Is it time for PF3E?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As much as I've been a supporter of paizo, there is something innately broken about the maths and game design PF2E has and I feel like the game itself is beating a dead horse at this point.

For example - I love the idea of having 1 level for the character. This makes things easier to understand. (Instead of how PF1E was, where I was like 2 barbarian, 3 fighter, 1 magus etc) I also love the idea that the maths are significantly simplified.

However, with this stated, there are some obvious issues with the game design.

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback books and I was VERY excited for new books to come in as I knew they would have new options for my favorite pet class. One of the reasons I loved PF1E so much was that every month there were new options, new ways to be creative, new synergies to think of. Nowadays though, in the past 5 years, there has been 1 new instinct for barbarian. Almost no class archetypes, and the ones that exist are straight garbage and downgrades (when class archetypes were literally my favorite part of PF1E), I rarely see support for older classes, I was excited for kineticist but my favorite element (void) will never be coming to PF2E. I highly doubt we will ever see a synthesis summoner either. From what it seems like to me, once a class is released, that class gets abandoned for the next "biggest thing" rinse and repeat. There's no more support, or at least what appears to be very little support, once a class comes out and this is a bit frustrating especially coming from the PF1E paradigm that we grew to love.

The fix: We need far more support released far more frequently for existing classes and make new classes that come out be rarer. I'd rather support what we do have than for new classes to try to fill niches that are already filled by what's currently available.

The issue I see at the end of the day is that we have classes no one actually plays because they are just subpar compared to what's already been released. I loved the idea of inventor, and I played it a few times, but do I know of anyone who still plays inventor? No. I rarely ever hear it mentioned.

We need classes that fill specific niches and then we need variations on how to support said niches. When we release new class after new class that tries to take up niches that already exist, those classes will just be forgotten about and no one will want to play them. I'd rather have archetypes people forget about than whole classes people forget about.

4) The Issue: Backgrounds and skill feats seem like a decent idea to help flesh out a character and give them more options, but in all honesty, these feel like you're 'restricting' backgrounds and the ability to RP a character rather than assisting. When we put backgrounds behind, say, stat blocks, I tend to look at what backgrounds my character can actually have so I dont fall behind in my party rather than any RP semblance of it.

The fix: Make backgrounds and skill feats actually mean something and have a bigger impact and dont make it so I cant select the background I want because it's behind some arbitrary stat increase. I've also heard people complain in a tongue in cheek way that they can't even "take a shit without taking the feat for it" when I tried to convince them to play PF2E.

5) The Issue: Stats are redundant and outdated at this point. In early D&D, stats made sense to help flesh out characters, but now I've noticed that when I play PF2E or D&D5E, the stats are the exact same all the time. Maximize my class stat, dump my bad stat. If all stats are now the same because i feel like my class can't function without maximizing my class stat, thats an issue.

The fix: Get rid of stats completely. It's an archaic system at this point that has become useless to gauge effectiveness and if you don't build appropriately, it can hurt you more than help you.

6) The Issue: In order to promote RP sentimentality, you put points into charisma. This allows you to deceive, intimidate, or have diplomacy. If you can't do any of that because charisma is your dump stat, the game no longer is an RP game. You're just waiting around for the next combat so you can feel useful. Otherwise the sorcerer is in charge of doing all the RP.

The fix: Get rid of charisma as a stat. There shouldn't be a stat that gatekeeps being able to RP. Stop gate keeping the ability to RP efficiently because you aren't a certain class.

7) The Issue: Choices aren't meaningful enough. A lot of times I select certain choices and I'm just like, "Eh. I guess." rather than get excited for it.

The fix: Make each choice meaningful and impactful to the way the character is designed and works,


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I play an inventor. So your whole post is invalid. :P

Seriously though, I disagree with most of your points.

1) Dedications are not worthless. They are a gate to more abilities. The spellcasting you get from it is fine for utility and even for offense - IF you keep investing into the archetype. If you want classes "merged", you need to play a hybrid like a Magus. Expecting a single feat to get you full proficiency in what makes another class special is a but much.

2) That's by design. Weapon and armor choices are supposed to be locked behind classes. You can expand your options with general feats and archetypes but not everyone can learn everything with ease. Your thaumaturge can have full proficiency in Falcata at level 12 if you're willing to invest into it - or even level 1 if your GM is generous with Unconventional Weaponry. And you can have full scaling heavy armor proficiency by level 2.

3) Archetypes are your new subclasses. If you think of a non-free archetype game, you either have your regular class feats or the feats of an archetype. So they are a way to change your abilities and playstyle. Class archetypes could be a bit more frequent, though it looks like we'll get a good few more before the end of the year.

Out of time for now. Might comment on the rest later.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Blave wrote:

I play an inventor. So your whole post is invalid. :P

Seriously though, I disagree with most of your points.

1) Dedications are not worthless. They are a gate to more abilities. The spellcasting you get from it is fine for utility and even for offense - IF you keep investing into the archetype. If you want classes "merged", you need to play a hybrid like a Magus. Expecting a single feat to get you full proficiency in what makes another class special is a but much.

2) That's by design. Weapon and armor choices are supposed to be locked behind classes. You can expand your options with general feats and archetypes but not everyone can learn everything with ease. Your thaumaturge can have full proficiency in Falcata at level 12 if you're willing to invest into it - or even level 1 if your GM is generous with Unconventional Weaponry. And you can have full scaling heavy armor proficiency by level 2.

3) Archetypes are your new subclasses. If you think of a non-free archetype game, you either have your regular class feats or the feats of an archetype. So they are a way to change your abilities and playstyle. Class archetypes could be a bit more frequent, though it looks like we'll get a good few more before the end of the year.

Out of time for now. Might comment on the rest later.

The issue is, it feels like 90% are trap options.

Like, a summoner dedication. My Eidolon is useless in combat and my main class is significantly better than my Eidolon, so what's the point of having an Eidolon or the summoner dedication as a whole? At that point it feels like a waste of feats. This isn't just a rare instance. It's ubiquitous. The problem I see is that when 90% of options are useless or attempt to interfere with a niche your main class already accomplishes, the dedications don't supplement the main class. It tries to subvert what the main class can do, but at 1/3rd the strength of the main class, making getting the dedication worthless. There is almost no way to do synergy between classes at all which causes issues.

I'd rather have it not be an option, than to be an option but not be viable.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I really enjoy PF2e. If you don't that's ok ....but I promise you're not getting pf3e until such a time that sales have lagged to a degree that necessitates a refresh to keep the lights on. I don't expect that for another 3 years at the ABSOLUTE EARLIEST. In the meantime you can always play pf1e

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:

One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

Synthesist Summoner doesn't exist in PF2, so this is pretty entirely hypothetical here.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I don't expect and I don't think we need nor it's time to have a PF3E.

We recently got the remaster, in next year SF2e, the game has just 5 years old and it's too early and PF2e still have time get more things and become better.

There are other reasons beyond time that make me believe that's not time for a new edition. But beyond the little life-time tha main reason for me is that the game main chassis still works perfectly:

  • The action economy system is praised among many players and game designers as something very well done even after 5 years when don't have problems or bandaids in order to improve or limit it like was happened in many other systems;
  • The critical system runs perfectly and also another praised mechanic. Most things utilize it very well with about everything having some critical failure and critical success inside it and this system was very well used to prevent those bad "save or suck" situations that many other systems suffers specially with limited resources also didn't fall in any of many critical exploits that happens in many other systems.
  • The proficiency metrics is a bit harder to understand from other systems but prevents that default ruler where everyone are equally good in everything that have proficiency (only varying depending from the stats). We may question about some design decisions in some classes but not in the main system itself.
  • The game balance still works almost perfectly since the release. Maybe a bit more difficult for those that comes from some systems or that have difficulties to teamwork but in practice is something that work perfectly well from level 1-20 without any break.
  • The skill system works pretty well. It don't lock your choices to your class and even to your KAS (but the KAS still benefits a bit those who choose to improve your KAS based skills) and their number and distribution allows almost everyone to have skill to help in someway in every adventure.

    IMO this is enought reason justify we don't get another edition sooner. What we may get in some near future is a PF2e Unleashed or something like this rebalancing how some classes was made from scratch (remaster done a good work and I expect great things from PC2 but someday I hope that they remade some classes from scratch) because almost currently questions are around them not to the system itself.

    Including due this I have some hype and strong hopes for SF2e once that it will basically this. The currently PF2e chassis in a completely new ancestry and class set with 5 years of system experience and feedback. I really expect a way interesting experience there that will probably make many people question some old design decisions made for classes and ancestries in PF2e even some that we even haven't notice now.


  • 16 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:

    One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

    For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

    The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

    It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

    So you want power creep.

    There's no way to add the core feature of one class to another class at full strength without making the character significantly more powerful.

    Dark Archive

    14 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

    Which already exists, it's called dual-class. Ask your DM about it.


    Verzen wrote:

    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

    The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

    2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

    The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

    3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback books and I was VERY excited for new books to come in as I knew they would have new options for my favorite pet class. One of the reasons I loved PF1E so much was that every month there were new options, new ways to be creative, new synergies to think of. Nowadays though, in the past 5 years, there has been 1 new instinct for barbarian. Almost no class archetypes, and the ones that exist are straight garbage and downgrades (when class archetypes were literally my favorite part of PF1E), I rarely see support for older classes, I was excited for kineticist but my favorite element (void) will never be coming to PF2E. I highly doubt we will ever see a synthesis summoner either. From what it seems like to me, once a class is released, that class gets abandoned for the next "biggest thing" rinse and repeat. There's no more support, or at least what appears to be very little support, once a class comes out and this is a bit frustrating especially coming from the PF1E paradigm that we grew to love.

    The fix: We need far more support released far more frequently for existing classes and make new classes that come out be rarer. I'd rather support what we do have than for new classes to try to fill niches that are already filled by what's currently available.

    The issue I see at the end of the day is that we have classes no one actually plays because they are just subpar compared to what's already been released. I loved the idea of inventor, and I played it a few times, but do I know of anyone who still plays inventor? No. I rarely ever hear it mentioned.

    We need classes that fill specific niches and then we need variations on how to support said niches. When we release new class after new class that tries to take up niches that already exist, those classes will just be forgotten about and no one will want to play them. I'd rather have archetypes people forget about than whole classes people forget about.

    4) The Issue: Backgrounds and skill feats seem like a decent idea to help flesh out a character and give them more options, but in all honesty, these feel like you're 'restricting' backgrounds and the ability to RP a character rather than assisting. When we put backgrounds behind, say, stat blocks, I tend to look at what backgrounds my character can actually have so I dont fall behind in my party rather than any RP semblance of it.

    The fix: Make backgrounds and skill feats actually mean something and have a bigger impact and dont make it so I cant select the background I want because it's behind some arbitrary stat increase. I've also heard people complain in a tongue in cheek way that they can't even "take a shit without taking the feat for it" when I tried to convince them to play PF2E.

    5) The Issue: Stats are redundant and outdated at this point. In early D&D, stats made sense to help flesh out characters, but now I've noticed that when I play PF2E or D&D5E, the stats are the exact same all the time. Maximize my class stat, dump my bad stat. If all stats are now the same because i feel like my class can't function without maximizing my class stat, thats an issue.

    The fix: Get rid of stats completely. It's an archaic system at this point that has become useless to gauge effectiveness and if you don't build appropriately, it can hurt you more than help you.

    6) The Issue: In order to promote RP sentimentality, you put points into charisma. This allows you to deceive, intimidate, or have diplomacy. If you can't do any of that because charisma is your dump stat, the game no longer is an RP game. You're just waiting around for the next combat so you can feel useful. Otherwise the sorcerer is in charge of doing all the RP.

    The fix: Get rid of charisma as a stat. There shouldn't be a stat that gatekeeps being able to RP. Stop gate keeping the ability to RP efficiently because you aren't a certain class.

    7) The Issue: Choices aren't meaningful enough. A lot of times I select certain choices and I'm just like, "Eh. I guess." rather than get excited for it.

    The fix: Make each choice meaningful and impactful to the way the character is designed and works,

    1. It depends on the dedication and what you're expecting to accomplish. Are there some dedications that are pretty bad in general and need fixing? Sure. I look at a large amount of dedications and go "Ugh, why would I ever pick this?" But are dedications as a whole bad to take? Absolutely not. Not every dedication has to be good for dedications to be valuable. Free Archetype is the most liked optional rule in the game for a reason. To me, I feel that dedications are in a good spot, in that they can compete for existing class features for a lot of classes, but don't have to if your character concept doesn't need it. And for those classes where you basically feel compelled to take a dedication (such as Druid and Champion), I find that is more because of bad class feat options than it is because of said dedications having good parity with the class.

    2. Your math for proficiencies is relatively incorrect, and has a few misnomers to it; you seem to think that proficiencies scale at a rate of +3, when they are +2. So, in your Thaumaturge example, the Falcata is at-most no more than -4 from using a Martial weapon, and that is because Advanced weapons (in theory, anyway,) have a higher stat budget that you are paying for. Also keep in mind that dedications like Sentinel provide auto-scaling for armor proficiencies, and other dedications provide auto-scaling for other proficiencies (Acrobatics for Acrobat dedication, two-handed weapons for Mauler dedication, etc). You were correct with armor/weapon proficiency feats being traps in the Premaster, but the Remaster mostly fixes this to being a more viable option for casters. All they honestly need now is to just allow the proficiency scaling for martials as well (since the wording would already permit this to work and not give casters free Martial proficiency scaling), and it's golden, since Martials should still want to take these feats as well (maybe even moreso, to be honest). I just wish the class dedications also did this if they offered those bonuses (such as the Armor proficiency boost for Champions, Weapon proficiency boost for Fighters, etc), but the idea that there are no options at all seems debunked to me.

    3. Just because a few books don't have new options for classes doesn't mean that they aren't trying to make new options for classes, just like how a new class not releasing with an old option doesn't mean that option will never be in the game. The devs have to carefully consider what they release, and make sure it's balanced among existing options (as well as isn't just a reskin of another existing option), otherwise we get releases like the Shifter in the end shelf life of PF1. While I can agree that most class archetypes aren't worthwhile, that is ultimately a design issue as they designed class archetypes more like bad dedications and not how they were originally designed in PF1, which is swapping existing features for other features, and nothing else. Other than this obvious issue that can honestly just be ignored (it's easy to ignore an entire ruleset, not so much a subset of options within said ruleset), there really isn't a problem here.

    4. I don't know how you can't have backgrounds mean something more than what they already are; they tell you where your character comes from, what they did prior to adventuring, and functions as a core part of your character build in the form of stat boosts and skill training. Does it suck that you can't auto-scale the Lore without being a Gnome who takes the proper ancestry feat, or taking the Additional Lore feat for it? Sure. But that's largely cosmetic, and unless you are specifically building towards Lore skills, you aren't missing much compared to anyone else, especially if they also aren't investing in it.

    5. I don't really see how this solution is going to be helpful, because at this point you are asking to play a completely different game entirely. Which is fine; if PF2 isn't for you, find a different game. But stats are a key part of this game's functionality, asking to just completely remove that with no fair replacement is absurd. It would be like removing most of the alphabet because people use certain letters all the time, and being restricted to weird letters, like Y, X, Z, Q, and J. If we did that, we'd get sentences like this: Jyzx, qyjx yx QZX!! I know what that says (for now; I'll probably forget later). Not many others are going to though, and I would imagine if somebody tried, they would either lose a lot of hair, or realize how dumb and nonsensical it is. It would be the same if we decided to just completely remove stats from the game.

    6. You don't always need to have high Charisma to be good at social skills; this is what training in Diplomacy/Intimidation/Deception is meant to accomplish, so the concept of removing Charisma as an attribute is silly. Will you be the absolute best? No. But the argument that you can't participate in social encounters because you don't have high Charisma makes no sense if you at least have the skill training to maybe aid the Charisma person who is probably fully invested in this stuff, giving them a higher chance of success. In my opinion, not investing in those skills (and/)or those stats is basically telling the GM "I don't want to RP." And that's totally fine; just understand the consequences behind those decisions.

    7. This depends on the option. For a lot of skill feats, I end up picking things just to pick things, since there are only a few "obvious skill trees" in the game, and the same might also be true for ancestry feats, depending on which ancestry I pick. Very rarely am I going to end up having a "meh" option for things like class feats (since I also have the option for dedications), or general feats (which I honestly think needs the more options for, but are essentially no-brainers depending on my character/build).

    It also doesn't help that a fair amount of good skill feats are likewise locked behind dedications, further restricting the parity of the options being largely based on your build/role in the party, but I don't necessarily see a problem with this if the skill feat makes sense to be restricted to the archetype.


    18 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    One thing to point out, just because you(or anyone really) might have some issues with the design of pf2e I don't think it means it's time for an edition change. Between starfinder 2e being built on the same engine, the Remaster, the ORC, and the fact that the community is quite alive and well it would be a rather poor timing to start working or releasing a pf3e.

    That aside some of the things you find issue with are some of the things other people like about the game. Dedications by design are weaker then the class that they are based on because paizo and the community overall does not want a fighter with wizard dedication to be a better fighter or vice versa of any other class combo.

    While I can see the argument for removing stats, your desire or feeling like you have to Minmax has more to do with how rpg and gaming communities have evolved imo then any one game. There are people who sometimes play with a 16 in there core stat or play with a an odd stat combination. I once played a goblin inventor who had 14 In charisma because i wanted her to have the hag bloodline, magic she was actively resisting and wishing to choose technology over said magic. She worked out just fine and was quite an effective support character.


    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:

    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

    The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

    I don't know if I can take a complaint post seriously that just wants to give a class the ability to do everything as good as classes dedicated to that thing. I understand this is harsh, but this criticism is just ridiculous and the solution would make the game worse


    30 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    Is it time for PF3E?

    No.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    I was gonna answer the same thing.
    I don't know how Paizo will be able to switch to PF3 as I hardly see what can be changed in PF2 to make the game better, outside small details.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    pixierose wrote:

    One thing to point out, just because you(or anyone really) might have some issues with the design of pf2e I don't think it means it's time for an edition change. Between starfinder 2e being built on the same engine, the Remaster, the ORC, and the fact that the community is quite alive and well it would be a rather poor timing to start working or releasing a pf3e.

    That aside some of the things you find issue with are some of the things other people like about the game. Dedications by design are weaker then the class that they are based on because paizo and the community overall does not want a fighter with wizard dedication to be a better fighter or vice versa of any other class combo.

    While I can see the argument for removing stats, your desire or feeling like you have to Minmax has more to do with how rpg and gaming communities have evolved imo then any one game. There are people who sometimes play with a 16 in there core stat or play with a an odd stat combination. I once played a goblin inventor who had 14 In charisma because i wanted her to have the hag bloodline, magic she was actively resisting and wishing to choose technology over said magic. She worked out just fine and was quite an effective support character.

    Reading the OP's complaints, I might want to add that the PF1E community is still alive (but understandably shrinking). Adding in the changes from Pathfinder Unchained does get the best of both worlds (from the OP's perspective at least).

    Does PF2E (both Legacy and Remaster) have changes I'm not a fan of? You bet. ... but IMHO, it is still a better game overall (if I could only sell my players).


    Pathfinder First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2009, and Second Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2019. So logically Paizo will publish Third Edition in 2029! I only need to wait five more years, which thrills me a lot!

    I'm not sure when Starfinder Second Edition will come out, but since Starfinder First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2017, logically the new edition will be published in 2027 I guess.


    AestheticDialectic wrote:
    Verzen wrote:

    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

    The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

    I don't know if I can take a complaint post seriously that just wants to give a class the ability to do everything as good as classes dedicated to that thing. I understand this is harsh, but this criticism is just ridiculous and the solution would make the game worse

    I dunno, if Wizard Dedication gave you the same spellcasting power as a wizard, you'd still be a pretty bad spellcaster.


    Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
    pixierose wrote:


    While I can see the argument for removing stats, your desire or feeling like you have to Minmax has more to do with how rpg and gaming communities have evolved imo then any one game. There are people who sometimes play with a 16 in there core stat or play with a an odd stat combination. I once played a goblin inventor who had 14 In charisma because i wanted her to have the hag bloodline, magic she was actively resisting and wishing to choose technology over said magic. She worked out just fine and was quite an effective support character.

    I think of this as a complement to your GM-one of the jobs of a good GM (in my opinion,) is to adjust playstyle to the players and their characters.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    I have played a monk with a sorcerer dedication who was an offensive spell caster (with one of his most powerful options being to transform his rear end into a dragon tail and wallop 2 enemies and then casting a powerful spell from a scroll.

    When you get a powerful attack or two every round, an offensive spell with a DC a point or two behind a full caster really isn’t too bad.

    Offensive Spells in PF2 are good if you don’t target high defenses or if you can activate a weakness, and the remastery has mostly made doing both easier.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Aenigma wrote:

    Pathfinder First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2009, and Second Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2019. So logically Paizo will publish Third Edition in 2029! I only need to wait five more years, which thrills me a lot!

    I'm not sure when Starfinder Second Edition will come out, but since Starfinder First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2017, logically the new edition will be published in 2027 I guess.

    The new edition is being published in 2025, actually. We get the full playtest this August, and the actual book comes out a year later.

    Sczarni

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Blave wrote:
    Verzen wrote:

    One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

    For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

    The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

    It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

    So you want power creep.

    There's no way to add the core feature of one class to another class at full strength without making the character significantly more powerful.

    This is what's known as a strawman also a false dichotomy.

    Let's assume that each class is powered based on numbers.

    A full classes power is represented by '1'

    The way the current system is set up is that the main class is '1' while a dedication is around 1/3rd the power. There is no synergy between the main class and the dedication. They often compete over niches such as actions. The main class wins every time.

    To avoid power creep, a dedication should make the main class 0.8 and the dedication 0.8 instead of 1 and .33. Make the abilities have a the ability to have synergy, but not be as strong as just doing a main class without a dedication. As it stands right now most dedications aren't useful. Oracle dedication with flame incendiary aura on a fire kineticist is very synergistic. But that's a rarity. I also have to give up 2 kineticist feats to get incendiary aura. Most dedications though aren't useful, compete over the same niche, aren't synergistic, and as such end up as trap options that NO ONE takes. When the book is filled with crap trap options like this, what's the point of them even being in the game? I'd rather have a few options that are all enticing than thousands of options that no one uses.

    Sczarni

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    Verzen wrote:

    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

    The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

    2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

    The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

    3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback

    ...

    The more dedications that exist the more "system mastery" comes into play. For new players it would absolutely be overwhelming to sift through all the bad dedications and try to find the diamond in the rough.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    As I said up thread Verzen, the edition doesn't change until the money starts to trickle. The only metric with which to hasten the arrival of the third edition is to change people's spending habits and accelerate edition burnout. Shy of that, your wish isn't gonna be fulfilled for 3-6 more years


    15 people marked this as a favorite.
    Quote:
    Is it time for PF3E?

    No. As has been mentioned, PF2 is solid and being expanded and actively worked on. As well as being the base for Starfinder2e.

    Verzen wrote:
    As much as I've been a supporter of paizo, there is something innately broken about the maths and game design PF2E has

    Pretty much all of the complaints that you listed out are that you are unable to min-max and powergame.

    That is a feature, not a bug.

    I'm hiding this thread now.


    Game design is subjective. What's good to one person is bad for another. But there are a few metrics you can use. Artistically, you could measure how happy the game designers are with the game, and it seems that Paizo is quite happy with the game as a whole. You could also look at popularity, and PF2 is objectively has a lot of players for a TTRPG, which means that unless the player base is somehow being tricked into playing it, the game is fun for a large amount of people. But most importantly for PF3 being a thing, you can look at money. We do not have quarterly reports, but the higher ups at Paizo are presumably not idiots. They keep printing PF2 books, they did the remaster instead of cutting there losses, and they are about to release starfinder 2e with the PF2 engine, all of which are very good indications that PF2 isn't just selling, its selling very well. There just isn't much of a reason to abandon it just yet on any front. Most people seem to like PF2, while I normally hate the phrase, this is the context in which the customer is always right. If people are buying it, why shouldn't they keep selling it?


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    No.

    Liberty's Edge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Long story short, no. and with the Remaster, for me at least, the clock has been reset. I best not see a new edition before 2033 LOL but I know business needs will determine that.


    7 people marked this as a favorite.

    What if 3E releases and it also has flaws? Maybe they should just skip 3E and move straight to 4E. (jesting)


    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    Blave wrote:
    So you want power creep.

    This is what's known as a strawman also a false dichotomy.

    [...]

    To avoid power creep, a dedication should make the main class 0.8 and the dedication 0.8 instead of 1 and .33.

    If your suggested changes take a character from 1.33 to 1.6 units of "power", then that is indeed power creep. Unless you can explain how gaining 20% does not qualify as power creep.


    9 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    The remaster just dropped, so the answer is no and you know the answer is no.

    Additionally, a number of these issues are more a matter of preference than fundamental systemic problems. Things like the pacing of subclass releases, not liking charisma, and dedications being more about subtle tweaks than big gameplay changes are both intentional design choices by Paizo. They won't necessarily change with a new edition because presumably the company doesn't see them as a problem (otherwise we wouldn't keep getting mechanics in that respect).

    Other things, like weird proficiency scaling, is a bit more systemic, but arguing that a lack of feat support for advanced weapons necessitates rebuilding the game from the ground up is... kind of silly.

    ... I don't even disagree with all of your points, several of them I think are real points of friction in PF2, but again much of it is either minor mechanical grievances, roleplaying complaints, or disagreements over design direction. None of which are really new edition territory.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    I promise you're not getting pf3e

    I also promise with absolute certainty that future pf3e won't be everything he desires either, so it doesn't really matter :)

    And the answer to the OP:
    No.

    Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
    No.
    Chocolate Milkshake wrote:
    What if 3E releases and it also has flaws? Maybe they should just skip 3E and move straight to 4E. (jesting)

    And I am absolutely not (jesting).

    It's not fair, you've already posted everything I wanted to say :(


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    No. We don't need PF3.

    Quote:
    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

    My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

    Quote:
    2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

    Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

    There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

    If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

    3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

    4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

    5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

    People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

    Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

    It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized your stats was required that created this max stat-dump stat gameplay when in PF2 it is truly not necessary.

    6. This is one of the few areas where I sort of agree. I never like skills deciding RP interactions. I prefer to go by what the players actually RP. Charisma creates the idea of RP tied to a stat.

    Then again charisma does allow less charismatic in real life players to pretend they are a charismatic character in game. I think some folks like that. Not everyone is a good talker in real life, so at least them pretend in the game I guess.

    As a DM I never let skills trump good RP. That discourages good RP to let a skill roll or stat stand above a player coming up with some great improvisational RP in the moment. I love improvisational RP, so as a DM I'm never going to discourage it.

    7. More impact skill feats for all skills and stats is never a bad thing. I think intelligence could definitely use some skill feat upgrades for general use.

    Ancestry feats can be overkill as is. I picked up some level 17 ancestry feats and never used them because I already had too many options from class feats. I don't need impact ancestry feats. I prefer them to be little passive additions to the character. I don't need more high impact ancestry feats to compete with class abilities for use. It bogs down the choice matrix for a character.

    None of these complaints require PF3. PF2 still has a lot more room to run.

    Sczarni

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Deriven Firelion wrote:

    No. We don't need PF3.

    Quote:
    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

    My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

    Quote:
    2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

    Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

    There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

    If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

    3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

    4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

    5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

    People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

    Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

    It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized your stats was required that created this max stat-dump stat...

    I also don't think ancestry feats have enough impact. I wish an orc fighter felt very different from an elf fighter but they mostly feel the same.


    Sandal Fury wrote:
    AestheticDialectic wrote:
    Verzen wrote:

    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

    The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

    I don't know if I can take a complaint post seriously that just wants to give a class the ability to do everything as good as classes dedicated to that thing. I understand this is harsh, but this criticism is just ridiculous and the solution would make the game worse
    I dunno, if Wizard Dedication gave you the same spellcasting power as a wizard, you'd still be a pretty bad spellcaster.

    Cute and pithy, but patently false


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    Blave wrote:
    Verzen wrote:
    Blave wrote:
    So you want power creep.

    This is what's known as a strawman also a false dichotomy.

    [...]

    To avoid power creep, a dedication should make the main class 0.8 and the dedication 0.8 instead of 1 and .33.

    If your suggested changes take a character from 1.33 to 1.6 units of "power", then that is indeed power creep. Unless you can explain how gaining 20% does not qualify as power creep.

    Do you.. do you not know how maths work?

    .8 + .8 doesn't equal 1.6 and 1 + .33 doesn't equal 1.33 because the math itself isn't based on addition.

    It's exponential effectiveness. It's not linear effectiveness. Having
    .33 power compared to a power of 1 often means that .33 option is useless as it's competing with the 1.

    And .8 with .8 doesn't mean 1.6 power as there is diminishing returns. One of the reasons fighter is so damn good is because of that +2 to attack. It's adding to its main focus.

    Think of the pf1e stat distribution system.

    I can have 18 strength and 12 dex and 11 con. 10 int, 10 wis, 10 Charisma.

    That's 5 stats that give bonuses. Most of it is in strength.

    Or you can have 4 stats at 14 and 2 at 10. That's +8 stats total that give bonuses but they are spread out and less focused now.

    It's the same thing with power in a class. If you make a class .5 and .5, the class can do two things sure but both of them POORLY.

    What needs to happen is a class can do two things well while if it's a single class it can do that single focus great.

    Yet as good as the fighter is in PF2, he is still not so much better they outshine every other class. That's the beauty of PF2.

    You can have a fighter who is considered the apex of PF2 martial power and an investigator considered one of the weaker classes in PF2 in the same group and both can feel effective.

    PF2 power gaps are relatively small compared to PF1. So class power differences are relatively small.

    I'm far more concerned when a class has a clunky gameplay mechanic that can really ruin a player's day with bad rolls like the swashbuckler. The damage difference isn't a problem, when a class can't even activate their abilities due to a couple of bad rolls on a panache skill the frustration from that player becomes palpable.

    To me that's a problem that needs some fixing faster than has been done.

    Power differences will always exist and be different across levels. Fighter is one of the most linear classes in the game where their superior hit bonus feels about the same at low level and high level. Whereas a caster goes from feeling relatively weak to a boss king encounter crusher at high level that the fighter can't even touch even in PF2.


    Verzen wrote:
    The more dedications that exist the more "system mastery" comes into play. For new players it would absolutely be overwhelming to sift through all the bad dedications and try to find the diamond in the rough.

    While that is true, a lot of new players will be messing around with the Beginner's Box, which has little or nothing to do with dedications. Even skipping that, keeping it to all of Core Rulebook/PC1, this is still a maximum of 12 or 13 class dedications, all with ability bonus requirements that need to be met. Not much sifting through for that, and there is even a section that gives "recommended" dedication synergies for primary classes to work with, giving newbies an idea of what they can expect each relevant dedication to do for them before they even dive into the specifics.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:

    No. We don't need PF3.

    Quote:
    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

    My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

    Quote:
    2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

    Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

    There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

    If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

    3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

    4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

    5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

    People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

    Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

    It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized your stats was required

    ...

    Elf and human and orc feel different enough while being balanced for my tastes. I don't want differences as wide as PF1 in the ancestry category. Don't need that back in the game. If you make ancestry too impactful, you are very much bound to end up with this issue again where some ancestries are at the top of the heap and others are at the bottom.

    PF2 is in a good spot for ancestries.

    Sczarni

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Verzen wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:

    No. We don't need PF3.

    Quote:
    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

    My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

    Quote:
    2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

    Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

    There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

    If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

    3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

    4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

    5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

    People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

    Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

    It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized

    ...

    I don't mean power wise. I mean feel wise. An ogre fighter should play differently than an elf fighter. Balanced but different.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    Blave wrote:
    Verzen wrote:
    Blave wrote:
    So you want power creep.

    This is what's known as a strawman also a false dichotomy.

    [...]

    To avoid power creep, a dedication should make the main class 0.8 and the dedication 0.8 instead of 1 and .33.

    If your suggested changes take a character from 1.33 to 1.6 units of "power", then that is indeed power creep. Unless you can explain how gaining 20% does not qualify as power creep.
    Do you.. do you not know how maths work?

    I do. Thanks for asking, I guess?

    Quote:

    .8 + .8 doesn't equal 1.6 and 1 + .33 doesn't equal 1.33 because the math itself isn't based on addition.

    It's exponential effectiveness. It's not linear effectiveness. Having .33 power compared to a power of 1 often means that .33 option is useless as it's competing with the 1.

    No, it just means you need to be smart about using that 0.33 power. If you can't use it for offense reliably, use it for utility, buffs, mobility, to grant good "third actions" or simply as an emergency option you don't want to fall back on, but might end up glad that you have it (like say a ranged cantrip on a melee character).

    Quote:
    And .8 with .8 doesn't mean 1.6 power as there is diminishing returns. One of the reasons fighter is so damn good is because of that +2 to attack. It's adding to its main focus.

    So assuming a martial class with a spellcaster archetype, you're suggesting that exactly to reach that 0.8 power? Dropping the weapon proficiency of the martial down one step while providing less spellcasting power than a spellcaster? That would be a Magus, or a warpriest if you take the fighter's proficiency as a starting point. If you take any other martial as a base class (other than gunslinger, I guess) you do what? Drop down to expert in weapons? And what do you get in return? Master spellcasting? Like the archetypes already provide? How would that work?

    Quote:
    It's the same thing with power in a class. If you make a class .5 and .5, the class can do two things sure but both of them POORLY.

    Well, then it's a good thing that we already established that the current design always keeps your main class at 1.0, no?

    Quote:
    What needs to happen is a class can do two things well while if it's a single class it can do that single focus great.

    That only "needs" to happen according to you. I'm perfectly happily with how archetypes work right now. On a basic design level, of course. There are individual archetypes that are very bad mechanically, but they can't possibly all be winners. And even those "bad" archetypes most likely have some fans who like the flavor and getting some mechanical benefits from it, however small it may be.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    Blave wrote:
    Verzen wrote:
    Blave wrote:
    So you want power creep.

    This is what's known as a strawman also a false dichotomy.

    [...]

    To avoid power creep, a dedication should make the main class 0.8 and the dedication 0.8 instead of 1 and .33.

    If your suggested changes take a character from 1.33 to 1.6 units of "power", then that is indeed power creep. Unless you can explain how gaining 20% does not qualify as power creep.

    Do you.. do you not know how maths work?

    .8 + .8 doesn't equal 1.6 and 1 + .33 doesn't equal 1.33 because the math itself isn't based on addition.

    It's exponential effectiveness. It's not linear effectiveness. Having
    .33 power compared to a power of 1 often means that .33 option is useless as it's competing with the 1.

    And .8 with .8 doesn't mean 1.6 power as there is diminishing returns. One of the reasons fighter is so damn good is because of that +2 to attack. It's adding to its main focus.

    It feels weird to use numbers as an example, and then claim we shouldn't use them as numbers. Like I get what you're saying, but you should not claim someone doesn't "know how maths work" when they use addition, when almost all numbers can be added.

    Also, that .33 is not useless, as I can personally attest, nor is it close enough to worthless that you can really claim its a metaphor. You aren't a full caster, but as stated that would just be unbalanced. As they stand, they are very good feats if you know how to use them.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Well, I'll throw my hat into the ring. I'm not going to address system complaints, 'cuz it's iffy whether those would even change in a hypothetical PF3.

    Nah, it's not time.

    - PF2 is doing well. PF1 switched over when it stopped doing so well, which meant less risk.

    - It's really early. Like, seriously, it's only been five years. At the equivalent point in PF1, the ACG wasn't even out yet.

    - It's a bad time for it. Starfinder 2 is playtesting and a big part of its selling point is rules compatibility. Paizo's not going to shoot themselves in the foot by dumping PF2 now. And, over on the PF2 side, we are almost done with the remaster, when things can start settling down with that as the new baseline.

    - It wouldn't turn out as well if they did it now. Setting aside the business side of things, SF2 is going to include lessons learned from five years of PF2. If we get PF3 some day, it's going to be better if it has some lessons from SF2 as well.


    17 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    I'll be on board for a PF3 when something fundamental could actually use fixing. None of the OP's complaints are real issues, and even if they were optional and house rules could easily address them.

    Although it might be worthwhile to switch to PF3 early just so Verzen can see another edition that *also* doesn't cater to his unnatainable and unpopular goals.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Anorak wrote:
    Long story short, no. and with the Remaster, for me at least, the clock has been reset. I best not see a new edition before 2033 LOL but I know business needs will determine that.

    I think they need a few more things still:

    Still waiting on the rest of the remaster classes

    Shifter class

    A round of expansions to the base classes. More fighter/ranger feats etc

    A summon spell based off a template not a bestairy.

    Complete the Summoner class.

    Some time to do some side projects...


    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    I also wouldn't expect PF2e to last exactly 10 years like PF1e did. One of the reasons why PF1e came to an end was because the devs themselves were tired of the system too. Like it or not, D&D 3.5 is a deeply flawed system and PF1e was that system with a ton of patches over it. It simply couldn't last forever.

    PF2e is perfect? No, but the core of the system is much more stable, not to mention that its also more profitable too, so doing a PF3e now would really dumb.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Verzen wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Verzen wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:

    No. We don't need PF3.

    Quote:
    1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

    My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

    Quote:
    2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

    Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

    There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

    If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

    3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

    4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

    5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

    People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

    Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

    It's 10 plus

    ...

    How do you do balance but different? We saw a lot of balance but different over the years and it ended up being one better than the other.

    All I read when I see your posts is "I want a return to power gaming options where the differences end up being substantially greater in power."

    You have balanced but different right now. The orc looks very different from the ogre. That is a sufficient difference.

    1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Is it time for PF3E? All Messageboards