"Cool. Coolcoolcool."
#2102: Dec 22nd 2023 at 7:09:35 PM
I found this on YMMV.Luca:
- Broken Base: Despite the popularity of Ship, there is some division on whether the protagonist duo should be a couple, or just friends. The side that supports them as a couple mentions their great chemistry together, while the side that is against them mentions the fact that it is the classic case in which people do not know how to appreciate a platonic couple, and want to force a romance.
I have literally never seen these two sides fight at all and even then, isn't this about stuff that happens in the work and not rather people fanon stuff. That said I could be wrong and would like more opinions. Does this count as Broken Base?
Edited by Bullman on Dec 22nd 2023 at 9:25:32 AM
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
"Cool. Coolcoolcool."
#2103: Dec 24th 2023 at 9:12:23 AM
Any feedback on the above?
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
RandomTroper123
She / Her
from I'll let you guess...
(Not-So-Newbie)
Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
She / Her
#2104: Dec 24th 2023 at 12:36:52 PM
Seems like a cut to me because Broken Base seems to require what the sides are fighting about to be in the work.
"Cool. Coolcoolcool."
mightymewtron
Angry babby
from New New York
Since: Oct, 2012
Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#2106: Dec 27th 2023 at 2:53:57 PM
Nothing about Broken Base explicitly disqualifies fanon disagreements, especially when a lot of fanon is based on interpretations of canon. In fact, the description even mentions shipping wars. Ship-to-Ship Combat is its own thing, but if the fanbase has two strong factions about shipping and anti-shipping as opposed to people just being neutral about shipping, I think it can count.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
WarJay77
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
(Troper Knight)
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
#2107: Dec 27th 2023 at 2:55:24 PM
That's what I brought up the last time shipping stuff was mentioned, but I got out voted. The logic still makes sense to me though
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Khoshekh6
Since: May, 2022
#2108: Dec 31st 2023 at 6:17:14 PM
So this was just cut from Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
- Broken Base: One of the biggest arguments that permeates the fanbase is whether or not Miles or Miguel is in the right. It usually goes one of two ways:
- Those who side with Miles say that everything that caused him to be Spider-Man was completely out of his control, and that he shouldn't have to hold responsibility for circumstances that he never directly caused. They believe that Gwen's dad quitting the police at the end disproves Miguel's canon events theory, and that any evidence for it was shaky at best to begin with, meaning that Jefferson doesn't need, let alone deserve, to die. They also think that Miguel's extremist behavior goes against the Spider-Man moral code of refusing to let innocents die out of neglect or necessity.
- Those who side with Miguel argue that his backstory of taking his alternate self's life before that alternate self's universe collapsed is definitive proof of canon events, and that he's the only one who understands the need to abide by The Needs of the Many. These fans often say that Miles is acting irresponsibly by choosing his father's life over the entire multiverse, and want Miguel's stance to be validated by the events of Beyond to show Miles the ramifications of his actions.
- An extremely small, but vocal third group say that Miles and Miguel are both right in different aspects. These fans believe that Miles has every right to be defensive over his dad due to how the character of Spider-Man has been characterized in almost every installment made about him, while also acknowledging that Miguel has a leg to stand on with the canon events theory due to what happened to his alternate self's universe, and overall believe the situation to not nearly be as black-and-white as the rest of the fanbase seems to view it as.
Edit reason says it was cut because broken base can't have a middle ground
I think this should count though. The example as currently written says its an extremely small group (broken base says there should be very little middle ground, not no middle ground at all) and personally I don't recall seeing anyone hold this middle ground position.
What do yall think?
Edited by Khoshekh6 on Dec 31st 2023 at 6:17:32 AM
WhirlRX
Since: Jan, 2015
#2109: Dec 31st 2023 at 6:21:59 PM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
There is a legit split on the whose right when it comes to Miles and Miguel. Even if there are those who can see merit on the other side. So i say it would still count.
RWBYraikou888
The Undercover Troper
from The Kingdom of Atlas
Since: Aug, 2020
Relationship Status: Complex: I'm real, they are imaginary
The Undercover Troper
#2110: Dec 31st 2023 at 11:13:03 PM
Revert.
mightymewtron
Angry babby
from New New York
Since: Oct, 2012
Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#2111: Dec 31st 2023 at 11:30:36 PM
Personally I think the "third side" examples are valid if the main two opposing factions are so sizable and loud, the third side is only prominent because the rest of the fandom is sick of the fighting.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Tylerbear12
Just a guy.
from The Green Hills.
Since: Apr, 2015
Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
Just a guy.
#2112: Jan 5th 2024 at 8:03:24 PM
I was the one who removed the example. I misunderstood one of the criteria for Broken Base when cutting the example. Apologies.
Edited by Tylerbear12 on Jan 5th 2024 at 10:04:05 AM
Tylerbear12
Just a guy.
from The Green Hills.
Since: Apr, 2015
Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
Just a guy.
#2113: Jan 5th 2024 at 9:47:39 PM
Edited by Tylerbear12 on Jan 6th 2024 at 10:16:57 AM
Nen_desharu
Nintendo Fanatic Extraordinaire
from Greater Smash Bros. Universe or Toronto
Since: Aug, 2020
Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Nintendo Fanatic Extraordinaire
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Wrong thread
WarJay77
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
(Troper Knight)
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
#2115: Feb 2nd 2024 at 12:59:18 PM
That can't be Broken Base if there's two competing magazines.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Nen_desharu
Nintendo Fanatic Extraordinaire
from Greater Smash Bros. Universe or Toronto
Since: Aug, 2020
Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Nintendo Fanatic Extraordinaire
#2116: Feb 2nd 2024 at 1:00:10 PM
I just realized I posted in the wrong thread. There really needs to be a Friendly Fandom and Fandom Rivalry cleanup thread.
Riolugirl
Rookie Trope Repairer
from whence you came, you shall remain...
(Experienced Trainee)
Relationship Status: It's a god-awful small affair
Rookie Trope Repairer
#2117: Feb 2nd 2024 at 1:00:29 PM
I did try to bring this example up in the complaining cleanup thread,
if it helps.
Edited by Riolugirl on Feb 2nd 2024 at 9:01:11 AM
"As long as I have my comrades with me, I can do anything!" (She/Her) (Current Focus: Cleaning Hell Is That Noise misuse)
Nen_desharu
Nintendo Fanatic Extraordinaire
from Greater Smash Bros. Universe or Toronto
Since: Aug, 2020
Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Nintendo Fanatic Extraordinaire
#2118: Feb 2nd 2024 at 1:34:14 PM
Thanks!
mightymewtron
Angry babby
from New New York
Since: Oct, 2012
Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#2119: Feb 2nd 2024 at 10:37:29 PM
The Futurama page says "Jurassic Bark" is a Broken Base issue as it's either loved for being a Tear Jerker or hated for the same. Personally, I've seen some Hype Backlash about this episode, but it's very rare I see anybody hate it. It's more Angst Aversion from people who admit they think the episode is at the very least good.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
"Cool. Coolcoolcool."
#2120: Feb 3rd 2024 at 12:22:27 AM
Nothing about Broken Base explicitly disqualifies fanon disagreements, especially when a lot of fanon is based on interpretations of canon. In fact, the description even mentions shipping wars. Ship-to-Ship Combat is its own thing, but if the fanbase has two strong factions about shipping and anti-shipping as opposed to people just being neutral about shipping, I think it can count.
Fair but I would like to again point out that my research has not found much in the way of Luca fans arguing or even disagreeing over rather the ship either and thus I wouldn't even say that it has a strong anti-shipping side.
Yeah, I have never seen anyone hate that episode.
Edited by Bullman on Feb 3rd 2024 at 2:28:44 PM
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
#2121: Feb 3rd 2024 at 8:48:00 AM
SuperMarioLogan this entire page seems be just an excuse to bash particular episodes of the show, and it’s kinda moot point to complain when Nintendo’s Cease & Desist rendered every pre-2021 video as non-canon anyway
mightymewtron
Angry babby
from New New York
Since: Oct, 2012
Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#2122: Feb 3rd 2024 at 8:15:59 PM
An episode being retconned doesn't mean fandom opinions are no longer worth mentioning, but it does look a bit one-sided from a cursory glance.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
#2123: Feb 6th 2024 at 4:41:07 PM
I want to discuss how bloated the page for Mario Kart 8 and how bloated it is. Here's what I found for debates that are no longer active or were never long-lasting to begin with:
the entries in question
- The character roster in general. While Ensemble Dark Horses like Toadette and Waluigi have returned to the race, the 9 new racers have left a mostly sour taste in much of the fanbase. The 7 Koopalings are Ensemble Dark Horses themselves, but the fact that they take a whopping 7 slots in the 30-character roster has left the base a bit broken in that regard. Worse, Bowser Jr., a character whose fan base is often at odds with the Koopalings, was not included in the initial release, along with other long-time fan favorite Diddy Kong (who wasn't included in the game for a long time). The more controversial racers include Baby Rosalina and Pink Gold Peach, largely for the fact that they both contribute as Palette Swaps, making the roster have five babies that play too similarly to one another and two metallic Palette Swaps of Mario and Peach. Counting those with the seven Koopalings, they all take up almost half of the entire roster, a criticism that was further exacerbated by the inclusion of Tanooki Mario and Cat Peach as DLC, and eventually, Gold Mario in Deluxe (though he is thankfully just a palette swap of Metal Mario). Bowser Jr. fans were somewhat appeased with his inclusion in Deluxe but that version has its own cans of worms. That being said, this debate started to die down after the Booster Course Pass was revealed prior to Wave 4's release to also be adding characters from past Mario Kart games, along with some fan favorites that debuted in Tour, first starting with Birdo. By Wave 6, it appears to have been fully quenched, with the return of Diddy Kong and Funky Kong rounding up the full roster of Mario Kart Wii, as well as others such as Pauline, Petey Piranha and Kamek, although the addition of Peachette still left a sour taste in some people's mouths.
- SNES Rainbow Road. Some people are glad this classic is back for another go in 8 since its last appearance in 7, but others would have preferred a different, newer Rainbow Road like the one from Super Circuit or even Double Dash!!, due to SNES Rainbow Road being the third Rainbow Road that's on the easy side in 8. This has died down somewhat once the Booster Course Pass released, which brought back 7's Rainbow Road, and while SNES Rainbow Road is in Tour like the rest of the Booster Course Pass tracks, its appearance in 8 predates Tour by five years, meaning that it escapes from having the same divisive artstyle as the Tour tracks and instead has a much more pleasing aesthetic compared to them.
- The return of Baby Park in the Wii U DLC package. Some like it because it reminds them of Double Dash!!'s chaotic nature the track delivers that anyone can win. Others actively groan upon seeing it on the pool of courses to choose from in online lobbies, and despise this return due to both that luck-based nature and the fact that the course only consists of two right turns and nothing else.
- While people are excited for the improved Battle Mode and new and returning characters in the Deluxe expansion, some dislike the fact that they have to pay for the whole game all over again just to get it. And while the new content has been warmly received, there has been some debate over whether it should come to the Wii U version too (as either update content or DLC). It depends on whether you think the Wii U version deserves the content just as much or if it should be restricted for more sales.
- The Booster Course Pass DLC has torn the fanbase asunder since its announcement, due in no small part to it being a Contested Sequel of sorts. Many players lament that, in lieu of creating an entirely new entry for the Switch, Nintendo chose to lengthen an already long Sequel Gap and release DLC for what was then a five year old port of what was then an eight year old game. Many other players say it was the perfect choice as they were still playing 8 Deluxe and it remained the Switch's best selling game, and as such it was a better business decision over making a Mission-Pack Sequel. It also reignited feuds between fans of the original Mario Kart 8 and Deluxe, with fans of the former decrying the BCP for "ignoring" those that bought the original game, and fans of the latter again defending it as the better business decision due to Deluxe's continued popularity and relevance. There are also those who bought the original game and the Deluxe Updated Re-release and don't mind only the latter getting updates and DLC, also thinking it only makes business sense and that it would be redundant to release the content on both the long discontinued Wii U and the Switch.
- The fact that every track in the pass is derived from its appearance in Mario Kart Tour, resulting in a much simpler and more cartoony graphical style and track design from the base game, is without a doubt the biggest reason for the contention surrounding the BCP. Many find it insulting and out of place due to Mario Kart 8 being a game known for its visual and functional panache, as well as the fact that only ten of the pass' 48 courses make use of the game's signature anti-gravity mechanic (with the first wave omitting it entirely). Many others are okay with it or even prefer it, finding the original game to be overdesigned and "un-Mario like" and see the BCP as a return to form, and say the DLC is still a steal for doubling the number of tracks at less than half the price. There's also the Quantity vs. Quality debate, as some would have been fine with fewer courses if it meant that they could be better matched with the base content, while others just love that there are now 96 courses to choose from. Although fans largely agree that the pass got better over time with both mimicking the base game's design conventions and looking more visually appealing in general, how much better, and if it actually does live up to the base selection, remains very hotly contested.
- The BCP introduces a route changing system to integrate the courses' various layouts from Tour, mainly with the city courses, which utilize different layouts on each lap (with the exception of Los Angeles Laps, which instead turns the different routes into sections akin to 3DS Rainbow Road). One section of fans finds it to be a clever gameplay twist that pays respect to the multiple layouts and allows them to stand out from the base selection (with tracks such as Singapore Speedway and Vancouver Velocity being seen as some of the best tracks in the game, especially with their Awesome Music), and the other section finds it to be an obtuse and disorienting mess that serves only to "mask" what they find to be dull and uninteresting layouts (especially those released early in Tour's life like New York Minute and Tokyo Blur). Both sides have praised the use of route changing in the non-city courses, however.
Riolugirl
Rookie Trope Repairer
from whence you came, you shall remain...
(Experienced Trainee)
Relationship Status: It's a god-awful small affair
Rookie Trope Repairer
#2124: Feb 19th 2024 at 9:30:13 AM
The Shiver entry's back on YMMV.Splatoon 3. I assume it still applies by now?
"As long as I have my comrades with me, I can do anything!" (She/Her) (Current Focus: Cleaning Hell Is That Noise misuse)
keyblade333
Ferdinand Von Aegir fan
from In the void between worlds.
Since: Sep, 2013
Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
Ferdinand Von Aegir fan
#2125: Feb 22nd 2024 at 3:03:03 PM
The Broken Base entry for Pathfinder has a long list of things, and I really don't know how valid or not some of these are. On top of that, the amount of stuff is enough to where it is hard to understand what is being discussed, which is partially because of inexperience for sure, but still.
I think a lot of these could be removed but I don't want to assume that yet.
Entries in question
- Broken Base: There are several points that divide long-time fans.
- The Archetype system is a beefed up version of 3.5's "alternate class features," with packages of alternate abilities intended to be used to side-grade individual classes by replacing some of their class features, skills, etc. with different ones according to a theme. Proponents like that it increases the customizability of individual classes, offering both a rewarding means of specialization besides feats, and a better, less clunky and mechanically punishing way of realizing "mixed" character concepts over outright multiclassing to achieve something similar, especially as Pathfinder design capped levels at 20 and came to increasingly discourage multiclassing, and that it represents an easy means of stripping out useless garbage class features no one likes anyway to get cool and useful ones, potentially salvaging entire classes loaded down with them.note Critics argue that Archetypes are themselves sometimes confusing and clunky, since the trade-off can cause unintended confusion about how it affects the original class features that aren't changed if an Archetype is poorly-designed, especially when multiple Archetypes are stacked together, and that some Archtypes are grotesquely more powerful than the base class; those who regard the base classes as well designed are often less willing to accept Archetypes that get rid of undertuned features in favor of powerful or useful onesnote , and that most of them suck and players only use a handful of the most powerful and useful options. note
- In a related, smaller scale conflict, some 3.5 fans are unhappy that archetypes basically swallowed Prestige classes whole, with the vast majority of players basically completely ignoring the mechanic in favor of using Archetypes to achieve similar, often superior results, and some 3.5 fans are happy, arguing that Prestige classes had all of the problems of Archetypes (overcomplicated and often confusing or poorly-designed mechanics, huge power scaling issues, etc.) with the additional hurdle of requiring a player to build for them from square one and a DM to potentially learn an entire new class, and that they were just as often used to shore up weak and bland base classes as to realize actual concepts, so their lunch is being eaten by the vanilla classes actually being fun and powerful as much as by Archetypes. Paizo never actually stopped putting out Prestige classes, players just stopped using them, either because their Prestige classes were too overspecialized in light of the new Archetype system or because the second players had a viable alternative they abandoned Prestige classes en-masse, depending on who you ask.
- Drawbacks are generally a bit of a sticky wicket. (Minor Drawbacks that let the player take an extra Trait anyway; almost no one defends Major Drawbacks that offer full feats.) Proponents argue that they can be a rewarding way to add a bit more flavor to a character and getting a nice but not overwhelming reward for it in the form of a Trait, which can represent a modest but useful boon to a save, an additional class skill, and so on. Critics argue that they are wildly imbalanced, with some being crippling enough to make the benefit hardly worth it and some so minor they might not come up in an entire campaign or barely feel like a drawback... which, again, is often seen as a weakness in character option design in the game as a whole.
- The encounter with Iomedae in the original, print version of Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth has become rather divisive. Some feel it was terribly handled, since the players can be punished and almost killed if they express understandable frustrations about a somewhat-questionable situation or have bad luck rolling Knowledge (Religion) tests they might not have access to, while others feel it wasn't and players are complaining about being punished for making bad choices in front of a good aligned god, or about tests they've almost certainly rolled several times while battling demons in the lead-up. This got to the point that the same encounter in the Wrath of the Righteous PC game is completely different, all the way down to its context.
- The Advanced Class Guide was rushed to print for GenCon 2014, fan-speculation being that the reason for this was so Paizo had something to show off, because Wizards of the Coast was premiering Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition at the same time. This, however, led to glaring editing mistakes, and one class had a post-playtest downgrade - the Warpriest, which originally could make attacks using its level as Base Attack Bonus with its Sacred Weapon(s); there was much outcry over it being "bad", but an equal amount of cheering, as the Warpriest in the playtest was noted to completely run amok in groups due to this full-BAB plus 6th-level Spell progression. The divide is fairly 50/50 on Paizo's forums, and the book has received the worst/most mixed customer reviews (3.5/5 on Paizo's site) for any of the PRD "Big Books".
- Pathfinder Unchained spawned many examples:
- The Unchained Summoner, being the remake of a class that's already divisive, was destined to crack opinions. For most of those who regarded it as too effective, it's a welcome series of nerfs that manages to retain the class's flavor and, unlike some other Unchained classes, offers a few new archetypes to replace those rendered ineffective by the swap (though at least a few argue that it was needed but went too far with some of the nerfs). To those who didn't mind where the Summoner was, balance-wise, it's a bunch of unnecessary changes to a class Paizo has always been unnecessarily fixated on "fixing," even in light of well-acknowledged power differences between the other, more-versatile full casters and everyone else, and, unlike some of the other Unchained classes, no longer leaves the original class as an available option for Pathfinder Society play.
- The Unchained Monk. In stark contrast to the Rogue rework in the same book, the Unchained Monk has a few minor tweaks to the manner in which it gains ki powers to make it a bit more customizable and full-BAB, but little else, and it loses the Monk's traditional advantage of three good saves in the process. Worse, the rework completely altered some of the Monk's core abilities and mechanics, rendering unusable a number of popular and powerful Archetypes that needed them to trade out. Many fans who were looking forward to some love for a class that, if not in quite as bad of shape as the Rogue, still definitely needed a boost to put it on par with the other martials, were very disappointed, arguing the remake fixed some minor issues but didn't really address the Monk's core problems. Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition's alterations to the class are generally seen as a much bigger step in the right direction. Others, usually those who liked the old Monk's power level just fine, feel the resulting class isn't bad, just a lateral rather than forward shift that's still a fine and playable class that keeps the Monk right where it used to be, and they regard that as a good thing.
- Most agree the original Rogue needed a bit of a boost and welcome the many changes and advantages that the Unchained Rogue represents, particularly that, unlike the other Unchained variants, the Rogue doesn't have to lose anything to get them (meaning almost all archetypes for the 'base' Rogue still work fine). But a number of players are still unhappy, feeling that making the Rogue too effective in combat waters down the class's skill monkey feel.
- Some even think the new "skill unlock" system Rogues have was pushing it a bit far past balancing, with the interpretation that this means certain skill-monkeys could be better at the skills other classes are flavored to specialize in.
- The late 2015 errata and changes to previous books. While many previously-troubled archetypes got welcome reworks, and some saw increases in raw power, many previously-unique classes and archetypes were either completely remade beyond recognition or just nerfed into the ground. Worse, these changes started by impacting the effectiveness of many of the most popular methods and tactics martial classes relied on to do their jobs, bending the already-strained martial-caster power dynamic even more in the caster's favor.
- The reveal of Pathfinder Second Edition (or 2E) has imported the edition wars of Dungeons & Dragons to Pathfinder just by the announcement. Paizo had expected this division.
- When Paizo revealed 2e, there were two camps. One side being excited of the update believe this is a necessary fresh start for the system, allowing them to import better received mechanics from Pathfinder Unchained and Starfinder into the core rules while also deal with infamous issues like the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards problem. The other side was less enthused about this news, worrying that the game will end up becoming more like D&D 5th Edition at the cost of Character Customization and gameplay depth and/or were angered that 9 years of Sourcebooks are rendered mechanically incompatible for future books once second edition comes out.
- Things became no less intense once the playtest dropped, though not always for the reasons listed above. Some main points of contention were the level-based numbers scaling (which some loved for simplifying progression and flattening the power curve between players, regardless of their specialization, and others hated for the same reason), the general power level of the characters (was it necessary for the sake of balance and the GM's sanity, or had Paizo just nerfed everything equally without considering how this would affect player experience? Not helped by a math glitch that made all characters significantly weaker than they should have been), the game's complexity (simpler than its predecessor certainly, but some viewed it as still very difficult to learn), and the test campaign Doomsday Dawn (which Paizo evidently designed to stress test the system in a way that they knew wasn't going to be fun, but forgot to mention this in the build-up materials to the playtest, leading many to treat it as a normal campaign and quit in frustration). The playtest system also was oft compared to, of all things, Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition.
- The final release version of 2E has been met much more warmly than the playtest, largely in part thanks to the feedback received during that playtest, which allowed Paizo to change or even remove systems that players did not enjoy. Despite this, the game still has a number of issues the player base is divided on.
- The alchemist is probably the single most divisive class out of all the Core Rulebook classes. The class had overall been refocused from the mostly self-sufficient damage class with self-buff utility it was in First Edition, to more or less a walking item dispenser with a focus on buffing and supporting allies. While plenty of people like this concept, a lot of people feel the clunkiness of item usage combined with many of their buffs and benefits not being as good as spells limits the alchemist's true usefulness as a support character. In addition, two of the three initial research fields are also considered largely unsupported and subpar, with bomber being the only truly viable field. note Finally, until they get Perpetual Infusions at 7th level, a lot of players feel running an alchemist in combat is boring, as they cannot spend every turn dispensing items or using Quick Alchemy without running out of infused reagents or items too fast, resorting them to making boring regular strikes that the class isn't designed to support. Many wonder why some form of Perpetual Infusions is not supported from level 1 in the same way spellcasters get cantrips.
- The questionable state of the alchemist is not helped by the fact the mutagenist famously did not have its research field benefit changed from the playtest version, which was a big red flag considering the benefit note was made a baseline mechanic for all characters. While this ability was changed in the first errata, this oversight lead many to believe the alchemist was left out to dry before the final release, and the current version of the alchemist is more or less an Obvious Beta that didn't get the revamps it needed to be fully viable.
- While most people agree the design of martial classes has been vastly improved from First Edition, the reception to spellcasters has been more mixed. Many people upon launch felt they were too weak, believing they had been nerfed too hard. Over time most players began to realise spellcasting was still highly viable, and the perceived weakness was a case of a system that finally hit a good balance to prevent the age-old issue of Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards, but even then the subjectivity of this permeates the spectrum of opinions. There are three major points to this:
- The first is that most spellcasters have been revamped primarily into support roles. A big part of this is no doubt edition whiplash from First Edition or even other d20 systems such as Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, where high-level spellcasters can carry entire parties, as opposed to Pathfinder 2E where builds are more role-based and can't be Masters of All. However, even considering that, a number of players find it unappealing that casters feel pigeon-holed into support roles, reliant on buffing, debuffing, and crowd control over raw damage and the dramatic Save-Or-Suck spells they were capable of in other editions. While they can be built for damage, caster damage in this edition is more niche, with a focus on area-of-effect and exploiting weaknesses to make the most of their spell resources. Overall, due to the burst-y nature of damage spells combined with a spellcasters' limited spell slots, martials will generally have higher consistent damage than even dedicated blaster casters, and with combat pushing players to invest in status condition inducing effects and personal buffs — which spellcasters are abundant in — most casters will be more optimized in a support role for martial damage dealers.
- The second is that spells don't make anywhere near as much use of the new three-action economy as martials do; some spells like Heal and Magic Missiles have interactions that change depending on how many actions you use to cast them, but most spells are simple two-action activities, making most people feel the chance to revamp spellcasting to something more interesting that interacts with the new action economy has been wasted. It doesn't help that the system's equivalent to D&D 5E's concentration mechanic — sustaining a spell — requires casters to use an action each round to do so. While it isn't required for anywhere near as many spells as 5E uses concentration for, it's notably required for all summoning spells; it takes three actions to cast the spell and then a further action each turn to sustain the summoning, making it extremely limiting and difficult to maintain a summoned creature while also having autonomy over your character. Secrets of Magic did introduce more spells that played with the three-action economy, but such spells are still in the minority and doesn't change the complaints about sustaining spells.
- The third is that the game has been successfully rebalanced such that a caster using his top level spells is roughly equal in power to a martial...but that casters are still only able to use their top level spells a couple of times per day, a holdover from earlier versions where those spells would have been much stronger than anything a martial character could do. In fact, casters in Pathfinder 2e only get about half as many spell slots of a given level as their Pathfinder 1e counterparts. This means that casters have to rely on low-level spells or cantrips for most encounters if the GM is stingy with rests, which are generally acknowledged to be much weaker than a martial's actions. It doesn't help that 2e removes virtually all the other limits on the adventuring day from earlier editions. Or that Paizo gave GMs absolutely no guidance on how many encounters a party should face in a day until the Remastered version (a la Player Core) four years after the game's full release, meaning that different groups playing the system as written may have completely different experiences of how strong casters are, depending on the GM.
- Aside from the general spellcasting disagreements, there's also the Incapacitate trait. Certain spells have the potential to take down an enemy in a single critical failure, which can traditionally result in rather anticlimactic boss battles. To solve this issue, in 2e such spells generally have the Incapacitate trait, which upgrades the target's save by an entire category (failure to success, success to critical success, etc) if it's higher level than the spell slot used to cast the spell. Proponents tend to love this mechanic, for finally solving this issue and allowing fun boss battles against a single powerful enemy. Detractors tend to have three issues: the buff is too powerful, choosing the right targets for your spell relies on out of character knowledge (the monster's exact level), and due to a quirk of the mathematics, Incapacitate casters' power varies a lot depending on whether they're odd or even level. The sharply limited number of high level spellslots mentioned above also factors into this — in groups where you're having six encounters per day, using one of your 2-3 top level slots to maybe defeat a single enemy of your own level feels like a waste.
- And of course separate to those complaints, those who actually preferred spellcasters being overtly overpowered - either players who like the game-breaking power caps high potency spell casting allowed in earlier editions such as D&D 3.5/PF1e, or those who just feel spellcasting should be more powerful than mundane abilities on principle — were never going to be happy with the changes in the new edition. The nerfs to spellcasting and the overall reduction in power caps that come with it are one of the biggest reasons a lot of First Edition players are choosing not to move over.
- 2nd Edition's focus on teamwork and in-play decision making over character build determining much of the game's power cap is met with mixed reception. People who like it enjoy how the game properly rewards tactics and inter-party cooperation; since you cannot build a character to be a Master of All like you can in similar d20 systems (particularly in lieu of 1st Edition, which was notorious for such builds), the duties to cover all bases must be split about the whole party. Teamwork is necessary to victory, and 'optimal play' is more about coordination than brute-force powergaming. However, others feel that this forced reliance on teamwork makes individual characters feel weaker and more helpless, and that even if they have no problem in theory with teamwork, the system lays it on too thick by heavily pushing people attempting to solo play or carry the game. The worst critics say the game leans completely into wargaming territory, more interested in appealing to Serious Business gamers than it is just having fun or telling a story.
- Fans either believe Pathfinder should no longer have anything to do with D&D in any shape or form and will cast aspersions on anything that takes after Dungeons & Dragons in theme or setting and deny any ties to old D&D, or believe it's not enough like the better parts of D&D lore, adventures and gameplay and demand more additions like it. This only deepened after WotC's disastrous attempt to enforce a draconian version of the OGL and made a lot of D&D players jump ship to Pathfinder.
- The Archetype system is a beefed up version of 3.5's "alternate class features," with packages of alternate abilities intended to be used to side-grade individual classes by replacing some of their class features, skills, etc. with different ones according to a theme. Proponents like that it increases the customizability of individual classes, offering both a rewarding means of specialization besides feats, and a better, less clunky and mechanically punishing way of realizing "mixed" character concepts over outright multiclassing to achieve something similar, especially as Pathfinder design capped levels at 20 and came to increasingly discourage multiclassing, and that it represents an easy means of stripping out useless garbage class features no one likes anyway to get cool and useful ones, potentially salvaging entire classes loaded down with them.note Critics argue that Archetypes are themselves sometimes confusing and clunky, since the trade-off can cause unintended confusion about how it affects the original class features that aren't changed if an Archetype is poorly-designed, especially when multiple Archetypes are stacked together, and that some Archtypes are grotesquely more powerful than the base class; those who regard the base classes as well designed are often less willing to accept Archetypes that get rid of undertuned features in favor of powerful or useful onesnote , and that most of them suck and players only use a handful of the most powerful and useful options. note
Edited by keyblade333 on Feb 27th 2024 at 10:28:39 AM
Muramasa got.
Total posts: 2,163
Okay cool. I've swapped out the Wall of Text entry for the one![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
above.