| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I hate Stamina & Resolve, so I'm glad that isn't in. Nothing like taking something one number can track and making it into three numbers instead. Especially in a setting & genre where magical healing is meant to be more of a thing than it is in space opera.
They did say they were trying a lot of stuff with the playtest, it's likely things won't look the same in the release version and they may revert back to some systems they've already used before instead of the playtest version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I prefer stamina concept over healing surges, myself. That doesn't have to include being tied into the resolve mechanic. I will say I like the easy set of optional rules that came in 5e to adjust the healing surges to for instance require treatment to be accessed.
I so far am preferring the Archetype options in P2 over how they were done in Starfinder. Although I understand what they were hoping to do, in the end it felt like it didn't work out for the best.
In general I like the 3 action economy, only thing that comes to mind that I don't care too much for is that without a feat to do something like a double slice, there is absolutely no reason to hold two of the same weapon rather than one. There is no benefit to having a 'fresh' hand holding a weapon that hasn't been used yet. If you can make a second (or subsequent) strike, you can make it with the same weapon you've used before without any impact. (the one potential benefit is holding a weapon that produces a different type of damage so you can leverage weakness or overcome resistance. Given that in many stories, it is common to see someone with two slashing weapons fighting, it is disappointing that they make less mechanical relevance in the game as it is.
I think they specifically are hoping to get their own set of mechanics that are (they are hoping) as good as 5th edition, but are different. They don't want to be a flavor of DnD. Otherwise there is little reason for them to be seen any different from any other 3rd party publisher for any 5e material.
The irony for me is that with advent of the tiered success/failure mechanics, the biggest thing that seemed like it would help the game would be replacing the d20. Which of course, that is so iconic, it was probably simply too big a step to take. Could be an optional rule, like it was in 3rd edition however, and it might catch on. Perhaps P3 might eventually go there?
We will have to wait to see what the new game looks like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mess that is the resonance system and constant barrage of different healing rules that just dont work when 3 previous rpg systems have already fixed this problem with variant short rest/ healing surge mechanics.
I'd just like to offer some perspective here. Understanding that the #1 goal of PF2 is "be a new system", what you describe sort of had to happen. As in, when the new healing system was thought flawed, they had to try another new healing rule. Then another new healing rule. New, new, new. Folks didn't like resonance? Here's a new version of it, try that.
Regardless of if a person likes the first, second, last, or none of the new ideas, Paizo had to take the playtest opportunity to try different rules. "Oh, you don't like how X works? Fine. We'll just make it PF1" That was never on the table, nor should it have been, because that would be walking away from the chance to gather data.
Again, I'm not commenting on specific rules or how I feel about them, just the process, which I think was fair for those instances (death/dying, and resonance).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is that when writing these systems for testing (healing, dying, resonance etc), it wasn't clear what the designers wanted to achieve with it.
I hear you. And once again, I stress that my response isn't representative of if I like or dislike any particular rule. But the answer is: "be a new system". It's not more complicated than that.
They made complaints (clw spam, "big six", "mandatory items", item slots, overuse of low-level consumables) but they didn't state what they wanted to achieve.
A reinvented wheel. While creating the equivalent replacement for the wheel, they did take the opportunity to piggyback a wish-list of changes. As in, while making their new wheel-less vehicle, they saw that many people complained about flats. Tires can be punctured. So... okay, now we've got a hovercraft. What they wanted to achieve was eliminate the things that people complained about in PF1. The replacement simply had to not be the thing that was complained about.
For example, rather than saying "clw spam is a problem", they should say "for out of combat healing, we expect PCs to be spending about X% of wbl." Then design a healing system around that.
I dunno... I thought this was pretty clear. They said what they meant to say. "We don't want people using cheap wands at high level." So they removed the price benefit. Simple, and exactly what they said.
But so far, the only "design goals" that have been posted are really wishy-washy and the myriad subsystems they've published - while they might well be good ideas - show a lack of cohesion.
I honestly think you're looking for more depth than there is. I think the new rules are 20% art, and 80% engineering. I know that the designers have spent a lot of cogitation on what we've seen, but it's inspired cogitation. Its carefully engineered stuff that's based on creative responses to "what could we do instead of a wheel?"
Where I'm going with this is... I believe there was a conversation like this:
"We need a new edition."
"Okay, well, we can get rid of 'the big six'."
"Good idea, and we can make monsters easier to create by getting rid of the thing where we framework them following PC rules then adjust to suit."
"Yeah, and hey, people complain about caster/martial disparity, so we can redesign magic to be equivalent to hitting things with sticks."
"Great stuff... now let's crunch some numbers for two years to figure out how"
I believe there wasn't a conversation like this:
"I would like to change cure light wounds wands being a better use of PC wealth than using level-appropriate resources because that act violates my sense of immersion, and my vision for a replacement needs to do X, Y, Z, and be a specific shade of the colour blue."
"Oh. That'll require a new edition. I guess we can do that."
I'm just saying... I don't think the shape of the result was what was decided on. The goals stated were honest, and the shape came afterwards.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.
When decoupled from class abilities, Stamina and Resolve plays smooth as butter. So far I've avoided all RP powered abilities except ones that help manage HP and Stamina and I've been happy as a lark.
|
Okay, so I've never played Starfinder so I don't actually know much about this system but is there something it does that Treat Wounds doesn't work for?The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.Same, it solves the 5 minute adventure day, makes healers less completely necessary and stops the need for CLW spams, i honestly have no idea why they arent using this in 2e.
It acts as an easily accessible no check required method of not going into a fight at three HP, it does however rely on a resource that is scarce early and due to that can limit some concepts. I’ve tried a medic for example, they were a good fighter but had little reason to use their class features because they were low resolve, so mostly I just stuck people with healing stims and shot things. New COM classes might help with that though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Treat Wounds essentially does the same thing but with no resource cost but with a fail chance?Okay, so I've never played Starfinder so I don't actually know much about this system but is there something it does that Treat Wounds doesn't work for?The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.Same, it solves the 5 minute adventure day, makes healers less completely necessary and stops the need for CLW spams, i honestly have no idea why they arent using this in 2e.The easy way to describe Stam-Resolve is take 1/3 of you HP and make it so you can rest 10 min (spend a resource) and get those HP back.
MDC
I'd rather have the resource cost without the fail chance. A heal check failing and randomly shortening the day is a whole lot less satisfying than the control Stamina-RP gives you.
Of course we can go without the RP cost for class abilities just fine.
The easy way to describe Stam-Resolve is take 1/3 of you HP and make it so you can rest 10 min (spend a resource) and get those HP back.
Which is something short rest/treat wounds can do without requiring extra numbers.
Resolve is just a poor idea in that it's "lets take something that powers a bunch of class stuff and also force you to use it to recover Stamina, thus making it so you really don't want to use it for class stuff."
Stamina is effectively also HP except also not HP, so stuff that interacts with HP like healing doesn't interact with Stamina the same way and creates a bunch of extra needless complexity.