Ezren

Thomas the Gank Engine's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber. 22 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

40 hours? Damn


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Hello Paizo CS,

I have a question regarding my order -- I have come to understand through hearsay that since I ordered LOWG, which has been delayed, alongside the rest of my PF2e materials, that I won't receive the other materials until the LOWG is released. Is this correct? And if so, can anything be done to move LOWG to a different order and ship the other PF2e products as soon as possible?

Regards,

The Gank Engine


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Jason to the rescue -- thanks for the clarification :)

Thinking about it more, untrained perception (with its ubiquity) would mean +1 feat tax essentially so I retract my previous statement about liking it for what it's worth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

No one said you'd be unable to raise it. There was a skill feat in the playtest to raise perception to expert, I could imagine the existence of a similar feat to train yourself in it.

Personally, I like it. Not everyone has to be good at perception. The introverted antisocial wizard, for instance, who has better things to do than take his eyes off the arcane rune he found scribbled on the wall.

That's also not to say that your perception score won't increase on its own at level 5 or something. We just don't know enough yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Qundle, early on, made a perception check -- he rolled a 1 and his result was a 2.

Qundles Wisdom is 12

This suggests sorcerers are untrained in perception.

It also reveals that certain classes generally are untrained in perception.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd love to see how spells have changed! I want to see how some staple spells that were missing from the playtest feel like, how durations have been massaged into a better form, and so on.

I'd also like to see how magic items exist without resonance. I did like how resonance allowed us to have a common pool of magic item usages so that we didn't have to track daily use charges on thirty different things. Personally I'd like to see "usable N times per day" to go away.

Also would love to see what they came up with for wands.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

So, across all the staves and all their levels, there are a lot of differences between things like their numbers of charges, their spell selections, and associated powers. The 2 staves that made me notice this first are these:

2x level 3 staves of the same price: Staff of healing and staff of fire.

Staff of fire has:
1 charge,
1x cantrip,
1x level 1,
you can touch something flammable with the tip of the staff to set it on fire

Staff of healing has:
3 charges,
1x cantrip,
1x level 1,
and your heal spells heal for 1 more.

Worse yet, these changes are propagated forward as you get higher level versions of these staves.

Level 7:

Staff of fire:
4 charges,
1x cantrip
1x level 1
2x level 2
2x level 3
bonus unchanged

staff of healing:
5 chanrges,
1x cantrip
1x level 1
3x level 2
2x level 3
Heal spells heal for +2 more

You can also see differences between things like evocation vs enchantment

level 9
enchantement:
6 charges
1x cantrip
2x level 1
2x level 2
1x level 3
4x level 4

Evocation
6 charges
1x cantrip
2x level 1
2x level 2
2x level 3
2x level 4

To resolve this, I made a staff calculator that normalizes power and cost across all levels, but there are issues with it i'll go over

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Jt_Wkf4-t92fbuXtMdY_mZRgKjlr_7-d94 N7XW44U4/edit#gid=706154509

You can technically ditch all level 1 and cantrip spells from a high level staff to fit in an additional level 7 spells or something

you can make a utility staff that just has a big pile of level 1 spells to choose from (which seems neat but could be busted?)

I imagine if paizo cleans up staff crafting rules internally we should see more consistency on release, but i wanted to bring it up so paizo and others could see and review it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I just want to echo what's been said here. Every single one of my players who played a prepared vancian spellcaster (who hadn't previously played one) in any of my games has been extremely confused and usually misused the system unintentionally. I think this is an unnecessary holdover from the older days of tabletop and it doesn't really have a place in modern tabletop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm casting raise thread on this thread to give an additional 2 cents on this topic following the inclusion of Treat Wounds. That being: I still prefer stamina. Presently, treat wounds is too strong I feel. The only cost to its use is time, the DC is low enough that only a crit fail is meaningful, and with sufficient time the party can do a full reset after each fight.

I'll confess that in my group, I've ruled that since a good aid check is likely enough to prevent a critical failure from being a reality in the vast majority of cases, we will forego rolling for it. This is because treat wounds VERY quickly became tedious to play "by the books", the party would just determine how much time they wanted to spend treating wounds, and we'd apply the healing.

In pale mountain's shadow especially falls apart under this system. Whereas before the party has to stop and start and rest often, in the new system they can finish half the adventure in one day.

My vision for why stamina would improve this scenario is as follows:

Since stamina refreshes with a 10 minute rest, resting players will always have at least half their health resources available.

Players will need to make the choice between resting or preparing for the next assault. (certain adventures come to mind as places where individuals resting to restore stamina would be much more interesting than one person treating wounds while another builds a barricade --- "stand still i need to bandage you" doesn't make much sense, how can these be done simultaneously?)

If players want to get up to full HP, they MUST use magical healing resources, battle medic, natural medicine, or sleep.

Parties who play smartly and mitigate damage as best they can will end combats with only a 10 minute rest needed to get up and going again, but parties who lost a lot of hit points must pony up and spend resources to get back into fighting shape.

Treat wounds as I've seen it played is not very fun, and I'd greatly prefer for stamina to make it into the core game.

At this time, this is on my shortlists to house rule.

Curious what others think


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I really like this take on advanced alchemy, and moving expanded resonance to level 1 feels like a no brainer.

One thing that's tripping me up (as it trips me up in RAW as well) is that one can't use class DC for poisons without having used quick alchemy to create that poison. Especially when one considers that poisons have different effects when compared to each other side by side regardless of level, it's strange that one can't use, for instance, giant centipede venom effectively without burning proportionally more resonance for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Leedwashere wrote:

3) It Feels Like a Denial Mechanic: Basically the only interactions a character has with Resonance are as a limit to what you're allowed. "You can only use so many things!" it says.

How would I fix this? There needs to be other interactions that characters have with Resonance that...

I liked your other stuff, too, but point 3 is an awesome idea and I like it a lot. It would certainly give characters that didn't pack a ton of reusable use-based magic items options for their resonance points while letting the rest of us not get our resources double dipped involuntarily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Leedwashere wrote:

-Hates-

1. I hate the medicine skill. They had the perfect tools to make this skill replace the wand shenanigans they wanted to get rid of. But they actually managed to make mundane healing worse than first edition, which is impressive. I frankly didn't think that was possible. This is the first area that I hated so hard that I felt I had to fix it for myself if the developers didn't.

2. I hate the current implementation of Resonance. I want to love it, and based on the previews I thought that I would. Here's the issue for me, though: they didn't take it far enough. If wands, staves, and magic items all used the same, ever-increasing pool to activate, and there was no such thing as charges anymore I would change this to a love in a heartbeat. As it is, you've got your resonance, but you can still only use this thing once per day. What? And they reduced the price of wands (yes!) but they also reduced the number of charges they have

3. I hate the quality-of-life nerfs. Prestidigitation never hurt anybody. Why did they cripple it? It takes an hour to identify the properties of magic by default? Ouch. I get that it was a little too easy in first edition, but they sure over-corrected in my estimation. There are so many similar over-corrections and baffling nerfs to innocuous things that I could probably extend this entry forever.

Totally with you on all 3 of those! Though if I were to make my own list it would be:

Love ---

1. Resonance as a concept -- It has the potential to add a lot of fun flexibility to the magic items players use, especially spellcasters but including the rogue with the cloak of elvenkind or the paladin with that magic armor that gives you wings. So cool!

2. +1/level -- A lot of people hate this, but I think it's great as a GM, and it allows me to easily tune monsters up and down quickly. I'm very excited to see the monster creation rules! Further, it makes sense to me that a *seasoned level 10 veteran adventurer* untrained in stealth would be better at stealth than a level 2 expert stealth rogue. He's done it more! The rogue might be trained better and understand better techniques, but they haven't applied it as much in life-or-death situations.

3. Spell Heightening -- It's so dope! I only wish it were taken a bit further. Sorcerers should be able to heighten all they want, as they're already limited by spell list, throw em a bone!

Hate ---

1. Resonance as it's implemented -- Too many charge based items... Consumables costing resonance... "Uses per day" limitations are everywhere... It feels bad to double dip resources (gold + resonance), and I'm not convinced it really saves balance in any case. A wand of heal (1) is so much worse than a wand of heal (2) that you will QUICKLY run out of resonance trying to heal the party to full with it if you should be using the higher level version.

The only item I can see which really justifies keeping charges is the staff. You have to manage a single item being able to cast like 20 spells, so there has to be more to it than just resonance. That said, being able to invest in a staff only once per day is pretty bad.

2. Alchemists' Implementation -- This piggy backs off of the above. They double dip party resonance resources and their poisons don't scale with DC except with a not-so-good feat. Worse, quick alchemy is clunky to use. I see little mechanical reason for my quick alchemy items to expire at the end of my turn.

3. Over-reliance on magical healing -- It's clear to me from numerous discussions that it's so overly important that every party needs a cleric. Not a healer, a cleric. This appears to me to be a major flaw -- there aren't enough healing options in the game good enough to compete with the cleric. This isn't to say the cleric is too good, rather that the options for other skills or classes to replace the need for a cleric just aren't there. The best I've seen is a full party which trains medicine, learns battle medic, and the bard plays inspire competence as everyone shares the expert healer's tools, people round robin battle medic, and hopes no one rolls a 1.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Pramxnim wrote:


2. Players roll for everything:

I was actually talking to a friend about this today :) It seems like an interesting approach. Perhaps we could have a situation where "The Players roll everything" or "The Defender never rolls". I'd be interested in seeing what people thought of those approaches. iirc Numeria is a game which employs "The Players Roll Everything"

Pramxnim wrote:


Advantage/Disadvantage:
I like this mechanic from 5e, but there it had the disadvantage (heh) of affecting the die roll too much. With 2d10, advantage means rolling 3d10 and dropping the lowest die, and disadvantage means dropping the highest die.

I'm not feeling this or the 2d10 thing. I think it over-normalizes the die, but maybe i'm just too attached to that volatility.

Pramxnim wrote:


Inherent item bonus:

Someone likes automatic bonus progression ;) I agree to an extent here, but iirc runes can be removed and put on different items so I think the problem magic items had in pf1 aren't there in pf2. I could go either way on this.

Pramxnim wrote:


1. Shields:
Shield Hardness is doubled. A simple change that makes shields more usable.

2. Armour:
Simplified Armour system: individual armors don't exist, just types.

I feel like the shields thing is indicative of how mandatory healing is, and thus how absolutely necessary mitigation is. I think at the very least it should be clearer about how much shields block, but doubling the amount might be a bridge too far. Then again, when was the last time your shield got hit and NOT dented?

The armor change sounds like a pretty slick idea. The variation between armors is pretty minor, but it allows some wiggle room from "I don't any dex" to "I have like 2 dex" and the spaces in between. I could get behind this though.

Pramxnim wrote:


Shared hero points

I really like this!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Rules Artificer wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

That said, stamina might still be an option we look at, but I am not sure that we would ever put it in a position to replace healing.

Thanks for the feedback.

I don't think that having Stamina replace healing is necessary. Ideally, a good balanced could be struck between Stamina, mundane healing and magical healing.

Stamina allows the party to take some damage each fight and it not be a huge deal. I do think this is important because a fight in which the party takes no damage doesn't feel very threatening or engaging, while taking a bit of damage and then taking a breather to recover feels more natural. I will specify that if Second Edition adopts a stamina system, the character hit points should be adjusted so that HP + stamina doesn't exceed the current hit point totals.

QFT :) I'm not going to pretend to have a numbers-perfect solution, but whether it's a 25%/75% SP/HP split or a 50/50 split or anywhere around there, I do think it's an elegant framework through which we can build deeper storytelling and greater mechanical freedom into our party composition.


38 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

We were talking on the Pathfinder_RPG Reddit Discord about the present troubles surrounding healing options, particularly at level 1. One need not look too hard to see that a single cleric can double or more the length of a given party's adventuring day. As I stated in another thread, I don't believe this is a fault of the cleric being too powerful, but more that other characters generally do not have good enough healing options to substitute them.

Further, the mundane sources of healing, battle medic and natural medicine, both have extremely high DCs for level 1 characters. Coupled with the low number of spell slots available to heal-capable casters like the druid, level 1 options just aren't there outside of the cleric. Beyond level 1, the cleric has at least twice the capacity to heal of any other casters, without even sacrificing their ability to cast other spells of highest level.

A number of solutions came to mind, and after some discussion we got something we liked. The following is a result of a few hours of discussion amongst GMs and Players about what we would like to see as a possible solution to the issue.

Stamina
The Starfinder system has a split "health" system, cut in half between "hit points" and "stamina points". You gain a number of hit points and stamina points from your class per level, and you add your CON to your stamina points. When taking damage, damage is removed from your stamina pool first.

In starfinder, a character can spend 10 minutes and a resolve point to regain all of their stamina points, but in my view I don't see that adding resolve points is necessary or adds any appreciable depth to the game. As such, I'd say it would work just as well for characters to be able to regain all of their stamina points with only 10 minutes of rest.

TLDR: Stamina but without resolve points.

Mundane Healing

All sources of healing would restore points to the target's hit point pool, then if that is full, restore points to the target's stamina point pool.

Battle Medic and Natural Healing gain DC10 and DC15 options: they heal the target a number of points equal to the user's WIS mod at DC10, and restoring 1d6+wis and 1d4+wis points for Battle medic and Natural Healing respectively for DC15.

Sidenote: With Stamina Points and Spell Points we have 2 things which can be abbreviated to "sp" -- this is a good chance to rename Spell Points to Power Points. Powers are the only things which use spell points, and this change would ruther remove spell points from the misconception of any use of them for spells.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Zman0 wrote:
Then you don't like P2. The system underlying the +lvl scaling is Bound. Literally nothing about design concerns you've listed is easier with the +lvl scaling tacked into P2.

One of the designers said something about off-the-cuff monster creation is a lot easier with the +lvl growth, so I'll reserve final judgment until those are released. So far, again, I still like it from both sides of the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Skeld wrote:

At this point, if this were the final version of the game, I'd just keep playing 1e and cancel my subs (except the AP).

There's no reason to play a game that's less fun with less options and requires more work than the one I have right now.

-Skeld

Idk, I house ruled the hell out of 1e because I had so many problems with it but liked the content breadth. 2e has a much better foundation on which to build content but has some rough edges which can be smoothed out with relatively simple house rules, and the content will come with time. If it released as is, I'd be disappointed but I'd still play it with these house rules.

I get the sense I'm a bit in the minority on that though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Azih wrote:
Also I'd rename Spell Points to Power Points and get rid of ability scores (ability modifiers can go up by 0.5s as usual).

I didn't get around to formatting my suggestions for editorial changes, but spoiler alert you got two of the big ones right there ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Outside the playtest, for some home-games, we are currently going with:

+Level is omitted.

Trained Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level: Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws (and DC), and Spell Rolls (and DC).

Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice0

After having played a certain adventure with a certain creature 2 levels higher than the party (no spoils), I've come to appreciate the level growth quite a bit. You know that old problem with the pathfinder action economy making it so single boss enemies die just by virtue of not having enough actions to keep up with a party of 4 or 5?

Well... their higher level attack bonus combined with the "10 over DC crits" rule makes such encounters VERY dangerous, and I think in a good way. Personally, I like the level growth in the proficiency system very much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

This is the question I want to take the time to answer. I will do my best to format this post in a way that is easy to read and fulfills its purpose. Some of these issues and solutions stem from my own frustrations, others come from frustrations of my players. You (players, GMs, and designers) may not agree with everything I have on this list, but as far as I can tell they address theming or design issues I have with the game in its current iteration. Without further ado:

1. Resonance and Magic Items

Honestly, I love the resonance system as a concept, but there are major flaws in its implementation that I wish to see ironed out before the final game. Most of it comes down to the need to track multiple resource pools unnecessarily.

a. Consumables and charge based magical items no longer cost resonance


  • Alchemical Consumables Still Cost Resonance (see below with the alchemist)

Problem: The usage of consumable magic items exacts a double toll on its users. The user must spend resonance to activate it, and spend irretrievable gold to acquire it.

Wands no longer have charges (and as such should maybe cost more)

Problem: The resonance system offers a way for the system to move away from having to track the charge levels of individual items by and large. For the purpose of healing, a wand of heal (2) heals 3 times as much per resonance point as a wand of heal (1). Players should need no further incentive to invest in the stronger item at that point. I believe the charges are wholly superfluous.

Staves can be invested in multiple times per day, (and now takes 10 minutes?)


  • Casting from a staff still costs both resonance and charges (they are the sole exception to the rule about charges)
  • There is now room for a staff user's feat -- Staff Savant: You can charge a staff with 3 actions.

Problem: When comparing and contrasting wands and staves, there are three major differences:


  • Staves must first be invested to be used, as such they cost more.
  • Staves are flexible, they contain multiple spells.
  • Wands are unlimited in their uses per day (so long as you have resonance and sufficient charges or better yet charges are removed from them)

So, the main draw of staves is they're flexible, but the main cost is the increased resonance point cost to use them and the day-long downtime between recharging them. But is there any benefit to this time restriction? I'd argue that if a user has resonance and an hour (or 10 minutes, or whatever) to spare, they should be able to invest again to use their staff further.

Now, you may be wondering why I want to remove charges from wands but not staves. Well, the staff charge system serves a major purpose in my view: First, it increases the opportunity cost of staves, and second it leaves in a system for managing multiple different spells of varying levels within the same item while keeping the same resonance point cost. Is it perfect? No. But I like the implementation myself.

Resonance is now flat 3+level instead of cha+level


  • Alchemists still add int to their resonance pool

Problem: It appears resonance is this universally useful tool, yet aside from the fact that pathfinder 1 had use magic device as a charisma skill, there's little reason for it to be tied to charisma (other than perhaps that charisma should be more useful). I could go either way on this one, except for that alchemists should add their intelligence to their pool, not simply substitute the other bonus.

Trinkets are no longer consumable and their cost increases appropriately (becoming the “permanent level 1 magic item” which no one can seem to find)

Problem: Trinkets... are a neat idea I guess. The problem I find is the combination of them being consumable, being expensive for a level one player but being useless beyond that point makes me wonder if they would be better employed as permanent items, like weaker versions of higher level items. Consider, the potency crystal. In RAW, for one resonance, you can activate it as a free action for 2gp to get a single strike in where that weapon is enhanced to a +1 weapon. If, however, the player spent 50% more money for a scroll of magic weapon and handed it to a wizard, they'd get a potential 10-30 more strikes out of that gold. The difference is staggering. Trinkets could remain the level 1 boon they are but simply not be consumed on use. They're still hugely expensive per resonance, but in this way they'd be attractive.

The vast majority of items which have an activate action with a limit of “once per day” no longer have that restriction.

Problem: Again, we see the resonance system existing alongside another system of tracking which we shouldn't need. Again, I love resonance, so let me use it! Is it really game breaking to be able to use the Cape of the Mountebank (for example) multiple times a day? As a GM, "Hey, it's your level 11 magical artifact!" -- I'd remove this restriction.

2. Spell Points
Oof. Now that we have the big one out of the way, let's hit this fairly small one. First, a lot of powers seem pretty weak generally. I'd like to see their effectiveness normalized at least a little (buffed generally, I'd hope). That's a bigger problem than I can house rule though, and something that I consider more of a content issue than a foundational issue. Instead I'll focus on a bit more of a glaring issue.


  • You gain power points equal to key ability modifier plus level/2
  • Additional powers do not increase pool

Problem: With powers generally being as weak as they are, and spell points being as scarce as they are, one starts to question why the system is there in the first place. At the very least, players should be gaining spell points as they level.

Side note: Further down, I have some editorial suggestions about spell points and powers.

3. Feats
The purpose of this section is to address the concerns of myself and my players who feel their options are too limited in their build craft, particularly at lower levels. This is especially potent from players of Pathfinder 1E, who feel that their options are greatly reduced from what they had before even with similar builds (like a mostly-core level 16 paladin). These adjustments broaden those horizons some while hopefully not causing uncalled for player power creep.

You gain an additional class feat at level 1 and every 3 levels after (4, 7 etc)

Problem: In PF1, classes gained access to many flavorful class features. In PF2, many of these appear to be moved out into feats (which I think is very fun!)

The problem seems to be that in PF2, all characters gain a feat every other level but get fewer class features. This hurts the fighter most of all, as they went from some features and a feat almost every level to about the same amount of features (plus flexibility) and a feat every other level.

With multiclasses and prestige classes being feats now, the problem is exacerbated, where cool builds don't open up until really late, most notably the theurge (caster with 2 spell lists).

1 more feat per 3 levels will help here, without massively buffing PC power (and thus forcing a rebalance of the entire system).

The numbers could be tweaked, certainly. Perhaps 1 feat at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 instead. The point is I think more class feats are called for.

You now begin play with 2 ancestry feats at level 1

Problem: A lot of ink has been spilled here so I'll be brief. Half-Orc/Elf feats feel weird because options don't open up until much later. Feels odd that you'd only unlock feats of your own blood and ancestry until you're several levels into your adventuring career.

All classes gain access to the following feats as class feats


  • General Focus -- You gain a general feat
  • Skill Focus -- You gain a skill feat
  • Skill Training -- You gain a skill increase

Problem: 9 times out of 10, these skill feats and general feats are not as good compared to a class feat, but sometimes taking one opens up build options which would be otherwise unavailable until much later due to the slower rollout of these general feats. Or maybe you just wanna take hefty hauler at level 1.

4. Skills
Get ready. Most of this section stems from perhaps a sense of unmet expectations. The idea of "trained skill unlocks" was very exciting to me, and so I was pretty disappointed to see that so few of them got impactful, exciting unlocks. I'll lay out a list of feats which I believe should become trained skill unlocks, but won't go into detail on most of them. Those that didn't get an addition were ones which I felt didn't need it.

Several skill feats have become trained skill unlocks. (Recognize Spell, battle medic, etc) -- Backgrounds that would have granted this feat now grant a different feat


  • Acrobatics -- Cat Fall
  • Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion -- Recognize Spell
  • Athletics -- Quick Jump
  • Crafting -- Quick Repair
  • Deception -- None Sidenote: Ya'll feint is really good. Read that business.
  • Diplomacy -- Hobnobber
  • Intimidation -- Intimidating Glare
  • Lore -- ??? Sidenote: I'm not really sure what purpose lore serves in the game at this stage. I don't know how to approach it as a GM, and I don't know why I would want it as a player (unless the adventure told my GM to tell me to take it.)
  • Medicine -- Battle Medic Sidenote: Nonmagical healing is so exceedingly rare, despite it being needed more than ever that gating this ability off behind a feat feels really strange.
  • Performance -- Fascinating Performance
  • Society -- Sign Language
  • Stealth -- Experienced Smuggler
  • Survival -- None
  • Thievery -- None

All classes gain 2 floating signature skill selections
Problem: Many of my players have complained to me about not being able to select skills as signature that they would like to be able to use. They question why their class should entirely dictate what skills they can master or become legendary in.

5. Spells

The difference in power for any caster between PF1 and PF2 is stark. Again, the underlying systems I think are great, but the initial content pass on the playtest spells combined with the reduced meaning of what "full spell progression" is too much. I have some minor suggestions for at least addressing some easy problems.

Spells per day progression goes from 0 to 2 to 4 instead of 0 to 2 to 3 (+1 for sorcerer)

Problem: At the very least, it's odd that every other level one gains access to one fewer spell. The reduction in the amount of spells which can be prepared per level down to 3 is again in stark contrast from the 6 or 7 one could prepare from PF1e. Now, I'll agree that casters were far better than martials in 1e as the next guy, but again I think this is too far.

Sorcerers can heighten lower level spells spontaneously without knowing the higher level variant
Problem: The fact that sorcerers have to learn the higher level variant just feels like a slap in the face to a class that historically has been the weaker cousin to its prepared counterpart. I'd remove this restriction.

More Heightening
It's a cool concept, but it'd be a shame to see all these core, staple spells not gain heightening capabilities and fall by the wayside as splatbooks come in full of heightening capabilities. Not all of them need heightening, mind, but there are a number of easy ones, like magic weapon! (example: Heighten +2, increase the potency by another +1)

6. Classes

I'll only be able to comment on classes I've been exposed to so far. This means: No druids, no barbs, no rangers. That said, I'll do my best with what I have.

Sidenote: Clerics. Clerics are really good. But I don't think they're *too* good, I just think their relative strength is indicative of a larger problem. I think rather than bumping the cleric down, the healing capability of any party should be increased, whether that's by reducing access to non-magical healing options, giving druids and other casters better access to healing abilities (better goodberries with the above spell point change, perhaps?), and/or increasing the availability of healing via magic items. This could also perhaps be solved with this "healing surge" system I've heard about from dnd5e, or the stamina system from starfinder. I'm down for anything!

Alchemist


  • Items with the infused trait do not cost resonance to use for anyone.
  • Items made from the quick alchemy feat remain usable until the next time the alchemist does their daily preparation (or at the same time as advanced alchemy items becoming inert)

Problem: Consider, the alchemist as a support. A supportive alchemist is hardly any more than a drain on their party's resources. The cleric need not use its ally's resonance when healing, nor need the wizard do the same when applying haste. Why then should the alchemist, who spent their own resonance creating these alchemical items, force their allies to spend yet more resonance to use them? It's a strange situation which makes the class at the very least seem unwelcome in the group.

Further, the efficient alchemy feature allows an alchemist at preparation to make items at double the efficiency per resonance than quick alchemy. Therefore, holding your resonance to use it for quick alchemy is for those emergency situations where you "have just the thing for this" and you'll whip it up. The extremely limited duration by which that item is usable makes for annoying action economy management, especially when trying to make something like an antidote.

Wizard


  • The wand from makeshift wand feat has 3 charges but costs no resonance to use

(This one mostly just keeps up with the above changes to wands)

Monk


  • Monastic Weaponry is a level 1 free class feature

Problem: Most monk weapons are at best "okay", gating them behind a feat makes the option completely unattractive.

Sorcerer


  • Bloodline powers are now optional (they become feats which can be selected, with appropriate prerequisites)

Problem: Much ink has been spilled here as well, so I will simply offer my +1 to this minor change.

7. Actions
Last, but not least in my house rules is actions. Where I have one minor change:

The interact action allows the character to interact once with each hand (sheathe 2 weapons, draw a weapon and open a door, etc)

Problem: As one of my players walked through the dungeon with 2 hands free, he looked at me in confusion when I said he had to spend 2 actions to draw both of his weapons. This seemed strange to both of us. You have 2 hands, and 2 weapons, just pull both of them out at once!

That's all for now! Later I'll do a post on what I perceive as severe core content problems and some editorial changes which should make the rule book easier to navigate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Disagreement here: I like bulk a ton better than the other system from PF1. It's easier to track and is actually kind of *fun* to track if you can believe it, and it makes strength pretty valuable to non-martials. A level 4 cleric with a ton of kits, 16 strength, heavy armor, 2 weapons, a staff, and a heavy shield did just fine by just taking the hefty hauler general feat.