What 3 things do you love / hate the most about 2e playtest so far?

General Discussion

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I don't feel that I'm as qualified as others to post what I think. I haven't read the rules as much as other people have. None the less, I'll post some of what I think thus far.


1. Need fewer crafting feats. While crafting is not perfect, I'm glad that I don't need to invest in so many feats to craft magic items anymore. I mean, I didn't need to pick all 8 magic item crafting feats to be productive. You could be productive with 1 or 2 feats, such as craft scrolls and craft wondrous items. In fact, the extra feats could be wasted as you could only craft 1 magic item at a time at a rate of 1000 gp per day.

2. Multiclassing. Also not perfect. What I do like though is that you could become powerful in the abilities of another class. With enough feats, you could be a level 20 fighter that can cast level 8 wizard spells. Multiclassing used to hurt more.

3. Arcane spells are no longer disrupted by armor. I don't know why it was a problem in the first place, but I'm glad its gone.


1. Nerfing of spells and spell casters. I like magic. I like feeling powerful. The game does away with it in a way that makes me question if I'm better off as some other class.

2. Changes to Sorcerer. They have fewer spell per day than they used to, losing more than the Wizard or Cleric did. Also, being able to pick a spell list where you can learn spells from is not always a good thing. Some spell lists are better than others. Some classes are better suited to use some spell lists.

2b. I also don't like some of the changes to the Bard. They did alright as a spellcaster that could get 6th level spells. They also used to be able to cast cure spells, but that is now gone.

3. +1/level to everything. I don't think it fixed things as well as some might have hoped. When it shrunk the gap between Fighters and Wizards, spell casting seems to have taken a hit to make things balanced. Many things besides spell casting have also taken a hit, but I'm not going to list them here.


4. Resonance points. I think its an over reaction to wands of cure light wounds. To twist the argument, perhaps its a sign that 15 minute adventure days are the problem. Once the spell casters run out of spells, its time to call it a day. Perhaps players want more resources so they can adventure longer. Maybe if there was some way to replenish spells quickly, this problem could go away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

+Level to everything. I feel like characters are more powerful v. the common world with every level, and yet they don't feel too powerful v. their level-appropriate peers in the world due to the tighter math. Definitely needs tweaking in many cases (especially monster skills) but I love the feel. Even in a fist fight, a wizard who has stared down dragons and gone toe to toe with demigods should be able to knock out a goblin. And some of the side effects, like a viking warrior being able to recite a poem of his epic deeds effortlessly without training his whole life to do just that, or an old hermit mage being able to walk into town and play the piano at the pub just adds some fantastical elements to the game for me.

Weapon Traits and Specializations. They largely feel more dynamic and interesting than in PF1, and they yield subtle yet important differences in the style of fighting with different weapons. An axe is better for mowing down a huge group of goblins, a sword is better for going toe to toe with a monster, etc. Could use tuning, particularly because versatile S or P or even B aren't really as interesting a feature as fatal or agile (there are other dull features too) but I love the shift in theme.

Multiclassing. Huge fan of how you get better access to scaling class abilities with multiclass archetypes, especially with trying to pick up a dash of magic or martial prowess. Doesn't have the problems dipping might have had, still allows for some dipping for power and theme, overall an improvement. Needs tuning though, like how I think the other dedications could use a buff compared to fighter.

Resonance. I like the idea. I want to like the system. I really, really do. For a while I did, then I shifted to passive tolerance, now I have started to hate it. Lots of problems, it didn't remove slots or charged items. It didn't improve healing. It did add a new subsystem I need to track as a player and explain as a GM, and it did discourage cool magic items. Tied to resonance, a lot of cool magic items I feel were nerfed. Like the Traveler's Any Tool not being at-will anymore, or the Feather Token Tree now needing to be where a tree would make sense and not in comically destructive places like sewers and t-rex bellies.

Animal Totem Barbarians. I don't like that every 4th round an animal barbarian needs to use fists to fight instead of weapons, though that isn't even close to my biggest issue. I can explain that as a special monk-like fighting style patterned after x animal. I can't see any mechanical reason to pick bull, wolf, or bear. Bear is like a cat, but it has weaker claw attacks and slower speed. No benefits, nothing cool or unique, just a slower, weaker cat. This is rather different than the image of bears I have in my head. And sad, because I like bears. Similarly, wolf and bull are just like deer, except when you actually become an animal, you are slower. No benefits, nothing cool or unique, just a slower deer. This is even more jarring for me than bears and cats.

Spell nerfs. I don't necessarily hate all of them, and I rather like the 4-degrees of success system. But so many were nerfed so hard that it is really discouraging any spellcaster play for me. Some specific


-Shapeshifting being limited to a list of forms. Balance-wise, it couldn't stay the same as before. But what could have happened is them giving a list of abilities to add to one set of stats, allowing the shapeshifter to mix and match into various forms.
-Blasting scaling poorly. Before, blasting was suboptimal without absolute optimizing, but I could see it having a place at the table. Now? Nah, too good a chance the enemies you want to throw fire and death at duck out of the way. And even if they don't, your damage isn't that good to begin with.
-Commonality. This seems to be used as a point of balance, which means if I play in a world other than golarion, where some uncommon spells would be common I risk unbalancing the game. This is a problem elsewhere, but I don't think it is as big of a problem as with spells.
-Spell Staying Power. Fewer spells/day is fine. Shorter-duration spells is fine. Weaker spells is fine. All three (or even pick 2) just means you don't want to go far into the dungeon before setting up camp. You don't have the satisfaction of knowing that if you save spells for dangerous fights you can turn the combat around on its head. You don't have the satisfaction of knowing you can go ahead and burn a spell on these mooks because you have plenty to go around. You don't have the satisfaction of knowing you can run low on spells before entering a room but at least be sure that if there is a fight in the dungeon, the party is a lot safer than before even if you aren't cranking out magic. You just know you should save spells and not pre-buff, because there is a 50/50 chance you help out a bit.
-Summoning. I'm fine with giving up 1 action for 2 from the summon, I actually really like that. A lot. But I'm not fine with the fact that your summons go out of style way to quick. If they kept up at character level-2, it'd be fine. A relevant addition, but not an overpowered one. Spending a 10th level spell to get a creature that is lower than the lowest possible threat to you and your equals is simply brutal and unfun. Probably better off with a cantrip.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, we're in the mid-40s now and here's all the likes that got more than 1 vote:

3 action system. 71.4%
New crit system 26.2%
Scaling cantrips 16.7%
monsters are better 14.3%
multiclassing 14.3%
character creation 9.5%
autoscale skills (+1/all) 9.5%
no selection 7.1%
Reactions 7.1%
Bulk rules 7.1%
proficiency system (U/T/E/M/G) 7.1%
spell components as actions 7.1%
autoscaling abilites and spells 4.8%
4 spell lists 4.8%
Rogue Class 4.8%
bonus HP for ancestry 4.8%
class locked feats 4.8%
feat dist by class level 4.8%
underlying game math 4.8%
weapon traits 4.8%

and here's the dislikes

Resonance 31.0%
autoscale skills (+1 to all) 28.6%
nerfing spellcasters 28.6%
class-locked restrictions 21.4%
ancestries underwhelming 16.7%
magic weapons/armor req'd 16.7%
mandatory healers in party 9.5%
New crit system 9.5%
monsters too difficult 9.5%
Exploration mode 7.1%
rulebook layout 7.1%
shield mechanics 7.1%
Alchemist class as implemented 4.8%
character creation 4.8%
feats underwhelming 4.8%
game is overbalanced 4.8%
game is overcomplicated 4.8%
heavy armor 4.8%
medicine skill 4.8%
no take 10/ take 20 4.8%
Ranger class as implemented 4.8%
skill DCs too high 4.8%
underwhelming class choices 4.8%
Sorcerer class 4.8%

I'm reworking the spreadsheet right now to better give the overall trend (like v dislike) as a percentage. Thus, if you have 10 likes and 3 dislikes you are +7, which can then be expressed as a percentage. If it were out of 50 people, that percentage would be +14%.

Also, if you gave me more than 3 items, I only took the first three. Sorry. But it's the only way to get even data across the board. So, for example, everyone seems to love the 3-action economy. It's got 30 votes out of a possible 42, for 71% of the total. But honestly, I'd expect people to like it more. It's just that they may not put it in their top 3. Which is why I limited it to three, to get that same depth of sampling across the board.

Lastly, some answers were vague, making it challenging to group into a category. Moreover, for the class listings in the dislikes, if a person called out some aspect of a specific class, I lumped it into that class. Just a call I made - but its happening so infrequently, it's really not messing with the data that much.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:

Thank you so much for taking the time to compile this OP!

It gives us useful quantitative information relative to some very hot topics here, on these forums.

For instance, it is telling that 31% of the players who answered hate Resonance while it doesn't even appear on the list of things that they like.

The same is true about nerfs to magic and spellcasters: I don't see it at all on the "Love" list while it features in the top 3 of the "Hate" list.

Conversely, some points seem to have split the community.
For instance, 14% of the playerbase is happy that monsters are better but 9.5% finds them too hard to fight now.

It really helps with understanding what most of the players who come to the forums want out of the game. :)

I sure hope that Paizo staff is taking a look at this thread because that is free market analysis for them right here!
It's probably not perfect but it's a good starting point.

Because I work in this field, I know just how much money that saves and it still provides useful information as to which direction they could take if they want to please the majority of their customers. :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll take a slightly different tack:

Like the best:
1) Paizo decided to have a playtest, put together pretty solid rules and a module, and posted them online for free.
2) The playtest is remarkably broad (races, classes, roles, etc.) for a playtest, attempts to go deeper into the RPG experience, and goes out on a couple limbs.
3) The rules appear to be going in a direction to ease the GM's job, not just pander to the player.

Like the least:
a) online experience: it is difficult to filter through unproductive slants and get to constructive playtest input - and I'm having some difficulty giving input (I would like to attach files and/or pictures of tables)
b) not a cut, but I really needed a filterable, hyperlinked, set of rules to create a Cleric (and I heard specialist spellcasters had a similar difficulty)
c) only base mechanic gripe is Ability balance: Dexterity, which is still more useful to more characters - and Intelligence which is the least useful to the most characters

(along those lines: love Initiative via Wisdom (if not Intelligence), Perception "not-a-skill" skill (also an Intelligence possibility), and ResPnts from Charisma(that just needs polish and constructive advice); and then dislike weapon finesse for free(Rogue Class Feat?), ranged only via Dexterity(Strength throw point blank, Int/Wis for direct fire?), and the way races play out due to the ability imbalances I think are there (no Dex flaws - I think Dwarves should have that; and I think non-human "free" should be an either this or that).

Thanks for the elevated Playtest Experience...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:
The same is true about nerfs to magic and spellcasters: I don't see it at all on the "Love" list while it features in the top 3 of the "Hate" list.

In my case, I've only playtested 1st lvl so far, and I chose to only comment on things I've seen in actual play. I like the concept of toning down the power of spellcasters, but I haven't played higher levels to see how well it's working in practice.

Nice thread, it would be interesting to see how this thread results correlate with the overall poll results (given that Mark Seifter said they usually do not).

My top 3:
1) 3-action system
2) +-10 crit system, especially as applied to spells (count that as a vote for spell nerfs)
3) Bestiary - monster stat block format and reactions

My bottom 3:
1) Resonance on consumables
2) Odd Ability Scores do nothing, not enough depends on Proficiencies and Ability Scores, too much depends on Level and Class.
3) Normally Signature Skills would be here, but they are gone now, so: Skill ups don't do much by themselves and non-Class feats (skill/general) are not too exciting.

Zi Mishkal wrote:
Also, if you gave me more than 3 items, I only took the first three. Sorry. But it's the only way to get even data across the board. So, for example, everyone seems to love the 3-action economy. It's got 30 votes out of a possible 42, for 71% of the total. But honestly, I'd expect people to like it more. It's just that they may not put it in their top 3. Which is why I limited it to three, to get that same depth of sampling across the board.

My bad. Can I change my choices then? I would like for my negatives to be 1, 3 and 4 then. What I picked for 2, nerfing of sorcerer, can fall under nerfing spells and spellcasters.

To save you the trouble of looking, my picks are: nerfing of spells and spellcasters, +1/to everything, and resonance points.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The three action system.
The critical hit system with the basic system math.
The stance press and open moves for martial characters, in theory anyways, the implementation is weirdly lacking for such a cool idea.

Siloing of feats, they should be based on proficiency not class.
Overly defined proficiencies. I should get a choice of what proficiencies upgrade so I can wind up with a weapon master paladin who wears light armor or a super tanky armored hulk of a fighter who's legendary in his armor.
And third the fact that becoming more proficient in anything other than skills just adds a +1 bonus and nothing else. It should open up awesome things for the character when they become legendary in anything.

Zi Mishkal wrote:
autoscale skills (+1 to all) 28.6%

Thanks for this, but you might want to break this category up, the not liking the +Level deal is not just about skills.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:

Just like the title says. We've gone through two parts, so I think we have a good handle on at least the low level stuff now. So what three things are you most excited about and what three things do you dread the most? (and maybe some kind soul will then collate all these answers into a list).

Try to keep your answers as concise as possible. I'm trying to see trends in thinking right now, so running through a wall of text isn't going to help get your message across :)

3 Loves:

1. Three action system. Its simple, it works.
2. Cantrips that scale.
3. Crits at +/-10 to hit, rather than just on a 20 or 1.

3 Hates:

1. Extra dice of damage attached to weapons. Move that extra damage to proficiencies.
2. Proficiencies that autoscale. Immersion-breaking in so many ways. Give us more skill points and let US decide.
3. Resonance. It's not getting the job done. Pulls the rug out from under the hero in the height of combat. Plus, resonance doesn't affect mobs. (We're always their first combat of the day!)

3 Loves

1.) Variable save results (critical successes and failures, getting to do damage even on a successful save).
2.) Improved cantrips
3.) The idea of the 3 action system (especially variable action spells like magic missile!).

3 Could Be Improved
1.) The general weakness of many feats and abilities. I see many of them and I am not excited. Random +1 bonuses don't feel exciting. The wizards spell powers feel very weak, as do many other powers. Ancestry feats are often weak, and we need 3-4 of them at level 1 to make races feel unique. This is all solvable.
2.) 3 attacks per round. I feel like there needs to be other options for every PC and monster. In my playtests, things often devolve into, "I guess I'll swing 3 times" (which is VERY powerful for the monsters that have a high attack).
2b.) Action economy. Many actions (Aid, Disarm, Wizard Powers) don't feel worth their actions, or rather, don't feel worth the opportunity cost of sacrificing an attack to use them. Also, since wizard cantrips are 2 actions, that 3rd action is not always as useful. Casters should NOT need to carry a ranged weapon to fill in extra attacks with that 3rd action. Maybe metamagic will fix this (which would be cool), but as of now it feels off.
3.) The general wordiness of the rules. Pathfinder is already a complicated system. The new consolidation of rules, traits, conditions, etc. is AWESOME, but in even with that the rules feel more wordy. Also traits should be in BOLD.

Overall, there are a LOT of improvements, but it needs a lot of polish. I'm hopeful.


I will use Zi Mishkal's list so that it is easier for him to follow after.

Like: There is potential for a very good game here.
3 action system.
New crit system

Dislike, For counting purposes use only the three first, but really the 4 below detach you from your PC and give you the feeling that this is not Pathfinder anymore. I have bought all the Playtest materials but if there is not a big change I will stay in the first edition.

autoscale skills (+1 to all)
class-locked restrictions
ancestries underwhelming
magic weapons/armor req'd

Adanadan wrote:


I will use Zi Mishkal's list so that it is easier for him to follow after.

Like: There is potential for a very good game here.
3 action system.
New crit system

Dislike, For counting purposes use only the three first, but really the 4 below detach you from your PC and give you the feeling that this is not Pathfinder anymore. I have bought all the Playtest materials but if there is not a big change I will stay in the first edition.

autoscale skills (+1 to all)
class-locked restrictions
ancestries underwhelming
magic weapons/armor req'd

Can you elaborate on the bolded to me?

I find it odd to think of necessary magic weapons/Armor as contributing to the feeling this isn’t Pathfinder. It’s one of the essential elements of PF1 in my view, so I wonder if I’ve misunderstood you.

1) 3 action system
2) Crit system
3) premise of the modular class feat system

1) skill-unlock gating things that anyone should be able to try.
2) "class" gating things that anyone should be able to learn/try without being that class.
3) """legendary""" skill unlocks not being legendary.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Adanadan wrote:


I will use Zi Mishkal's list so that it is easier for him to follow after.

Like: There is potential for a very good game here.
3 action system.
New crit system

Dislike, For counting purposes use only the three first, but really the 4 below detach you from your PC and give you the feeling that this is not Pathfinder anymore. I have bought all the Playtest materials but if there is not a big change I will stay in the first edition.

autoscale skills (+1 to all)
class-locked restrictions
ancestries underwhelming
magic weapons/armor req'd

Can you elaborate on the bolded to me?

Common complaint is the additional damage dice being dependent on your magic weapon, so if your 20th-level fighter is temporarily without their +5 weapon, they lose out on 5 dice of weapon damage, that is way too severe, for me.

I would like more power to come from your character, the extra damage dice could be attached to Trained proficiency, and level.

Of course, I am totally for the use of magic weapons and I can perfectly understand that to be successful some king of magic items are to be expected. The problem is that as it has been said times, wit the actual system the damage scaling comes more from the weapons than from the players and this is not the best IMHO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:
Nice thread, it would be interesting to see how this thread results correlate with the overall poll results (given that Mark Seifter said they usually do not).

Not surprising. The forums are appealing to a specific subset of players, which, while offering valuable feedback, is not a statistically valid sampling of the entire playerbase.

Tridus wrote:
Not surprising. The forums are appealing to a specific subset of players, which, while offering valuable feedback, is not a statistically valid sampling of the entire playerbase.

Aye, that's the thing about these forums. They always seem bigger and more important than they actually are, especially when the devs communicate directly with us. But when it comes down to it, we're likely a small fraction of those who playtest and give feedback.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If I'm not too late...

1. 3 Action System.
2. Ancestry concept(but NOT current implementation.) There's something really cool about your elves getting more elfy as they level.
3. Monster abilities are super neat.

1. Martial options in combat. Both in terms of having options in combat for each individual action, and having different combat styles to choose from. (Not that core 1e was any better.) I'm used to playing PoW/Spheres, and having choices as a martial. PF2 takes a couple small steps in that direction, but not nearly enough. It also takes a giant leap backwards by locking combat styles into classes.
2. The equipment tables. Weapon and armor traits are a cool concept, but both tables need to be looked at and rebalanced. The armor more so than the weapons. I would also love it if we could get rid of some of the weird immersion breaking stuff, and rename most of the armors.
3. The math. The math as written is tight, but it's uncomfortably so. Proficiency bonuses are too small to feel worth anything, +level just isn't fun for me, etc.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I find it odd to think of necessary magic weapons/Armor as contributing to the feeling this isn’t Pathfinder. It’s one of the essential elements of PF1 in my view, so I wonder if I’ve misunderstood you.

I'd call it typical of PF1, but neither required (see the 'automatic bonus progression' optional rule) nor especially liked, though many, perhaps most games avoid optional rules. The rule of the big 6 does grate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly I have more more to say about the bad aspects than I do the good. There's the core of a good, maybe great system here, but it needs a lot of work, and some of the flaws are really glaring.

1. Three action system. Agreeing with the crowd here, this is probably the best part of the system.

2. Weapon traits. I haven't seen much mention of these. But they really make weapons feel different.

3. The concept of modular classes. There's a lot of potential here. There are things to be improved in the current implementation. But the potential is strong.

Honorable Mention: Monsters getting more unique and flavorful abilities.

1. Resonance. I'm tempted to put resonance for 2 and 3 as well, but I have other concerns as well. But I hate resonance with a passion. And it's starting to concern me that the devs just defend it week after week while conceding that maybe a few tiny changes might be needed to make it the best thing ever. Just kill it already.

2. Magic nerfs. This is a catch all for a lot of different issues that all add up to magic being really rather crappy now. Instead of dialing back one or two things, magic and casters were hit from basically every angle adding up to just a tiny fraction remaining. I was starting to list each of the different ways as sub listings, but I was up to 8 when I realized it was risking a thread derail.

3. Restrictive classes. The classes now lock you into certain play-styles and options that could be nice are restricted to one or two other classes. For example: Two weapon fighting feats are restricted to fighters and rangers, taking the option away from other classes unless you invest in multi-classing which makes them more expensive. And Fighters and Paladins are pushed towards heavy armor, limiting the ability to play an effective lightly armored, dex-based fighter or paladin. The coming removal of signature skills will be a good start in fixing this, but the class feats need attention too. I'd rather err on the side of permitting different builds than having set roles for classes.

Nitpick: The use of the term Spell Level is even worse than before with the introduction of item levels. Item levels work because they're on the same scale as player levels, but spell levels stick out more because they're on a different scale. And you get awkward stuff like a 4th level wand is level 8, and a level 4 wand is 2nd level.

Honestly I like a lot of the changes, a lot more than three. But here goes.

1 Actions/reactions; simple, frees up creativity in combat, lets non-fighters be more involved.

2.set progression of HP. No more dead characters from crappy HP rolls!!!!!

3.Moving skills, combat, saves, etc into a single concept for rolling(not on "proficiency" next) Makes character gen and using them streamlined.


1. Resonance; Great for non-spell casters, gives them access to more than just potions, sucks for spell casters that have already had their legs cut out from under them with spell nerfs.
2. Spell caster(wizard most of all) nerfs. Fewer spells per day, weaker spells, no skill points, not specialty skills, no weapons, no armor... Basically dead man walking.
3. Skill "proficiency" garbage; 0% customization, 0% flexibility. The TEML could be useful, but it's scaling sucks. No room for specialization. Everyone has the same skills under Crafting: everything. I go from T to E and I am now an expert in ALL CRAFTS. Didn't work in Advanced D&D, still doesn't now.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

3 action system
Scaling cantrips
Weapon traits

Resonance on consumables
Play style being largely class locked
Skill feats being used to lock what should reasonably be a trained use of skills behind a feat tax.

I have to say, while there are a couple more likes, there are a lot more dislikes. This whole edition seems like it was written by an adversarial GM who's tired of the players shenanigans, and is gonna make sure they play the way he wants them to. That may be great for the writers, but doesn't exactly create a system my players are excited about, or would want to change over to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Three loves
1) Action economy for martials

2) Heal spell

3) (Tie) Crafting/Bulk systems

Three Intense hates

1) Spell nerfs

2) Casting action economy outside of the heal spell

3) Feat locking weapon choices behind classes. (Rangers not getting bow feats, power attack, two weapon fighting, etc. )

4 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Action system (I feel like repeating a broken record... but it's good, so it's here).
2) Modularity (class feats, multiclassing)
3) Skill feats seperated out from 'combat feats', lets you do cool skill things without sacrificing your fighty bonuses as much.

Not making the list: The concept of reality-warping legendary tier proficiency.

1) Adventuring Day & Lack of Accessible Healing: CLW spam was way better than the current system. And this isn't a resonance complaint. Even giving everyone infinite resonance, healing items are too expensive in 2E. The end result is that clerics are way too required, and I foresee a lot of level 1 cleric hirelings named 'Cure Light Wounds Bot'. Stamina is one answer that sounds like a good step. Just... anything to avoid 'cleric or constant town trips'.
2) Dying rules, specifically that with the current system, healing makes you concious immediately and leads to crazy ping-pong situations.
3) Lack of ability to specialize. I liked having +50 bluff in PF1. I dislike that, in PF2, focusing on a skill still leaves you feeling underwhelming in it. This is heavily tied into... 3b) (same concept) Reality of legendary tier proficiency. And master to a lesser extent. They almost never change things by themselves, just being a +1, and some of them have really dull feats, too.

Hi all!

Sorry for being away for 4 days. I'm a field geologist and spent the better part of the past week practicing my perception(rocks) and survival(appalachia) skills :)

But I haven't forgotten and updated the lists! Moreover, here is the link to the google doc.

It's getting kind of long, especially in the middle where there's a lot of very specific answers.

Executive summary wise, here are the top 10 positives:
Item Like Dislike Percent
3 action system. 39 72.2%
New crit system 16 4 22.2%
Scaling cantrips 9 16.7%
monsters are better 7 13.0%
multiclassing 6 1 9.3%
Reactions 5 9.3%
Bulk rules 4 7.4%
weapon traits 4 7.4%
modular classes 4 7.4%
proficiency system (U/T/E/M/G) 3 5.6%
spell components as actions 3 5.6%

And the top 10 negatives
Item Like Dislike Percent
Resonance 17 -31.5%
class-locked restrictions 16 -29.6%
nerfing spellcasters 2 15 -24.1%
autoscale skills (+1 to all) 4 14 -18.5%
ancestries underwhelming 8 -14.8%
extra dice on weapons/armor req'd 7 -13.0%
skill system 4 -7.4%
mandatory healers in party 4 -7.4%
monsters too difficult 4 -7.4%
game is overbalanced 3 -5.6%
feats underwhelming 3 -5.6%
Exploration mode 3 -5.6%
rulebook layout 3 -5.6%
shield mechanics 3 -5.6%

So, I hope this remains useful as a gauge for people to see where at least the message board section of the fanbase lies. And before I go, I'd like to address our relative importance. Yes, we are not the majority of their market base. But we are a very informed and vocal percentage. And not just here - we go out and proselytize this game to the rest of the world. I'm involved in two campaigns right now - a PF1 Strange Aeons AP and a AD&D 1e game. I'm closer each day to talking the AD&Ders into playing PF1 as their next game. And our PF1 group is watching the playtest very closely. We play PF because of the robustness of the game. If PF2 turns into a 5e clone, we will likely just play that. It's distinctiveness, in both ruleset and campaign setting are what sets pathfinder apart.
So again, we aren't the majority, but we shouldn't discount ourselves either. We are as important to the success of Paizo as anyone else.

I'll be around for the next couple of weeks before more fieldwork and will continue to update the list as people contribute. Again, thank you all for your participation. :)

Silver Crusade

My 3 likes:
Action economy

My 3 dislikes:
Spells and Magic too Nerfed
Current Ranger and Sorcerer Classes need a do over. I’ll write a do over or improvement for the Sorcerer later today.
Critical Success or Fail in Combat is way to swingy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1.3 action economy (slight disclaimer, I DON'T like everything being an action, I would rather have those things that were free in PF1 be free in PF2).
2.modular classes - every class having talents is great
3.Degrees of success - while more difficult to learn, it's definitely more interesting

1.Numerous magic nerfs. Spell effects, spell durations, quantity of spells and resonance (yes, I'm counting it here, because I don't mind a pool of magic, I mind restriction that comes from it) is just too much.
2. +/-10 system for degrees of success. I think it's a severe problem that creates too tight balancing which in turn leads too problem in other parts of the system (level treadmill, inability to give numeric bonuses, even more dependence on magic items)
3. Walling off general combat style feats behind classes. That's just crap.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have less experience than most here, as getting together with my group is rare these days, but:

1. 3 action economy - I agree with basically everyone on this.
2. Class feats - Being able to choose my progression is great, it makes archetypes work nicely and I am excited for the options it opens to developers.
3. Tighter math - I actually enjoy the evening out of the numbers quite a bit, though I understand why this is contentious. Proficiency system and +/- 10 system is rolled into this.

1. Too many class locked feats - Especially combat styles. I feel like this is a big mistake, and an easy one to fix. I simply think they have gone a bit too far here, and they are cutting off too many options for players.
2. Magic weapon dice - As others have said, it seems too much like my weapon is the star here. I know pathfinder has and follows a tradition of strong magic items, but I prefer to feel like my character is the source of my strength more than his sword.
3. Healing - I think this is really more of a core problem than resonance, though I agree resonance has major issues. I didn't like the pile of wands of cure light wounds, but I also don't think v2 has a good system. Lots of interesting suggestions on the forum here. I like making the heal skill good, and/or having useful healing rituals.

Grand Lodge

Having played a few of the playtests and going through the book here are my top/bottom 3 features of the playtest.

1. Weapons having a bit more to them than just a damage die.
2. Crit system is an interesting addition
3. 3 Action economy is nice but really does not add to much other than to spell casting.

1. Resonance: Additional bookkeeping that puts a drag on general gameplay that is not needed other than on the alchemist class.
2. Race and ancestry feats: The biggest distinction between races are how fast they move and what type of vision they have. The feats should boost existing racial bonuses instead of granting what they should already have.
3. +Level to all rolls: Makes every character almost the same other than a few points here and there. I would prefer Skill points system be brought back and different tracks for saves and BAB.

Positive :
1. 3 action economy.
2. Changes to cleric domains.
3. The "ABC" statistic buy character creation process.

Negative :
1. Classes are built as if the designers came up with a role and designed the class to fill it, rather than allowing the players to fill a party role from the class. The lack of a decent ranged option for paladins is just one example of this.
2. Enemies will regularly hit party members on their third attack even at -10, but the reverse is not true.
3. Ancestry based hit points.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have my Likes and Dislikes, but there is a huge caveat--see below.


1) The Action Economy is real. It's very interesting, and can lead to tactics. It is not overly developed, though.

2) Success Tiers are interesting, but again, not really implemented throughout the entire system. Also +-10 seems fairly arbitrary.

3) The Modular Classes is an interesting approach to character differentiation, though I don't think it works quite... again, due to a non-unified design pattern (Totem vs. Order, e.g.).

Hates: (And I use this term advisedly)

1) Spells are utter crap. It's telling when the characters in my group leveled up to level 3 (getting access to 2nd-level spells)... the Druid had a hard time finding two spells he wanted in the entire list. And this is with using 5E (rather than Vancian) spellcasting.

2) Being able to run a game with coinflips rather than dice rolls rather invalidates the rest of the design. I can very easily run an entire campaign and fairly reliably never need stats for monsters. You rolled over an 11? You definitely hit. You rolled under a 9? You missed. In that wiggle-room range? Look at the situation and adjudicate. But I don't understand why we need statblocks for monsters when this is the apparent design goal.

3) Modular Classes are not actually modular, but simply feat trees that offer the Illusion of Choice, but give virtually none.

Now the caveat: ANY of the Hates above is enough for me not to purchase (or run) Pathfinder 2E. That is, I have found 3 utter showstoppers of issues which makes me unwilling to play PF2E.

This is not because of I think PF2E 'sucks' per se, but because the game does not exist in a vacuum, and the marginal effects of playing aren't enough, even if they existed. I own a lot of RPGs. My choice here isn't between PF2E or nothing. It's between PF2E and a lot of other systems, and PF2E isn't holding its own.

1. Action system - simple and allows more combinations of choices without O.T.T. consequences.
2. Crafting - requires fewer Feats and more learning.
3. Cantrips - scaling.

1. Backgrounds - despise with a fiery loathing, they limit characters by specific concepts/mechanical choices. *Do not want*
2. Resonance - a clunkily implemented sub-system that has various levels of overly constraining effects, (usually by Class).
3. Criticals/tiers of success and failure - cluttered, sometimes too close in achievability between proficiencies, at others sucking the viability of choosing "save-or-suck" effects.

I am glad to see a general trend towards supporting the new Action system and that most people are able to come up with at least three areas that they like.

I honestly wanted to be more upbeat but the reality is that I struggled with positives beyond the Three Action system, whilst negatives ...

What I like:

1. The new action system.
2. Multiclassing through feats.
3. Critical Success - Success - Failure - Critical Failure

What I dislike:

1. How small the differences in AC and To Hit between the classes are. Getting 3 AC can easily cost 5 Class Feats, if not more while at the same time being very restricted flavor-wise.
2. How heavy armor is more expensive while being worse.
3. The design of the Paladin class. Holy Smite tickles, the saves are meh, LoH has a terrible chance to hit when used offensively if you don't invest heavily (5+ Class Feats)

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


1) Action economy
2) Critical successes and critical failures. This is one of the few things that I find genuinely fun about the new rules.
3) Despite all the things I dislike, the game is still fun to play. I wasn't sure if I would like it after reading some of the messageboard posts, but my group had a great time.


1) Shields as currently implemented. Shield users having to stop between every combat to remove dents seems like it will get old very, very quickly.

2) Resonance points. I read a potion description the other day, and realized that a character could very easily use up all that day's points using the ability granted by a single potion. That just seems wrong.

3) There are just too many complicated subsystems and too much bookkeeping for me.

Still More Dislikes

4) There is no character class that would be easy for a new player to play. If you've been playing RPGs for a long time, it's easy to forget how confusing things can be for new people.

5) Skills. Why is someone who is trained in a skill only 10% more likely to succeed than someone who is untrained? Seems silly.

6) The + Level stuff for reasons that others have already mentioned.

7) This is the nitpickiest complaint of all, but I don't like the Action symbol. It looks like it is made of two parts, and the first time I saw it, I thought that symbol meant something that takes two actions. The symbol for "two Actions" is made up of three pieces, and the symbol for "three Actions" is made up of four pieces. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but it would be so, so easy to use a different symbol that was easier to decipher.


1) Trinkets. I'm always a sucker for 'cheap' magic effects to store for a rainy day. Not stockpiling them. Hope they do a bit more with it, expand them a bit.

2) Poison. Seems far better on paper than what we have in PF1. Have to double check and test against some higher level monsters but should be better. That said, the bar for Poison in PF1 was on the floor for players so that's not too hard to do better.

3) Runes. I kinda like the idea of being able to transfer effects from one weapon to another. The rules or at least the wording could use a bit of work but this seems like a good change.

Dislikes, whoo boy:

1) Dedications. I feel they will limit class design actually. Any extra classes that see print OR new feats for the Core classes are ALSO going to have to be measured up against any Dedications that also see print, from both the designers and the players. I also don't believe you can get the same feeling as playing the actual class(Cavalier doesn't have Orders, Charge, or Teamwork/Tactics as of yet. Fighter/Wizard isn't Magus, etc)

2) The Math. My own limited tests and talk on the forums leads me to think the math is off. Not just different but slightly off when it comes to success. More to the point, the whole Crit system seems to push you to really try to be Optimized. Feels like I'm being pushed to keep everything high to get/avoid crits. I tend to make okay characters in PF1, picking stuff for RP and character reasons as much as Numbers. I feel PF2 is going to punish me for not picking according to numbers.

3) Alchemist. This might tie a bit into Resonance complaint but Alchemist feels like a class that isn't a class. I keep looking at it and thinking this can't be a PC verison of it, it has to be NPC right? Resonance eats all our features, bombs fall behind in basically everything later, Mutagens are meh and force you to use Unarmed(Untrained too), and Poison is better but you'll probably need to Dedicate into Rogue to use it well. We seem even more mashed up and randomly designed than PF1. Final bit, when magic gear comes online that nullifies the item bonuses we provide. What?

I actually have a few more but I think I complained enough.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

OK - here are mine.

3 Loves
1. The 3 action system
2. Critical successes and failures
3. That it largely still feels like Pathfinder

3 Hates
1. How the rulebook reads. The more I read the rulebook, the more I thought I wasn't going to like the game (which was the opposite of my experience). It felt like I was reading the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game rulebook rather than an RPG rulebook - and while I am a big fan of the PFACG, the rigour of codification was not inviting to the imagination.
2. The condition names: things like 'Fear 2' and 'Poison 3' took me out of the game, making me too aware of the mechanics.
3. The vanilla-ization of character stats. Every PC is exceptional. Everyone has a super-similar array. No weaknesses. It's a barrier to some good character hooks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Google sheet has been updated. I also graphed the top-ten for likes and hates (by day). It's kind of amazing how the top likes and top hates have remained constant. the graphs are on their own page.

The crit system has increased in popularity over the week and the idea of class-locked restrictions (particularly combat ones) have increased in unpopularity. But otherwise, there hasn't been a tremendous amount of variability, suggesting that people have their minds set about what they like and do not like about the playtest.

I suppose that's good news for the devs. It gives them a clear sense of direction as to what they need to work on / hang their hats on at this point.

I think I'll likely run this for at least another week (until the 22nd) updating daily. At that point, I may look into another survey type (something like a drop-down, select 3-5) out of something like 30 categories. Probably the 30-odd categories that are at the extreme ends of the list I've generated from this survey.

Again, thanks for all your inputs. here's the google docs link again:

Playtest survey data

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PhoenixSunrise wrote:

In general, my loves/hates all revolve around the same two things. I love the _concept_ of nearly everything introduced. The ideas and intentions behind them are great and it's what got my group interested in trying a d20 system again (even though we're not huge fans). What I hate is the _implementation_ of most of those concepts.

So here's the list.

1) Choices. The flexibility of 3 actions, non-linear class options, archetypes replacing class feats, 1-3 actions on spells affecting the result, etc. My daughters, who sometimes play with our group, both made multi-class characters and had a blast.
2) Tiered Success/Crit/Fail system keeps everyone on their toes.
3) The dedication to the Paizo team to actually listening to feedback and not coming in looking to steamroll the new system into existence. They get that not everything is perfect yet and are willing to work with the community to get it right.

1) The illusion of choice. While the blogs seemed to refer to the myriad of options and ways to build your character, I'm not seeing that play out. Instead, whether you want to go multi-class, archetype, or simply build a cohesive single class character, you need to plan out at least the first 8-10 levels ahead of time to make sure you meet all prereqs by the time you're able to take the things you want. Even the basic single class characters are shoehorned in on most options to choosing a path early on and sticking with it to get optimal results in later abilities. This is a far cry from blog posts that assured us that nearly anyone could have a familiar/animal companion if only you spent the Feat on it (as just one example).
2) The handbook reads like a technical manual. Repetitive language, terminology everywhere that points you to another page halfway across the book, dry textbook descriptions. I get that pictures will help, but I usually can consume the general idea behind an entire new system book in a day or two. I found myself falling asleep reading this one.
3) As stated a number...

I was going to make my own list, but honestly. This covers my thoughts so i might aswell just quote it and state that its my list aswell.

--The idea of resonance. It does need some work, but I think it can add a different and interesting economy to the game that doesn't exist yet.
--More use of feats for customization that matters.
--3 Actions.

--Piles of HP and damage. The totals get too high for fast and exciting combat. At high levels, I could easily be rolling and adding up 15-20 dice a round.
--Reaction Clog. There are too many reaction options available but only one reaction per round. Nothing feels worse than burning a reaction and then having a much more important reaction trigger occur that you can't execute. At the same time, you might skip a crappy reaction in favor of a better one only to have the better one never get triggered.
--Bards and Sorcerers need more revision and update. Bards shouldn't be spell slot casters. We got away from Paladins and Rangers having spell slots... it's time for bards too. Sorcerers can still have spell slots, but they need something to better distinguish them from Wizards.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1) I like that the monsters have an AD&D vibe to them. It feels like they're creatures you can interact with, not just punching bags to hit or stat blocks designed to satisfy someone's love for consistency.

2) I like the variety of characters possible to make. The sub-builds for most classes, as well as the Sorcerer class giving an alternate entry-way to spells, means there's more than one way to play a certain archetype.

3) I like the 4 stage of successes. Even if you "fail" a check, if it has a result for critical failure, you still feel okay that you didn't get the worst result; conversely, by having success and critical success, it means that a big ability modifier doesn't just automatically succeed at everything, it just ignores most of the effect, and gets them closer to complete success.

1) The Cleric class, but not for its healing. I think it has too much going on with it: domains, spell preparation, Channel Life, etc. It's probably the most complex class in the playtest.

2) The Assurance Feat. It does... something at low levels, is best avoided around level 5, and is actively harmful by level 10. I'd be okay with a "Take 10" variant of Assurance, or a "Take the D20 or your level, whichever number is higher". It's got potential, but right now it's a trap feat.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:


1) I like that the monsters have an AD&D vibe to them. It feels like they're creatures you can interact with, not just punching bags to hit or stat blocks designed to satisfy someone's love for consistency.

I am not seeing the AD&D vibe, at all, would love that, where what are you seeing that, and what makes you feel this way?


* Action System

* Class Balance - I don't feel like spell casters are overpowering the other characters and that other classes exist just to keep them alive. Maybe it was overcorrected but I don't want to go back to the days when everything revolved around spell casters.

* Weapon Potencies - I like the extra damage die. Monsters often scale up in damage significant with CR, this levels the playing field a little. I'm not trying to kill a 400 HP monster with 1d8


* Skill System - I liked when members of the party had to specialize in different skill sets and work together. Also, someone who is legendary in a skill is only +3 over someone who is trained?

* Monster DCs/Perception - If your DM lives by table 10-2 then Stealth becomes useless, Climbing becomes falling, Tumbling becomes laying prone, etc. Really reduces playing options and non combat activities - which I don't think was the intent

* Resonance - I agree with what they were trying to do, but the system needs tweaking. My main complaint is that you can't play ugly characters anymore. We can't all be pretty.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mine might be a bit controversial:


1) Skill Feats.
This is a golden opportunity to actually make skills relevant, as opposed to 1E, where being a skill monkey was a complete trap option for a character build (there were only so many skills that needed to be covered and each class would at least cover some. Magic made most others obsolete).
I just hope that the developers will actually dare to make the skills go into supernatural territory, so that they can compete with magic. In 1E, it didn't matter how good your climb skill got. A level 3 wizard with Spider Climb was still going to be better at it. And if people complain that this makes things too "Anime-like", then I say "good". At least in Anime, you can have scenes with wizards blowing up whole armies, but the fighters still being equally badass next to them. There's no shame in learning from other cultures that have solved problems that you struggle with.

2) Resonance.
I loved resonance when I first saw it and have had no reason to change my mind so far. Yes, it's still an imperfect system that needs tweaking, but I like the core idea. It makes Charisma actually relevant to everyone, rather than the universal dump stat. It allows for a middle ground between "party must have a cleric or is doomed" and "party will never be below full health ever, unless their golf bag of wands runs out" and it allows for a balancing of cool items. Now, like I just said, there are fixes to be made still. Here are some that I would propose:
- Make single-use consumables like potions and scrolls not use Resonance. You're basically paying a premium to have the item pre-charged.
- Make wands and staves have infinite charges, which cancels out some bookkeeping that the Resonance system causes. They are now balanced by requiring resonance to activate.
- Give the Alchemist an expanded pool of resonance as a class feature. Now they will have a clear niche as the item expert.
- Get rid of restrictions on the use of magic items. They can be balanced by requiring higher amounts of resonance.

3) Magic Items (except for the damage formula on magic weapons... seriously, who thought that was a good idea?)
Separating the basic bonus of a magic item from auxiliary effects was a great idea. Now it actually makes sense to get items with cool effects, rather than just generic +X items, because those were more efficient. I also like that AC now scales with level and that magic armor also boosts saves, so that you're not obliged to use a significant chunk of your wealth on basic AC boosting. Same with generic stat boosting. In 1E, 99% of the wealth table was immediate sell fodder, because the game assumed that you would use all your wealth on generic stat boosting in order to keep up. Now there will be much more freedom of customization of items and keeping items with cool magic effects found in treasure may be worth considering, rather than getting half price back.
Like I said before, though. They should use the resonance system to balance things out, rather than putting arbitrary restrictions on things. I'm also not a fan of the level-based table.


1) Level forcing increases to things that have no business leveling up (the Ostog the Untenured problem).
I can understand that certain things level as you proceed. Weapons that you actually use. Armor that you actually wear. Skills that you actually practice in, etc. However, a Barbarian who has never seen a violin before should not be allowed to beat a lower level bard who has trained her whole life at a violin contest. Some people argue that proficiency level should bar this from happening, but I personally think it's an even worse idea for a GM to constantly have to tell the player that, yes, you have a +20 in this skill, but you're not allowed to use it for anything. Just leave these things at zero.
Likewise, a rogue who has trained to be quick on his feet to get out of danger his whole life should trip over himself if you suddenly stick him in heavy plate armor that he has never worn before. Professional ballet dancers and figure skaters can attest that a slight shift in center of mass of your body can easily throw off years of training. And finally, the best chef in the world should not be able to kill the entire imperial guard with his potato peeler, but nor should he suddenly lose a cooking match to a fighter who has done nothing but kill more orcs than him (and no, just arbitrarily giving low level characters boosts that the PCs can't get is a terrible idea. Everyone should follow the same rules).

2) The +/- 10 Critical system.
It sounds nice on paper, but the more I thought about it, the more problematic is seems to me. First of all, it no longer distinguishes weapons by different critical ranges, which used to be an important differential. More problematic, however, is that it very much forces a narrow band of attack ranges that no one can stray from. Suddenly, every boost to attack or penalty to the enemy's AC now doubles as making your weapon keen, which either will unbalance really easily or otherwise erases a lot of design potential. You can't have a build that is really good at hitting but does little damage, because they'd crit every second hit. Likewise, something like the old power attack or weapon expertise is now crippling if it also erases your crit potential.
I mind it less on skills or saves, although it does make the game more swingy, which makes it more likely to have the party meet disaster from a few bad rolls.

3) Excessive Class-Restricting of abilities.
There's not much else to be said about this. I understand that they want to make classes like the fighter more special, but arbitrarily taking away simple abilities that everyone should have is not the way to do it. It causes a lot of wasted space when you have to repeat basic abilities for multiple classes and it locks specific build ideas away. And on the flip side, it shoehorns specific classes into specific builds.
Now, to be fair, this problem may yet be alleviated when more archetypes and class options for each class get created in the future and when we see the full suit of multi-class options. Even so, I can't say that the way they've done this is very elegant.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

As a person that is gming 6 people that have currently reached halfway part 4 I will throw my hat here.

1. 3 action economy, just plain amazing.
2. Monsters, I love the uniqueness each monster,my players have loved the difficulty as well, granted they are 6 instead of 4.
3. Crit system, Really fun.

1.Magic, it took a big hit and it pain me that my wizard player is the only one not enjoying himself.
2. Resonance whe I don't hate I find unnecessary, I liked the slots.
3. Power of dice, I think the dice is too defining this time around. I believe it would be a good idea for the untrained - to be bigger are -4 and Expert Master and Legendary to rise in +2/+4/+6 respectively.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber


1. 3 Action Economy. Brilliant.
2. Crit System.
3. Multiclassing.


A. Resonance. No, I really detest it. It makes jaw clench and my bowels ache.
B. Shields. Just about everything about them. Once again, the most common choice of styles in the real world is made fantastically sub-par in the fantasy world. Get rid of the action to use and their fragility, please.
C. Autoscaling skills. Give - me- the choice!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Action economy
2) 4 Tiers
3) spellcasting changes

1) +level
2) Runes
3) Multiclasssing

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1) Transferable item enchantments. So much better than having to sell the greatsword of awesomeness because nobody in the party uses two-handed weapons.

2) 3-action economy. I liked the version from Unchained better though, it actually made two-weapon fighting, flurry of blows, and spell combat workable.

3) Skill feat unlocks. Be able to do amazing things with your higher level mastery. Again, I like the Unchained version better.

*for a very tepid definition of "like"


+1 level to everything, race feats to buy back stuff you used to be able to have by default, half-orcs and -elves being race feats, RESONANCE, UTEML, fighting styles being class-locked, major nerfs to spellcasting, damage coming mainly from extra dice from a magic weapon, monsters using different rules than pcs, homogenized stat generation that doesn't leave room for weaknesses, homogenized class design, loss of skill points, everything being called a feat, conditions having numbers, not dying at negative con, item levels, modes of play, loss of proper multiclassing, and probably a lot more I'm not thinking of at the moment.

I'm ambivalent about degrees of success concept-wise, but I hate the current implementation.

Sovereign Court

Action economy
4 tiers
bonus like prestige class concept

Dedication feats
skill system and skill feats
universal +level
bonus dislike magic item requirement

1 person marked this as a favorite.


-3 Action System. Very intuitive once you figure out how everything works and what you can all do. On top of that, helps reign in C/MD, and makes players consider strategy and different tactics more.

-Four Tiers of Results. In PF1, I hated how certain Saving Throw spells didn't get effects based on an extremely bad saving throw (i.e. Fireball), which were really only solvable through Houserules. Similarly, Save or Suck/Die didn't create very fun situations (unless the effect for such built up to it), so this creates a medium between these two that, with some more tweaking, can be a wonderful system.

-Weapons are now more diversified and have niches for each manner of combat. If the Armors are made equally diverse (plus have more to them), and the balance between everything is made fine and dandy, this makes for an amazing revolution to equipment. No more "Everyone and their Grandma has Composite Longbows," no more "Longswords Galore," weapons now actually have purpose between them.


-Rarity. This just throws a giant wrench into how characters acquire certain things. PF1 already had this in place based on in-universe design. Everybody knows certain options are rare or unique based on its availability or amounts of existence. Needing a codified mechanic just gives GMs a reason to deny players things just for the point of denying players things, and rarity inadvertently varies heavily based on your level. At 1st level, finding standard scimitars is very commonplace, whereas finding +2 scimitars with special abilities is practically unheard of. Fastforward several levels, and now we have +2 scimitars being common, with standard scimitars being more rare, and now +4 scimitars are rare (whereas before they were practically non-existent).

-Monsters V.S. PCs. While I understand that GMs do finagle creature stats here and there, I don't like how the rules basically allow a GM to throw downright impossible encounters at their players, and to get away with it. In addition, the creature math V.S. the PC options is way too stringent and makes assumptions that shouldn't be made in most every situation; if the creatures are made more lax and have less assumptions of optimization on PC options, then it can still work. As it stands, players are dying very easily.

-The "Tim/Jim" paradigm. TL;DR, certain classes (read: Cleric) are being made mandatory, and as such the game assumes you can and will always have those classes in the party, meaning players are shoehorned to play something they may very well not want to play. I made a thread questioning why we have numerous different classes if the game assumes you have (or makes) certain classes (mandatory) anyway, thereby defeating the point of having numerous classes, and I haven't really gotten a fair answer at it yet outside of "The game doesn't actually assume you need such classes," which is the equivalent of the developers saying the C/MD issue didn't exist until they decided to address it in this game.

-Honorable Mention: Resonance. It's still bad. It's going to continue to be bad. It's so counterintuitive that I'm glad it's apparently going to be revised heavily, but I'm of the opinion that it solves nothing and just creates things it's meant to solve (but actually doesn't).


(The Bonus Round is for 3 things that I'm just absolutely baffled by its inclusion or implementation)

-Requiring 3-5 checks of a very difficult DC to open a lock when PF1 only required 1 check of a difficult DC to open a lock, and you now break picks when failing/critically failing. Lockpicking just went from a relevant obstacle to just plain annoying and being more likely to fail/backfire on you. I seriously don't understand the point of this change other than to reward players by finding ways to get through locked things besides unlocking it.

-Half-Elf and Half-Orc Ancestry being locked to humans seems pointless and to some would make for Elf+/Orc+ characters instead, thereby defeating the point of having the Elf and (eventually) Orc races. Similar to the above, I don't understand why we had to gate these races (which have already been fleshed out to have their own culture and identity in PF1) behind another race for no particular reason other than to do so.

-Hero Point Acquisition. Who thought putting in a sub-game of "Kiss the GM's you-know-what" was a good or fair idea?

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What 3 things do you love / hate the most about 2e playtest so far? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.