A critique of PF 2nd ed


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

First of all, I'd like to state what I LOVE about PF1 and why I switched from D&D 3.5 to PF1.

In D&D 3.5, a character was not defined until they were able to get prestige classes. Prestige classes carried with it a LOT of flavor. I remember the Green Star Adept. A prestige class that you could literally transform into a golem. This concept was really cool. Offered a lot of flavor and a lot of character conceptualization along with roleplaying opportunities. I loved it.

The only downside to it is that it took 5 levels to be able to qualify for it. So you could take it at level 6. (1 level of sorcerer, 4 levels of fighter, for example would qualify)

That means my character concept wouldn't be functional between levels 1-5 and MOST GAMES that are played happened to be low level games from levels 1-5. High level games were often NOT played nearly as much. This is due to the simple concept of drift. Statistically speaking, over time, games tended to fall apart or start over. There were some high level games being played, but those were much more rare. Games usually start characters off as a level 1 and over the course of the game, get to around level 5 and the games themselves begin to fall apart by mere chance occurrence. Just like drift (if anyone studies biology here).

When 4th edition came around, people HATED it. It felt more like a board game or video game than it did a tabletop roleplaying game. Paizo saw an opportunity and took the 3.5 mantle. They did everything right. They realized that prestige classes took too long to take advantage of. So they created character identity at level 1, knowing that most games are low level. They created archetypes which also allowed further customization and identity at level 1. My favorite archetypes are those that immediately effect my character and change the way my character functions right from the start.

Example. I'm a huge fan of the flavor of the kineticist. I know some of the mechanics could use work, but the flavor itself is why I play the class. At level 1, I can be a kinetic knight. It changes my character drastically right from the start. At level 1, I can use my kinetic blade for zero burn cost. At level 2, I can use a shield, wear heavy armor. This is awesome!

Then there is the elemental purist. How crappy the archetype is put aside, for the moment. One of the biggest problems is that it is literally functionless until level 7.

Waiting so long for your character to have IDENTITY is terrible for the game and it's one of the problems 3.5 had and what Pathfinder actually accomplished.

Here comes 2nd edition pathfinder.

What I noticed is that they are stripping the level 1 IDENTITY from characters away. They are regressing character identity. The one thing that makes Pathfinder a top game imo is the ability to immediately have character identity.

I may want to be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character. I may not want bombs. I may want an alchemist that can transform into Hyde.

But I can't do that at level 1. I have to wait to level 5 to get a mutagen.

This is detrimental to the character I'd like to play. Now I know that you guys are probably worrying about multiclassing, but I honestly think it's a non-issue. At level 1, a mutagen only lasts 10 minutes per level. If I dipped into alchemist, I'd lose 1 BAB to gain mutagen for pretty much one combat per day. I've never thought it was worth it as a min maxxer. I have looked at it extensively, and I don't think the bang is worth the buck.

In PF 2nd ed, archetypes could be something like, "Lose bombs, gain mutagen. Mutagen lasts twice as long." then each class/archetype could have a BONUS for being a single class. "If this class is your only class, then when the character is dealt damage, the alchemist must roll a will save equal to 10 + character level. If they fail their will save, they turn into their mutagen form without using any daily uses of the mutagen."

I'd prefer archetypes to be a concept that controls and dictates character identity from level 1 and separate it from the class feats. And I'd most definitely stay away from allowing an archetype to affect every class out there. This helps to further strip character identity.

It might seem great on paper to allow rogue, fighter, or clerics to be pirates. But perhaps you should keep 'pirate' as a prestige class concept and limit the ability to be a pirate at level 3 and it adds (never takes away) class abilities. But you're only limited to one prestige class per character. They still have prereqs to gain them.

This has the result that everyone will ultimately choose a prestige class to be part of. But it helps to define a character concept.

While archetypes are variations on a class. Archetypes should remain acting as variations on a class rather than some bastardization of what prestige classes once were.

Please let's maintain character identity. I'd love for PF 2nd ed to succeed, but I just don't feel like it will be the game for me if you guys strip character identity and revert it to feeling like 3.5 all over again.

My fear is that class identity will NOT begin at level 1, and everyone will begin to feel the same and that archetypes will all be worse than any base class because paizo will be afraid that an archetype will be taken by everyone all the time despite the class they are.

They will purposefully make their options far worse than the standard options which, I feel, will strip character identity significantly.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope my concerns make sense.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think your concerns make sense but I think it's a bit too early to be definitive about it. The playtest isn't very far away after all and we need to see how all the moving parts work together to see how things really are. If people can't make distinct variations of a class right from first level then there that will be a huge problem and obvious from the get go.

I have heard Paizo staff say repeatedly that character customization is one of the elements that makes Pathfinder Pathfinder and they do not want to lose in 2e.

Things like Druid Orders and Barbarian Totems indicate to me that character identify will be strong in 2e.

Archetypes aren't supposed to be better than a base class though :). They're supposed to be lateral moves, giving up some things but getting other things in exchange.

As for alchemist... isn't mutagen an alchemical item in 2e that anyone can buy now like alchemical fire?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do wonder what will take the place of archetypes to allow you to swap out or modify fixed class features. I agree it's too early to jump to conclusions, but I find it seriously weird that archetypes now fill a completely different mechanical role in character creation than they did previously. It used to be archetypes were a way of swapping out class features you weren't going to be using for ones that were better fitted to your concept. But now archetypes affect class feats, something you already have the ability to swap out so you never were locked into anything in the first place. Certainly if there's no way to swap out the bomb class feature on the alchemist for concepts that don't care for it, that will be a problem and a step backwards.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes. Archetypes are suppose to be lateral. Not better OR WORSE than the base class. Archetypes in starfinder were available to ANYONE and they were strictly worse than the base class and didn't feel like they were worth taking. In all honesty, using 2nd ed as an example, the class specific options felt more like an archetype than the actual archetypes did. (For example... I can specialize as a melee fighter or a fighter with a rifle by using the specializations)

And according to the alchemist blog post, they get mutagen at level 5.

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkp5?Alchemist-Class-Preview

"But that's only the start—at 5th level the alchemist learns the secrets of mutagens, and as he progresses his ability to craft alchemical items on the fly becomes both greater and faster."

Furthermore, there are some key concepts in alchemist that just make alchemists work that you can get by level 2 in PF 1 that you can't do till level 6 in PF2

"At 4th level, an alchemist with the Calculated Splash feat can deal splash damage equal to his Intelligence modifier instead of the normal 1 splash damage. At 6th level, the alchemist can take the Precise Bomb feat, allowing him to hit everyone but his allies with the splash damage."

So I won't be able to throw any bombs in PFS to guys in combat until... level 6? And I don't get mutagen till level 5, so I can't be effective in melee till 5th level....

So level 1, I will literally be doing nothing lol


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

This sounds like less of a critique of PF2 and more of a critique of things they've previewed about the Alchemist. I mean don't get me wrong, I also think it's kind of silly to make the Alchemist start super bomby and only later get mutagens, but nothing I've seen in the previews of other classes makes me think this is some super common pattern in PF2. The Druid stuff they've talked about is the exact opposite of this, for example.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Where is the druid preview at??? Can't seem to find it on google.


rooneg wrote:
This sounds like less of a critique of PF2 and more of a critique of things they've previewed about the Alchemist. I mean don't get me wrong, I also think it's kind of silly to make the Alchemist start super bomby and only later get mutagens, but nothing I've seen in the previews of other classes makes me think this is some super common pattern in PF2. The Druid stuff they've talked about is the exact opposite of this, for example.

Well, there's a reason for mutagens being so early in PF1. It was to help make up for the fact that alchemists were 3/4 BAB. Supposedly the BAB differences will be less of a factor in PF2 which means that mutagens aren't as needed. However, they're keeping them in the game for those that still want them just at a later level.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sure, but mutagens should still be level 1 and perhaps have a more gradual increase in strength later on.

For example. Level 1, they grant +2 strength, +1 natural armor, -2 int.

Level 3, the bonus to natural armor increases by 1 and every 4 levels after that.

At level 7, the strength is increased to +4... So on and so forth.

If nothing more but for the RP factor of changing into Hyde from the start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:

Sure, but mutagens should still be level 1 and perhaps have a more gradual increase in strength later on.

For example. Level 1, they grant +2 strength, +1 natural armor, -2 int.

Level 3, the bonus to natural armor increases by 1 and every 4 levels after that.

At level 7, the strength is increased to +4... So on and so forth.

If nothing more but for the RP factor of changing into Hyde from the start.

I wouldn't be opposed to the choice of mutagens or free bombs (or some other features) at level 1, the same way that Druids can choose to have an animal companion or wild shape or be stormy at level 1, but I don't think this will be how mutagens will work in PF2e. They're keeping everything like natural armor and ability scores fairly bounded. Maybe there will be a base "Hyde-esque" mutagen that's +X to damage, and maybe +1 to AC, or maybe a small amount of DR or temp HP, but I doubt we'll see "At level X, Y bonus increases to +Z" as much in 2e.

What I far more expect in terms of mutagens is stuff along the lines of Feral Mutagen or Elemental mutagen, and making stuff like vestigial arm or Tumor familiar effects of mutagens.


Verzen wrote:
In D&D 3.5, a character was not defined until they were able to get prestige classes.

I do not recognise this sentiment. And given how nerfed prestige classes were in PF1, it sounds like your PF1 characters were never defined, at least not until the APG came along. And how did we define our characters in 1e or 2e?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mudfoot wrote:
Verzen wrote:
In D&D 3.5, a character was not defined until they were able to get prestige classes.
I do not recognise this sentiment. And given how nerfed prestige classes were in PF1, it sounds like your PF1 characters were never defined, at least not until the APG came along. And how did we define our characters in 1e or 2e?

In PF1, they gave each character a LOT more options to choose from to help fill out character definition apart from D&D 3.5.

Such as sorcerers now have bloodlines. Wizards now have objects they can empower if they so wished rather than a familiar.

Fighters were no longer just bare bones. They got weapon specializations at level 3, 6, etc and armor specializations.

Each class was fleshed out a LOT more than 3.5 which is what created that initial draw. The archetype system in the APG was the nail in the coffin of customization and character definition.

From my view, front loading characters like PF did was VERY beneficial for the game compared to how 3.5 did it which was they spread everything very thin.

In PF 2nd ed, they wish to revert back to spreading out classes to be thin like in 3.5 and I do not like this.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I prefer front loading characters with a lot of stuff they can use, and then over time, gathering a little bit more here and there than just keeping it spreadout evenly through the levels.


I have no problem with alchemist getting bombs at 1 and mutagens at 5. IRL, bombs are stupidly easy to make. A mutagen that doesn't kill you would be really complicated, comparatively.

And not front loading classes is good game design in a game that allows multiclassing, in my opinion of course.


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

I think you're interpreting something as overly restrictive, when it's not.

Let's say that I wanted to be a pirate! I've been sailing forever! Oh, but I can't take the Pirate archetype until Level 2? So no pirate for me?

That's not really true. I can structure the identity however I want. I just can't unlock certain mechanical benefits until Level 2. Which is exactly how countless PF1 Archetypes work.

So many archetypes only "kick in" at level 3 or higher, e.g. Bard - Sound Striker.

I see a lot of statements that Paizo is limiting our character's identities with these new Archetypes, and I don't think that's true.

You can be a Pirate without the the "Pirate Archetype", and you can be a Grey Maiden without the "Grey Maiden Archetype".

Side note: remember that this is a reset of content and combinatorics (which as a GM, I am so thankful for), so it may take a while before there are mechanics that support the exact character identity you're looking for, but there's no reason to think that it won't surface.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Verzen wrote:
Where is the druid preview at??? Can't seem to find it on google.

It was previewed at the Paizocon banquet. An overview of the details can be found HERE, along with some other stuff.

:)

Liberty's Edge

Verzen wrote:
But I can't do that at level 1. I have to wait to level 5 to get a mutagen.

This is indeed potentially unfortunate (though there may well be a level 1 equivalent that just doesn't call itself a Mutagen).

However, as others note, this is not a pattern. Druids can Wild Shape from level 1 (if you choose to focus on Wild Shape) and Paladins can do Lay On Hands from Level 1, and so on.

The only things 'essential to a Class' that seem to kick in later are Mutagen, and some Paladin stuff (Smite Evil equivalent waits for 3rd, Detect Evil waits even longer...but was barely useful before 5th level anyway due to HD limits).

So this is mostly a pretty isolated problem.

Dasrak wrote:
I do wonder what will take the place of archetypes to allow you to swap out or modify fixed class features.

They've said they'll probably have Archetypes that do this. Just not in the playtest because they're Class specific and they already know that Archetypes like this work.

Shadow Lodge

Not in the system they're making now though. They knew how 3.5 worked and we got a playtest for the entire Core Rulebook of PF1...

The issue here is the schedule, I think, and I can understand it.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:


In PF 2nd ed, they wish to revert back to spreading out classes to be thin like in 3.5 and I do not like this.

That's very much not the case. You're getting a larger number of relevant points of customization on each character right at level 1, with many more meaningful points of customization across the character's lifespan. In the current edition, if I want to play a human axe fighter, specifically, there's basically a single bonus feat that's going to distinguish me from any other human axe fighter, and we're both probably taking Power Attack. Maybe one of us will swap in a different racial trait. In the new edition, we can have different backgrounds, different ancestry feats, and different class feats that form entirely different fighting styles even around the same weapon. The new system really gives your character more "character" right out of the gate, and it definitely isn't making them "thin" like 3.5 or 5E.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Verzen wrote:
But I can't do that at level 1. I have to wait to level 5 to get a mutagen.
This is indeed potentially unfortunate (though there may well be a level 1 equivalent that just doesn't call itself a Mutagen).

Given that mutagens are now a subset of elixirs, and the alchemist gets those at 1st level, I think you’re right on the money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:

Not in the system they're making now though. They knew how 3.5 worked and we got a playtest for the entire Core Rulebook of PF1...

The issue here is the schedule, I think, and I can understand it.

We got an Alpha, AND a Beta of Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mekkis wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:

Not in the system they're making now though. They knew how 3.5 worked and we got a playtest for the entire Core Rulebook of PF1...

The issue here is the schedule, I think, and I can understand it.

We got an Alpha, AND a Beta of Pathfinder.

It is true that the Alpha of PF2 was play-tested entirely in-house. This was markedly different than last time, but understandable: the release schedule is now tied to conventions and so limited their capacity to share. If they had released a PF2 Alpha, it would have interfered with their regular releases that were still happening for PF1. They are now getting people used to the idea of a PF2 while releasing a few details here and there to prepare people for the significant differences from PF1.

All so when we pick up PF2 Beta in August, we won't be completely shell-shocked. That's my take, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Verzen wrote:
In D&D 3.5, a character was not defined until they were able to get prestige classes.

I disagree.

Firstly in terms of definition as a whole - for me, mechanical character definition is not overtly important in the way it's described here.

Secondly, in my experience having played and still playing 3.5, characters are generally defined far before entering a PrC, which is generally used as a part of rather than as the entirety of their identity.

Quote:
That means my character concept wouldn't be functional between levels 1-5 and MOST GAMES that are played happened to be low level games from levels 1-5.

I don't agree that a concept is non-functional due to not being in a PrC, but I agree that some concepts aren't playable from level 1. Which is, IMO, not a problem.

I'm also not sure if 'most' games are played levels 1-5. The only times I've started games at level 1 in recent memory are PF games, and that's due to Adventure Paths starting there. But there's no data (AFAIK) to back up either point, so...

---

In the end I think it's a playstyle difference; some folks prefer to have significant mechanical differences between characters to separate them, while people like me don't think it's necessary to have every concept playable from level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system.

This is a total tangent, but I agree that my players will end up getting lost on the degress of success system. There was a time I thought something like this would be pretty cool, but now I can see it will probably be overly complex for your average roleplayer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Star Dragon Caith wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system.
This is a total tangent, but I agree that my players will end up getting lost on the degress of success system. There was a time I thought something like this would be pretty cool, but now I can see it will probably be overly complex for your average roleplayer.

There are a lot of fairly popular games with a "degrees of success" system. The Warhammer percentile games leap to mind immediately. That said, it will certainly be a new factor for people who only know DnD/Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The degrees of success is certainly an extra thing, but in exchange we don't have rolling to confirm crits and weapons with different crit ranges.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I for the most part like the idea of Pathfinder 2E, and most of the changes (even resonance!) I view positively. But I admit I am concerned about elements of this complaint. With so many things turned into some type of feat, it feels that archetypes and races (and some classes?) are a lot more threadbare and less distinct from one another.

I like the customization aspect of the new edition, but in some cases I feel like we are getting that customization by taking strongly tied class and race features and spreading them out at later levels. Not only is that going to make some play concepts harder to do at the early levels of the game (where face it, folks typically spend the most time playing), but it also I feel could harm future race/class/archetypes releases, which may forever suffer from lesser number of options, which in turn is likely to lead them to be weaker than other classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Star Dragon Caith wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system.
This is a total tangent, but I agree that my players will end up getting lost on the degress of success system. There was a time I thought something like this would be pretty cool, but now I can see it will probably be overly complex for your average roleplayer.

Yes, it is definitely cool, but I have seen bright, educated people take what seems an eternity to work out 13+8 at the table, so throw in DC +10 and DC -10 as a consideration, and crikey.


Azih wrote:
The degrees of success is certainly an extra thing, but in exchange we don't have rolling to confirm crits and weapons with different crit ranges.

Yes, Confirmation rolls were one of the first things I instantly hated back in August 2000, talk about anticlimactic, almost a cruel and anti-fun thing to add to a game.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Star Dragon Caith wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system.
This is a total tangent, but I agree that my players will end up getting lost on the degress of success system. There was a time I thought something like this would be pretty cool, but now I can see it will probably be overly complex for your average roleplayer.
Yes, it is definitely cool, but I have seen bright, educated people take what seems an eternity to work out 13+8 at the table, so throw in DC +10 and DC -10 as a consideration, and crikey.

The secret that makes it much faster than you might expect (and even than any of us expected, even though we knew this secret) is that the way most people handle numbers makes +/- 10 intrinsically much easier and faster than 13+8 due to the fact that its just one tens place up or down, no carrying numbers or multiple steps of additions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Star Dragon Caith wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system.
This is a total tangent, but I agree that my players will end up getting lost on the degress of success system. There was a time I thought something like this would be pretty cool, but now I can see it will probably be overly complex for your average roleplayer.
Yes, it is definitely cool, but I have seen bright, educated people take what seems an eternity to work out 13+8 at the table, so throw in DC +10 and DC -10 as a consideration, and crikey.
The secret that makes it much faster than you might expect (and even than any of us expected, even though we knew this secret) is that the way most people handle numbers makes +/- 10 intrinsically much easier and faster than 13+8 due to the fact that its just one tens place up or down, no carrying numbers or multiple steps of additions.

True, it is intrinsically/primally easier, but I mean the deal of "...oh, I hit DC 22, and 12, and 32 for the other DCs." even that; for some reason, dice, addition and subtraction, can get funny at the table. Sometimes people just want to focus on that one number they need.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think concerns that so much cool stuff is being moved to higher and later levels is completely valid, given what we’ve seen so far...


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Star Dragon Caith wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
My critique is of the seemingly complicated, large numbers, fiddly design (that Trinkets preview was not pleasing to read). Lots of moving parts, and the obvious new shiny thing of this edition being the 4-tiers of success system.
This is a total tangent, but I agree that my players will end up getting lost on the degress of success system. There was a time I thought something like this would be pretty cool, but now I can see it will probably be overly complex for your average roleplayer.
There are a lot of fairly popular games with a "degrees of success" system. The Warhammer percentile games leap to mind immediately. That said, it will certainly be a new factor for people who only know DnD/Pathfinder.

Agreed. FFG 40k, WFRP FFG/ SW FFG/ Genesys, FATE, BRP/Call of Cthulhu ect... All show that Degrees of success to varying degrees are not an issue for a Roleplayer willing to get into the hobby and if I'm being honest at least 3 of these I personally find much easier to teach to new people than Pathfinder or 5e.

Still I can understand the concern mind you given that in most industries leaders do tend to define the acceptable and what not. So introducing new or sparsely used things might be as you say a new factor for those who main or only know the PF/DnD.

Liberty's Edge

SunKing wrote:
I think concerns that so much cool stuff is being moved to higher and later levels is completely valid, given what we’ve seen so far...

Really? Aside from Mutagen, what do you have as an example?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
SunKing wrote:
I think concerns that so much cool stuff is being moved to higher and later levels is completely valid, given what we’ve seen so far...
Really? Aside from Mutagen, what do you have as an example?

Race feats come to mind.


Chest Rockwell wrote:
Yes, Confirmation rolls were one of the first things I instantly hated back in August 2000, talk about anticlimactic, almost a cruel and anti-fun thing to add to a game.

I agree that they're not very fun, but I see why it was used. It means that crits are always a fixed percent of the number of hits, so you don't get odd situations where you need a 17+ to hit, so one in four hits is a crit. From a designer point of view, it also opened up the concept of high-threat/high-crit weapons - if all threats were crits, having weapons crit on 18+ or even 15+ would be a bit excessive. But since you also need to confirm the crit, it becomes more OK. You'll note that in 5e, where there is no confirmation roll, critting more often is pretty much the exclusive domain of the Champion fighter (19-20 at 3rd level, and 18-20 at 15th). In 3e-based games, critting on 19 is pretty much SOP for a martial character - either that, or the crits are more devastating when they do happen.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Yes, Confirmation rolls were one of the first things I instantly hated back in August 2000, talk about anticlimactic, almost a cruel and anti-fun thing to add to a game.
I agree that they're not very fun, but I see why it was used. It means that crits are always a fixed percent of the number of hits, so you don't get odd situations where you need a 17+ to hit, so one in four hits is a crit. From a designer point of view, it also opened up the concept of high-threat/high-crit weapons - if all threats were crits, having weapons crit on 18+ or even 15+ would be a bit excessive. But since you also need to confirm the crit, it becomes more OK. You'll note that in 5e, where there is no confirmation roll, critting more often is pretty much the exclusive domain of the Champion fighter (19-20 at 3rd level, and 18-20 at 15th). In 3e-based games, critting on 19 is pretty much SOP for a martial character - either that, or the crits are more devastating when they do happen.

Total, I can see that, but crits favour monsters more than characters, so while I do not want confirmation rolls, I do not mind a crit-range of, like you said, 5th Ed, of 18-20, max, but I would also not double extra damage dice from features such as Sneak Attack and Smite, etc, just double the base weapon damage dice is enough.


Every time I read a thread like this one I am more convinced that the Pathfinder Character Creation Game is not for me.


Chest Rockwell wrote:
Total, I can see that, but crits favour monsters more than characters, so while I do not want confirmation rolls, I do not mind a crit-range of, like you said, 5th Ed, of 18-20, max, but I would also not double extra damage dice from features such as Sneak Attack and Smite, etc, just double the base weapon damage dice is enough.

Actually, sneak attack not doubling on a crit is one of my pet peeves with Pathfinder/3e. If anyone should benefit from using more precise weaponry, it should be the rogue.

Also, from a balance point of view: rogues get sneak attack to make up for lower base damage. In 5e, rogues essentially get sneak attack instead of multiple attacks, so a crit makes things more swingy but doesn't really unbalance things overall.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Total, I can see that, but crits favour monsters more than characters, so while I do not want confirmation rolls, I do not mind a crit-range of, like you said, 5th Ed, of 18-20, max, but I would also not double extra damage dice from features such as Sneak Attack and Smite, etc, just double the base weapon damage dice is enough.

Actually, sneak attack not doubling on a crit is one of my pet peeves with Pathfinder/3e. If anyone should benefit from using more precise weaponry, it should be the rogue.

Also, from a balance point of view: rogues get sneak attack to make up for lower base damage. In 5e, rogues essentially get sneak attack instead of multiple attacks, so a crit makes things more swingy but doesn't really unbalance things overall.

it becomes a problem when used against the PCs, +10d6 is an excessive spike, to me.

Also, yes, Sneak Attack makes up for Extra/Iterative Attacks (which is no longer a thing in PF2), but I don't think either should have spikes like that, and it puts those with abilities like Sneak Attack way ahead.

Liberty's Edge

Shisumo wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
SunKing wrote:
I think concerns that so much cool stuff is being moved to higher and later levels is completely valid, given what we’ve seen so far...
Really? Aside from Mutagen, what do you have as an example?
Race feats come to mind.

Ancestry stuff is sort of a separate ball game than Class stuff. Comparing the two on something like this is comparing apples to oranges, IMO.

But yes, additional Ancestry Feats early are maybe a change they should make. It's also a profoundly easy change to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
SunKing wrote:
I think concerns that so much cool stuff is being moved to higher and later levels is completely valid, given what we’ve seen so far...
Really? Aside from Mutagen, what do you have as an example?
Race feats come to mind.

Ancestry stuff is sort of a separate ball game than Class stuff. Comparing the two on something like this is comparing apples to oranges, IMO.

But yes, additional Ancestry Feats early are maybe a change they should make. It's also a profoundly easy change to make.

Do we have any idea how much of what we take for granted in PF1 races is relegated to ancestry feats in PF2?

Liberty's Edge

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Do we have any idea how much of what we take for granted in PF1 races is relegated to ancestry feats in PF2?

Ancestries get Ability-mods, Darkvision and Low Light Vision (as appropriate), Languages, and Movement Speed (including the Dwarf 'ignoring speed penalty from armor' thing), as well as HP.

Everything else is an Ancestry Feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
SunKing wrote:
I think concerns that so much cool stuff is being moved to higher and later levels is completely valid, given what we’ve seen so far...
Really? Aside from Mutagen, what do you have as an example?
Race feats come to mind.

Ancestry stuff is sort of a separate ball game than Class stuff. Comparing the two on something like this is comparing apples to oranges, IMO.

But yes, additional Ancestry Feats early are maybe a change they should make. It's also a profoundly easy change to make.

Do we have any idea how much of what we take for granted in PF1 races is relegated to ancestry feats in PF2?

Yep. Per the blogs:

Literally everything bar the stat bonuses, languages, speed and vision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Do we have any idea how much of what we take for granted in PF1 races is relegated to ancestry feats in PF2?

Ancestries get Ability-mods, Darkvision and Low Light Vision (as appropriate), Languages, and Movement Speed (including the Dwarf 'ignoring speed penalty from armor' thing), as well as HP.

Everything else is an Ancestry Feat.

While I am a little bummed about ancestry feats being back loaded, I do think it is important to note that some of those ancestry feats are waaaay better than PF1 racial traits. Let's look at the default gnome package and then compare to the equivalent ancestry feat.

Defensive Training: Gnomes gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype. Replaced with fey creature bonuses. Not the most exciting ancestry feat.

Illusion Resistance: Gnomes gain a +2 racial saving throw bonus against illusion spells and effects.Gnomes not only get a save bonus, but also a free disbelieve attempt without interacting with the illusion (which costs actions.) This is a lot better.

Keen Senses: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception checks.This one doesn't seem any better I'll admit, despite giving you a scent type boost.

Obsessive: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on a Craft or Profession skill of their choice. Now replaced with Lore training that scales automatically, all the way to legendary. That seems way better than a +2.
MAGICAL RACIAL TRAITS

Gnome Magic: Gnomes add +1 to the DC of any saving throws against illusion spells that they cast. Gnomes with Charisma scores of 11 or higher also gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day—dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation, and speak with animals. The caster level for these effects is equal to the gnome’s level. The DC for these spells is equal to 10 + the spell’s level + the gnome’s Charisma modifier. While the illusion DC buff has been axed for PF2's tighter math, you can now just get a cantrip to use at will. Any cantrip off the primal list, and we know cantrips will be way stronger. Oh, and you can also get Speak with Animals as a permanent ability.

OFFENSE RACIAL TRAITS

Hatred: Gnomes receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the reptilian and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these hated foes.See Defensive Training. I will note I'm not a huge fan of the "race war" traits to begin with.

Weapon Familiarity: Gnomes treat any weapon with the word “gnome” in its name as a martial weapon.Does all this, plus makes martial gnome weapons simple, plus gives you proficiency in the kukri and glaive. A second feat unlocks critical specializations for all of the above.

Oh, and then there's the completely new option: get a freaking familiar. I'd trade almost all of the above gnome stuff for a familiar for any class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get that some of the ancestry abilities are better. It's still wretched that you can't take both a racial ability and a cultural ability at 1st level. And that with your one and only ancestry feat, you are forced to take a racial ability at 1st level if you will ever want that ability because they won't let you take it after 1st. I really don't get the flavor of THAT decision, you are still biologically a member of that race, I totally buy training to focus your potential. Isn't that exactly what you're doing with secondary feats dependent on the 1st level only feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't actually disagree-- getting more than one ancestry feat at first level seems like an awesome idea to me. I'm just illustrating that your races aren't actually worse at first level even with only one.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, they're quite a bit better mechanically on a one for one basis.

Personally, I think giving two Ancestry Feats at 1st level would work fine and pretty much solve all the problems with this idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also criticize a lot that archetypes should allow a character to change its class features.

IMO, you're getting the best thing that made Pathfinder Pathfinder and changing/twisting it in a bad way. The new idea is a good one, but those are not archetypes like we're used to see. The problem isn't that they are changing, is that we'll not be alowed to do the same customization like we always did.

What about a rogue without uncanny dodge? Ir a ranger without favored terrain? A fighter without armor training? And an alchemist without bomba/mutagen? Or even a druid without wild shape? That's what bothers me...

Hope you guys change it with the playtest.

Liberty's Edge

Bruno Mares wrote:
I also criticize a lot that archetypes should allow a character to change its class features.

They've pretty explicitly already said that these are probably gonna be a thing. But they know how Class Specific Archetypes that change Class Features work, and have limited space.

So, for the playtest, it makes a lot of sense to focus on the untested and more generally applicable Class-Agnostic Archetypes.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / A critique of PF 2nd ed All Messageboards