• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

PF2 What Would You Want from PF2?

ccs

39th lv DM
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.
Well, if the games your playing in are majority combat, and your choosing a rogue but wanting it to do a warrior types job? Then I'd argue that your doing it wrong.

You don't need to change the whole system to fix that, just how you play.
A) Pick a class that fits the game you find yourself in.
B) Have a discussion with your DM about what type of game you want.
 
Well, if the games your playing in are majority combat, and your choosing a rogue but wanting it to do a warrior types job? Then I'd argue that your doing it wrong.

You don't need to change the whole system to fix that, just how you play.
A) Pick a class that fits the game you find yourself in.
B) Have a discussion with your DM about what type of game you want.
No one is asking the rogue to go blow for blow with the fighter. What they are asking is for the rogue to be relevant in combat, or if you focus on a build with a lot less utility then to equal in combat.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
As someone who has been been GMing Pathfinder for the better part of the last decade, I want fewer fiddly bits. Oh, boy, do I want fewer fiddly bits. I liked breaking barbarian rage out into rounds, but the number of subsystems attached to classes has gone too far.
 

FaerieGodfather

Registered User
Well, if the games your playing in are majority combat, and your choosing a rogue but wanting it to do a warrior types job? Then I'd argue that your doing it wrong.
So you want one of the most iconic D&D classes to be worthless for most of the game because you think players should know better than to play it?

Of all of the D&D design philosophies I've encountered, that's certainly one of them.
 

Jer

Explorer
If rogues aren't a combat class, then they are literally the only class in the game which is not.
This. Every class in the game as descended from 3.0 is a combat class. And, I would argue, every class in prior editions EXCEPT the thief were also combat classes. Which is why the rogue became a combat class in 3.0 - because players had noticed just how terrible the thief class was at, well, everything and in 3.0 they finally decided to address it instead of pretend that being terrible at everything was some kind of positive thing about the thief class.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
It should be noted that initially, pathfinder wasn't that different from 3.5, it just evolved a bit after that.
Exactly. If 3.5 was still being published at the time, Pathfinder would have been redundant, because it looks very much like 3.5.

5E is still being published. So a 5E version of Pathfinder is redundant, as it would look very much like 5E.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Exactly. If 3.5 was still being published at the time, Pathfinder would have been redundant, because it looks very much like 3.5.

5E is still being published. So a 5E version of Pathfinder is redundant, as it would look very much like 5E.
I see - so essentially we need Paizo to step in when 6e is published and it's terrible?
 

Jer

Explorer
I see - so essentially we need Paizo to step in when 6e is published and it's terrible?
Actually we need Pathfinder 2e to be more like D&D 4e, so those of us who preferred 4e to 5e will have a home :)

(Note that this is just a joke. I do not advocate that Pathfinder 2e actually be a D&D 4e replacement. You do not need to give me bullet-points about why this would be a terrible idea.)
 

Retreater

Explorer
Actually we need Pathfinder 2e to be more like D&D 4e, so those of us who preferred 4e to 5e will have a home :)

(Note that this is just a joke. I do not advocate that Pathfinder 2e actually be a D&D 4e replacement. You do not need to give me bullet-points about why this would be a terrible idea.)
I know you're joking, but as a fan of 4e, I would actually appreciate a 5e with a little more tactical depth and more character options - something to bridge the divide between 4e and 5e (or even PF and 5e). 5e has basically turned into "I run up to the monster and swat at the big bag of hit points until it dies" for my groups. I would LOVE a more mechanically interesting 5e, as would most of my players.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
The core idea would be the same that was on the Pathfinder 1 ads: fixing D&D.

That is, just like PF presumed to fix 3E, PF2 could really fix 5E.

Of course PF didn't really fix anything (since it's by and large indistinguishable from 3.x), but the idea was right.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
My version of PF2E would look a lot like 5e. However, as we already have 5E that makes zero sense for the market.
Actually I think it makes massive sense.

5E contains a few bugbears for us old d20 gamers that I trust Paizo to fix.

(What I don't trust Paizo to fix is the same d20 problems that 5E did fix. So I think it would be much better if Paizo started with 5E and added back player-side complexity, more high-level support, and a proper magic item economy. Than if they started with all those things in PF1 and tried reinventing the 5E wheels)
 

Staffan

Explorer
Actually we need Pathfinder 2e to be more like D&D 4e, so those of us who preferred 4e to 5e will have a home :)

(Note that this is just a joke. I do not advocate that Pathfinder 2e actually be a D&D 4e replacement. You do not need to give me bullet-points about why this would be a terrible idea.)
At least in the playtest, there are several things about PF2 that do remind me of 4e, such as steadily getting better at everything by becoming higher level, class abilities mostly being selectable, and most classes having a similar skeleton but with different things with which to fill it.

Of course, this is to be expected, since both are attempts at fixing the flaws in 3e, and it makes sense that some of those flaws would get fixed in similar ways.
 
I haven't kept up with the PF2e playtest, and PF2e isn't out yet, so I don't really know that system.

I play, I don't GM (except 4e).

What would I like? Make the game easy to GM. I found 4e easy to GM, but not 3e or PF. 4e achieved this with clear guidelines and roles.

Not the last session but one session ago, my party fought a drow cleric, several drow warriors, and a charmed orca, immediately after killing a drow druid, several other warriors, and a shadow demon. (I don't know how the cleric charmed the orca.) We fought near the water's edge, and the cleric used water walking to keep safe. We finally killed the orca, at which point she used animate dead on it. The orca had not actually hit anything (since no PCs were going into the water), but my PC happened to be standing at the water's edge when it was animated. It bit me. Obviously an orca should deal significant damage when it bites you. I did not expect it to have a higher attack bonus than anyone in the party, something so high that my fast and agile brawler had no chance to dodge the attack. That is the kind of thing that wouldn't happen in 4e (or Mutants & Mastermind). The only way you face something with a huge attack bonus and huge damage is if it's much higher level than you (or has a much higher Power Level than you), not something that's effectively a summon.

(The same adventure featured a drow cleric with very high stats, as she was much higher level than the party, but this made sense. She was literally by herself, she was a badass, and she was facing four or more actions against her per round! I like Trailblazer's boss battle system, BTW, although the GM didn't use that.)

I would also like to see the game streamlined. When I'm at a PF or 4e forum, I hardly understand half of what people are saying, because the bloat has gotten so bad that practically every feat, item, class, or spell they mention is something obscure that can only be found by searching the PFSRD site. This applies far more to PF than 4e, but so many classes have mixed roles or very unclear roles. (There were a few terrible 4e classes that made the same mistake, only it's more obvious when that happens in 4e.) When I play, I pretty much always pick a "core four" or something similar (I'm currently playing a brawler, who is basically a slightly weaker fighter).

I think part of the problem was an early lack of good feats. Do you really need a new class when one or two powerful feats will give you what you want?
 

Staffan

Explorer
Obviously an orca should deal significant damage when it bites you. I did not expect it to have a higher attack bonus than anyone in the party, something so high that my fast and agile brawler had no chance to dodge the attack. That is the kind of thing that wouldn't happen in 4e (or Mutants & Mastermind). The only way you face something with a huge attack bonus and huge damage is if it's much higher level than you (or has a much higher Power Level than you), not something that's effectively a summon.
This is, I think, something that's been fixed. Monsters are no longer designed in a way similar to PCs, but rather in a way similar to the way they're done in 4e, 13th Age, or Starfinder: decide on level and their role, and base their stats on that. It will also treat NPCs like monsters in this regard.

As I understand it, monster creation rules won't be available at launch, but some time soon after.
 
This is, I think, something that's been fixed. Monsters are no longer designed in a way similar to PCs, but rather in a way similar to the way they're done in 4e, 13th Age, or Starfinder: decide on level and their role, and base their stats on that. It will also treat NPCs like monsters in this regard.
I'm very glad to hear that. :)
 

Voadam

Adventurer
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?
Why? Because of the Grey Mouser. Because of ninjas. Because of James Bond. Because of assassins. Because of Batman. Because of Han Solo. Because backstab was one of their signature powers. Because D&D involves the group engaging in combat.

I was quite happy with the evolution of basic/AD&D to 3e to 4e for rogues. Striker as a party combat role feels right.
 

zztong

Explorer
What would you have wanted in a revised Pathfinder/new edition? ... I'd also be curious to know what relationship you currently have with Pathfinder (currently play/GM it, used to play/GM it, etc.)?
Game 1 has many casual players who struggle with both the PF1 and PF2 (playtest) rules. This game needs a simpler system. This is a multi-DM game. I have run and played in this game. With PF2, I'll drop back to just playing.

Game 2 has all veteran players. It has a long history, lots of existing material, and the players value continuity. To migrate, PF2 would have to have been compatible with PF1. This is also a multi-DM game. I run and play in this game.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
The core idea would be the same that was on the Pathfinder 1 ads: fixing D&D.

That is, just like PF presumed to fix 3E, PF2 could really fix 5E.

Of course PF didn't really fix anything (since it's by and large indistinguishable from 3.x), but the idea was right.
Except it didn't presume that; it only presumed compatibility with 3.X while offering a facelift. It made some adjustments - adding more layers as time went on - but it was not created to "fix" anything. It existed to maintain the 3.X framework that Paizo could use for their own publishing purposes.

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?
Combat is the most heavily emphasized pillar of the game. Our understanding of the rogue has changed partially because tabletop roleplaying does not exist in a vacuum. And in so many other media, namely video games, rogues have already made the transition to something akin to a combat striker.
 

GreyLord

Adventurer
Except it didn't presume that; it only presumed compatibility with 3.X while offering a facelift. It made some adjustments - adding more layers as time went on - but it was not created to "fix" anything. It existed to maintain the 3.X framework that Paizo could use for their own publishing purposes.

Combat is the most heavily emphasized pillar of the game. Our understanding of the rogue has changed partially because tabletop roleplaying does not exist in a vacuum. And in so many other media, namely video games, rogues have already made the transition to something akin to a combat striker.
Before 3e came out and people started complaining about an underpowered Rogue, which CRPGs did this?

James Bond would have been more of an Assassin or maybe a Ranger (an argument might even be able to be made about a Paladin and almost definitely more akin to a Monk or Mystic in earlier versions of D&D) class, which arguably was different than the Rogue class. Even up until 3.5 the assassin was still a prestige class that even a Fighter or Wizard with the right skill points could enter into.

Most characters people list as Rogues in defense of Rogues fighting either didn't fight all that much or were actually better classed as other classes.

For example, Batman is most definitely more of a Monk than a Rogue.

The original official Stats of Gray Mouser had him as a Dual-Class being a High Level Fighter and apparently originally a Fighter first, and then dualed into a Theif (F/T 11/15). He actually also was a 3rd level M-U/Illusionist. [his companion also a Fighter Thief, with their Thief levels being 13th level and their Fighter level being 15th along with being a 5th level Bard]. In AD&D, Gray Mouser actually got much of his combat ability from originally having the Fighter levels.

Many of those rogues that one saw in Early D&D that were good at fighting were either multi or dual class to also have high fighter levels.

This was because Fighters were the domain of combat. Up until 4e, Rogues were specialized in other areas, for example, 3e they were supposed to basically be more of a skill monkey type character. Most didn't care whether this was changed or not and played Rogues because they liked them.

A HEAVY ONLINE presence of people who hated this mechanic were very vocal about it, but that still is mystifying. A grand archtype of fantasy and medieval fiction has been the sewer rat, the rogue, the street urchin thief that scampers away from combat and isn't really a great fighter, but has many hidden qualities that turn out to be far more useful (street smarts, etc). If one wanted to play a combat guy they already have the fighter. Arguably I could see tuning up the Monk (so you have your ninja types, your skirmish stealth types...etc) for combat, but the Rogue fit an archetype that it seems many do not understand or even comprehend in our modern audiences for RPGs (though arguably the rest of those who don't play RPGs still understand it as it still shows up in TV shows, fiction, and other aspects of media).

A Rogue may not be the worst fighter (many CRPGs have rogue like characters which are decent, and are better at fighting than say...a Wizard or Magic-User [or white magic user for that matter] but are worse than at fighting than the martial types (though even a Monk type character is better than a Rogue in many games) but have other items. For example, in Final Fantasy type games they normally are good at swiping or stealing things from enemies in combat. They are not terrible at combat in those games, but are not the forward frontline fighters the martial types are.

This idea that Rogues = Combat class just as good as a warrior is kind of a weird obsession of TTRPGs and specifically D&D in the past few years. Rogues may not stink in combat, but normally the Warrior far exceeds almost any rogue in actual combat.

In some ways I think it roots directly where they tried to make a Rogue specifically geared as a combat type class in 4e. It had some abilities out of the norm, but it was more geared for combat comparative to a Ranger and others and labeled as a "Striker" akin to a martial type class rather than what a Rogue had traditionally been. Great for those of the 4e mindset, but I'm not sure why the rest of the RPG players bought into this idea, especially with how some of them eschew 4e.
 
Last edited:

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
The original official Stats of Gray Mouser had him as a Dual-Class being a High Level Fighter and apparently originally a Fighter first, and then dualed into a Theif (F/T 11/15). He actually also was a 3rd level M-U/Illusionist. [his companion also a Fighter Thief, with their Thief levels being 13th level and their Fighter level being 15th along with being a 5th level Bard]. In AD&D, Gray Mouser actually got much of his combat ability from originally having the Fighter levels.
Well, in the books, he began as a hedge-wizard's apprentice.
 

Advertisement

Top