Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Ah, that's a very good point! I didn't think to check there. So unless Divine Defense does Fort (theoretically possible), that might mean that clerics only get one strong save. Hopefully that's the case for wizards, at least.

The prevalence of those effects as base features does mean that casters focusing on debuffs will really have to make sure to pick their targets carefully - you don't want them to save and have it bumped to a crit success, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Cloistered Cleric Doctrine grants Expert Fortitude at 3rd level, but does not increase it to master later. So I think one part of their save progressions probably depends upon which doctrine you choose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Divine Defense might very well say "the saving throw granted by your Doctrine increases to Master". No point guessing until we can get a good look.


Cyouni wrote:

Ah, that's a very good point! I didn't think to check there. So unless Divine Defense does Fort (theoretically possible), that might mean that clerics only get one strong save. Hopefully that's the case for wizards, at least.

The prevalence of those effects as base features does mean that casters focusing on debuffs will really have to make sure to pick their targets carefully - you don't want them to save and have it bumped to a crit success, after all.

We haven’t seen an example of such save abilities on monsters or NPCs, though.


Edge93 wrote:
citricking wrote:

Making a viable melee wizard will be hard. An elf can start with 16 str 14 Dex and 18 int but will be stuck with light armor until level 7. Really won't be able to have strong spells and melee, so should leave int at 12. A human is best, because they can have medium armor by level 3. Boosting two bad stats (str and int) is tough on their defences.

Human wizard MC fighter
Str 16 Dex 14 con 12 int 16
1 light armor
2 fighter dedication
3 medium armor

So it comes online at level 3. Is best and quite nice from 5-9 because of the flawed stat system.

Need a new class like the magus to really have viable spells and melee from level 1.

I think "viable" might be being misused here. Back at the start of the Playtest my chapter 1 Doomsday Dawn party featured a Sorcerer with Fighter Dedication and he was one of the better party members, good with both melee and spells. He wasn't up to the Dex cap for his armor but in practice it wasn't a serious problem at all. With the changes we've seen he'd be even better because he can use ranged spells better with casting mod for spell attacks instead of Dex.

TL;DR we can already make a "viable" melee and spells build with our current tools, and it looks like we have altogether better tools in the final version.

I see what you mean, but in my defense I did say level 1. Only a human can have even light armor at level 1. I feel it's fare to say that a wizard with such low HP and no armor is a bit too failure to be considered viable, but maybe there are optional class features that help with that. I was saying that the human I build listed was viable, and the sorcerer build in the play test too, but neither is level 1. Which is completely fair, wizards have too much going for them spell wise that to have all that and melee would be a bit much. That's why a class with less casting and more melee focus would be good to have.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually wondering now, will there be a martial-boosting Thesis for Wizards somewhat analogous to the Warpriest path for Cleric? Like maybe a "Bladesong Thesis" or something? That'd be hype.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
I'm actually wondering now, will there be a martial-boosting Thesis for Wizards somewhat analogous to the Warpriest path for Cleric? Like maybe a "Bladesong Thesis" or something? That'd be hype.

I get the impression a Thesis is a lot lower impact than Doctrine, but something increasing martial prowess somewhat seems plausible.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh! The minion trait is still there, and still just as horrible as ever. Animal companions, familiars and summons are apparently still idiots who can't do anything unless someone takes the time to tell them to do it. Animal companions, familiars and Summoned Monsters were really terrible in the playtest. And I'm not seeing anything to suggest that they're worth taking now. Maybe they get a few more hit points, but that's not compelling. This is massive disappointment. Yes yes, I know action economy is sooooo amazingly powerful that we can't let anyone have anything even mildly useful with more actions, I've heard it before. I still don't see how having all pets be such utter garbage is a good solution to action economy. From what I can tell, summons in particular are just laughable between the minion trait and the significantly lower level. Summon dragon is a 5th level spell that gets you a 5th level dragon, sounds good until you realize that 5th level spells are only available at level 9 and above, and presumably they get the minion trait. Level is everything in this edition. So you just get a worthless critter who's mostly only useful as a flanking buddy and a speedbump. Familiars seem to be just something you take for the Master Abilities and then leave at home.

This is a major strike against PF2. Champions apparently still being reaction based, instead of anything that feels like a Paladin is another (and pigeonholing based on alignment). The base of PF2 has a whole lot of potential, a lot of things are massively improved over the playtest and the book looks gorgeous, but I'm seriously concerned about some of these choices. House-ruling out the minion trait is doable, but other issues need a more complete rework than simple house-rule.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Tbh we don't have the full details on minion trait and pets - near the end of the playtest, most pets would take an action even if not commanded to do so. It could be a general rule for summons and an extra line under animal companions, and just leave Familiars as the slow ones you dislike.

Or you could be right. Dunno. We'll see.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

Tbh we don't have the full details on minion trait and pets - near the end of the playtest, most pets would take an action even if not commanded to do so. It could be a general rule for summons and an extra line under animal companions, and just leave Familiars as the slow ones you dislike.

Or you could be right. Dunno. We'll see.

But that ability to act without being commanded is limited to a single action that can only be stride and strike, is either Animal Order Druid only or only works while using Hunt Target and takes a feat (although it's a feat you're going to take anyway for animal companions, because as Captain Morgan said previously, Animal Companions are now just a feat chain instead of a creature). That's still pretty bad. Yeah, maybe there's some unrevealed bit that counters some of the suckage of the minion trait. But based on what we've seen, I'm not holding my breath. Or maybe one of the optional rules in the GMG will be Non-useless companions. At the very least, the ability to have one action without a command should be the default of minion trait. And then get abilities for them to have two actions if you don't command them. And probably up their actions to 3 if they are being commanded. Then the fact that their stats are bad can compensate for the action economy.


Doktor Weasel wrote:

Ugh! The minion trait is still there, and still just as horrible as ever. Animal companions, familiars and summons are apparently still idiots who can't do anything unless someone takes the time to tell them to do it. Animal companions, familiars and Summoned Monsters were really terrible in the playtest. And I'm not seeing anything to suggest that they're worth taking now. Maybe they get a few more hit points, but that's not compelling. This is massive disappointment. Yes yes, I know action economy is sooooo amazingly powerful that we can't let anyone have anything even mildly useful with more actions, I've heard it before. I still don't see how having all pets be such utter garbage is a good solution to action economy. From what I can tell, summons in particular are just laughable between the minion trait and the significantly lower level. Summon dragon is a 5th level spell that gets you a 5th level dragon, sounds good until you realize that 5th level spells are only available at level 9 and above, and presumably they get the minion trait. Level is everything in this edition. So you just get a worthless critter who's mostly only useful as a flanking buddy and a speedbump. Familiars seem to be just something you take for the Master Abilities and then leave at home.

This is a major strike against PF2. Champions apparently still being reaction based, instead of anything that feels like a Paladin is another (and pigeonholing based on alignment). The base of PF2 has a whole lot of potential, a lot of things are massively improved over the playtest and the book looks gorgeous, but I'm seriously concerned about some of these choices. House-ruling out the minion trait is doable, but other issues need a more complete rework than simple house-rule.

I’m not going to defend the minion trait, but how’re animal companions so weak? Unless we’re counting the fact that the enemies in the playtest were buffed to the point to be much more serious threats than they should be normally. Most companions health is certainly more than a speed bump, unless you’re having them charge the front lines into a group by itself, then yeah. I’ll have to look closer into summon monster, cause i can see an issue with the summons being underwhelming and limited to one or two at most, whereas 1e where you can literally spam the spell for hordes of conjured allies.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

Tbh we don't have the full details on minion trait and pets - near the end of the playtest, most pets would take an action even if not commanded to do so. It could be a general rule for summons and an extra line under animal companions, and just leave Familiars as the slow ones you dislike.

Or you could be right. Dunno. We'll see.

This is Doctor Weasel's gimmick, posting about how stuff is really, really awful before we see how it works as a whole.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Tbh we don't have the full details on minion trait and pets - near the end of the playtest, most pets would take an action even if not commanded to do so. It could be a general rule for summons and an extra line under animal companions, and just leave Familiars as the slow ones you dislike.

Or you could be right. Dunno. We'll see.

This is Doctor Weasel's gimmick, posting about how stuff is really, really awful before we see how it works as a whole.

Yeah, I remember it from the early playtest days.

My gimmick is being very cautious until we actually get the text, and then posting massive walls of texts about exactly why it's wrong, for what reason, and what should've been done.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

My gimmick is accepting eveything with unlimited enthusiasm, then running the damn thing, discovering I don't like it, and going home to sulk and look for a system I can mess up to my liking, often unsuccessfully.

Or at least, it was for the Playtest. I think with the changes the devs have implemented my groups and I will really like 2e, and with the GMG presenting optional rules you can use to limitedly change the game, and a complete new AP explicitly designed to be fun instead than a stress test, this shows promise. I'm rather optimistic... gods have mercy on me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Tbh we don't have the full details on minion trait and pets - near the end of the playtest, most pets would take an action even if not commanded to do so. It could be a general rule for summons and an extra line under animal companions, and just leave Familiars as the slow ones you dislike.

Or you could be right. Dunno. We'll see.

This is Doctor Weasel's gimmick, posting about how stuff is really, really awful before we see how it works as a whole.

And then everyone else assures me that everything we haven't seen must be so amazing, that any misgivings I have based on what we actually do know, are totally invalid.

Yeah, I'm a bit of a pessimist, and I've been vocal of the problems I've seen. Possibly too vocal. (I didn't realize that I had established a reputation like this.) Mostly because I was hoping they'd actually get fixed. And there have been several reveals that have made me nervous. I'm not a "They changed it, so it sucks" kind of guy for the most part. PF1 has a lot of cruft and badly performing parts and an overhaul for PF2 makes sense. It's more dramatic than I was expecting, but a dramatic change isn't necessarily bad, D&D 3 was a massive change over AD&D 2nd ed, and was a massive improvement. I'm the most open to PF2 of everyone in my gaming group, so you probably really don't want to hear any of their opinions on it. I actually fluctuate between cautiously optimistic, to utter despair regarding PF2. Over the past few months it's actually been the former (the ability to regain focus with 10 minute breaks was a very positive sign), but some recent revelations like the terrible odds of a wand blowing up in your face if you try to use it twice (really sets off Loss Aversion and feels bad regardless of the mechanical merits), the fact that Champions are still reactive and the continued existence of the minion trait have put me back into pessimism.

Frankly, the playtest had a lot of really awful stuff in it. Casters were nerfed seven ways to Sunday, spells were bad, it had Resonance (about as fun to play as a system where each time you use a magic item the GM clobbers you with the core book), monsters were dramatically overpowered, the basic math was broken, heavy armor was garbage, special materials were broken (mithral actually had lower hardness than steel), Alchemists were ineffective, Paladins were reactive armor wearers instead of actual paladins, classes were restrictive, heritages were tacked on and arbitrary, the book was poorly organized and yes familiars were an afterthought, animal companions a feat chain and summoned monsters of such low level as to be all but pointless, and all three were made worse by the terrible Minion trait. Overall, it was a highly flawed game. Our playtest game fell apart during the last part because of built-up frustration and annoyance with it. PF2 is not the playtest, but it is what PF2 is based on.

Some of this has been improved. Resonance is gone, the math should be fixed, spells are supposedly getting a boost, heavy armor should be worth using etc. But most of the fixes have not actually been revealed. They're mostly assurances. Some of the revelations do seem to show that the improvements don't go far enough. And then there are things that were terrible in the playtest that are confirmed to still be around and work the same way like the minion trait. So yeah, that gives me serious concerns about PF2. I can't just take the assurances that everything is better as given, because the playtest has eroded some of my trust in the Paizo developer's judgement. It may very well be what I want in a game is incompatible with what they want to make. I still hold out hope that PF2 will be a good game, possibly a great one. It does have some great ideas in there, the three-action system, the 10 minute rest cycle that came out of the playtest, modular classes, flavorful monster abilities, and speed of play (one of the observations I had about the test was that combats took more combat rounds, but less real-world time than in PF1. That's the best of both worlds, and really great at high levels). And even if at launch it's not that good, some things can still be improved with more material. The optional rules in the GMG are something I'm looking forward to, and the promised ease of house-ruling without breaking the existing system. Some of what I hate with a passion is really just a matter of taste, so being able to make the game reflect that taste without breaking all compatibility with other Paizo material would be helpful.

...well that was longer than expected. TLDR version: Yeah, I'm critical, playtest was bad and some things we see worry me. Not trying to crap on PF2, just want it to be the best it can be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Awww ^___^

Here, Herr Doktor, here. If it sucks we'll brainstorm a solution together. Something involving copious amounts of hard alcohol and screaming karaoke songs off-key.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the artwork that depicts scenes and the maps. I'm not a fan of the style of the character art, but recognize the anime/cartoony style has been consistently Pathfinder. The layouts look nice.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm of the opinion that no matter what, 2e is probably better than playtest because playtest was that bad :p Its not really possible for it to be worse or just as bad.

Heck, even if system isn't that good, the actual adventures would make it feel less bad. Doomsday Dawn really suffers from "Why these book concepts had to be used for test adventures"


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
*snip*

I mean, I totally get it. Honestly, without people being super critical we wouldn't get changes implemented. And it sucks if a game that you love goes off in a direction you don't like any more.

I remember that 2nd edition was my first introduction to the hobby. When 3rd came out, I went to pick up my PHB at the LGS. There was a guy there explaining to anyone who neared the small stand that 3rd edition didn't have the depth that 2nd edition had. I was still pretty young, and it left this impact on me. When 3.5 came out, I was a really late adopter, because why fix what didn't feel broken to me?

4th edition came and I snapped up all the books, and ran games for a year or two before getting burnt out. It wasn't what I really loved. But! Other people that I played with still really enjoyed it. So I'd run 4th edition games for some, 3.5 for others.

Once more, I resisted Pathfinder because it was pitched to me as "3.75" and it just seemed like more fixing what wasn't broken. Once I grabbed the books and APs, though, I was hooked. But at this point, I was running games for 3.5, 4e, and now Pathfinder. I sort of just started seeing them as games that I could pull off the shelf to fit with the group (even though, in fairness, I stopped enjoying DMing for 4e).

My long story short, I guess that's where I'm coming from when I see a lot of comparisons of "nerfing" between editions and "if this makes it in, the edition is dead" posts. 2e to me, is a game separate and wholly different from 1e. I don't want to look at what I could have done in 1e, I want to know what I can do in 2e and how that comes together.

(Also, I currently love the minion trait because I have DM'd at plenty of tables where pet classes just keep everyone else hostage while they take 15 minutes to ineffectually roll attacks. I like the simplicity of "spend an action, get two/save yourself from making that -10 MAP attack.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
...sounds good until you realize that 5th level spells are only available at level 9 and above...

This part. I don't understand why you included this part. Until you realize? I mean 5th level spells have been only available at level 9 and above for 45 years (from the white box through 5E, from the white box through PF2). When you see a spell is a 5th level spell you know this you don't realize this. And if you are brand new you learn this you don't realize this. Again I don't understand this part. It actually took me completely out of your argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like the improvements familiars got.

They now grant +1 cantrip to spontaneous casters, not just prepared (even if it's stronger on prepared casters). They have two cool Alchemist abilities- one for +2 or +3 items in daily prep, and one that uses both familiar abilities to effectively make "prepare and use an elixir" one action instead of two. (You spend an action on your familiar, familiar uses Quick Alchemy and the action to feed a willing creature an elixir. I'd probably just take the first part and draw/feed pre-made elixirs, leaving room for a defensive ability.) There's also one that lets you regain a focus with an action once per day rather than after a ten minute rest.

I mean, it all seems like a pretty balanced class feature to me. There's a feat that gives you +2 cantrips. There are feats that give you +1 focus and a new ability to spend your focus on. I don't actually see Alchemist getting anything else to increase their daily crafting pool. Familiar gets a bunch of half-feat abilities. In exchange for the early access and getting to pick them flexibly daily, they're tied to something perishable. Then, as a bonus, you've got a second set of eyes to do perception, a cool roleplay class feature, and the occasional odd utility benefit provided by an intelligent pet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

Awww ^___^

Here, Herr Doktor, here. If it sucks we'll brainstorm a solution together. Something involving copious amounts of hard alcohol and screaming karaoke songs off-key.

I'll join the drunken singing and houseruling. I already have a couple things to touch up... But I'll wait release day for a houserule document.

Liberty's Edge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The designers are looking at them as class features which need to be balanced with other class features. Something that allows you to shatter the action economy is not balanced with other class features, period.

Doing two less useful actions in place of a stronger action is entirely within the design frame, so that's what this class feature is likely to give you.

Some people seem to want a class feature to be almost as good as having an additional PC helping the group. Doesn't seem fair to the people playing classes without that feature.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's hard for me to really get with some of the arguments about "Playtest was bad, spells were bad, animal companions were bad, Resonance was bad" because almost all of those things worked GREAT for my group.

Sure spells got nerfed but they are EXTREMELY effective used smartly. Casters tended to be some of the strongest players in my games and it wasn't for lacking traits from the other characters.

Animal companions werent stellar but in each chapter I saw them at work (1, 2,4,7) they held their own quite fine and we're worthwhile. Admittedly a bit less in 7, but they did quite well in the other chapters. I think anything more than "spend 1 action to give them 2" or "they get 1 free action" would probably break the action economy.

And I know I'm a super minority but I loved Resonance EXCEPT for needing it for consumables. I don't like consumable spam but that wasn't quite the right handling. But a unified pool of magic item usage per day instead of x charges per day from each item? Frick yeah.

And the base math, honestly I loved it. A single level+4 monster or 4 equal level monsters or any other equal-footing encounter made for a REAL challenge, despite the fact my party came out on top in every such fight they faced. And lower level encounters still had some meat to them despite clearly not being a match for the players. I really enjoyed it and admittedly tipping the math to favor the players more (if that is what they're doing) is something I was iffy about but I trust Paizo to handle it well, especially after seeing how well they handled one of the two other changes I disliked conceptually (removing level from untrained).

The one point I saw (forgive me Doktor, I did not have time to read your -entire- post) that I agreed with was that Summon is bad. Not because of the minion trait but because of the monster being too low in level. Granted, in the Playtest it wasn't as bad as it could've been because monsters tended to have high-end accuracy but still. I think level -2 monsters would be appropriate for Summon, though the versatility present in your options is a consideration.

As an aside Wizard/Sorc eventually gets an action economy aid for summons, the Effortless Concentration feat at level 14. Heck, with that feat helping you can field two summons and keep them going while still throwing spells. XD


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
And I know I'm a super minority but I loved Resonance EXCEPT for needing it for consumables. I don't like consumable spam but that wasn't quite the right handling. But a unified pool of magic item usage per day instead of x charges per day from each item? Frick yeah.

You're not alone. I also loved what Resonance could've been - unfortunately, it never was.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone dropped a summon water elemental last night that was able to trigger weakness damage against 3 greater fire elementals. It drew all of their agro accordingly and tanked over 100 damage before going down. It didn't last long, but it soaked up all of their actions that round. And it did manage to do some respectable damage before it was dropped too.

Summons seem good for what they always were good for. A versatile tool kit that act as flanking buddies or damage sponges. I've seen PF1 summons occasionally handle combats better than parties. My first pathfinder character was an Oracle with augment summons who did this quite frequently. But that was because I read,optimization guides before showing up and the other players didn't. That is not, nor should it be, what PF2 looks like.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To add anecdotal evidence we saw summons/companions in every part of the playtest except level 1 and in all but the last they were more than powerful enough for their investment.

The only reason the companion wasn't effective in the last scenario is because the player picked a flavour choice (he was obsessed with dinosaur form and wanted the Dino companion) over mechanical power (if he had gone the bear its work together would have really improved him, and in a non playtest game I absolutely would have let him have bear mechanics on a dinosaur skin.)

IPMS we had two companions, a bird for a ranger/rogue and a horse for the paladin/cavalier. In the predungeon part of that both those characters dominated with their companions.

In the healer test fire wall + hell hound (I think) provided awesome synergy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Summoner come back as a class I can see them getting something like Effortless Concentration earlier than Wizard/Sorcerer for the creature, but I hope that Summoners don't come back as spellcasters.

Being power (focus spell I think now?) based would be more interesting in my opinion, maybe with some cantrips like the bards ones that take only one action but are more powerful than the average cantrip but only work on the creature.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

Someone dropped a summon water elemental last night that was able to trigger weakness damage against 3 greater fire elementals. It drew all of their agro accordingly and tanked over 100 damage before going down. It didn't last long, but it soaked up all of their actions that round. And it did manage to do some respectable damage before it was dropped too.

Summons seem good for what they always were good for. A versatile tool kit that act as flanking buddies or damage sponges. I've seen PF1 summons occasionally handle combats better than parties. My first pathfinder character was an Oracle with augment summons who did this quite frequently. But that was because I read,optimization guides before showing up and the other players didn't. That is not, nor should it be, what PF2 looks like.

My only complaint about summoned elementals in the playtest was that all of them had super cool thematically appropriate reactions that they couldn't use because summoned creatures don't get reactions. That was pretty disappointing. I'm hoping that if that remains there will be class feats that give you a way to fix it for a wizard or sorcerer who specializes in summoning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For summoning in general, I like the "the summoned monster will take actions according to its nature unless the summoner gives it specific directions" model more than the "hangs around waiting for orders" model. So something like: a summoned daemon will attack the closest creature (which can be the summoner) unless the summoner directs it to attack a specific target. The daemon will move to attack the specific target; however, if a creature gets between the daemon and the specific target, the daemon will attack the intervening creature until it kills or drives the intervening creature out of its reach.

So summoning a daemon is a big deal, dangerous to the summoner and the party, but a canny group will be able to get a lot of damage out of one action.

I could see devils trying to make a deal, angels healing humanoids/fey/beasts, elementals trying to leave, etc.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't have enough experience with minions in the playtest to comment on their strength, but honestly I'll take "animal companions are weak" over "the druid's turn is twice as long as everyone else's" (which was my PF1e experience) any day.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wow, I must be in the minority of people who pretty much loved everything about the playtest.

I really liked resonance since it made magic item cooldowns super low or non existent. I dont think my group has even come close to our resonance cap.

I even tried the animal companion on one of the adventures and really liked it! The companion wasnt there to tank for the party, but act as utility. I especially liked the 2 actions for 1 deal, since my druid could cast, and the companion can move and attack. That made it especially good as a mount!

Heavy armor felt super good to use! I am on the last session with a defence oriented paladin, and there are rounds I mitigate 100 points of damage.

My favorite feature is that martial get dice added to their damage instead of flat numbers. Now they scale better with casters for throwing dice at the table. And it gives money meaning. That is the thing I dislike about 5e, but I digress.

When it comes to balance, I found it to be fairly tight. Monsters are scary, heroes can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and spell casters save the day with their spells.

TL;DR dis edition gonna be great!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Boomstik101 wrote:
Wow, I must be in the minority of people who pretty much loved everything about the playtest.

Honestly, I liked a lot of stuff about the playtest, or at least what the playtest was trying to do. If I didn't I probably wouldn't be here now ;-)

Boomstik101 wrote:
I really liked resonance since it made magic item cooldowns super low or non existent. I dont think my group has even come close to our resonance cap.

This here though, this is actually the problem with resonance. Most characters don't ever come close to hitting the cap, which means you do all this bookkeeping for something that hardly ever matters. It's extra work for very little benefit.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I don't have enough experience with minions in the playtest to comment on their strength, but honestly I'll take "animal companions are weak" over "the druid's turn is twice as long as everyone else's" (which was my PF1e experience) any day.

I mean, the minion trait exists so that having a minion nets you 1-2 extra actions not "a full character's worth of actions." I see that as wholly a good thing.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I really loved the playtest too. I'm using the rules to run all of my games currently and there are many improvements to be had. Which isn't to say it was perfect or anything either. I certainly have my share of gripes. Some of which are being fixed in the final version of the game, and some aren't.

The good news is that PF2's structure is such that house ruling those gripes is much easier than PF1. For example, animal companions being a feat chain is part of a general problem I have that you don't get enough class feats. As Mr. Seifter elaborated on in Arcane Mark, feats no longer impact the math as much so doubling the number of class feats is less likely to break the game balance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for posting the screenshots. I love the art in the book, the whole thing looks lovely. Can't wait to get my hands on a copy.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I don't have enough experience with minions in the playtest to comment on their strength, but honestly, I'll take "animal companions are weak" over "the druid's turn is twice as long as everyone else's" (which was my PF1e experience) any day.

Hear Hear!

I for one am VERY glad to see the Minion handling rules come into focus and I dearly hope they are here to stay for ALL future "Cohort" classes and abilities which summon creatures (Undead or Otherwise), recruit NPC followers, Animal Companions, Familiar, Summons, Phantoms, you name it.

In my entire experience playing TtopRPGs I've NEVER had a more consistently frustrating, unbalanced, and wasteful time during a game as when I had to deal with players with their own Minions who each get a full Init and actions to supplement their own. At several points, it became necessary to pass off the Summons and other Minions around the table when the Summoner/Druid/Sorcerer, etc began dropping a bunch of new minis on the table. For a while, I just flat-out banned the Summoner (Because I didn't care to homebrew it into a reasonable state) from play because it became a whole can of worms unless they went out of their way NOT to build a disruptive and overpowering PC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

i liked the basic engine of the playtest and saw there could be a really special system under all the awful math and dodgy feats but it needed a lot of fixing and it seems that this has been done. the minions wasnt really a problem i saw.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:


In my entire experience playing TtopRPGs I've NEVER had a more consistently frustrating, unbalanced, and wasteful time during a game as when I had to deal with players with their own Minions who each get a full Init and actions to supplement their own. At several points, it became necessary to pass off the Summons and other Minions around the table when the Summoner/Druid/Sorcerer, etc began dropping a bunch of new minis on the table. For a while, I just flat-out banned the Summoner (Because I didn't care to homebrew it into a reasonable state) from play because it became a whole can of worms unless they went out of their way NOT to build a disruptive and overpowering PC.

I've had similar feelings about npc companions. When I controlled them, combat slowed and I always felt like it was my turn and the players had to wait that much longer. Player summoning has always made someone's turn quadruple in length as they suddenly had to think about a second body and stat block.

I personally see summoning/companions supplemental to a character, not its focus. Perhaps that is because I've never seen it done well.


I don't mind summons being minions, but I do wish they were higher level. Enemies should just ignore them usually. They do have too much HP. So higher level with half of one quarter HP would be much better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomstik101 wrote:
Heavy armor felt super good to use! I am on the last session with a defence oriented paladin, and there are rounds I mitigate 100 points of damage.

You can feel good all day long, but when someone who invested in Dex and wearing a light armor has the same AC while suffering none of the penalties you do, it sucks.

On the minion trait - count me as one who hated summons and minionmancy in general in 3.x/PF1, not so much because of overpoweredness but because of the time it took to resolve those things on the table. So I don't mind summons and stuff getting the shaft, but I do understand that for someone coming from PF1 it's one more thing (and a big thing) that was nerfed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Doktor Weasel - I didn’t mean to sound like i was calling you out on your rant of animal companions; and like has been said, i’ve gained a better appreciation for those that have expressed a more critical view on the rules and system during the playtest. It gets a little challenging to figure how someone is trying to come across at times.

There has been a lot of criticism and still some to wade through; and it can cover over the good aspects at times. I like that animal companions and familiars are simple to make now; like seriously simple, but i feel familiars could use with some tighter wording. Casters have gotten some nerfs, not gonna deny that, but they also got some really nice things for what they lost. Weather the loss was worth the gain can be argued, but casters did get some serious gains with the Playtest.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
necromental wrote:
Boomstik101 wrote:
Heavy armor felt super good to use! I am on the last session with a defence oriented paladin, and there are rounds I mitigate 100 points of damage.

You can feel good all day long, but when someone who invested in Dex and wearing a light armor has the same AC while suffering none of the penalties you do, it sucks.

I'm glad there is more than one way to high AC! Dodge tanks being viable fosters a lot more build diversity! I dont see light and heavy armor being in competition.


Captain Morgan wrote:


The good news is that PF2's structure is such that house ruling those gripes is much easier than PF1. For example, animal companions being a feat chain is part of a general problem I have that you don't get enough class feats. As Mr. Seifter elaborated on in Arcane Mark, feats no longer impact the math as much so doubling the number of class feats is less likely to break the game balance.

Heh, I actually tried houseruling double class feats too, but I didn't choose the best time to do it. I tried it for the Level 20 adventure I put together as a New Year's game for my Playtest group using their main characters at level 20. Bad time to add so many feats. XD

What I'm trying now is actually making some feats give their follow-ups automatically. So for example Sudden Charge grants Sudden Leap at the appropriate level, Counterspell grants Reflect Spell, Intimidating Strike grants Shatter Defenses, Fighter Dedication granting at-will AoO at 6th level, etc. along with other changes like Sorc bloodline powers being automatic and Druids getting their order feats automatically. It's not perfectly balanced by any means but it has worked well for my home games. Not sure if it's as good as just double class feats but I kinda jumped to the option after being dumb and souring the double feat Houserule for myself lol. XD


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Boomstik101 wrote:
I'm glad there is more than one way to high AC! Dodge tanks being viable fosters a lot more build diversity! I dont see light and heavy armor being in competition.

"dodge tanks" aren't the problem though. It's two options giving the same benefit while one also comes with a bunch of penalties.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


The good news is that PF2's structure is such that house ruling those gripes is much easier than PF1. For example, animal companions being a feat chain is part of a general problem I have that you don't get enough class feats. As Mr. Seifter elaborated on in Arcane Mark, feats no longer impact the math as much so doubling the number of class feats is less likely to break the game balance.

Heh, I actually tried houseruling double class feats too, but I didn't choose the best time to do it. I tried it for the Level 20 adventure I put together as a New Year's game for my Playtest group using their main characters at level 20. Bad time to add so many feats. XD

What I'm trying now is actually making some feats give their follow-ups automatically. So for example Sudden Charge grants Sudden Leap at the appropriate level, Counterspell grants Reflect Spell, Intimidating Strike grants Shatter Defenses, Fighter Dedication granting at-will AoO at 6th level, etc. along with other changes like Sorc bloodline powers being automatic and Druids getting their order feats automatically. It's not perfectly balanced by any means but it has worked well for my home games. Not sure if it's as good as just double class feats but I kinda jumped to the option after being dumb and souring the double feat Houserule for myself lol. XD

That is closer to what I would probably implement myself, and did in fact implement myself for skill feats. I just used "double class feats" as a short hand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, Heavy Armor was a horrible mess. Piling on armor check penalties, movement speed reduction, weight, negative traits, and cost then the only concession that made it somewhat useful was the few class features that encouraged you to use those crappy armors.

I haaaated Heavy Armor in the playtest, and I'm still waiting to see how bad it is in the final game. Strength reduces the speed penalty, but if it doesn't also reduce the check penalty I'm still going to have to give the math a hard look.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Boomstik101 wrote:
necromental wrote:
Boomstik101 wrote:
Heavy armor felt super good to use! I am on the last session with a defence oriented paladin, and there are rounds I mitigate 100 points of damage.

You can feel good all day long, but when someone who invested in Dex and wearing a light armor has the same AC while suffering none of the penalties you do, it sucks.

I'm glad there is more than one way to high AC! Dodge tanks being viable fosters a lot more build diversity! I dont see light and heavy armor being in competition.

Just to point something out, the specific example Boomstik101 cited here was a 17th level paladin. A 17th level Paladin in master to legendary heavy armor can easily have an ACP of 0 and only a 5 foot speed reduction. In exchange for that their AC was actually 3 higher than anyone than a fighter or monk could achieve.

In actual practice heavy armor was good for classes it was meant to be used for, which is exactly how it was in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Boomstik101 wrote:
necromental wrote:
Boomstik101 wrote:
Heavy armor felt super good to use! I am on the last session with a defence oriented paladin, and there are rounds I mitigate 100 points of damage.

You can feel good all day long, but when someone who invested in Dex and wearing a light armor has the same AC while suffering none of the penalties you do, it sucks.

I'm glad there is more than one way to high AC! Dodge tanks being viable fosters a lot more build diversity! I dont see light and heavy armor being in competition.

Just to point something out, the specific example Boomstik101 cited here was a 17th level paladin. A 17th level Paladin in master to legendary heavy armor can easily have an ACP of 0 and only a 5 foot speed reduction. In exchange for that their AC was actually 3 higher than anyone than a fighter or monk could achieve.

In actual practice heavy armor was good for classes it was meant to be used for, which is exactly how it was in PF1.

Correct. I am drawing on my experience as a 17th lvl paladin specifically built for AC and tanking. I am having a blast with it, so perhaps that is coloring my opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't impressed with heavy armor either. If you need to spend money on it, or one of your allotted magic items must be a suit of it, it'd better give some benefits.

Where "Hey, this will protect you if your dex isn't worth s%&+e!" is not actually a valid benefit - having low dex/high str or high dex/low str should be build choices, different for sure, but working for their own intended classes and specs.

If the rogue has a ton of dex and a leather armor allowing her to tank gracefully through the room while the paladin in full plate is actually easier to hit, slower, more awkward, noisier, and a thousand silvers lighter in his belt pouch... well, I really hope Mark & friends apported the necessary corrections.

51 to 100 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.