Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

[Aldarc]

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.

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.

Funny thing though. Throughout the PF2 playtest, no one on the Paizo forums were clamoring for PF2 to be like 5E. If anything, quite the opposite. So it would be refreshing if you would acknowledge that maybe you are truly not the core audience that Paizo is designing PF2 for and maybe what you want out of the game is not what Paizo's core audience wants.

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...

This will be improved somewhat. I recall Paizo saying that monster/foe creation will be more akin to its easier Starfinder iteration.

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

It's not that different from reading through the Warlock invocation list.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Not sure if you're discussing decisions made during chargen or during actual gameplay.

If you mean deeper / more involved charbuilding - agreed!

If you mean the three actions, I would say the jury is still out. While great in theory, something like that can easily backfire. At the very least, it's not one of the misgivings.

But if you mean the decision to present charbuild options as an impenetrable wall of feats I disagree. All the things intrinsic to being a "fighter" or a "wizard" needs to be given in the class chapter. And there needs to be such things - D&D has never been a generic system and it would be folly to try it!

Meanwhile, Feats needs to be be general stuff open to all (or most). Saving a bit of space by identifying each and every repeated bit of ability, and then shunting that off into a separate chapter (Feats) makes for an extremely poor reading experience.

Most of all: overview. You can't get overview if you're presented with hundreds of list items.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

Not sure if you're discussing decisions made during chargen or during actual gameplay.

If you mean deeper / more involved charbuilding - agreed!

If you mean the three actions, I would say the jury is still out. While great in theory, something like that can easily backfire. At the very least, it's not one of the misgivings.

But if you mean the decision to present charbuild options as an impenetrable wall of feats I disagree. All the things intrinsic to being a "fighter" or a "wizard" needs to be given in the class chapter. And there needs to be such things - D&D has never been a generic system and it would be folly to try it!

Meanwhile, Feats needs to be be general stuff open to all (or most). Saving a bit of space by identifying each and every repeated bit of ability, and then shunting that off into a separate chapter (Feats) makes for an extremely poor reading experience.

Most of all: overview. You can't get overview if you're presented with hundreds of list items.

If you're probably is separating the feats I haven't worried about that in years with things like MPMB's character sheet and Herolab.

 

[zztong]

Funny thing though. Throughout the PF2 playtest, no one on the Paizo forums were clamoring for PF2 to be like 5E. If anything, quite the opposite. So it would be refreshing if you would acknowledge that maybe you are truly not the core audience that Paizo is designing PF2 for and maybe what you want out of the game is not what Paizo's core audience wants.

I dunno. I frequented the Paizo boards and participated in the playtest. A number of us were calling for changes that I think would make PF2 more like 5E. The various discussions of changing +1 per level to something smaller (like +1/2 per level) was expressing a desire for something like bounded accuracy. On several occasions I mentioned that having now seen a system (PF2) with a great many smaller-effect Choices, I'd much rather have fewer larger-effect Choices which rings a bit closer to 5e.

I come to this discussion from PF1 and the PF2 playtest, having not yet played 5E. I'm awaiting the full PF2 to make a decision, but the PF2 Playtest left me with the clear impression that I am no longer somebody Paizo appears to consider part of their core audience. I respect their right to make decisions. We'll not likely completely part ways. I suspect I'll end up playing PF2, but its unlikely that I'll run it, and if I don't plan to run it then I probably won't buy it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

I think the AC numbers in 5E are actually in a pretty interesting place, as long as you open up the possibility of magic items. You can reach a reliable AC against lower-level enemies (which you should still be facing, when you get to high levels), and it's up to the player to decide how much of their offense they want to sacrifice to achieve that.

The real problem is that there's no point to tanking, because everyone has enough HP to survive a fight, and everyone regenerates to full between fights. There is no "squishy DPS" that you actually need to protect, for which you would want to trade your offense.

 

[CapnZapp]

If you're probably is separating the feats I haven't worried about that in years with things like MPMB's character sheet and Herolab.

If you mean to say you're not going to read and use the rulebook, I guess we have nothing to discuss.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the AC numbers in 5E are actually in a pretty interesting place, as long as you open up the possibility of magic items. You can reach a reliable AC against lower-level enemies (which you should still be facing, when you get to high levels), and it's up to the player to decide how much of their offense they want to sacrifice to achieve that.

The real problem is that there's no point to tanking, because everyone has enough HP to survive a fight, and everyone regenerates to full between fights. There is no "squishy DPS" that you actually need to protect, for which you would want to trade your offense.

Tanking has two components.

Redirecting attacks away from Squishies. Actually soaking (negating) the attacks.

5E every much still got Squishies; there's a huge life expectancy discrepancy between a clothie with middling AC and no Con bonus, and someone with 20+ AC and twice as many hp.

The problem is there isn't really any tanks. Even with really good AC you can't just hurl yourself into the midst of the fray - the BBEG will still be able to hit you, you deplete your hp too quickly to rely on "tanking".

Remember, we're discussing this in the context of "too high" AC. You want characters that focus on defense to get great AC but not stratospheric AC.

This probably needs a diminishing returns mechanism. Each extra bonus yields less and less. Just adding +1 after +1 (and certainly not +2s) simply won't work.

 

[Aldarc]

I dunno. I frequented the Paizo boards and participated in the playtest. A number of us were calling for changes that I think would make PF2 more like 5E.

I come to this discussion from PF1 and the PF2 playtest, having not yet played 5E. I'm awaiting the full PF2 to make a decision, but the PF2 Playtest left me with the clear impression that I am no longer somebody Paizo appears to consider part of their core audience. I respect their right to make decisions. We'll not likely completely part ways. I suspect I'll end up playing PF2, but its unlikely that I'll run it, and if I don't plan to run it then I probably won't buy it.

As did I, but I also noticed a LOT people who did not want PF2 to move in the direction of 5E.

 

[zztong]

As did I, but I also noticed a LOT people who did not want PF2 to move in the direction of 5E.

I can agree with that. The tone of the boards changed noticeably during the Playtest. A lot of the voices advocating for alternatives left. Much of the dissent focused on retaining more of PF1, but... and this is just my opinion... there were folks advocating for changes that remind me of 5E.

I don't post much on the Paizo boards anymore. I recognize Paizo invests a lot of effort trying to keep them cordial, but the remaining audience clearly wants PF2.

 

[Staffan]

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

Character generation (from the playtest): Based on choosing Ancestry (previously known as race), Background, and Class. Some of these contain one or more sub-choices (e.g. which of these four 1st level abilities do you want?). Those three largely determine stats as well - at each stage, you get a number of stat boosts (some fixed, some you get to choose, but no stage can double up on the same stat) and sometimes stat flaws, and at the end you get another round of customizing stat boosts.

So let's say you want to play a dwarf monk who used to be a sailor. You'd choose:

Ancestry: Dwarf. As a dwarf, I have speed 20 ft, and I get ability boosts to Constitution and Wisdom as well as a free one which I put in Dex. I also get an ability flaw to Charisma, and I get Darkvision. I choose the heritage Ancient-Blooded (which gives me the ability to use a reaction to get +2 to a save against a magic effect, but reduces my ability to use magic items), and the ancestry feat Mountain Roots (which makes me hard to shove, trip, or otherwise push around).

Background: Sailor. This gives me two ability boosts: one to Strength or Dexterity (I choose Dexterity), and one free (I choose Constitution). I also get the skill feat Underwater Marauder, and training in the Sailor Lore skill (which means I know sailing-related stuff and can make money working as a sailor).

Class: Monk. This gives me a whole bunch of stuff: 10+Con modifier hp, an ability boost to Strength or Dexterity (I choose Dex), Expert proficiency in all three saves (so my bonus would be +2+level+stat) as well as unarmored defense (which means my unarmored AC is 12+level+Dex), trained proficiency in unarmed attacks (so my attack bonus is +1+level+stat), trained proficiency in Perception and in a bunch of skills, and I get to deal 1d6+Strength modifier damage with unarmed attacks. I also get Flurry of Blows, which once/round lets me make two attacks as a single action, and they are combined for the purposes of overcoming resistances and such. Finally, I get to choose a 1st level monk feat - the playtest offered 7 to choose from.

Discretionary: At this stage, I distribute an additional four ability boosts (no more than one per ability). I'll put them in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, and then sum up my stats: 10, +2 per ability boost, -2 per ability flaw. That gets me Str 16, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8.

Final stuff: Buy gear for 150 sp (A PF2 silver piece is about the same as a D&D gold piece), finalize all other calculations (skill bonuses, etc), deal with details beyond the numbers.

At later levels, a lot of the heavy lifting is done by class feats rather than class features. Class feats are special abilities you can choose from your class's list every other level, sort of like the way rogues work in PF1. Fixed class features mostly (but not exclusively) give you higher proficiency levels with various things at higher levels.

This is all based on the playtest rules, and the details will probably change in the final version (for example, they've mentioned that proficiency levels will double their effect, so Expert unarmored defense will give AC 14+level+Dex). But these are the basics.
-----

Actions are fairly simple. On your turn, you can take three actions - no standard/move/swift/full-round actions, but three actions. Doing some things require more than two actions - this is called an "activity". For example, many spells take two actions to cast (one for the verbal component and one for the somatic). One action that requires a bit of special attention is Strike, which lets you make an attack against a foe. Your second attack in a round is at -5, and your third and possible subsequent ones are at -10 (certain weapons have the Agile trait, which reduces the penalty to -4/-8 instead). So if I really wanted to go to town on someone as a monk, I could use Flurry of Blows for my first action (making one regular attack and one at -4, because Fist is an agile weapon), then Strike for my second action (at -8), and Strike again for my third (also at -8). Usually, you will not be making attacks at -8 or -10, because you will almost certainly have something more useful to do.

There are also two more types of actions: Reactions and Free Actions. Both are done in response to triggers, and can be taken on both your own and others' turns. The difference is that you only get one reaction in between each of your own turns (it resets at the start of your turn), whereas you can do as many free actions as there are opportunities. It also bears mentioning that Attack of Opportunity is now mostly a fighter thing, so moving from one opponent to another is usually no big deal.