Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

CapnZapp · Apr 20, 2019

Green Onceler said:
You seem pretty sold on the idea of 5e being some kind of gaming panacea that all companies are obliged to mimic going forward. Perhaps you should stay in the D&D forum and begin agitating for 5.5e, rather than insisting other game companies adopt WotC's mechanics?

I understand if you're new to the thread it's easy to think I believe 5E is the best thing since slice bread, a holy writ where every letter is sacred.

That's not quiiiite true...

But I am using 5E as shorthand for two main things. (There might be a few more I would agree belongs if mentioned)

LFQW. A very sloppy way of saying that spells and spell combos are comprehensively cleaned up. This includes huge things, not only that Wizard power is generally curtailed, but also pre-combat buffing, items that buff, levels of individual spells, alignment and getting rid of the buff-teleport sequence that made attackers always overwhelm defenders.

NPCs. Again, very broadly: the DM can just plop down a monster or NPC with little or no prep. A HUGE timesaver. Not to mention how looting gear in itself wrecked balance.

Again, I reserve the right to discuss as if everyone is in on the concepts to save time and space.

It does not mean I hate everything Pathfinder and unconditionally love everything 5E.

But it does mean I am strongly of the opinion there are a couple of fundamentals that have changed, that these are unquestionably upgrades, and that no new DnDish game should be released without them.

Zardnaar · Apr 20, 2019

CapnZapp said:
I understand if you're new to the thread it's easy to think I believe 5E is the best thing since slice bread, a holy writ where every letter is sacred.

That's not quiiiite true...

But I am using 5E as shorthand for two main things. (There might be a few more I would agree belongs if mentioned)

LFQW. A very sloppy way of saying that spells and spell combos are comprehensively cleaned up. This includes huge things, not only that Wizard power is generally curtailed, but also pre-combat buffing, items that buff, levels of individual spells, alignment and getting rid of the buff-teleport sequence that made attackers always overwhelm defenders.

NPCs. Again, very broadly: the DM can just plop down a monster or NPC with little or no prep. A HUGE timesaver. Not to mention how looting gear in itself wrecked balance.

Again, I reserve the right to discuss as if everyone is in on the concepts to save time and space.

It does not mean I hate everything Pathfinder and unconditionally love everything 5E.

But it does mean I am strongly of the opinion there are a couple of fundamentals that have changed, that these are unquestionably upgrades, and that no new DnDish game should be released without them.

Theres other ways of fixing buff, teleport. That wasn't so much a thing in AD&D, the truly nutty buff spells didn't exist. Stoneskin was your best option but easy enough to get around by throwing dart, daggers etc at it.

Green Onceler · Apr 20, 2019

CapnZapp said:
LFQW.

Yes, of course I've heard this acronym many times. It has just never really bothered me or the people I played with. If it bothers you and you feel 5e has solved the issue - great. Play that.

CapnZapp said:
I am strongly of the opinion that these are unquestionably upgrades, and that no new DnDish game should be released without them.

I love it when people tell me their opinions are unquestionable. I know I'm in for a good conversation.

Zardnaar · Apr 21, 2019

Not everything from 5E is an upgrade lol.

CapnZapp · Apr 21, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Theres other ways of fixing buff, teleport. That wasn't so much a thing in AD&D, the truly nutty buff spells didn't exist. Stoneskin was your best option but easy enough to get around by throwing dart, daggers etc at it.

There absolutely is.

Other ways than the exact solution chosen by 5E, that is. Yes indeed.

But the point is:
* SOME solution is needed and expected
* so far nothing suggests Paizo has even understood that 5E represents a sea change in the way people look at DnD

So when I talk as if the best way is to simply use 5E as your starting position and build from there... It is because at the very least I have reason to believe the devs won't be able to drag PF2 back into 3e/PF1 territory

But absolutely: I am open to other implementations with equally far-reaching consequences.

CapnZapp · Apr 21, 2019

Green Onceler said:
Yes, of course I've heard this acronym many times. It has just never really bothered me or the people I played with. If it bothers you and you feel 5e has solved the issue - great. Play that.

I fear my point flew right over your head, so let me have one more go at explaining.

This isn't about me.

This is me being convinced that after playing 5E most people will not accept playing a linear fighter together with quadratic casters anymore.

If Paizo wants to tap into the huge numbers of gamers created by 5E they better understand what makes that game truly different from previous efforts.

And it's not about simplicity. I easily believe there's lots of 5E gamers ready to bite into something more substantial.

However, I don't think many of them will accept LFQW and cluttery NPC building.

I honestly think that's not just me, but a fundamental aspect. Once you've experienced a party where the barbarian feels nearly as useful as the wizard, AD&D and 3rd edition and Pathfinder will seem awfully antiquated.

I believe it is a fatal mistake by Paizo to publish a new game that does not feature certain upgrades to the DnD experience brought by 5E.

CapnZapp · Apr 21, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Not everything from 5E is an upgrade lol.

Verily.

There are many many things about 5E that frustrate me, and at least one gaping hole where magic item support used to be.

Does this mean I'm considering switching back to 3E/PF? Absolutely not! (For the very reasons discussed right here)

Zardnaar · Apr 21, 2019

Well you have written it off before its even released. The playtest was a mess sure. Even if they used AD&D type numbers its an improvement they don't need to dump everything that would make 3.X appealing over say 5E.

There is still a decent amount of people online playing 3.X, catering to them might make better sense than being one among many for 5E.

CapnZapp · Apr 21, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Well you have written it off before its even released. The playtest was a mess sure. Even if they used AD&D type numbers its an improvement they don't need to dump everything that would make 3.X appealing over say 5E.

There is still a decent amount of people online playing 3.X, catering to them might make better sense than being one among many for 5E.

I loved 3.x

I just couldn't stand creating another high-level NPC caster that lived for seconds but took hours to build.

I guess my point is that there is a lot of things that you can do to "cater" to people playing Pathfinder (d20).

And if one of those things were "backwards compatibility", I would absolutely had shut up, since if Paizo had gone ahead and made a "Pathfinder 1.5" all the power to them. It wouldn't be something I personally would have looked into, but congrats to everyone up for another decade of "d20 catering".

But since that's not the case, I'm here to speak my two cents. And that is to hope against hope Paizo will tap into the probably significant market share that's ready for some lovely player crunch (which d20/PF does splendidly) with classes, feats, subsystems, magic items and so on... just as long as the DM isn't buried in the same amount of crunch, and that the lesson of finally getting rid of LFQW isn't un-learned. (How this is accomplished is not nearly as important than that it is accomplished, and I'm certainly not married to specific 5E implementations)

Have a nice day!

Kaodi · Apr 21, 2019

Jason Bulmahn said:
Some of this came to light in the playtest, but it did not get the level of polish I wanted until the final version. I am very happy with where we are right now.

Thank you for the rundown. I have confidence in you guys, but I just wanted to highlight this point and say that it kind of reminds me of that big Kotaku article on the failure of "BioWare Magic" in regards to Anthem and ME: Andromeda. "BioWare Magic" (and really any video game developer magic) referring to the crunch time before release where things would somehow manage to come together to make a great game despite a chaotic or unsatisfactory development cycle up until that point. Obviously this is a much more sustainable practice for an RPG company because you only tend to develop a system every five to ten years rather than every one or two, but it still feels a bit risky in some ways. I really hope it worked out for you guys though, because we need you guys to keep making the best adventures,

.