Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7595893" data-attributes="member: 5142">Much like the WoW Vanilla concept of the &quot;hybrid tax,&quot;* 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. Corrections in bold. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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 &quot;Pathfinder&quot; and those &quot;plenty of d20/Pathfinder fans&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7595893, member: 5142"] 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. Corrections in bold. ;) 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification