Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.

[The Random NPC]

Well. If you actually read what I post. You'll see that I say

'They want people to discuss the problems of the game, and not the fact that X person left, or Y group stopped playing because of these reasons.'

Ergo. If you read what I have said, you will be able go 'Right, so they don't want to talk about the fact that X person has left, or that Y group has stopped playing, or that Z party is no longer playing the playtest. They want to focus on the fact that people have issues with the game, and want to have threads devoted to these discussions, and not get bogged down about whenever or not X, Y and Z are leaving'



No. You don't. You don't understand at all.

This isn't about whenever or not the features are special or valuable enough on their own. This isn't a debate about whenever or not the feature has been detrimental to the class for years (Spoiler Alert: It has not). That is an entirely different matter.

A Paladin that does not have the ability that basically reads as 'And **** you in particular!', is, in the eyes of many people , not a Paladin. It's like a Barbarian without the ability to Rage. Or an armour-wearing, greatsword swinging monk. Its just not what those classes are about! A Paladin's core ability has always been Smite Evil, and a Paladin without anything like Smite Evil, is like having a Wizard without spells.

Completely counterproductive to the feel and theme of the class.

Knowing why people will not be buying your product is very much a problem with your product that you should want to know. Whether or not it's a significant problem that should be addressed can be determined by further discussion.

[n00b17]

A Paladin that does not have the ability that basically reads as 'And **** you in particular!', is, in the eyes of many people , not a Paladin. It's like a Barbarian without the ability to Rage. Or an armour-wearing, greatsword swinging monk. Its just not what those classes are about! A Paladin's core ability has always been Smite Evil, and a Paladin without anything like Smite Evil, is like having a Wizard without spells.

Completely counterproductive to the feel and theme of the class.

I think the argument was that while, yes, these are iconic abilities, they weren't good iconic abilities, and the classes need new, different iconic abilities that work better. They're sort of sacred cows, and while I totally understand that you want to keep them, some people are more okay with tossing them out in favor of something that runs better

[Storyteller_Arc]

Knowing why people will not be buying your product is very much a problem with your product that you should want to know. Whether or not it's a significant problem that should be addressed can be determined by further discussion.

Well, yeah. That's obvious, and that's exactly what's happening in the Paizo's forum.

They thank people for the feedback, lock the thread so it doesn't get bogged down, and pay attention to the threads and survey results focused around those specific issues.

Their not censoring anyone and I fail to see how people think that.

I think the argument was that while, yes, these are iconic abilities, they weren't good iconic abilities, and the classes need new, different iconic abilities that work better. They're sort of sacred cows, and while I totally understand that you want to keep them, some people are more okay with tossing them out in favor of something that runs better

I'm not... really, the one arguing to keep them here.

I'm just trying to explain why people think its the case... and the Paladin alongside Smite Evil is obviously one that a lot of people have issue with.

Whenever or not you actually agree is a different matter entirely.

[Rynjin]

The issue is none of what they've replaced any of the cows with works better. Pigeon holing the Paladin into the MMO tank isn't very interesting.

As for the Storyteller_Arc discussion, I'm surprised if you're such a frequent and long term poster on Paizo you've failed to see their censorship and double standards.

Posters like Gorbacz can flame with impunity, while much criticism (even politely couched) can be met with temp bans and post removal. My first ban on the forums came from suggesting that it's silly that the Brawler class during the ACG playtest was proficient in shields as weapons but NOT armor and requesting that they be allowed to Flurry and gain increased damage with Close weapons.

None of the other Paizo employees have sent me snarky messages to my personal email address, but it has very clearly gotten even worse since then on the forums proper, especially now they've fired or driven off much of their mod staff.

Posting in any playtest of theirs is such a self defeating task I wonder why anyone bothers; I'd hoped they'd be different this time but it's just more of the same.

[Rhedyn]

The issue is none of what they've replaced ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ works better.

My central complaint with PF2e.

[NomGarret]

Why though? Why shouldn't a character be allowed to not get better at certain things? Why should the classic fantasy archetypes of the stoic, grouchy master swordsman or the absent-minded archmage be off limits, to name just two? Because that's what +level to skills does. It means that a 20th level character, even if untrained and with 8 charisma, is a better talker than the most silver-tongued 1st level bard. Or that the 20th level archmage who is infamously absorbed in his own internal world can spot the sneakiest 1st level thief.

I’m fine with the +level progression as a method, but would prefer a much shorter increase. +1/2 level, perhaps. Something that allows your absentminded archmage to have grown over the course of their career where they now stand a pretty good chance of spotting an average 1st level thief.

[Minion #6]

I’m fine with the +level progression as a method, but would prefer a much shorter increase. +1/2 level, perhaps. Something that allows your absentminded archmage to have grown over the course of their career where they now stand a pretty good chance of spotting an average 1st level thief.

+1/2 level would also make the TEML bonuses more important as well - currently they get washed under the much larger level bonus. However, half level only gives +5% success/2 levels on checks, which can feel stunted progression-wise. Take this with a grain of salt though, as I'm definitely not a fan of bounded accuracy-alike systems on a flat RNG like a d20, so it's possible so it's just my bias getting in the way.

[exelsisxax]

I’m fine with the +level progression as a method, but would prefer a much shorter increase. +1/2 level, perhaps. Something that allows your absentminded archmage to have grown over the course of their career where they now stand a pretty good chance of spotting an average 1st level thief.

But WHY does that have to be level scaling to everything? Why can't perception just be a skill that higher-level characters may, as the result of being high level and experienced, have more ranks/training in?

I think that wizards should get NO BaB, reflex, fort, or health from class levels. A level 20 wizard should be worse at swordsmanship than your average 1st level fighter, buffs aside. It's not like rogues and barbarians are getting partial spellcasting progression, but wizards have been getting partial combat progress for free.

[Rhedyn]

But WHY does that have to be level scaling to everything? Why can't perception just be a skill that higher-level characters may, as the result of being high level and experienced, have more ranks/training in?

I think that wizards should get NO BaB, reflex, fort, or health from class levels. A level 20 wizard should be worse at swordsmanship than your average 1st level fighter, buffs aside. It's not like rogues and barbarians are getting partial spellcasting progression, but wizards have been getting partial combat progress for free.

This "issue" could be fixed by making higher skill ranks progressively more expensive to buy and maybe increase skill point gain with level.

For example, if rank 11 in Perception cost 11 skill points and characters got a number of skill points each level equal to (normal amount)*lvl, then a fighter could get perception rank 4 for the cost of what is now 1 skill point.

That still doesn't address some of the other unbounded accuracy issue in PF. Like how having max ranks doesn't make you good at a skill, it makes you OK. Ability scores matter a lot. Let's take level 10 perception. With 10 ranks you have a +10, with wisdom or some sort of class bonus, you hit +15. Just max ranks is nearly irrelevant. Throw in feats and a magic item and that goes up to +25. +10 is irrelevant to that and it has nothing to do with skill points.

The issue is the game keeps being design around needing full investment to do anything useful. You have less than +25 acrobatics at level 10 and can't take 10? Congrats you can't avoid AOOs.
Of course casters barely need any spellcraft to make magic items, but casters always get nice things that just work.

[DdarkED]

But WHY does that have to be level scaling to everything? Why can't perception just be a skill that higher-level characters may, as the result of being high level and experienced, have more ranks/training in?

I think that wizards should get NO BaB, reflex, fort, or health from class levels. A level 20 wizard should be worse at swordsmanship than your average 1st level fighter, buffs aside. It's not like rogues and barbarians are getting partial spellcasting progression, but wizards have been getting partial combat progress for free.

Since some spells are themselves weapons it makes sense that casters would get limited progression at using them more effectively. I cannot say the same thing about a Fighter picking up magical training.

[spaceman1997]

But WHY does that have to be level scaling to everything? Why can't perception just be a skill that higher-level characters may, as the result of being high level and experienced, have more ranks/training in?

I think that wizards should get NO BaB, reflex, fort, or health from class levels. A level 20 wizard should be worse at swordsmanship than your average 1st level fighter, buffs aside. It's not like rogues and barbarians are getting partial spellcasting progression, but wizards have been getting partial combat progress for free.

Hey now, there's no need to get that extreme. My Arcanist can totally take on a 1st level fighter with her rapier.

...at level 10. With Mage Armor and Shield pre-cast. And by HP tanking the hits. And presuming it's a perfectly bland arena for a 1v1.


In all seriousness, I think Wizards are fine with 1/2 BAB as that gives them a slight chance to hit, while still making it blatantly clear that they have no idea how to use a sword beyond 'pointy end goes in bad guy' and "how hard can it be, that idiot fighter does this all the time.' I'd rather give fighters and other martials MORE options and ways to show their fighting prowess besides the base numbers.

[exelsisxax]

Hey now, there's no need to get that extreme. My Arcanist can totally take on a 1st level fighter with her rapier.

...at level 10. With Mage Armor and Shield pre-cast. And by HP tanking the hits. And presuming it's a perfectly bland arena for a 1v1.


In all seriousness, I think Wizards are fine with 1/2 BAB as that gives them a slight chance to hit, while still making it blatantly clear that they have no idea how to use a sword beyond 'pointy end goes in bad guy' and "how hard can it be, that idiot fighter does this all the time.' I'd rather give fighters and other martials MORE options and ways to show their fighting prowess besides the base numbers.

But you can't let martials have nice things with the 3.PF underlying math, because spellcasters can just steal them and be better martials anyway. The mathmatical framework needs an overhaul, and adding level scaling is the opposite of a fix.

[Rynjin]

My central complaint with PF2e.

I wouldn't say NONE. I'll stand by the new Action system being a stark improvement over PF1e, and would love to see a better game adopt it.

I’m fine with the +level progression as a method, but would prefer a much shorter increase. +1/2 level, perhaps. Something that allows your absentminded archmage to have grown over the course of their career where they now stand a pretty good chance of spotting an average 1st level thief.

They do in PF1...if the Wizard invests in it. Just put ranks in Perception and you're golden.

[Rhedyn]

I wouldn't say NONE. I'll stand by the new Action system being a stark improvement over PF1e, and would love to see a better game adopt it.

One has. PF1e has the unchained action economy. It's not even new in PF2e, it's just done worse now weird "manipulate" traits on actions.

[Rynjin]

One has. PF1e has the unchained action economy. It's not even new in PF2e, it's just done worse now weird "manipulate" traits on actions.

The difference is Unchained's Revised AE interferes a lot with many extant classes, severely shafting anything that uses a lot of Swifts/immediates.

It works better for a ground up system.

[exelsisxax]

I wouldn't say NONE. I'll stand by the new Action system being a stark improvement over PF1e, and would love to see a better game adopt it.

When I first read about the new turn structure, I also thought it was an excellent and much-needed change. But just like resonance and better skill uses, the implementation turned out to be a mess.

Why are reactions special actions, and not just off-turn actions? Why can't you bank actions for anything? Why confine all reactions to specific classes and feat chains? Why have a multiple attack penalty, when a major benefit of the new system was eliminating the hassle of full attack mechanics? Why do you have to use reactions to make shields not garbage?(and questionable even then) Why don't reactions impact your on-turn actions, either positively or negatively? Why aren't AoO available to everybody when there's still reaction-cast spells?

Another good idea made more complicated, harder to balance, and less flexible and interesting at the same time.

[Storyteller_Arc]

As for the Storyteller_Arc discussion, I'm surprised if you're such a frequent and long term poster on Paizo you've failed to see their censorship and double standards.

I wouldn't call myself a 'long-term' poster on Paizo. Simply that I've been keeping an eye on the Playtest and their general discussion.

And I have yet to see a single time of censorship and double standards. Posts are deleted solely due to the inflammatory and insulting languages, with threads being locked only when they have spiralled away from the discussion point that was originally raised up in the first place.

Seriously, I don't get where all these claims are coming from, except from spotty anecdotal evidence, which I take as a grain of salt as my own anecdotal evidence is just as valid as other individuals.

[The Random NPC]

Well, yeah. That's obvious, and that's exactly what's happening in the Paizo's forum.

They thank people for the feedback, lock the thread so it doesn't get bogged down, and pay attention to the threads and survey results focused around those specific issues.

Their not censoring anyone and I fail to see how people think that.

Yeah, okay. But why? What does it really change if a thread gets bogged down or not? Why do they need to lock a thread where people are talking about what they don't like about the system? AFAICT, it just makes them seem like they don't want to hear about dissenting opinion and with their reputation, they should be trying their hardest not to seem that way.

[Morty]

When I first read about the new turn structure, I also thought it was an excellent and much-needed change. But just like resonance and better skill uses, the implementation turned out to be a mess.

Why are reactions special actions, and not just off-turn actions? Why can't you bank actions for anything? Why confine all reactions to specific classes and feat chains? Why have a multiple attack penalty, when a major benefit of the new system was eliminating the hassle of full attack mechanics? Why do you have to use reactions to make shields not garbage?(and questionable even then) Why don't reactions impact your on-turn actions, either positively or negatively? Why aren't AoO available to everybody when there's still reaction-cast spells?

Another good idea made more complicated, harder to balance, and less flexible and interesting at the same time.

The three action model is one of the legitimately good ideas PF2E has and doesn't use, I think. I feel like it's... overly cautious, in a way. They took this new idea and then slapped it with various caveats and restrictions so it doesn't stray too far from the PF1E dynamics.

[Rhedyn]

The difference is Unchained's Revised AE interferes a lot with many extant classes, severely shafting anything that uses a lot of Swifts/immediates.

It works better for a ground up system.

Oh they don't get that shafted. One big benefit is multiple Swift actions. Some of those classes could really use three at once.

[catman04221985]

Form what i seen of the play test the new edition is grokking systems form other games.

[Beckett]

I wouldn't call myself a 'long-term' poster on Paizo. Simply that I've been keeping an eye on the Playtest and their general discussion.

And I have yet to see a single time of censorship and double standards. Posts are deleted solely due to the inflammatory and insulting languages, with threads being locked only when they have spiralled away from the discussion point that was originally raised up in the first place.

Seriously, I don't get where all these claims are coming from, except from spotty anecdotal evidence, which I take as a grain of salt as my own anecdotal evidence is just as valid as other individuals.

While I can't argue your personal experience, I can say it was bad when Jessica Price was there and active. Censorship, Mods acting extremly one-sided in how they handled debates, as noted giving some folks like Gorbacz free passes for everything, to pretty damn blatant sexism and other isms, as long as it wasn't against their pet groups.

I'm not sure about currently, because I walked away due to the above, but Paizo kind of has a bad rep when it comes to playtests these days. Their early ones where fantastic, after that, not so much.

[skaddix]

You cannot take away Iconic Abilities and replace them with crap...not only that Paladins are pigeonhold into doing only tanking and defending teammates. Honestly DnD 5e gives you more freedom to shape your Paladin and the selling point of DnD 5e is not freedom of choices.

Honestly how many classes actually got improvements in Pathfinder 2E? I am seeing a lot of straight nerfs that are going uncompensated and significant restrictions as it pertains the freedom of options to build you class your way. I see a whole lot of feat traps as well especially Racial Feat wise where come on most of your racial abilities were only good cause they came free.

[Dracojai]

OK, I realize I'm about 2 pages too late, but can I also get added to the Artifice PM list? It sounds awesome. Thanks.

[Storyteller_Arc]

Yeah, okay. But why? What does it really change if a thread gets bogged down or not? Why do they need to lock a thread where people are talking about what they don't like about the system? AFAICT, it just makes them seem like they don't want to hear about dissenting opinion and with their reputation, they should be trying their hardest not to seem that way.

They aren't locking threads where people are talking about what they don't like about the system. they are locking threads where there is no more discussion to have about the opening point. X person or Y group is leaving, and there is no more to discuss about that.

They want to keep feedback constructive, and discussion strong. Allowing threads to get bogged down makes it harder for them to understand the feedback and suggestions being given

[CasualViking]

I am actually kinda impressed, in the hobo-eating-a-live-pigeon sense of "impressed" that they, once again, managed to make sword-and-board a terrible fighting style.

[Rhedyn]

You cannot take away Iconic Abilities and replace them with crap...not only that Paladins are pigeonhold into doing only tanking and defending teammates. Honestly DnD 5e gives you more freedom to shape your Paladin and the selling point of DnD 5e is not freedom of choices.

Honestly how many classes actually got improvements in Pathfinder 2E? I am seeing a lot of straight nerfs that are going uncompensated and significant restrictions as it pertains the freedom of options to build you class your way. I see a whole lot of feat traps as well especially Racial Feat wise where come on most of your racial abilities were only good cause they came free.

Yeah 5e characters classes are more flexible and interesting than PF2e classes.

Now granted, there wasn't a lot of real options in PF1 and it takes a lot of work to get there. But you got more than this.

[skaddix]

Yeah 5e characters classes are more flexible and interesting than PF2e classes.

Now granted, there wasn't a lot of real options in PF1 and it takes a lot of work to get there. But you got more than this.

Yeah...I complained about 5e lack of choice but oh boy PF2 makes that look like a joke.

I am honestly not sure I like a single PF2 class better then 5e.

Granted I only really care about Paladins, Sorcerers and Druids enough to really look at the material so that might be bias.

[Storyteller_Arc]

I mean... it is a playtest. Not the final release. Its likely that the playtest doesn't have all of the material included.

[Rhedyn]

I mean... it is a playtest. Not the final release. Its likely that the playtest doesn't have all of the material included.

*Looks over starfinder

Somehow I really doubt that. Paizo has shown a strong desire to sell boring fiddly math options and now that they get to make a whole new editions the crap can become standard.

What they failed to realize is if every option is a trash option, instead of those options being considered good, people just won't play the game.

Really 4e D&D is far and away a better game than PF2e. Sure classes can feel samey, but it is way less fiddly to get a deep tactical fantasy wargame combat sim with some light but robust roleplaying systems.