| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're reading more into what both I and The Raven Black said.
We're talking about how PF2 narrows the gulf between optimizers and non optimizers, that's all.
|
That makes it sound as if pf2 removes all flaws in character from gaming and that is simply not true. There are always going to be people who want their character to be mathematically sound, or even superior, in any tabletop game.This. This right here is why I prefer PF2. Players who want to let the narrative of the story shape how they build without focusing on the quest for the best mathematical synergies and players who want to optimize can play in the same campaign without the former getting left behind by the latter.The gap between a character built for fun and one built for mechanical optimisation is orders of magnitude lower in PF2.
It is quite feasible to have both adventure side by side.
PF2 does definitely not remove all flaws in character from gaming. It definitely has its own flaws, as you can see on the PF2 forums. Nothing is ever perfect.
But Paizo took a very long look at what did not work in PF1 and succeeded rather well at correcting it in PF2. But, again, nothing is ever perfect and PF2 has many areas ripe for improvement. The Remastered version of Core that will come in the following year will definitely improve on those, but there will always be further places that will need improvement.
Wanting a character that is mechanically sound is definitely a thing needed in PF2 too, even if it's rather easy to make one.
Now, making a build that is superior is still feasible. But it's less obvious IMO than in PF1 AND, as dirtypool mentioned, the gap is far lesser. But it still exists.
The bigger thing for PF2 is the accessibility, I think.
It's a lot easier to put something neat together using even basic building materials there in terms of character.
The bigger thing for PF1 is the granularity. This, in turn, does require some system mastery that one doesn't need as much in PF2.
When compared side-by-side, the evolution can be seen, and that is a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both.
This is pretty much how I am, it really depends on my mood.
I would also like to throw in Starfinder as I'm a big fan.
Starfinder is a lot of fun.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF 1
I like the three action economy, and fighters seem a little more tactical. But I mostly play spellcasters, so there's very little difference for me between spend move action to move standard action to cast and 1 action to move and 2 actions to cast.
PF 2 the rules layout drives be bonkers. Its like a Matryoshka doll of a kangaroo family in terms of rules inside rules inside rules
I don't like PF2s stat generation system. I feel more like I'm picking a character rather than making one. I have a fighter, I will have an 18 strength. That limits my theme and races.
I can't make an alchemist with an 18 strength/dex. If you think int is more important to an alchemist, build the class so it makes me WANT to have an 18 int rather than dex. Don't force people into it.
part of the fun I've had with starfinder is running classes with the "Wrong" stat. An int based mystic (don't need an uber wisdom to cast spells on allies) , a muscle operative ysoki nicknamed murdermouse for a reason...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF 1
I like the three action economy, and fighters seem a little more tactical. But I mostly play spellcasters, so there's very little difference for me between spend move action to move standard action to cast and 1 action to move and 2 actions to cast.
The fact that you don't want to play fighters or rogues may be a symptom of the problem that Paizo was trying to solve.
But, Pathfinder Unchained also added the 3 action economy to PF1E.
PF 2 the rules layout drives be bonkers. Its like a Matryoshka doll of a kangaroo family in terms of rules inside rules inside rules
I agree. Hopefully, Revised will help with this problem.
I don't like PF2s stat generation system. I feel more like I'm picking a character rather than making one. I have a fighter, I will have an 18 strength. That limits my theme and races.
The price paid for better game balance. Yes, I agree, it does make characters slightly more bland and same-y.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is all well and good, but there are two things that I love about PF1.
1) Having a character built and optimized (to the point of being broken? Yeah, potentially, this is PF1) do the thing they were built and optimized to do and do it well.
2) Having a non optimized character do something they weren’t built for or not built well for and do it well.
You can get this from other games, but it’s more satisfying for me in PF1 because the ability to build an amazingly specialized character goes to a greater extreme in PF1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you don't want to play fighters or rogues may be a symptom of the problem that Paizo was trying to solve.
If i was in it strictly for the power levels, sure. But what I like are the versatility and creativity that spellcasters give me. The rogue fans vaccuous arguments about rogues having some built in inherent coolness aside, even a low level caster has at least 10 spells to pull from that might interact with the environment/adventure in some way that the rogue can't.
The price paid for better game balance. Yes, I agree, it does make characters slightly more bland and same-y.
Once you build your character so that you have something on all three of your actions that's kinda the routine you're stuck with. Anything else and you're growing out very slightly but you've stopped growing up.
The price paid for better game balance. Yes, I agree, it does make characters slightly more bland and same-y.Once you build your character so that you have something on all three of your actions that's kinda the routine you're stuck with. Anything else and you're growing out very slightly but you've stopped growing up.
You have a point. Being locked into a narrow set of "in game" options make the problem of playing fighters/rogues worse, not better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 fills me with the sense of dread I get when I look at 5e. In 5e, each class has archetypes/branches such that you can pretty much pick one class and play it as another. Barbarians can become paladins, clerics can become wizards and bards can become rogues. And when everyone is super, no one will be.
PF1 archetypes don’t feel like that at all. Some might, I don’t have them memorized, but these archetypes serve to enhance the base flavor and focus on specific attributes of the class.
I guess PF1 is choosing how you’re going to season your turkey.
PF2 feels like turning the turkey into a turkey burger. It’s not bad, but it’s not a hamburger either.*
*No turkeys were harmed in the making of this message. Veggie burgers/tofurkey are considered homebrew and acceptable when wanted/required
|
|
PF2 fills me with the sense of dread I get when I look at 5e. In 5e, each class has archetypes/branches such that you can pretty much pick one class and play it as another. Barbarians can become paladins, clerics can become wizards and bards can become rogues. And when everyone is super, no one will be.
PF1 archetypes don’t feel like that at all. Some might, I don’t have them memorized, but these archetypes serve to enhance the base flavor and focus on specific attributes of the class.
I guess PF1 is choosing how you’re going to season your turkey.
PF2 feels like turning the turkey into a turkey burger. It’s not bad, but it’s not a hamburger either.**No turkeys were harmed in the making of this message. Veggie burgers/tofurkey are considered homebrew and acceptable when wanted/required
Just a note that, in PF2, Class identity is very strong. Any archetype you take, even when multiclassing, is just adding a more or less exotic flavour to your main dish. But it is decidedly not changing your main dish.
In fact, in spite of all its other benefits, RAW PF2 multiclassing is very bad at simulating a true change of ways. If you start a Fighter, you will always be one. Even if you spend the rest of your levels investing in Wizard feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when everyone is super, no one will be.
This. This right here.
It's what I have seen from 4e and on. Everyone can kinda do everything, and the only real difference is that some are more potent/powerful than others. It comes out of a desire to change a game system where players got tired of being told no, but developers became so enamored that they could say yes, they didn't realize whether or not they should say yes.
Yes, I mangled the quote.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Side note- me not liking PF2 DOES NOT absolve PF1 of its many, many failings that need to be addressed. Trap options, I'm looking at you. But that was something that was an issue from D&D 3.0.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when everyone is super, no one will be.This. This right here.
It's what I have seen from 4e and on. Everyone can kinda do everything, and the only real difference is that some are more potent/powerful than others. It comes out of a desire to change a game system where players got tired of being told no, but developers became so enamored that they could say yes, they didn't realize whether or not they should say yes.
Yes, I mangled the quote.
I honestly have a lot of trouble understanding how this applies to PF2. Likely because I have trouble conciling it with the many threads about PF2 martials having so many good things that casters cannot have (whereas IMO it's more that the design of the Classes are fundamentally different).
Could you give a few examples so that I can better understand your point of view ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when everyone is super, no one will be.This. This right here.
It's what I have seen from 4e and on. Everyone can kinda do everything, and the only real difference is that some are more potent/powerful than others. It comes out of a desire to change a game system where players got tired of being told no, but developers became so enamored that they could say yes, they didn't realize whether or not they should say yes.
Yes, I mangled the quote.
I honestly have a lot of trouble understanding how this applies to PF2. Likely because I have trouble conciling it with the many threads about PF2 martials having so many good things that casters cannot have (whereas IMO it's more that the design of the Classes are fundamentally different).
Could you give a few examples so that I can better understand your point of view ?
I think it has much more to do with the benefits of optimization are MUCH smaller in PF 2E. First Edition REALY rewarded system mastery (just as D&D 3.x did before it).
There are some advantageous combos in Second Edition, but the advantages that one can gain is limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1.
I mean, I started with DnD3.0, and just followed it there. So did the rest of my friends with who I play with.
I followed the PF2 playtest closely, and saw great potential, but also great flaws. We didn't care about turbo balance, as we were playing the game for years and knew to make similarly powered characters.
We adored 3-combat action system, and most of combat in playing PF2 but hated the whole skill system (even more so because PF2 shown what you could possibly do, but then held it out of reach with math, feats and tiers), total hatenerfbating of magic, and tightness of math that was very much against us (and we did optimize as much as we could).
Character building and layout were horrible to us (especially since we just started toying with Spheres of Power, so super strict vs super fiddly lost).
It's not that PF1 doesn't have glaring flaws, but we already know our way around them without breaking a sweat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1.
As stated above, there are almost limitless options for just about any character concept.
The crunch of the ruleset is another plus, this might not resonate with others but it's fine for my groups. It streamlined/fixed some flaws with 3e/3.5 like skills, energy drain (iirc), etc. Grappling is still clunky though.
Additionally, it's easier to adapt other mechanics from other rules like 5e like adding a single short rest per day which has had an impact.
The setting is what you want it to be. Anything can be added or dismantled without being a huge modification.
What I don't like.
The emphasis on the tactical but that's been an issue since 3e. Feats and rules built around needing to stop and break immersion to draw a map for every room to figure out AoOs, flanking, etc.
As we get older our gaming times get a little shorter. We don't religiously play every week like we used to. Thankfully, both of my current groups are ok with skipping average encounters being mapped out. We do use maps for important encounters, boss encounters, or other encounters that might rely on a more tactical view. The rest happens in theater of the mind although I do show them room shapes/size on maps during combat to help with mental imagery.
A dungeon heavy AP (like Shattered Star for example) would take years to complete mapping every single room.
That said, I see alot of people griping about min-maxxers/optimizer. That's more of a group dynamic thing. Thankfully my groups are more about concepts. After 47 years of on and off gaming I've had one or two optimizers, some even troublesome enough to try imposing limits before the group ejected them. In my experience, these optimizing players seem to pop up more with younger players though some of my former players from the old days never outgrew it. I just tell them I don't play anymore when they ask about getting a game together.
I bought a few PF2 PDFs when it started but there's a few things I don't care for. The setting also seems to be based on a Tar Baphon blew up the world beginning (at least to me in a nutshell). Anything could be edited to suit my taste but the setting feels irrevocably changed and I prefer Golarion of old. It reminds me of the RSEs of the Forgotten Realms when every Tom, Dick, and Harry wrote a novel changing canon that was reflected in future sourcebooks that turned older books into paperweights.
Setting growth is cool, but I'd rather it be penned by our groups deeds or any creative GM tinkering. The term "in my Golarion" is key.
Smaller issues like Goblins as a starting race (don't mind the occasional player picking one, that's what the ARG is for), and some other things round it all out.
Between 5e and PF2, I'd pick 5e as better at bringing in new folks. Aside from the atrocious CR system from a DM standpoint, players have an "I win" button reducing difficulty at lower levels which makes newbies taking so much time and effort creating a character worth it. They did a great job making this hobby mainstream and approachable. The advantage/disadvantage system ends some bad luck rolling streaks which is an impressive feat, but doubling the d20 rolls is meh to me. Also the stat progression ends any thoughts I might have had on maintaining a decent enough balance to the game. 5e feels too high powered to me.