Isthisnametaken?'s page

My issue is that the things that are being used to maintain game mechanics and balance make no sense and take away enjoyment and immersion. Obvious examples include:

1. Making a backpack effectively negative weight and a full waterskin L because bad weight balance caused starting char to be encumbered
2. Fighter dedication takes dex and str that a fighter would not have himself till higher level or at all.
3 Weapon proficiency feat that does not scale with char, so it’s a useless trap.
4. Re-grip weapon as an action. They overpowered 2-h and its a bush fix at best for some small balance.
5. Weapon damage scaling with weapon die. 4d12 anyone?
6. A stride action often wastes move. I stride 5’ and attack.
7. The feat tax on Aldori (made hard by other strange balancing” that limits it’s usefulness to a human only.
8. Halflings are very roguish in their abilities but can’t get darkvision through heritage. Humans can though....like they needed more buffs.
9. Deception, feint costs an action to give a single swing a flat foot bonus, if you criticize fail you’re flat footed, demoralize kills people...
10. Scare to death - Um....wow. Never seen anything quite like it.
11. The dreaded manipulate trait tossed on everything.
12. SO MANY abilities that overlap in parts and force retrain. Powerful leap, wall jump, cloud jump. I’m very sneaky and very very sneaky, oh wait I’m swift sneak legendary sneak.

I want FIXES, not more stuff that at some point makes me forget how inconsistent the game is. It’s almost pay to win if new content outshines existing content from a power balance perspective (ancient elf) I’m going to stop here, this is more than enough to bring death down upon me.

Cyouni wrote:

That proposed solution just means that everyone will always use advanced weapons if physically possible. Let's not pretend general feats are any blockade whatsoever to that.

This has been a thing talked about many, many times.

(SIGH) Ok, so you like the way it is currently? To me, the feat has no value now. If, as an example, a rogue is going to invest 2 general feats into weapon proficiency I think they have earned the right to use an advanced weapon with proficiency. Is an advanced weapon better than using a class allowed martial weapon and having 2 other feats (Incredible Initiative & Toughness)?

You think the feat is working well as is?

That proposed solution just means that everyone will always use advanced weapons if physically possible. Let's not pretend general feats are any blockade whatsoever to that.

This has been a thing talked about many, many times.

(SIGH) Ok, so you like the way it is currently? To me, the feat has no value now. If, as an example, a rogue is going to invest 2 general feats into weapon proficiency I think they have earned the right to use an advanced weapon with proficiency. Is an advanced weapon better than using a class allowed martial weapon and having 2 other feats (Incredible Initiative & Toughness)?

All, I am starting a series of posts I am entitling "Let's Fix It!" to address specific issues with the game and getting them corrected. I am happy to have an open discussion, with the end goal being making PF2 better for all of us. I wanted to start with something simple(ish) before trying to tackle more complex issues.

Issue: Weapon Proficiency feat does not scale with class weapon advancement. Example: A rogue that takes the Weapon Proficiency feat will not have the new weapons rise to expert at 5th level as other class proficient weapons will.

My proposed solution: Caveat weapon proficiency with the same wording used for Aldori "Whenever your proficiency rank with any weapon increases to expert or beyond, your also gain the new proficiency rank with the weapons supplied by this feat"

Happy to hear thoughts.

On thing I will say that is bound to be unpopular: Based on my handful of play experiences, I'm coming to the conclusion that Pathfinder 2E could probably really benefit from a "2.5" edition a year or two down the road. Nothing drastic enough to render support material irrelevant, but 2E is just such a wide-ranging and fundamental redesign that there are bound to be things that don't quite work out as intended the first time around.

That said, I'm ain't holding my breath. :P

I agree, and have listed several specific items that need addressing. That said, the maturity of posters in this community needs work. When people are pointing out issues it doesn’t mean that they are “haters”. I am in a PF2 campaign and would like to see the game evolve. If we can’t admit that problems exist, the system will remain stagnant. I thought the same with D&D 3E, and 3.5 ended up being a significant improvement for me. Then as now, fanboys just threw out hate without listening. I am happy to discuss specific points and many points I raised on this thread are open discussions individually already. I think the long term success of PF2 will depend on it, so hate away.

These boards are a bit like our political system. Some see glaring deficiencies while others see a well oiled machine. If the game plays perfectly for you that’s a wonderful thing. From my groups perspective, we are on the fence with using it as is.

Medicine should be a skill that can earn income. I would almost argue ANY skill can, given proper role playing. Who really cares anyway? I think the book overemphasizes mundane work/downtime when in reality adventuring is the most lucrative job of all. The more the game mimics “real life” pedestrian tasks, the less enjoyable it is.

The larger issue here is Paizo created an action economy that’s overly focused on hands (and free hands) for balance. In terms of Battle Medicine, is the feat meant to be governed by that balance, or was it written that way to remain viable and usable as is? I’m not sure.

If we can suspend disbelief that it’s realistic I can patch someone up in 6 seconds and heal them, is it really less realistic that I quickly place my weapon on the ground and grab it back up after, solving the hands mystery?

While I think the game has a strong foundation, the release feels rushed. At onset some characters could not carry even starting gear. For me and our group to be a long term consumer I would like to see:

Fix multiclassing. Feat taxes make it unusable for most classes. They built an interchangeable, modular feat system, why make it so hard?

Some classes have far too many dead skills. As a rogue I was at a loss for picking 2nd and 4th level rogue feats. No one wants to play for months, level, and be disappointed they don’t have even 1 solid feat.

Some classes have super feats that will always be taken, making builds vanilla instead of creating variety

Two weapon fighting is bad. Why not allow it to be on par with duelist and two-handed?

Heavy incorporation of AOO mechanic in actions and abilities, with most creatures not having it. Seems a poor carry over.

My worst problems are things that make no sense. Example: Rogue takes the weapon proficiency feat, but then cant advance those weapons as part of their class? What does the 4th level poison feat even do? Elaborate crafting system that feels like a complete waste RAW. There’s a lot more.

I am not surprised sales numbers are good, geeks like to buy books (me included). The longevity of the success will be measured in how Paizo refines what they have, not just pushing more content. I want some fixes.

We only award hero points for heroic actions in a limited capacity and not by default each session. They don’t expire. We tend to play a grittier game where encounters feel dangerous. If everything is easily attained, what’s the point?

We don't award hero points per session. They are handed out individually for exceptional acts and do not expire until used.

I think the larger issue stems from the difficulty in leveraging multi-classing as a whole. The price of admission is too high, forcing characters that want to do it into the same races/ancestry. Pazio built a system on feats that seem to be relatively interchangeable at a given level, but block off almost everyone from actually multi-classing. The reason ancient elf is considered so good is the pain of general multi-classing. Even ancient elf does not absolve you from the second class requirements, so you will still need a 14str AND 14dex to dedicate fighter or be trained in the aldori blade to be an aldori warrior.

I think Unicore is spot on. IMO I think Pazio was under pressure to release PF2 as 5e was killing them and in the end released it with some unclear rules that were still being properly vetted in test. Look at the glaring example of bulk and not accounting for characters being able to carry even their starting adventure kit. The fix of making a backpack -2 bulk is not great, but as Unicore pointed out they were "down the path" so took an easy way out in trying to solve a problem, leaving things inconsistent and unbelievable.

I hope some serious thought is going into meaningful corrections now that the game is live.

I am a veteran gamer and GM, starting all the way back in D&D 1E and have played in multiple systems. I currently GM a long running 5e campaign and play with the same group in a PF2 campaign. As a whole, the group likes 5e better and the PF2 game is on life support. I attribute it as follows:

- They have a great framework with feats to make multi-classing simple and effective, but have implemented in a way that players are “taxed” way too much for things that should be interchangeable. Ex. Requiring a fighter to have 14str & 14dex when likely the pure fighter may not have that at inception (or ever). Aldori feels cool, but the only classes interested in it can’t meet the requirements without offering up their firstborn.
- Three action economy feels clunky. Taking an action to move 5 feet (losing the remaining 20) or re-grip a weapon with a second hand feels bad. Many times your turn is “swing and miss 3 times, end turn”. No one feels combat is very fun, which is a bummer.
- Heavy incorporation or attack of opportunity mechanics from 3.5, but removing the capability of most mobs from being able to do it. Several feats (Ex mobility) and the step mechanic don’t fit the system.
- Inconsistency without content and lack of eratta . Ex. Nimble dodge feat written multiple ways without an explanation.
- Was not released with a killer campaign. We’re playing plaguestone and it’s very weak compared to large, epic campaigns we are used to.
- We use Fantasy Grounds as our virtual table. Way less automation than 5e. I expect the FG team will continue to focus the lions share of time on the most popular content.
- Many dead feats. I thought originally that characters would have more personality than 5e based on the variety of options for build. That said, every class/race gravitates to the same few feats anyway, as so many feats are bad. Any monks out there without stunning fist? Maybe this changes over time.
- Counter intuitive logic. Ex. You take “weapon proficiency” feat to get access to martial weapons, only to find RAW they don’t advance with your class proficiency so it’s effectively useless.
- Embarrassing launch problems. Ex. Can’t carry your starting equipment kit? Backpack weighs -2 now to compensate?

I think there’s potential with PF2, but if this launch is not cleaned up (quickly) interest will fade over time.

I wish everyone would concede this game does not match reality. Patching up a wounded ally in real life in 6 seconds with a kit is not happening. That said, there is a balance to the game with skill/feats against other (often equally impossible) skills and feats. From a game mechanics standpoint, making battle medicine require two free hands is a significant gimp for what I consider a good skill. It will likely limit it to monks and a few wizards. Requiring one hand free makes sense to me and keeps it viable. No hands free breaks immersion and doesn’t seem right. As to the fix, who knows. A line of errata on the skill itself, or perhaps changes to the kit(s) in terms of number of hands. I’m pretty sure in real life I can open a scroll case one handed (likely with the tube secured in the armpit of my other arm) If I was a one armed rogue and you tossed some lock picks into my cell are they useless and I’m just trapped?

Thanks guys, appreciate the insight.

Since that post it's been revealed that you only need one hand, and if you also use a Bandolier, then the entire usage is only one action.

What do you mean by “it’s been revealed?” Is there an official posting somewhere?

I agree it needs to be fixed. This game works off a balance system, and the ability is completely underwhelming. I don’t like the argument that rogues “don’t have better reactions” for a few levels so a bad starting feat is ok. Level 1 feats are some of the best. It “may” alter a single swing, it should at least have a chance to work “or not” on a hit.

Parry and Raise Shield give you +2 on ALL ATTACKS for an action. Makes sense, you’re spending an action.

Reactive Shield works on hit, AND you have your shield raised the rest of the turn to help with other attacks. Trade off is you have a shield equipped.

Shield block works WHEN you take damage, after all attacks were mitigated from raise shield. Again makes sense.

Nimble roll does not stack with parry or raise shield, so it’s not naturally synergistic with other defenses. Nimble roll has a tier 2 ability that it’s a pre-requisite for, which implies to me it’s meant to be built on, not discarded.

I think the intention of this ability was meant to allow the rogue that takes it (it’s a feat not free) to potentially mitigate a bit of damage (burning their reaction against a specific attack), while providing some action economy. The way it is now is a frustrating, random shot in the dark that feels bad. Rogues don’t have enough solid L1 feats to have any more “throw always”. Swapping into another meh ability is also weak. Hope to see eratta related to fix it, I’m going to talk to my DM around house ruling it in the interim.