Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e

[Parmandur]

This is not an attempt to say anything about the relative quality of Fifth Edition.

Law and Order, NCIS, and CSI are widely popular television shows that have a broad appeal. I think contending that their broad appeal means they are meaningfully better television shows than Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy would be a massive mistake. The opposite is also true. Popular things can be good, but they are not good because they are popular.

The same is true for Fifth Edition and say Exalted or Apocalypse World.

Your argument does have a major flaw, in the sense that quality isn't always the determining factor in what makes something popular, in fact lower quality items are often more popular because they're cheaper, advertised in such a way as to give the illusion of higher quality, or because they're associated with emotions that have little to do with the experience of actually using the product- ergo "Sex Sells" or the way certain brands entrench themselves in nostalgia for a time either long past, or that never was.

Often the shows that stay on the air the longest are the most "comfortable" ones, whereas shows that have higher quality and more ambition may find themselves abandoned by viewers uninterested in being challenged, but then those same ideas can succeed if only because a niche is being carved out by the ones that came before.

In short, popularity is suspect as a means of ascertaining quality.

Then again, 'quality' is also a meaningless word, because it refers to whatever virtues the person using it tends to value.

In terms of art, anything popular is possessed of a certain quality, qualities that appeal to a large number of people. Even if it is a base quality, like being comfortable or crudely funny.

Really, though,vn this extended analogy, 5E isn't CSI, it is Breaking Bad. Monopoly is CSI, Clue is Law & Order, and Settlers of Catan is Mad Men.

Other RPGs are Swedish Art Films.

 

[Campbell]

Again I am not making the argument that Fifth Edition is a bad game or that the quality of the design has nothing to do with its popularity. I think it is a very good game that does what it set out to do extremely well. What I am saying is that its popularity does not make it a better game than other games that might not have the same mass appeal.

Basically my contention is that it is good, but not like uniquely good. I do not think it should be viewed as some sort of gold standard that other games should be judged against, particularly when they have very different design priorities. I am saying that niche offerings like Apocalypse World can be just as good even if they are not as popular.

I think we are all better off when the market is more differentiated and diverse. It would be boring if every game provided basically the same play experience.

Pathfinder 2 is selling better this week than it was last week. It is still the same game. It's quality has not changed.

 

[Zaukrie]

I think pointing out misconceived views on 5e monsters is becoming a habit of mine. If your experience of 5e monsters is they just stand and hit things then, frankly, whoever is running those monsters is doing something seriously wrong.

I find it ironic that you say you don't understand why people speak about other people with certainty. Pot calling kettle black? Just because you find 5e monsters boring doesn't mean this is generally true, that's an assumption which objectively isn't the case in my experience.

I for one, as both 5e DM and player, have been fortunate that I've never encountered or been responsible for boring 5e monsters. I would strongly suggest - based on some years experience of 5e - that boring monsters is due to running them in an unimaginative manner. Perhaps PF2E provides more 'hand holding' in this regard;; that's not a bad thing by the way.

Help me understand how a monster that has one attack type does anything else other than attack? I mean, it could move away and then take an AOO. but when you get next to it, it will do the same attack it did before. In 3E and 4E, monsters generally had more than 1 attack type, and in 4E, of course, as you got bloodied or in other conditions, you got reactions or new attacks. In 5e, monsters generally have 1 attack. Or is that only up until level 5 or so, which is far as I've played?

Sure, a DM can organize them differently, or re-skin them to have ranged weapons if they aren't listed, or have them move around and not be efficient (giving AoOs), but none of that is about what powers the monsters actually have.

I'm willing to be shown interesting powers (as in more than 1 for a low-medium level monster) that are in the rules, so I can maybe point out to the DM (and to me when I DM) what we are missing.

And no, saying the rules have less choices is different than saying some people like more choices. One is sort of factual. But I'm not interested in silly fighting over that kind of stuff, but the stuff I posted above.....so hopefully we can actually talk about the rules.

 

[Campbell]

To get back to discussing Pathfinder 2 so far I am loving the focus the game puts on who you are and what you do outside of adventuring. I really like how item and spell rarity, crafting formulas, downtime, and rituals encourage players to engage with the setting outside of their adventures. When I look at the archetypes in the Lost Omens World Guide and previews of the organization archetypes from the Lost Omens Character Guide I feel like they might finally be realizing the promise of what prestige classes were supposed to be all about.

I love that learning Raise Dead can be a story event instead of just something that automatically happens. I love that players might have to seek out training in game for a particular archetype. I hope I get to see a Hell Knight test at the table sometime. I love that the roleplaying advice for the character classes calls out a fighter starting a keep, a wizard starting a school, a rogue starting a thieve's a guild, and a cleric starting a temple. I love that the Atone, Consecrate, and Summon Planar Ally rituals require that the secondary casters share your religion. I love that many rituals require more secondary casters than your group has people.

Here's something I am hoping for : I am hoping that combat with fewer PCs and individual scenes work well. Based on experience with the group I am playing with fighting higher level monsters with a group of 6 PCs feels compelling. I hope the same is true in reverse. I hope a fighter facing off against 3 guards by himself feels good. I hope that since everyone gets experience when anyone accomplishes anything it will encourage players to be fans of each other.

One of the reasons I abandoned Fourth Edition was because of the focus on group tactics in combat and in skill challenges. I am hoping this is a version of Dungeons and Dragons where I can focus more on individual character stories and have everyone enjoy it and cheer each other on.

One final gush : I love that Clerics and Champions feel like they are part of an actual religion with an actual dogma. I am really looking forward to Lost Omens Gods and Magic which is supposed to have rules that help bring the gods to life and provide incentives for other characters to be practicing members of a religion.

Basically I love the focus on who the characters are beyond the adventures they go on.

 

[Campbell]

@Acolyte of Zothique

Just a quick correction here. Pathfinder was the first D&D type game to undergo an open public play test. Paizo has been utilizing public play tests for nearly all of its major material since Pathfinder was a thing. Pathfinder 2 was also developed under a public play testing process. Next month they will launch a play test for the classes in the Advanced Player's guide. I applaud Wizards for the public play test, but they are not unique in doing so.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

@Acolyte of Zothique

Just a quick correction here. Pathfinder was the first D&D type game to undergo an open public play test. Paizo has been utilizing public play tests for nearly all of its major material since Pathfinder was a thing. Pathfinder 2 was also developed under a public play testing process. Next month they will launch a play test for the classes in the Advanced Player's guide. I applaud Wizards for the public play test, but they are not unique in doing so.

No problem. However, did PF1E or 2E have an extended playtest that lasted 2 years plus input from consultants outside the company? That is what has helped make 5e a quality product.

 

[Xenonnonex]

@Acolyte of Zothique

Just a quick correction here. Pathfinder was the first D&D type game to undergo an open public play test. Paizo has been utilizing public play tests for nearly all of its major material since Pathfinder was a thing. Pathfinder 2 was also developed under a public play testing process. Next month they will launch a play test for the classes in the Advanced Player's guide. I applaud Wizards for the public play test, but they are not unique in doing so.

Paizo also had an extremely bad habit of not listening to feedback at all. A lot of their supplements included classes designed as they are because the developers thought they knew best. And the supplements were pretty bad because of it.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Paizo also had an extremely bad habit of not listening to feedback at all. A lot of their supplements included classes designed as they are because the developers thought they knew best. And the supplements were pretty bad because of it.

cough*mythic adventures* cough*cough*

 

[Campbell]

No problem. However, did PF1E or 2E have an extended playtest that lasted 2 years plus input from consultants outside the company? That is what has helped make 5e a quality product.

I am not trying to make claims about comparative quality. My personal opinion is that both Fifth Edition and Pathfinder Second Edition are excellent designs that do what they set out to do.

Pathfinder Second Edition underwent a year long Playtest that utilized targeted surveys and included a playtest adventure path to stress test critical parts of the system. They also performed focus group testing, including some focus groups with players who had never played a tabletop role playing game. This is very much like the targeted surveys and adventures in the D&D Next playtest.

In both cases I think the process was run well. I think both companies had a very good idea about what kind of game they wanted to make and elicited targeted feedback to make the best version of that game possible. In both cases significant changes were made, but the overall direction of design did not change.

I think playtests have tremendous utility in terms of acceptance testing and a chance to get to see the game in motion. However at the end of the day designers still have to design a game. The fans cannot do it for them.

I am of the opinion that Fifth Edition is a great game largely do to the effort of the designers and the targeted feedback they received. I think its success was despite the consultants they employed, but I do not wish to discuss my feelings on those particular people.

Again I am not making claims that one game is superior to another. I think they do different things well and am largely glad we have both.

 

[Staffan]

So a 9th level Wizard Fighter is as accurate with a trained weapon as a 5th level Fighter is with his mastered weapon group and is harder to hit (assuming equivalent worn armor). In other words, within 4 levels, a Wizard outstrips a Fighter in his specialty. Does a Fighter 4 levels higher outstrip a Wizard in his specialty too?

A couple of things:

1. The fighter most likely has significantly higher Strength than the wizard, which gives the fighter more of an edge.
2. The fighter is a Master of a whole weapon group (and an Expert in all others), presumably including some pretty good weapons. The wizard's weapon selection is weaksauce by comparison.
3. Attack bonus isn't everything. A 5th level fighter will have three fighter feats which let them get better action economy and do all sorts of fightery tricks the wizard won't have.