| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fair to say that for some people, "fantasy things I'm familiar with but in a setting that is different from the touchstones I know" can feel kind of generic. I half feel that D&D is the more generic game because it doesn't have things like the expanded aboleth lore or a dozen other monster families that Paizo developed for their own setting and Pathfinder is the first time my eyes didnt glaze over while reading a deity statblock, but I fully understand that the impulse is more about one's experience with the worlds, rather than to do with the actual settings in a vacuum.
|
I mean, the thing is that they are trying to have "Paizo/Pathfinder identity" rather than identity as "TSR/WotC/D&D" game, so I'm not sure I fully agree with take that Pathfinder is becoming "generic fantasy" since that kinda implies D&D isn't or that every trpg that isn't D&D is genericI will have do some thinking to convey what I am trying to say.
I think what paizo is doing is great. However I can't properly convey what my issue is with it. It is not mechanics though.
It is just a feeling that is lost compared to before
I love the system, however I know I will have a mix of remastered and non remaster aspects in my campaign.
I don't like remastered version of grab for example.
Remastered includes both renaming and erratas.
Both of these are things any table can decide to use or not.
But I think I get your meaning. In a way, it's a bold step in the unknown. We'll see where it leads us all.
D&D is a familiar form of specialized fantasy that has become generic over time via the OGL and other copycats but it still retains many things unique to it that are well-known; mind flayers, beholders, et al. Pathfinder and Golarion as a whole have their own cool things, but as I've never been as immersed in the lore of Pathfinder - I poached the best bits of the 1e rules and patched them into 3.5 - I couldn't name them easily. This makes it harder for me to see Pathfinder as its own unique thing now that it's had to excise the few bits of D&D that were still in the mix.
This isn't an issue as I tend to go homebrew or Golarion but not as you know it as my defaults anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's a dungeon fantasy game where I can play a telepathic android in a party alongside an ancient construct with a gate to the fire plane as a heart, and have both of us be couched quite comfortably in the setting lore.
I wouldn't call that generic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's a dungeon fantasy game where I can play a telepathic android in a party alongside an ancient construct with a gate to the fire plane as a heart, and have both of us be couched quite comfortably in the setting lore.
I wouldn't call that generic.
That wouldn't be out of place in most Final Fantasy games. FF Tactics has a Robot, ancient technology, guns, etc., and it came out in 1999.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my biggest problem with the remaster is that it doesn't really go far enough with a lot of its own ideas. Like, we're getting rid of ability scores... but everything about the way ability modifiers function will remain exactly the same. They're even replacing odd numbered ability scores with the hilariously kludgy and inept half boost system, which is just the same thing but abstracted to be more annoying and require its own dedicated space on a character sheet to track.
The "change" here is purely performative... and that just seems like a recurring theme. The idea of a change. A whiff of a change, but mostly just a maintenance of the status quo with enough window dressing to make it feel groundbreaking.
From what we've seen of some of the class changes it's kind of the same too: The groundbreaking new thing for wizards is... a smaller list of bonus spells. The groundbreaking new thing for my witch is... that her familiar can give flanking, sometimes.
There's a lot of performance in the remaster, but less substance than I'd like... and I feel like some of the people on this forum who have been hyping up the remaster as a whole new game are going to be incredibly disappointed with the final result.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's a dungeon fantasy game where I can play a telepathic android in a party alongside an ancient construct with a gate to the fire plane as a heart, and have both of us be couched quite comfortable in the setting lore.
I wouldn't call that generic.
You know that's even more generic right because its "anything can be done". Generic is usually used to mean: Anything can be done or No standout feature. Its a meme, but the whole "when everyone is special nobody is" is factually true.
This is why non-generic setting are usually very specific about how they are different and stick to it. As opposed to just throwing the kitchen sink.
The integrated and developed kitchen sink with a great attention given to non-european cultures is definitely an extremely specific thing IMO. Pretty much the opposite of generic.
|
|
I feel like some of the people on this forum who have been hyping up the remaster as a whole new game are going to be incredibly disappointed with the final result.Keep in mind that it has been 'people on this forum' who have been trying to make it sound like it's a whole new game.
Paizo staff have said all along that the changes are minor. That the changes do not amount to a new edition, but are, instead, a compilation of errata and changes forced by legal concerns.
Paizo was not trying to go very far. "Maintenance of the status quo" is what they've been saying all along. No one from staff has talked about 'groundbreaking' changes. This is PF2 R, not PF2.x
The only people who are going to be disappointed are the ones who have started believing their own hype.
The changes to classes that were not indicated at first as changing do not help. And when taken as a whole, I feel I will need to rebuild all of my PFS characters because the changes are so vast and sweeping. Still the same game, still the same edition, but definitely a 2.75 feeling for me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's a dungeon fantasy game where I can play a telepathic android in a party alongside an ancient construct with a gate to the fire plane as a heart, and have both of us be couched quite comfortable in the setting lore.
I wouldn't call that generic.
You know that's even more generic right because its "anything can be done". Generic is usually used to mean: Anything can be done or No standout feature. Its a meme, but the whole "when everyone is special nobody is" is factually true.
This is why non-generic setting are usually very specific about how they are different and stick to it. As opposed to just throwing the kitchen sink.
It's not "anything can be done." The android is from Numeria, a place with a lengthy history, and the construct would be Jistkan. Ignoring the setting and then calling it generic is doing nobody any favors.
They make the Lost Omens books for a reason, y'know?
Creative Director
|
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point of us creating Golarion and the setting itself was to AVOID making a set of rules and publishing adventures for a "generic" fantasy setting. The more proper nouns something has, the less generic it gets.
To me, a generic version of Karzoug would be "evil wizard", and a generic version of Varisia would be called "remote frontier," and a place like Sandpoint would be called "small coastal town." That sort of approach to creating content would certainly empower and encourage individual GMs to make each adventure and the setting their own, but it robs all of us at Paizo from the rewarding pursuit of creating a setting in hopes of inspiring and entertaining new generations in the same way Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms and others did for us.
There's a lot of performance in the remaster, but less substance than I'd like... and I feel like some of the people on this forum who have been hyping up the remaster as a whole new game are going to be incredibly disappointed with the final result.
Interesting, as I haven’t seen seen all of this remaster performance. It’s too bad if people think that it’s a ‘whole new game,’ because you’re right. It ain’t going to be that. I’m excited that it’s going to be the same game with some cleanup - rather than Pathfinder edition 2.5. Perhaps it’s more like a 2.1 update? Are some of the changes (mostly renaming) annoying? Sure, but I’ll take that with still being able to use all my current resources!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at it more as everything and the kitchen sink game design myself with the ability for a GM and players to modify to personal tastes.
I step away for a day and … Good Grief!
I'm not looking forward to all the homebrew for deities I'll have to do since I refuse to abandon alignment.
And what of new deities such as the ones introduced in Rage of Elements?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on the remaster is simply November can't come soon enough, there's nothing I haven't liked out of what we've seen so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not looking forward to all the homebrew for deities I'll have to do since I refuse to abandon alignment.
You don't HAVE to homebrew an alignment for every deity in the game. At most you need to homebrew alignments (and allowed alignments) for any clerics or champions of those new deities your players are interested in using. And even that you can probably outsource to the player in question. And there are already 250+ PF2 gods to choose from according to Nethys. I struggle to picture the player that just HAS to make a cleric of every new god the system publishes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my biggest problem with the remaster is that it doesn't really go far enough with a lot of its own ideas. Like, we're getting rid of ability scores... but everything about the way ability modifiers function will remain exactly the same. They're even replacing odd numbered ability scores with the hilariously kludgy and inept half boost system, which is just the same thing but abstracted to be more annoying and require its own dedicated space on a character sheet to track.
The "change" here is purely performative... and that just seems like a recurring theme. The idea of a change. A whiff of a change, but mostly just a maintenance of the status quo with enough window dressing to make it feel groundbreaking.
From what we've seen of some of the class changes it's kind of the same too: The groundbreaking new thing for wizards is... a smaller list of bonus spells. The groundbreaking new thing for my witch is... that her familiar can give flanking, sometimes.
There's a lot of performance in the remaster, but less substance than I'd like... and I feel like some of the people on this forum who have been hyping up the remaster as a whole new game are going to be incredibly disappointed with the final result.
They've stated from the very beginning that everything about the Remaster is going to be backwards-compatible. I agree that I'd have liked more substantial changes! For ability modifiers, a rule saying you can't get to +5 until level 10, and +6 (before apex) until 20 would be much more fun, IMO. But implementing it would've made every character that was previously made into a worse PC, or they'd have to be (very minorly) rebuilt. I don't really know how much more clear the devs could've been that this was not going to be a whole new game - they refused to call it PF2.5, because almost no core mechanics are changing. Of course the changes to any core mechanics are primarily about reframing to avoid potential OGL issues! Everything they've said the whole time has been saying that outside of rebalancing of specific character options and content removed for IP purposes, your characters should be able to stay entirely the same from pre- to post-remaster.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, problem with "no +5/+6 until level 10/20" is that instead of it being "stat has lower growth after 18 and needs more investment", it'd be "oh, on level 5 I just put by ability boost into lower stat rather than investing into higher one."
Like it completely changes the design decision with the stat growth. It also means it would be way easier to have multiple +5 stats
But yeah, remastered likely prolongs the lifespan of pf2e because of its essentially being errata on a grand scale, but I do think its believable that its not different enough to count as a different edition. So I just appreciate the possibility that maybe PF2e has ten more years to it rather than PF3e coming along because devs and audience have gotten annoyed with particular small problems
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your take on the Remastered? How do you feel about the fact Spellcasters are now just trained in Spell Attack Modifier and Spell DC? What do you hope to honestly see with this and the change from alignment to spirit damage making many builds more powerful. What is a fear you feel will happen with the Remastered?
I admit I am mostly confused about the remaster. I have been following the remaster semi casually (way more than anyone else I play PF2 with). Originally, I thought the remaster wasn't supposed to change much balance and it was mostly to get rid of all the DnD things.
What fear do I have? The changes I am reading seem to basically be "buffs all across the board for a lot of classes, casters specifically" and I am not aware of any buffs to monsters. I feel encounter difficulty is at a very good place but worried after remaster the difficulty is going to be too easy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is your take on the Remastered? How do you feel about the fact Spellcasters are now just trained in Spell Attack Modifier and Spell DC? What do you hope to honestly see with this and the change from alignment to spirit damage making many builds more powerful. What is a fear you feel will happen with the Remastered?I admit I am mostly confused about the remaster. I have been following the remaster semi casually (way more than anyone else I play PF2 with). Originally, I thought the remaster wasn't supposed to change much balance and it was mostly to get rid of all the DnD things.
What fear do I have? The changes I am reading seem to basically be "buffs all across the board for a lot of classes, casters specifically" and I am not aware of any buffs to monsters. I feel encounter difficulty is at a very good place but worried after remaster the difficulty is going to be too easy.
My understanding is that the overall power level of the party is going to be the same, but the variances based on "party construction" are going to be less severe. It's already the case pre-remaster that some classes (or some ways of playing certain classes) are more functional than others. Like a party of a Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch is going to struggle a lot more than a party of a Fighter, a Bard, a Thaumaturge, and a Druid. Most likely they're not going to make the fighter *better*.
I mean, problem with "no +5/+6 until level 10/20" is that instead of it being "stat has lower growth after 18 and needs more investment", it'd be "oh, on level 5 I just put by ability boost into lower stat rather than investing into higher one."
Like it completely changes the design decision with the stat growth. It also means it would be way easier to have multiple +5 stats
But yeah, remastered likely prolongs the lifespan of pf2e because of its essentially being errata on a grand scale, but I do think its believable that its not different enough to count as a different edition. So I just appreciate the possibility that maybe PF2e has ten more years to it rather than PF3e coming along because devs and audience have gotten annoyed with particular small problems
The intent of the remaster in the area of ability scores/modifiers is that the practical result is the only change is to ignore scores altogether. How best to word the new rule? I'll wait and see what they actually say in November.
STR -- most melee martials, important for athletics
DEX -- ranged and some melee (those with finesse weapons) martials, important for acrobatics, stealth, and thievery, and reflex saves
CON -- important for max health and fortitude saves
INT -- some casters, important for arcana, crafting, lore, occultism, and society
WIS -- some casters, important for medicine, nature, religion, survival, and will saves.
CHA -- some casters, important for deception, diplomacy, intimidation, and performance
Seems like every ability is at least potentially useful for everybody. Yes, I know dumping stats is still a thing. :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
STR -- most melee martials, important for athletics
DEX -- ranged and some melee (those with finesse weapons) martials, important for acrobatics, stealth, and thievery, and reflex saves
CON -- important for max health and fortitude saves
INT -- some casters, important for arcana, crafting, lore, occultism, and society
WIS -- some casters, important for medicine, nature, religion, survival, and will saves.
CHA -- some casters, important for deception, diplomacy, intimidation, and performanceSeems like every ability is at least potentially useful for everybody. Yes, I know dumping stats is still a thing. :-)
Int is easily the worst stat in the game. It doesn't boost damage, doesn't boost a save or your HP, and doesn't give an in-combat action that actively buffs your party or debuffs the enemy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int is easily the worst stat in the game. It doesn't boost damage, doesn't boost a save or your HP, and doesn't give an in-combat action that actively buffs your party or debuffs the enemy.STR -- most melee martials, important for athletics
DEX -- ranged and some melee (those with finesse weapons) martials, important for acrobatics, stealth, and thievery, and reflex saves
CON -- important for max health and fortitude saves
INT -- some casters, important for arcana, crafting, lore, occultism, and society
WIS -- some casters, important for medicine, nature, religion, survival, and will saves.
CHA -- some casters, important for deception, diplomacy, intimidation, and performanceSeems like every ability is at least potentially useful for everybody. Yes, I know dumping stats is still a thing. :-)
Successful RK can be a big buff to your party. Hopefully Remastered will help it be this expected buff.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int is also skill access. The higher your Int, the more skills you are trained in. This, in turn, opens up more options in and out of combat.
My understanding is that the overall power level of the party is going to be the same, but the variances based on "party construction" are going to be less severe. It's already the case pre-remaster that some classes (or some ways of playing certain classes) are more functional than others. Like a party of a Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch is going to struggle a lot more than a party of a Fighter, a Bard, a Thaumaturge, and a Druid. Most likely they're not going to make the fighter *better*.
The Kineticist has shown pretty definitely that you can balance classes around the action economy (within expected power limits of abilities and spells), hence I expect that the buffs will mostly fall on the "remove daily attrition" scale, rather than straight power-ups, like the change to focus point recovery.
Successful RK can be a big buff to your party. Hopefully Remastered will help it be this expected buff.
I can if the info you would roll for can't be meta-gamed and it's your first encounter with a given threat. If you don't need the knowledge it doesn't do anything. I'd like to see it give some bonus to you on your next attack or maneuver to make it useful in more circumstances.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int is also skill access. The higher your Int, the more skills you are trained in. This, in turn, opens up more options in and out of combat.
This is okay at low levels but at higher levels it requires a GM to give you checks that you can succeed on with skills that you've placed zero investment in. High Int doesn't make you a proper skill character in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate constitution as an ability score, it is real important for combat it is also very boring and basically useless outside of combat, playing a kineticist right now (currently in a section of an adventure path that is very non-combat) has really solidified my opinion on this, it might be weaker but I vastly prefer Int over con
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int is also skill access. The higher your Int, the more skills you are trained in. This, in turn, opens up more options in and out of combat.This is okay at low levels but at higher levels it requires a GM to give you checks that you can succeed on with skills that you've placed zero investment in. High Int doesn't make you a proper skill character in PF2.
So... your GM only gives you skill checks with absolutely maxed out DCs? Man that sucks.