Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?

[payn]

What gives me some optimism about PF2 in comparison to PF1 on that front, IMHO, is that it looks like a more robust foundation for expanding new character options than what Paizo was previously using. PF1 had alternate class features (i.e., archetypes), prestige classes, multiclassing, and hybrid classes, but if PF2 is able to condense all of that into a singular Archetype system, that's potentially a huge step forward in design space that this opens. It's similar to what 5e achieved with its subclass system. PF2 may partially even achieve what some people had wanted for 5e: cross-class archetypes/subclasses.

This is exactly what I least like about PF2. By making archetypes, multi-classing, and prestige classing all a single universal silo, there is a great homogenized feeling of the game. The worst part is making all three custom options compete for the same resource (class feats). The designer's have created a customization bottle neck and even admitted so during the playtest process.

Perhaps its simply poor execution of a good idea? Im not sure, but I'll be curious to see what Paizo drops in August to address the issue.

 

[Kurviak]

This is exactly what I least like about PF2. By making archetypes, multi-classing, and prestige classing all a single universal silo, there is a great homogenized feeling of the game. The worst part is making all three custom options compete for the same resource (class feats). The designer's have created a customization bottle neck and even admitted so during the playtest process.

Perhaps its simply poor execution of a good idea? Im not sure, but I'll be curious to see what Paizo drops in August to address the issue.

Different folks different strokes... this is one of the things I like the most about PF2.

In general the only thing so far I dislike about PF2 based on the little pieces of information I have is that magic items giving mathematical bonuses are still part of the game

 

[payn]

Different folks different strokes... this is one of the things I like the most about PF2.

Yeah I think a lot of folks do, or dont care enough to let it get in the way of them enjoying PF2. Im probably an outlier on this.

In general the only thing so far I dislike about PF2 based on the little pieces of information I have is that magic items giving mathematical bonuses are still part of the game

Yeap, I was pretty sad to see the "big six" turned into the essential three.

 

[Aldarc]

I think it is a glaring omission because: a) The witch is important in Golarion (the most common non-divine caster) and b) the witch is an obvious primary occult caster, by not having it the bard was square pegged into the tradition and as a primary caster at the expense of other stuff. (IMO primal or arcane fitted better for the bard)

I get that you have a zealous appreciation of the Witch class, but I don't think you can make a strong argument that the Alchemist doesn't have a more compelling case for most deserving of the coveted 12th class spot. This survey data from d20PFSRD, for example, has the Alchemist ranked 11th as the most played class, with the Druid coming in at 14th and the Witch coming in at 15th, with a whopping 1.2% difference between the Alchemist and Witch. (And yes, that is fairly large difference when you consider the sheer number of classes.) Plus, both the Oracle and the Magus outperform the Witch on this list too.

Also, I'm skeptical the changes made to the Bard that you mention are in anyway remotely connected to the absence of the Witch. The Bard (and other 6th level casters) was notoriously underpowered in 3e and almost a joke class. There was also a lot of positive feedback about the Mesmer, which was almost like an occult Bard, in their Occult Adventures lineup. And as it turns out, according to Paizo, their decision to switch the Bard to Occult magic was met with HUGE praise by playtesters. If people had been upset about this, then the Bard likely would have switched to Arcane.* So did it happen? Nope. And when I look through the Occult spell list, then it seems to fit well with the Bard. Will it fit well with the Witch too? Of course.

This is exactly what I least like about PF2. By making archetypes, multi-classing, and prestige classing all a single universal silo, there is a great homogenized feeling of the game. The worst part is making all three custom options compete for the same resource (class feats). The designer's have created a customization bottle neck and even admitted so during the playtest process.

I like what I have seen, though I understand that opinions will vary. I was a bit taken aback by this myself, but when I thought more deeply about it, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Do these things compete with class feats? Of course, but how is this necessarily all that different from the prior system apart from how it is structured? If you were multiclassing or going into a prestige class, for example, then you would be relinquishing a level from your primary class where you likely would have gained a class feature or more spells so that you could get another (PrC) class feature instead. (And you likely would have screwed up the progression of your saves, BAB, or spells too.) Here you are continuing with your class but opting to choose essentially alternate class features from another class or an archetype. It's basically a more streamlined, efficient way of doing the same thing but without costing as much of a huge dip or loss in your class efficiency.

You can even do some things better this way than you could with PF1. Let's say that you wanted to be a Rogue/Wizard hybrid. I don't know what's optimal, but let's say Rogue 10 / Wizard 10. You are looking at having BAB, 10d8+10d6 HD, and 5th level spells. If you start as a Rogue in PF2 and go full monty with wizard multiclassing, then you will still have 20d8 HD, probably more competitive class combat proficiencies, and up to 8th level spells. Plus, there is a 4th level Rogue feat that lets you combine Sneak Attack with spells, which was one of the biggest draws to the Arcane Trickster for magically-inclined Rogues.

 

[payn]

I like what I have seen, though I understand that opinions will vary. I was a bit taken aback by this myself, but when I thought more deeply about it, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Do these things compete with class feats? Of course, but how is this necessarily all that different from the prior system apart from how it is structured? If you were multiclassing or going into a prestige class, for example, then you would be relinquishing a level from your primary class where you likely would have gained a class feature or more spells so that you could get another (PrC) class feature instead. (And you likely would have screwed up the progression of your saves, BAB, or spells too.) Here you are continuing with your class but opting to choose essentially alternate class features from another class or an archetype. It's basically a more streamlined, efficient way of doing the same thing but without costing as much of a huge dip or loss in your class efficiency.

You can even do some things better this way than you could with PF1. Let's say that you wanted to be a Rogue/Wizard hybrid. I don't know what's optimal, but let's say Rogue 10 / Wizard 10. You are looking at having BAB, 10d8+10d6 HD, and 5th level spells. If you start as a Rogue in PF2 and go full monty with wizard multiclassing, then you will still have 20d8 HD, probably more competitive class combat proficiencies, and up to 8th level spells. Plus, there is a 4th level Rogue feat that lets you combine Sneak Attack with spells, which was one of the biggest draws to the Arcane Trickster for magically-inclined Rogues.

One thing to consider is that, yes they do now compete with one another. You cannot, for instance, choose an archetype and multiclass by level 2. Nor can you achieve a prestige class by level 6. The dedication system locks you into paths and limits choices. Dedication only works with class feats which come every even level. Also, this is more of hybrid/feat classing (4E) which isnt what most folks think of when they choose to multiclass (3E/PF). Its quite stifling from what came before.

Admittedly, this new system does make multiclassing caster classes possible, which was disastrous in 3E/PF. It is definitely different than what came before. Few like myself will not enjoy it, a few others will really enjoy it, and most folks wont care.

 

[MoonSong]

I get that you have a zealous appreciation of the Witch class, but I don't think you can make a strong argument that the Alchemist doesn't have a more compelling case for most deserving of the coveted 12th class spot. This survey data from d20PFSRD, for example, has the Alchemist ranked 11th as the most played class, with the Druid coming in at 14th and the Witch coming in at 15th, with a whopping 1.2% difference between the Alchemist and Witch. (And yes, that is fairly large difference when you consider the sheer number of classes.) Plus, both the Oracle and the Magus outperform the Witch on this list too.

I never said I wanted the Alchemist gone. All I said was leaving Witches out of core was a bad decision.

Also, I'm skeptical the changes made to the Bard that you mention are in anyway remotely connected to the absence of the Witch. The Bard (and other 6th level casters) was notoriously underpowered in 3e and almost a joke class. There was also a lot of positive feedback about the Mesmer, which was almost like an occult Bard, in their Occult Adventures lineup. And as it turns out, according to Paizo, their decision to switch the Bard to Occult magic was met with HUGE praise by playtesters. If people had been upset about this, then the Bard likely would have switched to Arcane.* So did it happen? Nope. And when I look through the Occult spell list, then it seems to fit well with the Bard. Will it fit well with the Witch too? Of course.

I only speak for myself in this. The choice to make bards occult made what it means to be occult confusing -seriously, it is a conversation in the Paizo forums-

 

[Aldarc]

I never said I wanted the Alchemist gone. All I said was leaving Witches out of core was a bad decision.

Okay? I never said that you did. I said that Paizo made a choice to restrict the initial wave of classes to the Old Core 11 + 1 New. This meant that while one would be added, others would be excluded, and this requires making a choice. As I have said, I think that the Alchemist was a far more compelling choice for Paizo, though you strongly feel that the Witch should have been included. So which class has most earned that 12th spot? The answer is not always which one you like most.

I only speak for myself in this. The choice to make bards occult made what it means to be occult confusing -seriously, it is a conversation in the Paizo forums-

Not sure why that would be different if Witches were Occult. Witches were Arcane in PF1 and distinct from the Occult Adventures line. Sure there is a discussion on Paizo about it, but most of it is in support of the association between Bards and Occult magic with a handful of dissenters, with the OP not bothering showing up after their initial post. That's only natural. When things are changed, there are always people who are confused, angry, disappointed, demanding an explanation for the change, or voicing how they would have done things differently.

 

[billd91]

I think it is a glaring omission because: a) The witch is important in Golarion (the most common non-divine caster) and b) the witch is an obvious primary occult caster, by not having it the bard was square pegged into the tradition and as a primary caster at the expense of other stuff. (IMO primal or arcane fitted better for the bard)

I’d buy into argument b, but not a, at least, not within a setting agnostic set of core rules. The witch’s importance to Golarion (which I don’t necessarily agree with), should be of secondary importance.

 

[MoonSong]

I’d buy into argument b, but not a, at least, not within a setting agnostic set of core rules. The witch’s importance to Golarion (which I don’t necessarily agree with), should be of secondary importance.

RPGs live and die by their setting. Only D&D can afford to go "setting agnostic" (and that is barely) by virtue of its size and prominence. Without a strong setting a random RPG is but a set of bland mechanics, and if it's fantasy themed, it is just a heartbreaker. For identity purposes World of Darkness is Storyteller, Freedom City is M&M, and Golarion is Pathfinder. Yes, other settings can work with these games, but if these games stop working with these settings they stop being the same game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Without a strong setting a random RPG is but a set of bland mechanics, and if it's fantasy themed, it is just a heartbreaker.

If the goal is to retain the 4E-era prominence Pathfinder 1 enjoyed, the only way for Pathfinder 2 not to be a heartbreaker is to adhere just as close to 5E as PF1 adhered to 3E.

In other words, it's not about setting. There have been literally hundreds of dndish fantasy settings, and none of them, not even Forgotten Realms, have achieved brand name recognition to survive outside its system. You need to be a go-to game for many settings, including homebrew. You need to be a household name.

And I fear PF2 is going in directions that won't appeal to a large portion of current D&D gamers unless they learn from 5E's successes with caster-martial balance and NPC ease of use.