Playtest so far - Round Two! Three things you Love, Three things you Hate, and Three Houserules you'd Make.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Early on in the Playtest, Zi Mishkal had a thread on What 3 things do you love / hate the most about 2e playtest so far? It was a fun and insightful topic - primarily because Zi Mishkal collated the responses and shared how things ranked out.

Unfortunately, Zi Mishkal is no longer participating in the playtest but I've decided to take up the gauntlet and run Round Two now that we're something like 82% of the way through the it. This includes up to Monday's Update 1.5 and the Resonance Test. I'm going to toss in a third category as well - Three Houserules you'd make.

The Top Three Things Kai Loves

1) The Action Economy / Depth of Tactical Combat

2) Archetypes / Multiclassing / Prestige Classing

3) Explicit Modular Design for developing 3PP/Homebrew content

The Top Three Things Kai Hates

1) Lack of Depth in Exploration Mode

2) The Character Sheet

3) Mid to High Level Character Tracking Complexity

Three Houserules Kai Would Make

1) "Half" Heritages are not locked to Human Ancestry

2) Separate all Proficiency out in the same style as Update 1.2 Skill Increases

3) Weapon Proficiency also adds Damage Die (Magic Weapons still do as well). They don't stack.

Also remember...

Zi Mishkal wrote:

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

If you have a lengthy treatise on your point...have your list link to a thread dedicated to it rather than writing it here...because, like Mishkal, I'm planning to collate the results.

Alright! So... Three things you love? Three things you hate? Three houserules you'd make?

[Vic Ferrari]

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted (see below).

Potency Runes are omitted (see below).

Trained Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level: Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws.

Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

[Dragonriderje]

Three Things I Love:
1)Action Economy
2)Everything uses the same formula (skills, saves, DCs, attacks, AC)
3)Class customization

Three Things I Dislike (hate is such a strong word):
1)Skill feats (how they currently work - not the idea in general)
2)Monster/PC accuracy in combat (only the most optimized character has a chance at having the same accuracy as a monster does against opponents of equal level)
3)Exploration Mode

Three Things I'd Houserule:
1)Initiative ties should go to roll-off (current rule: monsters win)
2)Increase the bonus from Expert/Master/Legendary
3)Backgrounds give something unique (more akin to an ancestry feat than a skill feat)

[MER-c]

Hello. Here's what I got so far

Love:
Action Economy, I think it brings so much to the game, I just had a Monk almost solo down three Skeletons through clever use of actions and positioning. Having the option to do what I want and what makes sense is something I honestly never felt like I had in Pathfinder.

Classes feel like Classes, I find the classes actually feel distinct, and powerful, Fighters and Rangers don't feel like copies of each other but the Ranger is better and has magic. Rogues feel like Rouges and outside of a few quirks with some class feats they feel just about right

Mundane Characters are AWESOME, That's right, I've said it, the Fighter is a god of the battlefield, Monks work and feel like the masters of self control and precision strikes, Rangers stalk the battlefield as easily as they do their wild realms, Rogues skulk through the dark unseen and preform acts of thievery and daring that was once only the realm of wizards in Pathfinder 1e.

Things I don't like as much:

Items, While I think the items are, for the most part, on point, I think that they still make up for too much of the power of a party, rather than the actual party, while for some that's ok, for me I dislike needing items to fully unlock your potential.

Monsters, while the rules are fantastic, the monsters are too strong at times, often I find that a fight with them turns into a slugfest and a race to the finish, or your party getting crit to death. That's a bit swingy for my liking.

Sorcerer and Wizard feel a bit generic. While for Wizard I'm ok with Generic, I'm not ok with Sorcerer having basically the same feats as wizard, with no flavor to back it up, Sorcerers should feel like the unstoppable forces of nature, a well of magic whose power is in her blood. Right now they feel like slightly talented and more sociable wizards that sometimes grow demon fangs or dragon claws, or other strange appendages.

Things I'll probably house-rule.

Cantrip Casting: Cantrips are better, but often they aren't compelling enough or are not worth the two actions, so I found that making a caster select a casting action at level one, Verbal,or Somatic, they cast all cantrips with that action and can take the multiple attack penalty, cantrips are considered to be agile for calculating attack penalty.

Taking Breaks, Once per day, after a combat encounter the party may chose to take a break, this lasts ten minutes, during this time characters may change out a number of spell slots equal to half their level, or however many they have left, whichever is lower, a character may also make preparations for the next leg, they gain a +2 circumstance bonus to the next skill check of their choosing, chosen at the time of preparations.

I'm the strong one, not my sword, A character deals one additional damage dice for each level of proficiency with the weapon, starting at +1 die from expert up to +3 die at Legendary.

[Zman0]

Love
1. 3 Action Economy
2. UTEML + Proficiency Gating
3. Bound System underneath +level scaling
*Really could add more

Hate
1. +Level Scaling
2. Unlimited Treat Wounds
3. Magic Weapon Potency Damage Dice
*The Rest is really minor

House Rules
1. Omit +Level Scaling
2. Restrain Treat Wounds.
3. Extra Damage Dice at level 4/8/12/16/20
4. Potency for Shields adding +1 Dend and +1 Hardness for Potency.
5. Hero Points. Per Adventuring Day instead of Session. No OOC awarding. All cost 1 HP. Add Defense(Leveled Mage Armor for 1 hr), Add Resolve(Heal half lost Hit Points out of combat)

Overall, P2 is the system I want to be running, even if it takes some tweaking, at least its easy to tweak. I don't come from the standard Pathfinder background, I loathed 3.5 and P1, and have been playing 5e for since it released, albeit with added content and effectively E10.

[Tridus]

Love
1. The staff rules in the focus test
2. Skills being able to have combat uses, opening up more actions than just attack
3. The Heal spell's interaction with the action economy

Hate
1. Spellcasting is generally weak, too few slots and too little effect for most of them
2. Wands and how convoluted they are
3. That Clerics are almost entirely dependent on Channel to be fun to play

House Rules
1. Hero points no longer have an option to avoid death, the other optoins cost 1 point, and everyone gets 2 per session with no DM option to add more.
2. Treat Wounds heals an amount of HP based on the total check result and is always success (no crit, no fail). YOu can also only use it once between encounters.
3. Shield block can be used even if you haven't raised your shield (but you need to raise your shield to get the +2 bonus).

[BryonD]

Not too much change:

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

-:
1) +level - the dealbreaker, the elephant in the room, the see-no-evil issue
2) Runes
3) Multiclasssing

I do predict that +level will show up a fair amount here, but less than before. This is not due to people coming around, it is due to people giving up.

[Nettah]

Love
1. 3-Actions and reactions, so much.
2. A lot of cool monsters abilities to make fights more varied and certain player skills as well.
3. The action system of spells, especially stuff that you can spend more or less actions on like Magic Missiles, Heal and overall metamagic.
and a whole lot more, still really positive regarding pathfinder 2 overall

Hate
1. Channel Energy and the balance issue it presents between classes that care about healing.
2. The nerfs to some areas of spellcasting went a bit too far overboard making dedicated casters quite limited in lower levels and a bit ineffective at higher.
3. The overtuning of monsters saves to some extend and even more their skills, making certain opposed skill checks like feint and stealth feel too weak*. Which in turn often makes standard stand and fight the best strategy at higher levels.
*I know this is a confirmed temporary issue

House Rules
1. Cut all monster skills a bit down (thinking -1 until level 5 then -2 until level 12 where they get -3)+updating for untrained skills being even lower (still at -2 in the bestiary i think)
2. Not sure how to change it exactly but maybe limit treat wounds to once per hour (might need to increase the healing a bit)
3. Either cut Hero Points (not really a thing im used to playing with) or change it to only re-roll and extra action.

[PossibleCabbage]

3 things I love:

- How weapons work now, both magical ones (I love that +1s are separate from "flaming" etc. and you can hot swap runes), and normal ones (traits actually make someone potentially pick a polearm for some reason other than "most dpr").

- the Rogue and Fighter class, best version of these two in a darn long time.

- Multiclassing

3 things I'm not so fond of:

- Armor needs another pass, I get the idea behind "it's always +7" but there's never a reason for a martial character to choose heavy armor aside from "I get the highest proficiency in it" and traits being exclusively negative is odd juxtaposed with weapons.

- Dwarves being the slowest ancestry and having to buy back "Unburdened" with a heritage if you wanted to use non-light armor.

- Intelligence is borderline useless for everybody except Wizards and Alchemists.

3 things I'm going to house rule

- Paladins can be atheists or polytheists
- All monks get Ki Strike, it is no longer a feat
- I'm going to change the dying rules because I run a "no resurrection*" setting, so dying should be somewhat rarer.

[breithauptclan]

Love:

• Multiclassing and Archetypes.
  
• Multiple levels of success and failure for skill checks.
  
• Automatic skill rank allocation
  

Dislikes:

• Magical weapons being required at higher levels.
  
• The Challenge DC table jumping at various points to account for player characters gaining access to magical items and equipment. Buying equipment, or worse gaining higher skill rank, should give an actual benefit.
  
• Backgrounds being more of a backstory. Compare to Starfinder character Themes, which feel more a part of the characters current story.
  

Houserules:

• Higher weapon damage based on proficiency. Does not stack with magical weapon extra damage.
  
• More durable shields. Blocking doesn't normally cause damage. Only take damage on critical hits or on deliberate attack (sunder) by the opponent.
  
• Remove +1/level to untrained level of proficiency. This will put the skills back in line with D&D 3.5 and PF1.
  

[Edge93]

Love:

1) It is so much easier to actually provide a solid challenge for a party with how the math and monsters have been re-tuned and a lot of monsters have cool unique abilities.

2) ALMOST EVERY SPELL HAS AN EFFECT ON A SUCCESSFUL SAVE. I cannot overstate how I love this. Even if it's just a minor debuff for 1 round it keeps me from feeling like I wasted my save or suck spell which was why I hated save or suck in PF1. Really I loved all the magic changes general until one thing on my dislike list.

3) Tight math, the +/-10 system, and only 3 or so different bonus types over the many in PF1 making insane stacking less of an issue. It makes little bonuses feel much more important than in PF1 and especially makes maneuvering, buffing, and debuffing particularly ace in battle. Battles feel much more strategic to me because of this.

The 3 action system and some affiliated points would've been here but everyone loves those. XD

Dislike:

1) I came to realize that while I like the changes to monsters and magic, taken together they do admittedly hurt casters a bit in certain situations. Namely damage or 1 round duration spells against a hard fight that's going to take 5+ rounds to beat, it just feels like the monster longevity well exceeds what resources you would reasonably want to expend against it. Upcoming changes I feel will address this.

2) The one aspect of the tight math and +/-10 system I dislike is that it does punish unoptimized characters for even small failings. PF1 punished poor optimization worse sometimes IMO but it was for bigger differences. Again, future updates or at least the final rules seem angled towards this.

3) Too hard to make a character who makes consistent use of multiple different weapons past early levels, this was the sole thing that made me iffy about extra damage dice from Runes. Love the dice, less sure on the runes. (As an aside I do adore the Doubling Rings though)

Houserule:

1)Finesse weapons with the Trip, Disarm, or Shove traits can use Dex instead of Str on Athletics when you use them for their maneuver.

2) Give more class feats to each player with the aim of making some builds a little easier to hash out and to allow builds with required feats to still take some fun or situational ones in addition.

3) Critically failed strikes deal minimum damage to the attacker as a standard effect, possibly do something to sometimes have other effects if it isn't a seriously important fight. I know my players always enjoy when a monster harms themselves from poor attacking and while they like it on themselves less it still makes for some good fun. A penalty for crit fails discourages strikes at -10 but a lot in the game already does it, plus enemies seem more prone to use attacks at high MAP than players making it hinder them more.

It was hard to choose only three likes and hard to find 3 dislikes at first. XD I feel like I'd have more houserules too but they escape me.

[Data Lore]

Love:
1. Action economy
2. Multiclassing/Archetypes
3. Varied Weapon Functionality

Hate:
1. Low ease of use
2. Strict Vancian casting
3. Tight math and table 10-2

House Rules:
1. Remove channel energy. Replace with spontaneous conversion for clerics.
2. I would allow Brute rogues to sneak attack with any d8 weapon they are proficient in.
3. Increase animal companion defensive ability.

[Tangent101]

Okay. If I were to create a House Rule, it would be to further beef up Ancestries and then develop some home-made Ancestries to replace the lost stuff. Seriously, Elves and Dwarves and the like should not have to "buy" their way into being their racial types. And no, the new Ancestry Heritages for all races does NOT fix this problem.

BTW, one of my players was busy making a level 9 Elvish Rogue for the next part of the Playtest and she was giggling over her super-fast Elf who with Mobility can move 20 feet to get behind enemies and Flank them, or for that matter CRAWL 20 feet away from an enemy. We joked about that poor elf's mother trying to chase down her infant. ^_^

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Nothing much has changed for me since the first poll so I may as well just quote myself and touch it up a bit.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Like (not love):

1. I like some of the higher level abilities mundanes get
2. Free(r) choices of abilities at levels. I'm fine with older fixed abilities but I can get behind this way of doing things. Devs, take a tip from SWSE on actual implementation, however.
3. The general design of the Bestiary - putting pretty much everything regarding encounter building in one book is a very good move. Still not sold on the monster design, but this is the way to do the book. Maybe call it Encounter Manual or something similar to be more accurate.

Hate (strictly speaking separate issues will be folded into single points in order to fit the most important hates into only three points) :
1. +1/level to everything. Terrible idea, entirely unsuited for the games I want to run and play. Let people choose how to advance their character, give more variety and difference between people. The very narrow window of success/fail the game is based off of rubs me the wrong way. Letting everyone do basically everything in regards to skills just does not work for us. An absolute dealbreaker.
1. Basically everything they've done with magic and casters. The only actual good change is putting healing back in Necromancy. Pretty much everything else is terrible. Another absolute dealbreaker.
3. Right now I'm undecided what the third point should be. Character creation? The complete failure of the system to support certain existing campaign worlds, including Golarion? Weapon runes? Armor? UTEML? Resonance and Focus? These and more are warring for third place. Let's go with UTEML. It could have been a fun idea - I originally had visions of something akin to BECMI's weapon mastery but for everything - but the implementation just makes it a huge annoyance.

At this point any house rules I would add would end up discarding pretty much everything PT has introduced and replacing it with basically P1.5

[ErichAD]

Love
-Separation of combat feats and skill feats so that they don't directly compete
-4 levels of success
-Multiclassing

Hate
-everything to do with magic, spells and casting classes
-large amount of meta currencies
-large amount of small bonuses and busywork on leveling

House Rules:
-Expand class level charts to include attack and save values with proficiency bonuses precalculated and expected magic items added in, doing the same for skills listed by how many you have at each given value and baking skill feats into skills advanced to the required proficiency level. This should also include bonus damage dice. Then just wipe out the magic items and feats that are baked into the classes.

-Break ancestry up into race and region, use race and region traits to tag feats available from certain classes, and to make certain items and spells available to players. These should also give specific niche bonuses to feats that would otherwise be more generically useful versions of themselves.

-Cut out spell casting classes and turn spells into specialized skill uses available at various proficiency levels for the associated skill. Something similar to demoralize, but progressing as levels advance.

[EberronHoward]

LOVE

1) Skills aren't tied to class, and Signature Skills are no longer a thing. That means that Skill Feats are open to any class (A Fighter trained in Acrobatics and Arcana can gracefully fall from heights and detect magic at-will).

2) Classes are meaningful: each one does something different, and it's hard to poach the best parts of one class through casual multi-classing.

3) Lots of build-choices that is balanced. I feel like I can customize my PC in a variety of ways to get the gameplay results I want and/or reflect my PC's backstory and personality... without worrying about creating an useless/overpowered abomination.

HATE

1) Spells are very dungeon-centric, and seem best for dungeon-crawling. GMing a group through "Mirrored Moon", and it felt like the spell-list for Arcane and Divine casters wasn't very useful for above-ground see-them-coming combat.

2) Failures that don't do anything. Critical failures often stop PCs from continuing to try things, but regular failures don't RAW. Opening locks, trying to Request something, and other skill checks feel like they encourage rolling several times until you succeed or until you get a Natural 1.

3) The Society skill feats are too numerous. Some of them could be moved to General Feats, or be reflavoured to work for other skills. I wish there was four Skill Feats for each skill, with one accessible with each Tier of Proficiency.

HOUSERULES

1) Give out Hero Points for roleplaying

I feel that PF2 is too dangerous a game to do stuff that's 'cool', as opposed to doing the right thing. A Hero Point isn't worth getting swallowed whole. I'd rather encourage people to RP during their actions, liven things up. Saying something pithy to get a Hero Point is something I'd want, as opposed to doing something stupid.

2) Making PCs track all their expenses. With rules that encourage PCs having jobs, I'd like to get PCs to choose a level of expense they live by, and track it. That way, I can use "You need more money" as a plot hook for an adventure, as opposed to "Save the World" each time. Also, regular employment can provide plot hooks as well.

3) Intelligence gives PCs an extra language per +1 bonus to Intelligence, as opposed to the 14 threshold.

[oholoko]

Love:
1: Action economy, it just feels great to use.
2: Powers/spell pool, but i want more powers and different options, also some of them do seem to need a small buff.
3: Dedication. Not multiclass but dedications as a whole, multiclassing is just an option with them, i can imagine with time what shenanigans will happen. They are just so much better than archetypes and i think they made a great multiclassing option.

Hate:
1: Focus... From what i see looks like a broken mechanic it needs a bit more time in the oven.
2: Armor oh boy... Clumsy just nerfs too many armors into the ground.
3: Spells specially damaging ones are s#~!.

Houserules:
1: Critical fail table.
2: Paladins of any alignment.
3: Custom backgrounds to fit other things.

[Ephialtes]

Difficult to limit it to 3 loves as there are quite more that compete each other for the top three:

- 3 Action Economy (including scaling spells with additional actions)

- Archetypes/Dedications for Multiclassing

- TEML and gating skill checks behind skill ranks

- +level to everything (my unofficial 4th)

- class feats instead of level fixed powers (my unofficial 5th)

Things I dislike:

- Resonance, Focus, any attempt to fix a problem that never occured in my nearly 2 decades of roleplaying 3.x Systems

- wizards/druids/clerics can't prepare subsets of spells from their books/lists for more flexible casting, instead they have to learn fixed spells which prevents to ever learn niche spells (or what Datalore meant with Strict Vancian casting at least in case of said wizards/clerics and Druids)

- missing spontaneous heightening of (all) spells for all caster classes

Houserules:

- granting wizards/druids/clerics to prepare subsets of spells of which they can cast flexibily like sorcerers or bards

- skipping resonance or leaving resonance only for attunement

- ...

[Voss]

Love
1) the sorcerer not having the 3rd level speedbump on spells.

2) (post update 1.whichever) a decent amount of class skills for everyone.

3) the future work for editors to disentangle the muddled mess of cross-referencing, ambiguous and duplicate terminology (add feat feat feat to level level level), and move constantly referenced information to somewhere easy to find.

Hate
1) the '3 action system' that is almost never actually three actions.
Part of this is tying movement in (especially with the movement penalties for armor), for the MMO kiting feel to the game. If you're faster, you win.

2) Skill and ancestry feats. They simply fail and both are filled with junk. Ancestries in particular are blandly identical, at low level, and have no relevance at later levels.

3) Magic weapon damage dice (and +X weapons AND armor being mandatory for 'the math' to work at all)

Houserule:
1) bring back the Alchemist class rather than the joke class.

2) introduce <XYZ> feats to a bloody thesaurus. Skill talents, Ancestral traits, Class feats, General training. Whatever.

3) remove crit failures and successes. A spell or power actually works to full effect, or doesn't. With monster numbers the way the are, most characters are limited to 'minor failure' for anything but swords.

[worldhopper]

LOVE:
1) Action economy
2) TEML
3) 4-tier success system

HATE:
1) "The GM sets the DC"
2) Short duration on most buff spells
3) +Level

HOUSERULE:
1) Action scaling on more spells: baseline 1 action for most single-target buffs, add components to increase duration or number of targets.
2) Choice of Vancian or arcanist/5e-style prepared casting
3) Free action to change grip

[Edge93]

oholoko wrote:

Love:

1: Action economy, it just feels great to use.
2: Powers/spell pool, but i want more powers and different options, also some of them do seem to need a small buff.
3: Dedication. Not multiclass but dedications as a whole, multiclassing is just an option with them, i can imagine with time what shenanigans will happen. They are just so much better than archetypes and i think they made a great multiclassing option.

Hate:
1: Focus... From what i see looks like a broken mechanic it needs a bit more time in the oven.
2: Armor oh boy... Clumsy just nerfs too many armors into the ground.
3: Spells specially damaging ones are s#@$.

Houserules:
1: Critical fail table.
2: Paladins of any alignment.
3: Custom backgrounds to fit other things.

On the bit about Clumsy armor, just to be sure because I had someone else have this confusion, the "Max Dex limit also applies to Reflex saves and Dex checks" means you can't add more Dex than the Dex cap, not that the total bonus to all those things is capped at that, right? (For example if you're in Full Plate with +2 Dex trained in Reflex at 5th level it means your Reflex would be +6 instead of +7, not that your Reflex save is maxed at +1) That is to say, the Clumsy trait doesn't actually do anything unless your Dex mod is above the Max Dex for the armor in which case I'm not sure why you wouldn't be using lighter armor anyway.

[Edge93]

EberronHoward wrote:

LOVE

1) Skills aren't tied to class, and Signature Skills are no longer a thing. That means that Skill Feats are open to any class (A Fighter trained in Acrobatics and Arcana can gracefully fall from heights and detect magic at-will).

2) Classes are meaningful: each one does something different, and it's hard to poach the best parts of one class through casual multi-classing.

3) Lots of build-choices that is balanced. I feel like I can customize my PC in a variety of ways to get the gameplay results I want and/or reflect my PC's backstory and personality... without worrying about creating an useless/overpowered abomination.

HATE

1) Spells are very dungeon-centric, and seem best for dungeon-crawling. GMing a group through "Mirrored Moon", and it felt like the spell-list for Arcane and Divine casters wasn't very useful for above-ground see-them-coming combat.

2) Failures that don't do anything. Critical failures often stop PCs from continuing to try things, but regular failures don't RAW. Opening locks, trying to Request something, and other skill checks feel like they encourage rolling several times until you succeed or until you get a Natural 1.

3) The Society skill feats are too numerous. Some of them could be moved to General Feats, or be reflavoured to work for other skills. I wish there was four Skill Feats for each skill, with one accessible with each Tier of Proficiency.

HOUSERULES

1) Give out Hero Points for roleplaying

I feel that PF2 is too dangerous a game to do stuff that's 'cool', as opposed to doing the right thing. A Hero Point isn't worth getting swallowed whole. I'd rather encourage people to RP during their actions, liven things up. Saying something pithy to get a Hero Point is something I'd want, as opposed to doing something stupid.

2) Making PCs track all their expenses. With rules that encourage PCs having jobs, I'd like to get PCs to choose a level of expense they live by, and track it. That way, I can use "You need more money" as a plot hook for...

LOL I've been giving Hero Points for roleplaying all along, I totally derped on the fact that that's not how it's phrased to work. XD

As a random aside, with things like opening locks that can be tried repeatedly until success, I usually speed through the rolling until completion and track the rolls before narrating how long the task took based off of that and if any interesting blips happened on the way. I feel like that makes it at least a little more interesting.

[HWalsh]

Three Things I Love...

1. Three Action Combat Round
2. Skill Bonuses no longer get insane.
3. Everyone can participate and have a chance to succeed.

2 & 3 are due to + Level to everything.

-----

Three Things I Hate...

1. Retributive Strike is terrible.
2. Lack of Smite Evil. Blade of Justive is weak.
3. Heavy Armor is horrible.

-----

Three House Rules...

1. Restore Smite Evil as a base Paladin ability, make Ret Strike an.option, not a requirement.

2. Remove the movement penalty on armor. Make Full Plate a level 1 item. There's no justification for it being a level 2 item.

3. Grant Charisma casters more Spell Points so they don't get penalized and have to split focus between items and their class abilities.

[sherlock1701]

Likes
- Three action system
- More quality levels for mundane items
- Wider variety of mundane alchemical items

Dislikes
- Changes to spellcasting
- AoOs are too restricted and use your reaction
- Characters can't excel at anything (can't get 95-100% success rate in area of specialization)
- Can't get attributes very high
- I HATE variable damage, I want the static bonuses back
-(I've got a lot of dislikes) not enough stacking bonuses (only 3 with max 13!)

Houserules
- Perception is a skill
- AoOs for everyone, with an extra reaction for everyone to use them
- Spells autoscale, as though they were heightened, but without a higher slot. Spells with durations are that duration per caster level.
- Free action to switch grips
- Shield is always raised. Mages can keep the shield cantrip up by sacrificing a free hand.

[Vic Ferrari]

HWalsh wrote:

Three Things I Love...

1. Three Action Combat Round
2. Skill Bonuses no longer get insane.
3. Everyone can participate and have a chance to succeed.

2 & 3 are due to + Level to everything.

Not really, +Level works against 2 & 3, in some ways.

[Ludovicus]

Soliciting these is a great idea. Making mine reminded me how many of PF2's fundamental ideas are really good. The devs could certainly fix everything on my hate list; the question is whether they want to.

Love
1. Streamlined, more transparent, and less abusable math.
2. Multiclassing as class feats.
3. Action economy.

Hate
1. The hyper-situational, arbitrarily restrictive, and often punitive feel of much of the design.
2. The lack of space for player characters to feel varied, exceptional, and organic.
3. The pervasive and jarringly gamist treadmills.

Houserule
1. +level/2 replaces +level.
2. The stacking limitations are slightly relaxed. Numerous class-based conditional bonuses (e.g. the barbarian's and paladin's damage bonuses, the monk's speed bonus) become "class" bonuses. The "shield" bonus type is reintroduced, to cover parrying and the like as well as shields. Some circumstance bonuses (like the damage bonuses from certain weapon traits) become untyped.
3. Expert, master, and legendary proficiency ranks have double the effect on skills (nothing else).

[oholoko]

Edge93 wrote:

oholoko wrote:

Love:

1: Action economy, it just feels great to use.
2: Powers/spell pool, but i want more powers and different options, also some of them do seem to need a small buff.
3: Dedication. Not multiclass but dedications as a whole, multiclassing is just an option with them, i can imagine with time what shenanigans will happen. They are just so much better than archetypes and i think they made a great multiclassing option.

Hate:
1: Focus... From what i see looks like a broken mechanic it needs a bit more time in the oven.
2: Armor oh boy... Clumsy just nerfs too many armors into the ground.
3: Spells specially damaging ones are s#@$.

Houserules:
1: Critical fail table.
2: Paladins of any alignment.
3: Custom backgrounds to fit other things.

On the bit about Clumsy armor, just to be sure because I had someone else have this confusion, the "Max Dex limit also applies to Reflex saves and Dex checks" means you can't add more Dex than the Dex cap, not that the total bonus to all those things is capped at that, right? (For example if you're in Full Plate with +2 Dex trained in Reflex at 5th level it means your Reflex would be +6 instead of +7, not that your Reflex save is maxed at +1) That is to say, the Clumsy trait doesn't actually do anything unless your Dex mod is above the Max Dex for the armor in which case I'm not sure why you wouldn't be using lighter armor anyway.

G#*~%%it! When i read that in my table i thought it was the ACP that applied to the dex checks and ref saves. That's why i mentioned that one. Well thanks for correcting my whole table it actually makes a lot more sense now.

[Slyme]

Things I like

1) Making shape shifting druids better/easier to manage

2) Evening out spell caster progression and 10 levels of spells

3) 3 action economy...if they tweak it a little more

Things I hate

1) Delayed character advancement...a 10th level PF2 character feels like a 3rd level PF1 character in a lot of cases

2) Fundamental changes to the core of some classes (Specifically Rangers and Paladins feel like completely new classes borrowing the names of classes with 40+ years of history behind them)

3) The core math the new system is fundamentally built around, the metrics of the +10/-10 and 4 levels of success failure, the fact that characters never feel like they actually get any better as they advance

P.S.) There are plenty of other things I hate, like the nerf steam roller they drove over magic with, but you only asked for 3

Things I would house rule

1) Use the PF1 rules as a base

2) Use most of the optional rules from PF Unchained and a few things from PF2

3) Write up new, 'unchained' versions of the rest of the core classes and probably a lot of the non-core classes as well

[WatersLethe]

Love:

1. 3-Action economy

2. Universal BAB, allowing a caster to occasionally hit with a stick or touch attack if they want.

3. UTEML, provided guidance is given about what things can or can't be attempted at each level.

Hate:

1. Lack of out-of-class options. Can't make a cleric who's better than other clerics with a bow without sacrificing class feats.

2. Weak spells.

3. Lack of low level character customization. Can't make your build your own until lvl 4+

House Rules:

1. Can select a class feat from any class, as long as you meet the prerequisites.

2. Get a general feat at first level.

3. If Focus goes through, you can buy a pre-focused potion for +50% base price.

4. If Focus goes through, wands do not require focus to cast from more than once.

5. You can choose to either take the heavy armor ACP or speed reduction, but not both.

6. Automatic bonus progression for weapon damage dice, and when rolling you can choose to roll or take the average of all but one die.

7. Flanking is a condition.

[Lyee]

Love:
1. 3AE
2. +Level. Took me a while, but I do love the way it tiers play.
3. Skill feats, conceptually, giving martials good narrative powers without giving up too much combat.

Hate:
0 (will be fixed eventually, but still ruining fun until then). Navigating playtest updates/rulebooks, everything about Doomsday Dawn, barely any content yet.
1. Spell overnerfs, especially duration and utility.
2. Weapon potency runes (property runes are great, especially being transferable. Armour runes are bad but not 'hate' level).
3. I feel TEML isn't used well enough yet.

Houserules:
1. Free Weapon Potency at the appropriate level
2. New Int skill: Investigation. Used for deducation and active searching.
3. Treat Poison reduces the stage of a non-virulent Poison by 1, and takes 2 actions. (currently, even with Aid, high-ish level poisons are absurdly lethal even with combat over).

[RunnerAndJumper]

What I like:
1. Action Economy
2. Proficincy-System and Unlocking Skill Features
3. Customization (Multiclasses and Archetypes)

What I don't like:
1. Proficiency bonus for master/legendary
2. Dying-System
3. Not enough spells for casters

Houserules:
1. Making master and legendary more meaningful, not just for skills, but also items (potency-runes only increase damage, not hit-chance, for example) and making master a +3 and legendary a +6 bonus (for skills and items).
2. More possibilities for non-magical healing
3. Every character has some way to access every feat (everyone can get DEX to damage, for example)

[Bardarok]

What I like most
1. Action Economy
2. Modular class build and Multiclass archetypes (really well done, Unchained version looked promising but didn't really pan out well in the old system this one does.
3. Unified Proficiency system

What I dislike most
1. Not enough skill feats scale with proficiency.
2. They change currencies. I don't care if they use silver or gold but I hate that they switch between them.
3. +1/lvl combined with every +1 being more important than in PF1 due to the crit system makes PF2 scale even more dramatically than PF1 did.

House rules I am considering
1. Orcs as a core race
2. When you take the stride, step, or raise shield actions you also draw a weapon. Fast draw modifies this to include attack actions.
3. Magic Item Potency Bonus's Stack but come from different sources. +1 from getting a magic weapon. +1 from getting a legendary weapon and the other +3 from character level. (not sure on this I like it conceptually but don't know if it is worth the extra book-keeping)

[Charon Onozuka]

What I Like:
1) 3 Action Economy (Players: "This feels so much more streamlined.")
2) Separation of combat/skill feats into separate pools. So that picking one no longer means forgoing the other.
3) Easier to manage math for in-game use. (Ability scores don't change mid-combat, buffs/conditions/penalties only have 2 non-stacking types, etc.)

What I Hate:
1) Mandatory Magic Items for basic combat math.
Because +X does not feel magical to me, I hate spending money on boring essential bonuses rather than cool/interesting magic items, and mundane quality ends up useless because magic overrides its bonuses.

2) Limited use items/abilities outside of the new consolidated pools. This goes double for any 1/day items/abilities.
Channel Energy/Wildshape/etc. should be part of spell pools with existing abilities buffed to actually compete with them. 1/Day stuff is tedious to track, rarely feels powerful/special, and is overall a waste of space in my opinion. Either be a consumable, draw from a pool, or be continuous/unlimited use.

3) Current implementation of proficiencies being lackluster.
+1s don't feel special (or legendary), weapons and especially spells take too long to upgrade compared to skills, and only skills have any real interaction with higher proficiencies beyond just +1s.

House Rules
1) Some version of ABP.
2) Change levels of Hero Points. Most desired effect is currently lowest cost, which makes the rest get ignored.
3) Rework/Removal of Paladins.

Spoiler:

A class that isn't flexible enough to handle multiple alignments isn't needed in Core and would be better as an archetype if anything. Clerics can handle being any alignment based on their deity and changing class abilities/features to suit. Paladins aren't needed in a form that has to make entirely new classes for different alignments (i.e. Antipaladin), even if you have to rename them into some form of "Warpriest" as a result.

[Hikash Vinzalf]

What I love
- 3 Action system. Wonderful setup to provide endless feats to combine various actions into activities.
- Skill Feats potential. I can see this becoming great, they are a bit limited right now though.
- Weapon/potency design. I love how choosing your weapon is more than picking the 18-20/x2 option. Could be better, as the d4-d6 weapons are fairly useless, but its much improved.

What I hate
- UTEML difference in skill level. I'm OK with +level, provided it only works while trained. Expert should give +2, Master +5, Legendary +8. As it is, whatever you keep maxed out seems to result in a 50% chance of success.
- Certain classes don't feel fleshed out. Ranger seems to run out of meaningful feats at 10. Sorcerer seems like a wonderful multiclass base, purely due to having nearly no feats you want to take.
- Armor. Heavy armor feels like such a tax to ignore dex. Its hard not to try to get 16 dex to avoid the penalties of medium/heavy armor. On top of that, dex is a useful stat for nearly anyone anyways. So far one guy tried heavy armor in Pale Mt and felt like he was slowing the group down tremendously.

What I'd houserule
I've avoided houseruling anything yet, so none of these have actually been tested yet.
- Multiclass feats being available at level -2(maybe -4, testing would be required). 1/2 level feels too restrictive, opens up more options and getting a third class doesn't feel as bad.
- I despise goblins as a playable race in most campaigns. They occasionally have a place, but in general they are a fun monster, not a player. Especially since their stat layout makes them the best at odd things. Goblin Paladin shouldn't be a thing.
- Demoralize bonus to things higher level/larger than you (or possibly immune to critical success). I feel like it's silly that a character can glare at a Manticore that is pelting you with spikes and make it run away. That thing could kill you in 1 round if it focused you.

[Frozen Yakman]

They haven't really made any fundamental changes so my answers from the previous thread stand.

[WhiteMagus2000]

Likes
1) Three action economy.
2) Cantrips scale with level.
3) Multi classing that feels both fair and useful.

Hates
1) Martial damage tied to weapons, not character.
2) Arcane casters have been over nerfed.
3) The rule book reads like a math textbook.

House rules
1) Animal companions get 1 action per turn, if undirected.
2) Very few, if any, hidden rolls.
3) Might use traditional weight system, instead of bulk system.

[D Dog]

Loves:

1. New style archetypes
Viable spellcasting multiclassing and it's a perfect fit for prestige classes.

2. Strong support for varying builds within a class itself (in core).
Druid and fighter are great examples. I'm surprised I haven't seen almost anyone else mention this.

3. Charisma is not a dump stat for everyone but faces / spontaneous casters.
Cha needed some love. The details of focus need some work, but I would love to make a 16 Cha fighter who uses powerful magic items but doesn't feel obligated to do all of the talking.

Honorable mentions: No save or suck. Weapon traits. Precise language and traits as 'tags'.

Hate:

1. Limited payoff for skill investment.
Legendary is barely better than trained.

2. The skill feats that currently exist are pretty lame.

3. Heavy armor penalties too high.

House Rules:
1. Multiclass feats can be taken two levels earlier than listed.
2. Skill feats are acquired half as often, but are significantly more powerful.
3. Skill proficiency = level + 1/2 ability bonus + UTEML, where U -3, T +0, E +3, M +5, L +7
This makes ability score less important than skill investment, more along the lines of PF1 (except early levels), while still keeping the overall proficiency bonus relatively similar to the current system. Maybe everyone gets an expert rank at level 1, since ability score bonuses are lower.
4. Heavy armor stays -10 speed but either gets positive traits like weapons or a +1 AC.

[Polymathis]

Love:
1 - Three action system
2 - The concept of the new alchemist using alchemical items (but the execution is pretty dire)
3 - Weapon traits

Hate:
1 - Tight maths and scaling challenges means you can run the game on coin toss without stats or dice - success is always approximately 50/50 so your characters never get any 'better' in comparison to the challenges.
2 - Resonance / disposable shields / everything else designed to stop you using equipment and magic items in the logically intended fashion
3 - Skill investment is worthless (Legendary feels no better Trained as the math is too tight), and Skill Feats do not feel as if you have accomplished a 'feat' any more than getting out of bed is a 'feat' of agility - most skill feats are something anyone trained in the skill should be able to attempt with varying success.

Houserules:
1 - Shield always grants bonus without wasting an action
2 - Retain skill point progression from P1e
3 - Break Ancestry into Race and Region and restore core racial abilities from P1e

[Gallyck]

Love:
1 - Three action system
2 - uh the art maybe?
3 - not a whole lot

Hate:
1 - Archtypes being lame. They were honestly the best part about Pf1E
2 - Spells being destroyed, gutted, nerfed and the pandering to idiots on this forum who complain about martial vs caster disparity in a team game.
3 - PFS as a baseline for rules. PFS should be considered and then they get seperate rules similar to PF1E. A lot of the largest "problems" exist in pfs and are more controlled in a homebrew game

Houserules:
1 - Converting 3 action economy to Pf1
2 - Ignore resonance completely by playing Pf1
3 - Ignore ancestry and 15 feat pools by playing Pf1

[gwynfrid]

My view evolved a bit from the earlier thread due to testing and the updates, but my general impression remained the same.

Love:
1. New action economy, combined with the removal of the universal AoO. This makes combat so much more dynamic, varied and interesting, compared with the near-static "5-ft step and full attack" routine. There are truly several tactical options to pick from, every turn, for every character.
2. 4 degrees of success. This allows the design to keep save-or-die/suck spells, while giving them a compelling scale of effects. In addition, the weapon-based crit effects provide a lot more variety than PF1 where it was either 2x or 3x damage.
3. Game balance overall. For example, summoned creatures, or an animal companion, provide only 1 extra action in total. This helps with keeping these powers in check. Spellcasters were reined in (caveat: see below about spells). Martials got a good deal of help. Abusing the bonus stacking system is now much more difficult, etc.

Disappointed by:
1. Spells. I added this to the Disappointed list after spending more time with the book. The changes contribute to much improved caster vs martial balance, which is great. But in many cases (barkskin?) the power reduction went too far. The latest update indicates some fixes are on the way.
2. The alchemist. I'm yet to play one, and I will, but it doesn't flow naturally. It looks complicated and not very attractive. I was in love with the PF1 alchemist at first sight, this new one is a letdown.
3. No more Smite Evil for the paladin, I think removing this iconic ability may be taking the changes too far.

Unsure:
1. Resonance & Focus. I haven't had a chance to test the big update on this.
2. Ancestries. This one went from the "Disappointed" to the "Unsure" column with the update. I don't think we're quite at the sweet spot yet but it's a clear improvement.
3. A bunch of more minor issues (layout of the book, especially spells not showing the list they belong to; not enough interesting rituals; must-have cleric, not sure if Treat Wounds is the right fix for that; not enough high level, high wow factor skill feats; restricted fighting styles for many classes; unclear handling of the transition from exploration to encounter mode) but I'm pretty hopeful the final book will fix these problems.

House rules (assuming rules per updates up to 1.5):
1. No Hero Points. Or, as a compromise, some Hero Points, but only as a reward for cool action or RP in-game, and with no get-out-of-death-free effect.
2. 1 extra ancestry feat at level 1.
3. Maybe merging a couple of conditions, but I would have to think about it before suggesting something in particular.

[MMCJawa]

Hhhhmm...

Love:
3 action economy...so I will jump on that bandwagon

Class feat system overall increasing customization

Simplication of some parts of the rules (AoO, proficiency, etc)

Hate (really more weirded out/dislike)
Paladins sort of feel off, and it feels like the class was turned into something else. Ranger as well although this is better

Ancestry system. While the updates have improved it a bit, it still feels too complicated, especially with the heritages breaking up that whole ABC paradigm, and how barebones the base races are. Honestly I would have preferred they just do the whole "pick two ancestry feats" rather than this heritage option they went with.

I am pro spell nerf, but between monsters being pretty powerful and all the changes they hit them with, they are a bit too weak now. I'd keep most of the spells as is except for durations, but I would up the number of spells they have access to and make varying actions a more important feature of spells, like magic missile is.

Houserules: Eh...houserules are for the finished game. Still, at the moment I would probably:

Allow Paladins to not have a diety, and perhaps retool a few other gods.

[Mary Yamato]

Like:
(1) Three action economy, when it works (i.e. when you aren't mindlessly doing the same thing every turn)
(2) Weapon runes. I am sick of the situation where using an odd weapon means the GM has to throw instances of it into the treasure no matter how little sense that makes.
(3) Fewer, more focused abilities on monsters. Too many of the PF1 monsters are huge bags of weird abilities--particularly bad for outsiders.

Dislikes:
(1) Intended success level for a focused specialist barely higher than 50%.
(2) Despite a stated desire to reduce the importance of magic items, they seem essential, especially magic weapons and armor.
(3) Number of spells per level so low that specialty spells are not worth considering; this is exacerbated by not having convert casting (i.e. clerics can convert to Cure, druids can convert to Summon) which our house games tend to expand via house rules. It's also exacerbated by shortened durations and reduced numbers of targets on the buffs. Need to buff a four person party? Can't. Oh well.

Doing these lists have made me appreciate that I would have trouble doubling the list of Likes but no trouble at ALL doubling the list of Dislikes. I am not happy playing PF2 as it stands. We have a playtest game this Sunday and I am kind of dreading it.

House rules:
(1) Pick a reasonable list of convert-cast spells for each caster class. Not just Heal, either.
(2) More lower-level spells per level.
(3) Move +dice of damage off of magic weapons and onto TEML.

[Rebles]

Love:
1. 3 action economy, thought some minor changes might by preferable (switching to two handed is not an action..)
2. Modularity, easy to add races, feats, other backgrounds
3. 4 degree of success, sadly not for melee attacks

Hate:
1. +level to everything, I hate it as a player and even more as a gm (yeah can't use that encounter anymore..)
2. Spells, cantrips need to be 1 and 2 action spells. Kinda like 1 to hold a flame in your hand and maybe attack on melee and 2 to throw it. 1 to hit one target with electric arc and 2 for a second. And most other spells need a slight buff
3. Dependency on magic items. Magic items should be cool not a necessity

House rule:
1. God I hate +level to everything, I will tear it out and spit on it
2. Still add something to ancestries or background to make a level one Char more interesting
3. Not give hero points for showing up

Other minor gripes:
Too many conditions
Shields need a buff
Skill feats are a bit weak
Proficeny only giving +1 (thought that might not be as insulting if you did not add your level)

[Sir NotAppearingInThisFilm]

Love:
1) 3 Action Economy
2) Modular Character Creation System
3) “Must-have” feats and items made into class feats, weapon traits, etc, so feats and items can be used for cool things instead of numerical bonuses.

Hate:
1) Over-reliance on keyworded Conditions & Traits. If I’ve been given a penalty to something or can’t do something on my first action or what have you, please just tell me up front.
2)Any skill or check that requires more than one success to really be a success.
3) No surprise rounds

Houserule:
1)1E initiative
2) 1E surprise rounds
3) Give Backgrounds a +1 conditional bonus to a useful, themed skill, perception, etc. to make them a little more like 1E Traits.

[Bluenose]

Gallyck wrote:

2 - Spells being destroyed, gutted, nerfed and the pandering to idiots on this forum who complain about martial vs caster disparity in a team game.

Play your character concept, and don't worry about how weak it is. It's a team game.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Bluenose wrote:

Gallyck wrote:

2 - Spells being destroyed, gutted, nerfed and the pandering to idiots on this forum who complain about martial vs caster disparity in a team game.

Play your character concept, and don't worry about how weak it is. It's a team game.

If you shouldn't worry about how weak something is, does that mean the design of 3.5 core monk or Dragon Shaman or Truenamer are OK and people shouldn't worry about being useless in groups with high-op 3.5 casters?

[Delay]

Likes
1) While not perfect (there are a lot of features I find unappealing or just not worth it), I do like the multiclass system, especially with regards to being able to gain high level spells in a magical subclass if one is willing to make the investment.
2) I like the different archetypes for each class (I'm specifically referring to things like totems or the druid orders, not the multiclass section). It allows decent variety, especially if there are features some players aren't that fond of for their specific character concept.
3) Hero points are okay. I think DM's should have a little more leeway in how they're given out, especially since one of them is almost a bribe, but I welcome the idea as a whole. Although I'd probably just rearrange which Hero Power is activated for each Hero Point spent (like moving cheating death from the cheapest to the most expensive of the three).

Dislikes
1) The rulebook is incredibly convoluted and requires jumping between several sections to resolve some issues that may come up during play. I get that cutting down on words or avoiding redundancy is a thing. However, I'd rather it be redundant and appear in every appropriate section rather than having to flip through several different sections of the book to figure out how things like dispelling or animal companions function.
2) Touch AC was fairly disappointing during the Playtest. It didn't seem much different than regular AC, especially for casters that leave A LOT to be desired in the damage department as it is with how spells scale and interact with the action economy.
3) Handling Animals and Animal Companions seemed a little clunky to me. Not a fan of either.

Honorable Mention) The DM that ran the Playtest for me mentioned that he disliked how Dispelling worked in that you could potentially dispel an effect without knowing what it was. Not really sure how to feel about this personally, although I do feel like having to reserve Dispel at different spell levels to even have a chance to counteract certain opposing spells to be a little punishing (granted, I'd rather have it be based on Spell Levels if the alternative is based on Caster Modifiers since I felt like the monsters had some pretty insane bonuses as it was).

Honorable Mention 2) I was okay with the Resonance Update. I wasn't okay with the item system bandaid that was Focus overlapping with Power Points (Clerics' Domain Powers, Monks' Ki Powers, etc). I feel like the two should be separate, otherwise the Powers seem less like a class feature and more like the character is getting punished for trying to use a magic item, whereas classes like Fighter and Rogue that don't get Powers in the first place seem to just get a random benefit in using magic items over these other classes. I also didn't like that the Focus bandaid was keyed of Cha (if you're adamant on combining them, at least have it keyed off the original modifier; the obsession with making Cha a useful stat here is a little mind-boggling).

Houserules
1) I don't particularly care that Clerics are better at healing than every other class (I may even prefer it considering they don't seem to be very good at much else, although this feels like a discussion best left for a different thread). However, I would have their Domain Powers and Channel Energy consume points from the same pool.
2) I don't like the -4 penalty (or really any penalty at all) to Untrained Skill Checks. I'd remove the penalties AND the proficiency modifier to all Untrained Skills and abilities (essentially making the total Proficiency modifier a flat 0 at all levels). And then I'd have the Trained condition grant a the Proficiency Modifier to whatever it is modifying. This would resolve my conflict with how a high level character that isn't even trained in an ability to be more proficient at something than a low level character that is actually TRAINED in that ability or skill.
3) I would have Players win initiative ties. The game should be about the Players anyway. Not really sure why this system is so intent in balancing itself against the Players. If a competent DM really wanted to kill the players, I'm sure they could find a way to do it without the system doing it for them.

[Tridus]

Bluenose wrote:

Gallyck wrote:

2 - Spells being destroyed, gutted, nerfed and the pandering to idiots on this forum who complain about martial vs caster disparity in a team game.

Play your character concept, and don't worry about how weak it is. It's a team game.

Oh good, lets bring back the 1e relative power gap between casters and martials. It's a team game, right?

Even in a team, people like to feel effective. The Wizard who uses all his highest level spell slots and gets absolutely zero effect because the monsters critcally saved every single time is making the same contribution to the team he'd make by not being there at all.

That is not a fun position to be in. It wasn't fun in 1e when some classes could be totally overshadowed even at the thing they were supposed to be good at, and it's not fun now.

We don't need perfect levels of balance because it's a team game. We do need the ability for every class to make meaningful contributions and shine at some point in the story.

[Arssanguinus]

They’ve fixed most of the things that annoyed me but left in the elephant in the room of +level to everything and seem to have no interest in addressing it.

Other than that I mean I like the action economy I’m ok with the skills if it weren’t for plus level. There are many things where I am perfectly fine with the implementation except for the intrusion of ‘+level to everything’

[Gorbacz]

Some changes for my picks:

+ tighter and more GM-friendly math (UTELM, level to everything)
+ action economy
+ monster design (numbers less so, but that's supposed to be addressed)

- exploration mode still weird
- Alchemist still feels off
- needs more animal companion types