Zasril

Planpanther's page

655 posts. Alias of Pan.


RSS

1 to 50 of 655 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stickers on books that say "now a major motion picture" I dont see a sticker on cars at the lot that say "now a major horseless carriage."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

/Signed.

Right now background is too much like 5E. Basically a set and forget at level 1. It could be much more nuanced and detailed than that. Something that could start simple and become more complex throughout a characters development.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

While mechanically it works, it doesnt feel right. /not signed


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeap, im with rysky and voss. Also, I dont want everything to be compatible with everything else. /not signed


thenovalord wrote:

Got to do the playtest at UK games expo last weekend. I played the cleric. I didn't roll above 7 and achieved nothing, the rogue rolled 4 20s and seemed very efficient

May need to play it again to get a better idea!!

Id much prefer Initiative to be based on what you are about to do, then what you were doing, to be honest.

Can you comment on what type of things you were rolling to do?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone asked why I might not like this system and I'll voice a few of the concerns now. (Keep in mind this isnt a final opinion, I fully intent to playtest the system and see how it works)

Consolidated lists are always a bummer for me. In those systems it seems like you cram too much into too few spaces. Its more difficult to differentiate one character from the next. Things like ranks and feats can help, but have their own potential pitfalls. Its possible im just twice bitten thrice shy after WOTC last couple editions on consolidated lists. Seems like things had to consolidated to stop the PF2 CRB from having a thousand extra feats...

Exploration mode and its limits. As noted in some comments you cant sneak and do anything else until you gain ranks and get feats. Thats very limiting compared to PF1. I feel like that can hamper both GM and player creativity. It takes something that was vague, but useful, and turned it into a confined game space. I know some will champion this new paradigm, particularly at the PFS table, but I feel like rules have been added to a formerly open space and thats a loss in my book.

Feats... First issue with feats is they create a gate between doing things you should arguably be able to do and cant. No longer are ranks pushing character development up alone, you need feats too. I know some will argue that you get ranks like before, and now feats to make you cool too! The playtest might convince me of this. The second problem is a history of feats being unequal. Im not convinced that all skill feats will be matched and worth taking. Im afraid traps will rear their ugly head again and burn some folks at the table.

These are just my reservations about PF2 skill system which is #2 on my worry list after multi-classing. I'll be eager to look over the playtest docs and discuss more here on the forums.

-cheers


Hustle would be a nice skill for streetsmarts. I'm assuming breaking stuff down falls under athletics? This is the problem with consolidated skills. Though an expanded list would need tons of more feats which is the problem with skill feats...


CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.

That was in PF1 and we cant assume adventure writing will be the same for PF2. Im with you tho on high level characters laying to waste packs of low level foes not feeling right, but thats intended for PF2, unfortunately...


Some consolidation makes sense, but 17 seems like too few for me What happened to social skills?

From the legendary medic I get the feeling guides will quickly rule out skills worth ever taking to legendary...

Thats just a feeling tho. I think legendary medic may have been a poor choice since there seems to be extra attachments that cant be mentioned at this time...

Now im wondering how easy it could be to axe skill feats and just drop PF1 skill system into PF2?


The Raven Black wrote:
I wonder how this structure affects multiclassing so that it does not lag behind in power level while also not becoming the de facto Go To solution for minmaxer builds

Ugh, I really hope i'm wrong, but I got this feeling they are doing either 4E hybrids or VMC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Has a very homogenized appearance, which could result in a not so fun game. Wont have an opinion until I can really kick the tires.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RotRL has been done to death. /not signed


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Honestly, in much the same way that Paladins have become spell point casters rather than quarter casters, I wouldn't be surprised to see monks become spell point casters as well. It would incorporate the popular Qingong archetype into the basic chassis, fit with the idea of mystical wuxia fighters, and unify all of their various ki powers and abilities into a straightforward system.
^THIS^ Also if I am not mistaken, my understanding is this pool of points is the same for all characters so (Ki, Spell, Rogue Talents, eventually Grit) are all fulled from the same points. So your 9th level cleric will have the same amount of points as the Cleric 3/Monk 3/Rogue 3.

I dont think a cleric 3/monk 3/rogue 3 will even be possible in PF2. It would be a cleric 9 with feats from the rogue and monk pool.


It might be nice to have PB and rolling methods that ignore ABC.


I have the same response to this as I did to making the witch a wizard archetype, I dont think i'd like how it feels. It makes design sense, but ultimately, I think you wont have an actual monk at all, just a fighter with a little monk flavor.

I do see a potential PF2 lite coming out of all this to help tables that want to shed as much complexity as possible. That could be a good thing, but a thing I would have no use for. YMMV


Or,

1-2 = -1
3-4 = 0
5-6 = 1
7-8 = 2
9-10 = 3
11-12 =4


I wish they would scrap ability scores and just use mods (which mechanically they have). In this new version you could just roll 2D6 and end up with -1 up to +4. Then at levels 5, 10, 15, you could just add +1s to 4 mods. /claps dust off his hands


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:


If anything, character creation looks substantially more complicated.

Really? Its as easy as ABC.


IDK, im seeing more of a marriage between 3E and 4E in the design myself. I think keeping ability scores at all is unnecessary complexity, but I know why they are doing it. I cant knock the entire system until I rock it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh stat boosters...

If they are as limited as described I can probably live with it.


Midnight Anarch wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
That's a big change. The economy is designed around 3 actions. Spells are a good example, if you can cast 2 of your highest level spells in round 1 of the fight, the outcome will be altered decisively.

Easy solution: the 4th act can only be used for simple actions.

eh, isnt that getting back into classifying actions territory again?


.

PossibleCabbage wrote:


Seems like having parallel naming conventions for this sort of thing is good.

Its a little confusing that you have spells that cost spell points to cast, and spells that require slots to cast. They are not the same resource, but do similar things, but dont work together.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I still don't really understand why "Hit Points" are fine and "Spell Points" are not.

I got nothing for this.


Gorbacz wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I hope the environmental rules are short and simple, because the current rules are insanely simulationist while at the same time easily trumped by spells, items or abilities.
At the same time, significant environmental affects are really critical for limiting PC power and creating challenging situations.
At early levels, yes. At mid to high levels it's less of a challenge and more of "imagine how screwed you'd all be if it wasn't for us full casters".

That is an unfortunate occurrence, but I like those low level challenges for as long as they last. I hope they dont just completely give up on environmental conditions. Especially, since they are working on an exploration mode.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You may be right, but god I hope you are wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope not SF archetypes are not something to emulate imo.


Seisho wrote:


Hellknight: I am sure this one would be a class-agnostic archetype either way

I dont mind generic things like "pirate, shadow dancer, gunslinger" becoming agnostic archetypes. Though, I'd prefer if things like Hellknights, Red Mantiss asassins, and linon's blades, stayed prestige classes. Essentially, anything heavily flavored in setting material gets the PRC treatment. Anything generic gets the archetype route.


The core seems fine IMHO, its the base design that folks should worry about. Unlike PF1, in PF2 the designers get to build out a system that can/should accommodate their future additions. Making sure that core chassis is up to the task will be the real question.


Id be surprised if the design team isnt looking down the road at additional classes beyond core.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
For example I don't get the love for Call of Duty, but I do love FPS games. For CoD to be a game I enjoy not only would 50% of it have to change, but so would the core game design elements that created those elements. I have been a playtester for CoD in the past. I have given my criticisms and at the end of the day when CoD didn't get changed to the style of game I enjoy I was perfectly happy to go play one that was.

If you liked COD, and got a chance to playtest the next version, and you found out it was instead super Mario world, you'd probably have some complaints. You probably wouldn't appreciate folks telling you to go play your old COD or some other game much either.

Not sayin; just sayin.

Then again, it's not like games haven't notably changed their presentation/gameplay and been loved in spite of that. Just to pull one out near and dear to my heart, the 3d Metroid games (aka the Prime series). Spinoffs have also broken genres entirely and are basically franchises of their own now (ie stuff like Mario Cart)

Also saying that PF1->2 is the equiv of CoD to SMB is a bit hyperbolic. You're probably looking more to the effect of previous God of Wars to the current one. New and shiny with a ton of updates and shifts in the previous gameplay formula, but still maintains the feel of its predecessors. The Prime series is another example of that same gist.

ugh, I knew continuing with the COD analogy was going to be a bad idea. Lets use yours about change sometimes being better. Dragon age 2 nearly shelved the franchise, and Mass Effect Andromeda did shelve the franchise, so sometimes change can be detrimental.

Honestly, im not making any judgement about PF2 at the moment. Some folks are concerned about changes being for the worse. There are better ways to engage those folks than, "if you dont like it play something else."


Malk_Content wrote:
For example I don't get the love for Call of Duty, but I do love FPS games. For CoD to be a game I enjoy not only would 50% of it have to change, but so would the core game design elements that created those elements. I have been a playtester for CoD in the past. I have given my criticisms and at the end of the day when CoD didn't get changed to the style of game I enjoy I was perfectly happy to go play one that was.

If you liked COD, and got a chance to playtest the next version, and you found out it was instead super Mario world, you'd probably have some complaints. You probably wouldn't appreciate folks telling you to go play your old COD or some other game much either.

Not sayin; just sayin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like hero points for helping keep a character alive.


I havent seen school abilities or all the wizard feats so right now its hard to say. The cleric definitely sounds more interesting to play with the small sample we have been given.


Nobody is going to examine the books in a store, online however...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
Love no most of what I’m seeing here. One thing I don’t care for is critical failure on a save against Phantamal killer forcing you to make a second save. Just feels kind of clunky to me.

Yeap, feels like save, save, and save or die in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I read you can either counterspell or get a familiar. Are there more options than that? Or does every wizard start by making one of those two choices?


thflame wrote:


I also wanted ULTIMATE customization, in the form of a "classless" option, where you "buy" class features from any list by spending feats and meeting prerequisites.

I think you are pretty much going to get this. Wizard will be the new master class and you just cherry pick away the best parts of every other class via feats.


Milo v3 wrote:
I want character building to be open enough to cover a lot of character concepts, while also having enough depth so that character creation in itself can be fun by putting pieces together.

This is also what I want. I am worried the design has been a bit too much kneejerk in response to dipping though. Guess the playtest will reveal how its gonna look.


With an "exploration mode" im hoping traps get some more work. I know many folks hate puzzles but i hope to see them combined with some traps. Haunts also make haters lists but I love them. Still want a ghostbusters AP Paizo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. You can make interesting setting changes that dont ruin past materials. /signed


Weather Report wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
We are not talking D&D witch we are talking PF witch.
I know, and I think it feels like a wizard variant, easily taken care of without a separate class.

Id maybe agree on a bard variant, and even then I want a full class.


My problem with hybrid or vmc is that it often doesnt feel like a wizard/fighter but just a wizard with one tiny fighter thing. Its not enough so im pessimistic about where PF2 is going. Guess the playtest will reveal how it really feels.


We are not talking D&D witch we are talking PF witch. In PF1 the witch is more like a prepared casting bard than a wizard. Id like to maintain that uniqueness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
If the mods are meaningless (so far we have Bulk that makes Str only non-meaningless, and that can be changed to be based of the Mod not the score quite easily) and they refuse to remove the vestigial limb of Ability Scores for aesthetic reasons the only difference it will make to me is that I have to spend an afternoon making a character sheet without the meaningless scores and better utilize the space.
How do you know that Bulk is based on the score and not the modifier?

Mark knows when to let the beat...


Even if your stat# doesnt actually account for anything mechanically?


After seeing mods only listed in the monster stat blocks, I want it for PCs too. Every "but" I can think of for making stats go away has been answered in the new design blogs. Well, every "but" but rolling for stats that is.

What if rolling now used the D12? Stay with me here gang.
D12 stat results:
1-2 = -1
3-4 = 0
5-6 = 1
7-8 = 2
9-10 = 3
11-12= 4

For rolling fans, is this too much of a change? Im sensitive to tradition since I like a few sacred cows myself, so I am curious if rollers can dig this method?

Or an alternative 2D6.


100% arcane with cure light on their spell list among others? I dont know how else to say it other than I dont want a wizard flavored witch.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.

Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?

What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?

No thanks. I want the core to be as strong as they can make it. After that, I want it opened up with unique systems and classes. I know bloat bells are going off, but I want an expanded system and everything that comes with it.
Having the choice of wizard school (to include various forms of witchcraft, for instance) more open actually builds MORE versatility in to the base class, As that key choice becomes the building point for a wide variety of options in further products. What really is the difference between a witch and a wizard, mechanically, in pf1? All it would take is to roll those things that are different into aspects of the class option instead of a different class.

The difference is the witch is an adept arcane and divine caster. Please dont box them into wizard. Sub-classes or archetypes, what have you, help add depth to their base class. However, sub-classing/archetype cant always create the differentiation of a separate class with its own features as a base class.

This is also the reason I dislike hybrid multi-classing. It can help twist the flavor of a class, but doesn't give the feel of a unique identity.


Thedmstrikes wrote:

I did not have enough time to read this whole thread, but I recall another thread on the boards not long ago that talked about 0 level characters and we speculated about how that could be done in PF. After reading through the quick character gen formula, it can be done easily in PF2 by just not taking a class yet for a 0 level adventure at the end of which you earn your class level.

I am still not a fan of the roll-less stat generation though...

Honestly, the new level 1 in PF2 appears to be a level 0.


CraziFuzzy wrote:

They do not necessarily need to bring back very many 'classes' into the game - they need to bring back the concepts the various classes allowed. If cavalier, warpriest, samurai, and paladin could all be done with once 'champion' class, varied simply by the oath/code, and the specific powers granted by that oath/code, then they don't need to be different classes.

Similarly, if there was the ability to devote a wizards studies to witchcraft instead of rote dedication to a particular school of arcane magic, then do we need a witch class?

What if instead of choosing a deity to worship, a cleric chose a 'mystery'?

No thanks. I want the core to be as strong as they can make it. After that, I want it opened up with unique systems and classes. I know bloat bells are going off, but I want an expanded system and everything that comes with it.


/not signed

1 to 50 of 655 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>