| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What it says above. How much of the new, changed, and clarified bits of the remaster do you intend to use at your table?
For me, it's likely I'll allow a hearty mix of old and new while choosing to ignore the clarification of how wounds and dying are supposed to work. This will just give more options to my players.
How about all of you?
I haven't seen anything I don't want to use yet. Even the wizard schools are going to be better for a lot of my players, and I'll either be liberal with allowing additions to curriculums or allow players to use the old schools if they really prefer.
There are things that I don't like in PF2.4. I don't expect that I will like absolutely everything about PF2.5. But I haven't seen anything that is going to make me not play a game if the GM is running it with the official rules.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other than the extremely questionable rewrite of the dying rules most of my issues with the remaster have been more to do with things Paizo didn't fix, or updated abilities that fall short, rather than new problems being introduced.
So probably most of it.
Definitely want to use almost all of it. I'll probably mix and match old classes and the PC1 classes, check out Monster Core to see how the new spread of creatures are compared to the PC1 classes, and keeping mixing it up until Player Core 2. Then I might be stick with the Remaster entirely.
Definitely want to use almost all of it. I'll probably mix and match old classes and the PC1 classes, check out Monster Core to see how the new spread of creatures are compared to the PC1 classes, and keeping mixing it up until Player Core 2. Then I might be stick with the Remaster entirely.
Well, even with that you are going to have Thaumaturge, Summoner, Magus, Inventor, etc... that aren't going to be in either Player Core or Player Core 2.
So are those 'old' classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely want to use almost all of it. I'll probably mix and match old classes and the PC1 classes, check out Monster Core to see how the new spread of creatures are compared to the PC1 classes, and keeping mixing it up until Player Core 2. Then I might be stick with the Remaster entirely.Well, even with that you are going to have Thaumaturge, Summoner, Magus, Inventor, etc... that aren't going to be in either Player Core or Player Core 2.
So are those 'old' classes?
I'm hoping the long promised "twice-a-year" errata process mentioned at the beginning of this year will actually start after Player Core 2 comes out. Once that happens, Magus/Summoner/Gunslinger/Inventor/Psychic/Thaumaturge should be able to be errata'd quickly and made up-to-speed with the Remaster.
If not, then I'll figure something out. I'll have 17 Remaster'd classes (8 in PC1, 8 in PC2, and Kineticist in RoE) to play around with while I wait. I'll be able to coast by with that.
The only thing I am currently uncertain of is the clarification to the dying rules, and the change to how monster actions like Grab works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's an odd question 'do you want to use only half of the new Patch?'
But I can See where this is coming from
I understand, but Not really like the ruffian Rackets drop to d6, I might ignore that one
Everything else so far does seem like an improvement
I'll use everything at first. Then let actual play experience and my group decide if things need to change (back to pre-master or otherwise).
I'm actually kinda looking forward to the "new" dying rules. I can't remember ever losing or killing a single character since I started PF2 in the playtestest 2018. At least not outside of deaths caused by RP-decisions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the "new" or "clarified" (depending from which viewpoint one comes) dying rules , which seem too harsh to me, everything so far.
I suppose I can add my name to the legions of Remaster fans for whom the Remaster is an almost unmitigated good, except maybe to house rule the Wounded condition back to the way we've been playing it this far, even though a character has only gone down again after being Wounded maybe a handful of times ever at our table.
The only other thing I might miss is explicit references to whether various deities stand in regards to Law vs. Chaos. Even if I'm glad to be rid of the two most niche damage types in the game, I'm still a major fan of the Law-Chaos axis in general and hope to see something made of it lore wise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest sort of (the Dying rules kind of make going into melee as a Expert armor, 8hp class a stupid move
You can get expert heavy armor from a cheap general feat, Replenishment of War, Restorative Strike, Raise Symbol (with an Emblazoned Shield) and the "add a 1 action heal to your shield's hardness for a block" feat. By the time most martials get master armor, you can cast Avatar, potentially even as a reaction at level 20.
I'd be surprised if a warpriest has huge troubles staying alive in melee.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest sort of (the Dying rules kind of make going into melee as a Expert armor, 8hp class a stupid moveYou can get expert heavy armor from a cheap general feat, Replenishment of War, Restorative Strike, Raise Symbol (with an Emblazoned Shield) and the "add a 1 action heal to your shield's hardness for a block" feat. By the time most martials get master armor, you can cast Avatar, potentially even as a reaction at level 20.
I'd be surprised if a warpriest has huge troubles staying alive in melee.
Indeed. Since healing before risking to go down is now the best tactic, carrying your Heals with you is of premium value IMO.
Most of it, with a little mix-and-match. I've got an illusionist Wizard I'm already playing who will be using the substantial upgrade to Conceal Spell, selecting something for the freed-up feat, and also adding some of the new or upgraded spells. No more separate Veil spell, they get Figment for casual illusions, etc.
My Thaumaturge is happy to have item swapping. Might grab the occultism curse removal I've heard about.
I don't think there's any noticeable impact at all on my Kineticist, but I'll see if Acrobatics gets anything.
Is there anything in the subtle spell trait that talks about whether it requires any kind of check, or whether subtle spell casting has a chance to be noticed with perception checks? As a player, it feels like there might be some removed agency if subtle spell just flatly works always, can never be detected, and makes it impossible to identify an enemy caster’s spells if they have this ability. I know not every caster will, but some spells flatly have the trait right? Charm is already a very difficult spell to use on PCs. I think the subtle trait is one I am going to have to take a close look at as a GM before deciding how I will implement it in my games. As a GM, I do a lot with infiltration, intrigue, espionage and counterespionage. Minimally, I am going to have to talk to my players about how much more difficult it will be to know for certain whether magic is being used in social circumstances where the enemy caster is one who’s training is in spycraft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of it until my current campaign ends, which will likely be sometime next Spring. By then I will have had time to digest it and see what I like and what I do not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full steam ahead for me. I may revert the wounded/recovery stuff if I add too many new notches to my PC killing belt but other than that I see nothing but QoL improvements (or a new lease on life if youre a witch or warpriest)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be kind of strange to ignore any kind of errata without a compelling reason to do so.
I am all in on everything except the dying changes/clarification, and to a lesser extent the status removal spells being changed to counteract checks (lord knows i wont be keeping track of the level of spells that caused each individual status)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am all in on everything except the dying changes/clarification, and to a lesser extent the status removal spells being changed to counteract checks (lord knows i wont be keeping track of the level of spells that caused each individual status)
It does seem kind of wild with all the talk about reducing unnecessary bookkeeping that apparently we're just supposed to independently keep track of the source of every condition.
... Feels contrary to the whole point of having unified conditions, even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure that the conditions were ever unified. The Redundant Conditions rules already mentioned having to track redundant conditions separately. Mostly because of the durations. But they would already have to be counteracted separately pre-Remaster.
So that part doesn't really feel like a change to me.
The change to the most common spells for removing conditions is highlighting this existing rule, but that doesn't mean that the rule is new.
I will use most of it but supplemented by house rules where necessary.
I have a player with a Mastermind rogue in one of my games that I already ignore the stupid limitation on so they can actually use their class feature.
Wizard curriculi will need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Too many spells spellslots that will become deadslots as characters level. There is no good spell to put in a rank 1 curriculum slit for Battle magic that even makes sense once the character hits level 5. Wizards are still weak for a class with the worst defences in the game. At this point I feel there are no advocates for wizards on the Paizo class design team and they are all too scarred from the OP mess the PF1 wizard was. Something like divine font for curriculum schools would probably be enough to fix wizard. 3 slots per rank + 3 autoheightened max rank curriculum only slots would fix it.
Boring feats for wizard will remain an issue.
Some new class feats could have been good skill or general feats.
Restoration I will just assume it has the casters max rank counteract roll and that fixes the issue. I will see how the the death and dying rules clarification plays out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually been using a deadlier variant of the dying rules for a while now, originally as a misreading of the rules - my variant is that whenever you lose the dying condition, your wounded value becomes equal to whatever your dying value was.
Despite that being extremely lethal to any character that gets dropped by a crit, I've had very few player deaths.
Mostly, my players save a clutch hero point to stave off death if they need to, and I'm surprised to hear that others don't. Unless you are burning that last hero point willy nilly, it's pretty hard to actually die in my experience.
I will probably keep using my own variant rule for a while just because we are used to it, but once Fantasy Grounds has automation for the new dying rules I'm sure I'll switch to those.
Everything, doing something else feel just wrong personally.
Where do you draw the line in what to take from remaster or not? player power or conveniance? feels like a recipe for unhappy/Disgrunteled players if you start to take just some things from it.