Anti-PF 2.0 Griping Echo Chamber

[Ventnor]

I wish they hadn’t called the spells that Eidolons can cast Innate spells. It just makes Eidolon spellcasting more confusing than it needs to be.

[Norade]

A few more:

-The lack of regularly scheduled and easy to access errata.

-The lack of transparency for how our playtest feedback is actually used.

-The lack of developer thoughts for why things that seem weak were designed as they are.

-The lack of clarity for how certain things that we know to be codified are actually designed (i.e. How weapons traits are weighted and also how those weights were derived).

[Squiggit]

Sometimes I feel like PF2's math can be too tight for its own good. A lot of DCs are set up to challenge optimized specialists, which can make that character feel like they aren't actually a specialist and can make nonspecialists feel a little bit hopeless. It makes trying to leverage skills with an off-attribute for your character kind of suck, it makes multiclass spellcasters almost all focus on defensive and utility spells (because their numbers push them away from debuffs and especially blasts).

It isn't the end of the world, but it kind of discourages dilettante characters, subtly pushes players to 'stay in their lane', and puts pressure on people to maximize their saves.

[RaptorJesues]

I love pf2 but fixed DC magic items really grind my gears. And walls. I really despise walls

[Red Griffyn]

Things I dislike about 2e/Opportunities for Improvement:

1.) Gunslinger legendary proficiency can't extend to any other weapon goup making a fighter MC mauler better than gunslinger with combination weapons. Or making my pyromaniac gunslinger way worse at throwing bombs.

2.) That the dual weapon reload doesn't reload two shots for 1 action. Similarly that capacity still takes an action to switch barrels (i.e., I can shoot in 365 degrees but I can't manage to shift my hand 0.5 cm to 'switch loaded barrels')

3.) That the class feat pool must be shared for multiclass/archetypes. The free archetype variant rule is 1000% more fun and literally alleviates all of my build issues. Things can come online at ~L6 instead of ~L14+. There are so many awesome archetypes but you can't explore them without losing your entire class identity.

4.) Archetypes shouldn't have had a 3 feat exit feat tax. Especially the class archetypes like spellshot (you can't even get out of it before your L10 feat!)

5.) Paizo keeps publishing really cool items and strapping a static DC on them making the cool thing about the item useless after 1-2 levels (looking at you beast guns or snares before a L12/L14 feat!). It should have just been strapped to class/spell DC like it is for wands with casters.

6.)Paizo keeps publishing martials with key ability scores that are not allowed to be STR/DEX. It doesn't kill them at inception but you've made these classes so much less likely to be taken by the broader community because missing feels bad.

7.) The monk has so many awesome low level feats I can't figure out how to build a g!$+#+n monk! On the flip side I wish there wasn't a finesse restriction on ancestral weapons or that all the monk weapons weren't 1D8 or below.

8.) The inventor can't pick a an advanced weapon for the weapon invention. Also, they can't get another type of innovation (i.e., you can't innovate armor and weapons).

9.) Risky Reload for the gunslinger doesn't work for crossbows.

10.) I love that illusions typically force an interact action to disbelieve meaning I can finally have a raw illusionist that won't be nerfed due to GM caveat. However, the best illusion feat ever (convincing illusion) was not cross posted in the Bard or captivator feat pool. I want my bard captivator and where am I going to find 3 feats by L12 to get this thing.

11.) Summoner should have had better support for actual summons (like a summon focus spell cantrip at Level 1 via a feat to get a summon from a focus point pool). Summons aren't even that good so its not like we'd break anything here and it would make up for the spell slot issue of wave casting (magus added a few low level slots and focus spells to help here).

12.) The magus cascade stance doesn't apply to ranged starlight span attacks.

13.) We still have a unarmed vs. weapon distinction in this edition and it makes things needlessly complicated.

14.) low level consumables cost to much gold vs. static magic items.

15.) The spontaneous caster staff prep ability is way worse than than the prepared one.

16.) The oracle doesn't have a mix and match curse/mystery. The drawbacks vs. power balance is just bad and I often feel like some of the curses run counter to what the PC wants to build towards.

17.) Utility/Buff spells typically have 1 minute, 5 minute, or 10 minute duration. This makes buffs typically 1 combat or reactionary. It makes it way harder to be a party support caster.

18.) There is no Runelord of Divination! Its time that he reveals himself and owns up to writing a s~~+ty prophecy for Aroden.

19.) You can't add runes to unique/named/specific weapons and armor. I get they don't want everyone to have a shifted divination staff gauntlet, but why can't I add runes to my smoking sword.

20.) The adopted ancestry feat is limited to common ancestries. Why don't other ancestries open orphanages or ever adopt?

21.) Running recall knowledge skills RAW gives people essentially no useful information.

22.) There are very few X to Y skill feats. Sometimes its nice to have a social character who is smart or vice versa.

23.) There aren't more 1-3 action spells to make use of the action economy.

24.) The rogue static weapon list makes it unable to use any cool new weapons. They should have been given simple/martial proficiency, but kept the 1D8 sneak attack limitation. They also don't publish finesse weapons above 1D8, so there is no power gain here.

[Temperans]

Here is some more gripes focus specifically on Summoner:

* Combined HP pool and actions meaning that the eidolon is in fact not it's own creature.

* The fact eidolons are not summoned creatures, do not interact with anything that specifies only summoned creatures, and does not count under any circumstance as a summoned creature.

* Eidolons cannot use items unless it has the "eidolon trait".

* Summoners are pick a list chosen by the eidolon. Instead of them being either pure arcane (or at least disassociated from eidolon).

* Summoners don't have a summon font or focus ability to summon monsters of highest spell level.

* Summoners lack any actual support for summoning.

* Summoners are forced to use "boost eidolon" to keep up. Instead of that being backed into the eidolon stats. (Seriously what's with all the action economy sink/taxes on new classes).

* Summoners lack spell slots to actually cast summons.

* Summoners need to spend 2 feats just to be able to cast 10th level summon spells.

* None of the summoner's focus spell actually deal with summoned monsters. It takes them a feat just for summoned monsters to benefit from Boost Eidolon.

* In the entire "Summoner's details" page(s) the word "summoned" appears exactly twice. First as part of an "key terms" as to what "summoning spells" are. Second, telling us that eidolons are not summoned. The word "summoning" only appear in the "key terms".

I swear I heard so many excuses during and after the playtest for the SUMMONER to not ever mention summoned or summoning. But why the heck is it named that if nothing of what they do is actually summoning? If it was at least name Spiritualist it would explain why the "eidolon" is manifested and 2 of the starting set are called phantoms.

[Temperans]

Red Griffyn wrote:

24)...

I wish they had added a Rogue trait to weapons like they did with Monk. That way theu just had to add a trait to a weapon if the didn't want martial Rogues.

[graystone]

RaptorJesues wrote:

And walls. I really despise walls

And floors! ...They know that they did. :P

On a serious note, all the time in the rules when you aren't sure if it's using casual language or trying to use technical language like when it says command is that casual or referring to Command?

[Errant Mercenary]

- Guns are terribly uninspired, mechanically too similar to crossbows. They couldve brought something mechanically unique and more evocative, but no, same old blandness. (and crossbows by extension, it is so bland to choose a ranged weapon).

- Recall Knowledge is too expensive, too likely to fail, and there is very little support to improve it outside from very niche class options. Had it been expensive but able to be upgraded in different ways from ancestry, skill or general feats it wouldve been ok. Goes agaisnt design philosophy. of PF2e.

- Shields. Broken, Destroyed..yeah just get rid of one of these. Also, most shields are useless as written, they are stat/trick sticks rather than shields, in the face of Sturdy.

- Surprise Rounds/Lack of surprise rounds has not been very elegantly handled. There should be some bonus for the ones initiating if the others are unaware. Flat footed if not acted has gone too.

- CRB structure, mentioned above by Tarik Blackshands. What an absolute pain of a book to find stuff in.

- A couple of well done FLOW CHARTS for example for stealth and perception.

- Bigger difference in proficiencies, front and centre. Whilst the tight math does convince me, I somehow wish that proficiencies was one of the main difference makers (and without level to stats I am afraid itll become too much like 5e..but I yet have to try it).

- Not enought sacred cows slaughtered when it came to Vancian casting. Still a mess.

- Crafting rules make me rather want to hand wave everything just not to deal with it.

- TELEPORT FLY and similar effects that have the potential to totally eliminate many story telling aspects should have gotten a tag (unique/story/whatever), or there been something explaining just what it means to have them in play. I am so fed up of reading APs where they make lazy excuses to shut these down because EVEN THEIR OWN WRITERS DONT KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE. Address the problem and tell 3e grognards to suck it.

[Per Astra]

Okay, I really, really like PF2 on the whole, it is probably my favorite iteration of the d20 design family, but these always come to mind for me:

1) The Witch class, like the whole thing. I wanted a better and less offensive version of the PF1 witch and what I have is a wonky off-brand warlock that doesn't even have the strong, evocative patron archetypes of the 5e warlock to give it narrative ballast.

2) The Oracle class is so limited--there are so many great domains out there and curses only offer you the narrowest sliver of access to them. I know, you can use feats to build that out, but only by reference to specific deities, and if those deities don't fit your concept but their domains do, it feels like the mechanics and narrative really start to tear at each other. Oracles should be able to start with some obscure domains; it would pair well with the general obscurity of their divine source.

3) Like everyone, recall knowledge. It is so basic an action and I always feel like I'm winging it whenever I have to adjudicate it as a GM (i.e., all the time).

4) Centrality of Strength to dealing melee damage--it feels weird that even with a weapon like the rapier that Strength is how you get your basic damage bonuses.

5) Summoning spells are pretty underwhelming.

6) Specifically, too few class archetypes compared to other sorts of archetypes. Generally, the relative scarcity of new class specific options for the current roster of classes.

[Errant Mercenary]

Per Astra wrote:

4) Centrality of Strength to dealing melee damage--it feels weird that even with a weapon like the rapier that Strength is how you get your basic damage bonuses.

I sometimes wonder what it'd be if it was the weapon alone that did damage, and then the proficiency on top of that in lieu of strength.

[Zabraxis]

I hate that PF2:

- has Sorcerer/CHA and Witch/INT for tradition picking but nothing for WIS. I dream of a tradition picking Shaman.

- only has Cleric as a viable WIS caster multiclass for armored classes. Druid anathema for the multiclass requires Dragonhide but it's expensive and 12th level. PF1 at least had Stoneplate.

- Racial Weapon feats get all sorts of wonky with proficiency. EG. Dwarves are trained in Battleaxe, Pick, & Warhammer but because they aren't DWARF weapons they don't qualify for the lower tier proficiency. You have to eat an additional feat. All of the other racial weapon feats are the same way.

- Human ancestry early feat access is the only way to make certain Archetype/Class combos work. If the intent was to limit access find a better way to hard lock it than "you can be this Archetype/Class combo in a reasonable time but only if you're Human/Half-xxx."

- classes have a fixed/limited choice Key Ability boost. This seems counter to the whole "Options" design mantra and redundant as a limiting tool since that's what proficiency is for.

[Midnightoker]

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Per Astra wrote:

4) Centrality of Strength to dealing melee damage--it feels weird that even with a weapon like the rapier that Strength is how you get your basic damage bonuses.

I sometimes wonder what it'd be if it was the weapon alone that did damage, and then the proficiency on top of that in lieu of strength.

Honestly, I kinda like that. Then give d12s more interesting traits and raise the floor on everyone.

Obviously not this edition, but for sure feel like a 1 die bump across the board and dropping str to damage would make a lot of sense.

Zabraxis wrote:

has Sorcerer/CHA and Witch/INT for tradition picking but nothing for WIS. I dream of a tradition picking Shaman

Fwiw legendary games Shaman exists and it can pick between Occult and primal

[RexAliquid]

Okay, my gripes is that proficiency steps are +2 instead of +1. That means that you need expert by higher levels to feel relevant at most things and options that don't scale up can end up feeling like a trap.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Thanks to everyone who's helped keep this thread respectful! :)

And yes, both the Hide Thread option and the Create Your Own Thread option are completely free, and I encourage those who don't like this thread to use them. <3

[Cyouni]

RexAliquid wrote:

Okay, my gripes is that proficiency steps are +2 instead of +1. That means that you need expert by higher levels to feel relevant at most things and options that don't scale up can end up feeling like a trap.

Funnily enough, when it was +1 in the playtest there was no end of griping about how proficiency didn't do anything useful.

[beowulf99]

I have a couple to throw on the list I don't THINK I saw upthread.

1. My #1 gripe was the topic of my very first post here on the forums: Snares and how janky their rules feel.

I don't like having mechanics that create a "hammerspace" situation, where a character makes something tangible appear out of thin air. Without legitimate magic anyway. Snares don't have bulk by default, so the special free snares you get with Snare Specialist and the like are similarly weightless. This gets REALLY weird when you are talking about the top end of snares, like Hail of Arrows where you are using thousands of arrows that just... appear out of nowhere. Many of my other gripes from that thread are also still an issue.

2. I'm not a fan of the Investigator. I don't enjoy mechanics that tie the GM's hand. That's Odd and Whodunnit? are the earliest standouts. No suggestion on how the Investigator could be done better, I'm just not a fan of how it is done.

3. I really wish that Paizo would have taken the time to differentiate Pathfinder magic from classic Vancian magic. Focus spells are nice, and I like the changes made to existing spells generally. Like making Magic Missile and Heal variable action spells. I just wish that More spells were altered like that.

[Temperans]

Cyouni wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Okay, my gripes is that proficiency steps are +2 instead of +1. That means that you need expert by higher levels to feel relevant at most things and options that don't scale up can end up feeling like a trap.

Funnily enough, when it was +1 in the playtest there was no end of griping about how proficiency didn't do anything useful.

Honestly that one is a difficult problem. If it's just +1 then the difference between "Legendary" and "Trained" is +3. But then the current version require that you have at least master+2 to be actually relevant.

I say the real problem is (like others have mentioned): +/-10 crit, the lack of scaling on so many things (from proficiency to items), and that it appears like everything is balanced around getting legendary.

[Squiggit]

I keep coming back here but..

One odd gripe I have is that I think PF2 almost has too many good ideas that weren't executed well.

Degrees of success are a really neat mechanic for adding more consistency and variety to effects, a way to let non-damaging abilities crit and special attacks do something on a failure.

But it's mostly just a thing for save-granting effects. Martials barely interact with the system outside critical hits.

PF2's action economy is really cool and flexible, but there are a number of classes where it feels like they don't really get to leverage it properly because they have two or more actions already spoken for.

I'd personally kind of like to see more action combiners like running reload too (maybe even free ones?) Because there are a lot of things that feel too good to be free actions but are kind of miserable to use in combat when it takes up a third of your turn.

PF2 feats are conceptually really neat, separate skill and class feats to make characters feel less pigeonholed, an emphasis on interesting actions rather than bland enhancers. Even feats that give characters entirely new activities.

But again, there are some really powerful, obviously combat facing skill feats that belie that separation paradigm, and a lot of class feats still do relatively basic things... and while it's a cool idea, many of those unique activities that come from feats tend to be pretty basic (and almost nonexistent with casters).

The Inventor has some cool, unique actions so I hope that's a preview of things to come and philosophies moving forward.

I guess I just sort of feel like sometimes the developers will come up with a really great idea, but then seem very hesitant to really stretch those ideas.

[wegrata]

beowulf99 wrote:

3. I really wish that Paizo would have taken the time to differentiate Pathfinder magic from classic Vancian magic. Focus spells are nice, and I like the changes made to existing spells generally. Like making Magic Missile and Heal variable action spells. I just wish that More spells were altered like that.

I'm hoping we get an updated words of power to demonstrate this. The new action system could work really well here.

[Kobold Catgirl]

You know, I really wish skills were more heavily redesigned. It sucks that all my access to the customization is still gatekept by my intelligence and my class. Just let me play a dumb rogue or a jack-of-all-trades paladin!

[Coriat]

Thaliak wrote:

5. Slings have limited support.

I too want more awesome slings. I wanted this in 1e also. Somewhere in the dark basement storage of the forums there's a thread thousands of posts long about wanting more awesome slings back then.

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.

I mean, you could make an argument that the historical reasonings aren't even that strong, considering that crossbows not only competed with bows, but in many non-England areas outcompeted and replaced them.

In the hands of skilled users, not in the baby-simple-weapon-for-incompetent-conscripts sense. I'll see Robin Hood and raise you a William Tell.

[WWHsmackdown]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You know, I really wish skills were more heavily redesigned. It sucks that all my access to the customization is still gatekept by my intelligence and my class. Just let me play a dumb rogue or a jack-of-all-trades paladin!

I like intelligence being useful to more people than just wizards. You want skills? Be a little smarter. Coming from 5e, where intelligence is unquestionably a dump stat, it feels really nice.

[PossibleCabbage]

It is kind of funny we get both "intelligence is worthless" and "I don't like how I need intelligence for more skills" in this thread.

[Ravingdork]

What they said. XD

Seriously though, I wish the Crafting subsystem was more robust, and that getting a hold of formulas wasn't as difficult as getting the item itself. I also wish that there were clear rules on what a spell scroll formula actually allowed you to make.

[thaX]

Love the PF2 edition....

But...

Flexible Casting has less spells and slots to use, making the Wizard (Arcanist) limited in comparison.

It should have kept the memorization slots and use Spell Per Day (as the new chart) as the limit for casting Spells.

As it is, the vague explanation for Spell Slots makes it unsure about the use of the chart and only clarifies it with the example, which vaguely counterdicts what the entry had put forth previously.

Compare this to the Sorcerer, and it is confusing as to why this limit was so severe.

[Aristophanes]

Temperans wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Okay, my gripes is that proficiency steps are +2 instead of +1. That means that you need expert by higher levels to feel relevant at most things and options that don't scale up can end up feeling like a trap.

Funnily enough, when it was +1 in the playtest there was no end of griping about how proficiency didn't do anything useful.

Honestly that one is a difficult problem. If it's just +1 then the difference between "Legendary" and "Trained" is +3. But then the current version require that you have at least master+2 to be actually relevant.

I say the real problem is (like others have mentioned): +/-10 crit, the lack of scaling on so many things (from proficiency to items), and that it appears like everything is balanced around getting legendary.

I agree. I think that all the scaling, DCs, etc. should stay the same, but based on 14 instead of 18. So, if you have a 14 in the relevant stat, an at level task will be 50/50, and work from there.

[Squiggit]

D8 frontliners.

Had a lot of players pick up rogues, investigators, playtest thaumaturge and magi and get frustrated by how squishy they felt. Especially the latter three because they're kind of MAD and their action economy makes it difficult to skirmish.

Between AoOs, low HP and relatively weak saves (owing to stat spread) the magus in one of the games I'm in is imperiled far more than any other party member... and it doesn't really feel like he's so much better than the party fighter that he needs to be that much more fragile too. If anything the fighter seems significantly more useful both in and out of combat.

There are solutions, but they tend to be things like picking up a ranged or a reach weapon or changing your statline to consolidate attributes, which don't feel great if those aren't part of what the player envisioned for their character.

[Per Astra]

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Per Astra wrote:

4) Centrality of Strength to dealing melee damage--it feels weird that even with a weapon like the rapier that Strength is how you get your basic damage bonuses.

I sometimes wonder what it'd be if it was the weapon alone that did damage, and then the proficiency on top of that in lieu of strength.

I find this idea really appealing. It seems like it would change how combat works in a bunch of interesting ways...I'm tempted to try it out sometime in a game.

[Perpdepog]

I wish that there were enough cantrips on the arcane list for me to make my necromancy-focused Runelord and be able to take advantage of the extra cantrip they get.

[Ganigumo]

Coriat wrote:

Thaliak wrote:

5. Slings have limited support.

I too want more awesome slings. I wanted this in 1e also. Somewhere in the dark basement storage of the forums there's a thread thousands of posts long about wanting more awesome slings back then.

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.

I mean, you could make an argument that the historical reasonings aren't even that strong, considering that crossbows not only competed with bows, but in many non-England areas outcompeted and replaced them.

In the hands of skilled users, not in the baby-simple-weapon-for-incompetent-conscripts sense. I'll see Robin Hood and raise you a William Tell.

Random thought that probably belongs in homebrew:

Bows go down a die and gain agile, crossbows get a flat damage bonus equal to the number of damage dice.
Makes bows more deadly in the hands of the experts (ranger/fighter) and crossbows more deadly across the board.

[graystone]

Perpdepog wrote:

I wish that there were enough cantrips on the arcane list for me to make my necromancy-focused Runelord and be able to take advantage of the extra cantrip they get.

Do you mean only necromancy cantrips? There's 3 necromancy cantrips and you only have to take 1 out of the three at 1st so even if you take 2 you can get the 3rd for free at 2nd.

[Ganigumo]

Per Astra wrote:

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Per Astra wrote:

4) Centrality of Strength to dealing melee damage--it feels weird that even with a weapon like the rapier that Strength is how you get your basic damage bonuses.

I sometimes wonder what it'd be if it was the weapon alone that did damage, and then the proficiency on top of that in lieu of strength.

I find this idea really appealing. It seems like it would change how combat works in a bunch of interesting ways...I'm tempted to try it out sometime in a game.

It would shift things towards dex too much I think. The decision between strength and dex is one between power and defense (usually).

[Perpdepog]

graystone wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I wish that there were enough cantrips on the arcane list for me to make my necromancy-focused Runelord and be able to take advantage of the extra cantrip they get.

Do you mean only necromancy cantrips? There's 3 necromancy cantrips and you only have to take 1 out of the three at 1st so even if you take 2 you can get the 3rd for free at 2nd.

As far as I can tell the feat doesn't allow you to get your cantrip from another spell list, and the arcane list only has one necromancy cantrip, Chill Touch.

[graystone]

Perpdepog wrote:

As far as I can tell the feat doesn't allow you to get your cantrip from another spell list, and the arcane list only has one necromancy cantrip, Chill Touch.

Derp... Yeah you're right. I thought I clicked on the arcane list and it was he whole list. Yeah, every list/level should have more than 1 spell of a particular school.

[Midnightoker]

Per Astra wrote:

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Per Astra wrote:

4) Centrality of Strength to dealing melee damage--it feels weird that even with a weapon like the rapier that Strength is how you get your basic damage bonuses.

I sometimes wonder what it'd be if it was the weapon alone that did damage, and then the proficiency on top of that in lieu of strength.

I find this idea really appealing. It seems like it would change how combat works in a bunch of interesting ways...I'm tempted to try it out sometime in a game.

Ya know, if they made it to where Two handed weapons required STR or receive penalties to damage similar to armor, you could actually rebalance the whole weapon system in a much more structured way.

Then the trait and damage die total could be tailored to the requirement

For instance if Rapiers had a Dex 14/16 requirement, greatsword had a str 18 requirement, etc.

That way you don't have weak people wielding improper weapons or brutes wielding finesse like weapons unless they possess both.

Basically another lever of control. Wonder if such a system was ever entertained considering armor effectively works that way.

Keeps dex from being chosen for defense if they're limited from getting big weapon damage anyways. They could but damage would amount to the same or worse as a dex weapon with the penalty so it comes down to traits

[Angel Hunter D]

Squiggit wrote:

I keep coming back here but..

One odd gripe I have is that I think PF2 almost has too many good ideas that weren't executed well.

Degrees of success are a really neat mechanic for adding more consistency and variety to effects, a way to let non-damaging abilities crit and special attacks do something on a failure.

But it's mostly just a thing for save-granting effects. Martials barely interact with the system outside critical hits.

PF2's action economy is really cool and flexible, but there are a number of classes where it feels like they don't really get to leverage it properly because they have two or more actions already spoken for.

I'd personally kind of like to see more action combiners like running reload too (maybe even free ones?) Because there are a lot of things that feel too good to be free actions but are kind of miserable to use in combat when it takes up a third of your turn.

PF2 feats are conceptually really neat, separate skill and class feats to make characters feel less pigeonholed, an emphasis on interesting actions rather than bland enhancers. Even feats that give characters entirely new activities.

But again, there are some really powerful, obviously combat facing skill feats that belie that separation paradigm, and a lot of class feats still do relatively basic things... and while it's a cool idea, many of those unique activities that come from feats tend to be pretty basic (and almost nonexistent with casters).

The Inventor has some cool, unique actions so I hope that's a preview of things to come and philosophies moving forward.

I guess I just sort of feel like sometimes the developers will come up with a really great idea, but then seem very hesitant to really stretch those ideas.

That's the gist of my biggest annoyance too. Good ideas, poor follow through. They seem scared to let the new ideas really come into their own. As I learn more about how they create content, it's probably more likely that the numerous freelancers have some hard limits on design and rely on precedent for many things. Maybe there are just too many different people working on the system for the kind of depth and system synergy I want.

Whether that's more charitable than my initial assessment that they were too broke to do another much needed pass over the system, I don't know.

[Kobold Catgirl]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You know, I really wish skills were more heavily redesigned. It sucks that all my access to the customization is still gatekept by my intelligence and my class. Just let me play a dumb rogue or a jack-of-all-trades paladin!

I like intelligence being useful to more people than just wizards. You want skills? Be a little smarter. Coming from 5e, where intelligence is unquestionably a dump stat, it feels really nice.

You're totally entitled to your opinion (I very very much do not want to deal with arguments lately, which is why this thread exists), and I get where you're coming from. Personally, I don't like the idea of any ability gatekeeping customization itself. I think customization should be something kind of sacred and available to everyone. Like, imagine if you only got access to a Background if you had a positive Wisdom. All but banning low-int characters from an entire enormously important facet of the character creation process is incredibly harsh, and limits concepts a lot. I've been pretty frustrated with my "uneducated but canny ex-bandit paladin", who, even with the GM allowing me to forego Religion, still couldn't get half the skills that would have made sense for her.

I also sort of don't see the inherent problem with dump stats, but that's another matter. Pathfinder 2.0 chooses to punish them kind of excessively, in my opinion. I wish weaknesses could lead to more interesting options and story beats, especially since the game seems a little preoccupied with specialization. :P

[Golurkcanfly]

1) Vancian Casting

Vancian as a system introduces numerous issues (such as casters scaling on extra axes compared to martials), can make specialization problematic, and is really the only "complete" magic system

2) Focus Spell Imbalance

There's just a lot of really bad, situational focus spells, which means that they don't really shore up the limited Vancian slots at low levels for a lot of characters

3) 1st Level Feat Options

This is two different, but connected issues. Casters don't get 1st level class feats (this isn't an effective balance mechanism) and Archetypes aren't available at 1st level (sudden character shifts at 2nd level feel like a strange choice compared to just starting out with the Archetype)

4) Skill Feat Chaff

There's too many skill feats that could have been baked into the skills to begin with and just don't compare to the skill feats that actively improve how a character functions

5) Low Level Imbalance
Low levels, due to the less stable statistics (ability scores matter a lot more, weapon damage is more swingy, HP is quite low compared to damage, jumping from one weapon die to two is enormous, etc.) as well as highly limited spell slots, have notably more awkward balance than mid or high levels which can put new players off of the game.

6) Versatility vs Power Balance

PF2e's design approach to classes leaves certain fantasies rather unsatisfied. Martials are powerful, but they can still struggle to have meaningful moment-to-moment decision making. This is nowhere near as problematic as it was in 1e, but can still cause issues. Casters have the opposite issue. Since caster strength was built around versatility, casters that aren't branching out are suffering comparatively, as there aren't good options for specialist casters.

One way to go about allowing fantasies that are both powerful and versatile without overshadowing others is to let characters be versatile, but not have all their options at the same time. This can be done with a sort of "charge" system like the Solarian or can be done with things such as cards (you build a deck of powerful cards, but can only choose from a small number of them on a given turn).

This allows for classes that can be both broad and powerful as well as allowing specialists to be more capable in their field of expertise (with the card system, a Fire Wizard can fireball round after round compared to a Wizard who just took a single fireball in their deck)

[Ganigumo]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I also sort of don't see the inherent problem with dump stats, but that's another matter. Pathfinder 2.0 chooses to punish them kind of excessively, in my opinion. I wish weaknesses could lead to more interesting options and story beats, especially since the game seems a little preoccupied with specialization. :P

New general feats:

Dumb luck, clumsy recovery, stoic fool, ornery diplomat, feeble althlete

[Golurkcanfly]

Oh, and some more that I forgot

8) Lurch Levels

Levels where you increase your proficiency matter waaaay more than others, but proficiency increases don't actually change how you play. In addition, balance gets funky when proficiency increases are staggered. Clerics hit just as well as Rogues for about a third of the game, for example. This could be solved by abolishing the current system and just having "class proficiency" that doesn't increase and just sets your "proficiency tier" at the start and adds your levels (for weapons, Casters would start Level - 2, Martials at Level +/- 0, Fighter at Level + 2). This also lets you differentiate between casters more, so someone like the Bard who has powerful utility Cantrips and really good feats would be a proficiency tier below a Wizard or Witch.

9) Weapon Tiers

Simple vs Martial vs Advanced Weapons are generally an uninteresting mechanic. Simple weapons exist to be "strictly worse," but everyone who wants to use a weapon has access to martial weapons anyways (discounting bespoke proficiencies which shouldn't exist). Advanced Weapons have the same problem as Exotic Weapons in 1e, but many could have also been slightly weaker (or in some cases, unchanged) and just be Uncommon Martial weapons. While there could eventually be something interesting with the Simple vs Martial dichotomy in the future, the current system options for Simple Weapons simply make them up to par to Martial Weapons with a feat tax.

10) Null Turns

Due to the underutilization of degrees of success, "null turns" (turns where the game state did not reasonably change) are still a little too common. It feels really bad to miss a full turn of Strikes, and that's not terribly uncommon. If martials had more effects on a Failure, this could change.

11) Healing Out of Combat

Right now, the system math wants both parties to be fully healed between combats, but player healing is still rather slow which can make certain narratives within the system's own suggested framework (dungeon crawling) not play nice with the math. HP could reasonably regenerate between combats automatically. After all, it's supposed to represent a combination of stress, luck, and "meat points" (though in practice and application of other system options, it defaults to meat points)

[Ravingdork]

Also, no game is perfect, and many of us love PF2E despite its minimal faults, even going so far as to hail it as the best of the tabletop roleplaying market.

[pauljathome]

Ravingdork wrote:

Also, no game is perfect, and many of us love PF2E despite its minimal faults, even going so far as to hail it as the best of the tabletop roleplaying market.

Best of the tabletop roleplaying market seems excessive. There are too many games with hugely different settings, gameplay, etc. Comparing PF2 to, say, Ars Magica or Mage just seems almost impossible. Apples vs beer.

Best of the D&D games? Or even best of heroic rules heavy medieval fantasy? THAT I agree with.

[Temperans]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I think starting a thread to complain about game design and trying to limit or stop dissenting opinion is a bit in bad faith of the forum. The whole conceit is a little dubious.

There was and still is entire threads just to talk about how good the game is. Threads that don't see the negative side of things as much. Having one thread dedicated for complaints lets players released stress. Not to mention making it easier for Paizo to see what the complaints are.

Also, whoever says criticism is bad has no idea how to do get better. Ignoring criticism, calling "dubious" and "bad faith", or straight up saying that its "bad" is the equivalent of saying "I don't care what I did wrong." Any creator that even think that they are above criticism isn't worth a cent. Because no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and the only way to improve is to learn from your mistakes.

The whole anti-criticism sentiment is straight up toxic for improvement.

**************
* P.S. I am not saying that all criticism is good. But the person who decides that is the person creating, if they pick the wrong criticism to follow that is something for them to learn (Not to mention that it always depends).

[thenobledrake]

My biggest gripe about PF2 is that I have so few gripes that the ones I do have get exaggeratedly huge levels of seething rage from me.

Like, as the prime example, that a player can read the Recall Knowledge action in the book and come away with an understanding of it that doesn't include important details found only in the GMing section of the book - and then when they use the action during play and the GM informs them of those other details they feel like they've just been hit with a bait and switch and get a foul taste in their mouth and never use the action again.

So author lack of foresight to mention that the DC will increase on repeated uses and that failure stops you from making attempts to get more information takes an action that should be incredibly appealing to players to use to get some hints as to what kind of things to do that have better odds of being good for their character/party and turns it into "I wasted an action".

And no, that didn't even happen with a player at my table because I was so agitated by it happening to me as I was reading the book before ever running it that I made sure to preemptively inform players of the increase in DC and house-rule out the failure means you can't keep trying clause. The point is that it could happen to someone because of the failure to properly organize and reference content in the book, and is at especially high risk because the action already carries a lot of potential snagging points with the way it relies upon the reader to understand the purpose and not get hung up on overly-specific wording to not run into a belief that you're basically looking at Critical Failure: you have to do something moronic and that's all you can know; Failure: the action did nothing but cost an action and that's all you can know; Success: You learn what you already knew about the creature because this isn't your first time hearing about a fantasy creature; Critical Success: You learn what you already knew about the creature, but also the GM makes up some random tidbit that makes you feel trolled by how inapplicable it is to any situation you could imagine being in.

[Gaulin]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's a combination of things that make characters in 2e feel really un-heroic. There's the normal math, as others have stated, but there's more to it. Items having so much power is one (especially magic weapons), nearly every class needs some sort of item(s) to work (aforementioned weapons, spell book, alchemist kit, their invention, etc), spells last very short amounts of time compared to other d20 games I've played, the rarity system making a lot of powerful stuff gated behind gm approval (or flat out unable to get in things like pfs)... I feel 2e looks at opportunities for GM's to put story hooks in, more than for players to feel strong.

[Golurkcanfly]

Gaulin wrote:

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's a combination of things that make characters in 2e feel really un-heroic. There's the normal math, as others have stated, but there's more to it. Items having so much power is one (especially magic weapons), nearly every class needs some sort of item(s) to work (aforementioned weapons, spell book, alchemist kit, their invention, etc), spells last very short amounts of time compared to other d20 games I've played, the rarity system making a lot of powerful stuff gated behind gm approval (or flat out unable to get in things like pfs)... I feel 2e looks at opportunities for GM's to put story hooks in, more than for players to feel strong.

I can second this, at least for item dependency. Item dependency for system math and the most prevalent items being primarily math boosters makes for uninteresting heroics, and items that are based on activated abilities tend to be actively worse due to having non-scaling DCs.

It's most noticeable early on, too, where getting that first Striking rune is an enormous upgrade for your damage, especially for DEX martials.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I cannot stress enough that not everything needs to be an argument. Sometimes we can just... disagree. If you insist on an "everyone who posts an opinion needs to be prepared to debate it" attitude, a lot of people just aren't going to share their opinions at all, because they don't have hours in the day or energy to spare. Is that really what anyone wants? Not everyone should have to "defend" their points, not when their points are completely harmless and aren't aimed at you. And this thread is about as deliberately not-aimed-at-you as I could make it.

This thread is explicitly meant to be a safe space, if you will excuse the lingo. If you read the posts above, yes, there is pure griping--but there's also perfectly valuable exchanges of information, clarifications, people finding ways to phrase ideas they haven't had occasion to put to words before. That has value, too. Frankly, we harp on about how bad echo chambers are, but I've seen plenty of arguments that were just as bad, if not worse. I'd say a good 75% of the arguments I've been dragged into lately have consisted of two people hanging their heads against brick walls for weeks at a time. Sometimes an "echo chamber" is just a place to rest and think and discuss without it needing to turn into a useless, exhausting debate. We can debate another time, another place. Trying to force people into arguments they don't want is just... rude.

This thread exists because I have issues with the game, I'm interested in sharing and discussing them to a limited extent, but I really, really don't want to do arguments right now--especially not the kinds of exhausting endless arguments the internet tends to produce. Every argument I get into lately causes me to either panic or hyperfocus on it for the entire day and lose track of everything else I need to get done. I am not here to argue with you. I have very reasonable motivations here, I think, and they're really nobody's business but my own. I shouldn't have to justify myself to anyone, not when I've gone out of my way simply to get out of yours. Just make a different thread and please stop trying to force this one off-topic.

And yes, I do have the right to say that, because the moderators have always been clear that forcing threads off-topic is a form of spam. This isn't me being a "control freak". The thread topic is in the title. It's very hard to miss. Please respect that.

Not everything needs to be an argument. Nobody is obligated to be your debate partner. It's a game. The stakes literally could not be lower.