Anti-PF 2.0 Griping Echo Chamber

[Kobold Catgirl]

Okay, I actually really, really like PF 2.0, but I got tired of getting into arguments with people every time I wanted to gripe about the things about it I don't love. I say everything here with the utmost respect and affection, promise. :P

The only rule here is that nobody's allowed to defend PF 2.0 except in the blandest possible "I don't agree, but you're entitled to your opinion I guess" terms.

Oh, and be nice. Pretend your favorite dev is reading your complaints, and think about how you'd come across to them.

Oh, and I suppose all the mods' rules apply, too. Technically.

[Kobold Catgirl]

So, like, merging Craft and Perform and removing all the nuanced facets of them. I don't like it. It's like PF2.0 got so antsy about "trap options" that they just went and purged a massive font for customization and creativity from the system.

"But what if someone picks a useless Craft skill?" ... yeah, what if? So what? It's one skill. And no Craft skill is useless if either the player or the GM are paying even a bit of attention. Plus, they could've made Craft focuses, like, really broad. "Textiles", "metalworking", etc.

I just want to play the party cook without her also being the party blacksmith! I want to be good at dancing and suck at singing!

"But can't you just pretend you're bad at blacksmithing and singing?" Yeah. Sure. A good game, particularly one as focused on customization and the relevance of choice as Pathfinder, doesn't force you to pretend options don't exist. A great system aids roleplaying rather than distracting from it.

At least it's super easy to house rule back to normal. This is a tiny gripe; it just drives me nuts.

[Demicube]

It isn't a perfect solution but I have tended to use Lores for that level of specialization. So characters who have Cooking Lore or Violin Lore. It isn't perfect since those skills all use Int RAW, and are more designed for recall knowledge/earn income.

[nephandys]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

So, like, merging Craft and Perform and removing all the nuanced facets of them. I don't like it. It's like PF2.0 got so antsy about "trap options" that they just went and purged a massive font for customization and creativity from the system.

"But what if someone picks a useless Craft skill?" ... yeah, what if? So what? It's one skill. And no Craft skill is useless if either the player or the GM are paying even a bit of attention. Plus, they could've made Craft focuses, like, really broad. "Textiles", "metalworking", etc.

I just want to play the party cook without her also being the party blacksmith! I want to be good at dancing and suck at singing!

"But can't you just pretend you're bad at blacksmithing and singing?" Yeah. Sure. A good game, particularly one as focused on customization and the relevance of choice as Pathfinder, doesn't force you to pretend options don't exist. A great system aids roleplaying rather than distracting from it.

At least it's super easy to house rule back to normal. This is a tiny gripe; it just drives me nuts.

I think that's a valid complaint. You can grab specialty crafting and impeccable crafter to be a better cook than a blacksmith and similar options for performance. That still won't make you bad at things outside of your specialties though and I can see how that's a bit of a letdown for options and roleplaying.

[aobst128]

I don't like the fact that agile d8 attacks only exist for monks and mutagenists strangely enough. Because of that, weapon options for monks are all worse than a good portion of monk stances. I get that agile is the best trait, but the system bends so far to prevent it from being better than a d6. Very noticeable with the weapon inventor having the option to make something 2 handed but singles out agile weapons as not eligible. Also wish that ancestral weaponry didn't specify finesse weapons for monks. Could have just put a d8 cap on the weapons so strength monks could use more weapons.

[breithauptclan]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Okay, I actually really, really like PF 2.0, but I got tired of getting into arguments with people every time I wanted to gripe about the things about it I don't love. I say everything here with the utmost respect and affection, promise. :P

Color me confused. You want to whine about the product. But don't want offers of suggestions, or alternate interpretations of the rules that would work better, or for people to point out things that you haven't thought of. So I don't really know what you are looking for.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The only rule here is that nobody's allowed to defend PF 2.0 except in the blandest possible "I don't agree, but you're entitled to your opinion I guess" terms.

Yup. No problem. There is the 'hide this thread' button for that.

I won't be able to provide you what you are looking for, but best of luck to you.

[pixierose]

I absolutely love pf2e.

My big gripe is the melding of sense motive and perception together.

I can choose to still roleplay it but mechanically i have to have a character that is good at both if I want to be good at the other. I like characters that maybe oblivious to the emotional states of others but is sure good at noticing a book being out of place, or vice versa someone who is really good at picking up on emotions but is terribile at noticing physical changes in their environment.

[Thaliak]

1. By RAW, Additional Lore has to apply to a new lore! Why can't I spend a Skill feat to upgrade my background lore if it's something my character still cares about and wants to develop? I guess I'll pick up a background with another Lore I don't care about so I can get the one I like at Level 2.
2. Deadly Simplicity is a Cleric feat instead of a feat anyone (or perhaps anyone with proficiency in martial weapons) can take to boost (insert thematically appropriate Simple weapon here) so using it feels like less of a sacrifice.
3. Clerics only gain Expert proficiency in their deity's favored weapon. If I dislike that weapon and plan to Strike, I need to pick a different deity or take archetypes.
4. Unless you want to grow scales, there's no archetype for "I'm so badass I can fight unarmored and still achieve an AC of 5 + Proficiency!" Only Monks, mages and characters whose game lasts long enough for them to boost their dexterity to 20 get to walk around in tropical climates without wearing leather or metal.
5. Slings have limited support. The Gunslinger works with Crossbows, but not Slings? How am I supposed to turn a halflinghuman with Unconventional Weaponry and higher strength into the ultimate rock twirler?

[TwilightKnight]

—crossbow continue to be suboptimal choices compared to bows. While I understand perfectly the historical reasonings, we are playing a fantasy game, not a historical reenactment. Crossbows need to be better.

[keftiu]

My big one is that Champions feel more like Alignment Warriors than anything tied to their god, especially with how married they are mechanically to Alignment - and this, along with broadly stricter Alignment rules for deities, mean a lot of Champions can’t be played for certain gods.

The best example of this I have is Casandalee, who has the Freedom domain and whose primary followers (androids) have been primarily dealing with enslavement as their #1 threat… and yet by RAW, she can’t have Liberators.

I’m really bummed about the direction the class took in 2e, both as a big Paladin fangirl and as someone who thinks Alignment belongs in the dustbin of game design history. Divine characters are my favorite, but I don’t like full casters and have these issues with Champion… so I just don’t make divine 2e characters, and that sucks.

Every day I pray for a good Inquisitor.

[aobst128]

TwilightKnight wrote:

—crossbow continue to be suboptimal choices compared to bows. While I understand perfectly the historical reasonings, we are playing a fantasy game, not a historical reenactment. Crossbows need to be better.

Mostly agreed. They work for the gunslinger only because the class is designed around loaded weapons entirely. If we got support like that from the CRB for loaded weapons, it wouldn't be as big of a problem. They also decided that standard crossbows are simple weapons so it makes a little sense why they're less powerful. I do like the martial and advanced loaded weapons.

[Sanityfaerie]

- Spellstrike provoking opportunity attacks. This doesn't apply to me directly. I will never play a magus... but it's just silly, and silly in a bad way. Powers designed to be used in melee should not provoke opportunity attacks. They just shouldn't.

- Flails are a silly weapon. As far as we can tell they never actually existed as a weapon of war. Flails with reach are sillier. The fact that the gnomes, of all people, are the ones with the reach-flail is sillier still, given comparative sizes... but the fact that the obviously correct build for a fully focused defend-your-buddies paladin is a human... so that he can use human feats to pretend to be a gnome so that he can use a reach flail is the silliest of all. I mean, I'll build it. I'll play it. I'll come up with a backstory that justifies it... but it's still deeply, deeply silly.

[Watery Soup]

I dislike the emphasis on DEX - 0 or 1 ancestries with a DEX flaw, and a large number of classes that need to use DEX-based weapons (swashbuckler, investigator, rogue, etc.).

I would really like to ruin my characters / desecrate the game in new and creative ways. Dumping DEX ends up really nuking everything, I'd like it to be semi-viable.

---

I think the math system is a little too tight. The dynamic range of DCs really goes from a nat 7 to a nat 13, meaning that nat 14-15 almost always succeeds and nat 5-6 almost always fails. That's over half the die rolls where you can just look at the die roll and guess how you did with zero knowledge of the modifier, DC, or situation.

I would prefer it if Paizo invented a system where most of the human population could grow an extra finger on each hand, and we worked on a base 12 counting system. We could keep the d20 since it's a Platonic solid, but move to Crit Success being DC+12 and Crit Fail being DC-12. This would open up the dynamic range a little bit.

---

I think the pace at which Paizo publishes rulebooks is a little too high. I'm pretty sure I play more than the median player plays, but maybe less than the average player plays (because the skew, I assume a small minority of players plays an awful lot and drives up the average relative to the median).

I suspect the number of character options that appears every year grossly exceeds the number of characters the median player creates in a year. So, just purely financially, someone should really study the economics of publishing a lot of options that increasingly few people play, versus publishing more campaign material (like 30 levels of APs per year or increasing vs decreasing PFS scenarios/year) that may encourage people to expand their collection of older non-CRB books (LOAG, SoM, etc.).

I'm skipping buying books at this point because I'm thinking, I'm not going to get to play any of the options here before something I want to play even more comes out. I've had trouble finding Guns & Gears at FLGSs because they consider it a "niche" book and they don't want to stock it.

---

Alchemist does need work. The Debilitating Bomb feat chain either needs an upgrade or a renaming to reset expectations.

Instead of "Debilitating Bomb," it can be called "Moderately Inconveniencing Bomb," and "Greater Debilitating Bomb" can be called "Moderately Inconveniencing But More Reliably So Bomb, Part 1 (no effects until Part 2 is taken)", and True Debilitating Bomb can be called "Moderately Inconveniencing But More Reliably So Bomb, Part 2".

---

I wish Paizo had taken the opportunity to reset Golarion. Although I get why they didn't, it's always awkward to be portraying fictional cultures that have a direct 1:1 correlation with real life countries.

The world gets more annoying for people more familiar with the real-life locations. Like, art of Osirion portrays these dull, sandstone pyramids; the pyramids of ancient Egypt would have been covered with limestone and shone brilliantly. The whole description and feel is the way Europeans felt when they "discovered" it. And it's so hard to suspend disbelief and just handwave it with a "oh, it's ancient Osirion, not ancient Egypt" when there's such a close parallel. And I'm using Egypt as an example because I'm not Egyptian; the examples that annoy me about my own culture are probably best saved for a less light-hearted thread.

I'm pretty sure I've posted this before, but I'm all in favor of taking inspiration from the real world - just mixing and matching. So instead of sandstone pyramids, they're limestone pyramids in the style of the Aztec or Mayan cultures, and set in a swampy area in the style of the Louisiana bayous or the burial mounds in the US Great Plains. And in the desert country where mummies might be buried, using a more obscure / less stereotypical structure such as the pre-Dynastic mastabas.

[Squiggit]

Proficiencies. It's so weirdly difficult to improve your proficiencies and pick up new/different weapons in PF2, which I've found leads to people either picking ancestries for their weapon choices over flavor, or leaving players basically ignoring any of the weirder weapons and gravitating toward the same handful regardless of build.

You end up with weapons that are very disproportionately expensive to learn to use or sometimes even outright impossible and I just don't really see how that makes the game better.

Perception too, I was really happy when Paizo decided not to go with signature skills/a starfinder style skill system in PF2 and perception increases being tied to your class feels like a relic of that design.

While it's not been an issue in practice because of how niche the scenario is, just the notion that there are traps that are undetectable except by a handful of classes because of this really annoys me.

[PossibleCabbage]

Some miscellaneous gripes:

I miss Paladins who aren't tied to any deity, they're just someone who is so good and noble that the universe itself endorses them.

I think advanced weapons almost never justify themselves without a feat to peg your proficiency in them to another proficiency- it's almost never worth it to take a -2 to have some more traits.

I dislike how humans have the only options to access general feats and nonspecific proficiencies at low levels means that archetypes that require a specific proficiency (e.g. the Aldori one) pigeonholes you into "playing a human" or "waiting forever" for certain builds. Similarly monks feel a feat low unless you play a human for natural ambition and then it works fine.

I don't like how the "lesson" feats basically feel like a feat tax on the witch- these should have been built into the class itself.

There is much about the Alchemist that remains unclear to me, and this is troubling.

I think giving the Thief Rogue dex-to-damage was a mistake.

[WatersLethe]

My biggest gripe is that there aren't enough feat slots by default and there are people dead set on arguing against Free Archetype being widely accepted. Like, I can make a shadow of my characters without double feats, but it takes forever to come online and I've been arguing that class feats are a bottleneck since the playtest.

I dislike the Volley trait, as it makes no physical sense and honestly just blows to keep track of.

Wizard weapon proficiencies need to be brought up to par, they're just annoying at this point.

There should be a general feat only method of making sure the weapon and armor proficiency feats scale.

Ancestry based flight is pointlessly and excessively level gated.

The default character sheet is almost entirely useless.

I hate the two feat lockout for dedications, and I hate multiclass ability score requirements.

It is ABSOLUTE TOSH that natural weapons like claws don't count as weapons for feats.

The Witch is a disappointment, and needs some real attention and actually good cantrip hexes, and ways to expand your list of cantrip hexes.

[Squiggit]

WatersLethe wrote:

and there are people dead set on arguing against Free Archetype being widely accepted.

Is this common? I feel like the sentiment I've run into in the wild most often is groups who don't even want to play PF2 without free archetype, to the point where I've run into new players who didn't even realize it was a variant rule.

It's been almost as prevalent from my experience as the feats variant rule in 5e.

[aobst128]

Squiggit wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

and there are people dead set on arguing against Free Archetype being widely accepted.

Is this common? I feel like the sentiment I've run into in the wild most often is groups who don't even want to play PF2 without free archetype, to the point where I've run into new players who didn't even realize it was a variant rule.

It's been almost as prevalent from my experience as the feats variant rule in 5e.

Free archetype good.

[WatersLethe]

Squiggit wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

and there are people dead set on arguing against Free Archetype being widely accepted.

Is this common? I feel like the sentiment I've run into in the wild most often is groups who don't even want to play PF2 without free archetype, to the point where I've run into new players who didn't even realize it was a variant rule.

It's been almost as prevalent from my experience as the feats variant rule in 5e.

I'm mostly griping about the people on reddit and facebook making memes about how if you don't want to play without Free Archetype you shouldn't have it.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the thing that happens is that someone plays a character and is disappointed with how it comes together, and wants to complain about it. Then someone else says "hey, have you tried it with free archetype, or double feats, or something like that" and the original poster would prefer Paizo officially fixes the thing rather than suggestions for how one group can make the game more fun for them.

But "Paizo hears your complaint and will fix it" is not in the cards. We don't even have a good FAQ system yet.

[graystone]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Okay, I actually really, really like PF 2.0

Not me. I don't hate it either. It's ok.

As to complaints... oh boy do I have complaints. Lots of them, but I'll save everyone [and my poor arthritic hands] the full list so I'll put my biggest gripe:

That SO, SO many 'rules' boils down to DM fiat: for instance, I can't bring a character with a familiar to a new table and have any idea just what that familiar can do out of combat [and sometimes IN combat] even though everyone intends to play RAW and not use houserules.

EDIT: ok I lied! One more: the lack of a FAQ button or any real method of getting answers to rules questions past hoping for a random post on any web site, social medium or video. :P

[Cydeth]

Squiggit wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

and there are people dead set on arguing against Free Archetype being widely accepted.

Is this common? I feel like the sentiment I've run into in the wild most often is groups who don't even want to play PF2 without free archetype, to the point where I've run into new players who didn't even realize it was a variant rule.

It's been almost as prevalent from my experience as the feats variant rule in 5e.

I'm in a game with the rule at the moment, but I've already decided I'll never play in a game with the rule again (hyperbole in this, as I'm talking about being able to choose any archetype you want). Mind you, I don't gripe incessantly about it, but personally I find it incredibly frustrating.

I'd say my biggest gripe about the system is that Paizo seems intent on not adding more class feats and is over-using archetypes. And I like the archetype system!

[Shinigami02]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- Flails are a silly weapon. As far as we can tell they never actually existed as a weapon of war.

Not specifically defending PF2e, but flails were absolutely a weapon of war. Not the most *common* one, but they were a weapon. Like a great many weapons though they were adapted from a peasant tool.

[aobst128]

I haven't played 1e but I can say confidently that 2e is better than dnd 5e which is what I started with. So much to chew on with plenty of options. Definitely my favorite ttrpg right now.

[pauljathome]

I am coming to absolutely loathe the way that knowledge skills are handled.

While I'm sure selective memory is playing at least some part, critical failures just happen way, way, way too often. It is often literally less than useless to make a knowledge check (against a boss with a skill that is significantly NOT maxed out, eg trained at mid to high tiers) as you're more likely to get wrong information than correct information.

Couple that with the fact (in PFS, at least) that there are almost no guidelines on what a GM should reveal, how they should set DCs in a great many cases, etc and the whole thing is just a hot bundle of badness.

Its also insanely unrealistic. If I'm asked a question that is really really hard for me I'm NOT likely to be wrong lots of the time. I just don't know the answer.

[Deriven Firelion]

What are some things I dislike about PF2?

-Vancian casting. I much prefer how 5E changed casting so that you can heighten as needed with a general spell list.

-The escape action having the attack trait. I would prefer limited attempts at escape, but you get your full bonus for that first escape chance without it affecting your MAP.

-Weak crossbows in yet another edition.

-Summoning being a weak option. I think they made the creature levels far too behind what they fight for a max level slot. I think they could have come up with a better way for summons to work like applying an attack template to the summon for attack rolls, AC, and save so it would be a level appropriate spell.

-Changing weapon handedness requiring an action. A tedious rule with no real reason to exist.

-Not being able to draw a weapon while moving. you use an action to move, then an action to draw a weapon seems like a tedious rule that should have been wrapped up together.

-Crafting overly complicated and provides no real advantage for investing in it.

-Wizard class very bland with unattractive feats and class chassis.

-Intelligence doesn't have enough good skill feats to make it interesting.

-Familiars lacking the ability to be useful in combat encounter mode.

[TwilightKnight]

keftiu wrote:

My big one is that Champions feel more like Alignment Warriors...

I prefer the 2E take on champions. They fit more closely with my image of holy warriors, especially since the war priest (IMO) sucks and is sub-optimal outside of a very few must-have options that make them all look the same. With the release of the evil champions, I am eagerly awaiting the release of the neutral champions so there is an option for any and all deities.

[aobst128]

TwilightKnight wrote:

keftiu wrote:

My big one is that Champions feel more like Alignment Warriors...

I prefer the 2E take on champions. They fit more closely with my image of holy warriors, especially since the war priest (IMO) sucks and is sub-optimal outside of a very few must-have options that make them all look the same. With the release of the evil champions, I am eagerly awaiting the release of the neutral champions so there is an option for any and all deities.

I wonder what the tenets of neutrality would be.

[Oragnejedi42]

Okay, let's have some fun.

-Key ability score. Just make it a free boost. If I'm a wizard, I don't need you put the bump into Int for me. It opens up a world of possibilities if a Champion could make Cha their key ability or Druid could make there's strength. Heck, an Investigator with Wisdom as their key ability makes a lot of sense.

- The Orc/Tengu attribute spread of 1 set boost and one free boost. Something about it feels off. Not so much that I think they're bad, but it just causes that itch of being the worst of middle between the other two options.

-Alignment. I get Pathfinder has to lean into some things from the other game, but this one can go.

-The cost of consumables/crafting consumables.

-the lack of a generic meta-magic feat list. A lot of page space is wasted on reprints of meta-magic feats between classes. Sure, having some class-specific meta feats is cool. But maybe just have "yeah, everyone can these at X levels to save space going forward."

-Warpriests. This may be an organized play thing where you can rebuild your character before lvl 2. But every lvl 1 warpriest I GMed for pre-covid was rebuilt into something else at 2. Is something about it off? I looks off given the key ability score and odd prof progression.

[graystone]

aobst128 wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

keftiu wrote:

My big one is that Champions feel more like Alignment Warriors...

I prefer the 2E take on champions. They fit more closely with my image of holy warriors, especially since the war priest (IMO) sucks and is sub-optimal outside of a very few must-have options that make them all look the same. With the release of the evil champions, I am eagerly awaiting the release of the neutral champions so there is an option for any and all deities.

I wonder what the tenets of neutrality would be.

Zapp Brannigan: I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Neutral President: All I know is my gut says maybe.

Neutral Planet's motto: "Live free or don't"

[Norade]

Okay, let's start a list:

-Unbalanced stats with Intelligence being worthless for most classes and the stats tied to saving throws being too valuable.

-Lack of clarity for exploration and social activity rules. Especially with regards to minions such as familiars and animal companions.

-That non-CRB classes all use awkward mechanics that don't interact well with the otherwise enjoyable 3-action system.

-That Magi can be hit for attempting to use the core feature of their class.

-That Swashbucklers do such poor damage outside of their restrictive gain panache, finisher, 3rd action, repeat loop.

-That the Fighter is so clearly the best martial due to +2 to hit being undervalued.

-The fact that Alchemists simply don't support a lot of the fantasy that people enjoyed in PF1.

-That Witches have basic lesson as a feat choice instead of a class feature.

-That familiars are basically worthless due to RAW and post-print rulings by Paizo staff.

-That firearms are too restricted in terms of which classes can use them effectively and that no existing classes got support for using them properly.

-That Investigators are terrible in melee.

-That Necromancy, Summoning, and Blasting are terribly suboptimal compared to Control magic.

-That the Bard overshadows and invalidates most other Occult casters.

To name a few.

[keftiu]

TwilightKnight wrote:

keftiu wrote:

My big one is that Champions feel more like Alignment Warriors...

I prefer the 2E take on champions. They fit more closely with my image of holy warriors, especially since the war priest (IMO) sucks and is sub-optimal outside of a very few must-have options that make them all look the same. With the release of the evil champions, I am eagerly awaiting the release of the neutral champions so there is an option for any and all deities.

The devs seem to make it sound like we’ll be waiting for a while for Neutral Champions, and their inclusion still doesn’t help with how restrictive the class’s design is.

[aobst128]

keftiu wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

keftiu wrote:

My big one is that Champions feel more like Alignment Warriors...

I prefer the 2E take on champions. They fit more closely with my image of holy warriors, especially since the war priest (IMO) sucks and is sub-optimal outside of a very few must-have options that make them all look the same. With the release of the evil champions, I am eagerly awaiting the release of the neutral champions so there is an option for any and all deities.

The devs seem to make it sound like we’ll be waiting for a while for Neutral Champions, and their inclusion still doesn’t help with how restrictive the class’s design is.

It would help a little for sure. The main restriction is alignment.

[Squiggit]

TBH I think that's a consistent problem with D&D. The deity-centric classes just don't... get enough from their deity. YOu can have two clerics of gods that are diametrically opposed to each other in every way and the characters will end up having pretty much the same toolkit minus one focus spell.

Not a new problem to PF2, PF1 had similar issues.

[keftiu]

Squiggit wrote:

TBH I think that's a consistent problem with D&D. The deity-centric classes just don't... get enough from their deity. YOu can have two clerics of gods that are diametrically opposed to each other in every way and the characters will end up having pretty much the same toolkit minus one focus spell.

Not a new problem to PF2, PF1 had similar issues.

Sure, but PF2 fixed plenty more problems, and this thread is for what we’re unhappy with…

[Squiggit]

Oh yeah, I'm agreeing with you complete, just saying I think it's more than just the champion and seems to be a recurring issue.

[Tarik Blackhands]

The CRB layout. Dear god that layout. If you want something to singlehandedly kill the average player's interest in learning the game, just tell them to read that sucker.

To this day I remain baffled how that thing managed to pass through editors and the playtest and get published with no one saying "Gee this thing is kind of a pain to read through" and the other side saying "You are correct, go fix that"

[Marcus Steelfeather]

Here are my problems:

That the book for constructs was one of the last in the PF1 edition, and din't cover well what kind of character I wanted to make.

And now that we have the inventor, their innovations are lackluster and it plays more like a Torchlight Engineer.

All I wanted was a character that could pilot some suit, like Rumble(LoL), Mekkatorque(WoW) or Gazlowe(HoTS).

Also the fact that I can't use a Advanced Weapon as a Innovation and the fact that I need an extra feat to use my armor innovation if I'm a Wizard with Inventor Dedication.

[TwilightKnight]

I find the champion to be the best character class in the CRB, by a considerable margin.

[Ganigumo]

I love pf2, its my favorite system but I certainly have gripes.

-Alchemist in general, and especially how polarized people are on the class. It struggles heavily at lower levels with resources because its just as limited but doesn't get cantrips or focus spells. At higher levels it pays a cost for its utility which *may* be fair, but its closest counterpart in support, the bard, doesn't pay for its utility in nearly as impactful a way just having a less destructive spell list instead of worse proficiency.

How polarized people are about alchemist also baffles me, as even if you disagree on some of it, stuff like quick bomber and calculated splash existing as feats are a stain on pf2's generally strong feat design.

Fighter's overall +2 to hit at all times is just too much.

Martials should get more opportunity to use the degrees of success system.

Caster progression needs an update. It works for save based spells but not for spell attacks.

Champion has a lot of low level feats that just aren't very interesting, and the causes are poorly balanced against each other.

[keftiu]

It's one of the rare few I can comfortably say I don't think I see myself ever playing, at least in its current form. Maybe a Class Archetype will turn me around on it, but until them, I'm just crossing my fingers hard for a 2e Inquisitor soon.

(Joining Alchemist, any non-spontaneous caster, and Summoner.)

[Milo v3]

While I really like the potential of the action economy, I get very frustrated with all the little actions here and there and classes that require 'set up' actions or reloading since it takes me out of the possibility of doing cool stuff when I have to deal with wasting 1 or 2 actions at the start of every fight (more if they didn't have weapons out) or things having extra action costs like using crossbows/guns/drawing consumables/etc.

[The Raven Black]

What I dislike most is that important parts of the rules are sometimes hidden in obscure corners or have to be divined from several sentences spread here and there.

[Exocist]

Lack of dex to damage for finesse melee weapons makes dex melee completely pointless unless you're forced into it. Unless you want to spend two stats on dealing damage, at which point your defensive stats go down significantly, a bow actually does better damage than a rapier at 10 strength.

Reload is criminally undervalued as a negative, and reload weapons need a lot more damage to compensate for the action cost of reload. I suspect this is because of "preloading" - i.e., the fact that you can never pay the action cost of reload by just not reloading it, using quick draw, etc. Perhaps tie a damage boost to using the reload action.

Thrown should have the option of using str to hit - it's already pretty bad with many many negatives associated with it relative to an actual ranged weapon (poor range, rune tax, etc.) so I feel giving strength a (bad) ranged option is fine.

10 spell levels is too many. 9 is also too many. We should have 5 or 6 like starfinder. 10 is a balancing nightmare.

Too many martials are just damage and very little else. More monks and champions, less fighters please.

Key stat should just be a free boost. I really hate the new trend of giving classes a key stat they don't want (Alchemist, Inventor and now Thaumaturge would much rather have Str/Dex than their mental stat). If it's for balance, then it only matters half the time - make it consistently a -1 or don't have it there at all.

Proficiency gaps causing strangeness, and pidgeonholing you into certain things. MC casters are basically pidgeonholed into buff spells because casting anything else, outside of particular levels, is going to suck hard. Similar, weapon using casters are going to suck hard at it outside of particular levels. These things already have a penalty associated with them - Casters trying to martial have no damage booster and no survivability booster, on top of their frail chassis. Giving them master proficiency (the accuracy expectation) if they so desire it wouldn't break anything at all. Similarly, giving MC casters legendary proficiency (the accuracy expectation for spells) wouldn't break anything because they're also limited by slot level and number of slots.

General feats need a cleanup - what are they even for?

Skill feats need a cleanup - they were supposed to be a split for noncombat options to not compete with combat options, yet some skills have extremely good combat options and others have next to nothing.

Recall Knowledge needs a cleanup, or to be split into two actions (one for research out of combat, and one for in combat).

There should be a generalised pool of class feats anyone can take so the same feat doesn't need to be reprinted across multiple classes.

Archetypes being used as class feat expansion in place of printing more class feats sucks - archetypes were designed to be restrictive - you can't pick up a second archetype until level 8 and can't get your first feat from that archetype until level 10. Having to wait that long to build something a little off theme just feels too punishing.

Mooks at higher levels have too much HP.

[Temperans]

Oh boy is my list long as well. But here are some things that have not been mentioned:

* The entire way that the Summoner was build such that you are actually playing a monster not a pair. The very fact that despite familiars using nearly the exact method used for evolutions in PF1, eidolons are literally forced to spend class feats. Class feats that have 0 effect on what the "PC" can do.

* The way that spellstrike is a chore to do. Instead of getting a simple ability that works with the 3 action system. It's just a bunch of weird rules, that exclude some rules but not others.

* The incredibly bad special material options. Specially when it comes to shields. Sturdy should had just been a shield rune.

* The way items are formatted/made makes them super stale and boring quickly. When an items stops being useful 2 levels after you get it feels more like a chore than actually enjoying it. It also wastes so much book space having 4+ version of an item with their own unique header when you could literally just make a simpler more compact format.

* The lack of general class feats. Specifically the fact that there are so many reprinted feats when you can make a single area for all the feats shared between multiple classes.

* The weird way that low level spells are unable to progress what so ever. Along with the fact that instead of using those spells as the basis for magus and summoner they used only 4 slots of the highest levels. I really wanted Magus to leverage low level spells with great martial feats to get amazing results.

* The fact witch was given the weird lesson theme instead of actually making patrons interesting. Opposite that, the fact that wizard was given a weird thesis theme instead of focusing on his schools. (Seriously its like they decided to flip the roles of those two classes).

* The awful trend that everything that looks like it might be an action boost or a proficiency boost is expressly denied, altered, and/or rejected. Specially when it might benefit casters.

[Midnightoker]

First I'd like to say, I love PF2 more than any edition I've ever played, full stop.

I hate the swashbuckler is taxed increase to skill

I hate that you can't get charisma to Will

I hate that finesse weapons are bad at trip

I hate a spell is harder to read than a lip

I hate that feats like Cleave and Eldritch nails exist

I hate that when players use Recall Knowledge there is no defined list

I hate that some skill feats are strictly combat driven

I hate that others don't do a thing unless the GM is giving

I hate that there are no rules for minions in exploration

I hate that Lore is left at trained and there's nothing for retention

I hate that the Bard is compared to every single caster

I hate that it's extremely hard to compete in damage as a blaster

I hate the fact that wizard's feats and schools are milquetoast

I hate that you can't learn about creatures even if you're close

I hate that Thaumaturge is now set in stone as a face

I hate that ability scores are the one thing you can't replace

I hate Darkvision for the party dichotomy of vision

I hate that there's still a damage type for precision

But all of that's a lie, I don't hate it at all

I'll play PF2 until a die, or at least til PF2.5 gives me a call

[The Raven Black]

Midnightoker wrote:

I hate that ability scores are the one thing you can't replace

Actually there is also the Class and I did forget to put this in the things I hate in PF2.

But yes, for almost everything, I love this game. Thanks be to the designers.

[WWHsmackdown]

I like the game a lot. It's my favorite system to date (though, honestly, I've only played like 10 ttrpgs out of the hundreds that exist). However, if I were changing stuff I'd retool the alchemist and witch a little. I'd also add broadly accessible bon mot equivalent skills for reflex and fortitude saves. Generally higher tuned saves is all well and good if I can take action to have a chance to lower them, like with bon mot. I like that design space (doesn't cost spell slots but does cost skill increases and hinges on a skill roll). I'll also second wishing for a school focus over a thesis focus. An abjurer, evocationist, and necromancer wizard feel mechanically the same. And with SoM out I don't think school archetypes will ever be on the table, which is a shame. However, the captivator archetype gives me a little glimmer of hope. Captivator, spell trickster, and shadow caster are examples of the kind of material I want for casters going forward. Let them focus their build the way martials can! On the martial side of the coin, I have no complaints outside of alchemist. Dedication levels of base accuracy on top of a non martial key stat is just miserable and I'd rather the alchemist have neutered versatility in exchange for martial accuracy. Oooooo also, let the warpriest pick strength/dexterity over wisdom. It has dedication levels of accuracy in both melee and magic so the least they can do to brighten them up is let them forgo wisdom and focus on what they really want to do: smack stuff.

[Cydeth]

Ah, right, another of my gripes that I forgot about earlier.

I dislike the Summoner in the strongest possible terms. The entire approach to the class compared to 1e just completely frustrates me. I refuse to buy Secrets of Magic because of it.