First Knee-Jerk Reaction


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks... okay. I mean, it seems like it responds to a lot of the lawyer-y issues of Pathfinder 1 (everything is codified, and I mean pretty much EVERYTHING), conditions are all condensed with really specific effects, and language regarding classes is all simplified. I really like the way stats are done, I like that races are a little homogenous, but also dislike that races aren't more distinct. The classes are okay. Barbarian seems like one of the better designed ones, and cleric seems pretty decent as well, but a lot of the options for classes across the board seem really conservative. The gish options are particularly meh, and many class options are too interdependent (This ability requires X class ability, which requires Y class ability). I'm disappointed that the classes are so specific as well.

Overall, I kinda understand that this is mostly a systems playtest to see how the game runs, but I feel like part of hyping people about the game would involving boasting about what pathfinder did best: build variety. I feel like the playtest doesn't really stress that part of the system. Still, I suppose I'll have to wait until actual play to see how it runs at least.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ancestries feel mostly ok but the Ancestry Feats thing feels wierd to me

Backgrounds are fine

Classes honestly feel more restrictive than before. There is a lot of "if you want to do X, you HAVE to be Class Y". Like Class Feats in general but then they go and break them up by level and that starts feeling Really 4E. I'd rather have Feat Chains to be honest.

Kind of Don't like the attributes system. feels way too cookie cutter to me.

Have Never liked Fixed Hit Point Advancement

Archetypes are lacking, need more of them.
Multiclassing looks bad.
Dice Rolls aren't going to be so out of control, so I'm ok with that

First reaction. Dislike more than I like. Not gonna switch


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Knee jerk.

Why the skill prerequisite (traîned in (skill) of the skill feat given by my background is not included?
I receive Assurance as a bonus feat... but I am not trained in the skill. I need to use a ressource to have it. And this is the same thing for every background. That likes a skill tax!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When I first started reading this thread I was honestly very confused by all this talk about 1E and 2E. I said to myself, "Self, I think that some sort of Renaissance is occurring." I provide the following key to eliminate any further misunderstandings:

BECMI = Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal
1E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, first edition
2E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, second edition
3E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, third edition
3.5E = AD&D, third edition revised
4E = AD&D, fourth edition
5E = AD&D, fifth Edition

PF1 = Pathfinder, first edition
PF2 = Pathfinder, second edition

And, if you're like me and too invested in PF1 and the home brew globe you've created, I can keep playing PF1, right? I won't be compelled to by the new system?


Mykull wrote:
And, if you're like me and too invested in PF1 and the home brew globe you've created, I can keep playing PF1, right? I won't be compelled to by the new system?

You most certainly can. The rulebooks will stay in print (in pocket book edition) as long as they continues to sell (and even then they have to sell out any leftover stock). The SRD is still there perpetually and you still have your PDFs (if you've bought them, Paizo probably won't stop selling them, "ever").


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My initial knee-jerk reaction is that there is more I dislike than I like. I'm willing to wait and see what, if anything, gets changed in the final product but as of now I'm likely to cherry pick things I like and use them in my own game.

As for the adventure that comes with the play test .. Oh I have so many issues and questions. Not about the tests, necessarily, but a great deal with the overall concept and the issues it could cause. So, so many questions.


KyleS wrote:
I believe that is what the general feat Adopted Ancestry is meant to solve. Like it's saying "Hey, these are the things most commonly associated with dwarves, but if you are a dwarf somehow raised by elves, then you can have some of those things with this ability right here!" I think there could be a better way of accomplishing this without having separate physical vs cultural traits.

Ahhh...thanks for bringing that to my attention; I hadn't yet seen it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
I mean, I really find it shocking that people whine about the learning curve of system mastery.

Whine? Seriously?

I'm gone 11 hours a day for work. Counting getting ready, making breakfast, etc., it's an even 12 hours. I also have three teenagers, along with the accompanying school events, games, and other commitments. Two hours of free time a day is pretty typical for me. Sometimes its hard to carve out the six or so hours to play a game, even on a weekend.

Is it seriously "shocking" to you that people like me might want to roll some dice without spending every waking moment reading the multiple books of player options Paizo puts out in a month?

You really just don't get it, do you?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why people think there is LESS bloat in this system, the metamagic feats are duplicated between wizard and sorcerer, the familiar rules are duplicated between alchemist, wizard, druid, and sorcerer.

They also applied curious nerfs in many places, like removing feather fall from the bard spell list (occult, I know), and getting rid of cats grace, bulls strength, etc. (they clearly have a thing against stat buffs).

All the generic combat feats, are now fighter specific, which is weird for the other martials...

Overall it reads like 4e, but less awfull

This really feels like they un-did the majority of the things that made pathfinder a compelling alternative to 4e.

So far I think 5e definitely has an edge over 2e, but they make some wonky choices as well.

I really think this edition can be saved by going back to BAB, keeping the proficiency system for skills, and bringing back real multi classing.

The core mechanics are pretty solid, and no where NEAR as inconsistent and weird as 5e for things like combat maneuvers(trip grapple, etc).

Races also seem off, removing a lot of the quirky weirdness that made playing a non-human interesting, and adding needless complexity to the choice of what race to play (how long are people going to need to pour over the ancestry feats before they make up their mind?)

Also this book is organized very strangely, like how all the alchemical items are just lumped together in the same section, making it difficult to get a feel for all the elixers, bombs, mutagens, etc.

Also, needing to list the insane number of feats for each class in the class section just makes everything seem much more complicated than it needs to. (one of my big gripes with 4e).

And yeah, the way you build your stats just feels too formulaic, and really discourages playing against type.


Sulako wrote:
[snip]

Your entire post generally amounted to calling the developers and employees at Paizo for liars and money-grubbing corporate people not interested in the game. I'm sure they'll appreciate that gesture.

That is, however, not in any way the way I see them and I have great confidence in their way of handling the playtest and how much they care about the game (yes, based on, among other things, history, which you seem to have not witnessed).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Knee-jerk reaction is that you don't make characters anymore, you basically just choose between premades. And that is AWFUL
Ronin_Knight wrote:
It feels as cookie cutter as 4E....It's, to me at least, as bad as 4E if not worse.

My initial knee jerk reaction was along these lines as well. I'm quite surprised to see the list of fighter feats. Not at all what I was hoping for. It seems like we're going to get lots of special attacks we can use all day long, but no way to modify and stack multiple feats onto a single attack (except for at 10th level with one feat then).

I'm trying to keep an open mind. But I'm struggling to see how the spirit of Pathfinder lives on in this playtest rules thus far.

I'm tempted to make a Dwarven Fighter 6 in PF1e, D&D 5e and PF2e and see which one is closest to the PF1e version. At this stage my knee jerk reaction says fifty-fifty chance on it being the PF2e dwarven fighter. But I'm going to read more of the rules first and try to understand and appreciate them in isolation (alas making characters is how I learn the rules).

Rameth wrote:
I disagree and I'm not quite sure how you came to some of these conclusions.

That might be why they're called knee jerk reactions?

Renchard wrote:
Then, quite simply, you shouldn't be playing a class-based game. Putting abilities into silos to reinforce flavor is the reason the class concept exists in the first place.

We weren't this restricted in Pathfinder 1e and I think it's reasonable for things to be as flexible as 1e in 2e. I personally expected more flexibility in 2e, but I certainly don't expect to see less flexibility.

Renchard wrote:
In all seriousness, how do you add options into a class and level based system without creating a menu of options to pick from?

They didn't create a menu of options to pick from. They TOOK the menu from options from all the other classes and doled out each option to one or two classes at best (knee jerk reaction here. Haven't even started digesting the rules).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Amanda Plageman wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design

..... But.... if I wanted to play 5E, I'd play 5E. It already exists, and is lovely in its own way.

Maybe I should have expected this, but I didn't. Pathfinder 1E was effectively D&D 3.75. But somehow I didn't expect that Pathfinder 2E would be D&D 5.5.

I guess I'll try to change my expectations and start going over it again....

I would say this edition is more dnd 4.5, than 5.5...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sulako wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...

Universally? Hardly. I rather liked 4E. It was super easy to prep, and played quite well.

But really, your posts amount to "I don't like this game." Which is fine. But you seem to be mistaking your preference for objective truth. (Though if it makes you feel better, it's going around...)


Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more dnd 4.5, than 5.5...

I had the same thought.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more dnd 4.5, than 5.5...
I had the same thought.

To be fair, it is no where near as bad as 4e, and I really do think it can be salvaged, if not by paizo, then by a bit of home brewing (bringing back bab, a few missing spells, and re-organizing the class feats back into the generic categories they belong in (combat, meta magic, etc.)

The updates to exploration mode seem fine, downtime rules are interesting, action economy is pretty nifty etc.

It's weird, I kinda feel like if you mixed the good parts of 2e with the good parts of 5e you'd end up with something pretty slick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am looking through it now and have mixed feelings so far. I like some of what I am seeing but am getting a D and D 4th or 5th edition feel to other parts.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DarkSavior wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E
Thing is, if I wanted to play something like 5e... I would be playing 5e.
This in many ways feels like the same bad design direction that WoTC went with during 4th Ed, including the whole statement at the beginning about,"Our goal is to simplify and make it easier while maintaining depth" I am paraphrasing the line, but its the same vibe for sure, and I am hating most of what I am reading, because Paizo from what I am seeing is not only failing at simplifying anything, from the convoluted ability boost rules changes and the dumpster fire that Resonance is. Changes that are adding nothing good while over-complicating and sucking the fun out of magic items, not to mention creating far worse problems that what they appear to have been trying to solve. I am super underwhelmed and honestly disappointed. Looks like WoTC and Paizo are companies that were once cool, and now suck. This is a product in its current form, I would never buy.

I hate to have to agree with you, but I do. Especially that last part, I realize "playtest" but this thing is an eye-sore and to be honest, I would put it right back on the shelf and get something else. I am not at all impressed with where this is going. I frankly don't like this game. I prefer the original Pathfinder to 5th ed or 4th ed, but this I would not even play. There is a lot of older concepts kept, but the character sheet alone made half of my party not want to even bother. IT seems unecessarily wordy or "complex".


bugleyman wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...

Universally? Hardly. I rather liked 4E. It was super easy to prep, and played quite well.

But really, your posts amount to "I don't like this game." Which is fine. But you seem to be mistaking your preference for objective truth. (Though if it makes you feel better, it's going around...)

That's Awesome. I enjoyed playing 4e (was an avid player of it until I found the PF Beginner Box), sometimes I feel almost like a Pariah around here.

It was easier to DM then some other versions of the game.

I'd call it more like a 4.75 (4.5 being essentials)...but yeah, the same gist overall.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if that is a good thing, being more like 4th edition. Most people came to Pathfinder as a reaction against 4th edition.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I wonder if that is a good thing, being more like 4th edition. Most people came to Pathfinder as a reaction against 4th edition.

I was hoping this would have been more like PF1 but with some tweeks and improvements, this gave us the feel of going from 3ed to 4th ed (now I am sure after a few more sessions it will settle down, but I am not sure I can get my party to even do another session of this) It feels on the surface like a radical departure from PF.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So my kneejerk reaction: Spears are still weak. I was really hoping to see them brought online with their equivalent weapons. I'm still not sure how I feel about needing to burn a feat to play some races. It rubs me the wrong way, but I can't put it into words as to why. Finally, there is a lot of seemingly unnecessary rewording of things that don't need to be reworded. I'm going to use the strike action as my example. From its description, it is an attack. Why is it reworded? Was there supposed to be more to it? Is my rule book missing a page?


GameDesignerDM wrote:
I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design trends. The designers clearly set out to make the game overall less high power...

And yet, they'll immediately busy themselves generating new splats that do exactly that, because that's what they all do because the market clamors for it. Then, ten years down the road, they'll heave it all over the side and start over yet again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neriathale wrote:
The year before I did the Starfinder demo, didn't like it and don't like the final game. But I seem to be in a minority there.

Yeah, I was really jazzed for SF, to see where they were taking the 3rd Ed/PF1 engine, well, they seem to have kept stuff I wanted gone (BAB, TAC) and added things I really do not like (stamina). When I first opened the book I was also a bit "Agh, my eyes!", one of the most aesthetically unpleasant d20 games I have ever read, and PF2 is also not looking good on paper.

Leaps out as granular, fiddly, inflated numbers, treadmill, classes read like a sputtering run-on sentence, can't even get a feel for them. I had a similar problem with 4th Ed classes, I never made it past the Cleric entry, once I realised that the classes consisted of page after page of eye- watering, similar power after power. PF2 even has the same sort of sidebar for each class. At least they have class tables, but they look so cluttered and busy.

The part that absolutely needs to go, for many reasons, are the icons, regardless of my vision impairment/eye disease, there are cheap, ugly, and confusing (the 2 and 3 action icon can blur into one, appearing the same, at a glance, for me). The 4th Ed icons are better than these.

I really like the action economy, though I already use the RAE from Unchained, but I do not dig some of the micro-action terms (Operate Activation action, Basic Interact action...clunky as the day is long).

I also like monster reactions, and not every monster having AoO; monsters may be my favourite part of the game, but the formatting is not quite right, the actions section, and I am not quite sure about that ugly light green box with alphabetised tags.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Sulako wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...

PF1 was great as it took heart of 3.5 and polished it.

this playtest is mostly on 4e with bits of 3e and 5e.

But looks like they took random bits of 3 edition, stuffed them in their mouth and sneezed on the screen.

Then they looked in-between the snort and said: Yeah, this might work!


My kneejerk reaction is that this is a different game, and that's fine. I like how things are generally more codified, but I think the game does take a slight hit in intuitivity for it. I also share people's sentiments that things look kind of cookie cutter, but at the same time, I expect we'll get more options on the actual release (and honestly, good characters in pf1e did very cookie-cutter builds anyways -- we just lost the ability to make really bad builds).

That being said, I also think it's a lot more similar than people are giving it credit for. A lot of the 4e-like stuff in feat choices is only superficially so: they just made stuff you did along with an attack or move action into its own unique kind of action. There's not a ton of actual change, in that regard.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
BryonD wrote:
You play PvP Pathfinder?
No, but there are far too many toxic players who talk down to others for not having system mastery.

Well, that is actually PvP, which after all means "Player vs Player", not "Character vs Character".


Igor Horvat wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...

PF1 was great as it took heart of 3.5 and polished it.

this playtest is mostly on 4e with bits of 3e and 5e.

But looks like they took random bits of 3 edition, stuffed them in their mouth and sneezed on the screen.

Then they looked in-between the snort and said: Yeah, this might work!

Couldn't agree more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sulako wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more D&D 4.5, than 5.5...

Because being associated with what has been universally accepted as THE WORST Edition of Dungeons and Dragons since the OG '74 game is EXACTLY what Paizo should aspire to.

Way to go, guys.

SMDH...

Universally? Hardly. I rather liked 4E. It was super easy to prep, and played quite well.

But really, your posts amount to "I don't like this game." Which is fine. But you seem to be mistaking your preference for objective truth. (Though if it makes you feel better, it's going around...)

Whether you liked the system or not, the FACT is that Wizards of the Coast outright ADMITTED that Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition was a failure. They lost money on every aspect of the game. That's why they were so keen to create D&D 'Next' which became 5th Edition.

4th Ed was cutting off the head to cure the headache, and within 2 years they were already doing damage control.

I guess for PF2 I was hoping for what I wanted PF1 to be, originally, a really good polishing of 3rd Ed, an evolution, but they did not go far enough at the time, for me, and now with PF2, it feels more revolutionary, same feeling I got with 4th Ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

They nerfed everything except +1 per level power creep.

And they added it to AC. hahaha!!

Actually, adding it to AC, and making everything +1 per level rather than varying with class and ability is a good thing. Makes it far easier to strip that rule out entirely as a house rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pi4t wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

They nerfed everything except +1 per level power creep.

And they added it to AC. hahaha!!
Actually, adding it to AC, and making everything +1 per level rather than varying with class and ability is a good thing. Makes it far easier to strip that rule out entirely as a house rule.

Yeah, which is what I have done, easy-peasy, I did the same thing with 4th Ed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pi4t wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

They nerfed everything except +1 per level power creep.

And they added it to AC. hahaha!!
Actually, adding it to AC, and making everything +1 per level rather than varying with class and ability is a good thing. Makes it far easier to strip that rule out entirely as a house rule.
Yeah, which is what I have done, easy-peasy, I did the same thing with 4th Ed.

Yes, you can.

But, what does that say about core game mechanic if people on the 1st day of playtest are talking about axing it before any test.

+1 treadmill didn't even pass theorycraft in peoples heads.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pi4t wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

They nerfed everything except +1 per level power creep.

And they added it to AC. hahaha!!
Actually, adding it to AC, and making everything +1 per level rather than varying with class and ability is a good thing. Makes it far easier to strip that rule out entirely as a house rule.
Yeah, which is what I have done, easy-peasy, I did the same thing with 4th Ed.

Yes, you can.

But, what does that say about core game mechanic if people on the 1st day of playtest are talking about axing it before any test.

+1 treadmill didn't even pass theorycraft in peoples heads.

Yet some seem to love it, and get very angry and attack you when you mention removing it, at least around these parts.

101 to 150 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / First Knee-Jerk Reaction All Messageboards