What I'm Looking For in 2e


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Posting this mostly to get my thoughts out of my head, but if it sparks a good discussion, awesome. :)

So I've never met a system I didn't feel the need to houserule. It doesn't matter what 2e looks like in the end; I promise I will have at least one houserule for it and possibly more. I am somewhat infamous with a couple of my friends for having written two pages of houserules for RISUS.

For those unfamiliar with the system, that's half a page longer than the core rules.

That being the case, the biggest thing I'm looking for in 2e is that the core chassis is solid enough that I don't feel the need to rewrite the whole system (looking at you, Exalted). If things like bonus progression or chance of success are out of line with where I want them, it would be nice if it's not too hard to fix.

As it stands, that's actually something I am really liking about PF2e right now. The core chassis is solid, but more importantly it's really, really easy to tweak. If I don't like the chance of success on combat rolls being too low, I can just give all monsters a blanket -2 to everything. If I don't like the sharp different a couple levels make in power, I can house rule the automatic progression to 1/2 level instead of level. I've also never seen a system where automatic magic bonus progression is easier to house rule in.

With that said, my current concerns with the system mostly come down to features, rather than core mechanics. Some classes feel out of whack with each other (Alchemist is painfully underperforming mostly due to reliance on a resource that it doesn't want to spend; Cleric gets a bunch of free healing spells for seemingly no reason except to make Clerics the best healers by an order of magnitude; retributive strike is a class feature you want to not use), some feat options feel too obvious while others are too bland, etc.

Systems are easy to houserule, but going through every feat trying to decide on a balance point for it is much less fun.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I basically agree with everything.

While I believe that the core system could use some tweaking, the features seem to be the most pressing issue that needs fixing.

As of now, we have 2 types of features:

-Mandatory features that are extremely strong, for niche protection
-Optional features that are irrelevant, to minimize the extent to which a player can optimize their characters

The combination of these 2 design choices create a very limited building environment, that for me, and other people, just doesn't cut it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that niche protection and optimization minimization are bad things. The lack of those two things is probably biggest problem with 1e.

That's not to say that 2e hasn't gone too far; I think it has. But I do think some degree of each is needed, especially compared to 1e.

And for optimization minimization to work, you have to provide feats that, despite not being numerically powerful, are cool and exciting. That, I think, is the biggest problem with 2e right now.

But it is a good problem to have, in theory, because the number of available options will only increase over time.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you've got a good overall approach and I concur that house rules are a great way to make a game fit your goals.

Where we disagree is that so far I don't see PF2e as a strong chassis. My observations of my playtest group is that we're really struggling with it. In particular, the process of character generation is frustrating, lengthy, and doesn't result in interesting characters. Analysis paralysis is extremely common. Folks agonize over lots of meaningless Feats, few of which contribute to their character conception.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see feats as part of the core chassis. By core chassis I really mean the action economy, progression system, the raw mechanics that things like classes and feats build on.

So actually I think we agree, possibly. I definitely see "feats aren't interesting enough" as one of the major issues with the system at the moment. Which is a big issue for me, as I mentioned above, because they are the most time-consuming thing to adjudicate, house rule wise.


This is a very interesting problem, MaxAstro, so I'm going to ask you a question:

How do you make feats that "despite not being numerically powerful, are cool and exciting" within the framework of a system where most things (if not everything) are measured or expressed as numbers?


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Firstly, let's clarify that as "feats that don't just involve inflating numbers", which is closer to what I said. Because feats that just inflate numbers is how you get optimization creep.

Then, to give a few of my favorite feats from the playtest as examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

None of these feats push the envelope as far as the power level of a character of that level. However, they are all really cool. They are things that a player is going to get excited about being able to do, and they let a player expand or refine their character concept.

No one really gets excited, comparatively, about getting a +1 bonus to attack rolls, even if it is mechanically the superior option. Equally, no one is likely to get very excited about getting a small amount of elemental resistance that sucks slightly less if you happen to be fighting a dragon.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:


Then, to give a few of my favorite feats from the playtest as examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

Thank you for reminding me how happy high level rogues make me in this edition.

Anyways, I like the feat layout, but I'm not gonna argue against making more of them cool. I think that is a little bit lacking rn in places.
Like. I like the feats, but a lot of them aren't getting me as stupidly excited as say.
The weapons. God I love the main-gauche.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

None of these feats push the envelope as far as the power level of a character of that level. However, they are all really cool. They are things that a player is going to get excited about being able to do, and they let a player expand or refine their character concept

You have convinced me.

Then the problem seems to be that the current feats are restrictive rather than the opposite.

For example, it's quite disheartening that you need a feat to actually pickpocket someone even if you're already technically trained at thievery. It makes the feat feel like a tax rather than a cool new feature.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

None of these feats push the envelope as far as the power level of a character of that level. However, they are all really cool. They are things that a player is going to get excited about being able to do, and they let a player expand or refine their character concept

You have convinced me.

Then the problem seems to be that the current feats are restrictive rather than the opposite.

For example, it's quite disheartening that you need a feat to actually pickpocket someone even if you're already technically trained at thievery. It makes the feat feel like a tax rather than a cool new feature.

Yeah, I'm finding this one hard to justify. Would probably work better as a combined circ penalty and time reduction? Or becoming the quick identification of Stealing or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

None of these feats push the envelope as far as the power level of a character of that level. However, they are all really cool. They are things that a player is going to get excited about being able to do, and they let a player expand or refine their character concept

You have convinced me.

Then the problem seems to be that the current feats are restrictive rather than the opposite.

For example, it's quite disheartening that you need a feat to actually pickpocket someone even if you're already technically trained at thievery. It makes the feat feel like a tax rather than a cool new feature.

I agree. Pick pocket should just be a special use of thievery out of the box and then the feat should remove some of the other conditions. Like: it would be nice if the feat just gave you its "master" effect right away.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I agree on pickpocket, I do think some of the feeling of restrictiveness comes from coming from 1e.

I imagine to someone who had never played Pathfinder before, needing to spend a feat on being able to pick pockets might be less weird. After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

While I agree on pickpocket, I do think some of the feeling of restrictiveness comes from coming from 1e.

I imagine to someone who had never played Pathfinder before, needing to spend a feat on being able to pick pockets might be less weird. After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.

I buy that to a certain extent but when I think "thievery", I think of picking pockets before I think of disarming traps. With the tiered success system, you could even only have the picked pocket go unnoticed on a critical success and have the base success be that you get the item but you are seen taking it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.

Yes, but:

1) it's not something you should not be able to *attempt* without training

2) You are technically trained anyway so having to select the feat on top of that is extremely counter-intuitive


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

While I agree on pickpocket, I do think some of the feeling of restrictiveness comes from coming from 1e.

I imagine to someone who had never played Pathfinder before, needing to spend a feat on being able to pick pockets might be less weird. After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.

Like, I understand why it's a feat. But it's not an explanation that sounds good if I mentally pitch it to a player. So I'd rather it normally be something like a thievery check with a -2 to -4 circumstance penalty, and you must reasonably be able to access it in that time frame (so literal pockets and purses are OK, bottom of a troll's backpack is not).

For reference I'm coming from D&D 5e (perma GM) and Shadowrun 5 (filthy minmaxer), not PF. I have built and briefly played a PF1 character, but generally I've steered clear of 3.X, bar a short-lived go as a 3.5 high level player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Then, to give a few of my favorite feats from the playtest as examples: Catfall; the rogue feat that lets you sneak through walls; the barbarian feat that lets you breathe fire; the barbarian feat that lets you fly while raging; the monk feat that lets you walk across water.

None of these feats push the envelope as far as the power level of a character of that level. However, they are all really cool. They are things that a player is going to get excited about being able to do, and they let a player expand or refine their character concept.

No one really gets excited, comparatively, about getting a +1 bonus to attack rolls, even if it is mechanically the superior option. Equally, no one is likely to get very excited about getting a small amount of elemental resistance that sucks slightly less if you happen to be fighting a dragon.

*Holds up a sign that says More Cool Feats*

I think that's my biggest problem about some of the skill feats, like Legendary Climber or Legendary Swimmer. They're certainly effective at what they do, but I don't find them that cool.


MaxAstro wrote:


That being the case, the biggest thing I'm looking for in 2e is that the core chassis is solid enough that I don't feel the need to rewrite the whole system (looking at you, Exalted).

A bit off topic, but have you looked at the 3rd edition of Exalted? They did a lot to improve the chassis there.

And I absolutely agree with your overall goal - as long as you aren't playing PFS, this just needs to be good enough to start from rather than it being better to start from scratch.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

However I still crave for options that are fun in a pure gameplay sense.

My favorite "gameplay" feats from PF1 are Barroom Brawler, Lunge, Combat Patrol, Weapon Trick, Cornugon Smash, Street Style, Improved Spring Attack

Yes I want feats that give my character cool stuff to do fluff-wise but I also really, really want optional feats that enable new levels of tactical gameplay because... well, that's just what I like.

These are the kind of feats that make me feel like my character is actually my own. When I customize both fluff and gameplay, then I feel it's truly complete.

I'm ok if other people don't share this feeling.

I'm just pointing out something that I regard as great in PF1 and would like to see more in PF2


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Systems are easy to houserule, but going through every feat trying to decide on a balance point for it is much less fun.

Just because a GM can use house rulings to improve a sytem it doesn’t mean the system is fine, rather the fact that the playtest requires house rulings is problematic, if the game struggles to stand on its own then it needs work, this is a new system that new GM’s will take an interest in, it’s unreasonable to expect them to house rule and fix issues on the fly, I like the games skeleton so far but a lot of the meat struggles to stick.


MaxAstro wrote:

While I agree on pickpocket, I do think some of the feeling of restrictiveness comes from coming from 1e.

I imagine to someone who had never played Pathfinder before, needing to spend a feat on being able to pick pockets might be less weird. After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.

Deep down inside, I want to think the pickpocket feat comes from all those stories of players of CN rogues that always want to steal from party members.

Now they have to pay a feat and raise a red flag. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I very much agree. We need quite a lot more of such "vertical-growth" feats that give new & practical options.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Learning to pick locks before you learn to pick pockets seems to get it backwards to me. Mostly the same people are likely to learn both, but they're likely to learn pickpocketing earlier. Possibly much earlier.

New options are good, but feat-taxing skill uses needs to be done with some care IMO.


@Tezmick: Absolutely agree.

About Thievery and Pick Pocket. Like many other things in the Playtest it's at least partially about how things are names or rather misnamed. Having to get special training (in the form of a feat) to be a pickpocket wouldn't bother anyone as much if the thievery skill was called malefaction or whatever. Rogury isn't a word, right?
But if they want to stick with thievery, I'd be happier it it was simply a trained use of the skill and the feat just made you better at it.


Skulduggery could work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

However I still crave for options that are fun in a pure gameplay sense.

My favorite "gameplay" feats from PF1 are Barroom Brawler, Lunge, Combat Patrol, Weapon Trick, Cornugon Smash, Street Style, Improved Spring Attack

I would absolutely call all of those "cool" feats. I don't mean to say that feats shouldn't have awesome gameplay - quite the opposite. Feats should open up new gameplay options.

And feats that just give a numerical bonus can be cool, as long as they do so in a way that encourages the player to interact with the feat and opens up gameplay in some way. For example, Dodge is a boring feat, but Mobility is a cool feat. Dodge is typically considered mechanically superior, though.

Tezmick wrote:
Just because a GM can use house rulings to improve a sytem it doesn’t mean the system is fine, rather the fact that the playtest requires house rulings is problematic, if the game struggles to stand on its own then it needs work, this is a new system that new GM’s will take an interest in, it’s unreasonable to expect them to house rule and fix issues on the fly, I like the games skeleton so far but a lot of the meat struggles to stick.

I don't disagree, but in this thread I'm talking about what I want from PF2e, not what PF2e needs as a whole. :)

ereklich wrote:
A bit off topic, but have you looked at the 3rd edition of Exalted? They did a lot to improve the chassis there.

They did. I'm currently running 3e, actually. Unfortunately, I'm running it as a continuation of my original 2e game, in which my players... well, they broke the world. Then they rebuilt it with themselves as the new Incarna.

So I basically had to write an entirely new setting... and my house rule document hasn't gotten even slightly smaller. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

However I still crave for options that are fun in a pure gameplay sense.

My favorite "gameplay" feats from PF1 are Barroom Brawler, Lunge, Combat Patrol, Weapon Trick, Cornugon Smash, Street Style, Improved Spring Attack

Yes I want feats that give my character cool stuff to do fluff-wise but I also really, really want optional feats that enable new levels of tactical gameplay because... well, that's just what I like.

These are the kind of feats that make me feel like my character is actually my own. When I customize both fluff and gameplay, then I feel it's truly complete.

I'm ok if other people don't share this feeling.

I'm just pointing out something that I regard as great in PF1 and would like to see more in PF2

Agreed those feats are fun, but thing is... Well those seem like something that needs to come out later something like the advanced class guide. I mean this is the core rulebook after all, but i do feel like tactical play have grow a lot since PF1. My players are finally doing things like kicking doors, trying to flip tables to get cover, running and passing by enemies without the fear of getting AoOs. While in PF1 those options were always subpar to something else in their kit, now with 3 actions it feels a lot more tactical at my tables.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see any reason why the core rulebook can't be packed full of awesome feats that enable tactical gameplay.

I will be disappointed if it isn't, honestly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I don't see any reason why the core rulebook can't be packed full of awesome feats that enable tactical gameplay.

I will be disappointed if it isn't, honestly.

Pretty simple, because of space. I also wanted the core rulebook to be filled with races, classes, feats, combat feats, tactical feats. But with the amount of space they have and with it being the core rulebook they need to fill with several simple feats specially to make it amicable to new players.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do simple feats need to be boring?

Mobility is a simple and easy to understand feat, and it absolutely has an effect on tactical gameplay.

You are right that there is limited space. So let's get rid of the boring feats, design the system so that you don't need them, and keep the cool feats.


MaxAstro wrote:

Why do simple feats need to be boring?

Mobility is a simple and easy to understand feat, and it absolutely has an effect on tactical gameplay.

You are right that there is limited space. So let's get rid of the boring feats, design the system so that you don't need them, and keep the cool feats.

It's hard to get rid of boring feats, for example the bump your save feats. I consider them boring, but i find they really useful to avoid an critical failure. Something like cat-fall to me it's a really boring but needed feat for a guy who wants to a rogue. And it's hard to design a whole system without boring feats since people will think different feats are boring and opinions vary a lot.

But since this is the core i don't expect any really complex feats and want it to have more 'boring' ones.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as the "bump your save" bit: If there has to be boring feats, make them general feats. "Boring but useful" is not a bad role for general feats. But class feats and skill feats should be feats that players think "wow, this is awesome, I can't wait to use this", not "oh, I guess I need to take this to be mechanically optimal", when possible.

Of course not every feat will appeal to every player; I like Catfall, you don't. But some feats it's hard to argue will appeal to any player. Or worse, there are feats (like the elemental resistance against dragons one) that sound interesting on paper but are completely disappointing in play.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I'm with MaxAstro on this one, Catfall and similar feats really appeal to me. One of the things that I specifically like about it is that it has an effect that grows in power up to the point of being Legendary in a skill and the fact that the Legendary effect really feels Legendary.

I'd love to see more feats like that.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Catfall I think is the gold standard of what skill feats should be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Catfall I think is the gold standard of what skill feats should be.

I could agree with this for at least most skill feats requiring the 'Trained' level of proficiency. Outside of that I think that Expert and Master skill feats should focus on either enhancing the action economy on skills or unlocking specific types of actions for a skill. Legendary Skill Feats should offer convenience features and major bonuses.

Some examples..

Trained

  • Arcane Sense: Your study of magic allows you to sense its presence around you instinctively. You can cast level 1 detect magic as an innate spell at will. If you are a master of Arcana, it becomes level 3, and if you are legendary in Arcana, it becomes level 4.

    Expert

  • Magical Crafting: You can use the Craft activity to create magic items in addition to mundane ones.
  • Experienced Tracker: Tracking is second nature to you, and when necessary you can follow a trail without pause. You can Track while moving at full Speed by taking a –5 penalty to your Survival check. If you’re a master in Survival, you don’t take the –5 penalty. If you’re legendary in Survival, you no longer need to roll a new Survival check every hour when tracking, though you still need to roll whenever there are significant changes in the trail.

    Master

  • Foil Senses: You are adept at foiling creatures’ special senses and paranoid enough to take precautions against all of them at all times. Whenever you use the Hide or Sneak actions, you are always considered to be taking precautions against special senses.
  • Expeditious Search: You have a system that lets you search at great speed, finding details and secrets twice as quickly as others can. When searching, you take half as long as usual to search a given area. This also allows you to move twice as quickly while exploring and ensure you’ve searched an area before walking into it. If you’re legendary in Perception, you instead search areas four times as quickly.

    Legendary

  • Legendary Medic: You’ve invented new medical procedures or discovered ancient techniques that can achieve nearly miraculous results. Once per day for each target, you can spend 1 hour treating the target and attempt a Medicine check to remove a disease or the blinded, deafened, drained, or enervated condition. Use the DC of the disease or of the spell or effect that created the condition. If the effect’s source is an artifact, a creature above 20th level, or other similarly powerful source, increase the DC by 5.
  • Legendary Sneak: When you employ an exploration tactic other than sneaking, you also gain the benefits of the sneaking tactic unless you choose not to.
  • Legendary Survivalist: You can survive indefinitely without food or water and can endure severe and extreme cold and heat without taking damage from doing so.
  • Legendary Professional: Your fame in your chosen lore has spread throughout the lands (for instance, if you have Warfare Lore, you might be a legendary general or tactician). An NPC who succeeds at a DC 10 Society check to Recall Knowledge has heard of you, and when you Practice a Trade with that Lore skill, you can typically find higher-level tasks, as determined by the GM.


  • 3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

    With that said I do think some Legendary feats fall short of where they should be. Some examples being Legendary Swimmer and Climber. Swim and Climb speeds are nice but it would be great if those were the legendary effects for a scaling feat similar to Catfall and Experienced Tracker.


    General agreement on all points, yes.


    I dunno, i think my favorite skill feat is dubious knowledge. I would love if all skill feats were as entertaining or as weird as that one.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:
    So I've never met a system I didn't feel the need to houserule.

    This is one of the delights of tabletop. However - for me - I prefer introducing houserules because they help the system fit the theme of whatever setting I'm running. I have no interest in introducing a mountain of houserules to balance a game. I did when I was young...but I don't have time for that anymore.

    This is one reason I have no issue with a tightly balanced system - it's a simple matter to unbalance a game with a single rules change, much harder to go the other way.

    MaxAstro wrote:
    That being the case, the biggest thing I'm looking for in 2e is that the core chassis is solid enough

    Absolutely - it was clearly designed with modularity in mind and easily accommodates new content. It's like software with a good API, it's clear where everything connects and how it interacts with everything else.

    MaxAstro wrote:
    With that said, my current concerns with the system mostly come down to features, rather than core mechanics.

    Eh. I agree with you when it comes to Combat and Downtime...but I have some big concerns about "Exploration Mode". But these do tie back to features - I have no issue removing Exploration Mode and running my own thing, but the problem there is that would then impact a dozen Skill Feats. I like Skill Feats a lot. I don't want to invalidate them...or have to edit them.

    MaxAstro wrote:
    Some classes feel out of whack with each other

    We've noticed that Barbarian and Angelic Sorcerer seem noticeably weaker than their peers (Fighter and Demonic Sorcerer).

    MaxAstro wrote:
    Alchemist is painfully underperforming mostly due to reliance on a resource that it doesn't want to spend;

    Interestingly... Our Alchemist loves this version over what he was running in Pathfinder First Edition. I'm not entirely sure why as I've never played an Alchemist but I'm gathering there were some positive changes as well?

    MaxAstro wrote:
    Cleric gets a bunch of free healing spells for seemingly no reason except to make Clerics the best healers by an order of magnitude;

    Meh. None of my playtest players have shown the slightest interest in a Vancian spellcaster so... Cleric sits untested by us. Well, aside from a GMPC I fielded in Rose Street Revenge when we were short a player...who ended up doing nothing (best thing for a GMPC to do).

    MaxAstro wrote:
    retributive strike is a class feature you want to not use)

    I don't think it's a bad ability per say but Paladins should have the option to focus on something else (like Smite).

    MaxAstro wrote:
    some feat options feel too obvious while others are too bland, etc.

    Absolutely. It's probably a product of the playtest environment but some Feats feel like they come from an entirely different game than what we're playing.

    MaxAstro wrote:
    Systems are easy to houserule, but going through every feat trying to decide on a balance point for it is much less fun.

    Indeed. This was always the problem with "fixing" 3.5 spellcasting - the real fix there is to rebalance every single spell.


    Mark pointed out on yesterday's stream that, since the system is so easy to modify, coming up with variant rules for books like the game mastery guide is much easier than PF1. Adding Half or no automatic progression or adding AMB are prime changes likely to be found in that guide.

    I love how easy it should be to house rule up Ancestry variants for my personal setting and archetypes to reflect the factions/classes in it.


    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

    I wanted a better version of 1E.
    at this point it's pretty clear I'm not going to get that so my best option is to steal a couple of things that I feel work well and be done with it.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Greylurker wrote:

    I wanted a better version of 1E.

    at this point it's pretty clear I'm not going to get that so my best option is to steal a couple of things that I feel work well and be done with it.

    Mark also talked about survey responses that said they wanted changes to be reverted back to 1e, such as the Bard and Sorcerer. The 10% of people who responded that they wanted it to be "like 1e" tended towards that same answer across each question phrased that way. Those sorts of changes are pretty likely to stay.


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

    I wanted a better version of 1E.

    at this point it's pretty clear I'm not going to get that so my best option is to steal a couple of things that I feel work well and be done with it.

    I think we can all generally agree that this is what everyone wants.

    Agreement, or even ideas for how this occurs is where a million different ideas come in-or at least a million 'no'responses that arise when looking at PF2 and comparing it to the concept of a better version.

    I don't know what a better version of 1E looks like. I haven't seen any poster on these forums lay anything out to describe a better version either.

    But there are more than plenty here that say this (PF2) is not it. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around the thought of how to approach all this. If PF2 isn't a better version, doess that means it just automatically fails? If I can remove the thinking of an improved version, is there a chance that this playtest will become a good edition of mechanical roleplaying rules? I'd like to hope so.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tezmick wrote:
    MaxAstro wrote:
    Systems are easy to houserule, but going through every feat trying to decide on a balance point for it is much less fun.
    Just because a GM can use house rulings to improve a sytem it doesn’t mean the system is fine, rather the fact that the playtest requires house rulings is problematic, if the game struggles to stand on its own then it needs work, this is a new system that new GM’s will take an interest in, it’s unreasonable to expect them to house rule and fix issues on the fly, I like the games skeleton so far but a lot of the meat struggles to stick.

    I do disagree with this. I think it is impossible to create a role-playing game rule system that is well tuned for all groups and styles of playing unless they are very rules-light like Fate.

    For example: The rules that improve Pathfinder Society games - such as applying +1/level to untrained skills and removing spells like Teleport - aren't always suitable to custom-built home games with close friends.

    The core rules need to be tuned for Pathfinder Society games because that is what has to be played there. I agree with OP. What I want for the system is that the house rules that tune the game for what I and my friends and family want the game to be are easy to express and implement.

    So far I think things are going well. Removing +1/level from untrained is easy. The problematic spells haven't actually been removed, just banished to the Uncommon list. Using point buy to generate ability scores. Things like that.

    I don't think the current rules are so bad in general that they would require extensive houserules in order to be playable at all. The game isn't actually broken. It just may not be tuned for my style or your style of play. And I am OK with that.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
    Erpa wrote:
    Greylurker wrote:

    I wanted a better version of 1E.

    at this point it's pretty clear I'm not going to get that so my best option is to steal a couple of things that I feel work well and be done with it.

    I think we can all generally agree that this is what everyone wants.

    Agreement, or even ideas for how this occurs is where a million different ideas come in-or at least a million 'no'responses that arise when looking at PF2 and comparing it to the concept of a better version.

    I don't know what a better version of 1E looks like. I haven't seen any poster on these forums lay anything out to describe a better version either.

    But there are more than plenty here that say this (PF2) is not it. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around the thought of how to approach all this. If PF2 isn't a better version, doess that means it just automatically fails? If I can remove the thinking of an improved version, is there a chance that this playtest will become a good edition of mechanical roleplaying rules? I'd like to hope so.

    It's character creation that's the issue for me.

    I like the core system. Combat is really good, magic, skills and proficiency need tweaking but I think they are going the right direction. The whole exploration and downtime modes need a bit of work but the ideas there are solid.

    but I loath what they have done to character creation.

    at present my "better version of 1E" is I keep character creation from 1E and adapt the core systems of 2E to work with it.


    9 people marked this as a favorite.

    You know what would be a cool Thievery feat? At Trained you gain the ability to pickpocket, at Expert you can attempt to pickpocket in combat so long as you're unseen, at Master you can attempt to pickpocket even when the target is on guard, at Legendary you can attempt to pickpocket an item in use.

    I think more skill feats ought to have scaling effect based on degree of proficiency (like Catfall).


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Scythia wrote:

    You know what would be a cool Thievery feat? At Trained you gain the ability to pickpocket, at Expert you can attempt to pickpocket in combat so long as you're unseen, at Master you can attempt to pickpocket even when the target is on guard, at Legendary you can attempt to pickpocket an item in use.

    I think more skill feats ought to have scaling effect based on degree of proficiency (like Catfall).

    Stealing a potion or an item before the opponent use it as a reaction would be really fun xD


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    oholoko wrote:
    Stealing a potion or an item before the opponent use it as a reaction would be really fun xD

    That's the kind of thing that people tell their friends about years later. This needs to happen!


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Hell yeah, it does!!
    The Rogue as a Thief class is something I've always felt was sorely lacking in D&D/PF.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Scythia wrote:

    You know what would be a cool Thievery feat? At Trained you gain the ability to pickpocket, at Expert you can attempt to pickpocket in combat so long as you're unseen, at Master you can attempt to pickpocket even when the target is on guard, at Legendary you can attempt to pickpocket an item in use.

    I think more skill feats ought to have scaling effect based on degree of proficiency (like Catfall).

    Yes! That's exactly what I would expect a legendary thief to be able to do!

    Add me to the list of supporters.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    breithauptclan wrote:
    For example: The rules that improve Pathfinder Society games - such as applying +1/level to untrained skills and removing spells like Teleport - aren't always suitable to custom-built home games with close friends.

    FWIW, I don't think that either of these "improvements" do anything for Pathfinder Society play, and I suspect that the majority of folks with whom I do society play would agree with me.

    Yes, very high-powered builds taking advantage of all the feats and archetypes that have been released for PF1e can trivialize some PFS content (particularly earlier scenarios). However, the solution to this is NOT PF2e. To my mind, a far better solution would be an evolutionary PF1.5e that learns from the experience and mistakes of PF1e.

    1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What I'm Looking For in 2e All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.