| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After GMing several tables (six of PFS, one of Doomsday Dawn pt. 1) of Pathfinder Playtest over the course of the last ~10 days, I'm summarizing some free-form responses to things that were good/bad in addition to filling out the event surveys. This is a combination of player reactions as I observed them and my own opinions.
The recurring theme I heard from players who actually made their own characters (rather than using PFS pregens) is, "I'm not impressed with any of the feats {insert class name here} gets." The only class I didn't hear that response about was the fighter class; they instead received the response, "Wait, what's this sidebar mean?" in reference to the rules for Open and Press abilities, followed by a series of variations on, "WHAT!?" It seems like in an effort to give the players something to do at every level up, the choices that characters make have been devalued to the point of not being interesting activities. In the case of the one exception, the content has not been received well once the keyword limitations are applied.
I'm all for giving the PCs something at every level, but the class feats seem to have diluted the value of each thing to the point that there's not a lot of interest in making those choices, and that, to me, seems as bad as not giving choices at all (because the players not caring about something is only marginally better than not having it at all). What kinda baffles me about the whole thing is that one of the strengths of Starfinder is the classes. It appeared the Starfinder classes were/are a really good starting point for character creation in PFP/PF2. Everyone, even the soldier (fighter) has lots of interesting things that they receive at every level, even if there wasn't a choice at every level. The soldier ended up being one of the best classes in SF, and I think that framework would've helped balance martials against casters in PF2 as well.
My supposition is that somewhere in the design process, not having dead levels turned into making a choice at every level, and those two things very much aren't the same. Look at the popularity of 5e; you get something at every level, but make remarkably few choices after first level. You still have the reward of building towards a goal at every level up without the choice overload or the dilution of potency for each of those rewards. In addition, the Skill feats and Ancestry feats (those actually had some pretty favorable responses from players I've GMed for, unlike the General and Class feats) mean you're still making some kind of choice with relative frequency, even if those choices aren't about what you'll do when a monster is trying to rip your face off.
I'll also toss out, and this is my personal opinion only, I am not a fan of type-locking certain classes into specific fighting styles, weapon types, or armor types, especially when that class also has other thematic links that may incentivize creating that class with a different weapon style. As currently presented, the PFP Ranger has no support for the iconic ranger of literature, Aragorn; he's not a two-weapon fighter and he doesn't use a crossbow, so he's not supported here? Saying he's a fighter with Survival as a Signature Skill, or that he's using the Ranger Devotion multiclass feat, doesn't feel right to me. PF1 also has a considerable population of archer-paladins of Erastil - those are only barely supported by the Paladin class feats as presented. Meanwhile, all Fighters apparently only use heavy armor (why wouldn't you know how to use the chain shirt, gambeson, and chausses that go under your plate even if you don't have the breastplate on over it?); that seems kinda silly. Whither the Ulfen, with their byrnie and heavy shields?
Overall, this and one portion of non-combat gameplay received the two biggest collections of negative response from the players I've run PFP for. I'm still very much not sure how I'd change it, but I think I'd look at 5e class design and Starfinder class design when I'm thinking about how to fix PF2's classes, because those two rule sets do receive a great deal of positive feedback on their character creation systems among the gamers I interact with.
the class feats in general need a good amping up, especially if they're to compete with the massive choice and utility that spellcasting in general brings to those classes that get it.
a few extra skills for non-casting classes (and amping up their skill feats) would go a long way as well.
I don't have anywhere near that amount of playtest time, but your experiences largely mirror my own so far. The 1st level stuff just doesn't look impressive, and the few things that looked goo at first blush proved to be a huge let-down once I found the fine print.
the class feats in general need a good amping up, especially if they're to compete with the massive choice and utility that spellcasting in general brings to those classes that get it.
While that's true at higher levels, the 1st level spells are pretty lackluster and definitely need some help.
|
I have played several demos, Doomsday Dawn part 1 and one of the adventures.
Having seen several characters play and run through a variety of encounters I am seeing several things that I like and some that I do not.
First, the free floating ability score for each race lets each race be each class. Gnome Illusionist? Throw that free points into Intelligence. Halfling Cleric, toss that free points into Charisma, Goblin Barbarian, free points into Strength. The only exception seems to be races whose negative is in the primary stat of the class, Goblin Clerics, Gnome Fighters and Halfling Barbarians for example. Now that free ability increase can go into there penalized stat and they can start with a 16 at least. This is actually more cost effective than starting with a 16 in the previous edition so I see the potential. Furthermore it will equalize for half the game.
Second racial feats. These seem to be too spread out to really represent your training/experience growing up especially when they pop up later, making very little sense. I can see getting a limited number of them, like 3 racial feats and then expansions as you level but I don't understand why certain features would suddenly pop up in your adventuring life after having been away from your race/culture for a period of time.
Third Class feats, I like that not every class is built the same but it seems class feats are a way to focus your character early on and some classes don't get them until later levels. Also some seem to be required just to keep the character in line with current level, like the Druid's wild shape feats that provide options but need to be taken just to function at that level, instead they should include other abilities to make them stand out as shapeshifters.
Fourth, Class Skills. I think this was the biggest error in design. First classes that had enough skills, like the Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Bard, got more. Classes like the Alchemist, Druid and Monk got less. It seems like the designers chose certain classes to benefit and certain classes to punish. For example the Wizard use to be very good at skills, now he has the same as the cleric and much fewer signature skills and what used to be their strength with Knowledge is not spread out among several Wisdom based skills, making them provide less to the group especially with the lack of skill increases that other classes gained. Overall it seemed that popular classes in 1st edition got punished while unpopular classes got benefits. I can understand if this was consistent, the skill combination means you need fewer skills but the lack of consistency in the skill point allocation clearly eliminates this point, leaving us back to the issue of why some classes got nerfed and other got buffed.
Fifth, Class design. Certain classes function very well out of the gate, others take more time to develop while others still seem to be looking for a spot. Bards as 9th level casters are interesting since they still buff, but the melee bard option seems to be less viable. Druids seem to vary widely in functionality with the Wild Order not being able to wild shape til 4th and then only 3 times for 1 min each and having no scaling options past 15th with only one exception, using their single 10th level spell and not taking the 20th wild order feat which is an actual downgrade to their shapeshifting abilities.
Sixth, Resonance and Gear The game seems to be pushing towards having to have a healer as potions now require the use of resonance and some items require 2 or more to use (1 to invest, 1 to use their ability, more if it is used more than once a day) furthermore the Cha inclusion means that sorcerers are more likely to be able to use found magic items over say wizards who don't have to get free resonance points, instead they get docked skills because they use intelligence. If anything Wizards seemed to be nerfed in skills, saves initiative and magic item usage because Cleric initiative is now the best in the game and Intelligence is no longer as useful especially to wizards.
Finally, General feats don't offer the options they should. Wizards get exactly 2 signature skills. Cleric get 5. Why isn't there a feat or skill feat to turn a skill in to a signature skill? Why isn't there a feat to make you expert/master/legendary in weapons and armor? It really seems like they took the classes and forced you into the role the envisioned and made sure you couldn't deviate. Remember that Tank cleric that got the heavy armor and shield to be able to stand up and charge the bad guys? Welp expect to be 3 AC less than the paladin cause you don't get to have the same abilities as they do.