Pathfinder 2E Fighter Class Preview

[Arakasius]

In something like Critical Role I don't really see anything of what you state for combat. They do what their class rules say they can. Similarly for other streams I've seen. It's cool that you follow the rule of cool in your games but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this is actually followed in the general community. Which means battles in 5e are fairly vanilla and plain and classes of the same type all feel like each other.

 

[Arilyn]

If by "supported" you mean "explicitly given permission to do," then you are correct. But I'm playing a role playing game, not a board game. I expect to be able to try things that would logically work, rather than choose from a list of preselected actions. See my previous explanation.



What!??! That's the *exact* sort of "freeform" RPG I've *been* playing since 1982. It was called "Dungeons and Dragons," and it was the *original* d20 system.

And I think a strong argument can be made that part of 5e's popularity is a return to this mentality. Pathfinder doesn't share that mentality. It trades character build choice for character play choice. That's why some of the previous posters have stated that PF2 does not seem to be different enough for them.

PF characters can choose from a ton of talents/special abilities, which allow players to craft their characters. Years ago I made a character who had been murdered, woke up in his crypt and had no idea who brought him back from the dead. I was inspired by "The Crow." I used urban barbarian, not because he was a barbarian, but because the controlled rage matched his cold fury when he went into combat. There were so many rage options that it was easy to find ones that matched my character's background. I also took a feat that caused him to heal from negative energy, and be harmed by positive energy. It was more of a hindrance than a help, but fit my character's "not quite alive" state perfectly. Of course, I could use this background in 5e, but I would need the most permissive GM in the world to allow me to do the things I got from the varying styles of rages. I had an ability from urban barbarian that allowed my character to move freely through crowds. How would that work, if I didn't explicitly have the talent?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the reasons players enjoy PF. You can't just roleplay anything, or we could play with nothing but a handful of dice. I get the appeal of 5e. PF characters are more crunchy and complicated but this does not take away from player choice during actual play. PF2 seeks to keep these options open while streamlining rules. There's room for a crunchier DnD, otherwise there would be no PF fans. Paizo just needs a big enough base to support their company and their game, not make a 5e clone.

 

[Arakasius]

One thing I do like about 5e is they didn't fall prey to the 5 foot shuffle stupidity that is in PF1. If I were to play 5e now that would be my biggest draw to the system. Movement in PF1 feels awful especially if you're a martial character. You lose literally 3/4 of your damage by moving. Just allowing people to move in 5e and do their stuff opens up so many options, even if you're just doing vanilla attack rolls all the time. But it looks like PF2 is solving that which is really my biggest complaint about PF1's battles along with rocket tag at high levels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You can't just roleplay anything, or we could play with nothing but a handful of dice.

You can, it's called freestyle RP, and you don't even need the dice.

 

[houser2112]

Being able to split your move among your actions/attacks being a core ability and not locked behind 3 feats (two of which are feat taxes, and needing separate feats for melee, ranged and spellcasting) is one thing that 5E does right.

 

[Arilyn]

You can, it's called freestyle RP, and you don't even need the dice.

Well yes. I do that all the time, but this is a DnD discussion, where even Fate is eyed with great suspicion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Players like customization. I'm not sure if that statement is so vague as to have little meaning or is a declaration of opinion masquerading as fact.

It’s closer to the latter, but it’s not just my opinion. It’s an opinion I have anecdotally seen to be shared by many players. Case in point, the observation that players tend to assume Feats are allowed despite being listed as “optional” and DMs generally needing to put their feet down if they want to run 5e without Feats.

Ahhh, I see the issue now! When you say "customization" you mean "a differentiation of character abilities enforced by the rules structure." That's the reason for the disconnect between you and the person you are arguing with. See, I've been "customizing" characters since AD&D; I just never needed the rules to tell me it was ok for one of my fighters to be different from another.

Im not being flippant here.

Yes you are, don’t give me that. You are implying by contrast that I do “need the rules to tell me its ok for one of my fighters to be different.” That is either a gross misunderstanding of the reason behind me liking “differentiation of character activities enforced by the rules structure”, or an intentional mischaricterization of it meant to demean my position. And I rather doubt it’s the former because it should be extremely obvious that I know you can describe two mechanically identical Fighters differently.

When you talk about customization, you are actually advocating for finely delineated character abilities built into the rules.

For a given value of “finely,” yes. 5e is not fine enough. PF1 is too fine.

This increases certain choices available to characters during one phase of the game (during character building) and decreases choices during others (during play, if your character did not take a certain "feat", they are either mechanically or mathematically restricted from attempting something).

Now that simply isn’t true. Just because the “produce flame” spell exists doesn’t mean characters who don’t take it can’t start a fire. It just means they don’t have a mechanically codified way of doing it. They are still capable of engaging in the conversation of the game, describing their goal (“start a fire”) and their method (“rubbing sticks together”) and the DM adjudicating the results, potentially calling for a dice roll to resolve any uncertainty in the outcome. Likewise, just because a Feat exists that lets you make an attack at a penalty to hit with a bonus to damage doesn’t mean a player without that Feat can’t make a reckless attack through the conversation of the game. What the Feat does is gives you a codified way to do it.

So you enjoy PF as a "front loaded choice" game.

I don’t, actually. PF1 is unnecessarily complex for the amount of mechanical depth it offers. I ultimately prefer 5e for its simplicity, but I do find it a little lacking. As I mentioned earlier, 4e found a great balance between depth and complexity (for me), but it is difficult to find a group for. My hope (and so far it seems supported by the spoilers) is that PF2 will be a little closer to the balance 4e struck.

I'm sure many other players do as well. But the success of 5e (not to mention OSR) also suggests many do not. It appears that PF2 will continue to front load it's choices, which explains why some of the posters can already tell it is not a game for them...

Of course. There is demand for both styles, like I said. Unfortunately, PF1 is currently the go-to game to satisfy the demand for “front loaded” games as you call them, and like I said, it’s too complex for what it is, leaving those of us who desire depth but appreciate simplicity between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully PF2 will be the midway point many of us want.

If, however, you were looking for PF2 to be a... uhh... back-loaded(?) game... That was a very strange expectation for you to have, since Pathfinder’s existing fan base is playing it specifically because they want a “front loaded” game enough that they’re willing to stomach its complexity.

 

[Charlaquin]

lack of customization... hmmm

9 race x 12 class x 13 backgrounds... 1404 combos... now let's add subraces, subclasses, fighting styles, spell chosen, feats, multiclasses... You have a strange definition of lack.

So you’re just going to ignore the part where I said “after level 3” then?

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree. In fact, I can say with relative certainty that, at most tables, delineated abilities only increase player choice at creation and serve to restrict player choice during play. I'll give you an example.

A fighter in a less "crunchy" game is surrounded by three opponents who are trying to grab him. The player controlling the fighter looks at the GM and says, "I want to spin around with my sword held outward and try to strike all of the opponents surrounding me. They are crowding in on me, so they would have a hard time not being hit." The DM thinks about it and says,"O.K., that makes sense. It'll be harder to hit the opponents, because you are spinning and not aiming. Take a -5 penalty on each roll."

In a more crunchy game, the DM is more likely to say, "That sounds like a Whirlwind attack. Did you take that feat? If not, you can't do that." Now a more flexible DM might allow someone to try a whirlwind attack untrained with penalties, but then runs the risk of irritating the player who took that feat, as it might be seen as devaluing that feat choice (if anyone can do it, the feat just becomes about bonuses). I've actually seen this happen at the table in a PFS game.

Maybe you’re more likely to rule those ways depending on the game system, but you don’t speak for all DMs. I don’t care if Whirlwind Attack exists or not, the basic conversation of the game always comes first. If a player tells me his character is spinning around trying to hit all of the enemies surrounding him with his sword, I’m adjudicating that action as I deem most fitting by the core rules of the game, full stop. If a player tells me “I use my Whirlwind Attack,” I adjudicate the results of that according to the specific rules of Whirlwind Attack.

You see, by delineating these choices in the rules, you add to your choices during character creation. But in many circumstances, you've now closed off the other actions you didn't take feats for during play. It's the difference between a board game and a role playing game. In an ideal (meaning theoretical) board game, all actions are prescribed precisely by the rules. In an ideal RPG, all actions are possible, with the rules determining the results. The middle generation of RPGs (3.5, et al.) became more like board games ( I'd argue because of a fear of bad DMs restricting player agency and also the desire to minimize "arbitrary" decisions at the table... but that's another argument). This has somewhat trained many DMs and players to think of RPGs as pseudo-board games (especially in combat), with only those actions expressly permitted as being allowed. AD&D had rules to describe the results of actions; modern RPGs of the same lineage have rules to explain what *can* be done (look at the action economy rules, with bonus actions, reactions, etc...). Pathfinder 1 was firmly in that mold (and less so than 5e is). PF2 appears to have the same underlying rationale...

The only thing an RPG needs in order for all actions to be possible is a robust, but ideally easy to use set of core rules that the GM can use to adjudicate the results of the actions the players describe. Giving players codified options of things they can do using a more specific set of rules, such as a spell or a combat maneuver, does not prevent other players from performing actions with similar intended results using the core rules of the game. Just because the Battlemaster in 5e has a disarm maneuver doesn’t mean only Battlemasters can disarm people. Just because the Rogue has Sneak Attack doesn’t mean only Rogues can attack people’s weak points from a hidden position. People seem to draw these weird arbitrary lines where it’s ok for characters other than the Ranger to follow tracks, but for some reason if a Feat called “Whirlwind Attack” exists, nobody who doesn’t have it is allowed to spin around in a circle when they attack. It’s bizarre.

 

[Eirikrautha]

In something like Critical Role I don't really see anything of what you state for combat. They do what their class rules say they can. Similarly for other streams I've seen. It's cool that you follow the rule of cool in your games but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this is actually followed in the general community.

Most tables I've played at operate nothing like Critical Role. How you can leap from scripted streaming shows to "general community" is beyond me.