Stormbinder's page

6 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Beast Weener wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

5. the caster/martial disparity: yes, i said the magic words! i'm sure some will completely disregard my post for bringing this up, but it needs addressing: every single class gets roughly the same amount of class features, class feats, skill feats, and general feats to help build their character in the direction they like, and then casters get spellcasting (multiple powerful, thought-provoking options) on top of that. non-caster classes should get something that doesn't cost feats or proficiencies of around equivalent value, be it stronger class features on average, or more interesting and flexible class feat selections, or some equivalent set of actions that they can do instead (DreamScarredPress's martial stances and maneuvers from "Path of War" was one solution: allowing martials abilities to target various saves, inflict different status effects normally impossible, smooth out the clunkier actual maneuvers like disarm or feint, and more. Though I don't think it is the only oway to solve the problem, it was a solid attempt). I repeat, whatever the solution may be, it cannot, must not require a tax, because the entire point is to give them something "on top" to even things out in comparison (and martials don't have a feat advantage with which to pay those taxes).
the point isn't that we should hammer down casters, it's to elevate non-casters to a rough ballpark of similar flexibility and narrative impact.

Thank you! Completely agree. The interesting options/feat combos for martials seem to be needlessly limited and (like most of the system) suffer from a dearth of numerical benefit. For instance, look at Nimble Dodge/Nimble Roll. That's a very interesting option, but the fact that that base +2 that powers it doesn't scale means it's probably not going to proc all that often. Now if it scaled up to, say, 10 at high level and you were allowed to see the attack roll before spending your reaction-that would be something.

I'm reminded of one of the many stages of the...

Yeah, I don't know....I am going to come clean and admit as I have other places I didn't play PF 1 and my playtest experience so far has been limited BUT to me martial classes like the fighter seem just fine. To me the magic seems overall pretty weak and some classic spells are just useless. Our wizard was very disappointed over sleep which when I read it pretty much will never be cast from what I can see.

Our group tends to focus on combat and tactical engagement at the core with a firm foundation of world building and storytelling and the fighter does seem to shine in combat which is I think central to a fantasy adventure game. You mentioned 5E and I have to say I don't fighters are hurting in that game either. IN fact, many spellcasters with the concentration rule (only 1 spell), reduced durations, etc are feeling like fighters with their specialization dice, polearm mastery, and other expertise are shining a little TOO much. I don't know if I agree with that and this is not a 5E thread so I digress but my mainpoint is just from what I have seen in the level 1 playtest we have done magic is....meh and martial characters seem to be doing fine. I could be wrong though.

Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

Hi. I will try to answer as best I can in corresponding order:

1. Not really. I was a fan of 3.5 but as some who has been playing D&D since the advent of 2E I was ready for a change. I felt 4E was the first edition of D&D that truly pushed things forward and brought innovations to the game (like doing away with Vancian magic). I purchased 1E and did not think it was bad but the action economy and clerical healing still being a standard action turned me off from it. To be clear if my group wanted to play PF 1 I would have played without objection but it would not have been my first choice.

2. Please see answer 1

3.I really enjoyed 4E and still play it. I think 5E is a good and solid system and I do enjoy it as well.

4. All of those things are important but the two that resonate with me the most are class balance and smoothness of play at all levels. I will also add I don't think "crunchiness" impacts how smooth a system is or is not. I love the character customization possible with PF.

5. In general I am all for making games more accessible provided choices are not taken away and the rules are not dumbed down in complexity. I think a system can be complex and rules heavy but as long as the rules are clear and the game flows smoothly there should be no issue. Taking away options for accessibility and toning down feel of the game to be more kid friendly for example would be things that woiuld turn me as a consumer away.

6. Yes.

7. Absolutely. I like Paizo and while our group did not play PF 1 I don't feel it is a bad system. The only issue I see is I am not the game master of my group so while I maybe willing to try an alternative ruleset to PF2 I am not certain if my regular gaming group would play it.

8. That is a heavy question that would take a while. I will say in general I would like to see a game system that puts more control in player's hands. I would to see more powerful and heroic characters. There are two main schools of thought when it comes to fantasy heroes. 1) The heroes are just average folks who decided to take up a sword and spellbook instead of a plough and hoe. They are common people who rise to heroics purely through their deeds. 2) This is the more Howardian school of thought that fantasy characters even before they are famous are not just average people their physical abilities (and mental, etc) put them head and shoulders above the common people. They maybe a lowly street urchin or a rustic woodsman or uneducated barbarian but their is already a mantle of greatness about them and with their abiliteis coupled with their deeds they will rise to change the course of history for better or worse. I am firmly in the latter camp versus the former. Lastly, I would strive for class balance and smoothness of play. I don't have a problem with long combat rounds as long as the time in between player turns is fast. If a fight takes an hour but the PCs are acting every say 2 minutes that is cool. If the fight takes an hour and a PC can go for a smoke break and then to make a sandwich and it still isn't their turn to act in the round there is an issue.

I hope this was helpful. Cheers.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
There are no more Neutral Clerics of Evil Gods in Pathfinder, and I for one am extremely disappointed. Now I have to retire the character I've been playing for nearly ten years, or find a group that's okay with houseruling Chaotic Neutral Clerics of Lamashtu back into the game. Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe people won't find this fact a big deal, but for me, unless Neutral Clerics of Evil make it back in by the time the official Second Edition comes out, I'm done with Pathfinder.

I think classes should be allowed to have whatever alignment they want without house rules. This applies not only to clerics but Paladins. The whole concept of a paladin being required to be lawful good in nature is an idea I was glad 4E got rid of and 5E did not reverse.

Cyrus007 wrote:


First of all, I want to thank Paizo for really making a terrific game. I have been involved with role-playing games for 40 years and I have played many games in that time. Paizo has really done a very good job at making their game system fun and exciting to play, esp. the APs.

Nevertheless, as it is inevitable in most game systems, with the ineluctable publish or perish axiom for game companies, the game has become very wonky and unbalanced. When a mid-level character can easily do over a 100 hit points of damage in a round, or have skills in the upper 20 region, if not higher, a GM really can't do a lot to consistently challenge players which does not become repetitive.

Therefore, having just bought the new 2nd edition Pathfinder rulebook, I want tip my hat at what I see as Paizo creative attempt with curtailing the power creep in the game. Although I am still analyzing the new system, I find Pathfinder 2nd ed. to be a much more balanced and broadly designed system than what the state of the game is now. I think it will challenge players in a way that will make the game more exciting and interesting to play, e.g., I hope most skills DC's will become appropriate for the players level and that fights do not last just 1 or 2 rounds-although I am not championing for the horrendously long fights that typified 4th edition D & D.

In the end, I want to thank the game designers, the playtesters, and the staff at Paizo for making what I hope will be a challenging, fun, exciting, and balanced new edition of Pathfinder. I was becoming burned out with the game and now I see a very bright glimmer of hope on the horizon!

Thank you. Have fun everyone.

We are really enjoying PF2. As a player I feel the game is fine and I like the idea that the PCs are not average people who decided to just pick up a sword versus a plough. Their ability scores put them apart and if they live their decisions will make them shine. When I play a game I want to feel heroic and not just by deeds but because I am the hero: the larger than life protagonist along with my friends. I think a game that has DCs set overly high were powers and skills are failing a high percentage of the time will be a game that will not sell very well as that is becoming more a niche market of which their are retroclone games like Hackmaster designed to feel.

Either way I am glad people seem to be actively giving their opinions and participating in the test. I hope Paizo will give a product that makes the majority of folks happy but also has maybe different modes of play well codified within the rules to fit GMS who want say more of a 1st ED retro feel, etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group is still working through and doing some playtesting. Also, I am a player not the GM so everything I have is from a player perspective but here are a few things that stand out to me.


The New Action Economy: I really like the new 3 action economy rule. One thing that really disappointed me and turned me off from playing PF1 was that they still had clerics and other healers having their healing powers be their standard action so the clerics couldn't cast and attack,etc. I frequently play druids focused on "leader" like abilities to use 4E vernacular and clerics. One of the main problems with D&D 1st and 2nd that people complained about was that clerics felt like healbots. They healed while everyone else did something else on their turn. I have been playing since 1st edition and was very happy with the direction 4E took on healing being a minor action so a priest could heal her buddies, then wage into combat swinging a mace for a little damage the way they have always been described as doing. With PF1 our group voted against and I was one of the against votes because healing steal took an action. Well, with the new action economy (if we have been playing it right) my priest can use a touch heal spell (only one action) to heal a friend, then move forward, and then attack. Even 5E went with healing being somethat that for MOST healing spell is not the only thing done that round so Kudos to Paizo on the new direction.

I also like the way characters are built. No rolling at all and with ancestry bumps your characters end up being heroic characters with good stats. Most modern games other than retroclones I think have embraced the idealogy that PCs are heroic (in term of abilities). The PCs are the stuff legends will be woven from. Therefore they are not the average guy that just decided to pick up a sword and go adventuring instead of farming. The tower above average men and women and provided they survive their foolhardy decisions to avoid honest work to be murder hobos they will became truly famous (or infamous) as their ability scores show and their deeds and decisions dictates.


Not a lot of dislikes so far....other than a lot of spells seem REALLY toned down but in all honesty I have felt effective and have not playtested enough to get the full impact of how the spells play out.

ONe thing I will say is that I am all for crunch and having a plethora of options (unlike 5E) but I do think 5E had the right design in making those options stand out. So I think the options for feats in PF2 could be more spectacular. I don't' mind having compartmentalized feats by class, ancenstry, and so forth. My problem is many of the feats seem lackluster and others in my group said the same. I think if they made the feats more fantastic while maintaining game balance that would be an improvement.

Philippe Perreault wrote:

Anybody who just read the character creation rules can understand how to get 18 in their primary stat.

I was wondering if this was a design choice? Because I think it's a poor choice overall.

You have to wait 10 whole levels before stats boost does something relevant and even then, it gives you a measly +1 bonus. You don't have a sense of progression that you get everywhere else on your character.

18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

Nowadays, every fighter and their uncle have 18 in strenght. 18 is the the new normal?

I'm wondering if it's really what we want for the game.

I suggest that 18 should be something to strive for. If you want 18 at the get-go it should cost you. I'm thinking it should cost you a general feat or an ancestry feat. The time it took you to develop those muscles (or brain or charm) in your youth is the time that you didn't spend on something else like weapon training or train your keen eyes.

And if you don't have 18? Well, stats boost will give you a direct benefit until you reach 18. You have 5 level tops where you are 1 point behind the better a humanoid can achieve. Best of all, it gives you a sense of advancement.

Am I the only one who think that 18 is too easily achievable?

I really like the design stat rules in PF2. To be clear I am an old school gamer that has been playing D&D and RPGS for 25+ years. I think the design that PF2 and many new RPGs are embracing that players even if they are fledging adventurers are not just average people but are larger-than-life heroes-the stuff that legends will be woven from is the correct approach. I think this philosophy especially holds true for a fantasy game because the genre owes just as much to the likes of Robert E. Howard's Conan and Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and The Gray Mouser characters as it does Tolkien's more mundane protagonist.

I think this need to have everything be as difficult as possible on PCs and PCs have to actually roll stats and be stuck with subpar scores, etcetera is steeped in the OSR school of gaming, which to be clear I am not belittling or edition warring, but I think the changes that have taken place in design philosophy over the years is good. PF2 is just adopting what most games have embraced: heroes are not just average joes they are truly heroic in abilities if not in reputation (yet).

The stat design and the way PCs are built is one of the most enjoyable aspects of PF2 I have seen thus far. I think for DMs who want weaker PCs they can enforce the rolling rule or maybe they can include somehow 3 modes of play in the final product: Gritty fantasy/ Heroic fantasy/ and Legendary Fantasy. Each of these would reflect different schools of thought regarding PCS. Gritty is mundane/Tolkien fantasy, military style fantasy and/or historical fiction, Heroic Fantasy would be Sword & Sorcery more Howardian style heroes and default D&D style heroes and Legendary would be mythic style fantasy where PCs are scions of like Hercules was and so forth.