Kazk's page

It has come to my attention that throughout the entirety of the playtest, I have unconsciously ignored giving feedback on the things I have house-ruled. In other words, if I saw something I thought could be improved, I never discussed it if I was able to come up with satisfactory house rules to make it work better at my table. I wanted to put that feed back out here, but more importantly, I figured that others may have made the same mistake.

I thought this thread may be helpful to not only get that feedback out there, but to get a sense for what rules are most commonly changed.

Changes to Classes

Druid And Ranger
One of my players wanted to be an animal companion focused Ranger but felt like they would have few feats left to themselves. I agreed and we are currently trying out removing the Full Grown Companion and Specialized Companion feats, and having the Animal Companion and Incredible Companion feats instead scale with level, giving the benefits of the removed feats at the appropriate level. I opted to do the same with the druid, though that hasn't been tested. So far, it hasn't seemed to have upset the balance, but my table is happy with it so far. If turns out that is too strong, I may ever so slightly reduce the strength of the animal companion, or just fold the first two feats together.

Paladin
I am very happy with the 1.6 paladin changes. I previously brought up things I thought needed changing in ways that could have been worded... in a less emotionally charged manner. I feel it would be unfair to complain about a thing, have it be fixed to my liking, then say nothing before having more criticisms.

1.6 fixed everything I had mentioned, but there were a few significant changes I omitted because of the reasons mentioned at the beginning of the post. The biggest change is allowing deity-less paladins, both because I like the flavor better and to allow re-creation of some of my players favorite 1st edition characters. Also, to help re-create an old character, I added an improved version of divine health at level 8 that allows failures against disease to be treated as successes. It seems that the design decision was to move away from full immunities for PCs in most cases, so this seemed like an appropriate way to allow the character to be made without defying the design direction of 2e. With how infrequent diseases have been, it still seems weak to me compared to the other feats at that level, but the paladin player was still quite thrilled.

It has mostly been tweaking class stuff here and there that I feel most comfortable houseruleing, but I am interested to see what the rest of you have changed.

To make a long story short, I only have 2 players + myself(GM) to playtest and I want to help PF2 be the best it can, but I was unsure how to handle my small group size. Is it to run Doomsday dawn with 2 character per player? to Run doomsday dawn with 2 characters and fiddle with encounters? Is it to homebrew something that is suited to a small party?

Obviously, Paizo has stated that the most important feedback is the Doomsday Dawn feedback. I could do as the monster manual says and adjust the encounters until the XP values are appropriate for the party size, but with a party this small, I worry about warping the playtest so much that it no longer tests the system as it was intended, especially for encounters with 1 big enemy.

Is the best way to go about this to have each player make two characters? it would fix the party's power, but also warp the play experience to play two characters at once.

Between heavily altering DD to fit 2 players, having players juggle 2 characters in a system they are trying to learn, and running something other than DD, does anyone (Paizo employees or players) have any idea what would be best?