Things We Are Liking So Far


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

From what I read up to now I pretty much like anything at least to some degree. Of course there are things I would love to inspect further (NOW!) but everything generally seems pretty neat

Thanks for the good work guys!


It's been a month since this thread started: I still see nothing but a train wreck waiting to happen.

It's like Paizo is telling everyone who came here from 3.5 to piss off, they want a different demographic now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the strong positive energy, the community's openness to new ideas, and faith shown in the developers.

Roll on!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

It's been a month since this thread started: I still see nothing but a train wreck waiting to happen.

It's like Paizo is telling everyone who came here from 3.5 to piss off, they want a different demographic now.

I started tabletop roleplaying games in 1979 with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but I gathered only the minimum of materials to play. Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition thrilled me enough to start collecting rulebooks, expansion books, source materials, and minatures. Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and the Pathfinder counter-reaction were a fork in the road. I played both options and chose the Pathfinder direction. I don't expect a roleplaying game to stay stationary. I am a D&D 3.5 demographic who does not get pissed off by change.

I see the roots of Pathfinder 2nd Edition in the beginning of Pathfinder 1st Edition. Paizo designers took the Open Gaming License version of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 and improved it to to 3.75. They had to keep some flaws of D&D 3.5 in Pathfinder because they needed backwards compatibility and because they did not have time to invent and playtest corrections. Now, 9 years later, they have invented the corrections and tested them with Pathfinder Unchained and Starfinder.

Volkard Abendroth sees a future train wreck. I see the Paizo laying solid track into new territory using a proven design. And what we have before us, starting August, is a playtest, a TEST, because even with the experience of Paizo designers, they know they ought to verify the game with wider input. I see them working as professionally as possible to avoid a train wreck.

The Paizo blog is currently giving only previews, teasers about the new classes that leave out the fine print of the new rules behind the new class and ancestry abilities. We see the glossy photographs of the new product without a chance to kick the tires and look under the hood. I suppose that might give a false impression that the new edition is a hollow shell. Be patient. We will get look under the hood of the new edition and rev it up in August.


Resonance.
Skill Ranks.

That's it for now.


What do I like?

3 action system. This looks so, so much better than the current jumble of actions, and I can see how spells like Haste could work very smoothly in it.
4 levels of success. No more save or die
The entire cleric blog. One of my two favourite classes getting a serious dose of flavour. Sign me up for the big book of all the other gods e couldn't fit into Core and their anathemas please (Ragathiel? Naderi? Zyphus? I could build ideas round all of them)
Weapons and armour being better for specific styles, rather than having a flat out 'best' option (yes, that means you mithral breastplate.)
The fact that they have used the words 'rituals' and 'downtime' has me excited. More stuff that isn't combat is good.

Skill feats. Being so good at something that you can perform superhuman actions with them. The musician who can make dragons weep, the scoundrel who persuades the king he's his long lost son, the craftsman who makes a golden bird so realistic it flies... and so on. I hope those are possible.


My update includes the cleric blog. I like the separation in resources away from a butt load of spell slots (I know this isn't very popular). I really like making the cleric more tied to Deity with anathema, but am a little worried about it being pally code spreading to more classes.

Waiting patiently for more on monsters, wizards, and bards.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

It's been a month since this thread started: I still see nothing but a train wreck waiting to happen.

It's like Paizo is telling everyone who came here from 3.5 to piss off, they want a different demographic now.

I came from 3.5, I'm staying for PF2, what demographic am I? You might want to think very carefully about the answer. I'd even suggesting sleeping it over :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

It's been a month since this thread started: I still see nothing but a train wreck waiting to happen.

It's like Paizo is telling everyone who came here from 3.5 to piss off, they want a different demographic now.

They don't really have a choice. Paizo's run the supplement treadmill to the point it's about ready to fall apart.

I have my own doubts about the specifics of the new iteration of PF, but don't doubt that one was necessary.


Gorbacz wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

It's been a month since this thread started: I still see nothing but a train wreck waiting to happen.

It's like Paizo is telling everyone who came here from 3.5 to piss off, they want a different demographic now.

I came from 3.5, I'm staying for PF2, what demographic am I? You might want to think very carefully about the answer. I'd even suggesting sleeping it over :)

Same and so far I like all (or most) of the changes. I would say if you think PF1 is perfect then just stick with it. I saw room for improvements and frankly the improvements they are making are pretty well What I visualized.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Continuing my list of things I appreciate, with input from the last 4 blogs.

- The overly long list of PF1 traits is replaced by skill training and skill feats from the character's background. This is simpler, and we can expect to stay balanced, or at least, less egregiously unbalanced than PF1 traits.
- There will be increased diversity in powers and fighting modes between monsters, especially animals.
- DR and energy resistance are replaced by a single stat - resistance.
- Monsters can now have weaknesses, adding a flat bonus to damage from certain attacks. This replaces PF1's vulnerability which was a 1.5 multiplier to damage. The new solution is easier to use and allows for fresh and interesting combat situations, especially at low levels (in PF1, vulnerability at low levels usually meant 0-2 points of extra damage).
- Monsters will have shorter, more focused lists of powers. At high levels especially, monsters in PF1 could get very unwieldy.
- Monster stat blocks will be more logically ordered and shorter.
- Monsters skills are clarified. In PF1, monsters only had a short list of skills and the DM had to figure out what to use if the monster needed an unlisted skill.
- The following stats are gone: BAB, CMB, CMD, init modifier, flat-footed AC, flat-footed touch AC. This simplification is welcome.
- Monsters no longer have an automatic number of feats based on HD. In PF1, monsters had too many feats, some of them useless, making it hard for the DM to remember the tricks that should be used in combat.
- Monsters now have innate spells, replacing the ugly term "spell-like ability" which often was a source of confusion.
- Spell damage, range and duration no longer scale with caster level. Less math per round = easier and faster combat resolution!
- The wizard's arcane focus gets a much more prominent role.
- Counterspelling can now be done as a reaction. In PF1, it took a ready action, making it very costly and frustrating to use.
- The universalist wizard is now a valid choice.
- There's a feat to conceal spellcasting, so it's now explicitly possible to cast spell surreptitiously in a social setting.
- There's a feat to swap prepared spells in a few minutes, thus avoiding the waste of an entire day when something unexpected requires a spell list change.
- Magic Missile now becomes a versatile spell, with extra missiles available at the cost of extra actions to cast it, and it's also possible to scale it to do high damage.
- Phantasmal Killer is a great example of how the new system of 4 degrees of success does away with the excesses of save-or-die spells: It retains the possibility of killing a creature with just one spell, but makes it much less likely, especially against a high-level opponent. On the other hand, it still is a powerful threat, with a meaningful impact even on a successful save.
- A new type of damage, "mental damage" allows for mind-bending spells to have a physical effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Additional likable things:
- Trinkets are a new type of magic item that can get attached to weapons, for one-time use in combat. In PF1, melee characters usually didn't use potions in combat, due to attacks of opportunity and the high action cost (move action to retrieve, standard to drink, and that's assuming a free hand to do so). This made their special abilities limited to feats and weapons properties. Trinkets will offer expanded options.
- Druids have the option to get Wild Shape at level 1.
- An animal companion has a special combat synergy with its master.
- Druids can pick clearly differentiated career paths, called orders, focusing on animals, plants, shape changing, or storms (more to come, I guess).
- Examples provided so far indicate that we're getting a broad range of wholly new feats. The few ones shown for the high level druid are very juicy (Invoke Disaster, Leyline Conduit).
- The one example of polymorph-type spell given, Dinosaur Form, is very cool. It's strictly balanced, by way of replacing all attack stats with those provided by the new form, but it opens the way to transformation into huge and even gargantuan forms, thanks to heightening.
- The new crafting economy is more realistic and balanced. Characters can become rich from crafting, but to do so they need to dedicate time and skill to it (in PF1, time and one feat were enough). Mundane and magical crafting are treated the same way (while PF1 mundane crafting was a waste of time). Plus, other activities such as artistic performance use the same economy and can be equally lucrative.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So far I enjoy the fighter preview, stat builds, ancestry and shield usage


I mostly GM, so the biggest thing I'm looking forward to are monsters and their stat blocks. They look really slick and intuitive.

I also like the new weaknesses, so werewolves (for example) can be actually vulnerable to silver rather than being equally vulnerable to silver and magic. And with easier math than old vulnerability.

And, of course, the three action system and reduced attacks of opportunity makes combat a lot more dynamic. It's way easier to escape combat, reposition, use potions, and even interact with the terrain.

Cheers!
Landon


Honestly, most things they're doing are things I like. Where PF originally felt like 3.75, this feels like what 4e should have been and what 5e failed to deliver.

In no particular order:

Skill feats: While I was initially a bit unnerved by the notion that the difference between simply trained in a skill and Legendary at that skill is only a +3 difference, I'm feeling more optimistic the more I think about it, because I feel like this is going to be something where skill feats will matter a ton. Since they said that they get better at higher tiers, sure, maybe there's not much of a difference numerically, but it might be a huge impact with what you can do with the skill. Likewise even characters who are both simply "trained" in a skill might be numerically identical for normal checks, but the one that invested heavily in that skill's feats will hopefully feel very much more skilled in practice.

Off of that, I like backgrounds and the new Ability score system (pending learning more). The fact that at each point it's neither fully set nor fully flexible (again, pending the reveal on how classes work with this; hoping for something like backgrounds with a semi-set, and free ability choice) makes it so that you are rewarded by playing to type, but not penalized too much by playing off type. And add on to that the backgrounds play into my previous interest in skill feats, and that makes me interested indeed.

Class Feats: We haven't learned much about them, other than a handful of example ones, but they seem to me to be replacing set class features, in part, which has me interested. One of my main gripes with class-based rpgs is sometimes what comes with a class doesn't fit the particular character, but with this, it looks like you can tool around more (though I'm wondering how this will affect Archetypes. Would they just be a list of recommended class feats? maybe they let you choose selected feats from another class?)

Decoupling the math from expected items: It always has bugged me that mathematically, a +X sword/armor/amulet/ect was not only the best item you could get, a lot of the time, but it was almost expected that you'd have that +X thing. It just seemed so damn boring, where I like it when magic items feel not only magical, but also if not rare, at least uncommon. And it opens up opportunities for fun magic items that might not even be that powerful but are memorable, and you can use them without feeling that you'd rather just have that ring of protection.

Better Monster Building: I loathe the hit-dice based monster building rules, and while there are general guidelines in the back of the bestiary, it felt like an afterthought.

As for some other stuff, I'm optimistic, but hesitant:

Three action plus reaction seems cool, but I'm worried that if the fighter is supposed to have a number of reaction-based mechanics, I'm wary that the one reaction might be a bottleneck for some of the class's potential.

Spells: We haven't seen too many non-combat spells. I like the model of spells that we have seen for combat, where there's less save or lose, and longer casting times than simply attacking, but I'd like to know more about non-combat spells, and rituals if they differ from Occult Adventures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hero Points were discussed as being core at UK Games Expo. You get 1/session (plus extra for stuff like helping out the GM, or buying the pizza, essentially contributing to the effort of game) up to a maximum of 3. You can use 1 to instantly stabilise, use 2 for a reroll (and get one back if you still fail) and 3 for an extra action no restrictions on what that action is.

Honestly that sounds great to me, as the GM who usually ends up also hosting and cooking dinner for the group. Having a codified system like that sounds pretty good.


In my house rules we've removed initiative and turn order but I kinda like PF2's way of assigning turn order. If you hide you can use stealth etc, that's cool.


Tholomyes wrote:
Three action plus reaction seems cool, but I'm worried that if the fighter is supposed to have a number of reaction-based mechanics, I'm wary that the one reaction might be a bottleneck for some of the class's potential.

The fighter gets additional reactions starting at first level, IIRC, so they should plenty of opportunities to use all of their interesting options. Similar to how, even in earlier editions, characters could attain multiple AoO's per round.

Liberty's Edge

Having gotten a chance to try a Playtest scenario at Paizocon, I really liked:

1 the action economy
2 the crits system
3 the weapon design
4 the ability to make spells, channels, etc. more powerful by using more actions

In general, I think this system is much more friendly for beginners. I've been trying to get my wife to join me for some PFS for few months, but now I think I'll wait until August, for the playtest to come out. SHe's much more likely to enjoy it!

Based on the presentation at the banquet, I'm also looking forward to the character build system. And also the animal companion build system, which looks far more interesting and clear than under the current system.


Aramar wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Three action plus reaction seems cool, but I'm worried that if the fighter is supposed to have a number of reaction-based mechanics, I'm wary that the one reaction might be a bottleneck for some of the class's potential.
The fighter gets additional reactions starting at first level, IIRC, so they should plenty of opportunities to use all of their interesting options. Similar to how, even in earlier editions, characters could attain multiple AoO's per round.

I assume this is something seen at paizocon, because it wasn't mentioned in the blog posts as far as I've seen. If so, I'm intrigued, because I like the idea of a reaction-heavy fighter as a build, though I'm also interested in seeing how ranged fighters shake out in all of this, given that getting AoOs for free isn't as useful for them, but I'm guessing that that's in the realm of feats (maybe something that lets them use AoOs at range, though perhaps only at a specified target, or under specified conditions), which we probably won't see until the playtest launches.

Also something else I forgot, where I'm optimistic about it but reserving judgement, so anyone who's playtested, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on it: I like the idea that weapons will be more differentiated more than they have been in 1e, but I worry that it could slow things down, having to remember what your poleaxe can do different from a longspear, different from a glaive, different from a... ect. I like the idea for the design space, but it does seem that if there are a lot of things to keep track of, it'd make it more meddlesome at the table.


Tholomyes wrote:
Aramar wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Three action plus reaction seems cool, but I'm worried that if the fighter is supposed to have a number of reaction-based mechanics, I'm wary that the one reaction might be a bottleneck for some of the class's potential.
The fighter gets additional reactions starting at first level, IIRC, so they should plenty of opportunities to use all of their interesting options. Similar to how, even in earlier editions, characters could attain multiple AoO's per round.

I assume this is something seen at paizocon, because it wasn't mentioned in the blog posts as far as I've seen. If so, I'm intrigued, because I like the idea of a reaction-heavy fighter as a build, though I'm also interested in seeing how ranged fighters shake out in all of this, given that getting AoOs for free isn't as useful for them, but I'm guessing that that's in the realm of feats (maybe something that lets them use AoOs at range, though perhaps only at a specified target, or under specified conditions), which we probably won't see until the playtest launches.

Also something else I forgot, where I'm optimistic about it but reserving judgement, so anyone who's playtested, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on it: I like the idea that weapons will be more differentiated more than they have been in 1e, but I worry that it could slow things down, having to remember what your poleaxe can do different from a longspear, different from a glaive, different from a... ect. I like the idea for the design space, but it does seem that if there are a lot of things to keep track of, it'd make it more meddlesome at the table.

I believe it was mentioned on 'Glass Cannon' that Fighters get multiple Reactions though I personally understood that to indicate that they had more than one way to spend their Reaction each round...


Crayon wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Aramar wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Three action plus reaction seems cool, but I'm worried that if the fighter is supposed to have a number of reaction-based mechanics, I'm wary that the one reaction might be a bottleneck for some of the class's potential.
The fighter gets additional reactions starting at first level, IIRC, so they should plenty of opportunities to use all of their interesting options. Similar to how, even in earlier editions, characters could attain multiple AoO's per round.

I assume this is something seen at paizocon, because it wasn't mentioned in the blog posts as far as I've seen. If so, I'm intrigued, because I like the idea of a reaction-heavy fighter as a build, though I'm also interested in seeing how ranged fighters shake out in all of this, given that getting AoOs for free isn't as useful for them, but I'm guessing that that's in the realm of feats (maybe something that lets them use AoOs at range, though perhaps only at a specified target, or under specified conditions), which we probably won't see until the playtest launches.

Also something else I forgot, where I'm optimistic about it but reserving judgement, so anyone who's playtested, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on it: I like the idea that weapons will be more differentiated more than they have been in 1e, but I worry that it could slow things down, having to remember what your poleaxe can do different from a longspear, different from a glaive, different from a... ect. I like the idea for the design space, but it does seem that if there are a lot of things to keep track of, it'd make it more meddlesome at the table.

I believe it was mentioned on 'Glass Cannon' that Fighters get multiple Reactions though I personally understood that to indicate that they had more than one way to spend their Reaction each round...

Ah, I think I tuned in to that one, and that's what I interpreted it as well. I'm guessing there may be ways to get extra reactions (the blog seemed to indicate a feat that would let fighters get an extra reaction for shield block, but not until 8th level), but if not, that's one place I feel the streamlining of the action system will falter for me.

As it stands, the one thing that all fighters get at 1st level is just not terribly useful for at least two types of fighter: Ranged Fighters and Sword/Board, since ranged don't typically make AoOs, and Sword and Board already have something worth using their Reaction on, probably more than AoOs most of the time, as I remember Shield Block being pretty damn effective.


Having played the playtest at UKGames Expo this past weekend there was lot's I liked!

3 Actions/1 Reaction is really nice - it made combat a lot more flexible, particularly for the rogue who was free to reposition for flanks and strike much more effectively.

The new spellcasting with more actions producing greater effects was good too. I also liked the way that positive energy healed the living and harmed the undead simultaneously - it makes a lot more sense than somehow using positive energy for only one of its two uses. I also like the image of evil clerics using it to heal their minions by draining energy from the living!

I think it will be important to look carefully at reactions - in the playtest (as mentioned above) the fighter had 2 available most of the time, whereas the cleric had nothing which they could do as a reaction, so it felt like the cleric was missing out a bit there...

Still, overall impressions from the playtest were really positive!


Tholomyes wrote:


As it stands, the one thing that all fighters get at 1st level is just not terribly useful for at least two types of fighter: Ranged Fighters and Sword/Board, since ranged don't typically make AoOs, and Sword and Board already have something worth using their Reaction on, probably more than AoOs most of the time, as I remember Shield Block being pretty damn effective.

I'm not super worried about the "reaction glut" people have brought up, because reactions need triggers. I certainly think it will be less of a problem than swift/immediate gluts in PF1, where your triggered abilities competed with things you proactively used. Having more reactions per turn will be great, but that doesn't mean having more reaction options is bad.

Consider the sword and board fighter: his shield mechanics are universal and visible, his AoO mechanics are not. If a fighter moves up, hits an redcap, and raises his shield, the enemy sees this and knows the Fighter will be harder to hurt. Rather than wasting an action on an attack which is less likely to hit and will hurt less if it does, the redcap chooses to go after a softer looking target in the wizard. BAM, he's hit with an AoO. At this point, the Redcap MIGHT realize the fighter can't use his reaction to block, except some Fighters do. So what the heck should the Redcap do next?

Generally speaking, I think you will take whatever reaction is triggered and be happy you took it. The exception maybe when fighting lots of enemies, but that was already kind of an issue unless you had Combat Reflexes and whatnot.


Continuing to list the things I appreciate in PF2 as revealed so far:
- Streamlined skill list. No longer worry about whether something is Spellcraft or Knowledge(Arcana), Survival or Knowledge(Nature).
- The consolidation of skills gives more chances for classes like fighter, that inherently don't have many skills, to shine outside of combat (on top of that, in PF2 the fighter gets 3+Int skills instead of 2+Int).
- Improving in a skill unlocks new actions that can be performed with that skill. In PF1, improving a skill only meant adding more to a number (at least until the Skill Unlock system came up).
- With skill feats at the Legendary level, character can do truly impressive things, to the point of comparing with magic.
- The Take 10 mechanic is replaced with a skill feat that allows auto-success at increasing DC level (up to 30), depending on proficiency.
- It takes only one feat to be able to craft all sorts of magic items.
- The Barbarian no longer has to count daily rounds of rage. Instead, he's fatigued for one round after three rounds of raging.
- Rage no longer confers a Con bonus, which in PF1 had the side effect of killing many barbarians when their rage ended. Instead, they have temporary hit points.
- The alignment gate for barbarians is gone.
- Some of the barbarian feats are really cool, like causing an earthquake by stomping a foot; making rage contagious; or sundering spells.
- The fiddly coup-de-grâce mechanic is gone. To kick someone when they're down, simply attack.
- The condition mechanics have been streamlined, with for example frightened 1, 2, 3 replacing shaken, frightened and panicked.
- The Monk in PF2 is a lot more modular than PF1. For example, it's possible to do one entirely without ki, or one that's ki-focused, at the expense of more physical combat abilities.
- Archetypes are applicable to all classes, through swapping class feats for archetype feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More likes:
- I think Resonance is a good idea, or at least I agree with the design goal. I hope the final version will a achieve them.
- We can expect old magic item staples, some of which were a bit on the boring side, to be made a lot more interesting in PF2. The Cloak of Elvenkind is an example of such.
- Staves are being redesigned to be more than just a spell reservoir.
- Trinkets are interesting, as consumables intended for martial characters.
- Rangers no longer have spells.
- The severely circumstantial bonuses for favored enemy and favored terrain are replaced with something that is helpful to the ranger in every combat.
- The ranger's snare mechanic is interesting and has a lot of potential.
- Traps are better integrated into the system, with mechanics for active traps, including initiative, action, and reaction.
- Sorcerers are a lot more than a wizard variant. Notably, they can get wholly different spell lists depending on their bloodline.
- The sorcerer now has the same number of spells per day and access to the same spell level as the wizard.
- The rarity mechanic replaces the clunky exotic weapons and the haphazard manner certain spells and feats were restricted by race. The will allow the GM to limit option inflation, a rampant issue in PF1, especially as more books get published at later stages. It also creates interesting potential for plot points and player rewards. This will be a great boon to beginner DMs and anyone facing ever-hungry power gamers who comb the books for ever better and more obscure items, spells, feats, etc.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

It's been a month since this thread started: I still see nothing but a train wreck waiting to happen.

It's like Paizo is telling everyone who came here from 3.5 to piss off, they want a different demographic now.

I came from 3.5, I'm staying for PF2, what demographic am I? You might want to think very carefully about the answer. I'd even suggesting sleeping it over :)

Very Late reply from me just to make a joke...

You are in the Bag of Devouring Demographic.

They normally are not particularly choosy (because they can't be...they get whatever is put into them) about what they devour, but they do tend to like to chomp off hands...

This is where the famous game of knucklebones comes from among the Bag demographic...they eventually get so many knucklebones that they don't know what to do with them...except chuck them around for fun.

The tend to avoid trainwrecks (I don't think a single bag of devouring has been in a trainwreck as of yet), but they do tend to be cursed a little.

They also can't piss off, because they can't take a leak period. A leaky bag is a bad bag...so they tend to just keep it all in. Very few know where all that stuff they devour goes to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Love how the people who derail the threads most are the ones who're cranky about not getting things exactly their way. I really do suggest growing up instead of insulting other board members, and sticking to what the thread's about!

I really like the new Sorcerer. That was one of the things I desperately wanted them to fix, and they did it magnificently.


I also like the sorcerer, my gf is a bit cranky about having to know each spell for each spell lvl instead of general spontaneous hightening, but I guess I can work with that (and she has no board account which i also somewhat like but doesnt matter here :P )


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite things:
Rarity
Resonance
Alchemists and alchemy rules.

The first two are catching a lot of flack but I think both are really smart additions to the game. Resonance gives out-of-combat items an opportunity cost separate from its gold value which I think makes item use a much more interesting part of the game. Rarity also solves a major problem for games with continually printed new material; more options will tend to always increases the general power of the game. “Uncommon” and “rare” ruling will allow GMs to curate the content of their games more easily and—if newer material will tend to be uncommon rather than common—there will be a cap on the effect new rules will have on the power of any one given character.


Excaliburproxy wrote:

My favorite things:

Rarity
Resonance
Alchemists and alchemy rules

Based on Fumbus' sheet, I am loving the look of the new alchemist.

I also loved the alchemist in PF1, but I think this will probably fit what I think of when I hear of it better.


1E Alchemists are a round peg in a vancian spellcasting shaped hole. That said, I did like the 1e alchemist and investigator classes quite a bit.
I am interested in digging through all the mutagens and poisons and what-have-you and playing more of a support role with a side of mediocre melee damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

1E Alchemists are a round peg in a vancian spellcasting shaped hole. That said, I did like the 1e alchemist and investigator classes quite a bit.

I am interested in digging through all the mutagens and poisons and what-have-you and playing more of a support role with a side of mediocre melee damage.

I think vancian worked better concept wise for the alchemist than a wizard in my head, simply because you are prepping physical things. I didn't like that it was basically the same thing as magic though, nor did I like the restraints on sharing your concoctions early on, the lack of thematic synergy with the actual alchemy system, or the focus on bombs as a separate thing. From the one pathfinder character I built I absolutely loved the alchemist despite all that.

The PF2 alchemist seems to blend seamlessly into the alchemy system (I actually like bombs now because of them being stuff like alchemist's fire and acid vials an alchemy user could make anyway), actually can share things from the get go (I focused my PF2 alchemist on support so this kind of makes me happy), and feels notably different to the magic systems (only using their aura to make chemicals react faster, not to make effects pinched off from their aura.

I am a little sad about the mutagen delay, but that seems offset by it being experimental mutagen. Hopefully with the ability to buff the party without paying wads of cash to have more than one mutagen at once.


Hmm. At this point I'm not sure what the difference is between an alchemist and a character that throws a bunch of cash at alchemical items. It just doesn't seem interesting enough to wrap a class around anymore, especially with its basic class features either gone or smeared over half a dozen levels.

What does the alchemist even bring to the party?

Liberty's Edge

Voss wrote:
Hmm. At this point I'm not sure what the difference is between an alchemist and a character that throws a bunch of cash at alchemical items.

Uh...lots. Alchemists give you free consumables every day, just as they mainly did thematically in PF1. You can't really duplicate that with the amount of money PCs ever have.

Look at it like the PF1 Occultist. Most of their static buffs just replaced magic items, but that's actually very good given the amount of money it saves.

Voss wrote:
It just doesn't seem interesting enough to wrap a class around anymore, especially with its basic class features either gone or smeared over half a dozen levels.

The only Class Features even delayed are Mutagen and adding Int to bomb damage, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Voss wrote:
What does the alchemist even bring to the party?

24 GP in free items every day at level 1 (which is what Fumbus seems to manage) is vastly more than any PC can ever afford. PCs only start out with 15 GP.

The ability to drop what would, in PF1, be 240 gp on consumables every day is actually kind of absurd, when examined.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends how they compare to scaling cantrips or even ranged weapons, I suppose. Fumble's list of available items didn't exactly impress.
Sure they cost money, but someone spending 240 gold per day on +5 speed and a d8 damage weapon would just be sad. The healing is marginally relevant at first level, but will be burned through fast.

As for what I'm talking about, well, infusions are obviously gone, and you can name mutagens and bonus damage, so I don't think you're confused by what I'm talking about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really really like that this thread is being used for it's intended purpose (with a few attempts to derail that have been summarily shut down).

I am really happy that this thread is still going, and to see people talking about what they like, rather than just what they don't has put a smile on my face once more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As to what I am liking from the blogs:

Sorcerer! I am loving the concept behind the sorcerer, and the idea that different bloodlines get different kinds of magic is something that I never knew that I needed.

Resonance. I love the base concept, and what they said they were trying to achieve (reduce book keeping). I will not talk about the current implementation though

Cool and flavorful small magic items. I absolutely love that these are being codified. I try to do this kind of thing for my players already so to see it in a book is nice.

There are plenty of other things I am liking, but these are what came to mind quickly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Depends how they compare to scaling cantrips or even ranged weapons, I suppose. Fumble's list of available items didn't exactly impress.

Persistent Damage is actually really good and we haven't seen many cantrips that do any worth talking about. So there's that. Alchemical Items also almost certainly scale better than cantrips (or ranged weapons, for Alchemists).

Voss wrote:
Sure they cost money, but someone spending 240 gold per day on +5 speed and a d8 damage weapon would just be sad.

Indeed. Which is why you need an Alchemist to use Alchemical Items the way that an Alchemist does. Which was my whole point.

Voss wrote:
The healing is marginally relevant at first level, but will be burned through fast.

It's more than marginally relevant. Healing is always good. It will get burned through fast, it's true.

Voss wrote:
As for what I'm talking about, well, infusions are obviously gone, and you can name mutagens and bonus damage, so I don't think you're confused by what I'm talking about.

Mutagens and bonus damage kick in at level 5 at the latest, and Infusions aren't gone so much as they've changed form. It was the 'over a dozen levels' that made me go 'Huh?' Looking back on it I missed the 'half'. Still, I'm less concerned than I might be.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Depends how they compare to scaling cantrips or even ranged weapons, I suppose. Fumble's list of available items didn't exactly impress.
Persistent Damage is actually really good and we haven't seen many cantrips that do any worth talking about. So there's that. Alchemical Items also almost certainly scale better than cantrips (or ranged weapons, for Alchemists).

I do think that where the PF2 alchemist seems likely to shine is weakness abuse and misc utility. I quite like their ability to pull whatever item is needed out of their hat, even if said items are weaker than say, healing spells or fireballs.


J4RH34D wrote:
I am really happy that this thread is still going, and to see people talking about what they like, rather than just what they don't has put a smile on my face once more.

You're welcome. This is a useful place to gather the things that make me hopeful about the future of the game. They're just hints, of course: For example, one can have the conversation about the alchemist as above, without a definite opinion either way, because we have only been given a glimpse, not the whole story. When the playtest drops I'll come back to my list here and check my hopes against the full text.


-success/failure levels
-improving spell effects with additional actions
-codified action types describing what exactly needs to be done for an action to happen.
-moving many class abilities to optional feats.

At this point I'm more likely to steal these mechanics than swap systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rarity 'mechanic' seems like one of the better low-key additions to the system that quite elegantly solves multiple issues at once - preventing overloading newer players (myself included) with tons of options, making more powerful options limited but in an organic "you gotta work for it" way, plus the worldbuilding implications.

How well it actually accomplishes all these in practice remains to be seen, and it's certainly not the single best or most major change between the editions (though nothing really is, to be fair, apart from maybe the action economy), but so far, it looks really nice, especially for how simple it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Depends how they compare to scaling cantrips or even ranged weapons, I suppose. Fumble's list of available items didn't exactly impress.

Persistent Damage is actually really good and we haven't seen many cantrips that do any worth talking about. So there's that. Alchemical Items also almost certainly scale better than cantrips (or ranged weapons, for Alchemists).

Voss wrote:
Sure they cost money, but someone spending 240 gold per day on +5 speed and a d8 damage weapon would just be sad.

Indeed. Which is why you need an Alchemist to use Alchemical Items the way that an Alchemist does. Which was my whole point.

Voss wrote:
The healing is marginally relevant at first level, but will be burned through fast.

It's more than marginally relevant. Healing is always good. It will get burned through fast, it's true.

Voss wrote:
As for what I'm talking about, well, infusions are obviously gone, and you can name mutagens and bonus damage, so I don't think you're confused by what I'm talking about.
Mutagens and bonus damage kick in at level 5 at the latest, and Infusions aren't gone so much as they've changed form. It was the 'over a dozen levels' that made me go 'Huh?' Looking back on it I missed the 'half'. Still, I'm less concerned than I might be.

Triggering elemental weaknesses is also really nice, as is arming your allies with such tools when they count. Plus, bombs won't cost Resonance once they are made, which makes them a really nice for filling gaps that low level offensive wands might have filled before.

Also, I'm pretty sure the alchemist will be the most effective alchemical crafter, and make the most efficient use of gold and downtime for those purposes.

Grand Lodge

BARDS BARDS BARDS

Honestly the class revamps in general have really impressed me. I like Resonance too (for the most part), and the action system is vastly improved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Things I like so far:
1. The ABC method of generating characters
2. The 3 actions and 1 reaction
3. The reactions we have see so far. They will make the game more tactical
4. Changes to the paladin, bard and wizard


My favorite part so far has been the extra detail on the weapons. I like the idea that all the weapons have interesting abilities besides doing damage.


I like the simplicity of the skill system. Simplicity in general. It will be much easier to teach people the game. Easier to create characters. Simple enough that Hero Labs isn't needed. I'm one of the only people in my group who does it manually.


I am actually someone who has had a lot of issues thus far with the new edition, but I will take every opportunity I can to say that the thoughtfulness and responsiveness of the developers to new ideas and suggestions has been outstanding. It makes me feel like the game is good hands, even when I am not so confident in their specific choices.


Little things I like, from the playtest character sheets over at ENworld:
- Alchemical acid and alchemical fire differentiate more than by damage type, allowing for variety in tactics. Acid does more persistent (ie recurring) damage, while fire does more damage initially and more modest persistent damage.
- The worn/stowed/ready classification for equipment. This clarity will streamline player decisions during combat.
- It appears the scatter diagram for splash weapon misses is gone. I welcome this simplification.
- More examples of interesting weapon differentiation: The new scimitar properties, forceful and sweep; 1/2 Str bonus to damage with slings ; the backstabber weapon property, a flavorful little enhancement.
- Simple yet useful cantrips like Forbidding Ward, Acid Splash and Shield. It's a big improvement over PF1 where many cantrips were never used.
- Shield bash is a reasonable alternative to attacking with a main weapon when circumstances warrant it. In PF1, you had to build for this, and it used at least 2 feats.
- The more I look at it, the more I love that Attack of Opportunity is now a class feature instead of a universal rule.
- Athletics replacing CMB; although I'll have to wait for the actual rules for maneuvers to really know how cool that is.
- The paladin's Retributive Strike. Not only does it punish attackers, but it also protect allies if the blow drops the attacker.
- The rapier has the disarm property, finally becoming the genuine Three Musketeers weapon it should always have been.
- Making enemies flat-footed in round 1 is now the prerogative of the rogue.
- Sneak attack conditions are greatly simplified. Enemy flat-footed? You can sneak attack. That's it. To obtain the same effect in PF1, you had to remember the long list of situations that made the enemy lose their Dex bonus.
- The Shield cantrip works... like a shield! A classic case of simplicity = genius.
- Wielding a weapon with 2 hands increases the damage die. A much cleaner rule than the 1.5xStr and 1.5xPower Attack bonus of PF1, it will scale in a more balanced way.
- The Widen Spell metamagic feat. In PF1, it cost so much it wasn't really usable. Now, I'll use it all the time!

From the Bard blog:
- The bard is a full caster, with a whole new spell list, occult. We know little about these spells but the concept is certainly novel and intriguing.
- Performances are now cantrips. Goodbye to the frustrating and implausible rounds of performance per day! We can now perform during the whole concert.
- Counter-performance is a reaction. It's also much simplified, taking about 1/4 of the word count of Countersong and Distraction, its PF1 equivalents.

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Things We Are Liking So Far All Messageboards