PF2E POLL

[zztong]

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.

I had some similar thoughts a few days ago. I like to look at skills in the context of Guild Membership, so I was contemplating alternative labels.

Untrained = Untrained
Trained = Apprentice
Expert = Journeyman
Master = Master
Legendary = Grand Master

And then I was thinking the bonuses needed to be -2, 0, +2, +4, +5.

 

[TwoSix]

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

Correct, special uses of skills are gated behind skill feats, other than the trained uses of skills which are detailed in the skill chapter.

 

[mellored]

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.

Proficency is more about getting access to new abilites, rather than the bigger number. Either by prerequisit, or by improving a feat.
i.e.

QUICK REPAIR FEAT 1
Prerequisites trained in Crafting
You take only 10 minutes to Repair an item, rather
than 1 hour. If you’re an expert, it takes 5 minutes; if you’re
a master, it takes 1 minute; and if you’re legendary, it takes
3 rounds


Granted, it's really hard to see all the combinations, since you need to combine both proficiency and the feat, but it's there.

 

[Arakasius]

The point with only having a 5 spread between proficiencies is rather deliberate. Early on when they revealed that they showed the math.

For example at level 1 in PF1 a trained rogue in stealth would have about a +8 bonus while a fighter in chain who was trained would be about -1 or so, maybe one less if untrained. Against a level 1 DC of about 10 the Rogue could hardly fail while the fighter had a pretty good shot at being sneaky.

Now you go to level ten and that same rogue is about a +20. An untrained fighter due to getting heavier armor is even worse than level one, say at -3 or so. Even a trained fighter with max stealth will be at about +7.

So at this level a stealth check for the party can either be easy enough for the fighter to roll which makes everything an auto success for the rogue or hard enough for the rogue that the fighter shouldn’t even try. (Even if he was trained with full ranks in stealth) This leads to the rise of quadratic wizards, linear fighters. At about level 7 or so in PF1 the skill system breaks down that only the specialized can roll and you just magic everything else.

Now with the max cap between trained and untrained being 5 and much smaller amount of bonuses the most you’ll ever see characters apart in skills is the difference in their (ability mod + proficiency + armor penalties) Which means that a level ten rogue would be probably 10-12 better than a plate wearing fighter and maybe 5 better than a ranged fighter. When added to the new critical success system you’ll get these options for a level appropriate check.

1. Tough for rogue to succeed, likely fighter failure but not guaranteed.
2. Tough for fighter to succeed but possible, good chance of rogue critting.
3. Fighter succeeds, rogue critical succeeds.

 

[Arakasius]

I could see them knocking untrained down to -3 but I think they don’t want more than six or so. I could see these arrays working for TEML

(-2,0,1,2,5) - make legendary so much greater since it’s rare. However this will make high level fighters and wizards God’s so I don’t think his is likely.
(-3,0,1,2,3) - penalize untrained a little more. You don’t really get that many skill ranks anymore if not a rogue so it can be difficult to balance training things ba getting expert or higher.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Overall I voted it's got promise but there's some fixing needed. Unfortunately, some of those things that need fixing are dealbreakers as they stand.

Things I like so far:
- Proficiency system
- Action economy, for the most part (with the major exception of movement and action)
- General balance of classes (with one GLARING exception of suck, see below)
- Perception, and also using different ability or skill checks as initiative as the situation is appropriate.
- Strength for all weapon damage rolls (other than for Rogues). No more DEX as the God stat.
- Ranged weapons, with only few exceptions, having no stat bonus to damage (and those exceptions add STR to damage and not DEX). 5e could really learn from this.
- Stat increase system. Allows for MAD builds to function quite nicely.
- Four outcomes instead of the binary success/fail. Very well done.

Things I don't like:
- The Paladin. Ugggggggh. HANDS-DOWN the WORST class in this playtest, and HANDS-DOWN the WORST version of the class I have ever seen in any game that has ever had Paladins. It's like the 3.5 and 4e Paladins had a baby and passed along all their worst genes and even missed a chromosome or two along the way. It's THAT BAD. Forget the LG-only restriction, that's the least of its issues. Steering the class toward reactive rather than proactive gameplay by basing it around Retributive Strike is 10 tons of stupid. The apparent replacement for Smite Evil (Blade of Justice) is garbage. The capstone feats are major stinky garbage. And I've only gone into about 5% of the problems.
- Not being able to use actions mid-movement like you can in 5e.
- Armor speed penalties and no way to decrease them other than master armor proficiency. Combined with the above problem, we're back to combats with much less movement and much more stand and fight.
- The necessary rules and terminology being scattered all over the place in the playtest document. I really hope they fix that for the final product.

 

[Morrus]

Overall I voted it's got promise but there's some fixing needed.

Almost like it were a playtest document or something!

 

[Emerikol]

I like it.

My only major criticism is....
I am not though fond of "relative" systems where the DCs change based on the level of the group. I like absolute DCs that equate to how tough something is period.

So the skill system is not something I love given it includes the level bonus. I prefer an independent skill system. That though is something I am guessing would be easy to houserule. At this point, I will buy the game if it doesn't change massively.

 

[oknazevad]

I like it.

My only major criticism is....
I am not though fond of "relative" systems where the DCs change based on the level of the group. I like absolute DCs that equate to how tough something is period.
.

I completely agree with this. That to me was one of the worst aspects of 4e, and is a 4e-ism PF2 should not go anywhere near. There are quite a few 4e-isms in the game. That itself is not inherently a problem, but it does speak towards a more gamist approach, which is not something I prefer.

I haven't had a chance to play it yet (will next Saturday), but in reading the playtest this far, I don't think it's something I would choose to run, or push to play. But I withhold final judgement until I give it a try. Our one GM is eager to try it.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

With this new edition the Paizo team seems to have tackled some of the system-gaming tactics that have developed over the decades through the whole 3rd edition lineage. For instance this edition pushes back aganst class dipping, something that has become so common we have just learned to accept it.

With Pathfinder being such a rules focused game, the development team has also tried to tighten up many of the ill-defined/Baroque rules of the the 3rd edition line--things the original developers for Wizards of the Coast did not forsee becoming a problem in later years.

It's still too much for me, but I can't wait to get into a playtest to see how it actually plays.