Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

While 4e was perfect for my casual style of DMing (I’ve had to learn to do prep beyond story and some tables for quick encounter building in 5e, bc I just can’t wing it like I did in 4e), I agree overall.

I’d be interested in PF2 if it had all the customization of options and abilities of PF1 or 4e, with the simple math of 5e, and straightforward monster and encounter building systems and guidelines.

Give me a 60 item weapon list, 30 item armor list, 5 types of shields, 20 classes, even more Archetypes that fit into the system more like 4e Themes/Paragon Paths (with some that simply further specialize your class or create a pseudo-multiclass, while others stand alone thematically as a narrative “third pillar” of chargen), and all the feats, spells, rituals, maneuvers, proficiencies, alchemical and tinkering options, etc a person could want.

Just don’t waste my time and energy with fiddly math widgets that increase my success rate by a negligible percentage while climbing a pointless math treadmill.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, it was sold to allow gamers who liked 3.X to keep playing 3.X while D&D switched to 4E. Basically, its appeal was "keep mostly doing what you were previously doing."

Even if I prefer 5E to PF1, even I can clearly recognize that this is an opinion masquerading as a fact. I only wish that you could recognize that what you see as problems or solutions are not some sort of universally held truths.

Despite all your grandstanding, you barely seem to evidence awareness of Pathfinder 2's game design or new changes that have been announced. For example, NPC generation in this case.

(These developments were already present in 4E. )

Nope. Don't scapegoat 4E for class concept historical developments already present in 3E.

Also Rogues had just as much out of combat focus any the Ranger, if not more, had the most skills (not counting Bard’s unlimited multiclassing and the Bard of All Trades feat), and just as much access to the skill challenges system as anyone else.

Once Martial Practices came out, it shined even more, bc more skills meant more martial practices a rogue could use.

 

[Staffan]

Frankly, PF2 seems to be more about releasing Paizo from the influence of another corporation (WotC) than adding value to gamers.

I'm fairly certain that the main driver of PF2 is that Paizo have basically pushed PF1 as far as it will go in terms of rules add-ons, and need to reset to a new baseline. After all, the game has been out for a decade with 2-3 hardbacks per year plus god knows how much stuff in sourcebooks. That it allows them to recast some stuff in order to pay less fealty to Wizards is a bonus, but not the main driver.

That's after the fact.

No product ever is sold as "more of exactly the same".

The main driver of Pathfinder 1, on the other hand, was "We're good at doing 3.5 adventures and people have loved our adventure paths in Dungeon. We want to keep doing that but Wizards took away the license, plus it makes little sense long-term to make adventures for a system that isn't in print. And we don't want to make adventures for 4e both because the license sucks and because the game is not to our tastes. So let's keep publishing 3.5 under the OGL and fix some issues that won't break backwards compatibility."

In other words, the main selling point of Pathfinder 1 was "more of the same", fixing issues was secondary.

 

[CapnZapp]

It’s the definition of a rules patch: it doesn’t remotely fix the underlying problem and just smooths over a more irritating proud nail. [/I][/B]

This is my impression of Paizo's ability to write rules overall.

In other words, I don't believe their current team is capable of coming up with a product that most people will find acceptable.

Remember, the market is used to 5th edition now. Old 3E-era concepts won't fly now.

While I'm sure lots of 5E gamers are itching to set their teeth into something more substantial visavi character building and options, that does not mean they want LFQW.

Likewise for Dungeon Masters. Just because they wish for monsters with more tools to counter and confound players (especially at higher levels) does not mean they will touch a game where NPCs take hours to build and needs magic gear to function.

I really can't understand PF2 except if Paizo has designed it in a bubble. A fantasy world where 5E's solutions aren't well-known. Where Pathfinder is a strong brand which gamers flock to regardless of its relation to the 500 pound gorilla.

 

[CapnZapp]

I’d be interested in PF2 if it had all the customization of options and abilities of PF1 or 4e, with the simple math of 5e, and straightforward monster and encounter building systems and guidelines.

Just don’t waste my time and energy with fiddly math widgets that increase my success rate by a negligible percentage while climbing a pointless math treadmill.

Thank you. Excerpts from your post make for a brilliant illustration of my points!

Unfortunately it appears as if Paizo is designing the complete opposite of that... :-/

 

[Staffan]

I’d be interested in PF2 if it had all the customization of options and abilities of PF1 or 4e, with the simple math of 5e, and straightforward monster and encounter building systems and guidelines.

Speaking of which, I was really stunned by the encounter building guidelines and XP rewards in the PF2 playtest. Essentially, they went back to 3e by having XP rewards depending on the difference between party level and monster level (so a monster one level below the party is worth 30 XP) while still having XP-based encounter budgets. I get why they did it that way (because they wanted a fixed amount of XP to level up), but it still feels like an unnecessary step in encounter building.

 

[generic]

This is my impression of Paizo's ability to write rules overall.

In other words, I don't believe their current team is capable of coming up with a product that most people will find acceptable.

Remember, the market is used to 5th edition now. Old 3E-era concepts won't fly now.

While I'm sure lots of 5E gamers are itching to set their teeth into something more substantial visavi character building and options, that does not mean they want LFQW.

Likewise for Dungeon Masters. Just because they wish for monsters with more tools to counter and confound players (especially at higher levels) does not mean they will touch a game where NPCs take hours to build and needs magic gear to function.

I really can't understand PF2 except if Paizo has designed it in a bubble. A fantasy world where 5E's solutions aren't well-known. Where Pathfinder is a strong brand which gamers flock to regardless of its relation to the 500 pound gorilla.

This, sadly, seems to be the case. PF1 was written as a continuation and a revised version of 3e, created by designers familiar with 3e, designers who loved that edition. Now, the Paizo Pathfinder team has decided to created PF1/4e D&D, and has refused to take the necessary risks.

I don't think that Pathfinder needs to forever be a parasite of the success of another edition, which is why I don't want a clone of 5e, but I believe that a few of Pathfinder's most sacred cows need to be slaughtered in order to be a competent market force.

These sacred cows are as follows:

1. An extreme focus on combat.

2. Character classes with feat-gain as explicit, important class features.

3. Intricate feat trees.

4. NPCs which take hours to design, and require several feats of their own.

Here's what I would like to see:

1. A focus on the things about Pathfinder that are truly enjoyable; complex character creation, a bit of numbers play, and lots of classes.

2. The Pathfinder thematic narrative.

3. Detailed travel mechanics.

4. Skill challenges.

5. A removal of the "bulk", while adding true changes, not merely covering sacred cows with layers of pages and rulebooks.

 

[zztong]

Lastly is magic items. Which isn’t any better in Pathfinder 2. The edition has even added the new Resonance mechanic which pretty much solely exists as a crutch to prevent why higher level parties don’t just buy dozens of low level magic items. It’s the definition of a rules patch: it doesn’t remotely fix the underlying problem and just smooths over a more irritating proud nail.

They did remove resonance late in the Playtest. Our local playtest experience was that it wasn't really limiting anything anyways. Nobody ever ran out of Resonance. After a few sessions we concluded it was pointless bureaucracy and just ignored it.

You must have a magic weapon and magic armor. After that, there are a couple of items that everyone buys, usually to improve their mobility or vision. I'm sure it will be better upon release as the PF2 Playtest magic item selection was limited.

The real limitation we've found is that most magic items are useless. We have a running gag in our PF2 Playtest game in that the party has come into 3 potions of Barkskin. Those potions give you 1 point of DR and 2 points of weakness to fire. They're arguably more useful as a way to satisfy your thirst. The running joke is that nobody wants to buy them and we try to use them for things like holding open doors.

 

[Jester David]

They did remove resonance late in the Playtest. Our local playtest experience was that it wasn't really limiting anything anyways. Nobody ever ran out of Resonance. After a few sessions we concluded it was pointless bureaucracy and just ignored it.

Yeah, I wrote that summary on the playtest and then just walked away from the process, not really paying attention. Because they went pretty much in the opposite direction I wanted...

Resonance was mostly to stop people dropping 750gp every adventure for a wand of cure light wounds that is applied after every battle. And to stop mid to high level parties from buying a dozen small, low-power but useful magic items.

But my problem with that rule was it was a poor fix to the long-term problem with the game system where magic items were assumed for the math, magic item crafting was routine, magic item stores were in even the smallest towns, and players got ridiculous amounts of gold.
Dealing with magic items has always been funky for 3e/Pathfinder as the characters are gear dependent, which doesn't fit the narrative you expect from most fantasy characters.
Erik Mona struggled with this when making an update of Red Sonja:
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lj5c?Worldscape-WorkbookGearing-Up-Red-Sonja-Part
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lj6o?Worldscape-WorkbookGearing-Up-Red-Sonja-Part

There's precious few fictional fantasy worlds where everyone is running around with dozens of magic items.

 

[the Jester]

Oh come on - it was sold to fix the previous editions. Just like every upgrade in the history of the world is.

My recollection is that it was sold on the premise that a lot of gamers want to keep using 3e, so let's keep it in print with a new coat of paint.