PF2e's character generation embodies a concept D&D actively strayed from in the 4e to 5e transition, and as such PF2e is hands down, inarguably, uncontestably superior to 5e in its character generation.
That concept is "Systematic Freedom".
PF2e has a rigorous, step-by-step approach to character generation. Each step tells you exactly what to do, you're never lost trying to figure out what it is you're hoping to accomplish. But each step also offers you great freedom of choice within that step, and the pool of choices is easily expandable via both official content and homebrew additions. Each step is smaller and encompasses less of a character's overall potential than the D&D Three-Step System of Species, Class, then Background - all of which happen whenever the player feels like it, many of which have weirdly conflicting sub-choices. PF2e's system is both more systematic and more permissive, allowing a player to customize their character as they wish to a degree 5e cannot and will not ever match. One first-level goblin ranger in PF2e will look completely different from another first-level goblin ranger in PF2e. A first-level goblin ranger in D&D 5e is effectively identical to every other first-level goblin ranger ever created in 5e, at least before any homebrew is applied.
PF2e has its own problems. A lot of problems. It is overdesigned to hell and back, clinging to the unnecessary modifier bloat of 3.5e simply because the most common complaint about 5e is that it's too oversimplified and dumbed down. But there are good ways to be complex and bad ways to be complex, and PF2e is often a perfect example of both ways to be complex.
PF2e's character generation? Excellent.
PF2e's Three Action turn economy and returning the game to allow for different things to cost a different number of actions, i.e. 5e Legendary actions? Perfection.
PF2e's twenty-page tables of hundreds of fiddly little floating stackable modifiers that can apply to each and every roll trying to account for everything from lighting conditions to barometric pressure? Nope. Bad. Unnecessary, Paizo. That's the bad complexity people were overjoyed to get away from in 3.5e. Do better in PF3e, just like Wizards needs to do better in D&D 6e.
Yup...I feel the same way.
5e could use the Three action approach and the Character gen but drop the complicated conditionals.
Basically give characters 2 actions to be able to use. Most spells would be two actions to cast but have a "Free" rider if it was something like Spiritual weapon. Movement is always free as well.
Spells designed as "BA" in 5e would be a single action but allow you to do something else with the other action (Cantrips could be 1 action and the basic actions any creature can take).
Weird that your warforge would suddenly become 8 ft tall and double their weight but sure feats work I guess...
Overall they could have kept them with a little work but instead they went the quick/easy route and just picked the one that people played the most during playtesting.
I think the feats are flavoured as the warforged modifying their 'chassis' with more bulk, heavier armor, etc
Yeah, it's a trope of artificial beings to discover new features about themselves, so it could even be seen as not so much modification or augmentation as unlocking dormant capacities, fuller extensions etc. I don't think the feats rework of the sub races is problematic at all.
The lore does not support Warforged becoming Juggernauts after the fact is my issue....they should have just made it a choice at creation which "Feat" you take and just go from there.
It would make more sense as they were purpose built and not "upgraded" as much. It should be a core piece of your personality what type of warforged you are not something you have to wait to explore until 4th level and then give up an ASI just to explore..
but i dont see why people didnt like it. It allowed you to flavor your character for a particular role in a way that very much made sense for an artificial machine race. Modularity and variety in design makes perfect sense.
but i dont see why people didnt like it. It allowed you to flavor your character for a particular role in a way that very much made sense for an artificial machine race. Modularity and variety in design makes perfect sense.
Jeremy Crawford talks about this design decision in this archived podcast at the 30:50 mark. Community response in playtest just thought the sub races were too much goes the claim.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yup...I feel the same way.
5e could use the Three action approach and the Character gen but drop the complicated conditionals.
Basically give characters 2 actions to be able to use. Most spells would be two actions to cast but have a "Free" rider if it was something like Spiritual weapon. Movement is always free as well.
Spells designed as "BA" in 5e would be a single action but allow you to do something else with the other action (Cantrips could be 1 action and the basic actions any creature can take).
Overall would make things less confusing.
The lore does not support Warforged becoming Juggernauts after the fact is my issue....they should have just made it a choice at creation which "Feat" you take and just go from there.
It would make more sense as they were purpose built and not "upgraded" as much. It should be a core piece of your personality what type of warforged you are not something you have to wait to explore until 4th level and then give up an ASI just to explore..
but i dont see why people didnt like it. It allowed you to flavor your character for a particular role in a way that very much made sense for an artificial machine race. Modularity and variety in design makes perfect sense.
Jeremy Crawford talks about this design decision in this archived podcast at the 30:50 mark. Community response in playtest just thought the sub races were too much goes the claim.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.