My main issues with PF2, broken down


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

38 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people, myself included, have major complaints with regards to the current playtest release of PF2e right out of the gate. I am among them. Now would be a great time to "break down" these major design issues so they can be quickly corrected/iterated on and we can focus on more specific minutia.

1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.
A lot of people have mentioned that, without any form of multiclassing, you cannot have a TWF Rogue(at least one that's meaningfully better than a 1 weapon Rogue). This is silly, and an example of a seeming design oversight but it highlights a bigger issue.
By bundling feats and classes together, options during character building and leveling are hugely restricted. The game's writers have to consider each likely "build" for every class. It either leads to character concepts that can't be done properly, or to individual feats being reprinted multiple times, which is a waste of space and time. Moreover, oversights like this are very liable to be repeated in the future.
Feats should return to being selected from a categorically-seperated pool in their own section with specific prerequisites, rather than being bundled up with classes. If the writers see fit, they could list a specific class as a prerequisite to take a feat, but this should probably be done sparingly.
Race feats are less of a problem, but could probably be renamed to avoid confusion with the rest of the feat system.
Bundling feats into classes does not solve any meaningful problems, from what I can tell.

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.
From what I can gather, the Resonance system was created to prevent magic item spam/abuse. I take great issue with this reasoning, as it has always been ultimately up to the GM to decide what and how many magic items the players get. In other words, it's solving a problem that a clever GM could easily sidestep, while simultaneously putting hard limits on what PCs are able to do, especially high level martials.
You're putting new rules into the game in order to keep the GM from making a decision that the designers think is bad. I don't think it's wrong to put warnings for GMs before historically problem magic items, but this is limiting on both players and GMs. It doesn't add anything to the game on its own, only takes away from the possibility space.

3. Proficiencies in skills & saves are silly.
Thog the Barbarian has trained his whole life to hit stuff. He is a level 10 Barbarian, who smash really good. Suddenly, he's put in a situation where he has to sing, despite literally having never done so in his life. He at least is getting a +8 modifier to that check from proficiency. What?
I don't see what was wrong with static base save progressions and skill points. They were actually somewhat easier to explain/more self-evident than proficiencies, and required you to actually put in training to be good at something, rather than just becoming passively good at everything(and having to update every. single. skill. every time you level up).

4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.
Why does a Sorcerer need to keep relearning Fireball at every level up in order to be able to consistently blast with good damage? Sorcerers already have limited spells known, all this change does is make Wizards more unholy powerful by comparison by effectively making Sorcerers less able to efficiently utilize said spells known.
Metamagic in the past did a fine job of making higher level spell slots more powerful. This just makes wizards stand out as powerhouses more than they already were.

My last major issue, and probably my biggest gripe is...

5. You can't do traditional multiclassing at all, ever.
There are many mechanical and storyline reasons why a PC might want to change class partway through their adventuring career. It's very arbitrary to keep people from multiclassing, as people in real life do this sort of thing all the time. Med students discover a passion for the arts, circumstances force somebody to change careers, etc.
The Rogue, seeking to redeem his past actions becomes a Paladin, using his dextrious moves and precision in place of brute strength. Maybe a Swashbuckler ship captain retires from his adventures on the high seas, telling tales of his travels and barking orders to his allies as a Bard or Skald, while still being a daring warrior with the blade. A Human Fighter becomes a Vampire Hunting Inquisitor after his spouse and comrade is murdered by a vampire. These are all examples of the storytelling potential of multiclassing using 1e as a framework.
As more suppliments are added and concepts from 1e are "ported", storytelling potential from multiclassing will simply evaporate. Instead of changing lifestyles when multiclassing, the new system feels a lot more like "oh your Rogue decided to dabble in some magic for a bit", rather than "Your Rogue has made the decision to become a Wizard from now on".

-----------------------------------------------

It seems like Paizo really wants to reinvent the wheel with this playtest, and while things like the new action economy work fine, I would advise them against making too many sweeping core mechanics changes from 1st - the game is still supposed to be Pathfinder at its core, after all. Player freedom is an aspect that PF1e excelled at, this edition so far is rather lacking. While it's tempting to say that's because there's less content overall, the new core changes don't facilitate much in the way of major choices.

Paizo mentioned that they were going to do a lot of the big changes that they weren't sure about during the early stages of the playtest. I hope the issues mentioned above all fall into that category and can be ironed out before the next playtest release, so we can focus more on the specifics of classes, balance, spell lists and feats next phase. I have other gripes, but they're better saved for a time when more glaring complaints are ironed out.


Quote:

4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.

Why does a Sorcerer need to keep relearning Fireball at every level up in order to be able to consistently blast with good damage? Sorcerers already have limited spells known, all this change does is make Wizards more unholy powerful by comparison by effectively making Sorcerers less able to efficiently utilize said spells known.
Metamagic in the past did a fine job of making higher level spell slots more powerful. This just makes wizards stand out as powerhouses more than they already were.

I know I've been a broken record about this, but combined with spontaneous heighten, I'm pretty sure this works out to a net buff over PF1. Many spells that get value from heightening used to be a line of spells or have lesser/greater versions (e.g. Invis, Summon). Using spontaneous heighten, you can effectively get nine levels of summon X for the low price of one spell known in the best case, and two or three spells known for the price of one in others.

Spontaneous heighten's two picks are also generally enough to support your main sorc gameplan (e.g. summonbot, fireball bot), negating the restriction on the spells you need most.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Witch of Miracles wrote:


I know I've been a broken record about this, but combined with spontaneous heighten, I'm pretty sure this works out to a net buff over PF1. Many spells that get value from heightening used to be a line of spells or have lesser/greater versions (e.g. Invis, Summon). Using spontaneous heighten, you can effectively get nine levels of summon X for the low price of one spell known in the best case, and two or three spells known for the price of one in others.

Spontaneous heighten's two picks are also generally enough to support your main sorc gameplan (e.g. summonbot, fireball bot), negating the restriction on the spells you need most.

I can sort of see this, but the main thing that makes the Wizard so much more powerful than the sorcerer is their incredible versatility. Spontaneous Heighten encourages Sorcerers to be less versatile than they were in 1st with Metamagic on stuff. Meanwhile, a Wizard can heighten as many spells as they want when preparing now rather than just 2, meaning their options for heightened spells are far more versatile than the Sorcerer's.

As we get more spells in our lists with supplemental materials, the Sorcerer is going to need more and more heightened spells in order to keep up with the natural buff having more spells in the game as a whole gives to the Wizard.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I have an idea as to what's behind a couple of these:

MelodicCodes wrote:

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.

From what I can gather, the Resonance system was created to prevent magic item spam/abuse. I take great issue with this reasoning, as it has always been ultimately up to the GM to decide what and how many magic items the players get. In other words, it's solving a problem that a clever GM could easily sidestep, while simultaneously putting hard limits on what PCs are able to do, especially high level martials.
You're putting new rules into the game in order to keep the GM from making a decision that the designers think is bad. I don't think it's wrong to put warnings for GMs before historically problem magic items, but this is limiting on both players and GMs. It doesn't add anything to the game on its own, only takes away from the possibility space.

This seems to be something where "we want a solution that works for Pathfinder Society," is impacting the general design. With an organized play system, you can't assume that something can be fixed, (or determined to not be a problem), by the GM because you need the problem fixed even for people who have never been at a table before and never will again.

It's also a manifestation of the high priority given to power balance, (which is in many ways itself "solving things for PFS").

Quote:

3. Proficiencies in skills & saves are silly.

Thog the Barbarian has trained his whole life to hit stuff. He is a level 10 Barbarian, who smash really good. Suddenly, he's put in a situation where he has to sing, despite literally having never done so in his life. He at least is getting a +8 modifier to that check from proficiency. What?
I don't see what was wrong with static base save progressions and skill points. They were actually somewhat easier to explain/more self-evident than proficiencies, and required you to actually put in training to be good at something, rather than just becoming passively good at everything(and having to update every. single. skill. every time you level up).

This is from the received wisdom that "falling off the RNG is evil and must be avoided as much as possible." It's part of the same thing that freaks out over the brawny warrior completely ignoring the poison that the frail mage has to worry about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chakat Firepaw wrote:


This seems to be something where "we want a solution that works for Pathfinder Society," is impacting the general design. With an organized play system, you can't assume that something can be fixed, (or determined to not be a problem), by the GM because you need the problem fixed even for people who have never been at a table before and never will again.

It's also a manifestation of the high priority given to power balance, (which is in many ways itself "solving things for PFS").

If the stem of the problem here is PFS, then it seems like the best option would be to give PFS its own sidebook/document with variant rules. I get that they don't like house/variant rules in PFS, but Resonance is a mechanic which complicates the game for everyone else just so PFS can have a nicer playground. You can't always have the exact same gamerules for two very different modes of play(casual table play and PFS).

Chakat Firepaw wrote:


This is from the received wisdom that "falling off the RNG is evil and must be avoided as much as possible." It's part of the same thing that freaks out over the brawny warrior completely ignoring the poison that the frail mage has to worry about.

This is a more interesting problem, but one potential solution using a variation on the older system would just be to lower the amount of maximum skill points a character can invest in a given skill, maybe set it to character level/2 (minimum 1, maximum 5), and they get less skill points across the board? This would make attributes stronger in terms of how they impact skills, but it would make it so that the highest modifier someone could have, assuming a +5 attribute, is +13. That's not too bad for DCs, and is actually somewhat in line with save bonuses. It encourages PCs to branch out across their class skills more.

I haven't exactly run the numbers on how this would work, but it'd make more sense from a roleplaying standpoint than proficiency and be easier to explain to new players while still keeping people from falling off the RNG except maybe at very high levels.

Meanwhile Saves can be static modifiers attached to your class, like before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly one of the best solutions to Skill issues I've found was to simply adopt the philosophy of the Call of Cthulhu RPG.

Skill roll involving story/plot elements are not about success or fail. They are about Narrative control.

Players succeed on the Roll, they have the Narrative and tell the GM how things turn out

Players fail the Roll the GM has the Narrative and tells the players how things turn out.

That way you can avoid any situation where a failed skill roll stops the adventure dead in it's tracks.

If the PCs have to open a Locked door for the story to continue, you can't have them fail but you still want them to roll dice to carry the tension.
They succeed = Player gets to describe how his character bravely enters the room and finds the murder victim.
They Fail = The GM describes how the PC bursts through the door slips on some blood and lands face to corpse with the murder victim.

Either way the story continues


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MelodicCodes wrote:

1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.

I can certainly see what you are saying here, but I like the idea that they are chained to certain classes. What I would like to see is those chains loosened a bit, and allow other classes to dip into them at a later time than the class they were intended for. An example might be a class level 5 feat becomes a general feat for characters at level 8 or 10. This gives certain classes an advantage in certain feats but doesn't strictly lock them to the class.

MelodicCodes wrote:

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.

In a couple of the games I've played, I've seen this be a bit of a problem. Not so much the wearable items, but the extremely versatile wand of cure light wounds. It was too easy to suddenly always have everyone at full HP at the beginning of every fight. I'm not sure yet if resonance was the proper way to go about it, but I can see the issue it is attempting to rectify.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna argue the point about magic items. Magic items have always been a broken system, as long as any 3.X system has existed. The entire game is balanced with the expectation that players are loaded down with boring magic items to shore up Attack Bonus, Saves and AC in order to remain remotely competitive with the basic threats of the game. So at higher levels, it's tantamount to suicide to go anywhere without two rings, a necklace, magic boots, magic armour, magic belt, magic cape, magic underwear, a few magic weapons, a circlet and so on.

Now, I'm not totally sure if resonance really helps with that issue, as I'm still going over the book in finer detail after my initial glossing over, but something DEFINITELY needs to be done about that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vition wrote:


MelodicCodes wrote:

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.

In a couple of the games I've played, I've seen this be a bit of a problem. Not so much the wearable items, but the extremely versatile wand of cure light wounds. It was too easy to suddenly always have everyone at full HP at the beginning of every fight. I'm not sure yet if resonance was the proper way to go about it, but I can see the issue it is attempting to rectify.

The issue is so - if you don't want your players to abuse CLW wands, then don't make them available. It's not that difficult for the GM to say that there doesn't happen to be a CLW wand in ye olde magic item shoppe.

Paizo has introduced an entire rule in order to stop one magic item. It's a rule that's cumbersome, and now effects every magic item the players interact with. A simple warning for GMs in the text and a footnote in PFS would've more than sufficed.

Lorewise, there are many reasons CLW wands may not be available to random rich adventuring party #69. Maybe there's a war going on, and the wands are all being actively used to heal the sick and wounded? Maybe because of the scarcity of such magic items, there are legal ramifications for carrying them because the government is in such desperate need?

CLW wands are not a problem inherent to the system's core mechanics, so using the system's core mechanics to solve said problem seems like a clunky idea at best.

Vition wrote:


I'm gonna argue the point about magic items. Magic items have always been a broken system, as long as any 3.X system has existed. The entire game is balanced with the expectation that players are loaded down with boring magic items to shore up Attack Bonus, Saves and AC in order to remain remotely competitive with the basic threats of the game. So at higher levels, it's tantamount to suicide to go anywhere without two rings, a necklace, magic boots, magic armour, magic belt, magic cape, magic underwear, a few magic weapons, a circlet and so on.

If that's the case, you're not going to like how they changed enhancement bonuses on magic weapons. Good luck having your martial keep up damage-wise without using a boring +5 sword.

They introduced an entire mechanic to nerf magic items, but it seems like, at least for martials, they're more essential now than ever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MelodicCodes wrote:


The issue is so - if you don't want your players to abuse CLW wands, then don't make them available. It's not that difficult for the GM to say that there doesn't happen to be a CLW wand in ye olde magic item shoppe.

It's easy to not have it for sale, but I don't want to have to tell a player they can't take Wand/Staff creation feats because I want them to be more likely to die.

Still, resonance doesn't seem like a great system to me, especially how it affects alchemists. The party has to pay out double if they want any healing or buffs from them, and it reduces their attack options to do so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gug on the Silver Mountain wrote:
MelodicCodes wrote:


The issue is so - if you don't want your players to abuse CLW wands, then don't make them available. It's not that difficult for the GM to say that there doesn't happen to be a CLW wand in ye olde magic item shoppe.

It's easy to not have it for sale, but I don't want to have to tell a player they can't take Wand/Staff creation feats because I want them to be more likely to die.

Still, resonance doesn't seem like a great system to me, especially how it affects alchemists. The party has to pay out double if they want any healing or buffs from them, and it reduces their attack options to do so.

Personally I think Potions and SCrolls should have no Resonance cost to them. Instead they should cost a point to make, reprisenting how the creator is investing them with the magic needed to work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MelodicCodes wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:


This is from the received wisdom that "falling off the RNG is evil and must be avoided as much as possible." It's part of the same thing that freaks out over the brawny warrior completely ignoring the poison that the frail mage has to worry about.
This is a more interesting problem, but one potential solution

IMHO, the "solution" is realizing that in (semi-)high fantasy it isn't a problem in the first place¹.

Sure there are things that, for instance, the Rogue can climb easily that the Fighter can't ever. So what? This is one of the reasons you are playing an adventuring party and not Doc Savage and his team of the second best². The big irony about the fix for it is that it comes with a system that brings the exact same "Bob can do it every time, Joe can't do it ever" effect just through a means other than "the DC is too high for Joe to hit."

One thing to remember about "received wisdom" is that it often isn't really true.

1: Sure there are genres where it is a bad thing, D&D/PF have never really tried to do those genres and have always been bad choices for them.

2: Doc Savage being better than his aides at their own specialties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the best way to handle issue 3 mentioned by the OP is for the static progression to occur only with skills in which the character is trained, as a representation of that character's growth and development.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vition wrote:
MelodicCodes wrote:

1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.

I can certainly see what you are saying here, but I like the idea that they are chained to certain classes. What I would like to see is those chains loosened a bit, and allow other classes to dip into them at a later time than the class they were intended for. An example might be a class level 5 feat becomes a general feat for characters at level 8 or 10. This gives certain classes an advantage in certain feats but doesn't strictly lock them to the class.

So more of the BAB +11/Monk 8 kind of requirements? It could work, but that's still the feats themselves being unchained from the classes, just some of the classes have an early in option. Loosening the chains would probably be something more along the lines of being able to select class feats after multiclassing, which is what VMC typically allowed at higher levels.

Patrick Newcarry wrote:
I think the best way to handle issue 3 mentioned by the OP is for the static progression to occur only with skills in which the character is trained, as a representation of that character's growth and development.

The problem there is then what happens if the party gets a quest to travel to another plane and have to do a crash course in planar geography? If the characters are locked-in on creation then they simply cannot learn the new material, and if they're not locked in then does the bonus start to scale up with the new skills as well?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
MelodicCodes wrote:

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.

From what I can gather, the Resonance system was created to prevent magic item spam/abuse. I take great issue with this reasoning, as it has always been ultimately up to the GM to decide what and how many magic items the players get. In other words, it's solving a problem that a clever GM could easily sidestep, while simultaneously putting hard limits on what PCs are able to do, especially high level martials.
You're putting new rules into the game in order to keep the GM from making a decision that the designers think is bad. I don't think it's wrong to put warnings for GMs before historically problem magic items, but this is limiting on both players and GMs. It doesn't add anything to the game on its own, only takes away from the possibility space.
This seems to be something where "we want a solution that works for Pathfinder Society," is impacting the general design. With an organized play system, you can't assume that something can be fixed, (or determined to not be a problem), by the GM because you need the problem fixed even for people who have never been at a table before and never will again.

As someone who only plays PFS, I don't even think it's a problem there. As far as I can tell, Resonance was created to fix a problem that exists entirely in the mind of the PF2e designers. I've never heard anyone complain about magic items in a way that would suggest something like Resonance as a solution.

Silver Crusade

MelodicCodes wrote:

A lot of people, myself included, have major complaints with regards to the current playtest release of PF2e right out of the gate. I am among them. Now would be a great time to "break down" these major design issues so they can be quickly corrected/iterated on and we can focus on more specific minutia.

Well written post! I haven't read all the rules yet, but this is an excellent set of points, IMO.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MelodicCodes wrote:

1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.

A lot of people have mentioned that, without any form of multiclassing, you cannot have a TWF Rogue(at least one that's meaningfully better than a 1 weapon Rogue). This is silly, and an example of a seeming design oversight but it highlights a bigger issue.
By bundling feats and classes together, options during character building and leveling are hugely restricted. The game's writers have to consider each likely "build" for every class. It either leads to character concepts that can't be done properly, or to individual feats being reprinted multiple times, which is a waste of space and time. Moreover, oversights like this are very liable to be repeated in the future.
Feats should return to being selected from a categorically-seperated pool in their own section with specific prerequisites, rather than being bundled up with classes. If the writers see fit, they could list a specific class as a prerequisite to take a feat, but this should probably be done sparingly.
Race feats are less of a problem, but could probably be renamed to avoid confusion with the rest of the feat system.
Bundling feats into classes does not solve any meaningful problems, from what I can tell.

I like having restricted feat access, though I agree there should be some "general" class feats though, such as TWF. There are also some class feats that only make sense for specific classes to be able to take (such as quick prep, animal rage, ki strike, etc).

MelodicCodes wrote:

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.

From what I can gather, the Resonance system was created to prevent magic item spam/abuse. I take great issue with this reasoning, as it has always been ultimately up to the GM to decide what and how many magic items the players get. In other words, it's solving a problem that a clever GM could easily sidestep, while simultaneously putting hard limits on what PCs are able to do, especially high level martials.
You're putting new rules into the game in order to keep the GM from making a decision that the designers think is bad. I don't think it's wrong to put warnings for GMs before historically problem magic items, but this is limiting on both players and GMs. It doesn't add anything to the game on its own, only takes away from the possibility space.

I actually somewhat like resonance, but only on the investiture and x/day magic item side of it. I dislike it's applications to consumables right now, and I feel it actually needs to be split into two systems, one dealing with "slotted", investment, and x/day items, and another for consumables.

MelodicCodes wrote:

3. Proficiencies in skills & saves are silly.

Thog the Barbarian has trained his whole life to hit stuff. He is a level 10 Barbarian, who smash really good. Suddenly, he's put in a situation where he has to sing, despite literally having never done so in his life. He at least is getting a +8 modifier to that check from proficiency. What?
I don't see what was wrong with static base save progressions and skill points. They were actually somewhat easier to explain/more self-evident than proficiencies, and required you to actually put in training to be good at something, rather than just becoming passively good at everything(and having to update every. single. skill. every time you level up).

I disagree, I like being able to actually have the party sneak around, instead of the old "Fighter is is full plate and no stealth ranks" keeping it from being able to happen. It also helps people not be completely irrelevant (just mostly irrelevant now) in things they aren't good at, while the uses being gated behind proficiency level also keeps it from going overboard.

The big issue with the old system was what the disparity could be between two characters who were both good at something, and that it could be a difference of +30 or more. There's a bunch of stuff in the forums about this, I'll let you go find it.

If you don't want to update all your skills every time, you could just do what I did and just use the skill line for the TEML bonus + ability, and then add your level as well every time you use one.

MelodicCodes wrote:

4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.

Why does a Sorcerer need to keep relearning Fireball at every level up in order to be able to consistently blast with good damage? Sorcerers already have limited spells known, all this change does is make Wizards more unholy powerful by comparison by effectively making Sorcerers less able to efficiently utilize said spells known.
Metamagic in the past did a fine job of making higher level spell slots more powerful. This just makes wizards stand out as powerhouses more than they already were.

You mean unlike PF1 where they could freely heighten their invisibility to gain the effects of greater invisibility without knowing greater invisibility, or just by knowing summon monster 1, they could freely use summon monster 2-9. Oh wait, that wasn't how it worked, they had to know those spells in those slots in PF1 just like they do in PF2.

Yes, the removal of caster level as a statistic for everything hurts.

MelodicCodes wrote:

5. You can't do traditional multiclassing at all, ever.

There are many mechanical and storyline reasons why a PC might want to change class partway through their adventuring career. It's very arbitrary to keep people from multiclassing, as people in real life do this sort of thing all the time. Med students discover a passion for the arts, circumstances force somebody to change careers, etc.
The Rogue, seeking to redeem his past actions becomes a Paladin, using his dextrious moves and precision in place of brute strength. Maybe a Swashbuckler ship captain retires from his adventures on the high seas, telling tales of his travels and barking orders to his allies as a Bard or Skald, while still being a daring warrior with the blade. A Human Fighter becomes a Vampire Hunting Inquisitor after his spouse and comrade is murdered by a vampire. These are all examples of the storytelling potential of multiclassing using 1e as a framework.
As more suppliments are added and concepts from 1e are "ported", storytelling potential from multiclassing will simply evaporate. Instead of changing lifestyles when multiclassing, the new system feels a lot more like "oh your Rogue decided to dabble in some magic for a bit", rather than "Your Rogue has made the decision to become a Wizard from now on".

Another fairly common reason for multiclassing in pf1, the paladin gets cursed by a god and becomes an oracle, or their latent bloodline is awakened and they become a sorcerer.

Retraining is a thing in core, if your rogue has decided to become a Wizard from now on, have them retrain into a wizard and stop using their rogue ways completely. If they want to still be a rogue and a wizard, take the damned feat set.

Edit: Yes, I realize that you can't retrain classes right now (which is dumb), but if you are a GM I highly advise allowing as such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GLD wrote:
boring magic items to shore up Attack Bonus, Saves and AC

Opinion isn't fact. Some of us enjoy those.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:


I disagree, I like being able to actually have the party sneak around, instead of the old "Fighter is is full plate and no stealth ranks" keeping it from being able to happen. It also helps people not be completely irrelevant (just mostly irrelevant now) in things they aren't good at, while the uses being gated behind proficiency level also keeps it from going overboard.

The big issue with the old system was what the disparity could be between two characters who were both good at something, and that it could be a difference of +30 or more. There's a bunch of stuff in the forums about this, I'll let you go find it.

I've addressed a possible solution to your last paragraph in a prior post(though it's not the only solution), but why should the clunky fighter in loud full plate who's never snuck around before suddenly be able to sneak almost as good as the Rogue?

A simulationist mindset isn't always good(that's how you get stuff like +1 to intimidate while in dark lighting and speaking to somebody in bright lighting), but when it's not introducing unnecessary complexity, it's perfectly reasonable to consider mechanics from a simulation point of view and toss out ideas that don't make any sense in-universe.

willuwontu wrote:


You mean unlike PF1 where they could freely heighten their invisibility to gain the effects of greater invisibility without knowing greater invisibility, or just by knowing summon monster 1, they could freely use summon monster 2-9. Oh wait, that wasn't how it worked, they had to know those spells in those slots in PF1 just like they do in PF2.

Yes, the removal of caster level as a statistic for everything hurts.

I never claimed that PF1e's implementation of all spells was perfect, but PF2e seems to have mostly made it worse. Part of my main gripe here is that Wizards, who have a functionally infinite spell list, can heighten all they want, while Sorcerers have to waste valuable slots in their repertoire learning the same spell over and over again to remain competitive with it. (despite being able to heighten a free two spells each day. This feels like a bandaid fix that doesn't really address the heart of the issue or give Sorcs any real versatility. Bards can do 4 for some reason despite being less focused on casting. Class feat oversight?)

Caster level was abused as a variable in a lot of PF1e/d20 spells. Range and duration probably don't need to be keyed to caster level, as that just meant more stuff for the players/DM to keep track of, but scaling damage die were fine. Their removal isn't entirely out of place as they replaced it with the heighten system, but said heighten system just revokes a lot of what the Sorc could do with spells and gives it to the Wizard. Why does the Wizard need more power again?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MelodicCodes wrote:
...why should the clunky fighter in loud full plate who's never snuck around before suddenly be able to sneak almost as good as the Rogue?

This is the difference between experience (=level) and training. The fighter has been sneaking around dungeons for a while because he's 8th level. Likewise the wizard has been riding a horse for years and the cleric has been climbing out of pits and the rogue has been sharpening his daggers and maintaining his crossbow. They're not Trained in Stealth / Handle Animal / Athletics / Craft but they've certainly done the basics often enough to have an idea.

And the fighter can't sneak as well as the rogue because he's untrained, Dex 12, in plate vs the Master rogue, dex 20, in leather. Difference is 13, so the rogue might get a crit success on the same roll where the fighter fails.

Sure, it doesn't work perfectly and I think the numbers could probably be changed a bit, but it makes some sense for many adventuring skills.

BTW, you're right about class feat chains. Way too restrictive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

For what its worth, resonance isn't just about wands, but also about getting rid of slots, and allowing characters to deck themselves out in whatever equipment they want. But if you get rid of slots, you are going to need to some sort of way to limit the amount of magic a character can deck themselves out in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
For what its worth, resonance isn't just about wands, but also about getting rid of slots, and allowing characters to deck themselves out in whatever equipment they want. But if you get rid of slots, you are going to need to some sort of way to limit the amount of magic a character can deck themselves out in.

I'vve seen attunment systems is several other games, Exalted, Earthdawn and others, even 5E has something like it

but those systems it's a good idea when dealing with permanent magical items.

But not consumables like Potions and Scrolls

Silver Crusade

Chakat Firepaw wrote:


Quote:

3. Proficiencies in skills & saves are silly.

Thog the Barbarian has trained his whole life to hit stuff. He is a level 10 Barbarian, who smash really good. Suddenly, he's put in a situation where he has to sing, despite literally having never done so in his life. He at least is getting a +8 modifier to that check from proficiency. What?
I don't see what was wrong with static base save progressions and skill points. They were actually somewhat easier to explain/more self-evident than proficiencies, and required you to actually put in training to be good at something, rather than just becoming passively good at
...

I see the inherent bonuses as an attempt to offset the critical failure chance at higher levels. The barbarian should not be able to sing better than a low level bard. However with the current critical failure chance for failing high DC checks, often times doing nothing is better than trying.

I see the critical failure rules as requiring most high levels to keep up with DCs or else they fall into a doing nothing is better than attempting to help.

We had an encounter where no characters were athletic and attempted to help a drowning character. They all failed to make the basic checks and consistently made the problem worse for the drowning character. Also, an effective 1 in 6 or 7 chance of critically failing can really punish a party if multiple characters start to critically fail. We had a party all fail or critically fail to support a character falling due to a misstep while all were tied together with rope. We all tumbled off the supporting structure and almost tpk'd.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Greylurker wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
For what its worth, resonance isn't just about wands, but also about getting rid of slots, and allowing characters to deck themselves out in whatever equipment they want. But if you get rid of slots, you are going to need to some sort of way to limit the amount of magic a character can deck themselves out in.

I'vve seen attunment systems is several other games, Exalted, Earthdawn and others, even 5E has something like it

but those systems it's a good idea when dealing with permanent magical items.

But not consumables like Potions and Scrolls

I would agree, and I don't think resonance really makes sense for those. I am just responding by pointing out something I think is a positive aspect of resonance.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:
MelodicCodes wrote:
...why should the clunky fighter in loud full plate who's never snuck around before suddenly be able to sneak almost as good as the Rogue?

This is the difference between experience (=level) and training. The fighter has been sneaking around dungeons for a while because he's 8th level. Likewise the wizard has been riding a horse for years and the cleric has been climbing out of pits and the rogue has been sharpening his daggers and maintaining his crossbow. They're not Trained in Stealth / Handle Animal / Athletics / Craft but they've certainly done the basics often enough to have an idea.

And the fighter can't sneak as well as the rogue because he's untrained, Dex 12, in plate vs the Master rogue, dex 20, in leather. Difference is 13, so the rogue might get a crit success on the same roll where the fighter fails.

Sure, it doesn't work perfectly and I think the numbers could probably be changed a bit, but it makes some sense for many adventuring skills.

BTW, you're right about class feat chains. Way too restrictive.

The problem is just this ... The individuality of the character is sacred and must be respected. This system does not respect this commandment.

This raises certain questions ...

Why all the characters lv1 that having untrained skills have the same experience in all, ie +1?
Why at level 20 all the characters become lyrical singers? Have they spent their adventures practicing not only in singing but in all skills without leaving out any? How do you explain the experience of knowledge skills that can only be obtained by reading books?

There are no characters who have decided to deprive themselves of the experience of singing and stay at +0? Is it possible to be an asocial or a hermit and not to have experience of the skill society? Is it possible to make atheistic characters, unaware of gods, extraplanar creatures and divine magic, leaving religion at +0?

It seems to me a system that tries to satisfy the envy of certain players...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Plus the 8th level Barbrian who "learns" to be stealthy over his years in various dungeons.

Isn't that supposed to be reprisented by actually Learning the Skill instead of just hand waving things with "meh, I'll get better at this eventually"


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Brondy wrote:


It seems to me a system that tries to satisfy the envy...

You took the words right out of my mouth. This new system seems to pander to people who are poor sports.

Why exactly are we looking to bring more players like that to our respective tables or encouraging them to remain ?

From what I have heard about 2E I will definitely be staying away. If I wanted to play character with minimal customizability I will stick playing MMORPG games on my PC and Play Station.

The reason I picked Pathfinder over Dungeons and Dragons was because in Pathfinder my imagination was my limit now it seems someone else's imagination will be my limit if I subject myself to playing it.

Grand Lodge

GLD wrote:

I'm gonna argue the point about magic items. Magic items have always been a broken system, as long as any 3.X system has existed. The entire game is balanced with the expectation that players are loaded down with boring magic items to shore up Attack Bonus, Saves and AC in order to remain remotely competitive with the basic threats of the game. So at higher levels, it's tantamount to suicide to go anywhere without two rings, a necklace, magic boots, magic armour, magic belt, magic cape, magic underwear, a few magic weapons, a circlet and so on.

Now, I'm not totally sure if resonance really helps with that issue, as I'm still going over the book in finer detail after my initial glossing over, but something DEFINITELY needs to be done about that.

Resonance does not solve THAT issue. That was solved by doing things like, magic armor bonuses also apply to saves, you get your level to attacks, AC, and Saves... etc... these bonuses that used to use the BIG SIX are now inherent.

Resonance is to prevent people spamming "cheaper" items and encourage people to instead buy and use the wand of cure serious wounds instead CLW.

Edit: and yes, per a later entry, helps limit what they're wearing, without having "slots."

I think resonance will result in people not using their magic items (like Boots of Elven Kind give you ONE ROUND of bypassing difficult terrain, plus a constant agility modifier), would likely never blow a resonance point on that as I need to save that for my key magic items (that give me more bang for the buck) AND I might need that point for when I need to drink a potion.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RyanH wrote:
GLD wrote:

I'm gonna argue the point about magic items. Magic items have always been a broken system, as long as any 3.X system has existed. The entire game is balanced with the expectation that players are loaded down with boring magic items to shore up Attack Bonus, Saves and AC in order to remain remotely competitive with the basic threats of the game. So at higher levels, it's tantamount to suicide to go anywhere without two rings, a necklace, magic boots, magic armour, magic belt, magic cape, magic underwear, a few magic weapons, a circlet and so on.

Now, I'm not totally sure if resonance really helps with that issue, as I'm still going over the book in finer detail after my initial glossing over, but something DEFINITELY needs to be done about that.

Resonance does not solve THAT issue. That was solved by doing things like, magic armor bonuses also apply to saves, you get your level to attacks, AC, and Saves... etc... these bonuses that used to use the BIG SIX are now inherent.

Resonance is to prevent people spamming "cheaper" items and encourage people to instead buy and use the wand of cure serious wounds instead CLW.

Edit: and yes, per a later entry, helps limit what they're wearing, without having "slots."

I think resonance will result in people not using their magic items (like Boots of Elven Kind give you ONE ROUND of bypassing difficult terrain, plus a constant agility modifier), would likely never blow a resonance point on that as I need to save that for my key magic items (that give me more bang for the buck) AND I might need that point for when I need to drink a potion.

If we're supposed to use higher level items, maybe they should have fixed the exponential pricing that causes it in the first place.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
For what its worth, resonance isn't just about wands, but also about getting rid of slots, and allowing characters to deck themselves out in whatever equipment they want. But if you get rid of slots, you are going to need to some sort of way to limit the amount of magic a character can deck themselves out in.

Resonance didn't ger rid of slots though. Slots are still there, they just aren't called out as prominently.

Slots in PF2 (in order of appearance!):

- Eyepiece
- Belt
- Shoes
- Bracers
- Armor
- Cloak
- Collar
- Circlet
- Mask
- Garment
- Gloves
- Headwear
- Backpack

There's also Barding and Horseshoes, though those are just re-naming Armor and Shoes for Animals. For those counting, that's 13 slots, vs PF1s 14. They got rid of Rings, and changed others around, but it's mostly the same.

In fact, in the Playtest, there's only 7 non-ring worn items that don't fall into one of these slots: Anklets of Alacrity, Armbands of Athleticism, Brooch of Shielding, Han of the Mage, Necklace of Fireballs, Third Eye and Whisper of the First Lie.

That's it. Slotted Items far outnumber slot-less worn items. To claim Resonance got rid of Slots is not true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I for one like Resonance, although I hate that Alchemists suck because of it.

But I definitely love how it addresses the CLW wand issue and makes out of combat healing a meaningful thing again instead of just "mark another 15 gold off the CLW wand". Like, that Medicine feat that heals 2d10 or so damage 1/day? That's actually a *good* feat because it doesn't cost Resonance.

So I like that. I also like how spell heightening exists in general instead of just higher tier versions of the same spells that you have to buy separately.

I like the removal of caster level as a factor, I like the general nerfs to spells, I like the multiclassing system (but seriously, let us retrain classes)

Overall, I really enjoy the *system* of Pathfinder 2e.

What I don't like is the *content*. Classes feel too restricted with their feat trees, and honestly there weren't many times I really got excited about a class.

Rogues. Rogues have feats that let them escape a castle tower by walking through the castle wall, falling a couple hundred feet, and then seamlessly blending into the crowd at the base of the castle while brushing the dust off. That's *awesome*. I wanted to be that excited about every class (and every aspect of rogue) and I wasn't. There's a little too much "so I spend a feat for a very situational +2 bonus? meh."

The system needs some boring functional feats to make it work, I get that, I see those, they are mostly fine. My problem is that a lot of the feats and abilities that I think were supposed to be flavorful instead up falling flat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I for one like Resonance, although I hate that Alchemists suck because of it.

But I definitely love how it addresses the CLW wand issue and makes out of combat healing a meaningful thing again instead of just "mark another 15 gold off the CLW wand". Like, that Medicine feat that heals 2d10 or so damage 1/day? That's actually a *good* feat because it doesn't cost Resonance.

So I like that. I also like how spell heightening exists in general instead of just higher tier versions of the same spells that you have to buy separately.

I like the removal of caster level as a factor, I like the general nerfs to spells, I like the multiclassing system (but seriously, let us retrain classes)

Overall, I really enjoy the *system* of Pathfinder 2e.

What I don't like is the *content*. Classes feel too restricted with their feat trees, and honestly there weren't many times I really got excited about a class.

Rogues. Rogues have feats that let them escape a castle tower by walking through the castle wall, falling a couple hundred feet, and then seamlessly blending into the crowd at the base of the castle while brushing the dust off. That's *awesome*. I wanted to be that excited about every class (and every aspect of rogue) and I wasn't. There's a little too much "so I spend a feat for a very situational +2 bonus? meh."

The system needs some boring functional feats to make it work, I get that, I see those, they are mostly fine. My problem is that a lot of the feats and abilities that I think were supposed to be flavorful instead up falling flat.

bolded for emphasis: sorcerers literally still have to do this (they get a whole 2/day to heighten like a wizard, while the wizard gets quick prep to out-spontaneous them when incredibly strict time limits aren't in effect.), and with an infinitely narrower list of spells known now. it's really rough on them, for no discernible reason.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AndIMustMask wrote:
bolded for emphasis: sorcerers literally still have to do this (they get a whole 2/day to heighten like a wizard, while the wizard gets quick prep to out-spontaneous them when incredibly strict time limits aren't in effect.), and with an infinitely narrower list of spells known now. it's really rough on them, for no discernible reason.

Quick prep is hilariously broken and I hope it gets nerfed.

But sorcerers are still better off than their 1e selves due to spontaneous heighten, not to mention not being behind on spell levels. Out of all the classes in PF2e, I feel like sorc is one of the ones that compares most favorably to its 1e self.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The proficiency system does not in any way help with the issue of 2 specialists having wildly different modifiers. It helps to reduce the gap betwen specialist and non-specialist. Characters achieved these gaps by stacking feats and class features. The basic skill rank system alone couldn't cause this.

The first issue was "fixed" by removing most ways to get extra +1s, or, more likely, they don't exist yet. The math is highly bounded for chars that are same level.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
But sorcerers are still better off than their 1e selves due to spontaneous heighten, not to mention not being behind on spell levels.

A lot of PF1 spells were "affects one target per caster level, duration of one round per caster level" or "damage 1d6 per caster level, range 100ft + 10ft per caster level". You didn't need to heighten them for them to get better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But sorcerers are still better off than their 1e selves due to spontaneous heighten, not to mention not being behind on spell levels.
A lot of PF1 spells were "affects one target per caster level, duration of one round per caster level" or "damage 1d6 per caster level, range 100ft + 10ft per caster level". You didn't need to heighten them for them to get better.

Yep. The spells auto-heightened so there wasn't a NEED to spontaneous heighten...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But sorcerers are still better off than their 1e selves due to spontaneous heighten, not to mention not being behind on spell levels.
A lot of PF1 spells were "affects one target per caster level, duration of one round per caster level" or "damage 1d6 per caster level, range 100ft + 10ft per caster level". You didn't need to heighten them for them to get better.
Yep. The spells auto-heightened so there wasn't a NEED to spontaneous heighten...

The removal of caster level is an objective improvement to the system as a whole for a whole number of reasons, though. That is one sacred cow that needed to die.

So with that conceit, sorcs are better off.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
That is one sacred cow that needed to die.

You kill too many sacred cows and there won't be a herd left to keep you fed and clothed.


Witch of Miracles wrote:
Quote:

4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.

Why does a Sorcerer need to keep relearning Fireball at every level up in order to be able to consistently blast with good damage? Sorcerers already have limited spells known, all this change does is make Wizards more unholy powerful by comparison by effectively making Sorcerers less able to efficiently utilize said spells known.
Metamagic in the past did a fine job of making higher level spell slots more powerful. This just makes wizards stand out as powerhouses more than they already were.

I know I've been a broken record about this, but combined with spontaneous heighten, I'm pretty sure this works out to a net buff over PF1. Many spells that get value from heightening used to be a line of spells or have lesser/greater versions (e.g. Invis, Summon). Using spontaneous heighten, you can effectively get nine levels of summon X for the low price of one spell known in the best case, and two or three spells known for the price of one in others.

Spontaneous heighten's two picks are also generally enough to support your main sorc gameplan (e.g. summonbot, fireball bot), negating the restriction on the spells you need most.

When I first read the rules for spontaneous casters I thought the same this as OP. But them I realized that a Sorcerer still has more flexibility than a Wizard during a single day. Lets say they both get into a situation where they need to cast Fireball +3 three times; as long as the sorcerer knows the spell she can cast it three times, while the if the Wizard didn't prepare all three slots with the spell she may only be able to cast it once. If you know what will happen on a given day the Wizard is better, but the Sorcerer is better at handling surprises.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just speaking for myself, but the number of spells a P2 sorcerer learns per level is so depressingly low, I'll never take a heightened (+1) type of spell at multiple levels. Heck, it's so low I'll probably never play a sorcerer.


You know I could see resonance being how many buffs you can have on yourself at any given time.

Then a buff = spell level = resonance to let the buff take effect.

If the problem is 'number of buffs at one time' (big if - but trolling many of these threads and comments makes me suspect this is the larger reason for resonance) - then just use it to limit buffs.

Now you don't have 'buff to hell and back and run through the dungeon'. Buff runs out - you get your points back.... but all buffs count (bard songs, etc) so a limit of how much you can stack - *that* to me would make for interesting tactical decisions.

The system as is ... well it may be a personal failing but I won't be able to ever equip a magic item - worried that I'll not have enough resonance for healing.


Ckorik wrote:
If the problem is 'number of buffs at one time' (big if - but trolling many of these threads and comments makes me suspect this is the larger reason for resonance) - then just use it to limit buffs.

I'm pretty sure the main goal of resonance is to prevent players from getting around the Attrition Paradigm (i.e., game balance built around every encounter sucking up a certain percentage of your daily resources) by spending a few gold on consumables.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
MelodicCodes wrote:


2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.
From what I can gather, the Resonance system was created to prevent magic item spam/abuse. I take great issue with this reasoning, as it has always been ultimately up to the GM to decide what and how many magic items the players get. In other words, it's solving a problem that a clever GM could easily sidestep, while simultaneously putting hard limits on what PCs are able to do, especially high level...

I can't tell you would much I agree with this statement. This definitely is a cumbersome solution in search of a problem. For all of those people who say ... "Well what about players with backpacks full of CLW?" Um, the solution to things like that is simple and been around for DECADES. The solution is the GM.

The GM decides what treasure and magic to dole out for encounters they create or can modify if from an Adventure path if they think it is to little. The GM also decides what is available for purchase or not. If the GM thinks magic items are being abused he/she can simple limit what can be discovered or bought. There is no need for Resonance here if GMs are doing their jobs.


A good solution to #3 might just be reducing the "untrained" proficiency value from -2 to 1/2 or 1/3 lvl... or maybe 1/2(lvl) - 2 or something like that.

I'm not a big fan of the general assumption that a hero's level should increase all their skill potentials (regardless of 'learning the skill over his career' or not -- if the aquaphobic barb never baths, why does he know how to swim?), but I also know that there are plenty of people (on this site and elsewhere) who don't want their character to be 'left out' of a skill they feel is mandatory in some situations just because they chose a roleplaying skill instead.

A good medium solution might be a larger penalty to untrained checks. Its not perfect, but combined with all of the "trained only" actions, it might suffice to cover both parties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CaptainDaveyJones, GM wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Quote:

4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.

Why does a Sorcerer need to keep relearning Fireball at every level up in order to be able to consistently blast with good damage? Sorcerers already have limited spells known, all this change does is make Wizards more unholy powerful by comparison by effectively making Sorcerers less able to efficiently utilize said spells known.
Metamagic in the past did a fine job of making higher level spell slots more powerful. This just makes wizards stand out as powerhouses more than they already were.

I know I've been a broken record about this, but combined with spontaneous heighten, I'm pretty sure this works out to a net buff over PF1. Many spells that get value from heightening used to be a line of spells or have lesser/greater versions (e.g. Invis, Summon). Using spontaneous heighten, you can effectively get nine levels of summon X for the low price of one spell known in the best case, and two or three spells known for the price of one in others.

Spontaneous heighten's two picks are also generally enough to support your main sorc gameplan (e.g. summonbot, fireball bot), negating the restriction on the spells you need most.

When I first read the rules for spontaneous casters I thought the same this as OP. But them I realized that a Sorcerer still has more flexibility than a Wizard during a single day. Lets say they both get into a situation where they need to cast Fireball +3 three times; as long as the sorcerer knows the spell she can cast it three times, while the if the Wizard didn't prepare all three slots with the spell she may only be able to cast it once. If you know what will happen on a given day the Wizard is better, but the Sorcerer is better at handling surprises.

That's the main trade-off between wizard and sorcerer, though. Limited in-the-moment versatility with an unlimited repertoire vs unlimited in-the-moment versatility with a limited repertoire. Allowing the wizard to autoheighten the spell he needs to learn only once builds on his core strength. Not allowing the sorc to do the same builds on his core weakness.


Ckorik wrote:

You know I could see resonance being how many buffs you can have on yourself at any given time.

Then a buff = spell level = resonance to let the buff take effect.

If the problem is 'number of buffs at one time' (big if - but trolling many of these threads and comments makes me suspect this is the larger reason for resonance) - then just use it to limit buffs.

Now you don't have 'buff to hell and back and run through the dungeon'. Buff runs out - you get your points back.... but all buffs count (bard songs, etc) so a limit of how much you can stack - *that* to me would make for interesting tactical decisions.

The system as is ... well it may be a personal failing but I won't be able to ever equip a magic item - worried that I'll not have enough resonance for healing.

I agree.


MaxAstro wrote:
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But sorcerers are still better off than their 1e selves due to spontaneous heighten, not to mention not being behind on spell levels.
A lot of PF1 spells were "affects one target per caster level, duration of one round per caster level" or "damage 1d6 per caster level, range 100ft + 10ft per caster level". You didn't need to heighten them for them to get better.
Yep. The spells auto-heightened so there wasn't a NEED to spontaneous heighten...

The removal of caster level is an objective improvement to the system as a whole for a whole number of reasons, though. That is one sacred cow that needed to die.

So with that conceit, sorcs are better off.

I don't see how that makes the new version of sorcerers better. A system improvement doesn't directly translate into a class improvement.

Secondly, from my perspective, removal of scaling spells is a detriment: you are going to have to illustrate how you came to this conclusion and who you are holding up as an impartial judge of it's wrongness.


Ckorik wrote:

You know I could see resonance being how many buffs you can have on yourself at any given time.

Then a buff = spell level = resonance to let the buff take effect.

If the problem is 'number of buffs at one time' (big if - but trolling many of these threads and comments makes me suspect this is the larger reason for resonance) - then just use it to limit buffs.

Now you don't have 'buff to hell and back and run through the dungeon'. Buff runs out - you get your points back.... but all buffs count (bard songs, etc) so a limit of how much you can stack - *that* to me would make for interesting tactical decisions.

The system as is ... well it may be a personal failing but I won't be able to ever equip a magic item - worried that I'll not have enough resonance for healing.

that reminds me of whitewolf's mage rules! your... tapestry? could only hold so much magic at a time, so you could only have a certaun number of active buffs on yourself at a given time (you were free to have magical objects with their own spells and such, but would have to swap out one of your current effects for a new effect once you were at your limit if you were still receiving buffs)

no comment on how useful that would be in this system though, since on top of martials wanting to have higher int now to have skills to contribute outside of combat with, they'd now want charisma as well for resonance if they wanted to have any buffs on themselves (which generally are a good chunk of the meat of how martials really excel numerically in combat), it'd lead to a lot more MAD martials, and many mad players as well, i think.


graystone wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But sorcerers are still better off than their 1e selves due to spontaneous heighten, not to mention not being behind on spell levels.
A lot of PF1 spells were "affects one target per caster level, duration of one round per caster level" or "damage 1d6 per caster level, range 100ft + 10ft per caster level". You didn't need to heighten them for them to get better.
Yep. The spells auto-heightened so there wasn't a NEED to spontaneous heighten...

The removal of caster level is an objective improvement to the system as a whole for a whole number of reasons, though. That is one sacred cow that needed to die.

So with that conceit, sorcs are better off.

I don't see how that makes the new version of sorcerers better. A system improvement doesn't directly translate into a class improvement.

Secondly, from my perspective, removal of scaling spells is a detriment: you are going to have to illustrate how you came to this conclusion and who you are holding up as an impartial judge of it's wrongness.

I'd argue that as soon as you put auto-scaling spells back in, you might as well resign yourself to martial/caster disparity again. I'd say that was a massive contributor - i.e., the fact that the spells they got 6 levels ago are still easily keeping pace with anything they require.

And if you weaken the auto-scaling so that's not the case, then you run into the opposite problem - any new spell is going to be inherently uninteresting because they have to take auto-scaling into account, or you might as well not have had the scaling at all.

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / My main issues with PF2, broken down All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.