Things We Are Liking So Far


Playtest

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Admittedly my stance has been...neutralish mostly? There are a lot of things I just don't have an opinion on because we haven't seen all the nuts and bolts of the system.

But of things I like:

#1. ACTION SYSTEM. sweet Gozreh, I am glad this is getting simplified.

Degrees of success, with crit fails and saves. I like what this does to the SoS spells particularly

Alchemist

Poison rules (and I assume disease), which sound like they will make those things actually relevant

I think there was a mention of negative levels going away, or being done differently? if so I like that

Promise of a new more reader friendly format for the core

Having Ancestry Feats/Skill Feats/General Feats/all baked into class design. That's is going to allow a lot more flexibility in character building without the feeling that you are hurting your character by taking a feat not built around what your character does.

Honestly, so far the PF2E seems to be going in a direction I like, maintaining complexity/increasing complexity in places I want, at the same time as removing unnecessary complexity in places where I think it just leads to confusion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Things I love outright:

1. The new XP system. 1000 per level, full-stop. You want to talk about making things easier to teach- makes handing out ad hoc awards easier to calibrate, makes keeping track of when you level up easier... all around a nice change.

2. The art for the goblin alchemist.

3. Giving the alchemist a reason to actually bother with alchemical items.

4. New action economy is definitely going to make running combat smoother.


J4RH34D wrote:

1. I really like the fact that so far the system just seems streamlined.

All the actions are the same action. There is no more remembering what my 7 different actions are and "Did I do my immediate action last turn? How does that effect my swift this turn again?"

When I read the similar system in Pathfinder Unchained, I thought that converting move action, standard action, full action, swift action, immediate action, attack-of-opportunity, and free action into single-action, double-action, triple-action, reaction, and free action was only a minor simplifcation. The player still have to remember which tasks cost only one action and which cost two or more actions.

However, the previews showed how some single-action tasks can gain an extra feature by taking twice as long as a double action. That is a very nice mechanic.

J4RH34D wrote:

2. The way feats seem to be working now.

I know some people don't like the fact everything is called a feat now, but lets not get into that. If you don't like it, find something to tell us that you do like instead :)
I really like that the terms have been grouped and the talk of nice easily searchable lists of the feats is really interesting. I love that feats seem to be focused on options now rather than just bonuses to things you could already do.

Remember the old truism that the Yupik and Inuit (AKA Eskimo) languages have 50 words for snow? We Michiganders laugh at that with, "So what? We have almost as many adjectives for snow: powder snow, packing snow, fluffy snow, crunchy snow, drifting snow, slushy snow, dirty snow, frozen snow, melting snow, etc." They all mean a different kind of snow. Having many kinds of feats distinguished by adjectives is no problem. That is how the English language works.

I like the design possibilities opened up by class feats.

I have not seen enough about ancestry to have an opinion on it.

I loved the customization of the PF1 skill system and I fear that the new system will lose some of it, but I believe that if that is the case, I can make suggestions during the official playtest and Paizo will fix it.

Resonance has a nice flavor to it. Redesigning the wand as a device that converts resonance into spells is more elegant than a wand that holds 50 charges and is discarded after discharge. Furthermore, a lot of magic items are linked to the character in a way that lets them control it, so having a mechanism to attune the item to the character adds versimitude. Unfortunately, the previews have some odd choices there. For example, a flaming sword does not need attunement because it is a weapon, so instead the wielder will have to spend an action to command it to burst into flame after drawing it. I would have preferred attunement that allows control of the flame as a free action. Once again, that is a possible playtest suggestion.

QuidEst wrote:
First of all, I'm going to get to playtest and provide feedback on a new edition of Pathfinder with my friends! I didn't start playing Pathfinder until 2012, so Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat were part of my "core", and I didn't join any playtests until ACG/Occult Adventures.

Yes. I have a lot of confidence in the playtest. I have never participated in a Paizo playtest before, though I have served as a playtester for a few published board games. In designing a homebrew bloodrager archetypes, I read through the bloodrager playtest Paizo forum, and saw the conversations there. Paizo designers like to stick to their core concepts; however, they listen on details and occasionally adopt a flavorful suggestion.

The weakest part of Pathfinder is a few legacy features carried over from D&D 3rd Edition. The newer material is better. Therefore, liberating Pathfinder from those legacy weaknesses will improve it.


I've loved the action system and I've been using a simplified version of the Unchained one for years. It's great, I just don't want what makes it great to be taken away by poor feat design, but rather have it advanced with good feat design. In addition to the system itself, some of my own house rules are showing up in the new system like reaction counter spells.

I like how leveling works, and that everyone gets a racial version of toughness for free. I also like flat HP instead of dice, since it was something my players always went out of their way to save and spend resources on having max HP anyway.

I like how proficiency works, having a difference of 5 numerically means less useless dice rolls fishing for 20's on 'menial tasks' while the complex tasks are gated behind proficiency investment and skill feats. (Obviously 20's don't mean auto-success on skills, but this also applies to things like escaping grapples and other such problems that pop up in combat). I also like how it applies to weapon attacks and damage, and that it can come from both the item in use and the user.

I like how the mode of play is being codified into the system, between skill night, down time, and combat as it is already how I play the game. In my home games I was working on ways to streamline the act system into larger periods to simulate time management better in a dungeon crawl. Hopefully this edition will have issues like this solved so I don;t have to do that kinda stuff. Having downtime and retraining baked into the core rules shows they learned to take all the best parts of their supplements (Ultimate Campaign) and make them the norm. I hope we get this for all the releases juxtaposed into one super system.

I like how stats are being designed in a way that enables the player so we don't have so many Poiny-Buy vs rolling arguments. The game appears to have a design goal in mind when it comes to character creation that is coherent and aims to solve all the issues that we had with attribute dependency. Ancestries gaining a net +4 to stats instead of +2, with the possibility of floating stats seems awesome. I'm hoping humans and human based ancestries get something amazing.

So far, the only real complaint I have is with the math behind how combat works, and how the implications of certain things have already shown us some trap options, and options no one will ever take. It feels like they are taking everything that was good about the action system, and dialing it back a bit out of fear of martial power creep that (ime at least) didn't exist.


1. I like Resonance; it is a response to something I felt was an issue in PF1.
2. I like the Dying mechanic. I think it works great with house-ruled CLW that increases your hp to, but not above, 20% of max. (I don't think that house rule is all that common, though.)
3. I like the Alchemist in core. Alchemical items leave much to be desired in PF1, and I think this will go a long way to addressing that.
4. I don't know if I love the 3 action thing, but I really like what they are doing with reactions, particularly how they give different reactions for different classes and creatures. Shields also seem pretty fun.


I've been pleased by everything I've heard.

I'm enjoying every revelation and am looking forward to a new era in pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest thing? Healing being Necromancy now.


Albatoonoe wrote:
My biggest thing? Healing being Necromancy now.

I must say that it feels weird to see healing coming back to necromancy after being gone for so long. o_o


Adding 2 new things on my list of things I like:
- Small and Medium size creatures get the same damage dice. This is a useful simplification, and is better balance between characters.
- Dusting off things that have been there forever but have always been boring and/or suboptimal choices, and turning them into something interesting. 2 examples so far: Slings and shields.


Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Small and medium weapons do the same damage!

Weapon size increases are getting better balance than linear into exponential!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like that the playtest rules will be free so that no matter my lack of enthusiasm or interest, I'll give the game a look anyways.

Shadow Lodge

Love:

Feats. Class feats ensure each class is customizable, skill and ancestry feats allow characters to develop in those areas without feeling like they are falling behind in combat.

Alchemical items being better developed and relevant through high levels.

Multiple levels of success and failure.

Like:

Skills being able to do fantastic things at high level.

Flexible ancestry stat bonus, makes unusual combinations less punishing.

Cautiously optimistic:

Action system. Seems more flexible, will see how it plays.

Proficiency system.

Changes to magic items. Sounds positive, need to see more - and playtest resonance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So far, everything, except maybe Elves by default getting an Intelligence bonus and not one for Wisdom (at least that we saw). But we'll see how the rest of character creation pans out.

Otherwise, assuming they don't cave to the conservative crowd who don't want any changes bigger than a few numbers, this is looking pretty much like the go-to fantasy game for me. Everything I could have wanted in a game I didn't have to design myself thus far.


More things on the list:
- The mechanics of magic are based on a deliberate construction of the game world's metaphysics. Sources: The All About Spells blog, and this post.
- Cantrips remain useful at all levels.
- Domain powers, school powers, bloodline powers etc have all been unified under a system that will treat them as spells, accessible through a pool of spell points.
- Many spells with scale in level thanks to a built-in heighten mechanic. This does away with spell chains (a single spell replaces cure light, cure moderate, cure serious; in the same way, one spell replaces summon monster I, II, III etc).
- A ritual mechanic (inspired from past editions) is introduced, allowing for powerful effects via extra-long, possibly cooperative casting. This will be accessible to non-spellcasting classes.
- High-level illusions can now foil low-level divinations, high-level light spells can cancel low-level darkness, etc.


I hate it all.


I just did a second reading of all blogs. To be sure I did not miss anything.

So far I like all the game systems changes. Like proficiencies, spells, action economy and the like. It is for the classes and the ancestries that I worry, because a lots of what I saw seemed underwhelming compared to PF1.

But yes for the system I am confident. They are finally taking some risks and I like that.


Spell casting looks to be in better shape overall, especially if class lists are no longer a thing and one can access magic via their tradition.

It looks like casters still progress better than martials as far as combat goes, no real surprise there. But the simpler spell design does inherently bring in comparisons to psionics which were somehow both better designed and more balanced than traditional vanican casting.


Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Spell casting looks to be in better shape overall, especially if class lists are no longer a thing and one can access magic via their tradition.

I think you may be jumping to a conclusion here. Back when PF2 was first announced, one of the bullet points was that there would be 4 spell lists in the core rulebook. They would have said something different if they were eliminating spell lists by class and just referencing keywords for what spells a given class could cast.


David knott 242 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Spell casting looks to be in better shape overall, especially if class lists are no longer a thing and one can access magic via their tradition.

I think you may be jumping to a conclusion here. Back when PF2 was first announced, one of the bullet points was that there would be 4 spell lists in the core rulebook. They would have said something different if they were eliminating spell lists by class and just referencing keywords for what spells a given class could cast.

I honestly hope you are correct.


Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Arcana Evolved would be an example of a d20 game that eliminated spell lists by class. Most classes had their spell lists designated in such terms as "can cast all simple spells and all complex spells with the X or Y keyword". The spells section of the rulebook had lists of simple, complex, and exotic spells, with no specific breakdown of which classes could cast them.


Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It sounds like they’re going to be giving divine casters some more interesting spells, which will go a long way towards tempting me to play a Cleric (and will greatly improve Oracle).

We don’t have a lot of details yet, but the new spells sound cool. Old ones getting nice tweaks- more versatile CLW, and Regeneration has a reason to be 7th level now.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really like the new "regenerate" spell:)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the things I'm liking about PF2 have already been mentioned. I only wish I had more detail about the system right now.

One thing that I haven't seen yet: It's all still going to be OGL! Thanks Paizo, for keeping the game Open!
(sings a song of OGL)


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
I have seen nothing so far that makes me want to try PF2.

Yet you felt the need to threadcrap anyway?

Albatoonoe wrote:
My biggest thing? Healing being Necromancy now.

I would not call it a big thing, but I definitely like it.

In terms of things I do consider big: Resonance is looking very interesting (although it probably should not apply to consumables). And the ability score systems is simply brilliant!

_
glass.


What I like is the deliberate effort to streamline things, not just in character design but for gameplay too. In PbP this doesn't matter so much, but I've been doing table-top for the last few years and it can just take sooooo looooong.

(The trick is to streamline without dumbing-down - a tough ask but Paizo have done a lot over the years to make me think they can do this. On the downside, Starfinder.)

Also, looks like martials are going to be a lot better: the action system means they can move and still attack twice in a turn, and there's a higher chance of getting a crit.

More hit points at low level means combat at first level won't be so terrifying for the squishier types.

Revised magic system: I think the heighten spell mechanic looks great. No need to fill up the rulebook with cure light, cure moderate, cure serious, cure critical, mass cure light, and so on. Also, tying the verbal/somatic/material component into the action economy. Suddenly components matter, and not just in a "500 gp of diamond dust" type way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not in order, but:

1) 3 action unchained system.

2) focus on making 1-20 play smooth

3) focus on balancing quadratic wizards with non-scalable spells

4) focus on math being correct

5) the >10< stuff. That's glorious.

6) Alchemy being it's own thing

7) action-reaction combat

8) Unified/concentrated skill system

9) the fact that skills, attacks, and saves are in the same scale and can be used together

10) focus on reducing insta-killing (both with death mechanics, and save or death spells)

11) Perception for everybody

12) Bulk.

13) Focus on resolving the christmas tree and spell-in-a-stick issues.

The things I put "focus" on, is because I don't know the proposed solution, or the proposed solution is not quite right yet, but I like they are facing those challenges.


My main problems with your list are partials on four eight and nine, in that the math seems to be way TOO tight. There should be at least some significant numerical minus difference between being unskilled and being a master. Other than that, not much problem with that list. Although consolidated skills aren’t my thing.


Well, I'm not sure the current proposal is perfect, or that it will survive the playtest.

I like that there is a focus on doing the math right. Then, the proper execution can vary, and it's even possible they fumble the ball at it (4e had a focus on making the math right, and it was so off that they had to release math-correcting feats later)
I'm not sure -2 to +3 is enough difference in the game. Will need to playtest later. I'm very happy they are paying attention to that, and they are looking at ways to make skills, saves and attacks interact, with DC that are roughtly in the same scale.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Not in order, but:

1) 3 action unchained system.

2) focus on making 1-20 play smooth

3) focus on balancing quadratic wizards with non-scalable spells

4) focus on math being correct

5) the >10< stuff. That's glorious.

6) Alchemy being it's own thing

7) action-reaction combat

8) Unified/concentrated skill system

9) the fact that skills, attacks, and saves are in the same scale and can be used together

10) focus on reducing insta-killing (both with death mechanics, and save or death spells)

11) Perception for everybody

12) Bulk.

13) Focus on resolving the christmas tree and spell-in-a-stick issues.

I was right with you until 12 and 13...


My favorite things so far are the proficiency system and the stages of success. It reminds me a lot of my favorite RPG from the 90s, Chill (with the Chill Companion). In my opinion, Chill did almost everything right, with the exception of combat. If PF2 hits those same levels, including combat, I will be satisfied.


I really like the action point system, and reactions. I think it allows for more tactical decision making, better game balance and is more intuitive.

It seems like defensive options and healing may be more viable.

Spell casting looks very promising.

I like the progressive status effects, especially dying. As a GM I can be more savage with less risk of rng killing everyone.

Degrees of success seems good.

Proficiency system sounds good.

Character creation looks like it is more intuitive. I suspect that architypes will be less important because more abilities will be available as standard choices.

Changes to race look good.

I like that magic weapon damage will scale with more done rather a flat damage.

Resonance sounds excellent.

The overall design philosophy to emphasize tactical choice is good. But I think this is still well balance against making a system for role playing. D&D 4ed is a decent tactical minitures game, but a bad role playing game. Pathfinder 2e appears to be shaping up as a good role playing game.


New additions to my personal list:
- Poisons look like they will be usable and affordable, to an extent that balances their power. In comparison, PF1 poisons were all over the place: those that packed a punch were a crazy expensive, while the cheap ones were useless due to low DC.
- Alchemy is a system in its own right, not just a bunch of items for low-level characters. It comes with its own metaphysics, can be used by non-casters and non-alchemists, and it seems most of it will have its uses even at high levels.
- The unwieldy encumbrance system where we had to count every item down to the half-pound is gone. The new system (bulk) is less granular, easier to use, while still regulating character gear accumulation.


-Unchained Revised Action Economy is what I am most jazzed about (makes PF1/3rd Ed so much better, IME).

-Small and medium weapons doing the same damage.

-Unified proficiency/BAB system.

-Monsters not built exactly like PCs (all those feats can get unwieldily).

-Spells scaling by character level, not spell level (in PF1/3rd Ed, I long ago houseruled spell DCs = 10 + 1/2 hit dice + spell casting modifier).

-Shields sound like they will be more fun/have more impact.

-Cutting back on magic item dependancy.

-Bonus hit points for race.

-Level/proficiency affecting AC.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Things We Are Liking So Far All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.