Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Do you think 1st or 2nd edition is more complicated?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tigris" data-source="post: 9848867" data-attributes="member: 7043270"><p>I am pretty sure that the convolutedness of the classes is wanted / by design.</p><p></p><p>(Rulebook organization most likely not, this happens also in games which want to be streamlined (Draw Steel, Gloomhaven RPG) and other games (goblin slayer)).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Paizo does want PF2 classes to look complex, but do want it to still be balanced.</p><p></p><p>To a point where they made a really really tight balance, where its really limited in what you can do with a really precise scaling. (Like even agile weapon and non agile 1dice size higher weapons do in average situations almost exactly the same damage, most martials do around 2 basic attacks (hidden behind class features) with some class feature to improve basic attacks in similar scaling ways).</p><p></p><p>And now because the target audience are people which like system mastery, complexity and many options etc. you add complexity and convolution on top of it to make classes look more different.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thats why you name the same class feature (proficiency rank in a safe improves to next level) different between different classes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thats why you call basic attacks strikes, and dont have class features improving them passive, but instead have named class features which names, which do basic attacks but with a small bonus. If 3 different classes get an additional basic attack (via the flurry tag), you make sure they have 3 different names, and have slightly differences between them. (Monk, Ranger, and was the 3rd Fighter?).</p><p></p><p>This way classes are feeling more different (to some players), because "you dont do just basic attacks, do you things like flurry of blows, Twin takedown or Double Slice". (Which all just do 2 basic attacks (the last one with a different bonus than the first two but still)).</p><p></p><p></p><p>The part in the "" is a quote from a PF2 fan from reddit. They really believed that the martial classes are doing so much more than basic attacks, and then brought as example attacks like flurry of blows. So this convolution helps, it make people believe that their basic attacks are different from other peoples, because they have a different name.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tigris, post: 9848867, member: 7043270"] I am pretty sure that the convolutedness of the classes is wanted / by design. (Rulebook organization most likely not, this happens also in games which want to be streamlined (Draw Steel, Gloomhaven RPG) and other games (goblin slayer)). Paizo does want PF2 classes to look complex, but do want it to still be balanced. To a point where they made a really really tight balance, where its really limited in what you can do with a really precise scaling. (Like even agile weapon and non agile 1dice size higher weapons do in average situations almost exactly the same damage, most martials do around 2 basic attacks (hidden behind class features) with some class feature to improve basic attacks in similar scaling ways). And now because the target audience are people which like system mastery, complexity and many options etc. you add complexity and convolution on top of it to make classes look more different. Thats why you name the same class feature (proficiency rank in a safe improves to next level) different between different classes. Thats why you call basic attacks strikes, and dont have class features improving them passive, but instead have named class features which names, which do basic attacks but with a small bonus. If 3 different classes get an additional basic attack (via the flurry tag), you make sure they have 3 different names, and have slightly differences between them. (Monk, Ranger, and was the 3rd Fighter?). This way classes are feeling more different (to some players), because "you dont do just basic attacks, do you things like flurry of blows, Twin takedown or Double Slice". (Which all just do 2 basic attacks (the last one with a different bonus than the first two but still)). The part in the "" is a quote from a PF2 fan from reddit. They really believed that the martial classes are doing so much more than basic attacks, and then brought as example attacks like flurry of blows. So this convolution helps, it make people believe that their basic attacks are different from other peoples, because they have a different name. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Do you think 1st or 2nd edition is more complicated?
Top