I don't have an issue with fighters getting attacks of opportunity at 1st level or with negative numbers... but, I do like the dice chain concept from Dungeon Crawl Classics... that is a fun alternative to penalties.
My impression is that every class gets Skill Feats regularly. Be definition this would give the option for the Fighter to progress in non-combat options. Especially when combined with the newly defined downtime system (assuming its as good as reported to date).
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.Probably because 5e has almost no character customization and players like character customization.
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.There’s demand for a game with more depth of character building than 5e, and increased depth comes at the cost of increased complexity. Currently, PF1 is the go-to D&D clone for folks who want that addional depth.
Well mechanically in 5e other than the level three choice all fighters pretty much are the same. Sure you can RP them differently but once in combat they act the same. I don’t see how it decreases choices in comparison to 5e, since feats open up options that don’t exist in 5e. A base fighter in PF can do all the same things pretty much that a fighter can in 5e. I could see your point if PF took away from things classes can do, but they add. Problem is 5e is a very vanilla game with painfully few options and for most martials move and attack is pretty much all they do.
They are also fixing the mathematically not being able to do something by their new proficiency system similar to 5e which will allow a fighter to keep rolling skills unlike PF1.
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.Neither of those are supported by the rules in their game system, so you're saying that DMs for one style are more permissive?
Also if you want that sort of freeform RP, you really shouldn't be playing a d20 system.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
For a given value of “finely,” yes. 5e is not fine enough. PF1 is too fine.When you talk about customization, you are actually advocating for finely delineated character abilities built into the rules.
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.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).
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.So you enjoy PF as a "front loaded choice" game.
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.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...
So you’re just going to ignore the part where I said “after level 3” then?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.
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.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.
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.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...
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.