Pathfinder 2E What Would You Want from PF2?

[CapnZapp]

I remember reading a WoW preview back in 2003, where they described Rogues are the ultimate melee damage dealer, and thinking to myself "That's actually really brilliant, and would be great in D&D. Fighters are defensive, and Rogues are offensive."

If PF2 finally brought that to DnDish games, that'd be excellent yes.

 

[CapnZapp]

Asking a squishie to be worse at combat than the sturdy tricked-out fighter just because you can do rote stuff like open locks and disarm traps? And probably with less reliability than the Wizard? Nah, fnuke that. Games have moved on from the trap-filled dungeons of yore: the "pure thief role" simply isn't as interesting any longer. Our games shouldn't ask us to be a Bilbo of fighting (i.e. one that sucks) just to pull off burglary stuff.

Besides: TTRPGs is a group activity. Sitting on our hands waiting for the thief to complete their solo scouting run is boring. Instead it's time to transform the thief character to a group character, allowing abilities that shine in group combat. Sneak attack activated by attacking monsters already engaged in melee is excellent, for example. Sneak attack activated by skulking in shadows only encourages the thief to avoid soaking any damage. Not only does that steal the fighter's thunder (being self-sufficent like that) it also encourages the thief to not be a team player.

I would heartily welcome an expansion of this role: from a loner whose powers doesn't encourage team play, to one appreciated by the team for its awesome DPS, while the team fights to keep said awesome DPS coming.

World of Warcraft had it right. Lower the DPS of fighters (rangers, paladins etc) and upping it for squishies.

Of course, in return for that the fighters (and other martials, but especially fighters) will gain battlefield control powers so they don't have to watch helplessly as monsters move past them to take out the damage-dealers first. That's a given and don't need to be mentioned.

 

[Zardnaar]

%E squishies deal damge close enough to the warriors, its the -5/+10 feats that are oput of whack not ROgue vs fighter.

Level 11 Fighter, sword and board, duelist 3 attacks 20 strength 1d8+7 X3 (34.5 avg damage)
Level 11 Rogue, 20 dex rapier 1d8+5+6d6 sneak attack 30.5 avg damage
Level 11 Fighter, 2 handed sword etc etc 2d6+5 (36 avg dmaage plus rerolls)

Rogue can use a shortsword in off hand, +3.5 damage marginally lower damage than fighter

Classes are roughly fine (Rogue is also decent level 1-4), its those stupid feats out of whack.

 

[Aldarc]

I remember reading a WoW preview back in 2003, where they described Rogues are the ultimate melee damage dealer, and thinking to myself "That's actually really brilliant, and would be great in D&D. Fighters are defensive, and Rogues are offensive."

Much like the WoW Vanilla concept of the "hybrid tax,"* what you describe here died in practice across subsequent updates. Damage in WoW (or other MMOs) was relatively equalized among roles because there was less incentive utilize some classes over others in group content (e.g., dungeons, raids, etc.). However, a DPS rogue and a DPS warrior will have different mechanics for how they distribute and mitigate their damage.

* Hybrid Tax: the (now extinct) guiding principle that the hybrid classes (e.g., then Shaman, Paladin, Druid) should not be able to perform a single role (damage, tanking, healing) as well as other classes who primarily perform a singular role due to their versatility.

No, this is only you attempting to relativizing the issue. CapnZapp is not interested in 4E here. I'm not looking for perfect equality, and the choice isn't between boring sameness and unbridled inequality.

Corrections in bold.

Anyway, certainly plenty of d20/Pathfinder fans find it inconceivable that you can rein in spellcasters without losing their soul (like 4E). To return on topic, my fear is that the Paizo PF2 team belongs to that category. Despite 5E clearly proving it can be done.

Based on what you say here, it seems then that it would be more prudent for Paizo to maintain the soul of what makes Pathfinder "Pathfinder" and those "plenty of d20/Pathfinder fans" rather than cater to what CapnZapp wants when you have the fixes you want in 5E. But if we are posting our fears in this thread, then I will confess that I fear that you don't actually care in the actual updates that Paizo is making in PF2, but, instead, you are here to hear yourself whine while standing on a soapbox. You don't show much awareness or desire to learn for yourself what Paizo is doing in PF2. You seem to be far more concerned with posting about how 5E has solved things (and how you wish PF2 would cater to your design whims) than discussing the actual contours of mechanical changes that PF2 will implement or transpired in the playtest. Though perhaps you could assuage my fears if you showed a genuine interest in discussing PF2 mechanics, including those that have been revealed since the closure of the playtest.

 

[CapnZapp]

%E squishies deal damge close enough to the warriors, its the -5/+10 feats that are oput of whack not ROgue vs fighter.

Level 11 Fighter, sword and board, duelist 3 attacks 20 strength 1d8+7 X3 (34.5 avg damage)
Level 11 Rogue, 20 dex rapier 1d8+5+6d6 sneak attack 30.5 avg damage
Level 11 Fighter, 2 handed sword etc etc 2d6+5 (36 avg dmaage plus rerolls)

Rogue can use a shortsword in off hand, +3.5 damage marginally lower damage than fighter

Classes are roughly fine (Rogue is also decent level 1-4), its those stupid feats out of whack.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Few prospective Pathfinder customers play 5E without feats.

Whether rogue damage in the options-off game is enough is simply not very relevant. That feats exist that almost double fighter damage without doing much for rogues is. You can't divorce the feats from the system.

Anyway, I was talking about a game model where you need to choose between offense and defense - you can't have both.

No existing DnD game from WotC or Paizo comes even close to this.

I'm not interested in the Rogue having DPS "close enough" to the warriors. I want to explore a game where if you have half the defense you get twice the offense.

To paint you a picture of how far away 5E is, imagine if the -5/+10 feats didn't exist, and sneak damage was tripled (for melee only).

Now we're talking!

 

[Zardnaar]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Few prospective Pathfinder customers play 5E without feats.

Whether rogue damage in the options-off game is enough is simply not very relevant. That feats exist that almost double fighter damage without doing much for rogues is. You can't divorce the feats from the system.

Anyway, I was talking about a game model where you need to choose between offense and defense - you can't have both.

No existing DnD game from WotC or Paizo comes even close to this.

I'm not interested in the Rogue having DPS "close enough" to the warriors. I want to explore a game where if you have half the defense you get twice the offense.

To paint you a picture of how far away 5E is, imagine if the -5/+10 feats didn't exist, and sneak damage was tripled (for melee only).

Now we're talking!

I use some 3pp feats and one of them brought dex based melee out of the poo box. It basically let you add strength as well when using light weapons. Dex based PC, finds gauntlets of ogre power, dual wields shortswords and is a halfling that rerolled 1's and 2's. Best Halfling Fighter I had seen since 2E and the combo works with Thieves as well. You can divorce feats form the system, no one is forcing you to use the feats, without them the classes are very close the damage is just a few points and at some levels the Rogue wins (3, 9 maybe 7).

Due to dex etc AC difference is 1-3 points. Rogue has out of combat stuff fighter doesn't hence why the fighter deals maybe 10% more damage at certain levels. Rogue deals close to two handed weapon damage dual wielding as well, AC 17 vs 18.

Be very clear its the feats not the classes that are the problem. Play without feats or just ban the -5/+10 feats or replace them with other ones from Xanathars/3PP.

 

[zztong]

Only time will tell if we fully met those goals, but I think the final version is incredibly smooth if you need it to be, but still crunchy for those who want it without impacting everyone at the table.

This gap between the playtest and launch is rather awkward. My understanding is that y'all don't want to talk details about the changes. I'd be curious to know what changes make the final version smooth, if there's anything that can be shown.

 

[Retreater]

If PF2 finally brought that to DnDish games, that'd be excellent yes.

This has been a hallmark of 4E since it was released in 2008. Fighters are defenders with high AC and the ability to punish those enemies who ignore them to attack their allies. And rogues are strikers, with low AC and high damage output.

4E was really a situation of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think the core of it had a lot of great ideas, but the reactionary mood of gamers kept us from having a 5th edition that was revolutionary and just kept bringing up the same issues we've always had.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I remember reading a WoW preview back in 2003, where they described Rogues are the ultimate melee damage dealer, and thinking to myself "That's actually really brilliant, and would be great in D&D. Fighters are defensive, and Rogues are offensive." Doing a little digging, it looks Everquest rogues are also dedicated damage dealers, and that would date back to 1999.

If PF2 finally brought that to DnDish games, that'd be excellent yes.

To be fair, 3.5/PF already did that, to a fair extent - the Rogue's contribution in combat, when he can make one at all, is high, spikey, situational DPR; the Fighter's best contribution, when he can manage it, is blocking a choke-point until the right spell can be cast to end the encounter. 4e continued in that vein and did it better, and balanced the classes into the bargain...

This has been a hallmark of 4E since it was released in 2008. Fighters are defenders with high AC and the ability to punish those enemies who ignore them to attack their allies. And rogues are strikers, with low AC and high damage output.

Yeah, and 4e caught flack for "Being an MMO." While 3.5 caught flack for not doing it well /enough/ especially on the Fighter side ("Fighter SUX!!" "Fighter needs Aggro!").

5e has both the fighter & rogue (& barbarian & almost everyone, really, if they want to) doing solid DPR, and the fighter is tanky enough, so that's not too far off, either - and it catches no flack for it, at all, having threaded the needle between acceptable & accessible.

So, if PF2 wants to go there and make the fighter the Tank and the rogue the DPS, it'll have to thread that needle, too.

It's tough out there for a Game Designer.

 

[Retreater]

It's tough out there for a Game Designer.

That's true. I think the only thing to do is to realize there isn't "one perfect game" for all audiences, and that systems need to offer different experiences to cater to their audiences. I'm finding that the more I play, there isn't even "one perfect game" for me - I like switching it up to experience different styles of games.

I think there is currently a void in the tactical RPG market. There are numerous narrative games, rules lite, and ones like 5E that don't really do tactics like 3.x or 4e did. I hope PF2 can fill that void; however, the experience I had in the playtest wasn't positive.