| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know summoner has had at least 1 features/change suggested by devs in it's subforum.
One revolving around adjustments to act together.
Multiple players have tried it on their playtests and have given feedback in line with their experience with that change (Wich seems universally positive)
I'd love if we could get one small idea/possible change the devs were throwing around to try out with the Magus and provide feedback on how it impacted the class experience.
If not, it's ok, but thought it might be fun.
I'd like to see this too. Gives us an idea of what fixes the devs have looked at and that they are listening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I would very much like an 'Act Together' like dev insight for the Magus, I don't think we'll get one at this point, as there's less than a week until the playtest is over.
I also woundn't keep my hopes too high on gleaming content from a potential post-playtest stream. I remember the Investigator also had glaring encounter mode issues and the earliest we got introduced to Devise a Stratagem was the Paizocon stream (and I don't think necessarily that the devs should have an answer right now, I mean, they probably want to take on the data and further develop and internally test both classes).
That said, I know my character would be extremely happy with a 'we're considering x for a fix' glint of information
To be fair, the posts you guys are looking for is what the post-playtest stream will be for, but the playtest doesn't even end for a little under a week. Then they need to finish collating the data, and then they can get back to us, while I'm sure they're working on it, I wouldn't be surprised if they were intentionally *not* settling on solutions yet as they see how everything shook out for real. These things take a lot of time, and they might even have to demo a bunch of solutions internally before they're ready to tell us anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just saying. Summoner got some attention.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the way.
That said, with how awful these classes are, I'd like to see a 2nd round of playtesting opened up. Afterall, a bad game delayed is eventually good, while a bad game released on time is bad forever.
I agree,PF2 was rushed to market too early because of the upcoming convention season, and and I'm so disappointed in the Magus that, at this point, the Secrets of Magic is off my buy list unless huge changes are made to the Magus, and very possibly so too are any future PF2e books. The lack of errata fixes, the overall game balance issues, the massive need for homebrew fixes for a ton of stuff (from shields to spellcasters and much, much more), and the seeming entirely wrong direction of this upcoming book's classes means I'm almost ready to toss PF2 on the obsolete game pile with my (admittedly too large) D&D4e collection!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
/ragequit much? :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still prefer this editions mechanics.
I just secretly disagree on the fundamental balance points.
Leaning on true strike instead of just letting potency runes apply to spells is dumb.
General lack of spell action economy (heal/harm was such a good idea and they dropped the ball)
New classes being RNG heavy and weak, or just weak. (Bard might be binary but is where the caster baseline should be)
I'm having a real hard time convincing a couple of my players of the game itself. Largely because of the above and similar issues.
Like I said though, I do love the ruleset. Just seems I disagree where the proverbial line in the sand should be.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
/ragequit much? :-)
Getting there, but as I said, I'm currently at "almost" because this is just the playtest. If the final book comes out and it is still the same, I'm pretty much done. Our long-running group of pathfinder 1 gamers had no interest in even trying PF2e, It took a long time but I finally found a new group willing to play now and then, but their interest is rapidly fading. Everyone else in my small town sees it as a time of D&D5e resurgence because the main competitor to it, PF1e, was pretty much killed by Paizo themselves.
So, more of a /sadquit, as I played PF1e far, far more than D&D5e before PF2e came out, but I'm heading in that direction now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that Paizo has moved on to a second edition of PF should not stop anyone from continuing to play with first edition rules. After all, if the idea is that it doesn't matter which ruleset you use, which is something Paizo has pretty much said since they started with PF2E, then why not continue playing with the 1E ruleset?
The fact that Paizo has moved on to a second edition of PF should not stop anyone from continuing to play with first edition rules. After all, if the idea is that it doesn't matter which ruleset you use, which is something Paizo has pretty much said since they started with PF2E, then why not continue playing with the 1E ruleset?
That said, I like the second edition rules, and so far I haven't seen anything that's soured me on them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that Paizo has moved on to a second edition of PF should not stop anyone from continuing to play with first edition rules. After all, if the idea is that it doesn't matter which ruleset you use, which is something Paizo has pretty much said since they started with PF2E, then why not continue playing with the 1E ruleset?
That's true, and for more than a year my group did keep playing our 1e campaign, until the Covid lockdown hit. Not sure what will happen once the lockdown is lifted here in CA, but right up to the end the group said "no way" to PF2e, even though most of them bought the core book just to see what it was like. We are an older gaming group, all of us in our 40's and 50's, with decades of experience in many other systems. Maybe this rules set appeals more toward younger players? I don't know. But I've kept all my PF1e books, and I think we will probably be going back to using it after the pandemic passes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, I'm sick and tired of people trying to turn it into 5e. I left that game for a reason.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Oracle playtest had removed the choice of mystery and people were applauding it. The Witch playtest had removed the choice of hexes and again some people were applauding it. Now the Magus is losing their action economy, which was their #1 ability and some people say its great. While the Summoner has lost everything that made them a Summoner, and some people say its almost perfect.
Ok so firstly, you still have your choice of Mystery, it's just tethered to your actual benefits.
And it needed to be that way, because I was sick and tired of every Oracle picking "clouded vision" or "lame" simply because they didn't want to deal with the actual Curse effects at all.
Thematically tying the curse to the benefits makes way more sense. Cheesing your abilities to avoid dealing with your Curse is not what makes the Oracle cool, embracing your Curse is supposed to be part of it.
On the choose Hexes aspect, I dont remember anyone applauding it. Most people sort of expected to get to choose hexes or at least pick up another Hex. Maybe there were people happy about it, but I didn't see anyone say it was a great thing to be hex locked with Patron.
As for the latter two, nothing has happened yet and saying that people in general on these forums are calling either of those mentioned mechanics "almost perfect" seems pretty far from the case.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My hot take is that 2e has two different groups of critics. 5e players that like simple mechanics so 2e looks too daunting to learn. And 1e players who view 2e as too much radical change (aka the 4e problem). Being part of this community and 5e communities, those are my impressions. On the flip side 5e players that like 2e are ones that craved more crunch and options after 6 years of 5e's slow contentdrop. 1e players that like 2e felt that the original edition had some glaring balance issues and appreciate how balanced and streamlined 2e is in comparison.
With all that said, I would like 5o see what the dev's are thinking in regards to the Magus, but I also understand if they want to brainstorm more. I've enjoyed my slide magus so far but I do think there is room for improvement. Summoner I'm also fine with for the most part, but I'm sure will he much improved.
One other thing to keep in mind, is that the PF2 system is incredibly flexible and easy to modify at your own table. Samurai and I have very different ideas about game balance and what we enjoy about PF2, but if you have your own table that generally agrees with your perspective, it really is not hard to adopt your own set of house rules for your specific game. If you design a mechanic that you like better than what gets published, use it.
In many ways, PF2 has taken the Open Gaming License to the next level and I really respect that decision, even if I see it as potentially very risky. Involving so many people in the play testing and design of the game has been a risky maneuver as well, as it has given people a very intimate sense of ownership over the rule set, but it is definitely something that impresses me and makes me want to continue to support the company.
I play PFS, GM 2 tables and play at another and all of those games have their own set of house rules (with PFS being the only one who's house rules are no house rules). It takes up an incredible amount of my free time and sometimes even my not so free time, but it has definitely been worth it enough to continue to participate in the playtests and provide my play experiences. If the final version of the Magus is less satisfying and flexible than the playtest magus, I will definitely allow players at my table to choose to play the playtest version, or a hybrid of the playtest and final magus, just as I would have done with the investigator, if I didn't feel like they got the final one right.
As much as I originally came to Paizo for the Adventure path concepts, a big part of that was because adventure design in 3.x was so time consuming and intensive. PF2 is so much more GM friendly that I have been having a blast homebrewing adventures again, and having complicated encounters with moving boats running over canoes and mobile battlefields that don't fit on maps printed on the size of a magazine page, that the prospect of having 2 or three different rules for the same class is fine with me as a GM, because I only ever have to interact with the one in play at my table.