First Knee-Jerk Reaction


General Discussion

201 to 250 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

You didn't answer the question posed to you. The example may have been exaggerated, but high level full casters absolutely are broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
You didn't answer the question posed to you. The example may have been exaggerated, but high level full casters absolutely are broken.

And the answer to that is to nerf everyone across the board and nerf martials a little more. Wonderful logic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The question was posed within the context of a poor example. Therefore the answer is in the question.

No they weren't broken. They could do things that other characters couldn't do but within action economy they were no more or less broken than the rogue that could hide really good and crit. That is part of what makes magic and faith magic, well magic. It should be able to do things that normal people couldn't do. Try to get into melee with a fighter, even the most powerful caster needed to be careful.

Just because you dont like something doesn't mean it is broken.


My first knee-jerk reaction reading the playtest documented was Spell Disruption, is ridiculously easy to disrupt spells, bring Concentration back, make it a Spell Roll.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Just because you dont like something doesn't mean it is broken.

Just because you like it doesn't make it fine either. High level magic does break the game. Some of us like the way it breaks, some of us work around it, but none of that changes how the rules actually work, or don't.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
You didn't answer the question posed to you. The example may have been exaggerated, but high level full casters absolutely are broken.
And the answer to that is to nerf everyone across the board and nerf martials a little more. Wonderful logic.

That's AN answer. Not THE answer.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

No kidding. I asked the question at table at GenCon .. why would you play this over 5e?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Because of action economy. There was no way for a wizard to summon 20 things in the first round of combat so your example is not valid.

I didn't say that was 20 in one round, but ...

Cauldron of Overwhelming Allies + Superior Summoning + Quicken + Contingency + Leadership (appropriate cohort) gets you maybe not to 20, but very close. In one round. Give me two, and you and everybody at the table will start nicely asking me to stop because this isn't fun.

Silver Crusade

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

Can you stop shifting the goalposts? Your statement was that Pathfinder wasn't broken. I (and many others) can show you that it is, perhaps not to divine metamagic + persistent spell + nightsticks level of 3.5, but still broken enough to drive people away from the game - if they want to play an Elven Ranger/Monk/Rogue and the guy next to them is a vetaran of WotC CharOps boards.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their replies.

Please refrain from engaging in arguments which invite a dichotomized presentation of a topic. Do not assign characteristics to others to dismiss their concerns. If you find yourself in back and forth remarks with another poster, it is best to disengage from the discussion, as these often lead to personal attacks on the person, rather than addressing the topic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Because of action economy. There was no way for a wizard to summon 20 things in the first round of combat so your example is not valid.

I didn't say that was 20 in one round, but ...

Cauldron of Overwhelming Allies + Superior Summoning + Quicken + Contingency + Leadership (appropriate cohort) gets you maybe not to 20, but very close. In one round. Give me two, and you and everybody at the table will start nicely asking me to stop because this isn't fun.

So your argument is "high level casting in 1.0 inevitably leads to overwhelming minion summoning and tedious combats" but you had to specifically build a character from the ground up to achieve that?

Also, just because an issue was addressed does not mean that it was fixed. They could introduce crowd-based mechanics for large numbers of allies in combat, maybe branching off of swarm mechanics. They could have summoning spells 'level up' with the PC, with only one list of creatures available at any time, but higher level lists have more interesting options. There are myriad ways to approach the problem, but the tactic Paizo seems to have taken is to simply discourage players from summoning at all.

If you're going to argue against valid criticisms, at least contribute possible solutions or other ways forward instead of just trying to pull apart the complaints of others. Paizo needs to hear all the criticisms players have, and the best way to help is to have a thoughtful discussion of how to address those criticisms.

I've seen you on a number of criticism threads just poking holes in the arguments of other people. And you should know that you can keep doing that all you want, but it won't help Paizo fix the issues presented, and those issues may drive those people away from the game.


That would be an opinion statement. For some the system is fine. Again, just because you dont like something does not mean it is broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Because of action economy. There was no way for a wizard to summon 20 things in the first round of combat so your example is not valid.

I didn't say that was 20 in one round, but ...

Cauldron of Overwhelming Allies + Superior Summoning + Quicken + Contingency + Leadership (appropriate cohort) gets you maybe not to 20, but very close. In one round. Give me two, and you and everybody at the table will start nicely asking me to stop because this isn't fun.

So "Cauldron of Overwhelming Allies + Superior Summoning + Quicken + Contingency + Leadership (appropriate cohort)" = OMG we need PF2 and PF1 is a failure. :)

Seriously, I'm ALL in favor of a new system. I've been playing the 3X core since the day it came out and new shiny sounds great.

But PF/3X delivered a ton of fun over the years and I'm excited about my game tonight.
But you can also dig around and find me saying that the game doesn't stop you from breaking it. I'm yet to see an RPG that can't be broken by players who are just going to killjoy and yet also delivers the highest possible levels of fun to players who aren't looking to be killjoys.

PF2E can still be an awesome game and it is the right time for it. But running down a proven home run isn't the way to sell anyone on an unproven prospect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being an apologist either way is not good especially when using the rules in that way to an advantage for the player.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Palidian wrote:

[

If you're going to argue against valid criticisms, at least contribute possible solutions or other ways forward instead of just trying to pull apart the complaints of others. Paizo needs to hear all the criticisms players have, and the best way to help is to have a thoughtful discussion of how to address those criticisms.

I've seen you on a number of criticism threads just poking holes in the arguments of other people. And you should know that you can keep doing that all you want, but it won't help Paizo fix the issues presented, and those issues may drive those people away from the game.

Maybe, once all those people will actually PLAYTEST the material and have feedback that goes beyond "I don't like this" or "The PDF smells like my 4e PDFs do and that's a bad thing" or "well this is garbage, whoever wrote it should just expire and I'm not going to even try testing these rules but I sure as hell will crap all over the place because that's how I roll".

As you may have garnered by now, I am fueled by adversity, which means this is pretty much open duck season for me.


Ugh, look at the name/title of the thread...

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Ugh, look at the name/title of the thread...

Didn't. Didn't have to. Followed the smell of ashes.


Lol. Personal investment in a response to questions others asked is not always prudent. You don't have to take what is said as a personal attack.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, been digging some more.

Apparently the iconic idea of a thief dual wielding daggers cannot be built in PF2e without:

Investing in Athletics, spending a 2nd level class feat to multiclass into Fighter, and then a 4th level feat to get Dual Slice from the Fighter list.

At which point you are locked into Fighter multiclass for at least another 2 levels until you take another Fighter class feat so you can get any flexibility back.

Am I the only one that things that is a MASSIVE investment just to get a very basic fantasy cliche?

Gorbacz wrote:
Maybe, once all those people will actually PLAYTEST the material and have feedback that goes beyond "I don't like this" or "The PDF smells like my 4e PDFs do and that's a bad thing" or "well this is garbage, whoever wrote it should just expire and I'm not going to even try testing these rules but I sure as hell will crap all over the place because that's how I roll".
Which negates the entire point of the thread, being that its about KNEE-JERK REACTIONS, as in "This is what I'm seeing/feeling upon first glance, without having spent hours and hours thoroughly playtesting every possible combination in order to have a fully informed opinion".
Quote:
As you may have garnered by now, I am fueled by adversity, which means this is pretty much open duck season for me.

So you're trolling, gotcha.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess you gotta deal with the knee-jerk responses then.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:
Maybe, once all those people will actually PLAYTEST the material and have feedback that goes beyond "I don't like this" or "The PDF smells like my 4e PDFs do and that's a bad thing" or "well this is garbage, whoever wrote it should just expire and I'm not going to even try testing these rules but I sure as hell will crap all over the place because that's how I roll".
Which negates the entire point of the thread, being that its about KNEE-JERK REACTIONS, as in "This is what I'm seeing/feeling upon first glance, without having spent hours and hours thoroughly playtesting every possible combination in order to have a fully informed opinion".

As with every playtest, Paizo is asking us to PLAYTEST the rules, not to provide first glance opinions. They have enough people in-house who can provide first glances, they don't have enough people who can bulldoze through the ruleset in actual gameplay and thus generate all the table variations needed for informed empirical feedback.

And I beg to differ, trolling is about going after innocent victims crossing the bridge. That's not something I do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thread is "kneejerk reactions". If you don't have a kneejerk reaction to the game to post, you're in the wrong thread. The fact that you're here solely to piss other people off is quite literally the definition of a troll. To troll is to try to make someone angry for your own amusement. It doesn't matter whether or not they're 'innocent'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only thing people are guilty of it would seem is disagreeing with you and your assessments. If it's a matter of an opinion but no one is right. It comes down to Personal Taste!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
As with every playtest, Paizo is asking us to PLAYTEST the rules, not to provide first glance opinions.

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from.

You think we're in the Playtest Feedback forum, which is over here:
http://paizo.com/community/forums/pathfinder/playtest/feedback

We're actually in the Playtest General forum, which means any and all conversation relating to the playtest material (which includes initial reactions, quick glance opinions, etc, right down to discussing if we like the font that was used or not) is on topic.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
The thread is "kneejerk reactions". If you don't have a kneejerk reaction to the game to post, you're in the wrong thread. The fact that you're here solely to piss other people off is quite literally the definition of a troll. To troll is to try to make someone angry for your own amusement. It doesn't matter whether or not they're 'innocent'.

Flag and move on, then! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, he knows where he is and what he is doing.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
No, he knows where he is and what he is doing.

Oh I know.

But its much more amusing to treat them nicely and watch them get mad that their trolling isn't working than to feed them. :)


Edymnion wrote:
right down to discussing if we like the font that was used or not.

On the topic of the font I'm not a huge fan of the font used for the stats and in a couple of other places though I'm not sure if the second is my PDF viewer, since my complaint is mostly the jaggies on the font when rendered.

On a more serious note, the one I captured was something I never liked even in older versions of D&D but it feels like they've expanded this section. I don't particularly like being told how to roleplay a character or react to a class, especially when the options for not being that type of character seem, well...lacking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
right down to discussing if we like the font that was used or not.

On the topic of the font I'm not a huge fan of the font used for the stats and in a couple of other places though I'm not sure if the second is my PDF viewer, since my complaint is mostly the jaggies on the font when rendered.

On a more serious note, the one I captured was something I never liked even in older versions of D&D but it feels like they've expanded this section. I don't particularly like being told how to roleplay a character or react to a class, especially when the options for not being that type of character seem, well...lacking.

Like someone else said...either in this thread or another, I don't recall, if I picked up this book at a store and skimmed it as it currently is, I would put it down shortly and move on. First impression did not grab my attention or wow me in any way. Most of my issue is with the layout of the pages and everything. It feels cluttered and busy to me.

But that's just me.

I also dislike being told what trope to be shoved into with a class. Maybe I don't WANT to play a typical "CN rogue that steals from everyone and no one likes".


I dont like it either. I showed the older book that Paizo put out, the strategy guide? to some students and they found it to be helpful.


GayBirdGM wrote:
Like someone else said...either in this thread or another, I don't recall, if I picked up this book at a store and skimmed it as it currently is, I would put it down shortly and move on. First impression did not grab my attention or wow me in any way. Most of my issue is with the layout of the pages and everything. It feels cluttered and busy to me.

I feel the same way, I am seriously bummed out about it, I was so looking forward to reading the Rulebook, but reading it is not so much fun or inspiring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually a little surprised by how much people seem to take issue with this. I gotta say, I was very ready for a change - the glut of classes and power creep in PF1 had gotten pretty out of hand, and even though I'm not a big fan of how SF did gear (I hate leveled items), I love almost everything else they did with the system, and PF2 seems to build on a few of those design philosophies while trying some new s!+% too. I feel more or less the same way about this game after a quick glance at it. There are some things that are weird, but not bad. There are some things that I kinda hate. But overall, I like the direction they seem to be moving, though I really hope they tighten this up before release, because the layout is a mess.

To me, PF2 feels kind of like AD&D for the modern age. They way that the pieces of the system fit together seems more complex than PF1, but less so than, say, Shadowrun.

Here's my takeaway so far...

Feats everywhere! I've been absolutely in love with PoE: Deadfire, which has a similar system for leveling characters, so this doesn't really bug me. I actually think that it will make it easier to track the overall balance of classes while adding future options when so many of their most significant build options are part of their class entries - smaller chance of a general feat escaping notice and being totally borken on a specific class. That being said, I agree with what a lot of people have said here - calling them general feats, racial feats class feats, and skill feats is going to be a little confusing, and I wouldn't mind seeing them renamed.

Ability score generation and proficiency I love how they stats did in in Starfinder, and I love how they do it here even more. I like coming out of making any character with nice, round numbers, and I like. With proficincies ensuring the greatest disparity between base bonuses between two classes is no greater than +5 (untrained vs legendary), it makes your ability score bonuses a much larger part of what you excell at, which I like.

Racial stats and feats] Another thing I love. Race just feels like it will play a bigger role in my character here, and that picking my race is more than just something I chose at 1st level and then forget about forever. It locks some of the more powerful racial abilities (wtf were they thinking with +2 to saves against ALL spells in PF1?) are locked behind feats, but feats that I still I will be able to get without deviated from my class's build.

Spellcasting overhaul This one I have mixed feelings on. I think the heighten mechanic is interesting, but I feel like they missed an opportunity saying "you have to do an entire activity in one go." I think it would add an interesting element to combat if a spellcaster could cast a multi-action spell over 2 or 3 turns (with the caveat that they must spend at least one action towards progress in the activity each round or the spell fizzles, and you initiate any new activities until the current one is finished - basic actions only). This way, you could have a wizard weaving through a battlefield and maybe taking a couple potshots with a crossbow as they charge their spell.

I'm not sure yet about the reshuffled spell lists. On paper, I like it. It makes it far easier to track what spells a given character has access to as more spells are released, but I'm not sure about the actual spell lists we got. We have a sorcerer who can potentially be flinging spells from the "traditional" cleric or druid spell list, which I think is rad as hell thematically and it changes up the niches sorcerers can occupy, but I don't know if I'm convinced all of the spell lists are balanced against one another.

As far as giving everyone 9th level spells, I could take it or leave it. The bard was really a support class anyways, and spells were always a big part of what they did in-practice. Adding in the angle of them being more dedicated mental mages can work, but I also think that heightening could have opened up an interesting way to go about making 6-level casters. What if, instead of getting 7th+ spells, a bard instead started getting more casts per day of their lower level spells, and around level 12 or 13, ALL of their spells are automatically heightened by +1 (maybe later to +2, and at 18th or 19th level they could heighten one to +3 a couple times per day?). This way, the actual power behind the spells they are casting is still in line with the higher level spells they give up, and they can cast their spells more frequently, with their lower level spells always being more powerful, but they entirely give up access to the biggest, baddest spells in the game.

Goblins as a core race Absolutely despise this choice. Sometimes, when I play an RPG, I want my monsters to be monsters. I remmber that when PF first hit, I feel head over heels in love with their monster manual because I had just been having a discussion with one of my buddies like a week prior that in 3.5 it felt like every other monster in the bestiary had been rewritten to being either misunderstood or "not as bad as they make it out to be." And PF1, initially, departed radically from that. Their goblins were creepy, their ogres were horrific, and even the goofy ol' bugbear got a chilling writeup. I feel like a lot of this grittiness the setting started with has disappeared.

Alchemist as a base class 12 classes is just a rounder number than 11, and we had no shortage of classes to add. I'm glad they went with the alchemist, because it adds an option for someone who wants to play a medieval fantasy scientists, or someone who wants to sort of cast spells, but not really. I also think this would have been a good chance to trim a little more fat and get rid of some legacy classes that were largely redundant or thematically off and save them for a later release instead (The sorcerer got a cool overhaul, but I wasn't convinced they were necessary when 3.0 hit, and I'm still not - Not that they never have a place in the game, but I feel like they're close enough to other casters that the space in the core rulebook would be better spent on a more distinct class)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GayBirdGM wrote:
Like someone else said...either in this thread or another, I don't recall, if I picked up this book at a store and skimmed it as it currently is, I would put it down shortly and move on. First impression did not grab my attention or wow me in any way. Most of my issue is with the layout of the pages and everything. It feels cluttered and busy to me.

It's definitely too busy. The pages are laid out in a manner to provide maximum information but since it's a new system nobody actually understands any of it without slogging through the whole thing, and the information you need to make sense of anything is all over the place, requiring repeated cross-referencing, and often presented in the wrong order. It's just dishevelled and feels almost like they wrote the chapters separately and just tossed them onto one another in any order they so pleased.

Compare PF2e's entry on...anything, really, to the same one in 1e or 3.5e, or the direct competitor, 5e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GayBirdGM wrote:
I also dislike being told what trope to be shoved into with a class. Maybe I don't WANT to play a typical "CN rogue that steals from everyone and no one likes".

Agreed.

I'm infamous for just utterly tossing out every last shred of flavor text on items, spells, even entire classes and keeping nothing but the base mechanics.

My favorite 1e character is my gnome Synthesist Summoner. Do I play that whole "semi-transparent outsider overlay" thing? Hell no, she's my Pacific Rim style giant mecha pilot. Its not some mythological beast, its a Colossal arcane magitech golem robot thing stomping on people.

Or my Vigilante (Magical Child)/Witch (Gravewalker) who is basically Sailor Necromancer.

The default, generic, and frankly often completely uninspired flavor text on stuff in any system is usually crap. Its a nice "Well here's what we think it would be good for" example, but thats it.


martinaj wrote:
...

Deadfire is a dumpster fire with poor writing and even worse mechanics, though. And the feat spam isn't even that significant when you actually end up examining them - many of them are very weak and a number of them are either old class features or global options being migrated to one class.

And what does 2e have anything to do with AD&D? I see essentially no similarities there besides, I suppose, the pigeonholing - but the pigeonholing isn't usually considered a good thing so...???


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:

Agreed.

I'm infamous for just utterly tossing out every last shred of flavor text on items, spells, even entire classes and keeping nothing but the base mechanics.

My favorite 1e character is my gnome Synthesist Summoner. Do I play that whole "semi-transparent outsider overlay" thing? Hell no, she's my Pacific Rim style giant mecha pilot. Its not some mythological beast, its a Colossal arcane magitech golem robot thing stomping on people.

Or my Vigilante (Magical Child)/Witch (Gravewalker) who is basically Sailor Necromancer.

The default, generic, and frankly often completely uninspired flavor text on stuff in any system is usually crap. Its a nice "Well here's what we think it would be good for" example, but thats it.

Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

A few new players I've recently introduced to PF loved those types of blurbs in the Strategy Guide and Inner Sea Races.

2E is also about attracting new people, and those blurbs are likely meant for new players.


GameDesignerDM wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

Agreed.

I'm infamous for just utterly tossing out every last shred of flavor text on items, spells, even entire classes and keeping nothing but the base mechanics.

My favorite 1e character is my gnome Synthesist Summoner. Do I play that whole "semi-transparent outsider overlay" thing? Hell no, she's my Pacific Rim style giant mecha pilot. Its not some mythological beast, its a Colossal arcane magitech golem robot thing stomping on people.

Or my Vigilante (Magical Child)/Witch (Gravewalker) who is basically Sailor Necromancer.

The default, generic, and frankly often completely uninspired flavor text on stuff in any system is usually crap. Its a nice "Well here's what we think it would be good for" example, but thats it.

Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

A few new players I've recently introduced to PF loved those types of blurbs in the Strategy Guide and Inner Sea Races.

2E is also about attracting new people, and those blurbs are likely meant for new players.

But the class blurbs are uninspired and boring, often not even presenting character development hooks. Even the PHBII's backgrounds are more inspiring and those are basically very small and often inaccurate history lessons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, this thread has devolved into a dumpster fire.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

Agreed.

I'm infamous for just utterly tossing out every last shred of flavor text on items, spells, even entire classes and keeping nothing but the base mechanics.

My favorite 1e character is my gnome Synthesist Summoner. Do I play that whole "semi-transparent outsider overlay" thing? Hell no, she's my Pacific Rim style giant mecha pilot. Its not some mythological beast, its a Colossal arcane magitech golem robot thing stomping on people.

Or my Vigilante (Magical Child)/Witch (Gravewalker) who is basically Sailor Necromancer.

The default, generic, and frankly often completely uninspired flavor text on stuff in any system is usually crap. Its a nice "Well here's what we think it would be good for" example, but thats it.

Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

A few new players I've recently introduced to PF loved those types of blurbs in the Strategy Guide and Inner Sea Races.

2E is also about attracting new people, and those blurbs are likely meant for new players.

But the class blurbs are uninspired and boring, often not even presenting character development hooks. Even the PHBII's backgrounds are more inspiring and those are basically very small and often inaccurate history lessons.

Maybe to you. I showed the book to one of the people I play with in a PbP who is new to the system (1E, and new to tabletops in general) and they loved them and found them helpful.

Don't like them? Just ignore them. *shrug*


Be careful about voicing opinions on an opinion thread. The trolls are hungry today. BE NOTT THE GOAT THAT GOES TRIP TRAP


Reporting as ordered!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Knee-Jerk reactions:

1) Overall, I like it a lot. It's more comprehensive than I expected for the playtest doc.

2) Reading is one thing, making characters and playing is another.

3) PC generation is much more intuitive, especially for new players. This isn't just my opinion. I had a RPG novice who previously has only made a single Starfinder character make two PF2 characters. He found it very intuitive and easy.

4) I made PF2 half-elven acolyte paladin and compared him to a 5e half-elven acolyte paladin I had made. Obviously, they are different systems but I wanted to see how the concept played out.
Stats - on par via point-build save for Str. 5e (Str = 15), PF2 (Str = 16)
Hit Points = 11 (5e), 19 (PF2) + Hero Points
Mechanical flavor - more mechanical flavor supporting ancestry/race, background in PF2.
Conclusion: My 5e paladin is perfectly fine, but I want to play my PF2 paladin more.

5e and PF2 aren't fighting for "which is more/less powerful", they are staking out simpler (fewer mechanics) vs. tactical satisfaction. Reducing the comparison to low-power vs. high-power is a strawman.

5) For a playtest doc, of course the "classics" are being covered but there is much more depth to character options than I was anticipating.

6) Legendary skill unlocks are still ridiculous (personal preference, I'm not debating it) but it does appear that they can be stripped out - as promised - without adversely affecting the rest of the game. Thanks, Paizo! I'm really hoping the final version of the game supports the modularity it appears that it will can so that GMs can really tailor the game & setting to suit their desired playstyle (grittier or higher-powered, if you're so inclined).

7) I still like resonance.


bugleyman wrote:
Well, this thread has devolved into a dumpster fire.

Meh, some things never change Bugley.

201 to 250 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