Every preview increased my sense of dread. By the time the playtest dropped, I had nearly zero energy to look through it aside from getting a few more things to make jokes about to my friends.
After glancing through some things, not too bad. Skills do things now, magic arms and armor have been reworked so interesting abilities are a thing you actually get now before maxing out the boring number bonuses. Druid wild shape can't be used as utility until level 10 (which is way better than never). It appears that Racial, skill, and general feats help more out of combat while your class gives most of what you are doing in combat.
Magic is still really strong (Full caster > Everything else), you can't actually fix that and be in genre. More-so, the cool magic is Pathfinder/D&D's appeal to me over other games I like. Being a martial seems to suck less now, and they were pretty tolerable in 1e (compared to 3.5). Sure things got "nerfed", but a lot of things got "nerfed" to compensate that your skills actually do things now.
Summons and Magic Item crafting look fine (yeah Item level being a thing is "meta" but it's a contrivance I can get behind to contain the math).
And yes, I am getting a 4e vibe, but 4e did have a good layout (and complicated games need to deliver information efficiently). The big difference from the 4e set up is that abilities are cumulative, where in 4e you replace powers as you level (oh and have about a 3rd of the feats).
So yeah, seems fine. I'm still not SUPER jazzed about it, but it's not like I would refuse to play it (like I refuse to play 5e).
Y u no play 5E?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't as bad as I thought it'd be because I never thought it was bad. All looks good to me so far.
|
I think it looks great so far. So much customization. And all the reaction to "x class only does this..." need to remember this is a playtest with limited options compared to 20 years of expanding splat material for 3.x/pf. Hard to be upset that I can't do X in a playtest that took them years to create in the previous editions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y u no play 5E?
I don't like it.
And I don't like it because I feel like the GM (or myself as the GM) has to write large chunk of rules AND the game is poorly balanced.
Like man, I can swallow simplicity and gutting mechanics if it works well and 5e has never worked well in our groups.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny because everything I've read so far makes it seem far worse than I feared, before I thought it would have hints of 4e or 5E, maybe a bit of both. Instead we got the mutant hybrid of those two with not a shred of PF1E or 3.x left in sight.
Agreed, its WORSE than it looked, and it looked pretty bad to start with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny because everything I've read so far makes it seem far worse than I feared, before I thought it would have hints of 4e or 5E, maybe a bit of both. Instead we got the mutant hybrid of those two with not a shred of PF1E or 3.x left in sight.Agreed, its WORSE than it looked, and it looked pretty bad to start with.
Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y u no play 5E?I don't like it.
And I don't like it because I feel like the GM (or myself as the GM) has to write large chunk of rules AND the game is poorly balanced.
Like man, I can swallow simplicity and gutting mechanics if it works well and 5e has never worked well in our groups.
Fair enough. Since I rudely answered your question with a question, ill go ahead and answer.
I have been following the blogs pretty closely. There are two or three things I am extremely dubious about, but the rest looks pretty good. First thing I did was open Doomsday Dawn and start reading the playtest material. I forgot all about chargen for a time and remembered how much fun it is to play and GM. The new hazards and monster blocks look exciting and fun to try out. At the very least, i've been reinvigorated to give PF2 a fair go.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.
Yes and I'm sure it will do great with a 5E group, for people who wanted something that even vaguely resembled Pathfinder as we know it you have to admit there isn't much similar to the 1e incarnation
Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.Yes and I'm sure it will do great with a 5E group, for people who wanted something that even vaguely resembled Pathfinder as we know it you have to admit there isn't much similar to the 1e incarnation
My group primarily plays Savage Worlds and we are having our first 4e campaign in the works.
From my perspective, 2e is basically pathfinder and I would still place it in the 3.X vein of RPGs. (though probably 3.9 by now)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny because everything I've read so far makes it seem far worse than I feared, before I thought it would have hints of 4e or 5E, maybe a bit of both. Instead we got the mutant hybrid of those two with not a shred of PF1E or 3.x left in sight.Agreed, its WORSE than it looked, and it looked pretty bad to start with.
You've been posting so much on the forum about how much you hate the game the question has to come up where do you find the time to actually read the rules? Like did you just gloss over some classes and then come here to complain?
Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.Yes and I'm sure it will do great with a 5E group, for people who wanted something that even vaguely resembled Pathfinder as we know it you have to admit there isn't much similar to the 1e incarnation
Having played 5E a lot lately, and Pathfinder longer ago, I see a lot of PF1 in PF2. BUT, since you're approaching it from a different angle, I can see why it may look different to you. Which is okay. I hope it is able to thwart your current feelings, though!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.
Yes it's similar in that it's on the D20 chassis, other than that it has more in common with 4E or 5E than it does with Pathfinder or 3.X, it like those systems treats customisation and variation like vile expletives.
Having played 5E a lot lately, and Pathfinder longer ago, I see a lot of PF1 in PF2. BUT, since you're approaching it from a different angle, I can see why it may look different to you. Which is okay. I hope it is able to thwart your current feelings, though!
Unfortunately this seems unlikely as one of the primary traits they've promoting is the simplification of the system, and seeing as about 50% of the audience seem happy with that Paizo will probably go with that over the people like me who would see the majority of the current test document gutted. As those in favour of simplification mean less changes to the current iteration and a better chance at the coveted 'mass market appeal' despite the simple mass-market field being solidly in WotC's grasp.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your lack of grasp of the strength of those systems shows why you're not able to see PF2e with any clarity. 4e and 5e both allow for a ton of customization, especially 4e. And 5e is so easy to homebrew the relative lack of customization is almost immaterial.Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.Yes it's similar in that it's on the D20 chassis, other than that it has more in common with 4E or 5E than it does with Pathfinder or 3.X, it like those systems treats customisation and variation like vile expletives.
That might be true as I don't really find any strengths in those systems save for their simplicity and accessibility, I find 5E to usually be boring and I found 4E actively unpleasant as a system to the point I basically gave up on the D20 sytsem when 4E came out until I found pathfinder and landed the role of permanent PF GM for my local group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.Yes it's similar in that it's on the D20 chassis, other than that it has more in common with 4E or 5E than it does with Pathfinder or 3.X, it like those systems treats customisation and variation like vile expletives.
Having played 5E a lot lately, and Pathfinder longer ago, I see a lot of PF1 in PF2. BUT, since you're approaching it from a different angle, I can see why it may look different to you. Which is okay. I hope it is able to thwart your current feelings, though!Unfortunately this seems unlikely as one of the primary traits they've promoting is the simplification of the system, and seeing as about 50% of the audience seem happy with that Paizo will probably go with that over the people like me who would see the majority of the current test document gutted. As those in favour of simplification mean less changes to the current iteration and a better chance at the coveted 'mass market appeal' despite the simple mass-market field being solidly in WotC's grasp.
0_0
2e does not look simple at all, even when compared to 1e.
Having a decent layout and tightening the math so that making a trash character is harder is not the same thing as making a system simple.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think your lack of grasp of the strength of those systems shows why you're not able to see PF2e with any clarity. 4e and 5e both allow for a ton of customization, especially 4e. And 5e is so easy to homebrew the relative lack of customization is almost immaterial.Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.Yes it's similar in that it's on the D20 chassis, other than that it has more in common with 4E or 5E than it does with Pathfinder or 3.X, it like those systems treats customisation and variation like vile expletives.
If homebrew is a valid customization option, chess is a customizatomizable game.
|
|
0_02e does not look simple at all, even when compared to 1e.
Having a decent layout and tightening the math so that making a trash character is harder is not the same thing as making a system simple.
OK I can agree the current layout is unpleasant on the eyes, at the least, and needs to be reworked but as for it not being simple that might be true at the moment, but the stated goal of the system was to a be a simpler more beginner friendly game andwith some minor changes it will be at the level of 5E or there abouts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK I can agree the current layout is unpleasant on the eyes, at the least, and needs to be reworked but as for it not being simple that might be true at the moment, but the stated goal of the system was to a be a simpler more beginner friendly game andwith some minor changes it will be at the level of 5E or there abouts.
0_02e does not look simple at all, even when compared to 1e.
Having a decent layout and tightening the math so that making a trash character is harder is not the same thing as making a system simple.
Beginner friendly just means that a random collection of options would still be viable.
What isn't beginner friendly is if two people of the same class run into a situation where one can destroy a basic creature that the other one can't even touch because they didn't know the hidden rules of viable mathematical character building.
For example, a 1e fighter that didn't know about gloves of dueling and all the armor and weapon mastery options was basically playing an NPC class in comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've been posting so much on the forum about how much you hate the game the question has to come up where do you find the time to actually read the rules? Like did you just gloss over some classes and then come here to complain?
You could say that about anyone posting negative OR positive things. Yet I don't see you biatching at anyone saying "Yeah, this is great!" because "You can't possibly have had time to read it yet".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking to give it a try until...
Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!
So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!
Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.
If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking to give it a try until...
Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!
So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!
Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.
If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/
And here I am liking that special abilities and boring numbers are on different slots, allowing us to actually get interesting abilities on stuff before maxing out the boring numbers.
And in this edition, your fighter can easily craft the items himself with little investment.
I was thinking to give it a try until...
Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!
So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!
Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.
If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/
Shouldnt be so bad assuming you cant be disarmed...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how Raise Dead/Resurrection works in this edition. Death is no longer a minor inconvenience for high level characters like it is for 3.5/Pathfinder 1e
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!
This would imply you didn't need a magic weapon to remain competitive in PF1, which is very untrue, especially at the point where you get above a +1. lack of a magic weapon, or worse, lack of a good +3 or +4 weapon at high levels meant you (a) did not hit often enough, and (b) couldn't bypass damage reduction, which the majority of high level creatures have.
On the other hand, more monsters having resistances and vulnerabilities mean that quite a lot of extra damage can be dealt with the right kind of weapon, or the right tactic. Magic weapons are still needed, but no more so than they ever were, because you were quite ineffectual in PF1, also.
Had a quick scroll through the playtest rulebook and whilst there's a couple cool ideas namely the barbarian totems (especially the improved titan mauler) and the paladin retributive strike (still limited to LG uggghhh!) imo nothing here legitimizes a new "edition" most of this could have been added through archetypes and maybe an unchained 2 book. It will take a closer look for any real judgements of course but...
TL:DR cool ideas but not worth a whole new game
P.S. Rogues got nerfed HARD (despite being a weak class already) and fighters are still boring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking to give it a try until...
Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!
So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!
Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.
If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/
Sure, when your example is of Unrealistic Fighter #1 vs. Unrealistic Fighter #2, then it might seem bad. But if you have to come up with such a bad example it might indicate that it's not the system that's problematic, but rather your preconceived notions.
Sure, when your example is of Unrealistic Fighter #1 vs. Unrealistic Fighter #2, then it might seem bad. But if you have to come up with such a bad example it might indicate that it's not the system that's problematic, but rather your preconceived notions.I was thinking to give it a try until...
Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!
So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!
Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.
If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/
Dm introduces higher level NPC. Lower level Murderhobo fighter with +4 magic sword decides to take him for some reason. On paper it doesn't look too far off.
That said the example does not take into the Defenses of both fighters, only that magic sword fighter can actually damage maybe above their weight class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem Sir, is the IMPACT... youre giving a feat tax to power attack to get 1 extra damage die...
a few days ago everybody was discussing the Dex to damage vs Str for hours...
Than a impact that make one game mechanic, that technicaly speaking is not a real part of the character is having more impact on the game or combat than everything else was so fiercly discussing and no one seems to care. Thats strange to me.
When the +1 or +2 of your weapon will be decising factor of a fight, something is very wrong... if you need to overlevel your opponent for a ton of levels to equal... something gone very badly.
I almost remember one of the blog posts where someone was discussing a level 20 wizard and one of the devs, trying to sell new fighter mechanics, said that "he would have trouble against even a level 3 fighter cause the fighter could nullify one of the wizard melee attacks". Sure... the wizard use magic weapon or one hight level weapon enchant... lets say on a common bamboo stick of base 1d4 damage... suddenly the wizard have a +3 bamboo stick of 4d4 damage examploding the fighter shield. If he do this to his normal longsword... he will explode both the shield and the fighter in the process.
Bro, i would really like if they abandon "+1s" to weapon/armor and favor it with cool abilities... be it flaming, draining, anything... but not the only way of really increase your damage that trumph everything else in the system.
Because he lives in a real world instead of a mechanic plot wall universe and he just stole the gear of the party at the in, for example.
Will never happen in a PFS game cause of some limitations that are needed to evade cheating, but can happen in a normal game.
Actually, in my game years, it was relative common, specially when the weapon impact the game so much, literally doing five times the base damage of a normal weapon. People would wage war over theese weapons, like they do on nukes today, cause they are the most impactful single aspect on a combat. Other aspect together CAN impact alot, specially when added together (level+skill increase+new ability), but every single +1 of the weapon is BY FAR the most impactful aspect.
To me, this is very wrong. Everybody can disagree, ok.
But man, i dont know how people complained about things like dex to damage since this impact overall damage so much more.
The problem is not when the 3rd level paladin found an ancient holy avenger in some lost temple...
The problem is when a 14lv paladin is penalized for using a normal sword or even "just a +1 sword" cause some story relation and he perform even worse than a PF1 character in the same situation (wich is already bad).
The magic weapon dependancy grew exponentially in this ruleset... and i am very shocked that people that were complained of a +2 damage diferential on a rogue having or having not dex to damage are simple mute.
I guess people just have trouble with math when it is a variable number.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The opposite is true for me. I was very optimistic about this system prior to a week or so ago, and now that I have read the rulebook all of that enthusiasm is gone. The only things I like are things I already knew about, and a lot of the stuff I was excited for is a lot worse than I thought it would be.
My question then becomes why hasn't the 14th level paladin purchased a magic weapon to wield? Even with tithing and giving to the poor he could still certainly afford one.The problem is not when the 3rd level paladin found an ancient holy avenger in some lost temple...
The problem is when a 14lv paladin is penalized for using a normal sword or even "just a +1 sword" cause some story relation and he perform even worse than a PF1 character in the same situation (wich is already bad).
The magic weapon dependancy grew exponentially in this ruleset... and i am very shocked that people that were complained of a +2 damage diferential on a rogue having or having not dex to damage are simple mute.
I guess people just have trouble with math when it is a variable number.
maybe he's playing in a blasted apocalyptic world where the Undead rule as god-kings and the forces of good fight a gurilla war from the darkness and don't have stores to buy things from
|
|
maybe he's playing in a blasted apocalyptic world where the Undead rule as god-kings and the forces of good fight a gurilla war from the darkness and don't have stores to buy things fromMy question then becomes why hasn't the 14th level paladin purchased a magic weapon to wield? Even with tithing and giving to the poor he could still certainly afford one.The problem is not when the 3rd level paladin found an ancient holy avenger in some lost temple...
The problem is when a 14lv paladin is penalized for using a normal sword or even "just a +1 sword" cause some story relation and he perform even worse than a PF1 character in the same situation (wich is already bad).
The magic weapon dependancy grew exponentially in this ruleset... and i am very shocked that people that were complained of a +2 damage diferential on a rogue having or having not dex to damage are simple mute.
I guess people just have trouble with math when it is a variable number.
That's a very specific campaign concept, and the GM should adjust the difficulty of the enemies he puts the PCs up against if he's going to have them play with a lower amount of gold.
If you can have a magic shop selling a +4 sword... the game has every shop like this NEVER have a 3rd level rogue robbing it right?
Cause mechanics wall is more important than game consistency.
Even low level PFS adventures have imporant locations being robbed here and the (Blackros family seems specially prone to attract low level invaders)
Oh... the "appropriate level magnet" rule that we all live uppon. You never, through your 20 levels of play, will ever touch some blasphemous level innapropiate item.
And again, in a world when a weapon dos SIX time the damage of another, war should be fought by this weapons and every high level adventure party would have to massacre the kindown they are entering or having their weapons "confiscated by law"
|
|
If you can have a magic shop selling a +4 sword... the game has every shop like this NEVER have a 3rd level rogue robbing it right?
Cause mechanics wall is more important than game consistency.
Even low level PFS adventures have imporant locations being robbed here and the (Blackros family seems specially prone to attract low level invaders)
Oh... the "appropriate level magnet" rule that we all live uppon. You never, through your 20 levels of play, will ever touch some blasphemous level innapropiate item.
And again, in a world when a weapon dos SIX time the damage of another, war should be fought by this weapons and every high level adventure party would have to massacre the kindown they are entering or having their weapons "confiscated by law"
A store with the resources to acquire or manufacture a +4 sword probably also has the resources to make itself difficult for low level characters to rob.
None of the kingdoms ban high-power weapons, because the ones that did were eaten by the monsters no one could save them from because no one could do enough damage.
Lets put this way... Sir Knito challenger Sir Commus to a duel...
Both level 9 paladins...
Duel start... rolls initiative...
Look at character sheet...
Sir Knito weapon is +3
Sir Commus weapon is still +2 cause the upgraded his armor also.
Sir Knitto wins and challenge the next owner of a still "unupgraded +2 weapon".
When we remove extremes and add close characters, the weapon upgrade become even more important. Your feats are equivalent, your stats may vary a little +1 here and there... but your weapon can be a full +dice that will add up to victory in the end after X hits.
Thats too much impact for a mere +1.
|
|
Lets put this way... Sir Knito challenger Sir Commus to a duel...
Both level 9 paladins...
Duel start... rolls initiative...
Look at character sheet...
Sir Knito weapon is +3
Sir Commus weapon is still +2 cause the upgraded his armor also.
Sir Knitto wins and challenge the next owner of a still "unupgraded +2 weapon".
When we remove extremes and add close characters, the weapon upgrade become even more important. Your feats are equivalent, your stats may vary a little +1 here and there... but your weapon can be a full +dice that will add up to victory in the end after X hits.
Thats too much impact for a mere +1.
The guy who upgraded his armor is less likely to be hit and receives a bonus on saving throws. Granted, the latter doesn't matter in a duel between two paladins, but that's an extremely specific situation. In normal play, the increase to saves has a 15% chance of turning one result into the next better one for you.