Halfway to Doomsday

kpulv wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.

I'm surprised there aren't more. My group broke up after the second part: the general replies were that no one had any fun and it was painful to play. These were all people that played pathfinder before and knew it was a playtest. For myself, I haven't been in a rush to find a new group as I too didn't have a good time.

There have been dozens of people at the start of the playtest who posted just once to say that they think that the new rules suck and then stopped posting. Make of that what you will.

Presumably the longer it goes the more straw polls will deliver positive results.

For the record, I'm a fan of everything being called a "feat" because it translates in Polish as "atut", a simple, short word - something that my language has a desperate shortage of. "Cecha rasowa" and "Umiejętność klasowa" are less elegant ;)

For the record, I'm a fan of everything being called a "feat" because it translates in Polish as "atut", a simple, short word - something that my language has a desperate shortage of. "Cecha rasowa" and "Umiejętność klasowa" are less elegant ;)

I’m willing to bet that preference is not going to get a lot of consideration.

Gorbacz wrote:

For the record, I'm a fan of everything being called a "feat" because it translates in Polish as "atut", a simple, short word - something that my language has a desperate shortage of. "Cecha rasowa" and "Umiejętność klasowa" are less elegant ;)

I’m willing to bet that preference is not going to get a lot of consideration.

Population of 'Straya: 24 million humans, 200 million snakes, spiders, death worms and sharks

WE'LL SEE ABOUT THAT

You forgot the crocodiles.

If I wanted to, say, create an archetype that was all about fighting with a two handed weapon effectively, I could do so in a way that it packages all the pieces you would need to build that character in one tidy place, one that could then be taken by everyone. The old system allowed us to do this.. kinda, but it was all over the place, and was easily seen as bloat, especially as the years went on.

But that would be cool. A two-handed weapon archetype that any class (yes any class) could take (along with bowmen archetypes, sword and board archetypes, one-handed archetypes, etc) would be higher in flexibility and customization and allow you to fix the stuff that "all over the place". This was a paladin would be a warrior for a patron god. If that god likes backstabbing dagger wielders, he isn't locked into heavy armor, sword, and shield native to the current class. The ranger becomes an outdoorsman. Whether that involves bows or dual-wielding or just a big ol' greataxe is up to the player, not the class designer.

That’s interesting. Can you explain to me more explicitly the gain you see?

To me the prevalence of level is a problem because the same word refers to lots of different concepts in the game. I consider the various types of feats to be more akin to wizard (evoker) and Wizard (universalist). With feats, they’re all tweaks to your PC and the only difference between a class feat and a skill feat is where they came from. It seems to me that renaming “class feat” <-> “class ability” and “ancestry feat” <-> “ancestry trait” is conveying that information twice.

At the very least, you wouldn’t need the source anymore, would you? You could just have Abilities, Traits, Feats and Tricks. What’s lost then?

The main thing I see is that using the name feat for the different types, implies some degree of interchangeability which isn't there. One of the players in my group got that mixed up and picked the wrong kind of feat for some slots in an earlier round of testing. The only real interchangeability is that Skill Feats are a subset of General Feats and you can take one with a General Feat. Because of that, if they are going to rename the different types, I think it probably makes sense for General Feats and Skill Feats to still use the term Feats, and then have Ancestry Traits and Class Abilities, or whatever terms are decided on. This helps reinforce that Skill Feats are a subset, but the class and ancestry versions are different things entirely.

Although I'm not as concerned with the use of Feat as I am Level, but I have seen it cause some confusion.

1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.

2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.

3. Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).

4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.

5. Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.

1. I don't think this goal has been met at all, particularly the "true to the spirit" dimension. PF2e feels to me like a very, very different game from PF1e and the various incarnations of D&D which preceded it. Despite what Paizo says, it's not an "evolution," it's a qualitatively different game.

2. I share the concern that's been expressed here that I don't see how much of the canon of Golarion works with the new system, particularly the dominant role played by high level spell casters in Golarion. And the sudden and radical change in the nature of goblins so that they can be a playable race is particularly disconcerting.

3. I don't think Paizo has even tried to meet this goal. I'll be harsh here, but as I noted above, PF2e is not an "evolution" of PF1e/D&D. It is a totally different game that is only tenuously linked to what proceeded it. Paizo designers have disparaged the existing game by referring to its age as if this alone were reason to replace it.

4. As I've noted elsewhere, this goal feels like pure chutzpah to me. Whatever lack of balance exists in PF1e is the responsibility of Paizo and its inability to manage and control the supplementary material it's released over the years. To my mind, Paizo broke PF1e and is now not attempting to fix it, electing instead to replace it with a game system that I personally did not ask for and do not want.

5. I can only speak for myself, but largely because of my PF1e/D&D experience, I don't see a game that is "open and welcoming" to me. I see a game which rejects much of what I like about PF1e and which doesn't attempt to improve and further develop what I see as a strong basic system.

Finally, I'm amused that no one seems to have commented on the unintended irony in the title of the blog, "Halfway to Doomsday," as that pretty much sums up my feelings in regards to PF2e.

You exaggerate or maybe just poorly define what you mean when you say drastically different game. Still has classes, monsters, dungeons, dice, role playing, skills, feats, magic items, spells, class features.

But yes yes change is bad. carry on. carry on.

I'd also kindly note that the biggest imbalance of PF is exactly the same as in 3.5, sits right there in the Core Rulebook, and manifests itself in full casters and core Rogue/Monk/Fighter being declared as remotely balanced in any aspect. And I believe that it was inevitable, else Paizo would deal with the outcry it's dealing today at the point where it didn't have the resources or market position to handle that.

The entire splatbookery is just gravy, and for the record over 10 years Paizo never put out anything remotely close to Nightsticks + Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell combo or the good ol' wildshape tomfoolery of 3.5.

graystone wrote:

kpulv wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.

I'm surprised there aren't more. My group broke up after the second part: the general replies were that no one had any fun and it was painful to play. These were all people that played pathfinder before and knew it was a playtest. For myself, I haven't been in a rush to find a new group as I too didn't have a good time.

There have been dozens of people at the start of the playtest who posted just once to say that they think that the new rules suck and then stopped posting. Make of that what you will.

That's just wrong. There definitely weren't "dozens" of people who just said the rules were bad. Why would you make that up?

But yes yes change is bad. carry on. carry on.

The poorly thought out radical change for the sake of change that appears to guide PF2e is bad.

Evolutionary, incremental change aiming to improve and enhance PF1e would be very good.

3. I don't think Paizo has even tried to meet this goal. I'll be harsh here, but as I noted above, PF2e is not an "evolution" of PF1e/D&D. It is a totally different game that is only tenuously linked to what proceeded it. Paizo designers have disparaged the existing game by referring to its age as if this alone were reason to replace it.

As I have said, it is a tad too revolutionary for my tastes, so far, would prefer more evolutionary, but, this is the playtest (stress-test), so who knows what will be pulled back, altered, etc.

As for deriding the previous edition (quite popular; as you can see in this thread, the usual suspects, at this point), due to age or what-have-you, yet another part of the revolting edition cycle, seriously transparent and not cool. Fortunately, I don't think the Pazio folks are doing that.
A part of 4th Ed stumbling before it hit the shelves, was Rob and Co., basically saying the game you have been playing is silly, they even made fun of Saving Throws. Atrocious behaviour from anyone, let alone professional (whatever that means...) designers.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

But yes yes change is bad. carry on. carry on.

The poorly thought out radical change for the sake of change that appears to guide PF2e is bad.

Evolutionary, incremental change aiming to improve and enhance PF1e would be very good.

I'll tell you what you speak to me in specifics and not parabol and I'll talk to you, but I'm tired of arguing over conjecture. List facts and you can even list your opinions on the fact but they need to be something hard not ephemeral.

Example: I don't like Skill feats because of X they make me Feel Y etc.

From my perspective:

Evolutions:

1. The action economy came from unchained.
2. Class feats came from PF1e Archetypes, which introduced the concept of trading out some class features for others.
3. Ancestry feats came from alternate racial traits.
4. Backgrounds came from Traits.
5. PF2e Archetypes came from Prestige Classes, which often had requirements but let you continue to advance your base class stuff
6. Relatively minor tweaks to weapons, armor, magic gear and other things.
7. Proficiency levels came from the difference between trained and untrained being extended further into higher levels.

Revolutions:

1. Skill system replacing skill points, and skill feats gating skill uses
2. Gutting of general feats, and transferring what used to be combat feats to class features
3. Removal of full multiclassing
4. Resonance being made to answer meta game problems only some tables had

Of the evolutions, I am pretty happy about most of them, even if Ancestry feats and backgrounds need to be beefed up significantly.

Of the revolutions, I like the skill system, but would prefer if there were fewer, more impactful skill feats and more was baked in to proficiency level. I think we need a general feat at first level, and more general feat options that include combat tweaking. Full multiclassing doesn't appear super necessary any more, but I would welcome it back. Resonance just needs to take a long walk off a short dock.

Can we all maybe chill out and take a step back here? People on both sides of the issue are now accusing the other side of things like lying and methodically silencing dissent. And that's just not a useful trend in discussion even if it were true.

I'm sure many people took one look at the playtest and went 'I don't like it.' and ceased engaging with it. I'm equally sure many people who like the game are not posting at all in the same way as many people who don't. I mean, I'm the only one of my RPG group to post on these forums and our opinion on the playtest is on the positive end.

Let's all just not leap to the assumption that most people are mean spirited, lying, or attacking each other. Let's keep the tone as civil and friendly as possible. I mean, if we keep it civil and friendly we're much more likely to work out compromises that the most people possible could live and be happy with.

Even with people who are legitimately mean spirited (who it's hard to diagnose at a glance, given the difficulty of judging tone on the internet), I've always found that responding politely and reasonably has the best results most of the time (unless they're breaking the board guidelines, in which case just report 'em and move on).

I forgot General so I tacked that one on. I don't mind the General and the Class ones both being called feats.

Edit: Hmm, maybe General Talent and Skill Trick?

So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

If you say that having "X feat" is confusing and you want to replace "feat" by "Y", then saying "X Y" instead merely "Y" is just increasing word count.

Can we all maybe chill out and take a step back here? People on both sides of the issue are now accusing the other side of things like lying and methodically silencing dissent. And that's just not a useful trend in discussion even if it were true.

I'm sure many people took one look at the playtest and went 'I don't like it.' and ceased engaging with it. I'm equally sure many people who like the game are not posting at all in the same way as many people who don't. I mean, I'm the only one of my RPG group to post on these forums and our opinion on the playtest is on the positive end.

Let's all just not leap to the assumption that most people are mean spirited, lying, or attacking each other. Let's keep the tone as civil and friendly as possible. I mean, if we keep it civil and friendly we're much more likely to work out compromises that the most people possible could live and be happy with.

Even with people who are legitimately mean spirited (who it's hard to diagnose at a glance, given the difficulty of judging tone on the internet), I've always found that responding politely and reasonably has the best results most of the time (unless they're breaking the board guidelines, in which case just report 'em and move on).

Yes, as often in life, it comes down to balance. Blindly/defensively slamming or praising the new edition, does no one any good. I may prefer certain versions of D&D, but in no way do I have some idealistic view that they are perfect (far from it, in some cases), and attempt to justify and defend every single aspect of them. Nor do I feel the need to bash and/or not acknowledge anything good about an edition that is not my preference.

I think we need a New Age of transitioning/adjusting to new editions.

The Archive wrote:

Like... regardless of I think of PF2 as is, I can only think of perhaps one or two PF1 games out of many that would have been at all similar using PF2. And that's including APs. The same stories just cannot be told.

Can you name an example of a Pathfinder AP story that cannot be told with the Pathfinder Playtest rules?

Rise of the Runelords. Not only is pre buffing not nearly as much of a thing as it was in PF1 (and many of the bosses in RotR rely heavily on pre buffing), but also they'll be far less threatening using so many of their actions to concentrate on maintaining their buffs (the absolute minute duration cap on many will also be very limiting to them). Summon Monsters now require an action to command or just stand around doing nothing, so they're not nearly as useful to provide quick minions. Spells per day being reduced will also reduce their threat. Basically, a fellow like 'Karzie' is the epitome of the sort of epic heights of power PF1 allowed. PF2 playtest allows competence.

Yes, you can hand wave all of that, give them enemy only spells that work completely differently, and otherwise allow them to break the rules, but by breaking the system to make things work you're only proving that PF2 currently can't tell those kinds of stories.

Zaister wrote:

The Archive wrote:

Like... regardless of I think of PF2 as is, I can only think of perhaps one or two PF1 games out of many that would have been at all similar using PF2. And that's including APs. The same stories just cannot be told.

Can you name an example of a Pathfinder AP story that cannot be told with the Pathfinder Playtest rules?

Rise of the Runelords. Not only is pre buffing not nearly as much of a thing as it was in PF1 (and many of the bosses in RotR rely heavily on pre buffing),

I am very happy about that, I was in a RotR campaign, and it was not fun having my monk whiffing so much.

I would prefer less reliance on magic, period, but that is of course just my taste, they should cater to the biggest market, whatever that may be.

I totally appreciate (and like) their goals, and where they want to take this game, it is merely a point of implementation, at this point.

pjrogers wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

But yes yes change is bad. carry on. carry on.

The poorly thought out radical change for the sake of change that appears to guide PF2e is bad.

Evolutionary, incremental change aiming to improve and enhance PF1e would be very good.

I'll tell you what you speak to me in specifics and not parabol and I'll talk to you, but I'm tired of arguing over conjecture. List facts and you can even list your opinions on the fact but they need to be something hard not ephemeral.

I'm not really looking for an argument, just expressing my POV as a Pathfinder player and Paizo customer Also, I think we're coming at this topic from very different scales. As I see it, the decision by Paizo to create a new, qualitatively different PF2e was a fundamental mistake. I would prefer, and I think the company would be better served by, a real "evolutionary" approach seeking to create a PF1.5e that more substantially built on the existing PF1e and which recognized and sought to address PF1e's problems in a less radical manner. Insofar as this hobby and not anything of super critical importance, I don't feel that I need to spend the time and energy that would be needed to justify my position in a more detailed manner, especially after I spend half an hour this morning responding to the latest surveys.

I'm in the middle of the survey questions about update 1.3. I haven't been following this thread so maybe this has been already brought up, but this question #5 doesn't seem to be true. I'm looking at the two 10-2 tables and DCs were lowered at the lowest levels of the game. Am I missing something? Am I even posting this in the right thread?

Rules Survey wrote:

5. Update 1.3 also changed the table used to generate DCs of skill checks against opposing forces of various levels. Generally speaking, this raised the DCs a bit at the lowest levels of the game and lowered the DCs at the high levels of the game by a greater amount. How appropriate was this change at different parts of the game?

There is this slightly snarky post that talks in detail about the 1-3 Skill DC chart. Quick summary hitting your question below.

_L__E__M__H__I__U
00__2_-1_-1__0__1
01__2_-1_-1_-1__0
02__2_-1_-1_-1__0
03__2__0__0_-1__1
04__2__1__1__0__2
05__2__0__1__0__2
06__2__0__1__0__1
07__2_-1__1_-2__0
08__2_-1__0_-1__1
09__2__0__0_-2__0
10__2__0__0_-2__0
11__2__0__0_-2__0
12__2__1__1_-1__1
13__2__1__2__0__2
14__2__1__2__0__1
15__2__2__2__0__0
16__2__1__2__1__1
17__2__2__2__0__0
18__2__2__2__0__0
19__2__2__2__0__0
20__2__2__2__1__0
21__4__4__4__2__1
22__5__5__4__2__1
23__6__5__4__2__1

graystone wrote:

kpulv wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.

I'm surprised there aren't more.

People are actively being discouraged from posting such experiences by getting replies along the lines of "playtesting is hard", "playtesting isn't for everyone" and "playtesting isn't meant to be fun".

Could you provide examples?

I'd also kindly note that the biggest imbalance of PF is exactly the same as in 3.5, sits right there in the Core Rulebook, and manifests itself in full casters and core Rogue/Monk/Fighter being declared as remotely balanced in any aspect. And I believe that it was inevitable, else Paizo would deal with the outcry it's dealing today at the point where it didn't have the resources or market position to handle that.

The entire splatbookery is just gravy, and for the record over 10 years Paizo never put out anything remotely close to Nightsticks + Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell combo or the good ol' wildshape tomfoolery of 3.5.

I'd honestly argue that most of the "bloat" has been POSITIVE in terms of balancing. Not everything of course, but Fullcasters haven't really gotten much more powerful over time besides a few exceptions coughArcanistcoughPactWizardcough and it seems like the wide majority of feats benefit the low end of the classes way more. Half casters got more cool and interesting options, and of course the wide variety of combat feats meant that even the magically inept could do interesting stuff. Even Magic Tactics Toolbox had one of the best Fighter options to date printed in it (well, second best after Weapon Master's Handbook) despite ostensibly being a book for casters only.

Not getting it. Monsters are monsters. If they want an NPC in an AP to have the effects of spell A, Spell B and Spell C, they can, at this point, say they have them. Pre-buffing won't be a thing they have to worry about.

Heck, an NPC spellcaster might have a special one action move that they can do and a huge burst of sparkles happens as an array of things happens to them.

How balanced will it be? That's a different thing and up to the adventure designer, but saying you can't do it is silly.

magnuskn wrote:

graystone wrote:

kpulv wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.

I'm surprised there aren't more. My group broke up after the second part: the general replies were that no one had any fun and it was painful to play. These were all people that played pathfinder before and knew it was a playtest. For myself, I haven't been in a rush to find a new group as I too didn't have a good time.

There have been dozens of people at the start of the playtest who posted just once to say that they think that the new rules suck and then stopped posting. Make of that what you will.

That's just wrong. There definitely weren't "dozens" of people who just said the rules were bad. Why would you make that up?

There has been a marked number of new accounts showing up and participating. I absolutely hope that they are new players or non-forum using players who have been brought in by the playtest. I fear they may be something else.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

graystone wrote:

kpulv wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.

I'm surprised there aren't more.

People are actively being discouraged from posting such experiences by getting replies along the lines of "playtesting is hard", "playtesting isn't for everyone" and "playtesting isn't meant to be fun".

Could you provide examples?

Perfect semi-illustration.

Helps nothing.

Dire Ursus wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

graystone wrote:

kpulv wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.

I'm surprised there aren't more. My group broke up after the second part: the general replies were that no one had any fun and it was painful to play. These were all people that played pathfinder before and knew it was a playtest. For myself, I haven't been in a rush to find a new group as I too didn't have a good time.

There have been dozens of people at the start of the playtest who posted just once to say that they think that the new rules suck and then stopped posting. Make of that what you will.

That's just wrong. There definitely weren't "dozens" of people who just said the rules were bad. Why would you make that up?

There has been a marked number of new accounts showing up and participating. I absolutely hope that they are new players or non-forum using players who have been brought in by the playtest. I fear they may be something else.

That would be horrendous, sock-puppetry used to "confirm" one's opinions is nasty stuff. Got some of that garbage in 2008 for awhile, and then 2012-2015 (the WotC boards became a hellhole before they ended).

*stares*

Of course the goals aren't met. Nothing's finished. Why assume that they are saying mission accomplished?

*stares*

Total.

Zaister wrote:

The Archive wrote:

Like... regardless of I think of PF2 as is, I can only think of perhaps one or two PF1 games out of many that would have been at all similar using PF2. And that's including APs. The same stories just cannot be told.

Can you name an example of a Pathfinder AP story that cannot be told with the Pathfinder Playtest rules?

Rise of the Runelords. Not only is pre buffing not nearly as much of a thing as it was in PF1 (and many of the bosses in RotR rely heavily on pre buffing), but also they'll be far less threatening using so many of their actions to concentrate on maintaining their buffs (the absolute minute duration cap on many will also be very limiting to them). Summon Monsters now require an action to command or just stand around doing nothing, so they're not nearly as useful to provide quick minions. Spells per day being reduced will also reduce their threat. Basically, a fellow like 'Karzie' is the epitome of the sort of epic heights of power PF1 allowed. PF2 playtest allows competence.

"Caster's can't pre-buff" isn't the same as "caster encounters can't work." Have you actually tried to see whether a PF2 version of Karzoug, built as a PC, would even need to pre-buff? (To be clear: I have not performed this experiment. I'm just asking if you have either.)

Yes, you can hand wave all of that, give them enemy only spells that work completely differently, and otherwise allow them to break the rules, but by breaking the system to make things work you're only proving that PF2 currently can't tell those kinds of stories.

Well, the NPC approach is going to be completely different from PC character building anyway, so to a certain extent this is a moot point. The playtest clearly approaches adventure design from a very different perspective, which would mean that an actual PF2 conversion would more or less sidestep this entire question.

I suppose new accounts after banning isn’t the same as sock puppetry.

Data Lore wrote:

I forgot General so I tacked that one on. I don't mind the General and the Class ones both being called feats.

Edit: Hmm, maybe General Talent and Skill Trick?

So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

If you say that having "X feat" is confusing and you want to replace "feat" by "Y", then saying "X Y" instead merely "Y" is just increasing word count.

I think "Class X", "Ancestral Y", and "Skill Z" is useful, even if X, Y, and Z are all different, because the modifier indicates what the ability relates to. But "General W" is not useful, and should just be "W".

I would go with Class Ability, Feat, Ancestral Trait, and Skill Trick. Other than "trick", these terms tie back into their PF1e meanings.

I had a group of players give up but largely due to Roll20 having a very poor spells implementation on the character sheet (and partly due to toxic players; its very hard to get a good group going online - especially for a playtest).

My attempts on Fantasy Grounds have gone better (starting another run through Doomsday Dawn, by the way, to any that are interested) thanks in large part to the platform just being better suited for tracking all the PF2 modifiers and not suffering speed issues on character sheet spells.

Honestly, where I think both my groups have stumbled is the adventures. The playtest adventures just aren't as fun as you would expect from a top shelf product. I have played parts one through three. One was fun, two was very bad, and three is OK. Also, you have to make characters way too often. Its an impediment to play.

I remember when DnDNext was in playtesting, they released actual converted modules for people to play. Like Isle of Dread, Caves of Chaos, Reclaiming Blingdenstone, The Mud Sorcerer’s Tomb and so on (and also conversion notes to other stuff). Paizo should consider putting out some conversions of longer adventures for people to really take this thing out for a spin and have some real fun doing it.

I suppose new accounts after banning isn’t the same as sock puppetry.

Keh keh keh keh.

That's why if PF2e can loosen up Class Feats (sort them into larger level brackets, for example) and make general feats more impactful (by introducing combat feats), I think PF2e will be well positioned to hit most of the good points of PF1e *and* provide skill customization through skill feats too.

Honestly? I wonder why they need to keep things level locked at all.

Instead of having level locked to such a significant degree, why can't they just have the feats in four different tiers... lets called the 'Trained', 'Expert', 'Master' and 'Legendary'. With the all the feats in the same tier being about the same level in power as each other, giving you greater diversity and options as you level up, until you unlock the next tier in feats, and can select from them instead?

Not sure whenever or not the lower-tier feats should have some form of auto-progression through.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

If I wanted to, say, create an archetype that was all about fighting with a two handed weapon effectively, I could do so in a way that it packages all the pieces you would need to build that character in one tidy place, one that could then be taken by everyone. The old system allowed us to do this.. kinda, but it was all over the place, and was easily seen as bloat, especially as the years went on.

But that would be cool. A two-handed weapon archetype that any class (yes any class) could take (along with bowmen archetypes, sword and board archetypes, one-handed archetypes, etc) would be higher in flexibility and customization and allow you to fix the stuff that "all over the place". This was a paladin would be a warrior for a patron god. If that god likes backstabbing dagger wielders, he isn't locked into heavy armor, sword, and shield native to the current class. The ranger becomes an outdoorsman. Whether that involves bows or dual-wielding or just a big ol' greataxe is up to the player, not the class designer.

First, let me say that I LOVE the general concept and setup of the Archetype. In my opinion, this could be the best way to branch outside of your chosen class in any class-based game I have played.

That said, generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype. It is perfectly OK for an Archetype to feature a single combat style (Cavalier and Mounted Combat, for example). But the Archetype should be about something else primarily. The Gray Maiden is a great example, there is definitely a strong element of the armor, but there is equal focus on other forms of hardiness. As an example of close, but not great, there are some things about the Cavalier I think ought to be adjusted due to this (despite the root word meaning horseman, it certainly has not connotated only Cavalry for some time). First, Cavalier's Banner should not require a mount. Second, he should get some kind of Team rallying/buffing power set to Level 6 in the line of Tactician from the PF1 class (and probably an advanced version at level 10). Cavalier also heavily connotes exhorting allies to their cause. I would expect Cavaliers to generally focus on Mounted combat, but having abilities outside of that is vital to the Archetype.

I think the system already does a decent job supporting most generic combat styles with Zero investment as is. If it does not, then that should be fixed. Two-hander vs. Two Weapon vs Sword and Board vs Single blade (axe, hammer) vs Polearm vs Archery vs Thrown should all be equally viable without any investment of a feat (obviously they will not be equal, but the trade-offs should work out to equally viable characters). If any one of those styles stands well above or below the others at the base, that should be examined really close before deciding it is acceptable.

As far as Feat names. I like Skill Feats. I like General Feats. Class Feats is OK, but part of me thinks maybe they should be called Core Abilities or Core Feats. Core sounds like something that would work for both Class Abilities and Archetype Abilities. Core also denotes importance, which could help with our innate understanding they are likely more powerful.

I am ambivalent on the Ancestry thing. I am not a fan of the current implementation, likely mostly due to not feeling Elven or Dwarven enough at level 1. Trait does sound better in my ears. Feat doesn't really work for me with Ancestry. OTOH, this is not a big issue to me.

PF2 Archetyping is such a great concept, I just hope it gets implemented well. I do believe for the system to work all Main Classes need to have the same number of Core Feats (trying the term out to hear it more). I am a huge fan of customizable parts, so the more the merrier for me, but I understand that some of the stated goals are at odds with each other (customization vs simplicity vs balance). A Core Ability every level, that could be swapped between the Main Class and one or more Archetypes would likely be my personal favorite, but I think I could deal with the 11 most classes get (how about 14? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18).

And I like Core Ability best I think.

I'm in strong agreement with StratoNexus, with the exception that I really hope there are ways to distinguish your character as "good with a specific fighting style" that doesn't require me to sacrifice key components of my class.

A character being good with every martial weapon, and just happening to pick up and use a bow doesn't fulfill my fantasy of "That person is an archer!". No, they're just a schmuck with a bow. A dedicated archer can do cool stuff with a bow that others can't.

So I'd like it if we could have a way to get all the cool class stuff and customize our fighting style.

Yes, as often in life, it comes down to balance.

"Nonsense! Balance? There has never been balance. If anything we shall remove all balance!"

- Ulyaoth, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem

Honestly? I wonder why they need to keep things level locked at all.

Instead of having level locked to such a significant degree, why can't they just have the feats in four different tiers... lets called the 'Trained', 'Expert', 'Master' and 'Legendary'. With the all the feats in the same tier being about the same level in power as each other, giving you greater diversity and options as you level up, until you unlock the next tier in feats, and can select from them instead?

Not sure whenever or not the lower-tier feats should have some form of auto-progression through.

I really like this idea! My suggestion was going to be open up the feats to more classes but let some classes pick them earlier (e.g. Rogue and Ranger can pick Quick Draw at lower level than anyone else).

But tying the feats to the proficiency system really brings things together, in my opinion.

Naw, I prefer the level locked feats to "tiers". They work better with M/C archetypes and they make it easier for developers introduce level appropriate abilities at the appropriate level.

True - but I confess that I am much less concerned about what's easy for game developers and rather more interested in a game that's actually fun to play and lets me build the character concepts I want.

I'm in strong agreement with StratoNexus, with the exception that I really hope there are ways to distinguish your character as "good with a specific fighting style" that doesn't require me to sacrifice key components of my class.

A character being good with every martial weapon, and just happening to pick up and use a bow doesn't fulfill my fantasy of "That person is an archer!". No, they're just a schmuck with a bow. A dedicated archer can do cool stuff with a bow that others can't.

So I'd like it if we could have a way to get all the cool class stuff and customize our fighting style.

I should say that I do agree you should be able to become even better with your preferred style. But it has to be approached carefully. As soon as an option exists to enhance a combat style, that option might become required to even consider using that style.

That said, I have seen a fair number of folks decry that you can't even consider playing X class without having the primary stat at 18, while I have found you can do fine with a 16 in the primary stat of most classes (likely all classes, but I haven't fully tested everything yet).

And because I can't help it, switching Stat Bumps to 3 increases at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 allows someone who starts at a 16 or 18 in a stat to end up in the same place. Just one more benefit to that Stat Bump layout.

That said, generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype. It is perfectly OK for an Archetype to feature a single combat style (Cavalier and Mounted Combat, for example). But the Archetype should be about something else primarily.

Spot on. While I wouldn't say "never," the archetypes should represent a change in the thematic/fundamental approach of the class, not a change in the combat mechanic. The core ranger should include spells, a companion, and focus on tracking. Archetypes can swap out spells, tracking, companions for something that puts the emphasis on one of those same things. But all of them should be able to decide whether they use a bow, weapon and shield, or two-hander, with roughly the same effectiveness.

I suppose new accounts after banning isn’t the same as sock puppetry.

"...the lady doth protest too much..." comes to mind.

Hence why I said it was a fear.

Presumably the longer it goes the more straw polls will deliver positive results.

Given the math background of some of the devs, I would assume they are well aware of statistical methods of taking in account varying sample size. If there is a significant drop off and the drop off is correlated with negative reports, that is meaningful data after all.

In PF1, there were lots of character ideas that people new to the game would have ideas like:

"I want to make a knife-throwing Inquisitor!"

"I want to make a crossbow-focused Rogue, who assassinates people using distinctive red-shafted bolts!"

"I want to make an Gnomish fighter who pretends to be a child with a toy sling, but who can rain deadly fire down once combat starts!"

And as DM, I'd have to sigh, pull them aside, and give them The Talk: I'd have to tell them that if they want this build to do well, they need to carefully plan out their feat choices for the next nine levels, and should be prepared to be largely ineffective until they get there.

It would be great if I didn't have to do this in PF2. Unfortunately, the current Playtest rules do not seem to be an improvement in this regard. But I'm hopeful that some further updates down the line will change this!