Dear Paizo


General Discussion

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
IDK why but what everybody else sees as "gotcha's"from paizo to me seems like an actual attempt to put out new ideas but willingness to change go out and literally walk out of months of work if it doesn't gel with the general interest of the community.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me (or even what you're trying to say) but just to be clear: I'm not saying Paizo has acted in bad faith. I'm saying that they would have set a high bar to excise core elements of the game and that I doubt we have reached that bar for those things I listed.

Kevin Mack wrote:

Maybe this will help?

Insight into Paizo's choice of mechanics to playtest

This is a clear example of why I'm expecting Paizo isn't going to change things. They keep saying "we'll add more stuff" when those on the forums complain about class feats and such. They've already said they're revamping resonance dramatically. They've removed signature skills. But they've said nothing on changing +level to everything or significantly reworking class feats. Instead we're getting "we'll add more content" which means that the feedback Paizo has received thus far tells them they don't need to excise these elements from the game and completely rework them.

We'll see if anything drastically changes by the end of the playtest. But based on the language we're getting from Paizo I expect the answer is no.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post "Are you being intentionally dense and insulting or does it come naturally?" is not something that helps in keeping the conversation reasonable and merely serves to insult and negatively escalate the tension of the forums. If you need your comment back to rework it, you can email community at paizo.com


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
This is a clear example of why I'm expecting Paizo isn't going to change things. They keep saying "we'll add more stuff" when those on the forums complain about class feats and such. They've already said they're revamping resonance dramatically. They've removed signature skills. But they've said nothing on changing +level to everything or significantly reworking class feats. Instead we're getting "we'll add more content" which means that the feedback Paizo has received thus far tells them they don't need to excise these elements from the game and completely rework them.

As far as the +level bonus to proficiency, I have seen the question come up on the deconstructing DD twitch stream on more than one occasion, even brought up by subscribers, and it never got asked on air. It looks like a subject that they are deliberately avoiding talking about for now. My amateur guess is that they want to wait to get survey data from higher level play before commenting on something specifically implemented to simplify high-level play (but keep it to heroic levels of high fantasy). That does mean that if they are going to try changing it, it will be late in the play test, but my guess at this point is it is either all (+level) or nothing (No bonus for level). I don't see any 1/2 level or 1/4 level measures without having to massively rebalance the leveling up charts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They won't go no level. It's too much of a differentiator between PF and 5e. Also not having BAB or an equivalent would cause the game to change too dramatically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
They won't go no level. It's too much of a differentiator between PF and 5e. Also not having BAB or an equivalent would cause the game to change too dramatically.

Going 1/2 level with at least a slightly larger gap between proficiency bonuses seems to be the version most people want (myself included).


LadyWurm wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
They won't go no level. It's too much of a differentiator between PF and 5e. Also not having BAB or an equivalent would cause the game to change too dramatically.
Going 1/2 level with at least a slightly larger gap between proficiency bonuses seems to be the version most people want (myself included).

1/2 level is going to be the most work to implement because it means having to completely reconsider the leveling charts for PCs to avoid the feel of dead levels, and the CRs of even or odd monsters is going to be weighted a lot differently. I think it is not a very likely option.

Personally I think +level is very likely to stay as is, but if people really hate it and raise hell about it, I could see them working a slight (like +1 difference per tier) additional bonus into proficiencies and otherwise having no level bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LadyWurm wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
They won't go no level. It's too much of a differentiator between PF and 5e. Also not having BAB or an equivalent would cause the game to change too dramatically.
Going 1/2 level with at least a slightly larger gap between proficiency bonuses seems to be the version most people want (myself included).

I think this is a topic that gets a lot of passionate forum users fired up. But in a broader audience? I'm not sure how many people really care. Maybe the playtest at higher levels will prove me wrong.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Syndrous wrote:


Magnuskn provides a great example, because we don't know the reason the power floor of pure casters was dropped its hard for us to brainstorm viable alternatives, we don't know more than a general mission statement.

This, by the way? Not true. The "floor" of a class is the worst you can possibly build it. The ceiling is the best it can possibly be built. The ceiling has been lowered, I won't deny that, but the floor has been raised in a ton of ways.

--Multilclassing no longer kills your spell progression.
--Almost any ancestry can start with an 18 in your casting stat, as opposed to just humans and halfies plus whatever races got an inherent boost to that stat.
--Casting stat no longer gives bonus spells, so it is harder to cripple yourself by neglecting it.
--Cantrips are stronger, so your caster is still useful sans spell slots. (Maybe not as useful as you'd like, but they are better than a PF1 wizard out of spells.
--Powers are upgraded from their PF1 equivalent.
--Channel energy is much stronger than its PF1 equivalent.
--Spontaneous casters now get spell levels at the same rate as prepared casters.
--The four tiers of success mean most control/debuff spells still do a thing when the enemy passes its save.
--Various enemies have lost immunities, particularly against mental effects.

All that is to say it is now harder to build a BAD caster than it was in PF1. Which was really easy to do in PF1 in a million little ways. Even the more general nerfs to all casters, like caster level no longer giving automatic spell scaling, aren't REALLY nerfs to the floor because it was entirely possible to make bad picks for PF1 spells that didn't scale with caster level anyway, and generally those spells are stronger at the level you first get them anyway.

But the apex casters? The best builds are no longer possible. You can't overspecialize and creablaster, you can't go as buckwild with summons, you can't use wish as often in a day. That's the...

Your points about casters being balanced are not solid. I will offer my reasoning on a point by point basis.

1) Multi-classing: This you are mostly correct on. However, not every caster wants to multiclass so I don't feel this is a win-win. Additionally, since you cannot reach the apex of 9th level spells it technically does harm your spell progression at its apex.

2)That part is mostly true unless you are playing a dwarven sorcerer or a goblin cleric.

3) With the tight math you actually cripple yourself a great deal as a caster if you refuse to pump your primary stat since your save dc's fall behind. With the playtest monsters I have seen most easily make saves and its very hard to get them to crit fail with main caster stats pumped to 18 at first level and only getting another increase at 10th.

4) Cantrips are terrible in this edition too. They take two actions, have incredibly short range and do feeble damage. When you still shoot once with your crossbow then cast a cantrip in a round you are NOT solving the crossbow toting wizard issue.

5) Powers are not upgraded from PF1 equivalents. Angelic halo is a joke. Magic dart from the evocation school is still the wimpy 1d4 from PF1.

6) Channel Energy is much stronger than PF1. You are correct here.

7) Yes, spontaneous casters get same spell progression but sorcerers have to learn a new spell at each level and cannot cast a weaker spell in a higher level slot. Its a net negative for that class. I would much rather have spell acquisition at a higher level and spell scaling than this mess

8)Yeah but those spells have been nerfed so hard and the monsters saves are so buffed that this is meaningless. Take paralyze. If a monster fails its save its paralyzed for 1 round. 3 on a crit save. Completely useless spell. Sleep has the same issues.

9) Most monsters I have seen have the exact same immunities in game. Demons & Devils have same resistances/immunties as before. They have just been scaled down since spell damage has been nerfed so heavily.

10) oh yeah, you forgot to add less spells per level and resonnance restrictions on item usage


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Mack wrote:

Maybe this will help?

Insight into Paizo's choice of mechanics to playtest

It would help a lot more if it was on Paizo's own forums.

That said, thanks Kevin Mack.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
It would help a lot more if it was on Paizo's own forums.

This has been one of my complaints. They seem VERY active on just about every other platform they can find and I can understand why they do it. I just wish that they'd let people here know that they are doing so and where/when they are doing so. A sticky list with links and summaries, IMO, would be free advertising to an audience that doesn't troll all the different media forms and social media platforms and other sites/forums but is interested in what they are saying.


Arrow17 wrote:
1) Multi-classing: This you are mostly correct on. However, not every caster wants to multiclass so I don't feel this is a win-win. Additionally, since you cannot reach the apex of 9th level spells it technically does harm your spell progression at its apex.

The implication of multiclassing was from caster, meaning a caster base. Martials multiclassing a caster don't get spells as fast, true, but they still have a martial base meaning they're going to be more of the 2/3-type caster in the first place. As for caster/caster multiclass, the current version is significantly stronger at any level than the old Mystic Theurge (except maybe at really high levels?)

Arrow17 wrote:
2)That part is mostly true unless you are playing a dwarven sorcerer or a goblin cleric.

"Almost" any ancestry. Now it's only flaws that block maxed stats instead of simply lacking a bonus.

Arrow17 wrote:
3) With the tight math you actually cripple yourself a great deal as a caster if you refuse to pump your primary stat since your save dc's fall behind. With the playtest monsters I have seen most easily make saves and its very hard to get them to crit fail with main caster stats pumped to 18 at first level and only getting another increase at 10th.

I agree, the tight math makes optimization basically mandatory.

Arrow17 wrote:
4) Cantrips are terrible in this edition too. They take two actions, have incredibly short range and do feeble damage. When you still shoot once with your crossbow then cast a cantrip in a round you are NOT solving the crossbow toting wizard issue.

You're absolutely right about the range, but in a wizard's hands the crossbow is weaker except at very low levels, unless you put a lot of enchantments on it. Meanwhile, the cantrips target TAC (or a save, like Electric Arc, which hits two at once).

Arrow17 wrote:
5) Powers are not upgraded from PF1 equivalents. Angelic halo is a joke. Magic dart from the evocation school is still the wimpy 1d4 from PF1.

I agree with this. I took a few looks at the advanced school powers (after previously failing to convince myself to take advanced domain powers for doomsday dawn), and I agree that the powers are mostly weak. Some of them look like they could be useful, but the pf1e powers were far better.

Arrow17 wrote:
6) Channel Energy is much stronger than PF1. You are correct here.

I agree again.

Arrow17 wrote:
7) Yes, spontaneous casters get same spell progression but sorcerers have to learn a new spell at each level and cannot cast a weaker spell in a higher level slot. Its a net negative for that class. I would much rather have spell acquisition at a higher level and spell scaling than this mess

I disagree with the end of this; the improved spell progression is good. That said, I agree that we should get more heightening options.

Arrow17 wrote:
8)Yeah but those spells have been nerfed so hard and the monsters saves are so buffed that this is meaningless. Take paralyze. If a monster fails its save its paralyzed for 1 round. 3 on a crit save. Completely useless spell. Sleep has the same issues.

*nothing on crit save, slowed 1 on a save, paralyzed 1 round on a fail, and paralyzed 4 rounds on a crit fail.

I assume you're comparing this to Hold Person/Fey/Monster spells? Yes, the spells do less on a normal failure than they used to, but they also do something nice on a normal success. Suddenly a very good save no longer wastes the caster's entire turn. This is more of a mixed bag that trends good, and not meaningless.

Arrow17 wrote:
9) Most monsters I have seen have the exact same immunities in game. Demons & Devils have same resistances/immunties as before. They have just been scaled down since spell damage has been nerfed so heavily.

Nerfed? Fireball starts at 6d6 and gets +2d6 per heightening level. It starts at level 3 and is an AOE. Let's say 2d6 per spell level for aoe, which is about on par with before, leaning a little better than before. Cone of Cold starts at 11d6 / level 5, which is better. Searing Light is a 4d6 (8d6 vs its best targets) single-target, where before it was 1d8 per two levels (1d6 per level vs best targets).

I just checked Dragon Form vs Form of the Dragon, and your attacks are not only usually more accurate, but they do comparable damage (start with a higher damage die and elemental damage, +6 or +14 damage bonus). Though I know there are pf1e builds that rely on polymorph for damage, the base +20 accuracy (a normal pf1e sorc would have +6 level, +2 from the spell, and maybe +6 more from other buffs and starting strength) is normally an upgrade. And typical playtest sorc might have up to 14 str for +12 level and +2 str for... let's add in +4 conditional from lots of things for +18 to the +20 the spell gives.

I'll stop there. Spells are stronger when you first get them, and they fall off slower thanks to heightening. And their DC scales when it didn't before. In short, blasting has more raw damage, but still requires investment.

Arrow17 wrote:
10) oh yeah, you forgot to add less spells per level and resonnance restrictions on item usage

I agree with the sentiments here, though I can agree Casters needed some sort of nerf and one fewer spell/level seems fair but not crippling.


Lord_Malkov wrote:

I have been pretty critical of this new system so far, but I think I know what they are trying to do.

Change the focus of the game from numerical bonuses stacked through a myriad of means as the general path to power to one where the numbers are relatively even, but the actions and abilities vary. The old system, with the umpteen bonuses stacking, is a bit impenetrable to new players, since it requires knowing about a bonus existing at all in order to take advantage. Playing at optimal (or even just non-sub-optimal) levels demands system mastery.

SO everyone can have the same "bonus" to pretty much everything, but different classes do different things with those bonuses by virtue of having different class feats.

And this would theoretically extend to skill proficiency levels as well.

In order to save martial characters from becoming entirely pointless (not that they were doing much after lvl 15 anyway) this also requires a severe reduction in the power of spells. In practice, spells will have no great advantage over physical actions, since they are just another option for how to use your pretty-much-generic base number set.

The goal, then, is to radically shift the focus from numerical advantage to an 'available actions' advantage. IE: my proficiency in skill X allows me to do a special thing that requires that proficiency etc. numbers be damned.

All of that said, I think that the current implementation leaves a huge amount to be desired. Everything is WAY too safe and WAY too tight IMO. If the focus of the game is now meant to be on class-based feats-as-actions, then the actions really do need to become more diverse and more powerful for their specific task. The difference between Master and Trained should be far more significant than it is now, not numerically, but in how it opens up new possibilities. Same with class feats and same with regular feats.

Two problems here though:
1. That is really hard to design.. it is way easier to just slap a +2 bonus on...

This sounds on target. You should post this as its own FAQ thread.


Unicore wrote:
As far as the +level bonus to proficiency,

Dumping that treadmill has done wonders for my home-games/scenarios.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

To add my two copper pieces:

I think the desire for a clearly stated set of design goals of PF2 is perfectly valid. I myself would very much welcome it.

The counterargument of it influencing the results of the playtest is understandable. If Paizo were interested in the raw neutral reaction to the playtest release, that is indeed the stance they should take. If, on the other hand, design goals exist (and therefore some areas where compromise is unlikely) it is helpful to state these goals so feedback can be funneled to the areas where it is actually considered.

To illustrate: If you want to make a spanish omelette with tomato, and get everyone's opinion on it, it is helpful if you tell them that you want to make a spanish omelette with tomato so as to not have a whole bunch of people scream about how tomatoes don't belong in an omelette. For a traditional omelette they would be right too!

As to how it was pointed out, that mission statements do exist: Yes, we have statements along the lines of "make it easier for new players and less complicated" but that is about as informative as saying "we want to make a delicious dessert". I have no idea as to what recipe, the ingredients of which or what kind of dessert it is supposed to be to begin with. I get the rough idea, yes, but nothing beyond that.

I am quite hungry, perhaps you noticed.

And here I will pull out my second copper piece as material component for Detect thoughts and divine what seem to me to be design goals:

-Make entry into the game easier by removing most choices that require surveying many options at lvl 1 (Feat choice in PF1).
-Make the game future-proof by adopting a general nomenclature (traits and conditions) with specific meanings. Also to remove ambiguity in ability descriptions
-Make character choices more "fun" by removing numerical boni and replacing them with active actions/reactions or thematic path choices, such as druid circles or muses
-Make it harder to create a bad character, by limiting the amount of choices available at early levels
-Streamline gameplay by providing a certain framework of available actions that only changes little as levels increase (no iterative attacks)
-Make it easier to estimate party capabilities by giving +level to everything and reducing the impact of magic on what can be done by the party. This one can be expanded upon, but I want to keep it short
-Make it easier for someone to start and run as a DM by simplifying monster rules, including not following the same creation rules as PCs
-Go for a lower-fantasy setting where not everything can be solved with magic and success is not a foregone conclusion

Alright, my 1min/level of Detect thoughts ran out. Could all of these be wrong and just misinterpretation from limited data? Sure!

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, this is not the thread to get into debating individual issues or rules or talking about individual rules or content that will prevent you from playing. The discussion raised here is about knowing the intent of the playtest or it's broader goals. You can get into discussions about the pros and cons of individual rules examples in other threads.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
Folks, this is not the thread to get into debating individual issues or rules or talking about individual rules or content that will prevent you from playing. The discussion raised here is about knowing the intent of the playtest or it's broader goals. You can get into discussions about the pros and cons of individual rules examples in other threads.

Do threads really need to be monitored like this? I can understand trying to eliminate bullying,abusive language etc but policing the forums like this seems heavy handed to say the least.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
Folks, this is not the thread to get into debating individual issues or rules or talking about individual rules or content that will prevent you from playing. The discussion raised here is about knowing the intent of the playtest or it's broader goals. You can get into discussions about the pros and cons of individual rules examples in other threads.

I was planning not to participate in playtest discussion any further* but I feel like I have to address the amusing irony of this post. The fact that a staff member can come in to keep this thread on topic but none come in to actually expound what they are trying to achieve is flatly hilarious to me. Of course, I would imagine that what Sara is doing is her actual role, being Community Manager, and that elaborating on design goals would be entirely not her wheelhouse, but still.

*As I feel like any feedback I have is not only ignored but actively unwelcome, in large part because it seems that what I want clashes with these unstated but clearly present design goals being discussed here.

Shadow Lodge

When PF2ed comes around I am taking a year break from pathfinder. With M&M, Savage worlds, 13 age, and a few others systems I can give them a try. After the year I should be more respective to 2ed.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

18 people marked this as a favorite.

So...

I have been watching this thread since it began to see where the messaging on our goals and intent have been failing to meet our objectives.

I can appreciate folks wanting an in depth look into our process and goals for the game. Some of this we can probably share. Some of it we cannot. I had thought most of this to be pretty obvious, but I can see that the information is a bit scattered.

A few of the summaries in this thread have been relative spot on and it seems that we could use a more central repository of a few of our more obvious goals.

This thread is not that place.

I'll see what I can do to find a place that makes sense in the near future, but I have a few more critical tasks on my immediate agenda.


Thanks Jason.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

WHY did you think this was obvious given the large number of times a request for some clarity in the goals of PF2e has come up?

The thread I posted beginning of August has over 30 "favorite" marks on it. Since then, it's come up repeatedly again and again in multiple threads. Generally, it's followed by rampant speculation on the part of people trying to figure out what it's all for, and maybe they were right, but it was all ungrounded.

What do we have? In a nuthshell, we know you want it to be easier to pick up, and that you want it to "feel like" PF1e. There is a lot of debate (particularly on the latter point) as to whether or not PF2e really succeeds at that.

But what else? There's a lot of "fix this, it's broken in 1e", but all of these, together with "feels the same" suggests that a updated version of PF1e is what we should have expected. Instead, we get a whole new system, as different from D&D 3.0 as D&D5 is. Obviously, there are more design goals than "simplify and keep the same feeling". So, why the whole new system? What motivates it? Were there any core design principles?

It's really not obvious what you're doing... and I'm extremely surprised that you thought that it was obvious, and that it took a bloody month and a half before we get even a "oh, yeah, I can see where people would want that, but we have more important things to do than articulate what this whole new entirely changed game is supposed to be doing".

If I sound frustrated in this post, it's because I am.


rknop wrote:
But what else? There's a lot of "fix this, it's broken in 1e", but all of these, together with "feels the same" suggests that a updated version of PF1e is what we should have expected. Instead, we get a whole new system, as different from D&D 3.0 as D&D5 is.

I think 5th Ed is a lot closer to 3.0 than PF2 is; 5th Ed is sort of like 3rd Ed Lite.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
rknop wrote:
But what else? There's a lot of "fix this, it's broken in 1e", but all of these, together with "feels the same" suggests that a updated version of PF1e is what we should have expected. Instead, we get a whole new system, as different from D&D 3.0 as D&D5 is.
I think 5th Ed is a lot closer to 3.0 than PF2 is; 5th Ed is sort of like 3rd Ed Lite.

This seemed like its clear direction from the beginning, and probably why I was never interested in it. I am still on the fence about some aspects of PF2, but I am not worried it will be over-simplified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I respectively disagree, Vic. 5E is a simple, streamlined game with relatively few options and clear, easy-to-manage rules making it an easy RPG to introduce new players to (something I do often).

To put it bluntly, I will never start out new players with 3E, much less PF1. I have, however, used 5E as a gateway to PF1 when it seemed like the group was ready to at least put a toe into more tumultuous waters.

I do wonder what target audience that Paizo is shooting for, sometimes. If it's to give current, satisfied PF1 customers a new, streamline system to rebuild their product on, I would suggest that it's not necessary. The hardcore PF1 players enjoy it BECAUSE it has nearly infinite tweakability and customization. Why replicate what they already have?

If there's a desire to offer a version of PF that's more welcoming to the new player, easier to transition to from an RPG like 5E into, while offering a more tightly controlled game for those PF1 players who've grown weary of the weight of PF1's system, then I can appreciate that intent. That said, it does come with more risk. 5E is very successful.

Can Paizo make a product good enough to peak their curiosity enough to come dabble in another new system? Will this movement to tighten and control better than they have with PF1 alienate or anger their core customers so much that they abandon all versions of PF completely? Will there be enough buzz and initial interest to justify the costs involved in launching a new product line?

Personally, I hope it succeeds wildly. While I have not been a faithful PF1 GM (and there is literally no one else in my area or amongst my circle of friends willing to GM PF1 - the last holdout quit a decade ago when it became too stressful to enjoy), I have always appreciated their passion and intent in offering us the best possible successor to 3.5E they could give us.

I love Golarion and hope we can visit it more, and I see the potential in PF2 which would allow my more casual, ad-lib RP, let's just play groups to prosper within.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arrow17 wrote:
Your points about casters being balanced are not solid. I will offer my reasoning on a point by point basis.[

I think you missed my point. I didn't say casters were balanced. I even said they may have gotten weaker on average. I said their floor had been raised. That means the weakest PF2 casters are stronger than the weakest PF1 casters.

And that's just undeniably true. Heck, lets just consider ability scores. You may want optimized ability spellcasting modifiers in PF2, and you may find monsters have better odds at success. (I actually haven't seen that in the actual encounter design so far, but let's go with it.) But you wanted that maxed spellcasting mod in PF1 as well. Not only did it affect your save DCs, it affected how many spells per day you got. Heck, it could even prevent you from casting spells of a certain level at all.

In PF1, a battle cleric that didn't put enough into wisdom NEEDED to get a headband to upgrade it later or they would not be able to use higher level spells at all. In PF2, a 10 wisdom goblin cleric is actually pretty OK if they pick the right buff spells.

That is what it means to raise the floor. It doesn't matter if casters are weaker overall. The floor is still raised. It is harder to build a bad caster.

James014Aura responded to a lot of this individual stuff, and I don't really see a reason to since I don't think it has much to do with what I was asserting.


Unicore wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
rknop wrote:
But what else? There's a lot of "fix this, it's broken in 1e", but all of these, together with "feels the same" suggests that a updated version of PF1e is what we should have expected. Instead, we get a whole new system, as different from D&D 3.0 as D&D5 is.
I think 5th Ed is a lot closer to 3.0 than PF2 is; 5th Ed is sort of like 3rd Ed Lite.
This seemed like its clear direction from the beginning, and probably why I was never interested in it. I am still on the fence about some aspects of PF2, but I am not worried it will be over-simplified.

Yeah, I ported some 3rd Ed/PF1 back over to 5th Ed, to crunch it up a bit, you can make 5th Ed more 3rd Ed or AD&D like (or Basic), quite easily.


ShadeRaven wrote:
I respectively disagree, Vic. 5E is a simple, streamlined game with relatively few options and clear, easy-to-manage rules making it an easy RPG to introduce new players to (something I do often).

What do you disagree with?

I totally agree with what you said, hence I used the word "Lite", 5th Ed is way lighter than 3rd Ed/PF.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pogie wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:
Folks, this is not the thread to get into debating individual issues or rules or talking about individual rules or content that will prevent you from playing. The discussion raised here is about knowing the intent of the playtest or it's broader goals. You can get into discussions about the pros and cons of individual rules examples in other threads.
Do threads really need to be monitored like this? I can understand trying to eliminate bullying,abusive language etc but policing the forums like this seems heavy handed to say the least.

I think that if the playtest forums are to be much use, they have to be moderated like this, at least based on the previous playtest (the big one, for PF1e). If every thread moves from more focussed to a free-wheeling discussion of complaints outside of the initial focus, and disagreements inevitably start on those, the forums become much less usefil other than being a place for that, but why spread it over many threads?

For what it's worth, the overall design goals don't seem that opaque to me, but I do follow a few sources outside these forums. I don't blame Paizo folks for taking to other forums, WotC did the same sort of thing for 5e while they were playtesting.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, if you want to comment on moderator actions in a thread please email community at paizo.com or post in website feedback.


Captain Morgan wrote:


And that's just undeniably true. Heck, lets just consider ability scores. You may want optimized ability spellcasting modifiers in PF2, and you may find monsters have better odds at success. (I actually haven't seen that in the actual encounter design so far, but let's go with it.) But you wanted that maxed spellcasting mod in PF1 as well. Not only did it affect your save DCs, it affected how many spells per day you got. Heck, it could even prevent you from casting spells of a certain level at all.

In PF1, a battle cleric that didn't put enough into wisdom NEEDED to get a headband to upgrade it later or they would not be able to use higher level spells at all. In PF2, a 10 wisdom goblin cleric is actually pretty OK if they pick the right buff spells.

I have played a druid in Pathfinder Society up to level 12 with a starting wisdom of thirteen and no increases.

At no point did I feel ineffective.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


And that's just undeniably true. Heck, lets just consider ability scores. You may want optimized ability spellcasting modifiers in PF2, and you may find monsters have better odds at success. (I actually haven't seen that in the actual encounter design so far, but let's go with it.) But you wanted that maxed spellcasting mod in PF1 as well. Not only did it affect your save DCs, it affected how many spells per day you got. Heck, it could even prevent you from casting spells of a certain level at all.

In PF1, a battle cleric that didn't put enough into wisdom NEEDED to get a headband to upgrade it later or they would not be able to use higher level spells at all. In PF2, a 10 wisdom goblin cleric is actually pretty OK if they pick the right buff spells.

I have played a druid in Pathfinder Society up to level 12 with a starting wisdom of thirteen and no increases.

At no point did I feel ineffective.

That doesn't actually take away from my point, because you weren't playing at the floor of the class. Druids were one of the most complicated characters to run in the game. I assume you probably focused on Wild Shape and perhaps and Animal Companion, at which point lowering your wisdom to increase your physical stats is a perfectly rational decision because of how PF1 polymorph effects worked.

The floor for a wild shape druid would have been someone who wants to be a wimpy, 8 strength caster who then turns into a badass monster. In PF1, you'd wind up with a wimpy, 8 strength caster who then turns into a wimpy, 12 STR 3/4 BAB monster. PF1 has raised the floor here too-- you now get a battleform with stats almost entirely independent of your own, so having a bad build doesn't actually make you bad in animal form.

Now, as I have acknowledged in various threads the druid is one of the classes that lost the most from its core chassis and you could certainly make the case that the average druid is weaker now. Wild Shape's duration getting cut down is a huge nerf. But the floor is still higher because being an effective character for one fight at a time is still better than being an ineffective character all day. Your druid managed to be an effective character all day, because you were playing above the floor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
WHY did you think this was obvious given the large number of times a request for some clarity in the goals of PF2e has come up?

While this frustrates me too, I can see how they could think that. The thing is that they are on SO, SO many different sites, videos, streams, social media, convention, ect that they indeed might have gone over this on several of those and get confused which place they said what.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
A few of the summaries in this thread have been relative spot on and it seems that we could use a more central repository of a few of our more obvious goals.

This would be great and not just for goals. A central location to collect all that info that's going out everywhere else and/or links to the dozens of places info gets disseminated other than here would be great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
james014Aura wrote:
Arrow17 wrote:
1) Multi-classing: This you are mostly correct on. However, not every caster wants to multiclass so I don't feel this is a win-win. Additionally, since you cannot reach the apex of 9th level spells it technically does harm your spell progression at its apex.

The implication of multiclassing was from caster, meaning a caster base. Martials multiclassing a caster don't get spells as fast, true, but they still have a martial base meaning they're going to be more of the 2/3-type caster in the first place. As for caster/caster multiclass, the current version is significantly stronger at any level than the old Mystic Theurge (except maybe at really high levels?)

Arrow17 wrote:
2)That part is mostly true unless you are playing a dwarven sorcerer or a goblin cleric.

"Almost" any ancestry. Now it's only flaws that block maxed stats instead of simply lacking a bonus.

Arrow17 wrote:
3) With the tight math you actually cripple yourself a great deal as a caster if you refuse to pump your primary stat since your save dc's fall behind. With the playtest monsters I have seen most easily make saves and its very hard to get them to crit fail with main caster stats pumped to 18 at first level and only getting another increase at 10th.

I agree, the tight math makes optimization basically mandatory.

Arrow17 wrote:
4) Cantrips are terrible in this edition too. They take two actions, have incredibly short range and do feeble damage. When you still shoot once with your crossbow then cast a cantrip in a round you are NOT solving the crossbow toting wizard issue.

You're absolutely right about the range, but in a wizard's hands the crossbow is weaker except at very low levels, unless you put a lot of enchantments on it. Meanwhile, the cantrips target TAC (or a save, like Electric Arc, which hits two at once).

Arrow17 wrote:
5) Powers are not upgraded from PF1 equivalents. Angelic halo is a joke. Magic dart from the evocation school is still the wimpy 1d4
...

1) Still does not invalidate my point about spell progression. Granted it won't be much of an issue since games tend not to last to 20th. On flip side you have to wait four levels to gain your character concept

2)Its still a block on maxing out your main stat. So far in the playtest its much more crippling to be a caster without an 18 in your primary stat for saves than a fighter without an 18 strength since the fighter gets weapon mastery MUCH faster than casters gaining save DC mastery

3) Glad we agree

4) Glad we agree

5) Glad we agree

6) Glad we agree

7) You definitely seem to be in the minority opinion of sorcerers here. The majority of posts I have read about the sorcerer have a great deal of antipathy towards the class as it is presently listed.

8) Paralyzed for 1 round on a failed save? Slowed 1 on a success which will just be a throw away action for most monsters? The spell is beyond nerfed and you would be foolish to take it with how monster saves are set up in this game.

9) Fireball is completely NERFED! Maybe you are unfamiliar with PF1 but let me give you an example. In PF1 Fireball starts at 5D6 and scales up to 10D6 without requiring you to use a 5th level slot. If you choose to use metamagic feat to empower it by preparing it as a 5th level slot you gain 5D6 additional damage. So now in PF2 I lost 5D6 damage for using a 5th level slot. Its a huge nerf.

10) I disagree with you assessment here. You should GAIN more spell slots if spells are being nerfed this hard in this edition. The only way to lose spell slots is if spells GAIN in power. I am not sure if you are familiar with D&D Basic but look at the power of the sleep spell there and compare it to the sleep spell in each successive edition of D&D and Pathfinder. The spell has been completely nerfed in power as most spells have been. Consequently, magic users have GAINED more spell slots and crafting scrolls, potions, wands, etc. has become easier with each successive edition of the game as each edition has weakened the power of spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Arrow17 wrote:
Your points about casters being balanced are not solid. I will offer my reasoning on a point by point basis.[

I think you missed my point. I didn't say casters were balanced. I even said they may have gotten weaker on average. I said their floor had been raised. That means the weakest PF2 casters are stronger than the weakest PF1 casters.

And that's just undeniably true. Heck, lets just consider ability scores. You may want optimized ability spellcasting modifiers in PF2, and you may find monsters have better odds at success. (I actually haven't seen that in the actual encounter design so far, but let's go with it.) But you wanted that maxed spellcasting mod in PF1 as well. Not only did it affect your save DCs, it affected how many spells per day you got. Heck, it could even prevent you from casting spells of a certain level at all.

In PF1, a battle cleric that didn't put enough into wisdom NEEDED to get a headband to upgrade it later or they would not be able to use higher level spells at all. In PF2, a 10 wisdom goblin cleric is actually pretty OK if they pick the right buff spells.

That is what it means to raise the floor. It doesn't matter if casters are weaker overall. The floor is still raised. It is harder to build a bad caster.

James014Aura responded to a lot of this individual stuff, and I don't really see a reason to since I don't think it has much to do with what I was asserting.

No, a 10 wisdom cleric is at a huge disadvantage in PF2 as Wisdom effects your save dc's and effects of spells such as heal, spiritual weapon,etc. If you don't think monster saves are out of line try casting burning hands at goblins. Try using spells against the manticore in the second test adventure that requires saves. The manticore easily makes them. I could pick apart monsters at each level that have outrageous saves. The designers have even acknowledged this in response to the various TPK threads that the monsters are overpowered compared to their level.

It does matter if the basement floor has been raised if casters are weaker overall. Who cares if you raise the floor for people making 10 Wisdom clerics? Would you be pleased if fighters lost damage capabilities as long as people could create 10 strength fighters that could effectively hit as often & for as much damage as 18 strength fighters?

Don't blame low stats for not being able to cast the highest level spells. You could easily hand wave the rule in PF1 and it would work fine since the lower save dc's make the high level spells far less lethal. The high stat requirements for casters are to promote diversity so you don't have a full party of 18 Dex, 18 Con individuals because it would be best to put stat bumps in stats that directly affect survivability if save dc's or bonus spells are not a consideration

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My PCs for Pale Mountain's Shadow included a goblin druid with Wis 10. He was specc'd for wildshape melee, but worked as that just fine.


Yeah, using spells without saves works fine in either edition. The difference is that in PF1 dumping your casting stat means you get less spells per day, and in 2E you don't.

And try using will saves against gnolls or hyenas in part 2. Attacking boss monsters (Manticore) or monsters in general in their strongest save (goblin reflex) has never been a great strategy.

And I think at the point where you say "I can just house rule PF1" you are rather conceding the point.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:

What do you disagree with?

I totally agree with what you said, hence I used the word "Lite", 5th Ed is way lighter than 3rd Ed/PF.

Oh! My bad, I misinterpreted your statement as to say 5E played like 3E with just a "lite" touch.

In other news...

I am going to have to get used to the whole Heightened thing myself. I never had a problem with spells that scaled with class level.. including duration and range. I am not quite sure how I feel about this particular change. On the surface, I think I understand what their intent is (simplification, less maths?). As a GM (always in PF), I won't notice is quite as much, but it appears to me that having to upgrade through using increased spell slot use hurts the spells compared to that +1d6 per level with a cap, despite the small (1d6) improvement initially.

That said, if they balanced spells out overall so that some spells were a little less dominate and others were improved to be more functional, I will be good with the change.

So while fireball is now just 6d6, improving with Heightened Levels, that feels okay to me. Still a powerful spell. Heroism, however, feels severely nerfed (+1 for 10 minutes in a system where bonuses come quicker, with a high cost to spell up). Was there evidence that it was too powerful in PF1 such that it needed a dramatic reduction in use?

Etc.

I'll leave deeper analysis to players who invest much more time than I will in examining each spell's functionality, but there still appears to me to be the haves and the have-nots amongst spell lists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

What do you disagree with?

I totally agree with what you said, hence I used the word "Lite", 5th Ed is way lighter than 3rd Ed/PF.

Oh! My bad, I misinterpreted your statement as to say 5E played like 3E with just a "lite" touch.

In other news...

I am going to have to get used to the whole Heightened thing myself. I never had a problem with spells that scaled with class level.. including duration and range. I am not quite sure how I feel about this particular change. On the surface, I think I understand what their intent is (simplification, less maths?). As a GM (always in PF), I won't notice is quite as much, but it appears to me that having to upgrade through using increased spell slot use hurts the spells compared to that +1d6 per level with a cap, despite the small (1d6) improvement initially.

That said, if they balanced spells out overall so that some spells were a little less dominate and others were improved to be more functional, I will be good with the change.

So while fireball is now just 6d6, improving with Heightened Levels, that feels okay to me. Still a powerful spell. Heroism, however, feels severely nerfed (+1 for 10 minutes in a system where bonuses come quicker, with a high cost to spell up). Was there evidence that it was too powerful in PF1 such that it needed a dramatic reduction in use?

Etc.

I'll leave deeper analysis to players who invest much more time than I will in examining each spell's functionality, but there still appears to me to be the haves and the have-nots amongst spell lists.

While I never had a huge problem with Caster level as a player, I can't say the same for all the folks I GM for.

Control spells still scale pretty well though, since their DC stays maxed.

Blasting spells took this hit the hardest, I think. Though they can also benefit from the increased DC, making enemies critically fail more often. (And contrary to popular opinion, you will fight hordes of low level enemies at higher levels.) Still, I reckon for blasts you are better off using your top tier spellslots, cantrips, and powers for blasts and your low level stuff for utility and control. Unless you're a sorcerer and can spontaneous heighten for whatever level of damage is lost appropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
A Previous Poster wrote:
Most players

Can we please stop talking about "most players" in these threads? Not a single one of us has any idea about what "most players" think about anything in this playtest. The only people who have anything close to that data are working for Paizo, and they are both a) keeping the data fairly close to their chests and b) still are working with a self-selected and therefore biased sample.

The rest of us are substituting anecdotes for data and perceptual biases for objective observation.

We'll get a lot more done more constructively if we stick to what we ourselves think and/or have experienced.

Thanks very much for this clarification, it has to be said. I always wondered if the "most players" vocal minority just confuses "most" with "me".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the announcement of the new edition, i was thinking, GREAT! Now they can remove the bonds and issues brought over from 3.5, they can really push and dig deep to make something all their own, something brand new to the market, something that would make a statement.

I ordered the playtest both PDF & HB and try to pay no attention to the forums because i knew if something truly new and different and amazing was going to be created for the market of today 2018 and say this is the future of interactive story telling it was going to piss of lots of people.

You just cant get away from that. Paizo has a large market and following and i totally understand why they wouldn't take that risk, and i am sad they didn't, while i am sure others are very happy that they didn't try something like that.

There are many other RPG's out their experimenting with traditions of interactive storytelling.

I have been working through the playtest trying to run Doomsday dawn with 4 players, from our 6 players of our PF1 campaign(we are in the last book of Mummys mask). I have a 3 player 5e group, and we are in the middle of Temple of elemental evil.

After reviewing the playtest materiel none of them were interested and i had to sell them on trying it out. 4 agreed (PF1 players), and after many hours on character creation and spending hours flipping pages in the playtest HB on the toilet, we got up and going for Doomsday. Its not going well, we are trying to finish somberhall.

Maybe i am pushing too fast right now, and should just wait, my enthusiasm is considerable less now that we have sat down with it, than when i heard the announcement, and i am totally "onboard" with realizing, maybe this direction paizo is going is not for me our my players.

The PF1 players are talking about switching to 5e because they want to run Dragon Heist after Mummys Mask, I am trying to push a run through the new formatted Curse of Crimson Throne, that way i have time to get Dragon Heist set up.

AG

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Dear Paizo All Messageboards

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