I like the new system


General Discussion


8 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a very negative tenor on these boards. So I figured I would share this.

I played PF briefly and had a long stint with 3/3.5. I starting with 3.5 by finding a real life group on Enworld's Gamers Seeking Gamers forums. It was great. I got to sit around a real table and play with people face to face. We ran some fairly epic campaigns (Age of Worms, Savage Tide, etc) but, ultimately, I got tired of the 3.X engine. I got tired of the multiclassing, the attacks of opportunity, rules bloat, the long combats and the like.

I went to 5E. I had to leave my table group. I loved playing in person and they are a great bunch of guys but 3.X/PF just wasn't for me. 5E was a revelation. I played online (which kinda sucked) but at least I didn't spend forever looking up rules in a single round of combat for over 15 minutes. I could do heroic things without worrying about threatened squares. I could just play.

Eventually though, 5E started to fail to scratch that itch. It wasn't tactical enough. I can't do enough with the characters.

The new playtest seems to me a very solid middle ground. There are more unified mechanics and less stacking bonuses. There are some issues with just the sheer amount of tags and some classes that are a bit rough around the edges, but I already feel this system as it stands is enough to get me to start a long and successful campaign with it.

What I love:
- The multiclassing
- The action system
- The skill feats
- Cantrips
- Limited Dex to Damage (I like this is a special rogue thing)
- Finesse on the weapon
- Barbarian rage all you want
- Class gated feats
- Simplified NPC stat blocks
- Distinct weapons without weapon specific feats
- Sorcerer types choosing from different spell lists
- No more arcane spell failure
- No more having to buy off tons of negatives to be able to fire a freaking bow
- No more auto heightened level 1+ spells

The only thing I would add is to go FURTHER. Keep innovating. Do not regress despite folks here asking you to make feats general or to focus on numerical bonuses. That's not gonna get players like me to come back. Thats backwards. Go forwards.

Go big guys. Just go for it. Don't hedge your bets. Don't keep holding on to the vestigal bits of the 3.X engine.

I will say that if this playtest were to have been released as is, I would have bought it and been very happy with it. It is now a AAA product and you folks should be proud of what you have made.


This edition has a lot of good things. I really like what they did with bards. The change of their ability for inspiring to cantrips lets them do their group buff job all day long and being full casters is a good way to go to keep them at a good power level.

I am glad the BAB stuff went away it looks like this go round if a wizard wants to pick up some fighter stuff and go armored mage that seems to be a viable path this go round.

I think some of the criticalness is this is a playtest and the stuff that does not work or is confusing or odd will get picked apart. As long as people are doing it in constructive ways it can be helpful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Do you have a solution to your first statement?
There *is* a lot of negativity. And, it is very reasonable.
I'll back up and say that I agree with most of the things you have said.
I think there are brilliant elements in the current version of 2E.

I think they are showing an excellent approach on a solid middle ground.
But I also see some things that are critically flawed for producing the at-table experience I have the luxury of demanding. I might steal a few things, but the rules as currently presented are not viable for my group.

And you have used several buzz phrases that sound pointed, but have not substance beneath them.

"Do not regress” and “That’s backward. Go forwards”, are completely loaded. “IF”, and I do say “if”, they have made a mistake, then fixing a mistake is not moving backward, it is the first step to actually moving forward. You may think something is awesome and I may think it is a mistake. Our opinions do not cancel out. To the contrary, Neither opinion alone means anything. But, if four years from now too many people opt out and PF2E isn’t a meaningful presence in the market, the history will say that it was a mistake.

The very concept of “don’t go backwards” was a phrase that 4E do-or-dies demanded over and over. Then they cried that 5E *did* go backwards. And here we are in the bright shiny age of 5E.

Saying that you like it exactly as-is is wonderful. But unless you are planning to personally fund Paizo as your side charity, you are going to need a lot of those “negative” people on your side.

What is the realistic solution to that?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree. Board anger and negativity is rarely reflective of the actual market. Furthermore, angry folks always speak louder and longer but they are rarely more correct or astute.

The bottom line FOR ME is that when I crack open the PF2 playtest I see a highly playable system with alot to love. I see it as FAR SUPERIOR to 3.X/PF1. Yet if a casual observer were to read these boards they would assume Paizo had released a steaming turd.

That tells me the feedback is less reflective of the quality of the product and more indicative a reticence of a small and vocal element of the existing player base to accept change.

As someone who had to walk away from a gaming group who refuses to walk away from 3.5 (they wouldnt even touch PF), I am very familiar with this.

Grognards are gonna grognard but Paizo can succeed without bending over backwards for a negative vocal minority on their boards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You started this thread with an open acknowledgment of the "very" negative tenor. Please show me some evidence to contradict the relevance of this reality.

I'll repeat something I've said a few times now.
In the lead up to 3E there was a ton of argument and complaint, but the tenor was overwhelmingly one of excitement. 3E was a huge success
In the lead up to 4E there was massive splits in the fanbase an a lot of complaints that went unaddressed. 4E suffered.
In the lead up to 5E there were complaints amongst 4E fans, but the community overall was very excited. 5E is a huge success.

PF2E feels much closer to 2E than either of the other two. And anywhere I look, both online and in meatspace, I find the same strong split.

4E fans made bold statements that talk was cheap but fans would come around. I'm here to tell you, people won't play a game they don't like. They won't. Do you claim they will? Or are you agreeing that this "vocal minority" that you felt compared to lead off with is mostly going to go away, but somehow 2E will just sail on? Again, 4E fans flat out stated they would gain 3 to 10 fans for every one they lost and clearly stated that anyone unhappy was not needed. Is that your position now?

Where is you evidence?

Why is nobody who is happy with the rules as presented learning from the past and making the slightest effort to promote a sustainable fan base?

Name calling is easy. But people will vote with their wallets and you need to engage in evidence and open-mindedness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The core system is for the most part extremly solid and well designed.
Most people are complaining about the content.
Currently the balance is less than perfect. Also most skill feats are things rhat pf1 characters could do for free just by having ranks, and should be unlocked via proficiency without requiring an additional feat; Proficiencies currently do nothing except giving a +1 unless you also pay a feat tax which has not one but 2 downsides: first it devalues the proficiencies. Second, it is the overall consensus that it makes the feats less exciting than they could be.
I believe these are valid concerns that should be taken seriously and adressed with care in order to make this game reach its full potential and be welcomed by a broad, passionate portion of the customers


4 people marked this as a favorite.

BryonD:

I need don't need to show you any evidence. If you don't like the thread, leave it.

I wanted to leave my feedback from the perspective of a player that played 3.5/PF, went to 5E and find the playtest to be fantastic.

This was for the devs. Your negativity does not interest me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure I have said this before, but I just adore how everyone assumes that their personal views align with the "silent majority", and yet there is never a professed member of the "vocal minority" anywhere to be found.

It's a MIRACLE!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:
Go big guys. Just go for it. Don't hedge your bets. Don't keep holding on to the vestigal bits of the 3.X engine.

Yes! Get rid of Vancian casting once and for all!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

BryonD:

I need don't need to show you any evidence. If you don't like the thread, leave it.

I wanted to leave my feedback from the perspective of a player that played 3.5/PF, went to 5E and find the playtest to be fantastic.

This was for the devs. Your negativity does not interest me.

Ok, consider my replies a simple counter point from someone who played 1E / 3E / 3.5 / PF, went to 5E and came back to PF.

I'm certainly not disputing that *you* like it. But if you say things that don't stand up to scrutiny, it is fair to expect a reply.

Both sides are now stated and the devs can make up their minds for themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

BryonD:

I need don't need to show you any evidence. If you don't like the thread, leave it.

I wanted to leave my feedback from the perspective of a player that played 3.5/PF, went to 5E and find the playtest to be fantastic.

This was for the devs. Your negativity does not interest me.

Well, being blunt, if you just made a thread to toss around stuff you like, but clearly is not inviting discussion, then you failed at the basics of making a thread.

Just tossing around stuff you like or dislike is what the survey is for.

The threads are so people can actually discuss those things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno. I think many threads I have seen on these forums state absolutist opinions, do no invite counterpoints and very clearly have individuals who repeatedly state unchanging points of view.

I think this was par for the course.

In any case, I will repeat, this is a great system. Sure, its rough and could use some tweaking. But this is good stuff overall. Good job, Paizo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We like the system, but we hate character creation.

Gameplay stuff is actually pretty good and has been fun.

But the entire system for creating characters is far too much of what we hated from 4th edition. About the only thing missing is the At-will/Encounter/Daily mechanics.

We are planning to steal and mod things from the system parts and bring them to PF1 but we are a hard pass on PF2 unless character design is massively redone

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love character creation!


Drakhan Valane wrote:
I absolutely love character creation!

Awesome, make one for me then, because I find it tedious and am tired of doing it, and I'm supposed to play again later today.


No offense but character creation is easy as hell.

If you want to make characters even more easily, download Fantasy Grounds (the free trial is all you'll need I think). They have a character generator built into their current implementation of the playtest. It isnt complete but can do up to 5th level or so.

Maybe after using that you will get it.


DataLoreRPG wrote:

No offense but character creation is easy as hell.

If you want to make characters even more easily, download Fantasy Grounds (the free trial is all you'll need I think). They have a character generator built into their current implementation of the playtest. It isnt complete but can do up to 5th level or so.

Maybe after using that you will get it.

No offense taken since it has nothing to do with difficulty. I've played the entire playtest module and ran parts of it, including part 1 a couple of extra times, as well as a couple of non-Doomsday Dawn sessions.

It's not a matter of "getting it" it is a matter of "I don't want to do it" because in this system I don't care for the process or the result. I'm already tired of it, and I'm not really looking forward to playing today because of that.

And that's the first time I've said that about any system in a long time.


DataLoreRPG wrote:
No offense but character creation is easy as hell

Nobody said it was too difficult,

What they said is they found it unsatisfying


Hmm, I guess. Then why did he ask another person to roll a character up for him? He said it was "tedious." Which sounds to me like "hard." Did you read the guys posts?


DataLoreRPG wrote:
Hmm, I guess. Then why did he ask another person to roll a character up for him? He said it was "tedious." Which sounds to me like "hard." Did you read the guys posts?

An activity can be tedious without being hard.


I guess. Then, my suggestion stands. He could try the FG chargen and maybe afterwards he wont find it so "tedious."


Tedious

adjective: tedious
too long, slow, or dull: tiresome or monotonous.
"a tedious journey"
synonyms: boring, dull, monotonous, repetitive, unrelieved, unvaried, uneventful; More
characterless, colorless, lifeless, insipid, uninteresting, unexciting, uninspiring, uninvolving, flat, bland, dry, stale, tired, lackluster, stodgy, dreary, mundane, monochrome;
mind-numbing, soul-destroying, wearisome, tiring, tiresome, irksome, trying, frustrating;
informaldeadly, not up to much, humdrum, ho-hum, blah, dullsville, 'same old, same old'
"work on the assembly line was tedious"
antonyms: exciting

Also, I've used the Fantasygrounds/Hero Lab Online tools. Doesn't make the process, and certainly not the result of character creation for this system more exciting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tedious most certainly does not even _connote_ hard. Tedious would connote that the amount of effort does not produce a result commensurate with that effort.

I would also point out, without meaning to give offense, that this thread is jingoistic in the extreme. The message seems to be, 'The system is great, so anyone who doesn't agree should just shut up,' and explicitly states that this should be acceptable because people are making the same error on the negative side. Two wrongs do not really make a right, and giving uncritical praise--and by uncritical I mean praise without details--is just as bad as uncritical disgust.

I also disagree with many of the points in the first post, as follows.

Multiclassing may be nice, but it is also most certainly imbalanced between classes. Since you give no details about WHY you believe multiclassing is better, it is difficult to know your reasons. I would just point out that the new multiclassing system does not get rid of dips, given the numerous threads about the Fighter dedication feat, and symmetrical multiclassing... isn't. A Wizard/Fighter is a full spellcaster with 1 Feat invested. A Fighter/Wizard... isn't.

What about Cantrips are good? Again, details would be useful. I find them... meh, I guess, and that is with a Druid PC in my group.

As for Barbarian Raging all the time... I guess. Their damage (as I show through simulation in another thread) doesn't hold up to a Fighter's at anything after the first 2 levels, so I am not sure why this is a positive thing.

As for the Bow... the Bow is MUCH worse in PF2E than in 3.5 or PF1E. First, if you want to attack something within 50' of you without a penalty that cannot be gotten rid of easily (as in, taking a Fighter feat for PBS), you are limited to a d6 damage and a shorter range increment. Secondly, a lot of the penalties you refer to cannot be gotten rid of until much later in a character's career. Okay, sure, there MAY not be a feat tax for this, but when can you get rid of screening penalties? Certainly not early.

No Arcane Spell Failure would indeed be good... if it were a little more difficult for Wizards/Sorcerers to gain armor proficiency... as pointed out above, the Fighter Dedication feat (and likely also the Paladin's when it comes out, given their Armor Master status) gives out proficiency in all armor. Frankly, this is a huge glaring issue with both ASF and multiclassing (addressed above).


I guess man. If you cant stand the five minutes it takes to make a character I dunno what to tell ya.

As someone HATED the tedium of planning my character to 20 in 3.X/PF, I do not find the proto-lifepath system in PF2 tedious in the least.


NC:

I honestly dont care if you disagree and wont be reading your post. My post was for the devs. I want them to know that I like their game. Bye.


Then why not simply email them instead of posting on a forum that is meant to encourage discourse?


I dont answer to you. I wanted to post my support of their design on the forums. The end.


DataLoreRPG wrote:

I guess man. If you cant stand the five minutes it takes to make a character I dunno what to tell ya.

As someone HATED the tedium of planning my character to 20 in 3.X/PF, I do not find the proto-lifepath system in PF2 tedious in the least.

Yeah man, I guess. If you like the superficial complexity and the illusion of choice this new system inserts into the process, and the parade of less than impressive results of that process, I don't know what to tell ya.

Planning 1st through 20th is no more or less necessary in this system than previous systems, and backstories have always been a thing.

I prefer a process with more meaningful choices, myself, and results that give me a character that makes me excited to play. It was ok the first couple of times, but has gradually gone downhill for me. I think maybe I'm just burnt out on this playtest already.


Then we can agree to disagree. I am much more excited for PF2 than I was for 3.X/PF.

Bye bye


Congratulations! See you later, probably. Perhaps sooner.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Only to add another voice...

I'm in love with the system... There are some things that should be better, but so this is why we are in a playtest!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with you DataLoreRPG. I love the new system.


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

One thing I haven't seen mentioned often (maybe because there are less people who have read through the bestiary). But monster diversity/uniqueness is amazing in this edition. It feels like every single creature has a unique ability that makes them stand out compared to other monsters. This is a huge upgrade from 1e for me.


I wont be switching from 1st to this, but I would really love a hard copy of a bestiary. I bought the softcover rulebook just because I hate PDF.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it has some room for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

For the same reason you post that you do like it, those that dont like it want to change it and with a year, if there are more who dont like it than do, then it should likely change. I personally dont like it but I have every hope that it does well and my input is every bit as valuable as yours to see that this game does well.


oneking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

For the same reason you post that you do like it, those that dont like it want to change it and with a year, if there are more who dont like it than do, then it should likely change. I personally dont like it but I have every hope that it does well and my input is every bit as valuable as yours to see that this game does well.

So wait are you saying right now that you in fact have decided that you hate it and will not be buying the product in the future?


Vidmaster7 wrote:
oneking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

For the same reason you post that you do like it, those that dont like it want to change it and with a year, if there are more who dont like it than do, then it should likely change. I personally dont like it but I have every hope that it does well and my input is every bit as valuable as yours to see that this game does well.
So wait are you saying right now that you in fact have decided that you hate it and will not be buying the product in the future?

right now, the product in my hand, yes I hate it and will not buy it in the future, if it changes significantly in the next year, then I may change my mind. I am deciding that you are not trying to be an..... and am answering you honestly, because I think an echo chamber without any dissent is doing a play test a great disservice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oneking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
oneking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

For the same reason you post that you do like it, those that dont like it want to change it and with a year, if there are more who dont like it than do, then it should likely change. I personally dont like it but I have every hope that it does well and my input is every bit as valuable as yours to see that this game does well.
So wait are you saying right now that you in fact have decided that you hate it and will not be buying the product in the future?
right now, the product in my hand, yes I hate it and will not buy it in the future, if it changes significantly in the next year, then I may change my mind. I am deciding that you are not trying to be an..... and am answering you honestly, because I think an echo chamber without any dissent is doing a play test a great disservice.

Yeah echo chamber I get that. All the constant I hate +level over and over on 20 different threads yeah I see echo chamber. Personally I prefer to instead give feedback that is useful instead of constantly posting I hate it fire such and such scrap the whole thing etc. etc.

I feel actually giving specifics and suggestions for improvement work a lot better.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
oneking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
oneking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah it has some for for improvement (DUH playtest) but I like the direction their moving in. Just need to polish it a bit. I need to compile all my suggestion

Their is of course problems which being a almost year long play test I expected it.

I don't understand the people that have already decided they hate it will not be buying it and yet are still here posting. I don't understand that at all. If you don't want to move to PF2 just keep playing PF1. Its what everyone else has done in that past when a need edition of D&D came out.

The rest of us can play around and get rid of the stuff we don't like and fine tune it.

For the same reason you post that you do like it, those that dont like it want to change it and with a year, if there are more who dont like it than do, then it should likely change. I personally dont like it but I have every hope that it does well and my input is every bit as valuable as yours to see that this game does well.
So wait are you saying right now that you in fact have decided that you hate it and will not be buying the product in the future?
right now, the product in my hand, yes I hate it and will not buy it in the future, if it changes significantly in the next year, then I may change my mind. I am deciding that you are not trying to be an..... and am answering you honestly, because I think an echo chamber without any dissent is doing a play test a great disservice.

Yeah echo chamber I get that. All the constant I hate +level over and over on 20 different threads yeah I see echo chamber. Personally I prefer to instead give feedback that is useful instead of constantly posting I hate it fire such and such scrap the whole thing etc. etc.

I feel actually giving specifics and suggestions for improvement work a lot better.

I have at the moment a similar "problem" as you do, compiling it all, in my case I am compiling for my players as well and of course even we dont all agree with each other on what is good and bad. I prefer the old skill system, 1 of my players prefers the new, the other 2 don't care either way. I dislike the terminology of everything being feats.


The difference is the perspective. Its essentially optimists vs pessimists most of the time. Some people look at it and see everything wrong and think will scrap it all while others look at it and say ok I can work with this... Then theirs that weird sub class of people that just can't communicate correctly and all communication breaks down around them.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
The difference is the perspective. Its essentially optimists vs pessimists most of the time. Some people look at it and see everything wrong and think will scrap it all while others look at it and say ok I can work with this... Then theirs that weird sub class of people that just can't communicate correctly and all communication breaks down around them.

keep in mind english is not everyones first language here though too.


oneking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The difference is the perspective. Its essentially optimists vs pessimists most of the time. Some people look at it and see everything wrong and think will scrap it all while others look at it and say ok I can work with this... Then theirs that weird sub class of people that just can't communicate correctly and all communication breaks down around them.
keep in mind english is not everyones first language here though too.

That's not exactly what I was referring too.


A few thoughts about some of the points you bring up:

1) Tediousness: completely agree - tedious <> hard. The tediousness is also a bit subjective, however. So far, I haven’t found it so, and I also know that the final product will have a significant amount of extra choice per level included, more as time goes on.

2) Imbalanced multiclassing: given that the wizard/Fighter isn’t really gaining that much with their heavy armors that would be useful to a wizard that bracers of armor or mage armor wouldn’t give, the imbalance doesn’t really mean a lot. Paizo might wind up toning it down, but even if they don’t, they could have gotten armor proficiencies with general feats or as a human and gotten most of what they wanted by 3rd level anyway. Taking a whole feat to spare using a high level spell for mage armor is kind of wasteful.

3) cantrips - they scale very effectively with level, with wizards and sorcerers, anyway, just as well as any weapon those classes could have easily, plus with plenty of riders like sluggishness, persistent damage, etc. I wound up going through the entire first playtest adventure and didn’t cast one first level spell - telekinetic projectile, shield, acid splash, and detect magic were all I used. (That led to a very different playtest comment for me in the surveys, as a matter of fact...) TeleKP felled almost everything I attacked in one shot, and was even used in one part to retrieve something out of reach (I just threw the item towards us.) these are hands down better than the PF1 cantrips. (Except for prestidigitation - Jeez, they hit that far too hard with the nerf bat!)

4) the Barbarian raging - the mechanics of these are better covered in your thread. I do think they need tweaking. Personally, I like the story aspect of being able to tap into rage at any point in the day, rather than having a limited number of rounds to do so. Just as some people don’t like the level bonus to proficiency, I never liked the fiction of, “ I can only rage for 60 seconds a day, and then I have no more adrenaline.”

5) bows -there has been chatter of revising short bows to agile, and removing volley - I think this would work well if they do this. Propulsive is a bit punitive to bow use, I agree (and slings, too! You’re already losing an action to load the darned things!)

NemisCassander wrote:


(Snipped because it was getting cut off)


I am liking this system. There are a lot of quirks to it right now, but it's fulfilling a niche in my D&D preferences between 1ed and 4ed. I'm really impressed by the amount of thought put into this system. After reading the difference between "Seen" and "Sensed", I feel like Paizo has used a lot of experience from many people about hang-ups and problems adjudicating fantasy RPGs, and try to make it work as functionally as possible. It's not the game I thought I'd be excited about, but it's winning me over by addressing a lot of my grumbles and stumbling blocks.

And after making some 4th-level PCs, I'll say that getting Skill Feats really changes character creation, especially since every PC can get trained in any skill.


I like the new system because of the potential is has.
However, the current version is deeply flawed imo. Most of the design flaws have been pointed out already and I hope the designers of Paizo will notice and change them.


I really like the Action System (though I have been using it in a way, with Unchained), but not so keen on some of the micro-action terms (Operate activation, etc); not a big deal.

Really like Reactions, some of them are really nice, like the Grim Reaper's, and I like that not every organism has AoO (encouraging more movement in combat is always good).

Classses. really have a lot of choices, directions to go, I built a monk level by level, and the options and which feel/style I want, is fantastic.


Love the system itself (though it needs some work. Thus... playtest). Character creation is a bit tedious (not meaning too difficult. Meaning drudgery). But only because the layout of the book is still in very raw form, and it's taking a while to find everything. e.g. the paladin powers are listed with the spells.
That's nothing against the system at all. It just needs neatened up.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / I like the new system All Messageboards

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