Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

[Zardnaar]

You are over rating damge. Rogues get out of combat stuff, deal less damage than fighters, AD&D arguably did it better, less damage but when you do get it its really gonna hurt. 3E Rogue in an AD&D context is a great class, sucks in the 3E context. By that I mean if you convert the 3E Rogue to AD&D and run it more or less as is. I think the 5E Rogue is well designed, some 5E feats not so much.

Unless you are playing AL though there are 3pp feat that open up options and they are really cheap, like get 2-3 PDFs for around $5. D&D has never had good balance in feat design, personally I would probably prefer not to use them but players are kind of addicted to them. Probably why they made them optional in 5E, you're basically bitching and moaning about the feats after you have purposefully signed onto breaking the game with optional rules. Its like complaing 2E sucks becasue you are using optional rules from the DMG or other sourcebook.

Similar thing with Sorlocks, MCing has always been problematic even in the lame 4E version of it where it was really letting you find a better paragon path to use. Fairly pointless though if you don't make it to level 11. That no one has manged to make a good system in 20-30 years of trying with MCing and feats or things like feats in 2E kind of leads me to believe it can't be done as you will never cover all the permutations. If you have 10 feats, 10 races, 10 classes that is 1000 different options, 5E has IIRC 38 archetypes, some amount of races, 20-30 odd feats (more?), throw in multiclassing over 20 levels and yeah you have millions of options.

If you like that level of crunch play 3E, play Pathfinder, or 4E, but you just can't cover it the 5E designers didn't even try that much as it can't be done. Its like complaining your car can't drive to the moon. Its up to you how you play your D&D, I didn't like 4E so I ended up going back to 2E and it was fun again because the balance was better and the trade off was no feats and less powerful spells.

 

[MoonSong]

I will support PF2. As long as it does sorcerers justice -I mean if my sorceress can still cast spells while bound and gagged- I expect to at least get the core book and the bestiary. I could even get that book with houserules and tinkering guidelines. I can handle a lot of stuff, I don't care too much for complexity, and I could live without organic multiclassing. But as long as I get that minimum out of a game I up to it. Oh wait as of the playtest socerers can no longer do that, so I'm in wait and see.

Similar thing with Sorlocks,

Back when the game first launched I thought a sorlock could be a fun character to play, a could character that could remain magical all day long -I never looked at it from a dps angle, though - I just couldn't see myself playing any of the warlock patrons available at the time. Sadly by the time Xanathars arrived, no DM would even let me state my case. Damn DPS obsessed Powergamers....

 

[CapnZapp]

You are over rating damge. Rogues get out of combat stuff, deal less damage than fighters, AD&D arguably did it better, less damage but when you do get it its really gonna hurt. 3E Rogue in an AD&D context is a great class, sucks in the 3E context. By that I mean if you convert the 3E Rogue to AD&D and run it more or less as is. I think the 5E Rogue is well designed, some 5E feats not so much.

Unless you are playing AL though there are 3pp feat that open up options and they are really cheap, like get 2-3 PDFs for around $5. D&D has never had good balance in feat design, personally I would probably prefer not to use them but players are kind of addicted to them. Probably why they made them optional in 5E, you're basically bitching and moaning about the feats after you have purposefully signed onto breaking the game with optional rules. Its like complaing 2E sucks becasue you are using optional rules from the DMG or other sourcebook.

Similar thing with Sorlocks, MCing has always been problematic even in the lame 4E version of it where it was really letting you find a better paragon path to use. Fairly pointless though if you don't make it to level 11. That no one has manged to make a good system in 20-30 years of trying with MCing and feats or things like feats in 2E kind of leads me to believe it can't be done as you will never cover all the permutations. If you have 10 feats, 10 races, 10 classes that is 1000 different options, 5E has IIRC 38 archetypes, some amount of races, 20-30 odd feats (more?), throw in multiclassing over 20 levels and yeah you have millions of options.

If you like that level of crunch play 3E, play Pathfinder, or 4E, but you just can't cover it the 5E designers didn't even try that much as it can't be done. Its like complaining your car can't drive to the moon. Its up to you how you play your D&D, I didn't like 4E so I ended up going back to 2E and it was fun again because the balance was better and the trade off was no feats and less powerful spells.

I hope you aren't arguing the 5E Rogue couldn't and can't be given DPS commensurate with the risks is equal to wanting my car to go to the moon...

No, making feats optional does not absolve WotC from the responsibility to make them balanced. The feat-less game is critically crunch-free and not an option for us. Honestly I'm ashamed how easily you go for WotC's spiel here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I can understand the lamenting I really don't see any use of continuously bringing up 4E. It's a dead branch off the D&D tree.

Yet you keep bringing up things that 4e did first or best?
Besides, 4e is a vital part of the PF story.

And no, 5th edition is not characterized by "the same issues we've always had".

It necessarily and intentionally is - it had to be, in order to be broadly familiar and acceptable to the established, vocal fan base.
Yet it also needed to be accessible to the mainstream.

That is the great accomplishment of 5e, in finding a compromise design that retains enough of D&D to keep the fans from hating on it, yet not so much that it's overwhelming the first time you're exposed.

It's the same kind of magic formula Marvel finally found with its movies.

For the first time in an AD&D successor game LFQW is well and truly fixed. And NPC prep which killed off d20 for many of us is also fixed.

You just brought up 4e, again, because it was the ONLY edition of D&D to eliminate LFQW, and the first WotC version to make NPC prep a breeze.

(Though, to the latter point, it would be fairer and more accurate to say that 3.x was the ONLY ed of D&D to make NPC generation a DM nightmare.)

So 5E does represent a real step forward.

From 3e, 5e has made some improvements, some steps back, and a great many compromises - It's different from 3e/PF, but I find it hard to say that one is definitely better than the other. When I play 5e, I find myself missing the wealth of options in 3e, when I even contemplate running 3e instead of 5e, I shudder.

We're discussing tank-DPS-healer here.

Yet you dont want to consider the only D&D ed with formal support for such roles?

I'm entirely up for another DPS King class. As long as that class doesn't do all the things the Rogue does in combat, and then gets a shitload of magical toys, while the Rogue only gets thievery.

The primacy of magic is another serious stumbling block for a viable non-magic using rogue class.

It's not for nothing that all but the 4e Rogue had some access to magic: The TSR rogue could use spell scrolls, the 3e/PF Rogue could leverage Use Magic Device, and the 5e Rogue can opt to cast spells, outright.

Let me emphatically make it clear I see Fighters and Rogues as extremely vital class concepts that definitely should remain separate.

I cant agree. The thief always seemed a kludge. The game had no skill system, so some skills were introduced as 'special abilities, of a new class, and it seemed like it had to be week in combat relative to the skilless fighter.
Once 3.0 introduced a comprehensive skill system that subsumed those abilities, the rogue became redundant.

The archetype of the opportunistic cunning hero is real enough, but it doesn't been to be broken out from other sorts of heroism for balance reasons.

I just think Blizzard was onto something when they broke the classic idea that "fighters are obviously best at fighting, both at dishing out damage and preventing others from damaging them".

I think 3.0 had already done tgat a few years earlier, but i guess its not too important a point.

I just don't see "fights in the open" and "fights in the shadows" as nearly enough of a differentiator, in the context of a game where everybody in the party fights together.

Agreed.

After all, you gain pickpocketing and stuff. Sure, the Wizard can just Hold Person and then rifle through his pockets at his pleasure. But you can do that stuff all day long, even though the game is never interested in more than a few dozen combat rounds each day at the very most.
...
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Nobody thinks it is any fun to force Wizards to trudge on without any spell slots, so don't pretend that's something good to balance the game around.

It's what D&D (cept 4e) has always been balanced arround. And yeah, not fun, so avoided, so not actually balanced.

Thanks for the history lesson, I guess. That's not relevant to D&D today, though.

D&D has nothing else going for it but it's history.

.
I guess the most direct way to answer this is with: Don't use out of combat abilities to balance combat abilities.

Agreed.

Now that we have the Three Pillar concept, classes should be designed to work well in each pillar.

Sure, you might counter by "I'm not phased by Fighters doing only fighting" with "I'm not phased with Rogues being fragile in fighting since their forte is in exploration and things like city-based skulking scenarios". Fair enough, except D&D is so very clearly a combat-focused game.

it is and always has been, but nothing about RPG as a concept dictates that it must be.

And Rogues is one of few magic-less (or magic-light) classes.

see above: the rogue has almost(4e again, sorry) always gotten some access to magic.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yet you keep bringing up things that 4e did first or best?

Sigh. I really have to spell it out for you, don't I?

I am having a discussion in which I have no place for 4E. You appear to want to discuss with me, since you reply to my every post. So you are discussing with me, yet you persist in bringing up what I have repeatedly told you I'm not interested in. By all means, feel free to discuss 4E all you like. But maybe not in your replies to my posts, okay?

I am now directly asking you to stop injecting 4E in your discussions, at least the ones you are having with me.

 

[CapnZapp]

It ne necessarily and intentionally is - it had to be, in order to be broadly familiar and acceptable to the established, vocal fan base.
Yet it also needed to be accessible to the mainstream.

That is the great accomplishment of 5e, in finding a compromise design that retains enough of D&D to keep the fans from hating on it, yet not so much that it's overwhelming the first time you're exposed.

It's the same kind of magic formula Marvel finally found with its movies.

What are you talking about? This is generic and sweeping. On the other hand, I have direct and extensive experience with both d20 and 5E. Believe me, 5E fixes 3E like 3.5 or PF never did.

That doesn't mean it isn't accessible or familiar. It is.

But there is nothing contradictory about my statement. Just because certain editions were not accepted doesn't mean you can't both fix 3E and gain acceptance. I know this because 5E finally fixes magic and NPCs. Those issues are now solved.

And it did so in a way acceptable to the fans, myself included. Maybe it did so by sleight of hand - by presenting itself as the same old same old. But it really is not the same old. Trust me.

I would wish for nothing else that PF2 keeps these two issues solved, all the while giving us much needed crunch in player builds and high level.

Sure 5E went overboard, anxiously simplifying too much. High level wizards feel just like that, high level versions of low level wizards. As opposed to archmages. Which is a shame, but something future games can fix. Maybe throw in the holy trinity for good measure. Just don't roll back the situation on LFQW or NPCs, or all those improvements are for nothing, is what I'm saying.

 

[CapnZapp]

From 3e, 5e has made some improvements, some steps back, and a great many compromises - It's different from 3e/PF, but I find it hard to say that one is definitely better than the other. When I play 5e, I find myself missing the wealth of options in 3e, when I even contemplate running 3e instead of 5e, I shudder.

I am talking from the POV of the dungeon master. So it seems we agree 5E represent a HUGE step forward, if we both would shudder at the thought of running 3E but not 5E.

Now "all" that's left to fix is the player-side. The build-crunch.

(And some other bits and bobs, but that's the big one)

You may think I'm joking when I call that "all" but I am dead serious. There are several editions of D&D that do excellent player crunch. I am not worried about that part. Player crunch is a solved question as far as I'm concerned.

But 5E is the first and only edition that solves endemic issues that has plagued D&D ever since it was a twinkle in Gygax eye. LFQW (and from the year 2000 at the very least, NPCs), at least in a way palatable to gamers. So Paizo would do very well indeed to study it, is what I'm saying.

 

[CapnZapp]

The primacy of magic is another serious stumbling block for a viable non-magic using rogue class.

Yes. Until you don't let it be.

Define the DPS role as doing at least twice as much damage as the next guy.

Then if you give a DPS class range, force damage, push effects... or armour and hit points or what not (but certainly not if you give the class ribbon abilities like lockpicking or trapfinding), you deduct DPS for each in a balanced way.

That way, only the martial melee glass cannons reach that theoretical DPS roof. Which is as should be.

At this point you are free to have as many or as few classes of this nature as you like. If you feel it is a problem that only one class wears the DPS crown, feel free to have more. Just as long as they gain the same amount of other combat abilities (which in the case of the Rogue is zero).

 

[CapnZapp]

I cant agree. The thief always seemed a kludge. The game had no skill system, so some skills were introduced as 'special abilities, of a new class, and it seemed like it had to be week in combat relative to the skilless fighter.
Once 3.0 introduced a comprehensive skill system that subsumed those abilities, the rogue became redundant.

But I agree! The idea that one class should sacrifice damage and defense just to be well-rounded in the skills department should be thrown on the scrap heap.

My entire point is that the Rogue could be something much more sustainable! It could complement the Fighter's cc and defense, if only it was given impressive DPS and the Fighter was not. (Assuming those two classes only for the mo')

Compare to the 5E Bard. 3E Bards were so very dissed that they finally gave the 5E Bard Inspiration dice, that is directly useful in ways old fluting never was.

There is no reason to conclude the Rogue is obsolete. The only thing obsolete here is you equating the Rogue with the skill monkey.

 

[CapnZapp]

Agreed.

Now that we have the Three Pillar concept, classes should be designed to work well in each pillar.

No, that's not what I said.

What I want is a game that offers balanced classes if the focus is on combat, since that is by far the most important pillar (regardless of what WotC is trying so say).

If that game can ALSO offer balanced classes if the focus is on either of the two other pillars, or even classes that remain balanced for those of you that really spend 1/3 of mechanical effort on combat, 1/3 on social and 1/3 on explor.

Myself, any social challenge is resolved with a single check or three checks tops, while any serious combat easily involves a hundred checks, so the mechanical effort is easily 9/10 combat. This is therefore how we weigh abilities from the three pillars.

So I'm okay with a fighter focusing on fighting, i.e the combat pillar. (In a way I'm personally not okay with for other pillars) That my fighter only has his Intelligence or Charisma to rely on in other pillars is quite okay, since if I want to be something else than the stereotypically dense fighter, I just assign a 16 or 18 to one of those scores, and given how few rolls decide either explore or social, I instantly have a good shot of contributing. If I want more, then I'm okay with the realization I'm not looking for a Fighter.

Anyway, my point is: any given game is free to offer a Rogue subclass that focuses extra on stealth or skills or whatever. Just as long as there remains a subclass that doesn't. If this latter subclass compensates light armor and few hp with devastating DPS I'm good. Whether those other subclasses trade in a little or a lot of that DPS for those other-pillar abilities doesn't concern me, as long as the option to pick awesome DPS remains. But neither 3E, PF or 5E delivers or comes even close, I'm afraid.

So if by "classes should be designed to work well in each pillar" you mean that each class should represent a balanced choice if each pillar is viewed in isolation (so the explore abilities of any two classes is roughly similar), then I agree. Up to a point, since I remember the sameness that easily can befall D&D.

(Honestly, I believe the balancing bit could focus on the combat pillar and everything will fall into place more or less by itself. If some classes do better in exploration, others in social, and some classes are for those only interested in the main course of combat, that's fine by me. And it's not just me. Every edition of D&D is working toward this direction. Every hero in D&D can fight, which is quite unlike characters of most other games. You can create a Scribe in WFRP that does not know which end of his sword to hold. You can create an Archeology Professor in Call of Cthulhu who can't even lace his own shoes.

All those non-combat-focuses have been ruthlessly scrubbed out of D&D. The reason for that is clear to me: because D&D is a game of combat that also can be used for other things)

But if by "classes should be designed to work well in each pillar" you mean that each class should contain some share of each pillar and what's important is that the sum adds up to 1, I don't agree, because none of us place a similar value on each pillar. Somebody might consider each pillar to be worth 1/3, someone else might consider one pillar twice as valuable as the other two combined.