Pathfinder Second Edition Playtest - Page 3 - Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Pathfinder Second Edition Playtest

   
dammit, I hadn't gotten that, I really have to get a dead tree version, I can't properly concentrate on reading long documents onscreen.

Hmm... this means you already need better-than-evens odds of success at something to have more than the regular 5% chance of critting - you're only going to get those extra crits when you're already winning at something. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not - it means that when you're winning you're really winning, and when you're losing you're really losing (failing and critically failing more often).

For attacks this maybe makes sense - I haven't looked at how they work but I think they still have an increasing penalty a la iterative attacks so this means your first one will hit a lot and probably crit a fair bit too, but your later ones will just have the regular chance of critting.

I think I like it, on the whole, but I'd need to play with it a bit.

Also identifying spells is now a feat. More things you could just do before which now you need to spend feats on?

The worst thing about PF2 is that Paizo will probably stop writing APs I can easily convert back to D&D3e.

Yeah, the easy conversion between PF1 and D&D3.xx was a great point, I wonder how much of making that disapppear was the point of this new edition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
Actually, critical successes and failures happen when you get a very good or very bad score, as well as on nat 1s and 20s. If your bonus is way higher than the DC, you'll be able to get reliable crits pretty much all the time.
Nat 20's are only crit if the result would normally be a success. If a nat 20 would normally fail, it only becomes a success. Nat 1's working in similar fashion. This very important detail is only mentioned in the detailed critical success/failure section of the book (page 295ish). Everywhere else they forget to mention it.

++++++++++++++
I have GM'ed the Lost Star play test adventure, and I have played the Rose Street revenge twice with entirely different builds (a goblin rogue, human abjuration wizard). Here my initial thoughts.

Resonance Points: I do not like them, but I can see that some GM could need them. I know that some GMs are unable or willing to limit crafting or the amount of money handed out. I think that they should be a optional rule for those type of GMs. For everyone else, it just messes things up.

Health & Healing: The combat is fast paced. Most 1st level players have AC16 or less. Crits are more common. Getting hit is much more common. Parties need a healbot and at least one back-up healer. In the Lost Star play test, the party did not have a cleric. They had a druid & bard. It wasn't enough. They had to rest twice in 3 hours of game play.

In the two play tests of the Rose Street adventure, we had a cleric with 5 channels per day (cha 14) for each adventure. One time we also had a druid. Both times we had to rest because we were out of healing. Each of these adventures was 3 hours of play time.

Wands now only have 10 charges. Potions & scrolls are now more expensive. The resonance point system will further limit the usage of healing consumables. Healbots will even be necessity. Most people do not like playing healbots in long-term campaigns. We will probably be back to AD&D days of NPC clerics


Combat/Rocket Tag/ AC Pathfinder has always been a game of rocket tag, and it gets more noticeable at higher levels. Now it feels more noticeable at the lower levels. One our play testers built a str 18 fighter that usually power attacks with a maul (1d12 dmg). Against an AC14 opponent, he hits on a 8 or higher. Crits on a 18 or higher. (Most level 1 characters are at AC16 or less). His regular power attack damage is 2d12+4. Crits are 4d12+8.

Most level 1 creatures seem to have a +6 to hit. Everyone now has equivalent to full BAB progression. I would suggest that the minimal AC that anyone has is 15+character level. It will limit the average enemy at your level to a 5% crit chance for their 1st and 2nd attack. The 1st attack will hit at 50% to 55% of the time, but it is much less likely to crit.

Things that I like design idea but need refining in mechanics

Alchemist - I like the idea of removing the spell casting, and giving them a crafting pool. However the execution is very underwhelming. They are expecting alchemist to spam bombs so they limited the damage improvements. However an alchemist never has enough points to be an automatic grenade launcher.

Persistent Damage went from being fairly worthless to murderous. There needs to be a middle ground such as a decreasing DC for each round of persistent damage. Shocking grasp & acid arrow are really nasty. Reach metamagic + shocking grasp will kill party tanks. A wizard standing behind a bunch of mooks can easily zap the tank, and watch him slowly die.

Half-elf/Half-orc: I like the idea that half-races become a sub-category. However requiring the ancestor feat be spent on it is a feat tax. Ancestor feats are best at the lower levels. Deferring to later levels to have an expanded ancestor feat is not going to be worth it for most builds. Personally if it doesn't change, I'm just going to call my character a half-elf or half-orc but just use the regular human build.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I would like to see somethings change. But , I have enjoyed playing it so far.

Thanks for that Rakle, I found your insights to be helpful.

I will be starting to play Doomsday dawn soon, in the next few weeks or so. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

I love the Golarion setting, the Adventure Paths and the fluff that Paizo puts out, but I am not a fan of the current Pathfinder system, and I am looking forward to 2.0. I feel it fixes some of the issues I have always had with 1.0, but dealt with because of my admiration for the setting and the AP's.

Things I like:

Action Economy: I adore the 3 action system. I liked it in writing, but it does change the pace of the game, as Rakle said.

Clerics are required now: Most of you see this as a negative, but I don't. Perhaps I'm still stuck in the 1970's and 1980's, but I loved the idea of a group that has the 4 big roles filled, including clerics. The fact that clerics are absolutely essential is a plus for me, not a negative.

Nerfed classes: Someone pointed out the fact that paladins no longer get Smite Evil at 1st level, and when they do get it, it's substantially lower in power. Again, to me this is a good thing. Smite Evil was over-powered, and lowering power levels for low level characters is a good thing. Might be the old-school in me still.

More Balance: Wizards are somewhat nerfed -- martial classes are buffed a little. As a big 4th edition fan, I like this concept.

Proficiency System: It's orderly, easy and simple. I understand the criticism that a 20th level Barbarian would be better at playing an instrument than a low level bard, but that's not necessarily true. The low level bard would be an Expert, and hence have access to skill feats the high level Barbarian would never have. It also accounts for experience. I would argue that a 20th level Wizard with decades of fighting experience would be better than a 1st level captain of the guard with a sword.

Yeah, to me, Paizo and PF always seem to be trying to embody "old-school" D&D in only the ways which were bad - like needing a Cleric.

The action economy thing does sound interesting. I think I might like it, but haven't really thought about it very hard. I would probably need to give it a whirl in an actual game.

Was Smite Evil overpowered? I didn't think anyone had ever complained that Paladins were too good at anything - and ironically, Smite Evil is something Paizo buffed a lot in Pathfinder, as compared with 3.5. An about-turn on that seems kind of crazy. I think though that the complaint is more about signature abilities. Low-level characters should be low-power, sure, but also a low-level Paladin should still feel like a Paladin (or, actually, make it a divine/martial PrC and be a Fighter at L1, whatever). This opinion may also be coloured slightly by a PbP background, but people don't want to grind through many levels just to get their "basic" abilities.

I haven't actually looked at the spellcasters or how spells work at all yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
Yeah, to me, Paizo and PF always seem to be trying to embody "old-school" D&D in only the ways which were bad - like needing a Cleric.
I always felt that Martial, Arcane, Divine and Thief were the perfect adventuring group. I get the point that not everyone wants to be the healer, but it is an essential part of the group. At least to me.

Quote:
Was Smite Evil overpowered? I didn't think anyone had ever complained that Paladins were too good at anything - and ironically, Smite Evil is something Paizo buffed a lot in Pathfinder, as compared with 3.5. An about-turn on that seems kind of crazy. I think though that the complaint is more about signature abilities. Low-level characters should be low-power, sure, but also a low-level Paladin should still feel like a Paladin (or, actually, make it a divine/martial PrC and be a Fighter at L1, whatever). This opinion may also be coloured slightly by a PbP background, but people don't want to grind through many levels just to get their "basic" abilities.
Might be colored by a group I was in a long time ago, but why would someone be a fighter if they could be a paladin, get better abilities, and really not lose out on much. It's not overpowered in comparison with, say a wizard, but against another martial class? There's no competition. They self-heal, do more damage assuming they are fighting evil, and even MORE if it's an evil outsider, can track via Detect Evil (which also was nerfed, thank goodness) better than a ranger, and is immune to diseases at mid-level.

At least now in 2.0 there's a reason why you would be a fighter over a paladin, at least in lower levels.







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2018-12-15 09:00:06am local time
Myth-Weavers Status