Would love this, but that would push them back 2 years as they redeveloped what they've already been working on for the last couple years.
though I see no reason to have 'branches', just well managed prerequisites.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use the Hero System.
Goal achieved.
That is a neat idea but it might be more challenging that its worth. It would inevitably lead to people picking the "best" feats and leaving the lesser powered ones on a shelf. Having classes helps separate these feats into categories that make better thematic sense for each particular chassis, to help flesh out that person's role in the party. It would be fairly difficult to balance the hundreds of feats to make most/all of them appealing enough to actually get used.
I'm not saying it can't be done - it can, as Volkard said, the Hero System uses a system where you can build ANY kind of superhero character you can imagine. But at some point it wouldn't even resemble the fantasy tropes we've come to love and expect, the fantasy paradigms that grew out of D&D.
Did I miss the Hero System in their pdf? Which page?Use the Hero System.
Goal achieved.
It is a different RPG altogether, not part of Pathfinder in any way.
I'm not gonna lie, when PF2 was announced, I secretly hoped that it would be similar to True20--chosen class features built on a chassis of combatant, skill-user or caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping they carefully select feats that only make sense for a specific class, mark them as such, and leave the rest as up for grabs for everyone.
The classes then remain nice little packages for new players to use to come to grips with everything, while experienced players can build their characters more freely.
I'm a bit torn in regards to classes. I like the feel of classes, and they help with building a functioning character, but at the same time, I feel that a classless system will make building a specific concept easier.
inevitably lead to people picking the "best" feats and leaving the lesser powered ones on a shelf.
I've never understood this. Why not simply make all feats equal? If something can be left on the shelf, does it need to be in the game, or does it need a buff in comparison to what else is available?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
While this is a playtest and we are evaluating everything, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we will not be removing classes from the game.
|
While this is a playtest and we are evaluating everything, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we will not be removing classes from the game.Sadly, what looks good on paper isn't always in practice. That and you might not see x + y = infinite combo until it's too late. That or if you're making new feats later, you've got to go back, run through every possible combination of other feats and make sure they play nice.
Ideally, I agree, it'd be awesome
That applies to... any and every system ever.
I believe the player should be able to pick the features they want.
We already have that in P1's very lenient front-loaded multiclassing system.
P2;s classes, by delaying ironic class abilities for several levels, essentially confirms the new system as a "baby steps for newb GMs" game. I.e., he won't be blindsided by weird combos.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overly complicated, while I've played my fair share of rpgs. New players might look at all these options and be overwhelmed. There is so much to choose from, that and when you add supplements?
Actually, one of the goals is to simplify these options in some way. Take a look at P1 now. Not only does it have an abundance of options that can be overwhelming to new players there are more silos for those options.
Personally, I have found that newer players have no problem with the current range of silos and find it much easier to navigate them than the current mix of feats, racial traits, talents, powers, spell-like abilities, traits (and the various sub-categories of those), exploits, evolutions, mysteries, and so on.
Of course, my observations, while broad, are anecdotal, and hence the reason why we are doing this playtest. Thank you very much for the feedback. It is appreciated.
Overly complicated, while I've played my fair share of rpgs. New players might look at all these options and be overwhelmed. There is so much to choose from, that and when you add supplements?.While this is a playtest and we are evaluating everything, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we will not be removing classes from the game.Sadly, what looks good on paper isn't always in practice. That and you might not see x + y = infinite combo until it's too late. That or if you're making new feats later, you've got to go back, run through every possible combination of other feats and make sure they play nice.
Ideally, I agree, it'd be awesome
FWIW: One of the players in my playtest group has never played PF before (one campaign of 5e) and they were able to digest character creation without too many issues and enjoyed the process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I have a friend that never played 3.P before who moved from 5e to Pathfinder, and he had few issues. This friend also doesn't like PF2, because it feels more limiting to him than 5e.FWIW: One of the players in my playtest group has never played PF before (one campaign of 5e) and they were able to digest character creation without too many issues and enjoyed the process.Overly complicated, while I've played my fair share of rpgs. New players might look at all these options and be overwhelmed. There is so much to choose from, that and when you add supplements?.While this is a playtest and we are evaluating everything, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we will not be removing classes from the game.Sadly, what looks good on paper isn't always in practice. That and you might not see x + y = infinite combo until it's too late. That or if you're making new feats later, you've got to go back, run through every possible combination of other feats and make sure they play nice.
Ideally, I agree, it'd be awesome
That's kind of my point. It is a bit meaningless to say "some people might have trouble with this" because that is universally true regardless of what people are doing. Being new or experienced in gaming doesn't matter, largely because this is a new and distinct game.
You say limiting. I say flexible. Some people say difficult to read. I say searchable.
We (everyone involved in the playtest) should try to avoid that kind of feedback because it isn't constructive. Say WHAT makes it limiting or hard to read, or enjoyable, and don't rely on emotional appeals or rage.
|
|
Overly complicated, while I've played my fair share of rpgs. New players might look at all these options and be overwhelmed. There is so much to choose from, that and when you add supplements?Actually, one of the goals is to simplify these options in some way. Take a look at P1 now. Not only does it have an abundance of options that can be overwhelming to new players there are more silos for those options.
Personally, I have found that newer players have no problem with the current range of silos and find it much easier to navigate them than the current mix of feats, racial traits, talents, powers, spell-like abilities, traits (and the various sub-categories of those), exploits, evolutions, mysteries, and so on.
Of course, my observations, while broad, are anecdotal, and hence the reason why we are doing this playtest. Thank you very much for the feedback. It is appreciated.
Made characters with three less-experienced players last night. They all appreciated the clear "pick one of this list" option selection and had found PF1 very overwhelming.
That said, as a more experienced player I found the class-gating of some basic combat styles to be pretty frustrating: I wanted to make a ranged Paladin and quickly realized that there's no great way to make that work (I'm not saying, oh no it's not optimal, I'm saying, from a quick read it looks like I'd lack basic archer functionality and a ton of my main class features that I can't select out of just wouldn't do anything for an archer concept). Even the bow ranger I ended up with I was forced into an animal companion, against the concept I wanted going in, because the other options were worse fits (or, in the case of the monster ID feat, which I was going to take, it just seemed incredibly weak as a mechanical choice).
While classes are obviously here to stay, I would prefer if the distinction between class abilities and class feats would go away and they would all be optional class feats instead of partially forced progression.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I had originally hoped with regards to feats is that they would have more varied prerequisites. I would love for Piint-Blank Shot to be listed as "Fighter 1, Ranger 1, General 3". This allows Fighters and Rangers to select it at 1 with a glass feat, and any class to select it as a General feat later. Still makes it a "Martial thing", but allows other bills to use it if that what the player wants. In general, I think this allows a lot more flexibility going forward.