Pathfinder 2 Release

[Roadie]

That is a good thing about them, certainly. Like templates, only less clunky and without weakening a character through LA. I think the issue is that they overshot with them by turning all ancestry features into feats.

A PF2 feat is not a 3.x feat. A PF2 feat is a siloed slot for abilities, which can range from static bonuses all the way up to "walk through walls at will" (one of the Rogue class feats).

Skill Feats are new (-ish, they're basically Skill unlocks) but trash.

Effects of skill feats in the book scale up to things like "never take fall damage", "climb at your full land speed", "create a full disguise in one turn", and "Intimidate-based save or die". They're way better than skill unlocks ever were.

[Pex]

The website doesn't show the spells. I hoped they fixed my issue with them. Some spells didn't do what you wanted them to do unless and only unless the target critically failed the saving throw. Other spells as the target even if you make the saving throw you still suffer from it. You have to critically succeed to be unaffected. That is frustrating as a player in my opinion.

They kept the background ability score generation. Sure you'll have the occasional player who won't, but for the most part everyone will have an 18 in their prime and likely no 8. Even with a flaw a player can find a +2 to throw at it to make it 10. This isn't a bad thing but more like a compromise between the bad arrays & too good arrays anti-Dice Rollers complain about and the zero-sum punished for having a good score anti-Point Buys complain about. Considering the generous ASIs you get every 5 levels, Pathfinder is making the choice players like high numbers and balance the game around that. The success of that balance is to be determined, but that's my take on it.

[Segev]

A "ribbon" ability is generally for flavor rather than real mechanical benefit. The monk's timeless body in 3e, for instance, had little mechanical impact in real game play but gave a sense of the perfection their ki mastery lent their bodies.

Most of the "junk" racial features in 3e are ribbons because they're just there to speak to some aspect of the flavor of, say, being an elf. The minor bonus to hit and damage against giants/orcs/whatever that gnomes and dwarves got was rarely useful, and was often not game-changing even when it was, but spoke to historical enmities.

The reason this is a problem with PF2 is that they've not only made all of those ribbon features into individual feats, but they've made it so that you take at most 1 at level 1. So now these already-not-terribly-useful features take a resource to get and you can only get one of them.

What I like about the Ancestries is that it gives us a potential framework to mechanically answer some of the questions that continually crop up around half-races, such as "what happens if an orc and a dwarf get together" or "what happens if a blue half-dragon mates with a red one."

That's definitely a plus; that aspect of the mechanic is one of the most creative and innovative ones I've seen in a long time in races.

[Kurald Galain]

The reason this is a problem with PF2 is that they've not only made all of those ribbon features into individual feats, but they've made it so that you take at most 1 at level 1. So now these already-not-terribly-useful features take a resource to get and you can only get one of them.

Since ribbons only rarely or never impact gameplay, why is it a problem to not have them? Nothing is stopping your dwarf from hating orcs if he doesn't get a +1 to hit against them.

More to the point, dwarves can now choose to pick a better ability instead of a ribbon, if they like. I fail to see how this is a problem.

[Crake]

Since ribbons only rarely or never impact gameplay, why is it a problem to not have them? Nothing is stopping your dwarf from hating orcs if he doesn't get a +1 to hit against them.

More to the point, dwarves can now choose to pick a better ability instead of a ribbon, if they like. I fail to see how this is a problem.

Generally speaking, the balance around ribbons was non-existant. You didn't get a ribbon ability instead of something else, you got it in addition to everything else. So now, it's not that you're getting a better ability instead of a ribbon, you're getting an ability you would normally have, and no ribbon alongside it for free.

Ultimately, it has little to no effect on mechanics, but it does just lend toward races feeling less interesting.

[Kurald Galain]

Generally speaking, the balance around ribbons was non-existant. You didn't get a ribbon ability instead of something else, you got it in addition to everything else. So now, it's not that you're getting a better ability instead of a ribbon, you're getting an ability you would normally have, and no ribbon alongside it for free.

Well, you're getting an ability you normally would not have. For instance, P2 elves can 10'-step (instead of 5'-step) for a racial feat; I'm pretty sure 3E elves cannot do that ever. Personally I prefer this ability over any ribbon 3E elves get.

[Crake]

Well, you're getting an ability you normally would not have. For instance, P2 elves can 10'-step (instead of 5'-step) for a racial feat; I'm pretty sure 3E elves cannot do that ever. Personally I prefer this ability over any ribbon 3E elves get.

Well, i mean anyone in 3.5e can do it with that one training dummy, but that's not the point. You're also missing the point by directly comparing 3.5 elves to pf2 elves. The point was the weight of each ability when being balanced together. So a race would have a set of abilities, and for any single crunchy ability, you could have a slew of ribbon abilities, almost to the point where they are being tacked on for free. Pathfinder 2 handles this poorly, because the ribbon abilities are weighted equally to the crunchy ones. So, what you would have essentially gotten for free in previous editions, you now need to spend a feat for in pf2, ergo, what you were once getting for free, you're no longer getting at all, because nobody's gonna spend a feat on fluff.

[Sir Chuckles]

Since ribbons only rarely or never impact gameplay, why is it a problem to not have them? Nothing is stopping your dwarf from hating orcs if he doesn't get a +1 to hit against them.

More to the point, dwarves can now choose to pick a better ability instead of a ribbon, if they like. I fail to see how this is a problem.

That is sorta the problem though: It's not really a choice if option A does little to nothing and option B is invaluable to almost any character. Trap options are not actually options. They're traps.

I shouldn't have to choose to take something better. Just give me the ribbon and let me be pretty instead of asking me to compromise my integrity with it.

[NomGarret]

Well, you're getting an ability you normally would not have. For instance, P2 elves can 10'-step (instead of 5'-step) for a racial feat; I'm pretty sure 3E elves cannot do that ever. Personally I prefer this ability over any ribbon 3E elves get.

That’s a 9th-level feat. I don’t recall it being in previous editions, either, but that hardly helps it set the tone for your starting adventurer.

[Divine Susuryu]

That’s a 9th-level feat. I don’t recall it being in previous editions, either, but that hardly helps it set the tone for your starting adventurer.

You could do it, but the prereqs were silly.

[Kurald Galain]

So, what you would have essentially gotten for free in previous editions, you now need to spend a feat for in pf2, ergo, what you were once getting for free, you're no longer getting at all, because nobody's gonna spend a feat on fluff.

You're missing that PF2 characters get many, many more feats than in 3E.

So in 3E, you get a weak ability for free; whereas in P2, you get a number of extra feats that you can spend either on that weak ability or on something else. That's a clear improvement.

That is sorta the problem though: It's not really a choice if option A does little to nothing and option B is invaluable to almost any character. Trap options are not actually options. They're traps.

On the other hand: yes, it is definitely a problem if certain feats are much better than certain other feats. I suppose someone ought to make a list for one of the races or classes and rate/compare them.

[Morty]

You're missing that PF2 characters get many, many more feats than in 3E.

So in 3E, you get a weak ability for free; whereas in P2, you get a number of extra feats that you can spend either on that weak ability or on something else. That's a clear improvement.

If we're talking about ancestry feats specifically, you get five of them across your character's whole career. For most players (who don't get past level 10), that will be two or three.

[Divine Susuryu]

You're missing that PF2 characters get many, many more feats than in 3E.

That's a bit misleading, as these are not from one general pool. Class feats, skill feats, ancestry feats, and general feats are all different categories. Really, each of these should have a different name than "feat" so as to prevent confusion. Class talents, skill unlocks, ancestry features, and make the word "feat" apply only to what are now "general feats". Much clearer and more understandable.

Also, a lot of these feats are very low impact, so more doesn't really mean much from my perspective.

[Crake]

You're missing that PF2 characters get many, many more feats than in 3E.

So in 3E, you get a weak ability for free; whereas in P2, you get a number of extra feats that you can spend either on that weak ability or on something else. That's a clear improvement.

As others have said, that's a tad disingenuous to say, as those "feats" replace things you would normally have already gotten, like class features, or racial features, so in most cases you're "buying back" things you used to already have. Thus the increased number of feats really means little, and ultimately while yes you can get something weak, in practise, people won't get something weak when they could instead not get something weak.

[Kurald Galain]

while yes you can get something weak, in practise, people won't get something weak when they could instead not get something weak.

So why is it a problem if players choose to not get something weak?

[Castilonium]

Let's talk about charisma.

It seems that charisma is still a dump stat in this system. It's only used for deception, diplomacy, intimidation, and performance. It's not used for handling animals anymore. Paladins (AKA champions) don't get cha-to-saves anymore, oracles with cha-to-AC don't exist, and neither do any other cha-to-X abilities.

The following is an exhaustive list of every Champion feat and class feature that uses charisma: Litany against Wrath (level 6 feat, increase DC), Divine Smite (level 9 class feature, more damage), Litany against Sloth (level 10 feat, increase DC), and Wyrmbane Aura (level 14 feat, increase resistance). That's it. Four abilities, three of which can be skipped.

Intelligence gives you more skill proficiencies. Wisdom improves your will saves and perception, which is also used for rolling initiative. Both of them govern a lot of knowledge skills. Charisma doesn't help with knowledge at all. There are no skill feats that allow charisma-based skills to help in those regards. However, skill feats like Courtly Graces, Streetwise, and Connections let you effectively use intelligence for almost all of your social needs.

I'm really hoping there's something I'm missing. PF 2e looks better than I expected, but it'd be real nice for a modern system to not have charisma as a dump stat, for a change.

Edit: Divine Smite, not Divine Smile. I'm not smiling right now.

[Divine Susuryu]

So why is it a problem if players choose to not get something weak?

When the ribbon abilities are deliberately designed to be weaker (often much weaker) than other choices, why even put them in the book?

[Eldonauran]

When the ribbon abilities are deliberately designed to be weaker (often much weaker) than other choices, why even put them in the book?

Well, it might be a little known fact, but some people play the types of games where they use "ribbon" abilities and feats. I can't argue as to why some are perceived to be weaker or actually are weaker, but there is a player base that makes use of them. They just don't usually go onto the web to complain about them... often.

[Divine Susuryu]

Well, it might be a little known fact, but some people play the types of games where they use "ribbon" abilities and feats. I can't argue as to why some are perceived to be weaker or actually are weaker, but there is a player base that makes use of them. They just don't usually go onto the web to complain about them... often.

The fact that things that are deliberately designed to be bad choices are still used is not a defence of deliberately designing things to be bad choices.

[toapat]

When the ribbon abilities are deliberately designed to be weaker (often much weaker) than other choices, why even put them in the book?

This depends on why youre putting the ribbons into the class. Look at 5E ranger, you probably already implicitly know what a ranger is, does, and wants to do, which is be a wilderness hunter.

Now remove Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, and Primeval Awareness, and make Foeslayer effect anything hit by Hunter's mark rather then FE.

Now you have a generic combatant with fluffy archery or a pet or who really likes dueling things.

Ribbons are there to make you feel like youre playing something specific, rather then playing a pile of Granola.


HOWEVER, if a Developer is shoveling ribbons as major features, or throwing in features "because we need more", they need to step back and think about why theyre actually doing what theyre doing. Giving a class something "More" because it looks like it needs more, is not equivalent to giving them something because it needs that something to feel appropriate to the intended purpose of the design.

Like, i did work years ago in homebrew. It is really easy to make a pile of features, it is hard to make a compelling experience out of a random pile of features. But reading through the topic and it sounds like Pazio did what they did after the original PF Open Beta, and stopped listening to the players to design as they please, ignoring all good sense and the principle of "Less is more"

[Particle_Man]

I guess eventually each set of feats will have a handbook treatment where they are rated by colour.

I imagine giving some or all ribbon feats for free could become a popular house rule. Extra flavour to the pcs and no significant increase in power for the dm to worry about. It’s win-win!

[Rynjin]

Effects of skill feats in the book scale up to things like "never take fall damage", "climb at your full land speed", "create a full disguise in one turn", and "Intimidate-based save or die". They're way better than skill unlocks ever were.

Almost all of these things are achievable with skill unlocks or cheap magic items, save the interesting Intimidate save or die. They kind of share the same problem though: they require Legendary Proficiency (same as Skill Unlocks requiring 15 to 20 ranks to get the good stuff).

Some are class specific abilities as well, but come online MUCH earlier. Vigilantes get the "disguise in a turn" ability at like level 6 IIRC.

Besides the numbers tweaks, nothing in this release fixes my issues with the playtest, and my biggest issue the Playtest presented was giving zero compelling reason to switch besides the better action economy system.

[Psyren]

5e is not a d20 game.

Still disagree. {scrubbed}

Well, you're getting an ability you normally would not have. For instance, P2 elves can 10'-step (instead of 5'-step) for a racial feat; I'm pretty sure 3E elves cannot do that ever. Personally I prefer this ability over any ribbon 3E elves get.

Indeed.

The fact that things that are deliberately designed to be bad choices are still used is not a defence of deliberately designing things to be bad choices.

"Why put weak options in the book" is a question you can ask of literally every edition, even 5e. Possibly every system.

Part of the problem is endemic to TTRPGs themselves, whereby they cannot be "patched" easily and so weak options stay weak.

[Divine Susuryu]

Besides the numbers tweaks, nothing in this release fixes my issues with the playtest, and my biggest issue the Playtest presented was giving zero compelling reason to switch besides the better action economy system.

The action economy system that essentially premiered in Unchained, it bears mentioning. So even if it's a really attractive feature, it mostly exists in PF1e already. Tweak that one a bit and you're golden.

[Rynjin]

The action economy system that essentially premiered in Unchained, it bears mentioning. So even if it's a really attractive feature, it mostly exists in PF1e already. Tweak that one a bit and you're golden.

Well, the main thing that makes it better in PF2 is the system is built from the ground up to take advantage of it, where it feels kinda janky to backport it to PF1. Maybe that's just perception and not reality though.

[Divine Susuryu]

Well, the main thing that makes it better in PF2 is the system is built from the ground up to take advantage of it, where it feels kinda janky to backport it to PF1. Maybe that's just perception and not reality though.

Janky as it may or may not be to backport, I'd rather that than play PF2.

[Roadie]

The fact that things that are deliberately designed to be bad choices are still used is not a defence of deliberately designing things to be bad choices.

You keep talking about these things being bad choices, but I don't see how they are. Even the fluffiest Dwarf feat, for example, Vengeful Hatred, is still a general +1 to +4 to damage against any enemy who's critically hit you in the past minute, on top of its enemy-type-specific effect, and +4 damage across several attacks is actually a pretty big benefit in this edition.

That's a bit misleading, as these are not from one general pool. Class feats, skill feats, ancestry feats, and general feats are all different categories. Really, each of these should have a different name than "feat" so as to prevent confusion. Class talents, skill unlocks, ancestry features, and make the word "feat" apply only to what are now "general feats". Much clearer and more understandable.

"Feat" is the name for a generic talent slot now.

[Segev]

Since ribbons only rarely or never impact gameplay, why is it a problem to not have them? Nothing is stopping your dwarf from hating orcs if he doesn't get a +1 to hit against them.

More to the point, dwarves can now choose to pick a better ability instead of a ribbon, if they like. I fail to see how this is a problem.

They can't that I've seen; the dwarf feats are pretty much just the list of ribbon abilities from older editions.

But the reason it's eye-roll-worthy is that it's such a nerf of already-weak abilities. Instead of this list of features that weren't all that impressive, you now can have only one of them! And that makes you have more options, you see, because now you're making a choice between them.

Before, you could have a cable service that would give you three dozen channels! Now, however, for the same price, you can pick any one of those three dozen channels! Isn't this an improvement in customer choice? Wonderful, no?

Sure, those three dozen channels all showed boring stuff you probably wouldn't watch anyway, so you might not care that you get only one instead of all of them, but it's definitely not an improvement.

[Sir Chuckles]

Ribbons are there to make you feel like youre playing something specific, rather then playing a pile of Granola.

And that is the ultimate problem with tying both the ribbon feats and the useful feats to the same resource pool. You end up having to choose between having granola or having the packaging.

PF2 is inadvertently making role vs. roll baked into the system. I can already see people in the future making annoyed comments that their players only ever choose <race option A>.

[Akal Saris]

How's the balance between spellcasters and non-casters in PF2?