Ancestry and Class Surveys

I have read the 1.2 Update and remain totally opposed to the existing dying rules. It baffles me how the DC of the foe causing a PC to go to Dying 1 has anything to do with how the PC recovers from that condition. While the foe may have delivered the damage, it was the damage itself that caused the PC to go to Dying 1. Example: PC has been in combat with several foes and has 6HP remaining. A foe hits him for 7 damage. Why should it matter for recovery purposes whether the foe was a DC 20 monster delivering a claw attack or a DC 15 goblin rogue who stabbed him for the damage?
I would suggest the following recovery rule: Base DC = 10; add the amount of damage beyond reducing the PC to 0. Thus, in the above case, the DC would be 10 + 1. If you want the difficulty to be higher, raise the base DC to 15.
This solution recognizes that recovery from dying requires exceptional effort FROM THE PC.

If we are submitting Class feedback, would it not be prudent to wait until we can assess the remaining Multiclass Archetypes?

Although a bit rough at times, it has been fun to Playtest. My players certainly seem to be enjoying it and like playing characters of different levels in a short span of time.

Thanks to the Paizo staff for making the effort of listening to our feedback during this time! I do feel that you guys are making an honest effort to incorporate it into your vision of the game and being transparent while you are at it.

I look forward to the evolution of the rules as time goes on.

This race survey feels terrible.

'Dwarf: How satisfied were you with this ancestry's basic statistics?'
'Hit Points
Speed
Ability boosts
Ability flaw
Languages
Darkvision'

Where is the option for 'this is like water being wet, I experience no satisfaction, but am not asking you to change it'?

I want to express my utter apathy for some of these things, and I don't feel I am given that option. My main complaint, on races, is that they are bland and samey, mechanically.

Continued dissatisfaction with the survey itself:

'Several dwarf features from 1st edition are now acquired through ancestry feats instead of being gained automatically. This includes their bonuses against giants, goblins, and orcs; a bonus to saves against poison; a bonus to appraise some items; bonuses to resist being pushed or tripped; weapon familiarity; and stonecunning. What do you think of this change?'

'I like this change.

I like that these features aren't mandatory, but I think spending a feat for them is too high a cost.

I prefer all dwarves gain these features.'

Where is 'a mix of 2 and 3, depending on which of that list you're talking about'? How many people have the same opinion on all of those... 6 features?

Its a real shame the surveys don't have an option for "I am a GM but helped/had a player who played this race/class" and "I am a GM and did not have a player who played this race/class" as right now as a GM it feels like my thoughts will be lesser due to not having played the specifics even if I've seen them in action and gone on deep explorations of the mechanics/themes with players who needed help.

In the Class survey on the Alchemist section, Perfect Medicine is not listed as an option in the question "Select the level 16–20 feat you think is the most powerful."

Its a real shame the surveys don't have an option for "I am a GM but helped/had a player who played this race/class" and "I am a GM and did not have a player who played this race/class" as right now as a GM it feels like my thoughts will be lesser due to not having played the specifics even if I've seen them in action and gone on deep explorations of the mechanics/themes with players who needed help.

Agree completely with this as a fellow GM.

Malk_Content wrote:

Its a real shame the surveys don't have an option for "I am a GM but helped/had a player who played this race/class" and "I am a GM and did not have a player who played this race/class" as right now as a GM it feels like my thoughts will be lesser due to not having played the specifics even if I've seen them in action and gone on deep explorations of the mechanics/themes with players who needed help.

Agree completely with this as a fellow GM.

Yup for all these questions it looks like I've not actually played ANY of the playtest, but I have.

43. Goblins' ability scores changed from from 1st edition. In that edition, they had a bonus to Dexterity and penalties to Strength and Charisma. In the Playtest, they have boosts to Dexterity and Charisma with a flaw in Strength. What do you think of this change?

Um... goblins have a flaw in wisdom in the playtest, not strength.

So in the ancestry survey it asks "what class did you choose". I have three characters who are dwarves, should I just pick one to talk about?

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

Also, a lot of questions didn't have the answer I wanted.

For example, asking what I thought about racial features, the desired answer I wanted to give was:

"Some of these features should be given to the Ancestry automatically, but some should be optional. For instance, any racial feature tied to genetics should be granted to the race for free, but any that could be described as 'racial stereotypes' should be optional."

I'd like a system where the "stereotypes" are just a pile of traits that a character can pick from at level 1. (Who says your Elf wasn't raised by Dwarves?)

So in the ancestry survey it asks "what class did you choose". I have three characters who are dwarves, should I just pick one to talk about?

Mine's even worse because I played a half-elf, half-orc, and a regular human. If I answer for both of those, it'll be a whole bunch of different checkboxes that should be mutually exclusive.

The ancestry survey had questions about which races we wanted later, so why did the survey about classes not have questions about which classes we wanted later?

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

I only went partway through the ancestry survey, because I don't have as much information as I will once I finish playing all the characters. But the bit about the ancestry feats was also disappointing in that it lacked the option to comment on the way they're spread out over levels. Is this something that is brought up later in the survey, or just an oversight? Because that's one of my biggest problems with ancestries as they exist now.

So yeah, I think I have to agree with several of the other posters in saying the survey seems flawed. Which is highly problematic. A flawed survey gives flawed results.

The background survey misses an important thing: whether having only 1 feat choice is ok for a background.

For me, it is not. As of now, by choosing a thematic background I typically end up with a totally crap feat (such as Assurance) that I can't replace. Other backgrounds have good stuff. As a result, I typically choose backgrounds for mechanical reason, so the very idea of "background" actually gets dumped into numbers.

Backgrounds are bad ways to force ppl pick useless feats such as Assurance or Forager. Players at least need to have some choice on that.

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

Another question, not on the survey:

What do you think of Sorcerer's limited spontaneous heightening?

Answer: It shouldn't be limited, or else the wizard should have to learn every spell he wants for every level individually.

Also, survey on the backgrounds could use a part about what other stuff can be added to backgrounds: extra languages, access or proficiency with uncommon/exotic stuff, Adopted Heritage options etc.etc.

The adoption stuff SHOULD be a background thing, available at 1st level only - not a general feat that you can't get until lvl 3 minimum. What is it, you advance to 3rd level (or 11th elvel, for that matter) in an adventuring class - and suddenly elves adopt you? These mechanics are so much anti-rp.

Looking forward to doing the class survey when I get a chance to play more of the classes, but I agree with some of the people saying the ancestries survey's a bit flawed. I don't think it's as bad as the other people say it is, but I did have moments where I felt I lacked the nuance to express places where (such as when evaluating ancestry feats as a whole) there might be a couple interesting options and the rest not all that interesting, or the like, but I can't really say anything to the effect of "This feat and that feat are interesting, but If I were playing upwards of level 9, it stops being that interesting" or "While individual feats can be interesting, the fact that not enough of them are as interesting, it makes the interestingness of the feats as a whole lower as I feel like I'm not choosing from a list of equally valid options"

PossibleCabbage wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

Not anything -- being a full deity (at the high end) or a creature with an intelligence score less than 3 or even non-existent (at the low end) probably would not be appropriate. Towards the middle, deep one hybrids are a "player" race with a crippling weakness that would make them unsuitable for nearly all campaigns.

But drow? Why not?

I strongly feel like both races and classes should have one mechanic or characteristic that helps define them. It should ties all their characteristics together and helps set them apart from others. I don't feel that with the current playtest.

There's also the issue with disparity. All of the classes have the same progression of abilities. However, many of the classes don't receive anything in exchange for not having spellcasting or proficiencies that other classes do. For example, martials have roughly the same number of proficiencies and abilities as most of the spellcasting classes. Wizards and sorcerers get almost nothing in exchange for the armor/weapon proficiencies, skills, and other perks that clerics, bards, and druids have.

The paladin also loses a lot of narrative moments when their iconic smite evil ability is replaced with a situational reaction that has a significant antipattern in its gameplay.

As I stated over and over. My first impression on Ancestry gave me IMMENSE hope for what they could've been.

I was thinking that I would be able to pick feats that would enhance my character culturally and allowing the possibility of making characters raised by other ancestries just by making some choices, while having my biological features remaining the same as 1e or maybe even having them re-balanced to be more interesting and stronger (in the cases of the races that needed the boost).

Instead, we've got watered down versions of interesting races before and the ones less appealing just got even worse. Also, I love playing humans but Natural Ambition and General Training are way too insane compared to anything else in the game and it will only get better over time with new feats. So I suggest you guys start thinking of new solutions to this because in PF1e Humans were already too strong because of this. I would go as far as to say that is more reasonable to give 3 Free ability boosts and get rid of these two feats and change the necessary things from there.

Just to leave my thoughts here since the surveys didn't have the option.

Please, please. Reserve Heritage feat for hugely impactful things in the ancestry, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs is a very good direction but it makes no sense that you need to wait until level 5 to get your first half-elf feat, that's straight up taxing. Since I'm on this point already, give us at least 3 feats from the start and cut back the feats later down the line and if they absolutely must exist, then create new feats that enhance the ones you already got or things that give you plenty of new options, you know... Things that show your progress over time.

Ancestry can be the best part of the system, but they need a complete overhaul on implementation and evaluation of what they can and should do. Adding more depth to the biology and history of these new ancestries can give a lot of room for heritage and cultural feats.

When judging power and how interesting things are in comparison to each other can we get the option to set multiple answers to the same level, to mean "those things excite me to the same level" or "they are equally bland"?

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

I'm of the opinion that any ancestry which can literally only be a single alignment is inappropriate. Like Pathfinder canonically has more non-CE Succubi than non-CE Drow.

I also wish they could understand, regarding feats, that in order to be a powerful option, it needs to be something that can be guaranteed to be used in EVERY combat, or near so, everything else that is too situational should just be tacked on additions to a powerful option, like say, two situational abilities (like a bonus vs one enemy type) and a powerful one.

Also, if you gain a stance, in order to be meaningful, you need to get two different ones at the same time, so you have tactical depth.

Glancing through the Ancestry Survey, won't submit until I'm farther into the playtest.

These are very long surveys. I'm curious about your drop out rate, how many folks start but don't complete them.

thflame wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

Not anything -- being a full deity (at the high end) or a creature with an intelligence score less than 3 or even non-existent (at the low end) probably would not be appropriate. Towards the middle, deep one hybrids are a "player" race with a crippling weakness that would make them unsuitable for nearly all campaigns.

But drow? Why not?

Well, because Drow isn't a race. There's not going to be a Race of Drow, because Drow is a Heritage. Unless Heritage feats get ripped from the game in their entirety (which I don't want to see, because I'm excited to see what Human Heritage feats for the different ethnicities like Ulfen and Varisian look like) then when you want to play a Drow, you'll take the Drow Heritage feat on an Elf.

In the Class survey on the Alchemist section, Perfect Medicine is not listed as an option in the question "Select the level 16–20 feat you think is the most powerful."

Thanks for catching this. Fixed now!

Went through some of the class surveys and I'm a bit disappointed. There were no options to say things like "All of the feats on this tier are boring"

There also wasn't an opportunity to comment on the Paladin's new role as a babysitter.

I'm really scratching my head on how this survey is set up. For example, the survey asks what you think the best feat from 1-6 is for a class. But this fails to capture:
- Which class feats seemed underpowered or overpowered or difficult to understand, and why.
- What levels seemed to have obvious or unsatisfying options.
- That the level 6 feats are going to mostly be better than the level 1 feats.

It feels frustrating that I went through the entirety of the alchemist portion of the survey and I left no meaningful feedback. Nothing about how, for example:
- Being limited by resonance was more stressful than being limited by spells, because resonance was tied to my emergency survivability.
- I felt pigeonholed into bombs, because my combat contribution was otherwise negligible.
- Mutagens come in too late and have awkward and clumsy mechanics until high levels.
- Etc etc.

Not to mention questions like: "Which feat from 1-6 is the most powerful?" never shows the full picture. For example, for Alchemist, is Precise Bombs the most powerful 1-6 feat? Every bombing alchemist needs it to avoid incurring the wrath of their party. But every bombing alchemist that picks Precise Bombs also needs Quick Bomber in order to have a chance of dealing reasonable damage, and Debilitating Bombs to supplement their damage with debuffs. Which of these is the most powerful? No idea.

When I finished survey about alchemist and tried to move to next class, the survey repeatedly sent me back to the initial page. I'll try again tomorrow.

LuniasM wrote:

In the Class survey on the Alchemist section, Perfect Medicine is not listed as an option in the question "Select the level 16–20 feat you think is the most powerful."

Thanks for catching this. Fixed now!

Likewise, the new 20th level feat for Bards added in eratta, Virtuoso's Brilliance, is not listed in the similar question for Bards.

As it gives access to the 10th level Occult spells, it absolutely would have been my choice for most powerful 20th level Bard feat.

David knott 242 wrote:

thflame wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)

Not anything -- being a full deity (at the high end) or a creature with an intelligence score less than 3 or even non-existent (at the low end) probably would not be appropriate. Towards the middle, deep one hybrids are a "player" race with a crippling weakness that would make them unsuitable for nearly all campaigns.

But drow? Why not?

Well, because Drow isn't a race. There's not going to be a Race of Drow, because Drow is a Heritage. Unless Heritage feats get ripped from the game in their entirety (which I don't want to see, because I'm excited to see what Human Heritage feats for the different ethnicities like Ulfen and Varisian look like) then when you want to play a Drow, you'll take the Drow Heritage feat on an Elf.

Heritage Feats are bad.

Here! Let's tax you a feat just to play the race you want to play!

Wizards and sorcerers get almost nothing in exchange for the armor/weapon proficiencies, skills, and other perks that clerics, bards, and druids have.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that fighter dedication is a 2nd level feat tax for these classes. The unarmored and unarmed wizard of PF1 is just a bad idea in this edition. One feat to fix the glaring problems with your class? Yes please!

Class Survey is broken - cannot progress past Monk

I agree with others that having to pick the "most powerful" feat within a set level range is not straightforward nor does it seem particularly helpful. In some cases, feats can be strong for build A but weak for build B. Also, generally speaking, yeah the highest-level feats are going to be the strongest.

The lack of even a general "how satisfied are you with the power of the class feats presented in the playtest" and "how satisfied are you with the diversity available in the class feats presented in the playtest" for each class is disappointing, as those are my two biggest issues with 2nd edition.

dnoisette wrote:

thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

That may be, but plenty of folks play Pathfinder but don’t use Golarion as thier campaign setting, so that should not be relevant. Plus, the Pathfinder rule set is not the same as the Golarion setting, so Golarion-specific rules really should not be baked into the core Pathfinder rules in any case

Hey there folks,

We want to thanks folks for going through these lengthy surveys here so quickly. It also appears that some of you are having issue with the surveys not asking questions about topics that you want to weigh in on....

Well, I have some good news.

We actually do have some open response surveys for the ancestries, backgrounds, and classes, allowing you to tell us a bit about your experiences and opinions in a free form manner. Writing survey questions to cover all of the bases is an incredibly challenging task, but these allow to cover any bases we might have missed.

Sorry they were not up at launch here today. There were a few crossed wires on our side... I will post an update with links when they are live.

That may be, but plenty of folks play Pathfinder but don’t use Golarion as thier campaign setting, so that should not be relevant. Plus, the Pathfinder rule set is not the same as the Golarion setting, so Golarion-specific rules really should not be baked into the core Pathfinder rules in any case

I believe one of the major changes for Pathfinder 2nd edition is that the core rules are no longer setting neutral. So things like "Clerics of philosophies" are right out. If you want to run a game in a setting which is not the default one, you will need to change some things.

But since the bestiary will almost surely have rules for building all sorts of nasty things using PC rules (for major antagonists who happen to be a specific type of thing), it'll be easy to lift those for PC rules without giving explicit PC support.

After fighting with the surveys for quite some time to get in there, I finally managed to get it to collect my data: do NOT include alchemist, absolutely positively 500x do not include goblin, and I do not like backgrounds. Backgrounds should be story, not mechanical. Never combine them. (If I wanted that funless pull-by-the-ear I'd consider D&D 5e...)

Marc Radle wrote:

That may be, but plenty of folks play Pathfinder but don’t use Golarion as thier campaign setting, so that should not be relevant. Plus, the Pathfinder rule set is not the same as the Golarion setting, so Golarion-specific rules really should not be baked into the core Pathfinder rules in any case

I believe one of the major changes for Pathfinder 2nd edition is that the core rules are no longer setting neutral. So things like "Clerics of philosophies" are right out. If you want to run a game in a setting which is not the default one, you will need to change some things.

But since the bestiary will almost surely have rules for building all sorts of nasty things using PC rules (for major antagonists who happen to be a specific type of thing), it'll be easy to lift those for PC rules without giving explicit PC support.

If Golarion Lore is a requirement for this system, then that's something that needs to change.

I'm fine with using your lore to give examples and design your APs, but it should not be automatically assumed that you are using Golarion lore when you play PF2.

The class survey resets to the first page after a few classes. You can go through the class pages again and your options have been noted, but when you get to the last page you already filled out, all your stuff is gone and it is a dice roll if the second time around it will take or you will get booted back again to the first page. I suffered through this from the Monk to the Ranger, but now I'm getting tired of going through dozens of pages only to get thrown back to the first one. Could this please get fixed ASAP?

The class survey resets to the first page after a few classes. You can go through the class pages again and your options have been noted, but when you get to the last page you already filled out, all your stuff is gone and it is a dice roll if the second time around it will take or you will get booted back again to the first page. I suffered through this from the Monk to the Ranger, but now I'm getting tired of going through dozens of pages only to get thrown back to the first one. Could this please get fixed ASAP?

That is very odd. We will look into the survey logic to see if there is a problem floating in there... otherwise we will have to kick this up to surveymonkey to fix. Can you tell us specifically where this happened and what occurred?

It happened to me after Monk