Issues with PF2 so Far

[Tithron]

I gotta say, I am excited about the new edition. I have been following the spoilers on the blog since they started in March. And for the most part I liked what I found when I downloaded the PDFs. The layout of the PDFs feels weird, but with practice that might be less of an issue. Its just when you are reading the early chapters, there are terms you need to know in the late chapters, so there is a lot of flipping around, but this may be unavoidable.

Skills
Trained Skills
I do not like that some casters have more trained skills then the martial classes. I always felt it was a failing in PF1 that the fighter had the least skills when non-magic classes need skills the most. I would like to see something more like this:

• 10 - Rogue
• 7 - Ranger
• 5 - Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin
• 3 - Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard

Int also makes this complicated, because Alchemist and Wizards are going to have more trained skills than the other magic focused classes without having to give much up. I realize this isn't new, just pointing out that it feels more noticible in this system, at least to me.

And I realize the Bard is supposed to have skills, but if he is a full caster now, he either needs way less skills or way less weapon proficencies.

Signature Skills
I hate them. Lets look at what they replace, Class Skills, Class Skills gives a numeric bonus to skills that your class is most likely to be relied on to provice for the party. This bonus is most noticable in the early game. They are a nice benefit, but do not force your class in a direction.

On the other hand, Signature Skills are a straight jacket. I realize the difference between Expert and Legendary is only 2 on Check Rolls, but with Skills Feats, it is a massive difference. And this is on top of the rules restricting Master and Legendary to mid and high levels respectively. I feel that having to wait until 13th Level and having to invest 4 of your 10 (I think, still working on getting the rules ingrained in my head) Skill Upgrages is enough of an investment. Adding the restriction of Signature Skills is overkill.

Ancestries
First, they feel out of balance. After looking over the sidebars of the other classes, I was shocked seeing how empty the Halfling and Humans were. I know not everyone can have special senses, but you have to at least try to make a level playing field.

Second, Ancestry feats feel very hit and miss. Some are so strong you would be a fool not to take, others feel more like niche cases or just garbage. And the distrabution of the good feats is also not even amoung races. And it isn't like the weak starting races have better feats, it really just looks like Elfs and Dwarfs are the best choices, with Goblin also being pretty good, depending on how much Size ends up hurting them.

Bulk
Bulk feels weird. I like the simple math and low numbers. I do not like how there doesn't seem to be (I may have missed it) a way to tell players how much bulk something is on the fly. This came up 3 times (my players like to carry/drag stuff).

Those are my initial thoughts. There is still plenty of the book to digest.

[RafaelBraga]

Everything pales in comparison to magic weapons. I would say that it worry me more than every other change added together.

[Tithron]

I honestly didn't even see that chapter yet. I read Character Creation, Classes, most of the rules on Actions, and then some buddies wanted to take it for a rough test ride, so after that it was just what I needed to look up to run things for a few hours.

[Jem'Nai]

How many Cantrips known to each class is one of my big headaches also Spell Point how are they figured out and such.

[Jester David]

Plus 2 from backgrounds. So a smart rogue could be trained in 14 of the 17 skills.

[Garydee]

RafaelBraga wrote:

Everything pales in comparison to magic weapons. I would say that it worry me more than every other change added together.

This. I wish we could return to how magic weapons used to work and get rid of the hit point bloat.

[thflame]

Garydee wrote:

RafaelBraga wrote:

Everything pales in comparison to magic weapons. I would say that it worry me more than every other change added together.

This. I wish we could return to how magic weapons used to work and get rid of the hit point bloat.

I actually like that weapon damage scales up noticeably, but I don't like that it is tied to character wealth. Casters deal fist fulls of dice at higher levels, why can't fighters have a few? I feel like Martial classes should just get more damage as they level up because they are awesome.

Perhaps have each tier of proficiency in weapons give you an extra die of damage?

Untrained: ??? (maybe a small damage penalty)
Trained: 1 die
Expert: 2 dice
Master: 3 dice
Legendary: 4 dice

Then, make magic weapons TRULY magical. "My sword is on fire" and "My sword shoots laser beams" are magic weapons.

"My sword hits harder" should be a skill related benefit.

[Cyouni]

thflame wrote:

Garydee wrote:

RafaelBraga wrote:

Everything pales in comparison to magic weapons. I would say that it worry me more than every other change added together.

This. I wish we could return to how magic weapons used to work and get rid of the hit point bloat.

I actually like that weapon damage scales up noticeably, but I don't like that it is tied to character wealth. Casters deal fist fulls of dice at higher levels, why can't fighters have a few? I feel like Martial classes should just get more damage as they level up because they are awesome.

Perhaps have each tier of proficiency in weapons give you an extra die of damage?

Untrained: ??? (maybe a small damage penalty)
Trained: 1 die
Expert: 2 dice
Master: 3 dice
Legendary: 4 dice

Then, make magic weapons TRULY magical. "My sword is on fire" and "My sword shoots laser beams" are magic weapons.

"My sword hits harder" should be a skill related benefit.

I think the problem then becomes: getting legendary early (or at all) is such a significant boost in comparison to others that it destroys the game math.

[gustavo iglesias]

I don't know about the math, the people at paizo are better at it. But I certainly like the flavor of being the warrior, more than the sword, the real difference between good and bad fighters.

[Neurophage]

Signature Skills feel wonky to me, too. At the very least, I'd like to see every class get get to pick one skill from off-list to be a Signature Skill. The big breaking point for me there is rituals. As much as I love the idea that you don't have to be able to cast spells to use rituals, the way the Signature Skill lists work functionally locks Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues from ever using them.

[Luceon]

I cannot understand why you have a problem with the Bulk system. How hard is it to compare like items, a chest is Bulk 2, a spellbook is Bulk 1, a Great club is Bulk 2, a club is Bulk 1. DUDE, really, they make a streamline system to help us cut down on meaningless bookkeeping and you complain about it?

[Snowblind]

Luceon wrote:

I cannot understand why you have a problem with the Bulk system. How hard is it to compare like items, a chest is Bulk 2, a spellbook is Bulk 1, a Great club is Bulk 2, a club is Bulk 1. DUDE, really, they make a streamline system to help us cut down on meaningless bookkeeping and you complain about it?

Because it is abstract and weird and lacking in detail and wonky when you look at the fine consequences of it and not well fleshed out beyond the hard numbers given for specific items.

None of these are unforgivable condemnations, of course, but Tithron never said Bulk was atrociously bad and evil and must go. Just weird and somewhat lacking at times when used in play at a table.

That said, there really needs to be functional rules or guidelines that aren't stupid for things other than adventuring equipment or adventuring equipment sized stuff. I could tell exactly how difficult it was to move a piece of furniture or a body based on its weight in PF1 and what penalties to apply (if any), but you have to throw out the vague guidelines entirely if you want to use PF2 bulk in this way and not get completely nonsensical results e.g. a wrestler or a firefighter in a burning building can never pick up another person and move around with them because another person weighs like 20-60 bulk before equipment, which is rather stupid.

While they are at it, they also need to put a metaphorical escape hatch clause inserted into the bulk rules about containers not being able to carry items that literally could not reasonably fit into them even if their bulk allows it. A PF2E Bulk equivalent of the "Chunky Salsa" rule, if you will. That way there won't be people sticking bundles of arrows into belt pouches or whatever.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Snowblind wrote:

While they are at it, they also need to put a metaphorical escape hatch clause inserted into the bulk rules about containers not being able to carry items that literally could not reasonably fit into them even if their bulk allows it. A PF2E Bulk equivalent of the "Chunky Salsa" rule, if you will. That way there won't be people sticking bundles of arrows into belt pouches or whatever.

Page 184 (Gear), under 'Bulk':

Quote:

Containers can hold the listed amount of bulk, but some items might not fit due to their dimensions.

It could stand to be made stronger, but at least it's there, so the GM has something to point to when saying No to arrows in belt pouches.

[Vic Ferrari]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

I don't know about the math

Deadmanwalking does (thank god for his posts during the last few months - to make sense of things), he explained how omitting the +Level treadmill goes down; first houserule, not including the Playtest, of course, I will be instituting. Did the same thing with 4th Ed, much to everyone involved's pleasure.

[gustavo iglesias]

I don't like the +level to skills, but I do like the +level to hit, saves and AC. And I like the fact that skills, attack, AC and saves can be used interchangeably against each other or against the same DC.

So it's a bit of a dilemma for me. Will wait until the final release to know what I home rule of that.

[Neurophage]

Am I the only one who actually likes +level to skills?

[gustavo iglesias]

I'm not against it in trained skills. I can see the point behind it in non-trained skills (so the group as a whole can role disguise to enter in Lady Marian's archery constest, allowing greater freedom for the GM to narrate stories). But it's still clunky and has some strange implications. Having actions that can only be done trained help, but there are still corner cases where I find it... weird.

I totally agree with +level to hit, armor and saves, because I support Paizo's vision of how to differenciate themselves from 5e. In 5e, 20 orcs can be a problem for a high level fighter. In Pathfinder 2, a high level fighter wipes the floor with 20 orcs. Both are valid approachs to narrate stories, but 5e already has one of them under their grip. I like that Pathfinder tries to cover the other.

[Neurophage]

Let me revise: am I the only one here who actually likes +level to all skills?

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Neurophage wrote:

Let me revise: am I the only one here who actually likes +level to all skills?

I think I like it, not positive yet. It at least doesn't bother me.