Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

Zardnaar · Apr 21, 2019

CapnZapp said:
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!

Its sort of where I am heading with my hombrew. Uses the 5E engine and numbers but things like Fort/Ref/Will from 3E, 5E DCs, and it has microfeats. Uses B/X xp though, no archetypes (build your own with feats), and the Fighter is kind of like the Chamion from 5E, tweaked and mixed with elements of 3E and AD&D (scaling saves, feat every second level). Its raw at the moment and only has 5 incomplete classes (aiming for 8).

Staffan · Apr 22, 2019

Jester David said:
I’d like to see assumed builds. Basically assumed default paths for characters. So people who dislike character building (aka homework before playing) can just sit down and roll dice. But with options that you can swap out for different options.

I'm hoping to see something along the lines of what they did for Starfinder, where each class comes with four builds that show some things you could make with the class. For example, the Operative class has Hacker, Investigator, Thief, and Trailblazer. Each build lists a suggested background, ability score prioritization, specialization, class abilities, spells (where applicable), feats, and skills. It's not quite enough to just pick up and go, but it does channel you in a particular direction.

Retreater · Apr 22, 2019

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

To be fair, I think the only edition of D&D to get close to balancing fighters and wizards is 4th edition. And we all know how that went. So I think everyone is more than okay with there being vast differences in power level among fighters and casters. (5E doesn't do a significant better job at balance than 3.x/PF did.)

Zardnaar · Apr 22, 2019

5E not perfect but its a lot better than 3.X. Concentration, less spell slots and less powerful spells, no cheap wands and scrolls.

I don't think most people care about balance relative to how easy the game is to play.

Jason Bulmahn · Apr 22, 2019

Chiming in here...

Making Pathfinder easier to play, with less fiddly exception-based mechanics, was one of our big goals. We wanted everyone to be able to learn a relatively simple core of the game (the proficiency system, three action combat, and the basic actions that go along with it), and then allow their character choices, their decisions guide the level of complexity that they experience at the table. Want a bunch of techy combat options, pick those. Want a simpler skill character, no problem. Want a spell caster with a number of different ways to cast spells, we got you covered. Its all about what you want from the game.

Only time will tell if we fully met those goals, but I think the final version is incredibly smooth if you need it to be, but still crunchy for those who want it without impacting everyone at the table.

TwoSix · Apr 23, 2019

Retreater said:
To be fair, I think the only edition of D&D to get close to balancing fighters and wizards is 4th edition. And we all know how that went. So I think everyone is more than okay with there being vast differences in power level among fighters and casters. (5E doesn't do a significant better job at balance than 3.x/PF did.)

As someone who's pretty crunch oriented and has played a good amount of 3.5/PF, 4e, and 5e, I'd only partly agree. 4e is certainly the most balanced, but 5e has much better balance for casters than 3.5/PF, even if you only do 1 or 2 combats per long rest. Concentration and the relative nerfing of a lot of utility spells sets to that.

TwoSix · Apr 23, 2019

GreyLord said:
This idea that Rogues = Combat class just as good as a warrior is kind of a weird obsession of TTRPGs and specifically D&D in the past few years. Rogues may not stink in combat, but normally the Warrior far exceeds almost any rogue in actual combat.

It isn't really a TTRPG thing, I think it's MMO concepts influencing the archetype. 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.

Also worth noting that Final Fantasy hasn't had a Thief character as a secondary combatant since Zidane in FFIX. The thief job in FFXI is melee damage oriented, as is the rogue job in FFXIV. Seems like a classic case of archetype shift, much like druids going from nature priests into being identified primarily as shapeshifters.

MockingBird · Apr 23, 2019

It's a pretty fair assumption that mmo's made an impact on the ttrpg rouge and other classes. It was the emphasis on roles really. I dont like it but it is what it is. I look at it like this, if I'm a brand new player and I'm browsing the classes. I'm not going to automatically look at the fighter and think defense, I'm not gonna automatically think damage dealer when I see rouge and so on. "Roles" were really emphasized in 4e and that was a big turn off to me personally.

CapnZapp · Apr 23, 2019

Retreater said:
To be fair, I think the only edition of D&D to get close to balancing fighters and wizards is 4th edition. And we all know how that went. So I think everyone is more than okay with there being vast differences in power level among fighters and casters. (5E doesn't do a significant better job at balance than 3.x/PF did.)

No, this is only you attempting to relativizing the issue. Nobody is interested in 4E here. I'm not looking for perfect equality, and the choice isn't between boring sameness and unbridled inequality.

It makes me think you maybe don't know of the myriad of changes to spells and spellcasters performed by 5E, that comprehensively ground them compared to 3.x?

Anyway, certainly plenty of d20/Pathfinder fans find it inconceivable that you can rein in spellcasters without losing their soul (like 4E). To return on topic, my fear is that the Paizo PF2 team belongs to that category. Despite 5E clearly proving it can be done.

CapnZapp · Apr 23, 2019

Zardnaar said:
5E not perfect but its a lot better than 3.X. Concentration, less spell slots and less powerful spells, no cheap wands and scrolls.

TwoSix said:
As someone who's pretty crunch oriented and has played a good amount of 3.5/PF, 4e, and 5e, I'd only partly agree. 4e is certainly the most balanced, but 5e has much better balance for casters than 3.5/PF, even if you only do 1 or 2 combats per long rest. Concentration and the relative nerfing of a lot of utility spells sets to that.

Thank you both.