| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As one of the unlikeliest PF2 converts, I received the news of PF2 with…well, resignation more than anything. I appreciate business realities of new editions and no one can argue that PF1 has had a monumental run. Diving into a new system, transitioning campaigns, etc. just isn’t something I was looking to do again. So color me shocked as with each blog release my interest in PF2 has grown. Here are my initial thoughts thus far, based on the admittedly limited info revealed in the blogs:
Class previews: Strongly approve. Each supports its theme and seems to have taken steps to address areas that could use improvement or outright problem areas. I’m really digging the Fighter and Rogue classes, which is a must-have for me given how almost all of my favorite fantasy fictional characters tend to be one of these classes. I also really like the anathema mechanics of clerics and paladins.
Ancestries: Seems like a nice tweak and I really like the idea of species/race staying relevant across the PC level spectrum. Ancestries seems like a more elegant approach than past implementations.
Resonance: I love this. I’m sure it will undergo tweaks but providing mechanical and story reasons for why magic “costs” something is fantastic! Please allow me to roast marshmallows over the insect-riddled corpse of the Magic Item Christmas Tree effect. Don’t listen to the optimizers wailing, Paizo. This is a great concept.
Backgrounds: I like Traits in concept but it evolved into a grab bag of bonuses with little real character relevance. Backgrounds seem like a better execution overall and if it helps new players conceptualize their PCs better/faster, it’s all to the good.
Monster-building using different rules: Jury is still out on this one. What’s been teased is much more intriguing than PF Unchained!s approach or Starfinder’s implementation. Honestly, the opportunity to divorce PF monsters from some of 3.x’s weird design philosophies – primarily with respect to mundane animals – is great. Improved from Undesirable to Cautiously Optimistic on this one.
NPCs using different rules: One of my biggest concerns. This has been mitigated greatly by the blog in that building NPCs with PC rules is still an option and it doesn’t appear that PF2 is going to embrace Starfinder’s NPC ridiculousness. Improved from Non-Starter to Cautiously Optimistic.
Weapons and Armor: LOVE these changes. Having more degrees of quality for mundane items beyond average and masterwork is fantastic and long overdue. Rune-infused items is thematically in-line with fantasy fiction source material and is more intuitive for new players familiar with current video games such as Dragon Age, Shadow of Mordor/War, the Witcher, etc.
Bulk: Encumbrance is always a thing in my games. If the bulk system provides a more intuitive and faster way of tracking it, great. If it creates more problems than it solves, no thanks.
Critical Hits & Failures: This is great! I love the varied degrees of success applying across the system inclusive of skill checks and saving throws! Spare me the “but PCs face more of these than monsters” argument. They’re adventurers. They also have more mechanical benefits than any other creature in the system. Cowboy up.
Magic, alchemy, and domains: So far, so good. 10th-level spells causes me some concern but the blog and supporting comments seem to suggest it’s a reclassification instead of a new gonzo power level. Please, please, PLEASE take this opportunity to reassign spells to more appropriate levels. I really don’t care if a spell has been 2nd level since 1977 if it’s clearly a “too good for its level to pass up”. Integrating alchemy into the game from square 1 is long overdue.
Proficiency: Overall, I love this. The overall approach of flattening the math without going overboard is great. The proficiency tiers look promising. However, I have one HUGE issue with it – Legendary. Just, no. Survival training doesn’t allow you to survive in a vacuum without gear based solely on your knowledge. You can’t steal armor off of a person without them being aware. Trying to emulate a myth from an oral tradition or early written form that has little-to-no character development and isn’t concerned with consistency is not a good basis for a game, even at high-level play.
“But it’s a fantasy game!” Yeah, so what? You still have to maintain some form of internal consistency or the game is weakened or ultimately collapses when rules suddenly go out the window. Look at the Marvel movies. Unlike the comics, they have to maintain an internal consistency. The superheroes have powers that in some cases dwarf what a PF character could do. Yet Iron Man needs his armor to do most of his tricks. If Wolverine survives in space, it’s because of his mutant healing factor, not because of his ranks in Survival. Legendary proficiency should stretch the boundaries, not throw internal consistency out the window. Legendary proficiency as described, is Mythic – as in imbued with divine power. Legendary instead, should be “I’m the best there is”.
I won’t say this is a deal-breaker/non-starter. My campaigns, like most, don’t often go to the 16-20 range, so it’s not a huge issue but I was hopeful that with PF2, I might be able to enjoy the full 1-20 level spectrum. Unless Legendary leaves Mythic behind, it does mean that PF2 has a level cap for me of 14 or 15. Period.
So overall, I’m pleasantly shocked and incredibly optimistic about what’s been presented. I’m eagerly awaiting the playtest and looking forward to PF2 in a way that I would have said wasn’t possible. Thus far, it is shaping up as approaching a new edition in my desired way: refine, fix, and improve vs. change for change’s sake. So far, it looks like the power curve is being maintained or perhaps even being flattened a bit. So long as Paizo doesn’t succumb to the vocal “turn it to 11 or it sucks” crowd, I foresee being a PF2 GM for all of my fantasy campaigns in about 18 mos.
Keep it up, Paizo!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding legendary proficiency, I think that (with one known exception of Fighter getting legendary weapon proficiency at 15), legendary proficiency is available at 17th. You should have up to 16 broadly free of it.
(I’m looking forward to it myself, personally, since I liked the level 20 skill unlocks from Pathfinder for things like non-magical Suggestion.)
... So overall, I’m pleasantly shocked and incredibly optimistic about what’s been presented. I’m eagerly awaiting the playtest and looking forward to PF2 in a way that I would have said wasn’t possible. Thus far, it is shaping up as approaching a new edition in my desired way: refine, fix, and improve vs. change for change’s sake. So far, it looks like the power curve is being maintained or perhaps even being flattened a bit. So long as Paizo doesn’t succumb to the vocal “turn it to 11 or it sucks” crowd, I foresee being a PF2 GM for all of my fantasy campaigns in about 18 mos.
Keep it up, Paizo!
Have you tried to tease out/write down any p2e sub-systems? I'm asking because you seem to be ahead of the curve thus far.
Have you tried to tease out/write down any p2e sub-systems? I'm asking because you seem to be ahead of the curve thus far.... So overall, I’m pleasantly shocked and incredibly optimistic about what’s been presented. I’m eagerly awaiting the playtest and looking forward to PF2 in a way that I would have said wasn’t possible. Thus far, it is shaping up as approaching a new edition in my desired way: refine, fix, and improve vs. change for change’s sake. So far, it looks like the power curve is being maintained or perhaps even being flattened a bit. So long as Paizo doesn’t succumb to the vocal “turn it to 11 or it sucks” crowd, I foresee being a PF2 GM for all of my fantasy campaigns in about 18 mos.
Keep it up, Paizo!
I'm drawing conclusions from what's been presented and developer comments in threads. Everything is an incomplete picture at best until the playtest doc drops.
Proficiency tiers, differences in weapon bonuses and how magic weapons work, etc. are what I'm basing my conclusion on as well as the acknowledgement that the math becomes unwieldy at high levels. Plus Mark S comments quite a bit about the mathematics behind certain design goals and decisions so I presume that improving the math across the 1-20 spread is a significant design goal.
However, I could be (and probably am) just as guilty as others for reading my personal biases into the high-level teases we've been given thus far.
In any case, my intent of creating this thread was to give a shout out for how much they've teased that has me genuinely interested despite my original intent to stick with PF1.
Pretty cool! I’m very excited too, but I started out there. Even more excited when I consider the additional content we’ll probably be getting in the first year or two.
|
The Legendary stuff you're talking about is almost certainly not automatic, it's probably available via Skill Feats. Which means most characters are gonna max out at three or four such tricks (more like 1 or 2 if you're not going past 16th level...Rogues will double both numbers, though).
That being the case, you can probably weed out a few you feel are immersion breaking if you like without it breaking the game or anything.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Legendary stuff you're talking about is almost certainly not automatic, it's probably available via Skill Feats. Which means most characters are gonna max out at three or four such tricks (more like 1 or 2 if you're not going past 16th level...Rogues will double both numbers, though).
That being the case, you can probably weed out a few you feel are immersion breaking if you like without it breaking the game or anything.
This is a very solid insight. In the new edition, we really want to capitalize on one of the big advantages of being a game with tons of options: If we provide you tools to help curate those options, you should be able to build combinations of options that fit the feel/setting/subgenre of just about anything you want to run, from high fantasy to low magic, from dark fantasy to lighthearted romp, and so on. To that end, I'd strongly encourage groups who don't want some of the more over-the-top legendary options for their setting to avoid those. This is one reason why we have options in the upper level ranges that vary from the truly unbelievable to the simply utilitarianly powerful. While some people have been upset that some of the options at high levels are truly fantastical, and some have been upset that some of the options are less gonzo and more utilitarian, overall the existence of both kinds of abilities gives something for everyone assuming groups focus on the ones that match the feel of the game they're playing (which might change from campaign to campaign), and the inclusion shouldn't hurt anyone unless a group's individual players disagree on what type of game they're interested in playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Legendary stuff you're talking about is almost certainly not automatic, it's probably available via Skill Feats. Which means most characters are gonna max out at three or four such tricks (more like 1 or 2 if you're not going past 16th level...Rogues will double both numbers, though).
That being the case, you can probably weed out a few you feel are immersion breaking if you like without it breaking the game or anything.
I hope that you're correct but the manner in which it was touted makes me suspect otherwise. And if skill feats, class feats, or other mechanisms make it possible to introduce Legendary tier stuff at even lower levels, it becomes much more problematic. If that happens, that could be problematic enough that it negates all of the other stuff that I'm optimistic about.
My campaigns are presented with as much internal consistency as possible. My campaigns are about Big Damn Heroes in a fantasy world. I'm not looking to have a campaign come undone because the PCs demonstrably in very obvious ways spontaneously hit a "demigod" reward through leveling. Hercules was a demigod from birth - he didn't level into it.
Mythic, while it has its problems, handled the application/introduction of that level of fantastic onto a character pretty well. There had to be a source/justification for it.
Perhaps the examples provided were intentionally over the top. Unfortunately, they are far enough over the top that I'll discard it outright. Hopefully, that won't mean I'll have to discard PF2.
I agree with pretty much every point but the first one, as I feel the classes and class feats we've had previewed have not given us a good sense of balance between the execution of the different classes, compared to PF1 it seems the class imbalance may seem worse at higher levels thanks to how the new action system seems to be taxing on martial characters and more relaxed for casters than it comparatively was in either the stock action system for PF1/3.5 and the RAE in PF:Unchained. If it's just a more complicated way to play 5e then I'm not gonna be happy.
I love the d20 engine, modes of play, not opposed to resonance on principle, and I'm shaky on the same things as well, such as monsters/NPCs, though I'm not sure how bad Legendary skills really are, when we compare them to mythic (Ex) abilities in PF1 and compare the levels that they can be achieved at.
I like to see it as them incorporating the CRB, UCamp, and Unchained all into one book.
This is a very solid insight. In the new edition, we really want to capitalize on one of the big advantages of being a game with tons of options: If we provide you tools to help curate those options, you should be able to build combinations of options that fit the feel/setting/subgenre of just about anything you want to run, from high fantasy to low magic, from dark fantasy to lighthearted romp, and so on. To that end, I'd strongly encourage groups who don't want some of the more over-the-top legendary options for their setting to avoid those. This is one reason why we have options in the upper level ranges that vary from the truly unbelievable to the simply utilitarianly powerful. While some people have been upset that some of the options at high levels are truly fantastical, and some have been upset that some of the options are less gonzo and more utilitarian, overall the existence of both kinds of abilities gives something for everyone assuming groups focus on the ones that match the feel of the game they're playing (which might change from campaign to campaign), and the inclusion shouldn't hurt anyone unless a group's individual players disagree on what type of game they're interested in playing.
Cool! Thanks for the insight, Mark. Guess I was typing when you were or I wouldn't have typed my last post. Your comments go a long way to mitigating my concerns and if PF2 has dials & levers to allow for better tailoring to suit a desired fantasy experience, that is fantastic!
Thanks, again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Resonance: I love this. I’m sure it will undergo tweaks but providing mechanical and story reasons for why magic “costs” something is fantastic! Please allow me to roast marshmallows over the insect-riddled corpse of the Magic Item Christmas Tree effect. Don’t listen to the optimizers wailing, Paizo. This is a great concept.
Optimisers will optimise whatever the system ends up looking like - I'm not sure disliking resonance has anything to do with optimisation.
At least a couple of the people who dislike the potential to reduce the number of magic items you can use do not optimise at all - they just like a number of small utility effects rather than the one powerful thing.
Optimisers will optimise whatever the system ends up looking like - I'm not sure disliking resonance has anything to do with optimisation.
At least a couple of the people who dislike the potential to reduce the number of magic items you can use do not optimise at all - they just like a number of small utility effects rather than the one powerful thing.
I'm sure optimization isn't the only reason some don't like resonance, but there's been more than a little complaining on various forums that Charisma can't be a dump stat because of it . If a person's primary objection is that there is a negative mechanical trade off for dumping a stat, that sounds like an optimization concern to me.
I was focusing on PF2 blogs overall and I like the idea of resonance.
Role play, roll play, rolly polly ol' play.
Love to hate, and hate to love,
How can I transfigure thee?
How can we change, if we know not what we see?
How can I be you, and you be me?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimisers will optimise whatever the system ends up looking like - I'm not sure disliking resonance has anything to do with optimisation.
At least a couple of the people who dislike the potential to reduce the number of magic items you can use do not optimise at all - they just like a number of small utility effects rather than the one powerful thing.
I'm sure optimization isn't the only reason some don't like resonance, but there's been more than a little complaining on various forums that Charisma can't be a dump stat because of it . If a person's primary objection is that there is a negative mechanical trade off for dumping a stat, that sounds like an optimization concern to me.
I was focusing on PF2 blogs overall and I like the idea of resonance.
I just don't like it because it disincentivizes consumables. If Resonance was limited to either worn items or consumable items, I wouldn't care. As is "I can pick my Belt of the Monk's Hairy Fist or I can pick being able to use healing potions" is the tradeoff I see. Dumping Charisma only highlights the breakdown of that tradeoff, and because that is a common strategy in Pathfinder it is immediately noticeable for the optimizer.
|
|
Optimizers will just find some other way to make an 'ideal' stat block, possibly looking for defensive break-points (average enemy of x relative level cannot crit you, for example) or simply dump Int instead if it doesn't do enough.
Still, I agree with most of your post, 100% on burning the magic item christmas tree. I like resonance for adding value to Cha and drawing away from using 1st level wands to cheat limits and substitute class features. (Granted, better value scaling would also have gone a long way for that one)
Thanks for posting this. It's encouraging to see a PF2-Skeptic find things they like in the blogs.
I'm still at the point of just feeling tired looking at my PF1 books and considering ditching them to relearn essentially a 'tweaked' version.
I've got a year and a bit to get used to it, so it's encouraging to hear other people's conversion stories. (Okay, conversion is too strong - 'concern alleviation' stories perhaps).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for posting this. It's encouraging to see a PF2-Skeptic find things they like in the blogs.
I'm still at the point of just feeling tired looking at my PF1 books and considering ditching them to relearn essentially a 'tweaked' version.
I've got a year and a bit to get used to it, so it's encouraging to hear other people's conversion stories. (Okay, conversion is too strong - 'concern alleviation' stories perhaps).
Been using the Unchained RAE since it came out, with some tweaks to iron out the problems that the obviously rushed system had.
Action type designations are my biggest issue, instead of having clear rules on just how many act[ion]s and whether or not it provokes, which is really all you need. The difference in the way they're trying to impose this "interact" tax on everything is destroying the freedom we gained imho.
C/M D is by the looks of things just having a paradigm shift, but isn't getting fixed. Unless the feats designed to encapsulate individual combat styles somehow are simultaneously designed to be worse both numerically and temporally as a feature of the game. Current math suggests it is not.
|
|
C/M D is by the looks of things just having a paradigm shift, but isn't getting fixed. Unless the feats designed to encapsulate individual combat styles somehow are simultaneously designed to be worse both numerically and temporally as a feature of the game. Current math suggests it is not.
We have way too little data to say this (especially since the only math I've seen on this is on one Feat, which could be anywhere from a great Feat to an abysmal one). Particularly since C/M D is primarily not a combat problem, and we have almost nothing on Skill Feats.
C/M D is by the looks of things just having a paradigm shift, but isn't getting fixed. Unless the feats designed to encapsulate individual combat styles somehow are simultaneously designed to be worse both numerically and temporally as a feature of the game. Current math suggests it is not.We have way too little data to say this (especially since the only math I've seen on this is on one Feat, which could be anywhere from a great Feat to an abysmal one). Particularly since C/M D is primarily not a combat problem, and we have almost nothing on Skill Feats.
Every single combat style presented imposes an action penalty. This is (seemingly) an attempt to balance tee styles against each other, but ends up favoring some. It imposes on the ratio of actions you get to choose vs actions you are taxed. Conversely, spell casters are no longer limited to a single spell per turn, and casting time on many spells is reduced to a single action (with options to spend more) increasing their agency by virtue.
It's a really bad start, as relative agency in a turn really changed C/M D in combat, especially when counter spells become a factor.
Out of combat utility looks to be on track to be solved via skill feats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conversely, spell casters are no longer limited to a single spell per turn, and casting time on many spells is reduced to a single action (with options to spend more) increasing their agency by virtue.
Wait, what? We have zero evidence of this. It's true of the Heal spell, but per the actual things the designers have stated about spells in general that's very much the exception and not the rule. From what they've actually said, most spells are two actions, especially offensive ones, with summoning spells being 3 actions and the only single action spell mentioned thus far being Shield, which is just like having an actual shield only not quite as good.
In short this is a huge assumption there's basically no evidence for and quite a bit against.
Is magic missile 1-3 actions with scaling power? I thought I read that somewhere...
Yeah, I don’t really mind (it seems like one action spells are kind of trivial and presumably that’ll continue once the full suite of spells is available - I don’t feel it’s a huge boost). You’re just one of my error checking posters I keep an eye on when memory fails. :)
I'm just passing by to say that I'm loving what this new edition is becoming, and Paizo is giving me a long series of great articles ^^
Generally agree with the OP (apart from minor differences not worth writing here), except that I'd like Legendary proficiency to be even more radical (on the premise that it is thematically appropriate). As non-casters aren't outright casting spells, I believe skill proficiencies with +N bonuses should be able to emulate OR counter thematically right spells of Nth level, AT THE VERY LEAST.
Like Legendary Diplomacy (or whatever name it is in PF2) working like an (Ex) Suggestion, or Legendary Fly (skill) giving you a flying speed then turning into a gliding speed once you've decided you're finished soaring for now, or cracking through Arcane Lock or Hold Portal with Legendary Disable Device, etc.
Then again, I trust Mark's words that Legendary skills will let you do really crazy things that enables non-casters stand up to spellcasters in their niches without crippling overspecialization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legendary proficiency is not difficult to justify...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conversely, spell casters are no longer limited to a single spell per turn, and casting time on many spells is reduced to a single action (with options to spend more) increasing their agency by virtue.Wait, what? We have zero evidence of this. It's true of the Heal spell, but per the actual things the designers have stated about spells in general that's very much the exception and not the rule. From what they've actually said, most spells are two actions, especially offensive ones, with summoning spells being 3 actions and the only single action spell mentioned thus far being Shield, which is just like having an actual shield only not quite as good.
In short this is a huge assumption there's basically no evidence for and quite a bit against.
The devs have mentioned that Heal and Magic Missile aren't the norm; they're kind of getting special treatment as very iconic sorts of spells. Shield is one action because it mimics the action of raising a shield. Spells that perform the same function as a mundane action get a little more leeway in their casting time.
At higher levels, I suspect that casters will be getting an action economy nerf by having Quicken Spell removed or turned into a more limited ability.