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

[Jer]

I am curious whether there is a worrisome demographic to this day composed of people who refuse to play D&D 5E because they didn't like the playtest document back in 2014 or whenever it was.

I have two players in my group who had a really bad experience with a D&D Next playtest event at Origins. I didn't get to attend that event with them for some reason but their impression of the system was that it was boring and led to a playstyle that they hated (i.e. overly cautious and unheroic - or "like one of the crummy versions of D&D we played in junior high, back before good games existed" as one of them always puts it). Even today they'll only play in 5e game if we start at a minimum of level 5 and only if there's a good reason we can't play either 13th Age or 4e instead.

 

[CapnZapp]

When it comes to the "feat overload" issue, it is possible that either
A) the playtest was organized that way specifically for playtest purposes; that is, newcomer friendliness wasn't a priority (which for a playtest, fair enuff)
and/or
B) that Paizo realizes a reader should be able to get a "feel" for any given class just by browsing those pages of the classes chapter, without having to cross-reference long catalog-style lists of other chapters. (Spellcaster classes have it bad already!) ... and is/have completely reorganized the game, to put the "core essence" of each class right where it belongs, in the few pages or so where each class is presented!

What I'm saying is that presenting a Ranger or a Rogue (or whatever) just as dry summaries saying "you get a blue feat at level 1, 4, 7...; you get a red feat at level 2, 5, 8..." and then need to absorb the entirety of those feat lists before you can even tell the classes apart would be a disaster.

There's a difference between "adding options"/"providing flexibility" to losing sight of the overarching fact, that dndish games (including Pathfinder) succeed because they are strongly classed, where each class is given a strong unique identity. This identity ("what does Fighter do?") should come across quickly and by reading as few rules pages as possible.

---

Then we come to another worry: Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards or the martial-caster inequality (closely related to the "buffing game" - which can most easily be expressed as "how much better does your party become if given a minute to prepare before combat?". In 3E the difference was massive, basolutely game-wrecking. In 5E it allows you some buffing, but not nearly enough to become the focus of the game). In d20 and therefore PF the game provides absolutely zero such equality, and I believe it would be a MASSIVE mistake to release a game post-5E that does not bring that equality up to AT LEAST 5E standards*. In other words, since the majority of prospective PF2 gamers will have played 5E already, the market for yet another game with LFQW has well and truly passed, IMO.
*) And just for the record I am singularly uninterested in what 4th Edition did or did not do.

Note: it is not enough to point to fundamental mechanics to say PF2 passes this test. (Does even Paizo want to pass this test?) Take 5E as an example - you can't (or should not at least) claim 5E has fixed LFQW just because it has mechanics such as Concentration - the devil is in the details, and it is not before you realize that ENOUGH buff spells have Concentration as a requirement that the mechanic truly has a significant effect in actual play. My point here is that is not (nearly) enough to just look at level 1 and fundamental mechanisms. You need to ensure enough (read "all") spells play ball, and that you can't circumvent the restrictions by (high-level) class features or magic items (etc). And that's assuming those basic gameplay mechanisms are enough in the first place.

---

The third big gotcha revolves around NPCs (and monsters).

In 3E, it was a nightmare to create NPCs. Not only because they followed basically the same chargen rules as for player characters, which made it incredibly complex and timeconsuming to stat up high-level adversaries. I could easily spend an hour creating a NPC character who then got cut down in less than a minute of game play. Time not well spent!

But it was worse than that. The nature of 3.x/PF is such that you absolutely need a magic item loadout - no "naked" humanoid can compete (except during the lowest levels). Not only did this (seriously) compromise the looting, but it added greatly to the prep time for the DM.

Also, D&D spellcasting NPCs (and monsters) have always gotten zero support for spells. That is, the DM is expected to choose between the entirety of the PHB spell lists, and the spells are full versions with all the complexity that entails. Giving a high-level caster a dozen spells take a very long time to write up, and make the stat block extremely complex.

Now, 5th edition has greatly simplified the first two points discussed here (but sadly not the third one). That is, NPCs are MUCH faster and easier to write-up. They require ZERO loot (unless the DM feels it's time for a reward). They do still require full spells, with all the cross-referencing that entails (the Monster Manual doesn't even indicate which spells are Concentration, an omission that is greatly annoying).

---

The final item of discussion, is of course the very nature of 4E itself, to reconnect to the question asked in the thread title. Obviously none of the above will matter in the least if the "feeling" is gone. 4E didn't feel and play much like AD&D, 3E, Pathfinder or 5E, and the results are plain to see.

But in this I am (surprisingly) less worried, simply because Paizo will obviously have learnt their lesson. I don't see any reason why PF2 will abandon the core gameplay that gamers have shown so clearly they care for.

---

Instead, as I've stated above, my main concern is: have Paizo well and truly grokked that they're living in a post-5E world, where it won't be enough to just focus on Pathfinder.

After all, I assume Paizo wants more than to be just the next fantasy heartbreaker - we have had literally hundreds of "improved D&D games", and the only thing that separates Paizo from all those other companies is that they have adhered very close to the reigning D&D edition of the day, and catered directly to D&D gamers that want a little more of their favourite edition.

So, what will it be, Paizo? Will you have learnt the lessons taught by 5E?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then we come to another worry: Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards. In 3E the difference was massive, absolutely game-wrecking. ...I believe it would be a MASSIVE mistake to release a game post-5E that does not bring that equality up to AT LEAST 5E standards*.

5e proves there's a market for a game with significant LFQW (or that the market just doesn't care/is entirely unaware of the issue). PF1 proved that there was at least as much of a market for extreme LFQW as for virtually none at all (or, again, that the market had no clue on that topic).

Where should PF2 position itself along that spectrum?

I suspect it's a matter of some indifference to new players, and, indeed, most of the market. But there's certainly a hard core of fans who demand LFQW and would rather see the PH burn on YouTube than tolerate it's absence. /At least/ the 5e level of LFQW is thus desirable, and, given that 3.5 was the absolute peak of the phenomenon, erring on that side can't be a terrible idea, to appeal to existing fans.

In 3E, it was a nightmare to create NPCs.
Now, 5th edition .. NPCs are MUCH faster and easier to write-up.
...They do still require full spells, with all the cross-referencing that entails.

So the question is, be more like 5e or less like 5e? The thorny problem always being the impulse to imitate the most successful version, which is (now) 5e, but which is also probably not going to differentiate PF2.

That said, condensed monster-block-suitable spells sounds like a good idea.

The final item of discussion, is of course the very nature of 4E itself...
*) And just for the record I am singularly uninterested in what 4th Edition did or did not do.

Ultimately, PF2 will be Paizo's 4e if their PF1 fans turn on it with take two of the undying enmity of the edition war. (I mean, or if they give it an unrealistic sales goal and act surprised when it doesn't deliver... or if they try to use it to kill their own OGL or ....
...yeah, it's not going to be Paizo's 4e. Worst case, I suppose it might turn out to be Paizo's Alternity.)

 

[Aldarc]

The final item of discussion, is of course the very nature of 4E itself, to reconnect to the question asked in the thread title. Obviously none of the above will matter in the least if the "feeling" is gone. 4E didn't feel and play much like AD&D, 3E, Pathfinder or 5E, and the results are plain to see.

But in this I am (surprisingly) less worried, simply because Paizo will obviously have learnt their lesson. I don't see any reason why PF2 will abandon the core gameplay that gamers have shown so clearly they care for.

Paizo has said (repeatedly in a number of public statements) that they wanted to make PF2 so that people could play the same sort of stories and character that they could play with PF1.

 

[Kurviak]

Paizo has said (repeatedly in a number of public statements) that they wanted to make PF2 so that people could play the same sort of stories and character that they could play with PF1.

Yeah but it seems like the fun is diminished if you do some research of what Paizo’s employees had said about PF2 design intentions.

They intended PF2 to be easier on the GM including preparation, NPC and monster design, etc.

They also want it to be very customizable for PCs creation and evolution, but at the same time more manageable and balanced than PF1.

Easier to learn for both new players and GMS.

Be able to recreate the same kind of campaigns that PF1 allows including going from zero to demigod.

Try fixing imbalances, bottlenecks, inconsistency and duplication.

 

[CapnZapp]

Paizo has said (repeatedly in a number of public statements) that they wanted to make PF2 so that people could play the same sort of stories and character that they could play with PF1.

Well, you can say that of any pairing of dndish games: you can play the same sort of stories and characters in AD&D and 5E, for instance. At least if you squint hard enough; no transition is flawless. Just one example: the way scrolls in 5E can only be used by the class that knows the spell, meaning you can't plant a Speak With Nature scroll to make sure a role-playing encounter can take place (since not every party contains a Druid).

However, if they mean technical specifics, such as how you can in 3.x spend a minute casting a dozen buff spells, customize your gear, then scry/teleport right into enemy HQ without warning and wipe the floor with your supposedly equal (and therefore challenging and exciting) opponent, then, no, that would be a grave mistake; especially now in an age where 5E has shown you don't need a lot of d20 nonsense to play D&D.

So this statement is either saying nothing or everything.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah but it seems like the fun is diminished if you do some research of what Paizo’s employees had said about PF2 design intentions.

I have, but I don't necessarily think that these design goals are antithetical to what I mentioned about their intent for people to play the same sort of stories. Not necessarily identical stories, but the same sort of stories. What might "same sort of stories" entail? At least the sort of stories that we find in their adventure paths.

 

[Remathilis]

Paizo has said (repeatedly in a number of public statements) that they wanted to make PF2 so that people could play the same sort of stories and character that they could play with PF1.

4e also advertised "ze game is ze same!" in it's trailer, and ymmv on that statement.

 

[Aldarc]

4e also advertised "ze game is ze same!" in it's trailer, and ymmv on that statement.

Sure, but I am not really seeing how PF2 deviates so strongly from its predecessor that the stories told would be radically different. So far, the PF2 game that Jason Bulmahn is running on YouTube seems like a standard PF1/D&D game set in Golarion.

 

[zztong]

Sure, but I am not really seeing how PF2 deviates so strongly from its predecessor that the stories told would be radically different. So far, the PF2 game that Jason Bulmahn is running on YouTube seems like a standard PF1/D&D game set in Golarion.

Its going to boil down to individual taste and then endless debate. I'm sure Paizo can be confident that PF2 matches their spirit of PF1, but that's not a guarantee that an individual consumer will share that opinion, and even then that consumer might like PF2 better.

As an individual, in the interest of saving page count, I'll just try to leave it generically at "the Playtest system felt different to me" leading to a much different feel to the cast of characters. For instance, "Magic" -- the feeling of how Arcana interacted with the environment -- felt different. Playtest Golarion felt largely the same so far as society, the types of villains, and people's motivations.

Perhaps this conveys my observation more succinctly: Paizo is now trying to tell stories of Zeus in Hindi instead of Mandarin. The story is the same, but words don't carry the same meaning and so the actors seem different.