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

MoonSong · Jul 11, 2019

TwoSix said:
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.

It all depends on context, it isn't a clear cut black and white issue. In this particular context doesn't matter that badly. But for example, in 5e what's core and what isn't does matter. I still can't have an aasimar divine soul in AL for example, because neither is core!

Core matters, some DMs play with core-only. Some groups demand core-only. Core classes/races receive more attention from devs. Core shapes in what way the edition will unfold. By the end of 4e sorcerers had barely started to come on their own, but core classes had nowhere else to go, so they never received any serious weapon powers for example, they also got very little weapliment support and got completely ignored for rituals. Another example bards in 4e, they where a bit better, but by not being in core there never was a perform skill, so wizards were better at bard rituals than bards!

I really think that not making Witches core was a mistake. I'm still completely in wait and see mode. I like some of the stuff in PF2, but a lot of stuff rubs me the wrong way, it feels rigid and clinic like 4e, but without core competency to go with it. Nothing I couldn't get used to, but I need to see how they handle my favorite class first to see if it is worth it.

MoonSong · Jul 11, 2019

darjr said:
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.

That ship has long sailed, and sank. Nobody survived, and there's nothing left of the shipwreck...

darjr · Jul 11, 2019

MoonSong said:
That ship has long sailed, and sank. Nobody survived, and there's nothing left of the shipwreck...

That’s too bad. I really liked the band.

qstor · Jul 11, 2019

I've played it twice. It plays simpler than PF1. Attacks of opportunity are pretty much gone.

I made one PC and I didn't care for the PC creation process. The "class" feat choices seemed similar to 4e powers to me. I'd prefer the PF1 approach of feats which ALL PCs can chose from.

Resonance is going away which most of my friends are happy about.

Zardnaar · Jul 12, 2019

Playtest was a mess/awful. Played a lot better than it looked.

I think I can see what they were trying to do but I had seen something similar and better with Star Wars Saga.

As far as I could see they were going for unified class progression with alternate class features via options.

So negative playtest experience plus awful outdated art that kind of looked bad in 2008/9 on 4E and PF1 covers.

I'm not big on cartoon like covers. 5E is fairly good in that regard along with the old Easley covers.

I recall WotC doing a lot if peeks leading up to 3.0 and 4E a year out which afaik Paizo hasn't done 2 months out from launch. I remember having a decent idea what the fighter was about pre 3.0 landing. And I remember the 4E elf as well as one of the early 4E reveals.

So yeah that's on Paizo promotion department and whoever thought releasing the playtest in that format was a good idea. One month out from launch what's out there in terms of sneak peeks?

Aldarc · Jul 12, 2019

MoonSong said:
I really think that not making Witches core was a mistake. I'm still completely in wait and see mode. I like some of the stuff in PF2, but a lot of stuff rubs me the wrong way, it feels rigid and clinic like 4e, but without core competency to go with it. Nothing I couldn't get used to, but I need to see how they handle my favorite class first to see if it is worth it.

Not everything would make the cut, and it seems that Paizo wanted to keep it simpler (and reduce the page count) by going Old PHB Classes + 1 New Class. The Witch was a popular class according to Paizo, but the Alchemist gives Paizo the excuse to make alchemy rules less of an afterthought. I am also inclined to regard the Alchemist as being more unique conceptually from the Witch in terms of what it adds to the other PHB classes.

Zardnaar said:
One month out from launch what's out there in terms of sneak peeks?

There was a scavenger hunt from PaizoCon where every attendant received a snippet of information about the final form of PF2. YouTube videos from PaizoCon and their Obsidian Oath campaign run by Jason Bulmahn. There are several articles on Paizo.com where they are making reveals.

Upcoming discussions on Twitch streams

Article: Mark Seifter makes a PF2 character based on one of his PF1 characters

Article: Talking about Game Modes, Treasure, XP and Leveling

Most of this stuff is not entirely new or surprising. I think that Paizo is revealing information about PF2 as if people have not experienced the playtest or seen those previews. So there are changes, but someone from the playtest may also find a lot of the information old hat.

CapnZapp · Jul 12, 2019

MoonSong said:
It all depends on context, it isn't a clear cut black and white issue. In this particular context doesn't matter that badly. But for example, in 5e what's core and what isn't does matter. I still can't have an aasimar divine soul in AL for example, because neither is core!

Core matters, some DMs play with core-only. Some groups demand core-only. Core classes/races receive more attention from devs. Core shapes in what way the edition will unfold. By the end of 4e sorcerers had barely started to come on their own, but core classes had nowhere else to go, so they never received any serious weapon powers for example, they also got very little weapliment support and got completely ignored for rituals. Another example bards in 4e, they where a bit better, but by not being in core there never was a perform skill, so wizards were better at bard rituals than bards!

I really think that not making Witches core was a mistake. I'm still completely in wait and see mode. I like some of the stuff in PF2, but a lot of stuff rubs me the wrong way, it feels rigid and clinic like 4e, but without core competency to go with it. Nothing I couldn't get used to, but I need to see how they handle my favorite class first to see if it is worth it.

I an slightly amused at this sentiment. Recent "core" rulebooks offer well over ten classes, like twelve or fourteen.

Historically, D&D has had four, maybe seven, core classes.

I still feel both 5E and PF2 are downright generous with their core offerings!

Remathilis · Jul 12, 2019

CapnZapp said:
I an slightly amused at this sentiment. Recent "core" rulebooks offer well over ten classes, like twelve or fourteen.

Historically, D&D has had four, maybe seven, core classes.

I still feel both 5E and PF2 are downright generous with their core offerings!

Going by the "first book only" model.

OD&D: 3 (fighting-man, magic-user, cleric)
Basic: 7 (fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user, elf, dwarf, halfling). The Rules Cyclopedia reprinted all the above and added mystic (monk)
Ad&d 1e: 10 (plus bard)
2e: 9 (counting all specialist wizards as one and not counting specialty priests)
3e/Pathfinder: 11
4e: 8
5e: 12
PF2e: 12

CapnZapp · Jul 12, 2019

Remathilis said:
Going by the "first book only" model.

OD&D: 3 (fighting-man, magic-user, cleric)
Basic: 7 (fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user, elf, dwarf, halfling). The Rules Cyclopedia reprinted all the above and added mystic (monk)
Ad&d 1e: 10 (plus bard)
2e: 9 (counting all specialist wizards as one and not counting specialty priests)
3e/Pathfinder: 11
4e: 8
5e: 12
PF2e: 12

Yep. Thanks.

(Of course, if you multiply the 5E races by its classes by its Backgrounds, you'll get a number that blows 1E and 2E out the water

)

MoonSong · Jul 12, 2019

Aldarc said:
Not everything would make the cut, and it seems that Paizo wanted to keep it simpler (and reduce the page count) by going Old PHB Classes + 1 New Class. The Witch was a popular class according to Paizo, but the Alchemist gives Paizo the excuse to make alchemy rules less of an afterthought. I am also inclined to regard the Alchemist as being more unique conceptually from the Witch in terms of what it adds to the other PHB classes.

I think it is a glaring omission because: a) The witch is important in Golarion (the most common non-divine caster) and b) the witch is an obvious primary occult caster, by not having it the bard was square pegged into the tradition and as a primary caster at the expense of other stuff. (IMO primal or arcane fitted better for the bard)