Losing Gracefully


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want the paladin to be limited to Lawful Good alignment.

But I respect the developers' choice to make the class that way.

I'm earnestly happy for people getting what they want from the paladin.

---

Does anyone else want a turn?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I didn’t want PF2 at all. I’ve come around though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't want Dex to damage for the rogue but I can compromise.

Also don't like bulk but hey I'll live.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I dislike potency overriding quality and odd numbered attributes, but it does lead to nice tight balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It annoys me that casters get equal access to the skill feat system as non-rogue martials but if that was enough to make me quit on PF2 I would have stopped playing PF1 a long time ago.


I’m not thrilled to see low-level slots as limited as high-level slots, but their reasoning makes sense. I can accept that my playstyle depended on something detrimental for the overall experience.


I will bow down to the new skills system. Over the years, I have developed intuition about good DCs for skill checks in PF1. That experience will be obsolete. And in PF2 I will have to decide on both a DC and an expertise level (untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary) for every skill check.

GM MATHMUSE: The next door is densely decorated. You see carvings that are iconic images of plants and animals and four dials among them. Make an Occultism roll, DC 13 trained.
BARBARIAN PLAYER: untrained.
BARD PLAYER: 9
CLERIC PLAYER: 6
WIZARD PLAYER: 17
GM MATHMUSE: The wizard realizes it is a puzzle door. You recognize some of the symbols from the carvings in the previous room. Maybe if you search adjacent rooms, you will see more carvings.
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary.
GM MATHMUSE: What?
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary in Thievery. Can I open the door?
GM MATHMUSE: I thought you were master level.
BARD PLAYER: I increased it when we leveled up last week.
GM MATHMUSE: Okay, make a Thievery roll for lockpicking.
BARD PLAYER: 15
GM MATHMUSE: Let me think, because the module did not give a DC. Okay, you spot the very faint signs of wear from when the ancient priests regularly opened this door. You set the dials according to those almost undetectable telltales, and the door opens.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I want relevant DEX frontliners with no level in Rogue

I want non-LG Divine champions embracing their alignment through class abilities and restrictions

I want to get rid of resonance for consumables including wands

But I get that we need to playtest this new system thoroughly in its current state and I hope the devs will get enough quality feedback to make all our wishes come mostly true


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:

I don't want the paladin to be limited to Lawful Good alignment.

But I respect the developers' choice to make the class that way.

I'm earnestly happy for people getting what they want from the paladin.

---

Does anyone else want a turn?

I'm...not quite there yet. There are some things I really didn't want to see, and others that I didn't want removed and I'm not ready to be sanguine about the outcome.

None of that is to reflect any bad feeling or disrespect towards either the developers or those who disagree with me - I'm just not ready to be earnestly happy for them yet.


Malk_Content wrote:
I dislike potency overriding quality and odd numbered attributes, but it does lead to nice tight balance.

These are two of my big ones, as well, and it is hard to argue with the conclusion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Coming off of occasionally playing 5e, I was hoping prepared casters would cast like an arcanist and everyone was able to heighten any spells known on the fly like 5e. I don’t believe the analysis paralysis is as bad as they say. But I’ll live.

And actually, I was hoping things would be even more modular. But I kind of like the way it’s currently set up and the way I think everything works. And it’s pretty close to how I was going to create a massive(ly bad) P1 rewrite for my group. Now I don’t gotta.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I've always hated paladins, whichever edition they're from.

Scarab Sages

Mathmuse wrote:

I will bow down to the new skills system. Over the years, I have developed intuition about good DCs for skill checks in PF1. That experience will be obsolete. And in PF2 I will have to decide on both a DC and an expertise level (untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary) for every skill check.

GM MATHMUSE: The next door is densely decorated. You see carvings that are iconic images of plants and animals and four dials among them. Make an Occultism roll, DC 13 trained.
BARBARIAN PLAYER: untrained.
BARD PLAYER: 9
CLERIC PLAYER: 6
WIZARD PLAYER: 17
GM MATHMUSE: The wizard realizes it is a puzzle door. You recognize some of the symbols from the carvings in the previous room. Maybe if you search adjacent rooms, you will see more carvings.
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary.
GM MATHMUSE: What?
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary in Thievery. Can I open the door?
GM MATHMUSE: I thought you were master level.
BARD PLAYER: I increased it when we leveled up last week.
GM MATHMUSE: Okay, make a Thievery roll for lockpicking.
BARD PLAYER: 15
GM MATHMUSE: Let me think, because the module did not give a DC. Okay, you spot the very faint signs of wear from when the ancient priests regularly opened this door. You set the dials according to those almost undetectable telltales, and the door opens.

your rolls seem really, really low. I think the earliest Legendary happens is 13, but Bard for Thievery is 15. Plus 3 for Legendary. Plus Dex Mod. I'm not sure it's possible to roll less than 21.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

I will bow down to the new skills system. Over the years, I have developed intuition about good DCs for skill checks in PF1. That experience will be obsolete. And in PF2 I will have to decide on both a DC and an expertise level (untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary) for every skill check.

GM MATHMUSE: The next door is densely decorated. You see carvings that are iconic images of plants and animals and four dials among them. Make an Occultism roll, DC 13 trained.
BARBARIAN PLAYER: untrained.
BARD PLAYER: 9
CLERIC PLAYER: 6
WIZARD PLAYER: 17
GM MATHMUSE: The wizard realizes it is a puzzle door. You recognize some of the symbols from the carvings in the previous room. Maybe if you search adjacent rooms, you will see more carvings.
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary.
GM MATHMUSE: What?
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary in Thievery. Can I open the door?
GM MATHMUSE: I thought you were master level.
BARD PLAYER: I increased it when we leveled up last week.
GM MATHMUSE: Okay, make a Thievery roll for lockpicking.
BARD PLAYER: 15
GM MATHMUSE: Let me think, because the module did not give a DC. Okay, you spot the very faint signs of wear from when the ancient priests regularly opened this door. You set the dials according to those almost undetectable telltales, and the door opens.

your rolls seem really, really low. I think the earliest Legendary happens is 13, but Bard for Thievery is 15. Plus 3 for Legendary. Plus Dex Mod. I'm not sure it's possible to roll less than 21.

Example post is an example. Certainly not a proper reflection of actual numbers or gameplay.


I like the way spells scale now, but its frustrating to me that spontaneous casters only add one level at a time to their spell list. I'd rather they just had fewer spells known. But, its just the playtest, I'm sure they'll find a better way, and if not, I trust the developers have a better understanding of balance than I do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
omniplex wrote:
I like the way spells scale now, but its frustrating to me that spontaneous casters only add one level at a time to their spell list. I'd rather they just had fewer spells known. But, its just the playtest, I'm sure they'll find a better way, and if not, I trust the developers have a better understanding of balance than I do.

To be fair, the heightening features have their own issues for obvious reasons.

Let's say I have a Scroll of Heal. What level is it? How do I denote what level it is, roman numerals? Certainly not a bad idea, and there is precedent for it, we just don't know how it exactly works, so it could just be a Scroll of Heal 9. Same issue with Wands and other similar consumables (though Potions are no longer "spell in a can," so at least they aren't bothersome enough).

I'll also say that, if a Prepared spellcaster can learn one version of Heal, and prepare it heightened to whatever he wants, a Spontaneous spellcaster should be able to do the same. If a Prepared spellcaster had to have each and very version of the spell in their spellbook (or whatever) to cast them, then I'd say the system balances itself out, and it's actually Spontaneous Spellcasters who have the upper hand, initially.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am peeved that Bards aren't prepared casters now, both from a meta design standpoint (there is no Occult Prepared Caster in Core), and a fluff/special effects standpoint.
Bards preparing/practicing 'musical-magic' would have made as much sense as whatever it is Wizards do now (which hasn't really been clear since 2nd edition).

I'm mildly upset that there isn't a printed playtest bestiary, I'd have bought it.

I really wanted to see simpler Firearm rules in the playtest/core rulebook. I get they aren't universally popular, and I don't care. Guns are a cannon element of Golarion, and Pathfinder 2 is set in Golarion by default:
Therefore rules for firearms need to be fleshed out ASAP, not included as an afterthought in 'Ultimate Combat II' or whatever. I sure as hell don't want another whole sub-system devoted to simulating one niche weapon type. Crossbows can penetrate plate armor, and easily misfire too! Yet I don't see a sub-system for adjudicating crossbows.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think this thread is a bit premature.

I certainly plan to test the aspects I dislike as hard as possible, to see if they break under pressure or turn out better than I expected. If that turns out to be the case, I'll acknowledge I was wrong at that point, from the standpoint of someone looking at the entire system, not just one or two annoying bits in isolation.

Oh, actually, I do have a couple.
-Iteratives. I personally think iterative attack penalties are needlessly finicky (at best) and would have been happy to see them go away. Especially for NPCs. But they aren't; I'll get over it.
-Half-orcs still being a core ancestry. I don't get it but if it makes people happy, it doesn't bother me.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

I will bow down to the new skills system. Over the years, I have developed intuition about good DCs for skill checks in PF1. That experience will be obsolete. And in PF2 I will have to decide on both a DC and an expertise level (untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary) for every skill check.

GM MATHMUSE: The next door is densely decorated. You see carvings that are iconic images of plants and animals and four dials among them. Make an Occultism roll, DC 13 trained.
BARBARIAN PLAYER: untrained.
BARD PLAYER: 9
CLERIC PLAYER: 6
WIZARD PLAYER: 17
GM MATHMUSE: The wizard realizes it is a puzzle door. You recognize some of the symbols from the carvings in the previous room. Maybe if you search adjacent rooms, you will see more carvings.
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary.
GM MATHMUSE: What?
BARD PLAYER: I am legendary in Thievery. Can I open the door?
GM MATHMUSE: I thought you were master level.
BARD PLAYER: I increased it when we leveled up last week.
GM MATHMUSE: Okay, make a Thievery roll for lockpicking.
BARD PLAYER: 15
GM MATHMUSE: Let me think, because the module did not give a DC. Okay, you spot the very faint signs of wear from when the ancient priests regularly opened this door. You set the dials according to those almost undetectable telltales, and the door opens.

your rolls seem really, really low. I think the earliest Legendary happens is 13, but Bard for Thievery is 15. Plus 3 for Legendary. Plus Dex Mod. I'm not sure it's possible to roll less than 21.
Example post is an example. Certainly not a proper reflection of actual numbers or gameplay.

The faulty numbers in my example reflect my lack of experience with the new skill system. I forgot that everyone adds level to all skills. And I thought that the earliest level for legendary was 7.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
omniplex wrote:
I like the way spells scale now, but its frustrating to me that spontaneous casters only add one level at a time to their spell list. I'd rather they just had fewer spells known. But, its just the playtest, I'm sure they'll find a better way, and if not, I trust the developers have a better understanding of balance than I do.

To be fair, the heightening features have their own issues for obvious reasons.

Let's say I have a Scroll of Heal. What level is it? How do I denote what level it is, roman numerals? Certainly not a bad idea, and there is precedent for it, we just don't know how it exactly works, so it could just be a Scroll of Heal 9. Same issue with Wands and other similar consumables (though Potions are no longer "spell in a can," so at least they aren't bothersome enough).

I'll also say that, if a Prepared spellcaster can learn one version of Heal, and prepare it heightened to whatever he wants, a Spontaneous spellcaster should be able to do the same. If a Prepared spellcaster had to have each and very version of the spell in their spellbook (or whatever) to cast them, then I'd say the system balances itself out, and it's actually Spontaneous Spellcasters who have the upper hand, initially.

Well, since spell level matters a lot, you do need to note spell level. Same with wands and other consumables that mimic spells.

Might be a spellcaster feat that auto level stuff to your highest spell lv.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Example post is an example. Certainly not a proper reflection of actual numbers or gameplay.

Which makes it pretty pointless. Without a complete view of target numbers and a completely incorrect view of bonuses, there isn't much point to it beyond of a demonstration that the system is still mostly an unknown, not that meaningful DCs will be harder to come up with.

----
For the game in OP, I'd say attributes. The character sheets make it seem like that nothing uses them, they're just relics. The part that matters is the modifier. Just accept it and build the system on that.

But fighting the sacred cow isn't a struggle worth having, so I'll choke it down with the better meat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
omniplex wrote:
I like the way spells scale now, but its frustrating to me that spontaneous casters only add one level at a time to their spell list. I'd rather they just had fewer spells known. But, its just the playtest, I'm sure they'll find a better way, and if not, I trust the developers have a better understanding of balance than I do.

To be fair, the heightening features have their own issues for obvious reasons.

Let's say I have a Scroll of Heal. What level is it? How do I denote what level it is, roman numerals? Certainly not a bad idea, and there is precedent for it, we just don't know how it exactly works, so it could just be a Scroll of Heal 9. Same issue with Wands and other similar consumables (though Potions are no longer "spell in a can," so at least they aren't bothersome enough).

I'll also say that, if a Prepared spellcaster can learn one version of Heal, and prepare it heightened to whatever he wants, a Spontaneous spellcaster should be able to do the same. If a Prepared spellcaster had to have each and very version of the spell in their spellbook (or whatever) to cast them, then I'd say the system balances itself out, and it's actually Spontaneous Spellcasters who have the upper hand, initially.

Well, since spell level matters a lot, you do need to note spell level. Same with wands and other consumables that mimic spells.

Might be a spellcaster feat that auto level stuff to your highest spell lv.

I know that, but the question boils down to how that will be carried out. Roman numerals would be my preference (same with Spell Tiers instead of Spell Levels, a 9th Tier Heal spell has a nice ring to it IMO), but they could just as easily use numbers (a Heal 9 spell) or some other weird notation.

As for a feat, I don't think so. I'm mostly curious as to why Prepared Spellcasters need to learn only one version of a spell to prepare it as an upcast of any spell tier, whereas Spontaneous Spellcasters have to know every version of a spell to cast it at each relevant tier (barring Sorcerer Spontaneous Heightening shenanigans of course). I just don't think that's a fair compromise between the two spellcasting types.


For spell level designations look at how the monster stat blog handled them. I think it was no notation for base spell level, parenthetical number for heightened.


Cantriped wrote:

I am peeved that Bards aren't prepared casters now, both from a meta design standpoint (there is no Occult Prepared Caster in Core), and a fluff/special effects standpoint.

Bards preparing/practicing 'musical-magic' would have made as much sense as whatever it is Wizards do now (which hasn't really been clear since 2nd edition

Actually, that is a pretty solid point. I wouldn't hate bards as prepared now. But at least one of the muses has a way to prepare spells via spell book, so there's at least a little of that.

Quote:
I'm mildly upset that there isn't a printed playtest bestiary, I'd have bought it.

They might have been wanted more time to work on it and add more stuff. The Playtest book went to the printers what seems like forever ago.

Quote:

I really wanted to see simpler Firearm rules in the playtest/core rulebook. I get they aren't universally popular, and I don't care. Guns are a cannon element of Golarion, and Pathfinder 2 is set in Golarion by default:

Therefore rules for firearms need to be fleshed out ASAP, not included as an afterthought in 'Ultimate Combat II' or whatever. I sure as hell don't want another whole sub-system devoted to simulating one niche weapon type. Crossbows can penetrate plate armor, and easily misfire too! Yet I don't see a sub-system for adjudicating crossbows.

Firearms not being popular was only part of why they were excluded. (And probably the smaller part, I think.)

The main reason we don't have firearms yet is because Paizo believes they deserve the attention you ask for here, and there wouldn't be time to give that to them if they were core. It sounds like they basically want to do some playtesting exclusively for guns. And that will be easier to do once the core rules have fully crystallized.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The main reason we don't have firearms yet is because Paizo believes they deserve the attention you ask for here, and there wouldn't be time to give that to them if they were core. It sounds like they basically want to do some playtesting exclusively for guns. And that will be easier to do once the core rules have fully crystallized.

They don't deserve to be singled out as if they are so different from other projectile weapons. I certainly doubt they'd have had the historical impact they did if there were people who could cast telekinetic projectile in the real world.

I hope firearms get a fair shake, almost all my favorite setting have firearms (Golarion included).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah... Well... It'd be easier to make a list of things that align with what I like. A list of what I dislike might hit the character limit for posts. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:


I hope firearms get a fair shake, almost all my favorite setting have firearms (Golarion included).

I'll let you know if I end up sticking guns in my upcoming game what I end up using. I've already done it in 5e so I wouldn't be super surprised if it happened relatively early in PF2.

Though I'm expecting more magitech this time:
So they're probably going to run on resonance batteries, if I end up making them a thing. So I guess they're likely to be magical sci-fi guns.


Xenocrat wrote:
For spell level designations look at how the monster stat blog handled them. I think it was no notation for base spell level, parenthetical number for heightened.

What about how many of that spell they have, either as a casting or as a consumable? If I have two Scrolls of Heal 9, is it written as "Scroll of Heal (9) [2]"? That looks confusing, because it could mean I have 9 Scrolls of Heal 2 (which is unlikely, but possible), or it could mean I have 2 Scrolls of Heal 9, which is more likely, but can still cause confusion.

They might have to resort to the roman numerals for easier differentiating.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ah... Well... It'd be easier to make a list of things that align with what I like. A list of what I dislike might hit the character limit for posts. :P

But how many of them are you losing gracefully on, as per the thread title and OP? You seem less accepting of or resigned to things and more determined to die on many hills.

Me, I hated the new action system to start with, but I've mostly come around to it. And I don't like Resonance being used for consumables, but I can live with it for game balance if it stays that way.


Elleth wrote:
Cantriped wrote:


I hope firearms get a fair shake, almost all my favorite setting have firearms (Golarion included).

I'll let you know if I end up sticking guns in my upcoming game what I end up using. I've already done it in 5e so I wouldn't be super surprised if it happened relatively early in PF2.

** spoiler omitted **

Please do!

I don't care so much about historical accuracy, it's a fantasy game. So at the moment I am considering just using the exact same statistics as various crossbows, and 'refluffing' them as double-action pinlock firearms; modern firearms in every way except capacity, and obviously only the ones based on repeating crossbows will use magazines. That way my playtest data isn't invalidated (since mechanically, nothing is changing)


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
For spell level designations look at how the monster stat blog handled them. I think it was no notation for base spell level, parenthetical number for heightened.

What about how many of that spell they have, either as a casting or as a consumable? If I have two Scrolls of Heal 9, is it written as "Scroll of Heal (9) [2]"? That looks confusing, because it could mean I have 9 Scrolls of Heal 2 (which is unlikely, but possible), or it could mean I have 2 Scrolls of Heal 9, which is more likely, but can still cause confusion.

They might have to resort to the roman numerals for easier differentiating.

They used (x2) to indicate number of monster slots and (7th) to indicate heightening. That will easily carry over to scrolls.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
But how many of them are you losing gracefully on, as per the thread title and OP?

That depends on what the playtest PDF looks like and how everything interacts. I can't say what I'm willing to live with until them. Heck some things could move from hate to acceptance and some things I like might end not working well and turn to dislike. I don't know how anyone can decide they have lost before seeing the product in question: add to that that the Dev's have said that nothing is written in stone so "losing' for the playtest isn't a guaranteed lose for the actual game.

SO I think it premature to start losing OR winning gracefully yet.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Me, I hated the new action system to start with, but I've mostly come around to it. And I don't like Resonance being used for consumables, but I can live with it for game balance if it stays that way.

Myself, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on the action system: It seems ok, but the old system was ok too.

Resonance on the other hand, I can't see using if it makes it to the actual game. I'll try it in the playtest but I'm sure it isn't going to mesh with my playstyle.


Hmm... This is hard for me (doesn't seem like everybody is sticking to actual topic, but I will).
Goblins, I am not yet assuming are the final choice for new CRB PC race...
And if they are, I expect to reject Paizo's new treatment of them, so that probably wouldn't be "Graceful".
(I don't particularly care about "new treatment" Goblins EXISTING as exceptions, but not changes to standard assumption)
To an extent, I feel this issue impacts my feeling re: Paizo as company or at least Pathfinder/Golarion specifically.

The only thing I can think of is Deity-required Paladins, which conflicts with what I had understood as key, if subtle, aspect of Paladin-hood being distinct from Deities, as more of exemplar of "Cosmic Lawful Goodness" even if most DO worship Deities (which is more in mode of "Deity X is great, but just insofar as they fulfill Paladin-hood").

But the irony is, as far as my personal character preference goes, I always enjoyed the Deity-affiliated Paladins specifically in terms of Pathfinder Sacred Servant which also granted Domain Powers... Which the new version gives great service to. It's just that I never saw a reason for ALL Paladins to be like that, and I found significant value in world-dynamic for non-Deity Paladins to be a thing (who may even worship Deity, but with distinction from Paladin powers/role).

So really, I have no problem with Deity Paladins being front and center, but I hope Paladins keep (Core) Non-Deity option like Barbarians have Fury "Non-Totem" Totem. And if they don't... I guess, I will always imagine an alternate version that would have allowed all the coolness of Deity options WHILE still allowing non-Deity Paladins... But perhaps I would not feel the need to consistently reject the new version, even if I could see using the old version in specific games. I guess that would be Graceful-ish.

Scarab Sages

I'm disappointed that Bard is the full-occult spellcaster instead of capitalizing on the Jack of all Trades thing that was the bard's schtick and giving them lots of cool "build your own class" style abilities, but I guess I'll have to wait for my Factotum remake.


^ Non-Caster Trapper Bard FTW

"Now that you can't get away, you can hear ALL of my beautiful music..."


Davor wrote:
I'm disappointed that Bard is the full-occult spellcaster instead of capitalizing on the Jack of all Trades thing that was the bard's schtick and giving them lots of cool "build your own class" style abilities, but I guess I'll have to wait for my Factotum remake.

To be fair, the Bard appears to be both the full-occult spellcaster and a jack of all trades... In addition to being a 10th level spellcaster the Bard is also tuned to be a viable martial combatant and has greater access to skills than anyone except the Rogue.

We'll, uh, see if that ends up being as overtuned as it looks in the playtest.

Scarab Sages

Arachnofiend wrote:


To be fair, the Bard appears to be both the full-occult spellcaster and a jack of all trades... In addition to being a 10th level spellcaster the Bard is also tuned to be a viable martial combatant and has greater access to skills than anyone except the Rogue.

We'll, uh, see if that ends up being as overtuned as it looks in the playtest.

Yeah, but I feel like it presents too much of what the class is up front. I've always seen bards as the ultimate "I picked up this bit of knowledge here, and these skills here, oh, and I learned to use a longsword because one time when I was playing in a tavern and I got challenged by this master duelist, and she OWNED me, but it was cool, because we got married and she shared some of her knowledge with me, and..." so on and so forth. I get that they can do something like that, but I would have liked that "build your own class" element to be more front and center, preferably involving access to other class's feats in some limited way. Still, this was a losing gracefully post, so I suppose I'll have to wait and see how bard plays as-is.


Xenocrat wrote:
monster slots

What are monster slots?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

None of this sounds like losing gracefully. Just saying lol.

Can't wait for the actual playtest to arrive so we can look at some facts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
You seem less accepting of or resigned to things and more determined to die on many hills.

Not directed at me, but could certainly apply to me.

I will fight tooth and nail to make sure PF2e enables my group to have as much fun as possible. I will concede on points only if I can see how truly beneficial they are and it's something my group can compromise on.

However at the end of the day, once the playtest is over, I will cease posting about what I dislike until the CRB is published. Once published I will thoroughly read it, post my reactions and thoughts to it and then quietly move on if it's something that's not for me, or if it's something I can enjoy then I'll post in the homebrew section what changes I could make to make it more appealing.

I won't stick around once the time for feedback is over just to pee in everyone's cereal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Got into Pathfinder halfway through it's run, was disappointed to hear my recently bought books were going to be obsolete, because they still feel new to me.

However, the skeleton for the new rules is built around the same bugs I created extensive houserules to solve. This means that we have similar goals in what a ruleset should be able to do.

Honestly I mostly like everything I've seen in blogs so far - especially the beginnings of codifying the exploration and downtime modes of play - to create baseline expectations similar to those that already exist for combat.

Not going to participate in the playtest - I'm sure you all will do a fine job - because I will finish running my games with my playgroups with the materials we have.

Down the line, I will follow the player-base, which may mean sticking to first edition, or buying the core rulebook for second edition, or a little of both. The company respects it's players, so I will be flexible too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to quit complaining about it for a few years and let the sourcebooks come out. I hope the forums playtest the heck out of this thing and make it decent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's see...

I dislike +level being added to nearly everything, feels a bit too gamey for my tastes.

Wasn't enthused to see consumable potions using up resonance, since I originally interpreted resonance as being primarily for worn items and activated magic items like staves.

Didn't like the idea of an abstract bulk rather than a listed weight for items.

And I kinda wish we got Arcanist-style casting as the new default for prepared casters.

But at the end of the day, I'll happily swallow all of these as long as the system is good and improves on other issues I had in PF1 (which I am happy to say, seems to be the case so far from several of the previews).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

I am peeved that Bards aren't prepared casters now, both from a meta design standpoint (there is no Occult Prepared Caster in Core), and a fluff/special effects standpoint.

Bards preparing/practicing 'musical-magic' would have made as much sense as whatever it is Wizards do now (which hasn't really been clear since 2nd edition).

I'm mildly upset that there isn't a printed playtest bestiary, I'd have bought it.

I really wanted to see simpler Firearm rules in the playtest/core rulebook. I get they aren't universally popular, and I don't care. Guns are a cannon element of Golarion, and Pathfinder 2 is set in Golarion by default:
Therefore rules for firearms need to be fleshed out ASAP, not included as an afterthought in 'Ultimate Combat II' or whatever. I sure as hell don't want another whole sub-system devoted to simulating one niche weapon type. Crossbows can penetrate plate armor, and easily misfire too! Yet I don't see a sub-system for adjudicating crossbows.

Personally, I always thought Firearms should just use the same rules as crossbows and be done with.


graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
monster slots
What are monster slots?

Spell uses per day.


There's very little I really care about beyond the new game being mechanically simple enough that my group is actually able to play it or at least easily houseruled into something that will be. If that proves not to be the case, however, I'm afraid there's no getting past that...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, just the spell prep vs. spontaneous thing. I’d rather have all prepared casters instead be more like arcanists, and spontaneous get less spells known but auto-heightening. However, it’s not a make-or-break, just a thing I think we’ll likely see in future Pathfinder iterations once people get more accustomed to spell heightening in general.


I'm willing to give non-mystic, brawler-lite Monk a go.


I think for me there are a lot of small things (LG-only pallies, 1/3 per day things still being present, charges still being present, barbarian rage being precisely 3 turns, resonance consumables) I'm not super keen on, and I'm still not sure what I think about +level.

Buuut, absolutely none of that is a deal-breaker. I like the core of the system enough to want to play it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
I really wanted to see simpler Firearm rules in the playtest/core rulebook. I get they aren't universally popular, and I don't care. Guns are a cannon element of Golarion, and Pathfinder 2 is set in Golarion by default:

I see what you did there...

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Losing Gracefully All Messageboards