Jaybirdy's page

Another player here—I went with Callista the (ever-so-slightly!) snotty Taldan half-elf bard.

I've got a hodgepodge of impressions, so I'll try to sort them into some kind of order and go from there.

The Good Stuff:

1. In general, the action system was smooth and pretty easy to work with. I think there are a couple of fussy things (grip changing comes to mind) that shouldn't count against a character's three in a round, but this may just be because I'm used to that being a quintessential "free" action. Worth noting, though, is that this does have at least some impact on narrative decisions. I had considered having Callista use some of her ancestral arms (elven curve blade specifically) as part of her gear, for the fun and flavor of it, but needing to spend an action to return her hands to proper grip position for that weapon much too inefficient to bother with. Could I pick a different weapon? Of course I could. But I expect this problem will only be exacerbated if there's ever a PF2e magus. As someone who tends to favor gishes like the magus and the eldritch knight, that worries me a little. But still, it's a minor gripe, and I did like the additional strategy in deciding how to spend my actions when, for example, some spells only have two components, and others have three.

2. Character creation was mostly quick, smooth, and fun. In particular, I like the stat assignment system. I think it makes traditionally MAD classes a bit more viable, and I've never much liked min-maxing anyway. Also, I expect the frequency and number of attribute boosts will allow for a lot more variety than the traditional "put everything you can into X, a bit into Y, dump Z" formula that seems to pervade. (Even though I dislike building characters that way myself, it's sometimes necessary to have fun—in many contexts, I've found I can't keep up unless I optimize. Being the dead weight is never a good time.)

3. I was surprised to find that my bard was going to be a full caster—of occult magic at that. I wasn't too sure about that at first, but the better sense I get for the class features, the more I like them.

4. Critical successes and critical failures seem interesting. I'll have to hold off on saying much about this until I've played a bit more, but I was initially quite concerned about the lack of threat ranges on some lower-damage weapons. If this goes well I might not even miss them.

5. Cantrips that actually do something! Telekinetic projectile was fun to use. On the other hand Prestidigitation feels weirdly nerfed or reasons I can't fathom. I feel like Callista should be able to change the color of her dinner jacket if she wants to, but that's not one of the "Occult" uses of the spell, which is... odd. Not likely to make a significant mechanical difference of any kind, but outright bizarre as far as flavor goes.

6. I had fun playing, and that's what I'm here for. Part of this was of course due to Walsh's skill and experience as a GM, as well as his commitment to preparations and investment in his NPCs, but some of the credit belongs to the game system, too.

The Not-As-Good Stuff:

(Note: this includes some more general thoughts as well, about game elements with which I have no actual playing experience, and so please take those parts with the grains of salt they warrant.)

1. The class feat system is, I think, a tad too restrictive. Am I glad to see an end to some of the most ridiculous cheese technically permitted by 1e? Well, sure. But I think there has to be an intermediate ground between locking almost nothing behind class-entry barriers and locking almost everything there. For me, this isn't as much of a mechanical issue as it is a narrative one. In the bard class, at least, it seems like you basically get one of three types, with minor variations on the theme. This is very partially ameliorated by the devotions, but even then it seems like "I'm an X that dabbles in Y," is really only adding to the total options in a small way. Some of the best characters I've ever played could not remotely exist in the system as it is now (excluding the ones whose classes do not exist), and that makes me a little sad.

2. When choosing what kind of character to play, I was initially considering sorcerer, as it's one of my very favorites and I could compare versions fairly well due to lots of experience with the 1e sorc. I found myself intrigued by the option for divine, nature, or occult casting, and largely disappointed by much of the rest, particularly as it stacks up against the wizard. I'm familiar with the vagaries of spontaneous casting classes, and in general I embrace them, but the spell heightening mechanics just felt like being actively punished for playing a sorcerer instead of a wizard. By all means, let the wizard keep her versatility and utility over the more focused sorcerer. But to drive a giant wedge into the heightening mechanic and give the wizard the unquestionably better half? That's just unfortunate. This may be solvable by increasing the number of spells per day the sorc can heighten (perhaps 1/4 class level + CHA modifier?) It's odd that even the bard can heighten more often—but that's not a plea to decrease the number on the bard (please don't).

3. I suspect there might be some oddness with AC compared to average to-hits given the new proficiency system, but I don't yet know enough to say more. I'll keep an eye on this and see if I can pinpoint my unease later.

4. Minor gripe: the book's format is difficult. I'd have appreciated full spell descriptions in level-order for the lists themselves, with ki powers and so on in their own section. It was kind of a pain to choose my spells by hunting around an enormous list of mostly things I can't use, and planning future things will be even more difficult for the same reason. Ultimately not that important, but worth mentioning, maybe.

5. Not having AoOs is very strange. I've yet to decide whether it's good strange or just unnerving strange. The movement of combat without them felt exciting though.