocked they're keeping their distance.

Better for them to keep their mental health in check, and let the few designers/developers who do want to interact with the community do so as their own pace. Much healthier for everyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:


The thing about ancestry feats is that it's a question of "where do you put them" but the thing about classes is that the devs may legitimately think they're near complete (what else could you want to do with a fighter?)

I agree with all the rest very much. I think there is a way forward with ancestry feats though, and that is by including more interesting and diverse representations of the ancestries we have in new settings, rather than have a bunch of new ancestries that get stereotyped into very narrow categories of how they exist on Golarion. I think doing this will still sell books (has any Lost Omen book got as much attention and put as strong a “This is Golarion” stamp as the Mwangi Expanse book?).

As long as any new class can do the thing that they were introduced to the game to do, I think it is fine. Classes getting shoe horned is not a big deal because they don’t represent groups of people and they have archetypes. Ancestries need to avoid looking one dimensional.

I still think a perfectly reasonable expansion space currently untapped is universal ancestry feats that are uncommon and gated by region. People would eat it up, GMs would have control of access based upon the narrative of their game, and it would help give more mechanical flavor to different parts of Golarion.


Wouldn't region feats be better positioned as skill feats or general feats? General feats are a really vestigial category.


One of the great things about universal feats is that you don't have think about how to make a version for each class/ancestry. Making a book about the Golarion great plains and the different people in them? Okay, then just make universal feats for living in a plain, riding horses, and archery. No need to worry about how fX class already has archery feats or how Y ancestry isn't common in that area.

Which btw, before someone complains about bloat, having 20 feats for a given theme that anyone can use is 100x better than 200 feats trying to given each class and ancestry 1-2 feats for that theme. Just the amount of space saved can do wonders for more interesting lore to be added. The counter argument is that Paizo makes more money if they sell 5 books to meet that theme with personalized feats for each class/ancestry compared to doing just 1 concise book with universal feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wouldn't region feats be better positioned as skill feats or general feats? General feats are a really vestigial category.

Skill feats can work for some things but not others. While general feats are kind of a joke as a category. Unless you are stuck and need a specific thing there (like casters getting proficiency) those slots are just a place to get more skill feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wouldn't region feats be better positioned as skill feats or general feats? General feats are a really vestigial category.

Well, humans have already super muddled that water and I feel like a goal of PF2 is to let more ancestries have the cultural depth of humans. Also, very little can fit in the ancestry Silo, so when you feel like an ancestry has nothing to offer you at X level, you either end up picking up a versatile heritage, not because you like the vision of your character that way, but because you have no feats to select. Cultural feats (like many of the human ancestry feats currently) really don’t need to be ancestry locked, but are nice additions to that mechanical space.

I am also fine with more skill feats and general feats, but neither one is nearly the same kind of narrative bottle neck to having characters feel rooted in the game world.


With Kineticist being a single playtest class we might see a slowing down of new classes. and if that happens, Old content will hopefully be revisited with new feats and such. I could see another APG style book that only includes 1 new class instead of 4 but improves on preexisting classes and gives more support.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Dear Paizo,

Hey there, love ya. That said, I don't suppose you would be interested in kinda shifting this into a prefect system? Perfect by my consideration of course. That'd be neat. If you ask me, there is too much...and not enough..., ya know what I mean?

Sincerely,
Passionate Pathfinder Player

P.S. I still don't understand why most of the dev team stays off of these forums. We are always so positive.

They do ? Most of the threads around here are very positive. There's a 'Thaumaturge respect thread' currently and a bunch of threads in a similar vein.

If anything I think paizo can look at the forums and be pretty proud of their work.
The community is happy with almost every aspect of their system. From the mechanics to the storytelling to the artwork.

Sure some people like myself want different things, but that's hardly a critique of the entire system, nor the people behind it.

The official Paizo forums seems like a pretty obvious place to voice ones wishes for future content, no ?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I think would be helpful, and this is a blog post not a book, is if Paizo would give us guidelines for what the appropriate power levels/effects of ancestry feats at every level would be, in case GMs and players want to work together to homebrew new ancestry feats because the options that are available feel lacking.

For example, Dwarves get as a level 17 Ancestry Feat the ability to cast Passwall as a 7th level Divine Spell once per day. Would a level 17 Shisk feat that allows you to cast Retrocognition as a 7th level Occult spell once per day be appropriate?

Since I'm happy to work with my players to come up with new feats for less supported ancestries, I'd just like some reassurance that we're not going to come up with something that's way too good or way too weak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing I think would be helpful, and this is a blog post not a book, is if Paizo would give us guidelines for what the appropriate power levels/effects of ancestry feats at every level would be, in case GMs and players want to work together to homebrew new ancestry feats because the options that are available feel lacking.

For example, Dwarves get as a level 17 Ancestry Feat the ability to cast Passwall as a 7th level Divine Spell once per day. Would a level 17 Shisk feat that allows you to cast Retrocognition as a 7th level Occult spell once per day be appropriate?

Since I'm happy to work with my players to come up with new feats for less supported ancestries, I'd just like some reassurance that we're not going to come up with something that's way too good or way too weak.

I'd honestly eat up a product that gave us some musings and best practices the team use when designing feats. I just really like reading that kind of material, and it would be helpful for homebrewing up something for a player if an option is lacking at a given level.

Naturally some feat buckets would be easier to talk on than others, Ancestry and Skill feats are in general more constrained than Class feats, and game design is as much an art as it is science, but some discussion on what abilities for feats usually go where would be very appreciated.

I don't think it'll happen though. I can't see that kind of product appealing to enough people to get printed, and there may be concerns of later backlash after such a product if the team "doesn't follow their own rules."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Maybe not printed, but enough of the designers have patreons and the like where they might be willing to divulge.

Ron Lundeen's blog was extremely helpful when I was making my basic ancestry guide; a lot of my guess were correct, but that confirmed and corrected some things I wasn't sure on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want alternative Focus Spell options. And yes, at least a meaningful choice between a couple alternatives when it comes to ancestry feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:

Na verdade eles já confirmaram isso numa entrevista anterior (não me perguntem a fonte, mas sei que isso é conhecido aqui pelo fórum). De que não pretendem fazer mais nada parecido com um novo APG e que todos os novos livros devem ser temáticos de alguma forma.

Então talvez tenhamos alguma coisa como um Barbaro da Fúria dos Elementos e alguns talentos relacionados a isso no próximo livro de regras. Mas é isso, novo conteúdo relacionado a um tema especifico. Nada diretamente relacionado a expandir as classes atuais por simplesmente expandi-las.

Sorry about mistake I was distracted and write this part in Portuguese. Translating:

Myself wrote:

In fact they already confirmed this in a previous interview (don't ask me the source, but I know this is known here on the forum). That they don't intend to do anything like a new APG anymore and that all new books must be themed in some way.

So maybe we'll have something like a Rage of the Elements Barbarian and some related feats in the next rulebook. But that's it, new content related to a specific theme. Nothing directly related to expanding current classes by simply expanding them.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like they're never going to stop making new classes. Since they're in the business of selling books and "I'm interested in the new class" is a reliable selling point than "hey, they made a new Barbarian instinct" or "It's got more gnoll feats." In fact, it's probably a better use of column inches than support for a specific class or a specific ancestry (since maybe you don't like gnolls or barbarians)

I was hoping that in the next book they had changed the concept of bringing 2 classes per book to 1 single class, as a way of giving more free space for new content to other existing classes (mainly new "subclasses" which is something which I think many classes have room to win, without filling them with features).

But that hope was lost by the fact that it probably only has one class even because the new class will consume a very large number of pages (greater than the psychic's apparently)
Ezekieru wrote:
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
P.S. I still don't understand why most of the dev team stays off of these forums. We are always so positive.

Even in my own short time here, there have been enough not-so-positive postings on this forum, that I'm not surprised they stay off of here. And from the horror stories I've heard from before I've been here, I'm especially not shocked they're keeping their distance.

Better for them to keep their mental health in check, and let the few designers/developers who do want to interact with the community do so as their own pace. Much healthier for everyone.

Probably most designers who like to come and chat here on the forum usually don't show up for lack of time. They are usually already well loaded with work. They tend to come here more to get some feed back and see how things are going.

Temperans wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wouldn't region feats be better positioned as skill feats or general feats? General feats are a really vestigial category.
Skill feats can work for some things but not others. While general feats are kind of a joke as a category. Unless you are stuck and need a specific thing there (like casters getting proficiency) those slots are just a place to get more skill feats.

I disagree with the general feats being a joke. Despite being short there is a good list of good features there. (Adopted Ancestry, Canny Acumen, Diehard, Fleet, Incredible Initiative, Shield Block, Toughness, Ancestral Paragon, Keen Follower, Prescient Planner, Thorough Search, Numb to Death, Prescient Consumable)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lollerabe wrote:
The official Paizo forums seems like a pretty obvious place to voice ones wishes for future content, no ?

Warning: Off-Topic:

I lack the words to describe it very politely but... no, and truthfully, that's a no that barely escapes the lips after several moments of fitful laughter bursting forward. I'll touch on this lightly as merely even bringing this stuff up is almost certain to provoke an angry response from some.

These forums and certain segments of the community, in particular, have made it abundantly clear that staff interacting with fans on here does VERY little good for the games or the community, instead doing this opened them up to harassment, liability, embarrassment, and shame. Some folks around here have proven time and time again that they're more interested in making DEMANDS than they are in listening or asking good faith questions. Now, that isn't to say that much of POTENT toxicity, anger, and full on outrage expressed and shown here over the last two years was done without valid reasons but since around that time it became apparent that nearly every little slight, mistake, gaff, of misunderstanding would ACTUALLY be used as ammo to harass them and in some cases it led to fundamental harm to the mental and physical well being of staff.

It is 100% not worth the risk for them to jump back into consistently participating in these forums, hell, even the unofficial Subreddit is a better and healthier platform for this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Person-Man wrote:
Lollerabe wrote:
The official Paizo forums seems like a pretty obvious place to voice ones wishes for future content, no ?
** spoiler omitted **

I get it. This sort of thing always happens when you open up to the general public. Lots of requests come across as demands, a lot of the public make statements that can easily be seen as rude, and a portion of them just are over the top. But a forum is for feedback, and Paizo has a consistent group of defenders here. Anything a developer says gets lots of likes.

I don't see this forum as hostile on the scale of internet forums. That you can acutally debate issues is a plus. I way prefer this forum to reddit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Person-Man wrote:
Lollerabe wrote:
The official Paizo forums seems like a pretty obvious place to voice ones wishes for future content, no ?
** spoiler omitted **

I get it. This sort of thing always happens when you open up to the general public. Lots of requests come across as demands, a lot of the public make statements that can easily be seen as rude, and a portion of them just are over the top. But a forum is for feedback, and Paizo has a consistent group of defenders here. Anything a developer says gets lots of likes.

I don't see this forum as hostile on the scale of internet forums. That you can acutally debate issues is a plus. I way prefer this forum to reddit.

I would like to add that having a forum full of only positive comments is just as bad as a forum of only negative comments.

The fact this forum has people with all sorts of opinions acting amicably makes it better than most forums.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Negative comments have negative value to the community. A forum full of positive comments can still foster thoughtful discussion on weaknesses and areas for improvement.

Too many people on here don't know how to write constructive criticism. Too often a "negative comment" veers into harassment, sniping and vitriol.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:

Negative comments have negative value to the community. A forum full of positive comments can still foster thoughtful discussion on weaknesses and areas for improvement.

Too many people on here don't know how to write constructive criticism. Too often a "negative comment" veers into harassment, sniping and vitriol.

Depend on how you what you define as negative. If you are talking about insults I agree with you. If you are talking about disagreement and discussion then I don't.

We all deal with the full range of poor behaviour from other people every day. Most often it is carelessness, occasionally it is deliberate. Don't let that distract you.
Differences of opinion are a good thing and open discussion drives improvement. Though I find it ridiculous that this is a controversial opinion - it is true.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Disagreement and discussion aren't negatives. How they are expressed can be.


GM OfAnything wrote:

Negative comments have negative value to the community. A forum full of positive comments can still foster thoughtful discussion on weaknesses and areas for improvement.

Too many people on here don't know how to write constructive criticism. Too often a "negative comment" veers into harassment, sniping and vitriol.

I think what happens too often is that when the option to take a comment in a negative or positive light that people tend to see it in a negative light on the internet. We have people from all over the place with different native languages using the English written language [which can be an imprecise language at times] that doesn't convey tone and meaning of a face to face conversation. Everyone communicates differently and far too often an off comment or innocent joke from one person is seen as "harassment, sniping and vitriol" to another. Far too often people 'read between the lines' instead of taking posts at face value.

Now that's not to say there isn't people that are jerks or trolls but it's hard to go through life without meeting them someplace. I don't think the forums here has much of an issue in that regard: this is positively G rated compared to a lot of the internet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back on topic:

No one has mentioned the place of Paizo Infinite.

Writers and designers are publishing material there at the same time they are preparing Paizo materials. It doesn't seem unreasonable that some of the requests that the community makes will be handled through that output stream rather than as Paizo printed items.

Especially for concepts that might have a more niche appeal, I can see a branching off to solely electronic publishing via Infinite, rather than the deeper investment in hardcopy and the resultant production and inventory issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I really can't agree with that.
Obviously people shouldn't attack or harass anyone. Let alone the designers.
But with that said an echo chamber of any kind, isnt healthy for the game either.

But I appreciate the insight. I didn't know that it had been an issue, and I'll keep it in mind. That won't stop me from expressing my opinions and/or hopes for the game in the future though.

It can also be a bit harder to express gratitude than to express 'frustrations' or needs.

I normally post what I would want to see in the future, in the hope that someone at Paizo might read it - so that 'needs or frustration' part is visible online.

My gratitude however is expressed with my wallet and irl with laughs and countless hours poured into this awesome system. And thus isn't as visible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:

Back on topic:

No one has mentioned the place of Paizo Infinite.

Writers and designers are publishing material there at the same time they are preparing Paizo materials. It doesn't seem unreasonable that some of the requests that the community makes will be handled through that output stream rather than as Paizo printed items.

Especially for concepts that might have a more niche appeal, I can see a branching off to solely electronic publishing via Infinite, rather than the deeper investment in hardcopy and the resultant production and inventory issues.

Paizo Infinite titles are great for those that have a single group they play with and everyone has access to the material. It's far from great for those that play PFS, play online and/or those without a stable group. The material doesn't do you much good if you don't get a chance to use it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For those of you that didn't hear, Paizo considers the six "core set" of books to be the Core Rulebook, the Gamemastery, the three beastiaries, and the Advanced Player's Guide. They did say that they want each other book to be a contained, themed book. So if say people want to do a campaign about undead, they just pick up the book of the dead and can ignore everything outside the core set.

And back during the Dark Archive playtest, they said that they were slowing down new classes to come out at a rate of one new class a year, rather than two.


Dokers wrote:
And back during the Dark Archive playtest, they said that they were slowing down new classes to come out at a rate of one new class a year, rather than two.

Hum...

So they aren't do this just because Kineticist is bigger. But as a new guideline.
This means that we will have probably more pages in the books to new feats/spells for the existing classes as some players want.
I wanted them to put new archetypes, non-class feats, items, and spells to open-testing as well. I know that would spoiler the book, but it might help to give us more interesting and useful facts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dokers wrote:
And back during the Dark Archive playtest, they said that they were slowing down new classes to come out at a rate of one new class a year, rather than two.

Do you have a link for that? I'd like to read/watch/whatever the context surrounding it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am surprised at just how many responses I received on this post, and am glad that we have managed to stay constructive (and there is a difference between constructive criticism and being negative). The difference between Paizo and WOTC seems to be that they actually listen to feedback from fans, and use it to improve their game. My intention was that this feedback might somehow get back to the developers.

But much of this thread has just convinced me that my initial hunch was right. Paizo is a creative company, and all they need to do is to create the space to let that creativity flow. This started for me when a gm decided to convert our game to Free Archetype, and suggested that I become a Ritual Caster. I liked the idea. It fit my character. But looking at the ritual list, I couldn't justify it. Then later I noticed the difference in amount of feat choices I would have when I was deciding between making a different character either an elf or a sprite (and Pathfinder 2e does need more high level options for pretty much everything). At this point, I just started to notice this situation popping up again and again.

As for analysis paralysis, it is our responsibility as people trying to bring new people into the hobby to help people past that (and yes, practically forcing people unto Pathbuilder really helps), and to be open to letting them change out things that don't work as they thought it would. And the great thing about 2e is that no choice is going to completely render your character useless (beyond choices of Stats). That was a problem with new players in 3.5/Pathfinder and even 5e to some extent. I say this as someone who started gaming in 90's. Where even in a deep blue part of the country, people thought DND was a form of devil worship.


Saedar wrote:
Dokers wrote:
And back during the Dark Archive playtest, they said that they were slowing down new classes to come out at a rate of one new class a year, rather than two.
Do you have a link for that? I'd like to read/watch/whatever the context surrounding it.

I wish I did. But that was a year ago. It might have been on the Know Direction podcast. But I am not sure.


I don't think we have enough information to claim one way or the other that 1 class per year will now become more common or even the standard. For this book especially, it could very well have been that it included a lot of options they wanted to explore and kineticist is very popular. They just didn't have a second class that would go well with all that.

That said, regardless of the reasoning behind it, it will likely mean more space for expanding existing options. Granted, the Kineticist will be 20+ pages easily (in contrast to most other post-CRB classes being usually 15 pages), but that's still quite a bit of space. And I'm totally fine with that balance. 2 or more classes a year is more than I can play anyway.

Paizo Employee Senior Designer

23 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:

I don't think we have enough information to claim one way or the other that 1 class per year will now become more common or even the standard. For this book especially, it could very well have been that it included a lot of options they wanted to explore and kineticist is very popular. They just didn't have a second class that would go well with all that.

[...]

The real thing is that we're going to do whatever the book and the situation call for, within the logistical limits of our capacity. Doing fewer classes does take some pressure off us to focus on other aspects of our job more, but if a book really calls for two or more classes I'll be the first one on the team to say "Okay, how do we make this work?"

And while that always involves a lot of planning and discussion, the destination isn't always what you might expect trying to predict from the outside. Last week, Logan and I saw a post where someone was saying "With the primal book being out, I guess we're not getting a shaman or shifter class?" At the same time Logan was saying to the team "This is an elements book, not a 'primal' book", I was saying "Who says the shaman is primal?"

We take a lot of time to look things over and really talk about what the best product to make from a variety of angles is. That includes talking to our various business partners, doing subject research, talking about how we'll be supporting the game 4+ books out from whatever is currently in our laps, what kind of content best fits in a design hardcover vs. a Lost Omens book, etc.

Doing the best version of e.g. a shaman for today's audience will always be more important than making a shaman that's a "perfect" port of a PF1 idea. Some classes that never existed in PF1 can be very appropriate additions to PF2. Some classes that did exist in PF1 maybe need to not exist in PF2 for a variety of reasons.

We've always got something like 6 eyes on the future and two eyes watching the flow from past through present (teamwork is important when you're not an arachnid or aberration), and some of the stuff we decide to do from that perspective is going to be obvious (I don't know that there was ever a big question we'd be doing the kineticist sooner or later), while some of it could be pretty surprising (I think there are some things people think we're going to do which we're not for reasons that would become pretty evident if you thought about it a bit from the right perspective, and there are some things people have no idea we're even thinking about that are going to make some jaws drop.)

As always, content that sells well and is healthy for the game is going to have some influence on where we go next. With books like Secrets of Magic and Guns & Gears vastly outselling expectations (and Book of the Dead and Dark Archive already hot on their heels), this thematic model seems to be a stronger play than the broader "Ultimate" books we've done in the past edition, so I expect us to keep mining this mineral vein. I also expect we're not done with introducing new classes or supporting existing classes (and archetypes), though the particulars of how we do both are going to involve a lot of factors that won't always be apparent from the outside looking in.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the insight into you guys' work process. Always nice to see anyone from the paizo team taking time out to communicate with the community. Cheers


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Michael, I am glad to hear it. Both the inventor and the Thaumaturge came out of nowhere, and I love them. Don't stop these theme books. They are great (although, I wonder how much a non-themed book would have sold with those new classes in them). And I am glad to hear that there is more support for past content coming. Pathfinder 2e is not perfect, but it is my favorite game in the d20 system of games. It is a great problem to have that you like the game so much that you care about these niche options within it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And seriously, though, these playtests are genius from a business point of view. They not only allow you to make better product, they not only allow fans to feel like they are apart of the design of their game, but they are great marketing for the book that the playtest material is going to be apart of. That might sound cynical. But when people can make money by actually doing the right thing, they should be congratulated for it.

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / I Love 2e, but I am starting to notice a problem. . . All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.