Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

MoonSong · Apr 30, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
And that's an understandable attitude to want to take, because anything from 4e is tainted, presumably, doubly so for PF fans who were repelled from the D&D IP by 4e, and supported by Paizo.

But, the omission just makes the idea 'look guilty,' so we really need to acknowledge when 4e did something, and just make a case for how PF2 could accomplish the same thing, without suffering from the association - something 5e got away with a few times, with the handling of monster stat blocks, and of NPCs using the same style of bloc, for instance.

Well, the playtest was extremely 4eish. Everybody on the same schedule with feats to account for difference, lots of hp at first level, round by round tracking of effects that could end without even getting a benefit, overly punishing math that demands feat taxes, feat based multiclassing with hard limits, class dictating gear and combat style, pushing paladins into tank role, poor utility for casters -specially sorcerer-, removing abilities from PCs that NPCs keep -like someone complaining that necromancers could no longer create undead on their own, as the ritual requires three casters-, moving what used to be basic skill competence into "powers" (skill feats), repetition of the same basic ability/power over and over because classes don't get shared feats anymore... Oh and feats, the siloing of feats mirrors the siloing of powers.

According to the devs, they went overboard with ideas, so I still ignore how much of that has changed.

CapnZapp · Apr 30, 2019

LFQW is comprehensively and fundamentally different in 5E than in 3E/PF.

Saying it is still present in some form might be technically true, but vastly undersells the huge and definite improvements brought by the varied and many steps taken to curtail LFQW.

The point here is that the vast majority of potential PF2 buyers (i.e. people playing 5E) will likely be repelled if PF2 does not learn this lesson.

Aldarc · Apr 30, 2019

CapnZapp said:
The point here is that the vast majority of potential PF2 buyers (i.e. people playing 5E) will likely be repelled if PF2 does not learn this lesson.

I asked you a question, and I have yet to receive an answer. Do you know how spellcasting works in PF2? Can you communicate to me those changes that it makes in the playtest? Or are you just going to repeat your insubstantiated fearmongering?

CapnZapp · May 3, 2019

Aldarc said:
I asked you a question, and I have yet to receive an answer. Do you know how spellcasting works in PF2? Can you communicate to me those changes that it makes in the playtest? Or are you just going to repeat your insubstantiated fearmongering?

Sorry, there are several reasons why you will not get any answers using your current approach.

#1 Your posts directed at me are almost exclusively aggressive ones. Nothing about your stance gives me any indication you are interested in listening. In fact, you come across as judge, jury and executioner, but I have news for you: this is not a courtroom and I am not on the stand!

#2 Since the playtest we don't know much more than "spells will be considerably beefed up". Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it?

Tell you what, direct me to an official blog or twitch or whatever where the devs of PF2 talk about LFQW and specifically agree it is a huge problem in Pathfinder 1 and what measures they have taken to address the issue, and we have a common ground for further discussion. Same with DM workload.

Fair warning though: I do not believe it exists because I am secretly convinced nobody at Paizo priorities these issues or even considers them to be problems in the first place. I am aware of exactly zero evidence Buhlmann & Co are developing their game in the context of the advances 5E brought to the table, or any indications of 5E concepts they feel they must incorporate in their game as well (whether by similar or different implementations matters less). But again, I might be wrong. (In fact, I would love to be wrong because that would mean PF2 moves from the category of "hard pass" to "cautiously exited".)

Another fair warning: even if you do find it you still need to dial down your debating style enough for me to reasonably expect you to listen to my arguments, or you are still not presenting me with any enticement to respond.

Regards,
Zapp

Aldarc · May 3, 2019

CapnZapp said:
#2 Since the playtest we don't know much more than "spells will be considerably beefed up". Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it?

Since the playtest we do have more information. We have seen more. There is an Oblivion Oath campaign on led by Jason Bulmahn using the upcoming PF2 rules that you can watch on YouTube. Post-Playtest versions of PF2 have also been played in various conventions and expos. There have also been comments made by Paizo employees on the website, including clarifications of those campaign streams.

Tell you what, direct me to an official blog or twitch or whatever where the devs of PF2 talk about LFQW and specifically agree it is a huge problem in Pathfinder 1 and what measures they have taken to address the issue, and we have a common ground for further discussion. Same with DM workload.

Fair warning though: I do not believe it exists because I am secretly convinced nobody at Paizo priorities these issues or even considers them to be problems in the first place. I am aware of exactly zero evidence Buhlmann & Co are developing their game in the context of the advances 5E brought to the table, or any indications of 5E concepts they feel they must incorporate in their game as well (whether by similar or different implementations matters less). But again, I might be wrong. (In fact, I would love to be wrong because that would mean PF2 moves from the category of "hard pass" to "cautiously exited".)

It seems unreasonable to expect that Paizo would have a blog post where they sh*t talk their own past products and work. (Paizo would have learned to do that from WotC's mistake when promoting 4E by trash talking 3E.

) I think that at the end of the day, they are still proud of their work with PF1. That does not mean that they are unaware of its issues, especially when you read between the lines of the blog posts and the changes in PF2. But the language will not be couched in negativity about the 3E/PF1 system but, rather, on focusing on the positive changes that PF2 will make. If their lack of posts trashtalking their own product does not satisfy you, then we indeed have no common ground for further discussion though that does not mean that your concerns are unheeded.

Warning: I would also add that just because 5E made what you feel are improvements to what you regard as problems does not mean A) everyone shares in that belief that they are problems, and B) that everyone who views these issues as problems agrees on what serves as the best "solution," such that C) 5E did not necessarily have the best solution, or D) that Paizo should feel compelled to incorporate 5E's approach.

So what kind of changes regarding LFQW do we know about in PF2? Spellcasters have less spells. Spellcasters cast their spells at a higher level for power scaling. Spellcasting linked more tightly to the per round three action economy. Greater concentration/buff restrictions, requiring an action to maintain. Spells have been beefed up from their playtest version, but they were supposedly underperforming to many playtesters. Magical rituals exist and linked to the Arcana skill (initially sounds very 4E). But we also know that a number of non-spellcasters are getting various buffs.

Regarding DM monster prep and such. Others and I have already repeatedly told you that statements from Paizo have indicated that this will be more akin to how it is in Starfinder, which is an approach that has been well-received by Paizo's fans. I have also not heard (or recall) any complaints about the difficulty of preparing PF2 by DMs.

CapnZapp · May 3, 2019

Thank you for your well-reasoned post.

Teemu · May 4, 2019

I'd like enemies in PF2 to either not use PC spells (I guess not happening) or condense spell information in enemy stats so that I, a GM, don't have to refer to a separate spell entry to resolve the effects.

The Crimson Binome · May 5, 2019

Teemu said:
I'd like enemies in PF2 to either not use PC spells (I guess not happening) or condense spell information in enemy stats so that I, a GM, don't have to refer to a separate spell entry to resolve the effects.

Best of both worlds: All spells should be condensable enough to fit into an enemy stat block.

Aldarc · May 9, 2019

So here is the playlist for the Oblivion Oath PF2 Campaign led by [MENTION=5149]Jason Bulmahn[/MENTION] YouTube.

You can tell that while there are more moving parts in PF2 than 5E, it honestly does feel lighter and more streamlined than PF1.