Initial Thoughts

[elvnsword]

I am jotting down thoughts as I read through the PDF version today.
Please excuse the formatting as this is very stream of conscious, gut reaction type stuff.

I do NOT like the new layout for the action economy. It feels too much like a visual layout you'd see in a video game. (Symbols etc) Additionally it seems like it may slow down combat, but having only read so far, and not tested I cannot confirm or deny that.

I do like the new Totem/Anathema setup for the Barbarian albeit it feels, off when it comes to the chaotic alignment they adhere too.

I am on the fence with the new way to do half elves and half orcs. It seems to work, but I will miss them being completely their own thing.

Bard: Looks like you changed all the performances into cantrips of one type or another. The writing here doesn't leave a lot of room for non-traditional bards (orators etc)

Cleric: Whoa now, Disintegrate and magic missile on cleric spell lists?! What is this 4th ed

Just realized, there are no more HD rolling here. It is straight value + Con each level. Barbarians are going to be insanely powerful under this.

I will add more later, just had work hit my desk...

[Zaister]

elvnsword wrote:

Just realized, there are no more HD rolling here. It is straight value + Con each level. Barbarians are going to be insanely powerful under this.

Not only is there no more hit dice rolling, the concept of hit dice isn't part of this game at all.

[Mrakvampire]

Attack of Opportunity is for fighters only??? No non-fighter tanks? Hmm... maybe I should read this again...

[WatersLethe]

The formatting of the Wealth by Level tables are giving me eye cancer.

1 2nd, 2 1st
1 3rd, 2 2nd
2 4th, 3 3rd
....

gaaaahhhh

[Cylerist]

The action symbols!
Maybe it's my older eyes but they a difficult to distinguish quickly when appearing alone.

[GreatGraySkwid]

Zaister wrote:

Not only is there no more hit dice rolling, the concept of hit dice isn't part of this game at all.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, says I!

[Virellius]

Don't like the use of symbols, don't like the formatting, HATE class progression formatting in that little side-note looking blurb... Honestly these PDFs lack the readability Paizo is known for.

[Torg Smith]

GreatGraySkwid wrote:

Zaister wrote:

Not only is there no more hit dice rolling, the concept of hit dice isn't part of this game at all.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, says I!

Yeah, I am not a fan of hit point rolling. If a player gets some bad rolls, they force a gimp on the creature I can throw at them.

[magnuskn]

Spellcasters nerfed into the ground, all spells nerfed as well, greatly shortened adventuring day. Using medicine to be the group healer was a blatant lie (referring to the "our barbarian was the healer!" story by a dev, barbarians themselves have zero healing powers), except when you stop adventuring after one encounter. So far my impressions are only negative, but of course I looked up the stuff which would be controversial to me first. Still, not good so far. :-/

[Zaister]

"Spellcasters nerfed into the ground, all spells nerfed" is not something I would see as negative at all. :)

[The Raven Black]

No retraining for ancestry, background, heritage feats, "intrinsic" class features such as a Sorcerer's bloodline or class. The last one combined with PF2 multiclassing is highly disappointing

[WatersLethe]

Don't see a concrete list of slots, but browsing through the item list I see:

Eyepiece
Belt
Shoes
Bracers
Armor
Cloak
Collar
Circlet
Mask
Garment
Gloves
Headwear
Backpack

[The Raven Black]

No more stacking Prestige "classes" (here Archetypes)

[magnuskn]

Zaister wrote:

"Spellcasters nerfed into the ground, all spells nerfed" is not something I would see as negative at all. :)

Sure, if you hate spellcasters and magic. For me this is terribly disappointing, in that I was okay with spellcasters getting a more limited endurance yet more zappy cantrips to keep up with the party.

But also getting all their spells nerfed into being less good than they were before and then seeing realized all my fears of adventuring days having been shortened even more is a one-two punch which already severely is limiting my desire to buy products of this edition. This is too much and a wrong direction for the game to take overall. I'll heavily advocate against this over the next months.

[bugleyman]

I won't get the chance to look much before tonight, and of course it's all about how it plays, by my immediate thoughts after 10 minutes flipping through the book:

* The graphic design has received a (badly needed) update. Much more readable. Bravo!
* Cover rules seem cleaned-up in some ways (e.g. references to "any corner" replaced with "most advantageous corner"). Less sure about the introduction of a new term for soft cover ("screening" IIRC?).
* Love the introduction of rarities on things. Hopefully this replaces overly-specific demographics (i.e. X spellcasters of level Y per Z people) that undermine setting logic.
* Tags (e.g. Cantrip) are intriguing, though I have yet to see how much use is made of them throughout the rules.

[WatersLethe]

Why does Remarkable Resonance have a Charisma requirement? Shouldn't it be a feat penalty for people who don't want to have high charisma but still want to do Resonance things?

[WatersLethe]

Identifying a spell being cast is now a feat.

[bugleyman]

WatersLethe wrote:

Identifying a spell being cast is now a feat.

That seems...unfortunate.

[Pan]

Ancestry, formerly known as race, feels like a demotion to a trait. Sure you get like 2-4 more of them throughout your character's career, but it just feels like a flat reduction in theme and mechanics.

@ravenblack I dont have an issue with being unable to retrain heritage feats. Though I agree with you on other topics, and especially no stacking prestige. Though its nearly impossible to stack them anyways with the craptastic dedication mechanic.

[Adam Pannell]

elvnsword wrote:

I do NOT like the new layout for the action economy. It feels too much like a visual layout you'd see in a video game. (Symbols etc) Additionally it seems like it may slow down combat, but having only read so far, and not tested I cannot confirm or deny that.

I really dislike this as well.

In addition, the visual layout of feats is over-engineered and causes the class section to feel like a collection of powers rather than a description of a class. This was a major thing that 4th edition D&D did that I learned to hate.

I feel like this is something the Core Rulebook for 1st edition Pathfinder nailed with it's simple text style with bold, italics, and indentation, but towards the later supplements (especially the Strategy Guide) really started getting ugly. To me, it feels cluttered, hard to follow, and makes it come of as a video game UI rather than a book. Worst of all, it takes away from immersion into the setting. I would much prefer the book to more closely emulate something you might see in the actual game world.

I know this may not matter to many people, but the UI-style presentation just doesn't work for me.

[Voss]

So, anyone find out what small size does in any way at all?
I've found references to squeezing through a creatures space and screening, but... that's it.

It seems functional the same as being medium for bonuses, weapons, etc.

[WatersLethe]

I'd really like brief descriptions in the feat list. It's almost useless as-is.

[Ximmrik]

Bummer on maces. Noticed that some of the weapons have been nerfed, like the the maces. Going the way of a 5th edition game. I remember on a YouTube podcast that the bad guy used a magical +1 heavy mace that did 2d8 damage, now the maces are 1d6 for heavy and 1d4 for light. I think some of the damage on simple weapon are to low, a D4 dice rolls pretty crappy most of the time.

[Tymin]

I feel like humans should have access to two ancestry feats at level 1, it's just so.... human. No extra skill (point per level), no extra feat... Humans are very unappealing in this edition, but I can't let it go; my Human Alchemists were BEASTS in 1E.

[Xenocrat]

Voss wrote:

So, anyone find out what small size does in any way at all?

I've found references to squeezing through a creatures space and screening, but... that's it.

It seems functional the same as being medium for bonuses, weapons, etc.

I haven't seen a general rule, but I think there's a dwarf ability that is limited to things your size or smaller.

[Chance Wyvernspur]

The symbols are confusing. They're kind of like icons in Microsoft Word in that they don't mean anything unless you mouse over them... except you can't mouse over them.

Why not put an "A", "R" and "F" in them at least?

[Ximmrik]

I see the DEADLY SIMPLICITY cleric feat to increase the damage on favor weapons, so I see how the evil cleric of Asmodeus mace was a 1d8 for normal and another 1d8 for magical. Still do not like the alot of the damage changes. Also seem the classes are cookie cutter style so far.

[WatersLethe]

Missing Gnomish Battle Ladder. Literally unplayable.

[Voss]

Tymin wrote:

I feel like humans should have access to two ancestry feats at level 1, it's just so.... human. No extra skill (point per level), no extra feat... Humans are very unappealing in this edition, but I can't let it go; my Human Alchemists were BEASTS in 1E.

Disagree. Humans can turn their ancestry feats into lots of useful things.

What I find really puzzling is the races are oddly uneven.
I'm going to ignore the ability flaw briefly, but:

Dwarves
+2 hp, -5 speed, darkvision (which is really good), and unburdened

Elves
-2 hp, +5 speed, low light vision

Gnomes
-5 speed, bonus language (sylvan), low light vision

Goblins
-2 hp, Darkvision

Halflings
-2 hp and... nothing.

Humans
nothing. But 2 free boosts and no penalty, and feats no one else can match

As far as I can tell size does nothing. Halflings just look weirdly void compared to all the other non-humans, and gnomes are fairly rubbish. That speed penalty hurts a lot.

[Val'bryn2]

Does anyone else think the way they're doing ability scores is a little odd? I mean, instead of point buy, you just keep playing with the ability increases, the racial ones, the background, then 4 more ability increases of +2 each. It just seems a strange way to go, when I was pretty much expecting the Starfinder 10 point pointbuy system.

[Marc Radle]

I have to agree on the use of the symbols - they are extremely counter-intuitive, video gamey, and ugly eyesores. REALLY hope they abandon these and go back to text for these!

Also really dislike that monsters just have the bonuses listed instead of the actual stat plus bonus.

[dungeon_architect]

WatersLethe wrote:

The formatting of the Wealth by Level tables are giving me eye cancer.

1 2nd, 2 1st
1 3rd, 2 2nd
2 4th, 3 3rd
....

gaaaahhhh

I second that, the table format is nearly unreadable when you do the whole ( 1 2nd, 2 1st ) Thing

[The Sideromancer]

Quote:

The following acts are anathema to all druids:

• Using metal armor or shields.

*flips table*

There was ONE thing I wanted out of this class! ONE THING! It would even save word count!

[Tymin]

Voss wrote:

Humans
nothing. But 2 free boosts and no penalty, and feats no one else can match

As far as I can tell size does nothing. Halflings just look weirdly void compared to all the other non-humans, and gnomes are fairly rubbish. That speed penalty hurts a lot.

Yeah, humans and halflings have just about nothing. But you're gonna have to explain what you mean with "feats no one else can match".

[dungeon_architect]

Adam Pannell wrote:

elvnsword wrote:

I do NOT like the new layout for the action economy. It feels too much like a visual layout you'd see in a video game. (Symbols etc) Additionally it seems like it may slow down combat, but having only read so far, and not tested I cannot confirm or deny that.

I really dislike this as well.

In addition, the visual layout of feats is over-engineered and causes the class section to feel like a collection of powers rather than a description of a class. This was a major thing that 4th edition D&D did that I learned to hate.

I feel like this is something the Core Rulebook for 1st edition Pathfinder nailed with it's simple text style with bold, italics, and indentation, but towards the later supplements (especially the Strategy Guide) really started getting ugly. To me, it feels cluttered, hard to follow, and makes it come of as a video game UI rather than a book. Worst of all, it takes away from immersion into the setting. I would much prefer the book to more closely emulate something you might see in the actual game world.

I know this may not matter to many people, but the UI-style presentation just doesn't work for me.

I have to disagree whole-heartedly , It may seem strange but Tabletop Games are games, and UX Design principles are drastically needed to make the game more approachable. One of my main complaints with 1st edition was how the information was formatted. I'm very glad to see some "Blocks" rather than just walls of text.

[Fallyrion Dunegrién]

Elves are now vunerable to sleep spells unless they choose the (probably) worst racial feat.

And that everybody could have attack of opportunite is the bad joke of the year.

You need to multiclass as a figther to.

General feats are a joke too.

Your charcter is your class and nothing more. Just like powers from 4E.

How do I increase my proficience with perception? Haven't find it yet.

[Seventh Seal]

elvnsword wrote:

...I do like the new Totem/Anathema setup for the Barbarian albeit it feels off when it comes to the chaotic alignment they adhere too...

Umm...

Barbarians are no longer restricted in alignment, i.e. Barbarians can be of ANY alignment, not just the chaotic (or non-lawful) ones.
So...

Not really "off"??

________________________________________

I've noticed that a number of names for things (esp. setting related) have been changed (e.g. aeon stone instead of ioun stone, Jotun instead of Giant, etc.) - presumably to distinguish Pathfinder more from D&D.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but it will take a little bit of adjustment.

Icons, while a little more abstract than expected, are (to me) clear, simple & easily distinguishable once you learn them. (There are only THREE, & they are at most only two colors - white & dark reddish brown.)

I can't really comment on the actual rules until I've played a bit, so that's it from me.

[Voss]

Tymin wrote:

Voss wrote:

Humans
nothing. But 2 free boosts and no penalty, and feats no one else can match

As far as I can tell size does nothing. Halflings just look weirdly void compared to all the other non-humans, and gnomes are fairly rubbish. That speed penalty hurts a lot.

Yeah, humans and halflings have just about nothing. But you're gonna have to explain what you mean with "feats no one else can match".

Basically, humans can use their ancestry feats as general or class feats. Only level 1, but that hardly matters for general feats. And this will only get better as more feats get added to search pile.

When it comes to builds (and PF2 is all about builds) humans have a major advantage.

[Xenocrat]

Tymin wrote:

Voss wrote:

Humans
nothing. But 2 free boosts and no penalty, and feats no one else can match

As far as I can tell size does nothing. Halflings just look weirdly void compared to all the other non-humans, and gnomes are fairly rubbish. That speed penalty hurts a lot.

Yeah, humans and halflings have just about nothing. But you're gonna have to explain what you mean with "feats no one else can match".

Conversion to a class feat, conversion to as many general feats as you want, conversion to 2 skill trainings (vs. one for a general feat), an off list cantrip (vs. fixed list cantrips on Arcane/Primal lists only).

[Igor Horvat]

If this is best they can do...I'm afraid that they can go beg in front of WotC for spare change. Not that employees there have much :p

Races mean nothing before 9th level.

Racial feats should be improving your race strengths, not get a longbow proficiency at 9th level because you found something more useful before.

3 racial feats and one general feat at 1st level could have save racial problem.

Humans should get extra feat.

what is the range of darkvision? line of sight?
It should be 30ft max.

What is the hate towards longbow?

Is this "pathfinder" or "path to finding best way to bludgeon someone on the head with a hammer"?

multi attack penalties are huge. -3/-6 would be better.

[Terminalmancer]

Hmmm. Accessibility of the PDF is low, as expected--the icons don't have any text associated with them, so in the event you're using text-to-speech you can't tell what's an action, what's a reaction, and so on.