Aldarc
Legend
CapnZapp, why do you keep letting your @$$ do all the talking when it comes to PF2?
When will you get it in your head that this is a complete non-issue for probably the hypermajority of players?
Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
CapnZapp
Legend
Honestly, it appears you're the only one, based on how you, and you alone, respond to my every post on the subject, always trying to make it about me, rather than the topic discussed.
(And, no, you won't get answers this time either...
)(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
How does the lack of attacks of opportunity work? While I'm happy to hear people won't be wasting time walking spiral patterns to avoid getting hit extra times, what prevents a monster from just walking past the fighter and hitting the wizard?
CapnZapp
Legend
In 5E, the main reason monsters attack frontliners and not backbenchers isn't attacks of opportunities.
It is the simple fact the Wizards stay more than 30 ft back. If the monster must choose between only moving (wasting its Multiattack) and actually attacking someone within reach, they choose the latter 9 times out of 10.
The only gameplay tactic that doesn't really work anymore because 5E simplified attacks of opportunity (unless the Fighter takes Sentinel etc) is the one where the Wizard stays only 10 or 20 feet behind the front-line while still expecting to not get attacked. Not a big loss IMO!
It is the simple fact the Wizards stay more than 30 ft back. If the monster must choose between only moving (wasting its Multiattack) and actually attacking someone within reach, they choose the latter 9 times out of 10.
The only gameplay tactic that doesn't really work anymore because 5E simplified attacks of opportunity (unless the Fighter takes Sentinel etc) is the one where the Wizard stays only 10 or 20 feet behind the front-line while still expecting to not get attacked. Not a big loss IMO!
Matrix Sorcica
Hero
5c) Requiring feats to even be able to do combat trade offs, like taking a penalty to hit to gain a bonus to damage. This 3.x/PF1 thing needs to die in a fire. This especially targets martials, ime.
Arilyn
Hero
Honestly, it appears you're the only one, based on how you, and you alone, respond to my every post on the subject, always trying to make it about me, rather than the topic discussed.
(And, no, you won't get answers this time either...)
I'll answer. Paizo does not expect to recapture the eminence of PF1 because that was an unusual situation. Pazio knows trying to directly compete with WOTC is foolish. They have updated their game, because 1st edition is old. The panic coming from PF fans is normal. There has also been a lot of excitement. Copying 5e would be a big mistake, as there is already a hugely popular 5e out there with the advantage of carrying the D&D label.
I don't think not having a perfect balance between casters and non-casters is going to kill the game. It really isn't a huge issue for most players, anymore than any of the other imbalances rampant in F20 games. Except 13th Age. It's darn near perfect.
CapnZapp
Legend
Thank you for replying.
I fear Paizo isn't sufficiently aware 5E is the new gold standard, having taught a generation of gamers that you can have good D&D fun without casters utterly eclipsing martials, and that most of it's upcoming customers will balk if LFQW is alive and well.
We'll see, not on August 1, but when players have started to fully grok the system. I fear any checks on caster dominance Paizo might have added is too little once minmaxers learn how to circumvent them...
No game is perfect, but there's a darn big difference between 3E and 5E, say.
I think this is chiefly because most players play 5E and wasn't around (or doesn't care to remember) the dark old days of 3E. And the (from Paizo's point of view) vocal PF1 community doesn't demand it either - how could they, they haven't seen anything remotely resembling caster-martial equality...
I fear Paizo isn't sufficiently aware 5E is the new gold standard, having taught a generation of gamers that you can have good D&D fun without casters utterly eclipsing martials, and that most of it's upcoming customers will balk if LFQW is alive and well.
We'll see, not on August 1, but when players have started to fully grok the system. I fear any checks on caster dominance Paizo might have added is too little once minmaxers learn how to circumvent them...
Arilyn
Hero
Dark old days of 3e seems a little extreme. Makes it sound like players were floundering around in the dark ages, until the glorious renaissance of 5e.
5e is fun and is way easier to GM. I appreciate that. On the other hand, it's a little to safe? Homogenous? Bland? Not sure. I miss things like mummy rot, and scary poison. Too many things were also sacrificed for simplicity. And way too many spells casters, and I really don't like wizards/sorcerers etc. running around blasting things as if they were armed with some kind of never ending blast rod. Some critics call 5e kindergarten D&D, and although, I don't agree entirely with this sentiment, PF2 could offer an alternative, even if wizards aren't perfectly balanced. What does LFQW stand for anyway?
I'm concerned about character generation, since that's my favourite part of PF. I can see adopting the rules of play, which so far, I do like, but using the old character classes.
Anyway, I agree, we'll have to just wait and see. And of course, there's 13th Age!
Remathilis
Legend
Linear fighter, quadratic wizard. It's a critique of older D&D that says while a fighter's power progresses linearly (more HP, more attacks/damage) a caster's power goes up quadratically (more spells, better spells, spells they have improve effects) so that while a fighter at higher level might do the same things he did a lower level but better, a high level wizard does more things better than he could have done at low level, overshadowing the fighter in terms of versatility and strength.
