Anti-PF 2.0 Griping Echo Chamber

[Squiggit]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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

Eh, your first striking rune is important, but it feels worse at high levels. Deprive a level 20 fighter of his +3 Major Striking etc. Greatsword and they lose the significant majority of their power.

Like, I love magic items and I like buying magic items, including weapons, outfitting my adventurers is fun, but high level PF2 characters are practically helpless without their weapons and armor and that feels kinda bad.

[Kobold Catgirl]

As a newbie to this system, I'm actually quite surprised they didn't do away with that element. It wasn't exactly a popular component of 1.0. :P

thenobledrake wrote:

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.

Haha, this.

Oh, here's something petty and tiny I dislike: I think that, contrary to making things "easier" for new players by eliminating trap options, the new ability score generation system is actually kind of confusing and unintuitive. I don't hate it, but I think there's a reason why "hey, here's your core # abilities, they help define the broadest strokes of your character's strengths and weaknesses" is such a popular concept in RPGs. It's useful. It's a nice, quick, simple way to understand the most basic elements of a character concept, and I think we're much worse off for the lack of it. Drawing it out across the whole of character generation isn't just kind of zigzaggy and indirect, it robs players of that initial, "Alright, so I'm smart and quick, and really charismatic, but kind of frail and weak, and not super self-aware" introduction to their new character that helps them come up with ideas of where to go from there.

Also, I really really liked Point Buy, but I know I'm in the minority on that one. :P

[Temperans]

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.

More specifically it is how the items were done.

There are plenty of systems where items have powerful effects. But in PF2 core items are absolutely needed to the point that not getting them for 1 level can straight up ruin the game. All while eliminating all ways for a class to get "pseudo-items". Ex: Magus Arcane Pool, Paladin Divine Weapon, Warpriest Focused Weapon, etc.

Quote:

="Kobold Cleaver] As a newbie to this system, I'm actually quite surprised they didn't do away with that element. It wasn't exactly a popular component of 1.0. :P

Many people quite literally hate(d) the big six, and plenty others hate(d) characters having a bunch of magic items.

Its why armor runes give resistance bonus, why there are no headband/belt of stats (and they are capped), why there are no amulets of nat armor, no ring of protection, etc. Instead of giving you a bunch of potential items that you didn't quite need but made you much better when combined, they made it so you are forced to need the core items.

Heck eliminating "Christmas tree", as people who hated it often called it, is the entire reason why Paizo spent like 90% of the playtest trying to make resonance work. Only to just make it a straight up 10 invested items max. It's also part of the reason why some suggested having a second round of playtest before release. They spent so much time trying to make resonance work, and barely any actually testing the final system. Which is another of my gripes.

[The Raven Black]

In the playtest survey, the majority of voters wanted their equipment to have a real mechanical impact. That is what PF2 offered.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I don't think that contradicts anything they're saying, Raven. They're criticizing the game, not Paizo's grasp on the pulse of the community. :P

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

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).

Nope. We do not have that many threads saying how good the game is. And BTW one of the premise of this thread is to voice criticism while also acknowledging that the game is good.

People usually post to complain.

And sometimes, when given examples that their gripes might be a bit unfounded, some refuse to even take the possibility into account. And then things turn sour.

Better to have a shout to the silent universe thread like this one.

So, for this thread to keep being a somewhat safe place for everybody, I think the best is to just ignore posts you do not agree with. It is what I try to do and it brings peace of mind, rather than the angry din of neverending arguments.

[Kobold Catgirl]

It's a fair point that it's best to ignore people who are behaving badly, and I'm doing my best to do so. That being said, a lot of the critics are also criticizing me personally--implying I'm acting in bad faith, that I'm a whiner or a control freak, etc. That's harder to ignore indefinitely. Honestly, it hurts my feelings. And funny enough, it makes me want to debate these people less, not more.

[Norade]

The Raven Black wrote:

In the playtest survey, the majority of voters wanted their equipment to have a real mechanical impact. That is what PF2 offered.

Did it need to have this level of impact though?

[Deriven Firelion]

Norade wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

In the playtest survey, the majority of voters wanted their equipment to have a real mechanical impact. That is what PF2 offered.

Did it need to have this level of impact though?

Yes. If they were not so good as to make you feel like the difference between having and not having one was immense, they wouldn't even care if they got one like my players feel about magic armor or skill enhancing items. They don't feel impactful because they still get hit all the time or miss their skill checks. But that extra damage feels like they picked up something extraordinary.

[Squiggit]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Also, I really really liked Point Buy

One thing I liked about scaling cost point buy was that it gave you a bit of an extra benefit if you chose not to min-max.

Going from a bought 18 in your main stat to a bought 16 gives you 7 extra points to play around with anywhere else. So between three stats you could turn 18/10/10 into 16/14/12, which is pretty neat.

In PF2 since your ability scores are all a 1:1 trade, it's a bit of a harder sell to diversify your statline, because trading +1 in the thing you use all the time for +1 in something situational isn't a great trade.

As a consequence it's something I don't see nearly as often in PF2, except for a few builds like warpriests and alchemists who have odd relationships with their KAS.

[Norade]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Norade wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

In the playtest survey, the majority of voters wanted their equipment to have a real mechanical impact. That is what PF2 offered.

Did it need to have this level of impact though?

Yes. If they were not so good as to make you feel like the difference between having and not having one was immense, they wouldn't even care if they got one like my players feel about magic armor or skill enhancing items. They don't feel impactful because they still get hit all the time or miss their skill checks. But that extra damage feels like they picked up something extraordinary.

If players don't feel like their magic items are useful either they aren't being made to feel narratively important or they need to have them taken away to show what life is like without them. That same party will appreciate their armor and skill enhancers if forced to run a dungeon without them.

[Temperans]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Norade wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

In the playtest survey, the majority of voters wanted their equipment to have a real mechanical impact. That is what PF2 offered.

Did it need to have this level of impact though?

Yes. If they were not so good as to make you feel like the difference between having and not having one was immense, they wouldn't even care if they got one like my players feel about magic armor or skill enhancing items. They don't feel impactful because they still get hit all the time or miss their skill checks. But that extra damage feels like they picked up something extraordinary.

One thing is the item being noticeable, another is the item being required.

Weapons feel good because just getting the first striking rune literally doubles your damage. By the time you get the last one you are getting 4x your initial damage. But armor? The numbers are so tight that the +1 from heavy armor mostly just helps prevent crits, not really blocking damage.

[Deriven Firelion]

Norade wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Norade wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

In the playtest survey, the majority of voters wanted their equipment to have a real mechanical impact. That is what PF2 offered.

Did it need to have this level of impact though?

Yes. If they were not so good as to make you feel like the difference between having and not having one was immense, they wouldn't even care if they got one like my players feel about magic armor or skill enhancing items. They don't feel impactful because they still get hit all the time or miss their skill checks. But that extra damage feels like they picked up something extraordinary.

If players don't feel like their magic items are useful either they aren't being made to feel narratively important or they need to have them taken away to show what life is like without them. That same party will appreciate their armor and skill enhancers if forced to run a dungeon without them.

They don't even buy them or use them, so no need to take them away. They literally don't care if they have them or not. Though resilient runes they like any help making a saving throw is helpful.

They care if they have potency and striking runes because it helps hit.

[HumbleGamer]

One thing I don't really appreciate is the lack of a FAQ button on the board.

This is related to the fact we have information from different sources, like yt, Twitter, forum, errata ( which could be more, as well as longer), etc... .

Finally, after years we still don't have answers for stuff which should require a couple of seconds to deal with.

Another one is that while it's true that they removed/limited power creep, I see that the more the new books come out power creep is slowly making a comeback ( though it's true the 3 action system is a wall that blocks most of the issues ).

Last one, I find silly that the old maps ( EC, AoA, etc... ) got not updates given the huge amount ( or probably the majority ) of players make use of a VTT.

These are minor issue, mostly not related to the game, so yeah... overall I am pretty impressed with this 2e.

Mostly because they moved from an old rpg like game to a boardgame one.

Best choice ever.

[dmerceless]

I am certainly a person with a considerable amount of gripes, but if I were to name the biggest one, the reverse crème de la crème, it would be the janky mess that is proficiency scaling for anything that's not skills.

I'm a Warpriest, just starting out. I'm pretty decent at hitting things with weapons - only a -1 behind martials, which is fair. Now level 5 came and I'm -2 behind martials because I'm still trained in weapons. Feels kinda bad, but I'm a caster, so I guess it's okay. Wait, but now I'm level 7, Expert and have 18 Strength, so I have the exact same bonus to hit as a full martial? But then at level 13 I get behind again and never catch up. Am I supposed to be good with weapons or not?

Armor might be even worse. At level 11-12, Fighter and Ranger have the same AC as a Champion, the class whose main mid-level feature is having +2 to AC. And then at 17, Fighter gets their Master, but Ranger only gets it at 19. They don't even pretend there's any vestige of consistency.

This really undermines some of the design and balance of the game, making some classes almost objectively better than others at certain level intervals. And to add even more salt to the wound there's the fact that a lot or even most of the ways you have to get proficiencies outside your base ones do not scale at all. It's fine for someone to use something as well as their main things early game with just a general feat, but if you got to the mid levels, gotta eat that archetype tax I guess. And if the archetype doesn't exist... sucks to be you (RIP Rogue trying to use any rogueish weapons that were released aftet the CRB).

[Ascalaphus]

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.

I wonder what it would have been like if they'd designed the skill DC scaling with the assumption that Trained and a 14+ in a stat should get you past the break-even point. And then scaled the bonuses for Expert+ so that while they're useful and make you crit more, they don't completely pull the rug out from under it.

As opposed to now, where it feels like you need to go at least Expert and get skill items to stay in place.

[Ascalaphus]

dmerceless wrote:

I am certainly a person with a considerable amount of gripes, but if I were to name the biggest one, the reverse crème de la crème, it would be the janky mess that is proficiency scaling for anything that's not skills.

I'm a Warpriest, just starting out. I'm pretty decent at hitting things with weapons - only a -1 behind martials, which is fair. Now level 5 came and I'm -2 behind martials because I'm still trained in weapons. Feels kinda bad, but I'm a caster, so I guess it's okay. Wait, but now I'm level 7, Expert and have 18 Strength, so I have the exact same bonus to hit as a full martial? But then at level 13 I get behind again and never catch up. Am I supposed to be good with weapons or not?

Armor might be even worse. At level 11-12, Fighter and Ranger have the same AC as a Champion, the class whose main mid-level feature is having +2 to AC. And then at 17, Fighter gets their Master, but Ranger only gets it at 19. They don't even pretend there's any vestige of consistency.

This really undermines some of the design and balance of the game, making some classes almost objectively better than others at certain level intervals. And to add even more salt to the wound there's the fact that a lot or even most of the ways you have to get proficiencies outside your base ones do not scale at all. It's fine for someone to use something as well as their main things early game with just a general feat, but if you got to the mid levels, gotta eat that archetype tax I guess. And if the archetype doesn't exist... sucks to be you (RIP Rogue trying to use any rogueish weapons that were released aftet the CRB).

I think there was definitely A Plan behind it. Rather than everyone's bonuses going up smoothly by level, they put in intentional plateaus and jumps to make you feel like "hey level 5, I got a lot better at hitting things", or "found a striking greatsword at L3, OMG that thing is murder".

It works well enough for most classes I think - Champion getting armor expert much earlier and being quite noticeable - but definitely doesn't work nicely for Warpriest. Really just with Warpriest it's so unclear what it's supposed to be.

[Tonya Woldridge]

Removed a few posts targeting the purpose of this thread. Posters can open threads with topics as long as they conform to community guidelines. If you don't like a poster's parameters, then do not engage. But don't come into their thread to tell them how to conduct themselves. You're free to choose to engage, and they are free to post. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

[RexAliquid]

This thread does not raise a discussion topic, nor does it raise a particularly negative topic. KC opened with praise for the game and proceeded to their gripes. That's balanced. And isn't balance what we Pathfinders are always seeking?

A problematic version of this thread would be one that insults the designers and anyone who enjoys the game at all, and invited others to pile on with all the things "objectively" wrong with the game. That is not this thread. KC did a great job setting this thread up as an expression of personal gripes about a game they otherwise enjoy very much.

The designers know that not everything about this game can please every single person. We would all do well to remember that not every single thread in a public forum is going to appeal to us. You wouldn't go into a 101 Ideas for a Rogue thread and argue that the premise is telling people what they can/cannot say. It is just a premise. Try to stay on topic.

Ultimately, as long as a thread's premise is not inherently baiting or abusive (toward designers or fellow gamers), it's a valid thread.

[Errenor]

RexAliquid wrote:

That's balanced. And isn't balance what we Pathfinders are always seeking?

What?! Never! From character building to playing to roleplaying the only aim is to break any 'balance' to pieces! Winning is never balanced by definition. Having fun is very far from balance.

Finding solution preferable for you to a vague rules problem? Nothing balanced about preference. Finding out which rules' reading is correct? Truth is not about balance.

[PossibleCabbage]

There are quite a few people in this thread who like PF2 quite a bit (myself included) but nonetheless have some issues with the game ranging from pet peeves to complaints to quibbles. It's okay to have a pressure relief valve for that sort of thing.

At the same time it's good to hang in bright flashing lights that we're not here to argue about people's personal opinions. If I say "I think blueberries taste great, but raspberries are gross" then there's nothing actually there for you to argue with no matter how much you love raspberries but can't abide blueberries.

[The Raven Black]

TBH Not all complaints in this thread have been as balanced as KC's posts. Which is why I usually do not read most posts. My respect for KC is why I do not respond to even over the top complaints here.

It does not mean I agree with all the gripes here. Silence is not approval.

[WatersLethe]

Yeah, I love PF2 so much I make my friends and family worried. I think the writers did a fantastic job and they should be immensely proud.

Even I have gripes, and it can be nice to air them without having someone tell me I'm wrong. Not everywhere, but here.

[Norade]

Gripes don't need to be balanced to serve a purpose.

Some of you love PF2 as it is, others of us might prefer a PF2.5 be released that takes our concerns into account, and others might never be happy. By giving voice to issues we have we at least ensure that devs might see them and that's all any of us with issues to raise want.

[Kobold Catgirl]

The Raven Black wrote:

TBH Not all complaints in this thread have been as balanced as KC's posts. Which is why I usually do not read most posts. My respect for KC is why I do not respond to even over the top complaints here.

It does not mean I agree with all the gripes here. Silence is not approval.

<3

This is actually why the thread topic takes no issue with, like, just saying "I disagree" or "I see it differently". A disagreement doesn't have to turn into an argument, after all. I myself am trying to get better at just agreeing to disagree sometimes, especially about silly subjects like dice game rulesets.

I'm actually still learning the system, and I'm wrong about a lot, which is why I wanted a space to talk out my issues and try to work out what complaints made sense to me. And if I'm factually just wrong, I don't mind being told that--I was complaining earlier to a friend, "How come they didn't make alchemist bombs optional?", only to be told, well, they objectively did, I just misread it. There's no room for argument there. It's just a helpful correction. :P

[WWHsmackdown]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

TBH Not all complaints in this thread have been as balanced as KC's posts. Which is why I usually do not read most posts. My respect for KC is why I do not respond to even over the top complaints here.

It does not mean I agree with all the gripes here. Silence is not approval.

<3

This is actually why the thread topic takes no issue with, like, just saying "I disagree" or "I see it differently". A disagreement doesn't have to turn into an argument, after all. I myself am trying to get better at just agreeing to disagree sometimes, especially about silly subjects like dice game rulesets.

I'm actually still learning the system, and I'm wrong about a lot, which is why I wanted a space to talk out my issues and try to work out what complaints made sense to me. And if I'm factually just wrong, I don't mind being told that--I was complaining earlier to a friend, "How come they didn't make alchemist bombs optional?", only to be told, well, they objectively did, I just misread it. There's no room for argument there. It's just a helpful correction. :P

Fair enough. I've just had enough threads derailed by people who wanted to throw shade at whatever design aspects they don't agree with instead of broaching the tangentially related topic I had posted that I honestly didn't believe setting rules of engagement was something within a thread posters control. For example (not an exact one but gets the point across): "What are your magus builds?" Responding post: "I wouldn't build one because the mechanics are too punishing for a frontline fighter." More extreme or toxic responses get moderated out but more benign ones like that above often stay and shift the tone of a whole thread with little or no consequence. I've never had the luxury of curating the tone of responses in my threads and wasn't aware others had that privilege or authority.

[Kobold Catgirl]

It's kind of about staying on-topic, in my opinion. I think those replies you're talking about are off-topic, they just don't often get called out as such. There's a reason I was so over-the-top obvious in my OP, so there couldn't be any confusion. Which, ironically, itself offended some people. :P

[Heather F]

I have had to pop in and remove some comments and quoted content. A reminder that the original post does not break any forum rules. If you feel you cannot positively contribute to the conversation, or keep from becoming argumentative and disrespectful, as Tonya previously stated, you do not have to participate in the conversation.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I may email to ask the mods to change the title to something softer. I wasn't really thinking about how harsh the title sounded at the time, and the intention was something tongue-in-cheek, but it seems like a lot of people who don't like the thread are feeling compelled to click on the thread, and that makes me think the title is unintentionally baity.

I'll do it tomorrow. I'm tired as heck.

[Thaliak]

I have a gripe. Unlike the Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch and Wizard, Clerics don't get Effortless Concentration, a distinction they only share with the Oracle and Magus. Thematically, this makes sense to me. Clerics are people who receive power as a gift from another force, so they might have less practice sustaining spells than classes more focused on casting.

But mechanically, it's a shame! After 16 levels of spending every other turn casting the two-action version of Heal, I'd like to cast Spiritual Weapon or Spiritual Guardian and whack some dragons and demon lords.

On the bright side, this decision does give me something to look forward to if I decide to play a Divine Sorcerer or Summoner.

[Perpdepog]

Another minor gripe, I wish adamantine armor did more. I don't know what it could do that would be balanced for its item level, but its current ability of just being a rougher, tougher material is a bit underwhelming, given how infrequently items are expected to take damage.

[The Raven Black]

Thaliak wrote:

I have a gripe. Unlike the Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch and Wizard, Clerics don't get Effortless Concentration, a distinction they only share with the Oracle and Magus. Thematically, this makes sense to me. Clerics are people who receive power as a gift from another force, so they might have less practice sustaining spells than classes more focused on casting.

But mechanically, it's a shame! After 16 levels of spending every other turn casting the two-action version of Heal, I'd like to cast Spiritual Weapon or Spiritual Guardian and whack some dragons and demon lords.

On the bright side, this decision does give me something to look forward to if I decide to play a Divine Sorcerer or Summoner.

Related gripe : the Bard does not get the Widen spell class feat. And I really see no reason why.

[The Raven Black]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I may email to ask the mods to change the title to something softer. I wasn't really thinking about how harsh the title sounded at the time, and the intention was something tongue-in-cheek, but it seems like a lot of people who don't like the thread are feeling compelled to click on the thread, and that makes me think the title is unintentionally baity.

I'll do it tomorrow. I'm tired as heck.

The title might be somewhat baity, but to me it was the tone as conveyed by the wording of part of the original post which sounded to me like an agressive My way or the highway style, where no dissent would be tolerated. Which was pretty paradoxical with the thread itself being for stating gripes (or dissenting opinions).

It sounded like those some called PF2 defenders (which they are not actually) were not really allowed to say anything.

I am really happy that for the vast part the thread has stayed true to the purpose KC gave it.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think I typed it on my phone and I just didn't choose my wording super carefully. XD

[The Raven Black]

Norade wrote:

Gripes don't need to be balanced to serve a purpose.

Some of you love PF2 as it is, others of us might prefer a PF2.5 be released that takes our concerns into account, and others might never be happy. By giving voice to issues we have we at least ensure that devs might see them and that's all any of us with issues to raise want.

It is not really a you vs us thing IMO. Everyone has gripes with PF2.

And I do not think there is this any of us you mention in the end.

From the very beginning of being on these boards at the PF1 beta time, there were posters that only wanted validation and not just stating an issue. And woe to anyone who dared tell them maybe there was some nuance to be shared, that their opinion was not the be all and end all of the topic.

That said, I really appreciate that such is not the case for you. Heartfelt kudos for that.

There was a post (or several) by Mark Seifter in the playtests that gave a few tips about ways to efficiently get the designers' attention.

I will post the link if I can find it again.

[The Raven Black]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think I typed it on my phone and I just didn't choose my wording super carefully. XD

No need to justify, KC. You are a great person and truly an example for us all.

I knew you did not want to rub anyone the wrong way.

And you can be rightfully proud that the vast majority of posts on your thread respected the spirit of your original post. TBH I did not think it would work.

You seem to inspire the best in people. Thank you for sharing this great gift with us.

Required comic book reference:

Have you ever considered joining the Blue lantern corps ?

[Kobold Catgirl]

Spoiler:

I think I'm too young to get that reference. You have to wait for after the credits roll, then offer to tell me about the Avengers Initiative.

Also, everything else you said is very sweet and kind. I don't know what to say and I don't exactly agree with a lot of it, but it's very kind and I don't just want to ignore it. Thank you.

[Gortle]

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.

Well Paizo could fix that one by creating a skill feat. Gain a +1 circumstance bonus to crafting in one area. Select two areas of crafting that you have no expertise in. You are considered to be untrained in those areas of crafting. With maybe some suggestions about very broad categories: crafting magic items, metal working, alchemy, construction, cooking/herbalism.

I sure some sort of variation on that would work. It would be very popular.

[Gortle]

I have a LOT of positives but this is my other list.

a) Starting stats. In this system you don't get much choice on which ability score you can put your 18 in.

b) This is just a game play feel thing. I don't like the really tight forced bands of the game Level difference is too steep, basically everything within 2 levels of you is relevant. But everything outside that is pretty much not relevant its just too tough or a total cake walk. I'd like that grouping wider which means I prefer the level progressiong flatter. Currently it is about +1.5 per level . I think it would be better around +1 per level. To do that you would have to drop the level bonus from +1 per level to +1 per 2 levels. Also instead of there being +2 for each rank of proficiency I'd be happy if it was plus 1 and maybe there was another proficiency rank. I guess they did what they did for simplicity which is important.

c) Alchemists aren't interesting or effective enough - at least for my group. I had some players who were really keen but they just gave up in frustration.

d) The rules are too loose. The Errata process is too slow, and is not addressing clear black and white rule problems - again I lost a player from my group over this.

and something simple that they might actually fix :

e) a fortitude based damage cantrip that is reasonably competitive, and not based around slow persistent damage.

[Sanityfaerie]

Shinigami02 wrote:

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.

I'll admit it. You are correct. Peasants using two-handed flails as a form of polearm were indeed a thing (As far as we can tell).

Let me be more precise, then. There is notable reason to believe that the one-handed mace-and-chain flail was a fabrication - existing only in stories and "recreations". Even if it was created, and someone did use it, it was impractical enough that it never became widespread. The impracticalities multiply when you try to make the chain long enough to give the thing reach, and they multiply again when you try to somehow make it work with a large enough head to do real damage in the hands of someone with relatively small arms.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I love how many silly weapons exist in this game, honestly, but I can understand not being a fan.

[Sanityfaerie]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I love how many silly weapons exist in this game, honestly, but I can understand not being a fan.

I do wish to be clear that I have no objection to the noble tentacle gun, and wish only that it had DC that scaled a bit better. 7 point DC skips are kind of unworkable.

I guess I feel like silly weapons... should be for niche builds and wacky shenanigans? Should be more obviously silly? It's the bit where it gets dragged out into the cold, hard light of "core feature for optimal build" that bugs me. Like, the gnome racial weapon in particular ought to be all about the wacky tricks and embarrassing your foe - not about "1d8 damage with reach".

[pauljathome]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Like, the gnome racial weapon in particular ought to be all about the wacky tricks and embarrassing your foe - not about "1d8 damage with reach".

Nah, you've got it backwards. The REAL reason is that Gnome run orphanages canonically produce almost all the paladins in Golarion, and so the players have to be given MASSIVE incentives to have Gnomes in their background. In PF1 that was handled by Fey Foundling, in PF2 its handled by the Gnome flick mace. But the goal is world building.

Given its the internet and intent isn't always clear : The above is meant as a joke.