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


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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 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).

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!)

Mine are similar to yours, except I would put the crits at a hate. I think it limits many feats and abilities. The math has to be super tight, one accidental +2 bonus somewhere and you have an over powered feat/ability. I like my fighter to have a high bonus to hit compared to other characters.

So in the end I would say:

3 Loves

1. 3 action system
2. Default attack abilities for casters (i.e. cantrips) but alchemist needs one as well
3. Saving throws being good for all characters (as it sucks getting terrible saves)

3 Hates

1. Magic weapons and armor being required (just build this into the class and let magic armor and weapons be interesting instead)
2. Crit system
3. Exploration mode. I find it irritating and video game like. Something that is just not needed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Love
1. 3 Action system (would like 1 swift action around as well)
2. All the different types of reactions
3. Cantrip scaling

Hates
1. The +1 to everything thing.
2. Less Spell Slots (especially for multiclassing)
3. Limited play styles for classes. (to do twf you need to be a ranger or fighter for example)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Like:
1. I like a lot of the higher level abilities mundanes get
2. Free(r) choices of abilities at levels. I'm fine with older fixed abilities but I can get behind this way of doing things. Devs, take a tip from SWSE on actual implementation, however.

Um, that's it, I guess.

Hate (strictly speaking separate issues will be folded into single points) :
1. +1/level. Terrible idea, entirely unsuited for the games I want to run and play. Let people choose how to advance their character, give more variety and difference between people. The very narrow window of success/fail the game is based off of rubs me the wrong way.
1. Basically everything they've done with magic and casters.
1. Everybody being able to basically everything relating to skills. Everybody shouldn't be able to do everything. Accept it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

It's hard to narrow these down, I find. Which is a big change from what I expected. Nearly everything they showed in the previews leading up to the release had me on board, and hard. Now that it's out, I feel so conflicted. Because there's so many things that I wholly love about the new system, and there are some areas that have caused me to start thinking of permanent house rules... something I occasionally dabbled with in first edition, but never felt strongly enough to hang onto with any seriousness. So here it is.

-Loves-

1. I love the action system. I love the way options interact with that action system, like casting spells. Speaking of which...

2. I love the way spells work. I think making each component an action is the absolute perfect way to make that system mesh with the regular combat actions. And speaking of how spells work...

3. I love the fact that Cantrips can scale now. Do they not scale as much as they should in many cases? Probably. But they used to suck hard even at level 1 if you wanted an attack option.

-Hates-

1. I hate the medicine skill. They had the perfect tools to make this skill replace the wand shenanigans they wanted to get rid of. But they actually managed to make mundane healing worse than first edition, which is impressive. I frankly didn't think that was possible. This is the first area that I hated so hard that I felt I had to fix it for myself if the developers didn't.

2. I hate the current implementation of Resonance. I want to love it, and based on the previews I thought that I would. Here's the issue for me, though: they didn't take it far enough. If wands, staves, and magic items all used the same, ever-increasing pool to activate, and there was no such thing as charges anymore I would change this to a love in a heartbeat. As it is, you've got your resonance, but you can still only use this thing once per day. What? And they reduced the price of wands (yes!) but they also reduced the number of charges they have (no!). This is the second area where I started running to my document to fix it myself in case it wasn't fixed to my satisfaction.

3. I hate the quality-of-life nerfs. Prestidigitation never hurt anybody. Why did they cripple it? It takes an hour to identify the properties of magic by default? Ouch. I get that it was a little too easy in first edition, but they sure over-corrected in my estimation. There are so many similar over-corrections and baffling nerfs to innocuous things that I could probably extend this entry forever.

----

Overall, I'd say that the things I love about the system I love enough that even when I still play in my ongoing first edition campaigns, I wish hard that it was second edition. But second edition has many more things that I feel don't work than first edition as they are. Thank goodness this is a playtest. I really hope that my potential house rules become unnecessary.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

3 Loves:
1. Three action system.
2. 4 spell types/lists, sorcs gaining access to all 4.
3. Increased skill usability.

3 Hates:
1. Extra dice of damage attached to weapons.
2. Autoscaling skill bonuses, with cheatmode monster proficiencies.
3. Nerfed spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Likes:
- 3 Actions + more diverse reactions
- toning down spell power a bit (yeah, I like that)
- qualities for mundane items having some impact and alchemical items (more nonmagical options)

Hates:
- too limited choices sometimes (signature skills, only one background, no human stat below 10,...)
- sometimes lackluster class specials (ranger hunt, some underwhelming bloodline powers or domains)
- current multiclassing

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've only playtested 1st level, so I'll limit my list appropriately. I have opinions on higher level concerns, but I'll reserve judgement until I have actual play experience.

Likes:
1. Three action economy
2. Rogues getting Dex to Damage at lvl 1 (I played a rogue).
3. Bulk (not a huge deal, but it simplifies book-keeping).

Dislikes:
1. Rulebook layout. This needs to change for pf2 to be successful, IMHO.
2. Skill DCs too high.
3. Skill critical failures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Love

Since 3 actions and reaction is mutually loved

1- How they handled Perception: Seen, Sensed, Concealed, Unseen
2- autoscale - this is something very good that makes combat and storytelling easier to adjust! I'm really liking to have a solo boss as a threat! Something that past action economy couldn't handle
3- Cantrips

Thing that I would like to change

1- NPC and challenges are constructed around the optimized PC. So maybe lowering 1 int these stats could help those that start at 16 in the ability
2- how healers are something mandatory in every party
3- Would like to instead to roll your save, should have to roll spell roll against Save DC


Likes:
1. The way that the Heal spell uses the 3 action system (especially if you add things on like Healing Hands) to give you a lot of versatility and options out of one spell. Hopefully more spells use this in the future.

2. Channel Energy's Auto Heighten made casting Heal more fun and really helped keep my group alive. Especially with such severely limited spell slots, this is what made my character feel powerful and fun to play. Give more classes stuff like this so they can really shine at something!

3. Skill selection and skill feats during character creation really worked for me. Getting to effectively pick what I wanted to be good at with a relatively simple system (rather than assigning 80 skill points) and then picking a couple of feats to further customize a skill or two was really enjoyable. I ended up with a viola playing Cleric who got past an encounter by playing music so well (impressive performance) that it opened up a diplomatic option for another party member who spoke the appropriate language... and we had an absolute ball getting past an encounter that way.

Hates:

1. Signature Skills hinder #3 above and I don't see how they add anything of value to the system. The system goes to a lot of effort to give me fun choices and variety in skill selection, succeeds brilliantly, then tries to undo it with signature skills locking me into class skills. I don't get it.

2. The Medicine spell appears to do nothing particularly useful, is actively harmful in keeping someone alive, and why doesn't it help you do downtime recovery (so you don't have to burn your limited healing resources) or simply let you stop persistent damage with a check? I was really disappointed in how useless it turned out to be.

3. Spells in general, but especially Cantrips feel week. Fallback or not, hitting a tank with a pillow just isn't a fun turn. It's a filler turn, and with fewer spell slots and how much weaker spells feel, I had a lot of filler turns. (And the Create Water nerf really feels like someone just hates fun.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Loves:

1. Three action system. Smooth, easy to pick up, gives nice boost at low level.

2. Weapon traits. Makes weapons more interesting, and provides great tuning knobs.

3. Various reactions. There always should have been more things you could do besides swing. This has great potential for counterspelling and tons of other things.

Hates:

1. Resonance. It's a horrible solution to a problem that didn't exist for me, and I will not be able to use it with a straight face when its supposed to run out.

2. Class locked feats. This is a lazy design that mimics horrible game design problems present in World of Warcraft. Narrowing choices down to a small handful is easy on the game designer and newbies, but is pure poison to my enjoyment. Many, *many* class feats should be available to anyone interested in them without the wonky multiclassing.

3. Heavy armor. Armor check penalties, cost, and speed reduction make heavy armor highly unattractive. Add on to that things like Clumsy and Noisy, and now the designers are just being mean. Dexterity is already a good stat, stop trying to further punish non-dextrous characters.

Grand Lodge

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

Like:

1. Three action system
2. Bulk system
3. - can't think of anything more -

Hate:

1. "Someone has to play the cleric"
2. Resonance
3. Disposable shields.


--Three Things I Really Like--
Action Economy: By far my favorite change from Pathfinder First Edition. This creates a much more tactical and mobile game that's also more intuitive.
Class Locked Feats/Abilities: I know this is controversial but I love that many class feats/abilities are locked away. Especially Attack of Opportunity. In theory, this framework lets each class have cool things that other classes can only do with major investment (multiclassing)...but I am disappointed that some of the classes seem lackluster when compared to others despite the framework (Barbarian seemed weak compared to Fighter?).
Character Customization: I really like the changes to Ancestries and Archetypes. Multiclassing in particular is cleaner and more intuitive - opening up a ton of viable character types. I would like to see less focus on Half Humans and more focus on less familiar combinations like Elf/Goblins, Tiefling Halflings, etc.

--Three Things I Really Do Not Like--
Goblins: It's petty, I know, but of all the awesome ancestries we get Goblins? Also, what's with a Charisma bonus? I get that they have become Paizo's mascot...but that doesn't warrant +2 CHA.
Character Sheet: It doesn't fit neatly on my clipboard now that it's landscape but that's a minor quibble... More importantly it's missing critical information, isn't spaced well, and makes Bulk (a great simplification) impossible to comprehend (what is up with that equation).
Exploration Mode: The rules are rigid and awkward. Especially in regards to movement modes. Lots of some complaints here that add up.


Hi all! Thank you so much for the replies. I am tallying them up and will post the google doc soon!

One thing I must add. Since I am tallying things up, please put your favorite likes / dislikes even if everyone else also likes / dislikes them. My goal here is to find the commonalities and display them in a format easily digestible! (basically running my own matrices here :) )

Again, thank you for the support :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Love:
1. Action Economy (though, that isn't really new, as we have had if for a few years now with Unchained).
2. Reactions, especially some of the monster ones: The Grim Reaper's is fantastic. Also, related is not every creature having AoO; I have ported all of this over to 3rd Ed/PF1.
3. Bonus hit points for Ancestry (nice little 1st-level boost).

Hate:
1. +Level to everything treadmill, it has also proven to have not been that successful in the past.
2. 4-Tiers of Success system, again, critical hits/fumbles, have not proven to be the best of design, so far (too much spike damage, or dealing less than a normal hit, anticlimactic lameness), odd they would embrace this concept and run with it. Also, a time-sink.
3. Everything and its mother being called a Feat.

Really Hate/Despise:
Reliance on magic items to keep up (weapon damage dice, saving throws, etc).


Oh yeah, some replys here reminded me of some thoughts on the book layout!

Like: The icons for actions. I was sceptical at first but I can easily tell by glancing over a feat list or a monster stat block, what kind of actions and reactions there are. Works really well.

Hate: The mish-mash of generic features (ability increase, general/ancestry/skill feats) and class specific content! Really! This makes it hard to see what exactly is unique to this class. I understand that they want all features in a single table but they could at least make two columns (class & general advancement).


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

As a GM here are my opinions.

Love:

-Monster uniqueness. I've had the most fun in combat as a GM period.

-3 action system of course. This one's a no brainer.

-Overall player nerfs. This might sound weird. But as a gm there's nothing worse than your big bad boss that's been built up like crazy getting one shot. I'm the kinda GM that will never cheat. If a monster has this much HP, I'm not going to start raising it just because the players are doing well. So in 1e there were some absolutely disgusting builds that deal WAY too much damage. And this hurt the other players too because then it would feel like there's only one person contributing to the victory. Combat feels longer and more engaging. Now the question is if this is because of the system being more balanced, or if it's because no one has figured out the uber op builds yet. We will have to see.

Hate:

-Some spells got nerfed too hard. Prestidigitation is definitely one of them.

-Ancestries are a bit lackluster. I'd like to see some stronger feats and maybe front load the races more.

-Ranger overall feels pretty bad. Especially a dual wielding one. Needs some different class feats for dual wielding because as it is now, it's very bad with Hunt Target. And Hunt Target in general needs some buffs. I don't think it should cost an action.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Love:

1. Action System. Three actions works out decently well.

2. Sorry, I ran out here.

Hate:

1. Character Generation. Maybe that's too broad, but I don't care for most of the mechanics related to making characters. So I'm lumping together how Abilities are derived, Ancestries, Backgrounds, most of the Classes, Feats, Signature Skills, the Skill List, and Multi-classing. Pretty much all of it.

2. +1 per Level.

3. The rate of damage escalation via magic items.

I could go on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Leedwashere wrote:

-Hates-

1. I hate the medicine skill. They had the perfect tools to make this skill replace the wand shenanigans they wanted to get rid of. But they actually managed to make mundane healing worse than first edition, which is impressive. I frankly didn't think that was possible. This is the first area that I hated so hard that I felt I had to fix it for myself if the developers didn't.

2. I hate the current implementation of Resonance. I want to love it, and based on the previews I thought that I would. Here's the issue for me, though: they didn't take it far enough. If wands, staves, and magic items all used the same, ever-increasing pool to activate, and there was no such thing as charges anymore I would change this to a love in a heartbeat. As it is, you've got your resonance, but you can still only use this thing once per day. What? And they reduced the price of wands (yes!) but they also reduced the number of charges they have

3. I hate the quality-of-life nerfs. Prestidigitation never hurt anybody. Why did they cripple it? It takes an hour to identify the properties of magic by default? Ouch. I get that it was a little too easy in first edition, but they sure over-corrected in my estimation. There are so many similar over-corrections and baffling nerfs to innocuous things that I could probably extend this entry forever.

Totally with you on all 3 of those! Though if I were to make my own list it would be:

Love ---

1. Resonance as a concept -- It has the potential to add a lot of fun flexibility to the magic items players use, especially spellcasters but including the rogue with the cloak of elvenkind or the paladin with that magic armor that gives you wings. So cool!

2. +1/level -- A lot of people hate this, but I think it's great as a GM, and it allows me to easily tune monsters up and down quickly. I'm very excited to see the monster creation rules! Further, it makes sense to me that a *seasoned level 10 veteran adventurer* untrained in stealth would be better at stealth than a level 2 expert stealth rogue. He's done it more! The rogue might be trained better and understand better techniques, but they haven't applied it as much in life-or-death situations.

3. Spell Heightening -- It's so dope! I only wish it were taken a bit further. Sorcerers should be able to heighten all they want, as they're already limited by spell list, throw em a bone!

Hate ---

1. Resonance as it's implemented -- Too many charge based items... Consumables costing resonance... "Uses per day" limitations are everywhere... It feels bad to double dip resources (gold + resonance), and I'm not convinced it really saves balance in any case. A wand of heal (1) is so much worse than a wand of heal (2) that you will QUICKLY run out of resonance trying to heal the party to full with it if you should be using the higher level version.

The only item I can see which really justifies keeping charges is the staff. You have to manage a single item being able to cast like 20 spells, so there has to be more to it than just resonance. That said, being able to invest in a staff only once per day is pretty bad.

2. Alchemists' Implementation -- This piggy backs off of the above. They double dip party resonance resources and their poisons don't scale with DC except with a not-so-good feat. Worse, quick alchemy is clunky to use. I see little mechanical reason for my quick alchemy items to expire at the end of my turn.

3. Over-reliance on magical healing -- It's clear to me from numerous discussions that it's so overly important that every party needs a cleric. Not a healer, a cleric. This appears to me to be a major flaw -- there aren't enough healing options in the game good enough to compete with the cleric. This isn't to say the cleric is too good, rather that the options for other skills or classes to replace the need for a cleric just aren't there. The best I've seen is a full party which trains medicine, learns battle medic, and the bard plays inspire competence as everyone shares the expert healer's tools, people round robin battle medic, and hopes no one rolls a 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like
1. Action Economy: It feels good and plays fast
2. +/- 10 crit system: makes sense feels good (I also like how it interacts withthe +1/lvl scaling but it works without it)
3. Class Framework: There are some classes that need work but I like the universal framework of static abilities on odd levels and variable class feats on even levels.

Dislike
1. Ancestries are weak: Not enough oomph from ancestries at lvl 1, at least two ancestry feats probably some more static abilities is what Id like
2. Shields are too weak: when the optimal strategy is to take the axe to the face rather than denting the shield there is a game problem.
3. Heavy armor, it doesn't seem worth it. Either remove the penalties or give some better defenses.

There are some other specific problems (rangers are busted, paladins need smite) but I think those are my system wide top 3.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like:
- 3 action system
- Much more difficult and dangerous monsters and encounters, so now heroes have to draw on all their resources and actions to defeat them, and the danger to die is real.
- The new critical system of +10/-10 and 4 different results for saves and other things.

Dislike:
- Classes too constrained due to limted and fixed feats. Also abilities are very similar for every character, specially at higher levels.
- The +1 for everything. Every class seem very similar in capacities for everything. Besides being expert, master o legendary doesn't add a significant change to the roll.
- Magic has been too much nerfed.


3 Loves identical to OP:

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. Response on consumables
2. Response on consumables
3. Response except investment maybe


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like

1. Scaling cantrips - making cantrips actually worth considering spending an action on in combat rather than just fun-but-not-terribly-impactful minimagic is a good thing.
2. Rogue being a well-designed class - we all know the trials and tribulations of the 1e rogue, but within the framework of 2e, rogue is perhaps one of the most interesting options.
3. Higher 1st level HP - 1st level in 1e is borderline unplayable for me because it's too easy to go down to even a couple of weak attacks.

Dislike

1. Ranger - Hunt Target is the discount store version of the slayer's rather more impactful Studied Target, and god does it improve slow. By the time you can do it as a free action, you're almost capped out level-wise.
2. Resonance - a solution to a problem I never encountered. Consumable abuse was never an issue in my games, and characters pimped out with too many magic items never was either.
3. Alchemist - ties into the above. A whole class built on a system that was wonky in my eyes from the start.

Hate

1. Arcane spells - arcane casters just look unfun to play with spell effect nerfs on top of duration nerfs on top of reduced spell slots, and it's hard to imagine why a party would bring one along over another character, especially...
2. Cleric - also ties into resonance via consumable healing. Want healing? Cleric or basically nothin', bucko. Even worse that the underlying damage maths seems to believe you'll always have one - which means that someone in the party might have to play a character they don't want to play if they want to prevent TPKs.
3. +5 Bat of Mighty Nerfing - what's wrong with having powerful characters, exactly? Sure, not everyone wants epic power, but why cut out those that do? That's like levelling a skyscraper because some people don't like heights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
neaven wrote:

Like

3. Higher 1st level HP - 1st level in 1e is borderline unplayable for me because it's too easy to go down to even a couple of weak attacks.

Me too, and this reminds me of a 1st Ed AD&D joke about 1st-level fragility, from back in the day:

"A gnome throws a carrot at you, you die."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll go with Bardarok and state my Likes and Dislikes.

Likes:

1. 3-Action economy. It's great, allows for varied tactical choices.
2. Modular feat system, multiclassing. Allows for easy homebrew and future design.
3. The amount of effort the devs have put into the underlying math of the game. There are some things that need tweaking, but overall the base is solid.

Dislikes:

1. Animal Companion, Summons and Polymorph effects don't scale well at all.
2. Sorcerers getting the shaft in yet another game.
3. Vancian casting.
Bonus 4. The volatility of the d20. Seriously, just use 2d10s or 3d6s!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like:
1. 3-Action System
2. The four magic spell lists
3. The concept of legendary skills

Hate:
1. The Crit on +/- 10
2. The overreliance on magic items
3. Turning everything into level-locked feats

I love the fact that Paizo thought we might dislike the 3-action economy when it's the most common response in the like section. Meanwhile, the +/- 10 rule for crits seems to be either the best thing ever or worse than 4e depending on who you ask.


1. Three action system for similar reasons as everyone else has named. My only gripe here would be actions that are non combineable but should be to encourage diversifying picks during character creation (i.e. Sudden charge and Power Attack are exclusive so a person will likely pick the strongest one and not the other)

2. Proficiency system - a strong way to govern all aspects of the game. Currently I believe it hasn't gone far enough (skills are a bit meh even with feats and I would like a tie in with magic items as well) but the concept is fantastic.

3. Bard - this class was done absolutely perfect. It went from one of my least favorite to most favorite class. The design is comprehensive, juicy with flavor, and a lot of fun. A mute Bard is possible! They really nailed it with this design

Hates

1. Resonance is pretty complicated but the concept is good. Remove some of the rules and shave it down to proficiency and charisma. No need to create an entire system to solve a problem that was really only an issue at PFS tables (magic jappy stick)

2. General Feats are pretty meh and Class feats are too exclusive - I can't help but feel given the lack of general feats that aren't skills that there were some late stage changes to these where Class feats grabbed most of the good ones. I'm all for sectioning off certain things (AoOs and Lay on Hands) but two weapon fighting or general combat abilities should not be exclusive (I heard their argument for tailored feats, but it's a lot of clutter and more work for a GM to understand ALL of the two weapon fighting feats if you do that.)

3. Skill increases/Feats/level bonus - the skill system quite frankly is not where it needs to be. Not enough skill increases, no ties in with INT, not a whole lot of benefit to proficiency with how limited feats are, Feats are sometimes underwhelming and few scale appropriately (obvious exceptions would be Fascinating Perfrm, and untrained level bonus is too high for my tastes (would prefer half level -2)


Did you say four things?

Like

1) Proficiency Levels (great design but woefully underused right now)
2) bulk (yeah! I said it! I like bulk!)
3) spell duration nerfs (not crazy about other spell nerfs)--I'm cool with spells that only last one battle so there's less tracking to do
4) Three action economy

Hate
1) +1/level esp for skills & AC (I might be okay with+1/lvl for saves)
2) Everything about the new hero points
3) Nerfing the terrible things that can happen to heroes: coup-de-grace, sunder, energy drain, ability drain, paralysis. We should be truly frightened of these things, but they're not scary anymore.
4) The lack of clearly-stated, easily-accessible DCs for ordinary activities and common objects--you know, like PF1 did so so so well. Which is why I play it. Because I really don't want to have to concoct all the DCs on the fly every time the PCs stick an axe in a door.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Three Likes:

1. Cleric Class - The cleric class is a favourite of mine, and I feel the Playtest version captures the spirit of the class even better than Pathfinder 1. I like the new take on deities, domains, and anathemas.

2. Monster Special Abilities and Presentation - The monsters have a lot of unique and interesting abilities, and they are presented in a way that looks easier for the GM to run than Pathfinder 1.

3. Status Effects - The statuses seems logical and clear. I like the way special effects like haste have been codified as statuses.

(4.) Dev Team Attitude - Not really a feature of the game, but I'm very impressed by the dev team's openness, responsiveness, and willingness to listen to criticism. This gives me hope for the quality of the finished game, despite many concerns about the rules presented so far.

Three Dislikes:

1. Class-Locked Feats - This feels like a step backwards. I loved the attitude of D&D 3.0 where many class features were presented as bonus feats, so other characters could still qualify for them. Even if a feat is less useful for a ranger than for a rogue, it should be the player's prerogative to make that decision. The only feats that should be restricted to a class should be those that require a class ability to use (and in that case, the ability should be the prerequisite, not the class). I also believe in the principle that the same action should use the same rules, so I don't care for the idea of having (for example) different two-handed fighting feats for the fighter, the ranger, and the rogue.

2. Ancestry - This has already been heavily criticized on these boards, but it is insane that you start as a nothing and evolve slowly into your race. That said, I think it would be the basis of a solid system if (a) obviously genetic traits like darkvision were folded back into the core race description, along with flavourful but low-power options that will otherwise never be used; (b) the remaining racial feats are more carefully balanced; and (c) each character starts with two or three racial feats at level one.

3. Removal of Take 10/Take 20 - These aren't a character power, they are a wonderful (and very logical) tool to speed up gameplay. It is much better to be able to skip quickly over low-stakes encounters than to try to force stakes in with irritating crit fail effects. Assurance adds insult to injury by asking you to spend a feat in order to skip uninteresting rolls.


Vivificient wrote:
3. Removal of Take 10/Take 20 - These aren't a character power, they are a wonderful (and very logical) tool to speed up gameplay. It is much better to be able to skip quickly over low-stakes encounters than to try to force stakes in with irritating crit fail effects. Assurance adds insult to injury by asking you to spend a feat in order to skip uninteresting rolls.

I totally forgot about this - the feat "assurance" has "ass" in it for a reason. I can take 10, but literally only 10, on one and only one skill. Sure, it scales, but not anywhere near enough to make it feel like anything other than a waste of a pick.


Love:
-3 Actions: People have beaten this to death, but I want my pound of flesh! This is good stuff.
-No more BAB: If you want a muscle wizard that can fight with a sword, get proficient and have at it.
-Clear wording on abilities: Though it takes a bit of work to write down all the stuff your character can do, the new action system makes teaching the game to new players much easier.

Hate:
-Magic Weapon/Armor: A lot of others have said this. Bake the scaling into the class.
-Player Characters not feeling more powerful as they level: I think a lot of things can contribute this, but I feel like your pursuit of balance might have sterilized this for the most part. I might change my mind on this the more I run games.
-Take10/Take20 removal: This is important for running games smoothly. Rolling dice for everything slows down the game and causes skilled characters potentially fail easy challenges.


neaven wrote:
Vivificient wrote:
3. Removal of Take 10/Take 20 - These aren't a character power, they are a wonderful (and very logical) tool to speed up gameplay. It is much better to be able to skip quickly over low-stakes encounters than to try to force stakes in with irritating crit fail effects. Assurance adds insult to injury by asking you to spend a feat in order to skip uninteresting rolls.
I totally forgot about this - the feat "assurance" has "ass" in it for a reason. I can take 10, but literally only 10, on one and only one skill. Sure, it scales, but not anywhere near enough to make it feel like anything other than a waste of a pick.

I missed that feat entirely. Sounds like it wouldn't be much assurance anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3 Likes....

1) The action system...great except for a one stupid thing like nother being able to drop two items at once...

2) um...+10 Crit/-10 Fumble rules...

3) Skill Prof system...which surprised me as that was what made me most nervous...

3 Dislikes...

1) Character gen...okay I like backgrounds and ability score generation...but the ancestries and classes need a massive overhaul.

2) Skill Feats...it is more of the danger of a player being creative and thinking outside the box and being told 'No you need a feat'

3) Resonance Points...I have never been in game where the stuff it was trying to fix was a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3 Likes

1. Class Design: While some of them are rough and definitely need some tuning (Alchemist chief among them), I like the modular direction of class option. It's a much more dynamic system and adds to character customization. If anything, classes like Ranger and Paladin could stand to be more modular.

2. The Dubious Knowledge Feat: A Fun, Rewarding Feat that makes failure interesting. It's fantastic. Please Keep It.

3. Action system: It's a fun system to play. It's easy to explain and it flows well. It really gives the developers a chance to work in the space of things like how effective a single action ability should be vs. a 2 action one. I really think there's a lot to play with and its fun to play.

3 Dislikes

1. The Return of the 5 minute adventuring day. This could be all three it bothers me so much. I get the drive to remove the Cure Light Wounds Wand due to its negative impact on the narrative, it was a player fix to a problem in D&D as well as Pathfinder. That problem is the 5 minute adventuring day. The changes to healing, lower available spell slots and overall weaker spells seem to make the time between rests 1-2 encounters on average.

2. Half-Breeds: They went and took out two core races and boiled them down to feats (and not even interesting ones). Beyond this, the playtest has done a lot to present itself as providing more options than the Core of PF1. Seeing that we're Net -1 one options out the gate is discouraging.

3. Spell slots: Okay, so the 5 minute adventuring day is gonna be 2 of my 3. However, I felt this needed calling out. Spells are weaker and I get that. Because of that, your casters are going to cast more of them. Now reduce the number of spells per day significantly and you just run out of juice too quickly to feel heroic. Either spells need to be more powerful or there needs to be more slots.

3-1 Also, the spontaneous heightening thing is bullocks. You had a great "Undercast" system with the psychic magic in the Occult book. It felt good, was pretty easy to explain and allowed you to feel like you were learning to better control your spells. Love it. Just do that.

3-2. That said, the rest of the built-in metamagic options are lovely. They use the action economy effectively, are interesting options, and make casters feel powerful. Just...maybe put them all in one list that casters can draw from. Save some trees and reading time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Likes:

1. archetypes and multiclassing. It could use some polish, but the system idea is fantastic.
2. four stages of success/failure for skill checks. I don't as much like it for attack rolls. Saving throws I don't have enough experience with.
3. Weapon attributes. Finally there is some more differentiation between weapons other than hit die and threat range.

Dislikes:

1. Cleric required.
1b. Cleric mandatory.
1c. Have a cleric in your party or fail.
1d. Someone has to play a cleric healbot if we are going to have any fun.

OK. Enough of that.

2. Not enough ancestry feats given to a character at 1st level. It doesn't feel like you are actually part of that race until you get a couple or three of these feats. So we really need to get several of them at 1st level.

3. The tight ranges for math. No character left behind, but no character allowed ahead either. There should be some options for powering up a character in some focused aspect of their character. Sure most players focus on accuracy and damage done - which leads to power gaming. But still, having all characters within a very narrow band of skill in all things does make them seem too generic. No character can actually shine at anything.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, there've been around 30 replies so far, so I'll give all the likes and dislikes that garnered more than 10% of the vote. Note: there's a long tail on this (i.e. a lot of 1 votes). That's expected and if I gave categories, many of those would get swept up into them. But for now, lets keep this finely grained.

Likes

3 action system. 80.0%
Scaling cantrips 23.3%
New crit system 20.0%
Reactions 10.0%
Bulk rules 10.0%
character creation 10.0%
monster uniqueness 10.0%
proficiency system (U/T/E/M/G) 10.0%

Dislikes

autoscale skills (+1 to all) 30.0%
Resonance 30.0%
nerfing spellcasters 23.3%
extra dice on weapons /armor req'd 20.0%
class-locked restrictions 20.0%
New crit system 13.3%
mandatory healers in party 13.3%
ancestries underwhelming 13.3%

A couple of notes:

3 action system / cantrips / crits are the clear winners to this point.
Autoscaling skills, Resonance (see today's blog post - I swear it was coincidental. Please don't send a tarrasque after me), nerfing spellcasters and magic as a necessity for high level play basically drop into two categories - skills and magic.
Magic, not surprisingly, continues to be an issue. But what's interesting is the percentage of people who seem to think the playtest goes too far in the other direction. Which is great data to have!

So I'll keep tallying as people keep replying! And I'm sure other eyes are watching this thread. (Ok, I'm not sure... but credo consolans)


Pro

  • Stat building system for chargen. It's nice to have the stats reflect who the character is.

  • Feat based multi-classing. This is what I'd been working on for my home games.

  • Class feats. It's like class matters again, which I feel is important in a class-based system.

    Con

  • +1/level to everything. I wouldn't mind it just for trained skills, even saves are okay, but it doesn't feel right for all classes, & all monsters to get it to all attacks and all AC. There should be differences in combat ability, and +3 at best isn't sufficient.

  • Monster building cheats. I'll buy that some insectoid monstrosity does 2d6 with their strikes, but the only way a Drow noble should be doing 2d6 with their rapier is if the rapier is +1. Either accept that more treasure will be available, or don't balance the games's damage around boosted magic weapon dice.

  • Tiny numbers. Being able to be good at something feels rewarding. Being subject to the die roll at all times, even when it's your character's primary focus, doesn't. A fighter is supposed to be the pinnacle of weapons combat, but due to getting tiny bonuses they really aren't much better than anyone else. Without buffs from others they have a decent chance to miss even on their best attack against a level appropriate foe. That's a disappointing way to be.


  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.

    A bit late, I just remembered the third thing I like about the PT, the only one I unambiguously like: the Bestiary.
    Putting everything you need to make encounters in one book makes so much sense. There are probably some quibbles that can be made about the details - I haven't read it closely enough to determine - but the general idea is very good and should be kept.


    Zi Mishkal wrote:


    3 action system / cantrips / crits are the clear winners to this point.
    Autoscaling skill.

    like
    New crit system 20.0%

    Dislikes
    New crit system 13.3%

    I would not say that the crit system is a clear winner.

    If you take the likes and subtract the dislikes you get 6.7.
    I would like to see those numbers as well. So we know which parts people like and not hate.


    Here's my choices...

    ==== PLUS ====

    + Proficiency bonus auto-scaling fits the d20 power fantasy quite well (though maybe LV./2 is fine for untrained creatures).
    + The general feat-based structure of character growth is fine and elegant-feeling.
    + The 3-Action system in general.

    ==== MINUS ====

    - Individual feats of all kinds is usually very unimpressive, particularly the martial/skill feats.
    - Damage scaling for martials requiring magic weapons is just awful.
    - Monster numbers having unexplained, illegally massive bonuses is so horrible, it's the worst nightmare to me.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    I haven’t actually played it, but from watching playtests and reading the rules:

    I’m most keen for:

    The three action economy
    The -10< >+10 structure (except I’d limit it to PCs more)
    Feats for everything

    Things I suspect won’t be for me:

    The speed at which one gains ancestry feats
    Magic being less powerful than PF1
    Overly complicated subsystems

    Silver Crusade

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

    After 4 games and interaction with 20+ players (still 2 games with new groups to go! I'm contributing! I'm getting close to producing a statistical sample!) here is mine:

    1. Action economy. Everything about it. The three actions, raising shields, mobility, axing AoOs, boosting spells/abilities by expanding additional actions.

    2. The tighter and less binary math. The wrought treadmill - finally, you can have an entire party of epic heroes try to sneak/climb/swim without comically tripping over their own feet. Also, tighter math means less reliance on stacking buffs and dumpster diving for weird bonuses. 4 degrees of crit/fail, allowing for more nuanced effects. While some things require tweaking, it's good to see a fresh new look on d20 system after so many years of sticking with decisions made in 2000.

    3. Monster design. Reactions, kooky unique abilities, unshackling from PC math, solo/boss encounters made great again by cheerfully cheating on action economy, poisons are finally what they always should been. Again, numbers need a tweak, but we're way ahead of 3.5/PF here.

    DISLIKE:

    1. Exploration mode is a neat concept with confusing execution. I think that some reworking of it should lead to more player agency and rewarding creativity while at the same time avoiding the "ha ha, you didn't declare that you are searching this square here for traps and so BAM, roll Reflex saves" problem.

    2. Resonance. I see where they were going, I'm just not sure whether this is the right way to reach that destination. Certainly not with having to spend resonance for potions/oils.

    3. Progress of ancestry feats. I like that you can be more of a "dwarf a'la carte" and no two ancestries have to be the same, but I think that the rate of acquiring ancestry feats should be higher AND more ancestry abilities should be baked in.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Likes

    1. Move to silver as the basic standard. A huge amount of flavour setting for a tiny change.

    2. The multi-class option. This one has grown on me - means we get an ever growing number of possible hybrid classes

    3. Crit success on beating by > 10 (not the nat 20 part)

    Dislikes

    1. Spells and caster nerfing. I don't accept the premise that casters were unbalanced compared to maritals in the slightest or that there was a need for any kind of nerf to spells at all.

    2. Skills #1 - can't specialise - lack of ability to be notably good at any skill, no degree of choice between competent at a broad range of skills or really good at a narrower list.

    3. Skills #2 - too low chance of success - having a maxed out character pegged to 50% chance of success vs level appropriate monsters makes takes like scouting or bluffing so risky most groups won't let their rogue or bard try them

    As things are now, all the likes are 'ooh that's kind of nice' and all the dislikes are 'this needs to change for me to want to play the game beyond playtesting'


    Zautos' wrote:
    Zi Mishkal wrote:


    3 action system / cantrips / crits are the clear winners to this point.
    Autoscaling skill.

    like
    New crit system 20.0%

    Dislikes
    New crit system 13.3%

    I would not say that the crit system is a clear winner.

    If you take the likes and subtract the dislikes you get 6.7.
    I would like to see those numbers as well. So we know which parts people like and not hate.

    lol. fair enough :) I wanted to get the numbers out and was tired. All day I'd been thinking that there would be things on both columns and you needed to subtract one from the other. Well, right up to when I composed that post.. then I completely forgot that. :P

    So crits are very divisive :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Love
    1. The action system, feels good and flows really nicely
    2. The crit system, an awesome change. Figuring out ways to stack up those bonuses (or knock down enemies stats) to gain those crits is an excellent and fun addition.
    3. +1/level, it makes everyone level wise progress at the same speed

    (bonus ones)
    4. The proficiency system. This one is a great addition. The only reason it isn't in my top 3 is because I don't think they went far enough to make it as cool as it could have been. I think they should loosen the rules on when you are able to get proficiency to make character customization a little better. Being Legendary at Stealth by lvl SHOULD be allowed, even if it is discouraged.
    5. Skill feats. Sort of for the same reasons as above I just don't think they went hard enough on the skill feats. Hopefully they really go all in for the actual product and we were just getting a small taste for the playtest.

    Hate (it's hard to say I hate these, more like dislike)
    1. Grappling system. While I appreciate that the grappling system has been put into skills I feel it's been nerfed to much in doing so. I really enjoyed the grapple flow of the last system and think they should bring it back. Allow for really tactical grappling matches to play out. Think of the skill feats!
    2. Resonance. I don't hate the concept per say but I think right now it's to tight of a resource for something that is so important. Increasing the resonance for pretty much every class is probably the best idea.
    3. Classes(?) Some classes seem under powered and some seem a tad bit restrictive in their possible builds so far. Hopefully them releasing some archetypes and making some slight changes will remedy these problems.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    3 Loves:

    1. How multiclassing now works.

    I'm a big fan of the new archetypes and I always find myself wanting to take at least one of them when I build a new character.
    It opens up a lot of cool character concepts and gives me the ability to play something truly unique, unlike many of the base classes.
    I assume it will get even better when we have archetypes for all classes.
    With 12 base classes and 12 base archetypes, you're looking at 144 possible class combinations to build a unique character, and that's with taking only one archetype to begin with!

    2. Skill feats that you gain organically, without having to sacrifice "combat" feats to acquire them.

    I would never consider taking any of the skill feats (outside Intimidation) in Pathfinder 1.0, because I would most likely be gimping my character's ability to contribute in combat.
    Now I get to do all sort of cool things (though some skill feats are still very lackluster) outside of combat encounters and it really helps with fleshing out my character roleplay-wise and giving them purpose.

    3. Backgrounds.

    Same reasons as the above number 2 point.
    A background gives you bonuses for creating a specific backstory for your character and a flavorful feat you would not have had the chance to select otherwise but that helps define who your character is and where they come from.
    Yes, I know you can already do that with roleplay alone but having rules support for it helps and actually rewards you for designing a character that is more than a bag of different features.

    3 Hates:

    1. New dying rules.

    Hate is not enough for how strongly I feel about them.
    A PC is basically unkillable now. The full party could be done to 0 HP and they would still awaken safely about 10 minutes later, like nothing happened at all, provided they made their Fortitude saves.
    That feels wrong and takes away the tension of having difficult encounters.
    The only PC I ever killed only died because:
    - I rolled a natural 20 and got him to dying 2
    - They rolled a natural 1 and critically failed their Fortitude save which got him to dying 4.
    It seems utterly unreasonable to expect that killing a PC should take a critical success on the DM side AND a critical failure on the player side to happen.

    2.Magic nerfed all over the place.

    This one has made me oh so very sad. Those of my players who love spellcasters feel that they have no home in 2nd edition.
    Spells are nerfed, spell slots are nerfed, feats that used to help you up spell DCs are gone and magic in general now ranges from barely useful to completely useless.
    Something has gone seriously wrong when a player tells me that they won't be rolling any spellcaster character in the future despite loving them because they get bored playing one.

    3. a) Treasure tables.

    There used to be a very simple system in place that worked just fine.
    Give the players a specific amount of money to spend on whatever they damn like at each level.
    Right now, my players feel like they're pigeonholed into specific builds and specific playstyles because they can't freely decide what items they want to have at each level.
    Maybe that player wants to spend all of their gold on one single, slightly higher level item.
    Maybe another wants to buy lots of low-level consumables.
    Don't tell them that they're not responsible enough to make that choice on their own.
    Besides, the magic items tables are full of stupidly underpowered magic items that exist only for the sake of filling up said tables in the first place.

    3. b) No item bonus for animal companions.

    This is another important issue that ties into character advancement and loot.
    Why on earth do animal companions have to become more and more useless as the party levels up?
    Players have a limited amount of money and magic items they can select from to begin with.
    Why should I not be able to decide that I want better armor for my companion rather than for myself?
    I already have to choose between getting better myself or having my animal companion get better.
    Why make it so that choice is taken away from the player?
    Right now, pet builds are only viable at lower levels because they're left out of the equipment race that is higher levels of play.


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

    Love as mostly a GM
    1 Action System (Nothing new, we use unchained)
    2 Monster design. Is fast, easy, and flavourful, very fun to run! And they feel strong! like 1 creature can stand the attack of 4 heroes and give them a bad time. In PF1 "some" monsters felt sad... my players thought they were being bullies xD
    3 Crit System (Damn I love this)

    Hate
    1 Gated choices for the players (two-handed only for ranger?)
    2 Resonance. The concept is maybe fun... but as is stands, it does nothing, solves problems we never had and makes cleric mandatory (most of the times)
    3 Ancestry feats are underwhelming, and at first level, you get too few... how the half-orc learns to see in darkness after a few levels??? (I like the concept of half-breeds but the implementation is too brutal on them)

    (4) Some part of the community (mostly on facebook) doing a post every 4 minutes of how he is not having fun, because cannot do his overpowered build that destroys every AP at the same time.


    Zi Mishkal wrote:
    Zautos' wrote:
    Zi Mishkal wrote:


    3 action system / cantrips / crits are the clear winners to this point.
    Autoscaling skill.

    like
    New crit system 20.0%

    Dislikes
    New crit system 13.3%

    I would not say that the crit system is a clear winner.

    If you take the likes and subtract the dislikes you get 6.7.
    I would like to see those numbers as well. So we know which parts people like and not hate.

    lol. fair enough :) I wanted to get the numbers out and was tired. All day I'd been thinking that there would be things on both columns and you needed to subtract one from the other. Well, right up to when I composed that post.. then I completely forgot that. :P

    So crits are very divisive :)

    it would also be good to know the amount of different loves/hates and % for types of categories.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    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.

    Love:
    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.

    Hate:
    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 of times, I love the ideas attempted here to create choice options for unique, memorable characters. But when those options are virtually identical to other classes (sometimes with different names, sometimes literally identical), circumstantial or situational abilities, or just plain boring, it makes one wonder if maybe less choices might be better after all. If there's 100 options but only 10 good ones, you can save everyone the trouble and eliminate the other 90.
    4) Bonus hate- I recall reading that there was an attempt to reduce artificially inflated numbers from PF1 but the automatic proficiency level bonuses do exactly the opposite. We're not playing Final Fantasy and if the DC is only going to scale up anyway, this is just a waste of everyone's time. Keep the numbers down and the scaling to a minimum.

    In short, the big picture systemic creativity and ideas show promise. But the detailed, focused implementation is holistically lacking in that same creativity and turns a beautifully sketched outline from a potential masterpiece into something boring and entirely uninteresting.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Let's see...

    Love:

    1: Three Actions (Though I sometimes worry it'll slow things down)
    2: How Shields and Spell components use those actions
    3: Monster special abilities

    Can I add one more?
    4: Quality items. I like a longer running mundane world before we get to a crazy magical one.

    Hates:

    1: Having to look all over the book to find out how anything works
    2: Shields break too easily. I think. It depends if they work like it seems. This uncertainty is the worst, and it's all over the place.
    3: Monster skills and other DCs are too high. So I guess I'm saying "success rate" - I'd like it to be better, and not based on maxed-out characters.

    Can I add one more?
    4: Magic Items baked-in to the math. Bleh.

    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.