Good system, bad content


General Discussion

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Elegos wrote:

1 action per attack. Considering in PF1 you could only make more then 1 attack if you were stationary, and considering my experience is with 3.5, PF1 and 5e, those are my points of comparison. Not to devalue other editions, I just dont want to speak on subjects I have no knowledge of.

So at level 16, the full bab classes may niss their 4th attack. Thats fair. Personally, the rare occasion I got to level 16 and made a full attack, the 4th attack always missed. So personally speaking, I wont miss it. I appreciate some will.

As a gm, removing the "Ive built something with 18 attacks per round that will take about 15 minutes to resolve per turn" is something Im very happy about.

So the new great PF2 is more restrictive than the 2E AD&D Fighter from the Complete Fighters Handbook circa 1989 that came out 30 years ago when PF2 lands lol.

Resolving 7 attacks a round with action surge doesn't take that long either its not every round but 3 or 4 attacks a round is not that rare in 5E doesn't take that long either but there is less complexity there with feats etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A system has entirely different restrictions from an entirely different system? Imagine!

A playtest corebook is also obviously going to have different levels of restrictions then a game with multiple sourcebooks. This is again not surprising.


Elegos wrote:

A system has entirely different restrictions from an entirely different system? Imagine!

A playtest corebook is also obviously going to have different levels of restrictions then a game with multiple sourcebooks. This is again not surprising.

And what does it add to the game or how does it enhance the game in many way.

It might be a problem with power attack in PF1 but PA has been borked since 2003 in regards to two handed weapons. Not sure if thats a thing in PF2.


Dekalinder wrote:


@Yossarian In PF1, as normal, you needed a bit of system mastery/magic items to make it work, but it was definetly possible and quite easy if not optimal. In PF2, Gloves of storing requires an action, not a free. Still Spell is gone, and Quick Draw/Sheat is nowhere to be found.

Gloves of storing in PF1 were free actions to store and unstore. Looks like they've changed that in PF2 to store taking an action, but still a free-action to unstore it.

I notice they've also restricted the bulk of the item to '1' that they can store. Which is most 1-h weapons but not 2-h ones.


Yossarian wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:


@Yossarian In PF1, as normal, you needed a bit of system mastery/magic items to make it work, but it was definetly possible and quite easy if not optimal. In PF2, Gloves of storing requires an action, not a free. Still Spell is gone, and Quick Draw/Sheat is nowhere to be found.

Gloves of storing in PF1 were free actions to store and unstore. Looks like they've changed that in PF2 to store taking an action, but still a free-action to unstore it.

I notice they've also restricted the bulk of the item to '1' that they can store. Which is most 1-h weapons but not 2-h ones.

Again, PDF not in front of me but worth noting: Every item requires resonance to activate. All of them. Gloves of Storing included. They have a 'no cost' tag for exceptions, but Ctrl+F showed me it was only used for alchemical things, not enchanted items.


Zardnaar wrote:
Elegos wrote:
PF2 definitely does have 3rd attacks, yes.

Can you move and have 3 attacks or is it 3 actions.

We had fighters in the 90's that could make 4+ attacks at reasonably low level.

Why is it better to have 4 attacks that do 30 damage over 3 attacks that do 40?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

My initial impression is very much in line with the opening post. The rule mechanics and class frameworks look really good. The modular nature of character generation opens up loads of options as well as creating design space for third party publishers to create different genres (Just change the feats and you can move the game to low fantasy/wuxia setting or whatever you fancy).

However, the feats and powers themselves are not catching the imagination much. Not sure if its the clinical nature of the text in the write ups or just a lack of a wow factor in the feats function.

Will be intresting seeing how this affects actual play and how it develops from there.


Helvellyn wrote:
The rule mechanics and class frameworks look really good. The modular nature of character generation opens up loads of options as well as creating design space for third party publishers to create different genres (Just change the feats and you can move the game to low fantasy/wuxia setting or whatever you fancy).

As someone who is making a lot of homebrew content (3 feat-included races made so far, plus ~30 monsters, and a splattering of non-race feats, magic items, and spells) for 2E, this is why I'm so optimistic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah my sense as well is that the framework is good, but class wise there just isn't much going on, and it's harder to build some concepts that were doable in PF1.


Dekalinder wrote:

Needing a 4th level fighter only feat like Dual-handed Assault to do something so basic like pulling more weight on a single attack without needing 10 second to do it is absolutely revolting. Being unable to increase your proficiency in armors and weapons through feats also is an embarassment.

I may be misunderstanding you, but that feats only necessary if the weapon doesn't already have the quality, right? My biggest problem with it was that they didn't name it "Bastarding"

You can feat your way into both that and weapons/armor with the fighter archetype, too, right? It ends up being a three feat tax if you're at all interested in other archetypes, but think that's working as intended. The designers definitely decided that they wanted to give Fighter more of its own toys and that if others wanted to play with those toys they had to make a significant investment of resources.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of possible builds in core PF1 simply do not exist in PF2 as is. That is what I dislike.

There should be, simply, a list of generic class feats that ANY class can take, that lets them access what should not be a class feature. Like dual-wielding weapons. Being competent with a crossbow. Being competent with a ranged weapon. All this stuff was possible in PF1, but are now locked behind class feats for no real reason.

Also, restricting multiclassing to only 'class feats' feels likes scrapping a core part of PF1. Even 5e allows multiclassing, why can't PF2?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

D&D 5e's multiclassing doesn't really solve any of the problems with multiclassing though.

Like, thing with multiclassing is that 1) its easy for newbies to make straight up unplayable builds with it 2) for me at least it makes sheets harder to read sometimes 3) it favors dipping one level in class to get goodies like initiative bonus or proficiency or such. In other words, its most useful for min maxers and optimizers and it makes future proofing and balancing really hard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OntosChalmer wrote:
A lot of possible builds in core PF1 simply do not exist in PF2 as is. That is what I dislike.

'

It does seem like the playtest is very interested in having everybody "color inside the lines"- it seems a lot of the time it's basically impossible to do something without having the exact correct class which does this (signature skills and the difficulty in acquiring more of them is a big culprit.)

But some of this is probably because "it's a playtest" and they don't want people coloring outside the lines then complaining the picture looks bad and as more options get printed we can loosen up a whole lot.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
OntosChalmer wrote:

A lot of possible builds in core PF1 simply do not exist in PF2 as is. That is what I dislike.

There should be, simply, a list of generic class feats that ANY class can take, that lets them access what should not be a class feature. Like dual-wielding weapons. Being competent with a crossbow. Being competent with a ranged weapon. All this stuff was possible in PF1, but are now locked behind class feats for no real reason.

Also, restricting multiclassing to only 'class feats' feels likes scrapping a core part of PF1. Even 5e allows multiclassing, why can't PF2?

There should be combat feats that relevant classes (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) Should be able to take. I like archer rangers, and it seems like an iconic option that would be harder to build vs the Pathfinder 1E core rule book.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
WHy not dump most of the "no you can't" mentality of 3.x and rpelace with "well you can and this feat instead of removing a restriction makes you better".

I'm sorry, but as someone who was a gamer well before 3.x came along, this is just wrong.

One of 3.x's biggest achievements was a blanket "Yes, you can do that, here's how". You want a wizard in full plate and a greatsword? You could do that. You'd have penalties and restrictions, but you could do it. D&D2e? You flat out could not do it. You want to TWF? Sure, big penalties, but anybody could do it, and then burn some feats to make it easier to do.

PF2e? Rogues can't dual wield, thats a Ranger only feat (Double Slice). The iconic dual dagger wielding rogue, a staple of fantasy for decades, cannot be built in PF2e without "multiclassing" into Ranger.

3.x (which I include PF1e in, as it was basically 3.75) said "Yes, everybody can do it, maybe not well, but they can try", PF2e is flat out "No, you can't do it at all unless its a class ability."


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

I agree with OP for the most part. The underlying system seems pretty good to me, but a lot of the options appear subpar. Every time I see a "once per day" restriction on a feat, I find myself incredibly uninterested in taking it unless it has a very powerful effect (it usually doesn't).

There are also a bunch of mediocre +1 conditional bonuses in a variety of spells and feats. I realize with degrees of success, a +1 is a bit better than it used to be, but I can't imagine spending 2 actions, then one action on every following turn to maintain such a tiny buff that won't even stack with most other abilities.

But hey, that's what playtesting is for, right? My only concern is that certain weak abilities won't be looked at, because no one took them in the playtest, and a result won't get as much feedback.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So far liking what im reading. Put me down for loves Goblin core race, Alchemists and action economy.

I really feel from a play stand point the action economy really flows well and opens up a lot of fun possibilities tactically that required deep feat expenditure in PF1. Shield mechanics for fighters are also a big plus in my opinion however I still need to test it all were the rubber meats the road so to speak in our first session.

Looking forward to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechalibur wrote:
I agree with OP for the most part. The underlying system seems pretty good to me, but a lot of the options appear subpar.

This was my response to a lot of the high level feats in particular. I just don't understand the reasoning behind putting big limitations on high level martial class abilities. Look at Savage Critical. I read the sentence "This doesn't make a natural 19 automatically hit" and thought...why not? I mean, this is an 18th level character. Why not give the Fighter a nice toy? Is it game-breaky? Yes, but so is Teleport, so is Mindblank (they did a nice job, by the way, on rebalancing the spell lists). Higher level characters begin to get game breaky abilities-they should.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cracking open the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition Core Rulebook (a system where classes got a talent at odd levels, same concept as PF2's "class feats", and bonus feat at even ones with no fixed abilities beyond proficiencies.) and going to the Soldier talents, by 5th level I can make
1: A guy that spams autofire to debilitate opponents (Battle Analysis, Cover Fire, Devastating Attack)
2: A guy who is hard to hit and forces enemies to attack him (Armored Defense, Improved Armor Defense, Draw Fire)
3: A guy who does really solid damage with a weapon (Devastating Attack, Weapon Specialization, Devastating Attack.)
Most of their feats are unused allowing further customization (a melee attacker could take Bantha Rush for some battlefield control by moving opponents around). Note that of these only Armored Defense>Improved Armor Defense (and most players agree this should have just been a single talent in the first place) and Battle Analysis>Cover Fire are actually trees. With multiclassing or non-core stuff it can get even more interesting (guy 1 can take levels in Noble and buff his allies while he debuffs enemies).

Cracking open the playtest a Fighter 5 can use his "fighter feats" (I said it before and I'll say it again: This is a really clumbersome name) to uh... smash things better. Worse most of the options are locked into really long trees.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

about the same reaction as the OP from my group as well.

systems look good so far.

actual gameplay is more like "meh"

for a lot of classes, instead of having that "wow i level up so i can get that amazing XXX" is relegated to "finally i leveled up so i can at least do that X"

and that's not powercreep, that's actually lacking "wow factor" in stuff you can do.

using my personal experience as an alchemist and a bard, levelling up with the alchemist and grabbing a class feat just so that i wouldnt have to wait 3 rounds to use my class feature (mutagen) every combat, was met with "finally i can somehow get it to work!" instead of "look what awesome thing i can do now!"

bard was clearly better, but casters in general seem (as always) pretty strong, even with nerfed spells. (especially wizards, we haven't yet tried sorc)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
So if you get a heap of negative feedback over the Goblin and/or alchemist you would cut them?

Absolutely.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
So if you get a heap of negative feedback over the Goblin and/or alchemist you would cut them?
Absolutely.

just as a heads up, (because personally, I've been vocal about some things) just you guys keep in mind that we, as a consumer base, will always whine about things we dislike, but rarely praise things we actually like.

keep up the good work.

(just had to post that after seeing your excellent stance on adaptability)

cheers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
WHy not dump most of the "no you can't" mentality of 3.x and rpelace with "well you can and this feat instead of removing a restriction makes you better".

I'm sorry, but as someone who was a gamer well before 3.x came along, this is just wrong.

One of 3.x's biggest achievements was a blanket "Yes, you can do that, here's how". You want a wizard in full plate and a greatsword? You could do that. You'd have penalties and restrictions, but you could do it. D&D2e? You flat out could not do it. You want to TWF? Sure, big penalties, but anybody could do it, and then burn some feats to make it easier to do.

PF2e? Rogues can't dual wield, thats a Ranger only feat (Double Slice). The iconic dual dagger wielding rogue, a staple of fantasy for decades, cannot be built in PF2e without "multiclassing" into Ranger.

3.x (which I include PF1e in, as it was basically 3.75) said "Yes, everybody can do it, maybe not well, but they can try", PF2e is flat out "No, you can't do it at all unless its a class ability."

But you absolutely can just pick up a great sword and put on plate mail as a wizard. And the penalties for it are not even as bad as they were in PF1.

And a rogue can wield 2 weapons and make two attacks around, same as a PF1 rogue could, with no penalty on their first attack and a much lower penalty on their second attack (especially if using an agile weapon), and you can do so and move.

It just feels different because it is not two attacks with one standard action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

... Yeah, pretty much agreed here.

I like a lot of the system changes, and I have a love for quite a few of the combos that we get... but I really think we're too weak at low-levels and some of the stronger level stuff just isn't strong enough either.

Just, let us do cool things at low-levels as well, and help us flesh our characters out as being different. At the moment, there's just not enough differences between two level 2-4 characters of the same class and same initial start imo.


Unicore wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
WHy not dump most of the "no you can't" mentality of 3.x and rpelace with "well you can and this feat instead of removing a restriction makes you better".

I'm sorry, but as someone who was a gamer well before 3.x came along, this is just wrong.

One of 3.x's biggest achievements was a blanket "Yes, you can do that, here's how". You want a wizard in full plate and a greatsword? You could do that. You'd have penalties and restrictions, but you could do it. D&D2e? You flat out could not do it. You want to TWF? Sure, big penalties, but anybody could do it, and then burn some feats to make it easier to do.

PF2e? Rogues can't dual wield, thats a Ranger only feat (Double Slice). The iconic dual dagger wielding rogue, a staple of fantasy for decades, cannot be built in PF2e without "multiclassing" into Ranger.

3.x (which I include PF1e in, as it was basically 3.75) said "Yes, everybody can do it, maybe not well, but they can try", PF2e is flat out "No, you can't do it at all unless its a class ability."

But you absolutely can just pick up a great sword and put on plate mail as a wizard. And the penalties for it are not even as bad as they were in PF1.

And a rogue can wield 2 weapons and make two attacks around, same as a PF1 rogue could, with no penalty on their first attack and a much lower penalty on their second attack (especially if using an agile weapon), and you can do so and move.

It just feels different because it is not two attacks with one standard action.

Yeah, I was a little confused at people saying you can't do these things, especially the rogue iconic image, since it's easier to do now.


GameDesignerDM wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
WHy not dump most of the "no you can't" mentality of 3.x and rpelace with "well you can and this feat instead of removing a restriction makes you better".

I'm sorry, but as someone who was a gamer well before 3.x came along, this is just wrong.

One of 3.x's biggest achievements was a blanket "Yes, you can do that, here's how". You want a wizard in full plate and a greatsword? You could do that. You'd have penalties and restrictions, but you could do it. D&D2e? You flat out could not do it. You want to TWF? Sure, big penalties, but anybody could do it, and then burn some feats to make it easier to do.

PF2e? Rogues can't dual wield, thats a Ranger only feat (Double Slice). The iconic dual dagger wielding rogue, a staple of fantasy for decades, cannot be built in PF2e without "multiclassing" into Ranger.

3.x (which I include PF1e in, as it was basically 3.75) said "Yes, everybody can do it, maybe not well, but they can try", PF2e is flat out "No, you can't do it at all unless its a class ability."

But you absolutely can just pick up a great sword and put on plate mail as a wizard. And the penalties for it are not even as bad as they were in PF1.

And a rogue can wield 2 weapons and make two attacks around, same as a PF1 rogue could, with no penalty on their first attack and a much lower penalty on their second attack (especially if using an agile weapon), and you can do so and move.

It just feels different because it is not two attacks with one standard action.

Yeah, I was a little confused at people saying you can't do these things, especially the rogue iconic image, since it's easier to do now.

correct me if I'm wrong, but what benefit does a rogue gets from dual wielding (without the fighter feats) and not simply atacking with the same weapon 2 times. If anything, keeping a hand empty is a boon, as is the cheaper price of a single magical weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna chime in and say that the op expresses much of how I feel as well. Action economy sounds good, degrees of success, tiered proficiency, all very neat and with great potential. I also like the potential for customization, but mostly feel underwhelemed by the options presented.

I also feel like the content doesn't let the system shine as much as it could. For example, the fighter and other martials needs more feats that allow for playing with the action economy in interesting ways. More feats that either tack riders onto an action, or more maneuver like feats that only cost one action so that you can combine them in more diverse combinations. I want the three action economy to be as flexible as possible,and the feats as written don't let it be that way. And the martial types need more class feats that are useful regardless of weapon/armor/equipment used, but that's just a content concern.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The more I read the classes the more annoyed I get. First of all you have redundancies. Class Feats that do pretty much the same thing, but given different names for each class. Then you have things that have been made exclusive to one or two classes, that should be more open.

Rip these things out of the Class Feats and make them General. Group them as Combat Feats and Spellcaster Feats if you need to. The for the classes just include a Class Feat that says "Take a Combat Feat of your choice" or "Take a Spellcaster Feat"


Edymnion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
WHy not dump most of the "no you can't" mentality of 3.x and rpelace with "well you can and this feat instead of removing a restriction makes you better".

I'm sorry, but as someone who was a gamer well before 3.x came along, this is just wrong.

One of 3.x's biggest achievements was a blanket "Yes, you can do that, here's how". You want a wizard in full plate and a greatsword? You could do that. You'd have penalties and restrictions, but you could do it. D&D2e? You flat out could not do it. You want to TWF? Sure, big penalties, but anybody could do it, and then burn some feats to make it easier to do.

PF2e? Rogues can't dual wield, that is a Ranger only feat (Double Slice). The iconic dual dagger wielding rogue, a staple of fantasy for decades, cannot be built in PF2e without "multiclassing" into Ranger.

3.x (which I include PF1e in, as it was basically 3.75) said "Yes, everybody can do it, maybe not well, but they can try", PF2e is flat out "No, you can't do it at all unless its a class ability."

Basically I agree.

5E lets anyone dual wiled but you would need a fighter level or 2 levels of Ranger to be really good at it (getting ability score to damage with the off hand).

Its something Rangers, Rogues, Fighters should be able to have access to and maybe some class features that let them do it over say a Paladin. The basic concept should be anyone can do it though IMHO, maybe not that well though.

I'm also not convinced 3E anything goes thing was a great idea, it caused a lot of problems that they are still trying to fix (5E did not succeed on everything).

For example relaxing alignment restrictions has lead to loss of class identity for the Ranger in a way, Paladin to a lesser extent in 5E, unrestricted access to magic items causes problems PF2 resonance is a band aid to the real problem. Racial class restrictions is good to be gone along with level limits for example but even a universal xp table while logical has not been that good of an idea in hindsight IMHO basically wizards level as fast as fighters.

In 5E they put some restrictions back in the concentration mechanic being a main one, less spell slots being another along with buffed martials relative to say 3E fighters. They also removed PC agency in acquiring magic items.

Note 5E has been a huge hit. Much like sport I think having some rules is a good idea vs anything goes. For example its not legal i baseball to hit your opponent in the face with a bat, that is a restriction but its there for a reason. Same thing with D&D IMHO. Anything goes makes it very hard to design the game and run it.

I'm not convinced having the Ranger as "the dual wielder" is a good idea. As an option sure, but I think 5E has a good concept there along with the 1E AD&D Ranger the 3.5 wilder Rogue I think is a mistake.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
So if you get a heap of negative feedback over the Goblin and/or alchemist you would cut them?
Absolutely.

I'm basically neutral on them. I would prefer the Goblin not be there for example but its not something I would draw a line in the sand over it.

Complexity is the big thing for us, realistically it may not be for us that much maybe something to play on occasion unless its really good then 5E will be the occasional game.

More options than 5E for example is nice but not if it makes running the game unfun.


deuxhero wrote:

Cracking open the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition Core Rulebook (a system where classes got a talent at odd levels, same concept as PF2's "class feats", and bonus feat at even ones with no fixed abilities beyond proficiencies.) and going to the Soldier talents, by 5th level I can make

1: A guy that spams autofire to debilitate opponents (Battle Analysis, Cover Fire, Devastating Attack)
2: A guy who is hard to hit and forces enemies to attack him (Armored Defense, Improved Armor Defense, Draw Fire)
3: A guy who does really solid damage with a weapon (Devastating Attack, Weapon Specialization, Devastating Attack.)
Most of their feats are unused allowing further customization (a melee attacker could take Bantha Rush for some battlefield control by moving opponents around). Note that of these only Armored Defense>Improved Armor Defense (and most players agree this should have just been a single talent in the first place) and Battle Analysis>Cover Fire are actually trees. With multiclassing or non-core stuff it can get even more interesting (guy 1 can take levels in Noble and buff his allies while he debuffs enemies).

Cracking open the playtest a Fighter 5 can use his "fighter feats" (I said it before and I'll say it again: This is a really clumbersome name) to uh... smash things better. Worse most of the options are locked into really long trees.

Star Wars Saga was one of the best d20 games WoTC made and yeah the soldier is better than the PF2 fighter. If you overhauled the math on SWSE perhaps using a universal prof bonus and tweaked the talents you would have a great system IMHO. It also uses about half the page count of the PF2 fighter.

Not a lot of point having a lot of options if 90% of them suck. Theres a lot of basic soldier builds in Saga just with the core book (heavy weapon build, pistols, rifle, dual wielder crit hitter build, damage threshold debuffer etc).

I wanted 4E to be more like SWSE back in 2008 and instead we got 4E.


I'm in the opposite camp of the OP. Some of the details are just fine (healing being returned to Necromancy) and interesting (degrees of success), but many of the core issues will keep my group from ever switching over.
The proficiency/bounded accuracy, much of the magic system (10th level spells, heightening, the pointless extra magic types,etc.) resonance (hhhhkkk ptui), the skill system, TEML, etc. all ensure we won't be playing the game. We might, possibly, give PF2 a playtest but it isn't suitable for our wants and needs in a proper game.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll admit: I have some reserves about some of the maths and other rules elements that have been changed (especially the changes to Perception and Sense Motive) but that's why its PF 2e, not PF 1.5e. I'm excited to see how they play out and figure out how much I enjoy them.

But I have to agree with the OP.

The system looks really interesting. I love the new action system, I love that you don't need to get a maximum number of attacks off in one round to be quite effective. I really like the modularity and diversity of the feats and how they enable you to build a unique character.

BUT. And it is a big BUT. When I look at the feats, and the class options, I'm terribly underwhelmed. Much as I love the ability to have a range of options, that counts for very little if none of the options are impactful.

Maybe we just need to wait for Paizo to release more content.

The racial feats are by and large disappointing and I don't feel like I'm making a choice for most of them. I feel Gnome feats have been done the best, and even then...

The skill feats suddenly make you invest in feats to do things that seem tied in to what the skill should be doing already. The Survival skill, for example, should let you be good at foraging for food, find shelter and the like. And yet I need to invest in a feat to be able to reliably get enough food for myself and a single other person?

The legendary skill feats are also underwhelming for the level at which you can access them, and they're really the first feats that are EXCITING.

Paizo, I really want to love PF2. I really do. I want to have a wide range of options to create a unique character, even if I've done the same race/class combination three times previously. But to do that, all those choices I make need to actually mean something, not just add safeguards to prevent us from critically failing in things we're supposed to be good at anyway!

I don't expect to have the same kind of skill differences as in 1st edition. But at the same time, the change to the maths has made it so that even a character who is legendary in a skill can get a lower result than someone untrained in the same skill far more easily.

I don't want to just be taking options that make my failures less punishing. Make my successes more interesting!

That's my one issue with the Playtest. My options, though myriad, are just not interesting. I'm finding myself pouring over feats to find interesting ones to take, and then having to go back over it to find enough feats to actually fill out my build. Feats that do very little for me, that I'm not interested in, and I don't feel good taking.

The action system is great. The changes to maths is acceptable. I feel like there is minimal impact to my choices.


Zardnaar wrote:

Star Wars Saga was one of the best d20 games WoTC made and yeah the soldier is better than the PF2 fighter. If you overhauled the math on SWSE perhaps using a universal prof bonus and tweaked the talents you would have a great system IMHO.

I wanted 4E to be more like SWSE back in 2008 and instead we got 4E.

I totally agree, I have tweaked SWSE to use the 5th Ed chassis (Proficiency bonus, etc), here is Boba Fett, converted:

BOBA FETT
Medium humanoid (human), scout 3/soldier 5/bounty hunter 5/elite trooper 2

Armour Class 19 (Mandalorian armour)
Hit Points 129 (3d8 + 12d10 + 16 + 30)
Speed 30 ft., fly 30 ft. (jetpack)

STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
15 (+2) 18 (+4) 15 (+2) 14 (+2) 14 (+2) 13 (+1)

Saving Throws Str +7, Dex +9, Con +7, Int +4, Wis +4, Cha +3
Skills Intimidation +6, Perception +7, Persuasion +6, Pilot +9, Stealth +9, Survival +7
Damage Reduction 1
Senses darkvision 120 ft., passive Perception 17
Languages Basic, Huttese, Mando’a
Destiny 3; Force 6; Dark Side 7

ACTIONS
Double Attack. Boba Fett makes two blaster carbine attacks with a -2 penalty.

Unarmed Strike. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (1d6 + 7) bludgeoning damage,

Blaster Carbine. Range Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, range 40 ft./120 ft., one target. Hit: 18 (3d8 + 5) energy damage; or range 120 ft., 5-foot radius sphere, DC 17: 18 (3d8 + 5) energy damage (with burst fire).

Grenade Launcher. Boba Feet propels a grenade at a point up to 120 feet away. Each creature within 20 feet of that point must make a DC 17 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (5d6 + 5) piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much on a successful one.

Flamethrower. Boba Fett shoots fire in a 30-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 17 Dexterity saving throw, taking 15 (3d6 + 5) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Missile Launcher. Boba Fett launches a missile at a point up to 120 feet away. Each creature within 20 feet of that point must make a DC 17 Dexterity saving throw, taking 29 (7d6 + 5) piercing damage on a failed save, or half much damage on a successful one.

Stun Grenade. Boba Fett throws a grenade at a point up to 60 feet away. Each creature within 20 feet of that point must succeed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute, the creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect early on a success.

Whipcord. Ranged Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, range 15 ft., one Large or smaller creature. Hit: The target is restrained. A creature can use its action to make a DC 15 Strength check to free itself or another creature in the whipcord, ending the effect on a success. Dealing 10 slashing damage to the whipcord (AC 15) frees the target without harming it and destroys the whipcord.

FEATURES
Hit Dice 3d8/12d10

Proficiencies Armour (light, medium), Weapons (flamethrower, heavy weapons, pistols, rifles, simple weapons)

Talents Acute Senses, Hunter's Mark, Hunter's Target, Juggernaut, Keen Shot, Notorious

Feats Double Attack (rifles), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (flamethrower), Martial Arts I & II, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot

Equipment Mandalorian armour (as battle armour with helmet package; 4 weapon attachments; AC = 17 + Dex modifier [max 2], equipment: +1 to Con saves), blaster carbine with mounted grenade launcher, 4 stun grenades, flamethrower (5 shots), missile launcher (4 missiles), whipcord (treat as net), blaster gauntlet (treat as hold-out blaster), jetpack (10 charges), utility belt with medpac


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:

Star Wars Saga was one of the best d20 games WoTC made and yeah the soldier is better than the PF2 fighter. If you overhauled the math on SWSE perhaps using a universal prof bonus and tweaked the talents you would have a great system IMHO.

I wanted 4E to be more like SWSE back in 2008 and instead we got 4E.

I totally agree, I have tweaked SWSE to use the 5th Ed chassis (Proficiency bonus, etc), here is Boba Fett, converted:

BOBA FETT
Medium humanoid (human), scout 3/soldier 5/bounty hunter 5/elite trooper 2

Armour Class 19 (Mandalorian armour)
Hit Points 129 (3d8 + 12d10 + 16 + 30)
Speed 30 ft., fly 30 ft. (jetpack)

STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
15 (+2) 18 (+4) 15 (+2) 14 (+2) 14 (+2) 13 (+1)

Saving Throws Str +7, Dex +9, Con +7, Int +4, Wis +4, Cha +3
Skills Intimidation +6, Perception +7, Persuasion +6, Pilot +9, Stealth +9, Survival +7
Damage Reduction 1
Senses darkvision 120 ft., passive Perception 17
Languages Basic, Huttese, Mando’a
Destiny 3; Force 6; Dark Side 7

ACTIONS
Double Attack. Boba Fett makes two blaster carbine attacks with a -2 penalty.

Unarmed Strike. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (1d6 + 7) bludgeoning damage,

Blaster Carbine. Range Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, range 40 ft./120 ft., one target. Hit: 18 (3d8 + 5) energy damage; or range 120 ft., 5-foot radius sphere, DC 17: 18 (3d8 + 5) energy damage (with burst fire).

Grenade Launcher. Boba Feet propels a grenade at a point up to 120 feet away. Each creature within 20 feet of that point must make a DC 17 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (5d6 + 5) piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much on a successful one.

Flamethrower. Boba Fett shoots fire in a 30-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 17 Dexterity saving throw, taking 15 (3d6 + 5) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Missile Launcher. Boba Fett launches a...

Looks good I would still prob use the SWSE defenses just tuned to 5E type numbers.


MMCJawa wrote:
Yeah my sense as well is that the framework is good, but class wise there just isn't much going on, and it's harder to build some concepts that were doable in PF1.

The thing we need to find is if it is harder to build concepts than in PF1 using CRB only. Because it is obvious than you will have more flexibility with 10.000 pages worth of books than with 500.

Now, the answer might still be "yes, it is harder in PF2", and then that will be an issue. But having 30 classes at your disposal of course gives you a greater degree of flexibility to pull off concepts. It is easier to build an hypnotist, or a detective, if the game has Mesnerist and Investigator classes


Zardnaar wrote:
Looks good I would still prob use the SWSE defenses just tuned to 5E type numbers.

Thanks, I have that option as well, though I have added the 4th Ed option of Str or Con to Fort, Dex or Int to Ref, Wis or Cha to Will; so easy to play with the 5th Ed chassis (best part of the game). One thing I do not like is Ref as AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Looks good I would still prob use the SWSE defenses just tuned to 5E type numbers.
Thanks, I have that option as well, though I have added the 4th Ed option of Str or Con to Fort, Dex or Int to Ref, Wis or Cha to Will; so easy to play with the 5th Ed chassis (best part of the game). One thing I do not like is Ref as AC.

One of my players wanted me to tweak the core book plug in in 5E numbers.I think I cut a class and buffed the Rogue.

I was going to rewrite a few of the talents as well so they grant expertise and/or advantage on skills vs +1 and the if you roll a 20 thing.

If you were going to try and fix 3.5 or make a more complicated 5E love letter or even make an OSR game using the 5E chasis.

My personal homebrew D&D ended up as a B/X variant with micro feats and 5E type numebers but the 5E numbers perhaps could be stretched a bit, AC up around 30 prof going to +10 instead of +6- basically 4E and SWSE.

You could also do worse reusing the 4E/SWSE round structure with the micro actions.

Problem is rewriting everything yourself its a lot of work.


Zardnaar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Looks good I would still prob use the SWSE defenses just tuned to 5E type numbers.
Thanks, I have that option as well, though I have added the 4th Ed option of Str or Con to Fort, Dex or Int to Ref, Wis or Cha to Will; so easy to play with the 5th Ed chassis (best part of the game). One thing I do not like is Ref as AC.

One of my players wanted me to tweak the core book plug in in 5E numbers.I think I cut a class and buffed the Rogue.

I was going to rewrite a few of the talents as well so they grant expertise and/or advantage on skills vs +1 and the if you roll a 20 thing.

If you were going to try and fix 3.5 or make a more complicated 5E love letter or even make an OSR game using the 5E chasis.

My personal homebrew D&D ended up as a B/X variant with micro feats and 5E type numebers but the 5E numbers perhaps could be stretched a bit, AC up around 30 prof going to +10 instead of +6- basically 4E and SWSE.

You could also do worse reusing the 4E/SWSE round structure with the micro actions.

Problem is rewriting everything yourself its a lot of work.

We sound like we're on the same page, I also have a 3rd Ed/PF1 variant with a dose of 5th Ed. There are so many d20 systems out there, at this point you can pretty much amalgamate your dream version of D&D.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:

Cracking open the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition Core Rulebook (a system where classes got a talent at odd levels, same concept as PF2's "class feats", and bonus feat at even ones with no fixed abilities beyond proficiencies.) and going to the Soldier talents, by 5th level I can make

1: A guy that spams autofire to debilitate opponents (Battle Analysis, Cover Fire, Devastating Attack)
2: A guy who is hard to hit and forces enemies to attack him (Armored Defense, Improved Armor Defense, Draw Fire)
3: A guy who does really solid damage with a weapon (Devastating Attack, Weapon Specialization, Devastating Attack.)
Most of their feats are unused allowing further customization (a melee attacker could take Bantha Rush for some battlefield control by moving opponents around). Note that of these only Armored Defense>Improved Armor Defense (and most players agree this should have just been a single talent in the first place) and Battle Analysis>Cover Fire are actually trees. With multiclassing or non-core stuff it can get even more interesting (guy 1 can take levels in Noble and buff his allies while he debuffs enemies).

Cracking open the playtest a Fighter 5 can use his "fighter feats" (I said it before and I'll say it again: This is a really clumbersome name) to uh... smash things better. Worse most of the options are locked into really long trees.

Quick shout out because Saga Edition was by far my favorite D20 system game. When they started talking about all classes in PF2 being able to pick feats every other level, I was really hoping that meant they were making something more akin to Saga. In that system, you could have multiple characters of the same class that played completely differently.

Some other talents your low-level Saga Edition Soldier could take:
-Juggernaut: Ignore any speed penalties for the heavier armors. One prerequisite talent, so it could be taken by 3rd level By contrast, a PF2 fighter gets to reduce theirs halfway at 17th level.
-Indomitable: Once per day, negate any and all conditions and wound penalties that you might be suffering under. Available at 1st level. The PF2 fighter does have something like this called Determination to let you shrug off a single condition... at 14th level.

(And all this in addition to their feats for the standard "fighting style" stuff, which could be literally anything they felt like: ranged weapons, melee weapons, martial arts, heavy weapons, sniping, autofire, pistols, rifles, dual-wielding, finesse weapons... they didn't decide for you how you'd fight.)

Looking at the Fighter Feats, and the ones at "legendary" levels aren't terribly impressive for supposedly being superheroic. You have two different ways to shove people around when you hit them, Knockdown and Whirlwind Attack (a feat available at 4th level in previous editions). Savage Critical is basically Improved Critical ten levels later. I'll give Weapon Supremacy some props as a 20th level capstone, because it's basically a constant haste granting you a free action every round to attack.

Looking at the Skill Feats, we've got some solid ones that line up with abilities you could get at that level previously (Swift Sneak, Foil Senses), we've got ones that seem like they should be stuff anyone trained in that skill could do (Kip Up, Survey Wildlife), and then we've got something Spell Thievery. You'd think that stealing the words off a page would be legendary, but apparently it's considered equivalent in difficulty to kipping up or wall jumping.

I'm all for change: nearly everything that bothers me about PF1 is a hold-over from 3E or older. But PF2 doesn't seem to be fixing those things, they seem to be doubling down on them.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Looks good I would still prob use the SWSE defenses just tuned to 5E type numbers.
Thanks, I have that option as well, though I have added the 4th Ed option of Str or Con to Fort, Dex or Int to Ref, Wis or Cha to Will; so easy to play with the 5th Ed chassis (best part of the game). One thing I do not like is Ref as AC.

One of my players wanted me to tweak the core book plug in in 5E numbers.I think I cut a class and buffed the Rogue.

I was going to rewrite a few of the talents as well so they grant expertise and/or advantage on skills vs +1 and the if you roll a 20 thing.

If you were going to try and fix 3.5 or make a more complicated 5E love letter or even make an OSR game using the 5E chasis.

My personal homebrew D&D ended up as a B/X variant with micro feats and 5E type numebers but the 5E numbers perhaps could be stretched a bit, AC up around 30 prof going to +10 instead of +6- basically 4E and SWSE.

You could also do worse reusing the 4E/SWSE round structure with the micro actions.

Problem is rewriting everything yourself its a lot of work.

We sound like we're on the same page, I also have a 3rd Ed/PF1 variant with a dose of 5th Ed. There are so many d20 systems out there, at this point you can pretty much amalgamate your dream version of D&D.

I might steal your ideas and/or do it with you if you like. Or steal yours if you have done it already.

I sort of started working on advanced B/X with micro feats and fort/ref/will saves and a universal prof system.

5E has some elements from SWSE on certain classes. Talents in essence are just variant class abilities you can pick from. Some talent trees can also overlap on classes.

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Good system, bad content All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion