Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?

Aldarc said:

I think that's fine to wait then, but I don't think that determines the quality of the edition. There were a number of tables that were still finishing their games of 4e and PF1 past 2014 before switching to 5e (my own table included). It would seem silly to argue that this would represent a valid indictment against 5e.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure, using that as an attack against the system as a whole is absolutely a crappy argument. (Just like "But it doesn't have druids or bards" was a crappy argument against 4e.)

But "I don't find a lot of the features of the new system that compelling, especially when my current edition has a lot more options, so I'm not enthused to switch" is valid.

TwoSix said:

But "I don't find a lot of the features of the new system that compelling, especially when my current edition has a lot more options, so I'm not enthused to switch" is valid.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and that is certainly what a lot of people who were playing 3.X when PF1 came out did.

What gives me some optimism about PF2 in comparison to PF1 on that front, IMHO, is that it looks like a more robust foundation for expanding new character options than what Paizo was previously using. PF1 had alternate class features (i.e., archetypes), prestige classes, multiclassing, and hybrid classes, but if PF2 is able to condense all of that into a singular Archetype system, that's potentially a huge step forward in design space that this opens. It's similar to what 5e achieved with its subclass system. PF2 may partially even achieve what some people had wanted for 5e: cross-class archetypes/subclasses.

Aldarc said:

Agreed, and that is certainly what a lot of people who were playing 3.X when PF1 came out did.

What gives me some optimism about PF2 in comparison to PF1 on that front, IMHO, is that it looks like a more robust foundation for expanding new character options than what Paizo was previously using. PF1 had alternate class features (i.e., archetypes), prestige classes, multiclassing, and hybrid classes, but if PF2 is able to condense all of that into a singular Archetype system, that's potentially a huge step forward in design space that this opens. It's similar to what 5e achieved with its subclass system. PF2 may partially even achieve what some people had wanted for 5e: cross-class archetypes/subclasses.

Click to expand...

Sure; you could certainly argue that all of the multiclass archetypes are already cross-class archetypes, so it should be easy to add more. They'd just be of the type "Replace Class Feat X with options from this different pool of Feats." But the fact that there are fixed class features means that alternate class features that are specific replacements of those fixed features will no doubt be introduced, it's kind of the Pathfinder way.

What'll be interesting is if they can do "Replace your level 3 feature, whatever it is, with this feature instead." as a kind of cross-class alternative feature. I don't think the class design is homogenous enough for that to be feasible. I could see features that replace higher-tier armor or weapon proficiencies with something else for martial classes, or trading in spell slot(s) for a feature for casting classes, as examples of cross-class archetypes.

TwoSix said:

Oh, sure, using that as an attack against the system as a whole is absolutely a crappy argument. (Just like "But it doesn't have druids or bards" was a crappy argument against 4e.).

Click to expand...

I want to agree with you here, but I think it's apples and oranges.

Pathfinder is including all the core classes from the Core Rulebook plus alchemist. That means that the same types of characters you could make using just core rules in PF1 are all makeable in PF2. Sure, there is no gunslinger, witch or summoner, but those were add on classes in PF1 as well.

However, it took 4e 3 years and 3 PHBs to reproduce the 11 base classes in the 3e PHB. And thanks to basing class choice on power source, it meant new classes like warden, invoker, warlord, and warlock got prioritized over bard, druid, sorcerer, and monk.

The smartest thing 5e did was attempt to get all the default D&D classes into the PHB. Some of them were subs for other classes, and I'm not getting into the battle master/warlord debate, but at least 5e didn't make us wait to have all the core classes from the previous editions.

TwoSix said:

I mean, losing out on currently existing options is a pretty valid argument against making any almost any edition switch.

Click to expand...

I assume you're still playing OD&D then?

In other words, no it isn't

Aldarc said:

What gives me some optimism about PF2 in comparison to PF1 on that front, IMHO, is that it looks like a more robust foundation for expanding new character options than what Paizo was previously using. PF1 had alternate class features (i.e., archetypes), prestige classes, multiclassing, and hybrid classes, but if PF2 is able to condense all of that into a singular Archetype system, that's potentially a huge step forward in design space that this opens.

Click to expand...

Robust maybe, but bigger design space? No, there's no reason unification changes the design space. If anything, having to adhere to one set of parameters instead of three(?) means fewer opportunities, not more.

But ease of use, robustness, balance...? Sure.

It's similar to what 5e achieved with its subclass system. PF2 may partially even achieve what some people had wanted for 5e: cross-class archetypes/subclasses.

Click to expand...

The subclass concept as implemented in 5E is much restricted compared to the prestige class concept. You must start the subclass at a given point, as opposed to multiclassing into a prestige class pretty much at any time. Only a single class can pick a given subclass, as opposed to (theoretically) any class multiclassing into a given prestige class. You can only subclass once per class, as opposed to (theoretically) picking a new prestige class every level.

Am I saying an unified approach is wrong or bad? No.

Just saying the 5E subclass design was probably an overreaction, much like many concepts in 5E was oversimplified because the devs were terrified their game would come across as "too difficult" and meet the same fate as their previous edition.

Remathilis said:

I want to agree with you here, but I think it's apples and oranges.

Pathfinder is including all the core classes from the Core Rulebook plus alchemist. That means that the same types of characters you could make using just core rules in PF1 are all makeable in PF2. Sure, there is no gunslinger, witch or summoner, but those were add on classes in PF1 as well.

However, it took 4e 3 years and 3 PHBs to reproduce the 11 base classes in the 3e PHB. And thanks to basing class choice on power source, it meant new classes like warden, invoker, warlord, and warlock got prioritized over bard, druid, sorcerer, and monk.

The smartest thing 5e did was attempt to get all the default D&D classes into the PHB. Some of them were subs for other classes, and I'm not getting into the battle master/warlord debate, but at least 5e didn't make us wait to have all the core classes from the previous editions.

Click to expand...

My argument is simply that "what's core" shouldn't matter. "What's available" should be the metric used to make the decision.

If your favorite classes aren't present in PF2 in 2019, and you don't want to switch because they aren't there, that's fine.

If your favorite classes are available in an expansion book in 2020, and you still don't to switch because they didn't make those classes in the core book, that's a crappy argument.

CapnZapp said:

I assume you're still playing OD&D then?

In other words, no it isn't

Click to expand...

Well, I started playing with 2E, so it would be tough for me to still be playing OD&D.

But yes, any decision made on preferences like class is a valid argument. It might not be a compelling argument for most people, but it makes sense as an aesthetic preference.

CapnZapp said:

Robust maybe, but bigger design space? No, there's no reason unification changes the design space. If anything, having to adhere to one set of parameters instead of three(?) means fewer opportunities, not more.

But ease of use, robustness, balance...? Sure.

Click to expand...

I think what you are saying is true from a technical point. PF1 simply had more decision-making paths, variables, and moving parts flying around: e.g., prestige classes, archetypes, multiclassing, etc. However, this strikes me more as the illusion of greater design space, because a lot of these various components were performing the same functions with redundancy. There may have been a "detective" archetype for the bard, a different one for the fighter, one for the rogue, one for the investigator, one for the ranger, etc., alongside detective PrCs (one oriented towards bard, another fighter,...) and you could mix and match these so you were a detective bard who multiclassed with the detective investigator. But this mostly reflects the fact that Paizo was often re-creating similar ideas over and over. So I'm not sure if this truly reflects greater design space.

We could even, for example, look at actual floor space. You could have a hypothetical room that is 5m x 5m (so 25 square meters) and another that has 1m x 30m (so 30 square meters). While the latter room may have greater floor space from a technical perspective, we would probably regard the former as having a more open floor space in terms of what we could do with that room. I view the changes that Paizo is making in PF2 along the lines of the former: there is more practical open floor space for design purposes than there was previously even if there is less technical floor space.

So let's take the earlier Detective example. You could reinvent the wheel for a handful of classes with archetypes for each or a prestige class or two that covers the idea, or you can provide a singular Detective archetype that is available for every class to take. And if I dislike their detective archetype, and then make my own, that combination is now also open and available for every class and not just a handful.

I dunno if this thread covers it, but one of the reasons I liked PF1 was it’s broad compatibility with 3.5 and 3.0. Not only adventures and monsters but even splatbooks and classes. In fact it was MORE important at the time. I looked at other games but it was among the best for backwards compatibility. PF2 in the playtest was far from that kind of ideal, as far as I could tell. And I haven’t really seen anything fixing that.