Can you comment on what type of things you were rolling to do?
Someone asked why I might not like this system and I'll voice a few of the concerns now. (Keep in mind this isnt a final opinion, I fully intent to playtest the system and see how it works)
Consolidated lists are always a bummer for me. In those systems it seems like you cram too much into too few spaces. Its more difficult to differentiate one character from the next. Things like ranks and feats can help, but have their own potential pitfalls. Its possible im just twice bitten thrice shy after WOTC last couple editions on consolidated lists. Seems like things had to consolidated to stop the PF2 CRB from having a thousand extra feats...
Exploration mode and its limits. As noted in some comments you cant sneak and do anything else until you gain ranks and get feats. Thats very limiting compared to PF1. I feel like that can hamper both GM and player creativity. It takes something that was vague, but useful, and turned it into a confined game space. I know some will champion this new paradigm, particularly at the PFS table, but I feel like rules have been added to a formerly open space and thats a loss in my book.
Feats... First issue with feats is they create a gate between doing things you should arguably be able to do and cant. No longer are ranks pushing character development up alone, you need feats too. I know some will argue that you get ranks like before, and now feats to make you cool too! The playtest might convince me of this. The second problem is a history of feats being unequal. Im not convinced that all skill feats will be matched and worth taking. Im afraid traps will rear their ugly head again and burn some folks at the table.
These are just my reservations about PF2 skill system which is #2 on my worry list after multi-classing. I'll be eager to look over the playtest docs and discuss more here on the forums.
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
That was in PF1 and we cant assume adventure writing will be the same for PF2. Im with you tho on high level characters laying to waste packs of low level foes not feeling right, but thats intended for PF2, unfortunately...
Some consolidation makes sense, but 17 seems like too few for me What happened to social skills?
From the legendary medic I get the feeling guides will quickly rule out skills worth ever taking to legendary...
Thats just a feeling tho. I think legendary medic may have been a poor choice since there seems to be extra attachments that cant be mentioned at this time...
Now im wondering how easy it could be to axe skill feats and just drop PF1 skill system into PF2?
Justin Franklin wrote:
I dont think a cleric 3/monk 3/rogue 3 will even be possible in PF2. It would be a cleric 9 with feats from the rogue and monk pool.
I have the same response to this as I did to making the witch a wizard archetype, I dont think i'd like how it feels. It makes design sense, but ultimately, I think you wont have an actual monk at all, just a fighter with a little monk flavor.
I do see a potential PF2 lite coming out of all this to help tables that want to shed as much complexity as possible. That could be a good thing, but a thing I would have no use for. YMMV
Midnight Anarch wrote:
eh, isnt that getting back into classifying actions territory again?
Its a little confusing that you have spells that cost spell points to cast, and spells that require slots to cast. They are not the same resource, but do similar things, but dont work together.
I still don't really understand why "Hit Points" are fine and "Spell Points" are not.
I got nothing for this.
That is an unfortunate occurrence, but I like those low level challenges for as long as they last. I hope they dont just completely give up on environmental conditions. Especially, since they are working on an exploration mode.
I dont mind generic things like "pirate, shadow dancer, gunslinger" becoming agnostic archetypes. Though, I'd prefer if things like Hellknights, Red Mantiss asassins, and linon's blades, stayed prestige classes. Essentially, anything heavily flavored in setting material gets the PRC treatment. Anything generic gets the archetype route.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
ugh, I knew continuing with the COD analogy was going to be a bad idea. Lets use yours about change sometimes being better. Dragon age 2 nearly shelved the franchise, and Mass Effect Andromeda did shelve the franchise, so sometimes change can be detrimental.
Honestly, im not making any judgement about PF2 at the moment. Some folks are concerned about changes being for the worse. There are better ways to engage those folks than, "if you dont like it play something else."
For example I don't get the love for Call of Duty, but I do love FPS games. For CoD to be a game I enjoy not only would 50% of it have to change, but so would the core game design elements that created those elements. I have been a playtester for CoD in the past. I have given my criticisms and at the end of the day when CoD didn't get changed to the style of game I enjoy I was perfectly happy to go play one that was.
If you liked COD, and got a chance to playtest the next version, and you found out it was instead super Mario world, you'd probably have some complaints. You probably wouldn't appreciate folks telling you to go play your old COD or some other game much either.
Not sayin; just sayin.
I think you are pretty much going to get this. Wizard will be the new master class and you just cherry pick away the best parts of every other class via feats.
Milo v3 wrote:
I want character building to be open enough to cover a lot of character concepts, while also having enough depth so that character creation in itself can be fun by putting pieces together.
This is also what I want. I am worried the design has been a bit too much kneejerk in response to dipping though. Guess the playtest will reveal how its gonna look.
Mark Seifter wrote:
After seeing mods only listed in the monster stat blocks, I want it for PCs too. Every "but" I can think of for making stats go away has been answered in the new design blogs. Well, every "but" but rolling for stats that is.
What if rolling now used the D12? Stay with me here gang.
For rolling fans, is this too much of a change? Im sensitive to tradition since I like a few sacred cows myself, so I am curious if rollers can dig this method?
Or an alternative 2D6.
The difference is the witch is an adept arcane and divine caster. Please dont box them into wizard. Sub-classes or archetypes, what have you, help add depth to their base class. However, sub-classing/archetype cant always create the differentiation of a separate class with its own features as a base class.
This is also the reason I dislike hybrid multi-classing. It can help twist the flavor of a class, but doesn't give the feel of a unique identity.
Honestly, the new level 1 in PF2 appears to be a level 0.
No thanks. I want the core to be as strong as they can make it. After that, I want it opened up with unique systems and classes. I know bloat bells are going off, but I want an expanded system and everything that comes with it.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I like witch too but i'd really like to see their spell list lose heal spells and have their healing be related to class abilities in order to keep more separation between arcane/divine.
The thing I love most about Bards and witches is their adept status blurring the line between arcane and divine. I could probably live with healing being hex only but id want to see arcane and divine spells on the list.
I like combining the package to make my own hybrid classes. The 4E and VMC is just a single feature swap out and never feels the same. It is no doubt that will suit many, but it wont suit me.