| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting thoughts! PF2 is definitely a "this game isn't for some folks" kind of system, and that's okay. it's definitely good to get feedback from those folks for PF3 one day (or maybe suppliments for PF2, but some of this stuff is pretty hard to change now).
Some specific thoughts:
1) Stats - in order to be an effective martial, 1 stat bonus difference is a HUGE boost. Look at bard. They give a 1 stat boost and thats considered huge in pf2e. In pf1e bard songs could go up to +5 because the math was not nearly as tight as it is in PF2e. You are almost required to have an 18 in your martial stat if you are a martial to be effective. Classes that cant have an 18 are at a severe disadvantage if they are meant to be in melee.
Look at inventor, Thaumaturge, etc. Compare that with barbarian, magus, and fighter.
In fact, magus in the Playlist didnt have a way to have an 18 in str or dex. If I remember right they were an int class that got changed to str or dex because of how essential that +1 bonus is.
It's frankly overblown how important that is. It matters, but it's not make or break:
- For half the levels of the game there is no difference in starting with +4 vs +3, because from levels 5-9 and 15-19 you have the same actual bonus either way as long as you're boosting it. (Both have +4 from 5-9 and both have +5 from 15-19.)- Even then, while it matters, it's not like the class doesn't function without it. Thaumaturge is one of the most popular classes in my games and the players are always effective with it despite the penalty. The class just has to have enough going for it to make up for it, and Thaumaturge does. (You're correct that Magus didn't, so its good that one got changed.)
1.5) This brings me to my next point. Spells (and magic items). Its obvious in ttrpg games when we tell people that damaging spells aren't the most powerful things you can do. In PF1e you could color spray and trivialize all encounters with the oracle class. But in PF2E spells fall far behind martials and damaging spells aren't very effective. Spells usually get resisted in some way, shape, or form especially against bosses. Dont even get me started on magical items whos DCs are so low that they practically never work.
Items with fixed DCs are a real problem and an issue with the system, yep. Spells are... complicated. Low level casters don't feel good. High level casters can feel good or bad depending on what you're trying to do. Synesthesia almost always lands and is devastating because you get its full effect even on a successful save (and even bosses aren't critically succeeding all the time). Slow likewise is extremely powerful. Chain Lighthing deals comical amounts of damage in the right fight. Heal is extremely strong at any level given how much action economy you get by "Fighter stays in the fight."
PF2's issues with spells is that a small number of spells do a LOT of heavy lifting and a lot of spells aren't worth taking. This helps spontaneous casters who can take those heavy lifting spells and go to town with them, but prepared casters don't get much out of being able to prepare because the "this niche spell will flatten this one specific fight if you know about it ahead of time like you did in PF1" just isn't a thing.
Spell Attacks are also a problem because math, and that's a longstanding issue.
1.75) This really got me thinking... never work... and then I began to realize after playing MTG what the most common complaint about playing against control decks(my fave archetype) is... my opponents dont get to do their cool thing.
Doing the cool thing is whats fun. People love to theory craft and then their theory crafting lives up to the hype so they can do their cool thing... but in PF2E it is way too hard and people are often restricted away from doing their cool thing and doing their niche justice.
There are too many road blocks that say, "your cool thing can work.. but it will take a few turns to do it and then once those turns happen, you cant do your cool thing anyway since combat is now over" and this frustrates the party because now you didnt contribute to combat.
A lot of the cool things people want to do are also greatly restricted to once per day. And often time that cool thing doesnt even work since it gets resisted. People dont want to be able to do cool things once in a blue moon. People like success. People like being able to do those cool things because it hits the dopamine receptors. People who try but fail at doing those cool things get hit with existential dread.. and existential dread is not fun.
This is definitely an issue for some classes/builds far more than others. It also depends on the player. I have a player who doesn't have much time to learn the game and wants to play a beer & pretzels dungeon crasher game with his friends. His "big thing" is critting for big damage numbers.
He's playing a 2h Fighter and he is having a blast. With a Bard and a Rogue, the big thing he wants to do works an awful lot of the time. It's not fancy, but rolling a whole pile of d12s never gets old (my son felt the same way rolling 14d12 crits at the end of Extinction Curse on his Fighter).
But blaster casters that want to nuke the boss like that? Yeah... that's a much tougher road. Let alone some of the really fancy class stuff that is hard to pull off. Definitely areas to improve here.
2) There are way too many false choices that arent very meaningful. I can select 1 in a million backgrounds to get something thats forgettable. Thats not fun. The amount of time I spend looking for the perfect option should be comparable to how awesome that option is. I basically blindly pick backgrounds now because they dont feel like they matter. The options that do matter never feel like theres enough of them. We have 2 options for cleric doctrine and have had just 2 options for a very long time.
Yeah, I agree. I kind of wish backgrounds were simpler and didn't give ability scores at all, because that makes what you can actually take pretty constraining since that and the skill feat are usually what really matter. It's an area that needs a rethink in the next edition.
3) Paizo keeps releasing new class after new class but they almost never give options to already existing classes. This is disappointing because I love kineticist and the fantasy around it. I probably will never get void which is one of my favorite elements. Summoner is one of my other favorite classes. I probably will never get synthesis despite that being one of my favorite summoner concepts. I like a lot of the new classes, but there is almost no support to help improve previous classes that have already been released.
Definitely an issue. We have seen some of it lately though, like Thaumaturge getting a new implement in Battlecry and Cleric getting a new doctrine in Battle Harbinger.
I saw you mention Kineticist, and they get the short end of the stick on this. It sucks and I feel bad for all Kineticist players because of it. Mythic is a huge example.
4) dedications sound cool... until you realize most options dont work and are only good for support. Id change dedications to feel more like a gish class (instead of magus as a class.. magus is the result of having a fighter with the wiz dedication, for example) outcome is still the same but it makes it feel more fun to be able to mix and match.
It'd be cool to have kind of modular proficiencies and abilities and build your own class, like this, I think. It'd feel like a very different game, though, and they're kind of constrained in terms of making too many changes at once for fear of it not "feeling like Pathfinder."
Definitely a cool idea though.
I like how dedications work, personally, though some of them aren't great. But in most of my games I use free archetype and players come up with some really nifty stuff with the current system. It was a big step up from PF1 for sure.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets say PF3E gets announced shortly..
Get rid of stats. They just arent essential and when everyone is putting the same stats in to "min max" their character because they have to in order to survive or be the slightest bit effective? Stats become meaningless.
Get rid of any options that feel meaningless (like backgrounds) and replace it with what feels like more meaningful choices so there is less of an illusion of choice and more of an actual choice.
Have magic items scale so they are useful at all levels.
Yeah, I live and breathe hoping to see this someday (I'm over blowing it a bit, but the message comes across I guess?).
I used to be against removing stats in PF before but with each passing day I like the idea of removing them even more. I feel like most classes have like 2 max 3 ways in which they can allot their stats for "optimal play" which usually results in the difference between characters being what skills I decide to take increasees rather than the stats of my characters themselves. If stats were removed (and the math of the game tweaked accordingly) I don't really think it would make much of a difference really.
And since I'm talking about skills, I just hate skill feats. The whole subsystem feels like giving your little brother an unplugged controler for him to believe he's playing the game when he actually isn't. Most skill feats are worthless, and from master-tier skill feats and above you are lucky if the skill has more than 2 or 3 options, with likely 1 of those 2 or 3 being an auto-pick since that's the one that made you take increases into that skill to begin with it.
I feel like Paizo tried to game-fy narrative encounters but made those situations into skill feats and then took the skill feats which make you better and stuff you can already do and bundled both together.
I also agree more than half of the archetypes could be removed and it wouldn't be much of a problem since they are so bad anyways.
But likely the ones that got the worst from this are the magic items with non-scaling DCs. I pretty mucn not bother looking into new magic items in the books because I know I won't be using them. Classes already have tight action economies for someone to try to cram something else in there most of the time, but make them not scale with you? That's what makes more ignore them most of the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although not every point resonates with me in the OP, several do:
All of which is to say, I think 2e makes a lot of choices that are valid for itself, especially given the original context when the game was made to still appeal to hardcore 1e fans while delivering revolutionary gameplay changes, and by that same token there is room for a future 3e to do the same. I think that as a playerbase, we've collectively advanced our expectations such that we'd be okay with radical updates to the game that wouldn't have been acceptable back when 1e reigned supreme, such as getting rid of ability scores or designing spellcasters without spell slots, and that to me suggests there's a chance for a future 3e to be as impactful to the medium as 2e was when it first launched. I don't know if it will be soon, given we've just gotten Starfinder brought over to 2e, but I look forward to it all the same.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Observing from a distance, it seems to me that 2nd Edition lost a lot of the flavor that 1st Edition had. I'd like to see 3rd edition bring as much of that back as possible without running afoul of OGL encumbrance.
Although if 3rd Edition turned out to be an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds, that would get my attention as well . . . .
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I agree with some points but disagree with a lot of them too.
Stats
I think a +3 starting in your to-hit stat is by now more of a default, and it works fine. Yes, you'd hit more often if you had a +4, but you'd be worse at something else. Because a lot of classes do need 3-4 different stats anyway. Starting with a +3/+3 in your most important ones and bumping to +4/+4 at level 5 is pretty efficient.
To take the thaumaturge for example: yeah, half of the levels you're 1 behind the barbarian. But you do close to the same amount of damage, while at the same time being far far ahead in skill challenges (more proficiencies, and more skills use charisma) and being the best in recall knowledge (one feat, and you get auto-proficiency scaling and it runs on charisma too) and for another feat you can use any scroll. So you're slightly less "tall" than the barbarian but waaaay more "wide".
I think surprisingly the interesting part of stats isn't so much what you choose to do about your main stat. That's pretty much baked in, you're gonna get it high. But what are the other stats you choose to focus on? Is your cleric going to go for community leadership and charisma? Is your sorcerer going to pick up a champion dedication and athletics to grab and trip people? Is your cleric going to focus on dexterity and archery to use your third action? Does your champion of Torag want to Craft and repair their own shield? (And yes, those are all characters I actually play and enjoy, not merely theory.)
Non-scaling item DCs
Yeah, I agree with you on that one. I think almost everyone does.
Spells
Disagree. After about level 5 spells really take off. I do think it was a mistake in the remaster to remove the ability modifier from cantrip damage. Nobody enjoys rolling all 1s on lots of dice. Slightly fewer dice but with a higher static bonus was nicer. Maybe that should have been added to regular spells too, if consistency between spells and cantrips was the concern. Make the fireball 1d6 smaller but add your casting stat.
But really, I've played two casters to level 20 and one 17, and have a bunch more around level 7. Basically, once you start getting fireball or your tradition's equivalent (sorcerer dragon breath, divine wrath etc.) it really takes off. When you throw it into a room and calculate that you did more than a hundred damage in a single turn while the martials are still walking to meet enemies, it's not weak.
Backgrounds/Doctrines
Well we've had a third cleric doctrine for half a year now, but it's kinda niche. As for backgrounds - I don't think every choice can be The Most Important Choice. Backgrounds are designed to take a back seat compared to ancestry and class. But they work quite well in for example adventure paths, where they help get new characters set up and connected to the plot. I think they do what they're supposed to, they give you a bit of a roleplay prompt but don't take up too much space.
New classes vs. existing classes
Yeah, I want more content for existing classes (and ancestries) too. Not something you fix by starting yet another edition though :P
Dedications
I disagree with you there. The majority of my characters end up picking up a dedication. The class dedications in particular are often as powerful or more so than regular class feats. Rogue, champion, alchemist are particularly good. But I've also used wizard dedication on a fighter (Jump is extremely useful; Tailwind and Haste also pretty nice), wizard dedication on a magus (just want more spell slots), monk on the same magus (archer with a sideline in unarmed combat when enemies come close), rogue on cleric (in 20 levels I think I took 7 rogue feats and only 3 cleric feats) and so on.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might be time to find a system that better serves your needs
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think surprisingly the interesting part of stats isn't so much what you choose to do about your main stat. That's pretty much baked in, you're gonna get it high. But what are the other stats you choose to focus on? Is your cleric going to go for community leadership and charisma? Is your sorcerer going to pick up a champion dedication and athletics to grab and trip people? Is your cleric going to focus on dexterity and archery to use your third action? Does your champion of Torag want to Craft and repair their own shield? (And yes, those are all characters I actually play and enjoy, not merely theory.)
Secondary stats are solved. If you don't have a primary stat that works with saves, you'll boost the stats that help you make saving throws. Otherwise, you'll either boost Str or Cha because Int is a complete dump stat in this edition. You can choose to deviate, but doing so will make you weaker than you could be.
Spells
Disagree. After about level 5 spells really take off. I do think it was a mistake in the remaster to remove the ability modifier from cantrip damage. Nobody enjoys rolling all 1s on lots of dice. Slightly fewer dice but with a higher static bonus was nicer. Maybe that should have been added to regular spells too, if consistency between spells and cantrips was the concern. Make the fireball 1d6 smaller but add your casting stat.But really, I've played two casters to level 20 and one 17, and have a bunch more around level 7. Basically, once you start getting fireball or your tradition's equivalent (sorcerer dragon breath, divine wrath etc.) it really takes off. When you throw it into a room and calculate that you did more than a hundred damage in a single turn while the martials are still walking to meet enemies, it's not weak.
Some spells are good and carry classes, but the average spell is bad, and certain categories of spells are vastly better than others due to the way PF2's math works out. Buffs are great. AoE is very strong. Debuffs... that depends on the effect they have when the enemy succeeds. Single target damage... trash for anybody other than Magus. Utility spells are fine, but best as a wand or a scroll.
Dedications
I disagree with you there. The majority of my characters end up picking up a dedication. The class dedications in particular are often as powerful or more so than regular class feats. Rogue, champion, alchemist are particularly good. But I've also used wizard dedication on a fighter (Jump is extremely useful; Tailwind and Haste also pretty nice), wizard dedication on a magus (just want more spell slots), monk on the same magus (archer with a sideline in unarmed combat when enemies come close), rogue on cleric (in 20 levels I think I took 7 rogue feats and only 3 cleric feats) and so on.
Dedications are much like spells, where some are very good, and the rest are all afterthoughts. I'd rather just bring back true multiclassing than spend time messing with classes as feats again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's issues with spells is that a small number of spells do a LOT of heavy lifting and a lot of spells aren't worth taking. This helps spontaneous casters who can take those heavy lifting spells and go to town with them, but prepared casters don't get much out of being able to prepare because the "this niche spell will flatten this one specific fight if you know about it ahead of time like you did in PF1" just isn't a thing.
Spell Attacks are also a problem because math, and that's a longstanding issue.
100% agree with this. Caster need to have their own "weapon" that they enhance for more spell accuracy like martial characters. It could be a wand or staff, or even a magical instrument for bards. But something for them to spend "rune money" on (or in a ABP game) that enhances their spell attack roll. With casters having similar to hit values as non-fighter martial characters I think should be the goal.
To your other point...yeah there are a lot of spells that aren't really good. Or are great in a specific circumstance, if only you had a way to know about it in advance (which PF2 doesn't really allow). I've floated some ideas in the past that at least for the wizard they should be able to quickly swap prepared spell at least a few times per day. Not sure that I've ever settled on exactly how the mechanics should work, but fixing the wizard should probably relate to being able to pull out that exact right spell for the situation and doing it mid-combat. Of course that doesn't help other prepared casters.
And prepared caster do definitely feel like they're at a big disadvantage compared to spontaneous casters with their signature spells. You pick the most generically good spells on your list and roll with it. And with sorcerers being able to get literally any spell list depending on bloodline there's always a good caster class to choose.
The other casters, especially prepared, really have to make up for the flexibility of the sorcerer with class features/feats and they don't always deliver.
Edit: I just had a thought. What if prepared casters also had a form of signature spell. That would let them replace any prepared spell with one of your signature spells? Maybe as a two action activity. Or maybe as a 1 action activity a limited number of times per day.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeesh. Sorry bud, I was just trying to help. You said you weren't having fun. Logically, I would assume when you're not having fun.....you do literally *anything else* (up to and including a different system). If you don't like pf2e and misery is your thing then ...stay I guess?Might be time to find a system that better serves your needsThere are no other systems. PF2E is better than D&D5E and pointing out what doesnt work mathematically for PF2E to change for PF3E and you coming in here telling me to find a diff system is as dumb as me pointing out what problems our gov has and some random person saying, "if you dont like america the way it is, leave." Lol
Lets take a breath, folks. Honest feedback about the system is entirely valid to post here, and there's nothing wrong with how this feedback was presented.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dedications are much like spells, where some are very good, and the rest are all afterthoughts. I'd rather just bring back true multiclassing than spend time messing with classes as feats again.
Hard disagree on this. Multiclassing is janky AF, creates some absolutely busted combos, and flat out didn't work on a lot of classes.
The archetype system in PF2 is light years ahead of that.
100% agree with this. Caster need to have their own "weapon" that they enhance for more spell accuracy like martial characters. It could be a wand or staff, or even a magical instrument for bards. But something for them to spend "rune money" on (or in a ABP game) that enhances their spell attack roll. With casters having similar to hit values as non-fighter martial characters I think should be the goal.
Yeah I don't get why this was removed from the playtest (at the same time as touch AC). That has never made sense to me. Spell attacks just mathematically suck for almost the entire game for no apparent reason.
I would love for Impossible Magic to finally fix this. Attack rolls are balanced assuming item bonuses and casters just... don't get that.
To your other point...yeah there are a lot of spells that aren't really good. Or are great in a specific circumstance, if only you had a way to know about it in advance (which PF2 doesn't really allow). I've floated some ideas in the past that at least for the wizard they should be able to quickly swap prepared spell at least a few times per day. Not sure that I've ever settled on exactly how the mechanics should work, but fixing the wizard should probably relate to being able to pull out that exact right spell for the situation and doing it mid-combat. Of course that doesn't help other prepared casters.
Yep, agreed. The biggest upside of prepared casters was being able to plan ahead for stuff, but the benefit of doing that has been greatly reduced in PF2 as you don't have those super specific but deadly spells. I also find the adventuring day itself is less geared towards that kind of advanced scouting now, and some of the spells you'd do it with were made uncommon and harder to get.
Spontaneous casters with some scrolls for utility spells feel really good though because if something absurd happens and the day suddenly calls for six 1 action heal spells? No problem, my Oracle can do that. (True story, what a mess of a fight THAT was.)
Edit: I just had a thought. What if prepared casters also had a form of signature spell. That would let them replace any prepared spell with one of your signature spells? Maybe as a two action activity. Or maybe as a 1 action activity a limited number of times per day.
Would definitely help. Being able to leave a slot empty and filling it with an action would also help.
Hell, non-Vancian spellcasting would be on my PF3 things to consider list. That would fix this, lol.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets take a breath, folks. Honest feedback about the system is entirely valid to post here, and there's nothing wrong with how this feedback was presented.Yeesh. Sorry bud, I was just trying to help. You said you weren't having fun. Logically, I would assume when you're not having fun.....you do literally *anything else* (up to and including a different system). If you don't like pf2e and misery is your thing then ...stay I guess?Might be time to find a system that better serves your needsThere are no other systems. PF2E is better than D&D5E and pointing out what doesnt work mathematically for PF2E to change for PF3E and you coming in here telling me to find a diff system is as dumb as me pointing out what problems our gov has and some random person saying, "if you dont like america the way it is, leave." Lol
100% Agreed.
I mean, if the OP wans to aggregate experience and feedback from PF2 and what doesn't work as well as the community would like, to help in some future PF3, that's valid.
But it's also valid to say "Hey, if you're not having a good time you should try a different system. You might like another system more".
It just depends on what the goal and expected outcome is.
No offense to OP, but with PF3 nowhere on the horizon, any aggregation of experience at this time is...probably going nowhere. At best, it might be a jumping off point for them to make house rules.
What might actually immediately help them have more fun with TTRPGs is trying another system.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF has great stories and character creation is fun.. but when it comes down to it, playing the actual game just.. isnt.. and I've had this nagging feeling for a long time and didnt know how to express it. I always feel like I want to play PF2E but then I sit down on a group and its just... not fun. So why am I getting this feeling?
This is the serious problem. You should not wait for PF3 to fix it, because the earliest PF3 would come out is 2029.
Different players find fun in different ways from tabletop roleplaying games. I remember one player in my PF1 Jade Regent who simply wanted to bash monsters with his fighter character as a way to relax and unwind after work. As for my current players in my Strength of Thousands campaign, the players of the anadi wizard Idris and the tengu bard Jinx Fuun want to roleplay those fictional characters, the player of the catfolk kineticist Cara'seeth wants to tell a story, the player of the ghoran bard Stargazer wants to follow along in the story, the player of the dromaar champion Wilfred is interested in learning the game, the player of the elf magus Zandre wants to be an effective combatant, and the player of the fleshwarp rogue Roshan is experimenting with a weird build. Their interests cross a spectrum.
What kind of fun does Verzen want?
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is poor at providing the fun of a power fantasy, a character who easily defeats their opposition by strength alone. As Verzen said, PF1 enabled that through system mastery. The designers rigorously balanced PF2 so that the power of a character is determined almost entirely on their level rather than by effective builds. An optimized character is only about 25% more powerful than any sensibly-built character, which means that the tough battles are still tough. In exchange, the designers opened up a tactical fantasy, where the party can defeat powerful opponents through clever tactics and teamwork. Nevertheless, the fun of inventing the right tactics for a situation differs from the fun of applying raw power.
The elf magus Zandre is a good example for how combat effectiveness does not require extreme optimization. Zandre has the Starlit-Span hybrid study that allows ranged Spellstrike, one of the strongest options for the class. Yet Zandre's player is not a powergamer. Instead, the player prefers a simple strategy, one cool thing as Verzen said. She starts hidden to give the target a -2 penalty to AC from off-guard, shoots her longbow with Spellstrike, and uses a custom feat to both Hide and recharge Spellstrike in one action. Zandre never uses the magus's Arcane Cascade, because that would complicate the turn. My Strength of Thousands campaign offers a free archetype. Did Zandre go for power and exploit Imaginary Weapon by multiclassing to Psychic? Nope. Instead, Zandre took Dragon Disciple to become a dragon hunter, because in her backstory a dragon had ravaged her home village. That archetype is best for dragon worshippers, but the preamble says that some Dragon Disciples study dragons for revenge on dragons. The preamble was misleading; hence, I offered custom feats to make it more suitable. Another custom Dragon Disciple feat lets Zandre see unobscured in fog like a cloud dragon can, which will be handy in the rainy, foggy Sodden Lands where the adventure will take the party. Zandre's player finds fun in simple gameplay without obstacles such as concealment in fog.
I also agree more than half of the archetypes could be removed and it wouldn't be much of a problem since they are so bad anyways.
A lot of archetypes were written for regional flavor with minimal practicality. The wizard Idris took the Magaambyan Attendent and Halcyon Speaker archetypes because he is an earnest student at the Magaambya Academy. The player is having a load of fun with the Mask Familiar, piling on feats to that it has as many abilities as a witch's familiar, but this does not aid combat.
Dragon Disciple is a Dungeons & Dragons prestige class, carried over into PF1 under the Open Gaming License, converted into an archetype in PF2, and technically it is dropped in the Remastering of PF2. It served as a way for a martial character to gain magic abilities such as firebreathing and flight, so it filled a niche. But practically, a martial character could just buy Winged Sandals or some other magic item that grants flight.
A weird example is when I ported a PF1 non-player gunslinging bloodrager to PF2 to serve as a plot element: PF1 Bloodrager Val Baine Converted to PF2. I had to invent my own Bloodline Instinct for barbarian because Bloodrager had not yet been ported to PF2, but the rest of the conversion I managed with Sorcerer Multiclass archetype and Pistol Phenom archetype.
The tight math of PF2 means that the archetype feats should not be stronger than the class feats. Instead, they are about customization. Idris's player wants to roleplay a Magaambyan wizard, so Idris took Magaambyan archetypes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attacks just mathematically suck for almost the entire game for no apparent reason.
While this is generally the case there are some exceptions (eg blazing bolt or sudden bolt) that are quite effective to hit spells.
These make a PF2 solution harder as anything that brings up other spells would make these even more powerful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like it might be a good time to start looking into third-party material, if you have a regular group you can talk with about it.
There's plenty of additional material for existing classes, and it doesn't need to hold itself to some of the cool-moment-limiting decisions Paizo has committed itself to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prepared casters would probably feel a good bit better if you could leave slots open to prepare mid day like in 1e. This lets you rebalance your spell options to cover important saving throws and such, as well as act on info you find.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then there is the rigmarole of Medicine checks after each fight. Which is more annoying than PF1's happy stick dance, because it takes longer at the table and distorts the character build of which unlucky player drew the short store more. Don't get me wrong, I like that Medicine is a viable option now; I just wish that a) it was a bit less fiddly, and b) it wasn't the only option.
There are other options, but they're honestly just as fiddly. Arguably worse. There are quite a few healing as focus spell options, or all day use powers (kineticist). But it still means rolling a lot of dice.
With medicine, you absolutely can use Assurance to skip the rolls. Though, you'll rune into the problem of when you can hit the target DC to make Assurance useful in the first place, and when it can actually hit the higher DCs for more healing. Meaning healing takes longer.
Of course, since you only take damage on a critical failure of Treating Wounds and simply regain no health on failure you could skip it.
Or, you could pre-roll medicine checks for treat wounds before the game session (with GM approval) and simply use those checks when the time comes.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with PF2 casters is the way their spell slots scale. PF1 casters started with a few, and then scaled up to so many slots that there was barely a restriction (which was lucky because the cantrips were terrible). PF2 tried to fix the huge number of spell slots at higher levels, by starting even lower but still scaling up quickly. Whereas I think the number of spell slots should start more generous, but scale up much less.
Spells per day is still a bit annoying to me, because fewer and fewer classes have a "per day" based resource. This creates some odd choices, generally not happy ones.
Is your cleric out of healing spells? Okay, everyone else is still good to go, but they probably would rather sleep on it and have that big safety net again.
But it also happens the other way around: we had a party with a ranger, fighter, water kineticist and a sorcerer. The water kineticist could deliver lots of out of combat healing, so the only one who'd really run out of resources was the sorcerer. This was a big dungeon, the kind where each floor is a level worth of encounters, and the story made it seem like we had to make haste because a friend was going to be sacrificed to demons soon. So this put pressure on the sorcerer to then just make do with cantrips for the rest of the day, which isn't that fun.
I would prefer moving mostly away from per-day resources entirely. We can create tension by having encounters closer together with less time to heal/refocus/repair shields. Daily resources for only some classes make it harder to balance things like overland travel ("you travel for a week and have one random encounter") with dungeons ("there are 13 encounters and you're in a hurry to save your friend").
Then there is the rigmarole of Medicine checks after each fight. Which is more annoying than PF1's happy stick dance, because it takes longer at the table and distorts the character build of which unlucky player drew the short store more. Don't get me wrong, I like that Medicine is a viable option now; I just wish that a) it was a bit less fiddly, and b) it wasn't the only option.
It's far, far from the only option?
* Lay on Hands (champion, blessed one)* Animist has some focus spell for it
* Water and Wood kineticist have options
* Thaumaturge (chalice) has an (awkward) option for unlimited healing
* Exemplar can heal themselves (no scar but this)
* Alchemist can make soothing tonics every 10 minutes
I probably missed a couple more.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel with regards to rolling dice to heal up -
1. Either you're not in a hurry, it might take a bit longer or shorter if you roll well or poorly but eventually everyone will be back at full health. In this situation, it's reasonable for the GM to just say "don't bother rolling, everyone is back to full health".
2. Or, you are in a hurry, and it IS important whether each roll is good or bad, and you can't make all that many rolls.
As a GM it's good to notice if you're in situation 1 or 2. Making people painstakingly roll everything in situation 1 is just self-inflicted boredom.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then there is the rigmarole of Medicine checks after each fight. Which is more annoying than PF1's happy stick dance, because it takes longer at the table and distorts the character build of which unlucky player drew the short store more. Don't get me wrong, I like that Medicine is a viable option now; I just wish that a) it was a bit less fiddly, and b) it wasn't the only option.
I mean, once PF1 characters had triple digit HP the "happy stick dance" was exceptionally clunky. If you're using CLW you're burning on average half a wand to heal someone back to full. If you're actually rolling that as the rules tell you to, it's a stupid amount of rolling to see how many charges you use. I'm honestly convinced people who prefer how this works in PF1 just aren't running it RAW because actually doing so is awful once you get to mid levels, and it's just wholly impractical at high level without a backpack of wands (not that PF1 worked well at high level in general).
If you're just averaging it and skipping the rolls... well you can do that in PF2 as well except you need fewer rolls because each one is healing WAY more health. And if you were using wands of infernal healing to skip over that, then I assume your GM is skipping over the part where activating that wand is a canonically Evil action in the name of convenience (which a lot tend to because it really is way more convenient).
Medicine is also far from the only option. Multiple classes gain other ways to do it very easily, some of them as early as level 1 via focus spells or impulses. We pretty much never used Medicine in Shadows at Sundown and it worked.
I feel with regards to rolling dice to heal up -
1. Either you're not in a hurry, it might take a bit longer or shorter if you roll well or poorly but eventually everyone will be back at full health. In this situation, it's reasonable for the GM to just say "don't bother rolling, everyone is back to full health".
2. Or, you are in a hurry, and it IS important whether each roll is good or bad, and you can't make all that many rolls.
As a GM it's good to notice if you're in situation 1 or 2. Making people painstakingly roll everything in situation 1 is just self-inflicted boredom.
I do this all the time. In a safe place with no time pressure? I'll guesstimate a timeframe, and say "if you just take X minutes, you're full healed if you want." Players almost always go "cool" because it moves the game forward and there's basically no risk of critically failing so many times that it actually causes an issue (and once Assurance is online it's literally impossible.)
If you're in a dangerous area, have ongoing damage effects, or time pressure matters, then we roll it out.
A GM is always free to skip rolls that aren't adding anything to the game. Only pick up the dice when the outcome matters.
(I've also seriously considered baking Continual Recovery and Assurance into Treat Wounds because they just feel like feat taxes to make the skill work the way we actually want it to.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been advocating for an end to attributes since the PF2 playtest, it is interesting to see the idea gaining traction. I won’t rehash my philosophical reasons here, but I think the mechanical realities of the game really do make attribute scores a more confusing game element than helpful one.
A STR+2 Barbarian that is level 5 will not meaningfully be “less strong” than a level 1 Barbarian with a STR of +4. Not in anyway that would come up in game except maybe if the two characters had a punching contest with no magical equipment. The silo of bonuses (-1 to +7) that come through “attributes” could be much more interestingly distributed through other choice elements, and I think the next generation of RPGs is going to figure out how to do so.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are other options, but they're honestly just as fiddly. Arguably worse. There are quite a few healing as focus spell options, or all day use powers (kineticist). But it still means rolling a lot of dice.
In my experience unless there is a time crunch or the like after battle healing for most groups becomes something like
Player: Can we heal up?GM : Yes. You're all healed up.
This assumes that one or more of the group have resource free healing of course.
Making people actually roll dice IS just a complete waste of time most of the time. And most GMs are sensible enough to realize exactly that
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been advocating for an end to attributes since the PF2 playtest, it is interesting to see the idea gaining traction. I won’t rehash my philosophical reasons here, but I think the mechanical realities of the game really do make attribute scores a more confusing game element than helpful one.
I kinda like attributes as they give me an important way to differentiate my characters.
To take a moderately extreme example, I've played a druid with Str +3 at level 1 and played a druid with Str -1 at level 1. They played VERY differently from each other.
But I do agree that nearly all my characters that CAN have a +4 do have a +4,+3,+1,+1 or +4,+3,+2,+1,-1 spread.
And attributes are definitely a trap that new players can and do fall into.
And it is sometimes annoying have to grab some weird background to give me the stats I want together with a useful skill and skill feat. Sometimes I have enough choice that I can take something flavourful but often I'm more or less forced into a particular background even if it really isn't what I want.
And attributes make some ancestries massively more attractive than others. Getting an ancestry with a dump stat where you WANT a dump stat is very nice.
I think I'd like to see something like:
1) ALL ancestries just get to add +1 to two stats. No exceptions. Rebalance them accordingly
2) Stats are completely eliminated from backgrounds
3) Classes get a small number of precanned choices which sets the important attributes but still allows a little choice. So, the "Melee warpriest" would get Str +3, Wis +3, +3 to be put into other stats, no more than +1 in either.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My impression about attributes is that people allow themselves a lot less freedom than they could. For example:
Secondary stats are solved. If you don't have a primary stat that works with saves, you'll boost the stats that help you make saving throws. Otherwise, you'll either boost Str or Cha because Int is a complete dump stat in this edition. You can choose to deviate, but doing so will make you weaker than you could be.
Variants of this you'll also run into are "if you don't put all your stat boosts into saving throws YOU ARE SO DEAD".
Of course picking saving throw stats makes you more likely to pass saves, and that matters. But the way the game is set up, you're still going to fail some saves. We're talking about the difference between passing maybe 70% of saves instead of 60%. But PF2 is balanced so that you can't have a Sure Thing on checks the game really cares about.
PF2 is very much about trade-offs. Do I care more about saving throws or more about having more skills? My int +3 fighter/wizard has frequently been the one carrying the PFS party through skill challenges because I actually HAD skills. Which meant we got more treasure, which made us more powerful. But yeah, my constitution could have been higher and that's sometimes painful.
But the character is eminently playable. I think people give themselves a lot less freedom to pick alternative attribute spreads than the game is willing to give them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like attributes. Same with Vancian casting. I'd rather they decouple accuracy from attributes instead of getting rid of them altogether, if something has to be done to change them. I love being able to mechanically express my characters the way I currently can using them, and all the attribute replacement suggestions I've seen sound like hot garbage to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't share many of the same critiques, part of why I love 2e is the balance, difficulty, and teamwork aspects of it. But I definitely think balance could be tweaked for a good amount of stuff.
Spells have a couple stand outs, especially in the debuff/buff category, that blow other options out of the water. Like, by a lot. I know there's always going to be 'the best option' but it shouldn't be such a wide gap. Damaging spells have a lot more options.
I don't know how I feel about items having scaling dcs, as I don't think having a dagger at level 2 be the best in slot until level 20. That's an exaggeration, but something like that could happen. Some people like that, but others like getting or hunting for new stuff and the current system does that, like it or not. I definitely dislike fundamental runes and wish that abp was the norm, despite what I just said. Let property/cool magic items be your rewards, not fundamental math you need to keep up.
While generally I love casters and don't agree with runes to spell attacks, caster spell dc/attack scaling should be the same as martials. Really doesn't make sense as it is now.
The game could use more ways to buff dcs/debuff enemy saves. It's silly that attack rolls get fortune effects, item, circumstance, status bonuses and penalties, while there are no ways to increase dcs (outside of like, one niche incarnation spell?) and penalties to saves are limited to status and like 2 specific feats that can get a circumstance penalty to reflex. That's a pretty wide number gap for an optimized party.
Other than that, I do want more options for my favorite classes but that will hopefully come in time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other options, but they're honestly just as fiddly. Arguably worse. There are quite a few healing as focus spell options, or all day use powers (kineticist). But it still means rolling a lot of dice.
In my experience unless there is a time crunch or the like after battle healing for most groups becomes something like
Player: Can we heal up?
GM : Yes. You're all healed up.This assumes that one or more of the group have resource free healing of course.
Making people actually roll dice IS just a complete waste of time most of the time. And most GMs are sensible enough to realize exactly that
True. As a GM, in a no time rush situation, I'd be very likely to assume that you're going to succeed, but not critically succeed on the highest tier medicine check you can make for your proficiency, and calculate how long it takes for everyone to recover (and also assume average dice rolls for the healing portion).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If attributes aren't removed at least I would want them to get a revision. Constitution is a boring stat because its entirely defensive, Intelligence has lost everything it made it good in PF2e and Charisma is either mandatory or a dump stat based on if you want to face or not.
Honestly Constitution could be entirely removed and the extra HP could be handled either by ancestry or class (I prefer ancestry personally, since the extra HP ancestries gives mostly only matters at 1st level) and Fortitude could become Strength-based instead.
Intelligence and Charisma are more tricky though. These could be handled in multiple ways, like making Will Charisma-based, merging Intelligence and Wisdom together, and/or buffing Intelligence in some way, like instead of having a list of languages you know (because let's be real, languages barely matter in TTRPGs since its so easy to go around them) to bring back Linguistics like a Perception-like stat that was Intelligence-based. Not like this would be great but its something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then there is the rigmarole of Medicine checks after each fight. Which is more annoying than PF1's happy stick dance, because it takes longer at the table and distorts the character build of which unlucky player drew the short store more. Don't get me wrong, I like that Medicine is a viable option now; I just wish that a) it was a bit less fiddly, and b) it wasn't the only option.There are other options, but they're honestly just as fiddly. Arguably worse. There are quite a few healing as focus spell options, or all day use powers (kineticist). But it still means rolling a lot of dice.
With medicine, you absolutely can use Assurance to skip the rolls. Though, you'll rune into the problem of when you can hit the target DC to make Assurance useful in the first place, and when it can actually hit the higher DCs for more healing. Meaning healing takes longer.
Of course, since you only take damage on a critical failure of Treating Wounds and simply regain no health on failure you could skip it.
Or, you could pre-roll medicine checks for treat wounds before the game session (with GM approval) and simply use those checks when the time comes.
Biggest issue with medicine is just ward medic and continual recovery being party tax feats. Fix that and it’s fine, battle medicine provides enough interesting in combat utility for the medicine skill that having someone on the party max medicine isn’t really a burden - only the skill feats are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a quick aside on attributes, I do think there are a few points that can sit alongside each other:
Important to note here is that context is key: if, for instance, your adventure is high on social intrigue or puzzles and low on combat, saves are going to generally become less valuable than skills, so your freakishly strong and affable Wizard might perform better under those circumstances than if they were dextrous and hardy. This can sometimes happen in PFS, where not knowing who the rest of your party will be also makes Intelligence more valuable for its ability to round out your character's skillset. With that said, that particular context doesn't apply most APs, and combat tends to be a pretty central element of play in Pathfinder at most tables, so the general assumption when considering which attributes to boost tends to skew towards combat readiness. Thus, while attributes are more flexible than is commonly assumed, the question of which attributes are optimal to boost for any given character is generally a solved game. Even so, it is still possible to choose a different attribute distribution in most adventures, as there's more leeway than is assumed to build suboptimally in PF2e and still succeed, but I'd also argue that a lot of players don't feel great about flavor and freedom of character expression conflicting with optimization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with stats is that you HAVE to max out your stats or youll not be effective... and if you try just the slightest bit of gish (wiz ded) your dcs are ineffective for any offensive spells.I have been advocating for an end to attributes since the PF2 playtest, it is interesting to see the idea gaining traction. I won’t rehash my philosophical reasons here, but I think the mechanical realities of the game really do make attribute scores a more confusing game element than helpful one.
A STR+2 Barbarian that is level 5 will not meaningfully be “less strong” than a level 1 Barbarian with a STR of +4. Not in anyway that would come up in game except maybe if the two characters had a punching contest with no magical equipment. The silo of bonuses (-1 to +7) that come through “attributes” could be much more interestingly distributed through other choice elements, and I think the next generation of RPGs is going to figure out how to do so.
I think it's possible for some characters (not casters) to be effective at -1 compared to the maximum possible value. If you consider a fighter at -1 strength to maximum, they will hit 5% less often and deal 1 point less damage, and also crit less often and deal less crit. However, if I'm a strength based fighter I had likely already accepted putting as much into strength, dex, con, and wisdom as I could. If I were to decide to reduce how much strength I have, I need to look at what I can get from increase cha or intelligence instead....and the problem is those aren't attractive propositions. Increasing charisma and intelligence doesn't do much for anyone, let alone a fighter unless you care about more skills or charisma based skills. And if that was the case I'd be more likely to sacrifice some dex (you can wear heavy armor after all).
So the problem is there's not much of an interesting trade off to not maximizing your main stat in favor of another. There's not even much of a trade off to consider for your save based stats if you're looking at int or cha.
But imagine a different world, one where there was a feat with an int requirement, that you could spend 1 action to get a +2 (maybe even +3) to the next attack made on the same or next turn. There are definitely things that could be done to incentive people to invest in "less optimal " stats. (I'm 'basically imagining something like Kirin Style and its follow up feats from PF1).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly Constitution could be entirely removed and the extra HP could be handled either by ancestry or class (I prefer ancestry personally, since the extra HP ancestries gives mostly only matters at 1st level)
This is just a medium version of going back to the really old days when race determined class
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer the current system, where a Halfling Barbarian is just 4 HP lifetime removed from a Minotaur Barbarian if both invest in the same Attributes and Feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how I feel about items having scaling dcs, as I don't think having a dagger at level 2 be the best in slot until level 20. That's an exaggeration, but something like that could happen. Some people like that, but others like getting or hunting for new stuff and the current system does that, like it or not. I definitely dislike fundamental runes and wish that abp was the norm, despite what I just said. Let property/cool magic items be your rewards, not fundamental math you need to keep up.
I think this is one where there's broad agreement that there is a problem with the current fixed item DCs becoming obsolete so fast, but fixing it is hard in the current framework and there's no agreement on how to do it. :)
I'd be happy with a way to "upgrade" an item. So that level 2 dagger isn't best in slot until level 20, but I can go hire a crafter (or do it myself) to improve it and keep it relevant. This also lets characters have items that are part of their story because they don't get replaced every few levels.
That was part of the reasoning behind weapon/armor runes after all: the narrative idea that your grandfather's sword could be an item you use from level 1 all the way to level 20 and is a part of the story.
Why can't I do that with a cloak/mask/ring/whatever just due to the flat DC not scaling and there being no higher tier version?
It's a hard problem to fix, but I think they had the right idea with weapons & armor.
This is just a medium version of going back to the really old days when race determined class
Honestly Constitution could be entirely removed and the extra HP could be handled either by ancestry or class (I prefer ancestry personally, since the extra HP ancestries gives mostly only matters at 1st level)
Not really? Having an ancestry like elf granting 2 HP every level (still 6 at 1st level) rather than choosing to start with a +2 Con modifier as an elf (likely using alternate boost) isn't nowhere near as elves being a class. I'm not arguing for your whole HP to be determined by ancestry, just the extra bonus that Constitution represents.
I don't know how I feel about items having scaling dcs, as I don't think having a dagger at level 2 be the best in slot until level 20. That's an exaggeration, but something like that could happen. Some people like that, but others like getting or hunting for new stuff and the current system does that, like it or not. I definitely dislike fundamental runes and wish that abp was the norm, despite what I just said. Let property/cool magic items be your rewards, not fundamental math you need to keep up.I think this is one where there's broad agreement that there is a problem with the current fixed item DCs becoming obsolete so fast, but fixing it is hard in the current framework and there's no agreement on how to do it. :)
I'd be happy with a way to "upgrade" an item. So that level 2 dagger isn't best in slot until level 20, but I can go hire a crafter (or do it myself) to improve it and keep it relevant. This also lets characters have items that are part of their story because they don't get replaced every few levels.
That was part of the reasoning behind weapon/armor runes after all: the narrative idea that your grandfather's sword could be an item you use from level 1 all the way to level 20 and is a part of the story.
Why can't I do that with a cloak/mask/ring/whatever just due to the flat DC not scaling and there being no higher tier version?
It's a hard problem to fix, but I think they had the right idea with weapons & armor.
How well upgrading items works depends on what fraction of new item price the upgrading costs. If it's at a substantial discount then it might be worth doing and feel good.
If it's at similar cost then it has most of the same issues as the current system, but stuff like the ashen rune and security badge that are outright broken and only held back by the fact that fixed DCs cripple them to only function for a few levels get to affect everything now. Whereas your ring of the ram or whatever hurts to upgrade because it's not worth the gp vs auto scaling items (or higher level items with better effects for that matter).
I much prefer the current system, where a Halfling Barbarian is just 4 HP lifetime removed from a Minotaur Barbarian if both invest in the same Attributes and Feats.
The thing is at that point why bother having each ancestry have their own HP boost then? 4 HP is only a noticeable difference at 1st level, could probably save you at 2nd level, and pretty much not matter at all from 3rd level onwards.
Not like I would be against Strength inheriting HP in this hypothetical new edition, but since it would probably be a bit too much of a buff I think its most likely for HP to be decoupled from a stat and either just work based on class or, since PF2e already toys with the idea of ancestries influencing HP, a mix of ancestry and class.
Let's say you were to instead get bonus equal to 1/2 the current amount of HP each ancestry grants but every level. This would mean that, for example, an elf fighter would start with 19 HP and get 13 HP every level thereafter under this system, up to 266 at 20th level. In the current system an elf fighter its likely going to start a +1 or +2 Con modifier, which they could likely increase to either +4 or +5 by 20th level. Yes, the current PF2e elf fighter can get a higher HP ceiling than in my proposal, but since in my proposal they would just need to bother with 5 attributes instead of 6 it would likely mean resources that would otherwise been spent into Constitution can be spent somewhere else, not to mention that their HP would also start bigger in early levels making it slightly more difficult to have an early character death.
Again, I don't want to die on this hill since ideally I would prefer for attributes to be removed altogether, but in the case we end up sticking with attributes for at least one more edition, I think the monolith of the six D&D ability scores has to revised and at least one of them has to go and I think Constitution is the most likely one.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is at that point why bother having each ancestry have their own HP boost then? 4 HP is only a noticeable difference at 1st level, could probably save you at 2nd level, and pretty much not matter at all from 3rd level onwards.
Because I have an instinctive hatred of "one true builds", and I don't want the choice of Ancestry to be more impactful. I very much appreciate that you can start off as "the toughest", but that ultimately it doesn't really matter much.
I don't know how I feel about items having scaling dcs, as I don't think having a dagger at level 2 be the best in slot until level 20. That's an exaggeration, but something like that could happen. Some people like that, but others like getting or hunting for new stuff and the current system does that, like it or not. I definitely dislike fundamental runes and wish that abp was the norm, despite what I just said. Let property/cool magic items be your rewards, not fundamental math you need to keep up.I think this is one where there's broad agreement that there is a problem with the current fixed item DCs becoming obsolete so fast, but fixing it is hard in the current framework and there's no agreement on how to do it. :)
I'd be happy with a way to "upgrade" an item. So that level 2 dagger isn't best in slot until level 20, but I can go hire a crafter (or do it myself) to improve it and keep it relevant. This also lets characters have items that are part of their story because they don't get replaced every few levels.
That was part of the reasoning behind weapon/armor runes after all: the narrative idea that your grandfather's sword could be an item you use from level 1 all the way to level 20 and is a part of the story.
Why can't I do that with a cloak/mask/ring/whatever just due to the flat DC not scaling and there being no higher tier version?
It's a hard problem to fix, but I think they had the right idea with weapons & armor.
That's true. Not fair of me to say what he fix definitely would be. I have seen people say that item dcs should just be tied to class dc and scale, but you're right that there definitely could be more elegant solutions.
The thing is at that point why bother having each ancestry have their own HP boost then? 4 HP is only a noticeable difference at 1st level, could probably save you at 2nd level, and pretty much not matter at all from 3rd level onwards.Because I have an instinctive hatred of "one true builds", and I don't want the choice of Ancestry to be more impactful. I very much appreciate that you can start off as "the toughest", but that ultimately it doesn't really matter much.
Then just remove the illusion of minotaurs or dwarfs being "tougher" when they aren't.
This is why I want attributes to be removed, because they are there to make you believe you are something when in reality it doesn't matter. Everyone can be everything in PF2e and that's fine and I prefer that to "one true builds", but if we want to fully move away from one true builds then attributes have to go as well.
Everyone has more or less the same AC regardless of their Dex, everyone has more or less the same accuracy regardless of whatever stat they use, and everyone that maxes a skill at 3rd, 7th, and 15th level has more or less the same skill modifier regardless of the attribute or skill chosen. A caster isn't incentivized to use weapons even if they somehow have proficiency and a +3 Str/Dex because they'll require buffs to keep up with martials, while a martial isn't incentivized to use spells because, if they were to go their way to get access to some spells, they'll likely just stick to buffs because debuffs and damage spells will fail because of their lower casting proficiencies.
In a system without attributes the martial still is better than the caster at using weapons and the caster is still better at using spells than the martial because the underlying proficiency scaling still exist there. The caster can still use their spells to buff themselves to get near or up to the proficiency of a martial for a limited time, and there could be ways for martials to shore up against casters if they were to want to use debuffs or damage spells like if off-guard had a penalty to Reflex saves or something like that.
If you want to be good at Medicine (or whatever skill) you'll be equally as good at it in current PF2e if you take increases into it and in attribute-less PF2e because you are still taking the same increases into that skill. The end result is the same but in one you skip one (IMO) unnecesary step of the chain.
Get rid of any options that feel meaningless
Meaningless from a power sense or a roleplay sense? It is hard to cover both of these, but I do want game designers to do both.
I agree the bulk of options in the game are fluffy trash that sound good but just don't actually implement anything reasonable or it is so narrow it is pointless.Each class should also fill a niche and each player should be able to accomplish that niche while playing in the session. Not just once in a blue moon, but constantly.
Maybe. I certainly find it very annoying when some classes like inventors have failure chances on their main power and others don't. Do you really want everything to be like the new swashbuckler when you gain panache even when you fail?
Instead of creating new classes all the time, offer meaningful support and new options or variations for whats already been released.
Yes more breadth would be great. There is a lot which needs to be rounded off and cleaned up and Paizo never seem to get to it. So it falls onto the players and GMs to patch the game.