Kodyboy's page

Wildshape is terrible in this edition.

Spells in pf2 are pathetic. Animal companions, summoning and wildshape are also pathetic. No in my group is remotely interested in pf2 anymore.

Sorcerers are terrible compared to wizards in pf2. They are pointless.

Sorcerers are far worse than wizards in PF2. There is just no reason to play one.

Wildshape is basically pointless in PF2. In addition to the crushing of the animal companion this makes the whole druid class useless.

Animal companions have been nerfed into being useless. PF2 has made everything too much the "same" in search of balance, and made the game worse because of it.

The handwraps certainly add to hit and damage to attacks, buy I am not sure about increased damage dice.

Sorcerers are simply not competitive as is.
Make their bloodline powers at will and they would be.

With spellcasters nerfed like this my group and I don't see ourselves ever playing PF2.

Paladibs without smite evil are pointless.

Yep shields are totally useless with the errata. They were barely worth it before.

Summoned monsters were never a big deal. They were always super weak for combat and unless you could get lots of them on the field they were at best flankers. While fairly versatile they were by no means overpowered. Summoners are fairly useful in that their summoned monsters last a long time, but they are still pitiful combatants. In addition the extra actions (especially if a small army was summoned) could take a while but I never encountered a player that cared.
Time consuming..yes... overpowered hardly.
PF2 summons have insufficient duration, you can't get enough out there to be useful and are therefore pointless. If this is the direction paizo wants to go (1 tougher monster, short duration takes an action) the summoned monster needs to be much more powerful.

Trying to make everything equal has resulted in everything being boring. PF2 just doesn't feel like Pathfinder and that is why my group is not going to play PF2 without major changes.

Sorcerers as written are terrible. In fact the pf2 playtest has made my group seriously look at 5th edition. I don't think that was paizos goal.

Sorcerers Don't get to auto heighten each spell for free.
Sorcerers get two less feats.
Sorcerers get to know far fewer spells.
These items make sorcerers much worse than wizards and fairly pointless.

This is idiotic. Shield block was barely useful with hardness reduced ahead of dents. This edition is not looking good so far.

My group and I played this section last weekend.
While we knew things were going to take longer due to our I experience with the new system, it took a LOT longer than expected.
Combat was not as smooth as we hoped but it was not awful. Spells seemed weaker overall compared to martials.
The heal spell worked well with the casting options.

Overall the game didn't exccite anyone and we aren't playing PF2 anymore. We are adding a lot of the Pathfinder unchained optional rules such as the three actions. In fact unchained has many of the PF2 ideas a the three action system ready to Port to pf1.

This ruling on shields makes them worthless.

Sorcerers pretty much stink in PF2.

Wildshape is just too weak and too limited in PF2. The low duration and number of forms cripples it.

A huge sword should do more damage than a small one otherwise why does a great sword do more damage than a longsword to begin with.

I like changing weapon dice size but you will end up with multiple dice such as 1d12 going to 3d6 but thatshould not really matter.

With the duration reduced wild shape is almost useless.
The inability to use magic in wilshaped completely destroys the usability of wildshape at higher levels.
With the concentration addition and action loss of summons those spells are rendered useless as well.
These two changes have made druids too weak to be viable and need to be changed to make the druid a viable class.

Size certainly should increase damage.

It is stupid.
If this is not fixed I would just increase the damage dice size by two.

Sorcerer is a truly weak class too.

As of now druids are far too weak to be viable.

Another reason sorcerers are inferior. For a while they had a lot of skills, even that is gone.

I agree the paladin in pf2 is just not as fun as a pf1 paladin.

Sorcerers pick their form at casting not befote

Yep once it is meh at best especially for a 9th level spell

I would think dangerous sorcery would be better if it was either the casters level or half the casters level and once per spell.

If it is one time per spell and not per missile that is lame.

Without more or at will spontaneous heightening, two more feats and additional uses of powers/spells sorcerers as a whole are not viable compared to the wizard.

Sorcerers need a lot of work to be viable.

I would do per missile making it far more useful. Of course this will be nerfed like all magic in PF2.

Still it is far weaker than equivalent builds.

So far pf2 the following is more fun....
Three action system....
This is cool as it gives you more options (especially at lower levels) and it encourages more dynamic fights
The new critical system. This is a lot more fun, well it can be a bummer against, but it really can upset fights and makes it more exciting.
We kind of like the proficiency system but we think there should be a bigger difference between untrained, trained, expert, master and legendary. Maybe -5, 0 +2 +4 +6. ....
Shields are cool and actually useful....but a few more dents before broken would be more fun.
Heightened spells, well some of them. Some like fireball really need to scale for free to be useful.
Scaling cantrips.
The idea that sorcerers can use different spell lists than arcane. Cool idea and interesting, but it does need some work.

Less fun....a
Too nerfed spells...
This needs to be rolled back considerably especially the lack of auto heightening for sorcerers, summoning spells (they either need better monsters, more actions or both), wildshape (this is terrible too few forms, too little duration etc.), Animal companions need help as is they are less fun than before.
Since many of us play spellcasters this section as is, is a deal breaker for us.
Resonance seems pointless and not fun.
Character generation is clunky. Ancestry feet's should all be picked at first level. The old tables were easier to read/understand. Character generation was more fun in PF1.
Rareity seems unnecessary. I guess it could be a guideline but it does not make the game more fun.

Alchamests need a different mechanic as combined with resonance they are terrible. Another good reason to dump resonance.

From what I can see it just makes for more book keeping.

Make 50 percent destroyed. Keeps some realism while reducing ammunition annoyance.

I agree criting as a GM is fun, if it is fair. I also agree that GM's that slaughter players all the time are terrible, but they generally lose players quickly. If their is no danger to the players the game is boring.

I find resonance an unnecessary completely and pointless. Anyone else?

This makes them pointless.

I would say 1 rp per day max to use. I don't like resonance points I find them an unnecessary complication.

That is absolutely stupid

I think your suggestions go too far, especially with giving them access to spells in other lists.

Bloodlines just need more abilities that have a greater impact on how the class plays.

Sorcerers do need more to make up for the fact that they get the same number of class features as the druid and yet have don't have any equipment proficiencies.

I wasn't thinking all of them at the same time, just some.

I would think they do not require an action to draw as their reload is zero.

The frenzy is similar to the standard attack array that I postulated so that is what I was thinking.
Still a bite does 4d8 +14 +3d6 cold vs claw 5d6 +14 and tail 5d6 +7
I also thought the agile was already in the attack bonus in which case the claw attacks you listed should be one less
Without the frenzy three bites should only be 1 off of the 3 claws
In which case the bites are far better

Kodyboy wrote:

I would suggest all monsters get a standard attack grouping (such as claw claw bite) that takes two actions and all attacks have a -2 to hit instead of the usual penalties. Otherwise you are going g to see bite bite bite, stab stab stab etc.

Rules written for no reason but to attempt to prevent the GM from being boring usually don't actually achieve any positive results.

Making a 3 attack routine action that costs 2 actions instead of 3 and has better accuracy would, however, achieve the negative result of making it so that a GM that isn't boring enough to desire just spamming the one best-looking option without nuance is stuck with having to choose between the genuinely best option or having the monster be wildly ineffective by comparison for the sake of "seemed like a cool thing to do".

As is, the difference in typical damage between bite/bite/bite and bite/claw/claw is very small (1-3 levels worth of HP). The change you suggest would make that difference much larger, while also increasing the already high damage output (the level 7 black dragon in the bestiary has roughly 100 DPR against a 22 AC right now) by a not-insignificant amount by making the 2nd and 3rd attacks significantly more likely to hit/crit.

The game now would have bite/bite/bite or whatever instead. Definitely worse