I understand this thread may be way too early, but I'd love to know if these will be in PF2, and if so how they'll function.
It seems highly unlikely that they won't, given how integral they are to several classes.
Yeah, but they might be replaced by something else, like find familiar spell from D&D 1E,2E, and 5E, or no Animal Companion due to Druids being strong casters, or wild shape's power, or Rangers focusing on their combat style more.
5E butchered them, so I believe it is important that we ask for pets that don't suck (Current PF has the most fun pets).
All you need is 1 designer who doesn't love pets to ruin them even if they're included.
I totally agree on the Designer thing, but I never played 5E, and all I know on that is the Find Familiar spell which is brought back from 1E and 2E AD&D. I'll go do some research and come back with my findings.
I can understand putting them in- lots of people love them. But I do want more options (like the current paladin's divine bond) to not take them. And a bit more equality in the trade off.
I really want to see PF2's ranger. I honestly hate every feature of the current class. Favored Enemy/Terrain that is entirely encounter dependent on if its useless or too good, pets I don't want, weapon styles I don't want, and a capstone that comes 12 levels too late. (though the capstone tends to be a universal problem- class signature abilities need to come at the prime of the class (6th-8th level) not after the campaign is over (if you ever get to that point at all)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the basic familiars/animal companions placed in the core rulebook, rather than stuck in the bestiaries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure pets will be around but I do hope there's a separate"companion section instead of having to refer to the druid but with x exceptions each time. Having a universal chassis with class specific specifications would help down the line when it comes to weird companions and can be used to play out cohorts without breaking the game.
|
Yeah, a good system for familiars and animals will be a thing to really watch for in the playtest - clear mounted combat rules would be really nice to see as well, almost a must (love my sky knight, hate the seminar I have to give on how all his rules work together before a session).
And I end up wondering if they'll be gutsy enough to have archetypes for companions and familiars in the core book too? those were cool.
I can understand putting them in- lots of people love them. But I do want more options (like the current paladin's divine bond) to not take them. And a bit more equality in the trade off.
I really want to see PF2's ranger. I honestly hate every feature of the current class. Favored Enemy/Terrain that is entirely encounter dependent on if its useless or too good, pets I don't want, weapon styles I don't want, and a capstone that comes 12 levels too late. (though the capstone tends to be a universal problem- class signature abilities need to come at the prime of the class (6th-8th level) not after the campaign is over (if you ever get to that point at all)
Favored X is classic but it can go to hell for being both Insanely strong and totally useless, depending on the encounter.
Fighting styles are very cool and a reason many dip Ranger, but I guess they aren't super thematic.
Everybody's got their one issue they go on about too much.
Mine is wanting talking familiars, rather than restricting it to speaking with their master after a bunch of levels. If crows and thrushes can do it, it seems reasonable to allow it more generally.
Hem.
More generally, I can see them reducing the action count between the two from six to five. I'd be surprised by four, but it's possible. It's substantially better than 5e's one-or-the-other system.
I think summons were mentioned to show up and act on the caster's turn with two actions, at least in this stage of development? That's for a three-action casting. (Don't know if the summons stay at two actions per round, though.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody's got their one issue they go on about too much.
Mine is wanting talking familiars, rather than restricting it to speaking with their master after a bunch of levels. If crows and thrushes can do it, it seems reasonable to allow it more generally.
Hem.
More generally, I can see them reducing the action count between the two from six to five. I'd be surprised by four, but it's possible. It's substantially better than 5e's one-or-the-other system.
I think summons were mentioned to show up and act on the caster's turn with two actions, at least in this stage of development? That's for a three-action casting. (Don't know if the summons stay at two actions per round, though.)
I'm all for talking familiars, but reducing the action count from 6 to 5? Heavens no, at least then we can have familiars that are good for something other than spying. I understand that familiars were never meant for combat, but it always irritated me on 1ed that I couldn't at least give them a feat or two.
Also, I would like to see broader familiar templates, like stats that apply to all "bird" familiars, independently from which bird you actually choose. Because the owl (and I think the eagle) were always the best options for avian familiars. Want a raven? Well it sucks, choose an owl instead. We could have a "tunneler" template that applies to familiars with a burrowing speed, and so on (always wanted a familiar that could hide under the earth, surprise deliver a touch spell, and then continue tunneling, like Fly by Attack, but underground lol).