| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11882 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Dec 2018 : 12:48:35
|
Since we're talking about it, I gotta say, I bought the Pathfinder 2e rulebook expansion at GenCon (which is admittedly a prequel), and the one thing I'd hoped they'd learn from 5e was the concept of limiting the range of numbers used when leveling. I also won't profess to having read it thoroughly, as I also have a life and a job, so I kind of flipped through it. There's still a LOT to be needed for 5e to actually work, which is only revealed when you actually start building NPC's or trying to plan out encounters only to reveal that necromancers don't have anything, conjurers don't have anything, etc... but at least the math works to a degree. 5e misses the mark for multi-classing spellcasters as well, while allowing multi-classing of other classes pretty well. I think they took a maul to what a hammer could have fixed in 5e, and they should give some more range, but they're working in the right direction (i.e. my thoughts are instead of going from +2 to +6, spread that range to +1 to +8 maybe). This is where I was really hoping pathfinder would get the clue. They have the team that seems capable of building the options, they just need to reign in the numbers.
I will note as well, I'll still more than likely buy the pathfinder 2e ruleset, because I know that the 5e ruleset isn't exactly the same as its early release either. Perhaps they'll get unofficial feedback like this that makes them take a look at their rules. If it weren't packed away right now (working on the house) I'd probably go dig it out and see if there's any other real improvements. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
 |
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2018 : 13:11:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
This is why I find so ironic that Pathfinder 2 is, for all intents and purposes, a clone of 4e.
People may say whatever they want, but that proves 4e was the natural evolution of 3.5, at least mechanics wise.
Unfortunately all it really demonstrates is that if you get a bunch of D&D 4e developers to redesign 3.5e they will come up with D&D 4e.
I haven't been really following Pathfinder 2e but I'm not certain how many (if any) designers on their team actively developed for 4e? Hadn't most of them already jumped ship to Eric Mona's Paizo team to clean up and fix 3.5 for Pathfinder? I doubt WotC would've allowed any crossover.
Also, I do have to laugh at how some of the staunch PF fans have strongly defended the changes to PF while accepting quite a few 4e-isms and stuff. I admire their loyalty but it is pretty hypocritical
Logan Bonner is one name that seems to be in a senior position for PF2e and is from 4e. We won't know for sure until the book is published and we see how much of the PF1e team is left and where the secs from PF2e are from. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2018 : 21:50:21
|
| PF2e and the changes to PF I have seen gave me the same trauma I felt when 3.5 suddenly was ending and the atrocity that was 4e came along. I'll never understand why game companies do these massive overhauls, especially when their product is still doing great, and risk losing many customers for brand new ones. Here I praised Paizo for years for giving those of us abandoned in 3.5 a 3.75 (I run a 3.5/PF hybrid that works great), because backwards compatiblity was one of their key pillars to PF, and now they're pulling a 4e on us. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4448 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2018 : 08:51:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
There's still a LOT to be needed for 5e to actually work, which is only revealed when you actually start building NPC's or trying to plan out encounters only to reveal that necromancers don't have anything, conjurers don't have anything, etc... but at least the math works to a degree.
I'm not sure I follow? 5e necromancers are, arguably, pretty crazy good with how Animate Dead works and their features work. You could theoretically make dozens of undead minions with their own sets of attacks etc. I didnt really check out Conjurers though.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
5e misses the mark for multi-classing spellcasters as well, while allowing multi-classing of other classes pretty well.
I haven't really used the rules for MC multiple caster classes but I feel you get more bang for your buck vs. 3e where there was no progression.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
think they took a maul to what a hammer could have fixed in 5e, and they should give some more range, but they're working in the right direction (i.e. my thoughts are instead of going from +2 to +6, spread that range to +1 to +8 maybe). This is where I was really hoping pathfinder would get the clue. They have the team that seems capable of building the options, they just need to reign in the numbers.
I don't mind 1-6 because it's way better than 1-20 and more. Really anything under 10 is fine.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4448 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2018 : 09:14:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
PF2e and the changes to PF I have seen gave me the same trauma I felt when 3.5 suddenly was ending and the atrocity that was 4e came along. I'll never understand why game companies do these massive overhauls, especially when their product is still doing great, and risk losing many customers for brand new ones. Here I praised Paizo for years for giving those of us abandoned in 3.5 a 3.75 (I run a 3.5/PF hybrid that works great), because backwards compatiblity was one of their key pillars to PF, and now they're pulling a 4e on us.
Couple of reasons:
1. Games get stale. From the perspective of a consumer AND producer (I'd imagine). To stay in business, you need to keep churning out products and eventually you'll pretty much cover everything.
2. Product quality. As more supplements come out the more it messes with the core mechanics. The more chances are breakage happens. Last thing is you can do is just APs but they don't sell as well as supplement books.
3. Boredom by designers. There has to something said about writing for the same edition year after year and having only a little deviation. If I had to come with 10-20 new PrCs every so many months Id get tired too.
4. Backwards compatibility is only so useful. What worked better is writing mostly edition-neutral adventures with maybe tips on difficultly for various editions. These would hold up a lot more AND apply to more people for them to buy.
5. Reimaging your brand. As for Paizo, I always felt their system was basically a poorly applied band-aid to a seeping head wound that is 3.5 edition. It was 3.5 with Paizo houserules, essentially not "their" system. By making their own they can call something truly Paizo's baby.
But what it does do is open up the line for yet another company to take 3e and do their own thing and comtinue to appeal to the 3e hold-outs who are desperately clinging to the dying system.
Honestly I do hope someone does come out with it. I've been looking at re-camping the system myself and fixing the major glaring problems such as:
· Ridiculously high numbers for no reason.
· BAB (removing iterative attack penalties)
· Fixing full-attack - basically you get an extra attack with a minimal penalty to the rest of them otherwise you attack normally (including extra attacks via BAB and you can move your full distance too).
· Grouping feats into something worth taking and removing excess feats that are pointless.
· Breaking the clutch of power caster have.
· Making fighters and other weapon-based users something worth playing at higher levels.
Etc. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Same ol’ Realms...
