A statement from Paizo would go a long way...


General Discussion

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ikos wrote:
Here’s where clarity and specificity would go a long way. What type of character diversity cannot be realized. Which rules need simplifying? For core options, there appears to be a fair amount of available options leading to considerable diversity - no two dwarves, fighters, or sorcerers need be the same. As far as rules simplicity go, dying is overly complex and it is wonky that half orcs suddenly get dark vision at 5th level. Bits and pieces like this need a tune up in ancestry and class, but they are hardly game-breakers in need a fix next week, or else.

There is no shortage of threads discussing exactly the sort of character diversity people are concerned about. Fighters that don't want Heavy Armor. Rogues that want Two-Weapon Fighting. Rogues that don't care about DEX to Damage. Anyone other than a Ranger who wants to use a Crossbow. Non-Fighter characters who want to be good at Archery. Paladins that are ranged instead of melee. A large number of concepts that simply can't be done at 1st level because they require some amount of multiclassing to make happen at all, often for things that could easily be done at first level in PF1 (or 5e for that matter) even with just the core rules.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, we're going to get traditional archetypes back after core right? Presumably we can print one of those to get light or medium armored fighters up to snuff.

It's a question of balancing "accessibility" and "depth"- having classes make relatively few structural choices and still have a working character is a big boon for less experienced potential players, and then we can make them pretty intricate in later books.

Like the fighter class is one of two classes someone might pick because their idea is "I want to make a really tough character who wears heavy armor" so we should probably make sure it works as that. An archetype which trades/alters "Heavy Armor Expertise" and "Armor Mastery" will not be hard to do.

Now you have to invest in an archetype that eats class feats and multi-class opportunity. Instead of, melee? pick these two classes; Range? pick that class, it would be nice if you could build right out of the box what you want like PF1 allowed. System as it stands is too rigid and one of the reasons ive not moved on to a new edition in the past. I didnt wait around for splats to fix it either.


tivadar27 wrote:
This doesn't seem hard to me. We, as players, have obviously done this over the course of a little over a weekend. Yes, it was a collected effort, but that can also be done with editors. Have individual editors assigned to the various sections and have them do reads just of those sections, maybe skipping to relevant details where appropriate.

Whilst that's certainly possible, of course, you can take it as a matter of fact from a long-term worker in the field that proofreading is never easy and that something will always slip through, no matter how hard you try.


Arakhor wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
This doesn't seem hard to me. We, as players, have obviously done this over the course of a little over a weekend. Yes, it was a collected effort, but that can also be done with editors. Have individual editors assigned to the various sections and have them do reads just of those sections, maybe skipping to relevant details where appropriate.
Whilst that's certainly possible, of course, you can take it as a matter of fact from a long-term worker in the field that proofreading is never easy and that something will always slip through, no matter how hard you try.

Of course. And while I have proofread things, I don't work in the field professionally. It's my impression from the number of errors that this sort of approach *wasn't* taken, though, granted, take with a grain of salt.

Dark Archive

rooneg wrote:
Ikos wrote:
Here’s where clarity and specificity would go a long way. What type of character diversity cannot be realized. Which rules need simplifying? For core options, there appears to be a fair amount of available options leading to considerable diversity - no two dwarves, fighters, or sorcerers need be the same. As far as rules simplicity go, dying is overly complex and it is wonky that half orcs suddenly get dark vision at 5th level. Bits and pieces like this need a tune up in ancestry and class, but they are hardly game-breakers in need a fix next week, or else.
Rooneg: There is no shortage of threads discussing exactly the sort of character diversity people are concerned about. Fighters that don't want Heavy Armor. Rogues that want Two-Weapon Fighting. Rogues that don't care about DEX to Damage. Anyone other than a Ranger who wants to use a Crossbow. Non-Fighter characters who want to be good at Archery. Paladins that are ranged instead of melee. A large number of concepts that simply can't be done at 1st level because they require some amount of multiclassing to make happen at all, often for things that could easily be done at first level in PF1 (or 5e for that matter) even with just the core rules.

Yeah, -many- threads exists. Handwaving their direction as if they were all equally relevant, or as if they were all ones the poster I was responding to had in mind, is exactly the sort of vaugness that makes for a good sound bite in the absence of genuine clarity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
rooneg wrote:
Ikos wrote:
Here’s where clarity and specificity would go a long way. What type of character diversity cannot be realized. Which rules need simplifying? For core options, there appears to be a fair amount of available options leading to considerable diversity - no two dwarves, fighters, or sorcerers need be the same. As far as rules simplicity go, dying is overly complex and it is wonky that half orcs suddenly get dark vision at 5th level. Bits and pieces like this need a tune up in ancestry and class, but they are hardly game-breakers in need a fix next week, or else.
Rooneg: There is no shortage of threads discussing exactly the sort of character diversity people are concerned about. Fighters that don't want Heavy Armor. Rogues that want Two-Weapon Fighting. Rogues that don't care about DEX to Damage. Anyone other than a Ranger who wants to use a Crossbow. Non-Fighter characters who want to be good at Archery. Paladins that are ranged instead of melee. A large number of concepts that simply can't be done at 1st level because they require some amount of multiclassing to make happen at all, often for things that could easily be done at first level in PF1 (or 5e for that matter) even with just the core rules.
Yeah, -many- threads exists. Handwaving their direction as if they were all equally relevant, or as if they were all ones the poster I was responding to had in mind, is exactly the sort of vaugness that makes for a good sound bite in the absence of genuine clarity.

Since you were responding to me, I'm going to assume you mean me. So, let me say that maybe you should check your facts before you open your mouth.

I've posted *numerous* threads here regarding the specific issues with the underlying system, lack of options, and the like. I apologize for not stating them all *every* time I mention it, though I feel like that would be being rather redundant. Please, if you don't believe me, just look at the specific topics I've created on multiple issues.

EDIT: For reference, here's a list of all the things that I've raised as issues on these boards... Note, though, that I've been strong with my criticism, and tended to soften the wording a bit when posting on here. I find calling something "garbage" tends to not be helpful, even if true...
Long List of Concerns


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

The playtest last time felt a lot more complete because you could backfill whatever you were missing from 3.5. All told, the beta book was only 400 pages long as was missing large sections of the rules and a lot of versatility.

There is some of that going on here too. We fully intent to expand out some parts of the game as we make our way toward the final. The playtest will tell us what parts need more options to be a viable part of the game.

We will be releasing some revisions and hopefully one or two content expansions as the playtest continues, but there will not be an entire additional pdf revision. There is simply not the time for that sort of undertaking. That does not mean there will not be changes, it just means that those changes will be part of the final design.

Aside from correcting oversights, I would make at least some reworking of the proficiency system a priority. I've seen tons of people saying that it needs a larger disparity between ranks, and I'm one of them. As it is, it feels too much like 4th edition D&D.

PF2E definitely needs to move away from making characters feel "samey". The underlying system is good, but the outcome is not thus far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:

Here’s where clarity and specificity would go a long way. What type of character diversity cannot be realized. Which rules need simplifying? For core options, there appears to be a fair amount of available options leading to considerable diversity - no two dwarves, fighters, or sorcerers need be the same. As far as rules simplicity go, dying is overly complex and it is wonky that half orcs suddenly get dark vision at 5th level. Bits and pieces like this need a tune up in ancestry and class, but they are hardly game-breakers in need a fix next week, or else.

Overall, the trend that I’ve seen is that those most opposed are most vocal here with a solid majority eager to play, but without time to haunt the boards and largely unconcerned with our forum shenanigans. Their experiences at the table will be a driver for this edition’s reception far more than our armchair critiques. I’m no seer, but, despite the rough edges that need working, the edition appears to be on solid footing thus far and will sell just fine when finished next year, despite arguments to the contrary.

For my take, it's not that every Dwarf Fighter/Sorcerer is the same that makes character diversity lesser in PF2e, but the fact that options, where plentiful in 2e, don't necessarily feel distinct enough, and there are many cases where PF2e seems to push you in a certain direction, mechanically.

Rooneg mentioned a lot of these above, in terms of mostly class feats and fighting styles, but also the fact that Signature Skills exempt a number of concepts, like a streetwise urban ranger, or a worldly and charismatic knight fighter, or hell, even without veering too off the character stereotypes that PF2e is pushing, how about the fact that the monk's Ki powers can be occult, but the monk can't gain occultism as a signature skill (especially with Occult adventures tying Ki to the occult, with things like Chakras and Auras)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:


For my take, it's not that every Dwarf Fighter/Sorcerer is the same that makes character diversity lesser in PF2e, but the fact that options, where plentiful in 2e, don't necessarily feel distinct enough, and there are many cases where PF2e seems to push you in a certain direction, mechanically.

Rooneg mentioned a lot of these above, in terms of mostly class feats and fighting styles, but also the fact that Signature Skills exempt a number of concepts, like a streetwise urban ranger, or a worldly and charismatic knight fighter, or hell, even without veering too off the character stereotypes that PF2e is pushing, how about the fact that the monk's Ki powers can be occult, but the monk can't gain occultism as a signature skill (especially with Occult adventures tying Ki to the occult, with things like Chakras and Auras)?

rooneg wrote:


There is no shortage of threads discussing exactly the sort of character diversity people are concerned about. Fighters that don't want Heavy Armor. Rogues that want Two-Weapon Fighting. Rogues that don't care about DEX to Damage. Anyone other than a Ranger who wants to use a Crossbow. Non-Fighter characters who want to be good at Archery. Paladins that are ranged instead of melee. A large number of concepts that simply can't be done at 1st level because they require some amount of multiclassing to make happen at all, often for things that could easily be done at first level in PF1 (or 5e for that matter) even with just the core rules.

These two hit it in the spot for my concerns currently.

The systems can be fixed but if the content doesn't provide a satisfactory venue for player expression, I don't see what PF2 would have over 5E to make it appealing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klart McCather wrote:

I think they did a really good job but this community is just one ofthe most closed minded ones out there. It was formed on not wanting to move on so this was to be expected. People will adapt.

I've read through 80% of the book now and have not really noticed any glaring issues and they have to leave room for splat books later. Dont worry choices will be huge after a year or so. Enjoy having only a few books right now.

That's a bit rude. "closed minded" has nothing to do with it. It is natural to express concerns, especially for classes etc that are your favorites. If the game was as polished as you seem to believe there would be no need for a playtest.

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / A statement from Paizo would go a long way... All Messageboards

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