Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7631352" data-attributes="member: 12731">When it comes to the "feat overload" issue, it is possible that eitherA) 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/orB) 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? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification