"The Options Are Limited And Generic"


General Discussion

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

IF they are the same though, what's the bleeding point in having Fighter and Ranger.

Just make Rangther the class and get it over with. Or maybe Fighnger

Because of ALL the other stuff the classes get? The Companion for Rangers, the ability to use more than one type of weapon or fighting style for the Fighter. Numerous other little quirks that each class gets.

Again my point is that the people arguing that the options aren't there seem to be either not looking or just nitpicking certain things that "Aren't the way they used to be". Which a lot of times seem to not even WORK they way they used to so of course they wouldn't be there. Different edition, different rules.

or that they're there behind those 1-3 extra tax feats. people like those right? they get feats often enough that they can totally waste 4-6 levels trying to get soemthing they by all rights should have access to immediately, right?


AndIMustMask wrote:
or that they're there behind those 1-3 extra tax feats. people like those right? they get feats often enough that they can totally waste 4-6 levels trying to get soemthing they by all rights should have access to immediately, right?

Okay what exactly do they not have access to? There's only two things brought up in this thread so far that I've legitimately seen that you just cannot do. That's be really good at light armor (but I've also pointed out that it seems that NO ONE can do it so it's seems an oversight they forgot to include) and Rogues can't use any weapon they want to Sneak Attack anymore. Which to be fair I don't see a problem with but I will concede that it may limit character options a small amount. Even then the possibility of adding more weapons is fairly obvious.

The changed action economy means essentially everyone can rapid shot or two weapon fight WITHOUT ANY feat requirment. Everyone can use a shield to attack or defend themselves better than in first edition right from the get go all they need is profiency. And MOST of the feats to make fighting with these weapons viable in P1E are feat taxed right off the get go.

Let's look at some of the playstyle combat feats from P1E Core Rulebook and compare them to P1E.

Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Improved Grapple and Improved Bull Rush are are now all under the Athletics skill so you don't even need feats to do them.

Improved Feint is under Deception so you don't need feats for that either.

Shield Bash is already in the game. Just have proficiency and then get a good shield and attack with it.

Granted yes EVENTUALLY the fighter will be better than a rogue or Druid who chooses to TWF or Shield Fight but wasn't that the case in P1E anyway? For a rogue or druid to be able to get, let say, Improved TWF they needed to wait until 8th level and then wait until 9th level to even acquire the feat. When the Fighter can get it at 6th us have more feats. Greater TWF is even worse having to wait until 15th to get and the Fighter can get it at 11th. Plus the Fighter would have ALL of the two weapon feats plus loads of others by that time. So most people would look at that in last edition and just say eh TWF isn't worth it I'll just get other feats. Now you can just TWF if you want. Straight from the get go whatever class you want, granted they have free hands. Plus the nifty feats a Fighter or Ranger has? You can get those as well at around 8th level.

Now I believe that currently the Advanced Maneuver or Advanced Trick feat is a little more taxing then it should be cause you'll never be able to get a Fighter Feat higher than 10th. That seems it should be changed. Maybe make it your level -2? That way the higher level fighter feats will available to you but later and only its lvl 20 will be off limits.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys...

The skill system in PF2 sucks.
Having to put points into intelligence to improve your skills is wonkey. It should make a difference but not THAT big. Points per-level made sense to me.

What about the bard? Or the rogue? What about the classes who have a split focus for their abilities who are suppose to be amazing with skills??? That leaves them with level (pfft) + proficiency which is a maximum difference of 5.

M.A.X. 5.

I know, I know, there will be "proficiency moves" that can only be accomplished by characters of sufficient proficiency. Here is my problem there.

1. There are hardly any of these in the playtest.

2. When more are added in then what? Did we make the system better by simplifying the math? Or did we just make things MORE complicated with lists of skill based actions/knowledges/whatever that some plays are able to attempt and others are barred from trying?

All the PF2 skill bs did was take away more of the characters customizability, make players feel incompetent/weak, and complicate instead of simply skilled actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They had to lower the math in order to make the Crit Success and Crit Fail option more fluid within the system. Cause before anybody getting - 10 or lower past a certain point was fairly impossible. Now because of static gain and small increases those small increases matter more. They also changed a lot of Failures to not exactly be detrimental.

Let's examine simply climbing a cliff.

Climb (Athletics)
Let's say that a lvl 3 Fighter (+8 Ath) Rogue (+5 Ath) and Wizard (+3) are trying to Climb a cliff side. In the book it says a cliff side is generally a DC 15 to Climb. Let's say the cliff is 30ft tall. They all have to succeed 6 climb checks to move up the cliff going 5 feet a round. Although on a crit success they move up half their speed, which could depend on the armor their wearing and all that but we're just going to assume they're unarmored.

The Fighter
The Fighter with their +8 (+3 lvl, +4 str and +1 expert) succeeds on a roll of 7 and can only crit fail on a Nat 1. He also can Crit Succeed on a roll of 20-17. So they has a 20% chance of going much faster and needing less checks and only a 5% chance of falling. If he fails he just doesn't move at all.

The Rogue
With a +5 (+3 lvl, +2 str) they succeed on a roll of 15 can only crit succeed on a 20 and can crit fail on a 1.

The Wizard with his +3 (+3 lvl) can succeed on a roll of 12 can only crit succeed on a 20 and is the only one who can actually crit fail more than once with a roll of 1 and 2.

Now that's for the base DC if it was any higher the Rogue and Wizard would be in even more danger because of their lower bonus while the Fighter would only start to be in more danger once the DC hit 19 or higher. The bonus is not that huge with the fighter having only 5 more than the wizard and only 3 more than the rogue. Also if either the rogue or wizard weren't trained in Athletics then that would be a further minus 2 which would make them even more likely to crit fail and thus fall to their deaths the higher they get.

At higher levels the proficiency really starts to matter because they allow access to the higher level skill feats which now they either let you Crit succeed on a succuss or sometimes treat crit failures as regular failures or maybe just give you a bonus. Or in the case of Assurance just give you a flat check depending on your proficiency. I believe it's 10 T, 15 E, 20 M and 30 L flat check for anything that skill encompasses. Which is awesome cause that means it completely negates the rolling a nat 1 problem.

So now a skill feat like Quick Climb it's even more substantial. Let's take a look at our Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard again at lvl 8 trying to climb a rocky castle wall which I'll say that without equipment would be a DC 22, again it's 30ft tall.

The Fighter now gets +14 (+8 lvl,+4 str, +2 mast) (just base no magic items and such) and decided to get the Quick Climber cause it's available to him cause of his mastery. So now looking at this he crit succeeds on a roll of 20-18 and with his feat now moves full speed, succeeds on a roll of 8+ and now moves half his speed and can only crit fail on a 1.

The Rogue now has +13 (+8 lvl, +3 str, +2 mast) and doesn't have quick climber cause he wanted something different for his skill feat. So he now Crit succeeds on a roll of 20-19 but only moves half his speed, succeeds on a roll of 9+ but only moves 5ft and can only crit fail on a 1.

The Wizard has levitate (he doesn't want to waste his fly on just going up a wall) so he doesn't even need to make climb checks.

So levitate only let's you move 10ft the first round (cause two casting actions one moving action) and then all the way up to the top the second round. The quick climber feat on the other hand let's them move up to half their speed on just a successful save so there is very little chance he doesn't make it to the top in 1 round. The rogue doesn't really have a chance of failing but would probably take 2 rounds just like the wizard getting to the top.

So proficiency is important at low levels cause of those small bonuses and then again at higher levels cause of skill feat selection. An excellent addition to the system I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

They had to lower the math in order to make the Crit Success and Crit Fail option more fluid within the system. Cause before anybody getting - 10 or lower past a certain point was fairly impossible. Now because of static gain and small increases those small increases matter more. They also changed a lot of Failures to not exactly be detrimental.

Let's examine simply climbing a cliff.

Climb (Athletics)
Let's say that a lvl 3 Fighter (+8 Ath) Rogue (+5 Ath) and Wizard (+3) are trying to Climb a cliff side. In the book it says a cliff side is generally a DC 15 to Climb. Let's say the cliff is 30ft tall. They all have to succeed 6 climb checks to move up the cliff going 5 feet a round. Although on a crit success they move up half their speed, which could depend on the armor their wearing and all that but we're just going to assume they're unarmored.

The Fighter
The Fighter with their +8 (+3 lvl, +4 str and +1 expert) succeeds on a roll of 7 and can only crit fail on a Nat 1. He also can Crit Succeed on a roll of 20-17. So they has a 20% chance of going much faster and needing less checks and only a 5% chance of falling. If he fails he just doesn't move at all.

The Rogue
With a +5 (+3 lvl, +2 str) they succeed on a roll of 15 can only crit succeed on a 20 and can crit fail on a 1.

The Wizard with his +3 (+3 lvl) can succeed on a roll of 12 can only crit succeed on a 20 and is the only one who can actually crit fail more than once with a roll of 1 and 2.

Now that's for the base DC if it was any higher the Rogue and Wizard would be in even more danger because of their lower bonus while the Fighter would only start to be in more danger once the DC hit 19 or higher. The bonus is not that huge with the fighter having only 5 more than the wizard and only 3 more than the rogue. Also if either the rogue or wizard weren't trained in Athletics then that would be a further minus 2 which would make them even more likely to crit fail and thus fall to their deaths the higher they get.

At higher...

I mean, compared to PF1, where your 3rd level Fighter just uses Take 10, scales the cliff, then throws down a rope so the other guys only need to meet DC 5 to scale it, I don't really see it as a nice addition.

Proficiency and the removing of Take 10/20 in their original form (Assurance exists, but it isn't very good) has made characters (especially low level characters) much less reliable at jobs they're supposed to be good at. And this is made worse by the fact that you always have a chance to fail, no matter what. It's not fun to be the guy with +14 Athletics that fails to scale the cliff on a 1 just because the rules say so, even though I met the DC.


Well yeah but I would argue that P1E basically allowed you to bypass entire obstacles by just taking 10 or 20. Like my climbing a cliff example. You should want to feel accomplished in your objectives. Like hell yeah we climbed that cliff, snuck into the base and killed the bad guys. In P2E every character can be involved to some extent in all of the those things.

In P1E climbing would, like your example, barely be even worth mentioning let alone be something worth a DC check. Sneaking for anyone with heavy armor would be impossible cause their armor check penalty and almost non existent reason to raise Stealth. So the only thing where all of the characters are involved and being challenged is in the combat.

To me it gives the skills more reason to be up and front and almost as engaging as combat. Where as before more than half the skill list wasn't being used at all by generally the majority of the party.

I also believe that, according to how it's written, once you get to a point where certain task DCs become lower than trivial for your level it's recommended that you just say they succeed to make the game run more smoothly. Which is exactly what you're saying about the guy having a +14 being able to just do it if the challenge isn't there.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rameth, taking 10/20 was supposed to bypass things, that's the point. They weren't terribly engaging things and were often things with large differences in abilities, like the cliff. Personally I liked that skills couldn't critical one way or the other before. Not every obstacle is engaging, nor should they be after a point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, a lot of skills were basically "get to the level where you take 10, and then anything to do with that skill doesn't exist".

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
On the other hand, a lot of skills were basically "get to the level where you take 10, and then anything to do with that skill doesn't exist".

not quite, that's when it becomes trivial out of combat and away from distractions/danger. In combat or trying circumstances (when the hero moments happen) they still only have a 55% chance of success if they're at the "take 10" level and stopped investing.

mundane stuff like opening a lock? sure, not engaging. Opening a lock with 20 bugbears bearing down on you? engaging and requiring a roll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Triune wrote:
Sure, you could get whatever combat feats suit you, but did those feats enable new fighting styles? Pretty much no, they were numerical bonuses. I mean, you bring up a dex fighter from core? Ever tried to build one? They're garbage on fire. Good luck doing any damage ever past the first few levels.

Pick up Precise Shot & Point Blank Shot at level 1

- play an archer

Pick up Power Attack and Furious Focus at level 1
- smash things two handed

Pick up IUS and Improved Trip at level 1, use a reach weapon.
- battlefield control

At higher level (10+):
- Weapon Finesse + Trained Grace + TWF = highest sustained DPR in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

IF they are the same though, what's the bleeding point in having Fighter and Ranger.

Just make Rangther the class and get it over with. Or maybe Fighnger

Because of ALL the other stuff the classes get? The Companion for Rangers, the ability to use more than one type of weapon or fighting style for the Fighter. Numerous other little quirks that each class gets.

Again my point is that the people arguing that the options aren't there seem to be either not looking or just nitpicking certain things that "Aren't the way they used to be". Which a lot of times seem to not even WORK they way they used to so of course they wouldn't be there. Different edition, different rules.

-Animal Companion that you need to fully build into rather having them auto level with you.

-Weapon Styles that don't matter when you pick 1 magic weapon due to the Silver Economy

Oh Options are there. But they also aren't there in a vacuum. Animal companions aren't the way they used to be. Now I have to use most my feats to let it be good or not pick it up at all. Great for people that didn't like to micromanage them but uh, I'd like to have both my characters actually be viable in combat?

In the case of Fighter, yeah he can use more weapon types. But will he? Especially when magic items come online for that extra damage dice, you seem to actually be lowering your damage if you split your focus across weapon types. Or at the very least too broke to buy anything else.

Need playtest to sort it out


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that may help the fighters and the golf bag of weapons is the ability to switch the runes. I just skimmed over that still so I'm not sure exactly how feasible, but it seems like a craft check and a little time lets you swap it pretty cheap. This could let the fighter use a bow pretty well if they are going against a flying enemy soon and then swap it back to his favorite greatsword for standard adventure.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
martinaj wrote:
The nature of complaints I see popping up a lot here boil down to "This class can't do whatever I want it to do." I mean, seriously? That's kind of the entire point of a class-based system. Different classes play differently. One of my biggest complaints of PF1 was that it got to the point where I felt like my class wasn't actually doing enough to distinguish my character. They had a couple unique gimmicks, sure, but a witch I made didn't feel fundamentally distinct enough from an Enchanter or a Fey Sorcerer. When someone comes out and says "I want X class to be able to do whatever I want," I have to wonder to myself why they're even playing Pathfinder instead of a system that uses build points to create characters, or maybe an STG.

yeah feel free to contact me when you don't want to argue with a strawman.

PF2 Playtest options are lacking because they are internally incongruous, unexciting and pigeon-holing.

I have players that would need to be converted to this system, and the Playtest is not giving me enough fuel to do so.

The mechanics themselves I love, I just feel like the specific Feat options are uninteresting and would fail to keep the crowd engaged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
martinaj wrote:
The nature of complaints I see popping up a lot here boil down to "This class can't do whatever I want it to do." I mean, seriously? That's kind of the entire point of a class-based system. Different classes play differently. One of my biggest complaints of PF1 was that it got to the point where I felt like my class wasn't actually doing enough to distinguish my character. They had a couple unique gimmicks, sure, but a witch I made didn't feel fundamentally distinct enough from an Enchanter or a Fey Sorcerer. When someone comes out and says "I want X class to be able to do whatever I want," I have to wonder to myself why they're even playing Pathfinder instead of a system that uses build points to create characters, or maybe an STG.

yeah feel free to contact me when you don't want to argue with a strawman.

PF2 Playtest options are lacking because they are internally incongruous, unexciting and pigeon-holing.

I have players that would need to be converted to this system, and the Playtest is not giving me enough fuel to do so.

The mechanics themselves I love, I just feel like the specific Feat options are uninteresting and would fail to keep the crowd engaged.

I agree with that SW.

And those "gimmicks", (that have mostly been nurfed, made optional or cut completely) as you call them martinaj, are what made classes distinct in my mind.

Reading all these feats is like slogging through mud.
How is this simplification? For skills they say the math is more "streamlined"... It doesn't feel that way to me. Feels way more complicated. And you know that the added content will have us drowning in feat selection. Then the lists of special actions available from skill expertise and/or feat selection? Yikes.

The mechanics do seem interesting. The actions rules seem to have great potential. But I'm just not a fan of most of the other stuff...

Dark Archive

Chess Pwn wrote:
One of the things that may help the fighters and the golf bag of weapons is the ability to switch the runes. I just skimmed over that still so I'm not sure exactly how feasible, but it seems like a craft check and a little time lets you swap it pretty cheap. This could let the fighter use a bow pretty well if they are going against a flying enemy soon and then swap it back to his favorite greatsword for standard adventure.

Runes take a minimum of 1 day of downtime to swap, and you pay 10% of their cost to do so. You can use Craft to reduce that price using more days. Runestones allow you to pay 3gp to transfer a rune to it instead of another weapon or armor piece, which is useful for GMs to hand out treasure or to save a rune for later use, but doesn't actually make the etching or transferring process faster or easier. I haven't seen anything that would expedite the process, though anything that improves the Craft process would speed up transferral if you want to save money.


You guys do know this is a ROLEPLAYING game. If you want to play a rogue who uses a spear, reskin a rapier. It’s pretty easy to do this stuff. When pathfinder 1 came out it had all the problems 3.5 had. 5e has its own problems and I’m sure pf2 will have its own problems. But for Christ’s sake. Use your imagination people. Be creative.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Danith wrote:
You guys do know this is a ROLEPLAYING game. If you want to play a rogue who uses a spear, reskin a rapier. It’s pretty easy to do this stuff. When pathfinder 1 came out it had all the problems 3.5 had. 5e has its own problems and I’m sure pf2 will have its own problems. But for Christ’s sake. Use your imagination people. Be creative.

Not an option in Organized Play which is a huge draw for the system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Danith wrote:
You guys do know this is a ROLEPLAYING game. If you want to play a rogue who uses a spear, reskin a rapier. It’s pretty easy to do this stuff. When pathfinder 1 came out it had all the problems 3.5 had. 5e has its own problems and I’m sure pf2 will have its own problems. But for Christ’s sake. Use your imagination people. Be creative.
Not an option in Organized Play which is a huge draw for the system.

Yep. Not everyone can alter the game at a whim. The basis of the game can't be reliant on refluffing of rule elements.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Danith wrote:
You guys do know this is a ROLEPLAYING game. If you want to play a rogue who uses a spear, reskin a rapier. It’s pretty easy to do this stuff. When pathfinder 1 came out it had all the problems 3.5 had. 5e has its own problems and I’m sure pf2 will have its own problems. But for Christ’s sake. Use your imagination people. Be creative.

You do know this is an artificial construct in which our feedback could be able to reshape some design choices?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very disappointed in the heavy usage of feats. As a DM it removes a lot of character initiative, and really locks you into a lot of saying no to players, as most of the feats are pretty much standard sets of actions.

Also not looking forward to the constant book digging needed to play all these feats and class specific actions properly.

I do like the tiered skill system, although I think everyone will wind up getting trained in them all, with the +1 of expert being pretty meaningless after the first 4 or 5 levels.

We'll see how it plays, but I don't think I'll be running it very often if at all.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Homebrew should never be used as a counter argument when someone dislikes a mechanic, especially for a playtest. Homebrew should always be a last resort.

I could theoretically homebrew Chess into PF1, but I would be better off just playing PF1.

Also, could we please stop with the excuses that the playtest doesn't include all of the options for the final book? This is our last chance to change anything about the game. If we "wait until the game comes out to complain" then it's too late.

If there are more options than what the book gives us, then Paizo should have included them for playtesting. (Heck, they can still give the to us in a PDF at this point.)

The point is, nobody here knows what stuff Paizo left out of the playtest book, if anything, and even if stuff was left out, we don't know the nature of it. (There totally could be 5 times as many feats available in the final book, but they could easily all be broken trash.)

At this point, I am assuming that, given no real complaints, the playtest book is the final rules. Period.

If we don't complain, assuming stuff will change, and it doesn't, we're screwed.

If we do complain about stuff that is changing anyway, stuff still get's changed.

If Paizo wants us to stop complaining about stuff, then they should release updated rules via "patch notes" to assuage our fears and stop the complaints.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:

The playtest has one core rulebook.

This limits what can be included, no matter Paizo's plans for P2E. Instead of the entire first edition, the playtest rulebook can be compared to what P1E's core rulebook offered. Measured by this standard, some omissions and shortages can seem less critical.

Some examples from things I've seen:


  • The playtest has weak archetype support. In P1E's core rulebook, there was no such thing as an archetype. They came in a later book, and became one of P1E's most popular features despite this late start.
  • Backgrounds are bland and pretty limited. In P1E's core rulebook, the counterpart of traits did not exist yet. These were also introduced later on, and became fundamental to character expression.
  • The options are generic and unimaginative. The P1E core rulebook alone was also pretty stock in its options. 7 races, no alternate traits, every member of *race* was the same. 11 classes, no archetyping, very standard, boilerplate concepts like cleric or barbarian. No traits to mechanicalise your identity, class skills only came from class, so on and so forth etc.

Remembering P1E's humble beginning, as well as the grand scope it reached, can help in assessing P2E's beginning.

Yet those classes were far more distinctive than these. Having a ton of options for a class doesn't add uniqueness if all those options feel the same and have been watered down heavily to make them "balanced". Instead, all these "options" just wind up feeling like tiresome bloat and very bland instead of making things better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

They had to lower the math in order to make the Crit Success and Crit Fail option more fluid within the system. Cause before anybody getting - 10 or lower past a certain point was fairly impossible. Now because of static gain and small increases those small increases matter more. They also changed a lot of Failures to not exactly be detrimental.

Let's examine simply climbing a cliff.

Climb (Athletics)
Let's say that a lvl 3 Fighter (+8 Ath) Rogue (+5 Ath) and Wizard (+3) are trying to Climb a cliff side. In the book it says a cliff side is generally a DC 15 to Climb. Let's say the cliff is 30ft tall. They all have to succeed 6 climb checks to move up the cliff going 5 feet a round. Although on a crit success they move up half their speed, which could depend on the armor their wearing and all that but we're just going to assume they're unarmored.

The Fighter
The Fighter with their +8 (+3 lvl, +4 str and +1 expert) succeeds on a roll of 7 and can only crit fail on a Nat 1. He also can Crit Succeed on a roll of 20-17. So they has a 20% chance of going much faster and needing less checks and only a 5% chance of falling. If he fails he just doesn't move at all.

The Rogue
With a +5 (+3 lvl, +2 str) they succeed on a roll of 15 can only crit succeed on a 20 and can crit fail on a 1.

The Wizard with his +3 (+3 lvl) can succeed on a roll of 12 can only crit succeed on a 20 and is the only one who can actually crit fail more than once with a roll of 1 and 2.

Now that's for the base DC if it was any higher the Rogue and Wizard would be in even more danger because of their lower bonus while the Fighter would only start to be in more danger once the DC hit 19 or higher. The bonus is not that huge with the fighter having only 5 more than the wizard and only 3 more than the rogue. Also if either the rogue or wizard weren't trained in Athletics then that would be a further minus 2 which would make them even more likely to crit fail and thus fall to their deaths the higher they get.

At higher...

The fact that you have to constantly consult a page of feats just to know if you're good at something or what you're rolls even mean is not a good thing. It's tedious, it's frustrating, and it slows down the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
LadyWurm wrote:
Artificial 20 wrote:

The playtest has one core rulebook.

This limits what can be included, no matter Paizo's plans for P2E. Instead of the entire first edition, the playtest rulebook can be compared to what P1E's core rulebook offered. Measured by this standard, some omissions and shortages can seem less critical.

Some examples from things I've seen:


  • The playtest has weak archetype support. In P1E's core rulebook, there was no such thing as an archetype. They came in a later book, and became one of P1E's most popular features despite this late start.
  • Backgrounds are bland and pretty limited. In P1E's core rulebook, the counterpart of traits did not exist yet. These were also introduced later on, and became fundamental to character expression.
  • The options are generic and unimaginative. The P1E core rulebook alone was also pretty stock in its options. 7 races, no alternate traits, every member of *race* was the same. 11 classes, no archetyping, very standard, boilerplate concepts like cleric or barbarian. No traits to mechanicalise your identity, class skills only came from class, so on and so forth etc.

Remembering P1E's humble beginning, as well as the grand scope it reached, can help in assessing P2E's beginning.

Yet those classes were far more distinctive than these. Having a ton of options for a class doesn't add uniqueness if all those options feel the same and have been watered down heavily to make them "balanced". Instead, all these "options" just wind up feeling like tiresome bloat and very bland instead of making things better.

Yes, sometimes obsession with balance can lead to homogenisation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a sense, the new edition of a game often has this problem. Just starting off, it's essentially competing with the best of whatever the previous version had. So it either has to limit its changes to maintain more compatibility and thus ease the transition (you can use your old splats with the new edition!) before the line expands. Or its changes need to offer enough interesting stuff on their own that people are willing to accept the initial loss of content as collateral damage.

However, it seems like PF 2 has often taken the route of not adding new things, but instead subdividing the old content out over more feats and levels. You need several ancestry feats to get the benefits of most races now instead of starting with them. Quickdraw is for rogues, not a general feat. Cleave is a level 6 Barbarian ability instead of something any fighter or any human can start with.

In some cases, that's not really unreasonable. Dwarves did get a lot of stuff before, they can afford to get a little less at the start. Spreading out some of the super hax 9th level spells over 9th and 10th level spells makes sense. But across the board, it does seem kind of unappealing IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there an explanation any where as to why the shift from gold to silver?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Is there an explanation any where as to why the shift from gold to silver?

I suspect dropping a zero made it a little less riculous when carrying around wealth. To buy many items in the old system, you had to frequently carry around handtrucks worth of gold currency, which was a problem if you watched encumbrance. Most premodern economies ran on silver, at least on this plane of existence, to boot. An in-game reason provided though, no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Is there an explanation any where as to why the shift from gold to silver?
I suspect dropping a zero made it a little less riculous when carrying around wealth. To buy many items in the old system, you had to frequently carry around handtrucks worth of gold currency, which was a problem if you watched encumbrance. Most premodern economies ran on silver, at least on this plane of existence, to boot. An in-game reason provided though, no.

And it males gold and platinum that much rarer, as it should be; I house-ruled this (Silver Standard) into 3rd Ed/PF1 a while ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ikos wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Is there an explanation any where as to why the shift from gold to silver?
I suspect dropping a zero made it a little less riculous when carrying around wealth. To buy many items in the old system, you had to frequently carry around handtrucks worth of gold currency, which was a problem if you watched encumbrance. Most premodern economies ran on silver, at least on this plane of existence, to boot. An in-game reason provided though, no.
And it males gold and platinum that much rarer, as it should be; I house-ruled this (Silver Standard) into 3rd Ed/PF1 a while ago.

Without changing the prices of things, all paying in Silver does is just make everything 10x more expensive. Or breaks wealth by level the first time the team gets a hold of a good amount of gold if the prices aren't handled well.

My own games haven't been "Loot everything", in the sense of picking through basically every container and then the container, but I wonder how this swap will effect looting practices. Heck, I'd like to see how Rogues behave in the coming weeks(Steal all the things + The nails too). So what if they sell for copper, the economy is Silver based.

I'm sorry, I hated this back when a certain MMO gave you copper and silver as quest rewards. Like I was being paid pocket change. Believable I suppose for paying some random guy that came up to you for a small job but it was a pain to juggle 3 currencies. And the feeling of getting a small amount of gold only to see all the things you STILL couldn't buy.

This is going to take some play-testing and some feedback. I really can't say how this change will end up but I know I dislike it.

Also I am biased. Basically every Video Game RPG has you carrying around truckloads of 1 type of coinage so I am just desensitized I guess.


MerlinCross wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ikos wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Is there an explanation any where as to why the shift from gold to silver?
I suspect dropping a zero made it a little less riculous when carrying around wealth. To buy many items in the old system, you had to frequently carry around handtrucks worth of gold currency, which was a problem if you watched encumbrance. Most premodern economies ran on silver, at least on this plane of existence, to boot. An in-game reason provided though, no.
And it males gold and platinum that much rarer, as it should be; I house-ruled this (Silver Standard) into 3rd Ed/PF1 a while ago.
Without changing the prices of things,

Of course you change the price of things, that's the point, what used to cost 2 gp, now costs 2 sp.


MerlinCross wrote:
Without changing the prices of things, all paying in Silver does is just make everything 10x more expensive. Or breaks wealth by level the first time the team gets a hold of a good amount of gold if the prices aren't handled well.

Why on hell would you change to a silver standard but not change the prices?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Danith wrote:
You guys do know this is a ROLEPLAYING game. If you want to play a rogue who uses a spear, reskin a rapier. It’s pretty easy to do this stuff. When pathfinder 1 came out it had all the problems 3.5 had. 5e has its own problems and I’m sure pf2 will have its own problems. But for Christ’s sake. Use your imagination people. Be creative.
Not an option in Organized Play which is a huge draw for the system.
Yep. Not everyone can alter the game at a whim. The basis of the game can't be reliant on refluffing of rule elements.

Not only is not an option for PFS, it’s not something I want to do. I did that for 10+ years with 2nd ed. One of the things I like with 3.x is that I have had to have very few house rules. I’m not a game designer ,I’m and player/GM I want to be able to play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What is the point of playing a system of everything is or has to be house ruled?


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
What is the point of playing a system of everything is or has to be house ruled?

Yeah, I have already ripped out that +Level thing (for my home-games, not the Playtest, before anyone gets hysterical...).


gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Without changing the prices of things, all paying in Silver does is just make everything 10x more expensive. Or breaks wealth by level the first time the team gets a hold of a good amount of gold if the prices aren't handled well.
Why on hell would you change to a silver standard but not change the prices?
Vic Ferrari wrote:


Of course you change the price of things, that's the point, what used to cost 2 gp, now costs 2 sp.

gustavo, that was more about the house rule vic said they did.

And Vic, if you just do it that way what does that change? Cloak of Res takes 1000 silver now? I mean the only thing that seems different is just how much coinage someone is carrying around. Okay I guess?


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
What is the point of playing a system of everything is or has to be house ruled?

Usually because the core rules or chassis of the system is good enough for what people want.

I've swapped a lot of things around but I still like the combat rules, level up, gear, etc. I don't have enough will power to take the extra steps to homebrew all that stuff to the point of basically making my own game system.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
What is the point of playing a system of everything is or has to be house ruled?

Depends how systematic the house rules are. PF1 + Spheres of Power/Might is a decent game.


MerlinCross wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Without changing the prices of things, all paying in Silver does is just make everything 10x more expensive. Or breaks wealth by level the first time the team gets a hold of a good amount of gold if the prices aren't handled well.
Why on hell would you change to a silver standard but not change the prices?
Vic Ferrari wrote:


Of course you change the price of things, that's the point, what used to cost 2 gp, now costs 2 sp.

gustavo, that was more about the house rule vic said they did.

And Vic, if you just do it that way what does that change? Cloak of Res takes 1000 silver now? I mean the only thing that seems different is just how much coinage someone is carrying around. Okay I guess?

What changes is that you now have 2 higher standard currency denominations (GP and PP) instead of just 1 (PP). It allows for much friendlier numbers on price tags when you can condense the price 100 times instead of just 10. So that 1000sp cloak can be bought with 100gp or 10pp, where before the lowest you could condense would be 100pp.


avr wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
What is the point of playing a system of everything is or has to be house ruled?
Depends how systematic the house rules are. PF1 + Spheres of Power/Might is a decent game.

DSP's path of war was also loads of fun for elevating martials too


MerlinCross wrote:
And Vic, if you just do it that way what does that change? Cloak of Res takes 1000 silver now? I mean the only thing that seems different is just how much coinage someone is carrying around. Okay I guess?

I don't normally have magic items for sale but, yes, if it normally costs 1,000 gp, it would cost 100 gp.

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / "The Options Are Limited And Generic" All Messageboards

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