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

[MaxAstro]

Guys let's not derail this into another +level argument; Paizo has indicated they haven't gotten enough negative feedback to be considering changing it at the moment, so rehashing the same points is not going to change any minds.

On topic:

Thing I love
1) Monster design! Paizo has blown me away with how different each monster feels. I've never seen anything like it in a 3.x game.
2) Staves in the Resonance Test! The way staves work there is SO COOL, and exactly fits with how I picture my casters using a staff.
3) The tight math enabling high level play to not be the dumpster fire it was in 1e. Still needs tweaking, but it's a huge improvement.

Things I don't love
1) Channel energy taking the form of "let's just give Clerics a bunch of free heightened spells just because healing needs to be easy". If healing needs to be easy, do it in a way other than giving Clerics a hilariously overpowered class feature.
2) The math being a little too tight right now and basically forcing super-optimized characters (luckily Paizo has confirmed they are changing this, yay).
3) Assurance is still a terrible feat that runs completely counter to the rest of the game design; it is a blemish on the system as a whole, despite how silly that sounds for a single feat.

House rules
1) Treat Wounds heals half on a failure and isn't bolstered on a crit fail, but can only be used 1/encounter.
2) Alchemists get class DC to any infused items they create.
3) Some kind of automatic bonus progression, haven't worked out the details yet.

[dmerceless]

Things I like:

1) 90% of the people here already said the Action System, but yeah, it's great.
2) I love how you get to choose a lot of your class features in the form of Class Feats instead of having a pre-established framework with little choice.
3) I'm a medieval weapon/HEMA entusiast, and I had a nerdgasm when I looked at that weapon table for the first time. Weapons having traits that differentiate them from one another apart from damage is great and almost all of them make a lot of sense with the real life counterparts. Of course they still need some balance tweaks, but this is awesome.

Things I dislike:

1) The spell system for prepared casters. I have nothing against spell slots, I have a lot against having to prepare how many times I'll use each spell in each spell slot. I'm not that big of a fan of 5e but all classes having the Arcanist-style spellcasting was one of the best things in there for me. I'd rather have spontaneous casters get some other advantages, not this. (I'll touch a little bit more on that in the house rules part)
2) Magic Items increasing damage die. We went a long way on closing the gap between martials and casters but this... is weird. IMO there are a lot of better ways of making Magic Items interesting other than making martials depend on them to deal significant damage, while casters scale their powers on their own. I find it bad both game-wise and flavor-wise, my character should hit hard at high levels, not just his weapon.
3) A lot of problems with PC vs NPC balancing. Monsters that have 90% chance to succeed at any saves against similar-level players, absurdly high critical hit chances, all these stuff. Fortunately, this is already recognized and they are working on fixes.

House rules:

1) Everyone can cast any spell they know/have prepare in the appropriate slot without having to prepare how many times they can cast each one. To balance that, spontaneous casters can now heighten all spells freely.
2) Weapon damage die now increases automatically at levels 5/9/13/17/20 if you are at least trained with that weapon category.
3) I'm trying to rework Treat Wounds. Right now we've been using "you can treat wounds x times per encounter, failure heals half, critical failure heals 0" and it's working better, but I still have to balance this properly.

[Telefax]

Good:
1: nerfing of casters
2: UTEML
3: perception as a stat

Bad:
1: exploration mode
2: certain classes still being "required"
3: M and L level skill feats should be explicitly supernatural and keep up with equivalent level utility spells.

observations for potential houserules:
-With everything scaling by level, i foresee a problem with high numbers, in my experience,calculating speed of anything for most players becomes a pain once modifiers to a d20 go above +10
-the +/- 10 system necessitates a degree of math control that IMHO, makes the game less fun.
-short rests and stamina.

[shroudb]

like:
1: Action system
2: 4 degrees of success/fail
3: multiclass

dislike:
1: Alchemist still feels like a class in just concept stage
2: Monster stats, especially skills and saves
3: skill feats need a lot of work still imo (some are amazing, others are trash)

houserules:
1: weapon damage split between level/magic item
2: specific class feats (Quick draw as an example isn't limited to weapon+strike but grants a free action interact to draw something)
3: All offensive spells bar none use the 4 degrees of success instead of having 0 stuff done on a success save

[MerlinCross]

Basically nothing has changed.

Like -
1) Trinkets
2) Poison
3) Runes

Dislike(Too many, some key points) -
1) Dedications
2) The Math(Crits and Crit Fails)
3) Alchemist

House Rules -
1) Some class feats get kicked to General, looking at you Point Blank.
2) Resonance flat out removed(Focus dealt with but that's testing within testing so need more time)
3) Swap back to Gold.

[Raynulf]

I'd say that "love" and "hate" are a bit... overdramatic terms for most of these, so I'll roll with "Like" and "Dislike" for now.

Three Things I Like:
1) The action economy. Having run several campaigns up into the high teens (currently my PCs are 17th level, with 3 out of 4 dual-wielding...), I wholeheartedly embrace the more streamlined system of Pathfinder 2.

2) Baked in ability score advancement. Having 60-80% of a character's ability scores driven by magic items has been a bugbear of mine for a long, long time, and I am thrilled to see that changed in Pathfinder 2, so that the characters are themselves powerful, rather than being a collection of magic items.

3) Constrained number stacking. In previous editions I've seen parties gain more attack bonus from their stacked buffs than any of the characters had to start with (yes, even the fighters), which made the game... swingy. Limiting buff stacking is a good thing, both for my sanity as GM and the playability of the game.

Three Things I Dislike:
1) -10/+10 and the constraints on math it creates. In theory, the -10/+10 sounds awesome... but in application it forces the system to push for math that is simply too tight for my tastes, where the automatic level-based bonuses overshadow all others. I don't think the +level is itself a 'problem' (it's just a scaling factor for how dangerous higher and lower level monsters are), but the fact that all the other modifiers are so small rubs me the wrong way.

2) The Initiative System. The idea of using the 'roll to notice' or 'roll to hide' as the respective initiative checks sounds good in theory, but our experience with it has been less than enjoyable. I prefer the older approach of having a separate initiative score.

3) The Ability Score Advancement. I love baked in ability score advancement... I just don't like how it has been implemented - it takes the "discourage hyper-focusing on one stat" too far in my opinion, comes in too large a jump too infrequently, and constrains the numbers too much for my tastes. E.g. the difference in Strength (barring a +2 from magic items) between a 1st level and 20th level barbarian is 4 points (i.e 18 increasing to 22). I.e. +2 attack and damage, compared to the +24 attack and +5d12 (average 32.5) damage they gain from level and potency runes.

Three Things I'd Houserule:
1) Mana System. As not-a-fan of Vancian casting, this has been a standard house rule year after year, and edition after edition. Replace slots with a pool of mana (typically 1 mana = 1 spell level), adjust the pool size and spells known/prepped to taste and serve.

2) Proficiencies: As others have suggested, I prefer the idea that weapon and armor proficiencies be something characters can choose rather than be baked into their class advancement. I'd toy with house-ruling in weapon/armor proficiency increases, probably attaching them to weapon groups, armor categories, and 'shields', where some classes start with more, and in the case of martial characters, gain bonus increases. I'd also be looking at having weapon proficiency add dice (not stacking with potency runes) and probably making the proficiency tiers +2 per rank, rather than +1.

3) Armor. Right now it feels like heavy armor is designed around characters with increased proficiency bonuses over time in order to be 'balanced' against light armor... which I disagree with, given the penalties the heavier armor suffers. I'd be looking to ditch Touch AC as a separate stat (like flat-footed AC) and instead have heavier armor grant additional protection in some fashion.

[Feros]

Things I Love:

1) Action Economy: This is just bloody brilliant. Simplified and streamlined, it is easy to learn and use.

2) Proficiency System: Five levels of differing ability that apply the exact same math to everything. Easy to understand, easy to use, and opens some great design spaces.

3) Monster Design: Note that I’m assuming at this point that there is a straight forward Monster design system. By separating it from Character design, you can give a monster what it needs to be effective in the role and abilities you want without having to set the HD at an appropriate “level” to get the required feats, or to give feats out simply because the HD would require a feat being granted. This really allows for freedom of design.

Things I Dislike (Not a fan of “Hate”):

1) Feats that aren’t very Impressive: To me a feat is something that should allow a character to bend the rules a bit in an exciting way. Most of the feats seem to just augment what the character can already do based on proficiency level. That’s not exciting.

2) Lack of Flaws: Only non-humans get Flaws at first level, and only one. Players can take flaws without any beneficial effect. This highly discourages Achilles Heal designed characters to keep Power Gamers from creating “dump stat” optimized characters. Too high a price.

3) The Hero Point System: As a party that uses the old optional Hero Point system, this really doesn’t cut it. We get that it seems designed to force their use, but the granting of extra points for out of game actions doesn’t sit well with anyone in my group.

Three Houserules:

1) Shift the extra dice of damage from magic weapons to Proficiency level. This makes Fighters the Kings of combat while still allowing other classes to grow in battle capability as well. It also puts the power back into the character and less in the magic items.

2) Flaws: I would allow anyone to take up to two optional Flaws at character creation at the same time as the four free boosts. They would only be limited to not being one of the boosts or stacking with each other. They could stack with an ancestry flaw, lowering an ability to a low of 6 for non-humans and 8 for humans. In return the Player gets one point to spend on any ability score, even one they just boosted with the free boosts. These points can stack as well. The limits: no ability above 18. As for Odd ability scores, advancement and dealing with them has already been worked out in the optional roll ability score section.

3) Hero Points: I will simply be using the old Hero Point system as it will work just fine with the new game.

[Ronnam]

Three Likes
• Goblins & Alchemists core,
• reducing but not eliminating Attacks of Opportunity,
• all changes from PF1 already found in Starfinder, e.g., removing iterative attacks, bulk, poison/disease changes, no age modifiers, no mechanical difference between small and medium creatures, finesse weapons, narrowing skill list, set number of HP per level, removing CMB & CMD, removing ability damage, etc.

Three Dislikes
• +1 per level to everything,
• essentially zero backwards compatibility,
• +10/-10 for crits. I've never had to pay so much attention to the precise results of every roll. I prefer "He rolled great, the result is somewhere in the 30s, definitely a hit, etc."

House Rules
• No prereqs for Skill Training feat.
• More bonus languages for high Intelligence.
• Un-nerf Spider Climb, Invisibility, and other buff spells. These spells don't make casters overpowered, rather, they help casters boost everyone in the party and enhance group tactical decision-making.
• I'd like to figure out a blend of +1/4 to all skills per level, and still have skill points to allow more customization as characters progress, and to ensure Intelligence isn't a dump stat.

[kpulv]

Love
* Three action system
* Changing AoO to a specialty
* +1/Level progression

Not-Love
* Horizontal progression is too slow (Feats, abilities, etc)
* Vancian casting
* Damage being +X magic weapon reliant

Houserules
* Make knife weapons better. (Double strike? Don't increase MAP when used?)
* Make maneuvers way more enticing to use. (make them at no MAP after a successful strike? remove their crit fail effects?)
* Way more uses for hero points (and make hero points only obtainable through in character actions)

---

runners up:
love:
monster and npc simplifications
monster reactions and other cool abilities
resistances and weaknesses
flat checks
persistent damage
variable-action spells

not-love:
diagonal movement
conditions (they feel very samey)
exploration to encounter mode transition
heightening spell rules

houserules:
allow way more feats earlier on in levels
make wizard like 5e
make a whole new sorcerer class
all spells auto heighten to the slot level
two action spells have one action versions
some sort of short rest system (resolve points?)
1 hero point -> reroll
2 hero points -> heroic recovery
a lot more stuff I cant think of right now

[LordVanya]

Like:
1) Class + Multiclass System (some tweaks notwithstanding)
2) Action Economy
3) Ancestry concept (terrible execution, though)

Dislike:
1) Original Resonance and Updated Focus Points
2) Animal Companion nerf
3) Vancian Magic

Houserules:
1) Treat Wounds 1/encounter + failure for 1/2 healing + no bolstering.
2) My own revised Resonance & Spell Point system:
A) Thaumatergy skill added; grants Spell Point pool when trained.
B) Staves are invested, cost Spell Points or slots to use.
C) Wands work exactly like staves, but only contain one spell.
3) Level+1/2 and UTEML grant -4/0/+2/+4/+6 bonus instead.

[Waverider]

Love
1) Action Econemy
2) Ancestry
3) Vancian Magic

Hate
1) Nerf to animal companion
2) Headache inducing rules for converting older editions
3) Monks being madder than before.

Houserule
1) Monks now get Ki Strike automatically and also all Ki Powers are included among the feats in the Monk's class section.
2) Monks get "Enlightened Resonance" baseline which lets them use WIS instead of CHA for their focus and spell points.
3) Monks now have the option to take WIS or DEX to determine their AC, TAC, and Reflex saves.

[MaxAstro]

I'm happy to see I'm not the only person using that house rule for Treat Wounds.

I would hope something like that ends up in the final system, but I really suspect that "once per encounter" mechanics are too gamist for most people to swallow.

[Tridus]

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm happy to see I'm not the only person using that house rule for Treat Wounds.

I would hope something like that ends up in the final system, but I really suspect that "once per encounter" mechanics are too gamist for most people to swallow.

That's exactly what I intend to do with it, as well.

[Emn1ty]

Love:
1) Action Economy
2) Crit Success/Success/Fail/Crit Fail
3) UTMEL concept (but not execution)

Hate:
1) Feats locked behind classes now
2) +1 level to everything (pointless and fake progression)
3) UTMEL don't provide enough variance to feel good at anything until way too late in the game.

Houserule:
1) +1 level to everything gone
2) Increase spells per day OR increase cantrips known
3) Remove stricter alignment requirements on Clerics

[Chance Wyvernspur]

Loves
1. Three-Action Rounds
2. Shields (w/Changes)
3. Parts of the Skill Proficiency System

Hates
1. The Classes
2. Multi-classing
3. Ancestries
4. Backgrounds
5. Feats

House Rules
1. Turn off the +/-10 Crits
2. Dying Rules
3. Skill System & List
4. Initiative
5. Encumbrance
6. Anathema & Alignment
7. Weapons

[Virginia J.]

Hello folks,

Let's keep things civil. Keep the thread on the topic OP started with, and if someone says something you disagree with, there are ways to get your point across that aren't baiting or engaging the other person in an argument.

[Mista Moore]

Good
- Action economy especially how it functions with spellcasters for example empowering certain spells with bonus action or the cleric’s channel mechanics
- PCs aren’t Gods by level 8-10ish like in PF1 [my main thing I want to see addressed with PF2]. Although this isn’t perfect a lot of misses builds suspense in combat, but it also eats into a lot of game time.
- Spellcasting [minus overall spell nerf and things I think need tweeking] I like the Cleric channel in PF2 over PF1, sorcerer accessing their spell list through their bloodline [would have been a sweet archetype in PF1], and the Bard becoming a full level caster, and cantrips heightening.

Bad
- Character creation. A lot of the feats [across the board] leave a lot to be desired and leaves the player with a very bland vanilla character. It’s also very rigid dictating when you take your feats and what character is capable of[example ranger is the only class that can two weapon fight]. This is my biggest concern that making a character isn’t fun as of right now.
- Archetypes. This is a personal bias, but the way archetypes are done in PF1 made PF1. Just look at the Psychic Detective, Skinshaper, Eldritch Scoundral etc. and all the flavor they add to player creation. Even simpler archetypes like “urban” for the barbarian/ranger/druid, idk how this would transfer over to PF2 making an urban version for all of these classes with a single flat archetype.
- Resonance. Don’t like it, it’s mechanics and the in-world logic that the adventurer empowers the already magic item to use it

Houserule
- Feat selection. Whenever a pc suppose to take an ancestory, skill or general feat they can choose any of them instead what’s stated at a certain level. That way they flesh out a character built heavily on their ancestery [dwarfiest, dwarf that ever dwarfed], use extra feats to be even more of skill monkey, or load up on general feats for extra survivability in combat
- Resonance. Get rid of it
- Create more enticing class feats for my PCs to use or even let them design some ideas themselves that I’d vet for approval

[ikarinokami]

Loves

1. Action economy
2. the game being designed that it can actually be played at 20th level
3a. removing a lot of the game breaking spells or making them uncommon
3b. figher/rogue/cleric and monk classes are soooo good

dislikes
4. item focus - spell point system is so much better
5. Resonance - just remake magic items, and get rid of the troublesome ones
6.

Hate
7. the vancian magic system is terrible, has always been. please get rid of it
8. magic weapons - those extra die should come from your skill ranking

9.ancestories are terrible. just give us our pf1 races and acestory feats.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Alright! Sorry for the delays, folks. Some real life matters took precedence…plus you’ve given me a lot to collate! I’m only listing items here that got more than one vote.

What We Love!
● 72% ● Action Economy
● 26% ● Archetypes/Multiclassing
● 17% ● UTEML Proficiency System
● 16% ● Tiers of Success
● 14% ● Simplified Math/System
● 12% ● Class Customization
● 12% ● Monster Design
● 9% ● Spellcasting Changes (specifically nerfs)
● 7% ● Better balanced/less broken gameplay/Parity among PCs
● 7% ● Skill feats as separate progression
● 7% ● Mundane characters are fun and powerful
● 5% ● Modular Design
● 5% ● Diverse weapons/weapon traits
● 3% ● Classes feel Distinct
● 3% ● Spells that use Action Economy like Magic Missile/Heal
● 3% ● Open skill proficiency system
● 3% ● Resonance Test Staves
● 3% ● Magic Weapons
● 3% ● Tight Math
● 3% ● Plus Level
● 3% ● Restricting AoO
● 3% ● Ancestry system concept.

What We Hate!
● 24% ● Spellcasting changes (specifically nerfs)
● 21% ● Magic Weapon Damage Die/Magic Items Baked into system math
● 14% ● Plus Level
● 12% ● Overspec Monsters/NPCs
● 10% ● Optimization required/Never feel powerful
● 10% ● M/L proficiency not special enough
● 9% ● Armor
● 9% ● Vancian casting
● 9% ● Resonance/Focus
● 9% ● Multiclassing
● 9% ● Alchemist/Ranger feel 'off'
● 7% ● Exploration Mode
● 7% ● Paladin Changes (Mind - this is pre-Update 1.6)
● 7% ● Animal Companion
● 5% ● Challenge DC Table
● 5% ● Tracking Complexity
● 5% ● Channel Energy
● 5% ● UTEML Proficiency system
● 5% ● Most skill feats are lackluster/do not improve
● 5% ● Plus/Minus 10 Criticals
● 3% ● Skill and ancestry feats
● 3% ● Lack of backwards compatibility

What Houserules we'd make!
● 9% ● Weapon Proficiency grants Bonus Damage Die
● 9% ● Plus Level omitted
● 9% ● Hero Points Changed
● 7% ● Treat Wounds Changed
● 5% ● Higher UTEML Bonus/Increased Differentials
● 5% ● Level Based Bonus Damage Die
● 5% ● Stronger starting ancestry
● 5% ● No resonance/focus
● 3% ● Vancian casters get some flexible casting options
● 3% ● Unlocked class feats
● 3% ● Separate Proficiency Advancement
● 3% ● Initiative Ties Changes - Roll Off, Player wins, etc.
● 3% ● Backgrounds are more unique/useful
● 3% ● TAC omitted
● 3% ● Remove Hero Points
● 3% ● Paladins can be atheists or polytheists
● 3% ● All Monks get Ki Strike
● 3% ● Plus Level omitted for Untrained Proficiency
● 3% ● Break Ancestry into genetics, culture, etc.
● 3% ● High Intelligence grants more languages
● 3% ● Rework/Remove Paladins
● 3% ● Bonus damage die from varied sources
● 3% ● Some form of Automatic Bonus Progression
● 3% ● Earlier access to multiclass feats (not half level)
● 3% ● Just play PF1e instead*
● 3% ● Remove +/-10

*Oh you. Playing First Edition with Unchained rules isn't the same as houseruling this system!

[MER-c]

The fact that just play Pathfinder 1E is a not insignificant percentage of houserules is somehow amusing.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Now, let's compare Zi Mishkal's final Top Ten totals from the original thread to our new "Top Ten" totals here.

Zi Mishkal with Bolded notes from Kaihaku wrote:

Top 10:

3 action system. 73.9%
Action Economy is about the same at 72%
(+/-10) crit system 25.0%
Archetypes rose in popularity to 26%
Scaling cantrips 14.8%
The Proficiency jumped from 3.4% to 17%
monsters are better 10.2%
Tiers of Success fell from 25% to 16%
weapon traits 9.1%
Simplified Math/System 14%
multiclassing 9.1%
Class Customization 16%
modular classes 6.8%
Monster Design 12%
Reactions 5.7%
Spellcasting changes 9%
Bulk rules 5.7%
Better balanced/less broken gameplay/PC Parity 7%
skill feats seperated from combat 5.7%
Skill feats as separate progression 7%

The big shift here seems to be Archetypes/Multiclassing raising in popularity. I'd wager this was due to the release of Dedications for all Base Classes?

Zi Mishkal with Bolded notes from Kaihaku wrote:

Bottom 10:

Resonance -28.4%
Spellcasting changes (specifically nerfs) at 24%
nerfing spellcasters -25.0%
Magic Weapon Damage Die/Magic Items Baked into system math at 21%
class-locked restrictions -21.6%
Plus Level at 14% (Comparable with +1 to all?)
autoscale skills (+1 to all) -21.6%
Overspec Monsters/NPCs at 12%
game is overbalanced / tight math -12.5%
Optimization required/Never feel powerful at 10%
ancestries underwhelming -12.5%
Master/Legendary proficiency not special enough at 10%
Magic arms/armor dice req'd -11.4%
Armor at 9%
shield mechanics -8.0%
Vancian casting at 9%
Healers req'd for party -8.0%
Resonance/Focus has fallen to 9%? I don't think that's because it's more popular now? Interesting.
monsters too difficult -8.0%
Multiclassing at 9%

The most puzzling thing here for me is that Resonance isn't getting as much "hate". The other shifts make sense - as we move into higher level play different aspects of the system become apparent. Kudos to you visionaries who saw magic weapons required for what it was last time.

I am disappointed that only a few of us are troubled about Exploration Mode. :(

[Hythlodeus]

hmmmm, let's see...

LOVE:
.) Backgrounds (easy to create new ones for homebrew campaigns, since the all follow the same model. I really like that)
.) Action Economy (at least on paper. in theory it makes the game easier and faster, in praxis, of course, battles are at least twice as long and since Run-Hit-Hit and Hit-Hit-Hit are often the best options, fights get really boring real quick)
.) Ancestries/Heritage (at least the concept. it's a nice idea to be able to make my dwarves dwarfier as they level up. unfortunately they're not dwarfy at all for the first 13 levels as it is right now, but that's fine tuning that might even happen in the final product)

HATE:
.) Monsters/NPCs build differently to the PCs to a level that the GM has no idea how and where those numbers come from (especially odd since Goblins are a CRB ancestry now, but work very, very different compared to their Bestiary cousins who might as well be a totaly different creature)
.) +Level shennanigans (makes way more problems that it solves if it solves any problems at all. video gamey and not what I want to see in TTRPGs at all)
.) Skill system in general (even if +Level is eliminated, the proficiencies and +/-10 make the skill system inferior to the 3.x engine)

HOUSERULE:
.) Exploration mode will be eliminated
.) If you're from a region that might be considered "exotic", wepons from these region do not count as "exotic" weapon to you, but weapons that might be exotic and strange FOR you count instead
.) NPCs are always build with PC creation rules, monsters analogue to the rules of PF1

[ErichAD]

For me, resonance expanded from a resonance problem to a metacurrency problem. At first I thought it was just resonance, but there seems to be a push toward making most character's abilities less reliable and resonance is only a small part of that.

Exploration mode is awful. It didn't make my list since it can be removed without changing anything else in the game. Even trying to use it, I realize I'm not doing a good job of it since it doesn't do any of the things it needs to. So exploration gets bumped since complete removal is a no effort fix.

[Tridus]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

The most puzzling thing here for me is that Resonance isn't getting as much "hate". The other shifts make sense - as we move into higher level play different aspects of the system become apparent. Kudos to you visionaries who saw magic weapons required for what it was last time.

Thanks for putting all this together! Amazing how high the action economy is. That is as high as a number in a survey like this will ever get.

As for resonance... probably a couple factors there. They already said it's changing, so it feels less pressing even if you still don't like it. Speaking for my table, we just disconnected from the whole system. It means we hardly ever use consumables and only use a limited number of activate items at all.

Resonance turns us off so much that we drastically altered our behavior to avoid having to deal with it. As a result, while playing, it just doesn't feel that pressing anymore. (Honestly sometimes I forget it exists because we're so divorced from it.)

Quote:

I am disappointed that only a few of us are troubled about Exploration Mode. :(

I don't think a lot of people understand exploration mode. For me, it's this vague thing the DM adjudicates and I don't have a strong understanding of how it even works or what's going on behind the DM screen, so it's hard to articulate concerns about it.

[The Once and Future Kai]

ErichAD wrote:

Exploration mode is awful. It didn't make my list since it can be removed without changing anything else in the game. Even trying to use it, I realize I'm not doing a good job of it since it doesn't do any of the things it needs to. So exploration gets bumped since complete removal is a no effort fix.

Can it? Unless I'm missing something, removing Exploration Mode affects dozens of Skill Feats and several Class Feats? I have my own 'system' that I've used in Pathfinder First Edition but I don't like invalidating player character options which means...that I'll need to proactively edit/filter characters options that rely on Exploration Mode as is? I'd rather that they address some of my concerns before publishing Second Edition. This could really be one of Second Edition's strong points (in my opinion)...if they focused on this.

Tridus wrote:

Thanks for putting all this together!

My pleasure. I was a big fan of the original topic.

Tridus wrote:

Amazing how high the action economy is. That is as high as a number in a survey like this will ever get.

Absolutely.

Tridus wrote:

As for resonance... probably a couple factors there. They already said it's changing, so it feels less pressing even if you still don't like it.

That's probably true. The change in names probably had something to do with it as well - Resonance becoming Magical Item Slots and Focus becoming Original Resonance + Spell Points. I should probably run the Resonance Test... I've heard great things about the Staves rules (granted the Wands rules sound terrible).

Tridus wrote:

Speaking for my table, we just disconnected from the whole system. It means we hardly ever use consumables and only use a limited number of activate items at all.

That's been my experience. My existing players usually make heavy use of consumables in Pathfinder First Edition...I wonder if they've been avoiding them specifically because of Resonance. I'll have to ask them.

Tridus wrote:

Quote:

I am disappointed that only a few of us are troubled about Exploration Mode. :(

I don't think a lot of people understand exploration mode. For me, it's this vague thing the DM adjudicates and I don't have a strong understanding of how it even works or what's going on behind the DM screen, so it's hard to articulate concerns about it.

It's definitely a GM side issue... But I'm very concerned about it because it constitutes the bulk of out of combat gameplay and hasn't been given a lot of attention. Also, of course, there's that I was hoping for more. I really want more teamwork inherent to the system (e.g. Deception's Distract usage) and a general upgrade of Social Tactics.

[Voss]

What feats does Exploration mode affect? Honestly it comes off as a complete non-system that can't have any effect on gameplay.

I know I checked out on it with the example that you don't provide detail. The example is explicitly not to be atmospheric or invested what you're doing, 'using my baton i nudge the door forward to help search for traps' but just make 'a search for hazards,' i.e. a disembodied dice roll.

It came across as solely as a way to just skip over gameplay that wasn't sufficiently interesting or if the GM was feeling lazy or the players bored.

The 'social tactics' were even worse, as they read as 'Never Ever Role Play.' Use 'tactics' instead. Which break down into carousing= diplomacy roll, conversing = Intimidation roll (somehow?), Looking Out = Perception, and of course, stealing makes you tired and shopping is... listed but not covered.

[ErichAD]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

ErichAD wrote:

Exploration mode is awful. It didn't make my list since it can be removed without changing anything else in the game. Even trying to use it, I realize I'm not doing a good job of it since it doesn't do any of the things it needs to. So exploration gets bumped since complete removal is a no effort fix.

Can it? Unless I'm missing something, removing Exploration Mode affects dozens of Skill Feats and several Class Feats? I have my own 'system' that I've used in Pathfinder First Edition but I don't like invalidating player character options which means...that I'll need to proactively edit/filter characters options that rely on Exploration Mode as is? I'd rather that they address some of my concerns before publishing Second Edition. This could really be one of Second Edition's strong points (in my opinion)...if they focused on this.

Swift tracker, expeditious search and legendary sneak, are the only things that pop up doing a ctrl+f explor in the pdf. Detect magic and invisibility sphere also have notes on how they function in exploration mode. I'm sure I've missed something though as your recollection doesn't match what I'm seeing.

It's still a concern, but I don't think it's core to the rules enough to be on my top three. Exploration mode so far is also pointed in a poor direction and I don't see it being turned around at all. There's an attempt to use exploration mode mechanics as a limiting factor for certain strategies. It gives a sort of "Ah hah! but your clever plan is actually stupid!" feel to it, and I don't have faith that it could turn into a game play facilitation while it has the burden of balance.

[Greylurker]

Not much has changed for me from what I felt early in the playtest.

I love lots of the core systems and I hate just about everything to do with Character creation.

So my house rules would be I'm stealing a few things from PF2 and taking them back to PF1.

[Kalaran]

Love
Action economy
Spell power scaling with level
Adding damage dice instead of a low, static number

Dislike
Resonence points
Character sheet (it's sideways)
Using an action to use knowledge that you have. You aren't looking it up in a book.

Houserule
Crit on a 20 only/crit fail on a 1 only.
Hero points for heroics, not just for playing.
Make the ranger desirable to play again.

[Kalaran]

Hythlodeus wrote:

hmmmm, let's see...

LOVE:
.) Backgrounds (easy to create new ones for homebrew campaigns, since the all follow the same model. I really like that)
.) Action Economy (at least on paper. in theory it makes the game easier and faster, in praxis, of course, battles are at least twice as long and since Run-Hit-Hit and Hit-Hit-Hit are often the best options, fights get really boring real quick)
.) Ancestries/Heritage (at least the concept. it's a nice idea to be able to make my dwarves dwarfier as they level up. unfortunately they're not dwarfy at all for the first 13 levels as it is right now, but that's fine tuning that might even happen in the final product)

HATE:
.) Monsters/NPCs build differently to the PCs to a level that the GM has no idea how and where those numbers come from (especially odd since Goblins are a CRB ancestry now, but work very, very different compared to their Bestiary cousins who might as well be a totaly different creature)
.) +Level shennanigans (makes way more problems that it solves if it solves any problems at all. video gamey and not what I want to see in TTRPGs at all)
.) Skill system in general (even if +Level is eliminated, the proficiencies and +/-10 make the skill system inferior to the 3.x engine)

HOUSERULE:
.) Exploration mode will be eliminated
.) If you're from a region that might be considered "exotic", wepons from these region do not count as "exotic" weapon to you, but weapons that might be exotic and strange FOR you count instead
.) NPCs are always build with PC creation rules, monsters analogue to the rules of PF1

You asked for only three of each. That's why exploration mode and resonence points didn't get much hate. Ask for 5 or six and it would be different.

[Hythlodeus]

I asked for nothing

[Vic Ferrari]

Greylurker wrote:

Not much has changed for me from what I felt early in the playtest.

So my house rules would be I'm stealing a few things from PF2 and taking them back to PF1.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, as this point, I am looking at PF2 for cannibalisation into my 3rd Ed and 5th Ed campaigns.

[Edge93]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

Not much has changed for me from what I felt early in the playtest.

So my house rules would be I'm stealing a few things from PF2 and taking them back to PF1.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, as this point, I am looking at PF2 for cannibalisation into my 3rd Ed and 5th Ed campaigns.

Filthy 5eer!

I kid. XD There are actually quite a few things I like about that system, I was even looking into trying to GM a campaign with it (I actually guest GMed a single session for a campaign I played in, it turned out well and the boss fight I made was a BEAUTIFULLY close call the likes of which I've only managed 2 or 3 times in PF1, it was especially fun as combat up till then hadn't been a challenge) until I got embroiled in a couple PF1 campaigns I made that I'm very attached to and very much require my PF1 system mastery. XD

[Vic Ferrari]

Edge93 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

Not much has changed for me from what I felt early in the playtest.

So my house rules would be I'm stealing a few things from PF2 and taking them back to PF1.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, as this point, I am looking at PF2 for cannibalisation into my 3rd Ed and 5th Ed campaigns.

Filthy 5eer!

I kid. XD There are actually quite a few things I like about that system, I was even looking into trying to GM a campaign with it (I actually guest GMed a single session for a campaign I played in, it turned out well and the boss fight I made was a BEAUTIFULLY close call the likes of which I've only managed 2 or 3 times in PF1, it was especially fun as combat up till then hadn't been a challenge) until I got embroiled in a couple PF1 campaigns I made that I'm very attached to and very much require my PF1 system mastery. XD

Ha, never heard "5eer", hilarious, I like it.

Right on, 5th Ed seems like a very hack-friendly 3rd Ed Lite, to me. That's what I most dig about it, how easily I can swing it in a more Basic, AD&D, or 3rd Ed direction (crunch it up). I also have a few standard houserules to take care of the few glaring blunders (Expertise and Athletics tied to grappling, Dex to damage, and a few others), I find.