So, what are the awesome bits of these rules?

[Warmagon]

If I was talking about the positive aspects of 3e/PF, I'd mention stuff like building a character out of lots of different lego bits, pulling a piece from a different kit for your build. And a lot of actions could feel really powerful - you could mow down an enemy with a buffed up full attack in a single round, or cripple a bunch of foes with a multi-target spell.

For 4e, I'd mention balance (I could basically go through playing new classes each time and the characters pretty much all seemed decent at least), that there a lot of tactical combat combos you can set up internally and even more with your group. It also does a lot to establish class identity from level 1.

In FFG Star Wars, the two axis of success and way dice faces are set up means that success is often spawning some additional complication or problem, while failure is often creating some opportunity or other benefit. That usually helps things be Star Warsy IMO.

Obviously, people's experience with PF 2 so far is going to be limited. But what seems like the good part, the hook or pitch for the rules? I'm trying to be positive, but PF2 does not seem to have high impact attack rounds and spells of the 3e based systems while being more structured as well. And any combos of different actions aren't leaping off the page at me either the way 4e stuff did. What's the cool thing that PF 2 is good at, other than being Feat Tax: the RPG?

[Mergy]

Warmagon wrote:

What's the cool thing that PF 2 is good at, other than being Feat Tax: the RPG?

If you've already made up your mind to dislike something, it feels like a lot of energy to change your mind.

What I like about this system:
1. Single class system with feats for multiclass allows for front loading of class abilities
2. Critical success is more dynamic and rewards teamwork, compared with just having a keen scimitar
3. A design focus on spanning 20 levels rather than breaking into rocket tag after level 10
4. No more base attack bonus, allowing anyone to play a gish

[Dairian]

Awesome bits:

1 - Action economy
2 - Proficiency (for SKILLS only, and with tweaks for wider spread[+ 1/2 level?])
3 - Bardic music
4 - spell caster multi-classing feats (not as a replacement for actual multiclassing, but as a way to enable the half-caster as an option for some classes) In fact I would remove the martial archetypes, along with the bard's spell casting (in exchange for more feats, more music, more combat prowess, etc.

Lame bits:

1 - proficiency for combat skill (bring back BAB, if only just for bonus, not multi attack)
2 - no real multi-classing. IMHO, multi-classing is what makes tabletop what it is, being able to build exactly the character you want from the available pieces.
3 - gated feats. Just generalize the combat/metamagic feats, and giv ethe fighter other cool stuff (feat sharing, leadership abilities, etc.)

[Murph.]

Caveating, only one session under my group's belt so far, but --

Awesome -

1. Action economy! Newb friendly, but opens up new options for experienced players.

2. Ancestry feats! Dwarves can all be dwarfy without all being samey.

3. Parallelism in class presentation! No more "barbarians have a rage subsystem and a powers subsystem; rogues have a tricks subsystem which is sort of like the rage powers, but not quite; rangers have a wholly different combat style thing; etc" -- having the class abilities lumped in just a few systems (feats, powers/spell points, spells) makes it easy to focus on what the abilities *do*, and how different combos can be built, rather than obscuring the meat behind the class infrastructure.

4. Critical success / failure on +10/-10.

5. Equipment lists are limited but have significant choices. (Honestly, #1 reason I haven't played Starfinder yet is the equipment lists. Shopping is the least fun part of the game for me.)

6. Monster stat blocks are really easy and show me exactly what I need to run them without lots of unnecessary detail.

Maybe less awesome - but mostly rough edges on the awesome stuff:

1. Ancestry feats make me want 2 at first level.

2. Classes still have lots of hard-coded first level abilities, some of which seem they could be part of hte feat system. (Why are all fighters heavy armor / exotic weapon proficient, rather than throwing those on the fighter feat list and giving an extra 1st level fighter feat pick, eg? Why are all rogues finesse rogues?)

3. Shield system will take some getting used to.

4. Skills - having so many specific actions gated behind feats seems unnecessarily restrictive. Also, would like crit-failure conditions to be more vague/open-ended in a lot of cases -- or for the ones provided to be more explicitly "examples".

[Zman0]

Awesome

1: Actuon economy
2: Singleclass plus Multiclass feats
3: Proficiency -2-+3
4: Scaling damage.
5: Shield Action/Reaction

Bad:
1: +1/Level
2: Limited combat Sykes is gated feats. Dual slice for Rogue
3. Sorcerer feats and forced bloodline selections.
4: Scaling damage being tied to magic weapons. IMO just tie it to levels 4/8/12/16/20.

Suggestions
1: Add variant rules for bounded is no +level pathfinder in rule book and values oarenthesised in bestiary. Needs offial support, it’ll be the most common house rule IMO.
2: Untether extra weapon dice from magic weapons. Make it automatic at 4/8/12/16/20th level.
3: Magic shields. Allow +1/2/3/4/5 magic shields. Does not affect AC bonus, but instead increases DR and number of dents.
4: Sorcerer feats. Remove the 6th and 10th level bloodline powers, possibly the 1st as well. Make them class feats.
5: General feat list. Make the basic low level basic combat style feats and basic metamagic feats non class gated.

[gustavo iglesias]

Mergy wrote:

Warmagon wrote:

What's the cool thing that PF 2 is good at, other than being Feat Tax: the RPG?

If you've already made up your mind to dislike something, it feels like a lot of energy to change your mind.

this

[Vic Ferrari]

I like the Action Economy and how monsters interact with it (I have thought of action sequences, tactics to take with monsters, fun stuff).
I am starting to dig monsters most in this system; my favourite part of 4th Ed is monsters (I have ported over some 4th Ed monster actions/traits to 5th Ed).

[Elleth]

There's very little I outright dislike about this system, but some of the highlights for me are as follows:

Rituals -this is my favourite bit of the system, and taking into account the new four degrees of success make it even better for me.

Action economy as stated. While I'll have to see how it plays, on paper I really like it. I especially like how it interacts with spells like Heal and Magic Missile.

Character building. Gives far more control than rolling, but feels better tied into your character than simple points buy.

Effectively being able to make your own hybrid class.

Alchemy system being tied into how the alchemist plays (though I'll have to wait till testing before I can see how well it functions at present)

Spells that break worldbuilding gated behind uncommon or higher, which means I can ultimately give my players access to some but make it so the world at whole doesn't abuse them without needing to resort to convoluted explanations or leaving plot holes.

Rogues feel cool IMO, and at present I mostly want to play a rogue-fighter. Something I have never said in another system.

Shield cantrip functions similarly to a shield.

Most weapons have special properties (for fighter they all do).

I like the four spell lists, and how bards are no longer arcane.

[Thebazilly]

• Action economy
  
• Save-or-Dies have been mostly removed
  
• Degrees of success
  
• Weapons and armor diversified and more choices made viable
  
• Spellcaster nerfs and martials getting more cool things to do
  
• Bards are full casters
  
• HP from ancestry, so characters are a little more durable at 1st level
  
• Reduction of incentives for minmaxing
  
• No more big six magic items
  
• Magic items are a little more unique and cool (all of the elemental weapons do different things on a crit)
  
• You can upgrade an heirloom weapon instead of throwing it out when you find a magic weapon
  
• Combat maneuvers are built in to skills
  
• Silver standard for economy
  
• Exploration and downtime defined in core rulebook
  
• Better defined rules for detecting invisible creatures
  
• Monster weaknesses instead of resistances
  
• Unique monster actions

That's what I can think of at the moment. Others are welcome to disagree with any of those points.

[Tholomyes]

I think 2e is a solid framework, with a lot of the individual bits layered on that system (most feats, as well as stuff like signature skills, and constrained character options) need to go back to the drawing board.

As such, right now, the only true "Awesome bits" of the system that I can see are the critical system (and mostly only there for Spells and skills, though I suppose it does speed up weapon criticals), and Spell points.

The rest are mostly just solid parts of a solid system (I'm including action economy in this, as I think it's mostly just solid; I'm not as wowed by it as most people are, but I do think it's better than before, with a few issues) or disappointing bits that are mostly layered on top of the base system.

[Cyouni]

Zman0 wrote:

3: Magic shields. Allow +1/2/3/4/5 magic shields. Does not affect AC bonus, but instead increases DR and number of dents.

What makes Sturdy Shields not qualify for that?

[Pan]

Right now its the action economy and degrees of success/failure that I feel are the awesome bits.