It just.... does not feel awesome


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Are you guys still doing that "which is better in a RPG thing" simple or complex?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, but it breaks under *scrutiny* while at-will Presti breaks all the dirty clothes washing, dental hygiene and alcohol distillation without scrutiny. It just jumps out and in every group I've ran whenever Presti was used the table devolved into discussion on just how much can you cheese it. The winner was a guy who proposed to use it in order to heat tungsten in sufficient amounts to make a fusion candle and blow up the world's atmosphere.

Funny, no group of mine ever tried to cheese Prestidigitation for anything. They are just very happy that they have a spell with which to clean out their clothes after wading through a sewer and smell good. Seems you have an issue with powerplayers at your table, who would have thought? ^^

Also, if a guy would start making serious plans to blow up the world's atmosphere with Prestidigitation, I would shut that down immediately with a "go play Shadowrun for that kind of BS" comment.

Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects, the spell as written in 3/3.5 left a little too much room for interpretation, which was fine with limited cantrips in 3.5 ... but kind of blew up with at-will cantrips in PF1.

Well, I disagree, because we are not playing a real-world economy simulator here. There's a middle ground where suspension of disbelief should be taken for granted. I know it will be different for everyone, but, again, nerfing fun stuff is not the solution to everything.

That last part actually sums up most of my problems so far with PF2E. The devs nerfed most of the fun parts, because balance was such a paramount concern that it overtook enjoyment. And, yes, that is a highly subjective statement.

The tungsten player is autistic. He's been hearing variations of "go play Shadowrun for that kind of BS" all his life, because that's how people who don't understand their condition react to them taking things to logical extreme and discarding common sense. He's not a power gamer. He simply runs every variable in his mind in all possible directions and does that faster than we do BUT he skips the whole "OK so how would that sit with other carbon-based life forms" part.

It's precisely such people, who are surprisingly frequent among pen and paper RPGers, who need rules that don't paralyze them with attempts to push interpretation to extreme limits. I encourage you to try and play with somebody on autistic specturm one day, it will open you to situations where you can't just discard somebody's bonkers ideas on the count of them being munchkins or trying to blow your game up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
technarken wrote:


To be fair, Channel Life basically gives a Paladin "Lay On Hands, Only Even Better Than 1e" due to how the Heal spell works in 2e.

It doesn't even begin to justify how weak the rest of the Paladin's defensive kit is though. The 1e Paladin is a Teflon-coated Hammer of Justice that flat ignores a host of debilitating conditions through sheer faith and resolve while Evil melts before them. The 2e Paladin...isn't those things.

This really fits into a narrative that PF2 is the hangover of Pathfinder, it both good and bad.

Yes, sort of how I felt that 4th Ed tried to cure the 3rd Ed headache by cutting off the head. Went a bit too far, more revolutionary than evolutionary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Have any of you who posted above actually played the game? I'm far more interested in what people who have played the game have to say.

Unfortunately I've played 4th and 5th edition and the level on everything, proficiency based system, is a hard no for me. The rest of it could be great but I'm not going to get past the horrible feeling of crushing conformity that such a system engenders in me.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Why the hell not? It was a fun, innovative thing to do. Again, killing fun should not be objective of the game.

Also, mechanically the guy should have gotten a save, because someone used magic against stuff he was wearing. Furthermore, and I know this is subject to interpretation for many GM's, if he gets a save, he knows magic has been used against him.

Also also, even if we take the situation as is, while the guy was removed from future social encounters, you can be pretty sure that he would try to take his revenge on the PC who embarassed him in some other way, maybe by hiring assassins to take him out. Roleplay! Consequences!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is starting to look like PF2's biggest hurdle is going to be its optics rather than its actual game play. The title of this thread implies that the game has been played and in practice it doesn't feel fun, but then the first post is really saying that the game doesn't look fun to play from the outside.

That is a super legitimate critique, but it seems like the developers are asking for people to play it first so they can figure out if the system actually is fun to play or not first, and then they will try to work out the optics once they are certain that the game is fun in play.

I too am a skeptic of this system, but I think telling them how to change it before completing the playtest, at many different levels, is not useful in figuring out whether the game itself feels awesome in play or not.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

If you think the ability to clean stuff and soil stuff with a cantrip is too much then I think we're not going to agree on much regarding magic.

Gandalf blowing a smoke ring with a cantrip would probably be too much at this point.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Why the hell not? It was a fun, innovative thing to do. Again, killing fun should not be objective of the game.

Also, mechanically the guy should have gotten a save, because someone used magic against stuff he was wearing. Furthermore, and I know this is subject to interpretation for many GM's, if he gets a save, he knows magic has been used against him.

Also also, even if we take the situation as is, while the guy was removed from future social encounters, you can be pretty sure that he would try to take his revenge on the PC who embarassed him in some other way, maybe by hiring assassins to take him out. Roleplay! Consequences!

Casters should be able to use 0-level cantrips which require saves only if the GM feels like it while martials should jump the hoops of multiple skill checks and be just plain unable to match a 0-level cantrip at all?

This isn't fun. This is driving the "casters do cool things, you get to stand and watch" further. I can see how, by being a caster player, you didn't notice that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like prestidigitation was kind of a weird spell really (and not just to spell) It was illusion right so is it really cleaning the cloths or making it look clean? I don't know I feel a lot of its use and abuse was from it being vaguely defined and in some games it may have been real nice and in others no one would of touched it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Casters should be able to use 0-level cantrips which require saves only if the GM feels like it while martials should jump the hoops of multiple skill checks and be just plain unable to match a 0-level cantrip at all?

This isn't fun. This is driving the "casters do cool things, you get to stand and watch" further. I can see how, by being a caster player, you didn't notice that.

You could do the same sort of thing with a Sleight of Hand roll to surreptiously spill something over the guy.

It's probably a lot easier to get away with than a cantrip as well, a lot more subtle and more likely to work.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

Casters should be able to use 0-level cantrips which require saves only if the GM feels like it while martials should jump the hoops of multiple skill checks and be just plain unable to match a 0-level cantrip at all?

This isn't fun. This is driving the "casters do cool things, you get to stand and watch" further. I can see how, by being a caster player, you didn't notice that.

I've played dozens of characters over the last twenty years, probably half of them non-casters. Guess what, I had fun with them as well.

If now you are advocating that casters shouldn't be able to do other stuff than what martials can do, I don't think I can follow you on that road. That's basically asking to do away with all differences between classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

In that particular situation, most certainly. It created a temporary illusion that wouldn't stand up to close inspection (good thing nobody wanted to) and if I'd been caught casting a spell, I would have been the one ejected, if not arrested. Risk vs reward, as the DM gave him a save to resist it.

The enemy noble knew it was an illusion, but observer impressions from other nobles count for more than explanations after the fact. As magnuskn predicted, he countered with assassins when he stopped receiving invites to social functions. Still worth it!

As a martial, I've also started brawls at formal events where weapons were prohibited, so the lack of magic was never an issue. If an NPC is thrashing you with social skills, you try to go with your strengths. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 Prestidigitation is not an illusion. Soiling something soils it for real and it persists beyond the duration of the cantrip.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I feel like prestidigitation was kind of a weird spell really (and not just to spell) It was illusion right so is it really cleaning the cloths or making it look clean? I don't know I feel a lot of its use and abuse was from it being vaguely defined and in some games it may have been real nice and in others no one would of touched it.

I think it was supposed to be a catch all to let wizards do all the sorts of things stereotypical apprentices can do. Cleaning up their room with magic, cooking food with magic, adjusting their hair with magic, blowing fantastic smoke rings with magic, etc.

So that sort of catch all would require vagueness.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Forseti wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Forseti wrote:
I think some of the un-awesomeness is due to many of the classes having a lot of feats that do nothing more than build toward what are baseline class features in PF1. I find that very unappealing.
Can you give concrete examples for this? I certainly think the range on certain things can be expanded (Legendary Climber/Swimmer, for example, though effective, I suppose, aren't very interesting), but I don't think there's anything that falls to the level of "baseline class features".

Paladin:

- Divine Grace: a feat that's a lot worse than the class feature in PF1
- Aura of Courage: a feat that's a bit worse for yourself but a bit useful for allies compared to the class feature in PF1
- Channel Life: a feat instead of the PF1 class feature.
- Divine Health: a feat that gives a marginal bonus in PF2, compared to the immunity granting class feature in PF1.
- Mercy: a feat with some follow-up feats in PF2 compared to a class feature in PF1.

That's 5 examples in the first 4 feat levels of the PF2 paladin.

Note: I'm not saying the PF2 abilities are without merit in the context of the PF2 game. The game will probably run fine. I just can't help feeling underwhelmed by the comparison to the PF1 games I'm involved in, that have years of life in them yet.

dont forget the capstone! at level 19 you get a nerfed 1st-level spell from 1e (conveniently with the same name)! while the wizard has had 8th- and now 9th-level spells--even with the spell rebalance that's a raw deal. things like that and improvised snare give me the impression that there's a lack of... i don't know. awareness (edit: like, attention to scope or even basic comparison to the other classes)? that seems to have gone into designing the classes.

not even going further into the C/M disparity, the things youre fighting at that level are far beyond the scope of such piddly things--at 19th level you're fighting the avatars of gods, or taking on entire nations, or traveling the planes dealing with universe-ending abominations! what's making an improvised snare going to do vs flying stuff, or behemothian creatures from beyond time and space? what's healing yourself from death's door once per minute with a spell point cost going to do with the damage rework and increased critical swinginess (even with the heal you may still go down on that hit, especially if it's a critical)? if you're in such dire straits the party is more than likely even worse off, so delaying one more turn once per encounter may save you in the clutch (letting you pick up the wizard so they can handle it perhaps), but generally with it's limitations it will just delay the inevitable to me.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Are you guys still doing that "which is better in a RPG thing" simple or complex?

most of my critiques are talking about the fun vs bland axis (many options even discounting outright traps are just far too weak and boring overall, especially when compared to it's predecessors), not the simple vs complicated axis.

there's little if any wow factor present anywhere. no motivation or excitement in anything you can do or choose. are we not supposed to be playing this game to have fun playing legendary adventurers in a fantasy world?

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

It is starting to look like PF2's biggest hurdle is going to be its optics rather than its actual game play. The title of this thread implies that the game has been played and in practice it doesn't feel fun, but then the first post is really saying that the game doesn't look fun to play from the outside.

That is a super legitimate critique, but it seems like the developers are asking for people to play it first so they can figure out if the system actually is fun to play or not first, and then they will try to work out the optics once they are certain that the game is fun in play.

I too am a skeptic of this system, but I think telling them how to change it before completing the playtest, at many different levels, is not useful in figuring out whether the game itself feels awesome in play or not.

Yeap a huge problem for Paizo if folks think the game lacks awesome. They are going to have play the part of Tom Sawyer and convince people white washing a fence is fun.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Exhibit B:

Quote:


IMPROVED BRAVERY FEAT 6 - Fighter
Trigger Your turn ends.
Reduce your frightened condition by 2, rather than 1.

I can't think of a less exciting way to describe bravery. It says nothing to a new player at all, and hardly sums up the image of my fighter holding his steely nerve in the face of a fearsome demon as the rest of my party quakes in their boots.

Maybe it's just a case of having one of the writers who's very good at exciting superlatives to have a pass over the feats and spells and make them sound cool and desirable? Paizo has some outstanding creative writers there, this is something they can do comfortably within their capabilities. Crystal Frasier can't help but sound awesome whenever she writes anything down. Paizo can absolutely improve this.

It would mean accepting a few less feats in the main book, because *pagecount*. But that's the cost of flavour.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:

Exhibit B:

Quote:


IMPROVED BRAVERY FEAT 6 - Fighter
Trigger Your turn ends.
Reduce your frightened condition by 2, rather than 1.

I can't think of a less exciting way to describe bravery. It says nothing to a new player at all, and hardly sums up the image of my fighter holding his steely nerve in the face of a fearsome demon as the rest of my party quakes in their boots.

Maybe it's just a case of having one of the writers who's very good at exciting superlatives to have a pass over the feats and spells and make them sound cool and desirable? Paizo has some outstanding creative writers there, this is something they can do comfortably within their capabilities. Crystal Frasier can't help but sound awesome whenever she writes anything down. Paizo can absolutely improve this.

It would mean accepting a few less feats in the main book, because *pagecount*. But that's the cost of flavour.

You're making an excellent point here. Adding some salt and sugar will help this document a lot and I fully expect that to happen in the final.

The meat and potatoes here though are lacking for me (and I suspect for others). Taking a feat just to reduce the frightened condition by an extra 1. Not very exciting. It requires that your character has already failed at something to be relevant.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:

Exhibit B:

Quote:


IMPROVED BRAVERY FEAT 6 - Fighter
Trigger Your turn ends.
Reduce your frightened condition by 2, rather than 1.

I can't think of a less exciting way to describe bravery. It says nothing to a new player at all, and hardly sums up the image of my fighter holding his steely nerve in the face of a fearsome demon as the rest of my party quakes in their boots.

Maybe it's just a case of having one of the writers who's very good at exciting superlatives to have a pass over the feats and spells and make them sound cool and desirable? Paizo has some outstanding creative writers there, this is something they can do comfortably within their capabilities. Crystal Frasier can't help but sound awesome whenever she writes anything down. Paizo can absolutely improve this.

It would mean accepting a few less feats in the main book, because *pagecount*. But that's the cost of flavour.

I definitely agree with you that the writing can make a big difference in how the game feels, and the playtest is very dry atm.

(I like your descriptions btw, maybe paizo needs a colorful description guy?).

But (i think) they are waiting to add those descriptions, which are a little harder to write, once everything is a little more finalized. At this point of the playtest they are trying to test things out without fully fleshing everything out.

edit: ninja'd


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:
Yossarian wrote:

Exhibit B:

Quote:


IMPROVED BRAVERY FEAT 6 - Fighter
Trigger Your turn ends.
Reduce your frightened condition by 2, rather than 1.

I can't think of a less exciting way to describe bravery. It says nothing to a new player at all, and hardly sums up the image of my fighter holding his steely nerve in the face of a fearsome demon as the rest of my party quakes in their boots.

Maybe it's just a case of having one of the writers who's very good at exciting superlatives to have a pass over the feats and spells and make them sound cool and desirable? Paizo has some outstanding creative writers there, this is something they can do comfortably within their capabilities. Crystal Frasier can't help but sound awesome whenever she writes anything down. Paizo can absolutely improve this.

It would mean accepting a few less feats in the main book, because *pagecount*. But that's the cost of flavour.

I definitely agree with you that the writing can make a big difference in how the game feels, and the playtest is very dry atm.

(I like your descriptions btw, maybe paizo needs a colorful description guy?).

But (i think) they are waiting to add those descriptions, which are a little harder to write, once everything is a little more finalized. At this point of the playtest they are trying to test things out without fully fleshing everything out.

edit: ninja'd

*smoke bomb*


Wait didn't old bravery just give pluses to will saves? how is that ay different? If you are complaing about lack of flavor text then thats probably because of play test and not final.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joshua James Jordan wrote:


*smoke bomb*

A good example! Compare the current playtest text on them to the straw man edit beneath it:

Quote:


SMOKE BOMB FEAT 1 Alchemist
Frequency once per round
Trigger You craft an alchemical bomb using the Quick Alchemy action.

You cause the bomb to create a cloud of thick smoke in addition to its normal effects. When thrown, it creates a cloud of smoke in a 10-foot-radius burst. You choose which corner of target’s space (or the space in which the bomb lands) the cloud is centered on. All creatures within that area are concealed (see page 302). The smoke lasts for 1 minute or until dissipated with a strong wind.

Just add to the description with something like:

Quote:


SMOKE BOMB FEAT 1 Alchemist
Frequency once per round
Trigger You craft an alchemical bomb using the Quick Alchemy action.

Regular bombs aren't enough for you: you need dirty bombs. You mix your own personal blend of soot and grime into your explosive creations. When they detonate acrid smoke billows in all directions as well as shrapnel.

Your bombs when thrown, alongside their normal damage, create a cloud of thick smoke of the colour of your choosing in a 10-foot-radius burst. You choose which corner of target’s space (or the space in which the bomb lands) the cloud is centered on. All creatures within that area are concealed (see page 302). The smoke lasts for 1 minute or until dissipated with a strong wind. After a fight you will be covered in soot until you clean yourself up.

I'm just making this stuff up - but it kind of shows how simple it would be to at least inject some fun back into the writing.

Saying 'it's just a playtest' isn't really an adequate excuse: since the enthusiasm we have for the playtest will end up affecting the launch significantly. It's really a matter of quantity versus quality within the limited pagecount the CRB can have.

In terms of sales, marketing, and in the end accessibility the tone of voice of the playtest book is not helping. Yes it's logically very clear, but that precision has sucked the life out of much of the descriptions. That life just needs to be re-injected and we can have the best of both worlds.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm very early in the process will do my first playtest on Sunday...

Since the first character I made in PF1 was a Cleric I'm deciding to make a Cleric in PF2 with my first character. Already it's way more tedious/difficult to make a Cleric in PF2 than in PF1 and I was a complete noob to d20 tabletop when I made my first Cleric in PF1. Everything you needed to build the Cleric was in the Cleric section in PF1 as opposed to PF2 I'm doing a lot of flipping through the book to get through it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mista Moore wrote:

I'm very early in the process will do my first playtest on Sunday...

Since the first character I made in PF1 was a Cleric I'm deciding to make a Cleric in PF2 with my first character. Already it's way more tedious/difficult to make a Cleric in PF2 than in PF1 and I was a complete noob to d20 tabletop when I made my first Cleric in PF1. Everything you needed to build the Cleric was in the Cleric section in PF1 as opposed to PF2 I'm doing a lot of flipping through the book to get through it.

I hope we get a standard background (bonus to any two ability scores) that includes a small +1 bonus to a skill of your choice similar to Starfinder's themeless background. That's one less part to jump around on. I just don't see new players making a character easy enough as is, even with my help guiding them through it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wait didn't old bravery just give pluses to will saves? how is that ay different? If you are complaing about lack of flavor text then thats probably because of play test and not final.

Old bravery gave plusses to saves and checks vs Fear. New Bravery is evasion for Fear effects. Old Improved Bravery made your plusses into a general Will save bonus. New Improved Bravery makes you slightly better off when you fail a save against Fear.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wait didn't old bravery just give pluses to will saves? how is that ay different? If you are complaing about lack of flavor text then thats probably because of play test and not final.

+1 (+1/4 level, total 6 at 20) vs fear specifically, which was a rather narrow field of mental effects, and by far one of the least threatening.

pf2's bravery auto-upgrades saves to crits (yay!) but only against fear effects specifically (boo) on your lowest save (boo) and only gives you a bonus against FUTURE saves of the same type for 1 minute (which is actually a bonus, since now saving doesn't make one immune to it being attempted again for X time anymore in 2e).

so it is technically a mechanical upgrade, caused by nerfing the entire save subsystem, on one of the weakest of least-often-used abilities of a historically undertuned class.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

After making characters for our game next week and reading the rules to prep it my biggest take away is this seems much like 4th edition D&D far to focused on maintaining balance and trying to ward off the power players than making a game that feels fun. It tries to have a rule for everything and everything spelled out like some kind of legal document. I for one noticed this trend when the Kenisistist came out and figured it was just an effort to avoid power creep taken a bit too far. There is a DM there for a reason yet just look to the arguments about what having a hand free entails for a good example of this.


Envall wrote:
technarken wrote:


To be fair, Channel Life basically gives a Paladin "Lay On Hands, Only Even Better Than 1e" due to how the Heal spell works in 2e.

It doesn't even begin to justify how weak the rest of the Paladin's defensive kit is though. The 1e Paladin is a Teflon-coated Hammer of Justice that flat ignores a host of debilitating conditions through sheer faith and resolve while Evil melts before them. The 2e Paladin...isn't those things.

This really fits into a narrative that PF2 is the hangover of Pathfinder, it both good and bad. Paladin is a good point, because PF1 Paladin was both powerful but utterly one-note class. Because were super high on saves and immune to just half the stuff anyway. You said it, he ignored events. Lot of time you ended up just not participating in roleplaying events that are called "failing a save".

"I pulverize things with smite and ignore all effects" is awesome, but has no nuance to it. Point of empathy, the new stuff is too careful, too tame, but the kind of "always one immunity" goes nowhere either.

Counterpoint: Someone building a 1e Paladin knows from the outset that they are building the Teflon Hammer (unless they are new to the game). They know that because they have built a Paladin, every single immunity changes how their character will interact with the world. Every one of those negated effects is an event unto itself. In that way they aren't ignoring events at all. The player has deliberately noticed potential events, and it just so happens "being a Paladin" is really proactive counterplay.


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

I'm gonna be honest. As soon as someone states they haven't played the game yet. It's really really hard to take their feedback seriously. How the game reads and such might be important to you and maybe it's a deal breaker right from the start and that's completely fine. But I really do not value your analysis of how the game will be played unless you ACTUALLY play it.

I mean isn't that how everything in the real world works? Imagine someone reviewed a fighting game and they state in the review that they didn't actually play it, they just watched a trailer and read the wiki. It'd be ridiculous. Now to say: I don't like fighting games and this is a fighting game so I won't be playing it. Completely fine, but please don't act like you know how the game works unless you play it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I really do not value your analysis of how the game will be played unless you ACTUALLY play it.

Isnt going into a thread to tell someone their post is worthless and they should shut up against the code of conduct? Because that's basically what you've done.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I really do not value your analysis of how the game will be played unless you ACTUALLY play it.
Isnt going into a thread to tell someone their post is worthless and they should shut up against the code of conduct? Because that's basically what you've done.

They said nothing of the sort.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Dire Ursus I have played it and can tell you so far, from what I experienced and feel, can be expressed by the OP's subject line. I play it and I just kind of feel empty. I had some fun playing it but sometimes during and the entire time after, something just wasn't right. I will need to play more but overall, my current opinion is staying with 1e for homegames/PFS for when I want a more tactically immersive rpg and 5e for when I just want to relax and rp more. Or other systems when I want something different.

I will continue to playtest 2e with an open mind and see where it takes me.


I've been getting kind of negative in this thread, but every day as I check back to the rulebook I start liking it a bit more. The same thing happened to me with Starfinder. I'm going to enjoy playing this game once I can find a group for it.

I think partially it comes from the psychological impact of coming from PF1 and just having numbers and bonuses be smaller in PF2. It feels like I'm losing out. I'm really not though, as a +1 bonus is not just giving you a 5% increase chance in success, but a +5% to critical success, a +5% to not failing, and a +5% to not critically failing. It's a neat system.

I'm also aware that while I can only see one type of build in each class I'd want to make, that's going to open up a year or two after launch when there's a PF2 advances player's guide or what have you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On criticizing people who haven't played it:

I agree that people who have played the system have a more valid opinion of how things work, but I also think that the "initial read" is important.

It's worth pointing out that putting together an RPG session takes effort and buy-in from a group. I love to try new RPG systems. There are tons and tons of systems that I'd like to try but will probably never in my life play because most of the gamers I know are not this way, they find a system that works for them and then heavily resist trying anything new for even a single session unless they think it is very likely it will increase their fun.

I think 5e casting is a good example of how to tone down power while keeping things fun. Caster/martial balance was bothering some players. 5e nerfed casting overall but still gave casters some fun things that 3.5/PF casters couldn't do and even buffed some spells (like Prestidigitation!), so even the players who liked to play casters were intrigued and willing to give it a try.

So what can my PF2 wizard do that my PF1 wizard can't? It seems the main answer is "avoid overshadowing others". Which is all well and good, but it's not very sexy if you like to play wizards.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Slurmalyst wrote:


It's worth pointing out that putting together an RPG session takes effort and buy-in from a group. I love to try new RPG systems. There are tons and tons of systems that I'd like to try but will probably never in my life play because most of the gamers I know are not this way, they find a system that works for them and then heavily resist trying anything new for even a single session unless they think it is very likely it will increase their fun.

I think first impressions are incredibly important. If I show the PF2 core rulebook to a DnD 5e player and let them flip through it for 15 or 20 minutes at the end of that will they be interested enough in the system to put the effort into learning it? If not than regardless of how good the actual system is it won't get much use.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Not only do I think so, I would actively encourage it. Creative use of resources is rewarding for everyone at the table except railroading GMs.

Know what else can have huge narrative powers? Pickpocketing a key. Or slashing a painting with a knife. Or spreading a lie. Or any number of an infinite set of options that require zero resource investment whatsoever.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DFAnton wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Not only do I think so, I would actively encourage it. Creative use of resources is rewarding for everyone at the table except railroading GMs.

Know what else can have huge narrative powers? Pickpocketing a key. Or slashing a painting with a knife. Or spreading a lie. Or any number of an infinite set of options that require zero resource investment whatsoever.

Honestly, it sometimes feels like people want to play a pen and paper video game. You gotta have "level appropriate" gear and abilities, as though the TTRPG scene isn't supposed to be all about doing whatever you can imagine.

I never understood why it offends people that a 16th level fighter could make use of a 1st level potion, or a low level wand.

Sometimes a well placed word, the right trick, or a handy rope can save the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Forseti wrote:
I think some of the un-awesomeness is due to many of the classes having a lot of feats that do nothing more than build toward what are baseline class features in PF1. I find that very unappealing.
Can you give concrete examples for this? I certainly think the range on certain things can be expanded (Legendary Climber/Swimmer, for example, though effective, I suppose, aren't very interesting), but I don't think there's anything that falls to the level of "baseline class features".

How about Druid.

In PF1 your Druid got an animal companion (unless you went out of your way to not), go Wild Shape at 5th level, and both advanced along the way.

To get what standard PF1 Druid had for JUST companion and wild shape you'd need:

Animal Companion Feat
Full-Grown Companion Feat
Incredible Companion Feat
Specialized Companion Feat

Wild Shape
Animal Form
Elemental Shape
Form Control
Soaring Shape

9 out of 10 of your feats!

And you still can't turn into plant creatures!

And that's before you spend feats for:

Call of the Wild (for spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally)
Poison Resistance (Massive Downgrade from Poison Immunity)
Thousand Faces
Woodland Stride

That would require you to have 14 class feats to replicate PF1 basic Druid.

Class feats were supposed to give more options and flexibility- not make each class have to choose to get only a third of its previous class features.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

OP, I logged in just to say that I agree with you and you described my experience exactly!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Except a Druid doing that made martials obsolete even earlier than normal, so let's not pretend they didn't need to be reined in.


Combat efficacy aside, I really feel that druids need to be able to remain in animal form for longer times at lower levels. It just kinda feels necessary to support the shape shifter archetype.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Except a Druid doing that made martials obsolete even earlier than normal, so let's not pretend they didn't need to be reined in.

Reining in is fine, the druid definitely needed that. But there are different ways of doing this than turning everything into feats.

I find the progression feats especially annoying. If you go for one of those, like Animal Companion, you're pretty much locked in for all the follow-up feats if you want that original feat to stay relevant.

That is another general issue that doesn't sit well with me. It's not just the druid that suffers from this: Very few options advance with levels without continuous further feat investments. It locks people into very narrow builds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Except a Druid doing that made martials obsolete even earlier than normal, so let's not pretend they didn't need to be reined in.

I never saw Druid's be a problem at any of my tables and rarely had them at my tables.

Even so, what will most likely happen is that the Druid player will ditch the four I listed at the bottom along with elemental Shape and pick up Side by Side and potentially Savage or Dragon Shape and not take any real nerf to their combat prowess, just had their outside combat class features dropped to nill.

Shadow Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I dragged a player kicking and screaming to create a character to playtest. She went with 'elf ranger', which is her go-to in any game.

I'll try to summarize.

Fast forward through fairly boring and obvious stat boosts to hoping for a chance to feel awesome.

Elf
Great, now its time to become more "elf-ey"...

*Scans the list of elf feats*
1. Ageless patience, something-something-downtime, pass
2. Ancestral longevity, meditate to be trained in a skill, pass but maybe come back..
3. Demon skirmisher, too situational, pass
4. Forlorn, +1 saves against emotion effects, blah, pass
5. Keen hearing, hmm some interest at the name, Seek action is a 60-ft cone vs 30-ft cone, blah, pass
6. Nimble, +5 Speed and ignore difficult, that one sounds OK I guess

By process of elimination we pick Nimble, because it's the "least bad"

Ranger
OK, big change here is Hunt Target instead of Favored Enemy. This is now going to take an action, and it only benefits subsequent attacks against the same target...

Type of target right? Like designate goblins and its against all..

No, just that one goblin.

Huh, okay I guess.

Let's move on, you get to pick a feat.

Which one makes me a better hunter?

Okay, to this person, by "hunter" she means whichever one makes her a better hunter, like a bonus to Perception, or be a better archer, or better Survival or Stealth maybe)

Hold on, you have 4 to pick from, here they are...

1. Animal Companion pass, don't want to deal with another creature on the table...

2. Crossbow Ace pass

3. Double Slice that sounds like melee? yeah.. pass

4. Monster Hunter this is the last one...

wow I hope it doesn't suck

When you critically succeed to identify a target you're hunting you and your allies get a +1 bonus on your next roll against it.

Critically succeed?

Yeah, you beat the roll by 10 or more

+1 bonus to just the next attack, which is the first one after that thing that's like Favored Enemy but not as good?

Yeah..

Can I skip that and pick something to boost my Survival or Stealth from General Feats?

No, you need to pick one of these 4 Ranger feats

Seriously?

Yep. How about we take Monster Hunter since that's the only one you have a chance to possibly use.

I guess.

This is the second time I've come close to going off the rails of the Playtest and just let players pick any feat in the book that's level 1 rather than the feats they are restricted to.

I feel like that would go a LONG way towards building enthusiasm.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:

I'm gonna be honest. As soon as someone states they haven't played the game yet. It's really really hard to take their feedback seriously. How the game reads and such might be important to you and maybe it's a deal breaker right from the start and that's completely fine. But I really do not value your analysis of how the game will be played unless you ACTUALLY play it.

I mean isn't that how everything in the real world works? Imagine someone reviewed a fighting game and they state in the review that they didn't actually play it, they just watched a trailer and read the wiki. It'd be ridiculous. Now to say: I don't like fighting games and this is a fighting game so I won't be playing it. Completely fine, but please don't act like you know how the game works unless you play it.

You can certainly value or not value anything you like, but RPGs (like any hobby/entertainment) require an emotional buy-in, so if *anything* about the RPG is a turn-off, that's relevant to how the game could be received.

Things that turn people off (especially a significant number of people) should be very relevant to Paizo at this time, since if they ignore it, they risk losing customers.


DaveMage wrote:

You can certainly value or not value anything you like, but RPGs (like any hobby/entertainment) require an emotional buy-in, so if *anything* about the RPG is a turn-off, that's relevant to how the game could be received.

Things that turn people off (especially a significant number of people) should be very relevant to Paizo at this time, since if they ignore it, they risk losing customers.

But that's not what Paizo wants for feedback here.

"Tell us about your actual game play. Theory is all well and good, but everybody’s got theories, and we’ve probably heard most of them already. Tell us how things are actually working in play, not how you think things will work." - Vic Wertz


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Oh, but it breaks under *scrutiny* while at-will Presti breaks all the dirty clothes washing, dental hygiene and alcohol distillation without scrutiny. It just jumps out and in every group I've ran whenever Presti was used the table devolved into discussion on just how much can you cheese it. The winner was a guy who proposed to use it in order to heat tungsten in sufficient amounts to make a fusion candle and blow up the world's atmosphere.

While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects, the spell as written in 3/3.5 left a little too much room for interpretation, which was fine with limited cantrips in 3.5 ... but kind of blew up with at-will cantrips in PF1.

I wish you were here or I was there, when I read this. I laughed and howled. While the player probably shouldn't try such things, he does deserve a few experience points for trying to cure the malady of the humans and such on the surface. That would be a hell of a reason to start an underdark campaign.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / It just.... does not feel awesome All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.