PF2E POLL - Page 4

Poll: PF2E POLL

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: PF2E POLL

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Eastern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyrn View Post
    I should've just quoted the PDF (page 336):
    I think the proficiency bonus being used for skills is where I am balking.

    So if proficiency bonus at max level is +7 then

    New Old
    Untrained +0 -2
    Trained +3 +0
    Expert +5 +1
    Master +8 +2
    Legendary +10 +3


    Something like that so that skills advance independently of character level.
    XP Satyrn gave XP for this post

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester David View Post
    You could get rid of touch AC with some pretty quick house ruling (spellcasters make spell attacks using their casting stat rather than Dexterity, but hit regular AC).

    Shields... that seems like it would be beneficial to fans of tactical combat. Each round fighters get that extra action option with baked in reaction. They can choose better AC or to take another action. Feels like a nice, meaningful tactical choice.
    You mention in your long review some options with regards Touch AC - for me the issue is more of the thinking behind design choices like this - I just see TAC as being old fashioned complexity which should be avoided. (and 4E solved this whole issue by making everything static defenses where the attacker always rolled! Whatever the many flaws of 4e the basic mechanics were very simple and quick)

    In regards to shields - I would have to play it to be sure but my issue is for the DM addressing a range of floating bonuses. Surely it would slow things down, but sure it could work well.

  3. #33
    I don't think the buffs stacking is really an issue anymore. Sure the numbers are higher from the proficiency bonuses but right now PF2 is even more restrictive in what can be added to rolls than 5e is.

    In regards to the proficiency spread, it has been shown here on the board and on the forums as well from devs but the intent is quite clear. (even if they do something like change level bonus to lvl/2 instead of level the point still stands) They want to maintain the spread between 3 groups that existed in low levels in PF1. Those groups being the trained with natural talents (say a rogue with stealth), trained without those talents (a ranged fighter) and the untrained (lets say a paladin in heavier armor). At low levels in PF1 it allowed everyone to contribute. In higher levels it completely broke down and no one used stealth anymore since only the rogue could ever pass anymore, leaving high level skill checks to magic instead. (no need to stealth when you have circle of invisibility)

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Owensboro, KY
    Posts
    409
    We played the first chapter of the playtest module. it was a slog. The rules kept slowing everything down. We had to consult the book on every turn. Granted, some rules lookup is necessary for new systems, but the rules were so un-intuitive that we were constantly in the book. The healing mechanics were underwhelming. (After three encounters, the party needs DAYS of recuperation.) Diagonal movement is an unneeded complication that d20 systems have left behind a decade ago.
    After a TPK at the boss monster, the group said they were done with the playtest, and I can't blame them. The rest of the adventures all seem to be things like "let's see how many monsters they can fight in a row until they run out of healing." (Which should've been done in the in-house playtest, not in commercially available products sold to fans.)
    Comparing it to the D&D Next playtest, maybe the PF2 Playtest is right where it should be. (The DDN Playtest left much to be desired.) However, I have a feeling that Paizo doesn't plan to change much before they release the final product. Why? I think there's already a release date for it (in less than a year). So realistically, they can't do much more than offer a few small tweeks here and there.
    Oh well. PF hasn't been my game of choice since 2010. I don't expect it ever will regain that spot.
    XP Parmandur, CapnZapp, Satyrn gave XP for this post

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester David View Post
    The rulebook quote is hilarious to me, because I cannot count the number of times I read a Pathfinder Society scenario that had different DCs for each different level band.

    The catch is, the world IS going to scale by the very nature of wanting to present challenges.

    You present the challenge of having to balance on a log at level 1. If you want to do so again a few levels later, you're doing so because you, as the DM, want that element in the game that brings with it a chance of risk and failure. You're never going to throw the level 1 log task at a 10th level party because it's not worth the time it takes to roll. You just say they auto-pass and move on.
    Balancing on a log has become "tie your shoelaces" or "climb a ladder" or "start a campfire in ideal conditions" in that it's a task you're not going to bother asking for a check for, as there's no reasonable chance of failure.

    As the DM, if you want that kind of element to the encounter, then it will be artificially made more difficult. If you want to have the level 5 party challenged by crossing a log (either as an exploratory challenge or as a bit of terrain in a combat encounter) then it's going to be a hard to cross log. It's going to be slimy and its bark is sloughing off. Otherwise... what's the point? They wouldn't even get experience for it.

    And because you want to keep doing different things and not running the same encounter again and again, it's unlikely players will encounter the same task in short order. You've had that encounter, you're going to do something different. So there's not likely to be many times you come across a challenge at level 1 and then encounter that exact same challenge at level 4 and can bypass it with ease, because the DM already run that challenge and wants to do something new and different. "Gee, I ran a greased log over a gorge encounter at level 5. Why would I do it again at level 8? It's going to be loose stones on a river of lava."

    Plus the "checks against opponents’ DCs, higher-level adversaries have higher skills, so the players can clearly see improvement as they challenge and surpass more powerful foes" bit is kinda B.S.
    You had a 50% chance of hitting the goblin you fought at level 1. And then at level 10 when you're fighting the goblin archchief, you still have that 50% chance of hitting. There's no real improvement as the monsters level with you. You don't see an improvement, the numbers are just bigger. You can replicate that same effect by just remaining at level 1 the entire game and describing the enemies as bigger and scarier.
    Actually, I've DMd 5E from 1st to 16th level, and you get surprisingly good results from only using three difficulty classes throughout:

    Easy: DC 11-13 (never 10)

    Difficult: DC 15

    Heroic: DC 20

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,652
    The more time I spend with PF2, the more I get the D&D4E vibe from it, which is discouraging. The reason is the clear division between combat mode, exploration mode, and downtime mode. The division is so fundamental that it influences ability design, and they are frequently designed with just one mode in mind. In my mind, this firmly takes the ruleset out of the realm of "tools I can use to roleplay" and actively discourages immersing oneself in an imaginary world. For example, I don't want to feel like I have to be in combat mode to punch someone with my fist. I want to be able to just punch someone at any time (hypothetically speaking, of course!). Of all the aspects of PF2, this is the biggest turn-off to me.
    XP Parmandur, houser2112, Aldarc gave XP for this post

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Basque Country
    Posts
    335
    For now I don't like it, choice 4.
    Looks a bit like D&D5e with power choices at some levels (like D&D4e), a bit different action system and some other changes, but I find it more complicated, slower, it doesn't have what D&D5e called bounded accuracy unless you keep all NPCs and enemies near the same levels, etc. It also has the things I dislike about the 5e, lack of freedom building your character compared to True20, Savage worlds, Fantasy Hero, etc, few skills that go up with levels instead of skill points...at the end if you want more variety for the classes you'll need to buy all the extra books.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A Nation's Capitol
    Posts
    8,309
    Heh, bumped the wrong poll.

    (Its got promise, but they need to take the feedback seriously).

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Pf2e pol: initial thoughts
    By nightspaladin in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, 23rd August, 2018, 01:44 AM
  2. What PF2E means for D&D5E
    By Prakriti in forum *D&D 5th Edition
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: Monday, 19th March, 2018, 01:58 AM
  3. a real pathfinder fix thread... PF2e
    By GMforPowergamers in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: Monday, 5th May, 2014, 11:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •