Good system, bad content


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

31 people marked this as a favorite.

That's my initial reaction.

I love the modularity of feats.

I love the rarity system.

I love degrees of success.

I love the idea of legendary prowess with skills, armor, and weapons, breaking what is normally possible.

The systems are fantastic.

But then I read the book. The feats do not excite me. The class features do not excite me. The spells do not excite me. The racial options horrifically dissapoint me. The skill feats baffle me in their mediocrity.

Which overall is... a good start? If it were released, it could be patched up with future classes, feats, content, races, and be an amazing system. Even better, the existing ones can be fixed by release since it's only a playtest.

I'm optimistic. I just hope Paizo is willing to make some sweeping changes to that content to bring it up to 'exciting' rather than feeling things are too late and that they are only willing to make minor changes.


Lyee wrote:
I'm optimistic. I just hope Paizo is willing to make some sweeping changes to that content to bring it up to 'exciting' rather than feeling things are too late and that they are only willing to make minor changes.

Extremely unlikely, given that they have print dates to meet.

The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Lyee wrote:
I'm optimistic. I just hope Paizo is willing to make some sweeping changes to that content to bring it up to 'exciting' rather than feeling things are too late and that they are only willing to make minor changes.

Extremely unlikely, given that they have print dates to meet.

The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.

So pretty much a waste of time then?

Given that they have mentioned that some of the things in there are pushing the boundaries and might be too extreme once people playtest I would wager it is not 90% there. Could be wrong though

I can’t recall the gap between the end of the playtest and the publishing date

But apparently they made some changes (racial adjustments) based on feedback on the blogs - unless I have misunderstood that completely

So changes might be made throughout the playtest period in the background


Its due out in summer 2019, IIRC.

And racial adjustments would be considered a minor detail, IMO.

Things like the 3 action system, the idea of class feat walls, etc, those are gonna be locked. Some feats might get moved into general, but the "Here's how the systems work" type things are most definitely set in stone.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Well the OP doesn't want to change the system. He wants to change the content which is completely on the table. I agree with the OP. I love the system, but the content is a little lacking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:

Its due out in summer 2019, IIRC.

And racial adjustments would be considered a minor detail, IMO.

Things like the 3 action system, the idea of class feat walls, etc, those are gonna be locked. Some feats might get moved into general, but the "Here's how the systems work" type things are most definitely set in stone.

You must not have been part of the other playtests Paizo have done, all the way back from the PF1 playtest. Things can definitely change, even quite "vital" things. Maybe less definitive statements in the future, since history doesn't support your assertions?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm at a similar junction.'

I think Class Feats need to be revamped a bit – things should evolve by themselves a bit more, otherwise you are kinda locked in a Class Feat path. But overall its nice.

I like Skill Feats, but they need to be a little more exciting.

I loathe General Feats. I don't think they have a point in this game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
CactusUnicorn wrote:
Well the OP doesn't want to change the system. He wants to change the content which is completely on the table. I agree with the OP. I love the system, but the content is a little lacking.

Thirding this. Base system is good but the devil is in the details. Which are bad.


GentleGiant wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

Its due out in summer 2019, IIRC.

And racial adjustments would be considered a minor detail, IMO.

Things like the 3 action system, the idea of class feat walls, etc, those are gonna be locked. Some feats might get moved into general, but the "Here's how the systems work" type things are most definitely set in stone.

You must not have been part of the other playtests Paizo have done, all the way back from the PF1 playtest. Things can definitely change, even quite "vital" things. Maybe less definitive statements in the future, since history doesn't support your assertions?

That certainly gives me more hope after losing a lot to the first post!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

31 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.

Not even close. If we learn that something major isn't working, we will change it. Rules development clearly moves quicker you think—we even have time to test multiple potential solutions to a problem.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
The purpose of this playtest is to polish what they have, not revamp anything from the ground up. I'd wager what is in this playtest is 90% set in stone at this point, with only minor details being up for revision.
Not even close. If we learn that something major isn't working, we will change it. Rules development clearly moves quicker you think—we even have time to test multiple potential solutions to a problem.

Honestly, I don't believe this. I'm sorry but I truly don't. At least not at any fundamental system altering level.

Feats might change, some classes might change, Resonance might get the boot, but if the feedback is, say, "We don't like the 3 action economy", I honestly do not believe that you would scrap the entire basis of the engine and rebuild every class, feat, and spell from the ground up over it. If its "We don't like hitpoints anymore", I honestly do not think you would scrap the entire way damage is dealt and tracked and rebuild that from scratch at this point. Unless you are here saying "Yes, we are willing to scrap the entire system, cancel the release, and rebuild everything from the ground up and try again in a few more years", then a great deal is set in stone already.

To be blunt, this all feels like you are chasing after 5e because its popular and currently eating your lunch. PF1e succeeded because everyone who adopted the system *didn't want 4e/5e play styles*, they wanted the more complicated and deep build options.

I truly feel that this is alienating more than a small chunk of the 1e player base, and that you seem to be expecting to make the numbers up with new players (which is normal). However, you seem to be chasing 5e into a market space you can't win in. Unless you can make PF2e head and shoulders above 5e, and do so instantly out of the gate, you're trying to pit strength vs. strength against someone that is stronger than you.

You're never going to beat WotC at (literally) their own game. The only real option, IMO, is to pit strength against weakness, to aim the game at people who DON'T like what WotC is doing, instead of trying to ape them.

But this is clearly not the design philosophy you've gone with. Instead of helping people create whatever they can dream up, you've closed things down to pre-made cubbyholes. I don't see a system that helps me build what I want to play, I see a system where I make minor modifications to what YOU want us to play. Long as we want to play cliche tropes, PF2e seems great, but as soon as you try to play against type, my first glance over everything says the system is going to fight me tooth and nail to prevent it.

And the only way I see that changing under this ruleset is basically to re-introduce the bloat and have a million different options for "Well here's a class/archetype/whatever that can do that!" when a sounder decision (again, IMO) would have been a more generic system that supported a "Here's a generic base, here's the options to customize it right from the start" mode of play. To give MORE options right out of the gate, not less.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What I am disappointed in is all the people disappointed.
I am just overwhelmed with all the reading of cool stuff. I can't wait to read more and get more used to the new system.
I love the action economy. I love the proficiency system. I love the numbers being dialed down from previous editions, where the math just got crazy. I like that it looks a lot harder to min-max.
I haven't seen anything so far I just straight up don't like.
The book has been out a day, and already people are crying about it. I wish folks were more open-minded.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
The book has been out a day, and already people are crying about it. I wish folks were more open-minded.

In all due fairness, many of the problems people don't like have been around for months, as they came up with the very first sneak peaks. We were told "Just wait, it all works better when you see it in context", so we waited. Now we have the context, and its still an issue for us.

So no, it hasn't just "been one day", its been months in the making.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
The book has been out a day, and already people are crying about it. I wish folks were more open-minded.

In all due fairness, many of the problems people don't like have been around for months, as they came up with the very first sneak peaks. We were told "Just wait, it all works better when you see it in context", so we waited. Now we have the context, and its still an issue for us.

So no, it hasn't just "been one day", its been months in the making.

Also this is called a playtest, we're supposed to be nit-picky about it. Not that it matters as I'm sure Paizo will ignore what the userbase says and just do what they have planned on doing, and that's copying 5E.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

29 people marked this as a favorite.

If the overwhelming response from playtesters was that we we needed to rethink the entire action economy, we would. And if it turned out we couldn't make our deadlines because of that, we would delay the launch.

But I'm pretty confident that's not going to happen, as the action economy has met with tremendous praise from nearly everyone who has actually tried it out at GaryCon, PaizoCon, UK Games Expo, Origins Game Faire, and PaizoCon UK, and in other public and private playlists that have happened over the last few months.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

If the overwhelming response from playtesters was that we we needed to rethink the entire action economy, we would. And if it turned out we couldn't make our deadlines because of that, we would delay the launch.

But I'm pretty confident that's not going to happen, as the action economy has met with tremendous praise from nearly everyone who has actually tried it out at GaryCon, PaizoCon, UK Games Expo, Origins Game Faire, and PaizoCon UK, and in other public and private playlists that have happened over the last few months.

So, positive response from people who actually tried it, instead of just flipping thru the book and posting "I got nerfed!"

That is reassuring, at least. I can't wait for my upcoming days off from work, so I can actually try a game with the new rules set.

Thanks, Vic and co., for working on our hobby to keep it fresh and exciting. I'm pumped.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, reading through the book a lot of the options fall into that "bland but functional" space, which is somewhat disappointing, but then I recall that this is a core rulebook and "precise shot" or "spell penetration" weren't exactly options that engaged the imagination some 10 years ago.

So I'm just going to need an adjustment period to get out of the "really evocative options from things like latter day Player's Companions and X Adventures or Ultimate Z" mindset.

Grand Lodge

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, reading through the book a lot of the options fall into that "bland but functional" space, which is somewhat disappointing, but then I recall that this is a core rulebook and "precise shot" or "spell penetration" weren't exactly options that engaged the imagination some 10 years ago.

So I'm just going to need an adjustment period to get out of the "really evocative options from things like latter day Player's Companions and X Adventures or Ultimate Z" mindset.

This is something I've been trying to keep in mind while reading. There are lots of functional/foundational options needed for the core system to just work.

Are they bland?
Sure.
Are they necessary for all the color later on?
Yes.
Are we going to get the 5k+ pages of color we have with 1E in the Playtest or even on release?
No.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:

What I am disappointed in is all the people disappointed.

I am just overwhelmed with all the reading of cool stuff. I can't wait to read more and get more used to the new system.
I love the action economy. I love the proficiency system. I love the numbers being dialed down from previous editions, where the math just got crazy. I like that it looks a lot harder to min-max.
I haven't seen anything so far I just straight up don't like.
The book has been out a day, and already people are crying about it. I wish folks were more open-minded.

what is exactly being dialed down?

Nothing!

You get +1 per level on everything.
for free.

That is not dialing down. That is number inflation.

If they remove +1 per level, this could be great building block for the game.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:

What I am disappointed in is all the people disappointed.

I am just overwhelmed with all the reading of cool stuff. I can't wait to read more and get more used to the new system.
I love the action economy. I love the proficiency system. I love the numbers being dialed down from previous editions, where the math just got crazy. I like that it looks a lot harder to min-max.
I haven't seen anything so far I just straight up don't like.
The book has been out a day, and already people are crying about it. I wish folks were more open-minded.

what is exactly being dialed down?

Nothing!

You get +1 per level on everything.
for free.

That is not dialing down. That is number inflation.

If they remove +1 per level, this could be great building block for the game.

No, total numbers by level are not being dialed down. But numerical difference between characters certainly is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree, the frame is fine, but the painting is really lacking.

Also, I don't like that they cut up things you could do in PF1 and make you buy them back with feats, but they are worse now, like the Recognize Spell reaction. In PF1 you only needed Spellcraft, and identifying a spell was no action at all. In PF2 you have to be trained in 4 skills, take a feat and spend a reaction if you want to know what spell someone is casting. I thought skill feats where supposed to be exiting and exemplify dedication to that skill. (This also makes the counterspelling reaction feat of the wizard really weird, both it and Recognize Spell are reactions, so it seems you magically know someone is casting a spell you have prepared).

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree for the most part. There are a few systemic issues (Signature Skills, I'm looking at you...though those could be fairly readily removed), but the core system is really nice.

A lot of specific implementations? Not so nice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I have to agree for the most part. There are a few systemic issues (Signature Skills, I'm looking at you...though those could be fairly readily removed), but the core system is really nice.

A lot of specific implementations? Not so nice.

That's exactly my take as well, though I'm certainly being a lot more vocal in my criticism. I absolutely love the core system, but a lot of the specifics?

SIGH.


Lyee wrote:


I'm optimistic. I just hope Paizo is willing to make some sweeping changes to that content to bring it up to 'exciting' rather than feeling things are too late and that they are only willing to make minor changes.

What do you sincerely think of the new plus system of weapons?

Like even a +1 weapon having an IMMENSE impact on character damage more than high level fighter abilites, for example.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I pretty much agree with the top post. 4-degrees of success,3 action economy, feat structure(even though naming every option a feat is a bad idea) are quite good, content on the other hand... Everything seems to be uninspired, restrictive (signature skills, combat feats locked to classes,lack of any means to swap unwanted class features,... ) or simply poorly thought(spells and abilities that are actively harmful to their users, widely unbalanced choices,...). It seems to be we would need very radical re-writes before we can enjoy the new system.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, reading through the book a lot of the options fall into that "bland but functional" space, which is somewhat disappointing, but then I recall that this is a core rulebook and "precise shot" or "spell penetration" weren't exactly options that engaged the imagination some 10 years ago.

So I'm just going to need an adjustment period to get out of the "really evocative options from things like latter day Player's Companions and X Adventures or Ultimate Z" mindset.

If 2nd Edition's core options aren't any more interesting than 1st Edition's core options then Paizo has learned nothing from a decade of Pathfinder. That's... really, really sad.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:

Like even a +1 weapon having an IMMENSE impact on character damage more than high level fighter abilites, for example.

Yeah, the math, more than anything, is what's setting my head to shaking. It's like an unholy baby made of 5e bounded accuracy and 4e "Add your level to all rolls".

I mean, I was playing Pathfinder to get away from things like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beast Weener wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:

Like even a +1 weapon having an IMMENSE impact on character damage more than high level fighter abilites, for example.

Yeah, the math, more than anything, is what's setting my head to shaking. It's like an unholy baby made of 5e bounded accuracy and 4e "Add your level to all rolls".

I mean, I was playing Pathfinder to get away from things like that.

Man, i feel so much better after reading this. Thank you :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, reading through the book a lot of the options fall into that "bland but functional" space, which is somewhat disappointing, but then I recall that this is a core rulebook and "precise shot" or "spell penetration" weren't exactly options that engaged the imagination some 10 years ago.

So I'm just going to need an adjustment period to get out of the "really evocative options from things like latter day Player's Companions and X Adventures or Ultimate Z" mindset.

If 2nd Edition's core options aren't any more interesting than 1st Edition's core options then Paizo has learned nothing from a decade of Pathfinder. That's... really, really sad.

I feel like it's more a "you have to lay the foundation and put a roof on before you start decorating the jungle room" thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And yeah, I expect a good 70-80% of the content to be said 'groundwork'/'foundation', but there is a ton of content and a certain amount needs to be set aside for 'wow' factor.

I think Skill Feats , although far from the only issue, are the biggest culprit. All these 'impressive feats' feel like things that are more-or-less 'moderately impressive uses'.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:

And yeah, I expect a good 70-80% of the content to be said 'groundwork'/'foundation', but there is a ton of content and a certain amount needs to be set aside for 'wow' factor.

I think Skill Feats , although far from the only issue, are the biggest culprit. All these 'impressive feats' feel like things that are more-or-less 'moderately impressive uses'.

More like "moderately-dissapointing-but-severely-restricted uses".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
But this is clearly not the design philosophy you've gone with. Instead of helping people create whatever they can dream up, you've closed things down to pre-made cubbyholes. I don't see a system that helps me build what I want to play, I see a system where I make minor modifications to what YOU want us to play. Long as we want to play cliche tropes, PF2e seems great, but as soon as you try to play against type, my first glance over everything says the system is going to fight me tooth and nail to prevent it.

I agree. I'm speaking as someone who has zero experience with 3rd edition or pathfinder 1st edition so I'd like to think I'm part of the target demographic for this edition.

If I'm going to be limited to whatever the developers want me to play, I'll just stick with 5e. I find the rigid classes to be a major weakness in 5e, that Paizo could exploit.

2e has an interesting system with racial feats, class feats, and general feats. Then it throws it all away by sticking with a stiff class based system.

Ideally classes would be limited to major themes (Fighter, Magic-User, Skill-guy) with the class feats being used to detail characters beyond that. Really, what's the difference between a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, and Monk? In my opinion, the major themes could be relegated to specific feat chains (these already exist it looks like) in a single class with the less thematic ones available to anyone to allow for more varied characters.
If I want to play a punchy barbarian without being forced into some mystical eastern martial arts thing I should be able to. The West has martial arts too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the things you are positive about.

On the feat details and descriptions, these are all relatively easy to edit, given their modularity.

The impression I have is that a lot of focus has been on getting the underlying framework much more elegant, efficient yet extensible. The writing (descriptions etc) are much more spotty: some are great but clearly in the rush some have been written and not had as much editing and polishing time as they need. The same goes for some of the overall explanations, which need some work with the language for clarity and also some enthusiastic fluff in the descriptions. But that's what the next 12 months are for.


Vic Wertz wrote:

If the overwhelming response from playtesters was that we we needed to rethink the entire action economy, we would. And if it turned out we couldn't make our deadlines because of that, we would delay the launch.

But I'm pretty confident that's not going to happen, as the action economy has met with tremendous praise from nearly everyone who has actually tried it out at GaryCon, PaizoCon, UK Games Expo, Origins Game Faire, and PaizoCon UK, and in other public and private playlists that have happened over the last few months.

So if you get a heap of negative feedback over the Goblin and/or alchemist you would cut them?


Well, like always in this boards I find myself in the opposite camp. I do find most option in the book to be very exciting, like claw barbarian, Dragon Transformation, wellspring of power ecc.
It's the base system that gives me the pukes. 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.
Seeing classic concept like swoard and board gish impossible because only cleric get a free pass on freehand casting is irritating.
Needing a freaking specialized feat to recognize a g&$#~+n magic missiles being casted. And this is just the tip of what some skill feats are in the way they prevents you to "play" your skills for what they represent.
Let's not even speak of how "concealing a spell" is a metamagic that ADDS a SOMATIC component to the spell. Ugh.


I feel that for weapons better crafting should give +1 to damage per tier not +1 attack.

And magic weapons should give +1d6 per tier damage, replacing +1 fixed of the craft.

Magic armor should give damage reduction of 1 per tier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
It's the base system that gives me the pukes. 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.

Sounds like a poorly made feat, that should be earlier, non-fighter, both, or non-exisant since it isn't very fun. Not a system problem, content problem.

Dekalinder wrote:
Being unable to increase your proficiency in armors and weapons through feats also is an embarassment.

I don't have the pdf on hand, but I thought you could? Is it only up to trained? Again, more or better feats are the answer here. Content problem, not a system problem.

Dekalinder wrote:
Seeing classic concept like swoard and board gish impossible because only cleric get a free pass on freehand casting is irritating.

Sounds like something easily fixed with a first level general feat! Not a system problem. Content problem.

Dekalinder wrote:
Needing a freaking specialized feat to recognize a g#@#*!n magic missiles being casted.

Most system-problem one here to me. I'm cool with some spells being hard to understand mid-combat, but I think that a level of basic spell could/should be understanable without as much investment. Could be done with: Updates to classes or updates to use of the arcana/etc feats (add a reaction/action/free action use to identify a common spell). I prefer the later option, and that's somewhere between system and content. Very easy to fix.

Dekalinder wrote:
Let's not even speak of how "concealing a spell" is a metamagic that ADDS a SOMATIC component to the spell. Ugh.

I actually like this. I like magic being hard to hide, and the realm of specialists. That's a flavour/playstyle difference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:

Well, like always in this boards I find myself in the opposite camp. I do find most option in the book to be very exciting, like claw barbarian, Dragon Transformation, wellspring of power ecc.

It's the base system that gives me the pukes. 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.
Seeing classic concept like swoard and board gish impossible because only cleric get a free pass on freehand casting is irritating.
Needing a freaking specialized feat to recognize a g%%!!$n magic missiles being casted. And this is just the tip of what some skill feats are in the way they prevents you to "play" your skills for what they represent.
Let's not even speak of how "concealing a spell" is a metamagic that ADDS a SOMATIC component to the spell. Ugh.

If I understand correctly, you like concepts of options, but feel the execution is punitive, restrictive and uninspired?

I feel the same way, the base system I(we?) am talking about is proficiency bonus, +/-10 success, new action economy, modular classes.

Edited for quoting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually a little upset to here about the positive feedback with the action system, I don't care for it. I also admit that I'm having a hard time reading the rules, the layout is part of the problem, but it's mostly I'm uninspired by them. I'm trying to work through that, I'm playing for four hours tomorrow. Everyone wish me luck, I have so many concerns, and so do the others I play with.


Dekalinder wrote:


Seeing classic concept like swoard and board gish impossible because only cleric get a free pass on freehand casting is irritating..

I'm curious how you came to this - my impression is that gish is certainly no harder than pf 1, and in some cases easier.

Whats the specific rules that made you think this? (i may have missed them, new book!). And also how were you handling it in PF 1? If you were handling it RAW then gish was supremely difficult in PF 1 without some items like glove of storing, or feats like quickdraw and similar. That and a lot of action economy puzzling to minimise AoO's granted and so on.


Phantasmist wrote:
I'm actually a little upset to here about the positive feedback with the action system, I don't care for it. I also admit that I'm having a hard time reading the rules, the layout is part of the problem, but it's mostly I'm uninspired by them. I'm trying to work through that, I'm playing for four hours tomorrow. Everyone wish me luck, I have so many concerns, and so do the others I play with.

Its better than what you had before, IDK if I would call it good though.

Tweaking 3.5's is probably be the better option just let warrior types full attack as an action a'la every other version of D&D that is not 3.x.


Handling costing an action I feel is a system problem not a content problem. The content (the feat) is there as a "solution" to the system problem.
Every solution you gave is on the same line, let's make a feat to remove an unneded restriction/solve a basic problem that the base system gave us. How about we rework the base system? Have proficiency scale with level, or better yet keeping this 5 tiered proficiency system only for skills instead of trying to slap it on armor/weapons? How about killing skill feats with fire and instead tie some of them to the tiered proficiency system, so more training -> more thing you know how to do without having to spend specific resources on all of them?
This are all tied to the system, not the content.

@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.


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".

This applies to a lot of things like moving and attacking, dual wielding etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can already move and attack, move attack move, attack then move twice. Hell, attacking in the middle of a movement took like 3 feats before minimum. You can already dual wield at level 1. Double slice removes the penalty for an offhand attack.

With 1 feat you can run in, make 2 attacks with no penalty. Thats great.


Elegos wrote:

You can already move and attack, move attack move, attack then move twice. Hell, attacking in the middle of a movement took like 3 feats before minimum. You can already dual wield at level 1. Double slice removes the penalty for an offhand attack.

With 1 feat you can run in, make 2 attacks with no penalty. Thats great.

Does PF 2 have 3rd and 4th attacks though and how do they work?

Its great with what you had before. Not convinced its an absolute improvement though or if you can't do better.

For example perhaps a level 6 (or whatever) fighter gets 2 attacks and a player decides to dual wiled. To have 3 attacks they don't move right?

For example

5th ed level 11 fighter dual wields action surges and has 7 attacks+ move or 2 moves and 4 attacks.

2E AD&D fighter level 7 weapon specialist gets hasted and/or uses bracers of the blinding strike. Can move and have 6 attacks.

I'm still digesting the playtest material sorry have not worked my up to this at higher level. Relatively speaking we worked out that the 3E fighter was worse than the 2E one This was in 2001. That was 17 years ago Paizo has not figured this out yet even 4E did.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
Elegos wrote:

You can already move and attack, move attack move, attack then move twice. Hell, attacking in the middle of a movement took like 3 feats before minimum. You can already dual wield at level 1. Double slice removes the penalty for an offhand attack.

With 1 feat you can run in, make 2 attacks with no penalty. Thats great.

Does PF 2 have 3rd and 4th attacks though and how do they work?

Its great with what you had before. Not convinced its an absolute improvement though.

You think that having to invest several feats into being able to move-attack-move was great? OKAI.


PF2 definitely does have 3rd attacks, yes.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Honestly the movement issue in 1e could have solved by saying you move 10' less then your max movement when you make a full round attack. That wouldn't have been perfect but that way you'd be able to move and full attack, being stuck with a 5' move, only if you where heavily encumbered, and you still have 4 attacks compared to 3. For me (and only me) that sounds like a better option then what we got here. Anyway, the new action system was more likely created the way it is to attract new players, the reason that about 70-80% of the system is written as it is.

1 to 50 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.