"My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2

Kurviak · Jun 9, 2019

"My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2

Double post

Aldarc · Jun 10, 2019

Retreater said:
I will need to see more before I pay for it again. I'm talking like getting a free PDF of Quick Start Rules and a sample adventure to try.

Our group was not impressed with the Beta, and a lot would have to change before we would invest in the system.

The beta was a heavy-stress test. On a YoutTube video about the playtest from PaizoCon, they kinda outlined that the playtest was partially meant to show the potential problem points in the game.

CapnZapp · Jun 10, 2019

Aldarc said:
The beta was a heavy-stress test. On a YoutTube video about the playtest from PaizoCon, they kinda outlined that the playtest was partially meant to show the potential problem points in the game.

I really hope they abandon the presentation where each class just little more than a soup of feats.

You can have flexibility and options and still paint a strong clear picture of what each class is supposed to be.

Retreater · Jun 10, 2019

Aldarc said:
The beta was a heavy-stress test. On a YoutTube video about the playtest from PaizoCon, they kinda outlined that the playtest was partially meant to show the potential problem points in the game.

I get that. But here are my thoughts.

1) These problem points should have been worked out before the beta.
2) Heavy-stress tests should have been done in-house, instead of an early access version that will be your fans' first exposure to your game.
3) The turnaround from the completion of the playtest to the final layout and print seemed too quick to make significant changes to the game.
4) If nothing else, feedback from the first major playtest should have been re-tested in a second playtest. (I guess I'm suggesting Alpha and Beta playtests like Pathfinder 1 had.)

Aldarc · Jun 11, 2019

Retreater said:
I get that. But here are my thoughts.

1) These problem points should have been worked out before the beta.
2) Heavy-stress tests should have been done in-house, instead of an early access version that will be your fans' first exposure to your game.
3) The turnaround from the completion of the playtest to the final layout and print seemed too quick to make significant changes to the game.
4) If nothing else, feedback from the first major playtest should have been re-tested in a second playtest. (I guess I'm suggesting Alpha and Beta playtests like Pathfinder 1 had.)

Sure, and it definitely sounds like they could have handled things differently or with greater transparency. From what I gather from various statements, their thinking was that it's easier to stress-test with thousands of players rather than in-house and that it provided out-of-house feedback on some of these things.

CapnZapp said:
I really hope they abandon the presentation where each class just little more than a soup of feats.

You can have flexibility and options and still paint a strong clear picture of what each class is supposed to be.

You will likely be disappointed about the former. It's important though, IMO, to think of the "soup of feats" more like a smorgasbord of class features, some every of X class will gain automatically but many they will choose. This is one thing, IME, that draws players to the 5E Warlock: it's a BYO-Class.

That said, I am somewhat puzzled by this position from you though since I vaguely recall you saying in the past that you had wanted something more akin to this, where there are a lot of flexible options for class builds, features, feats, etc. This probably would be in the direction of what a more complex 5E would potentially entail.

I would also argue that the whole point of their archetype/multiclass rules is so that players maintain a clear picture of what each class is supposed to be. These rules imply that you will be retaining your Rogue identity, for example, even if you use your class feats to obtain the Wizard archetype.

Based upon a number of PF2 previews that have emerged since the preview, I am cautiously optimistic, if not enthusiastic, about PF2. The PF2 playtest simplified a number of things from PF1, but it also seems that the PF2 Final will also simplify some of the more confusing things from the playtest. But more importantly, it seems like I have heard a lot of praise about how fun PF2 is to play and how easy PF2 is to run, even from people used to 5E.

It actually seems to have taken some serious criticisms of 5e (yes, those exist), such as monster design, into account. And there have been a bunch of other small things that have further piqued my interest: "There's a halfling heritage feat that gives you low-light vision?!

"

Will it be perfect? F*CK NO! But I also don't want to spend my days being bitter about how game companies have not read my mind and created the perfect game for me. This already looks fun and I would most definitely try it with an open mind.

CapnZapp · Jun 11, 2019

Lighter DM workload as regards monsters? Yes please.

But what Paizo means by "simplified" might still amount to nothing, if they don't make a truly fundamental change, like 5E did: monsters using different and much streamlined creation rules and not requiring gear to function. Valuable gear with bonuses, that is. This latter part took me a year to appreciate, but now I see that it is not worth the extra effort.

Ideally, even spell rules should be supplied right in monster stat blocks too. Not even 5E managed that. (As an effect, spellcaster NPCs feel strangely marooned in 5E - like from a different and more complicated game.)

(cont'd)

CapnZapp · Jun 11, 2019

Then we have LFQW. I got a PM saying essentially that nobody is asking Paizo about it.

This scares me the most. I can totally see the Pathfinder die-hards actually liking the d20 level of magic power, easily sacrificing fighters and what not, simply because it's never them that is playing those, always their friends.

But believe me, it would be a colossal mistake to not heed 5E here. That edition did a fundamental and epochal upgrade to the entire D&D paradigm: they really pulled off what 3.5 and PF could not.

They actually fixed a great number of long-standing issues and quibbles with magic and individual spells. And they managed to finally change the power balance between casters and martials while they were at it!

I fear very few current gamers will be impressed with an offering that once more makes casters stand heads and shoulders above martials.

I fear Paizo is operating in an echo chamber, where they mostly hear opinions as if Pathfinder 1 is the best thing ever, and 5E is this distant thing easily dismissed as "simplified".

Yes, it is simple, and with fewer options. That is Paizo's opportunity! But they risk squandering it if they only offer options and detail like it was 2013...

Staffan · Jun 11, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Lighter DM workload as regards monsters? Yes please.

But what Paizo means by "simplified" might still amount to nothing, if they don't make a truly fundamental change, like 5E did: monsters using different and much streamlined creation rules and not requiring gear to function. Valuable gear with bonuses, that is. This latter part took me a year to appreciate, but now I see that it is not worth the extra effort.

Ideally, even spell rules should be supplied right in monster stat blocks too. Not even 5E managed that. (As an effect, spellcaster NPCs feel strangely marooned in 5E - like from a different and more complicated game.)

(cont'd)

Haven't we gone over this like a dozen times already? Paizo has said that they're using a method for monster creation that's similar to the one in Starfinder which in turn is similar to 4e: choose monster level and "role" and get basic stats from that, flavor with appropriate special abilities, and done. Some monsters might have magic stuff as their core kit, but those are more of a loot thing than a numbers thing.

CapnZapp said:
Then we have LFQW. I got a PM saying essentially that nobody is asking Paizo about it.

Again, they mainly are going the 5e route here, although slightly different. Spells don't automatically scale with caster level - if you want a more damaging fireball, cast (and prepare, because they're still doing Vancian magic) it at a higher level. There is some "free" power increase via higher save DCs, but to get good effects out of low-level spells you need to cast them at a higher level.

Similarly, they have a mechanic for concentration which limits the number of buff spells you can have up. It's not as binary as 5e's - a Concentration spell in PF uses one action per turn for the caster, and it might not be as ubiquitous, but the mechanic is there.

Aldarc · Jun 11, 2019

Staffan said:
Haven't we gone over this like a dozen times already? Paizo has said that they're using a method for monster creation that's similar to the one in Starfinder which in turn is similar to 4e: choose monster level and "role" and get basic stats from that, flavor with appropriate special abilities, and done. Some monsters might have magic stuff as their core kit, but those are more of a loot thing than a numbers thing.

We have gone over this a dozen times, but if CapnZapp actually bothered reading the available resources provided/linked/discussed (or even listen),* then he wouldn't have far less to complain about, so he doesn't bother. I even sent him video links of Paizo talking about how monster/NPC creation would work in PF2. Has he watched any of them yet? Evidently not. But according to Paizo, it's even more improved (particularly the math) and streamlined than what is found in Starfinder. But yeah, monsters in 5e are simplified, but they are also mostly boring sacks of HP. For PF2, Paizo attempted to give each monster something cool they can do and explain how GMs can use monsters. (Thank you, Paizo, for learning positive lessons from 4e.)

Again, they mainly are going the 5e route here, although slightly different. Spells don't automatically scale with caster level - if you want a more damaging fireball, cast (and prepare, because they're still doing Vancian magic) it at a higher level. There is some "free" power increase via higher save DCs, but to get good effects out of low-level spells you need to cast them at a higher level.

Similarly, they have a mechanic for concentration which limits the number of buff spells you can have up. It's not as binary as 5e's - a Concentration spell in PF uses one action per turn for the caster, and it might not be as ubiquitous, but the mechanic is there.

There are also no more bonus spells based upon caster stat level, which greatly contributed (alongside stacking buff spells) to quadratic wizards in 3.X/PF1. Also, from what I have seen so far, the martial characters seem to be the classes who are most benefiting from the new action economy. This gives martial characters more interesting tactical choices to make: "Do I raise my shield for AC or make another attack?" "Do I make another attack or do I move?" This also adds mobility to martial characters, which makes them less like static pawns on the battlefield.

CapnZapp said:
Then we have LFQW. I got a PM saying essentially that nobody is asking Paizo about it.

I said that nobody asked Paizo about it at PaizoCon in any videos of the Q&A panels that they uploaded.

I fear Paizo is operating in an echo chamber, where they mostly hear opinions as if Pathfinder 1 is the best thing ever, and 5E is this distant thing easily dismissed as "simplified".

I fear that you are operating in your own echo chamber where you don't bother listening to anyone before you prattle away with your fear-mongering. If you like how 5e solves things from D&D 3.X, then play 5e. That seems like an easier solution than complaining that PF2 isn't going to be like 5E.

CapnZapp · Jun 12, 2019

Staffan said:
Similarly, they have a mechanic for concentration which limits the number of buff spells you can have up. It's not as binary as 5e's - a Concentration spell in PF uses one action per turn for the caster, and it might not be as ubiquitous, but the mechanic is there.

I'm not saying they can't pull it off, but when your audience isn't asking for it, and given Paizo's record, I remain dubious.

After all, adding these restrictions mean nothing unless they then have the courage to actually add them to nearly every spell.

Take 5E as an example. Imagine removing the Concentration requirement from as few as a dozen spells, carefully selected.

Boom! You've just neutered the entire concept. It still is there on paper, but your Wizard can, I don't know, be invisible while flying and still haste everybody else.

My point? When you look at the Magic chapter, it is not nearly enough to just read the initial section where magic rules are explained.

You also need to ensure that all the best spells really are bound by the restrictions. And, of course, that there aren't any class abilities or magic items that let you circumvent them.

It is this latter part that cements 5E's greatness - the ruthless enforcement of the restrictions.

Let's see if Paizo can pull off something similar, but somehow I doubt it...