|
First off, I would just like to say that I can empathize with some feel negatively about the direction the new game is heading; however, I have the opposite feelings toward it (for the most part, barring magical weapon potency, the need for magic items to fight against creatures of equal level, and my perceived weakening of the offensive strength of rogues, especially since there is no feat line within rogue to dual wield, which was my favorite style despite being feat-heavy or less effective in most games, and the drastic decrease in sneak attack dice).
1e did not really make my visions of characters really stand out, at least without a guide. More often than not, I made characters that sounded cool to me but turned out to be joke characters when I got to the table. My first interactions with the 1e system left me wholly ineffective in combat, being a rogue before Unchained came out, who did not land a single hit until level 3 and did not get a single kill until level 5, and that really turned me away from the system, especially with D&D 5e came out
Yet D&D 5e did not really scratch the itch I want in a game, as the character customization is not great at all despite me liking some implementations to the system, like backgrounds (I really like the addition of backgrounds instead of traits in the playtest). 2e, so far, has me very intrigued in how it will work based on the playtest. I mean, I love that characters get feats every level and that class features change how characters will be played; it makes every character feel like fighter in 3.X/PF1e with the customization of characters, at least to me, without having to actually dip into fighter. I also really like the how multiclassing/prestiging are done through archetypes, maintaining a base class but exchanging some class features for those of another, while requiring a certain amount of "training" to access the good parts. (Also, I really like bards now; they really make great buffers/debuffers, which I had not seen in other games. Bards become so useful in large groups so that they become as important as clerics in military campaigns, while also being very useful to small parties, especially up against higher level enemies.)
Other little systems that I like include bulk, rarity, and the economic change from gold to silver. Bulk, for me, though it does not completely accurately encompass how things work, makes tracking things easier without worrying about the minutiae so much. Rarity, while I think it should and will be ironed out in 2e, makes things more rare and gives DMs a guideline for what might be game breaking (whether for setting or combat). And the economic change makes currency worth something. In earlier editions, silver and copper were all but worthless, measuring everything in gold.
Anyways, I just want to thank the Pathfinder 2e Staff at Paizo for continuing to improve the game. And I look forward to purchasing it (I would even if nothing but the weapon potency damage is given to the characters instead of weapons is changed.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I also like the direction the game is going. I'm good at optimization so I've never had a problem making effective characters...but the hoops required to make them both effective and fun were often a bit onerous in PF1, and many Classes were basically unusable to me due to what I find fun (good Int and social skills, plus actually fighting with a weapon in combat).
I think being able to get extra weapon damage dice sans magic weapons would be good, but perhaps a die or so behind what magic weapons give. That's sort of a 'best of both worlds' situation, in many ways.
As for Rogues, I really wouldn't worry. Looking Rogues over and seeing them in play, I'm actually very impressed with Rogue combat prowess this edition. They're more fragile than combat classes like Fighter or Barbarian, and often need to spend actions to be firing on all cylinders (to get flanking if nothing else), but once they get going they're actually solidly in the same league offensively as full martial characters. The low Sneak Attack dice are deceptive, since they double on crits now, and are otherwise less restricted than Sneak Attack is in PF1.
I'll chime in and agree. PF2 intrigues me in ways that PF1 and 5ed did not. My hope is that the final system will keep the best parts of the playtest (including bulk, rarity, and Practise a Trade) and that the Core Books will be robust enough to sustain year-long campaigns even without Paizo's published adventures.
FWIW, it will be really easy to houserule potency if that change doesn't happen, and I believe the devs have basically acknowledged they HAVE to get some support for dual wielding rogues in there.
The rogue as is seems pretty good offensively though. Getting what is basically full BAB and having sneak attack dice double on (more common) crits is really good. At the very least, I can attest that Dread Striker rogues are pretty amazing.
Dual wielding currently lacks quite the support fighters or rangers have, but you CAN reap some benefits from it by mixing and matching weapon traits. A deadly rapier in one hand and an agile shortsword in the other, for example. Rogues also have Quick Draw, something I'm pretty sure Fighters lack, which is awesome for both dual wielding and switch hitting.
|
|
I can see most of the points about the rogue, but I think of rogues (my own personal perception that may not be equal to others') as high risk for high reward. Since they have low armor, I want them to hit far harder or at least with better accuracy (only getting up to expert proficiency rank). In the rogue section it says, "You’re
a precision instrument, better used against a tough boss or distant spellcaster than against rank-and-file soldiers." I took that to mean that rogues should be most effective against [unsuspecting] flat-footed single-targets, but as is, I think a fighter with a great sword is far more effective. Of course, this is all my personally biased view of rogues. I will still probably play one as my first character when 2e comes out.
As for the weapon potency, I am probably going to homebrew it as well, as I will be DMing a playtest campaign until 2e comes out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see most of the points about the rogue, but I think of rogues (my own personal perception that may not be equal to others') as high risk for high reward. Since they have low armor, I want them to hit far harder or at least with better accuracy (only getting up to expert proficiency rank). In the rogue section it says, "You’re
a precision instrument, better used against a tough boss or distant spellcaster than against rank-and-file soldiers." I took that to mean that rogues should be most effective against [unsuspecting] flat-footed single-targets, but as is, I think a fighter with a great sword is far more effective. Of course, this is all my personally biased view of rogues. I will still probably play one as my first character when 2e comes out.As for the weapon potency, I am probably going to homebrew it as well, as I will be DMing a playtest campaign until 2e comes out.
Was the fighter with a greatsword ever NOT better at a rogue at slugging it out to murder a thing? The rogue's got a lot of stuff going for it the fighter doesn't, such as double the skills trained, improved, and skill feats. It seems odd to expect them to out damage the fighter too.
|
|
Was the fighter with a greatsword ever NOT better at a rogue at slugging it out to murder a thing? The rogue's got a lot of stuff going for it the fighter doesn't, such as double the skills trained, improved, and skill feats. It seems odd to expect them to out damage the fighter too.I can see most of the points about the rogue, but I think of rogues (my own personal perception that may not be equal to others') as high risk for high reward. Since they have low armor, I want them to hit far harder or at least with better accuracy (only getting up to expert proficiency rank). In the rogue section it says, "You’re
a precision instrument, better used against a tough boss or distant spellcaster than against rank-and-file soldiers." I took that to mean that rogues should be most effective against [unsuspecting] flat-footed single-targets, but as is, I think a fighter with a great sword is far more effective. Of course, this is all my personally biased view of rogues. I will still probably play one as my first character when 2e comes out.As for the weapon potency, I am probably going to homebrew it as well, as I will be DMing a playtest campaign until 2e comes out.
That’s not what I meant to advocate. My intent was to explain that I prefer rogues who are great at being those precision instruments. I do not think that rogues should be as combat oriented as fighters, but I think they should be good at one good strike, possibly because I prefer assassin-ish rogues, much like Altair or Waterflower from City of Sin and how rogues had great single strikes in 3.X/PF1e. I would prefer that over so many skills. Of course, I understand that this is just my personal wish and will most likely not be implemented in the game.
