Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

[CapnZapp]

* Hybrid Tax: the (now extinct) guiding principle that the hybrid classes (e.g., then Shaman, Paladin, Druid) should not be able to perform a single role (damage, tanking, healing) as well as other classes who primarily perform a singular role due to their versatility.

While it might well be that this guiding principle is extinct (as in "completely removed") in WoW, it makes me think back on d20.

In d20 they genuinely thought that if the Bard was roughly at 50% of a Fighter at fighting, 50% of a Caster at casting etc that would be balanced and well-recieved.

Of course, D&D is a game of specialization and local maximums. 80 or 90% (or even 100%!) is closer to the mark.

Put otherwise: if you're 80% as effective as the other guy that feels like you're only half as effective. Even a Bard that fights at 90% of a fighter and casts at 90% of a caster is still not best at anything, and that's what counts.

Also: the fact that you can normally only specialize in one or a few areas. When the fighter raises his Strength or takes fightery feats at the same time the Wizard raises her Intelligence and purchases wizardly robes... the Bard cannot keep pace in both areas at the same time. She has to choose one area to keep up in, and the other will fall behind. Or she refuses to choose and falls behind in both areas!

Point is: that theoretical 90% soon becomes 75% when you factor in the myriad ways you specialize in D&D (feats, items, choices of abilities, etc). So starting out at 50% (as in a level X Bard deals half as much as a level X Fighter) is a definite mistake.

In that aspect 5E has learned something from 3E...

PS. A bard that starts out as good as a Fighter at fighting and as good as a Wizard at casting AND is given twice as many power-ups (so she is able to keep up with both Fighter and Wizard), now there's an unbalanced character.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First off, you say "5e loosens restrictions on magic" like its a bad thing. It's not.

Every edition has loosened restrictions on magic relative to the preceding one. It's not innately a bad thing, if the power of magic is correspondingly reigned in, as well, something only 4e got close to right.

4e greatly reduced the restrictions on magic relative to 3.5, but also vastly decreased the number & power of spell resources a caster got. 5e /further/ (though there wasn't much further to go) reduced casting restrictions, relative to 4e, but greatly increased the power & quantity of available spellcasting resources.

That said, the challenge is to get rid of them in a way that doesn't overpower casters. They did not quite succeed: free cantrips nearly make ranged weapons obsolete.

It's funny how much people harp on cantrips. Cantrips are pretty minor, they let a caster continue to look like a caster when he's not using spell slots. We're just /so/ conditioned from the traditional game that casting must be a limited resource. ::sigh::

Concentration is not only for a very small number of spells. It truly changed the game visavi d20shutting down the buffing game almost completely

The buffing game as it existed in d20 was pretty broken, but it'd've completely shattered BA, so, one way or another, it had to be shut down. Not to 'balance' casters, but to enable the BA design goal.

Casters are still very good in 5E and they can still single-handledly win encounters. That is as it should be. Magic feels magical.

It's refreshing when someone arguing for caster superiority just admits it.

But it's tangential to the point I was responding to, which had to do with fighters & rogues (neither of which had ever cast spells prior to 5e, but even so, in 5e, that casting isn't relevant):

I remember reading a WoW preview back in 2003, where they described Rogues are the ultimate melee damage dealer, and thinking to myself "That's actually really brilliant, and would be great in D&D. Fighters are defensive, and Rogues are offensive." Doing a little digging, it looks Everquest rogues are also dedicated damage dealers, and that would date back to 1999.

If PF2 finally brought that to DnDish games, that'd be excellent yes.

There is no "finally": 3.x went there, already, buffing up the offense of Rogues (even if it was against a backdrop of Tier 1 casters completely overshadowing both). 4e balanced fighters as a defensive 'Defender Role' class vs Rogues as offensive 'Strikers' quite neatly, and balanced them with casters, as well.
So it's been done in "D&Dish" games, already.

Thing is, they can't do that all the time. This allows martials to feel they are meaningfully contributing. Well minmaxed martials dish out insane damage and feel very welcome in parties indeed.

This is arguably 5Es greatest accomplishment, and not something I am keen to see PF2 roll back on.

Again, you're crediting(?) 5e with something that had long since been done. In this case - casters dominating play while they have spells available, and fighters dishing out big damage 24/7, it goes all the way back to AD&D. And it was rarely actually delivered. Instead, you'd tend to get 5MWDs.

Except that if Paizo can't or won't raise the bar to 5E-like levels in areas discussed here, that doesn't matter for many of us... WotC might well be our only hope.

WotC is /very/ happy with what they've done with 5e - they've tapped back into the mainstream awareness D&D had back in the fad years, something that D&D's IP holders had only been trying to do for 40 years - they're not going to do anything to jinx that for a long while.

Paizo, OTOH, has that odd tendency to listen to their fans.

 

[Kaodi]

I wonder if there will be an optional rule down the line for mana points. The way spellcasting works in PF2 seems like it would be particularly suitable to it given unlimited cantrips and using higher level spells slots for better effects.

 

[billd91]

All classes leveling at same rate plus quicker progression made spellcasters power a lot more noticeable. They buffed spellcasters a lot in the transition to 3.0.

Um, no. That pretty much ignores the fact that spellcasters in AD&D leveled up pretty fast in the midgame relative to fighters. I can't think of any real downside to putting all of the classes on the same XP level progression aside from a weird issue or two with the AD&D saving throw table - mainly the relatively rapid rise in fighter saves from mediocre for the first 4-8 levels to best by level 17. And that was mainly because everyone else's was so irregular by comparison.

 

[billd91]

WotC is /very/ happy with what they've done with 5e - they've tapped back into the mainstream awareness D&D had back in the fad years, something that D&D's IP holders had only been trying to do for 40 years - they're not going to do anything to jinx that for a long while.

Paizo, OTOH, has that odd tendency to listen to their fans.

This OTOH completely mystifies me. From the context, I think you're implying that what WotC has produced in 5e is in contrast to listening to their fans. I think the obvious success of 5e among returning players underscores that the 5e results aren't in contrast to listening to their fans at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

Every edition has loosened restrictions on magic relative to the preceding one. It's not innately a bad thing, if the power of magic is correspondingly reigned in, as well, something only 4e got close to right.

4e greatly reduced the restrictions on magic relative to 3.5, but also vastly decreased the number & power of spell resources a caster got. 5e /further/ (though there wasn't much further to go) reduced casting restrictions, relative to 4e, but greatly increased the power & quantity of available spellcasting resources.

It's funny how much people harp on cantrips. Cantrips are pretty minor, they let a caster continue to look like a caster when he's not using spell slots. We're just /so/ conditioned from the traditional game that casting must be a limited resource. ::sigh::

The buffing game as it existed in d20 was pretty broken, but it'd've completely shattered BA, so, one way or another, it had to be shut down. Not to 'balance' casters, but to enable the BA design goal.

It's refreshing when someone arguing for caster superiority just admits it.

But it's tangential to the point I was responding to, which had to do with fighters & rogues (neither of which had ever cast spells prior to 5e, but even so, in 5e, that casting isn't relevant):

There is no "finally": 3.x went there, already, buffing up the offense of Rogues (even if it was against a backdrop of Tier 1 casters completely overshadowing both). 4e balanced fighters as a defensive 'Defender Role' class vs Rogues as offensive 'Strikers' quite neatly, and balanced them with casters, as well.
So it's been done in "D&Dish" games, already.

Again, you're crediting(?) 5e with something that had long since been done. In this case - casters dominating play while they have spells available, and fighters dishing out big damage 24/7, it goes all the way back to AD&D. And it was rarely actually delivered. Instead, you'd tend to get 5MWDs.


WotC is /very/ happy with what they've done with 5e - they've tapped back into the mainstream awareness D&D had back in the fad years, something that D&D's IP holders had only been trying to do for 40 years - they're not going to do anything to jinx that for a long while.

Paizo, OTOH, has that odd tendency to listen to their fans.

I'm not sure we have anything left to discuss.

You keep trying to shut down my argument that rogues keep getting shafted edition after edition, but all you're effectively saying seems to be "they're getting there"? No it hasn't been done. It's pretty frikkin far from done.

Likewise with the magic balance. 5E has truly accomplished something that no d20 derivative ever came close to. I'm telling you that the caster-martial balance in 5E is fundamentally different and much better than it ever was in Ad&D or d20. 5E truly fixes 3E in multiple ways.

You keep relativizing as if you don't want to give 5E credit where credit is due. The important thing is that 5E is when all these parts come together.

My point is that the expectations of gamers have fundamentally shifted. Paizo lives in a post 5E world now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You keep trying to shut down my argument that rogues keep getting shafted edition after edition, but all you're effectively saying seems to be "they're getting there"?

I didn't catch that was your argument, and wasn't responding to it, but to the idea of balancing/differentiating fighter & rogue by making the former a defense specialist and the latter an offense specialist. In terms of the evolution of D&D and it's derivatives, that started with 3.0, AFAICT, and was most strongly supported by 4e, prior to Essentials.

Likewise with the magic balance. 5E has truly accomplished something that no d20 derivative ever came close to. What 4E did or did not do remains entirely inconsequential.

How could an official version of D&D be irrelevant to that?

My point is that the expectations of gamers have fundamentally shifted.

I also missed that point, too, but it sounds interesting. Shifted in what way, and how is that shift apparent?

You keep relativizing as if you don't want to give 5E credit where credit is due. The important thing is that 5E is when all these parts come together.

I totally give 5e credit where it's due:

This OTOH completely mystifies me. From the context, I think you're implying that what WotC has produced in 5e is in contrast to listening to their fans. I think the obvious success of 5e among returning players underscores that the 5e results aren't in contrast to listening to their fans at all.

Returning players weren't WotC's fans, they were TSR's. New players starting with 5e weren't fans when 5e was being designed. So, yeah, it's a contrast, or, rather, a supplemental consideration. 5e design considered what would be accessible to potential new fans as well as what then-current fans were saying they wanted. It's a remarkable accomplishment, threading that needle between what makes a game appealing to new players and fun the first time you play it, and what makes it familiar, acceptable, and yet still engaging, to long-time players.

 

[CapnZapp]

I didn't catch that was your argument, and wasn't responding to it, but to the idea of balancing/differentiating fighter & rogue by making the former a defense specialist and the latter an offense specialist. In terms of the evolution of D&D and it's derivatives, that started with 3.0, AFAICT, and was most strongly supported by 4e, prior to Essentials.

No version of D&D have come even close to giving Rogues the DPS crown. Except for 4E, no version of D&D have provided any real crowd control abilities to Fighters.

Remember, giving the Rogue a (small) edge on Fighters is not interesting in isolation. If Warlocks, say, are even better at DPS, the point still gets lost. Remember, the thinking "only magic users get the cool stuff" still holds strong, so even if Warlocks (again, example) only achieve DPS parity that still invalidates the Rogue's claim, given how Warlocks likely do their damage at very long range and might even get even better bonuses (taking 5E as an example: dealing force damage is a huge benefit. Getting riders such as pushback is a medium benefit that at high levels turn into an overwhelming kiting ability)

Put simply. For a martial squishie to enter melee (which is what the archetypal backstabbing rogue is all about) its DPS needs to be not just top tier but unparallelled. I'm talking easily twice as much as the next guy.

The notion that rogues do well in cities with lots of hiding places, confined spaces and low-armored foes, while fighters reign supreme on proper battlefields with greatweapons and plateweapons holds a strong sway over martial class design - still.

Even though D&D is not at all about "in some battles you have the upper hand, in others I hold it". Except for unusual circumstances the Rogue is ALWAYS given the hose. D&D simply isn't complex enough to model "close quarters". It is entirely uninterested in giving Fighters lots of circumstantial penalties.

So what's needed is what WoW invented (or at least popularized) all those years ago. A model that actually takes real play into account.

Put simply: all classes nearly always operate at peak effeciency. (Fighters with poor ranged weapons is possibly the greatest exception). If you're a Rogue with no tricks like Invisibility or Shield up your sleeve, and require proximity to your target (in 3E sneak attack was limited to 30 ft range I believe), you'd better bring unheard-of DPS to justify bringing such a frail chassis within range of the monsters.

Giving Rogues magic is not the solution. I personally am sick and tired of solving balance issues by giving everybody magic.

Giving Rogues supernatural stealth abilities is not the solution either. Again, that only encourages the player to take actions that isn't compatible to spotlight-sharing group play. Which is what D&D is all about.

That is, I don't want to see the Rogues getting evasion and stuff as justification for medium damage. The whole point should be that the rest of the group should have "keeping the Rogue alive" as a goal, so his top notch DPS keeps flowing. Giving the Rogues the ability to save themselves defeats this purpose!

(Thinking of the Moon class in Gloomhaven. Talk about the perfect example! Yes he's powerful. And yet so boring! Why? Because he doesn't play well in a group)

I'm still waiting for the time where the Rogue isn't held back by old concerns of legacy or realism.

This is why we're still waiting patiently for the idea that "Rogues get pickpocketing and whatnot, so they should be seond-tier combatants" finally goes away. Sure, give me detect traps or open locks but don't expect me to accept even the smallest reduction in combat ability to pay for it. Those abilities benefit the group, so if there is a price to pay, the whole group should pay it.

The notion Rogues steal for themselves is simply again something that D&D isn't about. We vanquish monsters and loot their hoards together. That the Rogue can burglarize homes is an entirely background ability. Just like any other character, having an "income while not adventuring" statistic is fine. Such income should always remain entirely dwarfed by adventuring income. And the Rogue doesn't get to do solo adventures! There is no fun in giving Rogues more gold and more magic items just because he puts himself before the group. Again that's directly counter to the D&D experience.

How could an official version of D&D be irrelevant to that?

I don't believe you have missed my posts on this subject, and I do not intend this thread to be about 4E, so I will simply ask you to scroll back and read what I wrote again.

I also missed that point, too, but it sounds interesting. Shifted in what way, and how is that shift apparent?

Sigh.

You come across as not having read anything I have written.

Know what, I'm not going to repeat it. If that makes you think I consider you sealioning the thread, so be it.

If not, feel free to ask questions that follow-up on my existing posts.

I totally give 5e credit where it's due:

Assuming you don't mean "nothing" you forgot to actually give any credit...

 

[Jacob Lewis]

No matter what edition, version, off-shoot, or ruleset, D&D (and by extension any game like D&D) will always suffer from one thing: baggage in the form of rabid fans who have seen too many versions of the same system flawed by countless designers and over analyzed in forum discussions. Everybody wants something different. But there's always that vocal minority that believes they speak for the silent majority happily playing the way they want at their own table.

No matter what happens, PF2 will be a fine game. It will draw fans, old and new. And draw criticisms and complaints from the same fans who are never happy unless they get exactly what they want, when they want, the way they want it. Fortunately for the majority of us, we can still choose with whom we share our home table games. And most forums provide an ignore or block feature that we can control for our own peice of mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No version of D&D have come even close to giving Rogues the DPS crown.

DPS is a pretty significant thing to make the bailiwick of one class - unless you only have a handful of classes. In 4e, for instance, Strikers had the "DPS crown," and the Rogue was a striker. If a Rogue was the only striker in the party, he'd be /the/ top damage-dealer. If he had another Striker rival, it'd be down to build & 'smart play' between them.

Except for 4E, no version of D&D have provided any real crowd control abilities to Fighters.

The 3.x 'battlefield control' range of fighter builds using reach, combat reflexes, & improved trip provided a fair amount of control, at least, relative to fighters in AD&D or 5e, add WWA and you could get 'crowd control' in the MMO sense, if I'm following that correctly, too.

Remember, giving the Rogue a (small) edge on Fighters is not interesting in isolation. If Warlocks, say, are even better at DPS, the point still gets lost. Remember, the thinking "only magic users get the cool stuff" still holds strong, so even if Warlocks (again, example) only achieve DPS parity that still invalidates the Rogue's claim, given how Warlocks likely do their damage at very long range and might even get even better bonuses (taking 5E as an example: dealing force damage is a huge benefit. Getting riders such as pushback is a medium benefit that at high levels turn into an overwhelming kiting ability)

That's a pretty fair argument for eliminating the rogue, completely. And I'm sure you've laid it out before. By the same token, this isn't the first time I've mentioned that you could prettymuch just merge the fighter and rogue into a single class, with all the toys each has ever gotten in every edition, and not have it exactly break the game, nor even push it's way above Tier 3.

Even though D&D is not at all about "in some battles you have the upper hand, in others I hold it".

That's not what the old saw about non-casters eventually getting to shine when casters run out of spells that you just repeated up-thread is saying?

Giving Rogues magic is not the solution. I personally am sick and tired of solving balance issues by giving everybody magic.

It's not like it's ever worked too well, anyway. You could, in theory, festoon a TSR era fighter or thief with enough magic items to keep him relevant alongside casters, but it was a matter of DM fiat. 4e did come quite close to solving most balance issues, but not by giving everyone magic - indeed, you could flip the inherent bonus switch and not use magic items, at all, leaving only the Ritual feat as a means for non-casters to acquire magical options. Even in 5e, which has come closest to giving everyone magic, by giving every /class/ at least one magic-wielding sub-class, and even just considering those sub-classes, balance is pretty poor.

The notion Rogues steal for themselves is simply again something that D&D isn't about.

The early game sure got played that way, quite a lot. EGG often presented it that way, too. As a giant treasure-hunting exercise where PCs were rivals working together out of necessity while each trying to maximize their own personal gain.

This is why we're still waiting patiently for the idea that "Rogues get pickpocketing and whatnot, so they should be seond-tier combatants" finally goes away. Sure, give me detect traps or open locks but don't expect me to accept even the smallest reduction in combat ability to pay for it. Those abilities benefit the group, so if there is a price to pay, the whole group should pay it.

I'm neither feeling nor getting a 'patiently' vibe, here.

But, seriously, once you bring the rogue up into the DPS stratosphere, you have to ask why it gets all those cool little out of combat toys and the fighter, even if he's up on the TANK promontory at comparable elevation, doesn't?