| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's something that seems to have been answered. I think the major goals seem to be:
[...]
Thanks for the overview. I've seen references to most of these in various places, but it's nice to see them all together. I do get a little nervous because it seems like an effort to do everything which can all too often end in a big muddle. And I'm still very concerned that with all the changes, the objective of continuing to "feel like" PF1/D&D is going to lose out, and to me, this is perhaps the most important of all the goals listed.
However, I'm being brave, and I've just signed up for one of the PF2e playtest sessions at GenCon. Hopefully, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Thanks for the transcription, some pretty interesting stuff. I play 5e where wizards can easily start with armour proficiency, but it's normally not worth it. When it came out there was rage and theorising builds, but not seen at all in actual play by me. Can be fun for a Dwarven wizard but not really op
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's something that seems to have been answered. I think the major goals seem to be:
[...]Thanks for the overview. I've seen references to most of these in various places, but it's nice to see them all together. I do get a little nervous because it seems like an effort to do everything which can all too often end in a big muddle. And I'm still very concerned that with all the changes, the objective of continuing to "feel like" PF1/D&D is going to lose out, and to me, this is perhaps the most important of all the goals listed.
However, I'm being brave, and I've just signed up for one of the PF2e playtest sessions at GenCon. Hopefully, I will be pleasantly surprised.
You're welcome! For what it is worth, they have said that when they were torn between a more traditional option and a drastic change, they are erring on the side of making big changes for the playtest and then changing it back if it doesn't work. So give it a shot, and if you don't wind up liking the changes, let them know in whatever survey type things they will be using. There's certainly some things I'm worried about too, but if I'm right and those things stink it may yet be fixed.
Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the main things I'm still interested in, is that the devs seem to be expecting people to only progress proficiencies as the class gives them to you, rather than spending feats on them.
The dev comments on classes that give the heavier armors giving shields at the same rate, other comments about when clerics get various casting proficiency, etc. However they do still list that a wizard can buy into heavy armor. This feels like a place where there might be a developer mindset/blank spot in how people will use things. Definitely something for us to see how it plays out in playtests.
Curious if the class proficiencies are worded like "become Expert in X" or "Increase your proficiency in X by one step" Ie, if you spend a feat to accelerate, does it stay accelerated, or is it a wasted feat at some point.
Classes are typically the only place where you get above trained (though there are some exceptions). You can usually get a path to trained with most things.
Classes are typically the only place where you get above trained (though there are some exceptions). You can usually get a path to trained with most things.One of the main things I'm still interested in, is that the devs seem to be expecting people to only progress proficiencies as the class gives them to you, rather than spending feats on them.
The dev comments on classes that give the heavier armors giving shields at the same rate, other comments about when clerics get various casting proficiency, etc. However they do still list that a wizard can buy into heavy armor. This feels like a place where there might be a developer mindset/blank spot in how people will use things. Definitely something for us to see how it plays out in playtests.
Curious if the class proficiencies are worded like "become Expert in X" or "Increase your proficiency in X by one step" Ie, if you spend a feat to accelerate, does it stay accelerated, or is it a wasted feat at some point.
Hm. I would like to be able to go to Expert in anything, honestly. It's okay if Master and Legendary are class-gated, especially as those start leaving the capabilities of the mortal realm anyway. But expert is an explicitly mortal level of, well, expertise, and should be in reach of everyone without multiclassing.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Classes are typically the only place where you get above trained (though there are some exceptions). You can usually get a path to trained with most things.One of the main things I'm still interested in, is that the devs seem to be expecting people to only progress proficiencies as the class gives them to you, rather than spending feats on them.
The dev comments on classes that give the heavier armors giving shields at the same rate, other comments about when clerics get various casting proficiency, etc. However they do still list that a wizard can buy into heavy armor. This feels like a place where there might be a developer mindset/blank spot in how people will use things. Definitely something for us to see how it plays out in playtests.
Curious if the class proficiencies are worded like "become Expert in X" or "Increase your proficiency in X by one step" Ie, if you spend a feat to accelerate, does it stay accelerated, or is it a wasted feat at some point.
Does this mean no more ring of evasion? Or is the ring of evasion one of the exceptions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are typically the only place where you get above trained (though there are some exceptions). You can usually get a path to trained with most things.One of the main things I'm still interested in, is that the devs seem to be expecting people to only progress proficiencies as the class gives them to you, rather than spending feats on them.
The dev comments on classes that give the heavier armors giving shields at the same rate, other comments about when clerics get various casting proficiency, etc. However they do still list that a wizard can buy into heavy armor. This feels like a place where there might be a developer mindset/blank spot in how people will use things. Definitely something for us to see how it plays out in playtests.
Curious if the class proficiencies are worded like "become Expert in X" or "Increase your proficiency in X by one step" Ie, if you spend a feat to accelerate, does it stay accelerated, or is it a wasted feat at some point.
That's definitely worrisome for me. Normally it would be tempered by multiclasses and archetypes, however the little we've heard on those topics make it seem unlikely those tools would solve this problem in 2e. Of course there's more to be revealed and I'll re-assess when we know more.
Does this "classes are typically the only place were you get above trained" apply to skills as well? Or is this a place where weapon/armor/save/arcane/divine casting proficiency is different than skills even if all are under the proficiency system? (and should I move this question to the old proficiency blog post thread instead?)
Hmmm -- if class skills can go above Trained, while non-class skills can't, that would be consistent with the above information in a way that doesn't feel like there's two sets of proficiency rules.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are typically the only place where you get above trained (though there are some exceptions). You can usually get a path to trained with most things.One of the main things I'm still interested in, is that the devs seem to be expecting people to only progress proficiencies as the class gives them to you, rather than spending feats on them.
The dev comments on classes that give the heavier armors giving shields at the same rate, other comments about when clerics get various casting proficiency, etc. However they do still list that a wizard can buy into heavy armor. This feels like a place where there might be a developer mindset/blank spot in how people will use things. Definitely something for us to see how it plays out in playtests.
Curious if the class proficiencies are worded like "become Expert in X" or "Increase your proficiency in X by one step" Ie, if you spend a feat to accelerate, does it stay accelerated, or is it a wasted feat at some point.
That's definitely worrisome for me. Normally it would be tempered by multiclasses and archetypes, however the little we've heard on those topics make it seem unlikely those tools would solve this problem in 2e. Of course there's more to be revealed and I'll re-assess when we know more.
Does this "classes are typically the only place were you get above trained" apply to skills as well? Or is this a place where weapon/armor/save/arcane/divine casting proficiency is different than skills even if all are under the proficiency system? (and should I move this question to the old proficiency blog post thread instead?)
It does not apply to skills or saves. Mostly just weapons, armor/shields, and spells are that way (for example, higher weapon proficiency is a class thing as it acts a lot like having higher BAB does in PF1). And multiclassing and archetypes absolutely do open up more options among those.
Thanks again Mark. Just when I start to get worried/depressed about 2e your answers always encourage me again.
It does not apply to skills or saves. Mostly just weapons, armor/shields, and spells are that way (for example, higher weapon proficiency is a class thing as it acts a lot like having higher BAB does in PF1). And multiclassing and archetypes absolutely do open up more options among those.Classes are typically the only place where you get above trained (though there are some exceptions). You can usually get a path to trained with most things.One of the main things I'm still interested in, is that the devs seem to be expecting people to only progress proficiencies as the class gives them to you, rather than spending feats on them.
The dev comments on classes that give the heavier armors giving shields at the same rate, other comments about when clerics get various casting proficiency, etc. However they do still list that a wizard can buy into heavy armor. This feels like a place where there might be a developer mindset/blank spot in how people will use things. Definitely something for us to see how it plays out in playtests.
Curious if the class proficiencies are worded like "become Expert in X" or "Increase your proficiency in X by one step" Ie, if you spend a feat to accelerate, does it stay accelerated, or is it a wasted feat at some point.
That's definitely worrisome for me. Normally it would be tempered by multiclasses and archetypes, however the little we've heard on those topics make it seem unlikely those tools would solve this problem in 2e. Of course there's more to be revealed and I'll re-assess when we know more.
Does this "classes are typically the only place were you get above trained" apply to skills as well? Or is this a place where weapon/armor/save/arcane/divine casting proficiency is different than skills even if all are under the proficiency system? (and should I move this question to the old proficiency blog post thread instead?)
That takes some edge off my worry. Thank you. :)
Sooooo, since you're here and answering questions.... any chance you'd spill the beans about how multiclassing works --- is it closer to VMC or "normal" (Yes I fully expect a wait and see answer, but gotta try :) )
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooooo, since you're here and answering questions.... any chance you'd spill the beans about how multiclassing works --- is it closer to VMC or "normal" (Yes I fully expect a wait and see answer, but gotta try :) )
There is not any chance I would do that, no. I mostly try to avoid spilling the beans. I do share, cross-pollinate, and clarify the beans that are already on the table.