Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

[CapnZapp]

You were talking about your hope that Paizo would scrap the PF2 version from the playtest and go back to the drawing board. I was pointing out that that was extremely unlikely

Of course, I realize that.

It seems like a very short period of time allotted to reacting to the feedback, that's all.

What's the point of having a playtest if all you're prepared to change is the minor details?

But whatever. Good luck to Paizo - they're going to need it...

 

[CapnZapp]

*blink*

Irrelevant? You've just doubled your survival time! How is that one relevant?

Example. Party is fighting big bad monster who hits really hard, but only 1/round. The tank can take 3 such hits. If the tank has 50% chance of getting hit, the party has to kill/disable the monster really fast, or the tank is going to die. If the tank has 25% chance of getting hit, the party now has 5 rounds (on average) to deal with the situation.

No, he's got a point.

In 5E to reliably tank damage you need to be hit no lower than maybe on a 19.

Anything lower than that and you can't tank the damage, and need to fall-back to standard operating procedure: making sure the incoming damage is distributed over several heroes, or, better, prevent the damage from happening at all.

I.e. maximizing offensive over defense.

Problem is, in 5E you need more than the AC 20-22 you can rely on getting without generous or lucky magic items or spells.

(The only ability that reliably approaches "tank ability" is the Bear Barbarian's "more than twice the HP of any two other heroes")

Problem also is, if you only hit on a 20, system generally breaks down.

The system really works best when to hit probability remains fairly generous.

Highly scaling systems make this more difficult to achieve = if you can juggle several +2 bonuses it's easier to go over the top than if all you can juggle is +1 bonuses...

Conclusion: the system really needs a probability curve that never quite reaches infinity... Something like AD&D Strength 18/100 perhaps...?

 

[CapnZapp]

This is an issue which shows up on these boards fairly frequently, and the answer is that the GM is doing it wrong. As 5E so succinctly summarizes, the DM's job is to describe the world, role-play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. It is not the GM's job to challenge the players.

If one PC actually manages to put a reliable defense together, then you should respect the player's agency in making those decision. Assuming the system is reasonably designed*, choosing to have a reliable defense means sacrificing other areas of competence. They probably have low damage, and/or poor saving throws; and the rest of the party is still vulnerable to attacks, regardless. The only way that a high AC will ruin a game, is if the GM decides to derail things in response to it.

If a level 10 monster can't hit a level 10 tank, and your response as the GM is to throw in level 20 monsters, then that's entirely on you. The alternative - where you stick to level 10 monsters, and that one character is never really threatened by weapon attacks - is perfectly playable. The danger is still there for all of the other characters, and the one tank is handicapped by their inability to do anything aside from staying alive. It's fine, really.


*If the game is not reasonably designed, then it's probably best to find a new game.

Theoretically perhaps, but that's not how it works in any DnD game I know of...

The character with the unbeatable AC is very likely to be the character best optimized in all other (combat) regards as well.

And a D&D fighter is always likely to be a social and exploratory failure, high AC or not.

Tldr: Nope

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Theoretically perhaps, but that's not how it works in any DnD game I know of...

The character with the unbeatable AC is very likely to be the character best optimized in all other (combat) regards as well.

Fifth Edition rather limits your ability to optimize, and one of the few trade-offs available for you is to sacrifice your shield in favor of a heavy weapon. You can't get a reliable AC without using a shield and the appropriate fighting style. Not without spending some other finite resource, like spell slots. To that end, 5E is rather well-designed. The gap between a standard character and an optimized character is small enough that an optimized character can't out-perform in every category simultaneously.

Pathfinder, on the other hand, is not well-designed. As you say, the character with unbeatable AC is probably also doing more damage than anyone else, because reliable AC is gated behind system mastery rather than behind intentional trade-offs. I would recommend not playing Pathfinder 1E, for that reason.

 

[CapnZapp]

Fifth Edition rather limits your ability to optimize, and one of the few trade-offs available for you is to sacrifice your shield in favor of a heavy weapon. You can't get a reliable AC without using a shield and the appropriate fighting style. Not without spending some other finite resource, like spell slots. To that end, 5E is rather well-designed. The gap between a standard character and an optimized character is small enough that an optimized character can't out-perform in every category simultaneously.

Pathfinder, on the other hand, is not well-designed. As you say, the character with unbeatable AC is probably also doing more damage than anyone else, because reliable AC is gated behind system mastery rather than behind intentional trade-offs. I would recommend not playing Pathfinder 1E, for that reason.

I guess my point was more the larger view:

In a game like World of Warcraft you have true separation between offense and defense.

A Warrior is (can/could) be a tank: unparalleled defense, middling offense.

Most everybody else is (can/could) be a damage-dealer: melts instantly if attacked but with huge damage potential.

In comparison, D&D is much more like most traditional fantasy games - the very idea a "fighter" should be the one that knows something about killing AND staying alive might be realistic, but feels pretty obsolete from a game balance and division of labor point.

In short: no flavor of D&D allows you to truly "tank" (=defense without offense). Sure you CAN create a "vanilla" sword and board fighter with a feeble longsword, but why would you do that when you can instead create a much more offensive combatant without sacrificing much of your defense?

In contrast, creating a glass cannon DPS:er is much better supported.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

Of course, I realize that.

It seems like a very short period of time allotted to reacting to the feedback, that's all.

What's the point of having a playtest if all you're prepared to change is the minor details?

But whatever. Good luck to Paizo - they're going to need it...

Is removing resonance a minor detail?

 

[zztong]

Is removing resonance a minor detail?

I would say it was minor. To me, it wasn't a rule with a major impact when it was present in the playtest. I felt it was pointless bureaucracy. We played with it for a while and then just ignored it. If they would have left it in we would have ignored it. It was kind of like alignment, anathemas, or bulk -- all easily ignored without any side effects.

 

[CapnZapp]

Is removing resonance a minor detail?

Remember - what I suggest Paizo do is chuck out this entire feat-centric approach and start over from scratch; going for a ruleset that actually examines what 5E does well and makes sure none of that is left out: martial-caster equality, spell balance, easy NPC building. Then on top of that, fixes or patches what 5E doesn't do nearly as well: detailed PC building, magic item economy.

In that context: yes, it is.

What we don't need is another game saddled with all of the core d20 deficiencies without any real d20 compatibility. We already have 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

What is the PF2 playtest really adding? To us gamers, that is. (That the game is adding value to Paizo by offering true independence of WotC's D&D IP is for certain)

It would be so refreshing if Paizo acknowledged that 5E truly solves a couple of decades-old issues where sacredcowism previously prevented true progress. It feels so sad to regress to a point before this moment.

I fear gamers have moved on, and no longer put up with the crap of editions past regarding these issues: DMs being expected to spend hours on NPCs that lives for rounds, fighters and rogues being utterly eclipsed by magic users...

...even stuff I personally don't subscribe to, such as the way 5E does away with Strength as the martial's primary ability allowing young people to be those special snowflakes that are gorgeous and moody and nimble and still just as deadly.

That the feats-as-building-blocks approach makes for an impenetrable reading experience isn't helping.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

Remember - what I suggest Paizo do is chuck out this entire feat-centric approach and start over from scratch; going for a ruleset that actually examines what 5E does well and makes sure none of that is left out: martial-caster equality, spell balance, easy NPC building. Then on top of that, fixes or patches what 5E doesn't do nearly as well: detailed PC building, magic item economy.

In that context: yes, it is.

What we don't need is another game saddled with all of the core d20 deficiencies without any real d20 compatibility. We already have 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

What is the PF2 playtest really adding? To us gamers, that is. (That the game is adding value to Paizo by offering true independence of WotC's D&D IP is for certain)

It would be so refreshing if Paizo acknowledged that 5E truly solves a couple of decades-old issues where sacredcowism previously prevented true progress. It feels so sad to regress to a point before this moment.

I fear gamers have moved on, and no longer put up with the crap of editions past regarding these issues: DMs being expected to spend hours on NPCs that lives for rounds, fighters and rogues being utterly eclipsed by magic users...

...even stuff I personally don't subscribe to, such as the way 5E does away with Strength as the martial's primary ability allowing young people to be those special snowflakes that are gorgeous and moody and nimble and still just as deadly.

That the feats-as-building-blocks approach makes for an impenetrable reading experience isn't helping.

I'll say it's adding a much better and easier to understand action system than 5e. I think adding modularity is something 5e desperately needs. 5e characters make almost 0 decisions after 3rd level

 

[Numidius]

Would someone please summarize char gen and action system in PF2, for what is known? Thanks