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

[Nigeretalbus]

-Snip-

I agree with you on basically everything.


I generally like most of the mechanical structure of PF2

- the 3-action system feels elegant and intuitive, while also allowing you to "do stuff!" as soon as Level one. No more Jumping through hoops to move & attack more than once, no more taking 3 feats and waiting 4 levels for Spring attack...you can do it instantly!

- the multi-classing and general feat-system probably needs some more refinement (especially in the skill feat & ancestry feat department, imo), but is mostly a very solid skeleton that can be fleshed out further by future books and is a HUGE help to design new content - you no longer need to learn entire subsystems of mechanics for a new class, but can instead rely on a (quite flexible!) framework that is provided to you.

- the Crit Success/Success/Fail/Crit Fail system looks interesting; there needs to be some fine-tuning here, though...Facing a higher-level monster is extremely dangerous because they casually crit you very, very often.

- the use of descriptors (or Tags, or "Traits" as they're called atm) seems like a design choice that requires some memorization from players - this is perfectly normal when learning new rules, and may seem "annoying" at first to veterans/experts of PF1 who enjoyed the fact that they could transpose most of their D7D 3.5 knowledge mostly seamlessly to apply to PF1...but PF2 is an entirely new game indeed, at least as far as mechanics are concerned.

- I think skills in general need more reworking; at the very least, I'd expect each skill to have the following:
* An Untrained use
* A use that requires Trained Proficiency
* A use that requires Expert Proficiency
* A use that requires Master Proficiency
* A use that requires Legendary Proficiency

Then, I'd expect Skill feats to follow the following format:

a) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they provide training in a skill of your choice (Currently available as Skill Training, req. 12 INT

b) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they require training in a skill of your choice and make that skill into a Signature Skill

c) Skill Feats tied to specific Skills; each Skill having at least 8 Skill feats:

1(or more) feats that require Trained Proficiency and augment a (Untrained or Trained)Skill use according to your Skill Proficiency:
(Examples: Quick Identification or Group Impression)

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Trained Proficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(or more) feats that require Expert Proficiency and augment a (Trained or Expert)Skill use according to your Skill Proficiency:

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Expert Proficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(or more) feats that require Master Proficiency and augment a (Expert or Master)Skill use according to your Skill Proficiency:

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Master Proficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(or more) feats that require Legendary Proficiency and augment a (Master or Legendary)Skill use:

AND 1(or more) feats that INTRODUCE a new Skill use that requires Legendary Proficiency.


This way, you have meaningful choices at each level of proficiency no matter wether you choose to get relevant skill feats or not, you have a simple format that applies to all skills/skill feats...and you'd have a way easier time to design new content.

Simple examples of "skill augmentations" could be ways to mitigate (Critical) Failure and increase chances for (Critical) success;
a simple Augmentation feat at Expert level could, for example, treat all Crit Fails of a Trained-only use as Fails instead at Expert; treat all Successes as Crit Successes at Mastery, all Fails as Successes at Legendary.

This would represent growing competence in a SPECIFIC Trained-only skill use as you learn to mitigate obvious mistakes and become more and more skilled at performing that action...

[Da Beast]

Something a little more specific than "is this system a travesty unworthy (or perhaps too worthy) of the name pathfinder" I'm hoping to get some feedback on, is two weapon fighting worth it for rogues?

For starters, its just weird to me that rogues don't have access to two weapon fighting innately when all through out 3.0/.5/pathfinder its been in iconic piece of what they do. Taking it away and gating it behind a fighter multiclass feels like they're trying way too hard to niche protect the fighter as the only guy who's good with weapons to the detriment of other classes. Rogues are skill monkeys yes, but they're also supposed to have some skill as agile, quick witted fighters and two weapon fighting complements that thematically as well as mechanically. What's more, they've allowed some overlap in mechanical abilities with other classes, just not in this particular case. Rangers share double slice (the particular ability I'd like to pick up) with fighters, and it hasn't destroyed the identity of either class. If rangers can share a weapon skill that's integral to the classic identity of their class with fighters without it destroying the identity of either, then why can't my rogue? What's more, fighters already have mechanics signifying them as the chief weapon user, being the only class to gain legendary weapon proficiency. If forcing rogues to go through a fighter multiclass to get two weapon fighting feats is about niche protection then that seems like an admission that proficiency bonuses are too weak to feel like a meaningful feature. Why not give rogues access to two weapon fighting feats at a higher level? It cements fighters as the true master of whatever style they choose to focus on (which does seems fair, if all I do is focus on learning to fight with two weapons I'd expect to be better at it than someone who dabbles while also learning all manner of skill tricks) without robbing rogues of their iconic fighting style. They did exactly this with blind fight, giving rogues access at level 6 and fighters at level 10, two weapon feats could use the same treatment. All in all this just seems like a perplexing and poorly thought out decision.

With that being said, how is the actual implementation? Taking fighter dedication to open up double slice is hard to see as anything other than a feat tax. As a rogue I already have athletics as a signature skill and their are no rules for trading out redundant signature skills, so this is a waste. I'll get proficiency with medium and heavy armor but as a dexterity based class I want to wear light armor which I'm already proficient in and this doesn't improve my proficiency with that, so another waste. Proficiency with martial weapons is okay but rogues already get proficiency with a few martial weapons and the handful of new ones that I wasn't already proficient with and that I can use for sneak attack don't increase in proficiency with the rest of my weapons at level 13 unless I spend another feat. All in all, fighter dedication seems to amount too "you can use a star knife or main gauche from levels 2 to 12". If you want to keep using your new weapons you'll need to spend a level 12+ class feat to keep some but not all of your martial weapon proficiencies on par with your rogue weapons. This last part could be fixed by changing weapon tricks to upgrade all weapons you're proficient in to expert level, but its hard to see Paizo implementing that given how attached they seem to be to coding a certain identity into a class. Most of the feats competing with fighter focus at level 2 aren't anything special, but mobility would be nice on a melee rogue who wants to get into position to flank and activate sneak attack and all of them seem more fun than a feat tax to get something your class should have had to begin with. Beyond picking up double slice at forth level the only two weapon feats a rogue can even pick up from the fighter multiclass are twin parry at level 8 and twin riposte at level 20, neither of which stand out as particularly appealing options. Twin parry is weaker with most of the weapons rogues will want to use in their off hands aside from a main gauche, which can already do a slightly weaker version of the same thing and suffers from the feat tax problem already mentioned to keep its proficiency on par with your normal rogue weapons and by level 20, when twin riposte becomes available, rogues should have better reactions than getting a single attack (with no guaranteed sneak attack damage) against an opponent who critically fails an attack roll against you.

Finally, I have concerns about how the new magic weapon rules will interact with all this. Bounded accuracy makes every +1 to hit too important to pass up and the new system of potency runes adding weapon damage dice makes high level magic weapons a vital part of your damage output. Put these together and the end result is any weapon focused character is pretty much required to pick up the best weapons they can possibly afford and those are expensive, possibly the most expensive thing your character will buy. Having so few abilities related to two weapon fighting a rogue can actually take means that a two weapon fighter rogue will be doubling the cost of their most expensive item to improve a single, level 1 feat that they had to get at level 4 after paying out a feat tax to get it. The cost issue seems a little more baked into the system with so much of a martial character's power being tied into their magic weaponry but its hard to deny it makes two weapon fighting less palatable.

All in all this seems like a needlessly large investment of feats and money for "make a secondary attack without the multiple attack penalty and if it hits ignore resistances once per round". I still plan to try out a two weapon fighting rogue in my next play test session hope to have some more positive revisions afterwards, but I won't hold my breathe. I can't help but feel like this is a poorly thought and poorly implemented decision that I hope is fixed before the final product comes out.

[Nigeretalbus]

Concerning TWF Rogues:

In D&D 3.5 & PF1, Sneak Attack was the reason Rogues could contribute meaningfully in combat; and the best way to leverage sneak attack was to generate as many (Sneak) Attacks as possible; and this meant either Ranged attacks (throwing alchemical fire/acid, Archery with Sniper Goggles & (Greater) Invisibility) or TWF.

I would encourage everyone to actually "test" wether this still holds true for PF2 Rogues or if they actually benefit more from different combat styles.



Just looking at the available options, here's what I imagine a PF2 Rogue to do:

a)Use a Finesse Weapon & High Dex to take Advantage of Dex to Damage
This can be
• a Dagger (Versatile, can be thrown as well)
• a Whip(One-Handed, provides REACH; Nonlethal isn't too terrible - a KO enemy is still neutralized and can be killed at leisure after combat) - Requires Human Ancestry Feat: General Training -> Weapon Proficiency
• a Rapier / Sap / Shortsword
• a racial Weapon (Dogslicer, Elven Curve Blade, Filcher's Fork) - Requires appropriate Ancestry Feat: Weapon Familiarity(Goblin/Elf/Halfling)

b)Also use ranged attacks, because high Dex leads to accurate ranged attacks (compared to STR-Focused Melee combatants)
• Shortbow & Hand Crossbow (Depending on your STR score / how many hands you want to use when attacking) are options here; throwing darts & certain melee weapons is also possible

c)Try to use movement and the general rarity of AoOs in PF2 (in fact, very few monsters HAVE the ability to AoO or something similar!!) to set up flanking or emulate Spring Attack (move-attack-move) in order to stay healthy and tactically relevant - Free-action speaking to diss intelligent monsters is a valuable RP option here as well

d)If you want, you can even use a Shield - Requires Human Ancestry Feat: General Training -> Shield Proficiency
• This offers you the action "Raise Shield" for +2 AC and the Reaction "Shield Block" - usually a much better idea than a third attack at -10 penalty (or -8 if you use an agile weapon)

"Sneak attack" is a bonus when flanking, attacking a flat-footed opponent (usually because a teammate used Bottled Lightning, a Fighter ally used Combat Grab or a Mage used an appropriate spell...

Sneak attack basically REWARDS Teamwork & Tactical Movement, offering a "bonus incentive" to do so.

We have 2d6 Sneak attack now, so the DPR difference between Attacks and Sneak Attacks is much higher. Again, let's look at some additional options we have now:

a)Fear:
With Dread Striker allowing you to treat frightened foes as flat-footed(=> Sneak Attack!), you can choose to use Skill Feats to boost Intimidate and possibly use You're Next to Intimidate more often. Also ask your party members to use stuff such as Intimidating Strike (Fighter Feat 2), Intimidate attempts(Skill checks), Spells (Cause Fear) and/or items (Fear gem, 4th level consumable) to both debuff enemies and set up Sneak attacks.

Such actions are - again - likely much better than a third attack at -10 penalty. And again, TEAMWORK suddenly makes everything work better...

b)Poison:
With Poison Weapon, you can make your first attack (with the highest accuracy) deal (potentially) more damage. Debuffing the enemy (via FEAR, for example...or having other allies inflict debuffs such as Entangled (hello there, Tanglefoot Cantrip!) might help for the poison to "stick" - though I haven't read through all debuffs yet, this is merely conjecture.

If you have an Alchemist Friend, he can use his Alchemy to create poisons for free, iirc...maybe you can borrow some of these poisons? OMG TEAMWORK IS OP, PLZ NERF
(Of course, an Alchemist with Rogue-Multiclass to use Poison Weapon can likely use higher-DC Poisons because of an Alchemist Class Feat and become much better at attacking with Poisoned Weapons...but we're talking about 5th-level Rogues right now, not 8th-level Alchemists)

c)More Actions:
Action Economy is king, always. And as Rogue, you have a few tricks to boost your action economy:
• You're Next, Reactive Pursuit allow you to Demoralize or Stride as a Reaction
• Quick Draw, Running Reload allow you to combine two actions

d)Sabotage & Combat Maneuvers(Athletics: Shove, Trip, Grapple, Disarm):
• Sabotage allows you to damage opponent's items - denting, possibly breaking them. Opponent's wizard is wielding a special wand/using a Shield?
Go ahead, use your Thievery skill to try and dent/break it! You can even do it three times per turn, AND Sabotage doesn't have the Attack trait, so you don't take any penalties for repeating the action!
Remember, a normal, not-fragile item can take 1 dent and be fine, two dents and it's broken, three dents and it's destroyed. Hmm...how many actions per turn do you have again in PF2 ?? That's right, 3 actions!
• Combat Maneuvers:
Unfortunately, these Actons DO have the attack trait and suffer M(ultiple)A(attack)P(enalties), but they can be situationally useful.
Disarm is very bad, though, and probably needs to be changed - another reason to playtest and give valuable feedback...

Our Rogue still has 2d6 Sneak attack, but...a bunch more options. Some of his old options even got better!
a)Gang up
Suddenly, flanking becomes a whole lot easier! *How much* easier, you ask? Why, just take Cavalier Dedication for a trusty Mount, use the Ride General Feat to solve Action economy problems when commanding animals, and suddenly you can move 40'-80' atop your trusty Horse, gain flanking all the time in melee, and still have two actions per turn left to stab your opponent!

Of course, you could also be a TEAM PLAYER, skip the horse, and just stand next to your Party's Paladin / Shield-Based Fighter to enjoy the Protection of Shield Warden / the deterrent of Retributive Strike while ALSO flanking like that...

b)Twist the Knife
Tired of missing all the time because of MAP? Well, enjoy this! If you've successfully STABBED(=sneak attacked) someone this turn, you can use an action to inflict some PERSISTENT DAMAGE (which is incredibly hard to get rid of...DC 20 flat check, anyone? Does Team Evil have a Healbot somewhere?) without rolling at all(except for the delicious damage roll, of course)

c)More Action Economy
• Nimble Roll, Opportune Backstab, Sidestep give you new options for your Reaction. Have fun stabbing, evading, moving or even letting enemies hit each other!
• Skirmish Strike allows you to Step & Strike (or Strike & Step...) as one action.

d)General Improvements
• Improved Poison Weapon makes you better at...using poison in combat. More damage, less waste.
• Sly Striker offers you 1/2 Sneak Attack damage on targets that are not flat-footed.
• You have Debilitating Strike now...this means your Sneak attacks ALSO debuff opponents (entangled OR enfeebled 1)
• With Tactical Debilitation or Vicious Debilitation, you have more options when debuffing opponents! If you manage to stab someone multiple times, you get to apply lots of love(=various debuffs that ruin his/her/its day)
[Debuff list for Sneak Attack:
• Entangled (-10 speed, 20% chance to fail actions with the manipulate trait)
• Enfeebled 1 (-1 to atk/dmg/STR-based checks)
• Cannot Flank (Tactical Debilitation)
• Cannot use Reactions (Tactical Debilitation)
• Sluggish 1(-1 to atk/AC/DEX-based checks, Reflex saves) (Vicious Debilitation)
• Weakness 5 to either Bludgeoning/Slashing/Piercing (Vicious Debilitation)]

e)More Multiclassing options:
At this point, I won't call out all of the possible combinations and extra abilities you can gain from Multiclassing. You have plenty of choices, from Spells to various class feats to animal companions to very powerful defensive proficiencies (in case of Gray Maiden Dedication). This will become even better after the playtest, as more Archetypes are released.
Choose yourself, and enjoy your freedom to create a character as you wish - IMO, the one of the core Strengths of Pathfinder that has remained, although in a different mechanical framework

We have 3d6 Sneak Attack and Double Debilitation now. Let's have a short look at what the Rogue class has to offer:
a)Instant Opening
Voila, we have the ability to point at an enemy and MAKE HIM FLATFOOTED against our rogue's attacks...UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN.
That's potentially 5 attacks. (two now, three next turn).

b)Defensive Roll
For the squishier Rogues, you can take 1/2 damage from lethal blows once every 10 minutes.

c)Felling Shot
For the Ranged rogues, if you want fliers to fall out of the sky. Works amazingly well with Instant Opening.

d)Critical Debilitation
This one requires a critical success (also known as critical hit) on an Sneak Attack roll. If you do crit, you get some amazing debuffs for your opponent.
(Slow = opponent loses some actions
Paralysis = Opponent loses ALL actions)

e)General Improvements
• Double Debilitation means you can debuff twice as hard now
• 3d6 Sneak attack means 2d6 persistent dmg from Twist the Knife

To follow later...

[EldritchWeaver]

a) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they provide training in a skill of your choice (Currently available as Skill Training, req. 12 INT

b) General Skill Feats that are not specific to a certain skill; they require training in a skill of your choice and make that skill into a Signature Skill

Skill Training shouldn't have a Int requirement at all. Also, signature skills need to go completely. Currently, they block character outside your class focus. A feat to grant just signature status is just a feat tax, since by itself it does not provide a mechanical benefit. (Same goes for Adopted, which also needs to give something in addition like the ancestry feats.)

[Nigeretalbus]

Signature Skills are the PF2 Equivalent to PF1's "Class Skills" - and if you look closely, what was the difference in PF1 between Class and "Cross-Class" Skills?

A +3 Bonus.

The difference between a Signature Skill and a "Normal Skill" in PF2 is +2 (The difference between Expert(+1) and Legendary(+3)).

So you have a smaller numerical difference compared to PF1.

Furthermore, demanding that "Signature Skills need to be abolished" is mechanically equivalent to demanding "BAB differences should be abolished, because they make creating Gishes Harder in PF1". This is especially true since Combat Maneuvers are Skill-based now and some Class feats also use Skills to attack.

Sometimes, mechanical differences can have their place - and IMO, Signature Skills ("Class Skills") do have theirs.

[Caelestion]

Signature Skills don't do anything other than limit your skill levels after Expert, but given that you can raise a mere handful of skills to Master or beyond by the simple maths of how many skill training slots you can get, they serve only to tell you which skills you can't increase. Either they need to do something interesting or they should go.

[Rhedyn]

See, that's the thing, PF 2e (if you strip out the level auto-scaling) resembles 5e far more than it does PF. I still can't fathom why Paizo would try and make their own 5e instead of double-refined 3.5/PF, unless they intend to keep supporting PF 1e after 2e's release. I mean, if they could drag half the 5e players to their side, that'd be nice, because I do think that WotC needs a shake-up, but, well, is this really what Paizo thinks they should do with the Pathfinder brand?

What's really funny, is that through the lens of "a variant on 5e", I like PF2 a lot and think it just needs to cut some terminology, remove the weird symbols on actions, and reduce HP along with the hyper damage scaling of magic weapons.

It's as a version of 3.5 that I find PF2e woefully boring.

[Nigeretalbus]

Signature Skills don't do anything other than limit your skill levels after Expert, but given that you can raise a mere handful of skills to Master or beyond by the simple maths of how many skill training slots you can get, they serve only to tell you which skills you can't increase. Either they need to do something interesting or they should go.

Cross-class skills in D&D 3.5 don't do anything other than make increasing them more expensive in terms of Skillpoints, but given that you can raise a mere handful of skills to values that matter by the simple maths of how many skill points you can get, they serve only to tell you which skills you can't increase. Either they need to do something interesting or they should go.

Technically, Signature skills do not limit your skill levels; Instead, they do the opposite - they allow you to transcend the (global/normal) limits of usual expertise.

If you want to abolish Signature skills by making them ubiquitous - that is, turn EVERY SKILL into a Signature skill - then you're likely encouraging more focused characters and less diverse characters, concerning their skills. Currently, these "skill ceilings" fulfil the role of forcing a player to spread their skill increases instead of investing all of them into a single skill.

Furthermore, some Feats (Paladin Class feat: Hospice Knight, various Archetype Feats) grant you more signature skills, so you can expand the number of signature skills beyond what you initially get at level 1.

[Zman]

Something a little more specific than "is this system a travesty unworthy (or perhaps too worthy) of the name pathfinder" I'm hoping to get some feedback on, is two weapon fighting worth it for rogues?

Spoiler

Show

For starters, its just weird to me that rogues don't have access to two weapon fighting innately when all through out 3.0/.5/pathfinder its been in iconic piece of what they do. Taking it away and gating it behind a fighter multiclass feels like they're trying way too hard to niche protect the fighter as the only guy who's good with weapons to the detriment of other classes. Rogues are skill monkeys yes, but they're also supposed to have some skill as agile, quick witted fighters and two weapon fighting complements that thematically as well as mechanically. What's more, they've allowed some overlap in mechanical abilities with other classes, just not in this particular case. Rangers share double slice (the particular ability I'd like to pick up) with fighters, and it hasn't destroyed the identity of either class. If rangers can share a weapon skill that's integral to the classic identity of their class with fighters without it destroying the identity of either, then why can't my rogue? What's more, fighters already have mechanics signifying them as the chief weapon user, being the only class to gain legendary weapon proficiency. If forcing rogues to go through a fighter multiclass to get two weapon fighting feats is about niche protection then that seems like an admission that proficiency bonuses are too weak to feel like a meaningful feature. Why not give rogues access to two weapon fighting feats at a higher level? It cements fighters as the true master of whatever style they choose to focus on (which does seems fair, if all I do is focus on learning to fight with two weapons I'd expect to be better at it than someone who dabbles while also learning all manner of skill tricks) without robbing rogues of their iconic fighting style. They did exactly this with blind fight, giving rogues access at level 6 and fighters at level 10, two weapon feats could use the same treatment. All in all this just seems like a perplexing and poorly thought out decision.

With that being said, how is the actual implementation? Taking fighter dedication to open up double slice is hard to see as anything other than a feat tax. As a rogue I already have athletics as a signature skill and their are no rules for trading out redundant signature skills, so this is a waste. I'll get proficiency with medium and heavy armor but as a dexterity based class I want to wear light armor which I'm already proficient in and this doesn't improve my proficiency with that, so another waste. Proficiency with martial weapons is okay but rogues already get proficiency with a few martial weapons and the handful of new ones that I wasn't already proficient with and that I can use for sneak attack don't increase in proficiency with the rest of my weapons at level 13 unless I spend another feat. All in all, fighter dedication seems to amount too "you can use a star knife or main gauche from levels 2 to 12". If you want to keep using your new weapons you'll need to spend a level 12+ class feat to keep some but not all of your martial weapon proficiencies on par with your rogue weapons. This last part could be fixed by changing weapon tricks to upgrade all weapons you're proficient in to expert level, but its hard to see Paizo implementing that given how attached they seem to be to coding a certain identity into a class. Most of the feats competing with fighter focus at level 2 aren't anything special, but mobility would be nice on a melee rogue who wants to get into position to flank and activate sneak attack and all of them seem more fun than a feat tax to get something your class should have had to begin with. Beyond picking up double slice at forth level the only two weapon feats a rogue can even pick up from the fighter multiclass are twin parry at level 8 and twin riposte at level 20, neither of which stand out as particularly appealing options. Twin parry is weaker with most of the weapons rogues will want to use in their off hands aside from a main gauche, which can already do a slightly weaker version of the same thing and suffers from the feat tax problem already mentioned to keep its proficiency on par with your normal rogue weapons and by level 20, when twin riposte becomes available, rogues should have better reactions than getting a single attack (with no guaranteed sneak attack damage) against an opponent who critically fails an attack roll against you.

Finally, I have concerns about how the new magic weapon rules will interact with all this. Bounded accuracy makes every +1 to hit too important to pass up and the new system of potency runes adding weapon damage dice makes high level magic weapons a vital part of your damage output. Put these together and the end result is any weapon focused character is pretty much required to pick up the best weapons they can possibly afford and those are expensive, possibly the most expensive thing your character will buy. Having so few abilities related to two weapon fighting a rogue can actually take means that a two weapon fighter rogue will be doubling the cost of their most expensive item to improve a single, level 1 feat that they had to get at level 4 after paying out a feat tax to get it. The cost issue seems a little more baked into the system with so much of a martial character's power being tied into their magic weaponry but its hard to deny it makes two weapon fighting less palatable.

All in all this seems like a needlessly large investment of feats and money for "make a secondary attack without the multiple attack penalty and if it hits ignore resistances once per round". I still plan to try out a two weapon fighting rogue in my next play test session hope to have some more positive revisions afterwards, but I won't hold my breathe. I can't help but feel like this is a poorly thought and poorly implemented decision that I hope is fixed before the final product comes out.

Rogues may not have access to Double Slice through their class, but they do have innate TWF support. As do all classes. It’s the agile property, you fight Rapier/Shortsword. Your first attack is with your deadly rapier, the remaining attacks are with your agile shortsword. This reduces your MAP to -4/-8 on your successive attacks.

And if you really want couple Slice, which is probabaly worth it, it costs two feats instead of one and you’ll gain Access to martial weapons too. And be able to snag AoO at 6th level, and get all those weapons to expert at 12th. If you want your Rogie to fight better, a little dip into Fighter helps. But, Rogues are fully capable of fighting twf and have incentive or agile for MAP, to do so.

[Zman]

What's really funny, is that through the lens of "a variant on 5e", I like PF2 a lot and think it just needs to cut some terminology, remove the weird symbols on actions, and reduce HP along with the hyper damage scaling of magic weapons.

It's as a version of 3.5 that I find PF2e woefully boring.

Why would they make “another variant of 3.5?” They’ve already cornered the market on that with P1. Why wouldn’t they try and have the better 5e. Be the company that has the better version of Wozard’s flagship. You’re already the company that has the better version of their tried and true.


As someone who loathes 3.P, I don’t think I’d like P2 if it was what you want.

[Rhedyn]

Why would they make “another variant of 3.5?” They’ve already cornered the market on that with P1. Why wouldn’t they try and have the better 5e. Be the company that has the better version of Wozard’s flagship. You’re already the company that has the better version of their tried and true.


As someone who loathes 3.P, I don’t think I’d like P2 if it was what you want.

Because Paizo's existing and most interested fan base does like 3.5.

But even if their goal is to make 5e+ then they should just do that and stream line even more things. I don't hate the bones of 5e. It's the endless specific things the game does that turns me off to the system. If you are going to have less stuff, it better be more balanced, and IMHO 5e is less balanced than 3.5 (as in you have to start making custom foes sooner for the game to stay interesting)

[Peat]

So which one is more important? Which should take priority. So far Id say they failed at both in fun and interesting ways.

Verily.

Making choices every level just isn't new player friendly. No way to dress that one up. Particularly when the new player has good reason to suspect there'll be traps along the way.

At the same time, I've no particular interest in investing in a system that's removed my favourite way of multiclassing (I admire the elegance of what they've done, but dislike that it's the only way) and is locking certain classes into certain builds (no my Paladin doesn't want a shield).

[Florian]

Oh man, 3.P now had a longer run than than even AD&D 2nd managed. Time for something new, and good riddance of the last 3.5 grognards.

[Ignimortis]

Oh man, 3.P now had a longer run than than even AD&D 2nd managed. Time for something new, and good riddance of the last 3.5 grognards.

You'll never be rid of us or our system...as long as nobody publishes something actually superior to 3.5/PF 1e on all counts.

P.S. AHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Caelestion]

Nigeretalbus, I don't like cross-class skills in 3.0/3.5 either.

[Rhedyn]

Oh man, 3.P now had a longer run than than even AD&D 2nd managed. Time for something new, and good riddance of the last 3.5 grognards.

d20 is a genre of RPGs, it'll never be "gone".

Nor is it old enough to have grognards...

[Slithery D]

Verily.

Making choices every level just isn't new player friendly. No way to dress that one up. Particularly when the new player has good reason to suspect there'll be traps along the way.

Yeah, they really need to introduce some costless downtime retraining to take away the fear of trap options, or something.

[Morty]

I don't know if rogues need Double Slice to effectively use two weapons, but either way I don't think putting weapon style feats as class feats is a good idea. This is the kind of thing that should be handled by proficiencies, with different classes getting them at a different pace so that fighters are still the first to grab them (because that's their one special thing).

[Florian]

P.S. AHAHAHAHA!!!!!

*Shrugs*

I´m active in this hobby a bit over three decades now and I've learned quite a bit about how the mainstream works and why it is important to the hobby as a whole. While I'm an avid PF1 fan, I can accept it when there's a need for the mainstream to move forward and I have to chose between being a grognard, there's more than enough material for a lifetime, or switching to the new "new" and be done with it. I certainly play mainstream systems because that is where you find the major player base and don't have a problem with it, but I also have my "fringe" or "OSR" groups, which just don't see any significant growth, but are there.

[Scowling Dragon]

By the Way has anybody checked out Unity?

Its like 5e mixed with 4e and a bunch of modern hipster elements based on a 2d10 roll. Totally not my thing but it was very nearly my thing.

[Rhedyn]

By the Way has anybody checked out Unity?

Its like 5e mixed with 4e and a bunch of modern hipster elements based on a 2d10 roll. Totally not my thing but it was very nearly my thing.

If we are just throwing out game recommendations

Free Savage Worlds Test Drive

For me, it's a game as easy to run/play as 5e but with the depth and customization of 3e. You just have deal with some things being more abstract than you are use to (Like hit points not being a thing).

[Scowling Dragon]

Has anybody tried Mutants and Masterminds?

Its a D20 Superhero system based on point by and so far the best one I have seen so far for replicating that Superhero Feel.

I wanna try running a Swords and Sorcery Campaign with it someday.

[Kyrell1978]

Has anybody tried Mutants and Masterminds?

Its a D20 Superhero system based on point by and so far the best one I have seen so far for replicating that Superhero Feel.

I wanna try running a Swords and Sorcery Campaign with it someday.

I haven't tried that one but I liked both Aberrant by White Wolf and Heroes Unlimited by Palladium.

[zlefin]

so did any of the playtest addenda/addons/errata ever include some pregen chars?

[ComaVision]

so did any of the playtest addenda/addons/errata ever include some pregen chars?

There are pregens, as well as a bunch of level 1 sample characters that were posted on another forum. I think you get the pregens from the Playtest downloads.

[NamelessNPC]

I’m a long term fan, with competitive PF trophies, who has introduced my child to gaming through PF. I’m not just alienated, I’m so furious I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like PF2. They aren’t welcome in my house. I can’t help thinking that there is something seriously wrong with them and they might injure my children.

You don't consider this a little bit over the top? I'm assuming, for your benefit, the last two sentences are just hyperbole, and still.
You are "furious"? Because they made a game and you don't like it? Are you for real? I'm just sick of the stereotype of the rage quitting angry nerd that throws a tantrum because they think they own some game or movie. Grow up.
And just keep playing pf1. There, you don't need to be angry anymore

[Cosi]

You don't consider this a little bit over the top? I'm assuming, for your benefit, the last two sentences are just hyperbole, and still.
You are "furious"? Because they made a game and you don't like it? Are you for real? I'm just sick of the stereotype of the rage quitting angry nerd that throws a tantrum because they think they own some game or movie. Grow up.

ITT: People overreacting to hyperbole. Both this and the response to the comment by that Viking guy.

And just keep playing pf1. There, you don't need to be angry anymore

It's entirely legitimate to be upset by the direction a product you like is going. PF 2e could be a condensing of the good parts of 1e that made improvements, integrated good non-core material, and set a stronger foundation going forward. Instead, it's completely replacing the system with something that is much worse and appeals to an entirely different set of tastes. It's the same mistake WotC made with 4e. When you have a popular product, you don't need radical change.

[NamelessNPC]

It's entirely legitimate to be upset by the direction a product you like is going. PF 2e could be a condensing of the good parts of 1e that made improvements, integrated good non-core material, and set a stronger foundation going forward. Instead, it's completely replacing the system with something that is much worse and appeals to an entirely different set of tastes. It's the same mistake WotC made with 4e. When you have a popular product, you don't need radical change.

Yes, it's legitimate to be upset. I'm just commenting on the intensity: saying that if you like pf2 you are a bad person is just so, so immature.
I mean, for real, Cosi, you have an adult that says "I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like pf2"; how can you have a conversation with and take seriously someone who says things like that?

[Mehangel]

Yes, it's legitimate to be upset. I'm just commenting on the intensity: saying that if you like pf2 you are a bad person is just so, so immature.
I mean, for real, Cosi, you have an adult that says "I am unwilling to be casual friends with people who like pf2"; how can you have a conversation with and take seriously someone who says things like that?

Honestly, there are a lot of things that I as a person do everything in my power to disassociate myself with. While my viewpoint may not match up with the poster in question, I can definitely see the appeal in wanting to disassociate oneself from people who lack the sense of knowing when a play test or a game is not just bad, but dysfunctional. What sort of people are so blind that they accept **** paizo releases and give it such praise. Just saying.

[Cosi]

My view is basically twofold.

First, it's an Internet comment. If you think that is a 100% serious reflection on his character as a person, you have not spent enough time on the Internet (which apparently spellcheck wants me to capitalize). Go read some reddit posts or something.

Second, I don't think he's being 100% unreasonable. Obviously, it's not serious, and I think it is fair to say that you would be less likely to be friends with someone who praised things that were bad. Particularly because its reasonable to assume these are people you know through gaming. If I had a friend I only saw at wine tastings, and they started pushing really crappy wine, I would stop being friends with him. From this perspective, the only real question is how accurate his assessment of PF 2e is, and that's a fairly subjective one.

Third, I just think Internet hyperbole is a healthy thing to have on Internet forums, and would like to see less people trying to shut it down.