| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those complaining that two weapon fighting is too hard, I recommend trying it yourself, it's not as easy as the movies make it seem.
It turns out, actual weapons are heavy.
For those complaining that two weapon fighting is too hard, I recommend trying it yourself, it's not as easy as the movies make it seem.
It turns out, actual weapons are heavy.
Actually weapons aren't that heavy, they are heavy enough to be useful but other than that even weapons people usually think of as heavy aren't that heavy thanks to the people crafting them taking the time to balance the weapon :P.
What they are is unwieldy, if someone needs two swing around two swords they have to be aware of where both are and making use of both without getting in the way of yourself and being unable to bolster yourself with the other hand. The trick is to find some way to actually get a benefit out of the second weapon other than just parrying (something better left to shields in most cases)
(an arming sword is what... barely over 1kg)
Hey kids, you wanted only updates on dramatic changes in the number of Amazon ratings?
It was 271, it's 359 now. I guess there were a lot of PF2 CRBs under the Christmas Tree, uuuuh.
Woah! That’s an insane jump!
Woah! That’s an insane jump!Hey kids, you wanted only updates on dramatic changes in the number of Amazon ratings?
It was 271, it's 359 now. I guess there were a lot of PF2 CRBs under the Christmas Tree, uuuuh.
You should see video game reviews! The game I got my son has five hundred new reviews after Christmas.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually read some of the reviews just now and quite a bit of the negatives are for books being received with dings and dents. There was quite a bit of hate for the few pages on table rules for dealing with inclusiveness and levels of violence which I don't quite understand as it is easily just ignored.
My personal opinion on 2E is that everyone in my group loves it. That works for me.
You should see video game reviews! The game I got my son has five hundred new reviews after Christmas.Woah! That’s an insane jump!Hey kids, you wanted only updates on dramatic changes in the number of Amazon ratings?
It was 271, it's 359 now. I guess there were a lot of PF2 CRBs under the Christmas Tree, uuuuh.
Uh that’s apples and oranges though.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually read some of the reviews just now and quite a bit of the negatives are for books being received with dings and dents. There was quite a bit of hate for the few pages on table rules for dealing with inclusiveness and levels of violence which I don't quite understand as it is easily just ignored.
My personal opinion on 2E is that everyone in my group loves it. That works for me.
Amazon is a specific place. There are some frequent kinds of reviews which you never see, say, at Paizo:
1. Dinged cover/broken box/delivery drone was rude, 1/5 stars
2. I got it cheaper elsewhere, 1/5 stars (super rare with RPGs where Amazon undercuts other retailers 99% of time)
3. I bought it for my son/husband/granny as a gift and they were smiling when they opened the box, 6/5 stars
4. Amazon is evil, 0/5 stars
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually read some of the reviews just now and quite a bit of the negatives are for books being received with dings and dents.
For a company that started as an online bookseller, Amazon is really bad at delivering books in decent condition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On thing I will say that is bound to be unpopular: Based on my handful of play experiences, I'm coming to the conclusion that Pathfinder 2E could probably really benefit from a "2.5" edition a year or two down the road. Nothing drastic enough to render support material irrelevant, but 2E is just such a wide-ranging and fundamental redesign that there are bound to be things that don't quite work out as intended the first time around.
That said, I'm ain't holding my breath. :P
|
|
On thing I will say that is bound to be unpopular: Based on my handful of play experiences, I'm coming to the conclusion that Pathfinder 2E could probably really benefit from a "2.5" edition a year or two down the road. Nothing drastic enough to render support material irrelevant, but 2E is just such a wide-ranging and fundamental redesign that there are bound to be things that don't quite work out as intended the first time around.
That said, I'm ain't holding my breath. :P
Like?
I actually read some of the reviews just now and quite a bit of the negatives are for books being received with dings and dents. There was quite a bit of hate for the few pages on table rules for dealing with inclusiveness and levels of violence which I don't quite understand as it is easily just ignored.
My personal opinion on 2E is that everyone in my group loves it. That works for me.
Our GM, while preparing a game for last weekend came to the startling realization that his Core Rulebook was missing nearly 30 consecutive pages. They just were not there!
It actually delayed our game as we had to loan him one of our copies.
Fortunately, Paizo customer service is pretty good. So he'll likely get a new replacement book soon.
On thing I will say that is bound to be unpopular: Based on my handful of play experiences, I'm coming to the conclusion that Pathfinder 2E could probably really benefit from a "2.5" edition a year or two down the road. Nothing drastic enough to render support material irrelevant, but 2E is just such a wide-ranging and fundamental redesign that there are bound to be things that don't quite work out as intended the first time around.
That said, I'm ain't holding my breath. :P
I haven't gotten to run or play yet but from what I can tell the only house rules I'd implement are giving two ancestry feats + heritage instead of just one at character creation for more customization, and eliminating the half boost rule over 18 to make characters feel more heroic at higher levels and tune the system in their direction more.
Other than that.... seems like a really solid framework that can be built on just by publishing new backgrounds, feats, ancestries, and classes.
Like?
Who knows? I could speculate, but that seems likely to wind up as (yet another) edition war.
"Speculate"? So, you didn't find any specific issues with the system, you're just speculating that there are some and speculatively a revised edition might be needed?Like?Who knows? I could speculate, but that seems like it could wind up an edition war.
Predictions about the long-term viability of a five-month-old rule set are by definition speculation.
And no, I didn't say that I don't have any specific issues with the system. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.
Navel design.
Et tu, Brute?
|
|
"Speculate"? So, you didn't find any specific issues with the system, you're just speculating that there are some and speculatively a revised edition might be needed?Like?Who knows? I could speculate, but that seems like it could wind up an edition war.Predictions about the long-term viability of a five-month-old rule set are by definition speculation.
And no, I didn't say that I don't have any specific issues with the system. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.
So, what are your issues?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Predictions about the long-term viability of a five-month-old rule set are by definition speculation.
You’re not just making a prediction about the long term viability, you specifically stated that based on play experience you have determined it will need a revision within a year or two. The people who asked for clarification were responding to that by asking what issues you felt from your play experience would warrant your PF2.5.
Having an unpopular opinion is fine. Throwing out an unpopular opinion but couching it in “experience” then refusing to further elaborate because doing so would be speculative is just stirring the pot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, and have listed several specific items that need addressing. .On thing I will say that is bound to be unpopular: Based on my handful of play experiences, I'm coming to the conclusion that Pathfinder 2E could probably really benefit from a "2.5" edition a year or two down the road. Nothing drastic enough to render support material irrelevant, but 2E is just such a wide-ranging and fundamental redesign that there are bound to be things that don't quite work out as intended the first time around.
That said, I'm ain't holding my breath. :P
That you think need addressing, your opinion is not fact and as you can see many people disagree, you're no more right than they are.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, and have listed several specific items that need addressing. That said, the maturity of posters in this community needs work. When people are pointing out issues it doesn’t mean that they are “haters”. I am in a PF2 campaign and would like to see the game evolve. If we can’t admit that problems exist, the system will remain stagnant. I thought the same with D&D 3E, and 3.5 ended up being a significant improvement for me. Then as now, fanboys just threw out hate without listening. I am happy to discuss specific points and many points I raised on this thread are open discussions individually already. I think the long term success of PF2 will depend on it, so hate away.On thing I will say that is bound to be unpopular: Based on my handful of play experiences, I'm coming to the conclusion that Pathfinder 2E could probably really benefit from a "2.5" edition a year or two down the road. Nothing drastic enough to render support material irrelevant, but 2E is just such a wide-ranging and fundamental redesign that there are bound to be things that don't quite work out as intended the first time around.
That said, I'm ain't holding my breath. :P
” If we can’t admit that problems exist”
“ Then as now, fanboys just threw out hate without listening”
We specifically asked what those issues might be and got met with “i’unno”.
People who have problems with the game are the one that have a problem admitting them so far, since we have no problem discussing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, and have listed several specific items that need addressing. That said, the maturity of posters in this community needs work. When people are pointing out issues it doesn’t mean that they are “haters”.
As are anyone who points out issues with PF1
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I think the proficiency system in PF2 is a disaster that kneecaps player creativity for literally no benefit to the game itself and that the game has put too much emphasis on accuracy as a power separator which makes certain combats or builds incredibly frustrating to play as.
But that doesn't mean people who don't think that are mindless fanboys. It also seems weird to be vague about it, there's no point in talking about the flaws of a system if you're not... gonna actually do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I think the proficiency system in PF2 is a disaster that kneecaps player creativity
You're not able to play characters you come up with because there aren't enough +2s to go around? I'm incredulous of this. After all, PF1 was a game where characters could stack huge numbers for doing one thing, but that didn't mean that a different character could also do that thing pretty well even if they don't have the +60 diplomacy check or whatever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm incredulous of this.
What's there to be incredulous about? The numbers seem pretty self evident to me. PF2's system math is fairly tight and that makes it kinda punishing to step outside the area of expertise the developers have deemed appropriate for your class without spending a lot of investment.
The ways around it are kind of goofy and arbitrary too. A sorcerer from Cheliax has an easier time learning how to wield a katana properly than a longsword, while a sorcerer who's actually from Tian Xia is absolutely hopeless when it comes to both and should maybe pick up a gnome hook hammer instead.
Are you a level 14 wizard and do you want to wear light or medium armor? Better hope you have 14 Charisma and are ready to swear an oath to the tenants of good.
After all, PF1 was a game where characters could stack huge numbers for doing one thing, but that didn't mean that a different character could also do that thing pretty well even if they don't have the +60 diplomacy check or whatever.
Well yeah, but PF1 was a game with much looser math. The 'pretty good' character could get modifiers high enough to reliably succeed at checks and the hyperspecialist could auto succeed.
But PF2 is a game where the checks are designed to challenge specialists.
On its face that's a good thing, because you don't want people to just trivialize checks by throwing bonuses at it, but it also means that it's much harder to compensate for deficiencies in your character build with other options, because they just don't really exist.
Again, there are advantages to this approach in that it makes choices more meaningful, but it also nudges players toward a 'stay in your lane' style of character building because it makes the costs of diversifying higher and the benefits lower.
Also want to note that is also not a problem for quite alot of a characters life
I agree, but that's part of what frustrates me. 'Sorcerer with a longsword' or 'Wizard in light armor' is perfectly fine and balanced from levels 1-10 or 1-12 respectively... then suddenly one level later you're eating a significant penalty and the game expects you to reconfigure your build or ditch the gear you've been using all campaign. That's not cool.
Oh sure I think it is a problem, I just think its a problem that for most characters and groups they have a while to solve. For me personally I currently treat it as a delay on having to take a MCD (perhaps for when there aren't a class feats I find as tasty.)
That's probably fair. It's not system destroying, but it does feel generally unnecessary to me (and it has the side effect of making Fighter and Champion dedications really meh if you don't want proficiencies).
As an aside, thinking about the skill thing Cabbage mentioned before...
I really like character building in PF2, but I'm starting to think the linear application of bonuses might be a little bit at fault too.
In PF1, dropping from an 18 to 16 gave you an extra 7 points to play around with, which is a really compelling incentive to spread out your stats. You could go 16/14/12 instead of 18/10/10 (etc).
In PF2, everything is 1:1 and that makes trading out your most valuable stats to bump something that you might only use sometimes a much harder sell. 16/12/10 is a lot less attractive of an alternative than the above example.
As it stands right now my experience is that characters looking to branch out with their skills or abilities tend to really feel starved for points, especially if the attributes they're looking at are 'secondary' ones (Str/Int/Cha).
Kinda wish PF2 stole NADs from 4e too and let you be flexible about where you got your Fort/Ref/Will bonuses from. Feel like that would open up build variety a bit too.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sure I think it is a problem, I just think its a problem that for most characters and groups they have a while to solve. For me personally I currently treat it as a delay on having to take a MCD (perhaps for when there aren't a class feats I find as tasty.)Also want to note that is also not a problem for quite alot of a characters lifeI agree, but that's part of what frustrates me. 'Sorcerer with a longsword' or 'Wizard in light armor' is perfectly fine and balanced from levels 1-10 or 1-12 respectively... then suddenly one level later you're eating a significant penalty and the game expects you to reconfigure your build or ditch the gear you've been using all campaign. That's not cool.
If you step back and look at it from the perspective of a company making a new game, these aren't even really issues. For the vast majority of players, a single campaign/adventure path takes about 1 full year to complete. As this is a new game, most players are going to want to relearn the system through a single character/class. So by the time most players are finishing their first campaign with their first class, the APG will be out and we know that this will include "specialty" archetypes like an armor master, mounted cavaliers, etc. So by the time the majority of the audience is going to be clamoring for armored wizards or the like, the book that provides all of those tools will just be releasing.
The forums just distort this kind of stuff because the people who post here are usually either the most voracious consumers or the most critical; they're not looking at the game as something that's designed to have a long lifespan that can keep bringing in new players for years to come, they're looking at it from the perspective of "what I can do with this right now compared to what I could do with the system that had two decades of support from dozens of publishers?" Even then the PF2 CRB has way more "viable" (viable meaning "options that perform within the expected parameters of their level") characters right now than PF1 had in its CRB and APG combined, but it does still have holes; once the PF2 APG comes out with all the support for non-class-specific armor masters, cavaliers, etc. most of the complaints about relatively niche (and armored wizard is niche; there were a handful of ways to do it in PF1 and most of them that weren't specific-purpose archetypes required multiple books to assemble) builds will have answers and the total number of viable builds is going to explode past PF1's entire hardcover line since each single PF2 archetype is the equivalent of a separate archetype for every existing class in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely agree that it'll get better as the game expands and that these are fairly specific concerns (at least, the armor part, maybe not so much the stat part) rather than broad systemic issues.
But that doesn't make them any less frustrating in the short term, especially when they feel like unforced errors to me (it's not like just letting the sorcerer keep using their damn longsword at level 11+ does much to game balance).
Armored wizard might be niche, but 2/3rd casters were some of the most popular and well received content Paizo published for 1e and right now that feels like sort of a hole in PF2. It's not just a hypothetical or looking to nitpick either. A player struggling to fit a square peg in a round hole and make a caster-gish is something I've had to help people with a few times and was an ongoing problem in an AoA campaign I'm in before the player eventually just got fed up and we let him rebuild into a more traditional sorcerer. Although admittedly in the latter case it was more his attribute spread than proficiency that made him give up.
You’re not just making a prediction about the long term viability, you specifically stated that based on play experience you have determined it will need a revision within a year or two.
Actually, what I wrote was that it could probably benefit from a revision, not that it "needs" one (whatever that means).
But since I've been asked (and where is Admiral Akbar when you need him?), in my opinion there are some rules that, rather than just not being to my liking, either (1) Add complexity for no apparent pay-off; or (2) Seem inconsistent with other parts of the game's design.
One example of the former is diagonal movement through difficult terrain, which is both less consistent and less accurate than the corresponding rule in first edition. To what end? The only thing I can imagine is the designers were trying to be kind to the players of characters with movement rates not evenly divisible by 15.
As for the latter: The existence of striking runes. For a system which seems to take pains to normalize the effectiveness of martials and casters, it feels odd to make martial characters so reliant on magical weapons as they increase in level. It would have been dead simple to scale the damage of weapon attacks with character level. I don't even think that doing so would have strained most people's sense of credulity; it seems eminently plausible that higher level characters, by virtue of their greater experience and skill, would strike to greater affect.
Of course, in providing specifics I fully expect to be told exactly how wrong I am at great length -- this is Paizo's board, after all -- but can we at least try to remember that these are ultimately matters of opinion? One thing I really dislike about edition wars is being told with absolute conviction that, no, blue really isn't my favorite color (and that I'm an utter moron for believing otherwise).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo ran surveys which indicated that while some people prefer "automatic weapon attacks rising with level", the majority wants to stick to "need a bigger magical stick" paradigm, so they went with that. Fortunately, an autoprogression variant is coming in the Game Mastery Guide for those who want their PF2 without striking runes. See, Paizo did think about you already!
And expecting a revised edition to address the burning issue of diagonal movement through difficult terrain is ... I'll just open a beer and smile.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the latter: The existence of striking runes. For a system which seems to take pains to normalize the effectiveness of martials and casters, it feels odd to make martial characters so reliant on magical weapons as they increase in level. It would have been dead simple to scale the damage of weapon attacks with character level. I don't even think that doing so would have strained most people's sense of credulity; it seems eminently plausible that higher level characters, by virtue of their greater experience and skill, would strike to greater affect.
Addressing this specifically...
It is because you are not the only class of fan that they are developing for. There were a non-zero number of playtesters and non-playtesting fans who talked at length about wanting magic items to be meaningful parts of character power. They tried to balance this by splitting some of that power between the character abilities and equipment.
aaaannnnnddddd.....ninja'd by the bag
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...expecting a revised edition to address the burning issue of diagonal movement through difficult terrain is ... I'll just open a beer and smile.
You know, I don't think I've ever met anyone quite as in love with equivocation as you appear to be.
Believing it could be beneficial != expecting
Proud nail != burning issue
...which of course we both understand, so what is the point of engaging in this sort of chicanery?
Actually, what I wrote was that it could probably benefit from a revision, not that it "needs" one (whatever that means).
...
I mean, those are some minor criticisms that you offer here. None of which would even remotely warrant a rules update, in my opinion at least. Also, these are quite easy to house-rule if you don't like those rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, those are some minor criticisms that you offer here. None of which would even remotely warrant a rules update, in my opinion at least. Also, these are quite easy to house-rule if you don't like those rules.Actually, what I wrote was that it could probably benefit from a revision, not that it "needs" one (whatever that means).
...
Honestly the only thing I think even deserves a potential look is the Alchemist, and that class is far from salvageable with some additional Class Feats and maybe some Crafting Skill Feats to help support the Mutagenist (I actually think Chirgeon and Bomber are fine)
Once the meta becomes more apparent, it'll be more telling, but considering how structured the architecture of the rules are, I wouldn't be surprised if there is no clear "meta" outside of something relatively fundamental (standard party comps or certain pairings being strong).
3rd Edition was such a radical change from 2nd that it needing a further revision for 3.5 wasn't that surprising (because the ruleset, despite THAC0, actually got a LOT more complicated).
PF1->PF2 actually got less complicated, but not in a fundamentally "bad" way.
To me, PF2 is the PF1.5 with a few extra liberties sprinkled in (none of which are particularly egregious).
Alchemist is in a weird spot. If you play the class in a specific sort of fashion it's not that bad, but specialty alchemists that were a big part of the PF1 class design and feel like they should be a thing in PF2 don't work very well.
It also just in general has some incongruities, like math-fixers and other lynchpin class feats that don't seem to really mesh with PF2's design goals.
It's not terrible but it definitely feels messy, which I guess makes sense seeing how it had to basically be rebuilt when resonance was scrapped.
I mean, those are some minor criticisms that you offer here. None of which would even remotely warrant a rules update, in my opinion at least. Also, these are quite easy to house-rule if you don't like those rules.Actually, what I wrote was that it could probably benefit from a revision, not that it "needs" one (whatever that means).
...
Granted...which is why I suggested a minor revision (as opposed to a whole new edition).
I also want to draw the distinction between things I think are rough spots in the design and things I just don't like. There are plenty of the latter, but those are not really relevant (and almost certainly would lead to an edition war).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that doesn't make them any less frustrating in the short term, especially when they feel like unforced errors to me (it's not like just letting the sorcerer keep using their damn longsword at level 11+ does much to game balance).
The one thing I know for certain is that the proficiency capping is intentional, though I wouldn't be the one to explain it.
Armored wizard might be niche, but 2/3rd casters were some of the most popular and well received content Paizo published for 1e and right now that feels like sort of a hole in PF2. It's not just a hypothetical or looking to nitpick either.
I think one of the main reasons they were so popular was because was because they automatically balanced themselves out by being baseline competent in everything but largely incapable of breaking the game (up or down). PF2, being a much better balanced system, doesn't need a system hack to the same degree, or at least that's my take on it. I would imagine that we'll probably never see 2/3 casters in this edition. A prospective magus, IMO, would be a full arcane caster who gets something akin to fighter or swashbuckler class feats alongside full casting.
With PF2 being essentially a brand new mechanical chassis, including a fighter/wizard hybrid in the first book would arguably be a bad move; most players are going to need to learn how fighters and wizards work before they dive full in to needing to track all the nuances of both. The core system plus one subsystem (i.e. weapon traits and combat maneuvers or spells and cantrips) is going to take most people, including GMs, awhile to get a firm grasp of, and a character who combines those things full bore from level 1 on is going to stir up some "grar" from segments of the player base who are still trying to wrap their heads around the basics. Keeping things like that for later releases where folks have had more time to get used to the new system is arguably just smart management of a system that's hopefully going to last a long time. For now you have Fighter/Wizards in the same way that the CRB had Eldritch Knights until the Magus came out (and without the crippling period in your character's lifespan where they were still checking off prereqs for the PRC and weren't actually viable at anything).
A player struggling to fit a square peg in a round hole and make a caster-gish is something I've had to help people with a few times and was an ongoing problem in an AoA campaign I'm in before the player eventually just got fed up and we let him rebuild into a more traditional sorcerer. Although admittedly in the latter case it was more his attribute spread than proficiency that made him give up.
Part of that is going to be system mastery related; PF2 system mastery is completely different than PF1. My classic comparison here is Pokemon vs. Street Fighter. In PF1 (Pokemon) it's all about the team you put together. Your button inputs matter, but not as much as getting a team with few weaknesses and lots of different attack types. In Street Fighter (PF2) the character you make matters, but not as much as the button inputs (actions) you choose during the fight. Right now many players are used to playing Pokemon and still trying to turn Zangief into their old Snorlax. Once the transition to playing Street Fighter happens, the game is going to change a lot, right down to he length and difficulty of combats. I believe that a lot of the overemphasis on "needing" an 18 compared to a 16 comes from not being as familiar with how to generate up your other circumstance bonuses, negative conditions, etc. during combat. I think PF2 does a really good job of "feeling" like PF1, but it does have some pretty significant differences, with the impact teamwork and tactical play have on achieving success being one of the biggest.
I also want to draw the distinction between things I think are rough spots in the design and things I just don't personally want in an RPG.
A lot of times those things go hand in hand, though. Like you feel that striking runes are a design mistake, but it's clear that apparently a lot of people actively wanted those things.
Likewise, I think the game's proficiency system is terrible, but I've had people insist that those limitations are important to the system's identity.
But that doesn't make them any less frustrating in the short term, especially when they feel like unforced errors to me (it's not like just letting the sorcerer keep using their damn longsword at level 11+ does much to game balance).The one thing I know for certain is that the proficiency capping is intentional, though I wouldn't be the one to explain it.
I believe they're referring to taking a General Feat for Weapon Proficiency to get to use a Longsword (presumably at level 1/3), being just as good as your other weapons until level 11, and then your Longsword becoming worse than your Dagger due to the +2 change in proficiency.
It's a bit jarring for those that spent an investment only for it to become a trap later.
And while I hate this too, it's never come up in play so far, and if a player attempted to do something like this, I would probably just advise they either go an MCD into Fighter or just not do it at all.
Archetypes might be there soon to alleviate it in the APG.