| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So with the all the "nitpickers" and "negative nancy"s out there providing feedback about the things they don't like so far, I figured it might be nice to have a thread of positivity! One of the things that I like is the game seems to have evolved for the better in a variety of ways, so I thought it would be nice to have a thread for all the positive changes to the game, especially the little things that may not get noticed by everyone right away.
For me, the big one is the sorcerer. I've always loved the concept, though never could play one, as by the time I'd finished making one to fiddle with, I'd either decided the Arcanist would fit better or just took one look at 2 skills/level and run screaming for a different kind of character altogether. But in PF2, the sorcerer gets a whopping 5 trained skills! Dunno why I was surprised to see it, but I was, and am thrilled to look into making one for the first time in a while.
What other fantastic changes have they made?
I like the new stat generation system. I think it's generally a step up over point buy and is obviously far better than any random system.
That's... pretty much all the good I can say at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the stat generation.
Backgrounds.
Skill and proficiency system.
Magic items are wondrous and not common.
Hero points in core.
The math is not crazy out of control.
I am liking a lot so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Snares seem to have gotten a buff but no where near as many as I hoped.
Poison rules seem easier.
Trinkets still look to be an interesting thing and worth porting back to PF1.
Wands being 10 charges which is honestly something they should have been in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The action system.
And to be honest, in the whrole thing is the only change that i really found very good.
ALL OTHER THINGS are either plain bad (magic weapon damage) or have some nice idea but a incredible bad execution (new AC, skill system, +lv to everything, for example)
I am trying to not be a hater, but not be a fanboy either. From my sincere perception of the new system.
So far I've only had time to scan the classes, but I like the general design of the classes. I haven't digested the classes, yet, though. But, I do like the options and the design space that is left open to build upon.
Makes me wish this version of the game had come out 10 or 15 years ago.
So far I've only had time to scan the classes, but I like the general design of the classes. I haven't digested the classes, yet, though. But, I do like the options and the design space that is left open to build upon.
Makes me wish this version of the game had come out 10 or 15 years ago.
Trying not to bash, but some design choices really looks like things from 15 years ago :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core system is great. I love Ability Generation, and indeed character creation in general. Super simple without restricting options. The action economy also looks super nice, and the math is just lovely.
Really, almost everything about the core system driving the game itself I really like.
Trying not to bash, but some design choices really looks like things from 15 years ago :PSo far I've only had time to scan the classes, but I like the general design of the classes. I haven't digested the classes, yet, though. But, I do like the options and the design space that is left open to build upon.
Makes me wish this version of the game had come out 10 or 15 years ago.
You are right. D&D 3.5 came out 15 years ago. There are similarities, but this feels like it has more options, out of the gate than 3.5. And, with more room to expand.
I'm really very fond of it so far, and I'm excited about running it. My partner had a lot of trouble with PF1, but guiding her through this character creation process was fun and easy. My entire group has been excited about the reduction of complexity that this game heralded. We all love Pathfinder, and I'm delighted to see that this will have a much lower skill buy-in for the player.
I'm not sold on the skills, but I'm content to see it get played out at the table and get a feel for how it works now. I'm definitely keep reminding myself not to judge the numbers using a PF1 rubric. I think it's worth giving this system a chance to show why it's designed like this.
I am totally, 100% in love with the death-and-dying rules. That's exactly the sort of system I want in my games, and making recovery rolls DCs based on the ability or class DC of the thing that dropped the player is evocative and lovely.
EDIT: Oh, and that Pathfinder is for Everybody section in the intro section was superb.
|
I am only on page 9 and I have to say I very much am encouraged by what I have read so far (and in the posts above).
Also I believe much more in Functionality (necessity) as a priority than Artistry (not absolutely necessary) in a game system.
With this printing, text and fonts are more plain and CLEAR having a nice HIGH CONTRAST on the printed page. The artwork that I have seen so far in the book are very attractive but do not reduce the functionality of READING a book.
For players with VISION ISSUES (eyes getting older), this seriously affects playing the game and learning it. Game Stores and Conventions are notorious for dim lighting. Libraries and my home seem to be only places that have READING LIGHTS.
This printing of the PLAYTEST MATERIALS addresses this issue.
There are so many priorities in this game system that are being addressed and worked on. With Paizo having such extremely limited resources, I am not sure that Artwork should consume SO MUCH of those resources (focus on the T-Shirts and non-essentials). I do enjoy the artwork in this book. And appreciate the focus being put on the ESSENTIAL - learning the GAME.
Thank you!
(High School RPG Gamer starting 1983)
One thing I really like is that they've embraced the idea that not only should a character get better at hitting things as they go up in level, but they should also get better at dodging things as the gain levels.
Adding level (modified by proficiency) to both to hit and armor class seems like a good thing, to me.
Not sure about adding full level to both, yet. I'm not sure how much other bonuses will matter at higher levels. But, then again, if the targed DC's are based on the adventure's expected character level, then the other bonuses beyond character level will truly matter.
So, this may be an awesome thing!
I did read somewhere on these forums, don't remember where, that someone was thinking of running a game without this level bonus. That could work, too. And, it'd be easy to do.
So, it's probably a win win.
Weapon identity. Now trip and disarm weapons are actually desirable for people who intend to succeed at tripping instead of only being a safeguard against failing. Now critical specialization shows a difference between someone who has some skill with a sword and a truly professional swordsman. Now a character who fights with a scimitar has differences in style from a character with a rapier.
Scaling AC at the same rate as attack bonuses (sorta). Thinking back, it was weird that fighters got better at cutting people naturally but needed a ton of investment to get better at not getting cut (money, ability score boosters, feats).
Shields. Much prefer the new setup, where shields increase AC while also acting as a semi-disposable HP sponge. Biggest pull for fighter for me is all the fun shield feats.
Armor (and armored scales) add to TAC, magic armor adds to saves. Now rays of magic glinting off of a knights armor or a dragons scales are plausible. Now armor in a world where armor smiths know magic is likely to kill people serves as a defense against magic.
Alignment. Knew I'd want to houserule it from the start, but no restrictions on monks and barbarians is a fix that I've been looking forward to for some time. Lowers the list of things I need to houserule.
Proficiency. Being untrained in a skill doesn't mean it completely shuts you down from participating even if it does mean you are in danger if you are leaning on it. Means the fighter can pipe up in the middle of negotiations and have a chance of holding their own without investing. Being a legend in a skill needs work though, legendary climber/swimmer/etc don't do enough for my taste.
I really like the idea of sorcerer bloodlines having entirely different spell lists, both for being interesting on its own and for removing the need for a bunch of different spontaneous charisma caster classes.
I really like the idea of sorcerer bloodlines having entirely different spell lists, both for being interesting on its own and for removing the need for a bunch of different spontaneous charisma caster classes.
And Cavalier is Archetype. Do you know what this means?
We don't need to print any more classes! The best fix!
Attribute generation is pretty decent, though personally I think it's spread out over too many sources? They should probably find a way to consolidate all the attribute generation stuff in one "block" if at all possible. They're trying to make a series of different +2 bonuses approximate point buy, and while the effort is good and the result is solid, the execution could be a bit cleaner.
Sorc bloodlines having different spell lists is pretty cool. I wish the spells were formatted better in the book, but the base concept works out pretty well. Losing the flavor of the Oracle curse makes me sad, but it's a good change on the whole that means we wont need 5 different Cha based full casting classes.
The new action economy is literally perfect. Although spells should probably be formatted as taking "X amount of actions to cast" as opposed to clumsily explaining you need a different action for every spell component, it's only a small footnote on what is one of my favorite changes in the whole system.
It seems like everything I can say that's positive about the system has to be amended with a "yes, but..." That doesn't bode well for my enjoyment of PF2e unless there are some major changes, but let it be known that PF2 does have some good things going for it - ESPECIALLY the action economy, damn.
Yay Positivity! I like:
new approach to initiative, and dispensing with surprise rounds,
new action economy,
Alchemists & Goblins being core,
fewer attacks of opportunity,
don't need to confirm critical successes,
Perception no longer a skill,
more HP at the start,
Character Backgrounds,
narrowed list of skills,
"Gaming Is For All" statement in the intro,
the Bulk system from Starfinder,
retaining core races & classes (and I'm okay with how half-elves and half-orcs were treated),
new approach to shields,
shift to silver pieces as the main unit of currency,
differentiating between AC and TAC,
including Golarion-specific flavor, such as the deity section,
embracing encounter vs. exploration vs. downtime, which gamers naturally did, but now we're genuinely discussing it and engaging with it,
keeping with the 9 alignments, but removing some alignment restrictions,
multiclassing as feats rather than tricksy class-dipping,
Summon Monster -- I love how animated broom is a specific option for a 0-level creature,
using the term "level" rather than "Challenge Rating" for monsters and hazards.
|
Things I love about PF2
The designers put focus on designing meaningful choices.
The action system, once I get it down its going to shine.
The skill rank system of -2. +0, +1, +2, +3, (but hate the +1 /level to everything, #nausea).
The stat generation.
Backgrounds.
Magic items are wondrous and categorized by rarity.
Weapon categories. Do cool stuff with weapons, make weapon choices great again.
Contrary to others I like the actions type symbols, it literally took me 6 seconds to memorize it.
I GM'd mostly, but I played a barbarian, and Loved the way rage works.
How XP and encounter design is simple.
Love how wealth is always pertinent.
I love resonance, because anything that can discourage all the munchkins from dump stating charisma all the time, is a plus in my book.
When I first heard of 3 actions I thought it would slow the game. I love the 3 actions system, combat has such good tempo now.
The new movement rates are better, I always thought it was too easy to move across the map with base 30'.
Armor table almost perfect, (but I hate how armor gives TAC bonus, look at unarmored it's +0 to TAC, and Plate is +2? WTF?), harder to net a guy in plate? Really?
Last but not least, I actually really love the concept where only certain classes have features that use to be 'universal', it reduced clutter in your mind as players, lets you think clearer, e.g. okay I'm a wizard I don't give a damn about AoO.
If any of you heard of a GM on these forums, that was thinking of running a game without +1/level bonus. I need to find this GM and play that game, I really don't like +1/level for everything in the game. Bounded accuracy would look so amazing with this system, where the entire bestiary is useful for 20 levels.
|
I am totally enjoying the new ideas. Firstly i love how I can be a dwarf in a party of dwarfs and because of the different ancestry feats we feel different off the bat. Secondly, really digging the classes and how each class feels different even if in that all dwarf party we all decide to be druids; someone can have a pet, someone can focus damage, etc. To me the classes are really a good mix. My only issue and it is probably just because I'm struggling to wrap my head around it is the resonance stuff. I can't make a solid judgement call on it yet because I don't fully understand it. All in all I feel like this is a great step somewhere between the ease and simplicity of d&d 5 and how open Pathfinder was.
Things I love by now: action system, shield use system, sorcerer bloodlines allowing different spell types (hello oracles, favored souls etc), backgrounds system, switch of UMD to feat, finesse rules changes, goblins as core race, customizable lore skills, change in monetary system (could use further fixes, but the direction is the one I like!), weapon critical effects … lots of stuff actually, and maybe I forgot something!