Its funny, pathfinder 2e isn't exactly blowing me away, but it is renewing my interest in old ideas and homebrew rules I had in the past. One of those ideas was a personality trait system, where you got to pick a trait like brave, compassionate and so on. You actually got mechanical benefits for role-playing that trait. Anyway all day today I kept thinking about it, like I want to explore this more, I want to flesh this out.
Hey everyone I know my original post was controversial, I still stick by it, but I‘ll admit until we see the rest of the playest I don't really have all the information, elves may have something to make up for it. Also, I personally have no issue with characters starting with more HP and wasn't implying that. The three attacks per round kinda dictates that has to happen.
Now I‘ll let everyone cool down a bit.
Not a fan of ancestral hit points anyway. It makes a already attractive race like dwarves more so, and a less attractive race like elves less so. Heck even for wizards dwarf is already the better choice since you can simply exchange your wis bonus for int and get 4 extra hit points and your higher con bonus and the dwarven resistances. Sounds like a better deal to me.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
This may sound weird but Stephen I've posted under a lot of names and I've only occasionally hear your opinion, and sometimes I even don't agree with you. But, you are always a joy, you seem to understand intimately why people get so passionate about the game. Thank you.
I like bab personally, I think the change is due to the extra math (athough subtract 5 shouldn't be hard) and if ability scores become to unbalanced like strength of a 10 verse 40 then it causes issues (which is more of an issue with ability scores). Anyway I‘d like bab to stay, hopefully there be a vote on it.
Personally Vic and Owen's respective posts give me hope. As someone who believes from the information given that 2e is going to far, especially in reguards to the skill and magic system, being able to turn it back a notch or two would be great. I know a new edition is going to happen, but I would have preferred more of a revision with minor changes where necessary, then what I'm seeing so far. However, if the majority overrules me, so be it, I don't want another edition war.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
The mechanics do imply you could have a much larger difference due to non-proficiency and ability scores, but I agree it removes player agency without guaranteeing everyone a fair chance to succeed due to them needing a feat to do some things like jumping 20 feet straight up. It feels like the worst of both worlds, why not let a 1st level barbarian quote Shakespeare, or a 4th level wizard be super stealthy.
I hate to say it, but this sounds like another thing people are going to say "this is such a great idea" now but two years from now really hate it. Hopefully I'm wrong on that, I'm still trying to be hopeful an not cause any drama (cause everyone including me hates drama). Who knows maybe in the playtest I‘ll warm up to it.
Not a fan, I'd rather completely divorce the skill system from the level system altogether. If we keep skill points and ranks but instead of having the skill cap being your level+3, but made it 25 and non-class skills 20 you could make a level one character a world class blacksmith or diplomat. I know this completely throws DC off balance, and I‘m sure many people would hate this, since you could drop all of your points (stupidly I might ad)d into one skill, but I would love the freedom. This system feels too restrictive.
As someone who has used both, I found the crossbow was far more difficult to load, but seemed to fly truer. The bow was the opposite, while I think it would be slower then a knife or sword it was surprisingly quick but hard to aim. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I used to help newbies set up at archery ranges, why the actual expert would do the formal training.
Years ago I had an idea of replacing the current alignment system with a persona system, one where you picked individual personality traits based on your charisma. The system worked by giving you so many personality traits based on your charisma score, which included concepts like you're honest, or brave, or vengeful, or cowardly. It‘s a little complicated but playing your personality got you a small bonus, everything gave a bonus even the before mentioned cowardly, which gave you a bonus to beg for your life. Anyway its neat but a little involved since it required role-playing and the GM and other players judgement if it worked, by how entertained they were.
I'd also have charisma affect will save and wisdom affect a perception save.
New Details from Glass Cannon Podcast Pathfinder Playtest Impressions - Ability damage is gone, Magic Missile mechanics, crit / fumble discussion
I believe it‘s a wash when it comes to critical hits. Both pathfinder 1e and 2e systems have intersting ideas and consequences. The 1e system worked well if you wanted to do additional damage, like roll another 20 on the conformation roll for an even greater hit or a death blow instead (in addition too). That's a lot of rolls, but the 2e sytem is cleaner and faster. You could still make a chart for the 2e system, but you just made a degree of difficulty system, and roll on the chart system.
Hate to say it but I can see many people about 2 or 3 years from now begging for it to back to 1e‘s method since AD&D 2e skills and powers tried the whole chart thing and people (at least as my group where concerned) didn't like it. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Formatted class "feats", skill "feats", and ancestry "feats" received every level in a standardized format for all classes sounds a lot like class powers, racial powers, and skill/utility powers from D&D 4th edition. In addition, the standardized automatic progression system (level + ability)for all training and proficiencies sounds a lot like 4th edition's unified automatic progression system (half level + ability). Further, stat increases in 4e assumed increasing a number of different stats at certain levels. 4th edition also introduced assumed retraining. All this - coupled with a revised action economy, modernized and standardized formatting, and many other small details like hero points (read: action points) and magic item limitations inherent to the character (see: milestone recharging) - lead me to believe that Paizo is not so much as going after 5e players (which I am sure they are), but trying to attract 4e players that wished that 5e had been closer to 4e. This would not be unprecedented, as it mirrors their original successful strategy to attract 3.5 players that did not want to move to 4th.
At least to me it doesn't seem so, while there is common ground enough sounds different and unique. I just wish it had more common ground with pathfinder 1e, nothing so far indicates an easy conversion.
I'm more concerned with house rules (and custom content), since i have a ton. Converting them to p2 maybe a chore, in which case its not worth it. However, p2‘s success is not going to be effected by my lack of support, i'm humble enough to admit that. And, although the responses to p2 have been varied about 2/3 seem hopeful, so success seems likely.
I mean the thing is I did not go for 5th edition but their was things I liked about it. Their is nothing wrong with grabbing the good parts and leaving the bad. maybe the parts they grab are bad from your perspective (I haven't seen enough yet to tell.) and thats fine but just because it has some similarities are no reason to drop it. After all their is guaranteed to be some similarities because their all based on D&D.
Your words are kind, thank you, but i didn't like anything in 5e other then the common d&d troops (races and classes). I'm trying my best to keep an open mind until the playtest starts.