The DM Lair Moving to PF2e

[Dark_Mistress]

Interesting discussion about focus being like encounter powers, but makes sense and in many ways it is. Which likely is why focus points is one of two things I don't actually like about PF2e, the other being that they got away from spell list for each class to make them feel more unique.

I don't dislike the idea of focus points but I am not a fan of how they are used, aka limited number and you take a short rest to recover them between fights. Not sure how I would change it but just not a fan of it, which makes sense I didn't like the per encounter powers of 4e.

[JiCi]

Dark_Mistress wrote:

I don't dislike the idea of focus points but I am not a fan of how they are used, aka limited number and you take a short rest to recover them between fights. Not sure how I would change it but just not a fan of it, which makes sense I didn't like the per encounter powers of 4e.

Then again, you can recover your points AND do something else in that short rest. It's also a bit better for the narrative, as you need to take a break in order to use your focus spells again rather than magically regaining them after a grueling battle.

It doesn't "make sense" that you recover encounter powers after a 5-round fight when you just came out of a 2-round fight before that.

[Mathmuse]

Jacob Jett wrote:

The desire to specialize (and optimize unfortunately) was rebuilt into the [D&D 3rd edition] system using the so-called prestige classes (of which PF2's archetypes are pretty much a one-to-one carryover of).

In the hands of a good DM, 3.5 is an excellent system. (One simple fix is to simply ban prestige classes outright.)

This is off topic, except to point out that The DM Lair has lots of advice on how a good DM can overcome flaws in the game system, but I have to step in defense of Pathfinder design, starting with PF1.

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, including 3.5, had a problem with dead levels, a level in which the character gained nothing of significance upon leveling up. Thirteenth level was often dead, because the pattern-based design of 3rd Edtion often had stats increase at levels that were multiples of 2, 3, 4, or 6, so 13 missed out on everything except more hit points. Another problem is that the thresholds for new levels increased quadraticly in the triangular numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, etc. multiplied by 1000. Thus, leveling up happened more frequently at higher levels, so the power balance required giving fewer significant abilities at higher levels. Prestige classes relieved that dead-level problem, though it did so by being so overpowered that the original class looked obsolete.

Pathfinder 1st Edition fixed this in two ways. First, they switched to exponential leveling, where the thresholds for leveling up increased exponentially rather than quadraticly, so higher levels were earned at the same pace as lower levels and each level could gain something significant. Second, they made a deliberate effort to discourage prestige classes--which they provided for backwards compatibility--by providing good incentives for remaining single class.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition mimicking multiclassing through archetypes that consume class feats is an extreme choice, but the power level of the archetype feats seems reasonable rather than excessive. Rather, my players are encountering the problem that at higher levels the remaining class feats don't fit what their characters want to do, so archetypes are looking tempting as an alternative. The problem is worse with ancestry feats, for which archetypes offer no alternative. I figure this will repair itself naturally when Paizo invents more class feats for each class and ancestry.

[Alchemic_Genius]

As someone whos comes from and started on games where magic comes from replenishable reserves of fatigue/power/endurance points, I actually prefer focus points to making everything slots. While I personally dont suffer from the "I might need this later" problem with using daily resources, in games where the pool of power is rechargable, people don't get nearly as much anxiety over using it.

Like, if, say, casters got a number of spell points equal to their level, and a spell used as many spell points as their level (and the whole mechanics of spells were reworked and balanced to work with this), and you could recharge your spell points by resting or some other suitable recharge activity; most people I play with would be casting way more spells, even though functionally, for most games I've been in, slots would probably actually give you more actual magic available.

I'm actually really not a huge fan of game mechanics that assume you can just keep going on and on without rest, and encourage you to do so

[Sanityfaerie]

Personally? I liked 4e. I found it a lot of fun. It was also a very limited system in many ways.

4e was ridiculously combat-focused. the non-combat parts were vestigial bits sort of stapled on after the fact because they needed to have rules for "the bits that aren't combat" and so they put some in. They eliminated the huge power difference between casters and martials by making the two functionally identical. It was obviously built by and for people who were into CharOp and tactical wargaming and it showed... and at least part of how it showed was the way that it utterly ignored the needs of all of the players who were into anything else.

PF2 is very much not this way. Noncombat abilities and mechanics are much more robust, and integrated much better. The game actively encourages you to build a bunch of stuff into your character that has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with your ability to Do Combat, and then makes sure that you won't lose too much combat ability in so doing. Now, combat ability is still quite significant - it's still a descendant of Chainmail, after all - but I honestly think that of all of them that I've seen, it's the one that handles the noncombat stuff the best. That's not nothing.

[Jacob Jett]

Mathmuse wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

The desire to specialize (and optimize unfortunately) was rebuilt into the [D&D 3rd edition] system using the so-called prestige classes (of which PF2's archetypes are pretty much a one-to-one carryover of).

In the hands of a good DM, 3.5 is an excellent system. (One simple fix is to simply ban prestige classes outright.)

This is off topic, except to point out that The DM Lair has lots of advice on how a good DM can overcome flaws in the game system, but I have to step in defense of Pathfinder design, starting with PF1.

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, including 3.5, had a problem with dead levels, a level in which the character gained nothing of significance upon leveling up. Thirteenth level was often dead, because the pattern-based design of 3rd Edtion often had stats increase at levels that were multiples of 2, 3, 4, or 6, so 13 missed out on everything except more hit points. Another problem is that the thresholds for new levels increased quadraticly in the triangular numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, etc. multiplied by 1000. Thus, leveling up happened more frequently at higher levels, so the power balance required giving fewer significant abilities at higher levels. Prestige classes relieved that dead-level problem, though it did so by being so overpowered that the original class looked obsolete. YMMV

Pathfinder 1st Edition fixed this in two ways. First, they switched to exponential leveling, where the thresholds for leveling up increased exponentially rather than quadraticly, so higher levels were earned at the same pace as lower levels and each level could gain something significant. Second, they made a deliberate effort to discourage prestige classes--which they provided for backwards compatibility--by providing good incentives for remaining single class.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition mimicking multiclassing through archetypes that consume class feats is an extreme choice, but the power level of the archetype feats seems reasonable rather than excessive. Rather, my players are...

Not sure how what I wrote got interpreted as an attack on PF1. However, dead levels was an issue from day one (in the 60s), possibly because the originators didn't feel like only getting a hit point bump and possibly bumps to-hit, saves, and/or additional spells was "empty". Ultimately I agree with your general premise. However, it's not a flaw specific to 3.5. It's a flaw carried over from previous editions (A)D&D 1, 2, and 3. This was maximally evident with 3.0 and 3.5's Ranger which had the most dead levels of any class...triggering the first time I entirely rewrote classes, as a rule set, for 3.5 to fix this problem, making sure every class 1) got something at each level and 2) stepped away from cultural appropriations. E.g., druids got rebranded as gnostic clerics, samurai were generalized into heritage warriors (which could be used to make a Persian Immortal, Mongolian Horse-Archer, or Frankish Chevalier as easily as it could a Samurai). I have since rewritten classes to suit for every system I've run since about '01, including things like FFG's three SW TTRPGs. While PF1 and 2 are in better places than earlier editions of D&D, there are still levels where less happens. So I'd be worried that the dead level complaint might return.

Regarding multi-classing, I don't particularly care for the practice. It operates best in systems like Genesys where characters are assembled from a palette of stuff anyway. It never worked terribly well in D&D and considering how every optimization I've seen preys on it, I'm inclined to think that if any straw will eventually break the PF2 camel's back, it'll be an archetype and almost surely a multi-class archetype.

[Angwa]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Personally? I liked 4e. I found it a lot of fun. It was also a very limited system in many ways.

4e was ridiculously combat-focused. the non-combat parts were vestigial bits sort of stapled on after the fact because they needed to have rules for "the bits that aren't combat" and so they put some in. They eliminated the huge power difference between casters and martials by making the two functionally identical. It was obviously built by and for people who were into CharOp and tactical wargaming and it showed... and at least part of how it showed was the way that it utterly ignored the needs of all of the players who were into anything else.

PF2 is very much not this way. Noncombat abilities and mechanics are much more robust, and integrated much better. The game actively encourages you to build a bunch of stuff into your character that has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with your ability to Do Combat, and then makes sure that you won't lose too much combat ability in so doing. Now, combat ability is still quite significant - it's still a descendant of Chainmail, after all - but I honestly think that of all of them that I've seen, it's the one that handles the noncombat stuff the best. That's not nothing.

Eh, I disagree? It was way, way more robust than previous editions in offering support for the non-combat parts of the game.

4e was the first with a skill system that was not a complete mess and with skill challenges at least attempted to provide a framework for resolution. Each skill had a basic, but non-exhaustive) list of clearly defined uses, with a listed action cost if also useable in combat.

There were some feats locked behind being trained in a skill, but also depending on skill levels you unlocked utility powers you could take. Oh, and you had the 5 knowledge skills with which you could use knowledge checks, of which Monster Knowledge checks were a subset.

Beyond the defined out-of-combat applications of the skills there were plenty of powers which were useable out of combat, or even only/mostly useable there. Also the rituals system which was all about out of combat magic.

If you play PF2e all of the above should be eerily familiar.

[Jacob Jett]

Angwa wrote:

4e was the first with a skill system that was not a complete mess and with skill challenges at least attempted to provide a framework for resolution. Each skill had a basic, but non-exhaustive) list of clearly defined uses, with a listed action cost if also useable in combat.

There were some feats locked behind being trained in a skill, but also depending on skill levels you unlocked utility powers you could take. Oh, and you had the 5 knowledge skills with which you could use knowledge checks, of which Monster Knowledge checks were a subset.

Beyond the defined out-of-combat applications of the skills...

Hrmmm, I'm aging, and I haven't played any of the following since like '07 so maybe I'm misremembering but it seems to me like TORG, GURPS, and Palladium's d% systems all had these things with regards to skills. I'm confident that almost all of the editions of HERO had this for skills. All of these games serviced the fantasy genre, they simply lacked the brand monolithism of D&D. IMO 4e was actually reacting to other game systems that preceded it. Ultimately, the introduction of feats in D&D3 likely galvanized this (along with making everyone realize that some levels were dead levels). One you have a systemic mechanic like feats, the design possibilities increase exponentially (as does the danger of breaking things).

[Angwa]

Jacob Jett wrote:

Hrmmm, I'm aging, and I haven't played any of the following since like '07 so maybe I'm misremembering but it seems to me like TORG, GURPS, and Palladium's d% systems all had these things with regards to skills. I'm confident that almost all of the editions of HERO had this for skills. All of these games serviced the fantasy genre, they simply lacked the brand monolithism of D&D. IMO 4e was actually reacting to other game systems that preceded it. Ultimately, the introduction of feats in D&D3 likely galvanized this (along with making everyone realize that some levels were dead levels). One you have a systemic mechanic like feats, the design possibilities increase exponentially (as does the danger of breaking things).

Sure, and there are lots of other rpg systems with elaborate skill systems beyond the ones you mentioned. But as I said in my first sentence I was comparing to the previous D&D systems.

[zag01]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

They eliminated the huge power difference between casters and martials by making the two functionally identical.

This was my biggest complaint against 4e. Not that they made casters and martials functionally identical, but that they made ALL class functionally identical.

In this campaign I'm playing a sorcerer called a fighter. In the next campaign I'm going to play a sorcerer called a rogue.

[YuriP]

This was one of the biggest players complains when 4e was release. Many players didn't liked how many different classes used basically same mechanics with just some numeric differences for about every class.

That's another reason I pointed that PF2 is more than a 4e spiritual successor. Yet we have some pontual complains about usage of same or similar rules in some cases in PF2 like Psychic being too much spellcaster due the usage of spellcasting rules and traits.

[Dark_Mistress]

JiCi wrote:

Then again, you can recover your points AND do something else in that short rest. It's also a bit better for the narrative, as you need to take a break in order to use your focus spells again rather than magically regaining them after a grueling battle.

It doesn't "make sense" that you recover encounter powers after a 5-round fight when you just came out of a 2-round fight before that.

It is better than how 4e did it yes, but I still not a fan of either. I would rather it be something like you get 10 focus points and only recover them after a 8 hour rest or something. As I said not really sure how I would change them, only that it is one of the few things I actually don't like about PF2e

[Sanityfaerie]

Dark_Mistress wrote:

It is better than how 4e did it yes, but I still not a fan of either. I would rather it be something like you get 10 focus points and only recover them after a 8 hour rest or something. As I said not really sure how I would change them, only that it is one of the few things I actually don't like about PF2e

That's called "having spell slots". If you don't like encounter powers, it's very possible to play a character without them. Personally, I don't like daily powers, and it gladdens me that it's possible to play without them, too. Saying "I hate encounter powers and wish they were daily powers instead"... I'm going to have to say that I am bitterly opposed to your position on this matter. If they're not for you, then that's fine... but don't try to take them away from the rest of us so you can have more daily stuff.

[Angwa]

zag01 wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

They eliminated the huge power difference between casters and martials by making the two functionally identical.

This was my biggest complaint against 4e. Not that they made casters and martials functionally identical, but that they made ALL class functionally identical.

In this campaign I'm playing a sorcerer called a fighter. In the next campaign I'm going to play a sorcerer called a rogue.

YuriP wrote:

This was one of the biggest players complains when 4e was release. Many players didn't liked how many different classes used basically same mechanics with just some numeric differences for about every class.

That's another reason I pointed that PF2 is more than a 4e spiritual successor. Yet we have some pontual complains some cases in PF2 like Psychic being too much spellcaster due the usage of spellcasting rules and traits.

D&D4e at release left much to be desired. But that was more a lack of content and bad monster design in MM1+2 than anything else.

Once it hit its stride, with an expanded class roster, the classes themselves having much more tools, themes, paragon paths, heroic paths, hybrids and especially after the MM3 monster fix, well that's another story.

IMO the different AEDU classes never felt samey to me, and that is disregarding the non-AEDU classes from Essentials. Most importantly they had different roles, Defenders, Strikers, Controllers and Leaders were most definitely doing radically other things. and even within the same role the class features, feats and powers themselves made sure they would feel nothing alike in play.

Heck, you could play multiple campaigns with the same class (well, more so if it was one of the older classes with lotsa content) and have a different play-experience each time.

Complaints like AEDU make everything the same, or there is no out-of-combat support always make me raise an eyebrow and conclude that person has little to no experience with 4e. Because there are definitely legit complaints to be made!

Zero effort was made to 'hide' the underlying system and find a middle ground with players who value a more simulationist approach. It was up to the players and the gm to match the fiction/narrative and the system. As for the system itself too many fiddly bonuses and penalties which were a pest to track and stacked way too high. So many crappy feats. As they approach epic tier the PC's could way too easily apply powerful conditions like stunned or high vulnerabilities. That was also the point were combats started to drag as just about everything would trigger an interrupt, reaction opportunity action or free action...

[arcady]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The witch player in the game I'm playing in doesn't use his hexes, and he's not all that effective;

I'm playing a witch and I find that Cackle is essentially THE reason to play the class over another caster. Turning your sustain into a free action is very useful as long as you GM remembers that not all of his NPCs have that ability also... ;)

My other hexes thus far are trivial.

Phase familiar - the familiar itself is largely useless so I just gave it the tattoo ability and keep it as that.

Needle of Vengeance - the damage this does is trivial and scales to slowly.

Cackle then starts to have limited utility when you look at what spells in the occult list are sustained.

As for not going occult - if I were to make the character over I'd change that level 1 choice. But the majority of Witch patrons are in occult. It sounds like the right one to pick, but occult spell list is themed more for investigative / diplomacy campaigns and we're in abomination vaults.

Cackle when your spell list matches your campaign though - very much demonstrates how the non-core classes are often worked around effective use of their focus abilities.

[arcady]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

lifting best ideas from about every edition and permutation of the game to deliver something that works.

Just to be that kind of troll... ;)

Don't take this one too seriously because I'm picking at a nit that I know full well was a generalization, and doing it mostly for semi-humor.

I see this claim a lot but... what would we say is something good they lifted from AD&D 1E? The 1978 rules?

I personally felt those rules were garbage, even back when it was current and almost the only choice out there other than basic D&D. I switched to playing 'Melee' and 'Wizard' the moment I found them (two mini-games that eventually evolved into GURPS).

[arcady]

Jacob Jett wrote:

Amen (and pass the hand grenades). IMO, 4e was hot garbage. If I had wanted to play Diablo as a TTRPG, I just would have played it online.

4E's main problem was it failed to meet it's very first design goal due to issues not in the ruleset itself.

4E was meant to be played in a VTT. And only in a VTT. But they never managed to make the VTT. The moment they realized they were unable to make a VTT they should have backed out of finishing 4E and changed it into what 5E eventually became.

Now... I don't know if 4E would have played well in a VTT like PF2E does. I suspect it would still be a mess. BUT... that was the goal. It was WotC's first attempt at doing that. Really the industry's first. It was 'ahead of it's time' - but rather than say this as a point of nostalgia... by behind ahead of it's time no one yet knew what a goof VTT-based monetization system disguised as a game should look like. ;)

Now they do... so we'll get 5.5E and probably have to spend 5 Elminster tokens to upload new character art, tokens that are sold in packs of 6. :P
(or some other horrible mobile gaming mess).

[Dark_Mistress]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

That's called "having spell slots". If you don't like encounter powers, it's very possible to play a character without them. Personally, I don't like daily powers, and it gladdens me that it's possible to play without them, too. Saying "I hate encounter powers and wish they were daily powers instead"... I'm going to have to say that I am bitterly opposed to your position on this matter. If they're not for you, then that's fine... but don't try to take them away from the rest of us so you can have more daily stuff.

Who said anything about taking them away from you. I said I didn't like them and that I would change them and was just talking about ways I might change them for my own games.

[xguild]

arcady wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

lifting best ideas from about every edition and permutation of the game to deliver something that works.

Just to be that kind of troll... ;)

Don't take this one too seriously because I'm picking at a nit that I know full well was a generalization, and doing it mostly for semi-humor.

I see this claim a lot but... what would we say is something good they lifted from AD&D 1E? The 1978 rules?

I personally felt those rules were garbage, even back when it was current and almost the only choice out there other than basic D&D. I switched to playing 'Melee' and 'Wizard' the moment I found them (two mini-games that eventually evolved into GURPS).

I think it's a bit less about pulling specific mechanics from past editions, as much as it understanding how and why different mechanics evolved the way they did over editions of the game and their various offshoots.

Every version of D&D is a construction based on the experience of everything that came before, but there is a three-way division in the D&D genre of games (and it is its own genre at this point) that is more conceptual than mechanical, even though often the discussion tend to focus more on identifying and arguing over which mechanics are better, even though what we are really talking about are the concepts.

The three conceptual variants of D&D are Narrative Realism, Adventure Fantasy and Tactical adventuring.

Games like B/X and 1st edition AD&D are examples of Narrative Realism. These are games where their is a focus on creating a real feeling and dangerous fantasy world, almost to the point of a survival game.

Adventure Fantasy are games like 5th edition. The point here is to focus on adventuring elements of the game, realism doesn't play a fundamental role and while some tactical aspects exist they are intentionally obtuse to ensure the adventuring narrative can take precedence.

Finally their are tactical adventuring systems like 4e and Pathfinder 2e, where the game is defined like a tactical game. Every action you can take is clearly written,the focus is on making sure anything you can do in the game is an executable mechanic and the game has a generally high focus on tactical combat.

There are of course games that merge into each other and all of these games share various elements but a person who like Tactical Adventuring is going to usually hate Adventuring Narrative games because they are actively opposing concepts. For example D&D 5e very intentionally omits certain types of rules to ensure they are obtuse so that they aren't treated as execution while a tactical adventuring games very intentionally have clear rules to ensure the rules are clear.

Ultimately it boils down to conceptual preferences however and not specific mechanics which again, is almost always how discussions about these sorts of things develop. For example people can't accept that 1e's squirrely and disconnected rules aren't the act of bad game design, but part of a conscious and very intentional philosophy in the same way 5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

Im ranting a bit but the point here is that these things boil down to gaming philosophies and concepts, rather than mechanics.

[arcady]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

PF2 is very much not this way. Noncombat abilities and mechanics are much more robust, and integrated much better. The game actively encourages you to build a bunch of stuff into your character that has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with your ability to Do Combat, and then makes sure that you won't lose too much combat ability in so doing.

I agree. As I'm playing a Witch in the Abomination Vaults dungeon crawl. Every time I level up I am reminded of the wealth of options the class I picked has for a diplomacy, investigation, or mystery game - and the scant few it has for a combat heavy dungeon crawl. Though had I realized this back in session 0 I could have made a primal or arcane witch and then my options would be only about half non-combat.

As for losing too much combat ability by playing an occult witch. I still have utility - but it's through spamming the same small set of things over and over. I can be effective, but not diverse.

PF2E lets you build for a high or low combat themed game. Frankly my complaint about my witch is actually a feature. The fault isn't in the system - it was in me being new to things and not reading the spell list through first. Other games will lock you into a style for your campaign. PF2E would let me design the same class for a variety of different game types - and I personally just designed wrong.

(or... I just need to re-read the occult list and find what I missed.)

.

[arcady]

I'm going to be weird and try to get us back on topic for some reason...

;)

So DM Lair has 131k subscribers as I type this, and their system switch video got 76k views in 2 days, about triple the views of most of their other videos this month.

Do we feel this will have an impact on drawing players / GMs to consider if PF2E is the choice for them?

I'm hopeful. I don't know if this is a high or low view count in this hobby. I find it interesting that their switch video got so many views. It shows that a lot more people are thinking about this topic than the normal people just watching the videos. Though that view count also includes people already inside the PF2E scene who just watched to see what's up rather than because they were over in 5E land and thinking about things.

[xguild]

I think the reason DM Lair is relevant is that this channel is among a fairly long list of former D&D 5e channels that have switched to PF2e. It's happening quite a bit, especially over the last 3-4 months.

This "switching" of systems however is not really out of character for the D&D lifecycle, namely as the current edition of D&D ages, inevitably it ages poorly.

When D&D 6e comes out, again, inevitably many of these channels will switch back and do "why I'm switching back to D&D" videos while complaining about PFE2.

It's all pretty predictable.

[Alchemic_Genius]

arcady wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The witch player in the game I'm playing in doesn't use his hexes, and he's not all that effective;

I'm playing a witch and I find that Cackle is essentially THE reason to play the class over another caster. Turning your sustain into a free action is very useful as long as you GM remembers that not all of his NPCs have that ability also... ;)

My other hexes thus far are trivial.

Phase familiar - the familiar itself is largely useless so I just gave it the tattoo ability and keep it as that.

Needle of Vengeance - the damage this does is trivial and scales to slowly.

Cackle then starts to have limited utility when you look at what spells in the occult list are sustained.

As for not going occult - if I were to make the character over I'd change that level 1 choice. But the majority of Witch patrons are in occult. It sounds like the right one to pick, but occult spell list is themed more for investigative / diplomacy campaigns and we're in abomination vaults.

Cackle when your spell list matches your campaign though - very much demonstrates how the non-core classes are often worked around effective use of their focus abilities.

Elemental Betrayal [fire/cold] is VERY potent damage enhancement as long as your party buys the right rune and you prep the appropriate damage, and it stacks with everything. When the witch actually remembers he has it, the impact is immense.He basically only uses cackle, though unfortunately, he uses it for summons rather than actual good combat spells in fights.

Life boost is nice for characters that take damage consistently, but have means of lowering that damage (for example, shield users, resistance, miss chance, etc), plus it basically replaces needing to take medicine to open up skills

That said, all of these are low level, which very much leads me to think that witch is better as an archetype to add nice tools onto other casters than it is an actual class

[YuriP]

arcady wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

Amen (and pass the hand grenades). IMO, 4e was hot garbage. If I had wanted to play Diablo as a TTRPG, I just would have played it online.

4E's main problem was it failed to meet it's very first design goal due to issues not in the ruleset itself.

4E was meant to be played in a VTT. And only in a VTT. But they never managed to make the VTT. The moment they realized they were unable to make a VTT they should have backed out of finishing 4E and changed it into what 5E eventually became.

I disagree. In 2008 we simply didn't have VTTs like we have today, what we had were proto VTTs, most, if not all, without tactical support, just rolls and at most an automatic sheet, not even roll20 existed at the time. That is, the very concept of VTTs was not yet so well defined.

If WOTC had designed with the internet in mind, it was much more likely that they would be doing it to build on games like Baldur's Gate or NeverWinter Nights, which were basically D&D rules games. But then she wouldn't need the books, just creating a system and licensing it to the developers, spending money producing and releasing a 4th edition as TTPRG simply wouldn't make economic sense, she would just stick the D&D name on some PC game and say she did D&D-inspired rules, classes, and worlds.

What WOTC was actually trying to do at the time of 4th edition was to attract the hype of MMORPG players to the hobby and for that they thought that the best way would be to replicate and adapt the mechanics commonly used in these games to facilitate the adaptability of these new players and leave the role-playing to the DMs. But in the end this was one of several factors that ended up going wrong. In practice, it didn't even help to convince novice players to the genre and it bothered existing TTRPG players.

arcady wrote:

Now... I don't know if 4E would have played well in a VTT like PF2E does. I suspect it would still be a mess. BUT... that was the goal. It was WotC's first attempt at doing that. Really the industry's first. It was 'ahead of it's time' - but rather than say this as a point of nostalgia... by behind ahead of it's time no one yet knew what a goof VTT-based monetization system disguised as a game should look like. ;)

However, I agree that today PF2 benefits from the current scenario of VTTs.

In this scenario, more complex TTRPG systems manage to stand out more in the midst of VTT automations, something that simpler TTRPGs do not benefit as much and the more simplistic and less balanced rules can end up making combat scenes more "boring" when compared to more complex systems like PF2 or G.U.R.P.S.

Foundy is a VTT that demonstrates this well, today it automates almost everything, including passive mechanics that players usually end up forgetting to account like persistent damage and poison tests. Although its implementation is still too hacky for many players. But I believe that over time Roll20 should improve its automation capacity (even to be able to compete with WOTC's VTT) and Fantasy Grounds is also an excellent alternative to Foundry in terms of automation, but without needing "hacker" skills to use.

arcady wrote:

Now they do... so we'll get 5.5E and probably have to spend 5 Elminster tokens to upload new character art, tokens that are sold in packs of 6. :P

(or some other horrible mobile gaming mess).

It will probably be what WOTC will try to do, but as it has not managed to kill the competition unfairly using contractual loopholes, it will have to deal with competition that will prevent it from transforming VTT itself into a Magic Arena.

[arcady]

YuriP wrote:

arcady wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

Amen (and pass the hand grenades). IMO, 4e was hot garbage. If I had wanted to play Diablo as a TTRPG, I just would have played it online.

**************************************

4E's main problem was it failed to meet it's very first design goal due to issues not in the ruleset itself.

4E was meant to be played in a VTT. And only in a VTT. But they never managed to make the VTT. The moment they realized they were unable to make a VTT they should have backed out of finishing 4E and changed it into what 5E eventually became.

**************************************

I disagree. In 2008 we simply didn't have VTTs like we have today, what we had were proto VTTs, most, if not all, without tactical support, just rolls and at most an automatic sheet, not even roll20 existed at the time. That is, the very concept of VTTs was not yet so well defined.
**************************************

arcady wrote:

Now... I don't know if 4E would have played well in a VTT like PF2E does. I suspect it would still be a mess. BUT... that was the goal. It was WotC's first attempt

...

**************************************

They actually stated the design intent was for it to be played like an MMO. The Neverwinter MMO was then made shortly after based on the 4E rules.

We also know they were making a VTT for it while it was in development, and that that VTT failed to be completed.

This leads me to the analysis that it was 'ahead of its time', but in a bad way - they made a system for a technology that they themselves could not yet make, and not knowing what would be needed for that system, they put in things that made the game poorer in quality as a result.

[YuriP]

xguild wrote:

I think the reason DM Lair is relevant is that this channel is among a fairly long list of former D&D 5e channels that have switched to PF2e. It's happening quite a bit, especially over the last 3-4 months.

This "switching" of systems however is not really out of character for the D&D lifecycle, namely as the current edition of D&D ages, inevitably it ages poorly.

When D&D 6e comes out, again, inevitably many of these channels will switch back and do "why I'm switching back to D&D" videos while complaining about PFE2.

It's all pretty predictable.

I'm not so sure.

The WOTC designers are currently at a bit of a loss as to what to do in One D&D. The problem is that the commercial part of WOTC pressured them to maintain compatibility with the 5e, curiously not thinking about the players, but rather to avoid a hiatus in the sales of supplements for the 5e, especially in the period in which they are going to release the movie.

But there are many criticisms from players and mainly DMs and youtubers that 5e needs more than adjustments, it needs a complete overhaul in its systems, from the most basic mechanics, such as even advantage rolls.

If they follow this line of making only minor adjustments that in practice do not address the main structural problems of 5e, in a 5.5 for example, and in a scenario where adventures and third parties will have difficulty being compatible with any new licenses (there are already criticisms that WOTC is not putting all mechanical content in Creative Commons, and that the very version of CC they are using may end up hurting content creators 3rd to earn money) where most likely the main problems remained in the name of backwards compatibility, unless WOTC pay the youtubers to stay in their system and VTT, I wouldn't be so sure they'll come back. The most likely, in my opinion, is that we have a scenario closer to the 4e revisions, which even adjusted some defects and criticisms of the game, but in the end what really resolved it was the release of 5e a few years later.

[xguild]

YuriP wrote:

xguild wrote:

I think the reason DM Lair is relevant is that this channel is among a fairly long list of former D&D 5e channels that have switched to PF2e. It's happening quite a bit, especially over the last 3-4 months.

This "switching" of systems however is not really out of character for the D&D lifecycle, namely as the current edition of D&D ages, inevitably it ages poorly.

When D&D 6e comes out, again, inevitably many of these channels will switch back and do "why I'm switching back to D&D" videos while complaining about PFE2.

It's all pretty predictable.

I'm not so sure.

The WOTC designers are currently at a bit of a loss as to what to do in One D&D. The problem is that the commercial part of WOTC pressured them to maintain compatibility with the 5e, curiously not thinking about the players, but rather to avoid a hiatus in the sales of supplements for the 5e, especially in the period in which they are going to release the movie.

But there are many criticisms from players and mainly DMs and youtubers that 5e needs more than adjustments, it needs a complete overhaul in its systems, from the most basic mechanics, such as even advantage rolls.

If they follow this line of making only minor adjustments that in practice do not address the main structural problems of 5e, in a 5.5 for example, and in a scenario where adventures and third parties will have difficulty being compatible with any new licenses (there are already criticisms that WOTC is not putting all mechanical content in Creative Commons, and that the very version of CC they are using may end up hurting content creators 3rd to earn money) where most likely the main problems remained in the name of backwards compatibility, unless WOTC pay the youtubers to stay in their system and VTT, I wouldn't be so sure they'll come back. The most likely, in my opinion, is that we have a scenario closer to the 4e revisions, which even adjusted some defects and criticisms of the game, but in the end what really resolved it was the...

Interesting take. If that is true, then this crisis of faith a lot of content creators and community leaders are having is a lot more serious.

I mean my assumption has always been that while there are some quibbles about the system that can make the grass look greener on the Pathfinder side, its still D&D and ultimately with a refresher book they are back in business.

In my case, my switch to Pathfinder 2e really was more about my issues with 5e, than it was about solutions of PF2e. Meaning, I don't think I would have made the switch on the basis of how good PF2e was or the quality of PF2e. There are lots of great systems out there, but I want to play D&D because its D&D.

In the end however that sort of brand loyalty was constantly being tested due to all the shortcomings and issues I was having in my game, many of which much like DM Lair just made the game stale after a while.

I remember when I first picked up PF2e, long before I actually considered the switch, I recognized how most if not all the issues that I was having were being directly addressed by PF2e, not just in the rules but very consciously in the writing and explanation of the game.

In fact, initially, I was just going to implement certain aspects of PF2e into my D&D game and after doing that for a while, I realized I was actually unconsciously, mentally switching systems at which point I just decided, screw, I'm just going to switch.

Since then I have grown to look at Pathfinder 2e as the new version of D&D. Honestly, my group never says "let's play Pathfinder" or "When is the next Pathfinder session"... everyone calls it D&D... we refer to the Champion as "The Paladin"... I mean, in kind of a weird way, PF2e just kind of took the place of what I think 6e should or could have been.

That sense that we are playing D&D and that sort of brand loyalty and "feeling" of ownership and being part of D&D is still there even as we are actually playing Pathfinder 2e. In a weird way, no one feels like we switched systems or abandoned D&D, it feels more like we just moved on to the new edition of the game.

If that is the same feeling people are having about the game on any meaningful scale, I think Wizards of the Coast is in a lot of trouble. Its almost like Paizo is just taking over the D&D brand unofficially.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Jacob Jett wrote:

In the hands of a good DM, 3.5 is an excellent system. (One simple fix is to simply ban prestige classes outright.) Ultimately though, I suspect you wouldn't want play in one of my games. Combat only happens every 2 or 3 game sessions and how players situate their characters within the ludic space of the setting is much more important than how optimized for X or Y they are.

So, you took away one part of what makes 3.5 be itself (PRCs), limited other (customisation) and you're saying that your "more like 1e/2 actually" gameplay is representative experience? Sorry, but that's about as far from 3.5/PF1 metagame as possible. The "game" part of these editions is in character building and planning, and the payoff is when your Sanctified Sanguinator with 5 levels in Nor-Druid PRC wins the battle with BBEG on round one, while the hapless dude who plays a core rulebook Dwarf Rogue/Sorcerer with Toughness and Skill Focus gets left in the dust.

[SuperBidi]

4e was an attempt to get closer to video games, and WotC is doing it again.
I really feel TTRPGs and video games are just not the same product at all and every time WotC tries to get closer to video games they just fail miserably. I really don't understand why they think there's such a strong link between TTRPGs and video games that you can just take things from the video game world and apply them to the TTRPG world and it'll work like magic.

When Hasbro says that they don't monetize their game enough, I feel that they are both right and wrong. Wrong because they completely put aside the miniatures, dice, VTTs (computers, internet connections) and other "costs" we put in our game. Wrong also because it's a game you play with friends at home, so people will rarely pay as much for a home game than they would for something that asks for a specific infrastructure. But right because I feel they still could gain more money out of the hobby. But to gain that money, they need to provide services we care about. We want content, we want services that really help us. We don't want to be taken as hostages, trapped in a system that forces us to pay for... for what? Because ultimately, we can just sit together in our basements and play. If the services provided are not good enough then we will leave.

MtG took a hit because of their latest releases, D&D will certainly take one, too. Sometimes, you can't just make better something that is already extremely good, especially not without understanding the core of the hobby.

[xguild]

SuperBidi wrote:

4e was an attempt to get closer to video games, and WotC is doing it again.

I really feel TTRPGs and video games are just not the same product at all and every time WotC tries to get closer to video games they just fail miserably. I really don't understand why they think there's such a strong link between TTRPGs and video games that you can just take things from the video game world and apply them to the TTRPG world and it'll work like magic.

When Hasbro says that they don't monetize their game enough, I feel that they are both right and wrong. Wrong because they completely put aside the miniatures, dice, VTTs (computers, internet connections) and other "costs" we put in our game. Wrong also because it's a game you play with friends at home, so people will rarely pay as much for a home game than they would for something that asks for a specific infrastructure. But right because I feel they still could gain more money out of the hobby. But to gain that money, they need to provide services we care about. We want content, we want services that really help us. We don't want to be taken as hostages, trapped in a system that forces us to pay for... for what? Because ultimately, we can just sit together in our basements and play. If the services provided are not good enough then we will leave.

MtG took a hit because of their latest releases, D&D will certainly take one, too. Sometimes, you can't just make better something that is already extremely good, especially not without understanding the core of the hobby.

There is a really strong link between video games and TTRPG's, in fact, generally speaking the more translatable a TTRPG system is to a video game mechanic, the more popular the edition is.

The issue however is how that is represented in the TTRPG. With 4e the mechanics were not only translatable, but they were in practice executed as video game mechanics on paper and that is a stark difference.

For example the advantage/disadvantage system in 5e is a good example of a very translatable mechanic to video games, its easy to replicate, but it is also a very TTRPG mechanic because we don't codify the "when" of its usage.. Meaning, when you apply this mechanic is up to the DM and its something he "judges" and determines when to use it. You could easily have written 10 pages in the Players Handbook on when it does and doesn't apply setting clear parameters and had they done that it would "feel" like a video game mechanic but because it's left as a judgment, it does not feel that way even though if that same mechanic would be applied to a video game it would be very easy to codify with specific times when it does and doesn't apply in a systematic way.

I don't know if that makes sense but 4e was very codified, the execution of the combat mechanic didn't actually require a DM for anything short of monsters and players deciding who to target. There were no judgment calls to make, there was even a very clear optimized order in which any class at any level would execute powers and the powers themselves were mathematically even, meaning it didn't matter if you were class X executing power Y, it would work the same as Class Z executing power D with a different graphical (narrative) flare.

You quite literally with limited effort create a self-executing AI that runs 4e combat and it would match up exactly with how it would be executed by players. Players really didn't make any decisions in 4e, there were very obvious, easy-to-understand optimal actions you took in a very obvious and optimal order with very firm statistical results.

You can't do that with most TTRPG system because they usually involve DM's making narrative choices about how to execute mechanics.

PF2e in that way is a lot closer to 4e as the mechanics are codified. The way its different is that unlike 4e, where after selecting a class, there are limited deviations of what characters could do, in PF2e there are so many options at every point in character selection that you could ask 1000 people to create a fighter and you would have 1000 unique characters that do different things and often, wildly different.

Its only the depth of the options that make it seem less codified but strictly speaking there are clear executions for everything and very few DM judgement calls on how mechanics are executed in PF2e much in the same way 4e worked. Again.. only difference is the brevity of options and parameters.

This makes Pathfinder a very easy system to translate to a PC game and that structure is why its popular. Judgement based mechanics like say 1e B/X, basically mean that the rules of the game (how they are executed) are up to the DM as most executions of events is not governed by a rule. In PF2e for example, you would be hard-pressed to name something a player could do that isn't codified in the rules as an executable mechanic. Even simple things like mounting and dismounting a horse are covered. Everything is codified, just like a video game.

[SuperBidi]

xguild wrote:

There is a really strong link between video games and TTRPG's, in fact, generally speaking the more translatable a TTRPG system is to a video game mechanic, the more popular the edition is.

I don't think there's any such link. But I definitely agree that TTRPGs inspire video games, they sometimes take the mechanics (but it's, overall, only a small portion of video games).

On the other hand, video games inspired TTRPGs also exist. But they don't take the mechanics from the video games, or at least not directly, they take the setting mostly.

There are inspirations between both worlds. But what WotC is trying to do since quite some time is to just translate functionalities from video games to TTRPGs. And that, I doubt it works wonder (at least, as of now, it hasn't worked and I'm very doubtful when looking at what WotC is working on).

[xguild]

SuperBidi wrote:

xguild wrote:

There is a really strong link between video games and TTRPG's, in fact, generally speaking the more translatable a TTRPG system is to a video game mechanic, the more popular the edition is.

I don't think there's any such link. But I definitely agree that TTRPGs inspire video games, they sometimes take the mechanics (but it's, overall, only a small portion of video games).

On the other hand, video games inspired TTRPGs also exist. But they don't take the mechanics from the video games, or at least not directly, they take the setting mostly.

There are inspirations between both worlds. But what WotC is trying to do since quite some time is to just translate functionalities from video games to TTRPGs. And that, I doubt it works wonder (at least, as of now, it hasn't worked and I'm very doubtful when looking at what WotC is working on).

I'm not saying I disagree, what I'm saying is that I think the lines are a lot more in sync then they are apart. A good TTRPG mechanic that is codified and has a strong execution is very easy to translate to a PC game mechanic and games that are this well codified make typically for much better RPG's (better not being synchronise with popular just in case there is any debate).

The strength of PF2e for example is that it's so well codified, so clear, its mechanics verbose, and mathematical. PF2e big selling points are clear rules, balanced rules and options rich. PF2e rules can be directly translated forbadum into video game mechanics without adjustment and they would work perfectly, the core rulebook is actually written in a style that is very common in the PC game development industry.. it quite literally qualifies as a PC game design document.

[Errenor]

xguild wrote:

5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

You are incorrect in a lot of things, but this just stands out. The only reason PHB is 300 pages and CRB is 640 is because PHB is only half the book, the other being DMG which is another 340. Oh, 300+340=640? Well, what a coincidence!

[xguild]

Errenor wrote:

xguild wrote:

5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

You are incorrect in a lot of things, but this just stands out. The only reason PHB is 300 pages and CRB is 640 is because PHB is only half the book, the other being DMG which is another 340. Oh, 300+340=640? Well, what a coincidence!

People say that all the time but its not about content so much as it is about about editing, style of writing, font and construction of the book driven by purpose. If you used the same editing structure and approach used in the 5e players handbook to re-create the PF2 core rulebook, the PF2 rulebook would be around 1,500-2,000 pages.

It's true that the PF2e rulebooks has an extra chapter that is more verbose and related to DMing that are reserved in 5e in the GM guide, but that is not the core reason the book is so much bigger.

[SuperBidi]

xguild wrote:

I'm not saying I disagree, what I'm saying is that I think the lines are a lot more in sync then they are apart. A good TTRPG mechanic that is codified and has a strong execution is very easy to translate to a PC game mechanic and games that are this well codified make typically for much better RPG's (better not being synchronise with popular just in case there is any debate).

The strength of PF2e for example is that it's so well codified, so clear, its mechanics verbose, and mathematical. PF2e big selling points are clear rules, balanced rules and options rich. PF2e rules can be directly translated forbadum into video game mechanics without adjustment and they would work perfectly, the core rulebook is actually written in a style that is very common in the PC game development industry.. it quite literally qualifies as a PC game design document.

But you are mostly speaking of taking TTRPGs mechanics and implement them in a video game.

My objection to WotC's politics is to take video game mechanics and implement them as is in TTRPGs. From the MMORPG classes to 4e to the microtransactions we hear about these days. I don't think WotC would try to implement microtransactions if they were selling cars ("If you want to break, pay 5$"). Why do they think it'll work wonders in a TTRPG?
I think they consider TTRPGs to be close to video games. And I think they're wrong.

[YuriP]

xguild wrote:

Errenor wrote:

xguild wrote:

5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

You are incorrect in a lot of things, but this just stands out. The only reason PHB is 300 pages and CRB is 640 is because PHB is only half the book, the other being DMG which is another 340. Oh, 300+340=640? Well, what a coincidence!

People say that all the time but its not about content so much as it is about about editing, style of writing, font and construction of the book driven by purpose. If you used the same editing structure and approach used in the 5e players handbook to re-create the PF2 core rulebook, the PF2 rulebook would be around 1,500-2,000 pages.

It's true that the PF2e rulebooks has an extra chapter that is more verbose and related to DMing that are reserved in 5e in the GM guide, but that is not the core reason the book is so much bigger.

In fact, 1/3 of the CRB is material that is normally placed in the GMG in D&D, not just the specific chapter for this, as the whole part of treasures and the scenario is described there.

If you ignore all this content, the book is longer than the PHB, with approximately 450 pages. But much more due to additional options the game gives players than it is some added complexity.

You end up seeing the GM part as just one chapter, because you usually ignore the fact that players in 5e have to go "fishing" all the items part that interests them in the GMG (and it's been like that at least since 3.0 se as far as I can remember).

I understand Paizo's decision to make such a big mess precisely because they saw that in D&D players ended up being "forced" to have to access other books to do things like equip characters above level 1 and also end the need for GM need to buy a 2nd book in addition to the Bestiary to play (technically the bestiary can be ignored if the GM wants to make all opponents as NPCs or simply wants to get the monsters directly from AoN, but it is always more comfortable to have it on hand).

[xguild]

YuriP wrote:

In fact, 1/3 of the CRB is material that is normally placed in the GMG in D&D, not just the specific chapter for this, as the whole part of treasures and the scenario is described there.
If you ignore all this content, the book is longer than the PHB, with approximately 450 pages. But much more due to additional options the game gives players than it is some added complexity.

You end up seeing the GM part as just one chapter, because you usually ignore the fact that players in 5e have to go "fishing" all the items part that interests them in the GMG (and it's been like that at least since 3.0 se as far as I can remember).

I understand Paizo's decision to make such a big mess precisely because they saw that in D&D players ended up being "forced" to have to access other books to do things like equip characters above level 1 and also end the need for GM need to buy a 2nd book in addition to the Bestiary to...

Yeah personally I have never had an issue with books, my preference really is to have 1 book for my RPG and simply find everything I need in that one book, have it be well edited and offer as much coverage as possible. Like, I don't need to read and know every inch of an RPG to run it, but I do like to have everything covered so that when I reference a rule or situation I'm trying to deal with during a game, I can quickly find an answer.

This has always been fundamentally one of my biggest issues with 5e.. its poor coverage and the assumption that a DM can simply judge and rule
on everything on the fly. Truth is that I can, I just don't want to. I like structure and consistency.. If I need to know how much a +2 Dagger costs.. I want to look it up not guess because when you are constantly ruling on things like that, your games become really inconsistent as I'm not going to remember what I did last time but my players sure will.

Its one of my favorite aspects of PF2e... I have never had a question at the table the book didn't answer in detail.. to me that isn't complexity, thats completness.

[Trixleby]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

In the hands of a good DM, 3.5 is an excellent system. (One simple fix is to simply ban prestige classes outright.) Ultimately though, I suspect you wouldn't want play in one of my games. Combat only happens every 2 or 3 game sessions and how players situate their characters within the ludic space of the setting is much more important than how optimized for X or Y they are.

So, you took away one part of what makes 3.5 be itself (PRCs), limited other (customisation) and you're saying that your "more like 1e/2 actually" gameplay is representative experience? Sorry, but that's about as far from 3.5/PF1 metagame as possible. The "game" part of these editions is in character building and planning, and the payoff is when your Sanctified Sanguinator with 5 levels in Nor-Druid PRC wins the battle with BBEG on round one, while the hapless dude who plays a core rulebook Dwarf Rogue/Sorcerer with Toughness and Skill Focus gets left in the dust.

And that’s a prime example of why that game sucks (to me). Core Rulebook dwarf rogue should be fine too. Let people stab things. Also reducing the BBEG to just be round before anyone else even gets to do anything is also an awful experience. To me 3.5/PF1 is the selfish jerks game. That’s why after D&D 4e came out and later 5 and now PF2E I never went back and never will. But that’s just my opinion. Clearly those games are popular enough that my dislike of them is a drop in the bucket.

[Rushbolt]

If you watch this video all the way through you find that while Luke Hart started playing PF2E, the DM Lair is not even switching. His videos are still going to be 5E and he is only possibly considering making videos for PF2E. His publishing company is slowly transitioning their content into being playable with PF2E because they don't even know the system well yet. He's unfamiliar with the worlds of Pathfinder and has never mentioned anything in his videos about liking them better. This is the most half-hearted switch to a game system I have ever seen, and I doubt seriously if he will continue to play it if 5EV2 (or D&D24 if you prefer) addresses the issues he raised in the video. WOTC hired quite a few PF2E designers and still have the lead designers with the most experience in the industry by decades. I wouldn't place any bets against them fixing all the issues. Then he will undoubtedly do what is best for his company and renew his focus on D&D content.

[Sanityfaerie]

Ldragon1020 wrote:

If you watch this video all the way through you find that while Luke Hart started playing PF2E, the DM Lair is not even switching. His videos are still going to be 5E and he is only possibly considering making videos for PF2E. His publishing company is slowly transitioning their content into being playable with PF2E because they don't even know the system well yet. He's unfamiliar with the worlds of Pathfinder and has never mentioned anything in his videos about liking them better. This is the most half-hearted switch to a game system I have ever seen, and I doubt seriously if he will continue to play it if 5EV2 (or D&D24 if you prefer) addresses the issues he raised in the video. WOTC hired quite a few PF2E designers and still have the lead designers with the most experience in the industry by decades. I wouldn't place any bets against them fixing all the issues. Then he will undoubtedly do what is best for his company and renew his focus on D&D content.

Hmmm...

Yeah, the end of the video doesn't exactly back up the promise offered at the beginning. My read: for the moment, he's doing a lot of hedging of bets, while also throwing out a big "Rah PF2, Boo D&D" to try to make himself look good to the people who are inclined to care.

How deep he goes in from here is going to depend on the response of his viewers and the response of his players... but there's no way he leaves 5e entirely. The man's running a business, and has employees.

[arcady]

xguild wrote:

5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

***********************************

If PF2E has any major "flaw" its in the issue of how to handle this. This is not a "flaw" in design or philosophy nor in marketing. It's a philosophy of approach difference.

D&D has "always" split itself into the PHB, DMB, and MM (outside of the old basic D&D era). Most tRPGs don't do that.

PF2E actually has a very short ruleset, and then a huge amount of character options, GM tools, and GM advice.

A D&D player feels they shouldn't have to buy all the GM stuff. Maybe they're right, because in D&D they don't.

I might hazard a guess that this helps contribute to the DM shortage 5E currently has (it's not the only reason, but it's one you could put in the pile of reasons). I think a PF2E player seeing those parts of the books risks glancing at them and thinking of trying out GMing. But it comes at the cost of a more expensive initial core rulebook (most players probably don't start with the archives website) unless one gets the PDF.

On the notion of a rule for most things versus few rules and just advice telling GMs to wing it - this is a very old debate in tRPGs. Historically D&D has been on both sides of it.

1E was somewhere between wing it and 'there are millions of arcane tables in random books that all use their own unique systems'. 2E was more wing it if I remember right (and probably don't). 3.x was about a uniform ruleset to cover all situations. 4E I don't know. 5E seems to cater to the wing it crowd.

So D&D loyalists have been asked to switch sides in this debate a few times. And brand loyalty has had them doing just that and then switching their logic to justify the new stance.

Smaller RPGs have been more consistently rules heavy or light.

But if we get a 6E, even if they keep calling it 5E - it will be interesting to see all the D&D players suddenly prefer a new style if 6E switches back to rule heavy or even goes rules moderate. Because they will. The debate is almost never about what people actually like - it's brand loyalty followed by revised opinions to back up the loyalty. And that's not a slight against them - it's how pretty much all of humanity handles most of their choices.

[Sanityfaerie]

arcady wrote:

But if we get a 6E, even if they keep calling it 5E - it will be interesting to see all the D&D players suddenly prefer a new style if 6E switches back to rule heavy or even goes rules moderate. Because they will. The debate is almost never about what people actually like - it's brand loyalty followed by revised opinions to back up the loyalty. And that's not a slight against them - it's how pretty much all of humanity handles most of their choices.

That's not the only thing that happens, though. Some people do care about this particular issue (just like some people will care about any particular issue) and sometimes they care enough that it's a meaningful part of them switching sides. Like, if nothing else, the old grognards who love the old edition and hate the new edition is a classic thing that happens with absolutely every edition everywhere... and this sort of thing is part of what drives that.

4e, incidentally, had very tight rules, and a very clear delineation between what stuff was rules and what stuff was flavor... which you could basically do whatever you wanted with, because it had no impact on the core conflict resolution mechanics.

I sort of suspect that this is why they're being leery about making the chance from 5e to the next edition too significant... because they're looking at the existence of Pathfinder as a direct result of having the change from 3.x to 4.0 being too severe, and they very much want to not have that happen again.

Of course, it's also following the pattern. We had 3 and 3.5, we had 4th ed and 4th ed essentials, and now we have 5th and 5.5, however it is that they try to gussy it up.

[Trixleby]

arcady wrote:

xguild wrote:

5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

***********************************

If PF2E has any major "flaw" its in the issue of how to handle this. This is not a "flaw" in design or philosophy nor in marketing. It's a philosophy of approach difference.

D&D has "always" split itself into the PHB, DMB, and MM (outside of the old basic D&D era). Most tRPGs don't do that.

PF2E actually has a very short ruleset, and then a huge amount of character options, GM tools, and GM advice.

A D&D player feels they shouldn't have to buy all the GM stuff. Maybe they're right, because in D&D they don't.

I might hazard a guess that this helps contribute to the DM shortage 5E currently has (it's not the only reason, but it's one you could put in the pile of reasons). I think a PF2E player seeing those parts of the books risks glancing at them and thinking of trying out GMing. But it comes at the cost of a more expensive initial core rulebook (most players probably don't start with the archives website) unless one gets the PDF.

On the notion of a rule for most things versus few rules and just advice telling GMs to wing it - this is a very old debate in tRPGs. Historically D&D has been on both sides of it.

1E was somewhere between wing it and 'there are millions of arcane tables in random books that all use their own unique systems'. 2E was more wing it if I remember right (and probably don't). 3.x was about a uniform ruleset to cover all situations. 4E I don't know. 5E seems to cater to the wing it crowd.

So D&D loyalists have been asked to switch sides in this debate a few times. And brand loyalty has had them doing just that and then switching their logic to justify the new stance.

Smaller RPGs have been more consistently rules heavy or light.

But if we get...

I like D&D 4e and I like Pathfinder 2E and subsequently using completely different systems altogether I like Wrath & Glory and Age of Sigmar: SoulBound and I don’t like D&D 1E very much at all and I hate D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1E. I don’t like 5e very much. I used to but I grew really tired of it and now I disdain it.

I’m open to most TTRPGs but prefer fantasy to sci fi and thus have not tried starfinder.

[YuriP]

arcady wrote:

1E was somewhere between wing it and 'there are millions of arcane tables in random books that all use their own unique systems'. 2E was more wing it if I remember right (and probably don't). 3.x was about a uniform ruleset to cover all situations. 4E I don't know. 5E seems to cater to the wing it crowd.

4E even more uniform ruleset to cover all battle situations but left all the rest to wing.

arcady wrote:

But if we get a 6E, even if they keep calling it 5E - it will be interesting to see all the D&D players suddenly prefer a new style if 6E switches back to rule heavy or even goes rules moderate. Because they will. The debate is almost never about what people actually like - it's brand loyalty followed by revised opinions to back up the loyalty. And that's not a slight against them - it's how pretty much all of humanity handles most of their choices.

I don't believe that we will see any big changes in 5.5E/6E and it isn't only about the commercial reason I talked before but because the WOTC design vision is probably way different from ours.

Based in the last Orr Report that we currently have published (Orr Q4 2021) the 5E is the most popular system by far (55%) and probably this yet won't changed too much. So for Wizard point of view probably there's no sense into make big changes into the system that for their point of view is working. They probably will just do some minor adjustments in classes/races without too much estrutural changes and keep the rest as they are.

So they probably won't hit the main system problems and probably won't will move players and specially GMs that migrated to PF2 back to D&D once that the main reasons that make this movement happen won't change.

Some people is aspecting that One D&D work will address the main problems of the game but it's basically their hopes speaking. But the designers words and what we currently saw about One D&D is far way from this.

[arcady]

YuriP wrote:

arcady wrote:

1E was somewhere between wing it and 'there are millions of arcane tables in random books that all use their own unique systems'. 2E was more wing it if I remember right (and probably don't). 3.x was about a uniform ruleset to cover all situations. 4E I don't know. 5E seems to cater to the wing it crowd.

4E even more uniform ruleset to cover all battle situations but left all the rest to wing.

arcady wrote:

But if we get a 6E, even if they keep calling it 5E - it will be interesting to see all the D&D players suddenly prefer a new style if 6E switches back to rule heavy or even goes rules moderate. Because they will. The debate is almost never about what people actually like - it's brand loyalty followed by revised opinions to back up the loyalty. And that's not a slight against them - it's how pretty much all of humanity handles most of their choices.

I don't believe that we will see any big changes in 5.5E/6E and it isn't only about the commercial reason I talked before but because the WOTC design vision is probably way different from ours.

I'm already hearing comments that the classes in the 'progress announcements' have been radically revised to the point that compatibility is suspect. But I am hearing these on YouTube channels of PF2E YouTubers who have an anti-WotC perspective and I myself have not verified further (I don't have a D&D Beyond account which I assumed was needed to do that).

I do suspect that they will eventually find that the twin tasks of a rules revision which is not a revision combined with a mandatory VTT that is not mandatory will be overwhelming, and some of their existing non-existent goals will be walked back. ;)

[JiCi]

Another point that the DM Lair mentioned is how battles are much quicker in P2E than in 5E.

Me who's following Critical Role, I always skip battles, because they takes between 60 to 90 minutes. There are 7 players at the table, and they cannot beat a monster in 2 or 3 rounds? Maybe it's because they often deal below 20 points of damage and the monster has like 200 or something.

I swear, the only time battles in CR were interesting were went Grog or Vax dealt over 50 points of damage per round...

[Jacob Jett]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

In the hands of a good DM, 3.5 is an excellent system. (One simple fix is to simply ban prestige classes outright.) Ultimately though, I suspect you wouldn't want play in one of my games. Combat only happens every 2 or 3 game sessions and how players situate their characters within the ludic space of the setting is much more important than how optimized for X or Y they are.

So, you took away one part of what makes 3.5 be itself (PRCs), limited other (customisation) and you're saying that your "more like 1e/2 actually" gameplay is representative experience? Sorry, but that's about as far from 3.5/PF1 metagame as possible. The "game" part of these editions is in character building and planning, and the payoff is when your Sanctified Sanguinator with 5 levels in Nor-Druid PRC wins the battle with BBEG on round one, while the hapless dude who plays a core rulebook Dwarf Rogue/Sorcerer with Toughness and Skill Focus gets left in the dust.

I took away one minor build aspect of the game that, quite frankly, wasn't adequately baked to start with. I completely rebuilt character creation and classes to fix the dead level issue and facilitate broader access to feats across the board. Importantly, my players had a good time and never complained about the absence of prestige classes. IMO, that's a DM success. We fundamentally disagree on the game aspects of a ttrpg. My approach challenges players to think more about how their character makes their day-to-day living and where they are situated in their civilization. The goal is not to have a player build their character like they were prepping a MtG deck for one free-form tournament (you might note that such tournaments regularly ban things).

Since it's trivial for a DM to accomplish a tpk or even single out a single pc to merc, it's pointless to encourage optimization and well within bounds to limit choices that only service that path. The game is not only about level-up choices. Frankly, those choices shouldn't be any kind of important to the game. It's about the environment that can be provided.

Like beyond the obvious toughness/skill buffs what in-setting role does a rogue+sorcerer fulfill that isn't better filled by a rogue and a sorcerer. And really think about it like degrees. Double majors are not too common. And that's because the effort to accomplish them is higher with attendant opportunity costs baked in.

[Ched Greyfell]

I had never seen this guy's channel before. Just subscribed to it.
This is a bold move for a guy with 132k viewers. I love it. Great video.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

JiCi wrote:

Another point that the DM Lair mentioned is how battles are much quicker in P2E than in 5E.

Me who's following Critical Role, I always skip battles, because they takes between 60 to 90 minutes. There are 7 players at the table, and they cannot beat a monster in 2 or 3 rounds? Maybe it's because they often deal below 20 points of damage and the monster has like 200 or something.

I swear, the only time battles in CR were interesting were went Grog or Vax dealt over 50 points of damage per round...

Maybe, just maybe, CR is playing fights for kicks and story beats and not for droopy-faced nerds calculating if they did 58 or 56 damage with their attacks. Maybe.

[JiCi]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Another point that the DM Lair mentioned is how battles are much quicker in P2E than in 5E.

Me who's following Critical Role, I always skip battles, because they takes between 60 to 90 minutes. There are 7 players at the table, and they cannot beat a monster in 2 or 3 rounds? Maybe it's because they often deal below 20 points of damage and the monster has like 200 or something.

I swear, the only time battles in CR were interesting were went Grog or Vax dealt over 50 points of damage per round...

Maybe, just maybe, CR is playing fights for kicks and story beats and not for droopy-faced nerds calculating if they did 58 or 56 damage with their attacks. Maybe.

You're mising the point. Any monster they encounter are damage sponges and/or are resistant to everything they have. For instance, I don't recall ONE creature being affected by Beau's stunning strike, as it was highly resistant, downright immune or used a Legendary Resistance to shake it off.

It's one thing to play for story, it's another to play "by the rules".