Ephialtes's page

42 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Yet another vaporware project. Glad I didn't Kickstart it. ; )

The KS creator is currently reworking the system using a three sided die. On a 1 it is a success, on a 2 it is a failure and on a 3 reroll.

Soon the KS project will be relaunched and I will back the $250 Platin Box pledge.


Zoopshab wrote:

Dnd 5e already exists. What does a player think of when they hear 5e. Thats the tabletop RPG thats easy to learn and flows quickly.

What do players think of they hear Pathfinder? Thats the tabletop RPG that's really complex and in-depth when you learn its ruleset.

Trying to make your game more like 5e leaves you no market advantage. And abandons the niche you already have.

You are going completely in the wrong direction. You should be preserving what you already have and adding to your in-depth complexity. Consolidating the FAQ issues and re-release with cleaned up ruling, ammendments and retractions. You already have the FAQ as a base that has done so much work already.

Dnd 5e is already a strong product that was first to market. You aren't entering the market in the same condition where 4e was released. You are going to make yourselfs into a second rate also-ran.

First, 5e might be easy to learn, but only because it is significantly dumbed down. I played a lot of 5e and got bored by this oversimplification so especially the PF2 playtest appealed to me because it is not that bloated than PF1 but if at all it is definitely not 5e.

And face it, PF1 is a product for 3.5 enthusiasts. This is a dwindling number of players. If Paizo stays in this niche they will suffer and they know it. Thus a PF2 to streamline what many love in 3.5 but also make it moore accessible to new players is a very reasonable motivator. Those new players who won't be appealed by PF1 might see PF2 as a sophisticated alternative.
So personally, PF2 appeals to me strongly and in my case I will happily leave 5e for PF2.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:

The have been countless threads on this forum about issues with the +1/level system. And every time it comes up, well-meaning people suggest replacing it with +1/2 levels, or removing it entirely. I don't believe that this will achieve anything meaningful.

...

Count myself to the "countless" supporters of +1/level.

I mean, by all means, critisizm is all good and fine, but why do people always have to exxagerate and present their cause like the overwhelming majority supports their case, what's not the case in this +1/level discussion at all. Many actually like this mechanic.
So please peeps, if you have an issue with a mechanic you personally don't like do not pretend to speak for everybody or for the majority of players. Thanks.

Like "countless" other posters already pointed out is, PF is high fantasy. If I play a 10th level char, I want the Conan/Lord of the Rings feeling to be able to wade though masses of level 1 critters.
And the lack of this feeling is actually one of my biggest issues with 5th ed, where a group of 1st level cobolds are able to beat up a 10th level char pretty badly. That's no heroic feeling and that issue is addressed by +1/level in PF2 pretty elegantly.

And regarding skills, 1st complicate tasks can still be gated behind the difficulty rank and +1/level on skills, and 2nd even if you never put a rank in them at least it shows that by experience your character has witnessed the utilization of skills by watching others (or was forced to do those tasks himself) utilizing them on "countless" occasions that there is a kind of familarity even if he never trained them. Here again +1/level is a very elegant way.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yet another "group is out" lamentation thread. You are entitled to critisism, please share your experiences with us here in these forums. But must it always be so overly dramatic? This is truly getting boring.
Hopefully you mentioned your points of critics in the surveys as well.


dmerceless wrote:
For me it is the old Vancian casting system. I'd 1000 times rather have Arcanist casting for evey caster, or at the very least have something like Quick Preparation for everyone, and give current spontaneous casters other advantages instead.

100% agree!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Easy solution would be to use spellpoint pools for casting. Casting spells on level one costs one point, on level two two points and so on.
A 9th level wizard would have 40 spell points. This pool would be his "energy" he is capable to use on spells that day.
So if he prepared a subset of spells instead of fixed spells per spell slots, he just could decide which spell he could cast at which heightened level as often as he has spell points left.
So if he both prepared burning hands and fireball, he still could decide situational which of those two spells he would cast with how many spellpoints (meaning if heightened or not).


As the subject indicates, I want to run the lost star for my wife and son. Every encounter is very easy to scale thanks to the tables in the bestiary. Just Drakkus does not fit into the tables, he is one level 3 creature. What can I do so that he not outrights slaughters the small party?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ephialtes wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

rather tend not to post in forums.

I think I lack the technical knowledge as well as knowledge of the market. The designers put it in for a reason, so it may well be that what I’m looking for is inconsistent with those reasons and that it should stay in, even if most don’t like it. I don’t think they should always act according to what the majority say they want - I believe in expertise and experts.

Irrespective, “this isn’t the game for you” is clearly premature, given that the designers are still asking us what we like or dislike about the playtest system.

If you imply it isn't a game for me just because +1/level might vanish I tell you that you err and are indeed premature. If +1/level doesn't make it into the final product but the remaining positive aspects overweigh, I will be still interested in PF2. I am not like some who would throw themselves on the ground thrash the floor pouting because not every single aspect caters to my will 100%.
Nope, not implying that. Fwiw, I think you should tell the designers you like it (via the surveys, if it ever comes up, but also in discussions like this one).

I did in the open surveys, indeed. And I will do so in discussions. To be honest, there have been a couple of points I was a staunch defender of in the past and reading others oppinions made me rethink some. At least I try to be open minded^^ I am very positive that the final product will benefit in the end from all those discussions.


GRuzom wrote:

"...If you are 10th level and never trained a certain skill you will nonetheless have encountered situations in where you watched others dealing with such or were forced to deal with them yourself. I would call it a kind of "overall experience" ..."

I see your reasoning and respect it, though that is not a game that I would want to GM, or be a player in. I've played in another system, where skills auto-scaled and disliked it intensely. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, but a question of liking/disliking certain kinds of food.

I've tasted that particular dish, and it was not for me.

If this is just the dessert that tasted a bit shallow, the main course still might be to your taste. :)

My main concern is actually resonance. The other aspects would be bearable to me. Of course if there were improvements in several minor aspects, the better for all of us.


My bet would be, the main focus (hihi, wordplay) is on resolving the resonance/focus point issue, it is after all a very large chunk which currently has deep roots in the system core (items, magic, feats, etc.) unlike any other aspect, that is debated right now.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:
+1/level was a BIG complaint from detractors of 4e.
4th Ed is +1/2 level.

I don't have the books anymore are you sure? Because I remember the complaints and being annoyed updating the sheets all the time. That's funny then, so + level would actually be worse.

I did just wake up so forgive me if I'm being insane.

EDIT: Oh yeah, you are right. Well I remember hating how everything just automatically advanced for no reason, so the point still stands. Auto-scaling skills is bad. To me d&d (and most great fantasy stories) has always been about overcoming weaknesses, this makes that much less of a thing and it makes me sad.

True, though it's easy enough to omit, that is what I did, and used the Inherent Bonus variant from the DMG2.

Did the same with SWSE; so, so far, the +1/2 or +Level deal has been a bit rubbish, in my d20 experience.

Funny. And yet SWSE was my most favorite D20 itteration and in those days it was my hope that 4e would develope in its direction (which it didn't to my disappointment).

After all it's a matter of subjective taste and not objective practicability.


GRuzom wrote:

This I can agree with 100%

Personally I dislike the +1/level, but I'm aware that some, probably a lot? like it.

I don't think the devs are going to drop the +1/level, but I hope so and saying so now, during the playtest, is the right time to do so - in a year, it's a take it or leave it situation.

:-)

I am excited about what the devs may have up their sleve. I like +1/level because it elevates higher level chars over minion opponents and standard situations. If you are 10th level and never trained a certain skill you will nonetheless have encountered situations in where you watched others dealing with such or were forced to deal with them yourself. I would call it a kind of "overall experience". But in the end modifying +1/level wouldn't probably be a hill to die upon for me, there is still too much I like about PF2.^^


GRuzom wrote:
Ephialtes wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

rather tend not to post in forums.

I think I lack the technical knowledge as well as knowledge of the market. The designers put it in for a reason, so it may well be that what I’m looking for is inconsistent with those reasons and that it should stay in, even if most don’t like it. I don’t think they should always act according to what the majority say they want - I believe in expertise and experts.

Irrespective, “this isn’t the game for you” is clearly premature, given that the designers are still asking us what we like or dislike about the playtest system.

If you imply it isn't a game for me just because +1/level might vanish I tell you that you err and are indeed premature. If +1/level doesn't make it into the final product but the remaining positive aspects overweigh, I will be still interested in PF2. I am not like some who would throw themselves on the ground thrash the floor pouting.

Steve Geddes didn't imply that ...

You infered it ...
I think - ?

I think not, it is this thought-terminating cliché critics blame supporters for of well, supporting certain rules/aspects. I support +1/level but would never infer that PF2 wouldn't be a game in total for the critics. I doubt there is any system that will fulfill every single expectation of any player. It's about if you can live with the subjective "shortcommings" or deem them deal-breakers.


Steve Geddes wrote:

rather tend not to post in forums.

I think I lack the technical knowledge as well as knowledge of the market. The designers put it in for a reason, so it may well be that what I’m looking for is inconsistent with those reasons and that it should stay in, even if most don’t like it. I don’t think they should always act according to what the majority say they want - I believe in expertise and experts.

Irrespective, “this isn’t the game for you” is clearly premature, given that the designers are still asking us what we like or dislike about the playtest system.

If you imply it isn't a game for me just because +1/level might vanish I tell you that you err and are indeed premature. If +1/level doesn't make it into the final product but the remaining positive aspects overweigh, I will be still interested in PF2. I am not like some who would throw themselves on the ground thrash the floor pouting because not every single aspect caters to my will 100%.


Steve Geddes wrote:
heretic wrote:
In all candour I find it almost impossible to be receptive to anyone who includes a “ if you don’t like this then this game isn’t for you etc.”.

Especially during a playtest where Paizo have said that everything is potentially up for change and they want to hear about what we do and don’t like. It’s premature to declare “this game isn’t for you”.

I don’t like +1/level more broadly than just this. However, the real problem for me is the way it applies to untrained skills my character has never attempted. I figure that distinction is worth bringing up to the design team.

The fans of +1/level may not be able to think of a way to reconcile the system as it currently stands with what I’m looking for. They may also think the cohort of people who share my opinion is negligible and safely addressed via “just overrule your PC’s stats or go find another game”.

I’m not really speaking to them. I’m addressing my concerns to the design team who are both more informed as to the state of the market and more experienced at crafting RPG subsystems. Maybe it will help improve the game or maybe not. It doesn’t hurt to put it forth during an open playtest (nor should it be shutdown by people who like the system as is - they can explain what they like without arguing over whether what I like “makes sense” or is “crazy”).

In the end it's about numbers and majorities. You and your cohorts dislike +1/level, there might be legions (including me) who like +1/level.

As you said, we all lack the knowledge of the true numbers supporting each approach. It might as well be that what appears to be cohorts shows to be the tiniest minorities as people content with a rule rather tend not to post in forums.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

I love the new multiclassing rules.

However, I also see the loss that people are posting about here. The option to have a character have a complete change of career.

For example a Wizard who, after a few levels, decides that wizarding isn't what they want - for whatever story-based reason. No matter what that player chooses during the advancement process, their ex-wizard will always have to gain spellcasting powers as they level up. Because it is part of the core class, not a feat that can be chosen or avoided or replaced via multiclassing.

There is some actual loss in the mechanics of the game here.

I have tried crafting houserules that would allow for this style of character, but it is incredibly difficult. Stopping the progression and gain of abilities from the core class is easy enough, but gaining the core powers of the secondary class is really hard to make work. Many times they end up being duplicates of the class feats that the character could take anyway through the standard PF2 multiclassing. But sometimes not. So any houserule that I have tried has ended up being very lopsided in power - with some classes being much more powerful as this career change target than others.

Hmm how does it go if you try to do it just like old style multi-classing. now that BAB and Saves are all linear you would just gain the class feats and abilities right? have you tried doing it that way? what issues did you have is yes?
So now Wizards or Sorcerers take a level of Cleric and have access to anywhere from 2-7 Heal spells per day, and that only goes up as the game progresses. Classes being frontloaded is a problem that would require careful rebalancing in order to make them work. It's the reason why certain dips in PF1 were so powerful and popular *cough*Divine Grace Paladin*cough*, and I'd rather not see more of that in this edition.

I agree. Some are literally asking to "legally" abuse the multiclassing concept. Why on earth would I deliberately chose a class and then in the very first level, I literally dump it by chosing a dedication feat and spend all my class feats on the new dedication class?

By the way, in the actual 3 best/3 worst aspects of PF2 thread, archetypes/multiclassing as is is one of the most favorite (positive) points mentioned, so I guess there are quite a lot who like the "multiclassing at a cost" approach of the devs.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Lycar wrote:

The problem with PF1/D&D 3.x is that it has skill points. And you never have enough of them.

Why? Because to stay on the treadmill, you have to put ALL YOUR POINTS into the skills you want to be relevant in. Just relevant, not good. 'Good' requires investing feats. Or being a caster, but that is a problem they are getting at.

I guess this is where I part company from many of the folks who like PF2e in its current form. I think that being forced to make decisions on what to prioritize and what not to should be an important part of character creation. If you choose to play a cleric with a low intelligence score, then you're going to be hurting for skill points. However, you are presumably getting other benefits, abilities, etc. Characters with strengths AND weaknesses are far more interesting to me than those who are more-or-less good at everything.

In my first PF campaign ever (started 2 weeks ago) I created a fighter with a viking archetype who was born to an ulfen guard in Taldor and a taldan noblewoman who taught him some etiquette after his viking dad died. I purchased char 14 instead on stuffing those points into more STR and CON to min/max him as a fighter. I firmly believe one should put his attributes where it fits char concept wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For instance:
Poisened Lock, a level 1 hazard has the following entry:

Disable: Thievery DC 18 (trained) on the spring mechanism

If you have Joe the Fighter level 20 with DEX 14 he will have an untrained skill bonus of +18 (+20 level -4 untrained +2 DEX).
But will Joe succeed here? Nope, because he has to be trained in thievery to disable this simple hazard 1 lock. You see, even the highest leveled char cannot succeed no matter his bonus in the skill check if the prerequesite is to be trained in this very skill. So this situation is not trivial to this mighty warrior at all.
All the while a level 1 rogue might disable this lock because he is trained in Thievery.
This is what I love most about the new skill system, you can still gate the succeed behind a skill rank, so being untrained in a skill does matter tremendously. Let yourself not be discouraged by petential high skill bonus. Always see them in context to the skill rank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:


Maybe there should be two kinds of skills that differ like whether you add anything at all if untrained or not.

This is the whole point of having proficiency levels in PF 2 instead of just telling you your bonus. PF2 is designed to allow the GM to take proficiency into account and not allow players to attempt to do things with skills that feel outside of what should be possible with their level of proficiency.

A good GM can more easily use this system to shape many different stories about what success and failure look like than the PF1 system that basically had only one gate (trained or not) and had to make all things meant to be challenging accomplishable only by the most focused of characters. With tiers of proficiency, it becomes really easy to let untrained success at a diplomacy check be grudgingly getting the town sheriff to interview the prisoner, but under direct supervision and not allowing any spell casting to "muck up the interrogation," to an expert character convincing the sheriff to let them have the a few minutes alone to talk to the prisoner, because the expert character is trained enough to have some ideas about why a sheriff could be convinced that such a plan is necessary.

In PF1, you would pretty much have to create a table of how much the players would have to exceed the DC to have more than the most basic successes, and if you had a party with enough of a focus in diplomacy, or worse, the ability to discretely cast the spell sow thought on the lower level guard, you might as well not bother trying to set DCs and make skill challenges at all because system mastery + casters would allow you to bypass anything remotely related to a skill check.

Yeah, I do see the UTEML structure as a plus for this reason. I just wish the U didn’t progress along the same curve as those who are putting effort into it.

I’d like to be able to have a blind spot/weakness.

I understand your point but the skill rank matters as well. For hazards (traps) for instance, it does not suffice to just have a high skill bonus. It does not matter if you are untrained +10 if the DC15 hazard demands you to be trained to overcome it.

You just have to make a certain skill rank a prerequisite for a skill check to succeed and even the highest untrained skill bonus won't help you there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruntfca wrote:

It seems that one of the major sticking points people have with PF2E is with the skill system. Knowing a little of DnD history, the reason the d20 was introduced into the original Chain Mail rules was to create more swingy combat. This made for more fun, could create sudden problems making the game more group than individual oriented etc.

However, when you think about it there is no a priori reason to use the d20 for skill checks at all. Maybe it should be scrapped in favour of a system with a better curve distribution and more flexibility.

This would contradict the idea of streamlining the system, when you start to implement different sets of rules for every different occasion you will get a bloated game.


Rameth wrote:

I think the problem a lot of people have is that they don't remember that by the time your level actually makes you good enough to do anything you aren't a normal person anymore.

Like in Pathfinder 2E what lvl are "normal" people? I would think they would be lvl 3 or 4 tops. Those would be the most incredible people you ever met in real life. You know those people. The ones who have two degrees, know 5 languages, work out 2 hours a day, have traveled the world, never get sick and yada yada.

Now even THESE people would only have a +3 or +4 in an untrained skill with huge natural ability modifiers (+3 or +4).

By the time a character is lvl 10 they aren't by any means normal. They are practically super human. They are Captain America or Black Widow. They are Hawkeye or Ironman.

People seem to try and equate regular people into a fantasy game with fantasy characters and it just doesn't work that way.

Like I've heard people mention the desert witch. She's lvl 10 and she's only lived in the desert. She has 10 strength. So how does she have +6 to Athletics, so her Swim is +6. How can that be? She's never even seen a large enough body if water to swim in. How can she know how to swim?

My argument is how did she get to lvl 10 and only live in a desert? What has she experienced, overcome, and learned that made her practically superhuman? Cause I guarantee that just practicing her spells in the desert isn't going to get her to level 10 by any means. It just doesn't make sense. She would just die an old lady of MAYBE level 2 or 3. Which would still make her very strong to regular people but not near the sheer awesomeness that is lvl 10.

People trying to argue that someone who could literally one arm climb mountain, be able fall 50 feet taking no damage, or survive on a different plane of existence but can't swim is crazy to me.

Agree 100%. The normal person/employee will probably rather be a level 1 expert, maybe up to level 4 depending on their education and experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:

OK I rolled up characters for Multiclassed and as I'm calling it Featclassed version of my Rogue/Alchemist. Only really got to lvl 10 so far before becoming tired(physically, its late here), and I haven't bothered to actually grab Formulae or gear for either(didn't want to look through them for the former, and didn't want to use up my time on currency calcs on the latter)...

I of course decoupled Ancestry(1st lvl)/Heritage, & Initial Proficiencies because they're 1st level only(and we don't need doubling on them). I also decoupled Ability Bonuses, & Ancestry/General Feat progression, because everyone gets them at the same level, and it would honestly feel kinda bad to lag behind in Ancestry Feats or Ability Bonuses, so I wanted to keep those separate.

What I learned is, that the Trading out of Class Feats does limit them quite a bit even tried to just do them every other level with the Rogue Archetype. Really wish you could trade out General Feats instead, that would be awesome since I was really trying to find a reason for them(unless you can just straight up take Skill Feats with them, Then they'd be more useful).

The Multiclassed came ahead in Skill Feats(obviously being part Rogue), as well as Rogue Feats & Alchemist Feats overall. What the FeatClassed gave me however was Far More Formulae (obviously, and which I should have looked through I admit it). I was however able to make a pretty decent Trap/Bomb Build with the Featclassed version, but the Multiclassed version was a Skirmisher, with Enhanced Bombs that had Splash based on Int, and more freedom in his feats.

Now I do have to admit that starting off with 2 Lvls of Rogue and then 2 Lvls of Alchemist gave me 4 Class Feats up front, but as for the Abilities, since I had taken the Alchemical Crafting Feat first level (which was a Rogue lvl) as my Skill Feat, Advanced Alchemy became partly Redundant.

Also in the long run my Bombs and Sneak Attack (since I was keeping them Even in leveling) would have each ended up only half that of a Max...

Feel free to house rule this, to me this approach does not sound appealing at all, I prefer the dedication/archetype feats over this every time.

I agree with the devs that multiclass should always come at a cost. With your approach and the "frontloading" of class feats you can kiss game balance good bye.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

20 TPKs, yikes! In my dozen or so playtest session there has never been even one character killed. Your GM must hate the players. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As others mentioned before, why did you choose your first class anyways when you don't want to play it in first place?
PF2 has a lot of options to customize your char via dedication and archetype feats. And I like the idea very much that a wizard will not loose spell levels in his caster class, when he multiclasses with a non caster class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Difficult to limit it to 3 loves as there are quite more that compete each other for the top three:

- 3 Action Economy (including scaling spells with additional actions)

- Archetypes/Dedications for Multiclassing

- TEML and gating skill checks behind skill ranks

- +level to everything (my unofficial 4th)

- class feats instead of level fixed powers (my unofficial 5th)

Things I dislike:

- Resonance, Focus, any attempt to fix a problem that never occured in my nearly 2 decades of roleplaying 3.x Systems

- wizards/druids/clerics can't prepare subsets of spells from their books/lists for more flexible casting, instead they have to learn fixed spells which prevents to ever learn niche spells (or what Datalore meant with Strict Vancian casting at least in case of said wizards/clerics and Druids)

- missing spontaneous heightening of (all) spells for all caster classes

Houserules:

- granting wizards/druids/clerics to prepare subsets of spells of which they can cast flexibily like sorcerers or bards

- skipping resonance or leaving resonance only for attunement

- ...


Matthew Downie wrote:
Ephialtes wrote:
If I have a 10th level fighter, I want him to mow through "minions".

In PF1, you could easily slaughter ordinary orcs at level 10. The problem is, it was so easy (they could probably only hit you on a natural 20) that this pushed adventure design in the direction of ordinary orcs ceasing to exist at that point. Instead you started to only ever meet orcs with 6+ levels of Barbarian.

There could be group tactics in such cases which do not overpower low level creatures but make them a greater nuisance. I remember in 3.5 grappling was quite a danger to even higher level chars, though I have to look how PF1 handles it.

Or you could have a group of lesser creatures only attack once per group but grant them an additional +1 to hit per creature beyond the first. For instance 5 orcs attacking as a group gains additional +4 to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Another change that might go better for what you are looking for is to remove the extra damage from a critical hit. Just have the potential for the other critical effects. Knockback, Knockdown, stuck to an adjacent surface, slowed, enfeebled, things like that. Maybe even change the effect for daggers from the persistent bleed.

You mean something similar to the AGE system, where you can "purchase" additional effects from a set table?

That would indeed be a nice option, you could trade additional damage for an effect. This could make combat even more dynamic, that's a nice idea.


I like the new critical hit/miss +10/-10 mechanic, it makes PCs feel appropriately powerful according to their current level.
If I have a 10th level fighter, I want him to mow through "minions". There are several systems that use minion and minion groups respectively to be dealt accordingly. I think this approach with scaling crit hits/misses is a very nice approach to this topic without copying minion mechanics from other systems like in 2D20 Conan or FFG Star Wars.
What always bothered me in 5e was that due to non scaling AC and "low" damage output even for high level characters, they could be bogged down by a few goblins for instance and thus the adventure was slowed down and momentum lost. There is no heroic feel in that.
And still with those new crit hit/miss mechanics just throw enough minions at a group with group tactics and even accompanied by higher monsters as leaders and they could still pose an adequate obstacle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

It is a system that rewards narration and it plays hard on Narrativism in GNS.

That means it's on the players to be creative and explain in better detail how their character is solving problems. This is encouraged with their hero point system, Inspiration. It encourages role playing.
I've found when playing it, tackling the problem with the same mentality of 3.x, and following the steps is the best way to explain it to my DM, it's how I get my points at least. I guess whether you agree or disagree with that tells us something about your play style.

Hero Points are not supposed to be handed out like candy in 5e. If you compare it to the flow of momentum and fortune in Conan 2D20 for instance, the 5e Heropoint mechanic is a shallow parody. In all those streams of "all star" gamers, the 5e Hero point system never really played any significant part so far.

If you get Hero points handed more leisurely than your GM is doing much house ruling on that part. Same you could easily do in PF2, it's not different here. When compared, Hero points are even more meaningful in PF2. In 5e you get an advantage on a single roll at best.
The lack of guidelines barely qualifies as encouragement for narrative roleplaying. In fact narrative roleplaying should be a natural part no matter which system you play. But declaring a lack of guidelines as systematic encouragement of narrative roleplay is a good one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ephialtes wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.

I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?

Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.

Any character can wield any weapon somewhat effectively so long as they are trained with it, and most of their class features are tied to the mechanics of the game rather than flavor options. Longswords upgrading dice two handed is their power attack, light weapons using DEX universally is their Weapon Finesse, etc.

Getting rid of feats however makes the game a lot more theatre of the mind and forces players and DMs to use colorful language rather than mechanical options on the character sheet to invoke this.

Apart of Mercer DMing, flavourful descriptions are rare a the average table in combat situations (though I ask players to describe their moves when taking out enemies). 5e is extremely fuzzy, when it comes to such situations and relies on GM fiat. With lacking any granularity in combat, 5e seemingly must rely on theatre of the mind heavily. But not every DM is a Mercer and so 5e quickly becomes too simplified and dice rolling without having any options at all.

I played 5e alot and got quickly bored. That's why I came to Pathfinder Playtest. Regarding to the pooled books Wizards has published yet, the playtest material is even in its incomplete stadium a wealth of character customization.
Why those missing PF1 wealth of options in the playtest material are now happily embracing 5e which is a completely crippled 3.5 baffles me immensly. I can only assume they never played 5e before, otherwise they wouldn't so hastily hail 5e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.

I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?

Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
However, when I compare the current PF2e playtest system and D&D5e, I think that D&D5e is much more faithful to and "feels" more like D&D to me. I'm not happy that I've come to this conclusion, but it is where I am at right now.

5th edition rather reminds me of AD&D which lacked what 3.5 provided. Even PF2 in its early playtest stadium has way more options of character developement and depth than dumped down 5e. If you prefer 5e to PF2 then PF1 and 3.5 isn't yours truly as well.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Ephialtes wrote:

And I tend to agree with many posters here, that Resonance seems to be specifically created to tend to PFS problems.

.
.
.

If PFS needs regulations, make Resonance a PFS mandatory and if all an option to the rest to discard if not needed.

As someone who primarily plays PFS, I still don't understand what PFS play problem that resonance (in any of its forms) is designed to solve.

Then it even seems to be just a problem of a very small minority of PFS players. In this case I wonder why this rare problem needs such a complicated system ingrained solution at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ephialtes wrote:
What I like about PF2 in general is, it is more streamlined and simplified than PF1 without being dumped down.
I was hoping for streamlining, but to me it's one of the most byzantine, micro-happy versions of D&D/PF, to date. Definitely not a game for beginners, seems like an advanced, niche RPG.
Thats odd, all my players have remarked on how much easier to handle it is over 3.5/PF1E.

Same at my table. The only aspect that is really hotly debated is the many takes of resonance which appears cumbersome to many of my players. And I tend to agree with many posters here, that Resonance seems to be specifically created to tend to PFS problems. In all my 3.5 rounds I never ran into the problems for which Resonance is said to be a fix. I even have purchased some PF1 books now to start a PF1 campaign in the meantime until PF2 is released and I did not find anything in them that would make Resonance necessary.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of investment and empowering but to me Resonance should be limited to this single aspect. If PFS needs regulations, make Resonance a PFS mandatory and if all an option to the rest to discard if not needed.


Probably it's better to keep just the investment part and dismiss the idea of Resonance completely for simplicity's sake.
And it's probably easier to restrict items via prices both for purchased or self crafted items. Just define that each body part can only hold one item at the same time (or in case of rings maybe one or two per hand) and there will be no problem again with characters overburdned by magic items.

The idea to empower invested items though is very cool, I like it. It does not restrict donning magic items spontaneously so they will still have some lesser magical effect(s) but it makes them way more potent if they are properly invested.

Personally I never had problems with tracking individual charges of items. It makes items with charges more "individual" :D

What I like about PF2 in general is, it is more streamlined and simplified than PF1 without being dumped down. Resonance and additional pools though are complicating gameplay unnecessarily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ephialtes wrote:

I am actually playing in the AP War for the Crown and there are many possibilities and options for both, social encounters and combat. I am enjoying it pretty much and am delighted that PF is able to cover this aspect of roleplaying as well, so very nicely.

My hope for PF2 would be to include some more options and depth to social encounters in their new Core Rulebook. Are there any infos or hints if that is the case? Maybe is there any official statement from one of the Devs on that matter?

I've been having a lot of fun in my PF2 War for the Crown game I'm running on Saturdays (currently near the end of Book 2). I'd imagine some of the more detailed sections for lots of these mechanics wouldn't fit in the CRB, but it'd be really neat if we could get some of it out to you guys ASAP in a GM-focused Gamemastery-Guide-style book!

Until such time as we have official rules, I can tell you that using the influence system from PF1 with no adjustments other than changing the skill names and DCs has worked perfectly!

Thank you for the information, Mark. :)

I am fairly new to Pathfinder myself and got very invested in the Pathfinder 2e playtest. Would you say, that the playtest bestiary would suffice for converting PF1 adventures? I also purchased the PF1 core rulebook, advanced players guide and the beastiary recently and am now torn if I should use existing PF1 material with PF1 rules until 2e releases or if I should already start converting APs/Adventure modules to 2e until the official release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am actually playing in the AP War for the Crown and there are many possibilities and options for both, social encounters and combat. I am enjoying it pretty much and am delighted that PF is able to cover this aspect of roleplaying as well, so very nicely.
My hope for PF2 would be to include some more options and depth to social encounters in their new Core Rulebook. Are there any infos or hints if that is the case? Maybe is there any official statement from one of the Devs on that matter?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Belisar wrote:
your theory about the majority hating PF2 like you do is quite preposterous.
I didn't know I had a theory about the majority, can you please show me the post where I exposed it because I don't remember writing one

Well then...

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:


It's honestly pretty silly to count favorites (which aren't supposed to be upvotes anyway)
If people use favorites as upvotes then functionally they become upvotes and you can use their number to count effective upvotes, the only difference being said upvotes are in favorites form

...you should pay more attention to your own posts, I guess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Belisar wrote:

Honestly, the most upvoted post is that of Jason Buhlman on page one with 55 votes. You could presume that those upvotes come from people rather in favour of PF2, so your "Positive posts: 5 individuals, With 37 likes, an average of 7.5 likes per positive post." is a very shacky assumption at best.

Please do not claim to speak for the majority of players only because you yell most loudly.
See, and I assumed that those favorites were from people who were happy that the development team were taking time to interact with the player base and explain issues with the playtest, including message board issues. Not that people were favoriting because they're happy with the Playtest rules. I mean that's why I usually favorite, and why I'll favorite something that I don't even agree with.

You can still assume that those very vocally blaming Paizo to not listen to them how bad PF2 is will probably not upvote a post by a dev. It is quite a fair assumption that those upvotes don't come from that alu hat wearing crowd cursing PF2 at every turn because it is not exactly PF1.

Sure, there is still room for improvement but those issues addressed by the devs so far show that they are willing to pay attention.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dreamtime2k9 wrote:

Your choice in pathfinder 1e would already let you draw from a bigger pool; not only because there was more content but also because you were free to make your own choice in what type of feat you wanted for your general feats.

While I personally like the distinction of class feats (as choosable class abilities rather than fixed abilities), general and skill feats I agree that the pools of those feats are smaller compared to PF1. I guess expanding those pools might help supporting the new approach in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you start to have every class benefit of every circumstance, because some are DEX based like rogues and some are STR based like fighters, you could skip the class concept altogether. It's fine as it is that rogues can apply DEX to finesse weapons but why should they wield a greatsword as nimble as a rapier? Because it is, as this -1 penalty as a penalty diminishes the higher the level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
A Previous Poster wrote:
Most players

Can we please stop talking about "most players" in these threads? Not a single one of us has any idea about what "most players" think about anything in this playtest. The only people who have anything close to that data are working for Paizo, and they are both a) keeping the data fairly close to their chests and b) still are working with a self-selected and therefore biased sample.

The rest of us are substituting anecdotes for data and perceptual biases for objective observation.

We'll get a lot more done more constructively if we stick to what we ourselves think and/or have experienced.

Thanks very much for this clarification, it has to be said. I always wondered if the "most players" vocal minority just confuses "most" with "me".