Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

[ccs]

Because the vast majority of time in the vast majority of games is spent in combat, so a class that can't pull its own weight in combat is a useless load?

This is very much the same as it was in the TSR days. The 3.0 Rogue was a response to decades of player complaints.

Well, if the games your playing in are majority combat, and your choosing a rogue but wanting it to do a warrior types job? Then I'd argue that your doing it wrong.

You don't need to change the whole system to fix that, just how you play.
A) Pick a class that fits the game you find yourself in.
B) Have a discussion with your DM about what type of game you want.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

Well, if the games your playing in are majority combat, and your choosing a rogue but wanting it to do a warrior types job? Then I'd argue that your doing it wrong.

You don't need to change the whole system to fix that, just how you play.
A) Pick a class that fits the game you find yourself in.
B) Have a discussion with your DM about what type of game you want.

No one is asking the rogue to go blow for blow with the fighter. What they are asking is for the rogue to be relevant in combat, or if you focus on a build with a lot less utility then to equal in combat.

 

[billd91]

As someone who has been been GMing Pathfinder for the better part of the last decade, I want fewer fiddly bits. Oh, boy, do I want fewer fiddly bits. I liked breaking barbarian rage out into rounds, but the number of subsystems attached to classes has gone too far.

 

[DammitVictor]

Well, if the games your playing in are majority combat, and your choosing a rogue but wanting it to do a warrior types job? Then I'd argue that your doing it wrong.

So you want one of the most iconic D&D classes to be worthless for most of the game because you think players should know better than to play it?

Of all of the D&D design philosophies I've encountered, that's certainly one of them.

 

[Jer]

If rogues aren't a combat class, then they are literally the only class in the game which is not.

This. Every class in the game as descended from 3.0 is a combat class. And, I would argue, every class in prior editions EXCEPT the thief were also combat classes. Which is why the rogue became a combat class in 3.0 - because players had noticed just how terrible the thief class was at, well, everything and in 3.0 they finally decided to address it instead of pretend that being terrible at everything was some kind of positive thing about the thief class.

 

[Morrus]

It should be noted that initially, pathfinder wasn't that different from 3.5, it just evolved a bit after that.

Exactly. If 3.5 was still being published at the time, Pathfinder would have been redundant, because it looks very much like 3.5.

5E is still being published. So a 5E version of Pathfinder is redundant, as it would look very much like 5E.

 

[Ancalagon]

Exactly. If 3.5 was still being published at the time, Pathfinder would have been redundant, because it looks very much like 3.5.

5E is still being published. So a 5E version of Pathfinder is redundant, as it would look very much like 5E.

I see - so essentially we need Paizo to step in when 6e is published and it's terrible?

 

[Jer]

I see - so essentially we need Paizo to step in when 6e is published and it's terrible?

Actually we need Pathfinder 2e to be more like D&D 4e, so those of us who preferred 4e to 5e will have a home

(Note that this is just a joke. I do not advocate that Pathfinder 2e actually be a D&D 4e replacement. You do not need to give me bullet-points about why this would be a terrible idea.)

 

[Retreater]

Actually we need Pathfinder 2e to be more like D&D 4e, so those of us who preferred 4e to 5e will have a home

(Note that this is just a joke. I do not advocate that Pathfinder 2e actually be a D&D 4e replacement. You do not need to give me bullet-points about why this would be a terrible idea.)

I know you're joking, but as a fan of 4e, I would actually appreciate a 5e with a little more tactical depth and more character options - something to bridge the divide between 4e and 5e (or even PF and 5e). 5e has basically turned into "I run up to the monster and swat at the big bag of hit points until it dies" for my groups. I would LOVE a more mechanically interesting 5e, as would most of my players.

 

[CapnZapp]

The core idea would be the same that was on the Pathfinder 1 ads: fixing D&D.

That is, just like PF presumed to fix 3E, PF2 could really fix 5E.

Of course PF didn't really fix anything (since it's by and large indistinguishable from 3.x), but the idea was right.