Hear our Plea(s)

[Themetricsystem]

I know things are coming to an end soon, and the timeframe for input they can actually test (Internally or otherwise) and print is rapidly approaching.

In light of this I wanted to create a new thread for all of us to just GET IT OUT, you know, that ONE nagging itching thing that you feel absolutely must be changed, added, or addressed.

To keep things light on the moderation staff, I'd like to propose that discussion be kept to a minimum in regards to debating one another. I'd like to to be a good thread where we can each note our one sticking point with the Rules as they stand now.

[Themetricsystem]

My personal Plea:

I would like to see all the extra corner-case treatment of Monks, Unarmed Strike, and their "works like this but doesn't" Class Features cleaned up.

With a new Edition there is NO good reason to continue pushing out RAW that cannot make up it's mind whether Unarmed Strikes REALLY count as weapons. They seem to in some places, but then are called out explicitly in things like the Barbarian Rage as being different.

Also, Unarmed Strike Training for Monk ends at Master, which makes NO thematic sense, especially when Fighters who EXPLICITLY focus on using awesome weapons are better trained than a monk who reaches the absolute peak of bodily perfection. (What is perfection if not Legendary)

Lastly, Trinkets need to be made available in this design-space without forcing the PC to Draw the item as an Action and Hold it during the Attacks.

What about you guys? Let me hear your pleas!

[Porridge]

This is objectively a relatively minor thing, but I *really* hope they change the effects of 1s/20s to -1/+1 degrees of success or (equivalently) -10/+10 on the rolled result.

I know it almost always yields the same results as the current system. But it’s *so* much easier to remember and explain.

EDIT: And, I’ll confess, something about the inelegance of the current system makes me shudder a little every time I see it. The mental equivalent of nails on a chalkboard... :P

[The Once and Future Kai]

For me it's a toss up between Proficency Increases and Exploration Mode.

[PossibleCabbage]

Let me play a Paladin (or whatever) devoted to an idea, a philosophy, a concept, or just basic benevolence. I don't care if it's worse without throwing in with Iomedae or whomever, I just want the roleplaying space for someone who is more certain about moral philosophy than they are about metaphysics.

[dmerceless]

For me it is the old Vancian casting system. I'd 1000 times rather have Arcanist casting for evey caster, or at the very least have something like Quick Preparation for everyone, and give current spontaneous casters other advantages instead.

[Lucas Yew]

For me, it's the PC-NPC transparency (which I love). It doesn't even have to be that strict as in 3.X for a compromise, I'd just want it to exist about as 5E, but a wee stricter (like proficiency based on HD, not CR, in case of 5E) than that. Oh, and only for potential playable races only, I have relatively minuscule care for none-playable monsters...

[Mathmuse]

I too would pick the same issues as The Once and Future Kai, Proficency Increases or Exploration Mode, but I am going to take this opportunity to highlight an issue that has been bothering my players a lot: Action Economy Taxes.

An action economy tax is a action that has to be taken before the character can take the action he or she wants to take. For example, a character has to draw a weapon before attacking with the weapon. A character has to load a crossbow before shooting the crossbow. A character has to pull a potion out of his or her belt pouch before drinking the potion.

Some action economy taxes are stupid. The biggest argument about them in this forum is requiring an entire Interact action in order to change a grip on carrying a two-handed weapon in one hand to wielding the two-handed weapon in two hands. Interact actions provoke attacks of opportunity, too, so don't do that while standing next to an enemy fighter. A minor argument is one I posted about on Monday: Method of Use on Oil of Potency. Rubbing oil on a weapon requires using both hands, so the character cannot hold the weapon while applying Oil of Potency. But the oil lasts only one minute, so applying it in advance--during the awful mess know as Exploration Mode--would cause it to wear off before used. A character has to disarm himself to use Oil of Potency.

"Hands" is an important economy in Pathfinder. A character could use both hands for wielding a two-handed weapon, for a shield and a one-handed weapon, for dual wielding two one-handed weapons, for wielding a one-handed weapon and casting spells with the free hand, or using a dueling technique that requires one hand free. We wouldn't want a character to cheat by saying, "I hold a shield on my left hand and a mace in my right. And I cast a spell with verbal and somatic components." For argument's sake, ignore that rules update 1.6 said that that is legal for clerics and paladins.

This issue is partly because Pathfinder 2nd Edition clarified the use of hands with its Method of Use system. In Pathfinder 1st Edition, we could say, hey, it takes a standard action that involves many little steps of pouring oil onto a rubbing cloth and and rubbing the cloth on the blade, but you have a whole standard action so you can swap items between hands, just like a wizard can draw material components from a spell component pouch while casting a spell or an alchemist can mix alchemical reagents while throwing a bomb. We fudged the details.

And Pathfinder 1st Edition reinforced the use of hands by means of full-attack actions, such as a magus's spell attack where the magus had to have a spellcasting hand and a weapon hand to be able to cast and attack on the same turn. The three-action system in Pathfinder 2nd Edition no longer has full-attack actions. So the designers want to be more careful about hands and adopted Method of Use is to prevent the overuse of hands.

Alas, Method of Use keeps requiring Interact actions. It adds an action tax to the hands economy.

For example, suppose a two-weapon rogue wants to unlock a door. The Pick a Lock single action on page 159 mentions that it requires thieves' tools described on page 187, and TABLE 6–12: ADVENTURING GEAR on page 185 states that thieves' tools are a two-handed item. The rogue kneels at the lock, puts his two weapons on the floor, and draws his lockpicks. That requires two Drop free actions for the weapons and an Interact action for the lockpicks and kneeling is considered the same as standing so no action for that. He starts picking the lock: one success, two successes, turn ends.

Then the keen-eyed bad guy on the other side of the door opens it and stabs the rogue. Ouch. The rogue drops his lockpicks, and grabs his two weapons off the floor. Oops, the action economy says that that requires two Interact actions, because Interact on page 307 says "an object" not "objects". Then he has one action to Strike, Stride, or Take Cover behind the door. Nah, ignore the Take Cover, since that would require a Stride or Step first.

Did I miss a rogue feat that lets him draw two weapons as a single Interact? If so, we can imagine that the rogue would be careful to sheathe his weapons instead of putting them down, though sheathing two weapons before lockpicking would require two more Interact actions.

The net result of all these Interact actions to try to use skills and items is that the martial characters don't try to use skills that use hands. The action tax is too heavy. They don't want to be caught without their weapon ready. Climbing uses hands, but my wife likes skills so her barbarian took One-Handed Climber and restricted herself to a one-handed weapon.

I made a houserule (yes, a houserule in the playtest) to allow the proper use of Oil of Potency. I am considering a houserule that drawing a weapon from a proper scabbard or shifting a two-handed weapon from one hand to two is a free action. Uncorking a potion as part of drinking it, an Operate Activation action, already appears to be an unwritten rule.

[Quark Blast]

Whatever they do, please, please, PLEASE don't let it end up that four 1st level PCs against four goblins takes at least an hour to resolve RAW.

[MER-c]

Long shot idea here, and something I'll probably try to build myself is sorcerers that don't have spell slots at all, and instead cast using Powers as granted by their bloodline and by feats.

[Wolfism]

Seconding MER-c here but my biggest thing is making heavy or light armor viable on all characters.

[Dracala]

For me it is the multiclassing system, I'd like to be able to do 1E style Multiclassing, or at least be able to put Multiclass Archetype Feats into my General Feat Slots. I don't find General Feats as meaningful, and I don't need them for Skill Feats because I have plenty of those regardless of class.

I know they're looking into the bottleneck and I hope they come up with an idea much greater and more tied into their system than these.

[AndIMustMask]

general feat at level 1 for everyone, to allow SOME means of player customization outside of the preset class roles (be it branching out or further specializing) from the get-go, rather than waiting till level 4.
save players several weeks/months of real life time to actually get whatever unorthodox or unique aspects of their character established.

[The Wraith]

The Sorcerer needs to be redone. Like, completely.
At the moment is a sub-par caster which uses one of the 4 magical traditions but is not comparable to the other classes which share their same spell list. Arcane Sorcerer has to compete with the Wizard, their spellbook and their free Quick Preparation, Primal Sorcerer has no Wild Shape and no Animal Companions, Divine Sorcerer has an abysmal portion of the spells known by a Cleric, worse Saves, no Armors and no Channel Energy (they have to spend 1 feat to gain ONE Channel per day) and even the other Spontaneous caster, the Bard, is a better Occult magic user than the Occult Sorcerer (more skills, better HD, better proficiencies with Weapons and Armor, Bardic Compositions).
If Paizo doesn't want to rewrite the 'Spontaneous' Heightening (which is not spontaneous at all - they have to choose which spells can be powered up every morning and the choice is fixed for the entire day...) they have to at least power up the whole Bloodlines.
If they don't change anything, well, at least this edition will have just one Core class totally surclassed by every one else, instead of three in the whole 3.x/PF1 era (Fighter, Rogue, Monk). Let's call it a progress.

[Scythia]

Please let characters feel heroic and competent without having to rely on spell/power buffs, item bonuses, or fighting weaklings to do so. It's very discouraging to have a character that feels like they can't be good without the right buffs or their magic stone.

[sherlock1701]

For me, bonuses need to be stackable to the point where a specialist succeeds 90-100% of the time against a challenge of equal level with only passive effects.

[Tectorman]

Bulk.

1) I want to be able to play characters as specced as the art advertises. Characters with multiple regular weapons (a polearm and a sword and a warhammer) before we even get to things like daggers or hand-axes. And also a ranged weapon or two and sufficient ammo that the only way I run out is if I'm single-handedly fighting one side of the Battle of Helm's Deep. And a shield and associated repair kit. And multiple equipment kits. And heavy armor, if need be. And all of that before the loot from the dungeon gets involved.

2) I want to have it be accounted for in an understandable manner. It doesn't have to be pounds, but let us have some kind of sane gradation rather than "nothing to light, up to nine of which don't even count" and "horses count a sack of 2 bulk as 2 bulk, but divide that sack's contents evenly in half and they count as 1 bulk each, which becomes 2 light, which gets ignored".

[Frozen Yakman]

Torn between removing feat siloing because it's a mind boggling bad idea or adding multiclassing into the game because I don't see how they could ship a D&D style game without multiclassing.

[Ludovicus]

Have players choose fewer but better feats.

Class feats should feel meaty and exciting. Small situational bonuses should be the exception, not the rule. Selecting the right feat for a given build should not require algebra. A feat every level is too much; four feat categories is too much. There is no excuse for having even a single trap or dominant option in the core rules.

[pauljathome]

Make skill feats actually useful, fun and flavorful. I want to have to decide which Really Cool thing I take this level and not go "Eh, not worth spending the time to figure out which feat since they're almost all useless"

[Lightning Raven]

Since some people mentioned some of my concerns and still didn't mention this...

Take a hard look at the types of bonuses. They're conflicting directly with what seems like the game is pushing through, which is teamwork. But the severe lack of different bonuses, along with the current terrible names, just hinder everything.

You want the PC's to rely more on teamwork and strategy. Then allow them to do so. No point in making every buff overlap with each other, specially with CORE CLASS FEATURES (Rage + Inspire Courage comes to mind instantly).

Also, continue working on Bards, they have a lot of potential, just need to be more in line with Rogues and Fighters (they're the benchmark), while I'm on the Rogues topic. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE TO HAVE THAT MUCH SKILLS AND SKILLS FEATS. This is just tradition to make the class relevant, it doesn't need it anymore and it could more in the combat front, with a different playstyle that sets it apart from other classes, this huge pile of skills is unnecessary and doesn't make sense, specially compared with learned classes.

[citricking]

definitely ability score generation, and making all classes dependent on multiple ability scores to provide variety in character creation.

Also making it easier to take multiclass feats, half level is way too punishing. That makes it impossible to multiclass for class features that scale like wild shape or animal companions, it should be level-2.

[Vic Ferrari]

I have more than one itch to scratch:

I would like extra weapon damage dice not to be tied to +X weapons, but level.

I want them to drop the whole UTEML deal, just a weird new thing (no legacy or traction), delivers no power, it comes to nothing.

Remove all icons/symbols, not just because I am vision impaired (the 2 and 3 action symbol are hard to differentiate at a glance), they also just look cheap and tacky (the Reaction one looks like a men's restroom sign).

[Neutral_Lich]

i would like to voice my opinion but since animate dead was not in the playtest i ddnt even get the chance to build a opinion

the very fact they chose not to test it worries me

[Hythlodeus]

If I have to have only one plea than that's to rethink what your definition of the word "edition" is.

the second edition of a novel usually doesn't change the plot and structure, even if it is a revised edition. The second edition of Moby Dick didn't add sharks with laserguns, made Moby Dick lose his ancestral ability to swim and changed the point of view to one of a seagull passing by Ahab's ship.

PF2 is not a new edition. It is not Pathfinder at all. It is a new, different game. If you want to produce and sell a new game, that's totally fine, just don't call it a Pathfinder Second Edition just as I don't call a novel about a seagull watching a whaling ship catain in a three way fight with a stranded whale and sharks with laserguns "Moby Dick".

[Vidmaster7]

I would SOOOOOoooo read that edition of Moby dick.

[Hythlodeus]

honestly, I would too.

[ShadeRaven]

I am with you, Vid. Moby Dick, 2E, is a winner!

I don't mind it being 2E - every new edition of D&D has been pretty drastically different than the previous version except for AD&D to 2nd Edition AD&D.

What I want most from what I have seen so far is much more vague and much more encompassing. I see a lot of good ideas and too much poor execution. I think trying to tighten up the rules for easier application is a great idea, but then they scatter them about in an awful layout that makes finding all the pieces an exercise in PDF hopping. If this had been a hardback book, I would have broken the binding constantly flipping back and forth.

There's also this feel that the original goal was to make the rules easier to use, and I think there was a lot of progress there, only to have some individual components completely forget that was the intent as the brainstorming session group for that feature got lost in micromanagement. Because some pieces of game play are unnecessarily convoluted, hopping between the smooth and understandable to the confusing and unruly makes it all seem worse.

[gwynfrid]

I'd like to ask for just one thing: That we intuitively know what type a bonus is, solely based on its source and without having to consult the rules. With a lot of experience, I can do this in PF1 and be correct most of the time. PF2 has less bonus types (good!) so I would expect this to be easier now, and unfortunately the playtest isn't quite there yet.

Directly related to this, can we get rid of the term "conditional bonus"? The fact that some conditions give circumstance penalties/bonuses while others give conditional penalties/bonuses is very confusing.

[Ludovicus]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Take a hard look at the types of bonuses. They're conflicting directly with what seems like the game is pushing through, which is teamwork. But the severe lack of different bonuses, along with the current terrible names, just hinder everything.

You want the PC's to rely more on teamwork and strategy. Then allow them to do so. No point in making every buff overlap with each other, specially with CORE CLASS FEATURES (Rage + Inspire Courage comes to mind instantly).

I was actually really on the fence about whether to pick this as my plea!

[Deadmanwalking]

I've addressed most of my mechanical issues elsewhere, so here I'll go with the thematic one:

I agree entirely with those who prefer that Paladins not require a deity. Part of the appeal of that Class for me has always been that they are empowered by their devotion to their cause the same way Druids are by nature itself, rather than absolutely requiring a deity. That they are literally powered by their own righteousness (or wickedness, for an Antipaladin). That's super cool and I'd hate to lose it.

[PhoenixSunrise]

I've tried to hide it from my players as they're not active on the forums or other places we're all frequenting to glean new knowledge. But they're also not stupid and they've taken to asking if they should roll or just flip a coin when I have them make a check.

So, in general, what appears on the surface to be choices and decisions galore are actually numerous linear decisions that you have to commit to at early level if you want to keep up.

-Linear progress and number scaling. (If you keep up, you maintain ~50% chance to succeed a medium DC for your level, at any level.)
-Linear skill choices. (Choose 1-2 skills only to focus on and just be ok with your success rate of everything else dropping dramatically.)
-Linear skill feats. (Because of linear skill choices, your options for new skill feats are limited and have circumstantial use at best. Usually it's assumed you take the highest level feat option you have unlocked.)
-Linear class feats. (Commit early which subpath [TWU, Shield, Storm Druid, Stances, Bows, etc] you're taking and reluctantly take the only feat that pertains to your subpath at each level it's available.)
-And I guess in a way, linear multiclassing. (Class dedications give you armor/weapons and smell faintly of a class but only in the way that my visiting a farm will make me smell faintly of cows but doesn't make me a farmer. You have to take 2-3 level dips into any one dedication to have even the faintest hint of being that class. So either you commit to some kind of 50/50 split or just avoid multiclassing altogether.)

I said this months ago before the revisions even started rolling out. I'm fully on board for all of the concepts that PF2e has promised. They're steps in the right direction and keep me interested in the potential for a d20 system that I actually enjoy. I'm just still extremely hesitant about the implementation of any of them.

[Mathmuse]

gwynfrid wrote:

I'd like to ask for just one thing: That we intuitively know what type a bonus is, solely based on its source and without having to consult the rules. With a lot of experience, I can do this in PF1 and be correct most of the time. PF2 has less bonus types (good!) so I would expect this to be easier now, and unfortunately the playtest isn't quite there yet.

Directly related to this, can we get rid of the term "conditional bonus"? The fact that some conditions give circumstance penalties/bonuses while others give conditional penalties/bonuses is very confusing.

I cataloged the 42 Basic Conditions on pages 320 to 324 to see how mixed the conditional and circumstance modifiers were. The results are below.

12 Conditional Modifiers
Blinded: –4 conditional penalty to Perception
Deafened: –2 conditional penalty to Perception. Also DC 5 flat check on auditory activities.
Drained: conditional penalty on Fortitude saves and Constitutionbased checks. Also lose hit points.
Enervated: conditional penalty on checks that include a proficiency modifier.
Enfeebled: conditional penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, and Strength-based checks.
Fascinated: –2 conditional penalty to Perception and skill checks.
Fatigued: conditional penalty to AC and saving throws.
Frightened: conditional penalty to checks and saving throws.
Sick: conditional penalty on all your checks.
Sluggish: conditional penalty to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity-based checks, and Reflex saves.
Stupified: conditional penalty on spell rolls; spell DCs; and Intelligence-, Wisdom-, and Charisma-based checks.
Unconscious: –4 conditional penalty to AC

6 Circumstance Modifiers
Asleep: -4 circumstance penalty to Perception.
Flat-footed: -2 circumstance penalty to AC.
Friendly: +2 circumstance bonus to Lie, Make an Impression, or Request.
Helpful: +4 circumstance bonus to Lie.
Prone: –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls and +1 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks
Unfriendly: –2 circumstance penalty to Lie and Make an Impression.

7 Typeless Modifiers
Accelerated: Numerical increase in speed.
Encumbered: Increase armor check penalty by 2. Decrease Speed by 10 feet, down to Speed 5 at worst.
Entangled: Hampered 10.
Hampered: Numerical decrease in speed.
Hostile: Others have –4 penalty to Make an Impression and Lie.
Quick: Gain 1 additional action
Slowed: Fewer actions per turn.

2 Weird
Broken: Broken armor gives a conditional penalty to AC.
Persistent damage: Gives typed damage.

7 Other numbers
Concealed: DC 5 flat check against attacks.
Confused: Actions controlled by 1d4 roll.
Dazzled: Creatures concealed from vision.
Dead: Hit points go to 0.
Dying: Adjusts its own number.
Petrified: Gain new stats as a statue.
Sensed: DC 11 flat check against attacks and other activities that target you.

8 No Numbers
Fleeing
Grabbed
Immobile
Indifferent
Paralyzed
Restrained
Stunned
Unseen

[Paradozen]

Please take another shot at the armor system to make armors feel more rewarding and less punishing. Especially regarding armor proficiencies traits and penalties, as they all are arranged in a balance that seems skewed away from my preferences. Armor is punishing, and the more you get the more punishment you accept. Heavy armor is only desirable if your class tells you you have to wear it, and then only because no other class does the same for light/medium armor. Special features on armor are just warning signs to stay away if possible because they are generally bad for you. As a fan of the aesthetic of full plate armor, I'd really like it to be more rewarding than it currently feels.

Please make sure that table 10-2 is used based on the level of the obstacle and not the level of the PC in published encounter design. And that encounter designs for published adventures has a majority of enemies which are lower level than the party. Shifting these around will make PCs feel more heroic while still leaving room for tense and difficult encounters. Further, clearer rules on using table 10-2, more examples of use in the CRB2, and published adventures which use it based on the level of the obstacle and not PC will make it easier for GMs like myself to write homebrew campaigns with these standards.

Please keep some contact on some of the behind-the-scenes improvements to the game, if possible, between the end of the playtest and the launch of the new game. Doesn't have to be as much as during or before the playtest, but every month or so having a quick update on whats going on in transferring the playtest to the final game could very easily be a huge morale boost for me and my group. Or at least help me gauge which of my group will be open to the PF2 game on release versus those I might try to persuade after more content is released.

And finally, please take care of yourselves. I know this must be a stressful time for everyone working on PF2, and I hope all of you have enough time to keep in good health and morale.

[Dairian]

Frozen Yakman wrote:

Torn between removing feat siloing because it's a mind boggling bad idea or adding multiclassing into the game because I don't see how they could ship a D&D style game without multiclassing.

I think the rules are robust enough that with just a tiny tweak we can ditch classes entirely! (still present "classes", but they are just pre-canned advancement charts for those who would rather not play classless.)

Replace level requirements on feats with proficiency level requirements, and bam, super slick classless system. Infinite variety.

[sherlock1701]

Dairian wrote:

Frozen Yakman wrote:

Torn between removing feat siloing because it's a mind boggling bad idea or adding multiclassing into the game because I don't see how they could ship a D&D style game without multiclassing.

I think the rules are robust enough that with just a tiny tweak we can ditch classes entirely! (still present "classes", but they are just pre-canned advancement charts for those who would rather not play classless.)

Replace level requirements on feats with proficiency level requirements, and bam, super slick classless system. Infinite variety.

This edition could potentially play very well with the career system from Dark Heresy. Unlock stuff based on your career rank (total XP spent) and get other stuff by spending double xp.

[BluLion]

I like a lot of the ideas behind second edition, but after thinking about it, I think 5e style preparation would work better for the system, but if they do so, sorcerer needs some stronger abilities (whether it be stronger bloodline powers or better spellcasting feats) to distinguish themselves as specialist casters compared to the more generalist "prepared casters" who are able to adapt every night to different occasions.

I know there's a change to animal companions that allows them to still use an action even without "orders", but I want some more support for the animal companion and twf combo. One of my favorite characters was a dualwielding kobold ranger with a raptor for an animal companion, and they would essentially tag team enemies together at melee combat. I hope that build works in the final version, because while I haven't kept up with everything, what I know about the action economy of animal companion users have me worried that I'll have to stick with ranged combat to use animal companions.

[don't wake baby]

I like a lot of the things about 2E - it seems more balanced (especially compared to 1E).

Conceptually, the idea the proficiency skill bonus for each step after trained is just a +1 just bugs me. It doesn’t feel right. It isn’t clear to me on how you can fix this easily. Maybe changing from -4/0/1/2/3 to -4/-1/1/3/4 could work? You couldn’t do this with attacks/perceptions/saves - it would unbalance too quickly.

Other than that, it comes down to a lot of preference quicks.

[Wolfism]

I can't believe I forgot about the excessive siloing of feats! That's my big one. Fix that and a lot of other things will fall into line I think.

[Ediwir]

Feats need to be more meaningful and meaty, and not just a way for numbers to keep up.

I realise this was a major point in this edition’s premises, but it doesn’t feel like it went through, especially when you have feats like ‘use your class DC for this thing you couldn’t use the last 10 levels’ or ‘remember this feature? Now it’s level-appropriate again’.

Next, address numerical bonuses. Lower the relative impact of item bonus on skills (+5 is way too much with the low variability of this system) and make it so the ‘active’ component does not become absolutely useless a couple of weeks after buying it.

[Zwordsman]

(sidenote: Also. Make Alchemical Items give an Alchemical Bonus. Way too much wont' stack with the items)
I still think the Alchemist needs a generalize skill. NOT the current perpetual thing. Which is really quite awkward and doesn't scale well (and in a looot of cases. does not actually work )

Alchemical Substance. Synthesized from the Alchemist's own blood.
It can be used as a Bomb. Poison damage. Sneak Attack scaling dice of damage. May or may not have splash. All of which are Alchemical Bonuses. not Item Bonuses.
Can be eaten as a mutagin for (only) temp HP equal to idk, min dice+splash or something. Can be applied as a poison DAMAGE (like that rogue poison weapon. one instance).
It is a poison effect for anyone else, unless properly handled by the alchemist (such as when combining with elixir, potions and such)

The substance can be combined on a normal items for a boosted effect.
I.e. a daily created bomb can be combined with the Alchemical substance. So on hit, it applies both. I.e. a Bottled Lightning combined with the substance woudl do Xd6 lightning + Xd6 poison substance +1 splash (of the bomb, not the substance)
combined with a mutagin or extra life, it would give the normal item + Temp HP of some sort.
Combined with a poison would give the poison an initial damage (as per the substance) but no other real boosts to the poison itself.

Up to INT in creation at one point of time. Can be made with 10min interveral. AND via quick alchemy-in which case it lasts as per normal.
Any Study Line can use any form of the above. BUT. The specific lines gain an action economy benefit when created via quick alchemy.
I.e.
Bomber could use 1 action quick alchemy to create the Substance AND combine it with a bomb he has on hand (or with a bomb created if they can make 2 items via quick alchemy). Then have 2 actions left that round (presumably to throw)
Where as a poisoner, or mutaginist, would have to spend 1 action creating, and 1 action applying to the bomb. Leaving 1 action that round (presumably to throw)

Same with the other lines and similiar concepts.

This would allow the Alchemist, from lv 1, to have "their niche" in concept. In a way that is not a problem compared to casters or martials. AND would allow them to boost their Bombs and other items (their daily limited resource) to be more comparable to weaker spells. AND signify that Alchemists. in fact. are actually better at the Alchmical Items.. because they really aren't.

The action econmy of the Quick Alchemy version (for say, someone who wants to use it as a bomb on mini mobs) is comparable to the cantrip action economy. but for weaker damage really. Combining is comparable action wise to spell casting. Albiet still weaker (for better or for worse)

Basically. the Alchemist is trying, so hard , to be an off martial and off caster. But failing at well.. even being an off one.
They really do need some sort of unlimited amount usable tool that grows with them, and allows them to be played on attack, or support, depending on what the user wants. This item would allow for almost all versions of that concept to be supported. The INT limit keeps it from just prepping a bazillion of them. WHILE also allowing the alchemist's "skill to grow" as they level up.

[kpulv]

So hard to choose just one thing but... I think I have to go with removing vancian casting. It feels so needlessly convoluted compared to the arcanist style, or 5e casting style.

[nicholas storm]

I think the big one in our groups is how spells end up in the final edition. If they don't buff them a lot from where they are now, then we will probably find another game.

Another pet peave for me is armor penalties for medium and heavy armor - they are too extreme for gaining nothing in net AC.

[Dave2]

I think the soiling of feats is actually a good idea. I do think instead of class feats they should be called class abilities and I think that fixes quite a bit. In PF1 all the fighter had until very late in the edition with weapon and armor master handbook. The one thing they had was allot of feats and high bab.

So if you want everything to be feat based and not class lets do this. Every class feat should be open. So if a Fighter wants to cast spell have first level cast spells feat that gives you the same thing the Wizard has at level 1 as long as they meet the feat requirement. Why have any class special abilities. Lets make it all feat based. I had friend ask me about this. I equate it to this. Navy Seals go through all kinds of special training to do the things they do. Do you think an accountant should be able to take feat and be as trained as navy seal?

That is the point I would have with any class feat. It is part of their special training. So no the Barbarian should not be able to take general feat to be able to power attack. Unless the fighter can take general feat to rage. This would be done with multi classing not general feats.

As I said above. I would change class feats to class abilities.

[Pramxnim]

Having to choose just 1 thing I want in the final edition is difficult, but after spending some time in consideration, I'd have to say:

Please continue what you guys are trying to do with removing old RPG traditions that have fallen by the wayside in modern games. In particular, I think Vancian casting is outdated and unfun in practice, and it would not hurt the game to have it removed.

[Ephialtes]

dmerceless wrote:

For me it is the old Vancian casting system. I'd 1000 times rather have Arcanist casting for evey caster, or at the very least have something like Quick Preparation for everyone, and give current spontaneous casters other advantages instead.

100% agree!