I have no idea, though perhaps others on the board have heard...?
Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
I have no idea, though perhaps others on the board have heard...?
I think they will have some. I know for certain that one of the designers has confirmed the GMG will have a variant rule for decoupling item quality from magicalness while the two are conflated in the base game. I'd be surprised if that was the extent.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Look, I am not someone who agrees with CapnZapp all the time. Goodness knows I am not. But his reply to you looked completely reasonable. I mean, I get you disagree with him, but there was nothing outside of normal conversational difference of opinion in what he said, from what I can see.
And I disagree with you about that hyper-majority line. It's a real issue. It's one WOTC has written articles about. It's come up in topics here for 20 years now, and on the WOTC boards, and on Reddit, and other message boards. It might not be as important to some as it is to others, but it's a real, rational issue a meaningful number of people care about.
I'm giving the game a shot. The playtest was a mixed bag.
Good
1. Action system is a lot more fluid and flexible.
2. Cantrips: I like casters being able to do magical damage rather than have a dagger or crossbow when out of spells.
3. Monsters seem flexible and powerful. Not as watered down as 5E.
4. AoOs toned down substantially which I prefer.
The bad:
1. So far classes seem kind of boring. That's my biggest worry is the way classes seem very watered down, boring, uninspired, and depowered. If the classes don't play well, game is likely to die since classes are biggest element drawing players to the game. We played up to level 5 in eight different classes and they seemed pretty boring. You gained a lot of uninspired, watered down, boring abilities. I hope the finished game has much better and more powerful options. The reality is people played Pathfinder because it retained 3Es powerful feeling class design. Pathfinder 2 seems to have moved in the 5E generic direction. Not sure that is great for the Pathfinder fans who stayed for the robust, interesting, and powerful feel of the characters.
We're going to give it a shot. See what they do with it.
Good
1. Action system is a lot more fluid and flexible.
2. Cantrips: I like casters being able to do magical damage rather than have a dagger or crossbow when out of spells.
3. Monsters seem flexible and powerful. Not as watered down as 5E.
4. AoOs toned down substantially which I prefer.
The bad:
1. So far classes seem kind of boring. That's my biggest worry is the way classes seem very watered down, boring, uninspired, and depowered. If the classes don't play well, game is likely to die since classes are biggest element drawing players to the game. We played up to level 5 in eight different classes and they seemed pretty boring. You gained a lot of uninspired, watered down, boring abilities. I hope the finished game has much better and more powerful options. The reality is people played Pathfinder because it retained 3Es powerful feeling class design. Pathfinder 2 seems to have moved in the 5E generic direction. Not sure that is great for the Pathfinder fans who stayed for the robust, interesting, and powerful feel of the characters.
We're going to give it a shot. See what they do with it.
MichaelSomething
Legend
The hyper-majority of people don't prefer Gnomes but kick them off the PHB and you have a freakin' riot in the comments.
CapnZapp
Legend
This is interesting.
I cannot fathom why and how Paizo seems to go in the direction of 4E with lots of measured (=bland) "samey-feeling" powers, when that is what made 4E bomb.
Especially since they have 5E to look at, where people aren't complaining (about player abilities; defanged monsters is another thing).
It boggles the mind why Paizo would end up with something that draws comparisons to the failed edition while trying to avoid comparisons to the wildly successful and well-regarded one...
Aldarc
Legend
It boggles my mind that this is the conclusion you reach when the person you are quoting is comparing this to 5e without once mentioning 4e.This is interesting.
It boggles the mind why Paizo would end up with something that draws comparisons to the failed edition while trying to avoid comparisons to the wildly successful and well-regarded one...
Caliburn101
Explorer
Only a little sillier than paying a company to contribute to their product playtesting development phase.
CapnZapp
Legend
I simply thought it was a misspelling.It boggles my mind that this is the conclusion you reach when the person you are quoting is comparing this to 5e without once mentioning 4e.
4E is the edition infamous for a deluge of "balanced" but ultimately forgettable powers and items.
5E is much more like 3.x in allowing real power to your selections, so your choices feel like they make a difference. (That said, expansion content is much less impressive; mostly just rehashing existing powers while introducing few to no new mechanics. So you're right, he could have meant that)
