Gold Dragon

Jason S's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. ** Pathfinder Society GM. 3,112 posts (3,139 including aliases). 210 reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 21 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 434 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Name of PC: Mousey
Class/Level: Ranger 2
Adventure: Zombie Feast - Graydirge Bank
Catalyst: Scythe trap
Story: Not much to tell. With a +14 bonus to hit, the trap crits at a lot at level 2 (13 or over), and the damage is very swingy, it's easy to hit for huge damage. It hit for over 60 HP damage.

It happened twice as well technically, as one of her friends opened the other door. Elf with low HP.

The group is a bunch of kids, so I was soft and didn't auto-kill them, especially since they didn't even know about the rule. Instead I destroyed their light armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given that this is a dangerous AP and you never stay dead long in it, I thought it would be fun to have an obituary page, in the same vein (heh) as Rise of the Rune lords and other APs.

Where and how have my fellow GMs killed PCs?

Please try to include
Name of PC:
Class/Level:
Adventure:
Catalyst:
Story:


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of all, I'm disappointed in spells like Ignition, which is meant to replace Produce Flame. Produce Flame did an average of 6.5 damage, Ignition now does 5 damage at range, and 7 damage in melee (which is not ideal for a wizard, especially considering how low their AC and HP are).

The last thing spellcasters needed was a nerf. They should have been given a huge buff. If they were going to do that with Ignition, why not make it one action, since spellcasters also get the multi-attack penalty? That would at least be a reasonable trade-off.

In previous editions, casters were glass cannons. They had low hit points and armor class, but to compensate, they had huge offense and utility. Now Wizards have low HP, do less damage than martials, and have low utility because skills seem to have taken over.

It seems like every class that was weak in PF1 was made powerful, and every overpowered class in PF1 was made weak in PF2. The alchemist is the perfect example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
Jason S wrote:

Any idea when this might be sanctioned for organized play?

This campaign is really good stuff.

It won't be.

Thanks for the reply. That's too bad.

I don't agree with the reason for not sanctioning it. I'm playing it now, with 10 year olds with non-evil characters. The plot still makes sense, the Pathfinder society is trying to get a Pathfinder Lodge in Geb and Berline is providing that opportunity.

The horror element isn't too much (it really depends on the GM). It's certainly not worse than Rise of the Runelords, especially with the incestuous ogres (if you want, you can take that way way over the top)...

Then again, we're just playing the first book, and will probably head back to PFS scenarios afterwards. So I don't know what happens throughout the entire campaign, maybe there are evil actions to take, I don't know? But so far, not at all.

To me the reason not to sanction is because it's open ended and takes so long. Would be almost impossible to fit a book into an 8 hour slot.

That bank is deadly and so was the ostovite nest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any idea when this might be sanctioned for organized play?

This campaign is really good stuff.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Your customers could really use a preview of what the maps might look like. Currently, I watch unpacking YouTube videos, otherwise I just don't buy them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice to see Sheila Heidmarsh back.

2/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rev Kennick wrote:

I suspect that this was caused by the sudden increase in interest in Pathfinder due to the WoTC OGL crisis and also due to the continued migration of GMs from in-person gaming to Online events.

The WoTC crisis, but I think that the end of COVID, lockdowns, mask, and jab requirements is a bigger factor.

Locally, GMs and players are coming out again.

Origins is also sold out.

I'm glad to be doing in person gaming again!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a similar problem with my daughter, who played a druid, and always used and befriended animals creatively. It's actually a super useful and extremely powerful ability when used creatively (and given the time to do so).

The problem isn't the Pathfinder game. When I was playing with her solo or with her friend who was similar, we came up with lots of alternate stories, creative solutions, and cool ideas. I was actually more satisfied with those stories than "normal" stories.

The problem is when I added my brother and his two children into the mix. They wanted to kill everything and got extremely agitated when my daughter tried to find alternate solutions, or less direct methods.

In the end, she just got used to killing everything and as a player, doesn't try to use her resources as creatively. Which is kind of sad now that I think about it.

I think the answer is that someone's play style has to compromise. If they won't compromise to her play style, then perhaps you're better off doing solo games, or taking only a few trusted players with her.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm super confused why the bestiary needs a new version. Is it because of legal matters, and to accommodate the Open RPG Creative (ORC)?

Will there be new art again? Or a mix of new art and existing PF2 art?

Honest question (and maybe it's too early in the marketing), what benefits would an existing PF2 player or GM get from these new core sets? Atm, we're still launching PF2 in my area thanks to the lockdowns.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Where is a watermarked image of the final map? And the other side?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

We need preview images please.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Being involved with the creation of Vampire: The Masquerade, Magic the Gathering. Employee #1 at Wizards? And Pathfinder of course.

Wow, you've had an amazing career!

Thanks for having a hand in making some of the best games ever!

2/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
oteta wrote:

Which Pathfinder Society scenarios have non-violent endings or solutions, or are non-violent or focus on non-violence?

Virtually every scenario can end with a non-violent solution. It depends on the GM and the players if they want to make it happen and are creative enough to make it happen.

Sometimes it means making deals with evil creatures/enemies though. Is that really better than having a violent solution? I don't think so, but to each their own.

I'll give you some examples of scenarios where they assumed you'd have a violent ending and my group (of children age 8-11) turned it into a non-violent ending.

Doom of Cassomir example:

The hag at the end, the party druid (who wanted to save the frogs and crocodiles of the swamp) made a deal with the (evil) hag.

They negotiated the following:


  • Cult was disbanded and the hag would no longer attack the people
  • They found a nearby village with empty houses that needed residents, and convinced some people living in Cassomir to live there.
  • Convinced residents to move to the north and east of Cassomir and spent 2 months (using crafting) building basic housing for them.
  • The swamp and Admirals fens was left undrained.

Shadows and Scarecrows bounty:

The bounty assumes the party will defeat Tefla, who is evil.

Instead Tefla offered the group a deal, defeat Kareida and help her track down the other refugees, in return for more gold than the rancher was offering. So they took the deal. I ran this 3 times and only 1 group took the deal.

They actually didn't know Tefla was evil (no Religion), Tefla was an authority figure, and they didn't investigate enough to know what was going on (the first location they investigated, they had the skills to track down the refugees). So they didn't knowingly work with evil, it was done more because of ignorance.

Oh this is an old thread, sorry for continuing the zombification.

2/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When I make people laugh.

When my characterization or story telling is so good, they forget they are playing a game.

When I can get someone who doesn't normally roleplay, to roleplay.

And just playing in person. Seeing real, smiling people (without masks).

2/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) You read each review with a grain of salt.

2) You take an amalgamation of all of the reviews. Often there is a common theme that runs through all reviews, it depends on how the GM and players like it.

3) Read the reviews, run a table, and compare that to what other reviews have said. Find a reviewer you agree with and follow them.

I find the reviews extremely helpful in knowing whether I want to GM or be a player in a scenario, much more helpful than long winded "professional" reviews.

After about 20 reviews, the star rating is pretty much spot on, at least for me. There have only been a few times when I've disagreed with it.

I wish there was an easy way to see new product reviews, like we had before on the front page. I loved logging each day and reading what people thought on different products. I think Paizo really screwed up when they removed it from the front page, I don't log onto this website much anymore.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
I must say, I'm starting to see WotC's point - okay so cantrips aren't meant to impress, but if you can do something impressive three times a day, I'd prefer it if what you did then actually impressed. In short, where are the "striking runes" for spellcasters?

This forum is going to disagree with you, but I agree with you. I like 2E, but spellcasters are under powered in it. It's like you say, since their spells are limited, these spells should be impressive, but they aren't, they're often not even as good as a martial attacking.

Fireball isn't a good example btw. A good example would be Acid Arrow or Spider Sting.

But yeah, what can you do about it? At home, make house rules, at conventions, play martial characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The PF2 rules are good in general, but bulk is just one case of many where Paizo blew it.

Characters can't carry enough. Sure, characters in PF1 could carry too much, so much so that we never tracked encumbrance, but now it just swung to the other extreme.

Tracking bulk is not fun, this is not why we play adventures. Which is probably why the pregens ignore it entirely. If each character could carry 2 bulk more, I think that would be enough.

2/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest problem with your online guide is that there are no links to it from most of this website.

For example you main page is still showing PF1 links.
https://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety

Luckily I remembered this blog post, but most people don't even visit this web site.

I know that you lost a web master, but the web site is really a mess considering you just launched a huge new product. I guess at least the forums still work.

2/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, the Downtime section is too large. I'm not sure what you have planned for it, but I can't imagine downtime being too exciting. It can probably be combined in notes, or on a single line.

Items sold and conditions gained could be one a single line or just in notes. I've had three level 12 characters now and on each I've sold maybe 2 items each. This section should not have more space than items.

Even "items bought" could be reduced a line or two.

In the items section, I think you could save space by not writing the book where the item comes from. Today's gamer just Googles the item and finds it in the SRD. The book's name can be found easily enough and is not needed.

2/5 *

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Some late feedback to this post. Hopefully it will still be read and considered.

Adventure Summary
I like the Adventure Summary section because my brother can't remember what happened in 99% of scenarios.

Having said that, the Adventure Summary section is too big. Most scenarios can be summarized in one sentence, three sentences at most. And if it takes longer I don't want that much detail.

Items section larger
Basically, this section needs to be larger. The Items section needs to be wider, especially if you want to put unique items into chronicles. In some of my chronicles, just that one unique item takes up more space that you are providing for all items!

What goes in the items section?
Also, in general stop putting items into the Item section unless:

A) The price is discounted. (And I think ALL items we find in scenarios should be discounted 10% by default!); or

B) The item is unique. This would greater solve the problem with that section being currently too small.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

In a game where spellcasters have lost a lot of their utility and have an even more limited use of spells compared to PF1, a subtype like Evocation wizards should be doing comparable damage, and more top end damage for their best spells, compared to martials.

I actually played a wizard in playtest to level 10 and it was disappointing.

In PF1, the only people playing blaster wizard or sorcs were people who had extreme game mastery and had planned them out from level 1, using traits, obscure feats, and of course metamagic. Any new player who tried to play a blaster "out of the box" (or played Ezren in PFS) was very disappointed and wondered why they were so terrible when everyone had been telling them how amazing and overpowered they are.

In PF2, metamagic isn't the same. In PF2, touch AC isn't a thing, it's almost the same as AC. Which means a highly reduced DPS for arcane blasters, and nothing has been done to compensate.

Sorry, some of you are saying an arcane spellcaster is there just to buff others and for utility, but I completely disagree. Sure, that is one way to play them, but that's just one play style. And surely players have noted how nerfed spells like Haste have become right? In PF1 it was great (and should have affected only 1 target), now it's just terrible.

I was really hoping blaster wizards/sorcs would be fixed in PF2, that you could make a reasonable blaster wizard or sorceror without game mastery, and without the ability to make it too good. For Wizards, I don't think they do enough to make the schools stand out. Not all wizards should be able to do better DPS, but it should be possible for evocation wizards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Great art as always.

2/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the above argument isn't enough to show how un-fun Infamy is, I don't know what is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for writing that.

2/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Although not an NPC, more of Moloch from Citadel of Flame.

Cyflymder from Tide of Morning.

Jathyl from Flesh Collector.

Sheila Heidmarch (because she’s the best).

Chrysalis Black from The Golemworks Incident.

Michellia Blakros (?) and Damian Kastner from the Blakros Matrimony. A followup would be... nice.

Kalkamedes from the Night March of Kalkamedes.

The entire cast from Shores of Heaven.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.

While I don't agree with your solution, I do agree that it's super annoying that all characters and all stats converge to 18 as you approach level 15.

It's also annoying that boosts after 18 are lower. In PF2, you can't "master" anything.

At level 10 in PF1, our characters didn't have the same stats, the same cannot be said for PF2.

Hopefully they reduce the power or number of boosts you get every 5 levels so we don't all morph into Greek Olympians at level 15.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually interested in this book, bad timing for it however.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Disarm should be under Acrobatics. An argument could be made for Trip.
100% agreed on both. It bugged me that all the combat maneuvers are locked into a strength skill.

Hi. As someone who does MMA, judo, wrestling, and kickboxing, there are weight classes for a reason. STRENGTH MATTERS. Tripping (which is judo) uses technique, but strength makes a huge difference. Same thing with shoving, same thing with grappling (wrestling, jui-jitsu).

You could make the argument that disarming has more to do with dexterity. You could also argue that Feint has to do with dexterity as well (it has NOTHING to do with Deception, the best liars in the world aren't the best boxers).

There should be two skills because the strongest guy isn't necessary the best at all aspects of sport.

Dexterity is about being a gymnast and being able to control your own body weight.

Jumping, climbing, and swimming have a lot more to do with dexterity than strength, so I don't agree with Paizo on how they've categorized them. Michael Phelps might not be the strongest guy, but I bet he can beat the strongest man in the world at all of those things. I also don't think he can do the lifting the strongest man in the world can do either.

And no, just because you're strong doesn't make you the best climber. In my experience (because I've done rock climbing), it's actually the opposite. But yeah, rock climbers have good grip and back strength, but again, it has to do with controlling your own body weight, like a gymnast.

I obviously think there should be 2 skills, I just think many things are not in the correct category.

2/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Proposal D is probably the best, but the survey is not asking the right questions.

Pregens should be easy for a new player to read and digest. Only the essentials should be on the 1st page.

1) Stats: Your stats don't actually help players play the game. Skills do. Stats should be a the bottom of the 1st page, hidden away somewhere.

Defenses should actually be at the top of the page, under the basic information.

2) "Strikes": You should include 2 spells (ray of frost and lightning bolt for example) for ranged instead of the crossbow. Show the players what they can do. Proposal D had ray of frost as a strike, which is good.

3) Feats: Feats on the 1st page are just confusing to a new player. Feats are more advanced and are mostly used to build a character, they should be on the second page.

4) Organization: I don't think spell casters should necessarily have the pregens organized exactly like martials. Don't be beholden to "the formula".

5) Spells: Put the spells section together with the spell rolls, at the top of the 1st page in the 2nd column.

6) Equipment: This doesn't need to be on the 1st page either. If you needed to include it, it shouldn't be at the top, it should be last. Better yet it would be better on the 2nd page where equipment is explained.

7) Spell Choice: Why did you pick lightning instead of fireball? Fireball in general is more effective, would work with the staff of fire, and allow new players to have some fun and be effective. Fireball in general is more useful than lightning bolt.

The rest is in the survey.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

First of all, thank you for listening. This seems like a huge improvement. Limiting items to 10 is not a bad thing and the way focus works seems promising. So this is good.

Having said that please don't nerf magic items any further. Or spells. It's gone too far actually. Focus is extremely limited, I don't want to see a regular potion of invisibility last only 1d4 rounds! I want invisibility to last 10 minutes, because that's how long it takes to infiltrate a location.

^^^And in scenarios, that's what it is typically used for. You asked can we still create stories and scenarios like PF1... well the answer is NO if you continue to nerf magic and spells like this!

So next on the agenda, could you please improve spells and magic in general?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

King Arthur: Well, we'll not risk another frontal assault. That rabbit's dynamite.

This edition is seriously not ready.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Third round, bad guys, being intelligent, focus fire the cleric down. Wizard (who has multiclassed into cleric) brings cleric back up.

Yep, PF2 is a different game than PF1. In PF1, you could not out heal incoming damage. Clerics in PF2 can now heal more damage than PCs can take. As long as you don't run out of healing, your party is unbeatable. I have to say, I don't like this feeling, at all.

2/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congrats Geoffrey!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sparksfanboy wrote:

Five sessions in and I still feel the encounter balance guidelines are so useless that I've stopped worrying about them entirely. My party (5 level 4 characters) took on 7 ghasts (which was supposed to be well over 200 xp worth of monsters, well above extreme!) at the end of a dungeon tonight and still plowed through them. Monsters don't do enough damage and are very grindy.

Anything below 100 xp is way too easy.

Do you have a cleric? In PF1, you couldn't out heal in-combat damage. In PF2 you can.

This means that my party is almost unbeatable until we run out of channels.

Channel is especially effective against undead, it's not a good baseline encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Snares are pretty much a useless mechanic to have for PCs. I can count on my hand the number of times PCs have set a trap. Mostly, PCs go into enemy territory.

Snare feats shouldn't be in core, they should be in a later supplement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburrover wrote:
So there are 2 ways to add oomph to casters: auto-eightening to all spells(so that even at class lvl9 those lvl1 spells are meaningful) or making their at will spell more impactul. Becaus at this point, cantrips leads to a pattern of being a simple attack roll-damage roll in between phone sessions(we just finished Lost Star and for our Wizard it was like this).

I'd rather see them auto-increase the effectiveness of all of their spells. They'd have to be careful about this, like cantrips, but this would be the best solution.

I've played a wizard at 4th and 5th level and you run out of effective spells too easily, and always run out of all spells (if you even want to use them since they don't scale, cantrips can be better than lower levels spells). More often than not, I was using cantrips all of the time. It's a very redundant and un-fun play style.

I'd much rather be getting use out of buffed level 1 spells, that would be slightly better than cantrips. This is not only for variety, but since spellcasters are so limited now, to keep lower level spells relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Same thing that happened with the OP happened in my playtest on Friday. An extremely long battle (9+ rounds) where it was only long because our spells were ineffective and we couldn’t hit. My level 5 wizard did not feel good with the opponent getting crit success on 2 out of 3 fireballs. I LIKE long fights, but I like them to be eventful and long for the right reasons.

Agree that AoO needs be available for ALL MARTIALS at level 6 (barbarians, rangers, monks don’t get it!). AoO not being there for levels 1-5 is good, it let’s people learn the game. Beyond, I’m not sure it’s needed.

Having said that, the penalty for getting hurt by an AoO is much more severe now, that would need to be changed.

Maybe healing is a problem as well. Maybe touch healing should take 2 actions instead of 1, maybe range healing should go away? I noticed this as well on Friday, basically we were unbeatable until we ran out of healing. It certainly is different than PF1, in PF1 healing did not scale with damage, now PF2 healing outscales damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am actually really enthusiastic about errata 1.3.

First of all, they’re actually listening. Even if we/they don’t get it right the 1st pass, they’re listening. YOUR FEEDBACK ISN’T WASTED.

Second, they fixed many things which I’ll be trying out soon.

Third, they’re going to change things like resonance, they just need time.

I’m not sure how you can say untrained at -4 is nice, let’s wait and see. It certainly has a huge effect on lower levels and makes spending skill feats in “Skill Training” crazy good. When we wanted variance among skill ranks, I think most of us wanted more than a +3 difference between being “trained” and being a “legend”. And the big problem is that skill feats don’t do a lot to distinguish the two.

I hope they remove “1” as an autofail and “20” as an auto crit from skills as soon as possible. I like the 4 degrees of success, but not with 1s and 20s.

Quote:
Well, those 4d6 you get by 20th level aren't going to make you better than a fighter using the stock mechanics and a d12 weapon, because math.

That and magic weapons are a problem anyway that I HOPE they address soon. Nothing can compete with magic D12 weapons, certainly not puny D4 daggers.

Maybe you should take some weeks off and come back. Do what makes you happy. Honestly, the play test is a bit like work. But they are listening to us and making changes, so your time isn't wasted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see Alchemists get a class feat that allows them to add Int to the amount of damage healed by infused life elixirs(so 1d6 + Int mod instead of just 1d6), but it only lasts 1 day. This would allow them to take on the main healer role in a party if they wish.

I like Treat Wounds but I'll have to see if it results in too much rolling when I play test it. It might need to be adjusted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The healing is NOT unlimited. If you crit fail, you can't use it for 24 hours.

I have a healer-less playtest group and I'm eager to test this out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm OK with difficult terrain and how it worked in PF1.

Yeah, forget about feet, using the number of squares you move and difficult adds one. Counting by 2s... shouldn't be hard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All spell attacks should use the characters prime stat, especially considering that TAC is no longer a thing, it's no longer significantly lower than AC.

Just another problem I have with the new system. If they're going to keep it simple, then keep it simple.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 appeals to a different player base, the same player base that D&D 5E appeals to. Beer and pretzel guys, the guys that can't spend a few hours reading the rules or looking at character options. This is not the same player based we have in PF1.

The only thing I disagree with:
The only thing I disagree with is that I'm glad ranged weapons have been reduced in power. In PF1, it was very optimal to make archer or gunslinger characters. Too optimal. They had feats that melee characters should have had, not the other way around. It's risky entering melee, there should be a payoff. Sorry, too many PF1 games have been ruined by archers basically soloing encounters.

I'll end up playing PF2, I like Paizo as a company and I love the stories they write. But if there is a company that continues PF1 and cleans stuff up, I'll end up supporting that as well, maybe more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

What does this mean for the game? I'll insert my opinion here. Verisimilitude for me is completely broken. With the tight math of the version, being expected to have an eighteen at level one is already stretching my roleplaying focus to be more game-y. Personally, I can get by that. I do love a big stat, an eighteen. I can live with being a bit greedy there. Getting eight more points to spread at level five though is pretty wild. I feel a little guilty about this. I'm not bad at anything. I'm super human now. Ok, I want to be super, so I can still live with this. By level ten, I can't overlook the level of growth. I can't explain it away. My stats no longer define my character and who they are. I'm just loaded with +'s. I'm a powerhouse at every stat and every skill, and so is everyone else at the table. There are still sixteen points of increases left.

Stat increases should be dialed back. This isn't just a numbers game. It's a roleplaying game. I don't want to make a blanket statement on why people play, crunchers vs. roleplayers, so I'll just point out the name of the genre - "RPG" - and assume the basic intent to some degree is to live or play out a fantasy role. What's the fantasy in having eighteens or above in every single stat?

I agree, I'd be much happier going back to more frequent stat boosts (every 4 levels) and have them be +1 only.

At level 10 your PC is no longer defined by their stats, they are just an amorphous blob that is good at everything. Level 15 and 20, everything is 18 and 20. I don't like it at all.

I just bolded your statements that I particularly agree with. Thanks for posting this, if we had more frequent but smaller increases, it would address all of my concerns.

2/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Levels matter more in PF2. It's an even larger difference between a level 1 and a level 5 than before.

Also it's hard to give an option on tiering of scenarios without trying it.

I like XP the way it is now, it's simple.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HidaOWin wrote:
At the moment no other character comes close to the performance of a positive energy cleric in terms of healing delivered and thus ability to keep adventuring. That's an issue as that makes Cleric an almost mandatory choice.

Their should be a class feat that allows an alchemist to create Elixirs of Life that heal 1D6 + Int Mod. The boosting of the elixir lasts only 1 day.

Also in general, elixirs should not cost resonance to use. No double counting on resonance.

This way they could be (more) viable healers at low levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zautos' wrote:

Like a fighter might get one every level for example.

And probably most classes getting one every level.

YES!

Especially considering most of the classes are completely stripped down now, compared to their 1E counterparts.

I understand why they only want to give 1 feat at level 1, so that making a character is easy, and I completely agree with that.

Having said that, you should QUICKLY be able to customize your character build into what you want, which means having access to more feats to do it. You should at least get a class feat at 2nd level, but if you had one class feat per level until level 5, I'd be OK with that too!

One of the problems (to me) is that there aren't enough good level 1 class feats. And there aren't enough builds you can do with the classes. There should be 3 iconic builds you can do with each class, and if you want to mix and match, that's your choice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can someone explain Swords and Sorcery compared to High Fantasy?

Some people say that Pathfinder 1E characters were "super heroes", like it's a bad thing. Imo, they weren't super heroic enough, it could have been more so. Does it really bother someone that a character can fly at 3rd level? For me, as long as there is an acceptable cost, it doesn't.

I'm not looking for a gritty game, I'm looking for a game where you can do amazing things, even a low levels. I don't want to wait until level 15 to "play the character I want to play".

For example, the PF1 kineticist could have been allowed to gain many of their powers an entire spell level early, it would have been more fun.

I think players want to play the character they want at level 1, that's why PF1 classes like Alchemists, Shapeshifter, and Hunter were so popular, at level 1 you get to play what you want without waiting.

I'm really shocked that they'd hire D&D 4E professionals to work on PF2. No wonder it feels like 4E, with their nerfed spells and abilities. If we wanted to play 4E, we would have played 4E, not rejected it and played Pathfinder!

I think Lyricanna might have hit the nail on the head, maybe this is why PF2 feels so wrong.

1 to 50 of 434 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>