Our group is also bowing out of the playtest - and reasons why


General Discussion

301 to 350 of 378 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAuldGrump wrote:

The ones posting are the ones dedicated to making THIS system work, not the ones that think that THIS system will end in broken glass, tears, and spilled scotch.

Most people dropping out of the playtest AREN'T posting.

This is true, I am completely revolted by the core rulebook and the direction the game is going, and know no one else with even slight interest after looking at the actual rules. I have abstained posting on these boards until now (I have a few posts on reddit, basically all saying no thanks PF 2e). I feel like the ship has sailed on this one and I am gonna stay here with PF1, D&D5e, AD&D 2e, and LotFP as my favored d&d type games.

+ level to everything is the one thing I hated the most about 4e (honestly its not too bad of a system over all), and the PF2 rules are just a chore to read and I can't deal with the abstract nature of all the conditions and terms vomited throughout the book. I mean it just sucks to read. I have DMnd and played in many different systems, and read many more rulebooks that I haven't played. I have partook in a few playtests, and this is the first book I have ever came across that just completely turns me off. I struggled with Shadowrun rules, but that game is cool as hell, PF2e just sucks all around.

This will probably be my only post here, just felt like throwing out my opinion somewhere on these boards. I want it to be known that many of us are not active in the community because we have no interest in the direction this game is going and can't be bothered to participate in something we find distasteful.

Thanks for reading.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheAuldGrump wrote:

The ones posting are the ones dedicated to making THIS system work, not the ones that think that THIS system will end in broken glass, tears, and spilled scotch.

Most people dropping out of the playtest AREN'T posting.

That's been the case for my group.

Sort of.

The thing is, I couldn't convince them to even participate in the playtest in the first place. I tried; I mentioned the previews being put forth, and some of the things that were showcased (such as the three-action system) got a good response from them. But despite that, no one but me so much as bothered to download the PDFs. The idea of actually participating in the playtest was completely dead on arrival. As for Pathfinder Second Edition itself, the group was unanimous: when the finished product came out, they wouldn't be converting over.

I eventually did some informal polling on this (i.e. I asked them why they were so uninterested), and the answer I got was that they simply didn't find the prospect of converting worthwhile.

As far as they were concerned, Pathfinder 1E was doing just fine; any warts that the system had (i.e. stuff that was complex, confusing, or otherwise a drag to deal with) were things that they'd long since made peace with, and had ceased to bother them. So the very premise that made converting, or even participating in the playtest, seem like a worthwhile activity wasn't there.

Moreover, they felt that there were numerous and substantial drawbacks to doing so. They didn't like the fact that they'd need to wait years until enough books came out to give them the range of options that Pathfinder 1E has now, they didn't like the prospect of learning a new rule system in order to do what they were already doing now, and they didn't like the fact that they'd need to spend (quite possibly a lot) more money to buy the books. The prospect of some things possibly being slightly better was nowhere near enough to change their minds on this. Throw in the fact some of what they heard about the playtest didn't go over well with them (e.g. resonance), and that was all it took to kill what little interest they had.

TheAuldGrump wrote:
PF2 is not just competing with a rejuvenated D&D - it is also competing with PF1.

That's how it was for our group, and PF1 won that competition without even trying.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
I eventually did some informal polling on this (i.e. I asked them why they were so uninterested), and the answer I got was that they simply didn't find the prospect of converting worthwhile.

PF 1e was pitched originally as a system for people who didn't want to do a big system conversion away from 3.5. I don't envy the job Paizo now has of trying to sell those people on the very thing they were avoiding in the first place.

Generally speaking, we're more middle of the road in my group. We're still testing and we had fun when playing. People generally like some things, dislike some things, but like the direction the updates are going. I think if you polled people on switching right now, you would get a mixed reaction. But we realize the game we have right now isn't what we will have in a year.

That said, character creation is giving us issues. It takes us a very long time, and that isn't getting better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tridus wrote:


That said, character creation is giving us issues. It takes us a very long time, and that isn't getting better.

I mean it does get better... We are on chapter 4 and so far every single time we are getting faster and faster. Which considering that every time we make a new character we are starting from scratch on even higher level characters that's a pretty big plus. I can pretty much reliably make a level 1 character in 10 minutes now. I don't think I can do that in 1e unless it's a really simple character concept like "fighter with a greatsword".

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll just pop in here to post that my group will finish the playtest, but are still annoyed that I suspended all of our PF1 and SF games in the meantime.

However, we are leaning towards not adopting the rules unless they get a MAJOR overhaul; for many of the reasons previously mentioned here.

I will say that for both PC and monsters, spells are a nonfactor for us. I only see failed saves on either side maybe 10% of the time. Martial damage on the other hand is much more effective. As a person who prefers to play casters; this makes me sad.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

You can add me and mine to the list of people skipping out on the playtest, after Pale Mountain which we finished yesterday. The players just plain did not like it.

There were aspects that people liked, such as the three-action economy, but they were outweighed by a number of niggling things, plus a few big ones like:

* Offensive magic being nerfed to the ground.
* Clerics being near-mandatory for healing (a bard did not really fill the healer role well).
* Persistent damage being super-hard to get rid of. By FAR the most dangerous thing the PCs fought in the module was a creature that inflicted a moderate amount of persistent damage.
* Treat Wounds might fulfill the role of healing people up between fights, but it's boring as the Nine Hells. Take the human 4th level fighter with a Con bonus of +1 that I had in my party - that's 52 hp, with each Treat Wounds check healing 4 hp. And the only challenge is seeing how many rolls you can get off before you roll a 1. It would be much better to have some resource you could spend to heal up on a short rest - whether that's handled with Healing Surges/Recoveries as in 4e/13th Age, Hit Dice as in 5e, or Resolve points as in Starfinder.

I guess we'll take a new look at it in August, but right now it does not look like we're likely to use Pathfinder 2 as a more rules-heavy game when we're in the mood for that.

Oh well. That leaves me more time to get my Eberron campaign up and running, I guess.


Dire Ursus wrote:
Tridus wrote:


That said, character creation is giving us issues. It takes us a very long time, and that isn't getting better.
I mean it does get better... We are on chapter 4 and so far every single time we are getting faster and faster. Which considering that every time we make a new character we are starting from scratch on even higher level characters that's a pretty big plus. I can pretty much reliably make a level 1 character in 10 minutes now. I don't think I can do that in 1e unless it's a really simple character concept like "fighter with a greatsword".

Yeah, I think if I had made the same level character it would have been faster. But I had made a level 4, then made a level 7. The extra levels, and the resulting extra work of picking out more items to fit into item levels, more powers, more spells, more etc, is what slowed it back down.

Having done it a few times now, level 1 tends to zip by fairly efficiently. It's tacking on a few levels at once afterward that takes a while. That will likely be less of an issue in regular play because you're generally playing a character from low level to higher level rather than starting at high level.

That said, there's definitely things that could be done to simplify it some. The item situation is the one I"m picking on at the moment because that took me way longer than it would have in 1e where I'd just have a pile of gold to spend.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
That said, there's definitely things that could be done to simplify it some. The item situation is the one I"m picking on at the moment because that took me way longer than it would have in 1e where I'd just have a pile of gold to spend.

Interestingly enough, I find it a lot easier than 1E. My main reason being: instead of having to search through the list of every single item I can afford and figure out if it's good for me or not, and how much that'll take out of my budget, I pick the best item for me out of a list.

I think part of why it might feel harder right now is due to a higher level of familiarity with what items are good in 1E, and unfamiliarity with what the items do in the Playtest.


Cyouni wrote:
Tridus wrote:
That said, there's definitely things that could be done to simplify it some. The item situation is the one I"m picking on at the moment because that took me way longer than it would have in 1e where I'd just have a pile of gold to spend.

Interestingly enough, I find it a lot easier than 1E. My main reason being: instead of having to search through the list of every single item I can afford and figure out if it's good for me or not, and how much that'll take out of my budget, I pick the best item for me out of a list.

I think part of why it might feel harder right now is due to a higher level of familiarity with what items are good in 1E, and unfamiliarity with what the items do in the Playtest.

That is a factor, absolutely. But I didn't find it easier.

I have certain items I want. In 1e, I start at the top and buy what I can until I run out. In the playtest, I wound up trying to figure out how to fit as many as I could into the avaiable item level slots and then what I could buy with the gp left over. That was actually what made it take so long.

If I had just looked at the level 5 list and said "oh I'll take X and Y" in isolation, it would have been fine. But I took something at one level, which caused me to rethink something at another level and if I could squeeze in a differnet thing to do a similar purpose... you see where this goes. I called it "item Tetris" for a reason, because it was trying to fit as much as I could into the given slots.

Perhaps I'm unique in that and nobody else is having issues with it. That would be entirely fair, if so. But for me, simply having currency and being able to go down the list would have gone a lot faster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder what the end product will look like. There are some that love the playtest and some that hate it.

I personally will pick another game if magic remains nerfed to the ground.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

I've always been in the "magic is way too strong" camp, but I only felt that relative to martials. Give me anime-level martials and 1E-level casters. I love the idea of a barbarian cutting the air so hard he rips open a portal at level 20.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one thing to keep in mind is the goal to me seems to be to make skills just as important as magic. the line is that the spell can only be used once but the skill can go on as much as you need so thats th tricky part to balance out. In pf1 to many skills were overshadowed and made pointless by spells so non spell casters lacked to much narrative power. Now what I think is some skill feats still need improved and worked on but if they can all end up like cat fall I'd be happy. (falling any distance without damage is pretty legendary.)

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who plays primarily rogues, and rogue-like characters, I never felt magic was too overpowered. Magic is a limited resource, while powerful, it is also limited. A martial character can stab, chop, and bludgeon people all day long...a caster only has a few spells per day of any given level.

There are plenty of counters to spell casters in PF1, I never understood people complaining about how OP magic was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It was and was not limited. You could spend money on scrolls wands staffs etc and practically never run out of spells that could cancel out skills.

There is plenty of threads out there that can explain it pretty well actually I never agreed with it but I understood what they were saying.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think one thing to keep in mind is the goal to me seems to be to make skills just as important as magic. the line is that the spell can only be used once but the skill can go on as much as you need so thats th tricky part to balance out. In pf1 to many skills were overshadowed and made pointless by spells so non spell casters lacked to much narrative power. Now what I think is some skill feats still need improved and worked on but if they can all end up like cat fall I'd be happy. (falling any distance without damage is pretty legendary.)

I agree with you. That's my favorite legendary skill. I don't think the medicine one comes even close. Sure, curing blindness in real life in an hour would be amazing, but we have magic that can do it in seconds at a much earlier level. Why not start there at expert or master and at legendary it can be used in combat reliably. THAT feels legendary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main problem I see with first aid right now is you have to have some limit on it and its hard to logically limit it without adding a lot of book keeping. I keep trying to think of a way that doesn't involve limits per day. Paizo went with the as soon as you crit fail your done which is probably not enough and it making people complain about the DCs and it scaleing. (I'm sure your all familiar with the arguement by now). I'm not sure what would be a good logical limiter that doesn't make first aid just flat out better then spells. at least out of combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I did think magic was too powerful in pf1e. I just think it's possible to go too far with reduction of power.

Starfinder had a system where magic was balanced with martials and I thought that it was a pretty large reduction of power from pf1e. Pf2e seems like an even bigger reduction of power than Starfinder.

To be honest our group prefers Pathfinder over Starfinder. So you could say that we are not the target audience for pf2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also keep in mind a few design goals to where to remove rocket tag at high levels and really all classes are kind of nerfed at last in terms of raw damage, unfailable saves and huge to hit numbers.

Spells are the worst about rocket tag especially the later in levels it gets. Throw out a simple save or combat over spell and some spells don't even have the save part.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I did read a post that a playtest GM says his group after some playing, will only play martials and clerics. Players gravitate to what they perceive as the best classes. If this happens, the game will suffer for it; and probably won't last.

I pretty much only played casters or hybrid casters in pathfinder. In starfinder, I played a soldier.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well if that is the case then fortunately there is still plenty of time to buff some spells.

And it is possible that it is just never going to be where you want it and you might have to stick with PF1 heck my first DM still plays 1st edition D&D it was perfect for him and he has no desire to ever update. Nothing wrong with that. I personally want to see some of the issues delt with in this edition like high level rocket tag and un-balanced feats and archetypes to name a few. I also look forward to the skill system getting refined a bit more and it being realavent and actually fun to use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The main problem I see with first aid right now is you have to have some limit on it and its hard to logically limit it without adding a lot of book keeping. I keep trying to think of a way that doesn't involve limits per day. Paizo went with the as soon as you crit fail your done which is probably not enough and it making people complain about the DCs and it scaleing. (I'm sure your all familiar with the arguement by now). I'm not sure what would be a good logical limiter that doesn't make first aid just flat out better then spells. at least out of combat.

I've thought about this a lot and I don't think that it's a problem if specific skills become better than some magic at legendary level. At this level, magic-users have 8th(?) level spells and can do insane things. Being able to replicate 1 or 2 lower-level spells infinitely doesn't seem all that upsetting. At worst it would mean that sorcerers and bards would need to change out a spell or two (which is much easier to do this edition). Every other caster has means of changing up their spells on a regular basis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The main problem I see with first aid right now is you have to have some limit on it and its hard to logically limit it without adding a lot of book keeping. I keep trying to think of a way that doesn't involve limits per day. Paizo went with the as soon as you crit fail your done which is probably not enough and it making people complain about the DCs and it scaleing. (I'm sure your all familiar with the arguement by now). I'm not sure what would be a good logical limiter that doesn't make first aid just flat out better then spells. at least out of combat.
I've thought about this a lot and I don't think that it's a problem if specific skills become better than some magic at legendary level. At this level, magic-users have 8th(?) level spells and can do insane things. Being able to replicate 1 or 2 lower-level spells infinitely doesn't seem all that upsetting. At worst it would mean that sorcerers and bards would need to change out a spell or two (which is much easier to do this edition). Every other caster has means of changing up their spells on a regular basis.

I haven't got to test high levels yet but that is good to hear anyways.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

Magic in PF1 is way too strong, but PF2 is an overreaction to that. Casters have fewer spell slots, spells no longer auto-scale, and many spells do less now than they did before (e.g. hideous laughter which used to take out a foe for a number of rounds but now only mildly inconveniences them most of the time and needs a critical failure to incapacitate for a single round), and monsters are more likely to save successfully.

Again, compare this to 5e, which did many of the same things but to a lesser degree - I think the only one they didn't do was to still let save-or-suck spells do their thing, albeit with the possibility of breaking out of the spell in later rounds (either via built-in additional saves, or via Concentration mechanics). But 5e compensated with relatively powerful cantrips (at least they feel more powerful than in PF2), and by switching to neo-Vancian casting instead of sticking with Vancian.

I have played both bards, a cleric, a druid, and a wizard in 5e. In each case, I felt powerful, though in most cases not to the point where I won encounters by myself (closest was an evoker wizard in one fight where we ran into about 15 hobgoblins, and they got to taste a fireball). The impression I got from my players who played casters in the playtest so far have not been that they felt powerful or useful (other than the healbot cleric, that is).


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

Some of the magic in PF1E was too strong, but IMO if those specific spells would have been targeted for necessary nerfs that and martials would have received buffs to their high-level capacities, that would have been enough to balance out the game. Monsters would have to be adjusted upwards to compensate.

But the devs pretty clearly prefer a more low-powered game overall. Not a direction I am interested in.


Well power scales are really only realavent in two direction. power compared to challenges and power compared to other characters. If all characters are equal in power to each other and the monsters are also reduced in power then for all practical purposes there is no difference aside from the aesthetics of high numbers. Now If monsters are to strong (which I guess they were they all received a -2 right?) then that can be addressed and if classes aren't balanced with each other then that can be addressed as well. so If wizards are legitimately the weakest class because of there spells then hopefully that will be teased out in the play test numbers can then be adjusted. Great thing about numbers is there easy to add and subtract.

The only other option would be the scale of powers say the difference from a character being able to teleport 1 mile and teleport anywhere or a character able to fall a short distance and survive or a character that can fall any distance and not take damage. A lot of this involves getting spells, skills, and skill feats right.


I'm not going to respond to the perceived motive part since I haven't read any posts from a developer about that specific matter.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

There were always three camps on the C/MD threads. The people who wanted more equality of usefulness or outcome between casters and martials; the people who wanted magic to be more powerful than !magic; and the people who insisted that it didn't matter how powerful characters were relative to each other. The last groups is of course absent from this sort of discussion, as it doesn't matter to them how powerful a particular class is, but they're hardly non-existent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*
There were always three camps on the C/MD threads. The people who wanted more equality of usefulness or outcome between casters and martials; the people who wanted magic to be more powerful than !magic; and the people who insisted that it didn't matter how powerful characters were relative to each other. The last groups is of course absent from this sort of discussion, as it doesn't matter to them how powerful a particular class is, but they're hardly non-existent.

And the people who want more equality are themselves a spectrum between "nerf casters to oblivion" and "buff martials to infinity".


So sort of camps and then tribes within the camps eh?

Silver Crusade

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

People who think that PF1 casters were fine will have PF1.

People who think that PF1 casters were out of their line will have PF2.

It's just like people who prefer magic item marts and crafting have 3.5/PF1/PF2 while folks who are after rare magic items handed out by the GM/adventure have 1e/2e/5e.

No game will ever satisfy every one. And sometimes you have to accept the fact that you're the inevitable collateral damage of an edition change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People who want martials to be OP slavering killing machines with 15 attacks in a round and also like em hairy will have werewolf the apocalypse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

hey now I prefer Werewolf the Forsaken myself *nods* Anyways I just want to throw in my two cents and say that what I'm most concerned about is the direction that Multiclassing is taking. I've never been one to min max or munchkinize, but I've also never been one to play a straight class... I like hybridizing even if some people might call it bad (like my Monk of Many Styles/Brawler Shield Champ), and the way that the current Multiclassing is headed Actively hurts my ability to easily Pick Class Feats from both classes (like my Rogue/Alchemist from 1E) and from what I'm seeing would keep me from being able to choose class archetypes from the second class (like the aforementioned Monk/Brawler).

These are Things that Actively affect my want to play in 2E and along with worry about the backloading of racial abilities, factually gave me a panic attack tonight. I don't care if anyone picks apart what I'm saying in any way, or just dismisses me completely it doesn't matter because I needed to say my peace... For now I'm just going to try to forget about 2E and keep on keeping on with 1E & SF. x.x

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interestingly the problems my group faces are mostly related to adventures and enemy stats, so I am still optimistic that things can be better.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

People who think that PF1 casters were fine will have PF1.

People who think that PF1 casters were out of their line will have PF2.

It's just like people who prefer magic item marts and crafting have 3.5/PF1/PF2 while folks who are after rare magic items handed out by the GM/adventure have 1e/2e/5e.

No game will ever satisfy every one. And sometimes you have to accept the fact that you're the inevitable collateral damage of an edition change.

Or sometimes, you have take a stand and attempt to convince the design team that it's going in exactly the wrong direction.


Dracala wrote:

hey now I prefer Werewolf the Forsaken myself *nods* Anyways I just want to throw in my two cents and say that what I'm most concerned about is the direction that Multiclassing is taking. I've never been one to min max or munchkinize, but I've also never been one to play a straight class... I like hybridizing even if some people might call it bad (like my Monk of Many Styles/Brawler Shield Champ), and the way that the current Multiclassing is headed Actively hurts my ability to easily Pick Class Feats from both classes (like my Rogue/Alchemist from 1E) and from what I'm seeing would keep me from being able to choose class archetypes from the second class (like the aforementioned Monk/Brawler).

These are Things that Actively affect my want to play in 2E and along with worry about the backloading of racial abilities, factually gave me a panic attack tonight. I don't care if anyone picks apart what I'm saying in any way, or just dismisses me completely... But this honestly hurt me on a physical level, so for now I'm just going to try to forget about 2E and buy up as much of 1E & SF as I can. x.x

Multi-classing is in an odd place right now. I think I have a few things myself I want altered but Its later on my list. I feel like the regular classes all need to work on there own before moving on to multi-classing rules. not to mention skills and feats first as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

People who think that PF1 casters were fine will have PF1.

People who think that PF1 casters were out of their line will have PF2.

It's just like people who prefer magic item marts and crafting have 3.5/PF1/PF2 while folks who are after rare magic items handed out by the GM/adventure have 1e/2e/5e.

No game will ever satisfy every one. And sometimes you have to accept the fact that you're the inevitable collateral damage of an edition change.

Or sometimes, you have take a stand and attempt to convince the design team that it's going in exactly the wrong direction.

And sometimes whats wrong for you is right for others. Its all give and take.


Data Lore wrote:

Vic:

I have run parts of the playtest for 3 groups of random people I met on Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds forums.

Of the 12 people in those groups, only 5 had played PF1 in the past (I think 2 recently). Most have been 5e players.

...and therefore...?


Vidmaster7 wrote:
And sometimes whats wrong for you is right for others. Its all give and take.

True, but if they do what is right for me, that is more important than if they do things right for a random person on the internet whose ideas I hate. Selfish, yes, but realistic. Obviously, they should cater to the biggest financial market.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
And sometimes whats wrong for you is right for others. Its all give and take.
True, but if they do what is right for me, that is more important than if they do things right for a random person on the internet whose ideas I hate. Selfish, yes, but realistic. Obviously, they should cater to the biggest financial market.

Oh I absolutely think they should do what make them the most money. Even if that isn't what I want. I'll get my goods elsewhere. I'm chill.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

You don't hear from people that are happy. Tons of people were perfectly content with magic in 1e. It wouldn't have stuck around for so long if everyone disliked it (and 3.5 before it).

Now we're hearing from those people because magic in the playtest is only vaguely recognizable as being from the same game, and that's more due to the annoyances like morning preparation than it is from the power level.

They overnerfed so hard that it's now going to take work to undo some of it. Frankly, the only reason I can even tolerate playing a caster in the playtest is because Channel singlehandidly makes up for it.


Now I'm actually curious this is not a trick or a game. Could you explain to me the issue you reference about morning preparation and why it is giving you such a hard time?


I guess, In the end, Magic is a tough one.

No one, it seems, will be happy with how it's handled.


I think you are right vic.

I'm going to look through the spells and see If I can figure out the issue myself so I can relate because no one wants to give me specifics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Now I'm actually curious this is not a trick or a game. Could you explain to me the issue you reference about morning preparation and why it is giving you such a hard time?

Vanican casting, or specifically the need to fill all your spell slots at the start of the day. When you have a pretty good idea of what you will be encountering, that isn't so bad, although it tends to put off a lot of players due to the complexity. That's why 5e took a step away from it: ease of play.

The justification for dealing with with that antiquated system in 1e was how powerful those spellcasters were, so it was the price to be paid for it. And okay, that worked. If you got it wrong you suffered but if you got it right you could do crazy awesome things.

2e doesn't have that justification because most of the spells are frankly not better than making a Fighter and hitting things with a magic sword. So if you get it right, you're roughly on par with everyone else until you run out of spells. If you get it wrong, you're strictly inferior to everyone else in the party. You then get far fewer spells on top of that, eliminating a lot of the margin for error.

That's exactly what happened to me when we did Sombrefell Hall the other day. I had to make my spell list for it with absolutely no idea whatsoever of what we'd be encountering. There was stuff that proved not useful as a result, and stuff I absolutely would have taken that now wasn't available, and since 2e lacks the 1e option to leave slots empty and prepare them later, I couldn't have done that old trick to compensate.

It worked out okay, but only because Channel is so effective. My actual spell slots were largely not terribly effective and ran out quickly. And frankly, without the payoff, the boatload of extra effort spell preparation and list management takes simply isn't worth it when "I hit it with my sword" is just as good, requires none of that, and never runs out.

If they're going to stick with spells being as weak and limited as they are now, they need to relax on the extra effort players are expected to put in to use them. 5e can serve as an example here. Otherwise, I don't feel there's a whole lot of value in tying up everyone's time at the table trying to figure out my spell list every day. I'll just grab a sword instead.


Ah, adopting neo-Vanc... I mean, Arcanist style preparations would make it more comfortable, yes.

301 to 350 of 378 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Our group is also bowing out of the playtest - and reasons why All Messageboards