PF2 What Would You Want from PF2?

What I want is a game that offers balanced classes if the focus is on combat, since that is by far the most important pillar (regardless of what WotC is trying so say).
Yeah, that's what 4e did: balanced the classes and gave them role support both primarily in the combat arena. But thats just on the assumption that D&D, if not all-combat, was most critically concerned with combat resolution.

But, like the assumption that play doesn't progress to high level, it's self-fulfilling. Little system support for non-combat means DMs and players emphasize combat.

If that game can ALSO offer balanced classes if the focus is on either of the two other pillars, or even classes that remain balanced for those of you that really spend 1/3 of mechanical effort on combat, 1/3 on social and 1/3 on explor.
yep, that's what I'm getting at with "balanced w/in each pillar."

But neither 3E, PF or 5E delivers or comes even close, I'm afraid.
True, theyre balanced across pillars - being meh in combat is balanced by being great at dungeon crawling or diplomancy - you notice how badly that has worked put for the rogue, but it's bad for the fighter, ranger - anyone but the full casters who can prep tons of combat spells in combat-heavy games, or non-combat/utility spells if it tends otherwise.

So if by "classes should be designed to work well in each pillar" you mean that each class should represent a balanced choice if each pillar is viewed in isolation (so the explore abilities of any two classes is roughly similar), then I agree.
Yes. (Well, roughly similar in overall effectiveness & value of contribution to the party - they might be very different mechanics or effects.)

Up to a point, since I remember the sameness that easily can befall D&D.
D&D suffered from lack of choice/differentiation when it was poorly balanced in the original game, and, later, was choice-rich/differentiated in both 3e & 4e, even though they were wildly different in terms of class balance.
(Though that doesn't even get into the chilling effect imbalance has on /meaningful/ choice.)
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Hero
D&D players I think like balance, just not as the be all and end all of D&D. Most games also don't go to the high levels so uber wizards aren't such a thing most of the time even in editions where they are broken. Its one thing I noticed with 2E a typical wizard was not as good as the 3E one but was still useful to have around along with a 2E fighter. The designers of 3E seemed big on giving players what they wanted but didn't consider DMs much, 4E tried to fix it but took the game in a way people, thought was worse than 3E.

Most of the classes are fine I think with a few exceptions like the Beastmaster and Shadow Monk. The reason Rogues don't deal more damage than fighters was it starts to make fighters pointless especially with dexterity already being so good.

So Capn Zapp really needs to rage about two feats in the PHB that enable the warrior types to deal a lot more damage than everyone else. Why 4E was brought up is that you are basically saying we need 4E type mechanics in the game without saying you want 4E. Since 4E was the only D&D that had the defender and striker concept and gave the classes mechanics to match that.

Even then I think the ideal 4E party was something like 3 strikers, 1 controller and a leader. If you kill stuff faster its the best debuff yeah?

In an earlier post I did provide the math about Rogues damage and some levels they do the most damage, and they are never really that far behind and if you dual wield (which you shoulf do except for some archetypes like mastermind) they tend to break even or be a head slightly.

Assuming you can sneak attack (sometimes this is a whiff especially when you win initiative a lot).
Rogue level 1 Damage 1d8+ 2d6+ ability mod (dual wield+ sneak attack) avg dmg 14.5
Fighter 1d8+2+ ability mod (duelist) 9.5 (AC will be 3 higher though)
Fighter 2 2d6+ ability mod, reroll 1s (great weapon) Avg Damage around 11 IIRC (I'm not good at working out reroll averages)
Fighter 3 1d8+ ability mod+ 1d6+ ability mod (dual wield) avg damage 14

This also ignores spike ad on like action surge, rage, smites etc. Dual wielding alos doesn't scale well at higher levels but the Rogue is winning here. Level 3 the Rogues damage can creep up to 18 which is roughly twice he damage of a sword and board fighter.

Level 5 big change though. I'll leave the ability score at 16, in a real game it will depend odds are a Rogue will boost dex to 18.

Rogue Avg damage 21.5
Fighter 19
Fighter 2 22
Fighter 3 21.5

The duel wielding fighter here is very competitive, in a real game it will deal more damage than the Rogue due to sneak attack whiffing sometimes.

Level 7 the Rogues damage scales up to 25, level 9 28.5 so from level 5-10 the Rogue is competitive/dealing the most damage on a round by round basis.

Level 11
Rogue 32
Fighter 1 28.5
Fighter 2 33
Fighter 3 29

In a real game the Rogue is probably dealing +2 damage while the fighters will be +3 or perhaps +6. Assuming 20 prime ability.
Rogue 36
Fighter 1 34.5
Fighter 2 39
Fighter 3 35

The Rogue is still competitive though, loses the damage race to a great weapon fighter. The fighter doesn't really get a damage boost until level 20 though.

Rogue 13, 39.5
Rogue 15 43
Rogue 17 46.5
Rogue 19 50

So at most levels the Rogue is actually out damage the fighters, I didn't look at level 6 where the fighters do pick up an extra ASI but overall the pattern is Rogues deal more damage as long as they dual wield. Which most of them should, if you want to run around with a short bow plinking away you're an idiot (shave 4.5 damage off and you often soak up an extra -2 to hit). Now this does ignore things like sometimes the Rogue can't sneak attack but sometimes the fighter has to resort to throwing spears (where the rogue should switch to a shortbow). Something like a hunter ranger will often put both to shame though especially at the lower levels (1-10).

That is the math, sure the feats change something but its not the classes fault in that regard the Rogue is the DPS machine. I called the -5/+10 feats out a month or two after 5E landed back in 2014, my opinion on them has not changed.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Yeah, that's what 4e did
That's it, this ends here.

You maintain a pretense of civility but you aren't really listening. You never acknowledge any of my points. Instead you simply drop any issue where you cannot keep arguing. You focus on only disagreements and never give me any credit. In addition, you blatantly ignore my specific requests.

In short, something akin to the trolling technique Wikipedia calls sealioning. We're done.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I will happily continue the discussion with you if you can make a post that doesn't bring up 4E. Otherwise I bid you a good day. Thank you.
You're the one whio indirectly brought it up basically wanting 4E mechanics on 5E classes. You want the Rogue as a striker, and the fighter more as a defender, at least that is what you implied yes?

Myself and Tony Vargas disagree on a lot, but he isn't that disingenuous about his like of 4E. You keep either shifting the goal posts or can't identify what wrong in your rants as I basically proved the Rogue is a DPS machine in 5E, but not if feats are involved which is where the problem is.

I usually identify in plain English where I am lifting ideas from. In plain English what exactly are you trying to prove/claim? If you don't like 5E that is fine I'll take your word for it, but not everyone like 5E, or thinks its the best D&D or that its the best at certain things which some other editions do better. It really comes down to what you like yes?
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I want mechanics that YOU say are from a certain game. My inspiration is clearly stated to be another game, so stop claiming I'm bringing up that game.

That's YOUR inference, and I'll be no part of it.

In short, I reserve the right to discuss tanks and damage dealers without having to discuss one particular implementation that has no future in the development of dnd-like games.

This sub-thread ends here for me. Now, there are a few questions you have asked me. Simply don't bring up that game and I will happily keep discussing. If you don't get a reply from me, you know why.
 

Lucas Yew

Explorer
I will support PF2. As long as it does sorcerers justice -I mean if my sorceress can still cast spells while bound and gagged- I expect to at least get the core book and the bestiary. I could even get that book with houserules and tinkering guidelines. I can handle a lot of stuff, I don't care too much for complexity, and I could live without organic multiclassing. But as long as I get that minimum out of a game I up to it. Oh wait as of the playtest socerers can no longer do that, so I'm in wait and see.
Shame they never let Sorcs do away with V/S components (I personally vouched for Emotion/Thought they introduced in Occult Adventures as a suitable tradeoff). It never felt logical for me that intuitive casters must rely on literal tongues (that are artificial-and-culture dependant) and fingers (what about dragons, then?) to use their inborn magic...
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
But we're not talking about Dungeons & Dragons The Friendly Introductory Role-Playing Game here. We're not even talking about D&D 5E five years into its run, where the advanced stuff really is way overdue. We're talking about Pathfinder 2, whose core audience is hungry for exactly that which turns newbs away: crunch and system mastery galore :)
Hahahahaha. No, you're doing everything but talking about Pathfinder 2. And when people actually try to get you to talk concrete things about Pathfinder 2, you ignore them and continue whining about how PF2, 5E, 4E, 3E, and every other system under the sun does not cater to your whims. If you were talking about Pathfinder 2, then that would be a relief to the rest of us.
 
D&D players I think like balance, just not as the be all and end all of D&D. Most games also don't go to the high levels so uber wizards aren't such a thing most of the time even in editions where they are broken.
I think D&D players like to /complain/ about balance, but really /don't/ like to see balance actually fixed. ;)

Take LFQW. People loved complaining about it, but did 3e or 5e really fix it, or just shift the shells around?

The foundation of the complaint goes back to 1e, when a wizard's spell power increased with level impacting multiple factors.
As you leveled up, you got more spells known (greater versatility), higher-level spells with more profound effects, and most spells got also more powerful as you leveled, but your spells rarely got even a little harder to save against.
In 2e, some spells were capped for damage/level.
In 3e, most spells were also capped, and in a more consistent way, and saves scaled with /spell level/ rather than character level, so, in theory, lower level spells should have dropped off in usefulness, but save DCs so overwhelmed save bonuses that only your lowest level spells on a high-level caster had to worry about saves being made too much - and those could be used for utility.
In 5e, spells scaled in power with spell-slot level instead of character level, which should reduce the relative power of lower-level spells as you go, except that saves scale with level (proficiency). So you still have overall spell power increasing multiple ways as casters level. More spells known (versatility), more slots/day, higher level spells, and scaling save DCs - oh, and cantrips increase damage with level, too.

The LF, side, of course, also stayed the linear part was that, for the most part, a fighter's attacks didn't get better in any particularly level-based way, they just hit more often, due to his faster combat-matrix (THAC0) progression and multiple attacks at higher level. That was, if anything, slightly weakened in 3.x, by iterative rather than multiple attacks, though the superior progression was kept. In 5e, the superior progression is lost, but extra attacks restored.

So LFQW remains in 5e, the formula is re-arranged, the factors different, but level still improves casting in multiple ways that stack up dramatically. For PF2 to do away with it, it'd have to do something radical (but, obviously, NOT like 4e did, because that was unacceptable). Either factor level into the fighter's power more than once - for instance, the way 13A did, by increasing damage dice as well as attack bonus as you level - or by severely curtailing caster progressions (for instance, if casters got the same number of spells/day at all levels, but the spells got more powerful, that'd be 'linear').

But it doesn't seem like there's any real impetus in the fanbase to do away with LFQW, anyway, does it?

Why 4E was brought up is that you are basically saying we need 4E type mechanics in the game without saying you want 4E. Since 4E was the only D&D that had the defender and striker concept and gave the classes mechanics to match that.
And that's an understandable attitude to want to take, because anything from 4e is tainted, presumably, doubly so for PF fans who were repelled from the D&D IP by 4e, and supported by Paizo.

But, the omission just makes the idea 'look guilty,' so we really need to acknowledge when 4e did something, and just make a case for how PF2 could accomplish the same thing, without suffering from the association - something 5e got away with a few times, with the handling of monster stat blocks, and of NPCs using the same style of bloc, for instance.

In this case, the idea of the Rogue as DPS king 'striker' is clearly risking the 'MMO' refrain.

If you kill stuff faster its the best debuff yeah?
That's one school of thought, sure, and it generally works pretty well, except when it occasionally fails catastrophically. ;) It does follow naturally from the way hps work (no death spiral), and DPR is easy to calculate, so it receives a lot of fan scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
I want mechanics that YOU say are from a certain game. My inspiration is clearly stated to be another game, so stop claiming I'm bringing up that game.
If a mechanic or design concept was implemented in a past edition it's helpful to acknowledge that. Otherwise you can undercut your point. There's a huge impetus, on-line to correct 'mistakes,' IDK, forumites just live for that sorta thing. ;)

You may want to pointedly ignore that something you'd like PF2 do has been done already, maybe the idea that "PF should finally find a use for the d12," for a pure hypothetical to get away from the loading we're dealing with here, sounds like a good slogan to sell people on the overlooked dodecahedron, but the fact that the game used d12 for longsword damage vs L creatures back in the day is going to get thrown in your face a lot if you do.

Because internet.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen... Be nice plz n_n
And that's an understandable attitude to want to take, because anything from 4e is tainted, presumably, doubly so for PF fans who were repelled from the D&D IP by 4e, and supported by Paizo.

But, the omission just makes the idea 'look guilty,' so we really need to acknowledge when 4e did something, and just make a case for how PF2 could accomplish the same thing, without suffering from the association - something 5e got away with a few times, with the handling of monster stat blocks, and of NPCs using the same style of bloc, for instance.
Well, the playtest was extremely 4eish. Everybody on the same schedule with feats to account for difference, lots of hp at first level, round by round tracking of effects that could end without even getting a benefit, overly punishing math that demands feat taxes, feat based multiclassing with hard limits, class dictating gear and combat style, pushing paladins into tank role, poor utility for casters -specially sorcerer-, removing abilities from PCs that NPCs keep -like someone complaining that necromancers could no longer create undead on their own, as the ritual requires three casters-, moving what used to be basic skill competence into "powers" (skill feats), repetition of the same basic ability/power over and over because classes don't get shared feats anymore... Oh and feats, the siloing of feats mirrors the siloing of powers.

According to the devs, they went overboard with ideas, so I still ignore how much of that has changed.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Adventurer
LFQW is comprehensively and fundamentally different in 5E than in 3E/PF.

Saying it is still present in some form might be technically true, but vastly undersells the huge and definite improvements brought by the varied and many steps taken to curtail LFQW.

The point here is that the vast majority of potential PF2 buyers (i.e. people playing 5E) will likely be repelled if PF2 does not learn this lesson.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
The point here is that the vast majority of potential PF2 buyers (i.e. people playing 5E) will likely be repelled if PF2 does not learn this lesson.
I asked you a question, and I have yet to receive an answer. Do you know how spellcasting works in PF2? Can you communicate to me those changes that it makes in the playtest? Or are you just going to repeat your insubstantiated fearmongering?
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I asked you a question, and I have yet to receive an answer. Do you know how spellcasting works in PF2? Can you communicate to me those changes that it makes in the playtest? Or are you just going to repeat your insubstantiated fearmongering?
Sorry, there are several reasons why you will not get any answers using your current approach.

#1 Your posts directed at me are almost exclusively aggressive ones. Nothing about your stance gives me any indication you are interested in listening. In fact, you come across as judge, jury and executioner, but I have news for you: this is not a courtroom and I am not on the stand! :)
#2 Since the playtest we don't know much more than "spells will be considerably beefed up". Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it?

Tell you what, direct me to an official blog or twitch or whatever where the devs of PF2 talk about LFQW and specifically agree it is a huge problem in Pathfinder 1 and what measures they have taken to address the issue, and we have a common ground for further discussion. Same with DM workload.

Fair warning though: I do not believe it exists because I am secretly convinced nobody at Paizo priorities these issues or even considers them to be problems in the first place. I am aware of exactly zero evidence Buhlmann & Co are developing their game in the context of the advances 5E brought to the table, or any indications of 5E concepts they feel they must incorporate in their game as well (whether by similar or different implementations matters less). But again, I might be wrong. (In fact, I would love to be wrong because that would mean PF2 moves from the category of "hard pass" to "cautiously exited".)

Another fair warning: even if you do find it you still need to dial down your debating style enough for me to reasonably expect you to listen to my arguments, or you are still not presenting me with any enticement to respond.

Regards,
Zapp
 
Last edited:

Aldarc

Adventurer
#2 Since the playtest we don't know much more than "spells will be considerably beefed up". Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it?
Since the playtest we do have more information. We have seen more. There is an Oblivion Oath campaign on led by Jason Bulmahn using the upcoming PF2 rules that you can watch on YouTube. Post-Playtest versions of PF2 have also been played in various conventions and expos. There have also been comments made by Paizo employees on the website, including clarifications of those campaign streams.

Tell you what, direct me to an official blog or twitch or whatever where the devs of PF2 talk about LFQW and specifically agree it is a huge problem in Pathfinder 1 and what measures they have taken to address the issue, and we have a common ground for further discussion. Same with DM workload.

Fair warning though: I do not believe it exists because I am secretly convinced nobody at Paizo priorities these issues or even considers them to be problems in the first place. I am aware of exactly zero evidence Buhlmann & Co are developing their game in the context of the advances 5E brought to the table, or any indications of 5E concepts they feel they must incorporate in their game as well (whether by similar or different implementations matters less). But again, I might be wrong. (In fact, I would love to be wrong because that would mean PF2 moves from the category of "hard pass" to "cautiously exited".)
It seems unreasonable to expect that Paizo would have a blog post where they sh*t talk their own past products and work. (Paizo would have learned to do that from WotC's mistake when promoting 4E by trash talking 3E. ;)) I think that at the end of the day, they are still proud of their work with PF1. That does not mean that they are unaware of its issues, especially when you read between the lines of the blog posts and the changes in PF2. But the language will not be couched in negativity about the 3E/PF1 system but, rather, on focusing on the positive changes that PF2 will make. If their lack of posts trashtalking their own product does not satisfy you, then we indeed have no common ground for further discussion though that does not mean that your concerns are unheeded.

Warning: I would also add that just because 5E made what you feel are improvements to what you regard as problems does not mean A) everyone shares in that belief that they are problems, and B) that everyone who views these issues as problems agrees on what serves as the best "solution," such that C) 5E did not necessarily have the best solution, or D) that Paizo should feel compelled to incorporate 5E's approach.

So what kind of changes regarding LFQW do we know about in PF2? Spellcasters have less spells. Spellcasters cast their spells at a higher level for power scaling. Spellcasting linked more tightly to the per round three action economy. Greater concentration/buff restrictions, requiring an action to maintain. Spells have been beefed up from their playtest version, but they were supposedly underperforming to many playtesters. Magical rituals exist and linked to the Arcana skill (initially sounds very 4E). But we also know that a number of non-spellcasters are getting various buffs.

Regarding DM monster prep and such. Others and I have already repeatedly told you that statements from Paizo have indicated that this will be more akin to how it is in Starfinder, which is an approach that has been well-received by Paizo's fans. I have also not heard (or recall) any complaints about the difficulty of preparing PF2 by DMs.
 

Teemu

Explorer
I'd like enemies in PF2 to either not use PC spells (I guess not happening) or condense spell information in enemy stats so that I, a GM, don't have to refer to a separate spell entry to resolve the effects.
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
I'd like enemies in PF2 to either not use PC spells (I guess not happening) or condense spell information in enemy stats so that I, a GM, don't have to refer to a separate spell entry to resolve the effects.
Best of both worlds: All spells should be condensable enough to fit into an enemy stat block.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
So here is the playlist for the Oblivion Oath PF2 Campaign led by [MENTION=5149]Jason Bulmahn[/MENTION] YouTube.

You can tell that while there are more moving parts in PF2 than 5E, it honestly does feel lighter and more streamlined than PF1.
 

Advertisement

Top