Feedback for the devs - What changes are too much?


General Discussion


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Given how the devs will probably start looking at the boards tomorrow, I thought I'd start a first feedback thread for things people are unhappy with and would like to have changed back or at least have the severity of nerfs be amended somewhat.

This is of course still coming from a pre-playtesting standpoint, so I'm sure in half a year some of those points will seem less valid. However, I am pretty sure that just from reading the rules one can make some solid technical inferences.

Please refrain from "I'm done with this game!" grandstanding, since that isn't considered useful feedback by the devs. "If you don't like it, go away!" messages are singularly unhelpful as well, btw.

1.) Staying Power or The 10 Minute Adventuring Day

By now the conclusion seems inescapable that the developers have chosen a playstyle where parties need to rest after only a very few encounters. This will of course become less noticeable at higher levels, but the combination of low resonance, very limited non-magical healing and few spells per day (which to boot have drastically reduced durations in most cases) makes it seem an inescapable conclusion that short forays into dangerous territory is the desired playstyle.

There are the dissenting voices which say cantrips and "gritty gameplay", where you go half-healed into the next combat, are the solutions to that, but I neither think that zapping single enemies with low-damage spells from the back for extended combats is very satisfying gameplay for a lot of people, nor that most players will be happy if they get TPK'ed because they grittily walked into the room of a more dangerous than expected enemy.

Solution: I personally think this playstyle is too limiting and would like to see it reversed, either by a.) longer spell durations or b.) more spells per day and c.) removing resonance costs from consumables, but instead just making lower level healing consumables ineffective at high levels.

2.) Spells have in many cases been overnerfed

Looking through the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list from a PF1E standpoint brings a tear to my eyes. I get that the new math makes it necessary to nerf many of the effects, but the additional duration reduction on most spells combined with less spells per day overall makes spells more like "encounter powers" in most cases. Except Heroism, by the way, which is in a sort of strange in-between place, where it is a shadow of what it was before, but still long enough to encourage a "go go go!" playstyle where people rush from room to room to get the most out of those ten minutes.

My issues, aside from just being a bit emotionally distraught at seeing full casters being brought so low, are of the same nature as from my first point, this all seems geared to make people adventure less per day.

Solution:
Either restore some of the durations of spells or give out more of them per day. Both things at the same time are too much.

Oh, and un-nerf Prestidigitation at least. It's a mechanically insignificant spell which nonetheless gives creature comforts to player characters. It just feels good to have something for your character to chill your drinks, clean your clothes and smell good. If there have to be nerfs, don't nerf fun, please.

3.) There's too much power for the GM to screw over players through inexperience or grognardism

For reasons I don't really get there are now quite a few situations where player power has been unnecessarily given to the GM. The three which stick out most to me are a.) pure GM fiat when you can come back from the dead; b.) secret and arbitrary DC's for crafting non-magical and magic items and c.) uncommon and rare utility spells, like Tongues, Magnificent Mansion, Rope Trick and Detect Scrying.

Solution: Get rid of giving the GM rules power to arbitrarily screw over player characters. Some will do so without rules, anyway, but don't have the official rules make it easier to so wittingly or unwittingly. In the case of uncommon and rare spells, do so with strange and complicated spells, don't suddenly push very common utility spells onto that list.

4.) Signature skills

Those are just wrong and a needless brake on character customization and roleplaying. There is no good reason to prohibit a fighter or wizard to be super good in intimidation or diplomacy, if the player wants to play a character like that.

Solution: Just remove them completely and let players choose in what kind of skill they want to be masters and legendary in.

5.) A dedicated healer is now 100% required

This once again hits the "adventuring days are too short" niche of complaints, but I think it bears repeating: Resonance costs on consumables and very limited non-magical healing make it a necessity to have a dedicated healer in your party if you want any chance to go beyond a few rooms in the dungeon and so extend the duration of the adventuring day. I personally think this is the exact wrong direction for the game to go and feels terrible from an in-character perspective.

Solution: Remove resonance costs from consumables, but make lower-level consumable healing items less effective at higher levels. That kills the "bags of wands of cure light wounds" problem, while still allowing more non-standard party compositions.

I think those five things are the ones which stood out the most to me. There is of course more I don't exactly like (yet?), but those things aren't dealbreakers to me.

So, what feedback do others have for the devs of what they think needs to change to get them to like PF2E? I'd like to hear your thoughts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) I don't like 10m adventure days, but I don't like bags of CLW wands either. My solution would be something like Starfinder's stamina points (Which my players and I love). You recover half your health for free, which in turn makes healing less needed, because you only need real healing when things go really south. I would also expand Starfinder's system, with some attacks that bypass stamina (like a sneak attack, for example), and some "riders" that only kick when you deal hit point damage (like the poison from a stinger, which won't damage you unless it really HITS you)

2) I disagree with this. Don't think we'll agree on the martial-caster disparity issue, but I think the new spells are really good at balancing things, although I haven't deep delved into them, just skimmed through them. Maybe some individual spell would need further nerf, or a minimal, slight, almost cosmetical buff.

3) This one is tricky. Player agency is cool, but GMs need control of some of the narrative. I think this is better solved group by group, as part of the social contract between players and GMs. Not an easy thing.

4) I would change it so it feels like a reward instead of a punishment. Like "this class has signature skill X, which means it automatically gets upgraded to the next proficiency level when you reach milestones X, Y and Z". So wizar players can spend resources (feats, whatever) to become legendary at diplomacy or stealth, but they become legendary at wizardry stuff just because they are legendary wizards.

5) see 1. Stamina system aliviates this by a huge margin. I still think consumables (specially cheap lvl 1 consumables that you carry by dozens because the spreadsheet says they are the most efficient) are not the solution I'd like.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

1) I don't like 10m adventure days, but I don't like bags of CLW wands either. My solution would be something like Starfinder's stamina points (Which my players and I love). You recover half your health for free, which in turn makes healing less needed, because you only need real healing when things go really south. I would also expand Starfinder's system, with some attacks that bypass stamina (like a sneak attack, for example), and some "riders" that only kick when you deal hit point damage (like the poison from a stinger, which won't damage you unless it really HITS you)

2) I disagree with this. Don't think we'll agree on the martial-caster disparity issue, but I think the new spells are really good at balancing things, although I haven't deep delved into them, just skimmed through them. Maybe some individual spell would need further nerf, or a minimal, slight, almost cosmetical buff.

3) This one is tricky. Player agency is cool, but GMs need control of some of the narrative. I think this is better solved group by group, as part of the social contract between players and GMs. Not an easy thing.

4) I would change it so it feels like a reward instead of a punishment. Like "this class has signature skill X, which means it automatically gets upgraded to the next proficiency level when you reach milestones X, Y and Z". So wizar players can spend resources (feats, whatever) to become legendary at diplomacy or stealth, but they become legendary at wizardry stuff just because they are legendary wizards.

5) see 1. Stamina system aliviates this by a huge margin. I still think consumables (specially cheap lvl 1 consumables that you carry by dozens because the spreadsheet says they are the most efficient) are not the solution I'd like.

1. I'd definitely like to see stamina in pathfinder 2e.

2. Most spells are down to a minute in duration. I picture it feeling like I'm only really a spellcaster during encounters. with a few little exceptions encounter powers is the best description.

3. Technically, the gm can always say no to raise dead. The gm can always change things, heck the gm could say, "hey, So all spells are infinite duration, and anyone who doesn't like that can go home." Just because the rules don't remind you of rule 0 doesn't mean it goes away. That's pretty strong control of the narrative. That doesn't mean the rules shouldn't have a clear stance.

4. I agree, it should feel like a delicious steak, not a torturous stick.

5. STAMINA!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Stamina, as I feel like it overcomplicates things that don't necessarily need to be overcomplicated.

But yes, even Stamina would be better than the current solution. But what do I know? I never encountered CLW spam and only learned that this is a thing after the PF2 announcement


Corwin Icewolf wrote:

3) This one is tricky. Player agency is cool, but GMs need control of some of the narrative. I think this is better solved group by group, as part of the social contract between players and GMs. Not an easy thing.

I somewhat agree, but still, it's tricky. The rules should be clear, yes, but when the rule says you have cover if one of your corners can be linked to a corner of the shooting enemy without touching the side of a square with an object or whatever, it removes a lot of the posibilities that can be narrated. Like "there is an evil guy, squashing himself to the wall, and making a sneak peak through the corner. He has full cover". No, he hasn't. Because he cannot squash himself against the wall. He fills the whole square. Or at least, if I can shot to a corner of his square, and I can draw a line, from here to there, or whatever, that's not full cover. Because somen, 18 years ago, decided so in a table, when developing the game, without having any insight of this particular encounter. He just made a hard rule, and that's it.

Sure, you, as a GM, can rule against the rule. But expect player resistance. And, if you can rule against the rule... why not make it explicit in the rule that you can?


Hythlodeus wrote:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Stamina, as I feel like it overcomplicates things that don't necessarily need to be overcomplicated.

But yes, even Stamina would be better than the current solution. But what do I know? I never encountered CLW spam and only learned that this is a thing after the PF2 announcement

COW spam happens in pfs a lot when players buy wands with prestige. Basically everyone is expected to buy a wand for themselves and hope someone at the table has it on their spell list.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

so I've read. It's a PFS problem mostly, as I understand it. and I still can't get rid of the feeling that PF players are held hostage by the PFS with many of the changes made for PF2


I don't play PFS, and it has been an issue in my group for a long time, with different house rules and solutions through the years, implemented by different GMs.

Including Stamina, before Starfinder was even a thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The proficiency system. The way everything is based by level. The way a thick, uncharismatic barbarian at level 8 is more suave than a charisma 18 noble who is level 1. A level 8 barbarian should be much better at being a barbarian, but better at everything else? Why?

The ability score system. The way abilities just go through the roof over time as you go up levels. It's less a profile of the characters basic self, and more just another way to trowel on advancements over the basic 'I'm level 5'. The way no ability is ever bad.

This plus the proficiency thing means I'm simply unable to RP in this system because it makes no sense. A gentle hospitaler paladin who started at strength 14 is going to end up as musclebound as the barbarian within a few levels, there's literally nothing else for it. Where else are the boosts going to go? Which makes it feel like a board game not an RPG.

The class abilities system. The way you have half the abilities you had in PF1 and customisation means picking which half you want. The way all those abilities are now terribad in comparison.

The skill system. Rather than just being organic 'if you roll a 10, not bad, if you roll a 20, excellent, if you roll a 30, then amazing!' with what you can do based on a target number now everything is behind a feat. You can't even pick a pocket without a feat! You could be a legendary thief and not pick a pocket. What? Why? I simply can't mentally explain that to myself, why I might have a very dexterous character, who has some points in thievery or sleight of hand or whatever, and yet some things, really basic things, are behind some weird gatekeeping feat. It makes no sense. Why are skill feats even there if that's what they are to do? The old way, if you're good enough at sleight of hand, you can pick pockets. If you're not good enough, you can try but you'll get caught. Seems fair.
Of course, "very dexterous" is completely meaningless now thanks to the new ability system. Everybody's going to be 'very dexterous'.

The magic. It's been gutted. It's now computer game magic, where everything only has an impact in a single fight. It's not magic in a literary sense, it's magic in a board game sense. Like everything else. Durations all capped to ridiculously short times? Effects reduced to mere trivialities. Macros the Black isn't just a gun in human form. Or shouldn't be.

The whole game isn't helping me visualise any characters, with game mechanics backing up the in character reality. It seems like an utterly non-immersive computer game reality.

It's basically my absolute worst case scenario and I must admit when all the talk in the lead up was about how balanced it's all going to be and well designed I did assume it would end up like this. Like 4th edition. Where you may as well not bother trying to create an immersive world in anything other than the most rudimentary sense because the game mechanics are just so intrusive on basic common sense. Though I held out hope it would not.


Hythlodeus wrote:
so I've read. It's a PFS problem mostly, as I understand it. and I still can't get rid of the feeling that PF players are held hostage by the PFS with many of the changes made for PF2

Seems like it to me.

We use wands of CLW a bit at our tables. It just means the cleric isn't the personal healbot of everybody else. I'm not really seeing a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of us like the nerfs to magic and the reduction of C/M disparity. Don't know how Paizo is going to please everyone on this issue.

I agree with the criticisms of the proficiency system. Adding your level as a bonus to everything is just too much and results in some strange outcomes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heal bot can be spread around from the cleric. Basically buff bards, Paladins etc healing ability.

How long the adventuring day is also related to how scary the monsters are. Does and Ogre deal 1d10, 1d10+4 or 2d8+4 damage.

PF1 the expectation was 4 encounters per day? I remember the expectation in 3.5 (or 3.0)?) was that each encounter would use around 25% of your resources.

It may take 19 years but ironically the game might actually function as intended originally (4 encounters, played like 2E almost).

Scarab Sages

Just a few things on your case here, I feel like your arguments from 1,2, and 5 are kinda the same. Correct me if I am wrong but you feel like because of the way healing and spells works you get less adventuring time in the world. Thats how I see it. Which is 100% fine and I can see your points. Personally some of the spells did get a big nerf and the whole 1 shot items needimg resonance to use them doesn't make much sense to me. The argument for a dedicated healer isn't really true though because an alchemist can make healing potions, another player can take the combat medic feat and the cleric or Wizard could scribe scrolls of healing. All of those options are there and means the party needs to work together when making choices. Don't get me wrong I agree with the whole resonance restriction is ruff but it is possible not to just have a single healbot. I can't really speak on the whole stamina thing from star finder I played a little of it but the whole level math for items ruined the game,for me.

On to your issue 3 the GM screwing the players thats not a game problem that's a personable problem. If you are playing with a GM who has the mind set of its them vs me then there is a bigger problem. The role of a GM in my opinion is to facilitate a game that both parties can enjoy, so if you are a GM who likes bringing down armies give the players a way to heal faster. I think a GM should have a few tricks that the players dont have.

Onto issue 4 and I know this one has been getting a ton of heat from everyone rightfully so, I think they are a cool idea done wrong. My solution is signature skills should come from 3 avenues. First from your race Elves get one signature skill choice from arcana, occult or nature while Human can choose any to represent their diversity. Second source would be your background so give us 2 choices of skills and we get one and finally our class which again you give us 2 choices and we get both. And then say you know what if you hate your choice from level 1 you can re-train in downtime ( I dont know maybe your level +4 of days in a skill you are already a master in). I understand why they put in signature skills because they want the player to feel special. They want the other players and npcs to say hey you know that Elf Fighter Blacksmith over there, that dude makes the best stuff in all the realm. No one can get on their level. I like that idea alot but locking me down off the jump and giving me no way to fix it makes it seem like a bad thing.

These are just My two cents. Keep up the good work and party on dudes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh and silly stuff like Retributive Strike and Attack of Opportunity.

Retributive Strike makes no sense to me whatsoever. This is a pretty good example of how board gamey it all is, how I simply am not going to be able to visualise what's going on in IC reality without some serious game mechanic induced cognitive dissonance.

PF1 - The paladin defends the people who need defending by ... making sure the bad guys don't get to them. If there's a door, they stand in it. If someone can charge the wizard, they stand in the way. When people try and go around the paladin, there's all sorts of incentive not to do that. Full round attacks, attack of opportunity, and so on.
I think it works great. I play a martial, I can imagine what's going on. You have a front line, you have a melee which sucks people in, you have people hanging well back from that melee. There's still scope for sneaky characters to dash past. You don't HAVE to be a paladin either, it's just something everybody does, because that's how fighting is, though maybe some people are better at it than others (Stand Still, or Mobility, or whatever). It all happens organically, anyway, just a consequence of common and pretty easily visualisable things.

PF2 - The paladin stands next to the person who needs defending. There's no way they can intercept anybody now without attacks of opportunity and the general greater mobility the system affords, so you kinda have to do that. When they attack the clothie you get a free hit.
This just makes no sense to me. It's not organic, it's forced. I can't imagine in my minds eye some sort of movie scene or a scene in a book where this would be playing out. It can only make 'sense' in the context of these rules. I know D&D combat is highly stylised, but it still could sort of happen as described in the Silmarillion or something. This? I dunno. It only makes sense as a board game.


Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@Fluff, I think your image of what a paladin should be has been shaped by board games just as much as fantasy. I don't recall reading any fantasy about paladins bravely standing in doorways. In the same way, the new system is ripe to create fresh new images for paladins. Moved to action to righteously avenge their teammates, or, always by their fragile companion's side. Who knows what else. The purpose of a second edition doesn't only have to be retreading old ground.


Hythlodeus wrote:
so I've read. It's a PFS problem mostly, as I understand it. and I still can't get rid of the feeling that PF players are held hostage by the PFS with many of the changes made for PF2

PFS highlights problems with the rules because due to the nature of organised play the GM at the table cannot houserule them away, but it does not cause them. In a sense, PFS is immune to the oberoni fallacy.

_
glass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS causes problems insofar as the party you play in is seldom balanced and optimized, if players drop in and out of games. So you can end up with three fighters and a rogue in your party, none of which has any healing ability -> therefore CLW spam

in a regular group, that's not a problem, usually, not because of houserules, but because of players creating the characters more balanced. there will be at least one character who can heal, so the wand spam is not needed.

also: point buy, yeah, that's a problem that PFS highlights, but to not use it is not a house rule, it's common sense


1 person marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
so I've read. It's a PFS problem mostly, as I understand it. and I still can't get rid of the feeling that PF players are held hostage by the PFS with many of the changes made for PF2

PFS highlights problems with the rules because due to the nature of organised play the GM at the table cannot houserule them away, but it does not cause them. In a sense, PFS is immune to the oberoni fallacy.

_
glass.

PFS GMs are allowed to make rulings - if the rules are unclear they are allowed to come up with a solution - and some characters have been legal only at some tables due to GM's disagreeing with rules interactions.

The only thing they are forbidden from doing is changing the 'scripted' actions for the adventure - or changing the DC's.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I would recommend to the Game Devs that they did change too much. This looks eerily familiar to the reason I left D&D for Pathfinder. D&D 4.0 was a totally different game and Pathfinder fixed many of the woes of 3.5.

Now its time to fix Pathfinder as over the years we have identified many of the problems but the Devs have appeared to replace mechanics that don't necessarily need fixing and added others that do not need to be added.

Resonance is just nonsense. It adds additional management and limits play in a way that players don't want to be limited. Some things should just be left to the GMs to adjudicate. Resonance is micromanagement at it's finest.

Skills should be condensed some and there are good ideas there but the point system was fine. Why make a change to another mechanic?

The problems with Pathfinder is the game scales poorly and the combat/action system needs to be streamlined. The PCs are capable of huge amounts of damage that is often difficult to balance and there are some specific kinds of rules that need to be modified. Specific classes needed to be addressed to make them fun to play again.

Remember why people left D&D 4.0 because it didn't feel like D&D. I would be very very careful with this play test. It's not time to judge but it didn't come out of the gate strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree on many of the points mentioned here.

I find resonance a needless rule. Why bother it just leads to more book keeping?
Magic has been changed too much. Sorcerers are inferior to wizards and lack some of their special flavor. Increasing their number of spells per day, or letting g them use their bloodline powers at will would help the problem.
Many spells need an increased duration.
Wildshape desperately needs an increased duration (indefinitely or maybe 12 hours) otherwise it just is not that useful.
Wildshape is too constrained there need to be either more form choices.
The +1 to everything per level seems too high, maybe +1/2 levels?
Armor is not worth enough, maybe increase all armors by a point or 2.
Monsters need a base action sequence, such as a tiger having claw/claw/bite with either zero or a minor (-2,) multiple attack penalty otherwise why not make 3 bites or whatever better attack the monster has.
Animal companions need to have 3 actions not 2.
Summoned monsters need 3 actions not 2, they are weak enough as is.
Sorcerers need the Bard feat for extra spontaneous heightening, or just get rid of it and let anything be heightened like wizards.
Not all spell lists are equal some need more help than others.
Why the change to the skill sstem? Points worked fine before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kogarou wrote:
@Fluff, I think your image of what a paladin should be has been shaped by board games just as much as fantasy. I don't recall reading any fantasy about paladins bravely standing in doorways. In the same way, the new system is ripe to create fresh new images for paladins. Moved to action to righteously avenge their teammates, or, always by their fragile companion's side. Who knows what else. The purpose of a second edition doesn't only have to be retreading old ground.

Really? So no knight in shining armour ever leapt between a foe and a damsel?

This new system is frankly ridiculous. Baddies bop damsel, knight bops baddies. And ... every fight with a paladin is going to be like that now as it's kinda their core ability. Maybe if they had something like Compel Hostility instead, so you had to hit the paladin. That seems more organic and less weird. I don't know. It makes a bit more sense but it's not ideal. TBH... I'd just rather stick with 1E?

No, it doesn't have to be but I'm not going to bother with it if it's worse, and I absolutely loathe it, almost all of it. Even down to abilities like retributive strike.

I think it's just not for me. D&D has slowly become more and more of a wargame over the years. I have some colleagues at work who play 4th edition, they don't roleplay at all. There isn't even lip service to it. They like 4th edition precisely because it plays like a board game. 5th edition rowed back a bit from that, but it looks like PF is more headed that way. I guess they think grognards and 'crunch' players want to play an RPGised WFRP or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Critical fails are too sad, esp crit fails that harm your allies. The crit fail risk for Aid and Assist are too much.

Resonance feels too complicated and non-fun. If you want to limit how many magic items a person can use, how about this: each day a character can only use X+Cha bonus quantity of magic items (regardless of how many times per day they use that particular item), excluding potions, scrolls, and magical ammunition.

Proficiency tied directly to level for everything. I echo the sentiment that a 10th level barbarian should not be more persuasive than a 1st level bard. I would stick with the narrowed list of skills. The Starfinder approach is great on this. If the developers are worried about one party member having +25 Stealth and another character has +3 so now the party cannot sneak into Maid Marian's archery contest, well that's a choice the players made and choices should have consequences. [And I don't really care for that example anyway because all the Merry Men were rogues :) ] Or hand out more skill points or other little bonuses here or there to offset the disparity. But I've played 3.x/PF since 2000 and I've never minded the disparity: it meant some players had moments to shine at a particular task while others didn't. That's part of the fun. Finally, this issue concerns me the most because this seems to be really taking away a key distinction between Pathfinder and 5th edition D&D.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fluff wrote:
kogarou wrote:
@Fluff, I think your image of what a paladin should be has been shaped by board games just as much as fantasy. I don't recall reading any fantasy about paladins bravely standing in doorways. In the same way, the new system is ripe to create fresh new images for paladins. Moved to action to righteously avenge their teammates, or, always by their fragile companion's side. Who knows what else. The purpose of a second edition doesn't only have to be retreading old ground.

Really? So no knight in shining armour ever leapt between a foe and a damsel?

This new system is frankly ridiculous. Baddies bop damsel, knight bops baddies. And ... every fight with a paladin is going to be like that now as it's kinda their core ability. Maybe if they had something like Compel Hostility instead, so you had to hit the paladin. That seems more organic and less weird. I don't know. It makes a bit more sense but it's not ideal. TBH... I'd just rather stick with 1E?

They do have that though, if you know a Paladin is around you know if you hit their ally they’ll hit you back for worse (because you get Enfeebled if they hit), so most attacks will drift toward the Paladin to prevent that.

Also if RS takes out the attacker then no damage is done to the ally. It makes for a great avenger/guard ability, which fits Paladins as protectors and avengers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
Heal bot can be spread around from the cleric. Basically buff bards, Paladins etc healing ability.

Yeah, I'm more talking non-standard parties, which used consumables in PF1E to work. Those just aren't viable anymore under this system.

jquest716 wrote:
Just a few things on your case here, I feel like your arguments from 1,2, and 5 are kinda the same. Correct me if I am wrong but you feel like because of the way healing and spells works you get less adventuring time in the world. Thats how I see it. Which is 100% fine and I can see your points. Personally some of the spells did get a big nerf and the whole 1 shot items needimg resonance to use them doesn't make much sense to me.

Yeah, they are same-y, because for me the shortening of adventuring days is one of my biggest gripes which were I feel the game is going. So I'm attacking the problem from different sides to point out in detail why I feel it is the wrong approach.

jquest716 wrote:
The argument for a dedicated healer isn't really true though because an alchemist can make healing potions, another player can take the combat medic feat and the cleric or Wizard could scribe scrolls of healing. All of those options are there and means the party needs to work together when making choices. Don't get me wrong I agree with the whole resonance restriction is ruff but it is possible not to just have a single healbot. I can't really speak on the whole stamina thing from star finder I played a little of it but the whole level math for items ruined the game,for me.

I think you missed my point there. To me it feels 100% mandatory to include a dedicated healer because] of the restrictions to consumables through resonance. Yes, you can supplement a cleric with consumables so that he doesn't need to spend all his spells on healing, but if you don't have a cleric (or other full dedicated healer), resonance caps your daily adventuring time really fast. So someone has to play a dedicated healing class, non-standard parties are now verboten.


Zardnaar wrote:
I remember the expectation in 3.5 (or 3.0)?) was that each encounter would use around 25% of your resources.

Not quite, the expectation was that an encounter where the Encounter Level matched the party level would use around 25%. It was not assumed that you would only have EL=PL encounters, (although it was a common misunderstanding).

glass wrote:
PFS highlights problems with the rules because due to the nature of organised play the GM at the table cannot houserule them away, but it does not cause them. In a sense, PFS is immune to the oberoni fallacy.

Due to the nature of organized play, it highlights problems the rules have under a particular set of adventuring assumptions when you can't use adjustments in adventure design and long term considerations to fix them.

Saying "I'm not going to ignore that you just gave them almost an entire day to react to your attack," isn't a house rule, nor is "you guys have a bit too much stuff, so I might be a bit light on treasure for a bit."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
Not quite, the expectation was that an encounter where the Encounter Level matched the party level would use around 25%. It was not assumed that you would only have EL=PL encounters, (although it was a common misunderstanding).

The problem here being that even EL=PL encounters did use far less than 25% of party resources, in all of my experience.

Anyway, getting kind of off topic. Anybody else want to contribute to the main topic of the thread? :)


magnuskn wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
Not quite, the expectation was that an encounter where the Encounter Level matched the party level would use around 25%. It was not assumed that you would only have EL=PL encounters, (although it was a common misunderstanding).

The problem here being that even EL=PL encounters did use far less than 25% of party resources, in all of my experience.

Anyway, getting kind of off topic. Anybody else want to contribute to the main topic of the thread? :)

I'm bummed displacement is gone.

I liked that spell.


Why have necromancer wizards lost finger of death and wail of the banshee, which have been arcane wizard spells since 2e?

It's mind-boggling. Necromancer wizards have no 9th level spells. Every necromancy spell on the 9th level wizard list has been moved to occult and divine. Seriously, why not have necromancy spells be shared among occult and arcane instead of divine and occult? As it stands, necromancers have lost iconic spells.


Ckorik wrote:

I'm bummed displacement is gone.

I liked that spell.

Given the amount of times I saw spell-storing armor with displacement in its slots:

Good f%!~ing riddance.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Feedback for the devs - What changes are too much? All Messageboards

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