Ability Score Generation: Eh. For experienced players I’d agree but the new players I introduced definitely had an easier time with it. I think rolling still has it’s appeal but this is a lot more intutive than point buy.
The Level Modifier I’m neutral on this one myself. I understand the positives and the negatives - but both are very theme dependent. I’ll probably switch between using it as is and houseruling it out depending on the theme of the campaign. One of the strengths of the system is that a GM can easily houserule this out.
UTEML: Agreed. Good example.
Criticals on Threshold: Yeah. I have a hard time with this one because I really love it...but I hate the consequences of including it. I don’t understand the slowing down the game complaint...hasn’t really been a problem at my table. But then, I generally calculate most of the math myself and keep ACs/DCs secret from the players.
* DCs and modifiers for everything: Don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here?
* The bugbears: Okay? Is the playtest worse than Pathfinder First Edition at this? Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Skills as Initiative: Yeah. Same here. It’s really only had an impact for monsters. Reintroducing the surprise round might help.
Exploration Mode: Absolutely. This mode constitutes the bulk of out of combat playtime but it’s gotten barely any attention in the playtest. I’m really concerned about this - on a surface level it seems easy to houserule out but it influences dozens of Skill Feats and several Class Feats. I wish that they’d focused more on this instead of Resonance. I'd have abandoned Doomsday Dawn to run an Exploration Mode test for my groups (so far, we've skipped the Resonance test).
* Hero Points Absolutely agree. It’s an unnecessary meta-currency. I’ve been running four playtest groups and none of them have embraced Hero Points.
* On the matter of Ms Brunel This is true but... I don’t usually run published adventures and I’m an experienced GM so this hasn’t been a problem for me. Better guidelines for published materials/novice GMs would be a definite plus...just not for me, personally. It's been interesting to run Doomsday Dawn...feels very restrictive compared to my usual style.
* The layout: Good points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group and I would agree on a number of these, but disagree on a few, at least partially.
Ability Score Generation: My group actually really liked the PF2 method, tbh. We just want classes to also give a floating +2, so you can potentially get to 18 in something that's not your class's key ability score.
The Level Modifier: My group likes the concept of level modifier as a vast simplification over independent progressions for BAB, each individual saving throw, spending skill ranks, etc. HOWEVER, my group would also VERY STRONGLY prefer if it was half level instead of full level. At full level, the level modifier washes out everything else about your character - the UTEML, the ability scores, the items, the everything. Half level would allow it to be a meaningful contribution but not diminish everything else, and would allow more of a feeling of progression than 5E's quarter level.
UTEML: As above, it gets washed out by level modifier. Even if level modifier does get reduced, we would still like to see Untrained at +0, Trained at +2, Expert at +4, Master at +6, and Legendary at +8. This would allow it to feel a lot more significant. We also feel you should be able to get Expert in skills at 1st level, whether by just double spending skill allotments or by some other means. We also feel that instead of skill feats being a separate independent progression, going to Expert, Master or Legend in a skill should just come with a skill feat. If you want more, that's what the general feats are for.
As for gating, ehhhh, I like the idea but the execution in the actual bestiary and campaign is pretty bad. What I would suggest is that the gate not be set higher than 1 tier below the highest tier currently available. So since we think Expert should be able to happen at 1st, your highest gate for a 1st level challenge is Trained. At 7th level when Master kicks in, the gate can be raised to Expert. At 15th level when Legendary kicks in, the gate can be raised to Master. However, like you mention with the example of the magic mirror, they need to give an example of what this represents. What action is in the designer's head? That gives way more room for adjudicating players attempting other things. Likewise, the book should probably explicitly encourage GMs to look favorably on logical or creative and fun alternate solutions.
Criticals on Threshold: I'm a bit split from my group here, because my players like crit/fumble on margin of 10, while I'm less sold on it and see the problems it causes in the math and basic design of the entire game. But yes, I'd at least like stuff to be more even here. On non-damaging spells and abilities, they should strive to make the "succeeded on save" effect as roughly equivalent to one-third to one-half the "failed the save" effect as possible, to better map against damage spells.
DCs and Modifiers for Everything: My group would strongly prefer for spells and breath weapons and whatnot to always be rolled by the attacker, rather than having saving throws. Players like rolling dice for their own abilities! 4E's Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses were the single best part about that entire system.
The Bugbears: Agreed.
Skills as Initiative: My group likes it in concept but is lukewarm in practice. There's rarely an opportunity to actually use non-Perception skills without meta forcing. No one likes that Perception can't be raised except by certain classes. No one likes Sense Motive being part of Perception either, while on the topic.
Exploration Mode: We've also been greatly disappointed by the execution of exploration mode, and the complete and total lack of dev attention to it in updates or even acknowledgement of it whatsoever in forum posts or interviews of any kind. We really wanted this to be great, we were looking forward to it being handled a lot better than PF1! But it's a huge mess.
Hero Points: My group likes Resolve from Starfinder and wanted that instead of the Hero Point implementation we got here. Resolve would also easily fold in Spell Point abilities and activated abilities of strong items instead of Resonance / Focus.
On the Matter of Ms Brunel: It would be good in general for each monster to come with some basic tactical advice of how they will usually fight when not under the command of a leader of differing intelligence. Notably, this would help newer GMs who can be unsure of how to run the game.
The Layout: We like the first page of each class description and then it falls apart from there. Powers need to be printed under the feat or class ability that grants them, or at the very least at the end of the class description. Skill feats need to be printed under the skill to which they are attached. The constant references to other pages elsewhere in the book need to be reduced and tightened up, and yeah, the Dispel example is a particularly bad one.
Variable Attacks of Opportunity: We really think some kind of simple universal AoO needs to return, even if it's, say, tied to becoming Expert in the weapon you are using. (Thus, Wizards would not get AoO, because they don't get Expert in a weapon.) Also, this can still encourage more mobility by not proccing when you are just moving around a creature but still in its reach, because combatants circling each other is awesome: instead, it should only proc for trying to move away.
Fighters can still be the best at AoO and get abilities which augment it, let them move to AoO, etc. Other classes can get abilities that give them AoO under broader circumstances appropriate to the class as well, such as a rogue getting AoO when someone becomes flat footed.
Spell Components: We like this too. We particularly like how Inspire Courage works as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2PT giving everything a DC and a modifier is just screaming they they wanted to offer this kind of streamlining and then backed out of it to satisfy old saws who would bin the system rather than lose the principle of "martials have attack rolls, casters force saves".
I'd be pretty happy if they rethinked that. When the Fighter does a big attack, she gets to roll. When my Cleric does a big spell... the DM gets to roll and I sit there waiting to see what happened.
Lets standardize that and let the attacker roll all the time.
PF2PT giving everything a DC and a modifier is just screaming they they wanted to offer this kind of streamlining and then backed out of it to satisfy old saws who would bin the system rather than lose the principle of "martials have attack rolls, casters force saves".I'd be pretty happy if they rethinked that. When the Fighter does a big attack, she gets to roll. When my Cleric does a big spell... the DM gets to roll and I sit there waiting to see what happened.
Lets standardize that and let the attacker roll all the time.
The current system is nice as it gives players the choice. Not all people like rolling. And if casters want to roll, they can play blasters or touch attack casters or Gish. You have classes for each style of play.
Now a lot of the area control / god wizard style casters has suffered as everyone gets good saves but there is hope that will be tweaked based on the blogs.
I agree pretty much across the board with what you've outlined and have experience quite a few. We outright stopped using exploration mode.
What were you and your player's thoughts on character concepts and being able to achieve them in the current system?
I have found that to be a pretty big issue for Martial characters at my table (Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue especially). Did you/yours have any issues trying to achieve character concepts you expected to be able to do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i quite like fuzzypaws ideas on AOO.
Maybe everybody other than fighter should get -5 to AOO attempts and do less damage (-2 if only one damage die, one damage die less if multiple damage die?) while Fighters get to do it at full strength as a class feature.
PF1E was too static but 2E might be too dynamic in recompense.
Tactical ground control is a fun thing after all and really the only way of tanking that the game has.
Also having some enemies have it but not others is a little confusing. Having it be unlikelier from some kinds of enemies and less damaging makes it a predictable choice. A player can decide to eat the AOO rather than just dance past everyone to get to the squishies at the back. By the same token, any martial can set up at least some sort of a front line, though fighters will far and away be the best at it.
PF2PT giving everything a DC and a modifier is just screaming they they wanted to offer this kind of streamlining and then backed out of it to satisfy old saws who would bin the system rather than lose the principle of "martials have attack rolls, casters force saves".I'd be pretty happy if they rethinked that. When the Fighter does a big attack, she gets to roll. When my Cleric does a big spell... the DM gets to roll and I sit there waiting to see what happened.
Lets standardize that and let the attacker roll all the time.
Much like omitting +Level, house-ruling saves as defences is dead easy. The 3rd Ed UA has a Players Roll All the Dice variant:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm
For anybody reading this, they did the math wrong.
It should be roll against 12+their attack bonus, or 12+their save bonus