| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you were asked by Paizo to bring back/restore up to 5 rules elements from PF1 to be put into PF2 (which range from something as simple as a minor change in an existing rule that PF1 had, to removing an existing PF2 rule, to something as complex as an entire rules subset that PF1 endorsed), what would you suggest, and why? (Do note that they don't have to be in any particular order, just your choice of 5 articles of rules to alter/revise/reinstate.)
There is more that I can add to the list, but given I limited the parameters to 5 things, this is perhaps the most prominent of things I want to have changed (back) in PF2. What are others' 5 things they want to bring from PF1 over to replace/reinstate for PF2?
**EDIT** Added band-aids for my wall-of-text syndrome. Should be easier to read now.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really agree with this list, but I'd add the following: the silver standard economy. I cannot find any reason for the change from a gp standard to sp. Everyone in my group thought this felt like "change for the sake of change," a change to further reinforce "this isn't PF1," and a change to discourage using PF1 material.
After playing this, it feel like Paizo took some of the worst aspects of PF1 and amplified them for PF2.
-Skeld
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the new crafting system, because you can make nearly anything in about a week, opposed to the year or so it took to make some items in PF1. That aside...
1. Different degrees of combat ability by class. Paizo has put effort into class role protection in abilities, but completely ignored that combat capability is also a part of class role. Everyone getting +Level to hit and bonuses being both rare and small means there's precious little difference between the hit chance of a Fighter and any other class.
2. Passive bonuses. Seems like some things that used to be passive bonuses are now either activated powers or worse, reactions. A good example is Divine Grace from Paladin. From a passive bonus to saves to a reaction. Reactions are the new swift action bottleneck. A Paladin already had smite replaced by a reaction, and might have shield block as a reaction, so they don't really have room to spare for a reaction that used to be a passive.
3. Meaningful bonuses. In PF2, nearly everything is either +1 or +2, and it it not only feels underwhelming, but the numerical results are also not impressive. Most attacks feel as though they could as easily be resolved via a coin flip, and even first attacks have a decent chance to miss (against level appropriate opponents). Don't be afraid of letting a player get a good number, it helps them feel like their character has grown and become powerful. Being stuck at the low number just feels like the character never develops much competence.
4. In a related note: Ways to improve combat capability. Sure, Weapon Focus wasn't an exciting feat, but it had practical benefit. As is, only a handful of classes/feats ever improve combat proficiency degree. Given how rare and low combat bonuses are, this is pretty limiting. A reversioning of Weapon Focus that increases proficiency degree with weapons of a single group would be a welcome addition.
5. Freeform non-combat. Exploration mode feels like a solution in search of a problem. It reads like an attempt to boil down roleplaying to a list of keywords. In my experience it's not conducive to play, not intuitive, and only serves to create distance between player and character. Please keep it freeform.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. TRANSPARENT MONSTER RULES (no unexplained arbitrary bonuses like Starfinder & 4E).
2. Weapon damage scaling not reliant on magic weapons.
3. Number of starting skills inversely proportional to your general spellcasting power.
4. More impressive non-magical feats (be it skills, class, racial, whatever else).
5. Full Orcs as a core rulebook race.
That's what I can think up as of now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1, bring back skill points, BAB, and save progressions. Get rid of +level to everything. Make the martial classes better at swinging a sword than the wizard.
2, proper multiclassing.
3, remove resonance. I don't even understand what problems this was trying to fix but it sure failed to do so.
4, bring back the 6/9 spellcasters. Seriously, they were Paizo's best designed classes and they threw them all away for PF2 in order to make everything full caster or noncaster only.
5, get rid of item levels and rarity. This is a narrative game, not a video game. I don't want to be told I can't equip a level 5 hat because I'm only level 3.
7, Make monsters and pcs use the same underlying rules, no more of this arbitrary "CRX needs +Y here, here, and here so it has them with no explanation".
8, don't call everything a feat. It's like the overuse of the term level but even worse.
9, either go back to the old gp standard or keep it even and have each step up be a factor of 100, not just from cp to sp. The devs seem to be pricing everything as if they were using the gp standard anyway.
10, half-orcs and half-elves as proper races again. And while we're at it, go back to the term race instead of ancestry
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I prefer most of the new concepts and wouldn't want to revert to the older ones so much as have the execution of the newer ones improved. Most of what I have seen are good ideas executed in ways I simply don't enjoy. The only thing I feel is in the right place and working as intended is martial combat.
For one, I don't want to go back to the old monster system. The idea of monsters being built on the same system always seemed laughable to me when they had a whole load of natural armor, number tweaking feats and other odds and ends thrown in specifically just to get around the levelling methods.
Still, there are a few. And that's what this thread is about, so I'll drop what I wish to see return.
1. Races. Ancestries just feel awful. It has been said numerous times that all the feats achieve are buying back your old racial features - which is completely true unless you are a human. The races are also completely imbalanced - I love that halflings are wisdom based but there is absolutely nothing going for them. It's even sadder for half-breed races - their relegation is much an emotional problem as it is the actual issue of them investing in a feat tax before they get any choice with their race.
2. Caster level. There are a few casts where I think spell heightening works. Predominantly healing spells, dispels, and spells that gain extra features or area of effect. But the embarrassing duration on most spells and painful scaling of blasting is evident. The latter is strongly tied to enemy saves though, and could quickly get out of hand if multiple facets of spellcasting are changed.
3. First level general feats. I don't think there is anything unreasonable about wanting to use exotic or uncommon weapons at 1st level, but nope. You have the choice of race-specific weapons or playing a human. If you're a half-orc or half-elf, you're strictly out of luck. No ancestral weapon for you - enjoy playing with longspears until 3rd level. The biggest thing for me about pathfinder was how much you can customize even 1st level characters. This does not at all feel true for 2e - not the playtest at least.
4. Better-defined skills. I don't like the idea of players being able to completely break down exactly how some skills works and challenge the GM on them. But on the other hand, 2e's skills are far too nebulous. Monster identification is a notorious example of this, I can bet there has been a whole bunch of argument over whether certain outsiders come under Arcana, Occult or Religion. Let alone figuring out the DCs, sheesh. My other issue with skill checks is how everything has a crit fail built into it now, regardless of whether it was needed. I thought the tighter number scaling was introduced to encourage people to roll on things they aren't specialized in?! When some of these crit fails are so extreme and easy to hit, I just don't want to roll on anything unless I have to. I like the current skill scaling but the tuning and execution are not something I am remotely comfortable with right now.
5. Paladins. I like a couple of the new features. The +1 holy damage on attacks is clever and great. Retributive strike on the other hand, while powerful, is not a design that I feel represents the class well or encourages intelligent or in-character play. I've griped about how restrictive the lack of feats leave paladins in P1 but they're so much more restricted in 2E.
|
|
I really agree with this list, but I'd add the following: the silver standard economy. I cannot find any reason for the change from a gp standard to sp. Everyone in my group thought this felt like "change for the sake of change," a change to further reinforce "this isn't PF1," and a change to discourage using PF1 material.
After playing this, it feel like Paizo took some of the worst aspects of PF1 and amplified them for PF2.
-Skeld
I think it was a good idea to reduce the cost of items to match a silver economy but it all feels rather fruitless when the price scaling is just as extreme as it was in 1e.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What was the point of the spoiler tags in the OP? We aren't discussing movie spoilers here.
Anyway, here are my five things:
1.) Reverse most of the spell nerfs or at least limit the nerfs to something sensible (for example the revised spell effect of Teleport is enough to bring the spell in line... the other five nerfs it has gotten are way overboard and actively problematic). Spellcasters have been severely overnerfed in all areas (except that Bards now get level nine spells) and this alone is killing my enthusiasm for the new edition almost completely.
2.) Loosen the mathematical construct of the game. The "level bonus to everything" solution the developers have taken makes the mathematical construction too tight and doesn't allow for enough playing room to really differentiate monsters from each other in their core mechanics. A frost giant has the same attack bonus as an efreeti or vampiric wizard, just because they are at the same monster level? The level bonus paradigm also makes the game more gamist than simulationist.
3.) Bring up other healing classes to the level of the Cleric OR allow consumables to make up the difference again, i.e. remove Resonance from consumables. If you want to avoid lots of cheap low-level consumables, just make them less effective at higher levels.
4.) In general bring up spells per day again up to the old levels of PF1E. Shorter adventuring days are not something to aspire to. "Bring a Cleric" is not a solution for every group of players.
5.) Less restrictive options for all classes. Allow more feats to be taken by all classes.
And, as an added point, we need more developer interactions on the forums. It really is not very helpful that the devs have apparently decided to stay mostly away from discussions and not explain their decisions. I know some of that comes from the website struggles, but I'd hope past that we can get more interaction going.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the Silver Standard (have used it myself, for years, Planescape campaign, there just is not that much gold flowing around the multiverse, gold really is rare and has remarkable properties, I embrace that), but chancing prices as well makes it unfriendly to conversions from PF1.
Convertability is a fair point. And I should probably state, regardless of whether I think the current scaling really works, it's still better than PF1. It doesn't cost you several months' earnings to afford the weakest healing potion in this system, and that's a huge step up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, there's a lot of stuff I would change but only a little I would revert.
Disclaimer, as I haven't been able to playtest, my list is based on theory and hearsay, not experience.
1) Encumbrance by weight (not Bulk).
2) No goblins / orcs / "monster" races in Core. Save them for the Advanced Ancestry Guide.
3) Take 20, preferably augmented by getting rid of most fumble outcomes, which I generally dislike anyway.
4) Take 10 in some universal form (tied to proficiency would be OK).
5) I'm wishy-washy on this one, because I can see the usefulness for game, but transferable runes bug me a lot.
restoration of the pf1 paladin abilities or restoration of the paladin class.....
ok someone had to say it
That's fine. But what are your 4 other things to change?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1)Mechanics tied to narrative ideas instead of considerations that don't exist within the story. If I know two character both have the inclusion of +10 to AC, all melee attacks, stealth checks, and a bunch of other things and all I have to go on is two sheets of paper which say "Level 10" with no other information, then I know this isn't a game that is going to to focus on storytelling enough for me.
2)Non-monster core PC races, then build from there later
3)No diablo runes
4)Magic items which should contain their own power (consumables) not tied to character resources (resonance for things like potions)
5) true multiclassing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the new crafting system, because you can make nearly anything in about a week, opposed to the year or so it took to make some items in PF1. That aside...
1. Different degrees of combat ability by class. Paizo has put effort into class role protection in abilities, but completely ignored that combat capability is also a part of class role. Everyone getting +Level to hit and bonuses being both rare and small means there's precious little difference between the hit chance of a Fighter and any other class.
2. Passive bonuses. Seems like some things that used to be passive bonuses are now either activated powers or worse, reactions. A good example is Divine Grace from Paladin. From a passive bonus to saves to a reaction. Reactions are the new swift action bottleneck. A Paladin already had smite replaced by a reaction, and might have shield block as a reaction, so they don't really have room to spare for a reaction that used to be a passive.
3. Meaningful bonuses. In PF2, nearly everything is either +1 or +2, and it it not only feels underwhelming, but the numerical results are also not impressive. Most attacks feel as though they could as easily be resolved via a coin flip, and even first attacks have a decent chance to miss (against level appropriate opponents). Don't be afraid of letting a player get a good number, it helps them feel like their character has grown and become powerful. Being stuck at the low number just feels like the character never develops much competence.
4. In a related note: Ways to improve combat capability. Sure, Weapon Focus wasn't an exciting feat, but it had practical benefit. As is, only a handful of classes/feats ever improve combat proficiency degree. Given how rare and low combat bonuses are, this is pretty limiting. A reversioning of Weapon Focus that increases proficiency degree with weapons of a single group would be a welcome addition.
5. Freeform non-combat. Exploration mode feels like a solution in search of a problem. It reads like...
In what universe could you make stuff in a week? The prices on items scale so drastically that you can't realistically expect standard (or higher) level items finished, much less succeeded (the checks compared to your check modifiers are difficult to say the least for items worth crafting), much less started (Do you have the recipe for X item? Then you can't make it, and there are no rules to determine how you get the recipe for X item). I'd end up houseruling stuff back to PF1 just so I can avoid the definitive insanity that is crafting, or just ban crafting from my games altogether (which a lot of PF1 players did for their own reasons).
1. I do agree there could be better ways to help with class identity, since minor bonuses and Proficiencies are really the only telling ways that a Fighter is better than, say, a Sorcerer in combat. (There are some higher level feats, but that requires actually selecting them, and not every Fighter will take X feat because [reasons], and also means they won't kick off until they are that level, which means the lower levels have less of an identity.) Similarly, there's not much in the way of features for classes like Sorcerers to be vastly different from Fighters in the way they contribute. They have spells, but depending on what spells you take, and between how limiting low level spells are compared to just lobbing a cantrip, it's problematic to say the least.
2. Again, I agree, and I very much considered adding "Spells" to my list of 5 things to change back from PF1. Having used a Bless spell that only gives a very minor bonus, which requires burning one of your actions each turn to maintain, which already has a set duration on how long you can maintain the effect, just seems counterintuitive and defeats the point of having both set durations and concentration effects. PF1 established the whole "Concentration" duration with illusions, which made sense. It also had Concentration with certain spells like "Wall of Fire," but also had a flat duration if Concentration is broken or dismissed; why don't we have spells like that for PF2? We already have this severe debilitation when it comes to Summon Monster (which does at least have some inherent benefits), we don't need it for spells like Bless, which were mostly "Fire and Forget" style of spells that were meant to augment you for a short duration.
3. It's not so much the bonuses aren't meaningful, but some of them certainly require you to go out of your way to get them. One such example, Bless, requires burning my entire turn just to apply the benefits to my teammates, when I could be spending that turn lobbing cantrips at the baddie, dealing damage, and bringing the encounter that much closer to an end. Compared to the "Take Cover" general action, which makes ranged combat more difficult and promotes tactical movement, is a very rewarding and progressive thing for creatures and players to do, compared to activities like Bless, or moving into Flanking range (which has its own problems thanks to every notable monster and its grandma having Attacks of Opportunity compared to everyone else that doesn't).
4. I honestly think having a Weapon Focus feat that improved a choice of weapons from Trained to Expert, and Expert to Master (but not Master to Legendary, gotta make those Fighters special somehow in the endgame) would really make the game more interesting and help make spellcasters more martially inclined. But if this was really to kick off proficiencies mattering, I'm of the opinion that having General "Weapon" feats (AKA feats that let you do cool things with weapons) with proficiency as a requirement barrier for certain feats would be a great way to make Proficiency be more than a simple "at-level" or modifier bonus to your attack rolls (which is, IMO, the most boring part about proficiencies as they stand).
5. 100% agree on freeform Exploration Mode, and I'd like to see it similarly extend to Downtime Mode, since some players, instead of crafting, working a profession, or retraining, might instead want to gather information on where to go next, and some of the adventures might actually be based on whether players bother to do this or not. But the rules don't let my players do that because that's not what Downtime Mode is for; having the game tell me what the modes are for isn't great game design for a game that's meant to be as freeform and customizable as possible.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Bring back the old rules for dying, including negative HP and Fort saving throws.
Right now, I would have to go out of my way to kill a PC. I have no idea how 6% of them died in the Lost Star.
I started running Pale Mountain this week with my regular group and they quickly realized the terrible truth when the Bard went down: you can't die anymore.
You fall unconscious, you're at dying 1 and no matter whether a monster is currently drowning you in acid or tearing your skin apart with claws, you stay at dying 1 condition (dying 2 if, somehow, a critical hit killed you).
Yes, you have to make a Fort saving throw. You need to fail 3 times in a row to die though.
Meanwhile, the rest of your party, which should be from 3 to 5 rather sensible players, only has to get you to drink a potion or cast a heal spell and you're back anew.
If someone is going to tell me that not ONE other player can get to you and have you drink a potion in 3 rounds, I'll say you're deliberately trying to have you fellow adventurer die then.
And even assuming that would be the case, one successful Fort save is all it takes for you to be safe, unconscious at 0 HP, waiting to wake up again the next day...
I enjoy it when a combat encounter brings adrenaline and fear of death.
My players do too and we're underwhelmed with the new dying rules.
The only way I can think of to kill a PC now is to force the party through many quick successive encounters to drain their healing resources until, finally, they arrive in a fight with no more potions and healing spells and still somehow decide it's a good idea to press on rather than just wait for the night.
Incidentally, casters can no longer sustain the average length of an adventuring day because they get less spell slots, which brings me to my next point.
2) Caster characters should not have less spells per day than PF 1.0.
I doesn't make any sense with all of the other nerfs that magic took in this edition. Spells now range from decent to useless, there's no way to boost your save DC and you're getting less spell slots as well?
If Paizo wanted to get rid of spellcasters all together, they could have just said so...
3) Having a party Cleric should not be mandatory. If you want having a healer to be mandatory, give other classes opportunities to be as good at healing than a Cleric can be.
I don't mind being a healer but I do mind being forced into roleplaying a Cleric of Sarenrae. Why would a Bard or a Druid not be as good a healer as a Cleric?
A Bard could have the power to influence your mind to ignore pain and control your body so that you heal faster.
A Druid could have knowledge of some specific decoctions that restore your health and vigor.
There's no good RP reason that Clerics are the only ones who can be decent healers.
Faith can heal you and restore your strength, but so can specific plants and arcane spells. Or at least they should.
The Healing Domain is too good now, coupled with Channel Energy. Other classes need to be able to take on the role of a primary healer and be effective at it if having a healer is now going to be absolutely required.
I say absolutely required in order to have longer than 5-minutes adventuring days.
Not absolutely required in order to stay alive. See point number 1 about that.
4) Change Recall Knowledge to work as in 1st edition and provide a specific number of information regarding a monster based on the result of your check to identify them.
It used to be very clear how much info one could get from identifying a monster in PF 1.0. It all depended on the result of your skill check and the GM had to provide you with a set of fixed info depending on how well you succeeded.
Right now, I could screw over my players if I wanted to and tell them: "Before you stands a creature you identify as a vampire. It might try and bite you to feed off your blood".
My players won't be able to learn more about the beast's weaknesses and vulnerabilities unless I want to tell them about it.
It doesn't matter if they rolled well or want to use a strategic approach and exploit a creature's weaknesses.
They get exactly one info, and I can make it totally useless if I want to.
Then again, seeing as you cannot truly die anymore, I guess it's ok to just rush in mindlessly and discover some of the most important info on the fly...
5) Do something about the Druid specifically and animal companions in general.
Oh boy, where do I start.
A Druid's animal companion is a critbag that can't be raised when they die. The way it is right now, it's not even a certainty that all your animal companion feats even apply to the new one you a get as a replacement.
The no item bonus rule for animal companions has to go.
Animal companions are now minions with only 2 actions per round.
The Druid has to use one action to command them each round and have them do something useful.
Because of action economy, it is now impossible for an animal companion to be a pocket fighter for the Druid that's better than the actual party Fighter.
Which is good and fair.
BUT, why make them so squishy and have them hit like a wet noodle as well then?
Rangers are even worse because they don't even have spells or spell points to sustain the damage their animal companion is likely to take.
A Druid's wildshape is basically no more than a combat tool now and a poor one at that. Makes picking up the Druid's Vestments and a Darkwood full plate a necessity - along with heavy armor proficiency. A lot of it is severely wrong here but there's a whole thread full of great suggestions to make it better so I'll just stop here and say: this issue needs to be adressed.
Why are Druids unable to wear metal armors again?
Will we still have that restriction in 50 years, when I intoduce my grand-nephew to the game?
Keeping in line with point number 2, Druids aren't even competent casters anymore...
And well, because the OP went with a honorable mention in the first place, I'll do the same:
6) Bring back WBL the way it was in PF 1.0.
Having specific items for each level and a small sum for pocket money makes it really hard to properly gear up for some builds.
TLDR:
1) Bring back the old rules for dying and saving against death, including negative HP. Make combat lethal again!
2) Restore spellcasters' number of spell slots par day. Stop overnerfing magic in every possible way!
3) Offer effective alternatives to the Cleric for healers, if one is going to be required to not shorten the average adventuring day.
4) Restore the old rules for identifying monsters' strengths and weaknesses.
5) Fix the Druid and animal companions, they are highly underpowered right now.
+ 6) Have WBL be about the total value of your current gear and do not force a set of specific items onto every build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the new system for the most part, but there are a few weird things I have seen that make me concerned
With Fuzzy-Wuzzy's caveat on haven't had a chance to personally playtest (although a close friend is currently doing so):
1: Make Ancestries stronger. I like the idea of ancestries, but they just feel far too threadbare early on, and also don't seem all that balanced. Building in more biological distinctions would be useful and more flavorful, and give a reason to pick a certain race over others
2: Remove Resonance from consumables. I am fine if a character has to spend resonance to activate certain magical abilities, or create potions and what not. But IMHO resonance on things like potions, scrolls, etc should be spent during production, not in usage.
3. Monster combat/skills seem a bit strong, and a common complaint I have heard and believe is that combat is a bit too swingy. So reduce that. On a related note, not including monster building guidelines is going to severely hamper GMs, especially for a system as radically revised as this.
4. Sorcerer. I like the idea of choosing your own spell list, but I am not actually certain all spell lists work well with the sorceror chassis. I am also concerned about them not being able to heighten the way a wizard can. I get option paralysis, but there has to be some other option. On a related note, Ranger still feels a bit bland, and the Paladin is probably the most radically reinvented class, which is going to cause some hard feelings.
5. Skills. Signature Skills seems to be a solution to something that was never a huge problem. If you are concerned about new players not investing skills that are most suited in to the class, a sentence in the class description mentioning what skills are most relevant for the classes features can probably solve that. I also feel that the skill system locking features behind proficiency is underwhelming. While I like the current level system as it makes it plausible for high level parties to all contribute to the same sort of tactics, there needs to be more explicit locking of usages behind levels. As is most things are locked behind feats, and tasks that you are incapable of performing untrained seem to mostly be skill uses related to magic use. A wizard can just about attempt anything a fighter can do untrained but not vice versa.
BONUS: still not sure how I feel about class specific combat feats. I get that this improves niche differentiation, and that some of the old PF1 feats no longer need to exist at all with the new system. But I feel like this is going to require a lot of reinventing the wheel each time a new martial class is created, which will require variations of those feats, and lead to a waste of space. I am not sure what the best way of dealing with this actually is...It would probably require hefty redesign of the more combat oriented classes, given how much of there class feats are old variations of combat feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Skill Points. Short of bringing back Skill Points, please remove prerequisites for the Skill Training feat, make at least 1 Signature Skill an open choice, and take other steps to increase skill selection & diversity.
2) Bring back the days of natural 1s sucking on their own without the added insult & injury of critical fails. Please remove or tone down critical fails, especially for Aid and Assist. Those are fun-killers.
3) Getting racial abilities at character generation. i.e., each race should be locked into a few ancestry feats at character creation, then choose 1 other ancestry feat at level 1.
4) Taking 10.
5) Unwind +1 per level to everything. 4th edition had +1/2 per level to everything, and it's the same basic concept. Ultimately, I was hoping 2nd edition Pathfinder would be somewhat backwards compatible, with modest tinkers (like PF1 -> Starfinder).
I don't want to sound like I'm a negative nelly though. I like a lot about the new ruleset, esp the 3-action economy, diminishing attacks of opportunity, omitting surprise rounds, and everything borrowed from Starfinder. Basically, I like the changes to combat tactics, but would prefer adjustments to character-building.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like reading a summary of what I think. I agree with all the points you made.
Now, my points with no particular order :
1. Reverse Resonance Points
2. Skill ranks and class skills
Plus, class skills were just a buff to your skills, not mandatory to have some uses of those skills. With signature skills, you can only be master or legendary in your signature skills. This means taking skill feats in a non-signature skill is useless or impossible : 1/3 of them need you to be master or legendary, and half of the remaining skill feats become powerful only when you become master or legendary (like Cat Fall).
I like the new number of skills, but not the new skill system.
3. Spells' duration scaling with levels
4. Magic weapons
- You can't have a secondary weapon you use in only certain circumstance without spending a big amount of money. Forget your +1 shorsword you use when you are grappled or when you are at contact while you are supposed to be an archer. After some calculations, if your seconday weapon is -2 or worse than your main weapon, don't bother using it.
- You can't use impovised weapons. Since they are poor quality weapon, and you will never enchant a barstool (the point of improvised weapons is to use whatever you can grab), they fall behind in damage. So no more bar brawler build or arena warrior/gladiator.
- A +5 dagger does 24 damages at best. A +5 Rapier does 36 damages. Why should a rogue bother using a dagger ? Except for the critical specialization, which you don't have naturally (feat/class taxed) and which you need to do a critical for it to happen ? Why should a Fighter bother with a Battle axe which does 48 damages when a Greataxe does 72 damages ? Dual wielding two battle axe is too feat/class costly, and you will ultimately make less damages per round because of the multiple attack penalty.
5. Feats
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty much going to go the other direction. Taking some of the things from PF2 and bringing them back to PF1
Action System: I'm going to use the PF2 Action system to revise and update the Unchained Action system.
Weapon Traits: Expanding the traits available to weapons is a good idea so I'll bring some of those across as well, with a bit of tweaking.
4 Degrees of Success: Doesn't work for everything but I think it's a good idea to add to the PF1 skill system.
Resonance: Wouldn't want to use it in it's current form but there are certainly some benefits to the general idea. Gonna keep an eye on how this changes and if I like the end result I might bring it over.
Active Shields: I might allow something similar to active shields as AOO options for those proficient in shields. Like double the shield bonus if you spend an AOO but shield takes damage from the hit
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Revert the basic to-hit, saves, AC and skills, format eliminating the 50/50 expectation.
2. Revert everything to do with casters/spells.
3. Revert class restricted feats that had not previously been class specific abilities.
4. Revert Resonance
5. Revert the monster/PC build differences. Hell stick closer to parity on the way back.
There's others, but I could work with or ignore things like ancestries and bulk which are mostly just crummy rather than central issues with the core game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Less level-gating, make ability scores and proficiencies more meaningful. Make odd ability scores actually mean something.
2) Less class-gating, more universal / cross-class feats. Make class abilities flexible as to when exactly you get them. Every class should have multiple non-exclusive class feat paths like bards and druids.
3) Clear rules to build/tweak monsters and ESPECIALLY NPCs. Not necessarily identical to PCs but easy-to-use and balanced.
4) MOAR hybrid classes and options to combine class features from multiple classes.
5) More fixed skill DCs.
BONUS: Bring back commanding multiple creatures. Yes it was a problem in PF1 but I would prefer to see it solved by innovation rather than cut off. It is just too awesome narratively to lose.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My list is FAR, FAR too big to narrow it down to 5... I MIGHT be able to pick 5 things I want to NOT revert if I think long enough. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) I liked how traits would let you make any skill a class skill, and this is a preferable standard than signature skills. Working against type with a class/skill combination that is not typical is great fun.
2) I prefered when one's ̶R̶a̶c̶e̶ Ancestry gave several things at chargen instead of 1. It's fine to have more Ancestry feats later, but have them be actual things befitting of like 9th level instead of "a thing you could have had at 1st."
3) I preferred when there was a way to make more or less any class effective at more or less any combat style. Now lightly armored fighters or strength rogues or archer paladins are working against type. As an extension of this bring back class-specific archetypes.
4) Defense could be pretty strong in PF1 defense does not appear especially strong in PF2 (monsters hit *a lot*). I was sincerely hoping "damage mitigation" was a big thing in PF2, but shields break a lot.
5) More ways to heal please. Planar adventures has a feat that let's anyone be good at healing, in PF2 there isprecisely one class is good at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I liked how traits would let you make any skill a class skill, and this is a preferable standard than signature skills. Working against type with a class/skill combination that is not typical is great fun.
2) I prefered when one's ̶R̶a̶c̶e̶ Ancestry gave several things at chargen instead of 1. It's fine to have more Ancestry feats later, but have them be actual things befitting of like 9th level instead of "a thing you could have had at 1st."
3) I preferred when there was a way to make more or less any class effective at more or less any combat style. Now lightly armored fighters or strength rogues or archer paladins are working against type. As an extension of this bring back class-specific archetypes.
4) Defense could be pretty strong in PF1 defense does not appear especially strong in PF2 (monsters hit *a lot*). I was sincerely hoping "damage mitigation" was a big thing in PF2, but shields break a lot.
5) More ways to heal please. Planar adventures has a feat that let's anyone be good at healing, in PF2 there isprecisely one class is good at it.
I feel like Sig skills are one of the few things I really don't like in the new system.
Otherwise yeah, I'd like to see ancestries remain as modular as they are and would kinda hate to see more fixed traits but more front-loading would probably be nice. Pallies in particular definitely seem to need a fighting style choice rejig based on comments from my players. No strong opinions on 4 yet but yeah, flex healing could be nice. I like how clerics feel based off what I've seen but they probably shouldn't be the only top route.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm not gonna read through everything, I'm gonna take this a different way (and probably repeat a few things people have said). I'm gonna go with five things I like that are unique, five things I'd like to see from PF1 either stay/return, and five things I'd like for them to take from Starfinder (or that they did take but Starfinder is currently doing better).
So, five things I like about PF2 as it is. In no particular order.
1: Action Economy. I like the three action system as a base idea. I kind of like the PF1 Unchained version a little better, only for how it dealt with two-weapon fighting, but that isn't a thing for non-fighters really in PF2.
2: Proficiency Levels. Adding level to everything destroys alot of what I like about this, but the core idea I still like. I like the idea of a system differentiated by what you can do, not how high numbers are.
3: Multiple Ability Boosts. This is an idea they took from Starfinder pretty much verbatim. I like the + to four attribute scores system. It makes the character actually feel like they're improving without needing to be hyper-specialized.
4: Tiers of Success. I like the idea of critting based on more than simply a 5% chance of getting lucky. This feels good, but is still a little flawed in execution (largely due to +level to everything).
5: Useful Cantrips. Cantrips getting better with level is huge. This is a pullover from D&D 5e but having reliable magic that does more than 1d3 is huge for casters.
Alright, those are 5 things I like. For five things dropped from PF1 I would see return.
1: Race/Ancestry. This is a point I think more needs improvement or refining. In PF1, as many people point out, you start with all the main aspects of your race. I don't mind Ancestry feats, BUT, I think it could be done better. Take the Advanced Race Guide. Each race in it had alternative choices for racial traits. Start off with like, choice of three racial feats, and make sure each actually feel good. Dwarves vs Elves is the biggest discrepancy in PF2, with Elves having so many good options and Dwarves getting their series of niche choices. Tuen the later ones just essentially be power-barred by level. Drow had this, as did many others (though most of these abilities were generally spell-like abilities).
2: Generally Available Feats. I'm going to touch on Feats again later in the Starfinder segment, but lemme start here. Class feats should apply specifically to class abilities, things everyone should be allowed to get (like proper, non multi-attack two-weapon fighting) should be general or combat feats. Hell, give Fighters the same thing as Rogues. Extra Feats that anyone could get.
3: Class Skills. I like the tier system for skills, I do not like the Signature Skills system. In PF1 your class skills gave +3, nice, but you could still invest elsewhere without issue. Saying "you are x, you cannot be the best at y" does not feel good. Limits character concepts.
4: Enemies with Class Levels. I do like the new monster development system. I like how the stat blocks are arranged (like they are in Starfinder). I do not like that general humanoid enemies like the type the players can be, do not use class abilities and instead use arbitrary powers. If an enemy Wizard has spell-like abilities players cannot get, because they're not spells they're powers, this frustrates the players.
5: Languages. In PF1, languages were almost a joke, with Wizards starting with upwards of six, the Linguistics skill being often neglected, or if you did invest you were a living cypher. PF2 has made language accessibility way too hard. Find a middle ground.
And to finish off. 5 things Starfinder is doing better.
1: More Impactful Feats. Feats in Starfinder feel really good. They're strong, and make a decent difference when compared to PF1's long feat trees and PF2's sea of many worthless-feeling feats. In Starfinder, taking Weapon Proficiency or Skill Focus feels good, because they're customization options not necessary for character concepts.
2: Weapon Levels/Magic. PF2 has adopted SF's level system. This isn't necessarily bad, as it's a good way to gate stronger pieces of equipment to late game play. PF1 had too many "best" weapons in particular. The problem here is the damage scaling choice. It makes more sense in Starfinder as a sci-fi setting that a level 5 weapon does more damage. It's more advanced tech. Without the tech aspect this doesn't work and thus they've tied it to magic augmentation, which essentially makes a +1 magic weapon almost infinitely more important than it was in PF1, and it was already borderline necessary for bypassing DR. Maybe tie item level and additional weapon dice to item quality? Seems that would fit better thematically and feel better mechanically. Plus Starfinder also gives everyone Weapon Specialization as a feat at level 3 to add level to damage, so there's another solution to the problem right there.
3: Magic Items in General. Resonance is... Okay. It curbed the problem of the wand of cure light wounds cheesiness, however making healing more impactful would be a better fix. The end result of resonance is crippling many characters. Starfinder limits 2 magic items worn and most, like feats in Starfinder, are pretty impactful. Starfinder has cybernetics and other things so limit 2 doesn't work as well, but the point is still there. Make it like, 3-5, and don't limit consumables. On the weapon end, Starfinder's magic comes from Seals, which generally offer small things to their attached weapon (and they don't apply against the 2 item limit).
4: Health, Stamina, and Resolve. Static HP progression is nice. Starfinder's SP, HP system of static progression is better. Your SP are basically just easy to recover with a 10 minute rest HP, and it costs 1 RP to recover it fully. HP is HP. Resolve is better than Hero Points, simply because as a resource it can be spent elsewhere. Nuff said.
5: Class Customization. Starfinder has 7 classes, and archtypes are universal. Basically all of these classes are constructed entirely through choices, similar to the PF2 Class Feats system except many classes don't even have universal abilities. Everything is a choice. When new books have been released its been new class options which allows you to mix and match and make a really unique concept. Class Feats has that framework but with everything else the classes in PF2 feel a bit like cardboard cutouts with very minor flavour adjustment.
BONUS 6: Themes > Backgrounds. Themes are just better than Backgrounds. The progression of multiple level unlocked bonuses versus a one time feat? No contest.
EDIT: EXTRA BONUS 7: Lore, Profession, and Crafting. PF2 does not have much of the skillset Starfinder has. I like Lore doubling as Profession, however Starfinder's way of tying crafting into other more versatile skills was better. Mysticism (Arcana/Occult/Religion hybrid skill effectively) allows crafting magic stuff. Engineering for physical stuff, and Computers for programs and stuff. Plus those skills have their normal game uses like identifying creatures.
There we go. The highs of the three systems and what I'd carry forth to an end product.
I like the new crafting system, because you can make nearly anything in about a week, opposed to the year or so it took to make some items in PF1.In what universe could you make stuff in a week? The prices on items scale so drastically that you can't realistically expect standard (or higher) level items finished, much less succeeded (the checks compared to your check modifiers are difficult to say the least for items worth crafting), much less started (Do you have the recipe for X item? Then you can't make it, and there are no rules to determine how you get the recipe for X item). I'd end up houseruling stuff back to PF1 just so I can avoid the definitive insanity that is crafting, or just ban crafting from my games altogether (which a lot of PF1 players did for their own reasons).
In PF2, you can craft an item of your level in 4 days if you're willing to pay full price. After those four days every extra day just reduces the price, to a minimum of half. The recipe bit can be kind of wonky, agreed, but I prefer this to PF1's crafting where the most optimized armorsmith inhumanely possible (getting a total of 90 on every craft check) couldn't make a suit of mithril full plate in four months of continuous work.
In PF2, you can craft an item of your level in 4 days if you're willing to pay full price. After those four days every extra day just reduces the price, to a minimum of half. The recipe bit can be kind of wonky, agreed, but I prefer this to PF1's crafting where the most optimized armorsmith inhumanely possible (getting a total of 90 on every craft check) couldn't make a suit of mithril full plate in four months of continuous work.I like the new crafting system, because you can make nearly anything in about a week, opposed to the year or so it took to make some items in PF1.In what universe could you make stuff in a week? The prices on items scale so drastically that you can't realistically expect standard (or higher) level items finished, much less succeeded (the checks compared to your check modifiers are difficult to say the least for items worth crafting), much less started (Do you have the recipe for X item? Then you can't make it, and there are no rules to determine how you get the recipe for X item). I'd end up houseruling stuff back to PF1 just so I can avoid the definitive insanity that is crafting, or just ban crafting from my games altogether (which a lot of PF1 players did for their own reasons).
No. But a spellcaster with the Fabricate spell and a modest amount of itemization could make it in less than 6 seconds. Funny thing, that PF1 spellcasting.
No. But a spellcaster with the Fabricate spell and a modest amount of itemization could make it in less than 6 seconds. Funny thing, that PF1 spellcasting.In PF2, you can craft an item of your level in 4 days if you're willing to pay full price. After those four days every extra day just reduces the price, to a minimum of half. The recipe bit can be kind of wonky, agreed, but I prefer this to PF1's crafting where the most optimized armorsmith inhumanely possible (getting a total of 90 on every craft check) couldn't make a suit of mithril full plate in four months of continuous work.I like the new crafting system, because you can make nearly anything in about a week, opposed to the year or so it took to make some items in PF1.In what universe could you make stuff in a week? The prices on items scale so drastically that you can't realistically expect standard (or higher) level items finished, much less succeeded (the checks compared to your check modifiers are difficult to say the least for items worth crafting), much less started (Do you have the recipe for X item? Then you can't make it, and there are no rules to determine how you get the recipe for X item). I'd end up houseruling stuff back to PF1 just so I can avoid the definitive insanity that is crafting, or just ban crafting from my games altogether (which a lot of PF1 players did for their own reasons).
Quite true. Not sad to see that curtailed a bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me -
1. Take 10. Take 20 I'm less fussed about, but the Take 10 rule saves hassles and speeds up the game. Assurance is too specific and too weak to fill the same role.
2. Spells that haven't been nerfed, nerfed again, then nerfed at least once more for good measure. Once would probably be a good thing going from PF1 but they've gone too far IMO.
3. Monster rules that can be tracked back enough that you can find major mistakes. They don't have to be as complete as PF1 - though they could be - but at the mo there's no way of saying whether a given stat block is even vaguely correct. And incorrect stat blocks have cropped up many times in the past.
4. Remove modes of gameplay. They add nothing other than needless complexity, especially exploration mode.
5. Remove resonance. It's something that could have been done well but wasn't. It would be easier to remove than fix at this point IMO. Alchemists can get their formula points or whatever, wands can be fixed another way, every other use can be dropped.
OK, I've listed none that weren't mentioned above one way or another, but perhaps I said it a little differently.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
.
.
.
.
- Take 10 & Take 20 - There should be a universal method of quickly adjudicating skill checks especially when characters aren't pressured by time.
- Proactive abilities for the Paladin, being best at shields, Lay on Hands and Retributive Strike are all reactive abilities.
- Methods to add more signature (class) skills so characters can have better differentiation.
- Animate Dead - Please let Necromancers have their skelemans.
- Witches, Gunslingers and Kineticists: I just think they're neat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh joy, a ranting thread!
I love Pathfinder, and I'm already homebrewing a ton for 2E, I'm really invested in it.
But the current state, I don't feel I can recommend.
- Make race meaningful. I love that races have the 'free boost' mechanic, since it lets almost any race do well at any class. But the combination of very few racial traits inherent to the race, and racial feats being so spread out (and lacking true high level options) feels terrible.
- Fix the adventuring day. CLW wands might have seemed silly, but the actual gameplay that resulted was good, at least compared to most TTRPGs. Parties cared about taking damage a little, because charges, but pushed themselves quite hard, meaning you didn't have the awkward situation of leaving a 'dungeon'/etc to prepare, restock, or actually flee, which often messed up gameplay, preperation, &/or verisimilitude. The current PF2 healing economy and adventuring day is abyssmal.
- Allow variety of character concepts. This issues arises because of things like Fighters getting heavy-armor only things, but most importantly: Signiture Skills. In PF1 this was easily fixed with traits. In PF2 some concepts don't work because of it. Kill sig skills, give options for the restrictive class features.
- Amount of content. Big thing I love about PF1 is the pure amount of content for it. This is a freebie to Paizo that will come with time, but it does negatively affect the system until then.
- Lower level monsters. I don't know if they need 'level 0.5' or 'level -1', but when level 0 is the minimum, everything with stats must be at least 75% the strength of a level 1 PC, such that a 3-person party cannot confidently fight 4 of anything, according to XP budget. This fixes itself as you level, but I've made creatures definitely weaker than this, and I want to categorize them better.
I'm sure there's a lot more, but those come to mind, and they all feel pretty achievable?
About things like the variety of concepts, there apparently will be more content in the 150+ extra pages in the final rulebook.
.
.
.
.
.
- Take 10 & Take 20 - There should be a universal method of quickly adjudicating skill checks especially when characters aren't pressured by time.
- Proactive abilities for the Paladin, being best at shields, Lay on Hands and Retributive Strike are all reactive abilities.
- Methods to add more signature (class) skills so characters can have better differentiation.
- Animate Dead - Please let Necromancers have their skelemans.
- Witches, Gunslingers and Kineticists: I just think they're neat.
Agree 100% on the Take 10 rules. They might actually make the current lockpick rules doable, since my current issue is that they are way too prone for failure, especially in the lower levels with breaking picks (, thereby if I wanted a door or chest particularly difficult to open, also reinforced with making it a strong metal, such as a Master Steel door/chest with a Legendary lock). Assurance is just plain bad as far as spending one of your precious Skill/General feats are concerned.
Paladins having reactive abilities is nice to have, even when the proactive abilities don't cover you all the way. I can agree that there should be more (if not earlier-accessible) proactive abilities for Paladins to get, but saying Lay On Hands is a reactive ability is a misnomer when it actually costs an action (and not a reaction) to use. Similarly for simply raising a shield (blocking does cost the reaction though). I wouldn't mind seeing Lay On Hands provide Temporary HP for 1 minute, so that the Paladin has at-least some proactive option for it, but that's about as far as I think it should go.
I'd rather they just do away with Signature Skills altogether, but if we had to keep them in, make it so that Signature Skills means the character is always considered trained in those skills (but isn't required for Master/Legendary proficiency; in real life, some of the best of their fields weren't necessarily schooled as to how they do their schtick), or even better, make Intelligence give you additional Signature Skills up to your modifier (and no, a negative modifier doesn't subtract a signature skill you'd get).
Considering how Summon Monster works, I'd rather it be as simple as having one "effect" of the spell you control with the Concentrate action (or they do nothing more than simply follow you around awaiting orders) than having it be limited to a single creature such as the current Summon Monster, similar to several PF1 illusion spells. I do agree that having spells which control/create numerous minions are nice and thematic, and curtailing it by its raw power level (such as summoning only a certain level of skeletons) is a more valid approach. On top of that, a simple "Reduce the amount of actions required to control a creature by 1 for every 2 levels it is lower than you, and creatures require an additional action for every 2 levels it is higher than you" clause goes a long way. This means characters can control numerous weak minions if they so choose while maintaining the current concept of current-tiered monsters requiring concentration to control, plus having potential stronger-tiered monsters being controllable, but requiring more effort on the spellcaster's part to maintain. (The tradeoff for comparison is having them significantly weaker than what they should be, whereas if characters have the option to control more powerful creatures, it becomes more taxing on their other abilities to do so).
As much as I want to see other classes enter the fray, it is too soon to say this is something that should be Core. Core just provides a solid framework. Put too much work (and by relation, time and money) into the frame, and you won't have enough of a budget to actually purchase the piece you want to frame and hang.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh joy, a ranting thread!
I love Pathfinder, and I'm already homebrewing a ton for 2E, I'm really invested in it.
But the current state, I don't feel I can recommend.
- Make race meaningful. I love that races have the 'free boost' mechanic, since it lets almost any race do well at any class. But the combination of very few racial traits inherent to the race, and racial feats being so spread out (and lacking true high level options) feels terrible.
- Fix the adventuring day. CLW wands might have seemed silly, but the actual gameplay that resulted was good, at least compared to most TTRPGs. Parties cared about taking damage a little, because charges, but pushed themselves quite hard, meaning you didn't have the awkward situation of leaving a 'dungeon'/etc to prepare, restock, or actually flee, which often messed up gameplay, preperation, &/or verisimilitude. The current PF2 healing economy and adventuring day is abyssmal.
- Allow variety of character concepts. This issues arises because of things like Fighters getting heavy-armor only things, but most importantly: Signiture Skills. In PF1 this was easily fixed with traits. In PF2 some concepts don't work because of it. Kill sig skills, give options for the restrictive class features.
- Amount of content. Big thing I love about PF1 is the pure amount of content for it. This is a freebie to Paizo that will come with time, but it does negatively affect the system until then.
- Lower level monsters. I don't know if they need 'level 0.5' or 'level -1', but when level 0 is the minimum, everything with stats must be at least 75% the strength of a level 1 PC, such that a 3-person party cannot confidently fight 4 of anything, according to XP budget. This fixes itself as you level, but I've made creatures definitely weaker than this, and I want to categorize them better.
I'm sure there's a lot more, but those come to mind, and they all feel pretty achievable?
I do agree that Ancestries need a buff as a whole. I literally only look at them to see what boosts in attributes I get, and the one or two Ancestry feats that I want, and I ignore it otherwise. I might consider Languages if I'm a Wizard, Alchemist, or decide to boost my Intelligence because of Multiclass reasons, but short of that, it's just words on a piece of paper to me. If Ancestries are meant to be a defining thing for my character choice, then I shouldn't be treating it for granted as I am currently.
To add on to the adventuring day issue, CLW Wands were really the only culprit to extending the adventuring day more than it should with little compromise. The concept that well-placed spells and other things meant the adventuring day being only over by HP suggests that CLW Wands were a necessary evil so that parties had many good reasons to consider resting (no HP, no power, no way to safely progress, etc). Balancing the game to not require CLW Wands, and by relation changing how Wands work (so CLW Wands are no longer a thing), would have solved this problem better than what the current "solution" is.
100% agree on character concept variety. Signature Skills shoehorns things instead of simply being a boon (as I've said before, make it so you're automatically trained in those skills is fair). Other things that might help would be to make numerous feats that are class-specific more general so that characters of other classes can get them. I think it's silly that feats like Quick Draw, Power Attack, Sudden Charge, etc. which were once general feats in PF1 (except Sudden Charge, but beside the point) are now class-specific and you can't take them unless you invest in at least 2 of your Class feats into Multiclassing (with stringent requirements of its own) or actually be that class in order to have those feats.
The content will come with time. This isn't even a finished Core Rulebook, and there are quite a few options yet. As long as these options are extremely well balanced and are expanded from what we have (they say the Core Rulebook in PF2 will be as big if not bigger than PF1's Core Rulebook), I have no problem with testing what's here to help achieve that goal.
Monsters (and by relation monster design) is broken and needs an overhaul, fast. Level 0 creatures being as effective as the most powerful of Level 1 PCs with the only reason being so is "Because the GM made it that way" means the game might be better balanced at sending Level - 1 creatures to PCs as the norm, which makes no sense IMO. In all honesty, there are numerous Level 1 PCs that can be made quite inoptimally, and I'd prefer if those characters were the norm to be tested on so that optimization actually has a reward. Here, people are going to feel like optimization is required when, in PF1, optimization was done to have fun and feel like you're actually excelling at something, compared to non-optimization, which may have been done to have fun with a particular concept. In short, these extremely powerful monsters make the game more gritty and more difficult. Which isn't bad to some, but I'm of the opinion that Pathfinder isn't a game whose genre is defined as being gritty and difficult. It's meant to be fantastical, flexible, and wondrous, whereas here my only "wonderous" ideal is in relation to the OPness of Monsters and NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is really talking about alchemists, so I'll change that right now.
1. Bring back the old mutagen. Boost to physical, a lesser bane to mental. No onset time. I used mutagens all the time in PF1. Great way to boost myself. My biggest gripe is that I never got to play with upgraded mutagens due to the high level requirement (level 12, seriously? And why let me upgrade again already at level 16?) Instead, have more options to add to the mutagens. I'd love it if the mutagen did more interesting things. I'm not much fan of feral mutagen myself, since my alchemists are more focused on being a bomber, and in PF2, I'd like to keep doing that, especially now that I can deal elemental damage much easier. Make interesiting additions to mutagens, so it does more than just boost my physical stats.
2. Intelligence mod to bomb damage and splash. Why did you change this at all?
3. More bomb options. One thing that always annoyed me in PF1 is how I can't make all my bombs explode bigger with "Explosive bomb". Explosive bomb discovery turned your bomb from a burst 5 into a burst 10, but only affected normal bombs. You couldn't use this with acid or smoke bombs, which is just stupid in my opinion. I want to carpet bomb a large area with acid or disease, or fill an entire goblin dungeon with poisonous smoke, please let me. And add more fun things I can add to my bomb, like making it explode a second time (Sticky bomb).
4. Running out of ideas here, so I'll just add "More fun options for potions and extracts and other alchemical items". One thing I think would be fun, would be to make all my potions have a small healing effect. Imagine giving a Bull's Strenght potion to your barbarian. And then he gets 1d6+Con's worth of temporary hit points. And that goes for all potions. I mean, come on. Alchemists live and BREATHE alchemical items, why not let us boost them in some capacity? Have a standard healing potion, but it also gives you +1 to hit, or removes poison. Here's a Cat's Grace potion, but it also gives you +2STR. That sort of thing. Alchemists are about combining alchemical reagents into items, it makes sense that they would be able to boost them in some way outside of just making them stronger. You know, fun things.
5. I have nothing more to say, so I'll just add in "Fix ancestries/races". As they are now, ancestries are a waste of time, incredibly boring, and frankly worthless. Also, why didn't you give humans something to make up for their lack of power? Humans have always gotten an extra feat and skill point, why in the world would you change this to literally nothing?
I hope you can fix PF2 into an actual viable product. The Alchemist class needs a proper revision, it feels very much like a patchwork class that doesn't know what it wants.
And remove resonance, I don't need it, nor do I want it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot find any reason for the change from a gp standard to sp.
I don't know if it counts as a "reason" but I think it's a purely aesthetic thing. What bugs each of us in that regard is a pretty idiosyncratic thing. This happens to be one of the pleasant surprises of PF2 to me but if it's solving a problem you don't have then it's going to look a little out of the blue (and pointless).
I always found it silly that adventurers use a gold piece standard when the rest of the world (by implication) uses lower denominations as a matter of course. However, I suspect it depends on one's style (high magic vs low magic, whether magic items are available for sale, etcetera). In our games we kept track of silver pieces for a few levels and then started just rounding up to the nearest gold. In PF2 I suspect we'll keep track of coppers for a while, then silvers and only move to gold at higher tiers. I find that progression kind of pleasing, but I don't see any mechanical difference.
(In a similar vein I really like the new xp scaling mechanic, even though it's essentially meaningless given the DM controls xp awards anyhow so using either the PF1 or PF2 system they can achieve the identical result from a functional perspective. I nonetheless find the 'experience as a proportion of a level' to be superior to 'experience as a quantum of progression' approach).