PF2 What Would You Want from PF2?

Retreater

Adventurer
I've read a number of negative discussions about the 2nd edition playtest of Pathfinder (and honestly, I've participated in a few myself). So I'm curious, what would you have wanted in a revised Pathfinder/new edition? Maybe it's a streamlined Pathfinder 1E (similar to Unchained)? Maybe it's an edition of Pathfinder that's compatible with 5E D&D?

I'd also be curious to know what relationship you currently have with Pathfinder (currently play/GM it, used to play/GM it, etc.)?
 
Reasonably, I would hope for something between Pathfinder Unchained and 5e (leaning toward the former) with Archetypes in Core.

Less reasonably, replacing Archetypes with Rogue Genius Games' Guide to the Talented series and removing as many threeisms as possible. Especially the multiclassing.
 

MockingBird

Explorer
Let's see, I would like something in between PF1e and 5e but I'm not entirely sure I would even leave 5e at this time or the near future. I'd really like 5e compatible APs and setting book honestly.

My relationship with PF1e was player only. My casual style of DMing doesnt mesh well with PF/3.5 or 4e.
 

pogre

Adventurer
My version of PF2E would look a lot like 5e. However, as we already have 5E that makes zero sense for the market. Simplifying towards 5e and moving more towards a GM-judgment game is already a niche massively occupied by D&D 5e.

PF2E should embrace the complexity and customization available from their PF1e catalog. Smooth out the edges and clarify, but it seems to be the customization possibilities that PF fans love.

I have run a fair amount of PF1e. I ran it specifically for a couple of their APs a few years ago.
 

ccs

39th lv DM
Something easily compatible with all of our PF1e stuff.

If that doesn't come to pass then it'd better be a far & above improvement over PF1e or I know the group I play with won't switch.
And even if it is it'll still be a year + before we'd switch as we're only nearing 3rd lv in our current campaign. At the rate we go we'll only be 5th lv come launch. So only mid way through book two of the AP we're playing.
 

GreyLord

Adventurer
I think what I would want as a 5e player, and what Pathfinder 1e fans would want are two different things.

For the actual players of Pathfinder I think the following would have been more to their liking...

A Cleaned up version of PF1e. What I mean is that all the current classes (or most of them, especially those out of the APG and probably the ACG, UC, UM, and Occult adventures) are found in a core rulebook. Most of the GOOD Feats are kept and many of the trap feats are tossed. The rules are slightly streamlined (so, perhaps the 3 action round type idea that PF2e floats), but for the most part it remains a LOT like PF1e.

They don't go the route they did with PF2e (or appear to be going at least) that they took. They make PF2e a PF1e cleaned up and streamlined a little, but for the most part almost exactly like PF1e with added classes, feats, and equipment.

Don't toss out the baby with the bathwater, build on the system you already have and make it better with what you've already created. Simplify a few things, but overall have the exact same system for PF2e as you do for PF1e. Make it more of a AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e type transition than a D&D 3e to D&D 4e type transition.

For a 5e player who isn't all that much into Pathfinder....

Simplify...simplify...simplify.

Reduce the number of feats. Reduce the number of skills. Make it easier to figure out Attack Bonus so that it basically goes with a +1 every 2 levels (so 1/2 level = BAB). You have a higher number than 5e as your base, but it's low enough to keep things more in perspective. Keep classes clean. If you do need to have more than the number of classes in the first core, keep it limited to the PHB and APG classes. Make the classes themselves more simple and easier to figure out bonuses and numbers.

OR...simply make adventures for 5e and drop the entire PF2e thing.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I'm a 5e player who came back to TTRPGs have a decades long hiatus. I had played OD&D and 1e in the 80s as well as a number of non-D&D games. I own and occasionally run one-offs for Paranoia, the Expanse, ICRPG, InSPECTres, and some other more obscure games. Mostly, though, its 5e.

I played PF2 at a convention recently and enjoyed it, but it felt just like D&D with variant rules. It didn't feel all that more crunchy than 5e.

I've tried to think what PF2 would need to get me to buy the core rule books. I came to the conclusion that nothing would. I'm already years and many hundreds of dollars invested into D&D 5e. I'm still enjoying it and have enough material to last me for years. I can't see what Paizo could do to draw me away from 5e to Pathfinder. When I want an alternative to D&D, there are so many other games I would like to try that offer much different play styles, mechanics, and flavor.

Not sure I understand the business model for PF2. It seems to have divided PF's hard-core fans and I don't see it drawing many new players from D&D.
 
Last edited:

trancejeremy

Villager
Personally, I would not want a PF2e, so much as a Pathfinder Light. I would like to see a Pathfinder more akin to older editions D&D. While 5e does hearken back in some ways, it radically changes things that even 3e didn't, like the range for armor class and to hit (ie, the whole bounded accuracy thing).

I have back converted a number of PF classes and monsters to AD&D 1e, but I would like not to have to do that.

And honestly, since that won't ever happen, that annoys me the most about PF 2e is that it means there will be less new content, it will be just a regurgitation of PF 1e content for the new 10 years, with only a trickle of actual new content.
 

LuisCarlos17f

Explorer
Half-brood races showed like the rest, and racial traits for gnomes allowing different types of character, not only stealth or illusionism.
 

Retreater

Adventurer
How does one distinguish between a Pathfinder which uses the 5E rules, and 5E?
My interpretation would be that Paizo could be a 3PP that publishes "5E Compatible" products, as opposed to a "second party" publisher that produces official content. The difference here would be a company like Frog God Games releasing "Rappan Athuk" (3PP) and a company like Sasquatch releasing "Princes of the Apocalypse."

But one could interpret "5E compatible" as something that collects variant rules that can be added on top of the core 5E system - for example for a more tactical experience or with more character creation options. I would consider Matt Colville's "Strongholds and Followers" a "5E Compatible" product.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
My interpretation would be that Paizo could be a 3PP that publishes "5E Compatible" products, as opposed to a "second party" publisher that produces official content. The difference here would be a company like Frog God Games releasing "Rappan Athuk" (3PP) and a company like Sasquatch releasing "Princes of the Apocalypse."
That's not Pathfinder then, though. That's just 5E compatible products produced by the company who makes Pathfinder.

My point was that a 5E version of Pathfinder is indistinguishable from 5E. The main thing which distinguishes the two is that they are different rules systems, not the fluff text.

Unless a 5E version of Pathfinder merely means 5E versions of the setting/adventures, in which case go back to step 1. :)

(And I won't go into that, as I've literally just backed out of longer thread on that very topic!)
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
That's not Pathfinder then, though. That's just 5E compatible products produced by the company who makes Pathfinder.

My point was that a 5E version of Pathfinder is indistinguishable from 5E. The main thing which distinguishes the two is that they are different rules systems, not the fluff text.

Unless a 5E version of Pathfinder merely means 5E versions of the setting/adventures, in which case go back to step 1. :)

(And I won't go into that, as I've literally just backed out of longer thread on that very topic!)
It should be noted that initially, pathfinder wasn't that different from 3.5, it just evolved a bit after that.

There is a clear desire from some for a system that shares the best features of both, but I'm not sure that's realistic. There isn't even an agreement on what those best features are!
 

Voadam

Adventurer
Reasonable compatibility with PF1/3.5/3.0/d20Modern. I want to be able to mix and match my stuff with as few problems as using 3.0 modules in a Pathfinder 1e game.

Improvements: simplify skill lists, give more skills to low skill classes, deal with LFQW, ruthlessly give all save or die/suck spells a save a round, possibly copy the 5e concentration rules, turn x/day powers generally into at will or once per encounter or recharge, give rogues and monks full BAB, more per encounter mechanics, PC save discrepancies at high levels, some sort of significantly better non-magical healing, separate culture from race, have a 4e DMG II style no magic loot option, allowing a full attacks with a move, clear rules for grappling, etc.
 
Last edited:

Kaodi

Adventurer
I think I just wanted a cleaner system with unnecessary bloat ironed out and a stronger balance between classes and some straightforward improvements. I like the expansion of critical success and failure states (is that in 5e? I have barely played that system). I am cool with new character generation too even though at high levels it means characters are barely differentiated by their stats (I suppose they might also rejig that in the final version).
 

GreyLord

Adventurer
Reasonable compatibility with PF1/3.5/3.0/d20Modern. I want to be able to mix and match my stuff with as few problems as using 3.0 modules in a Pathfinder 1e game.

Improvements: simplify skill lists, give more skills to low skill classes, deal with LFQW, ruthlessly give all save or die/suck spells a save a round, possibly copy the 5e concentration rules, turn x/day powers generally into at will or once per encounter or recharge, give rogues and monks full BAB, more per encounter mechanics, PC save discrepancies at high levels, some sort of significantly better non-magical healing, separate culture from race, have a 4e DMG II style no magic loot option, allowing a full attacks with a move, clear rules for grappling, etc.
Some of that might be decent, but absolutely NOT for giving Rogues full BAB if BAB is going to differ between classes.

Why do many modern gamers feel "Rogue" = Combat class?

Rogue was normally a ROGUE...or at least a stealth and subterfuge class previously. Later it became somewhat of a skill monkey...

So why do so many want it to be a combat class when they could already have combat classes found in the Warrior classes?
 
So why do so many want it to be a combat class when they could already have combat classes found in the Warrior classes?
Because the vast majority of time in the vast majority of games is spent in combat, so a class that can't pull its own weight in combat is a useless load?

This is very much the same as it was in the TSR days. The 3.0 Rogue was a response to decades of player complaints.
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
Why do many modern gamers feel "Rogue" = Combat class?
If rogues aren't a combat class, then they are literally the only class in the game which is not. For a game where the majority of the minutes in a session are spent in combat, it's not really viable to have an entire class that doesn't participate in that.
 

Advertisement

Top