I want to underscore DMW's point about bias in reviews.
Lots of people in the business of reviewing things are actually in the business of self promotion. Youtubers, bloggers, and even forum and reddit posters are incentivized to present their material in a manner that drives views and clicks rather than in an unbiased, fair manner. An accurate review is likely going to essentially boil down to "If you like x, y, and z, then you should convert to PF2, if you don't, then stay where you are" which everyone already knows and is pretty boring. It's so much more entertaining to play up the controversy between The One True Opinion and The Obviously Wrong Viewpoint.
Sure, there will be good reviews out there, but it can be hard to tell which are which. Best to give the rules a good look over with your own two eyeballs before discussing it in a rational manner with your group.
If you think PF1 is a perfect game and can't imagine how to improve it (or can, but have already done so via House Rules), then you should keep playing PF1 and not even examine PF2. Full stop.
If you like PF1, but see various problems with it, you should probably at least have a look at PF2, as it is, at least in part, the designers response to their own perceived problems with PF1, and they're smart people who had the time and resources to come up with good solutions. Their solutions may not agree with yours, but examining what they are is still a very useful exercise.
I like PF1, but I also very much see a number of problems with it that I think PF2 solves. That's not true for everyone, but I think the vast majority of players of PF1 have at least some issues with it, meaning they should take a look at PF2.
Only those with absolutely no issues with PF1 should not at least examine PF2.
This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.
The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.
DMW: "If you have issues with PF1, give PF2 a look"
Crayon: "That's strange, bordering on nonsensical!"
1. Witch. I need my hexes, yo. Once we have Witch I can cobble together a Shaman.
2. Slayer. I don't even care that this might just be a ranger/rogue multiclass. Properly explored it will be an elegant martial addition like it was in PF1, and another way to get sneak attack with different flavor.
3. Oracle. I don't even like it, but other people do a LOT.
4. NPC classes. Don't give me that look. I want to play a commoner from level 1 to 20 even if it doesn't make sense.
The premise that PF2 is somehow a watered down PF1 is flat out wrong.
It's an improvement over PF1 in many ways, built by people who love and still play PF1.
There will be AT LEAST as many different ways to build a character, and building a variety of different concepts is still the foundational cornerstone of the system.
Lots of the build complexity (e.g. the stuff that makes it take a long time to get a character built to be effective) was simply moved to more interesting, active complexity. Combat is going to be so much more dynamic, and experienced players are going to get more mileage out of the same characters simply by knowing how to make sound tactical decisions. When to block, when to delay, when to use which combat feat etc.
I recommend taking a hard, fresh look at the system when it launches without listening to outside opinions. It will either suit you or it won't.
My biggest pet peeve of the traits: Tusked. Oh? Now we're straight up giving extra attacks to certain races with a trait? A race that's already quite strong? And to hell with all the other races that would be a better thematic fit for a bite attack (kobolds anyone?).
When I saw that trait I knew the whole trait system was busted for good, and let people take feats strictly for abilities rather than nonsensical flavor that may or may not have even fit my world.
Since I'm porting a currently running campaign over, and the characters have some pretty important loot, I need to import the Rail Gun and the Arc Rifle.
I'll also need to update some homebrew items, but that's not a concern.
We know the idea is that prestige classes will be archetypes with requirements that can be met at roughly 6th level. While I'm not sure how that's going to interact with prior multiclass dedications, I think the potential is there for prestige classes to mesh much better with a wider variety of character builds.
Shadowdancer, for example, had combat reflexes, dodge, mobility, stealth 5, and perform (dance) 2, as requirements. It primarily gave progression in roguey stuff, as well as a variety of shadow magic things.
Should it require rogue dedication? Simply trained in stealth and some sort of performance? Should it have mostly shadow stuff in its feat list, or should it also include rogue themed feats? Should the shadow stuff be focus power based?
In general, how many levels of feats should prestige classes have? Enough to take all of prestige feats from 6 to 16, to mimic their 10 levels in PF1? Just a handful of really good feats you could take at any level mixed in with your base class stuff?
Witch. It's really the only one that has a big place in my homebrew world which can't be adequately modeled using multi-class rules.
I'm thinking I'll start with the wizard chassis and switch arcane to occult spell lists.
School and thesis will be converted into patron and familiar with focus powers serving as hexes. probably stealing and reskinning focus spells from other classes which are more thematically appropriate rather than making completely new spells.
Without the final rules I can't exactly say how but I think I can make something that is workable.
You know what would be kind of cool? Spending a focus point to gain the unlimited use of a hex, then refocus lets you change hexes, or refresh your ability to do the 1/day/target thing again.
Let's steer away from that particular flame war for now though.
Regarding reactions; I could see a setup where you choose to be asked each time or assign a priority list to automatically take reactions as they're triggered.
I'd also like to point out that if it's easy to make into a CRPG, it's also easier to code into character gen software or virtual table tops like Fantasy Grounds.
I've been playing the Pathfinder: Kingmaker computer roleplaying game and I think it just has to be said: Second edition is going to be crazy amenable for turning into a CRPG. Not just to faithfully re-create the game, but to provide an enjoyable experience for non-ttrpg players.
You have:
1. Straightforward ABC character generation that's easy to code and walk through.
2. Separate pools of feats, obtained in a predictable progression that can be easily visualized over a 20 level spread
3. Opt-in mechanics to limit cognitive overload and let subsystems be independently excluded or modified
4. 3 action economy for straightforward turn based combat
5. High skill floor, allowing a narrower band of game difficulty options
6. Fewer build options that require pre-planning many levels in advance
7. Easier monster customization, to make more interesting monsters that are enjoyable to face, and also easier to scale slightly up or down for player level wiggle room
8. Better defined out of combat rules for searching, sneaking, traveling, etc to help spice up the time walking between encounters or through the world
9. Refocus feature allowing extension of adventuring days without encouraging players to retreat and spam rest for a better overall gaming experience
10. Easy to code and parse conditions, which stack or cancel in obvious ways
11. Scaling cantrips providing consistent magical blasting to avoid fatal encounters with non-obvious threats like swarms, which are highly intolerable to inexperienced gamers
12. Sensible experience system with meaningful numbers for new players
13. Opportunity to provide new kinds of hidden rewards, like bonus feats, without destroying game balance to cater to non-loot motivated players, or fans of "use a skill to improve it" systems.
Just LOL if you don’t have a sniper with Force Soles Mk 2 walking half a mile above the rest of the party at all times, outside the max range of all non-sniper weapons on the ground.
I love everything about this.
I love that it's laughable to assume someone *isn't* walking in the sky.
I love that the sniper would be a speck, communicating exclusively through the comm unit and binoculars or scope.
I love that the sniper would only be relevant during combat, otherwise spending time looking around at clouds. Sipping from their canteen.
I love that the sniper could be hit by a passing plane, whose pilot would have no idea what just got smeared across their transparent aluminum.
No could about it. This change takes Longbows from the definitive ranged weapon of D&D going back decades to a niche campaign specific option. That's a huge degree of culture shock and very punishing to anyone who wants to wield a longbow in a traditional campaign.
Yes but the point was to eliminate the "this is the best weapon no matter what and everyone will take it unless they can't" weapon categories. The longbow is still good, just not the best martial ranged weapon in every circumstance. Again, nothing says you can't use a longbow, it just might not be the best ALL THE TIME.
Everyone used a longsword, and a heavy shield, and breastplate was the only used heavy armor, and when was the last time anyone wore half-plate, etc. Why is Paizo printing 500 weapons if everyone is just going to pick from a group of 4 or 5?
They have gone a long way towards varying the weapons . But has armour been varied enough ? Are there still going to be a bunch of useless armour options like splint and half plate ?
In the playtest there were fewer obviously junk armor options. Most added up to a similar total AC with armor and dex cap. Surprisingly, Half Plate was just all around better than full plate if you had 14 dex.
Here's a facet of the discussion I'd like to focus on a bit further:
"A caster deciding to spend resources without multi-classing to give their build some weapon-centric goodies is inherently stepping on the toes of martial classes, regardless of the flavor or strength of said goodies."
That's the position at least a few posters appear to be taking.
Here are some questions regarding that:
1. If casters shouldn't natively get any weapon-centric stuff, why do things like Savage Slice exist?
1.a. If Savage Slice exists, why can't similar options exist for any fighting style?
1.b. If Savage Slice is just druidy flavor, why was it arbitrarily decided that druids like slicing?
2. Is a martial classed character spending skill points to be able to perform rituals stepping on caster class toes?
3. Is the Fighter's baseline kit comparable to other class's (e.g. spells, barbarian rage) or is their class niche disproportionately dependent on their feats?
3.a. If Fighters are all about their feats, does that make them inherently step-on-able because this is a system about customization with feats?
I'm sorry, in what case would you have Rapid Shot at level 1? Point-Blank Shot is a math fixer, and is really just there to slow down Precise Shot. The first real actual thing that shows you're an archer is Rapid Shot, coming at level 5 in this example. Or you can multiclass for Druid 2/Fighter 1 and get it at level 3, and... be a lot less of a druid.
You can add the need for splints to fix your broken leg if that makes you feel better, but I'd rather start without the broken leg.
Weapon Focus (Longbow) or Point Blank Shot both gave me what I'm after in this discussion: investment in archery.
We're not talking about strength or weakness of options relative to PF1 or PF2.
This is all I've been saying all this time.
When a player asks me "What can I do to improve my archery?" and I say "You can spend a feat to multiclass fighter or ranger, then get access to an archery feat, or you can stay in your lane and just do more druid stuff" I feel that this is insufficient.
I should at least be able to say "You can spend a skill feat to do archery trick shots!"
Fortunately, as a GM I will be able to say "Go nuts multiclassing, you got all these extra feats to play around with, let me know if you need any more help breathing life into your concept before level 6"
So what do you think a fighter should be able to do then? Because it sounds like if you take a big step back you want all the things a fighter gets to be not feat locked and available to all. Fine, but then what do fighters get instead? Or have I missed something somewhere
You can use the weapons much more effectively in this edition but fighters can do it better. And if you want to soon you have to be more like them...
I'm going to be as clear as I possibly can because it seems that I'm not getting my point across:
1. I want to be able to say I'm invested in a weapon. As a character in a roleplaying game, I feel that should always be an option, just as you can invest in different skills, or invest in different classes.
2. Investment in a weapon doesn't have to be as strong as combat feats from another class. It could even be on par with skill feats.
3. Fighter class feats should not be endangered by the above, because they are presumably cool and interesting enough to hold up the class on their own.
3a. If low power weapon investment feats *do* threaten the Fighter class, then the class is in serious trouble.
4. If the *only way* to invest in a weapon is to multiclass, which people in this thread seem to be alternating between arguing and denying, then I will make multiclassing easier for my table by giving out extra feats.
5. Extra feats typically open up options for actions, rather than straight boosting numerical power, so extra feats should be relatively low-impact.
[Unsolicited advice on building an elf longbow shapeshifting character]
So, I want to tell you this with all the love in the world, but you have a habit of trying to answer subjective discussion with rather unhelpful nit-picking of examples. Examples which there could be an infinite number, but we don't have the time to fully explore.
Usually I try to stay focused on the big ideas, especially since we don't have all of the final rules at our disposal. I also haven't fully memorized every nook and cranny of the rough draft of the rules.
If I tell you that it takes too long for my character concept to be adequately represented by the mechanical choices of my build, your response shouldn't be "You're wrong, see, I did it fine". It should be to try to understand why I feel the way I do.
So, to counter nit-pick, as an example as to why nit-picking isn't helpful:
Malk_Content wrote:
Level 1 Elf feat (Weapon Fam) gets you the basic use of the bow. I think expecting more that basic use at level 1 + all your other druid features would be a bit much so this works so far.
Go Wild Order druid and you have your Wild Shape.
It also gets me access to Elven Curve blade, which works with Dex, so I'm perfectly suited to use that instead. So I'm just as invested in the Elven Curve blade as the bow.
In PF1 I would have all the druid stuff (not that it matters to this discussion) and an archery feat. PF2 actually gives me more of my concept with the pest form wild shape at this level.
Malk_Content wrote:
Level 2 Take either Fighter Dedication (and now retrain your ancestry feat because Fighter gives you what you want), Ranger Dedication. There are no Wild Shape things here, and if you are wild shaping for melee then Savage Slice doesn't work anyway.
I'm operating under the assumption the Savage Slice was meant to work for Wild Shape, and if not, there will be another relevant feat to take for either Wild Shape or Bow, and even if that's not the case Savage Slice indicates there should be some weapon-based in-class feat for me to take. If not, then say I do take Fighter Dedication. Still not invested specifically in a bow.
Malk_Content wrote:
Level 4 Take Animal Shape.
Level 5 [If Ranger dedication] get Weapon Elegance.
Still no bow or archery specific investment, and certainly not longbow itself.
Malk_Content wrote:
Level 6 If Ranger take Favoured Aim. If Fighter take Point Blank Shot or Assisting Shot. You don't get to take Insect Shape, but it isn't a prereq for the more powerful Shapes anyway.
Yay, by level 6 I have something I can finally say makes me an archer character besides the equipment I'm carrying. In PF1 I had that at level 1. Not to mention, 6th level druid feats might by that point be more valuable than my bow fixation. After 6th levels I may have abandoned the idea altogether and I'm a Elven Curve Blade character now.
So it comes down to the fact the druid had to lose something in order to get a fighter thing. Which is the same in PF1. Whats different is that fighters actually get some special identity past "just have more feats."
Okay, so we're just going to have to fundamentally disagree that being able to be invested in a weapon or fighting style is a "fighter thing". I think it's something anyone should be able to do, you don't. We can move on.
Dave2 wrote:
Then I would think a DM would let you do that. Trade out one weapon group with the other.
That's a fair suggestion. Being, the GM, however, I went another route and said everyone gets double feats so that we can potentially avoid having to house rule individual feats on a case-by-case basis, and people who don't want special adjustments can spend their feats on more cool in-class stuff.
After all, I don't need investment to come in the form of strong out-of-class fighting style feats, but those sure do count as a form of investment! Being assured that additional feats aren't as big of a power boost as it was in PF1, I'm pretty comfortable with this approach for now.
Seisho wrote:
From what I've seen in the pleytest I would disagree with you
A fighter has several very good combat options
who else can go fight with a one handed weapon, make the enemy flatfooted with an open hand, and go in for a heavy strike with two hands?
I mean, other characters could learn it with dedication, of course, but that is the story behind many class feats now
So you would agree that minor, less cool options that would allow one to consider themselves invested in a weapon style wouldn't unduly step on the Fighter's toes?
Class meant quite a bit in PF1/3.5. Fighters could not smite evil or cast fireball without multiclassing. So yes class meant something. It was just every half way decent thing fighter could do was feat. Everyone had access to those feats. I do not think that should be the case. I think if you like a feature another class has you should multi class into it. Otherwise I would think any class ability should be a feat. Let’s have all spells be feats so we truly have an open system. I am personally not fan of that but if we want an open system there you go. I would say it would be something like an accountant saying it sure is cool what those Navy Seals do. Let me take feat so I can do that stuff too.
As I said, they meant something insofar as they were bundles of features. If you wanted to smite evil and lay on hands and get good cha-enhanced saves, but you have to be good, you went paladin. If you wanted spells, you went to a spell class. If you wanted to have cool shape shifting abilities you went Shifter or Druid.
At any point, if a class said you can't do something the character concept requires, then that class is no longer an option as long as there's another way to achieve a closer approximation of your concept.
This notion that *weapon choice* is now a class feature is brand new. It's also not strongly supported based on how easy it actually is to get proficiency.
Also, all along Fighters being the Combat Feat class has been a problem with me. In PF1 they finally clawed their way out of that hole with advanced armor and weapon training. If in PF2 the still don't get cool class features, relying instead on just having the best weapon feats, they're going to end up being bland, multiclass fodder.
And I seem to need to repeat myself: looking for a way to be invested in a weapon or fighting style, which is a natural thing to want in an RPG, doesn't mean being the *best* at that weapon or fighting style, nor does it mean the character should wholly revolve around that thing.
So why is it a problem to dip into another bundle of mechanics to get what you want? Unless picking a Druid does mean something to you. And it isn't like dipping for Weapon Focus, its like dipping to get a whole new ability with your weapon. You aren't ever just getting a +1 to hit, you are getting something like grappling an enemy when striking them, or swinging a heavy weapon in such a way that the back swing doesn't suffer MAP if you missed. All of these are more flavorful and show more of a weapons actual style for your investment over the extra +1 you got in PF1.
Also the magic weapon thing is less of a problem in PF2, because you can just transfer the rune across.
It's a problem because you have to sacrifice some of the content of the bundle of mechanics to get the investment with the certain weapon type or fighting style.
The druid example was because it was from an attempted and failed character concept I tried to make in the playtest, and the point of failure was that the mechanics I wanted from the class outweighed finding a means of being invested in a weapon.
The original concept was an elf longbow wielding druid who used spells to buff team members and shoot from the edge, and would wild shape and melee when buffs and heals ran out. As it turned out, the longbow was the least important feature and got starved out, since earlier access to wild shape trumped whatever minor bonuses to bows I could get. Looking for any reason to stick with longbow, I found it was just too cumbersome with the volley penalty, so shortbow it went. Then I ran into the problem of that slashing weapon feat hanging there enticing me to go full melee.
How that has changed with the final PF2 rules I have yet to see. I know volley has changed, and there may be in-class druid bow feats, and there may even be non-dedication weapon style feat pools.
As for the weapon runes; that certainly does help, yes.
I think a big part of the reason I'm more concerned about this than others is that I'm very much not in the "Class needs to *mean* something" camp. To me, class have always been a bundle of mechanics that you use to achieve a character concept. In any game where class starts making too many decisions for you, I quickly begin to lose interest.
I start by coming up with a character by asking things like "What are they like? How do they solve conflicts? If they get in a fight, what do they use to defend themselves?"
I'll take what I need from classes to get the mechanical representation of my concept, not make decisions on my concept based on what's available to X class. In PF1, since feats were available to anyone to customize what weapons you can pick up and utilize, class was open to select the rest of the necessary mechanics.
I didn't shy away from picking up a Scythe because it wasn't on the list of clerics' approved weapons. The mere thought that I *shouldn't* use a weapon because I chose X class is foreign and repugnant to me.
Now, the problem in 2E isn't generally that I can't pick up any weapon I care to, it's that I don't have good reason to, and what's more, some classes actively discourage certain choices. It's an unfamiliar space to be in, and I'm concerned about the perception I'll have of being uninvested. I know from other game systems where it happens (Diablo 3) even small mechanical nudges one way or another can totally derail what I had hoped to achieve with a character. Something as simple as the magical weapon the boss was wielding could send me down a totally different game experience for several or more levels.
For all the flaws of feat taxes in PF1, they did encourage you to pick a type of combat. I'm glad they're gone, but I'm still searching for that means of clearly saying "This character prefers this weapon" if that's part of what that character's story entails. Diving into multiclassing just to achieve that is like doing a 1 level dip in PF1 just for Weapon Focus.
I feel like daggers are always a tricky example because they are a simple weapon and thus will naturally be weaker than martial. The martial equivalent would be a starknife. But in either case, just focusing Dex over Str (which you would want for throwing) would make you better with the knives than the Scimitar.
Daggers don't need to be good. I'm opposed to there being in-class options for certain weapons but not others, simply because someone decided which weapons are okay for druids to use.
Edge93 wrote:
But really, there's a bit of a double standard in your examoke in this post.
Fighter needing to spend class feats to focus into Spellcasting (aka something not specific to his class)? Fine.
Druid needing to spend class feats to focus into a specific fighting style (aka something not specific to his class)? Bad.
You call the Druid example bad because it requires multiclassing and "setting back important things", but the Fighter has to do the exact same to get spells.
Gaining access to spells is a bigger deal than switching one in-class weapon option for another. Going for them needs to you to plan on multiclassing from level 1 when you're selecting ability boosts. Even then, PF2's spellcaster multiclassing is fantastic compared to PF1.
The problem is the flow of building a character focused on a weapon they have little indication that they can't focus on. At *minimum* there should be options to expand on the use of weapons that the class grants proficiency in.
Otherwise you end up with this:
1. I want to make a Sorcerer/Cleric who fights with a quarterstaff!
2. Got my strength up, I'm proficient, and I'll take these spells to buff my melee further!
3. Oh... there's no feats I can take to boost my quarterstaff skills.
4. Oh well, I'll do fine with the baseline stuff and buffs, multiclassing again for out of class quarterstaff stuff would take too long and use too many feats.
5. Actually, this *other* weapon is just all around better, and since I don't have a reason to stick with staves...
6. I'll make a Sorcerer/Cleric who fights with [generic mathematically superior weapon]
I actually like and think that it is the point of Pathfinder 2 that not every class should be the master of dual wielding or two handed attacks. That may be a feature of the fighter through class feats. So yes it may be harder for the Champion/Paladin to be the master of two handed attacks. I think that is the point though.
"Mastery" is one thing. No one is arguing that every character of every class should be able to become "masters" of what ever form of combat they like. A PF1 cleric with a reach weapon wasn't some kind of demi-god of martial fury.
It is 100% fair to expect to be able to spend character resources on basically anything you want to pursue though. That's kind of been the base expectation of Pathfinder and 3.5e for quite some time now.
It doesn't have to be a good idea. It doesn't have to mesh well with your class's other tools. The whole point is that it's your character, and you get to decide what's right for them.
In PF2, a player says they want to play a fighter who dabbles in spells? You tell them that spells are a powerful thing, and it'll cost them class feats, and here's how to do it.
In PF2, a player wants to throw daggers as a druid and asks if maybe they could get something in place of the slashing weapon druid feat? Gotta multiclass out to another class solely because someone's vision for druids didn't include being slightly better at daggers than scimitars. Also doing so will push back some key things you also care about one or two levels even if you just wanted to spend one feat.
What is the problem with Group Impression? Does it not work how it is supposed to?
I believe it's the idea that you can't make an impression to a group without it. If I didn't see that feat, there's no way I would have tried to stop a player from addressing a group.
Excuse my ignorance on this, I was looking through the play test for “Combat Feats” and could not find them. I found the sections on General and Skill Feats and each class has their Class Feats, but don’t know where the Combat Feats mentioned are.
Combat feats have been rolled into Class feats. There is no distinct category called Combat Feats anymore.
This was done because:
1. Many Combat Feats from PF1 were numerical increases which are no longer necessary in PF2.
2. Reducing your potential selection of feats down to smaller pools makes it easier to parse for new players.
3. General and Skill feats can be freed up to make more non-combat options without sacrificing your combat effectiveness.
4. Class Feats are generally more powerful and impactful for combat, and putting them in the same pool as Combat feats makes sense from a balance perspective.
All these things basically work in fantasy by Rule of Cool - we want dragons and giants to be like the ones in legend, not some warped pseudo-science version.
Exactly. Every time someone says "dragons can't have 4 legs and wings, evolution doesn't work that way, we're making our dragons have 2 legs" I want to break something. These are problems that fantasy can handle! Cool-ass four legged dragons are worth suspending disbelief about a creature that's already relying on Rule of Cool for, like, 10 other features of its existence.
If people really can't stand the verbal components of Ki powers, you can think of it as a loud, sharp intake of breath if Kiai doesn't do it for you either.
...Wouldn't a loud, sharp release of breath work better?
It just seems - & feels - more natural to exhale when striking than to inhale...
<shrug>
--C.
Ki powers are like spells though, and technically happen after the verbal component. I'm picturing things like taking a deep breath to gather ki before doing something like breathing fire, walking on air, gaining natural armor bonus, or expunging a poison.
I gathered it's why kiai might not work for some people.
It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.
And being venomous in golarion :-P
Tarantulas are venomous in real life, just not enough to cause problems to humans. That might change if they were the size of a large dog...
Though, actually the whole biology of a spider the size of a large dog would need to be so different from our spiders (the lungs don't work when sized up) that any similarities it had to normal sized spiders would be entirely superficial. Of course, that's true of Giants as well (the human body structure does poorly at those sizes). So really, all of this is magic, and we can ignore minor things like whether Giant Tarantulas should be venomous. :)
Oh I don’t mind them being venomous because it is an RPG thing.
But today I learnt they actually are
I am intrigued by this discussion of anatomy when sizes are factored in. So why is it that a giant doesn’t really work properly? Are they just too tall on too narrow a base?
I understand that dragons simply cannot work without unfeasibly large wings (and even then it is a stretch). But the giant humanoids and spider thing is not something I had heard
The square-cube law means that as the size of a thing increases its volume (and mass) increases faster than its surface area, which means that, for example, an exoskeleton has to bear much, much more weight per unit of area. The same is true for other structural systems, and is one of the reasons why you can't build huge buildings without getting creative about how you lighten or redistribute the load.
A giant would have to have incredibly massive leg bones and muscles to support their upper bodies, and would start to look very much less like a scaled up human.
Also, with respect to the dragons, they would also need unfeasibly huge chest muscles to power the wings.
Spiders in particular have "book lungs" which operate based on surface area exposure to air. If you scale up, the surface area compared to the volume of blood becomes insufficient. Normal lungs might be able to make up for this by taking faster breaths or something, but book lungs are static.
If people really can't stand the verbal components of Ki powers, you can think of it as a loud, sharp intake of breath if Kiai doesn't do it for you either.
This is something I know I'm going to house rule* if (and a big if!) I adopt PF2e: backgrounds. They won't exist. I'll just say "pick 2 bumps, a skill, a lore, and a skill feat". Backgrounds shouldn't have mechanical effect on a character. They should be 100% fluff. (Which is one of the huge strikes against Bigname 5e as well.
I'm making that an option in my games, not forcing it. I agree that it's really eye roll worthy when they put out a list of backgrounds and everyone automatically picks the ones most mechanically valuable for their build. Might as well cut to the chase and let people pick exactly what they want. In a few years there's gonna be enough backgrounds printed to do that anyway, just with more searching involved.
The big caveat is that campaign specific backgrounds are potentially a Big Deal. You'd do well to not forget what might be tacked onto backgrounds in the future.
I'm concerned about the ability scores being so tightly integrated with race and class. Does it limit roleplaying character viability/straightjacket choices? Is a high charisma fighter/leader still doable? Or a strong-enough Sorcerer who fights at closer ranges?
*Along side of "alchemist and goblin are absolutely not core races; they're extraordinarily setting-specific".
As a longtime 1e player I can tell you those character concepts are way more viable now than before since the Ability Score distribution system rewards more spreading out and you don't need huge investment to max out your god stat.
For your second point: PF2 is a setting-specific RPG. It can be used for homebrew but that won't be an excuse to limit the hardcover content anymore.
Furthermore for the strength sorcerer:
consistent attack bonus
don't nees cha to get more spells or cast high level spells, so can potentially dump it for more dex or con
no more arcane spell failure in armor
robust multiclassing for melee options
ability to select a spell list best suited for your needs
Some characters just aren't meant to be tied to a fighting style that involves weapons, and have little to no in-class support for those options. At least not yet; I'm sure the Lost Omens Ultimate Combat (or whatever they decide to call it) will have class archetypes and dedication archetypes meant to allow those kinds of characters.
I mean, I know where you're coming from and it's not your fault, but I categorically reject the notion that some classes are inherently not meant to be built a certain way. I would sooner burn down the whole game than tell a player they can't seek to gain capabilities in whatever weapon style they want. The general feat is a good way to get proficiency and goes a long way towards avoiding the "your class can't" problem. The ability to pick up one or two more weapon style feats of absolutely any kind without multiclassing is extremely important, and would be just about the only thing that would get me to abandon my extra feats house rule.
Also, if money wasn't a thing, like we were in the Star Trek future, then Paizo would still find a way to appeal to a wide audience because catering to a small handful of grognards would kill off the brand in short order.
Then people would accuse Paizo of making a "cynical popularity grubbing attempt" or some nonsense.
Seriously, if you've spoken to the Paizo staff AT ALL you know that they've put an honest effort into the new edition and sincerely hope we all enjoy it. They're the least opaque devs around, and make plain the reasons for their decisions.
And also I don't really have a problem with combat style feats being class-specific either, because most combat styles work out of the box much better than in PF1.
This is fair. And to be honest I hadn't really thought about it from the other perspective all that much. Yes, it's easier for me to stomach ignoring mathematically superior weapons to stick to my roleplay than it is for people who just want to be able to pick up and use various weapons at all effectively to shell out feat taxes.
Edge93 wrote:
Also do Druids get bow proficiency at base? If not then I'd argue that grabbing that proficiency constitutes an investment making you different from a base druid. And I feel like most (if not all) classes that DO get bow proficiency have feats within their own class to expand.
They do not, and I glossed over it for a couple reasons. 1. I was conceptually using elf weapon familiarity for all these characters because that's just the race I happened to pick while making these characters. 2. Weapon Familiarity gives you longswords and rapiers so it's hard to think of it as specifically a bow investment. 3. The premise of the discussion doesn't matter what weapon we're talking about, if I wanted to make a crossbow focused druid it's the same sort of thing.
Edge93 wrote:
To be more brief, I'd argue that actually getting the proficiency with that bow (which can be gotten via General Feat) and the baseline system letting you be competent with just that still constitutes that sense of maming a customizing choice to distinguish from other Druids. Getting that proficiency by itself is like the PF2 equivalent of getting PBS and Precise Shot in PF1. Speccing out to get more via Fighter Dedication would be like the PF2 equivalent of grabbing stuff like Manyshot and other archery feats, that is to say much more of an investment.
Does what I'm saying make sense? I'm not certain if I'm veing clear.
You're quite clear, but it doesn't help in all cases. For example, if I wanted to be a dagger focused druid, having no dagger based in-class options while actually having access to the all-around better scimitar makes things even more mathematically weighted toward dropping my original concept.
The ideal solution in my mind would be to have a set of character resources dedicated to adjusting how you approach combat from a class agnostic perspective.
If absolutely every class has options in-class for every conceivable combat concept, then we'd also be good.
My middle ground is granting extra feats which slightly increases the power of my games (which I'm fine with) while giving people more breathing room in customization. If those extra feats still aren't enough, I'm going to open up combat style customizing feats to wholesale poaching without class dedications and see how that goes.
I started typing out one example of where the bottle neck starts pushing things out further, but I realize it's way too dependent on things as they stood in the Playtest. Even a handful of key in-class feats could drastically change things. Also, "Weapon Style" archetypes that were discussed as a potential option would also vastly change things.
Druid example:
Let's go back to the druid example. I want to play a switch hitter shape shifter character, similar to a PF1 Shifter/Monk I did. Say I only care about being able to turn into a tiger for melee and while in human form shoot with a bow.
In PF1, that could have been online to a satisfactory degree with 4 levels of Druid or 1 level of zen archer monk and 4 levels of Shifter.
In PF2 playtest, I can grab a bow as a druid and get Wild Shape (Pest Form) at level 1, then Savage Slice level 2, then Wild Shape (Animal) at 4.
The only problem is I have not yet gotten any bow focused options, and given I have good dex and str and Savage slice I'm actively incentivized to abandon the bow and use a slashing melee weapon. (If there's a good archery option in Druid level 2 feat section, then this is a non issue.)
Not too bad, but two levels behind where I'd like to be for not much gain.
Where it gets really bad is if you want anything more than that.
Any of the monk stuff I had with that dip in PF1? Unless monk has bow feats, you're going to have to finish out the Fighter dedication before moving to Monk. More levels of lost Wild Shape advancement.
An animal companion? Permanently behind, and forgoing several instances of further wild shape advancement, but I guess that's balanced.
The big thing is that if you want to use feats for out of class stuff, you're always going to be pushing back something, even if you really only want modest boosts or enhanced options or combat style stuff that should never have been class locked to begin with. The more types of things you want to branch out into, the worse it gets.
Generally, a handful of extra feats does a fantastic job of opening up more options, from getting back things you used to get baseline in PF1 to opening up the ability to be a non-fighter weapon specialist of some sort AND a cavalier before level 10.
What would also put the nail in the coffin of this problem of not being able to mechanically express a preference for a fighting style is letting everyone freely take prerequisiteless feats from any class, which is another house rule I'm toying with.
Because I am a frigging lunatic, there is a part of me that wants to recreate my entire PDF of 1st-level pregens, all the ancestry/class combos, like I did for PF1 back in the day.
Which does raise an important question, Mark: any hope for my half-orc rogue who liked to sneak attack with a greataxe?
Take flaws in intelligence and wisdom, chose Barbarian class, call yourself Rogue and every time that you crit scream Sneak Attack.
Does anyone every actually start with race/ancestry and then background before going to class?
Given you build characters as a party, you generally start with a class to know what role you're filling and then think of a concept for a character you want to play of that class.
Usually when I make a character, ancestry is a foregone conclusion unless something down the road of making the character turns out to strongly favor another race mechanically. When I set out to make a character it's something like "A wise dwarf who prefers to disarm and restrain people during bar fights and make friends with them after" then I'll figure out which combination of classes and feats feels right.
Our table also rarely builds as a group. Generally we each make what we want then find ways to make it work in-game.
In PF1, I could do both and even more importantly I felt like I was actually investing in my concept
The feeling that you need to pay for something in order for it to have value is one that you might want to examine in yourself.
In PF1, you had to invest in a concept; in PF2, you can simply realize a concept.
This is going to be a point of contention.
In my opinion, RPGs are all about investing in concepts. It's one of the reasons I hated Diablo 3, since everything was equipment based rather than character build based.
If I build a character who has no mechanical reason to favor a particular weapon type or fighting style, I am under a constant conscious and subconscious pressure to select the most mathematically optimal weapon at any given time. It becomes very easy to talk myself into shifting gears for no other reason than because of numbers, even when I set out at character gen to play a certain kind of weapon user.
That's fine for people who want to play a character that's good with lots of weapons and doesn't particularly care, but it's irritating on many levels when my knife rogue has zero mechanical reason to argue against using the strictly better magical bow that just dropped. Until you get to town to trade it in, you're a bow rogue!
Mechanical weight is a big part of the game for me, and I like having rules behind decisions my character has ostensibly made.
The other thing worth keeping in mind is that we are given a limited number of feats and abilities for a reason. Most likely, the biggest reason is that Paizo found adding any more options than this tended to overwhelm players.
However, players with high system mastery (which most forum goers fall under) may be fine with handling more than that. And since feats are less likely to break the game the power curve, adding more feats or options is much more attractive.
This is exactly why I'm going to start with doubling feats in my game.
And I get it. Even with the way it is now, there are many concepts that are perfectly adequately handled, especially once we get the full suite of feat options for each class. But so many specific flavor options I'd like to pursue for my character concepts are getting pushed out so many levels without a big balance reason as to why.
And for those mentioning it: Getting rid of feat taxes for bare minimum competency is great! I still need my characters to have some firm investment to show that they *are* focused on something. If it ends up just being a feat that lets them do trick shots with a bow, or a feat that gives them more options with a sword, then those represent investment. As it was in the playtest, though, getting those also meant pushing out serious, important class features that wouldn't have had to have been pushed out in PF1.
