Honest questions to those who like 2e


General Discussion

101 to 118 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yep. I tweak it somewhat here and there, but nothing load-bearing.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

The only troublesome thing is that with a decade of rules addition, tracking down individual bibs and bobs can be a chore.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

5th is a solid system, and one I can enjoy (albeit not as much as I like my Pathfinder).

4th was... well. Not trying to edition war here, but it was everything I didn't want.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

I like having options to customize. Class balance is a lovely theory but so difficult to achieve that I'm generally happy if even a good faith effort is noticeable.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

Meaningless for my well-established group. Absolutely crucial for getting new groups started and getting new people into the game.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

I am. But I'm a corner case in this respect, and I don't see options and accessibility as inherently oppositional.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Sure. Hell, we're going to- if nothing changes from the playtest, I'd be utterly shocked.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

Broader options (the playtest has some arbitrary limitations that will almost certainly be going away on their own), a cleaner approach to race/ancestry/species/whateverinhell we end up calling it...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
Favorite rpg by a lot

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
There are things that could be improved, but nothing I can't handle

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
I like(d) 4e, but haven't played it in years now. PF is just so much better, but I'd play 4e if I knew someone running a game. 5e, no. I'm a crunch and options guy.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
Improvement in all or any of those would be great. I love options the most, but but if the options aren't balanced then they're less of an option, you know, and again if high level isn't playable then that also cuts out options in practice. Mythic rules, for example - lots of new options but major problems in those other two areas. Played WotR, but probably won't be using mythic again.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Needs to happen. New customers need to replace old ones lost to attrition or the game dies

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I probably would accept it and enjoy it while it lasted, but I can see that isn't a good direction for the game to take, so I hope Paizo wouldn't do that.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
Sure... if it is a good system and matches my tastes for crunch and character options

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
Such an open ended question. I'm basically happy with 1e and could be forever, but Paizo needs to sell new stuff and attract new players, so I get why we need a new edition as a community, regardless of my personal needs. I think a system that supports varying complexity would be good. I think starting with a low complexity in the beginner box, and medium in the core rules and adding more through supplements is a good plan to be able to Saturday the crunch freaks like me without intimidating new players. That is more or less how 1e is structured, but the difference in 2e would be that it is all part of a plan with a unified design. The complexity knobs and dials are all present in even the beginner box, they're just turned to low. You have official settings for beginner, intermediate, and advanced games which should be supported by organized play. Beginner would have simplified character creation using builds and packages and cut a lot of fiddly modifiers in play, intermediate core rules and core supplements, advanced include specialized subsystems like kingdom or intrigue.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yes. It has it's problems but many more merits.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

No.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

Never tried 4th.
I Read 5th before I tried Pathfinder, it seemed good, even clever in many ways but also kind of bland & conservative (just rehearsing old tropes). For whatever reason, it just didn't interest me like Pathfinder did.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Class balance, options & ease of use. High level play is not a big concern.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

It's perhaps the most important thing in PF2

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Only a little. There's a balance to be struck here.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Of course, I view this as the 1st proposal for PF2

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I'd like to see the weaker feats of all types (Ancestry, General & Class) brought up to scratch, a somewhat wider range of feats, a simpler version of Resonance if it's to survive, a 'free' signiture skill for all classes. Beyond that, I haven't even finished absorbing the Playtest rules yet.


I have to say, in response to some of the posts above, this so far has been one of my favorite threads in the forum, and it's great that everything has been civil and reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stormbinder wrote:
I really enjoyed 4E and still play it.

BURN THE WITCH! ;-)

Seriously, I really liked 4E, too. Which is an admission that sometimes makes me feel like a pariah around here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. Yes and no. I appreciate Paizo's commitment to supporting their product and the design ethos of all the things they bolted on the 3.5 engine, but I still think the core engine is a derivative mess that is too cumbersome for its own good.

2. Honestly I feel the opposite way; I think Pathfinder became better as time went by. The biggest imbalances and the worst issues (wonky math, absence of class balance, not-functional design decisions) were all present in the first incarnations of the system.

3. I appreciate 5E as the perfect introductory system for players new to the D&D formula, but it's a way too simplistic game for my tastes. There's a few excellent ideas in the core engine but the whole package is strict, rigid and severely lacking.
4E is still my favourite D&D edition and the full package (much like Pathfinder, the game got better with time) is the most customizable, balanced and flexible system in the ecosystem.

4. As 4E proves, all those things are achievable at the same time, and if PF2 fails to deliver on all 3 aspects I will have no reason to switch over.

5. This is a very nuanced question. I do believe that accessible games are currently dominating the market, which could be an excellent reason to let PF2 be a less-accessible game for the hardcore audience. I don't really think the market needs another simplistic and barebone game engine when 5E is exactly that. Let PF2 be a game for the hardcore audience. It will never regain the mainstream one from D&D. The people who wanted an accessible, easy game already left.
I do feel in its current form the game is convoluted for the sake of being convoluted. The chapter on perception, senses and conditions is a nightmare of cross-references. You need to hop pages 3 times to find out you get a +2 circumstance bonus to AC.

6. I'd take those 3 things over accessibility, if that's the question. All 4 things together would be the best, however.

7. Well.. yes? I'll focus on playtest this one for now, however. This question feels like wishfull thinking.

8. The biggest weakness at the moment is that you get to make dozens of choices when creating a character and they don't amount to very much. Paizo needs to drop the "choose this and this and that to get +2 to a very specific skill roll" mentality ASAP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Stormbinder wrote:
I really enjoyed 4E and still play it.

BURN THE WITCH! ;-)

Seriously, I really liked 4E, too. Which is an admission that sometimes makes me feel like a pariah around here.

4E is the best D&D edition, and I play D&D since the 80s. Come fight me!

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1) I do like it, but have been feeling for a while that the system is a bit long in the tooth. It's no longer my favorite game system (currently my favorite is Fate).

2) Yes. Not so much troublesome as game design has advanced in the 20 years since the 3rd edition D&D chassis was created, so newer systems do a lot of things better.

3) Yes. 4E was a fun game, but it didn't feel like D&D. I have only played a couple of 5E games, but I like what I've played so far!

4) Primarily smoother high-level play, more player input on the narrative (e.g. mythic surges/hero points), and elimination of some really complex/broken mechanics.

5) I like the idea, though I'm a little worried about "dumbing down" the game.

6) It depends. I love teaching new players, and I don't mind a complex system that takes some time to explain. But I also worry that having a game that is too inaccessible will drive new players away.

7) Potentially, though I feel like it'd be very difficult to get my gaming group to switch.

8) Something like what Fate does with fate points and aspects would be a good start. That doesn't address the high level play issue, though. I'm not sure of a good solution to that issue.


Visanideth wrote:
4E is the best D&D edition, and I play D&D since the 80s. Come fight me!

This has happened before, it will happen again...


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? More or less, yes. Not my favorite game, but not a bad game.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? It inhereted more than a few of D&D's flaws and its grown into some of its own.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? 4: As a tabletop strategy game. 5: not at all.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? A more coherent play experience. Not inaccurate rocket tag to start, a fairly even experience in the mid-levels then precision rocket tag at later levels.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? I find this question vague. What do you mean by "more accessible"?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? See answer to 5.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will). In that I am not married to a single RPG, yes. I mean, you could call PF1 a different version of PF2 and I've played that.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? A coherent game that is fun to play.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
I was going to say yes but then I realized I don't actually play RAW pathfinder 1e anymore. I use some variant rules form unchained and spheres of power. So I like the game but I think it can be better.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
I think that's about right. I never play full Pathfinder 1e anymore. It's either CRB only or a bunch of variant rules. Simply allowing all books would be overwhelming. Especially for new players which I normally have one of in every game.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
Only played a little bit of 4e, the fact that everything had the same powers aka everyones a wizard was offputting to me but I really didn't give it a fare shake. I played three sessions (never GMed) and then just played Pathfinder. Haven't looked at it since.

5th edition is interesting. I like it for what it is, a very easy to learn simplified version. I see it's benefits but personally find it limiting in terms of character customization and I don't like bounded accuracy because it feels like character's grow very little with it. But overall I think I do like 5e but less than PF. If invited I would play in a 5e game again but I have no interest in buying the books or Gming it myself.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
I think all of those are good goals. I think if PF2 is on its way to have better class balance between martials and casters, smoother high level play, and probably a similar number of options to PF1e core.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
This is the main thing. Pathfinder is complicated, the number one thing I want out of PF2 is for it to be easier to teach.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I would prefer it the other way around. Im okay if PF2 has a bit less customization than PF1 if it is significantly more accessible.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?
Yes

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
My ideal version of PF2 would probably start similar to the game we have here but then do something like: make the magic system something like spheres of power, make armor work as damage reduction, get rid of TAC and replace it with reflex defense, Make most if not all skill feats scale with proficiency level, more access to signature skills. I think there needs to be options that make every weapon style viable for every martial class (fencing, two handed, sword and board, dual wielding, bows, crossbows, throwing) though I am okay if some classes get better options with some things. Probably make all those changes and then see if there was anything else that needs changing.

The main things people seem to complain about is lack of options which I think will go away with a few splat books so I am not really worried about it, the +lvl scaling, which I like, the fact that everything is a feat just from different bins, which I also like. And the high level untrained PC beating the low level trained NPC at most things, which I'll agree is odd but doesn't bother me.


I think it's a great thread, because everybody says their point, and moves on, there's no arguing, and it shows a diverse set of opinions. Some positive, some negative, some undecided. It's an interesting survey, compiled in a single thread.

That said, I think we should let the thread continue to do it's work

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)
Yes. I also design content for it.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)
The game has major issues, but I still enjoy it. No game is perfect.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
I started tabletop RPGs with 4th Edition. Initially, I liked it but overtime, I found it way too repetitive and lacking narrative mechanics. Despite the power system, my characters never felt more powerful or different regardless of their level.

I read through D&D Next's playtest and 5th Edition. While it's not a bad game, it has no appeal to me. None of its content allows me to create characters and stories I couldn't do better with Pathfinder.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)
Class balance isn't that important. What's important is that every class feels fun to play and allows agency for players to construct character concepts that grow and adapt overtime to match their character's narrative.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Accessibility is important.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
To some degree. You can have deep mechanics without resorting to overcomplicated.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
I already do using the Spheres of Magic and Spheres of Power alternate systems for Pathfinder.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)
Again, alternate rules systems already exist for Pathfinder. I have friends interested in playing Pathfinder using Starfinder's rule set.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Grimcleaver wrote:
I know this is not at all what the OP intended, but has anyone else been using this post to look up folks that they've seen posting in the forums to get a feel for what their POV is regarding the game? I certainly have and it's been really illuminating. I think this may be my favorite thread on the Playtest forum so far.
One of the nice things is that people are not really arguing. Everyone’s just chiming in with their answers and moving on. :)

talk for yourself, I'm gonna find the guy who said CRB Monks were fine and smash his fridge


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

Yes.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?

Bloated from a decade of releases and options, but not troublesome. Still enjoy 1E.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?

I tried 4th edition, but just never really enjoyed it. That's what brought me back to Pathfinder. I never tried 5th edition.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?

I guess I'm not looking for any one thing in particular, but excited to try something a little different and see if it works better or worse.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

Keeping a franchise accessible is the only way to keep it profitable.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Does it have to be mutually exclusive? Although, accessibility isn't so much an issue for me, as I'm already invested in Golarion.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented?

Being that this is merely a playtest, I think that goes without saying. I enjoy seeing everyone's feedback, both positive and negative, and am generally excited to see what the refined final product is like!

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?

Something that has a fresh take on old concepts, that remains fun with the Pathfinder flavor.


Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. I did, but once I got into 5th edition, I liked it less. Spell casters in Pathfinder are inferior compared to 5th edition. I like power, even if the enemy gains a little power.

2. Yes, but the casters suck. It takes a full round action to cast enlarge person, but only an action to cast it in 5e. Casters get not enough love in 1e.
3. I liked 4th edition at the time I played it, but it was the first edition of D&D I've ever played. I haven't played it since we have moved onto other editions and the DM isn't going to run 4e again. I don't know if I will still like 4E. Yes I enjoy 5e a lot, including adventures league. I can get magic items from Dming.
4. Class balance. I do play fighters and clerics and barbarians, not just sorcerers and warlocks, but please don't let the casters have spells that do so little damage or have such a little affect on the enemy. Pathfinder 1e is the only edition I feel Arcane Casters aren't given much love, that and 3.5.
5. How much more accessible do you want it, you can download the playtest for free. Don't you mean advertisement?
6. Number four is already fixed, unless they nerf the caster spells.
7. Only if those rules are made by Paizo or Wizards or some other company, not homebrewed by someone. In lameness terms, they better be published and well recognized.
8. Are you going to publish a ruleset? If it is its own system and as popular as 5e or Pathfinder 2e, then yes. Get thousands of players and have an Adventures League or a Pathfinder society equivalent, I'll play it. Now these days, I won't play a ruleset if there is no Adventures League Or Pathfinder Society equivalent.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? Yes, generally

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? I used to absolutely love it, but rules bloat and power creep have neutered my earlier interest. It's more of a chore than it used to be.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? I haven't tried 5E yet... didn't want to buy a new set of books, and WotC left a sour taste in my mouth from 4E which I liked not at all.

4. Which are you looking for: class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? Class balance, I suppose. Also a way to recapture the earlier simplicity of AD&D while retaining the flair and flexibility of combat maneuvers and similar variances but without having to resort to half-page stat blocks.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? Love the idea, what do you propose?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? Probably... but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will). Probably, but after shelling out $100 for this disappointing playtest version that makes my headache to read it, I'd be very cautious.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? Mostly what I've mentioned above. Also I want something that will avoid Game Bloat and Power Creep... those two things ruin games faster than anything else, In My Opinion.


Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. Yes, but it's no longer my system of choice.

2. Yes. There are too many fiddly little modifiers, my group groans at heavy math and layered rules and adjustments.

3. I think 4E had some great ideas mired in wonky math, again with the loads of little modifiers. I think 5E is an okay game but it fails to fix any of the problems of 3E.

4. I want classes to have fewer, more impactful abilities. I want a class feature to be a huge, powerful, useful thing, not a dinky little +1 to something. I want feats to be game-changers; the Dwarven Hardy feat should make you immune to poison. Barbarian Moment of Clarity should just remove the 'no concentration' effect from Rage. Paladin Shield Champion should make your shield indestructible and prevent any forced moment you Shield Block. When a player sees a Feat or Class Feature, I want them to DROOL with envy over it, I want them to say "Oh man, I wish I had THAT ability, Dave you're so lucky you're a Dwarf/Barbarian/Paladin/etc!"

5. The game needs to be WAY more accessible. If I had my way, Level 1 would be Ancestry, Level 2 would be Background, and Level 3 would be your starting Class features. Put task resolution and combat earlier in the book and make it simpler. Simplify weapons and armour so players can get going faster. I think the designers should look at every section of the rulebook and ask themselves "Can I make this easier to understand? Can I make it faster for a novice to make a new character? If I can't make this element simpler, do I absolutely need to include it?"

6. I think my suggestions for question 4 are designed to make the game MORE accessible, not less.

7. Absolutely. As it currently stands... as much as I like Pathfinder 2.0, I don't think I could convince my group to play it. They all have at least 5 years of TRPG experience under their belts and I don't think a single one would enjoy this edition AS IT IS NOW. A revised or alternative version might well work for them.

8. Bigger, more useful feats and features. Fewer and simpler weapons and armour. Better explanation of rules. Maybe fewer Skills since there's so much overlap. Fewer spells known or prepared while keeping them nice and powerful. Moving all 'utility' magic into Rituals so they consume time instead of slots. Magic items that are more than just bonuses. The total removal of colour-coding from the book, I have a player who is colour-blind in two ways and he'd be incredibly frustrated by the rulebook as it stands. Removal or alteration of "Add level to everything" so the math is less daunting (maybe add +1 to DC for every 3 levels difference or something).

101 to 118 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Honest questions to those who like 2e All Messageboards

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