It just.... does not feel awesome


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

53 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes style matters more than substance. Way back when the original pathfinder (1e) playtest rolled around, the general feeling you got when comparing pf to 3.5 was something like....

Awesome! All classes get these extra bonuses on top of what they had before! We get more feats per level! Favored class actually does something now! Races give more perks!

I got sucked into that playtest, and have been using pf as my dnd-clone of choice for several years now, and i have played a LOT of systems. Over time, since the 3.pf chassis is almost 20 years old now, you notice more and more cracks in the system, and last time i dm:d pathfinder i used something like 8 pages of houserules to make it palatable.

Last year Paizo released starfinder. I found that while not perfect, it showed that the Paizo team had learnt from some of the bigger flaws in the 3.pf engine, so when i heard about the pf2e playtest, i was pretty hyped.

And then we got....this. Even if the system is solid, it is just...boring?
All the perks of leveling up seems to upgrade you sideways or boringways, you get very few flavor or utility packed abilities, and the promised legendary skill feats (something i hoped would make martials catch up to casters) does very little, the backgrounds seem more limiting than fun, and the ancestries seem to just be a mishmash of clutter for your character sheet, rather than meaningful options.

In the end, i will skip this playtest, since my hype is dead. If there are some major revisions coming at a later date, i will look it over again and see if i can get a playtest group rolling, but with the material as it stands, i dont see where it fits in the market.

Combat focused? Dnd 4e
Rules light dnd? Dnd 5e (which also has brand recognition)
Grimdark? Shadows of the demon lord
Old school? DCC

I dont see how pf2e is going to be better than any of these systems, there would have been a place for a higher magic, more gonzo system, especially if martials had been given meaningful high level abilities, which was what i thought you were going for, considering the last few years class additions (kineticist is my favorite class in pf1e, and i love all the caster hybrid classes).

Shadow Lodge

19 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I think this playtest document runs the problem of being extremely dry. Like reading an academic paper on playing a rpg. Hopefully the final product will have a lot more pizaz to it and make the game sound more exciting like it should be. They spent way to much space in the playtest document on cold exacting definitions and not nearly enough on making it sound cool.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

just popping in to show support, i largely agree with your points.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

While I think a lot of the raw number nerfs were justified, this playtest does seem a little...mean spirited and stingy with the cool toys, even when it wouldn't hurt balance.


37 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While I see some cool stuff, I'm not afraid of admitting that if the game shipped as-is, I wouldn't even consider buying and playing it. The class gated feats are maddening, class features are weak or missing, Resonance is a big wet blanket, abilities and feats from 1e are spread out and watered down, ancestries are spread out and watered down, backgrounds are a waste of space, and it cleaves too close to the absolute deal-breaker of class = weapon choice.

I think it's important that Paizo knows where their product stands with some of us. It's just the hard truth, and work needs to be done.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
Yeah I think this playtest document runs the problem of being extremely dry. Like reading an academic paper on playing a rpg. Hopefully the final product will have a lot more pizaz to it and make the game sound more exciting like it should be. They spent way to much space in the playtest document on cold exacting definitions and not nearly enough on making it sound cool.

Yeah, that was how I already felt about Occult Adventures and the Kineticist class entry, which I think I labeled as "lawyer speak" back then. It got way better in Ultimate Intrigue, but this document has really fallen all the way back into that obtuse style of writing.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree. I like the bones of this system it has some issues but it also has a lot of potential. But if it doesn't sound fun to play than it won't get played.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The system is amazing. The content and individual elements are uninspiring.


1 person 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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

That's a good point. I was actually more excited about the system until I did session zero with my playtest group earlier this week. They all made characters but none of the options seemed to really excited them. Next week when we start in the the playtest for real maybe that will change.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, I found the Bestiary very fun to read and easy to understand even the complex systems like encounter building. The difference is night and day. Even without art, the monsters are cool and have interesting abilities that makes them fun to play. I even made the joke that GMing the enemies is more fun than being a PC because their abilities actually work and synergize to make unique styles.

I do agree that PC abilities are too "safe" so it's very hard to actually feel awesome. The abilities just don't seem to add up with each other too well and many of the lv1 stuff is just super underwhelming.

Liberty's Edge

Bardarok wrote:
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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

That's a good point. I was actually more excited about the system until I did session zero with my playtest group earlier this week. They all made characters but none of the options seemed to really excited them. Next week when we start in the the playtest for real maybe that will change.

Be sure to post your feedback. I'd really love to hear how it goes!


7 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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

belittling or disregarding people's criticisms by implying they must not have played it goes over well, i'm sure.

or (not in your case, just wanna make that clear! but generally a different stripe of the same argument) that hard mechanical evidence isn't valid because those numbers weren't obtained after live play (which takes weeks if not months as the alternative to just using one's head).

EDIT: it occurs to me that this came out MUCH more confrontational than it was meant! i'm just trying to make the point that people's initial impressions or negative experiences are valid (especially first impressions from first-timers, who i suspect will be the lifeblood of this new edition) and that disregarding them out of hand is wrong to do.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have not played yet. Speaking as a customer, I would not buy this product if it was on a shelf for purchase now. I didn't playtest Starfinder, but I liked what I read and bought the final product without a second thought. Pathfinder 2e has yet to reach that point for me. I think it's important to keep in mind that customer opinion is all that matters in the end.

Be assured that I intend to playtest and help move the game to where it needs to be for me to say "Yes. This looks fun!"


8 people marked this as a favorite.

My main point was not concerning numbers, i actually assume the numbers are good, or will be after the playtest. the point was that there is nothing to excite me as a player concerning cool abilities, a thing that i've always thought was paizo's forte, ever since i collected a couple of dragon magazines published by paizo in the 3.5 era.

I also do have a personal bias on the linear martial/q caster issue. It was my experience in pf1 that the tier lists are very, very real. I've played in two major pf1 campaigns. The first was kingmaker, which we played with a party consisting mostly of casters, we kicked butt through the first four modules, after which our dm ragequit because he could not handle the power level. Then we played rise of the runelords. Because of our previous experience, and because we had a new DM, all players agreed on not playing full casters. The last two modules were pure misery, that we only finished because of our investment in the story.
Having good utility options should be a must for every class, even if different, and playing a wooden fighter with almost no skillpoints or out of combat role is something i will never do again.


5 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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

It's a good skeleton for an RPG that was then covered in unnecessary tuning that makes healing spells overpowered and weapons more attractive than attack magic.

Taken from someone who HAS played some 2e.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm struggling when it comes to making characters for doomsday dawn simply because I can't really find anything in the classes that excites me.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
GM G Klein wrote:

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.

...? D&D is booming, right now. Unless I missed something.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:
GM G Klein wrote:

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.

...? D&D is booming, right now. Unless I missed something.

Shhh! Don't interrupt his EPIC NARRATIVE OF PAIZO'S IMPENDING DOOM™ with pesky details like that.

Liberty's Edge

AndIMustMask wrote:
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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

belittling or disregarding people's criticisms by implying they must not have played it goes over well, i'm sure.

or (not in your case, just wanna make that clear! but generally a different stripe of the same argument) that hard mechanical evidence isn't valid because those numbers weren't obtained after live play (which takes weeks if not months as the alternative to just using one's head).

EDIT: it occurs to me that this came out MUCH more confrontational than it was meant! i'm just trying to make the point that people's initial impressions or negative experiences are valid (especially first impressions from first-timers, who i suspect will be the lifeblood of this new edition) and that disregarding them out of hand is wrong to do.

I was attempting to neither belittle nor disregard their opinions. For me, though, play experience is more important than first impressions from reading. I think it reads great, but I can’t get under the hood until I play it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

That is my major bummer with PF2: no Wow-Factor, at all, from anything, which I have always got from every previous edition (something seriously nifty in each iteration, at least at first!).

Now, there are some parts I like: the Action Economy (though, I have already been using it, with the RAE from Unchained), Reactions (things like shield block; I like that not every organism has an AoO), and Monsters, though the icons/symbols need to go, and some reformatting is needed. Oh, I also like bonus hit points for Race.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, I'm in general agreement with this topic. Looking through the entire thing, there is nothing that I find exciting. Even a little. I like some of the systems (actions, etc.), but nothing fills me with wonder or "wouldn't this be fun!"

It seems they went sooo hard on balance and trying to stamp out every little possible exploit that they ended up needlessly screwing things that are just plain fun (Prestidigitation and Unseen Servant come to mind).


10 people marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:

Also, I'm in general agreement with this topic. Looking through the entire thing, there is nothing that I find exciting. Even a little. I like some of the systems (actions, etc.), but nothing fills me with wonder or "wouldn't this be fun!"

It seems they went sooo hard on balance and trying to stamp out every little possible exploit that they ended up needlessly screwing things that are just plain fun (Prestidigitation and Unseen Servant come to mind).

Yes, sometimes obsession with balance can lead to homogenisation.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I thought the bestiary was a pretty cool document for a free download. I'm a huge fan of abandoning the pretense that monsters work like PCs. PF1 monster design always felt like an arcane and laborious process to me. This approach to monsters really appeals to me as a DM.

I haven't got to the actual playtest yet - my books are still in transit. :(


11 people marked this as a favorite.

It would take substantive rewriting of the rules and how classes work, especially feats and skills, and juggling around balance to get me to spend money on this current product.

It's not very impressive at all and plays even worse than it reads.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading through the preview blogs on each class, and then looking over the classes in my Playtest book, I can't help but shake the opinion that they highlighted basically all the cool or interesting stuff in the blog posts, and the options or things they didn't bring up are considerably less impressive.

Like a comedy movie trailer that spoiled the best jokes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

well i have play tested it i played a level 1 druid so some things i like

the flat hp every level
the point buy
the back grounds
the skills being combined tho they may have go a little over board with this
the races seemed fine maybe pick 2 races feats at level 1

things i'm mix about

the charter sheet like the spell page hated the first page lay out may me feel like i was looking at a test in school

druid did not feel like a druid more like i was a spell sword tho this may just be low level and the order i picked was storm / may have had a different fill if i had picked animal or wild

things i did not like

the combat and spells i feel like the spell casting is lacking
why cast a ray of frost for a 1d8 when i can attack for 1d8+2 and than attack again for 1d8+2 at a -1 to hit the 2nd time

also having to raise your shield was a pain and and just feels like a wast it did very little for me

complaints form the others in the game
alchemist was out of bombs and elixirs very quickly (may fix its self at higher levels)
barbarian hated that rage was a action
that it only last 3 rounds.

gm wanted the attack profile for the bad guys to have the - for the 2nd and 3rd attacks fill out

he also did not like it when i cast burning hands and had to check the saves vs 4 DC's to find out if they took no damage, half damage , full damage, or double damage as he said you ten guys in a fire ball it going to take some time to work all this out for each guy

all in all it has some good points we had fun with the game but we all fill at the moment p1 is for us but will give this a try when they release it for real with hopefully a bit more flushed out rules


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

I've played it, still formulating my opinion on it.

I did not like what I read with it to be honest on my initial read through. It seemed VERY 4e with a dash of 5e. I liked 4e, but something about PF2e was just offsetting.

However, that changed when I played the first two sessions with my group on the first scenario of Doomsday dawn. Character creation is actually rather fun once you get the hang of it. When you know what you are doing, it is quick (I'd say quicker than PF1e actually), efficient, and pretty neat.

Playing the game is decently fun.

However, and this is the part which I'm still debating about and need to playtest some more scenarios (will try the PFS scenarios with the group next for a better feel, plus try some leveling), when I think about it, it just didn't FEEL like Pathfinder or D&D 3e (or even 4e).

I know that's a terrible answer and really vague...I can't really put it in better words though...it just didn't FEEL like Pathfinder. Sure, it was fun in the moment of play, but afterwards it feels more empty...I suppose is the best way to put it. I just don't get the same feels as when I play a D&D (3e or earlier) or Pathfinder (1e).

It could just be those first two sessions though, I need to play more to see and narrow down what it may actually be, or if it really is just that.

In all honesty, if it turns out to BE that, for me that may be a dealbreaker. However, there's a long playtest to go and things in the rules may change and create the "feels" that I'm after.

I don't know how else to say it better, but I'm willing to keep on pushing through on trying the Playtest and giving feedback as honestly as I can.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
it just didn't FEEL like Pathfinder or D&D 3e (or even 4e).

Interesting. I have not yet played the Doomsday Playtest, but I demoed a game at PaizoCon... and my comment after that was that while being a little different, it FELT like playing Pathfinder.

Hope to play more soon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Telefax wrote:

Sometimes style matters more than substance. Way back when the original pathfinder (1e) playtest rolled around, the general feeling you got when comparing pf to 3.5 was something like....

Awesome! All classes get these extra bonuses on top of what they had before! We get more feats per level! Favored class actually does something now! Races give more perks!

I got sucked into that playtest, and have been using pf as my dnd-clone of choice for several years now, and i have played a LOT of systems. Over time, since the 3.pf chassis is almost 20 years old now, you notice more and more cracks in the system, and last time i dm:d pathfinder i used something like 8 pages of houserules to make it palatable.

Last year Paizo released starfinder. I found that while not perfect, it showed that the Paizo team had learnt from some of the bigger flaws in the 3.pf engine, so when i heard about the pf2e playtest, i was pretty hyped.

And then we got....this. Even if the system is solid, it is just...boring?
All the perks of leveling up seems to upgrade you sideways or boringways, you get very few flavor or utility packed abilities, and the promised legendary skill feats (something i hoped would make martials catch up to casters) does very little, the backgrounds seem more limiting than fun, and the ancestries seem to just be a mishmash of clutter for your character sheet, rather than meaningful options.

In the end, i will skip this playtest, since my hype is dead. If there are some major revisions coming at a later date, i will look it over again and see if i can get a playtest group rolling, but with the material as it stands, i dont see where it fits in the market.

Combat focused? Dnd 4e
Rules light dnd? Dnd 5e (which also has brand recognition)
Grimdark? Shadows of the demon lord
Old school? DCC

I dont see how pf2e is going to be better than any of these systems, there would have been a place for a higher magic, more gonzo system, especially if martials had been given meaningful high level abilities,...

Completely agreed. The largest insult is the ridiculous nerf to Prestidigitation, which was never a particularly powerful or an imbalancing spell in the first place, but rather just a flavor trinket that people liked to have.


6 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.

I mean, I thought 4e read like a GREAT system...until I played it. And then, I thought it was horrible.

Words on a page only go so far. But, if you have played the playtest, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your experiences in that because, to me, that's really where the rubber meets the road.

I played through two different sessions as two different classes (Rogue and Demonic Sorcerer).

I hated it. Just about every single thing about the game is unenjoyable. The character options are far too stingy and make you feel bad before the game even starts, the dying rules feel like they were designed to be obnoxious, etc.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

For those saying you have to playtest for your criticisms to have merit: If someone is so turned off by the rules that they're not even willing to rub 1 session of a free game, doesn't that say a lot? If enough people react this way that could be very important data to give Paizo. And because you can't fill in surveys until you run a game that data can only be collected on the forums.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
For those saying you have to playtest for your criticisms to have merit: If someone is so turned off by the rules that they're not even willing to rub 1 session of a free game, doesn't that say a lot? If enough people react this way that could be very important data to give Paizo. And because you can't fill in surveys until you run a game that data can only be collected on the forums.

If it were a focus group, that would mean a lot. Focus groups are meant to get people's honest reactions and opinions. But this is a playtest, a chance to test the system, and give feedback based on it: good, bad, and otherwise. This forum should be about your experiences with the playtest: building and playing characters, running adventures and homebrew content, etc.

If something about the playtest makes you not want to participate, by all means tell Paizo about it! Your bad experiences may inform a better final product. But once you've stopped participating, you need to accept that this is your final contribution. They don't need to hear about it 3, 4, 5 times if you're succinct the first time.

And as we've seen on this thread, many people who have played the game have stated similar opinions to those who haven't played the game, so I'm not saying those who haven't played the game don't have valid opinions. It just doesn't matter as much to the designers. People not liking how the game presents is a matter for editors and publicists, who can come to the game designers to affect change if it's valid.

The game designers are looking for hard data on game play, and only "The Lost Star" is primarily on the feel of PF2. If you want to help the game design, and possibly influence it to something you like, just state "I don't like how the game feels" whenever you're asked for it, and continue playtesting the other aspects asked for.


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".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
For those saying you have to playtest for your criticisms to have merit: If someone is so turned off by the rules that they're not even willing to rub 1 session of a free game, doesn't that say a lot? If enough people react this way that could be very important data to give Paizo. And because you can't fill in surveys until you run a game that data can only be collected on the forums.

First reactions are very important, but so is encouraging giving it a play anyway. I can tell you my first reaction to DnD 4e was serious disappointment, but after playing it, i saw all the points that sounded interesting in the "hype talks" for it. After some content releases my group was pretty hooked on 4e for quite a few years. Infact full content 4e (actually somewhere halfway through its cycle with hybrid classing and themes) seems to solve a very large number of issues with the game, with some system mastery (okay maybe alot) it's actually my go to system for ease of creating a character the way I envision them before taking content in to account.

However, I suppose my little story of 4e only enforces how important appearance and gut feel for an initial look at the content is.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person 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.

I do sort of see what you mean by that, but I do have to point out that not being forced to take them (unless you archetyped to swap a batch, not too many of which were compatible) allows for a greater degree of choice in building a paladin. For instance, a paladin without any of the "traditional" paladin abilities that marked a particular playstyle in PF1 is something that can be done in this case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
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.

I do sort of see what you mean by that, but I do have to point out that not being forced to take them (unless you archetyped to swap a batch, not too many of which were compatible) allows for a greater degree of choice in building a paladin. For instance, a paladin without any of the "traditional" paladin abilities that marked a particular playstyle in PF1 is something that can be done in this case.

There's that, but what if you want to play the "classic" PF1 paladin, for example because you're trying to transfer a character (or a whole campaign world that has been up and running for almost 15 years, having hundreds of NPCs and dozens of PCs) between systems? You end up with lame ducks. I mentioned 5 example feats at level 4 or lower. You can't even get all of those until level EIGHT (unless you play a human), and if you do get them, you get nothing else.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

The irony is that the +1/level to proficiency is making characters more powerful in a sense - a very 'high fantasy' approach. And yet we have this peculiar contradiction with the feel of many abilities being more mundane.

How much of this is just a writing issue?

For example, compare:

Quote:


WARDED TOUCH - Paladin FEAT 1
Paladin Prerequisites champion power (lay on hands)

You cast lay on hands in a simple motion without any complicated gestures. The Somatic Spellcasting action for lay on hands loses the manipulate trait.

to something like...

Quote:


WARDED TOUCH FEAT 1
Paladin Prerequisites champion power (lay on hands)

You can heal with the briefest touch, making it harder for your enemies to disrupt your healing in the thick of battle.

The Somatic Spellcasting action for lay on hands loses the manipulate trait.

Just try to describe each feat in the most appealing / cool / fantasy way you can. Then have the RAW mechanical sentence that gives us what we need to implement it.

It would mean overall less abilities make it into the CRB, since 'pagecount'. So it's a balancing act. But right now the writing feels very much on the side of 'dry and to the point'. Which juxtaposes uncomfortably with the high fantasy theme and setting.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DFAnton wrote:

Also, I'm in general agreement with this topic. Looking through the entire thing, there is nothing that I find exciting. Even a little. I like some of the systems (actions, etc.), but nothing fills me with wonder or "wouldn't this be fun!"

It seems they went sooo hard on balance and trying to stamp out every little possible exploit that they ended up needlessly screwing things that are just plain fun (Prestidigitation and Unseen Servant come to mind).

Yeah, I don't get the nerf to Prestidigitation. "Players are having too much fun pretending their characters have creature comforts! Nerf! Nerf! NERF!" The spell has zero mechanical impact on the game, but just makes things more comfortable for the characters who have the luck of having an arcane caster with it in their party. Why nerf it? Just because it stands out as being too versatile in its mechanically insignificant applications?

Yep. "Nerf fun" seems to have been an overwhelming instinct when designing the new spells.

Silver Crusade

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

I'm not sure if Scry and Fry or Color Spray'ing low level encounters to hammer the point just how useless martials are was "fun", but YMMV.

Prestidigitation + at-will cantrips = "hey, where isn't economy of this world basically arcane casters using Presti to make most of professions meaningless?"


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Prestidigitation + at-will cantrips = "hey, where isn't economy of this world basically arcane casters using Presti to make most of professions meaningless?"

At-will cantrips are still a thing and if you are doing it as a profession, Prestidigitation is still very good at cleaning stuff, even if it takes longer.

However, since the economy of D&D/Pathfinder breaks down even under the most casual scrutiny, anyway, why not have players have some fun and not nerf one of the best "nice thing to have for everybody of the player characters" abilities, which otherwise was nota affecting the holy grail of combat balance in any way?

Yeah, I'm getting a bit zealous on this, but I was damned pissed when I saw that nerf and I still am. Probably unreasonably so, but I'm playing the game to have fun, not to run a perfect combat/economy simulator.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Forseti wrote:


- Channel Life: a feat instead of the PF1 class feature.

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.


technarken wrote:
Forseti wrote:


- Channel Life: a feat instead of the PF1 class feature.
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.

Yeah, PF2 Channel Life does more than the PF1 feature, but that "more" doesn't really sit well with me from an internal PF2 point of view: unless you want to go with the Mercy feats, it blows a basic class feature completely out of the water, at the same cost in Spell Points.

technarken wrote:
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.

And if you want to try to slightly approach that PF1 golden standard, you can pretty much not do anything else. Having said that, the Paladin doesn't really have a lot of interesting pure combat related feats to begin with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


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. 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.

I agree, PF1 paladins are very very strong. But that's something that could've been fixed by toning things down. Turning every feature into a feat is a giant step beyond just toning things down.


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

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / It just.... does not feel awesome All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.