|
I'm hoping that this thread can be used for suggesting ways to make the rules more efficient.
That said;
Is it necessary to have every class explain the general advancement gains (ability boosts, feats gained because of character level, etc)?
Can we instead, return to a general character advancement chart that has those explanations in one spot? The current set up for the playtest makes it seem that by taking my class, I should get another ancestry feat. With some digging, you do not (obviously), but why create confusion?
Yeah, some layout decisions were nice. They included page numbers when referencing other abilities, feats, rules found elsewhere in the book. But they missed a lot of references they should included. Like Leap isn't referenced to a page number anywhere, which boggled my mind.
Some of the layout decisions really boggled my mind. And this one you describe just makes no sense. They chose to put things in several different chapters (essentially, I assume, to save wordcount) and the flipping pages back and forth just for character creation is worse than PF1. But they included all the same information in a confusing way to the classes.
I honestly hope that layout issues like this are simply playtest issues, and when the official PF2 CRB comes out, it will not be so rough.
Is it necessary to have created multiclass archetypes? Could we not just let players multiclass as we always have?
I really like this change to be honest. I'm just not a fan of limiting a character to either multiclassing or taking a universal archetype until much later levels. I think to multiclass and then taken a universal archetype, you have to wait until level 8 to take the second option.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just did not see multiclassing as a problem that needed "fixing" as it was. I do like the fact that it opens up feats that are that class only, but then the old way of multiclassing did that as well and got you the class benefits for the levels you took.
The issue I saw with PF1 multiclassing, was that it allowed one to "dip" and horribly break the game in many unintended ways sometimes. This change solves that problem.
This is also really the only way to make the archetypes universal, which saves a ton of wordcount space, since they don't have to write an archetype for 7 or 8 different classes. Just one archetype that replaces class feats with its own set of class feats. Kinda elegant if you ask me.
|
Between PF1 archetypes and all the additional classes, multiclassing was made it obsolete. This would let them keep a core set of classes and release content in discrete bundles (feats) to make the concepts you like.
I am pro-non-random HP.
Based on the way healing is currently working, you're going to need all those HP (maximum).
|
|
From my experience with the playtest scenarios so far, the amount of damage being thrown around and the limit on healing, it's appropriate.
Remember, you start dying at 0. A 2nd level PFS1 wizard would have 7 HP at 10 CON and no FCB, 9 with FCB x 2 levels in HP.
In PFS1, that wizard could take 10 points of damage and have 9 rounds left before he was dead. In PFS2, he'd (EDIT: changed 'will' to 'would' since we're talking hypothetical reduced HP) take 7 and have 4 rounds until dead (EDIT: I forgot there's no FCB in PF2).
Mooks in the 1st level playtest scenario were throwing 5-9 damage per hit, and they get up to 3 attacks per round.
The other advantage to the height of the HP currently is that you can be an elf fighter with 8 CON and not feel like you're flimsy(-ier than your compatriots). E.g. 9 x 4 = 36 hp in PFS2 vs. 9 + 5 x 3 = 24 hp in PFS1.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I like the new multiclass/archetype system personally, I have seen too many multiclass abominations in PF1 thus far.
Regarding hit points, they are also a great way to differentiate the classes, so I am very on board, even if it looks like you will need a lot of those points to deal with common critical hits.
|
|
It's easier to balance archetypes with each other when they're all one archetype, and the archetypes vs. classes by having them follow the same power curve for their abilities (all feats gated by level).
The higher h.p. are necessary as while a Goblin might only do 1d6 on average w/ their bow, they will hit most every round (w/ two-three attempts).
And then one'll crit for 2d6+1d10 and kablooie!
Need them h.p.
Kobolds too w/ (I think) 1d4-1 picks that do 3d8-2 on a crit!
And it only takes a flank to make those crits more likely than you'd like.
As for each class description repeating the same generic PC progression, I found it silly until my players started making PCs. They could stay on one page and follow it down until done.
Really useful for a playtest!
Whether useful enough to use so much page count in the final version...
I don't know.
Paizo could use a "generic progress" page that one uses alongside the main class via flipping, but I think I'd prefer something similar to now (especially since so many of my players use electronic devices), just with fewer paragraphs of description for recurring data.
So a class would have the PC's complete chart of progress, yet reference a common glossary page for universal bits that those with basic system mastery wouldn't need to reread.
Then the Rogue's skill progress will be remain clear as will the hiccups in class feats the casters have.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
While the archetype lets you be, say a fighter with a bit of wizard (magus), I don't see anything that says you can no longer to traditional multiclassing if you want. I'll need to do more digging to see where the benefits of one vs the other lie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the archetype lets you be, say a fighter with a bit of wizard (magus), I don't see anything that says you can no longer to traditional multiclassing if you want. I'll need to do more digging to see where the benefits of one vs the other lie.
The blog on multiclassing pretty much says the archetype is the way to do multiclassing. There also is not a paragraph detailing multiclassing the traditional way.
So sure, if you want to homebrew standard multiclassing... but not for anything involving PFS.
EDIT: And please don't answer any playtest surveys if you aren't going to play strictly by the playtest document (and any subsequent errata).
|
|
Looking through the magic items:
Is it necessary for items like Belt of Giant Strength, Anklet of Agility be a level 14 item? Is it really that game breaking to allow earlier access than that for a +2 ability and a couple skill use bonuses?
Based on how many skill bumps you get through your career and the fact that by 14th level you could have several abilities at 16+, I'd say yes.
This entire system seems to be predicated on small bonuses being incredibly meaningful.
|
|
Looking through the magic items:
Is it necessary for items like Belt of Giant Strength, Anklet of Agility be a level 14 item? Is it really that game breaking to allow earlier access than that for a +2 ability and a couple skill use bonuses?Based on how many skill bumps you get through your career and the fact that by 14th level you could have several abilities at 16+, I'd say yes.
This entire system seems to be predicated on small bonuses being incredibly meaningful.
Also, the system is designed with the bonuses to ability scores we're used to from belts, headbands, etc to be part of the leveling process, so the Belt of Giant Strength is as though you had a belt of strength +2, boots of constitution +4, and a headband of intellect +4 all before applying and stacking with the benefits of the new Belt of Giant Strength.