This is the question I want to take the time to answer. I will do my best to format this post in a way that is easy to read and fulfills its purpose. Some of these issues and solutions stem from my own frustrations, others come from frustrations of my players. You (players, GMs, and designers) may not agree with everything I have on this list, but as far as I can tell they address theming or design issues I have with the game in its current iteration. Without further ado:
1. Resonance and Magic Items
Honestly, I love the resonance system as a concept, but there are major flaws in its implementation that I wish to see ironed out before the final game. Most of it comes down to the need to track multiple resource pools unnecessarily.
a. Consumables and charge based magical items no longer cost resonance
- Alchemical Consumables Still Cost Resonance (see below with the alchemist)
Problem: The usage of consumable magic items exacts a double toll on its users. The user must spend resonance to activate it, and spend irretrievable gold to acquire it.
Wands no longer have charges (and as such should maybe cost more)
Problem: The resonance system offers a way for the system to move away from having to track the charge levels of individual items by and large. For the purpose of healing, a wand of heal (2) heals 3 times as much per resonance point as a wand of heal (1). Players should need no further incentive to invest in the stronger item at that point. I believe the charges are wholly superfluous.
Staves can be invested in multiple times per day, (and now takes 10 minutes?)
- Casting from a staff still costs both resonance and charges (they are the sole exception to the rule about charges)
- There is now room for a staff user's feat -- Staff Savant: You can charge a staff with 3 actions.
Problem: When comparing and contrasting wands and staves, there are three major differences:
- Staves must first be invested to be used, as such they cost more.
- Staves are flexible, they contain multiple spells.
- Wands are unlimited in their uses per day (so long as you have resonance and sufficient charges or better yet charges are removed from them)
So, the main draw of staves is they're flexible, but the main cost is the increased resonance point cost to use them and the day-long downtime between recharging them. But is there any benefit to this time restriction? I'd argue that if a user has resonance and an hour (or 10 minutes, or whatever) to spare, they should be able to invest again to use their staff further.
Now, you may be wondering why I want to remove charges from wands but not staves. Well, the staff charge system serves a major purpose in my view: First, it increases the opportunity cost of staves, and second it leaves in a system for managing multiple different spells of varying levels within the same item while keeping the same resonance point cost. Is it perfect? No. But I like the implementation myself.
Resonance is now flat 3+level instead of cha+level
- Alchemists still add int to their resonance pool
Problem: It appears resonance is this universally useful tool, yet aside from the fact that pathfinder 1 had use magic device as a charisma skill, there's little reason for it to be tied to charisma (other than perhaps that charisma should be more useful). I could go either way on this one, except for that alchemists should add their intelligence to their pool, not simply substitute the other bonus.
Trinkets are no longer consumable and their cost increases appropriately (becoming the “permanent level 1 magic item” which no one can seem to find)
Problem: Trinkets... are a neat idea I guess. The problem I find is the combination of them being consumable, being expensive for a level one player but being useless beyond that point makes me wonder if they would be better employed as permanent items, like weaker versions of higher level items. Consider, the potency crystal. In RAW, for one resonance, you can activate it as a free action for 2gp to get a single strike in where that weapon is enhanced to a +1 weapon. If, however, the player spent 50% more money for a scroll of magic weapon and handed it to a wizard, they'd get a potential 10-30 more strikes out of that gold. The difference is staggering. Trinkets could remain the level 1 boon they are but simply not be consumed on use. They're still hugely expensive per resonance, but in this way they'd be attractive.
The vast majority of items which have an activate action with a limit of “once per day” no longer have that restriction.
Problem: Again, we see the resonance system existing alongside another system of tracking which we shouldn't need. Again, I love resonance, so let me use it! Is it really game breaking to be able to use the Cape of the Mountebank (for example) multiple times a day? As a GM, "Hey, it's your level 11 magical artifact!" -- I'd remove this restriction.
2. Spell Points
Oof. Now that we have the big one out of the way, let's hit this fairly small one. First, a lot of powers seem pretty weak generally. I'd like to see their effectiveness normalized at least a little (buffed generally, I'd hope). That's a bigger problem than I can house rule though, and something that I consider more of a content issue than a foundational issue. Instead I'll focus on a bit more of a glaring issue.
- You gain power points equal to key ability modifier plus level/2
- Additional powers do not increase pool
Problem: With powers generally being as weak as they are, and spell points being as scarce as they are, one starts to question why the system is there in the first place. At the very least, players should be gaining spell points as they level.
Side note: Further down, I have some editorial suggestions about spell points and powers.
3. Feats
The purpose of this section is to address the concerns of myself and my players who feel their options are too limited in their build craft, particularly at lower levels. This is especially potent from players of Pathfinder 1E, who feel that their options are greatly reduced from what they had before even with similar builds (like a mostly-core level 16 paladin). These adjustments broaden those horizons some while hopefully not causing uncalled for player power creep.
You gain an additional class feat at level 1 and every 3 levels after (4, 7 etc)
Problem: In PF1, classes gained access to many flavorful class features. In PF2, many of these appear to be moved out into feats (which I think is very fun!)
The problem seems to be that in PF2, all characters gain a feat every other level but get fewer class features. This hurts the fighter most of all, as they went from some features and a feat almost every level to about the same amount of features (plus flexibility) and a feat every other level.
With multiclasses and prestige classes being feats now, the problem is exacerbated, where cool builds don't open up until really late, most notably the theurge (caster with 2 spell lists).
1 more feat per 3 levels will help here, without massively buffing PC power (and thus forcing a rebalance of the entire system).
The numbers could be tweaked, certainly. Perhaps 1 feat at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 instead. The point is I think more class feats are called for.
You now begin play with 2 ancestry feats at level 1
Problem: A lot of ink has been spilled here so I'll be brief. Half-Orc/Elf feats feel weird because options don't open up until much later. Feels odd that you'd only unlock feats of your own blood and ancestry until you're several levels into your adventuring career.
All classes gain access to the following feats as class feats
- General Focus -- You gain a general feat
- Skill Focus -- You gain a skill feat
- Skill Training -- You gain a skill increase
Problem: 9 times out of 10, these skill feats and general feats are not as good compared to a class feat, but sometimes taking one opens up build options which would be otherwise unavailable until much later due to the slower rollout of these general feats. Or maybe you just wanna take hefty hauler at level 1.
4. Skills
Get ready. Most of this section stems from perhaps a sense of unmet expectations. The idea of "trained skill unlocks" was very exciting to me, and so I was pretty disappointed to see that so few of them got impactful, exciting unlocks. I'll lay out a list of feats which I believe should become trained skill unlocks, but won't go into detail on most of them. Those that didn't get an addition were ones which I felt didn't need it.
Several skill feats have become trained skill unlocks. (Recognize Spell, battle medic, etc) -- Backgrounds that would have granted this feat now grant a different feat
- Acrobatics -- Cat Fall
- Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion -- Recognize Spell
- Athletics -- Quick Jump
- Crafting -- Quick Repair
- Deception -- None Sidenote: Ya'll feint is really good. Read that business.
- Diplomacy -- Hobnobber
- Intimidation -- Intimidating Glare
- Lore -- ??? Sidenote: I'm not really sure what purpose lore serves in the game at this stage. I don't know how to approach it as a GM, and I don't know why I would want it as a player (unless the adventure told my GM to tell me to take it.)
- Medicine -- Battle Medic Sidenote: Nonmagical healing is so exceedingly rare, despite it being needed more than ever that gating this ability off behind a feat feels really strange.
- Performance -- Fascinating Performance
- Society -- Sign Language
- Stealth -- Experienced Smuggler
- Survival -- None
- Thievery -- None
All classes gain 2 floating signature skill selections
Problem: Many of my players have complained to me about not being able to select skills as signature that they would like to be able to use. They question why their class should entirely dictate what skills they can master or become legendary in.
5. Spells
The difference in power for any caster between PF1 and PF2 is stark. Again, the underlying systems I think are great, but the initial content pass on the playtest spells combined with the reduced meaning of what "full spell progression" is too much. I have some minor suggestions for at least addressing some easy problems.
Spells per day progression goes from 0 to 2 to 4 instead of 0 to 2 to 3 (+1 for sorcerer)
Problem: At the very least, it's odd that every other level one gains access to one fewer spell. The reduction in the amount of spells which can be prepared per level down to 3 is again in stark contrast from the 6 or 7 one could prepare from PF1e. Now, I'll agree that casters were far better than martials in 1e as the next guy, but again I think this is too far.
Sorcerers can heighten lower level spells spontaneously without knowing the higher level variant
Problem: The fact that sorcerers have to learn the higher level variant just feels like a slap in the face to a class that historically has been the weaker cousin to its prepared counterpart. I'd remove this restriction.
More Heightening
It's a cool concept, but it'd be a shame to see all these core, staple spells not gain heightening capabilities and fall by the wayside as splatbooks come in full of heightening capabilities. Not all of them need heightening, mind, but there are a number of easy ones, like magic weapon! (example: Heighten +2, increase the potency by another +1)
6. Classes
I'll only be able to comment on classes I've been exposed to so far. This means: No druids, no barbs, no rangers. That said, I'll do my best with what I have.
Sidenote: Clerics. Clerics are really good. But I don't think they're *too* good, I just think their relative strength is indicative of a larger problem. I think rather than bumping the cleric down, the healing capability of any party should be increased, whether that's by reducing access to non-magical healing options, giving druids and other casters better access to healing abilities (better goodberries with the above spell point change, perhaps?), and/or increasing the availability of healing via magic items. This could also perhaps be solved with this "healing surge" system I've heard about from dnd5e, or the stamina system from starfinder. I'm down for anything!
Alchemist
- Items with the infused trait do not cost resonance to use for anyone.
- Items made from the quick alchemy feat remain usable until the next time the alchemist does their daily preparation (or at the same time as advanced alchemy items becoming inert)
Problem: Consider, the alchemist as a support. A supportive alchemist is hardly any more than a drain on their party's resources. The cleric need not use its ally's resonance when healing, nor need the wizard do the same when applying haste. Why then should the alchemist, who spent their own resonance creating these alchemical items, force their allies to spend yet more resonance to use them? It's a strange situation which makes the class at the very least seem unwelcome in the group.
Further, the efficient alchemy feature allows an alchemist at preparation to make items at double the efficiency per resonance than quick alchemy. Therefore, holding your resonance to use it for quick alchemy is for those emergency situations where you "have just the thing for this" and you'll whip it up. The extremely limited duration by which that item is usable makes for annoying action economy management, especially when trying to make something like an antidote.
Wizard
- The wand from makeshift wand feat has 3 charges but costs no resonance to use
(This one mostly just keeps up with the above changes to wands)
Monk
- Monastic Weaponry is a level 1 free class feature
Problem: Most monk weapons are at best "okay", gating them behind a feat makes the option completely unattractive.
Sorcerer
- Bloodline powers are now optional (they become feats which can be selected, with appropriate prerequisites)
Problem: Much ink has been spilled here as well, so I will simply offer my +1 to this minor change.
7. Actions
Last, but not least in my house rules is actions. Where I have one minor change:
The interact action allows the character to interact once with each hand (sheathe 2 weapons, draw a weapon and open a door, etc)
Problem: As one of my players walked through the dungeon with 2 hands free, he looked at me in confusion when I said he had to spend 2 actions to draw both of his weapons. This seemed strange to both of us. You have 2 hands, and 2 weapons, just pull both of them out at once!
That's all for now! Later I'll do a post on what I perceive as severe core content problems and some editorial changes which should make the rule book easier to navigate.
