nightspaladin
Explorer
It's been so hard to gauge the actual response to pf2e on paizo's forums as they are full of hyperbole and hysteronics. So a simple poll here. What do you initially think?
Last edited:
PF2E POLL
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It's a solid base system that needs some refining to really be its best. I'd houserule it pretty heavily if it wasn't for the needs of the playtest.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
I likely won't play it, but then I moved from PF to D&D5E a while ago.
The chassis is amazing - the open structure of classes, with ancestory and other options is the most flexible iteration of the children of 3.0. I like the three action round, and spell system, and resonance (which I know isn't the most popular). It seems really well designed for expansion with new "subclasses" being class feat chains (for example), and such.
The playtest options are a little minimal in feat choices, but it is just a playtest, and they said it would be.
I think it is a well designed system.
Not for me, not at this time. Our group plays HERO, I GM D&D 5E in another group, and my wife and I play Genesys. We don't need another ruleset.
The chassis is amazing - the open structure of classes, with ancestory and other options is the most flexible iteration of the children of 3.0. I like the three action round, and spell system, and resonance (which I know isn't the most popular). It seems really well designed for expansion with new "subclasses" being class feat chains (for example), and such.
The playtest options are a little minimal in feat choices, but it is just a playtest, and they said it would be.
I think it is a well designed system.
Not for me, not at this time. Our group plays HERO, I GM D&D 5E in another group, and my wife and I play Genesys. We don't need another ruleset.
Can't believe I started reading the document and actually finished it.
High level thoughts - It's really well done for a playtest document and worthy of being my table rules set of choice, I don't expect that impression to change with any changes done via playtest as it'll likely only get better overall.
Reality - Super unlikely I'll get to play much of it, and if I do, I'll be house-ruling out some of the more grindy bits but it's far less grindy than I thought it was going to be based on the early previews.
I'm going to hold off on calling out any specific details about rules or questions because it's a playtest doc. No reason to start conversations that will go sideways where the content is malleable. Enough to say that I'm not surprised as to the quality coming out of Paizo, but I am surprised that I'm not turned off by a 3x derivative. That's a good thing.
High level thoughts - It's really well done for a playtest document and worthy of being my table rules set of choice, I don't expect that impression to change with any changes done via playtest as it'll likely only get better overall.
Reality - Super unlikely I'll get to play much of it, and if I do, I'll be house-ruling out some of the more grindy bits but it's far less grindy than I thought it was going to be based on the early previews.
I'm going to hold off on calling out any specific details about rules or questions because it's a playtest doc. No reason to start conversations that will go sideways where the content is malleable. Enough to say that I'm not surprised as to the quality coming out of Paizo, but I am surprised that I'm not turned off by a 3x derivative. That's a good thing.
mach1.9pants
Hero
I don't like how the book is organised and I am struggling to get a grasp of the system, so much jumping back and forth. An SRD online will help! But that's mostly because it's very technical, I think once I've got a handle on it I might like it. But I need to play before I'll give judgement, I'm hoping it's easier for the DM.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Haven't played any, probably won't. I was interested in the life path character generation, but that has proven not to be very fun at all, and not at all streamlined. Still better than abstract point buy systems, but half-baked.
What I really love, however, are the Archetypes, and how they replace multiclassing and Prestige Classes entirely.
What I really love, however, are the Archetypes, and how they replace multiclassing and Prestige Classes entirely.
While not a 3E/PF fan, I decided to check it out. There are many very interesting ideas here, some of which I may steal for my 5E game. Some of them I like, but won't use (like the 3 actions per turn) because of some baked in notions I don't like (move actions). Others, like the bulk encumbrance system, are gold (may need some tweaks).
One thing that baffles me is the proficiency system. In a system where you add your level to your roll, the difference between a trained person and a legendary master is a +3 modifier? The difference between untrained and trained is moderately significant (-2 vs. +0), so I would think they would continue the +2 for each step, making the difference between the training levels more meaningful.
Also, adding proficiency to AC in addition to armor and shield is likely going to create a system at mid to high levels where most attacks will miss. Assuming even leveled/trained/equipped opponents, assuming they wear the optimal armor for their dex (making the AC modifier +7), an 18 Str attacker will have a 60% miss chance. A large shield pushes this up to a 70% miss chance. If high variable combat is their goal, where infrequent hits deal significant damage, this would work very well. However, IME most players prefer to hit more frequently, even if the impact of the hit isn't as great.
One thing that baffles me is the proficiency system. In a system where you add your level to your roll, the difference between a trained person and a legendary master is a +3 modifier? The difference between untrained and trained is moderately significant (-2 vs. +0), so I would think they would continue the +2 for each step, making the difference between the training levels more meaningful.
Also, adding proficiency to AC in addition to armor and shield is likely going to create a system at mid to high levels where most attacks will miss. Assuming even leveled/trained/equipped opponents, assuming they wear the optimal armor for their dex (making the AC modifier +7), an 18 Str attacker will have a 60% miss chance. A large shield pushes this up to a 70% miss chance. If high variable combat is their goal, where infrequent hits deal significant damage, this would work very well. However, IME most players prefer to hit more frequently, even if the impact of the hit isn't as great.
mach1.9pants
Hero
Master proficiency in skills means you can do much more with the skills, apparently. So no matter how high a trained person can roll, they'll never be able to achieve the same as a master. But the book is so hard to parse I haven't figured out where that info is!
Edit I guess it is the availability of better skill feats which makes the difference? The statement by Paizo didn't make that clear, but I think that's the big difference, and it means someone untrained can at least attempt basic actions like a master can. In PF1 it often became you either almost auto succeeded or auto failed skills, because of the difference trained and untrained was so vast
Edit I guess it is the availability of better skill feats which makes the difference? The statement by Paizo didn't make that clear, but I think that's the big difference, and it means someone untrained can at least attempt basic actions like a master can. In PF1 it often became you either almost auto succeeded or auto failed skills, because of the difference trained and untrained was so vast
Last edited:
Similar Threads
