Hear our Plea(s)


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My one thing is to please make player made items useful (poisons, snares, ECT.) My suggestion would be giving these items scaling DCs would make them more practical and give players a larger selection as they level.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, no one else brought it up and I haven't had time to make a thread on it....So I'll mention two major things here.

1: Tight math.
I think the math needed tightening up from the first edition...But, for your own sake, it might be best to loosen it somewhat.
As it is, you have no wiggle room. If you release one item or class ability that gives a superior bonus then it could completely break the math.

2: Utility magic.
There are a lot of things I would like to request about magic...This is first on the list though.

First, an explanation.
I will divide Utility magic into three parts so we can more easily understand what I am talking about.

1: REALITY CREATING, WORLD ENDING, ARMY MAKING MAGIC!!!!
This is what makes people think Wizards are overpowered. Cause they have things like Create Demiplane, Animate Dead, Simulacrum, etc.

2: Magic that replaces the use of a skill or class feature.
This category includes things like Knock or Invisibility that, theoretically, makes mages able to work without any of those pesky skills...And also completely undermine the person who specializes in them.

3: World-building/creative magic as I like to call it.
This includes things like Shrink Item, Prestidigitation, Unseen Servant, and other useful magic spells that let you interact with the world.

Three types and three separate problems... Now for my Plea.

1: Make most of the MIGHTY MAGIC!!! spells into Rituals so that such world changing things are: Less available to anyone at a university, more available to the evil peasant/non-caster who studied dark Tomes he found, have horrific costs and backlashes if done wrong.

2: You guys already have tried to address this problem, but I would like to add some additional insight. The problem with things like Knock, was never the spell...Wizards didn't replace Rogues by 'casting' Knock... Wands are what replaced the need for that.

If only a mage has the spell then, once in a while, he'll cast it in an emergency when they don't have the Rogue. Otherwise he will just save his slots, he's not a door opener he's a scholar!

But wands....I don't like them too much. Raising the level of Knock would help make it less economically feasible...but I'll leave solving this one to you guys.

3: And here is one of the few things that truly disappointed me...The nerfs to creative spells. Lets use Shrink Item as an example. It is a very powerful utility spell to a creative person with a mind to find all the unintentional uses for such a thing.

All it does, is shrink stuff. At first people were only using it to carry more luggage or shrink down a door to get in...Then they started slinging boulders at people, dropping shrunken lava patches on their heads and carting around trebuchets.

The nerf for this spell in question..."The object cannot be used to attack or damage when it returns to normal size."

...You remember games like Skyrim? Where you hear about people using the Invisibility spell to turn other people or objects invisible? But no matter what you do you can't do that cause it only targets you? Even when it should be able to do soooo much more?

Tabletops don't have this problem..Because you are designed to interact with the world and you can just tell your GM "I attempt to blow myself out of the cannon with the Fireball"

I don't believe that it is the best idea to nerf creative spells so that: Enemies are magically force fielded against damage cause it's not supposed to deal damage regardless of the logical consequences of a falling boulder, or it's not open ended enough to use in any other situation other than the one described in the spell, or it's duration is so low that it can only be used for combat and nothing else...

Please forgive my rant but I do feel strongly about this...Let us be clever, let us interact with the world, and let us play the open worlded game!

Good day

P.S. (to the developers) I really do like what you've done with a lot of things and mean no insult. Though the execution has been a bit rough during the playtest I'm quite hopeful that you guys will smooth things out for the final product. I hope I have given you some useful feedback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My preferred method of spellcasting has always been the Mana/Power/Spell point system (such as RoleMaster) with interesting spells/spell lists to accompany it. It also allowed for the risk of overcasting and excessive PP use to add extra possibilities/dangers.

It's not going to happen, but that type of system has always been to my liking.


Wow. It's nice to know someone actually agrees with me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As much as spellcasters need help and Table 10-2 needs to be killed, I think my main gripe now is with Bulk and item selection by Item Level. This feels like jumping through hoops set up specifically to make the game math more frustrating for no good reason. Anyone can add up pounds and gold pieces; these alternate systems are WAY confusing.


For me it is without doubt the current skill system that is extremly static and boring that need to be opened up and get some more freedom and flexibility!

As the current skill system work you get plenty of classes that really cannot contribute at all in skill challenges and even worse at specifik skills since the stats are what decides what skill the classes are strong in.Even in skills they are supposed to be good they cannot because that skill have the wrong stat.
This really hamstring the roleplaying aspect of the game as well where a player never can choose what skill he can be trully good at.

I suggest each class have 10(Can be a different number, balance issue) talent point to distribute to increase the stats for the skills only.
The character get to increase the current stat for his choosen skill he have with his talent Point, up to the amount of talent Point he has.
Stat for a specifik skill could max be increased to +4)

Ex A Ranger have put 14 in wisdom. That gives him +2 in perception from his wisdom in the perception skill. He wants to be a better scout so he put +2 in perception from his talent points to increase his stat for perception only. Talent Points only help increase stats in specifik skill choosen. he uses his remaining talent Point on other skills.

The amount of talent Point is a balancing issue but I would guess around 10 Points would be sufficient and feel good.

Another possibility would have have some feats included for each class that let the class choose a different stat for a specifik skill.
But this might be to expensive in terms of feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Well if I had to pick one...

Tectorman wrote:
Bulk.

It ranks right up there with kender... Neither are going to be in a game I spend my time/money on... :P

PS: this doesn't mean I would mind bulk as some kind of optional rule or something but I'd personally bow out of any game when the DM said that it was using bulk.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I would SOOOOOoooo read that edition of Moby dick.

So would I, but it needs something more... To quote the immortal Bender "I am going to build my own theme park book with blackjack and hookers!"!! ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those words shall live on for many many generations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

-Keep starting stat generation and stat progression as is. Unless you want it to be even more generous.

-Get rid of the current skill system, go back to skill points, how many ranks you have determine how good you are in that skill, and all skills are class skills for all classes.

-Redo the sorcerer give them actual bloodline powers(immunities, resistances, cool special abilities, etc.)

-Let low level spells be used at will at higher levels.

-Have more feats that grant static bonuses and constant effects.

-Have feats and class abilities progress by level.

-Make healing more effective. Let it be maximized outside of combat or even during combat.

-Bring back the concept of supernatural abilities like some class abilities and many monster abilities used to be.

-Better racial abilities for each race and better feats to enhance them.

-Less feats and more class features.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Please. Fix. Assurance.

It is exactly backwards to your stated game design goals. It is a feat that gets weaker as you level up. It peaks out at level 15, and then only gets worse from then on.

I know, I harp on this a lot, but man... if the current version of Assurance is in the final game it will bug me so much. >.>

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

-Keep starting stat generation and stat progression as is. Unless you want it to be even more generous.

-Get rid of the current skill system, go back to skill points, how many ranks you have determine how good you are in that skill, and all skills are class skills for all classes.

-Redo the sorcerer give them actual bloodline powers(immunities, resistances, cool special abilities, etc.)

-Let low level spells be used at will at higher levels.

-Have more feats that grant static bonuses and constant effects.

-Have feats and class abilities progress by level.

-Make healing more effective. Let it be maximized outside of combat or even during combat.

-Bring back the concept of supernatural abilities like some class abilities and many monster abilities used to be.

-Better racial abilities for each race and better feats to enhance them.

-Less feats and more class features.

Super Ninja Jutsu!

Thanks Math.

I really don't like OP Moderating threads (As if THAT"S effective) but I'm glad you mentioned it. I DO want this conversation to be about what all of you guys REALLY desperately want the Paizo team to LITERALLY take time out of their busy work schedule to take a second look at.

If you got to pick just 1 of those things to "vote" for what would it be? At some point I'm going to try to collect the replies to see if there is one or more issues that seems to stick out more than others, it MAYBE could quite possibly be helpful!

PS: ...:
Also, backtalk and bickering about characters in the Tales Novels and if they are noted as stopping to prepare spells? This is not really in line with what I wanted this thread to pertain to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I really don't like OP Moderating threads (As if THAT"S effective) but I'm glad you mentioned it. I DO want this conversation to be about what all of you guys REALLY desperately want the Paizo team to LITERALLY take time out of their busy work schedule to take a second look at.

If you got to pick just 1 of those things to "vote" for what would it be? At some point I'm going to try to collect the replies to see if there is one or more issues that seems to stick out more than others, it MAYBE could quite possibly be helpful!

Well for me, there are several things that need fixed/altered/removed/left in a shallow grave... to play/buy the new game but I picked the worst offender [though it was a photo finish to see what feature was the worst]: so I can understand someone wanting to post their 'dislike' list as narrowing it down to one when you have several that bug you can be tough. It's like having to pick between replacing a missing tire or filling an empty gas tank on your car: it's hard to say which is more important as a single option doesn't get the car in working order. :P

Sovereign Court

Cleric - Bard - Sorcerers (and to a lesser extent Wizards) are a in need of help. I feel like the core problem is the below:

Clerics have been given the identify of pure healer and with the Channel nerf (of which I was initially a huge advocate of, but now having played with it a few times, not so much), they are lost. Domains should play a greater role for Clerics as they level and it may be worthwhile to seriously consider putting Heal/Harm on the Occult Spell list and giving Channels back to Clerics. Also, adding back the ability for them to sack a prepped spell for Heal/Harm would be helpful.

Sorcerers got inadvertently nerfed with 1.6 and it hurts. I thought 2ed would lean into bloodlines, but instead leaned into spells (which were weaker). Like Clerics, Sorcerers should have their bloodline play a much larger role as they level (NOTE: This means they don't need to spend a class feat for additional effects. It also means that there are more class feats that take specific bloodlines in new directions). The idea that spontaneous casting is no longer a Sorcerer/Bard thing means both classes need to pick up the slack being original elsewhere. For sorcerer I feel bloodlines is clearly the trick.

Bards are no longer about performance. In 1ed the first thing you did as a bard was select which performance you were going to focus in on. Now with the proficiency system, that's no longer a thing. Worse still 3 of our old abilities - Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Performance, and Versatile Performance are all pitted against one another. Instead of getting these all at first level and choosing how to advance them, they are not really fully available for all. You get to choose two now (if you're human) or wait until late game to pick another one up. I love how Inspire Heroics works and how it makes performance center stage. I really want to see bards go back to that.

Also, bard's heals are so much weaker than Clerics - even after the nerf. I get that we share a buff and bards have a chance to make that better. I posit that Soothe should work the same way as Inspire Courage(Heroics). Add an additional Somatic Casting or Verbal Casting action to do a performance check to have the healing and bonus affect additional targets. A medium DC performance check allows the ability to heal the bard too. A hard DC performance check allows the ability to affect the bard and 1 other ally within range. Finally an incredible DC allows it to affect the bard and 2 other allies within range. When cast in this fashion the spell heals a reduced amount that is equal to the your spellcasting ability modifier. When heightened this healing increases by 1d6 instead of the 2d6 granted to a single target.

Honestly, I like a lot about what we've seen in the playtest, but it just seems there are raw edges that a hurting fun factor. Bards not being focused around performance anymore is one of them. NOTE: I don't mean for us to go back to the 3.5 of required ranks in perform to use abilities. I just want performance to matter - like it does in Inspire Heroics. I also hope we get some combat class feats since things like Power Attack are no longer general feats. Getting Sound Striker-like feats would be cool too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well if I have to pick just one...and they will not change the skill system...then fix the sorcerer, make it much, much more bloodline focused. Well the caster classes in general really need help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really wish they would not "re-invent the wheel" and just modify 1st edition with clearer language and simpler terms. If Pathfinder 2nd edition was more a Starfinder system instead would be much more to my liking.


Ironwedge wrote:
I really wish they would not "re-invent the wheel" and just modify 1st edition with clearer language and simpler terms. If Pathfinder 2nd edition was more a Starfinder system instead would be much more to my liking.

This exist already. It's called Starfinder. It even share a lot with Pathfinder. You can probably run a lot of campaigns using that game's system of combat rules. Since the rules of NPC and Monster creation are very intuitive, it helps creating monsters exclusive to Pathfinder you want to use.

PF2e is not PF1.5e, try to be a little open minded and give the system a try when it finally releases. I'll, even though there is still some major concerns of mine that are huge deal-breakers, namely mandatory magical items (potency runes and statboosts), ancestries complete lack of flavor and terrible implementation of an interesting idea and a lot of classes being treated very unfairly, specially when compared to Fighters and Rogues, this seems like a trend carried over from Starfinder, in which Soldiers (space fighters) and Operatives (space rogues) are the best classes available so far.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

The dealbreaker for me is something I know isn't even on the table for reconsideration... I want NPCs and PCs to be built using basically the same rules. This thing where level 1 NPC goblins are functionally a completely different creature than any level 1 PC goblin? So much nope.

Yes, I've played games that didn't have that cohesive world rules thing... but then D&D3.0 came out and my group has never looked back. We have a long tradition of characters crossing back and forth between PC and NPC in games, and I'm just not willing to toss that storytelling option into the dustbin for a new edition of anything.

Tied to that is the "the rules work this way for this group of X people and differently for the entire rest of the known universe" stuff that we ran into in this playtest. My group gave up partway through Sombrefell Hall out of sheer frustration so maybe some of that got addressed in later updates, but the different rules for dying/initiative/resonance just grated on everyone. That thing where NPCs/monsters get the same ability as PCs under a different name (trip/knockdown, grapple/grab), but with auto-success instead of needing to roll fooled no-one and annoyed the hell out of everyone.

I personally (not speaking for the group in this paragraph) have some other things that really don't work for me as a player or a GM, but some of those could probably be houseruled into functionality if needed. But the non-cohesive worldbuilding is a hill I'll metaphorically die on.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

It's weird you know. This is a Game I think I would enjoy playing, but I never want to make a character for it.

The Core systems are good, and with a little polish now that they have a lot of playtest Data I'm convinced that they will be better.

but the systems they have chosen for Character design are just full of stuff I hate. I hate the level gating, the compartmentalization, the checklist of balance to make sure you have X-number of skill options and x-number of combat options and x-number of race options. I hate that all the options for actually customizing my character are fighting over the same real estate. Coming up with new characters and interesting combos was half the fun of the game for me and making a character in PF2 is not fun. It's this narrow, restrictive, color inside the lines, slog. and that pretty much ruins it for me.

So my Plea - Find someway to open character creation up more and let it be fun. Let me color outside the lines


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

It's weird you know. This is a Game I think I would enjoy playing, but I never want to make a character for it.

The Core systems are good, and with a little polish now that they have a lot of playtest Data I'm convinced that they will be better.

but the systems they have chosen for Character design are just full of stuff I hate. I hate the level gating, the compartmentalization, the checklist of balance to make sure you have X-number of skill options and x-number of combat options and x-number of race options. I hate that all the options for actually customizing my character are fighting over the same real estate. Coming up with new characters and interesting combos was half the fun of the game for me and making a character in PF2 is not fun. It's this narrow, restrictive, color inside the lines, slog. and that pretty much ruins it for me.

So my Plea - Find someway to open character creation up more and let it be fun. Let me color outside the lines

I think this is the biggest problem for me too. I read with interest the Customisation Bottleneck thread where Jason B agreed there was a problem. I haven't found the ABC system at all enticing. Coupled with the critiques of multiclassing mentioned elsewhere and in this thread and my own dislike of the current offering for archetypes then I'm left with what might be an interesting or even robust system...that I don't want to actually make a character for...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, I think tactics has been and will be important to both versions of PF.

Maybe it would be best said that a highly optimized character in PF1 with non-op characters against unaltered, CR appropriate enemies, gives the appearance that tactics aren't necessary because they can bulldoze encounters by comparison.

Necromental is right, a DM who optimizes and alters accordingly can really challenge those optimized, superior characters. But, again, that's where the divide comes in. There are casual GMs, too, who don't want to have to rework material to make it appropriate. They want to be able to buy an AP and just play it as is (and my experience with that was supercharged characters outclassed RotRL played as is but the more casual player found it very challenging).

If MER-c has seen what I have seen, it may simply be that without GM intervention, the truly optimized characters using all the available rules can make teamwork and tactical strategy negligible. It was in the buff thread (iirc), amongst others, that PF1 veterans were complaining that PF2 lacked the ability to decide battles (even against the BBEG) before hand or in the first round - but that only came as a compliment to all the optimization of PF1. 1 round combat is only common to those characters.

I would hope that PF2 finds a way to reduce the disparity so that canned adventures are playable by all comers and teamwork, tactics, etc., can be the agent that makes encounters much easier and more rewarding.

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking as someone who enjoys optimization, and whose current player group includes two other people who also enjoy that (along with a more casual player and one who's somewhere in the middle), I don't think PF2 penalizes or disincentivizes being optimization optimization focused in the least. Very few systems do, and certainly none as complex as PF2. Heck, it hasn't even made baseline optimization less necessary.

What it's done, and people are still getting used to, is make the gap between absolute optimization and 'I put an 18 in my main stat' baseline optimization a lot narrower. That's a pretty unambiguous good in my book, since it lets optimization focused players and more casual ones play in the same game without the power differential becoming problematic or unpleasant nearly as often. Serious optimization still results in more powerful characters, but it's a smaller and more manageable difference, which is good for groups featuring a mix of optimization focused people and casual gamers, and absolutely wonderful for allowing GMs to properly calibrate the power level of threats.

The current version can also be unpleasant for anyone who likes high odds of success given the math problems, but that's being fixed, and so hopefully not an issue for the final game.

And, for the record, I agree with Mathmuse that tactical coordination is every bit as effective in PF1 as PF2. However, MER-c is not entirely wrong either (though I agree that their tone can be read as insulting). In PF1, if you did sufficient character optimization it could definitely make proper tactics a lot less necessary, meaning some people didn't bother since they could casually win even without using good tactics. This is a lot less true in PF2 making for a greater incentive/requirement to use such tactics, even though they were in many cases just as effective in PF1.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Hear our Plea(s) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.