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

Celtavian · Jul 22, 2019

Green Onceler said:
Do the rules really encourage that style of play? Or, perhaps, is that just a style of play many people enjoy?

I have frequently seen Pathfinder criticised for its many "trap options" that were supposedly underpowered. If Paizo were all about pushing the perfect build on the bleeding edge of optimisation, why would they publish so many "traps"?

Personally, I prefer flavour over optimisation. And Pathfinder allows me a far greater palette of flavours than 5e.

Which brings me to one of my primary concerns with the new edition, the flavour or aesthetic. A lot of the new art has left me cold. Gimmicky "comical" goblins pushed more to the fore. A lot of Paizo's original flavour also didn't appeal me, but it seems the new game is veering further in directions I do not appreciate aesthetically. I shall approach with caution.

I think some players enjoy that style of play. My friends who are my players definitely fall into that category as do I. Lots of options, rules, strategies, and a stronger emphasis on pseudo-reality appeals to some of us.

I think 5E is a good game. I don't actively dislike it like I did 4E. I think 5E was fun for a while. I think you can have fun playing it. I see why it appeals to a wide audience. Seeing my buddies' kids enjoying 5E creating a new generation of gamers is great. His kids love it. He has an easy time running them through it. I see tons of girls getting into 5E, way more than when I was young. I think 5E made the game far more accessible while still being fun to a much wider audience. I think that was the design goal and a very successful goal. The big dog D&D doing well is good for the market as a whole in my opinion.

My gaming group's preference for a more complex system that is still well supported is a matter of personal preference. I hope PF2 is fun, while cleaning up some the problems with PF1 like playability at higher level and damage scaling.

Matrix Sorcica · Jul 22, 2019

Green Onceler said:
I have frequently seen Pathfinder criticised for its many "trap options" that were supposedly underpowered. If Paizo were all about pushing the perfect build on the bleeding edge of optimisation, why would they publish so many "traps"?

Bad rules design? I mean, some of the feats, classes and other options have made you worse at what they should improve, and that's not mentioning the openly admitted trap options (some weapons should be inferior because that's realistic). So, imo a combination of shoddy rules design and a certain bias among some of the designers.

Remathilis · Jul 22, 2019

Green Onceler said:
Do the rules really encourage that style of play? Or, perhaps, is that just a style of play many people enjoy?

I have frequently seen Pathfinder criticised for its many "trap options" that were supposedly underpowered. If Paizo were all about pushing the perfect build on the bleeding edge of optimisation, why would they publish so many "traps"?

Personally, I prefer flavour over optimisation. And Pathfinder allows me a far greater palette of flavours than 5e.

Which brings me to one of my primary concerns with the new edition, the flavour or aesthetic. A lot of the new art has left me cold. Gimmicky "comical" goblins pushed more to the fore. A lot of Paizo's original flavour also didn't appeal me, but it seems the new game is veering further in directions I do not appreciate aesthetically. I shall approach with caution.

I'll answer the question by referencing another game: Magic the Gathering. Each new set contains 200+ new or reprinted cards, but in each set less than 20 of them are actually "good" for constructing a deck. The remainder is either used for draft play, and some are intentionally bad as traps to teach newer players how to assess the value of a card. In essence, they are traps.

Paizo does something similar in Pathfinder, which they learned from WotC during 3e. Sometimes an option is subpar because part of the game was learning those traps and avoiding them. It's part of the metagame. Now, not all options are intentionally bad, some after goofs or just bad design, but others are there to make charops play possible. In other words, Paizo makes traps because some players like finding and avoiding them.

The rise of internet guides from red to sky blue were a result of finding traps and avoiding them, but also finding synergies (intended and not) to exploit. And as the game was "solved" from the charbuild standpoint, much like how MTG deck lists must be changed to remain fresh, new options were added to appease the solvers, while changes were made to monsters and adventures to accommodate the solved builds.

Nothing illustrates this better than something that happened a few years back; Paizo introduced a "core only" variant to the Pathfinder Society and there were people complaining that the latter scenarios of PFS would be unplayable with just Core Rulebook PC's because those modules were designed for PC's with options for newer rulebooks. I think that best sums up Paizo's predicament and why a 2e was going to need to exist sooner or later.

Celtavian · Jul 23, 2019

PF1 produced a lot of subpar options and options that were far too good. Nature of game design. 5E has them too, just not as many. Every edition had rules options that were awful or too good. It's hard to hit that sweet spot.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 23, 2019

Green Onceler said:
Do the rules really encourage that style of play? Or, perhaps, is that just a style of play many people enjoy?

The rules encourage this style of play, by giving such a large benefit to those who play in this manner. By letting an optimized character be so much more powerful than a less-optimized one, it encourages players to optimize. If the gap wasn't as overwhelming, then it would be less horrible to make a non-optimized character.

Green Onceler said:
I have frequently seen Pathfinder criticised for its many "trap options" that were supposedly underpowered. If Paizo were all about pushing the perfect build on the bleeding edge of optimisation, why would they publish so many "traps"?

Trap options are included in order to make players feel smarter for recognizing them as what they are. When a player realizes that Improved Channel is junk, and Spell Focus is amazing, then they are (theoretically) happy about making the "correct" choice. If every option was equally useful, then players wouldn't have any way to grow their system mastery - an experienced player would have no advantage over a novice player, so they'd be less-inclined to spend the time an effort to get better.

Green Onceler said:
Personally, I prefer flavour over optimisation. And Pathfinder allows me a far greater palette of flavours than 5e.

Maybe Pathfinder gives you more options, but I can't say the same for myself. Since 99% of options in Pathfinder are traps, and I'm not willing to shoot myself in the foot, I actually find that I have far more real options with 5E.

After all, in 5E, I have the freedom to play a fighter if I'm so inclined. Trying to play a fighter in Pathfinder is an invitation to sit on the sideline while the real heroes use magic to solve everything.

Celtavian · Jul 23, 2019

Saelorn said:
After all, in 5E, I have the freedom to play a fighter if I'm so inclined. Trying to play a fighter in Pathfinder is an invitation to sit on the sideline while the real heroes use magic to solve everything.

Fighter is apparently a lot better in PF2. My buddy is saying it's a powerful class now. We shall see.

I know magic is weaker overall much like 5E. Set durations and saves are much tighter in this edition. No more +6 and +12. Spells aren't as powerful. The overall effect seems to have brought martial and casters closer in power like 5E.

Green Onceler · Jul 23, 2019

Saelorn said:
Since 99% of options in Pathfinder are traps

99%? Okay, then. Personally, I find arguing over RPG systems fairly tiresome. We like what we like. It is particularly tiresome when people pull out clearly ridiculous "statistics" to back up their personal preferences.

Saelorn said:
After all, in 5E, I have the freedom to play a fighter if I'm so inclined. Trying to play a fighter in Pathfinder is an invitation to sit on the sideline while the real heroes use magic to solve everything.

Well, this hasn't been my experience with Pathfinder. I think I'll just leave it at that.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 23, 2019

Green Onceler said:
99%? Okay, then. Personally, I find arguing over RPG systems fairly tiresome. We like what we like. It is particularly tiresome when people pull out clearly ridiculous "statistics" to back up their personal preferences.

If you can't criticize, then you can't optimize. For Pathfinder 2 to be a good game, they need to identify everywhere that PF1 came up short, and I'm not convinced that they've done that.

And seriously, to say that only 99% of feats are traps is being extremely generous. There are thousands of feats out there, and a given character only gets about a dozen of them. There might be a couple of dozen serious contenders for your first feat, but by the time you've chosen your first three, most of the remaining choices become non-viable. It's a big problem.

Arilyn · Jul 23, 2019

Green Onceler said:
99%? Okay, then. Personally, I find arguing over RPG systems fairly tiresome. We like what we like. It is particularly tiresome when people pull out clearly ridiculous "statistics" to back up their personal preferences.

Well, this hasn't been my experience with Pathfinder. I think I'll just leave it at that.

There has always been a lot of hyperbole surrounding PF. It's horribly broken, it's for power gamers, it requires great system mastery, it's full of traps for the unwary, etc., etc. The PF fans I know love the game because it gives them the freedom to create a wide variety of characters, for story reasons, not metagaming. Of course, there's going to be min/maxers. It's a F20 game, after all.

The gang at Paizo are good people, with a solid reputation, especially with freelancers. There is no nefarious plot to feed power gamer addiction, no money grabbing tactics, other than a need to keep their company going. They love rpgs and are genuinely wanting to update their old system. That's it.

PF1 isn't perfect. I was finding it onerous to GM, and I haven't been playing it of late. I'm concerned about the character system in PF2, as it feels like it might be a lot more constrained. I'm hoping for the best, and am certainly going to give PF2 a spin. I had many years enjoyment with PF, and wish Paizo the best.

billd91 · Jul 23, 2019

Remathilis said:
I'll answer the question by referencing another game: Magic the Gathering. Each new set contains 200+ new or reprinted cards, but in each set less than 20 of them are actually "good" for constructing a deck. The remainder is either used for draft play, and some are intentionally bad as traps to teach newer players how to assess the value of a card. In essence, they are traps.

Paizo does something similar in Pathfinder, which they learned from WotC during 3e. Sometimes an option is subpar because part of the game was learning those traps and avoiding them. It's part of the metagame. Now, not all options are intentionally bad, some after goofs or just bad design, but others are there to make charops play possible. In other words, Paizo makes traps because some players like finding and avoiding them.

The rise of internet guides from red to sky blue were a result of finding traps and avoiding them, but also finding synergies (intended and not) to exploit. And as the game was "solved" from the charbuild standpoint, much like how MTG deck lists must be changed to remain fresh, new options were added to appease the solvers, while changes were made to monsters and adventures to accommodate the solved builds.

Nothing illustrates this better than something that happened a few years back; Paizo introduced a "core only" variant to the Pathfinder Society and there were people complaining that the latter scenarios of PFS would be unplayable with just Core Rulebook PC's because those modules were designed for. PC's with options for newer rulebooks. I think that best sums up Paizo's predicament and why a 2e was going to need to exist sooner or later.

This is pretty much a big load of baloney and largely based on a badly misinterpreted article by Monte Cook. WotC did not include trap options in 3.5, nor does Paizo include them in Pathfinder. There are options that work for some purposes, styles of play, styles of campaigns, that don't work for others. The trick isn't to "avoid the traps" as much as figure out which ones work right for your own campaigns and the styles of play you prefer. The classic example that Monte Cook used was the toughness feat - which frankly sucked for PCs, but was perfectly reasonable for the DM to use in NPC creation. It wasn't a "trap" option or a Timmy card - it was a tool useful for certain contexts - not so much for others. Cook lamented that they didn't put enough effort into explaining those contexts because they led to people thinking they were traps... when they were not.

And, honestly, Core only PFS is fairly popular, even with more recent seasons. Core exists, in no small part, to keep the complexity down to a more manageable level by limiting the number of resources involved. PFS scenarios don't require or expect PCs from more recent rulebooks in order to be successful.

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

Celtavian

Dragon Lord

Matrix Sorcica

Hero

Remathilis

Legend

Celtavian

Dragon Lord

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Celtavian

Dragon Lord

Green Onceler

Explorer

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Arilyn

Hero

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Similar Threads