What I Do and Don't like about Second Edition


General Discussion

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.
I think the 3 actions per round is a great idea as it removes the all I can do this round is double move problem.
I understand the need for resonance but feel it should be tied to the class key stat as tying it to Charisma seems too arbitrary.
I like the hunted target ability for Rangers rather than chosen enemy as it removes some of the Meta gaming "I choose Humans because that is the common enemy" but I don't understand why the only ranged weapon feat at first level is Crossbow Ace , no elf ranger is going to use a crossbow.
I have no problem with Attacks of Opportunity for fighters only but think intimidation should be added to their signature skills.
That's all for now.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not sure whether key class stat for resonance makes sense in game world terms, but... it'd probably make some people happier with it. I love the concept of it, as a game rule.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the weapon traits as they add more to the choice of weapon than simply it does the most damage but I am struggling to understand why a Rapier doesn't have the agile trait especially when the Main Gauche does and this is a classic historical pairing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Not sure whether key class stat for resonance makes sense in game world terms, but... it'd probably make some people happier with it. I love the concept of it, as a game rule.

The problem with that is it turns charisma into an entirely dumpable stat again. Maybe if it was Key ability plus charisma?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
karl burkhardt wrote:
I like the weapon traits as they add more to the choice of weapon than simply it does the most damage but I am struggling to understand why a Rapier doesn't have the agile trait especially when the Main Gauche does and this is a classic historical pairing.

Well, if the Rapier in the main hand does not have agile, you would have incentive to put that Main Gauche in your off hand. Your first (and possibly second) attack is with a slightly stronger rapier attack, and then the next one is with slightly weaker attack that is more likely to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group is still working through and doing some playtesting. Also, I am a player not the GM so everything I have is from a player perspective but here are a few things that stand out to me.

Likes:

The New Action Economy: I really like the new 3 action economy rule. One thing that really disappointed me and turned me off from playing PF1 was that they still had clerics and other healers having their healing powers be their standard action so the clerics couldn't cast and attack,etc. I frequently play druids focused on "leader" like abilities to use 4E vernacular and clerics. One of the main problems with D&D 1st and 2nd that people complained about was that clerics felt like healbots. They healed while everyone else did something else on their turn. I have been playing since 1st edition and was very happy with the direction 4E took on healing being a minor action so a priest could heal her buddies, then wage into combat swinging a mace for a little damage the way they have always been described as doing. With PF1 our group voted against and I was one of the against votes because healing steal took an action. Well, with the new action economy (if we have been playing it right) my priest can use a touch heal spell (only one action) to heal a friend, then move forward, and then attack. Even 5E went with healing being somethat that for MOST healing spell is not the only thing done that round so Kudos to Paizo on the new direction.

I also like the way characters are built. No rolling at all and with ancestry bumps your characters end up being heroic characters with good stats. Most modern games other than retroclones I think have embraced the idealogy that PCs are heroic (in term of abilities). The PCs are the stuff legends will be woven from. Therefore they are not the average guy that just decided to pick up a sword and go adventuring instead of farming. The tower above average men and women and provided they survive their foolhardy decisions to avoid honest work to be murder hobos they will became truly famous (or infamous) as their ability scores show and their deeds and decisions dictates.

Dislikes:

Not a lot of dislikes so far....other than a lot of spells seem REALLY toned down but in all honesty I have felt effective and have not playtested enough to get the full impact of how the spells play out.

ONe thing I will say is that I am all for crunch and having a plethora of options (unlike 5E) but I do think 5E had the right design in making those options stand out. So I think the options for feats in PF2 could be more spectacular. I don't' mind having compartmentalized feats by class, ancenstry, and so forth. My problem is many of the feats seem lackluster and others in my group said the same. I think if they made the feats more fantastic while maintaining game balance that would be an improvement.


I like the
3 action economy
The new critical success/failure rules
The scaling cantrips
The proficiency levels are a cool idea, but I think there should be a greater difference between the levels and maybe an added penalty to untrained characters.
Heightening spells, except some should auto heighten like fireball.
The +1 per level of everything is interesting, but might be too much maybe +1/2 level as it seems to overshadow everything.

I don't like
The overkill nerfing of spells and soellcasters
Wildshape and animal companion are too weak and too limiting
Summoning is too weak. Especially with 2 actions and concentration
Martials need more feats to help "move" them with the new action system
Resonance is an annoyance that is not needed
Bulk complicates simple weight limits it is not needed
More of the feats need to be put in the general category too many are class locked
Ancestry should be at first level and that is it. Ancestry feats at higher levels make no sense


karl burkhardt wrote:

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.

I think the 3 actions per round is a great idea as it removes the all I can do this round is double move problem.
I understand the need for resonance but feel it should be tied to the class key stat as tying it to Charisma seems too arbitrary.
I like the hunted target ability for Rangers rather than chosen enemy as it removes some of the Meta gaming "I choose Humans because that is the common enemy" but I don't understand why the only ranged weapon feat at first level is Crossbow Ace , no elf ranger is going to use a crossbow.
I have no problem with Attacks of Opportunity for fighters only but think intimidation should be added to their signature skills.
That's all for now.

q


Im really disappointed with 2nd Edition.
Start with Feats: Feats are lousy now. Nothing really special.Too many poor choices.
Skills: Hoped for Investigation as really good option. Now Perception is 100% more important than in 1st edition...in there everybody needed Perception.....
Lore is really needless, instead no more Geography aso.
Races:
Any race now is a shadow of former races, dwarf needs 4 feats to be the old one.
Classes: less powerful, lesser spells, weaker spells.
Actions: Sounds much like 4th edition, lots of Actions, special name, quite complicated.
Items: Much like 4th edition....im Level 4...i need 1 4th Level item, 2 3rd level items aso.... thats really boring.
Conditions: 1000 Conditions....complicated, unnecessary
Also the Multiclass/Archetype system is a lot like 4th edition. So bad indeed. Nobody wanted to play 4th edition :)

Quite some good ideas (proficiency Bonus, new skill options and no more Combat Maneuver Bonus and Defense, Block Actions, better cantrips much like 5th edition, bulk makes things nice and easier, 3 Action system has a lot of potential).

but overall Pathfinder 1st is much better.
Plz Paizo team: erase the mistakes of pathfinder, dont make a new 4th edition. You will loose a lot of players i think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm concerned that races... er, I mean "Ancestries", are limited to just ONE ancestry feat at first level. It seems to me that most dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. are probably just going to put them on the weapon familiarity feat 90% of the time. (Unless they are playing a straight wizard or sorcerer who doesn't care about weapon damage). Which of course means that all the other ancestry feats won't see much use... things that used to give the other Races in previous editions their particular "flavor", like elves' immunity to sleep spells, or gnomes speaking to squirrels, or dwarves' affinity to unusual stonework. These things which were MOSTLY useful at lower levels will now no longer see the light of day until HIGHER levels.

Discussion? Am I wrong about this?


Kodyboy wrote:

I like the

3 action economy
The new critical success/failure rules
The scaling cantrips
The proficiency levels are a cool idea, but I think there should be a greater difference between the levels and maybe an added penalty to untrained characters.
Heightening spells, except some should auto heighten like fireball.
The +1 per level of everything is interesting, but might be too much maybe +1/2 level as it seems to overshadow everything.

I don't like
The overkill nerfing of spells and soellcasters
Wildshape and animal companion are too weak and too limiting
Summoning is too weak. Especially with 2 actions and concentration
Martials need more feats to help "move" them with the new action system
Resonance is an annoyance that is not needed
Bulk complicates simple weight limits it is not needed
More of the feats need to be put in the general category too many are class locked
Ancestry should be at first level and that is it. Ancestry feats at higher levels make no sense

I understand your point with healing and standard actions. Thats something the PF 2nd makes better. But look at domain powers. Mostly not useful. The healing is lesser, lesser spells. In PF 1st edition you could cast a combat spell and get to melee. some powers could also quicken a lot like Channeling as move action, quicken spell, and similar.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like:

-3 Action combat system
-Stat generation and stat increases by level.
-Enhancement bonuses to weapons add extra dice damage.
-Dex to damage option for rogues.
-Fixed HP when leveling.
-+1 to everything when leveling.
-Cantrips.

I don't like:

-The classes in general.
-The race designs in general.
-Everything is a feat.
-Monsters don't get feats.
-Nerfing of magic/spellcasters.
-Reduced number of spells cast/known.
-The resonance system.
-Use action to "activate" a shield
-Going through shields like candy.
-Potions and other limited use items needing resonance.
-Lack of options compared to 1e core book.
-Game options seem less "flavorful" or interesting.
-Weak healing.
-No skill points.
-The need to change everything I liked about 1e.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

I Like:

-3 Action Combat System.
-How easy and fast char generation is.
-Every class feels diverse (Except wizard, which is a dislike).
-Options every single level.
-Some very fun magic items. I in particular like what they did with holy/unholy/axiomatic/anarchic.
-More focus on teamwork
-Way more codification of keywords.
-Reduction in spell power. Haste is now in line, and some other offenders are as well.
-Limiting of Reactions, and not everyone having the basic AoO.
-Emphasis on a well balanced pool of stats, some may say it's boring. I say it's nice. 24 max in a stat is a boon in my eyes.

I Dislike:
-Alchemist has a couple of errors and is kind of poorly written, it's been dificult wrapping my head around it. Some clarifications would go a long way.

-While I think Resonance is a good idea, I don't like needing to use it for wands. Double dipping resources like that is a bit upsetting. Bag of holding feels off as well. If it was just investment it would be ok. But investment and spending rp is a bit much.

-Some clarification is needed on some magical items. Like Necklace of fireballs. Do I need Investment + 2rp per fireball? Since it requires two operate actions?

-Spells feel like they have too short of a duration now. Most have at most a minute and I wonder how that will affect the game at higher levels.

-


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


The New Action Economy: I really like the new 3 action economy rule. One thing that really disappointed me and turned me off from playing PF1 was that they still had clerics and other healers having their healing powers be their standard action so the clerics couldn't cast and attack,etc. I frequently play druids focused on "leader" like abilities to use 4E vernacular and clerics. One of the main problems with D&D 1st and 2nd that people complained about was that clerics felt like healbots. They healed while everyone else did something else on their turn. I have been playing since 1st edition and was very happy with the direction 4E took on healing being a minor action so a priest could heal her buddies, then wage into combat swinging a mace for a little damage the way they have always been described as doing. With PF1 our group voted against and I was one of the against votes because healing steal took an action. Well, with the new action economy (if we have been playing it right) my priest can use a touch heal spell (only one action) to heal a friend, then move forward, and then attack. Even 5E went with healing being somethat that for MOST healing spell is not the only thing done that round so Kudos to Paizo on the new direction.

Actually, I think a lot of the PF 2 changes with the action economy and casting actions feel harsher than in 3e or PF. Hands feel somewhat more limited since switching grips is no longer free and light shields don't have a hand free.

And then it takes an action each round (without a high level fighter feat) to keep a shield raised. You don't get free weapon readies while moving with base attack. Most classes can't get Quickdraw to facilitate changing weapons without losing an action. 5 ft step is an action. There aren't spells like Close Wounds to heal folks on a reaction. Etc.

So the action economy actually seems more punitive IMO.


I like :
- 3 action combat system
- The proficiencies and the +1 to everything automatic level advancement
- The nerf to spellcasters and the new four degrees of success on many spells
- Fixed HP and stat generation rules
- The multiclass archetypes and the new archetype system in general
- The new system for prestige classes
- The Bard, Sorcerer, and Barbarian classes have interesting new ideas
- The new item quality system with all its nuances
- The interactive initiative with various skill possibly being used

Meh / Unsure :
- The Cleric and Wizard seems a little blend, not unlike in PF1. I like the Cleric has more skill than the Int based caster though.
- Unsure about the Alchemist being relevant as a class under this new form. Seems underpowered.
- The Wizard, Cleric and Druid still being prepared caster VS using the PF1 Arcanist casting
- The ''Command a Minion'' idea for Animal Companion feels strange and unintuitive, but might be a necessary balancing factor.

Dislike :
- The Ranger in general. The Hunt Target mechanic seems very weak and restrictive to ''full-attack'' builds. The traps are a corner niche, and the flavor isn't there as much as it was with the Favored Terrain and Ennemies. I understand the need for a change, but the class as it is is by far my least favorite, while It used to be one of my first choices before.
- The lack of clear rules to level up or boost monsters past the ''Elite'' option. I really liked the Class Template idea that came late in PF1 and I would like to see it make a comeback in the official release. I want my players to fight cleric ogres worshipping Lamashtu, or Urgathoa Ghoul Sorcerers.
- The Druid wild shape fixed stats and modifiers doesn't seem necessary considering the new ability scores and level scalling, as well as the lack of ''boost'' in the system. It could have given bonus like the Mutagen are doing, so the Druid's base ability scores could be relevant when they turn into a bear version of themselves. As it is, a muscle druid bear shape isn't better than the one of a 8 Strenght Halfling druid, he can only gain additional benefits in additonal uses of the ability.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Things that I like:

1) Action Economy is amazing. Fights flow so much better, and the clear distinction set with Exploration and Downtime modes make the game go much smoother.
2) Character Creation is super solid now. Love the way that you generate your attributes. I do kind of wish classes got a static boost and a free boost, but I get not wanting some characters to start with two 18's in their stat block.
3) Rogues feel amazing. They're very mobile in a fight and seem to have some really solid class features and advancement.
4) Love the skill proficiency system and the skill unlock feats.
5) Crafting feels really fun now, and it gives you the ability to either generate the item really fast.. or if you have time to invest to discount their cost and make them much more cheaply.

My only suggestion would be to consolidate the craft groups under Specialist Crafting even further.

Example:

Alchemy [Alchemical Items such as elixirs.]
Artistry [Fine Art, Glass, Glassware, Jewelry, Pottery, and Windows]
Blacksmithing [Durable Metal Goods including Metal Armor and Weapons]
Leatherworking [Leather Goods including Leather Armor]
Scribe [Books, Maps, and other Paper Goods]
Stonemasonry [Stone Goods and Structures]
Weaving [Clothing, Baskets, Rugs, and Textiles]
Woodworking [Boats, Ships, Wooden Goods and Structures]

6) Multiclassing and Prestige Classes through Archetypes feels really intuitive and I love that I don't lose major class features from my main class to take those options.
7) No more rolling HP.
8) Attributes earned through leveling feels really satisfying.
9) Languages seem more important, and it gives solid rules for picking up sign languages.

Honestly, this list is just so long that I can stop here and say that I like most everything about the new system.

Things that I don't like:

1) RESONANCE
2) Monk has extremely limited options in terms of gaining AC. Bracers of Armor are an option however they are not enchantable with Property Runes. Would love for something like Monk's Robes that could be enchanted like Light Armor in terms of Property Runes, but also gained the same effect of Bracers of Armor.
3) Magic Missile feels a little underwhelming for what it does, though there is something to be said for the fact that it's an auto-hit in most scenarios. Outside of that some spells feel a bit weaker over-all. Would have to play a caster to get a better feel for it.
4) Options for Goblin Ancestry feats feel very weak compared to most of the other ancestries.
5) With changes in the currency would have loved to see some additional currency options.

Something like:

5:1 Copper:Bronze
2:1 Bronze:Silver
5:1 Silver:Electrum
2:1 Electrum:Gold
5:1 Gold:Mithral
2:1 Mithral:Platinum

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My group hasn't run the playtest game yet, but just from reading the book I have a few concerns. My primary one is that it seems to me like characters don't get enough feats early on, particularly ancestry and class feats.

Most classes seem to get about one class feat per "bucket" of feats.. meaning they are likely going to pick a single path (eg. dragon totem barbarian), and spend every feat in that tree, and not have any free feats to pick any of the cool stuff.

Ancestry feats are similar; you get one at 1st level, which seems like half (or less) of a PF1 race.

We'll play the playtest adventure/rules as written, but if these progressions stick through to the published 2nd Edition, my gut is that we'll houserule additional feats, especially at early levels.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Like:
-As everyone seems to agree, the 3 action system is great. Simple to explain, simple to run.

-The removal of caster level and the built in heightening system - great step to bring casters in line with martials while still letting casters get stronger over time.

-Resonance points. Controversial opinion, but they are great. A reason to care about Charisma, and no more cure light wounds wand silliness.

-Character creation is streamlined and easy. Love ability boosts, love flat hit points

-Monster creation is streamlined and easy. Love not having to spend hours "building" monsters. Some people seem to have liked it, but I ~hated~ picking feats for monsters. Give the monster level-appropriate stats, write up a couple flavorful abilities, done. Love it.

-Multiclassing is both easy and viable. I have multiclass character concepts that never would have worked in 1e and it's great.

-Sorcerers don't lose out on caster progression. Yessssssss.

-Every class (except Alchemist, see dislikes below) has an "at-will" type ability at 1st level that lets them "be that class" all day long. No more wizards plinking with crossbows

-Skill proficiency is simple and straightforward. Picking skill ranks was always boring (especially for monsters).

-Bulk system; I don't know about you, but no one in my group ever had the time to track weight. Bulk is easy to keep track of, critical for actually being used.

-Crafting system. While it still has its flaws, it's a huge improvement over PF1. And fighters can craft magic swords for themselves! Heck yes.

Dislike:
-Alchemist. :( I love the flavor and concept of this class. The execution not so much. No at-will ability is bad. Tying their only real class feature to Resonance Points is bad. An alchemist not being able to heal themselves because they needed to make bombs is bad. An alchemist not being able to make bombs because they needed to heal themselves is bad. Having to choose between wearing a cool magic item or getting an extra 2 bombs per day is bad.

-There's not enough "wow" factor in the class feats. Rogues and monks have some cool stuff, for sure - walk through walls, teleport, do stereotypical high fantasy rogue and monk stuff. Fighters are also, in a departure from every previous D&D version ever, a really cool class. A lot of other classes have too few feats that I'm really excited about. Most levels it's "what small bonus best benefits my character this level?" instead of "wow I can't wait to use this new feat!"

-Ancestry feats seem to either be "obvious pick" (Very Sneaky, Burn It, the weapon feats) or "why bother?" (Dwarven hated enemy).

-I'm not completely convinced General Feats need to exist. If they do, considering how infrequent they are, they should be awesome, character defining levels of cool. You should be totally stoked to get a new general feat. That is definitely not the case. My personal opinion is that general feats should work like (and be balanced like) the "general" mythic powers - each time you get a class feat, you can choose a general feat instead.

-Signature skills feel like a straightjacket. It's really hard to play, for example, a fighter who happens to also be a virtuoso musician but doesn't want to multiclass bard.

Liberty's Edge

karl burkhardt wrote:

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.

I don't have a problem with changing races to ancestries nor with ancestry feats though I don't think all of them are necessary.
I think certain feats could be made basic ancestry traits , weapon familiarity for example. Humans could be given 2 feats for game balance. This would also offset the argument regarding half elf and half orc requiring a feat to play.


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

I agree with a lot of what's been said here. My perspective is mostly as a player, and the thing I like most about 1e is all the ways we can customize our characters to build someone who feels really unique. I didn't really care for 1e until APG, and then slam dunk, I was sold on it. I'm a semi-optimizer, in that I'm going to make a character that is highly effective but not so tuned that I lose my individuality. I hope that's a common viewpoint, but who knows...

My likes:
Action economy: great 100% love it. There may be some room for tuning actions, but the system is perfect IMO.

Feats at every level. Yes, I'm all about the options.

Charisma is a good stat: I like having some charisma on my character and not feeling like I screwed up for it.

Everyone has perception - well it was a defacto requirement already, so yes it should be an actual requirement. Good choice.

More HP at 1st level and no rolling. Well, we haven't rolled for a long time, but yeah I'm on board with anything that makes 1st level better.

Proficiency levels - I like it, but I wish it went further in making proficiency matter. Legendary proficiency should be able to do truly legendary actions. Higher weapon proficiency should give you some basic actions that are currently feats, like anyone with expert can power attack. Feats could do more interesting things.

Class Feats: I like how the option choices of all classes and archetypes have been standardized into one system. That's cool and now you can apply the same archetype to any class so we don't need 10 different pirate archetypes. That's a further improvement on the ideas in starfinder. Great job.

Heightened spells - awesome, except spontaneous casters who still need to learn new versions of the spell, except that they can pick a few they can heighten... Too complicated, too burdensome on limited spell selection. Drop that, otherwise, great.

Cantrips more effective, other spells less effective. i think this is probably a necessary balance adjustment.

Dislikes:
Choices we used to get at first level are now spread out over 4-5 levels. It's already hard enough in 1e to make your character concept feel complete at first level. I already don't like 1st level in PF 1e - it always feels very limited in play, and very contrived how these schlubs end up the heros when there's a dozen more powerful npcs in the town. Anyway, I tolerate the first couple levels to get to the game I like, but PF 2 seems determined to make it worse. I would like to be able to choose stuff like archetype and racial abilities right off the bat. Not having a general feat at first level really hurts too.

Language Nerf - what does making it harder to communicate add to the game? There's nothing overpowered about languages. Having more languages just means more chances to roleplay, more variety in encounters. If you can't talk to the goblins, then every encounter has to be a battle. That feels like 4e where it's predetermined which encounters will be battles and which will be skill challenges and as a player you just follow the script.

Not enough difference between proficiency levels and I don't like untrained getting full level bonuses. This is a game where we usually have a team of specialists working together and you lose that feel if everyone can do everything just about as well.

Fighters should get more skills. Anyone without spells needs a lot of skills. They fill the same need for something you can do outside of combat.

Signature Skills - no. That's terrible. Class limits on skill level is a hard pass for me. What would work for me is maybe pick one signature skill at 1st level that you get expert instead of trained. Because I'm always in favor of more competent 1st levelers, and 2e has very low skill bonus and very little ability to specialize.

Magic weapon damage dice - I like the result, but I dislike putting more power in the gear and less in the character. I'd rather see this as an effect of proficiency.

....

I could probably say a lot more on both sides, but that's enough. Although I wrote a lot on the negative side, I'd say I'm optimistic overall. Signature Skills is the only thing I straight up hate.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
chocobot wrote:
...

Signature Skills only prevent you from becoming a Master or Legendary at a particular skill that isn't typically used by a class. There are ways to unlock certain skills as Signature Skills either through Archetypes or some class features.

All in all though, this shouldn't prevent you from being able to perform most trained or expert actions that a skill is capable of. It just prevents you from getting the crazy bonuses of high level skill unlocks.


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

Signature Skills only prevent you from becoming a Master or Legendary at a particular skill that isn't typically used by a class. There are ways to unlock certain skills as Signature Skills either through Archetypes or some class features.

All in all though, this shouldn't prevent you from being able to perform most trained or expert actions that a skill is capable of. It just prevents you from getting the crazy bonuses of high level skill unlocks.

Oh I understand, and that is exactly what I hate about it. Limiting skill progression based on class skills was a specific problem in 3,x that Pathfinder fixed. I consider this essential to how I like to play, so going back to that is as I said, hard pass.


Like:
-The Stat Generation/Advancement system.
-Feats being split between class/skill/general, and feats at every level
-The Critical system, especially with spells and skills. For weapon attacks, I'll admit the statistician in me likes the old way better, but in play, the combination of slowing down play, and having the disappointment in getting excited over a 20 and failing to confirm, makes me like the ease of this new system.
-More first level HP. Reduces variance as being as deadly a factor at first level. Also static per-level HP, but that was basically the way 1e played in practice for me anyway.
-Occult and Primal magical traditions, as core and separate from divine respectively. Also Bard as Occult, since it makes a ton more sense than Arcane-but-different
-Scaling cantrips, and spell point powers.

Dislike:
-Signature Skills. Just Nope.
-Most class feats and skill feats. I like the system in abstract, but most of these just aren't what I want to see. Honestly I'd rather all martial classes get their feat list overhauled, and have the universal combat feats list moved out of individual classes lists and become a universal option for characters with expert proficiency in weapons, and fill out those martials' lists with more unique options. As for skill feats, they just don't feel that interesting for the most part. I think they could push the envelope some more and have them be truly interesting, but as is they're just sort of meh
-Classes on the whole seem too small, in terms of design space. Fighters only get Mastery with Heavy armors, and can't get higher than trained with light armor, ect. This was the biggest let down in the playtest, because there was all this talk about options, but a bunch of options in a small conceptual bubble isn't what I was thinking when I said I liked customization.
-Ancestries. On the whole, not so bad, but not front-loaded enough in my opinion. I don't really care that much, but it's certainly more in the dislike column than in the like column

On the whole, I'm optimistic, since the underlying system I'm pretty happy with. I'll need more time to evaluate some of the more experiential aspects, like how good/bad +1 per level feels, or how 3 actions/round feels or whether resonance feels too low at low levels, but on the whole, there are some glaring negatives on a generally positive framework.


I shall keep my list simple, with just the major likes / dislikes

LIKES

3 action system
attempts to balance caster / martial characters
attempts to balance saving throws

HATE

+Level for skills (may be okay for rest)
Magic Weapons being a MUST due to multiplying base weapon damage
New crit / fail system. I think it is too fiddly (4 results to remember for most spells) and more crits is bad for the players. They will get crit far too often.
Dying rules are overly complicated / confusing

I am also concerned with the classes being gated (i.e. rangers only TWF or Crossbows) but I think that may be more of a space issue and will be corrected or at least broaded in the CRB.


John Ryan 783 wrote:


I Dislike:
-Alchemist has a couple of errors and is kind of poorly written, it's been dificult wrapping my head around it. Some clarifications would go a long way.
-

My group hasn't gotten too far into playtesting, but very much agree with this statement. One of us is playing an alchemist, and we were all scratching our head last night mid-session.

Even carefully re-reading today and I'm still having to think about it.


I see a lot to like and dislike about the new rules, and most of it has already been covered in this thread so I'll only comment on stuff that I feel strongly about, or hadn't been covered well.

Like:
- Character creation seems to build a more rounded character.
- Natural increase in skill bonuses as you gain levels, although it may be a bit overpowered.
- The Rune system looks to have some excellent ideas in it. I especially like the potential to move a cool effect from a newly found item to your favorite item.
* I like a lot about it, but most has been covered.

Dislike/Concerns:
- Seems to me that the Monk, an already underloved class, got very little love during this revision. In particular, Flurry drops to just a double attack, with no increase in damage or number of attacks per flurry.
- Lore (formerly knowledge) is largely undefined.
- Resonance seems too confining.
- Trinkets! These are by definition one-shot boosts, yet they cost almost as much as items with persistent effects. Either make them more enduring, or drastically lower the cost!
- Increasing expertise in a skill should do more than give +1 and open up the path to better future feats. I would suggest that Master give a bonus skill feat in that skill, and Legendary grant two.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've seen this earlier in the thread and in a few other threads, but can someone tell the reason is for having Resonance as a concept at all? It seems like the most commonly used argument is to limit wands after a battle. Is that it? Resonance seems very restrictive for low level PCs who rely on one-shot items a lot given their limited spell use or variety of permanent items.

If wands abuse is a thing (and I guess I never heard anyone complain about that in any gaming session I've ever been in), can't we just limit wands usage to some number of charges per day? If not wand abuse, what is the point (or goal) of using Resonance to limit usage of potions, scrolls, items requiring investing, etc.? What am I missing about this?

Also, I really wish that Resonance was a separate point pool for everyone rather than tying it directly to a class (Alchemist) directly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

apologies for the wall of text!

what I like:
1. action economy: while some reactions shouldn't be reactions and some things have become super clunky in the transition (which i hope get ironed out over the course of this playtest), by and large it's FAR simpler to introduce players to, and makes combat scoot along much faster than previous.
2. more granular pass/fail states: while the number squish/DC balancing (see dislikes) makes actually getting the +10 for a critical success intensely difficult, it allows for FAR more space when designing and balancing effects like spells or rider effects.
3. spellcasting (for the wizard at least): auto-heightened spells and cantrips are a solid idea, and the ability to invest more or less actions into casting to greater/lesser effect makes spellcasting an interesting tactical choice every turn.

what I really want to like but need major improving:
1. class feats: i like that every class (in theory) now has a unique "thing" for their class like the rage powers, rogue talents, arcanist exploits, etc of PF1e. However, as they are, class feats are uninspired and come at direct cost to the other classes--with many class feats being 1e general feats that have been segregated (and reprinted with a different name when more than one class gets it) for no apparent reason, rather than keeping those general feats as just that, and giving the class a mechanically solid and flavorful ability instead (like the rage powers of 1e)--something that makes that class able to do something unique with their options or to expand those options further, rather than simply making them more competent at a single chosen approach.
one should be excited to choose the fighter class because they're especially good with, or can do something wholly unique with two-weapon fighting (or whatever other combat style you may want), not because they're the only one allowed to be competent at it in the first place.
2. skill feats: as with class feats, they lack interesting options, and are largely comprised of actions that one could previously do at anytime in 1e, just gated off behind a feat now. skill feats should allow one to go above and beyond a skill's usual limitations (and become more interesting the greater the proficiency), not simply allowing older uses of the skill. where's the master/legendary stealth feats to be treated as under the effects of 'blur' or even 'invisibility' (on a certain DC success, with modifiers for light level or cover) or somesuch? or the ability to hide in plain sight at all (as that appears to be completely gone from the system, despite being in plain sight being an auto-fail condition)?
one should be excited to choose a skill feat because it's a cool action beyond the normal skill's scope or suits their character idea very well, not because it allows them to actually use the skill as intended.
3. proficiency: i think many of the bonuses for gear level--conveniently on the same track!--should be made part of the character's proficiency level instead (such as a weapon's scaling dice and armor's reduction of ACP and speed penalties), the idea of proficiency levels is an interesting one. however i feel that improving one's proficiency has very little payoff currently: you're simply +1 'better' than the rank previous and gain access to fairly uninteresting proficiency-locked feat choices.
4. signature skills: the idea that having a set of skills that your character is particularly, well, skilled at is a good one, but as it stands this is far too limiting in most cases, and you get very little for doing so (see "number squish" in dislikes). a free-floating extra signature skill or two would certainly go a long way towards more diverse characters.
5. ancestry: I really like the idea of half-races being free from being part-human (as was hinted in the half-elf/-orc article and replies). it would open SO many new character avenues that make me giddy just thinking about it! but as it is currently, ancestries are far too weak and slow to really mean anything at all, with a character needing to be ~level 12 to be the same level of dwarf-iness as a 1e dwarf is at level 1. that's terrible--terrible--and needs to be sped up or empowered.

what i don't like (and why!):
1. resonance: needlessly limiting across the entire system (especially for the poor alchemist), despite appearing to be made to remedy a small PFS problem (abusing cheap healing items). The single-use consumables costing points is particularly harmful. I see no reason why this should be in the system at all.
2. unclear class direction/direction is unsupported by rules: things like the paladin being incentivized to allow his allies to be harmed, otherwise they cannot use a core pillar of the class (retributive strike, the apparent replacement for smite evil). the sorcerer (the "flexible" arcane caster) having the least flexible spells, being forced to learn the same spells repeatedly to keep them up-to-date and being forced to wait for ingame downtime to retrain their now-obsolete previous version to something else. the rogue being unable to sneak attack an enemy when sneaking and attacking (unless they're a goblin, of all things!). the ranger gaining the ability to make traps and snares for free (at a penalty, no less) at the same level that spellcasters gain 9th-level spells.
3. number squish: with proficiencies being such a high initial jump but slow curve afterwards, and feats and items having so little impact, it feels like we're left with a system where it's tough to fail (yay!) but hard to excel, which harms a great many character designs and ideas. I feel that the boons for increasing in proficiency should be larger and more interesting, and that there should be means to make checks and such actually reliable (i'm talking like 85-90% chance of success with enough investment).
4. DC rebalance: with many DCs appear to be set to be a challenge as you level, most checks and saves end up being a 40-50% chance to succeed on average, or ~65% to succeed if you're completely specialized in it. this makes actually getting to that +10 above DC threshold for a critical exceedingly rare even for the most specialized of characters, and leads to even what characters dedicate time and resources toward being good at still being wildly unreliable--even before other rules limitations that come into effect, such as with stealth's many chances to fail (each monster gets their own roll) and direct auto-fail situations (you instantly fail if you dont have cover at any point). this leads one to wonder, why try to be good at anything, if it only comes down to a slightly better coinflip in the end?
5. the caster/martial disparity: yes, i said the magic words! i'm sure some will completely disregard my post for bringing this up, but it needs addressing: every single class gets roughly the same amount of class features, class feats, skill feats, and general feats to help build their character in the direction they like, and then casters get spellcasting (multiple powerful, thought-provoking options) on top of that. non-caster classes should get something that doesn't cost feats or proficiencies of around equivalent value, be it stronger class features on average, or more interesting and flexible class feat selections, or some equivalent set of actions that they can do instead (DreamScarredPress's martial stances and maneuvers from "Path of War" was one solution: allowing martials abilities to target various saves, inflict different status effects normally impossible, smooth out the clunkier actual maneuvers like disarm or feint, and more. Though I don't think it is the only oway to solve the problem, it was a solid attempt). I repeat, whatever the solution may be, it cannot, must not require a tax, because the entire point is to give them something "on top" to even things out in comparison (and martials don't have a feat advantage with which to pay those taxes).
the point isn't that we should hammer down casters, it's to elevate non-casters to a rough ballpark of similar flexibility and narrative impact.

I have more things, but these are the major points so far.
I'll probably make my own thread going more in-depth on the various feat pools and class abilities later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:


5. the caster/martial disparity: yes, i said the magic words! i'm sure some will completely disregard my post for bringing this up, but it needs addressing: every single class gets roughly the same amount of class features, class feats, skill feats, and general feats to help build their character in the direction they like, and then casters get spellcasting (multiple powerful, thought-provoking options) on top of that. non-caster classes should get something that doesn't cost feats or proficiencies of around equivalent value, be it stronger class features on average, or more interesting and flexible class feat selections, or some equivalent set of actions that they can do instead (DreamScarredPress's martial stances and maneuvers from "Path of War" was one solution: allowing martials abilities to target various saves, inflict different status effects normally impossible, smooth out the clunkier actual maneuvers like disarm or feint, and more. Though I don't think it is the only oway to solve the problem, it was a solid attempt). I repeat, whatever the solution may be, it cannot, must not require a tax, because the entire point is to give them something "on top" to even things out in comparison (and martials don't have a feat advantage with which to pay those taxes).
the point isn't that we should hammer down casters, it's to elevate non-casters to a rough ballpark of similar flexibility and narrative impact.

Thank you! Completely agree. The interesting options/feat combos for martials seem to be needlessly limited and (like most of the system) suffer from a dearth of numerical benefit. For instance, look at Nimble Dodge/Nimble Roll. That's a very interesting option, but the fact that that base +2 that powers it doesn't scale means it's probably not going to proc all that often. Now if it scaled up to, say, 10 at high level and you were allowed to see the attack roll before spending your reaction-that would be something.

I'm reminded of one of the many stages of the Fighter in the 5E Playtest wherein Fighter Dice were first introduced. That idea had an incredible amount on potential-a solid attack benefit that could alternatively be spent on a variety of combat maneuvers and regenerated every round. As I recall 5E's designers nerfed it into its release form because it made the Fighter "too interesting".


So I have yet to playtest it, but as reading it and from a player point of view my impression is that we are full of choices but in most cases I feel either choice is lacking in relevance as the bonus to proficiency is based on one per level for everthing to everyone, making it somewhat irrelevant on higher levels. I agree with most of what AndIMustMask wrote.

what I like:
1. action economy
2. more granular pass/fail states.
3. spellcasting, no more "half-casters" classes, speel durations are fixed and way more balanced overall
4. Choices every level, they just need to be more meaningfull.

things i don't like:
1. way too many conditions and weapon traits, could be simlified.
3. number squish on proficiency: as said above betewwena legend in doing something and someone who never did you have 6pts distance, it really fells lacking.
4. DCs: fixed dcs are just better, so fiz a dc for most commom situations and just a simplier table as guide, and to be more intuitive could be based on proficiency rather then level.

As I said I have yet to actually play the game but just think somithng on the lines below woud be much better approach to proficiency.

Proficiences bonus: Flat bônus + lvl bonuses accordinly with class related lvls.

For skills would count only class levels for the signature skills

Untrained: 1/4 level
Trained: 3 + 1/2 level
Expert: 3 + level
Master: 3 + 1.5x level
Legendary: 3 + 2x level

I do believe some similar evolution should be used to attack bonus and armor class. Maybe considering martial and speelcaster classes.


Beast Weener wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:


5. the caster/martial disparity: yes, i said the magic words! i'm sure some will completely disregard my post for bringing this up, but it needs addressing: every single class gets roughly the same amount of class features, class feats, skill feats, and general feats to help build their character in the direction they like, and then casters get spellcasting (multiple powerful, thought-provoking options) on top of that. non-caster classes should get something that doesn't cost feats or proficiencies of around equivalent value, be it stronger class features on average, or more interesting and flexible class feat selections, or some equivalent set of actions that they can do instead (DreamScarredPress's martial stances and maneuvers from "Path of War" was one solution: allowing martials abilities to target various saves, inflict different status effects normally impossible, smooth out the clunkier actual maneuvers like disarm or feint, and more. Though I don't think it is the only oway to solve the problem, it was a solid attempt). I repeat, whatever the solution may be, it cannot, must not require a tax, because the entire point is to give them something "on top" to even things out in comparison (and martials don't have a feat advantage with which to pay those taxes).
the point isn't that we should hammer down casters, it's to elevate non-casters to a rough ballpark of similar flexibility and narrative impact.

Thank you! Completely agree. The interesting options/feat combos for martials seem to be needlessly limited and (like most of the system) suffer from a dearth of numerical benefit. For instance, look at Nimble Dodge/Nimble Roll. That's a very interesting option, but the fact that that base +2 that powers it doesn't scale means it's probably not going to proc all that often. Now if it scaled up to, say, 10 at high level and you were allowed to see the attack roll before spending your reaction-that would be something.

I'm reminded of one of the many stages of the...

Yeah, I don't know....I am going to come clean and admit as I have other places I didn't play PF 1 and my playtest experience so far has been limited BUT to me martial classes like the fighter seem just fine. To me the magic seems overall pretty weak and some classic spells are just useless. Our wizard was very disappointed over sleep which when I read it pretty much will never be cast from what I can see.

Our group tends to focus on combat and tactical engagement at the core with a firm foundation of world building and storytelling and the fighter does seem to shine in combat which is I think central to a fantasy adventure game. You mentioned 5E and I have to say I don't fighters are hurting in that game either. IN fact, many spellcasters with the concentration rule (only 1 spell), reduced durations, etc are feeling like fighters with their specialization dice, polearm mastery, and other expertise are shining a little TOO much. I don't know if I agree with that and this is not a 5E thread so I digress but my mainpoint is just from what I have seen in the level 1 playtest we have done magic is....meh and martial characters seem to be doing fine. I could be wrong though.


Pantu0 wrote:

So I have yet to playtest it, but as reading it and from a player point of view my impression is that we are full of choices but in most cases I feel either choice is lacking in relevance as the bonus to proficiency is based on one per level for everthing to everyone, making it somewhat irrelevant on higher levels. I agree with most of what AndIMustMask wrote.

what I like:
1. action economy
2. more granular pass/fail states.
3. spellcasting, no more "half-casters" classes, speel durations are fixed and way more balanced overall
4. Choices every level, they just need to be more meaningfull.

things i don't like:
1. way too many conditions and weapon traits, could be simlified.
3. number squish on proficiency: as said above betewwena legend in doing something and someone who never did you have 6pts distance, it really fells lacking.
4. DCs: fixed dcs are just better, so fiz a dc for most commom situations and just a simplier table as guide, and to be more intuitive could be based on proficiency rather then level.

As I said I have yet to actually play the game but just think somithng on the lines below woud be much better approach to proficiency.

Proficiences bonus: Flat bônus + lvl bonuses accordinly with class related lvls.

For skills would count only class levels for the signature skills

Untrained: 1/4 level
Trained: 3 + 1/2 level
Expert: 3 + level
Master: 3 + 1.5x level
Legendary: 3 + 2x level

I do believe some similar evolution should be used to attack bonus and armor class. Maybe considering martial and speelcaster classes.

I for one actually like how varied and interesting weapons are now (though some need a few traits and others traits don't make a whole lot of sense). it makes every weapon even within the same category have at least some value to it and worth using in the right hands, and helps mitigate there being a single "Best" option for a given category.

as for proficiency bonuses, i'm not sure it should go quite that far. while it certainly rewards increasing your proficiency, but leaves you with a massive spike in effectiveness very suddenly, especially as you gain them at later levels.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
karl burkhardt wrote:

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.

I think the 3 actions per round is a great idea as it removes the all I can do this round is double move problem.
I understand the need for resonance but feel it should be tied to the class key stat as tying it to Charisma seems too arbitrary.
I like the hunted target ability for Rangers rather than chosen enemy as it removes some of the Meta gaming "I choose Humans because that is the common enemy" but I don't understand why the only ranged weapon feat at first level is Crossbow Ace , no elf ranger is going to use a crossbow.
I have no problem with Attacks of Opportunity for fighters only but think intimidation should be added to their signature skills.
That's all for now.

Ok, what is probably my biggest concern so far is INITIATIVE I'm sorry but the call to roll initiative is iconic and I want a simple dice roll rather than a debate of I sneaking , well I was searching and I was running delaying the action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am still going through the PDF but this is what jumps out at me so far.

What I like:

Action economy. 3 actions + reaction? Yes, please! No more splitting hairs about types of actions and complex rules for how many of each you get. This was brilliant in Starfinder, and it's no less brilliant here. It is not possible for me to thank you enough for this.

Sign Language. Like the action economy, I can't possibly thank you enough for this. We've always house-ruled in a sign language for our characters because it's just so darn obvious and useful. Making it formally a part of the game is not only inclusive for those players with a hearing impairment, but a tactically sound option for characters who work together in the field.

Resonance (mostly). CHA is no longer an easy dump stat. I'm not 100% sold on the specific implementation yet, but I like the idea. Edited to add: Single-use items costing resonance feels like an unnecessary tax to me.

Perception for Everyone. Another "can't thank you enough" item. Everyone needed perception before and it was a drag on classes that didn't have it as a class skill or enough skill points to let you invest in it. Problem mostly solved here.

What I dislike:

Languages have been nerfed. It looks like a general feat is the only way to learn new languages and that's a nerf. Languages did not need to be nerfed. This was never an OP aspect of the game, and it expanded role-play and non-combat options. Language nerd characters could be a thing in PF1 without severely sacrificing crunch. Any change that takes away RP opportunities is a bad change.

The term "trait" has been overloaded. Everything has one or more "traits" associated with it, that list of traits seems unbounded, and multiple terms from PF1 have been collapsed into it. I understand the goal is to reduce the jargon and number of terms, but there's such a thing as too much compaction.

Logical groupings of things (such as spell school) should get their own bucket. For example, all spells have exactly one arcane school. But now the arcane school in the spell description is collapsed into the trait box. Why is that necessary and how does that improve the game? "Arcane School" is still a very useful category. Collapsing that into a "trait" does not help me play the game better or faster.

Buckets of unrelated qualities should be not be mixed together. Corollary: Buckets should have meaningful names. You've got action traits (move, attack, manipulate, concentrate...), spell traits (evil, good, fire...) and weapon traits (agile, sweep, fatal...), and they are all generically called traits. The thing is, these buckets of traits have no relationship to one another and the term trait is too generic. This is how you end up with awkward phrases like "The Somatic Spellcasting action for lay on hands loses the manipulate trait." Yeah, I know what it's saying, but from a newcomer's perspective it is obtuse and awkward because it's a poor semantic construct. What it really means is that you can drop a requirement from the spell. So "manipulate" isn't a trait here, it's a requirement. Call spell requirements "requirements", as that is a thing you need to do when you cast the spell, not a thing the spell produces.

Formatting and layout. This PDF is a bear to read. I haven't quite nailed it down, but a lot of the issues here are due to layout. There are some obvious ones like references to chapter numbers when there are no numbered chapters, inconsistent PDF bookmarks ("Languages" is a primary section, or at least the header is formatted like one, but it's not a primary bookmark in the PDF), and so on. But in general it feels like an organization and formatting problem.

  • All the header styles are large text so they all feel like major section dividers.
  • The class feature/feat/ability descriptions get lost in the weeds early on. It's top-heavy with detail, or the details are in-line when they should be at the end. E.g., class feats. Maybe what this needs are summary lines for each of the class feats, and then move all the full feat descriptions to the Feats section with the rest of the feats. That way there's not a ton of repeated text, and the class descriptions will flow faster.
  • Use more sections to improve visual grouping. E.g., In the class descriptions, you see advancement options listed like this: "Skill Increases (3rd)", "Weapon Expertise (3rd)" etc. as headers. Instead, make a section header that is "3rd Level" and then list the items "Skill Increases", "Weapon Expertise", that you get at 3rd level. It's easier for a reader to process a visual group by a header than by a little tag next to a name.
  • Awkward language constructs. E.g. in spells, there's the term "Acting Hostile". This creates weird grammatical constructs like "The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes as acting hostile". It is much clearer to call this a "Hostile Action" because now it's a noun instead of a verb. Now you can say "The GM decides what qualifies as a hostile action."


I never played in 10 years a PFS game, and I don't really resonance, however to call the wand CLW a small problem, I don't agree with. the entire cleric class was replaced for an item costing less than 1000 gold. it does need a fix. I think the resonance fix is overbroad. they took a battle axe to the problem, where a scalpel wouldn have been more appropriate.


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

Still reading the core book, but here are my thoughts so far:

LIKES:
- 3 action system. This is a lot more streamlined, allows for more dynamic combat, and seems much easier to teach to new people. (However, see the caveat below.)
- Weapon traits. I like having weapons feel distinct from each other beyond their damage dice.
- Some of the new class things are really neat. (for example, druid orders, sorcerers casting from different lists)
- Critical success/failure system for spells. More granularity helps spell design, I think, since its most severe effect isn't a guarantee.
- Auto-heightening cantrips. It's just more fun to sling around spells as a wizard than take up a crossbow or something.
- Greater ability to do combat manuever-type things without a lot of feat investment.
- More modular class design. (Though I do have some concerns that due to this, some classes suffer from feeling a little bland on initial read-through.)

SOME CONCERNS (PENDING START OF OUR PLAYTEST NEXT WEEK):
- Critical success/failure system for skills. This might lead to cool and interesting things at the table. It also might be a bear to track. We'll see.
- New dying rules. I'm not sure if this is going to make combat more or less lethal than PF1. We'll find out! (I'd rather it not get more lethal.)
- The switch in focus from static bonuses to damage to weapon dice. Might make things swingier. Definitely will make me do more math. Not sure how vexing that will actually be until I play it.
- A lot of things that were a basic use of a skill now seem to be skill feats. Might or might not end up mattering at the table, depending on how accumulation of skill feats feels.

DISLIKES AND/OR LIKE IN THEORY BUT NOT IN EXECUTION:
- Action system caveat. While the 3-action system is simple and elegant, it's a bit mucked up by the proliferation of other action...types? Traits? Things like Interact and Manipulate (and the much discussed Operate Activation) don't read naturally on the page, aren't something someone would actually say at the table, and aren't intuitive enough to make up the difference.
- Some things seem a little heavily class-locked in an overly limiting fashion. Moving some things to class feats makes sense, but some of them are odd, particularly things like Double Slice.
- Resonance. While I don't dislike the concept itself, the implementation needs some work. I've never really had this "CLW wand" problem that many keep talking about, and on the surface this seems like it'll result in more things to keep track of, not fewer. I wouldn't mind the idea if it a) completely replaced uses/day for items and b) didn't apply to consumables. I'll be keeping a close eye during the playtest to see whether we bump up against the resonance limit, and to see if we start hesitating to use items for fear of needing to do something like drink a potion later.
- The ancestries. I really liked the notion of the ancestries when they were first announced; it sounded really cool to me. Again, though, implementation has left me a little underwhelmed. Things seem very spread out, and you don't get a whole lot from your ancestry at level one, including things that it doesn't make much sense to add later (like darkvision). I think the idea is solid, but would be much better if you got multiple minor ancestral traits earlier on and then improved as you leveled (with ancestry feats being more similar to the race-specific feats in PF1).
- Half-elf/half-orc being smushed into human. As I mentioned in the thread related to that issue, I don't want to play "more powerful human" if I play one of these; I just want to play the ancestry I'd like without being a feat behind everyone else (and thus locking me out of any other heritage feats I might want to take).
- As slightly alluded to in the actions complaint above: holy keywords, Batman. I know they're trying to standardize terminology, but it's awkward to read and results in me squinting at the page with this face.

John Mechalas wrote:
This is how you end up with awkward phrases like "The Somatic Spellcasting action for lay on hands loses the manipulate trait." Yeah, I know what it's saying, but from a newcomer's perspective it is obtuse and awkward because it's a poor semantic construct.

I'm far from a newcomer, and it took me 20 minutes to figure out what that meant.

There should be a balance between specificity of language and natural language, and an excess of the former in the absence of the latter isn't something I'm particularly fond of.

On the whole, I like some of what's being done with the base system, but I feel a lot of the details need some tinkering.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

I like:

-3 Action combat system
-Stat generation and stat increases by level.
-Enhancement bonuses to weapons add extra dice damage.
-Dex to damage option for rogues.
-Fixed HP when leveling.
-+1 to everything when leveling.
-Cantrips.

I don't like:

-The classes in general.
-The race designs in general.
-Everything is a feat.
-Monsters don't get feats.
-Nerfing of magic/spellcasters.
-Reduced number of spells cast/known.
-The resonance system.
-Use action to "activate" a shield
-Going through shields like candy.
-Potions and other limited use items needing resonance.
-Lack of options compared to 1e core book.
-Game options seem less "flavorful" or interesting.
-Weak healing.
-No skill points.
-The need to change everything I liked about 1e.

I like many things, but +1 per level on everything is worst thing ever.


Igor Horvat wrote:
I like many things, but +1 per level on everything is worst thing ever.

The good news is that, omitting it, is one of the most common and easily implemented house-rules.

Outside the playtest, I have removed the +Level treadmill from my home-games (just an aesthetic//playstyle choice).

That is definitely something I like about PF2, you can dial the treadmill up or down (+nothing, +1/4 level, +1/2 level, etc) for different feels/ranges.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karl Burkhardt - Venture Agent wrote:
karl burkhardt wrote:

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.

I think the 3 actions per round is a great idea as it removes the all I can do this round is double move problem.
I understand the need for resonance but feel it should be tied to the class key stat as tying it to Charisma seems too arbitrary.
I like the hunted target ability for Rangers rather than chosen enemy as it removes some of the Meta gaming "I choose Humans because that is the common enemy" but I don't understand why the only ranged weapon feat at first level is Crossbow Ace , no elf ranger is going to use a crossbow.
I have no problem with Attacks of Opportunity for fighters only but think intimidation should be added to their signature skills.
That's all for now.

Ok, what is probably my biggest concern so far is INITIATIVE I'm sorry but the call to roll initiative is iconic and I want a simple dice roll rather than a debate of I sneaking , well I was searching and I was running delaying the action.

Is there a mistake with the Katana ? If not why would spend 20sp for one when it does exactly the same as a longsword which only costs 10sp

Liberty's Edge

Karl Burkhardt - Venture Agent wrote:
karl burkhardt wrote:

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.

I think the 3 actions per round is a great idea as it removes the all I can do this round is double move problem.
I understand the need for resonance but feel it should be tied to the class key stat as tying it to Charisma seems too arbitrary.
I like the hunted target ability for Rangers rather than chosen enemy as it removes some of the Meta gaming "I choose Humans because that is the common enemy" but I don't understand why the only ranged weapon feat at first level is Crossbow Ace , no elf ranger is going to use a crossbow.
I have no problem with Attacks of Opportunity for fighters only but think intimidation should be added to their signature skills.
That's all for now.

Ok, what is probably my biggest concern so far is INITIATIVE I'm sorry but the call to roll initiative is iconic and I want a simple dice roll rather than a debate of I sneaking , well I was searching and I was running delaying the action.

Is there a mistake with the Katana ? If not why would spend 20sp for one when it does exactly the same as a longsword which only costs 10sp.

I like that the alignment restrictions have been relaxed on the Druid and Monk but perhaps we could now Lawful Neutral Paladins.


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

Alright, now that I 've actually played the game, here's with what I've come away with so far.

Like:

- Cantrips doing significant damage: The wizard player was in love with that during our playtest session and so far I'm also quite impressed. I'll have to see how it feels at 17th level, but at this moment it is quite good.

- About half the classes feel improved: Those would be the Barbarian (sans unplayable Superstition totem), Cleric, Fighter, Monk and Rogue.

- The action economy works: Playing the game felt really pretty fast (although my players said the fights lasted longer, which was a positive for them) and I had no problem adjudicating what actions a character could take in a round.

- The game feels fast paced: This comes out of the new action economy and 20 years of RPG gaming experience, but even the new player who has joined the group only two months ago had no problem deciding quickly and implementing his ideas just as quick.

Indifferent/Unsure:

- Spell nerfs: It's obvious that the new paradigm is that most spells should only last one combat, so as to avoid overbuffed parties clearing a dungeon quickly. This has the added advantage of giving them more time to explore their surroundings, not coming back to now worthless clues after already stumbling into the corresponding trap two rooms down the line. However, as someone who has always enjoyed playing casting classes, reading this chapter feels like a giant killjoy. I understand why it was done, but it doesn't feel good.

- Bards: I have really no idea how to feel about them at this moment. I guess I have to see one in action to get a better idea. I loved them in PF1E and one of my favorite characters was one, so this concerns me somewhat.

Dislike:

- Healbots required: The game now heavily caters to one player being relegated to healbotting. As my playtest session show, this is not as much of a problem if someone took the cleric class. But the other healing classes have much reduced healing options compared to the cleric, which leads into one of my biggest bugbears since resonance was announced.

- Shorter adventuring days: Without a cleric to keep everyone going, the length of the adventuring day is capped by resonance and the class-based healing available. The Battle Medic feat is not good enough to really help out and dangerous at low levels to boot. The solution would probably be to either give non-clerics some sort of free healing extra abilities or remove/alter resonance.

- The second half of the classes feels deeply disappointing: Alchemists, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards all feel heavily nerfed when coming in from PF1E. If one of those classes is your favorite class in the game, I'd expect you to have a quite disappointed first reaction to the new edition. Especially if you are a full caster aficionado who also has to content with the heavily nerfed spell section. Paladins absolutely feel like a sad, nerfed version of themselves and I would probably never want to pick one up over a Fighter.

- The game feels more "gamey": I know this will be a heavily individual criticism, but for me the game now feels less like a "high fantasy simulator", but more like a "fantasy boardgame with roleplaying". The "+ level to everything" mechanic is the main culprit here. I know some people get really pissy if you point that out, but it's how I feel, man. YMMV, of course.

- Prestidigitation got nerfed: Yep, I'll never let that go until the nerf has been reversed. Woe be to washerwomen all over Golarion!

All in all, I had a favorable impression upon playing a first level adventure, but I'll have to see how higher levels feel and if the math even holds when we get to the later parts of Doomsday Dawn.

If things stay like they are, I probably will plunder the good stuff like "racial HD at first level", "perception for everybody!", "the new action economy (+swift actions as their own thing)" and "auto-scaling and significant cantrips" for PF1E houserules and just observe from afar how things go after the release of the 2E CRB. I got at least six more years of really exciting AP's to run before I have to think "What now?".

But I hope that the playtest will let things shake out in a way which makes it actually desirable for me and my group(s) to change editions. Because the main thought I am still coming away with is "Why change?". Quite ironic for someone who had been saying we need a new edition for six years.


ah yes, the old "upgrade -> s%$! go back" meme.


Maveric28 wrote:
I'm concerned that races... er, I mean "Ancestries", are limited to just ONE ancestry feat at first level. It seems to me that most dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. are probably just going to put them on the weapon familiarity feat 90% of the time. (Unless they are playing a straight wizard or sorcerer who doesn't care about weapon damage).

After building a set of pre-gens, my thoughts mirror my experience in other systems where races get special weapons: only certain classes need the proficiencies.

- Fighters or classes with great weapon prof already have great weapons to use.
- Wizards or other arcanists can't use weapons well (they might carry it if they get it for free, but if they have to spend a feat on it...)
- Clerics often get weapon prof for their preferred weapons through domain.
- Rogues and Clerics often need specific kinds of weapons that their race doesn't provide.

Options like Hand of the Apprentice do give characters some unorthodox uses for weapons.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karl Burkhardt - Venture Agent wrote:

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.

I think the 3 actions per round is a great idea as it removes the all I can do this round is double move problem.
I understand the need for resonance but feel it should be tied to the class key stat as tying it to Charisma seems too arbitrary.
I like the hunted target ability for Rangers rather than chosen enemy as it removes some of the Meta gaming "I choose Humans because that is the common enemy" but I don't understand why the only ranged weapon feat at first level is Crossbow Ace , no elf ranger is going to use a crossbow.
I have no problem with Attacks of Opportunity for fighters only but think intimidation should be added to their signature skills.
That's all for now.

Question. Why does gaining a familiar/animal companion cost a feat for a ranger or wizard etc. But a Paladin gets a Righteous Ally as a class ability?


What we Like
3 actions , were with most comments its great.

Cantrips for casters do a little more damage -

Character Creation. Started clunky but once you get the hang of it, its agood way of building characters.

The Weapon abilities and critical effects.

What we dont like

Cantrips : why not add casting stat at 1st not 3rd. I mean Fighters get +4 damage to a long sword attack or +2 to a Bow but not casters ?

Initative is a little clunky.

Magic weapons dealing extra dice. 4th level barbarian +1 great axe 2d12+7 while rage. with up to 3 hits per round. DAMN Thinking the extra dice should be tied to the character not the weapon. Maybe +1 extra at 4th/8th/12th/16th/20th?


What I like:

Proficiency levels: I think they went in the right direction here. +Level+bonus is a simple concept to understand and it makes equivalent CR monsters or less feel like trash mobs in a krpg, conversely it gives most folks a decent leg to stand on versus an above APL encounter.

Character generation: new character generation go ability scores is nice. Removing rolling and point buy as default feels good and impactful.

Ability score adjustments: I enjoy the lower cap to ability scores and the bonus scores at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20. I like that I can build a more rounded character and still have a decent primary ability score.

Ancestery: the ancestry system is nice, but it needs work (see dislikes), and the fact that Elves are faster/more graceful being captured by move speed is an interesting concept. I like the addition of racial HP values.

Alchemist: I love the Alchemist, despite the numerous typos and the confusing way the class sections read at the moment. I don't feel the class is weak as written but there are some changes/tweaks that I'm going to write up in the next week or two.

Resonance: there I said it. I like the Resonance mechanic. It needs tweaking, but it definitely has a place in this game. The biggest issue with pf1 in my eyes was the insane availability of magical items and the fact that they had no drawback. Resonance creates a decision point the players have to make, do I need this item more than I might need a potion. It enhances the fact that magic is wild, untamed and has a mind and will of its own, even if it lends itself to mere mortals.

Dislikes:

Class Feats: these currently feel weak, with some blatant trap feats. These needs fleshing out in a major way, some of them need to be reworked to scale with proficiency bonus.

Skill Feats: these are currently in the wrong scale, many of them are not at the right tier, very few of the current legendary proficiency feats feel legendary at this time.

Ancesteries: feel like an incomplete class chassis at this time, there should be a few more level 1 feats and then allow players to pick 2-3 level 1 feats at creation. This would allow players the ability to highlight their specific member of a race.

Medicine Skill: this skill needs more uses. We have 3 uses right now, out of combat options that allow minor healing. We have the combat medic feat to heal in the heat of battle, but the skill doesn't have much use out of combat or give reason to invest in it. IMO outside of combat you should be able to use the same abilities as Combat Medic feat once per character per proficiency level per day. That would allow a Legendary tier Medicine character to care for his friends 4 times each out of combat every day, make it require 10-15 minutes and add a new condition to ensure players don't use this as a 'free' healing option. Make the condition something like "Fresh Wounds- each time your character regains health from the Medicine skill without using healing potions, magical healing or a full 8 hours of rest, you receive a stack of Fresh Wounds. Fresh Wounds I causes your character to take 1 additional point of damage per strike you receive and 1 point of persistent bleed damage. A DC 15 Medicine check stops the bleeding using bandages but does not remove the Fresh Wounds condition. Each tier of Fresh Wounds increases both the additional damage and persistent damage by 1 point, to a max of 10. Removing Fresh Wounds requires 24 hours of un-broken rest or the use of alchemical or magical healing."

Liberty's Edge

Karl Burkhardt - Venture Agent wrote:
Karl Burkhardt - Venture Agent wrote:

This is just a simple thread where I can keep track of suggestions for the Second Edition. I am not trying to start a debate as what I am posting is only my opinion.

I think the 3 actions per round is a great idea as it removes the all I can do this round is double move problem.
I understand the need for resonance but feel it should be tied to the class key stat as tying it to Charisma seems too arbitrary.
I like the hunted target ability for Rangers rather than chosen enemy as it removes some of the Meta gaming "I choose Humans because that is the common enemy" but I don't understand why the only ranged weapon feat at first level is Crossbow Ace , no elf ranger is going to use a crossbow.
I have no problem with Attacks of Opportunity for fighters only but think intimidation should be added to their signature skills.
That's all for now.
Question. Why does gaining a familiar/animal companion cost a feat for a ranger or wizard etc. But a Paladin gets a Righteous Ally as a class ability?

I'm inclined to agree with the inclusion of bonus spells for high scores in the relevant attributes. After all a high strength benefits a fighter , a high dexterity benefits a rogue so why not a high intelligence benefitting a wizard.

I'm a fan of the new archetype rules and hoping to see them expanded.


What I like:

Actions - It's not the 3 actions I like, it's the death of the Full Round Action. And give everyone the opportunity to attack multiple times! Those are good solutions.

Multiple Proficiency Levels - No more Class Trained bonus, you can be proficient at any skill you want. And you can have different capabilities based on level of proficiency. I do wish there were more verisimilitude with the differences per proficiency level, but I like it still.

Cantrips - Cantrips scale with level. Makes cantrips useful beyond utility. Also Detect Magic must be cast at a higher level to bypass illusions. No more cheating the system.

What I don't like:

Level Bonus - Breaks verisimilitude by allowing weaker creatures become nothing but speed bumps. No resources need to be spent to overcome them, you are not threatened by a mass of them, it's very boring. It also makes it so that all characters can do everything and prevents specialization in skills.

Class Feats - Class feats being unattainable by other classes reduces what was once a highly customizable character by feats, to being reduced to only a specific number of feats that you and no one else can take. Widen spell should be accessible by all spell casters (Clerics cannot get it). Two-Weapon Fighting (or Double Slice) should be something that can be accessed by everyone. Really, classes are only specialists now and cannot allow for a particular playstyle without multiclassing (See the Gish/Magus). Open up class feats to every class, even if it's only access to a lower level feat instead of an equal level feat. The great part about PF1, was that you could take any feat you wanted if you qualified for it. Now, you have to go through a particular class to get it.

Spontaneous Heightening - Please fix this. It makes Sorcerers pretty useless to force them to learn spells again to heighten them. They get such a limited number of spells, that it's almost impossible to decide what to cast. And they don't cast more often as they did in PF1. They are already hampered.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder2 review:

In 20 years I have played, read or game mastered more systems than I can count. Some I loved, some I tolerated.

I can still remember how pleasantly surprised I was by Pathfinder 1 compared to 3.5 of the 'original role playing game.' Unlimited cantrips? AWESOME. Hey look, easy multiclassing! Better Grapple rules, introducing a single stat to consolidate trip, grapple, disarm, and with the Advanced Player's Guide, new types of maneuvers into one defense stat and one offense stat. Added to that, solid reasons to take a class to 20 levels. Best of all, fighting classes all got a much needed overhauls. No system is perfect, but Pathfinder had done a really good job of giving players options. And it has been a blast to play. Pathfinder Society served both as an entry point for new players and a fun way to be able to drop in and just play. If there is one problem is that it tried to put a rule to everything and has some inconsistency problems here and there.

The challenge with any follow on edition is keeping what made the previous edition awesome while both fixing problems and innovating. For example, the "original role play game's" conversion from 2nd to 3rd did a marvelous job of making it easier to follow and easier to get involved, while keeping the flavor that made the 'original game' what it was. Then the 'original game' put out 4th edition. It likely wasn't bad, but it fell flat with my gaming group. By the way, this is not the only system I've seen this with. Mechwarrior's 3rd edition fell flat with me because of how they handled origins.

Which brings me to my first impression of the new edition. My first impression on reading the play test was, in a word, "Meh."

There are several interesting ideas, but the implementation is lacking. Take ancestry feats. This would be a good idea, if the way of giving them to players hadn't involved stripping off Pathfinder racial traits and spreading them up levels. This is fixable. Give them 3 feats to pick from 1st levels. Dig into the Advanced Race Guide and bring the alternate traits in as new 1st level options, and come up with some either upgrades or improvements for higher levels.

Likewise, since everything seems to run off of attribute bonuses, instead of the attributes, why not just go directly to the bonus. Ie "All characters start at +0, human can select two +1's to any two stats, to a maximum of +4" instead of the extra complications. It's been done elsewhere, for example, Mutants and Mastermind's 3rd edition. It's not a bad simplification. Move the 'random roll' stuff over to GM section as an optional rule. Speaking of GM's section. Get the GM stuff back in the main book where it belongs. Players will buy the Bestiary on their own. Honest!

Multiclassing under the new system is less than impressive. Pathfinder1 made it easy and if a player really wants to dabble in ten different classes, they can, but have solid reasons not to. This system.. not so much.

Other easy fix to my mind is to return combat feats back to general. The only things that should be in those classes should be things that should ONLY be for those classes. Half the fun of Pathfinder1 was making combinations like a wizard who could fight using stances or with dual weapons, even though the character was pure wizard.

Honestly, I'm mediocre on the change to skill points. I like Pathfinder skill points, but I do appreciate fighters getting a badly needed extra skill. On the positive, I like skill feats and the fact that they come up frequently. The removal of CMD and CMB I will have to play test to judge what I think.

Backgrounds are a neat addition to replace traits, with Lore coming from the background of the character. Though it might be interesting to have feats that play into that background feat.

The other problem is resonance. I get the idea, but I don't think it works. It does not make a magic item unique... it makes it another limited resource. Honestly, 3.5's Weapons of Legacy or Scaling items (first place I saw it was Arcanis, but I think I saw it in 13th age as well) might be a better idea. The bonded Item from Pathfinder's wizard and Paladin classes were a neat idea as well as something that would grow alongside the character. I'm neutral on runes. They're nice, and would be a cost saver in a campaign at higher levels. Again it's nice, but not spectacular.

Honestly, my first impression is that it needs at least another year of development beyond what's planned and really go back to ones and try to recapture that magic, because from where I sit, this edition just doesn't have it.

Thank you for listening.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What I Do and Don't like about Second Edition All Messageboards

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