My final considerations on the Playtest


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

25 people marked this as a favorite.

So... I've been in the Playtest forums for a while, and now that the Playtest is coming to a real close, I wanted to write a pretty extensive text on my general impressions and what I'd like to see going foward. I hope this feedback is somehow useful for the Paizo.

First of all, thanks Paizo for providing this Playtest environment and actually hearing and working on the feedback you get. Unfortunately this should be the rule for Alphas and Betas but it isn't (D&D Next Playtest, WoW BFA Beta, etc.). Like everyone I had some things that didn't go the way I prefered, but that's just life. Also thanks to all the other folks in these forums that engaged in civil discussion about all that stuff, both those who agreed and disagreed with my points of view. Without further ado, I can't humanly talk about every thing that I like/dislike, but here are some of the highlights:

The Good

- The general vibe of PF2. I don't know if that's the objective that Paizo is looking for, but the game really felt like and attempt to give depth and choice without unnecessary complexity. As a player/GM who always found PF1 to be too complex for the sake of it in a lot of thingst but also found 5e to be too shallow, that's great.

- The 3-action system. This is probably the single most loved feature of the Playtest and there's a reason for that. It's even simpler than 5e's move, action, bonus action to explain for new players while also giving a huge amount of different options on how you want your turn to go.

- The design on martial classes. The Fighter, Monk and Rogue gain extra points here for me, but all martial classes are miles away from the previous iterations. They are stronger, but not too powerful, and most importantly, they have tons of variety. When I read the Fighter Feats for the first time I was thinking about like 10 different builds and each one of them actually played in a different way in combat.

- No more /caster level scaling on spells. I know this hurts for some people, but this was the root of the "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem. You got new, more powerful options but all your old options also got stronger, automatically, so every new caster level was exponentially more powerful than the previous one. This got out of hand really fast.

- Weapon traits. Oh boy as a fan and student of HEMA how much I love those. Of course they aren't 100% realistic but weapons actually behaving differently and not just having different damage die, type and crit rate/damage is great.

- Modularity. The way characters are built in PF2 makes customization very easy, and the amount of different combinations will grow exponentially when new options from splatbooks are added. This also makes homebrewing a lot easier. I also really love the multiclassing system.

- Monster design. The 3-action system combined with the new design choices on monsters makes them really amazing. I'm not that concerned about "monster math being different than PC math", but I'm mostly talking about their unique abilities and actions. Every creature feels unique and not just a reskinned bag of hit points with maybe a 1/day ability.

- Character balancing. I love the fact that you can now have an optimized and a non-optimized character in the same party and both can actually play and contribute to the group. You can't just pull some weird bonuses from somewhere and have +18 to something at level 5. It's also a lot harded to make a useless character unless you actively try to.

The Bad

- Classic Vancian casting. I have an extensive thread about this, not going to cross-reference to it, but I really think keeping this is an unnecessary nod to tradition and a big gatekeeper for new players.

- Magic item dependence. I know the big six were reduced to like... the big two? But I'd rather see the big zero, and people getting magical items because they do cool stuff, and not because they are useless without them.

- How some things that any human being is capable of doing are gated for no reason. I'm talking about things like Quick Intimidation or Group Impression. Do I really need to have a feat to try to coerce someone in the beggining of a conversation? Or... god forbid... TALK TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT THE SAME TIME?

- Armor. Just armor in general and the way it works. Currently wearing anything other than Light Armor feels like a penalty for not having enough Dexterity. Shoehorning some classes into using Heavy Armor doesn't solve the problem, it kind of makes it worse. Also, big ACP + tight math = classes are bad at the things they are supposed to be good. The Fighter in heavy armor probably has worse Athletics than the Wizard.

- Trinkets. They could be implemented a little bit better with Resonance and Focus, but since those two are gone now, I don't think they are going to work very well either way.

I'm not going to talk about the math because of course that's something that needs a lot of work, and it's probably what they are working the most in right now.

The Ugly (things that were great ideas but need better implementation)

- UTEML. I know the math on this is going to change, and I like the changes, but it's not enough. Better examples for what higher levels of proficiency can do and rebalancing the Skill Feats to be a lot better than they currently are would help this aspect a lot.

- The Divine spell list. It really needs more options, Heal is good, REALLY good, but the rest doesn't have enough power and versatility.

- Bonus types. I love that the amount got reduced, but there are two big issues here. The first one is how much stuff that are base class features just overlap (Barbarian Rage being the big example). The second one is how confusing the terms Conditional and Circumstance are.

- The Alchemist. The class got a lot better with 1.6, but my biggest gripe is still how most of their buffs get almost useless if you just have level-appropriate magic gear. Also only Mutagenists getting mutagens by RAW is just crazy.

- The Paladin. Again, 1.6 had great changes. I still really dislike how the class is attached to a reactive playstyle, instead of it being an option. Also, read the armor part.

- Powers. I really, really love the idea of powers and spell points, but maybe with the Paladin being the exception, all powers are just so... meh. Some of them are really flavorful, but they are currently very weak in general. I know some classes like the Universalist Wizard aren't supposed to get powerful Powers, but the Sorcerer and Cleric definetly should, for instance. Their Bloodlines/Domains are a huge part of their identity.

I could also talk about non-blasting spells in general but again, I know Paizo is working on that.

That's basically it. Although I'm not quitting, I'm probably going to reduce my activities on the forum until any news come from Paizo. Again, thanks to everyone that participated in this, and I'm hoping Pathfinder Second Edition becomes the greatest game it can be.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Lots of good feedback here.

I agree with a lot of your points, and I don't want to turn this into another debate thread for the ones I don't, so I'll just say a general "I like this post". :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a very thorough analysis, I second pretty much everything. One exception: Vancian casting, on this one I'm neutral, maybe because I'm so used to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yea. Same here. I know the purpose of this wasn't to start a big debate about the points you brought up (which were well written, btw).
I agree with a lot of it. Anything I would add or disagree with is nitpicky at best.
I'm just excited for 2019 and a new edition with great adventure paths.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the caster lvl issue. I understand how its meant to solve a issue, but they also halved the amount of spells you can get. This AND the heightening mechanic is a harsh. Maybe increase the amount of spells u gain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definitely agreed on just about everything. I think it perfectly encapsulates what most people feel who appreciate what PF2 is trying to do and want the game.

What are your thoughts on crits? Players seem to get hyped about them, but sometimes a monster basically one shots someone. Hero Points also felt a bit too mandatory because of how often players were hitting 0 HP.

Same question for skill feats. Those felt very underwhelming for me, having to wait all the way until level 15 until they start even sounding competitive with low level spells seems like a bit much. Definitely agree that many trained skill feats had no business being feats at all, they're the awful kind of feat that seems to exist only so that the GM has to tell everyone that they can't scratch their ass anymore because Timmy took the ass scratching fear and he has to be the punt one capable of scratching asses in order for him to feel like his character concept is valid. We hated those feats in PF1 and they're still not welcome in PF2. At least Forager, bad as it is, gives you guaranteed success when feeding yourself overeat of needing to roll like normal. That's how mundane skill feats should work, of someone is taking a "duo a very normal and boring thing" feat then it should result in an automatic success where before it was a skill check, at a minimum.


This is a perfect analysis. I have nothing to add.


I thought Jason had said feats were being looked over and reworked as one of the main things they were working on.
I don't know if it was just general feats, or all feats.


Agreed on basically everything, especially the armor part.


I'm happy that many of you liked it and share my concerns. I'm also very happy that you found it well written since English is not my primary language so I always worry about stuff ending up confusing to read.

Now answering some questions/concers:

Erk Ander wrote:
On the caster lvl issue. I understand how its meant to solve a issue, but they also halved the amount of spells you can get. This AND the heightening mechanic is a harsh. Maybe increase the amount of spells u gain.

This is the overnerfing part almost everyone was complaining about. I didn't mention it that much because it is already being fixed, but I still think removing /caster level scaling was a good move, they just need to buff other things. Personally, I'm not sure if increasing spell slots is necessary, I'm most inclined on buffing the effectiveness of each spell and increasing versatility in how to cast them as solutions.

Helmic wrote:
What are your thoughts on crits? Players seem to get hyped about them, but sometimes a monster basically one shots someone. Hero Points also felt a bit too mandatory because of how often players were hitting 0 HP.

I really like the crit system. It's just very hard to balance the math around. If they manage to do it will be great, IMO. I think the big problem with the monster thing is that monster numbers were too high and assumed otmized PCs, not something inherent to the system. I was going to say that swingy rounds are inherent to the D&D crit system, but to be honest, swingyness (is that a word?) is inherent to the concept of critical hits in general. From my experience it's less bad than in PF1 actually, where you had 3x and even 4x crits with certain weapons.

Helmic wrote:
Same question for skill feats. Those felt very underwhelming for me, having to wait all the way until level 15 until they start even sounding competitive with low level spells seems like a bit much.

I completely agree here. I briefly talked about this in the UTEML part, but yeah, skill feats in general feel pretty underwhelming right now. I feel that while the concept of Skill Feats is great, they need a major rework that A) significantly increases their narrative power in general and B) removes the concept of feats that you need to try to do normal things. Needing a feat to sneak while running is one thing, needing a feat to try to intimidate someone in less than 60 seconds is ridiculous.


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

On that last point with feats, I've always personally interpreted it as needing the feat to do it without penalty.

If someone wanted to do something that was logically possible and didn't have the feat for it, I'd assess a penalty - much like the penalty for trying to Diplomacy quickly.

Would it be good if something like that was explicitly in the rules? Probably, although I think "if your player has a clever but difficult idea that seems like it could work, let them try it at a penalty" is a Rule Zero thing for the most part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

On that last point with feats, I've always personally interpreted it as needing the feat to do it without penalty.

If someone wanted to do something that was logically possible and didn't have the feat for it, I'd assess a penalty - much like the penalty for trying to Diplomacy quickly.

Would it be good if something like that was explicitly in the rules? Probably, although I think "if your player has a clever but difficult idea that seems like it could work, let them try it at a penalty" is a Rule Zero thing for the most part.

Problem is that you would still need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of what PF2 things should be "at penalty". I didn't even know about the 60 second intimidation feat thing, I would have just assumed that intimidating people with a single sick one liner or threatening implication would be enough to do that. Isn't intimidation about eliciting a fight or flight response, on hopes they pick flight? It's supposed to be quick and dramatic, if it takes you sixty seconds you're either telling one hell of an anecdote or you're doing it wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
This is the overnerfing part almost everyone was complaining about. I didn't mention it that much because it is already being fixed, but I still think removing /caster level scaling was a good move, they just need to buff other things. Personally, I'm not sure if increasing spell slots is necessary, I'm most inclined on buffing the effectiveness of each spell and increasing versatility in how to cast them as solutions.

With how many spells require heightening to be effective as you level? Yes, more slots are seriously needed.

Right now we have so few spells that most casters don't feel like the pure casters of old. They feel like hybrid classes.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was a very good analysis, especially the 3 action system (this a game changer), although I only have one point of which I thoroughly disagree and that is with the feat based multi-class system. I'm really trying to see why so many people like it.

Maybe i am completely missing something.

The following is just the most extreme example out of a few others that we encountered.

From another thread:{Why I dislike where 2E's Multi-classing is going }

xzzion said wrote:


The trope I am experimenting with is a Ranger/Rogue, an "archetype" that I have played for decades over several editions and a class combination that I am very familiar with and that I use to test new systems..

Mainly the idea is a Bow Ranger with Sneak Attack capabilities, with the ability to sneak, and give the group utility by disabling traps. All of the while I willingly trade off attack bonus, some resilience, and waiting longer for ranger spells.

So I take:
1st: Hunted Shot
2nd: Rogue Dedication (class), Skill Feat, Skill Feat
3rd: General Feat
4th: Sneak Attacker (class)

With the current rules update I have to wait until 4th level to get the ability I am building for and when I am finally able to get Sneak attacker I spend two class feats to get a nerfed version (1d4 instead of 1d6) and it doesn't even advance as I gain levels. But hey, I get 3 more trained skills that I arguably don't really need, but guess it's a nice addition. When all is said and done the Rogue Dedication is not really worth it and really ends up being 2 class feats = half of the time my enemies are flat-footed in the surprise round (which I don't get to take advantage of for 2 levels) and 3 skills which could be better spent elsewhere.

In my opinion, they should keep the system where you get to choose what class you want to level up in as you advance with the addtion of whatever you select at 1st level is your PRIMARY class. The primary class will allow you to receive full benefits of that class and any non-primary class that is selected afterward should be a step down in effectiveness (i.e. 1d4 instead of a 1d6 sneak attack that scales normally) and lose access to some of the other benefits. Perhaps you can cap the number of classes that you can be as well. 3 sounds right.

If you pair this with a thoroughly thought out class requirement system you can prevent the unhealthy min-maxing and "optimization" that we all experienced in previous d20 editions and still obtain freedom of customization options that this system offers.

I still remain hopeful and my group will continue to use a majority of these play-test rules as we play through Return of the Runelords.

See you all on the flip. :)


Tridus wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
This is the overnerfing part almost everyone was complaining about. I didn't mention it that much because it is already being fixed, but I still think removing /caster level scaling was a good move, they just need to buff other things. Personally, I'm not sure if increasing spell slots is necessary, I'm most inclined on buffing the effectiveness of each spell and increasing versatility in how to cast them as solutions.

With how many spells require heightening to be effective as you level? Yes, more slots are seriously needed.

Right now we have so few spells that most casters don't feel like the pure casters of old. They feel like hybrid classes.

I mean, unless we went to Arcanist casting, in which case having 4 slots per spell level is plenty.


I like this thread. It's turned into a discussion without turning into a debate, for the most part.
The only thing I completely don't mind is the "vancian" casting. Probably just because I'm used to it.
I have to say I'm really intrigued by the way they made spell DCs not dependent on spell level, but only on caster level. I always thought that a fireball cast by an archmage should be harder to shake off than one cast by a mid-level journeyman caster. But I wasnt sure how the math or design would play out. I just thought it made sense from a world perspective. So I'm excited to see how the game evolves with this new mechanic.


Helmic wrote:
Tridus wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
This is the overnerfing part almost everyone was complaining about. I didn't mention it that much because it is already being fixed, but I still think removing /caster level scaling was a good move, they just need to buff other things. Personally, I'm not sure if increasing spell slots is necessary, I'm most inclined on buffing the effectiveness of each spell and increasing versatility in how to cast them as solutions.

With how many spells require heightening to be effective as you level? Yes, more slots are seriously needed.

Right now we have so few spells that most casters don't feel like the pure casters of old. They feel like hybrid classes.

I mean, unless we went to Arcanist casting, in which case having 4 slots per spell level is plenty.

True. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree on most points. I personally like the Paladin as a protector model, and I'm cool with having two mandatory magic items. But that's just taste. I have found some of the general consensus towards armor a little overblown, as I don't find in practice they seem much different from PF2 until you get into mithral armor and armor training.

Vancian casting... I get the complaints, but I have also yet to see an alternative I like. The 5e spontaneous/prepared split has always felt deeply unsatisfying to me. Theoretically you could make spontaneous casters good in other ways to make up for prepared going Neo-vancian, but I suspect this is easier said than done. (We know they considered giving wizards neo-vancian casting for the playtest but abandoned the idea, which lends some credence to an alternative being hard.) I feel like this is something motivated folks should experiment with house ruling on and see what their results are. You could really ramp up sorcerer powers, for example.

Helmic wrote:
I didn't even know about the 60 second intimidation feat thing, I would have just assumed that intimidating people with a single sick one liner or threatening implication would be enough to do that. Isn't intimidation about eliciting a fight or flight response, on hopes they pick flight? It's supposed to be quick and dramatic, if it takes you sixty seconds you're either telling one hell of an anecdote or you're doing it wrong.

Actually, no, that's Demoralize, and it pretty much works exactly as you describe without feats. Coerce is conveying a course of activity you want someone to perform while making them fear the consequences of disobeying you. Considering it is a course of activity that they can spend up to a day on, a minute isn't actually a bad rule of thumb. It may take that long to explain what you want them to do, or answer/shut down any immediate questions they have.

Now mind you, I don't like Quick Intimidation as a feat. I don't know where it is supposed to be useful because I'm pretty sure you can't Coerce a hostile enemy mid-combat. And having it exist as a feat just draws attention the fact that "one minute" works better as an abstraction. "Put the knife down or I'll shoot" during a stand off could be interpreted as a Coerce, but it shouldn't take a full minute regardless of feats. A minute can be the rule of thumb, as long as its clear that circumstances can change that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xzzion wrote:

That was a very good analysis, especially the 3 action system (this a game changer), although I only have one point of which I thoroughly disagree and that is with the feat based multi-class system. I'm really trying to see why so many people like it.

Maybe i am completely missing something.

The following is just the most extreme example out of a few others that we encountered.

From another thread:{Why I dislike where 2E's Multi-classing is going }

xzzion said wrote:


The trope I am experimenting with is a Ranger/Rogue, an "archetype" that I have played for decades over several editions and a class combination that I am very familiar with and that I use to test new systems..

Mainly the idea is a Bow Ranger with Sneak Attack capabilities, with the ability to sneak, and give the group utility by disabling traps. All of the while I willingly trade off attack bonus, some resilience, and waiting longer for ranger spells.

So I take:
1st: Hunted Shot
2nd: Rogue Dedication (class), Skill Feat, Skill Feat
3rd: General Feat
4th: Sneak Attacker (class)

With the current rules update I have to wait until 4th level to get the ability I am building for and when I am finally able to get Sneak attacker I spend two class feats to get a nerfed version (1d4 instead of 1d6) and it doesn't even advance as I gain levels. But hey, I get 3 more trained skills that I arguably don't really need, but guess it's a nice addition. When all is said and done the Rogue Dedication is not really worth it and really ends up being 2 class feats = half of the time my enemies are flat-footed in the surprise round (which I don't get to take advantage of for 2 levels) and 3 skills which could be better spent elsewhere.

In my opinion, they should keep the system where you get to choose what class you want to level up in as you advance with the addtion of whatever you select at 1st level is your PRIMARY class. The primary class will allow you to receive full benefits of that class and any non-primary class that... [/Qscuso

Rogue Dedication specifically seems not very good since by the time you can get it Sneak Attacker is right on the cusp of being made meaningless by magic weapons. That it doesn't scale is perplexing. I think gating archetype feats that late also unnecessarily delays the time it takes for a character concept to come online.

However, overall you can now chose exactly what class features or feats you want from ymthr rogue without having to sacrifice so much to get the entire suite of class features as a bundle, level by level. This hurts concepts that can't make his use of every last thing a class might give you at first level, and it also was extremely limiting when designing new classes to have to keep signature and powerful abilities out of reach of those one to three level dips.

And since character concepts often relied on some synergy of abilities, in PF1 multiclassed builds could take ages to come online. If you were wanting to play something of a Fighter but needed access to level 3 spells to pull off a particular combo, you were looking at potentially 7+ levels where your character can't do much of anything exciting because all their classes are behind the curve.

PF2, there's no multiple dead levels where your character just isn't functioning. If you want to use a very powerful feature or feat from another class, you don't have to invest lots of levels getting features you won't use, you just continue picking your main class's feats and operating as normal until you get access to that stronger ability.

My main complaint is that the dedication feat itself often has a bunch of potentially powerful stuff that might be with spending a class fear, but night also be a complete waste and just a fear tax. If I'm a Rogue multiclassing Fighter, that armor proficiency is useless to me, the AoO 1/day may very well be useless to me. They're not elegant, and I'd rather have multiple entry points into a multiclass archetype so that I can pick the package most relevant to my concept. If I'm wanting to make a gish, an alternate Fighter Dedication feat that sacrificed the AoO for heavier armor might be attractive. Or maybe it could require spellcasting b and give ccess to a spell point pool for using magically enhanced weapon attacks, and from there it's just access to the regular fighter feats.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic said wrote:
Rogue Dedication specifically seems not very good since by the time you can get it Sneak Attacker is right on the cusp of being made meaningless by magic weapons. That it doesn't scale is perplexing. I think gating archetype feats that late also unnecessarily delays the time it takes for a character concept to come online.

Thanks for your reply and I Completely agree! and this is my main problem with the system, you have to spend multiple useful class feat slots to make your "Archetype" come to fruition and by the time you get there it's obsolete and static.

Helmic said wrote:
However, overall you can now chose exactly what class features or feats you want from your rogue without having to sacrifice so much to get the entire suite of class features as a bundle, level by level. This hurts concepts that can't make his use of every last thing a class might give you at first level, and it also was extremely limiting when designing new classes to have to keep signature and powerful abilities out of reach of those one to three level dips.

I understand your argument, especially the about the first 3 levels, however, in my experience, in the previous d20 systems i was able to hone my character concepts exactly as I envisioned them and never felt held back by the system. In fact, I felt that it was too un-restricting. All that was needed was a little bit of thought into requirements and progression trees.

Helmic said wrote:

And since character concepts often relied on some synergy of abilities, in PF1 multi-classed builds could take ages to come online. If you were wanting to play something of a Fighter but needed access to level 3 spells to pull off a particular combo, you were looking at potentially 7+ levels where your character can't do much of anything exciting because all their classes are behind the curve.

PF2, there's no multiple dead levels where your character just isn't functioning. If you want to use a very powerful feature or feat from another class, you don't have to invest lots of levels getting features you won't use, you just continue picking your main class's feats and operating as normal until you get access to that stronger ability.

I am Okay with waiting to pull off combos that i invest in as long as I can stay useful in the meantime. In my example above, I would still consider my 2nd and 3rd levels as dead levels because I would have forgone choosing some useful class features to get my concept on line.

You may not have one (And that is okay), but do you have an play-test experience that you can share with the current multi-class system that worked? I continually hear that people love the new system as a concept, which i understand and share the belief that unhealthy min-maxing and optimization hurts the game experience, but do not provide any anecdotal substance that I've been able to see in these forums.

Like I said.. I may be missing something completely obvious. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really think the problem is in the dedication system, it's more on the feats themselves. Some are really good, most are terrible. Only Wizard and Fighter dedications are worth it right now, IMO, but the bases of the system are great.

xzzion wrote:
You may not have one (And that is okay), but do you have an play-test experience that you can share with the current multi-class system that worked? I continually hear that people love the new system as a concept, which i understand and share the belief that unhealthy min-maxing and optimization hurts the game experience, but do not provide any anecdotal substance that I've been able to see in these forums.

Actually I do have one. In one of my level 8 games, we had a duelist Fighter with Wizard Dedication and Basic Wizard Spellcasting. He picked some spells that helped him in fights like Shield, Blur and Haste, and it worked really well actually.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is really happening, you guys. I'm excited. A brand new game that all of us helped the Paizo gang build. T minus 8 months.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
This is really happening, you guys. I'm excited. A brand new game that all of us helped the Paizo gang build. T minus 8 months.

FWIW, I am ...

a) Not excited but instead in a bit of a state of dread

b) Feel that I had no role in "helping" create whatever the design team unveils as PF2e


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Respectfully, why dread?

Assuming the worst-case scenario, that Paizo releases something that is completely outside of what you want to play, I totally understand disappointment. I'll be disappointed, if PF2e isn't a system I want to play.

Where does the dread come in?

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Your summation is pretty dead on. I didn't get to run it as I hoped. But, I do love treating everything as feats feel. It allows hope that you can run a class, but it is never the same. I like that feel. And the new feel of the class feats makes each class unique and powerful overall in their own way.

dmerceless wrote:

So... I've been in the Playtest forums for a while, and now that the Playtest is coming to a real close, I wanted to write a pretty extensive text on my general impressions and what I'd like to see going foward. I hope this feedback is somehow useful for the Paizo.

First of all, thanks Paizo for providing this Playtest environment and actually hearing and working on the feedback you get. Unfortunately this should be the rule for Alphas and Betas but it isn't (D&D Next Playtest, WoW BFA Beta, etc.). Like everyone I had some things that didn't go the way I prefered, but that's just life. Also thanks to all the other folks in these forums that engaged in civil discussion about all that stuff, both those who agreed and disagreed with my points of view. Without further ado, I can't humanly talk about every thing that I like/dislike, but here are some of the highlights:

The Good

- The general vibe of PF2. I don't know if that's the objective that Paizo is looking for, but the game really felt like and attempt to give depth and choice without unnecessary complexity. As a player/GM who always found PF1 to be too complex for the sake of it in a lot of thingst but also found 5e to be too shallow, that's great.

- The 3-action system. This is probably the single most loved feature of the Playtest and there's a reason for that. It's even simpler than 5e's move, action, bonus action to explain for new players while also giving a huge amount of different options on how you want your turn to go.

- The design on martial classes. The Fighter, Monk and Rogue gain extra points here for me, but all martial classes are miles away from the previous iterations. They are stronger, but not too powerful, and most importantly, they have tons of variety. When I read the Fighter Feats for the first time I was thinking about like 10 different builds and each one of them actually played in a different way in combat.

- No more /caster level scaling on spells. I know this hurts for some people, but this was the root...


dmerceless wrote:

I don't really think the problem is in the dedication system, it's more on the feats themselves. Some are really good, most are terrible. Only Wizard and Fighter dedications are worth it right now, IMO, but the bases of the system are great.

xzzion wrote:
You may not have one (And that is okay), but do you have an play-test experience that you can share with the current multi-class system that worked? I continually hear that people love the new system as a concept, which i understand and share the belief that unhealthy min-maxing and optimization hurts the game experience, but do not provide any anecdotal substance that I've been able to see in these forums.
Actually I do have one. In one of my level 8 games, we had a duelist Fighter with Wizard Dedication and Basic Wizard Spellcasting. He picked some spells that helped him in fights like Shield, Blur and Haste, and it worked really well actually.

My chapters 1/4/7 party has had a few. From the get-go we've had a Sorcerer with Fighter multiclass and a Druid with Cleric multiclass. One was going for a pseudo Draconic Disciple and the other was for story reasons. Both worked out pretty well.

The Sorc/Fighter mainly only used Fighter MC to get martial weapons and a bit better armor as well as a Fighter feat or two, but it made him a solid melee threat on top of his powerful spells, especially after the change to somatic casting allowed him to 2-hand his sword. He didn't pick up much Fighter stuff because Sorcerers are pretty tight on feats but what he had made him a good gish and worked out well with the new action economy, especially when he was hasted and buffed.

The Druid/Cleric used it to pick p some nice buffs to supplement his blast and polymorph spell choices, as well as a little healing sometimes.

In part 4 our Alchemist picked up Wizard multiclass. At first it was mainly for buffs like True Strike, Mirror Image, and Haste, but when we hit higher levels and he could pick up to level 6 spells he got even better stuff like long-duration See Invisibility and the combo of True Strike with Enervation or Disintegrate, which gave him a heavy debuff or risky damage option to supplement his more reliable bombs, making him more versatile all around.

Going from Part 4 to Part 7 our Ranger invested in some Druid multiclass mainly for a couple AoE blasts like Chain Lightning and Cone of Cold to supplement the single-target focus that they were mostly built towards until then, as well as a couple of other goodies like Jump, Gust of Wind, and Earthbind. This also worked out quite well, AoEs are actually a pretty good opener for a lot of hard fights (Especially when multiple players have them), and with the errata spell buffs you still have pretty good damage even being a couple spell levels behind. The lower DC hurts a bit but wasn't too bad when targeting weak saves and typically fighting lower level opponents. For tougher foes you used spells that were touch instead of DC or otherwise didn't rely on saves too much.

All in all I've seen a lot of good use of multiclassing in Doomsday Dawn, there were some other examples outside of our main party but I don't recall them offhand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Respectfully, why dread?

Assuming the worst-case scenario, that Paizo releases something that is completely outside of what you want to play, I totally understand disappointment. I'll be disappointed, if PF2e isn't a system I want to play.

Where does the dread come in?

Just word choice, I could easily have written that I greatly fear that I will be disappointed.


MaxAstro wrote:

Respectfully, why dread?

Assuming the worst-case scenario, that Paizo releases something that is completely outside of what you want to play, I totally understand disappointment. I'll be disappointed, if PF2e isn't a system I want to play.

Where does the dread come in?

dread

/dred/
verb
1.
anticipate with great apprehension or fear.

You can't comprehend how someone could be apprehensive over the new game?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not really, no - if I thought that there was a strong chance PF2e would disappoint me, I wouldn't invest in it emotionally to that extent.

That said, pjrogers' clarification makes sense.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see dreading a new game (when you spend a lot of your free time on this hobby) if it's not to your liking. Especially when the current iteration will soon lose official support.
It would be like if I spent a lot of time on football. Fantasy football during the week, etc. And I suddenly found out that all football games from here on out would start and end with a performance by Justin Beiber, and well as a halftime show. I would dread that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Not really, no - if I thought that there was a strong chance PF2e would disappoint me, I wouldn't invest in it emotionally to that extent.

That said, pjrogers' clarification makes sense.

My problem (at least in this domain) is not an emotional investment in PF2e, it's an emotional investment in Pathfinder and particularly the organized play community that I'm a part of it. I "dread" the impact of PF2e on that community and my engagement with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Not really, no - if I thought that there was a strong chance PF2e would disappoint me, I wouldn't invest in it emotionally to that extent.

You don't think people have an investment in pathfinder itself and the company that creates it? You don't see how 10 years of using a product builds up an emotional attachment? For instance, take Mark. I like Mark Seifter. I'd rather the new game doesn't crash and burn because even if I don't play the new game, I don't want him out of a job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I apologize for being nitpicky but to the ranger and multiclassing thing. As of 1.6 your ranger can get precision damage, and I believe more of it, with no feat investment. It’s one of the new options for what hunt target can do. So no multiclassing necessary.

As far as multiclass dedications went in our group. Before the updated multiclass dedication document I think we had one wizard dedication who was a cleric of Nethys. And one fighter dedication who was also a cleric, Erastil for obvious reasons. Once the multiclass document was released I think we had 4 different characters with rogue dedication because it got a serious buff, the skills from the basic dedication alone were worth it. Particularly when they added the 9th level human feat to just pick one regardless of other dedications. That’s just my experience. Sorry for butting in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

Silver Crusade

dmerceless said wrote:
Actually I do have one. In one of my level 8 games, we had a duelist Fighter with Wizard Dedication and Basic Wizard Spellcasting. He picked some spells that helped him in fights like Shield, Blur and Haste, and it worked really well actually.

Thanks, that actually looks like a fun build and I'll check it out. What was the first level he/she got to cast spells. It looks to be fourth, if so they have the same restriction that i was explaining before(2nd and 3rd level being used to build the concept.) but a much higher upside of 3rd level spells.

That makes it much more worth it I'll play around with it.

Edge93 said wrote:

My chapters 1/4/7 party has had a few. From the get-go we've had a Sorcerer with Fighter multiclass and a Druid with Cleric multiclass. One was going for a pseudo Draconic Disciple and the other was for story reasons. Both worked out pretty well.

The Sorc/Fighter mainly only used Fighter MC to get martial weapons and a bit better armor as well as a Fighter feat or two, but it made him a solid melee threat on top of his powerful spells, especially after the change to somatic casting allowed him to 2-hand his sword. He didn't pick up much Fighter stuff because Sorcerers are pretty tight on feats but what he had made him a good gish and worked out well with the new action economy, especially when he was hasted and buffed.

The Druid/Cleric used it to pick p some nice buffs to supplement his blast and polymorph spell choices, as well as a little healing sometimes.

In part 4 our Alchemist picked up Wizard multiclass. At first it was mainly for buffs like True Strike, Mirror Image, and Haste, but when we hit higher levels and he could pick up to level 6 spells he got even better stuff like long-duration See Invisibility and the combo of True Strike with Enervation or Disintegrate, which gave him a heavy debuff or risky damage option to supplement his more reliable bombs, making him more versatile all around.

Going from Part 4 to Part 7 our Ranger invested in some Druid multiclass mainly for a couple AoE blasts like Chain Lightning and Cone of Cold to supplement the single-target focus that they were mostly built towards until then, as well as a couple of other goodies like Jump, Gust of Wind, and Earthbind. This also worked out quite well, AoEs are actually a pretty good opener for a lot of hard fights (Especially when multiple players have them), and with the errata spell buffs you still have pretty good damage even being a couple spell levels behind. The lower DC hurts a bit but wasn't too bad when targeting weak saves and typically fighting lower level opponents. For tougher foes you used spells that were touch instead of DC or otherwise didn't rely on saves too much.

All in all I've seen a lot of good use of multiclassing in Doomsday Dawn, there were some other examples outside of our main party but I don't recall them offhand.

Thanks for replying. I'll check some of these out. I really like the Alchemist/Wizard Archetype with True Strike.

Now I have a plethora of examples! Thanks again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?

MDC


I still remember when RotR #1 came out. What a bombshell that was. I think Paizo will always do pretty darn okay based on even just their APs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?

MDC

Some people will, for sure. Some others will buy and then convert the mechanics to a system they like more. But on the general market, if the system itself is unpopular, content for it tends to not resonate that well. It turns into a problem where even if the AP itself is good, people who don't know that see the system name on the cover and immediately move on. That makes APs a much tougher sell.

Hopefully the system is popular because it makes the whole question moot.n


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?

MDC

Thats a good question. My group is leaning toward not adopting PF2. If that happens then we also wont be getting the APs anymore either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, it's all going to hinge on how easy/hard it is to translate it into a system people do use. Once it get to a certain difficulty, it'll be easier to homebrew an adventure than converting meaning the adventures are going to really have to hit it out of the park if the system drifts far enough away from PF1 for people to keep up with the AP's.

Sovereign Court

graystone wrote:
IMO, it's all going to hinge on how easy/hard it is to translate it into a system people do use. Once it get to a certain difficulty, it'll be easier to homebrew an adventure than converting meaning the adventures are going to really have to hit it out of the park if the system drifts far enough away from PF1 for people to keep up with the AP's.

This is true. The APs are a huge amount of work for me anyways. Though adding converson back to PF1 might be too much of a chore. Ill probably need to see universal acclaim in the PF2 era APs to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am definitely feeling dread, because in my opinion the APs are the best adventures on the market by FAR. I don't have time to do homebrew adventures all the time, and I rely heavily on APs. If the new system is something we don't want to play, at the very best I have to convert everything--and hope it *can* be converted with a bearable amount of work.

I am not the conversion guru my spouse is. (He once ran _Masks of Nyarlathotep_ in _Feng Shui_, which worked way better than you'd think.) I struggle to get the difficulty right, especially at the higher levels. I don't think PF1 and PF2 are likely to scale at all similarly and this will make conversion tough.

But that's the best case. It is easy to imagine scenarios in which there just aren't any more APs, or they aren't good anymore. We have picked over most of the published APs already (and run at least half of them) and within two years or so we'd be in a situation where there's just nothing reliably good on the market. Maybe some other company would step forward to fill the niche, but APs are a huge amount of work, and third-party APs have not really been a thing. Modules, yes, but my group likes long adventures, and our success with stringing together unrelated modules has been...mixed, at best.

My spouse isn't interested in playing less than weekly. I'm not able to homebrew an adventure every week. There's a real chance I just wouldn't be running anymore, and I'd miss it a lot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:


- Magic item dependence. I know the big six were reduced to like... the big two? But I'd rather see the big zero, and people getting magical items because they do cool stuff, and not because they are useless without them.

To be honest, I don't think that this is a problem that even can be fixed on the rules side of things¹. I think it is, at its root, a setting problem: There will always be ideal sets of magic items and if the setting allows people to have whatever items they want within some resource limits, then there will be a push for everyone to have the appropriate set. This will result in "characters have the sets" becoming more of an adventure design assumption, which feeds back into people being encouraged to get those sets.

Go around that loop a few times and "you are best off getting these" becomes "if you don't have those, you will be a boat anchor."

1: At least short of making magic items all but irrelevant across the board.


Tridus wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?

MDC

Some people will, for sure. Some others will buy and then convert the mechanics to a system they like more. But on the general market, if the system itself is unpopular, content for it tends to not resonate that well. It turns into a problem where even if the AP itself is good, people who don't know that see the system name on the cover and immediately move on. That makes APs a much tougher sell.

Hopefully the system is popular because it makes the whole question moot.n

You have stated a very important point that is often missed, systems often are shaped by their default settings and new versions of the game that are dramatically different often require changes (dramatic?) to the setting to function.

MDC


Mary Yamato wrote:

I am definitely feeling dread, because in my opinion the APs are the best adventures on the market by FAR. I don't have time to do homebrew adventures all the time, and I rely heavily on APs. If the new system is something we don't want to play, at the very best I have to convert everything--and hope it *can* be converted with a bearable amount of work.

I am not the conversion guru my spouse is. (He once ran _Masks of Nyarlathotep_ in _Feng Shui_, which worked way better than you'd think.) I struggle to get the difficulty right, especially at the higher levels. I don't think PF1 and PF2 are likely to scale at all similarly and this will make conversion tough.

But that's the best case. It is easy to imagine scenarios in which there just aren't any more APs, or they aren't good anymore. We have picked over most of the published APs already (and run at least half of them) and within two years or so we'd be in a situation where there's just nothing reliably good on the market. Maybe some other company would step forward to fill the niche, but APs are a huge amount of work, and third-party APs have not really been a thing. Modules, yes, but my group likes long adventures, and our success with stringing together unrelated modules has been...mixed, at best.

My spouse isn't interested in playing less than weekly. I'm not able to homebrew an adventure every week. There's a real chance I just wouldn't be running anymore, and I'd miss it a lot.

Yes, as you pointed out designing AP's both in company and at home. Generally the people I help out start 6 months or so before they run the first game. And sometimes even longer stretch if they are trying to build a world from the ground up.

MDC


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
1: At least short of making magic items all but irrelevant across the board.

Speaking of, the magic items we have are boring. I don't even mean that some are just +number to skills. I don't even mean weapon and armor potency. I mean the rest of them.

Seriously, find me four exciting items for a 11th level fighter. Things that let him do cool s$@@ and are worth investing resonance in.

No consumable or semi-consumable items (trinkets, potions, wands, necklace of fireball, etc) and ignore the "big two" (property runes ok, potency not...scratch that, ignore all runes, they practically come for free with the armor of weapon anyway, I want the other slots and things bought with gold).

Every time I built a character after chapter 2 or 3 I consistently struggled to find items I cared enough about to even have a debate over what to take. Instead I was filling my slots with "necklace of fireball IV, III, III, II, I" or "bag of holding IV, III, III, II, II, II, II, I, I, I, I, I."And then never used and never wish I'd taken something else (except the one time where I wished I'd taken necklace of fireball instead).


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
1: At least short of making magic items all but irrelevant across the board.

Speaking of, the magic items we have are boring. I don't even mean that some are just +number to skills. I don't even mean weapon and armor potency. I mean the rest of them.

Seriously, find me four exciting items for a 11th level fighter. Things that let him do cool s&!* and are worth investing resonance in.

No consumable or semi-consumable items (trinkets, potions, wands, necklace of fireball, etc) and ignore the "big two" (property runes ok, potency not...scratch that, ignore all runes, they practically come for free with the armor of weapon anyway, I want the other slots and things bought with gold).

Every time I built a character after chapter 2 or 3 I consistently struggled to find items I cared enough about to even have a debate over what to take. Instead I was filling my slots with "necklace of fireball IV, III, III, II, I" or "bag of holding IV, III, III, II, II, II, II, I, I, I, I, I."And then never used and never wish I'd taken something else (except the one time where I wished I'd taken necklace of fireball instead).

Flametongue, Oathbow, various shields, Celestial Armor, Cloak of Elvenkind, Ring of Maniacal Devices, Greater Goggles of Night, Daredevil Boots, Horn of Blasting, Belt of the Five Kings, Rhino Hide, Forge Warden, Demon Mask, Boots of Bounding, Ring of the Ram, Gloves of Storing, Greater Hat of Disguise, Slippers of Spider climbing.

Some of these are build dependent, but most of them effectively grant you a spell and/or cantrip you can use willy nilly. Some grant various significant damage bumps, many give you increase mobility or infiltration, many have synergy with Fighter feats like Sudden Charge/Leap. Some grant you dark vision which is pretty clutch on a race without it. And of course they can make you better at whatever combination of skills you want to be good at.

They are also pretty much all better/more interesting than their PF1 equivalents, and with item levels and the trimming of the big 6 they feel much more accessible as well.


Draco18s wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
1: At least short of making magic items all but irrelevant across the board.

Speaking of, the magic items we have are boring. I don't even mean that some are just +number to skills. I don't even mean weapon and armor potency. I mean the rest of them.

Seriously, find me four exciting items for a 11th level fighter. Things that let him do cool s@@+ and are worth investing resonance in.

No consumable or semi-consumable items (trinkets, potions, wands, necklace of fireball, etc) and ignore the "big two" (property runes ok, potency not...scratch that, ignore all runes, they practically come for free with the armor of weapon anyway, I want the other slots and things bought with gold).

Every time I built a character after chapter 2 or 3 I consistently struggled to find items I cared enough about to even have a debate over what to take. Instead I was filling my slots with "necklace of fireball IV, III, III, II, I" or "bag of holding IV, III, III, II, II, II, II, I, I, I, I, I."And then never used and never wish I'd taken something else (except the one time where I wished I'd taken necklace of fireball instead).

Well it seems that the amount of magical items is still limited and hopefully will be expanded upon in the final version, but depending on your fighters build there are several other items that could be interesting.

Belt of the five kings (for dwarfs more than others), Ring of wizardry (if you have a way of casting spells), Knapsack of Halflingkind (it's a cool item for flavor), Rhino Hide (for a charge build, but might be more suited for barbarians), cloak of the bat (pretty interesting and flavorful).

I do think that there is plenty of space for more cool items (and I know most of the listed items are uncommon), but I still think you can get some interesting gear for most characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Flametongue, Oathbow, various shields, Celestial Armor, Cloak of Elvenkind, Ring of Maniacal Devices, Greater Goggles of Night, Daredevil Boots, Horn of Blasting, Belt of the Five Kings, Rhino Hide, Forge Warden, Demon Mask, Boots of Bounding, Ring of the Ram, Gloves of Storing, Greater Hat of Disguise, Slippers of Spider climbing.

I'll give you the ring of the ram, except that we don't know what is attack bonus is. Some of those others are skill items, which of meant to indicate as "ignore unless they have a power, pay no attention to the skull bonus values." Goggles of Night gives darkvision which 80% of races get for free. I'd have to double-check the rest. I'll give you the Lions shield too.

Ghoul Armor is HILARIOUSLY pointlesslb though, as is benefits don't even DO anything. You get a +1 item bonus to disease...on top of you +1 item bonus to all saves because its +1 magic armor...

Quote:
Some of these are build dependent, but most of them effectively grant you a spell and/or cantrip you can use willy nilly.

"Heavily build dependant" covers things sufficiently though.

Nettah wrote:
Ring of wizardry (if you have a way of casting spells)

Yeah, that's not an item for a martial. Any martial that dips caster isn't in consideration, because they're now part caster and caters have cool toys, which was my point.

Its like all the magic stuff is for magic people and no one sat down and went, "what would a martial character want?" beyond magic weapon and magic armor. And piss-weak trinkets (but I suppose they're just as good as most potions for their cost: piss-weak). The best one I saw was the one that gives you the weapon crit specialization effect. Of course, three quarters of THOSE are borderline worthless. One makes the target flat-footed as if there weren't easier, lower level, free ways (cough, only like 43) of doing that.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / My final considerations on the Playtest All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.