I didn't come here to validate my own interpretation of what I read. I don't have to do that and I don't owe that to any of you. Frankly you should all be ashamed for trying to lessen the experience of someone just because you don't agree with it or share it.
Speaking as an agnostic atheist, a non-straight person, and a racial minority (and also presumptuously speaking for everyone else in this topic whether they like it or not, dohoho), no one here is trying to do that.
But could you please elaborate further on exactly what caused those feelings? It seems that you've confused everyone who's replied in this thread. Perhaps quote the passage and say what you think it implies?
This thread does seem a bit silly. Especially this part:
One could reasonably interpret that non-religious characters are against the rules.
It very explicitly says that non-religious people do exist. But then you follow up later with:
In the same way that before this edition one could reasonably assume nonbinary characters are against the rules.
Lack of explicit inclusion has never implied explicit exclusion when it comes to non-mechanical character traits. Aspects of personality, beliefs, identity, psychological and physiological nature (aside from, perhaps, racial options) have always been open to the player. And I really do hate to have to tell you this (and please do not read this as any sort of endorsement of this behavior), but any GM that would reject your nonbinary characters before could still do so today (outside of organized play, like PFS). Rule 0 and all that. I will always recommend finding a table that suits you and is not hostile toward you.
All the book is saying with regards to those who are non-religious is that they will meet a possibly unsavory end. In this particular instance, non-religious characters are explicitly part of the rules. That you are unhappy with the fact that the powers that be in the universe don't enjoy that idea isn't an issue you take with the rules, but with the implications of the setting. That is unless I am misunderstanding your arguments.
What changes is that you now have 2 higher standard currency denominations (GP and PP) instead of just 1 (PP). It allows for much friendlier numbers on price tags when you can condense the price 100 times instead of just 10. So that 1000sp cloak can be bought with 100gp or 10pp, where before the lowest you could condense would be 100pp.
I could not agree more strongly, and this is the direction I thought they were going with Legendary proficiencies and such. Basically that mundane characters of a certain skill level are, for all intents and purposes, magical in all but technicality, like many mythological heroes.
Not only do I think so, I would actively encourage it. Creative use of resources is rewarding for everyone at the table except railroading GMs.
Know what else can have huge narrative powers? Pickpocketing a key. Or slashing a painting with a knife. Or spreading a lie. Or any number of an infinite set of options that require zero resource investment whatsoever.
Also, I'm in general agreement with this topic. Looking through the entire thing, there is nothing that I find exciting. Even a little. I like some of the systems (actions, etc.), but nothing fills me with wonder or "wouldn't this be fun!"
It seems they went sooo hard on balance and trying to stamp out every little possible exploit that they ended up needlessly screwing things that are just plain fun (Prestidigitation and Unseen Servant come to mind).
GM G Klein wrote:
...? D&D is booming, right now. Unless I missed something.
Klart McCather wrote:
Speaking of closed-mindedness...
It would be extremely dishonest to imply that the majority of complaints here stem from fear of change. I also see posts around that discount people's opinions because they think people are upset they won't have access to a decade of content. I see that claim more often than the actual complaint.
And, even if some people are upset because of change...so what? "You can't judge this system on the merits of the old system" is basically saying "using an external reference point for what works and what doesn't is invalid."
Weirdly enough, it doesn't seem like it's the notion of welcoming and kindness that turns people away. Seems more like it's being told to be welcoming and kind.
Which is ridiculous. Identifying something that you flat-out know should take no time (and certainly not conscious effort). If someone starts singing the words "o say, can you see", not only do I identify that they've begun singing the Star-Spangled Banner (US national anthem), but I quite literally have no choice in the matter. My mind will identify it whether or not I choose to make the effort.
The same goes for any incantation you may know well. Or hand gestures, or formation of frost on their fingertips.
An action makes sense for recalling details. It does not make sense for strict identification of something that does not need to be closely examined.
The nature of complaints I see popping up a lot here boil down to "This class can't do whatever I want it to do." I mean, seriously? That's kind of the entire point of a class-based system. Different classes play differently. One of my biggest complaints of PF1 was that it got to the point where I felt like my class wasn't actually doing enough to distinguish my character. They had a couple unique gimmicks, sure, but a witch I made didn't feel fundamentally distinct enough from an Enchanter or a Fey Sorcerer. When someone comes out and says "I want X class to be able to do whatever I want," I have to wonder to myself why they're even playing Pathfinder instead of a system that uses build points to create characters, or maybe an STG.
This is such a blatant misinterpretation of people's arguments that I can only assume it is willful and in bad faith.
Please, go make a light armor fighter. Or a ranger with a two hander. Or a rogue with a spear.
These are not "I want to do whatever I want" requests. These are "why does a master of weapons and armor not get any bonuses to 2/3 of the armor choices as options when that used to be a thing they could do?" Or "why can I not take a general combat feat to use a two hander better?" Or "why can I not sneak attack with a weapon that has been used in sneak attacks for all of history?"
These are basic, basic things. SO MANY complaints would be resolved if there were just more general feats, and class feats were used specifically for things that make a class special and unique (animal companions, channeling energy, etc.).
The more I read, the more I'm convinced that there is simply no way for character creation/progression to be meaningful or even fun without them making a TON of feats universal, rather than class-locked. And, in addition to that, adding in feats that just don't exist for whatever reason. For instance, why is Double Slice locked behind only Ranger and Fighter? Why, as a Ranger, can I not take feats to improve two-handed weapons without multiclassing? Why, as a fighter, can I not improve light armor? Why, as anything, am I limited in which skills I can max out, provided I'm willing to invest so much into them?
It feels like every class has been shoved into a tiny box. And in this tiny box, they've disassembled the classes into feats and called it "freedom of choice." It's totally cool if only rangers and druids can get animal companions, or clerics getting channeling, because these are central themes of the class. What is not cool is that you can't actually deviate from the class, all while being told that the modular system is somehow freeing.
Whether or not crossbows are generally worse than bows is not the issue. The issue is that there is no crossbow option in any form (feat, martial weapon, or otherwise) that makes them in any way competitive in any form at all. Hell, with the new cantrips, they don't even qualify as a wizard fallback, anymore.
Flavor-wise, crossbows are an excellent option to have. However, they need to at least have some mechanical relevance. Whether that's feats to make them work (there is currently no rapid reload) or a martial option, something should exist.
Matthew Downie wrote:
As someone who intends to play a non-Druid scout, it shouldn't matter. Being able to turn into animals for extended durations is core to the class's identity.
Balance on the sheet isn't worth gutting RP.
Crossbows were quite literally the first thing I checked. Not only is there still no martial option, they're straight up worse than bows in every conceivable way but range, and there is no quick reload feat.
Of all of the things that could be done with crossbows, "nerf them" is what Paizo went with?
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Right, so your definition of "flexible" is "more choices." Then PF2 is definitively less flexible for you. This is the gap that can't be bridged.
The rest of us (by which I mean the seeming majority in this topic) look at it and see "Wow, I can make a bunch of class combos that would've been absolute hot garbage in PF1!" You're looking at flexibility of options. We're looking at flexibility of viability.
John, is your definition of "flexible" something like "I technically have to ability to make a character with 10 classes of 2 levels each that is awful at absolutely everything it sets out to do"?
If it is, there's a fundamental disconnect in how you and everyone else understands flexibility, and it's a bridge that can't be gapped.
EDIT: "bridge that can't be gapped"? lol whoops
Because classes are more than the sum of their parts, and removing them entirely would frighten away both new players (due to learning curve/complexity) and old players (due to loss of brand identity/game feel).
A Ninja Errant wrote:
It sure looks like a conflict problem to me. If left as is you'll see a lot less non-multiclass archetypes in play simply because taking them has actually become a fairly major sacrifice, and if the pirate is anything to go on, they kind of aren't that good. They certainly don't appear to be any competition for multiclass archetypes. Somehow I don't see bonuses to boarding actions competing with spellcasting levels regardless of how much time you spend on ships. Personally, I feel like that's a major loss to the game.
This is a really solid take. Multiclassing and other archetypes shouldn't be competing with one another unless they're legitimately comparable. And if the archetypes are going to be as good as multiclassing, why not just make them into full classes with their own MC Dedications?
Granted, with what we've seen of pirate, archetypes are probably better off just being onesie-twosie feats, rather than dedicated packages.
I was referring to this:
Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the wizard archetype.
You can only dip into a single class, because trying to dip into another class requires 3 feats in the first.
While I like the system overall, I do hope that the multiclassing requirements are relaxed a bit. The dedication feat requirements make it so that dipping into more than a single class is impossible, either way, which I think is probably restriction enough.
As it stands here, if you want a fighter that happens to have buffing cleric spells, it might be more economical to go 10 Wisdom Cleric and dump all feats into Fighter MC than it is to go Fighter and be forced to meet these ability score requirements.
N N 959 wrote:
It's not the people that benefit from broken things who will complain (typically). It's the GMs whose game has been made ridiculous and the weaker players who feel overshadowed.
Do you really think this absurd reductionism makes a point? Or contributes to the discussion in any meaningful (not to mention mature) way?
Obviously ancestry choices matter to a build, such as the aforementioned half-elf for weapon proficiency. The post in question implied that half-races are only good for mechanical purposes.
Agreed. I don't know where the notion of "you don't take half heritage feats just to say 'I'm a ...'" would even come from. Munchkins who treat every character decision as a means to power are actually rarer than people think, in my experience.
I pick half-races (they're actually my favorite) because I feel they make for interesting backgrounds and RP opportunities.
Almost all of them are dragon/extraplanar/otherwise very magical.