| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of all the previews, what you most excited about? Whether it has been explicitly stated or you are inferring from what we know thus far about the new edition, what are you like, "Oh thank Azathoth they fixed that!"
Me, I am thrilled that I could possibly a competent shapeshifting wizard. With a low BAB it never made sense to take the beast shape, elemental shape, plant shape, form of the dragon type spells. Hell, the arcanist archetype brown fur transmuter's ability to cast range personal spells on someone else is pretty much the only way to make them usable. Even then, you don't get to use them; it was the group's fighter that turned into the dragon.
With BAB gone and attack is now just proficiency. You may have to spend your feats to get the right proficiencies, but you can be a competent wizard that turns into an ogre, skeleton, plant, elemental, or dragon, depending on the needs of the moment.
What are you excited about?
For me it is that wizards and clerics may be interesting enough (lots of options) to play. I have been primarily playing bards and magi due to more options to play.
Right now its just the action economy (though cleric looks interesting I just need to see more before getting excited). I really want to see what they do with the reaction space. I hope its common and not something that happens like once a session.
The granularity of the customization. It makes for dozens to possibly hundreds of very viable build options within a single class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually excited in playing with a moderately balanced system. Pathfinder 1e has so many abilities that ridiculous combinations are now very easy to cobble together.
I think fun should definitely come before game balance, but as a GM it is currently hard work making sure players are not going to pull something game breakingly ludicrous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really hyped about the action economy, honestly. I feel like if they design it well, it will make it a lot easier to build and play characters who are balanced *and* fit your interests. Having more actions per turn means more *options* per turn, and I'm a fan of optionality in play.
By which I mean, I prefer for interesting decisions to happen during combat, rather than during character design. It's way more fun for me to have to decide among 5 or 6 tactics to use against an enemy than it is to pick feats and then just spam one type of attack in nearly every encounter.
I'm excited by the action economy, the potential to spend multiple actions to do special combat moves or to create a combo system.
I'm also really excited by the way the spell components interact with it as well as the various vital essences hinted at in the magic post and the design space they might provide. I like that they are approaching magic in a way that feels logical and internally consistent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m excited about some of the bold risks they are taking, and really look forward to what other surprises they have in store, because it really looks like they are not afraid to experiment and go in some directions nobody had considered before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that alchemists are core and alchemy is more interesting.
I like the simplified action economy.
A lot of the stuff they've talked about is stuff I've approached in my own house rules. I guess I'm liking most of it.
Specifically, I really like the expanded customization. As silly as it sounds, I always wanted to stat myself out in PF but never found something that quite fit. Now I can make a low wisdom druid with a pretty solid chance of getting some bardic abilities in there, too.
I like the mysterious new ability generation system--where your choices of character customization heavily determine your scores. I'm very interested in ability score generation methods, and I've honestly never heard of such a way of doing things, even though it makes perfect sense. I'm excited to see how much random dice rolling makes its way into the process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the mysterious new ability generation system--where your choices of character customization heavily determine your scores. I'm very interested in ability score generation methods, and I've honestly never heard of such a way of doing things, even though it makes perfect sense. I'm excited to see how much random dice rolling makes its way into the process.
I am thinking (and hoping) none. Dice rolling is for one at a time events like attacks, saves, and skill checks, not for setting the DCs or bonuses for your character for the rest of his life.
They will probably provide some options for dice rolling in character creation, but they won't be the default or preferred method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope being more formally separated from 3.5 will mean that they'll me more ambitious when it comes to class mechanics
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who was firmly entrenched in the PF1 Forever camp, I have to say it's hard to pick a favorite with the blog teases thus far.
I love the new action economy and shield mechanic. If that type of innovation is applied across all weapon/combat styles, I'll be thrilled with the variety that fighters and martials will have.
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of a vocal group, I LOVE the resonance idea. I HATE the big six and uninspiring magic items. When dealing with reality-altering forces, I like the idea of how resonance reflects a check/balance on it from a world-building perspective as well as having a mechanic for players to contend with.
I've been pleased with the other class teases as well, particularly the rogue and cleric.
I like that alchemy is a core system and not a tacked on or low-level substitute for magic items.
Honestly, my biggest concerns are that Legendary abilities will come way too soon in the level progression. I want my 15th level fighter to be a Conan-style badass, not a demigod. Save that for 18-20.
Thus far I haven't seen anything I don't actually like - that said we haven't seen everything either. I'm most excited for the possibilities in the new +/-10 crit system, the proficiency system, and the various customization options built into the game via feats. I will say the Ancestry previews have mostly left me whelmed, but I'm reserving judgement there until the playtest is actually released.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I like most of it with my problems being: math seems way TOO tight. Next to no difference between unskilled and legendary. Resonance seems unnecessary at best.
I have to say I like most of it with my problems being: math seems way TOO tight. Next to no difference between unskilled and legendary.
To be fair, we don't know for sure what the math will look like. Untrained to Legendary is only +5, but ability scores seem to at least have a range of 8-26, which can be another +9 difference. Spells, conditions, and items may drive it further apart.
There's also the new crit mechanics, which makes any bonuses or penalties count more. Hopefully the finished product leaves plenty of room for our numbers to FEEL different, even if they don't look as different on the page.
Its hard to pin down one but I think its that clerics domains will be more important and possibly give more thematically impressive abilities.
Yeah I never sell my books. I still have a 1st edition D&D book hanging around.. somewhere >.>
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that I will eBay all my PF1 books and free up massive amounts of shelf space (only to fill them slowly with PF2 books, no less).I have never get rid of any edition of D&D/RPG books, came close with 4th Ed, but you never know what gems, fluff and/or crunch, you might want to refer back to/implement in a future campaign.
Oh, I'm not deleting my PDFs. XXIst century, baby!
Making me feel old I prefer my hard copies over PDF's any day.
I have to say I like most of it with my problems being: math seems way TOO tight. Next to no difference between unskilled and legendary.To be fair, we don't know for sure what the math will look like. Untrained to Legendary is only +5, but ability scores seem to at least have a range of 8-26, which can be another +9 difference. Spells, conditions, and items may drive it further apart.
There's also the new crit mechanics, which makes any bonuses or penalties count more. Hopefully the finished product leaves plenty of room for our numbers to FEEL different, even if they don't look as different on the page.
Which leaves the majority of the difference being stats and items rather than skill differences.
|
Which leaves the majority of the difference being stats and items rather than skill differences.
Well, thematically, the bonus from level is also a skill bonus, just one everyone acquires as they gain practical experience.
And I'll note again from a mechanical perspective high Proficiency levels may provide really significant bonuses other than the pure numbers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that level bonus is an irritant to. The 20th lever wizard is now an expert climber because ....
No reason. Just because. The high level barbarian who has never shown th slightest inkling of attempting to stealth nonetheless will have a good stealth bonus. Etcetera. Just feels rather “gamey” to me.
|
|
And that level bonus is an irritant to. The 20th lever wizard is now an expert climber because ....
No reason. Just because. The high level barbarian who has never shown th slightest inkling of attempting to stealth nonetheless will have a good stealth bonus. Etcetera. Just feels rather “gamey” to me.
This is actually my major worry in regards to the new rules. That said, properly done 'Trained Only' uses do a lot to fix this problem. I mean, I think a Wizard gradually getting better at climbing using a rope and other tools would be fine, it's free climbing sheer cliffs and the like that'd be weird.
Yeah I kind of right their with you guys on this one. I need to see more about how it is going to work. I can kind of see a person in the adventuring career long enough to be level 20 being able to do basic things better then others but somethings I would expect some investment.
I am most excited about possible better class balance in PF2. The developers have done an excellent job in designing new classes after the Core Rulebook, and in redesigning the rogue in Pathfinder Unchained, but a few other classes from the Core Rulebook remain problematic.
I also look forward to fewer occasions of having to explain to my players, "I am afraid that Pathfinder has a special rule for that, so it does not work how you think." Such as if a caster applies metamagic to a spell so that he expends a higher spell slot, the spell's DC for saves is still based on the original level of the spell unless he also applied Heighten Spell. Or that a Headband of Vast Intellect +2 does not grant extra skill points or languages; instead, it maxes out one skill selected when the headband was made. Or that a +4 enhanceement to Strength gives a +2 to Strength bonus, which means +3 to damage when wielding a weapon in two hands. Okay, PF2 will probably keep many of these--I am simply glad that some will disappear.
Not for me, as they would get better at aiming attack spells, and all heroes gain more plot armour (hit points).So do you reject the improvement in BaB and hit points because the Wizard hasn't bothered using even a crossbow for the last fifteen levels and avoids combat as much as they can through 'clever use of spells'?And that level bonus is an irritant to. The 20th lever wizard is now an expert climber because ....
No reason. Just because. The high level barbarian who has never shown th slightest inkling of attempting to stealth nonetheless will have a good stealth bonus. Etcetera. Just feels rather “gamey” to me.
My wife likes playing the weaknesses of her character. For example, her dwarf gunslinger with obsession over high technology is supposed to be a nerd. She has high Intelligence, high Wisdom, low Charisma, and never invested in Diplomacy. Because she is a major decision maker for the party, she sometimes had to be diplomatic, and the failed Diplomacy rolls seem to delight my wife. They meant her dwarf stayed in characcter.
As for the high attack rolls on touch attacks, I see that in the same game. The dwarf gunslinger has full BAB and hits touch AC with her firearms. The bloodrager has full BAB and a few touch spells. Moreover, since this is an Iron Gods campaign and the gunslinger mastered rebuilding alien high technology, any party member can use a laser pistol or plasma thrower for touch attacks at range, with only a -4 nonproficiency penalty. At 15th level, they fought an opponent with AC 44 but touch AC 11, so these touch attacks were a big advantage in combat.
On the other hand, against touch AC 11, even a wizard with BAB 7 and Dex 12 would have hit on a 3 or higher.
So do you reject the improvement in BaB and hit points because the Wizard hasn't bothered using even a crossbow for the last fifteen levels and avoids combat as much as they can through 'clever use of spells'? Do you object that the Fighter gets better at using a spear despite never having owned one? Do you complain that the wizard can take spells from a school they've never used before and be able to match people who've been using let's say Illusions persistently since 1st level? Or is it just that those "gamey" things have been part of D&D for long enough for you to rationalise them as "non-gamey"?And that level bonus is an irritant to. The 20th lever wizard is now an expert climber because ....
No reason. Just because. The high level barbarian who has never shown th slightest inkling of attempting to stealth nonetheless will have a good stealth bonus. Etcetera. Just feels rather “gamey” to me.
I’m not that fond of it improving at the same rate for all character types, no, not really.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The latest thing that has me excited about PF2 is the weapon traits making a 1d12 great sword different from a 1d12 great ax or an earth breaker. The changes in quality look great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quite liked the weapons blog today. I’d like to play a fighter who has meaningful choices throughout the day as to which weapon to use in which battle. I’ve never really been able to represent that in PF, but maybe the new system will make that an interesting element.
I finally have something positive to contribute. While I've either liked or have had a cautious "wait and see" approach to some specific mechanics, there weren't any characters that were jumping out at me as being possible in PF2e but not possible in PF1e. Today's weapon blog finally changed that.
I'm excited to try to build a fighter weapon user who specialises in a wide variety of weapons and is every bit as effective as someone who specialises in a single weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the possibility of a simpler action economy system, and the weapons' blog does look promising.
I'd still prefer a PF1.5e with fewer radical and more evolutionary changes than the PF2e we look set to get. However, I'm really trying hard to keep an open mind (except about goblins in the core).