| da_asmodai |
This ended up WAY longer than I expected so I stripped out all the references to specific ancestries, backgrounds, classes, feats, etc. and focused on the core mechanics only instead. Hopefully this is helpful and I'm curious what others think of these things.
Ancestries – I think the general concept is an improvement on 1e’s race (though I still would have called them races). I love how half-elf and half-orc are “Heritage” feats for humans. I love how races now give you hit points so level 1 characters aren’t so squishy. I don’t like how Size seems near meaningless now. I love the concept of ancestry feats but I think it's confusing to call them "Feats".
Backgrounds – No strong opinion for or against. It’s different, it’s fine, no big deal. I could do without it but it doesn't hurt anything being there.
Classes – I like how Class Feats largely replace all the various class specific options but as with Ancestry Feats I think it's confusing to call them "Feats".
Ability Scores – I’m ok with how they’re generated, it’s unlikely I’ll ever see a character whose primary ability isn't 18+ now but it’s not make or break for me.
Proficiencies – I don’t feel like these create a large enough difference between the levels. There’s very little difference between an untrained character and a legendary one and most people can't even get to the top two levels anyway for that wopping extra +2.
I like the general concept of weapon proficiencies replacing BAB, saving throws as proficiencies, armor as a proficiency, and perception replacing initiative to a large extent… but again the difference just isn’t that much between untrained and legendary. A level 20 Wizard should not have +20 to hit with a staff while a level 20 legendary staff fighter has +23 (not counting ability score mods). 1e has +10 BAB for a Wizard vs. +20 for a Fighter so they went from literally twice as good to a tiny 15% difference. Likewise “good” saving throws were +12 at level 20 while “bad” were +6… so again classes that were good at something ended up twice as powerful at it as those who weren’t. Now there's very little difference.
Skills – I feel like these are completely broken. Making them proficiencies grants them the same problem noted above. Proficiencies have little difference between legendary and untrained. Also it makes it so effectively every time you level you put a 1e skill rank IN EVERY SKILL. This makes everyone at least ok in everything at which point I feel like we might as well just get rid of skills and just make “skill checks” an Attribute Mod + level and call it a day. A level 20 fighter who doesn’t give a crap about Stealth should not have a +18 compared to a Rogue who had focused their entire adventuring career on it and built it all the way up to legendary gets a +23 (+18 vs +23... really? What was all that practice for?) That difference doesn’t feel at all “legendary”, the rogue specialist is just marginally better than someone who’s completely untrained.
To make matters worse though there are lists of actions that can and can’t be done trained and untrained… within each skill! Heck, some actions are now further gated behind “Skill Feats”. This is restrictive and confusing. In 1e if a new player (knowing nothing of skills) asks to do something I can almost always apply a little common sense to figure out what skill that would be, come up with a DC, and have them roll. In 2e there are giant action lists for them (and me) to memorize and it’s possible that I’ll have to tell the player “I’m afraid you can’t attempt that use of the skill even though you can do these other ones.” That's HORRIBLE. Now there are a few things you can’t do untrained in 1e like use a magic device but then it’s clear that you can NEVER use that skill until you put a rank into it (no big list of this but not that to look at) and those skills are the exception not the rule (I wouldn't have minded 1e dropping the concept of kills you can't do untrained). In 2e most skills have can and can’t lists now and those can’t possibly cover everything so there's going to be confusion when new actions come up... is this new action something that can be done trained or not… does it require a feat… who knows? I guess everyone will just houserule differently. I don't see how this is in any way an improvement on the 1e skill system.
I DO like the concept of skill checks largely replacing CMB and saves replacing CMD though, again I don’t like the seemingly arbitrary action gating so you can do a trip or grapple with athletics untrained but to even try to disarm you have to be trained.
Feats – Generally speaking I like Race and Class feats though I think it’s confusing to call these things feats as well. The mechanic itself I think is an improvement over 1e. General feats are basically our old feats and those too are fine as well with the exception of skill feats which I covered in skills above .
Equipment – I like the move to the silver economy. I don’t care one way or the other on bulk. I DO like how the proficiency levels are applied to items in place of the old “masterwork” system. I don’t like how armor items have both AC and TAC instead of both just being results of calculations with and without the item bonus, I feel it adds complexity where the 1e system makes sense that you don’t get the AC bonus of items on touch attacks (touching the item still delivers the effect). My biggest equipment complaint though the lack of different damage by size. Again, as noted in the Ancestry section at the beginning, size seems nearly meaningless now… just a flavor field unless I’m missing something.
Spells – I actually really like the spells in how the VSM take actions and I like the 3 action economy. I also like the new heighten abilities within spells.