Strong disagree. My suspicion is that removing forces such as archetypal & objective good & evil will water down the game.
I parted ways with Golarion a long time ago. I've run PF1 campaigns in Kobold Press' Midgard and Frog God Games' Lost Lands. My current PF2 campaigns are set in the Lost Lands.
Potentially mass combat as well, which would be pretty cool. And could potentially synergize with Kingmaker 2e.
You know what might be an interesting character for this campaign? An Investigator or Rogue who has no talent whatsoever for most forms of magic but is an absolute prodigy when it comes to performing rituals. This is a superior option for any martial than the “everybody gets spellcasting/magical ability”. Which is really the way I’d thought Paizo would go. Ritual casting solves the problem without the magic-bolt-on.
FYI, Legendary Games makes a product called Star Empires for Starfinder. It's essentially their adaptation of PF1's Kingdom-building to Starfinder with modifications. It has an entire chapter dedicated to colonies. I haven't had an opportunity yet to put it into practice, so I can't provide any 1st-hand experience with it but while I might not go the Empire/Kingdom-building route in my campaign, I definitely thought the Colony system would be of use. Colony-specific topics include founding a colony, terrain generation, colony generation, creating a colony, etc. It also has rules for mass combat. Overall, the book intrigued the hell out of me and even if I don't embrace all of the rules, I intend to mine it for ideas.
In an attempt to better-support Paizo through the pandemic, I initiated 3 subscriptions at the beginning of July. Even assuming a large GenCon order cycle, GenCon is more than a week in the rear-view mirror and all of my subs are still sitting in Sidecart. Looking at the various threads in this forum isn't exactly inspiring confidence, either. Are subscriptions no longer the best vehicle for supporting Paizo and getting product ASAP? COVID be damned, I'm hoping to see Paizo's success continue to climb. But I have to say, things like this and the Customer Service forum threads in general aren't creating optimistic feelings. I'm really hoping a get-well-plan is in place and things improve soon.
I've weighed in periodically to comment on my rules-reading perceptions, GM prep, at-the-table after-action reports, and player feedback. I've been fortunate to play often for the last six months, and everything continues to improve. The release of the Gamemastery Guide really helped fill in a few blanks from my side of the screen. The NPC rules are great and I love the unique abilities and shorter stat blocks. That said, I don't really find them to be a time-saver when creating NPCs because they are more free-form. Sure, I could take a "it's close enough for government work" swag and move on, but I find tinkering with the NPC rules is always time well spent in helping me better understand the rules and making a unique - and hopefully recurring - NPC. I was a big advocate for Starfinder Stamina rules in PF2 and the Gamemastery Guide certainly delivered. However, PF2's rules and mundane healing via Treat Wounds certainly shifted Stamina from a "must have" to a "nice option, if desired". I do, however, think Treat Wounds is almost too generous and if combined with Stamina rules, I cut the number of die restoring hit points in half. My groups have ultimately come down on the side of Stamina not being necessary, but I tend to wonder if their feelings will change if party composition ever lacks a magical healer... This is, without question, the easiest fantasy RPG I've ever run at the table. It's internally consistent and intuitive. Even codifying little things like secret checks and rarity nerf pointless bickering and keep the action moving. Conditions are easy to apply and track and are intuitive for players to understand. From the player side, PF2 has been nothing but amazing. Every player feels that their character is effective, that they can contribute in and out of combat, and that each character has unique cool abilities, even when encountering the same class. Ancestries and backgrounds feel relevant. If a player isn't "feeling their character", it's readily apparent that it's the ancestry and/or class that they chose, not that they built an ineffective character. Anyway, with PF2 coming up on it's 1st birthday, I just wanted to say thanks to the entire team for developing such a great game. Best wishes for ongoing success for Paizo, Pathfinder 2, and Starfinder!
In the home stretch now! C'mon PF2 community! Who wouldn't want the AP brain-child of one of the best (and my favorite) adventure writers out there. Greg was also the project lead/guiding force behind the World of the Lost Lands campaign setting which is also phenomenal in scope, range, and adventure opportunity. I think this will be one of the best APs ever produced. Let's get some more PF2 backers!
I'd like to see a pawn collection for vehicles as well. Oh, Hell yes!
Props to a post full of awesome ideas!
I'll definitely have to check that out but I still want a vehicle construction system similar to starships rather than relying just on pre-builts. Robots can be built under the NPC rules, after all. The underpinnings of the leveled gear and the (in some cases) pathetic performance stats of low-level vehicles in the SFCRB really necessitate a system that allows for vehicle creation.
Please, no. Vehicles don't work in combat except as GM free gifts that are a few levels ahead of you, and we have enough across the CRB, Armory, and AotS! 6. The "too expensive and made of cardboard" problem for same level vehicles is understandable, probably not fixable, and would hurt the dismounted game if it were. Please, yes. Vehicle chases & science fiction vehicular combat are iconic tropes of the genre. We don't have a vehicle creation system like we do with starship combat. People said starship combat wasn't worth doing yet Starfinder is one of the best systems I've ever used, so clearly Paizo has the design chops to make it work if attention is paid to it. And "hurting the dismounted game" doesn't really make sense. Most vehicle related activity is going to be on a vehicle vs. vehicle stage after the 1st round or 2 of combat if one side is on foot and the other is in vehicles. Just because something hasn't been implemented well in other games to date is no reason to exclude it. In Starfinder's science fantasy setting, the gymnastics done to avoid utilizing vehicles more effectively feels like a weak attempt to force the Pathfinder encounter design and story structure on a game that should have fewer limits. Also, Savage Worlds handles vehicle rules and chases pretty well. Although I haven't played a version of the system in decades, I presume Shadowrun still includes vehicle rules and I don't remember them as being broken back in the 90s - hacking was the problem child and Starfinder handles hacking pretty well, IMO. I'd also note that vehicle rules are supposed to be in the upcoming PF2 Gamemastery Guide, so if they're a necessary element in a fantasy game that is primarily set at a much lower tech level, we should certainly have more vehicular rules than the few pages they were able to cram into the SFCRB. Embrace the genre differences, Paizo! Please give us expanded vehicle rules.
Starfinder is still a young game and I understand the need to build out character options, starships, and the flesh out the setting. However, science fiction is filled with vehicle chases, mechs, aircraft, submersibles, speeders, exploration & colonization vehicles. Now that we have a starship book in the pipeline, can we PLEASE get a vehicles book? One that includes vehicle creation rules and mech rules? Pretty please? The minimalist section in the SFCRB just isn't enough.
I would look at the Godclaw to see how alignment differences are handled. Iomedae is Lawful Good and Asmodeus is Lawful Evil. Seeing... Yeah, it seems that the Godclaw will be my guidepost. I'll be interested to see the write-up but on the surface I think it skirts the issue. The Godclaw likely has relevance where evil deities aren't facing the cultural issues I was asking about, such as in Cheliax. I would expect that the Godclaw would get no support/concessions in a place like Andoran. I suspect that there are at least a few neutral or neutral-leaning nations that might allow the Godclaw but not independent Asmodean churches/temples but I'll have to wait to see if that's part of the Godclaw entry. Here's hoping. Ninja'd or not, thanks for the suggestion.
Core 20 was just an easy example. The question is, how would - in game/in setting - are pantheons that include good, neutral, and - more problematically - evil deities treated by the average follower in a given culture? The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc. all had pantheons that wouldn't neatly align to a "good pantheon" or "neutral pantheon". Pathfinder assigns alignments to deities. So how best to draw from mythology for inspiration and implement it in a satisfying manner in-game? Small, similarly themed and aligned pantheons are easy to represent and understand. I'm specifically inquiring about the larger, more morally complex type.
Out of curiosity, how do you (or other Paizo GMs) handle pantheons within cultures? Certain areas of the setting state, or at least strongly imply, that the worship of evil deities is proscribed. So, if a society's pantheon is the "Core 20", how does that work for the average follower (non-cleric/priest)? I'm sold on the pantheon concept and have been working to incorporate them into my game in a more prominent way, so I'm thrilled Gods & Magic will have rules to support it. I'm just stumbling a bit at how to depict it in a setting where good/evil/law/chaos are tangible forces.
Y'know, while I've always thought the druid class was cool, I've struggled to integrate and utilize them in my campaigns in a meaningful way without my early D&D days imposing ideas about Celtic inspiration, pro-wilderness/anti-civilization, eco-friendly/eco-warrior, monolithic hierarchy, etc. This didn't really change with 3e & PF1 when druids could be any neutral alignment. How do you square the circle for good-aligned druids and evil-aligned druids, especially if part of the same organization/faith? Etc. I'm sure this falls into the "well, of course, duh" category for most/many but until reading this Tale and coupling it with PF2's primal-focused instead of divine-focused druids, it never really clicked for me... ...but druids can basically be treated as Pathfinder's answer to Force users. Drawing their power from life itself (almost like an energy field, wink, wink) and applying it to their desired ends... And unlike a deity, this lifeforce/energy doesn't explicitly spell out what it wants and how to obtain it, so philosophical & dogmatic differences can arise easily. I know it's not a perfect analogy but it's a much more interesting one to me than eco-hippy traveling with the murder-hobos that I usually see in adventuring groups. It definitely gives me a lot of inspiration on creating different druidic factions for may campaigns. Kudos to Patrick Hurley! I love these Tales of the Lost Omens blogs!
Actually I'm looking for non actual play discussions. Only know direction really fits. There was also a great pathfinder Academy show but they seem to be on a hiatus. And the videos are AMAZING!
There’s a lot to unpack when talking about sandbox play. In the last 5-6 years I’ve introduced a lot of new players to RPGs and while I didn’t assume a sandbox-style of play as the starting position with those groups all of my campaigns have evolved into sandbox campaigns. These are approaches that ultimately helped my games: Set expectations out of gate. This may be obvious to you and you may have already done this, but I was focused on teaching the game and overlooked this step. My new players were often embracing the “we can do/try anything” aspect of TTRPG and trying to get them to stay “on task” in a adventure/module was difficult. When I threw the switch fully over to sandbox self-directed play, they spun their wheels waiting for something to come to them. I finally had a come-to-Jesus with them and said that they can do one of the following:
Things went much more smoothly after that. But it took having the conversation to clear that hurdle. Otherwise, they just assumed I’d have “stuff” and hadn’t really thought about how/where it came from or what happened if they didn’t bite the hook. Regular out-of-game check-ins. Your players didn’t take the deed/tavern hook. Ask them why it didn’t interest them. It’s less about how to make your failed hook interesting and more about identifying what does interest them. Embrace the chaos. You commented that you “struggle with guiding a group through a sandbox”. Respectfully, that’s a problem right there. If you’re running a sandbox, you’ve got enough to do creating content and managing it at the table. You shouldn’t be “guiding” the players anywhere. That’s their job. Yes, you’ll want to lean heavily into the hooks/seeds/stories that you have ready to go but the minute you start pushing a path, you’re putting things that the players need to be responsible for back on your shoulders. Show consequences This does involve a bit of extra work, but any story/hook should have an answer to “what happens if the players ignore this or fail?” Then, you need to present that consequence in-game/in-world. The players don’t follow the hook where someone gets rescued --> that person is killed. They don’t stop the gang from extorting business owners --> a merchant they know gets robbed, assaulted, or killed. You get the idea. The moment that a player connects the dots between “that’s the guy we ran into…that’s the job we turned down…crap, someone’s dead because we turned it down” you’ll often see a big upswing in player self-direction. Plus, it makes the world more believable and reinforces that what the players do – or don’t do in this case – matters. This isn’t a punishment, btw. Once the sandbox is in full swing, it’s likely that the players can’t do everything even if they want to. And that’s a beautiful thing. Choices matter and it changes the stakes. An example from my own campaign: Among the smaller quests/hooks, there were three significant threats encroaching on the home base town of the campaign. Each threat has a timetable of goals they will meet if the players don’t interfere. The players can’t physically be in 3 places at once and they’re far enough apart that at least one of the threats will achieve some objectives while another threat is being dealt with. This shows A) that the world isn’t static; B) the players choices have consequences; C) threats evolve. Once the initial threat progression is defined, I find it actually saves me prep as I’m just adjusting the villains influence, scope, or power (i.e. level) as they implement their plans rather than having to develop a new hook/story from scratch. Zooming the lens and time. This one can be tough but here’s what’s worked for me. The challenge that I had was that if I played “day-by-day”, the players often didn’t care about downtime activities as they never shifted out of “adventuring mode” mindset. So I adopted a “Time Flies” rule (props to Kobold Press & Midgard) where weeks or months pass between game sessions. Suddenly, the players had all kinds of downtime things that they wanted to do rather than “it’s a month later and you’ve just been hanging out in a bar”. Again, this is out-of-game communication along the lines of “For next session, two weeks will have passed. Let me know what downtime activities you want to have been doing during that time, if any.” I hope at least some of this helps. There’s more that I could weigh in on but this reply is already on the long side. Bottom line, sandbox & episodic play is the only campaign structure that has had long-term viability for my groups and campaigns and they absolutely can work well. In my experience, though, it requires two things: a GM who is willing to shelve and recycle content that isn’t used and players that understand that they have to engage with the sandbox.
I’ve long been wanting to implement more of Ultimate Intrigue’s subsystems into my games but then-current adventures hadn’t presented a lot of natural opportunities and I wasn’t looking to do it just for the sake of doing it. After all, if they weren’t well-received, I’d burned valuable session time. I like to run games heavy on world-building and verisimilitude and I learned long ago that unexpected turns and outcomes often produce the richest plot hooks/seeds/campaign fodder. So, when the heroes of one of my campaigns found themselves gaining local hero status in a town suddenly beset by troubles, I knew that I wanted them to participate in the baroness’ council meeting. I didn’t want them to be bystanders watching me role-play 5-6 different nobles and town leaders. That would be difficult for me to pull off and boring for them to watch. I also didn’t want to arbitrarily skip to the end and just summarize an outcome as I knew the players wouldn’t remember any of the NPCs and wouldn’t really care beyond “Quest giver will pay X”. I was able to run an “out of session” session. The two heroes would be joined by two brand-new players for our game session on Saturday. I ran a session on Friday night for my 2 returning heroes and enlisted my older son (who plays with his own group or just with his younger brother) for the council meeting. What follows is the prep that I did to help me learn the Verbal Duel rules as well as present them to the players in what I hoped would be an interesting way. I’m sure that there are many ways to introduce verbal duels into PF play, plenty of which would be better than what I came up with, but I thought I’d share in case it could be of use to other GMs. 1. I typed up a 1-page Verbal Duel rules summary that outlined the “combat sequence” of Verbal Duels & exchanges. 2. I typed up a 2-page Verbal Duel tactics summary that explained the available tactics for verbal dueling and the PF2 skills associated with them. 3. Each player was given a tent card. The table-facing side had 2 pictures with title & name labels – one for each of the NPCs they would be representing. The player-facing side had the same 2 pictures & name labels but also listed the NPCs motivations and relevant skills and skill bonuses. The tent cards didn’t assign personalities so that the players could bring the NPCs to life however they liked. They also didn’t list alignment. I knew what the NPCs’ alignments were but I left it to the players to interpret the NPCs motivations as they saw fit and play accordingly. 4. The goal of the council was to persuade the baroness, her steward, and the captain of the guard on a course of action for the barony. Side A were the “attackers” – lords and ladies advocating for mustering forces and attacking the threats head-on. Side B were the “defenders” – lords and ladies whose manors hadn’t been directly impacted and/or who were resistant to committing their resources to defending the barony at large for fear of weakening their own lands/position. To keep things even, I had to play 2 NPCs just like the players. I’m sure I made a ton of mistakes with the rules and I was much more concerned with the spirit of the rules than the letter of RAW, but it worked out better than I expected. From a GM perspective, by having the players take on the roles of various NPCs, personalities were defined, insults were hurled, and rivalries were created in the moment rather just through my GM prep. NPCs that I had envisioned as potential allies are now bitter rivals, schemes and stratagems have been hinted at, and a lord’s honor was insulted inadvertently by a PC and a grudge is definitely being held! From a player perspective, the verbal duel rules were well received. The players found it interesting and as with any subsystem, they recognized that repeated use would lead to quicker play. One player said he wouldn’t want it to be part of every session but thought it would be cool when strategically used. This player struggled the most with choosing a tactic and then role-playing the exchange. Ultimately, for his turns we let him role-play what he wanted to say and then chose which tactic that equated to. The other players found it much easier to select the desired tactic & skill and then formulate/role-play the exchange. Bottom line, we found the verbal dueling rules to be effective. They took what would have been boring exposition and turned it into a memorable campaign event full of role-play. All of the players said it was much better than the standard Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate check approach of PF1. As a GM, it effectively turned what would have been typical prep into a meaningful encounter that also created numerous plot seeds for future adventures. My players will now remember who Lord So-and-So is and that Lady-What-and-What doesn’t like him because of this council meeting. Yes, I had to put in some extra/unusual prep for this initial use of the rules but the next time the heroes need to persuade a ruler, a mob, or take part in a trial, they will be at least passingly familiar with these rules. I also found them easy to adapt to PF2’s skills and I think the mechanics of PF2’s critical success and failure system further enhances the verbal dueling gameplay. In any case, if you found any of this helpful and if you haven’t already done so, I hope you give the Verbal Duel rules and other Ultimate Intrigue subsystems a try. There ARE other battlefields to fight upon and they can’t all be won with a weapon or a spell! Happy gaming!
This restful and enjoyable Christmas season included three sessions of PF2. The players were a mix of PF1 veterans and RPG newbies. The PF1 veterans were flexing their RPG muscles by playing character ancestries and classes that they hadn’t in our PF1 campaigns and the TRPG newbies were getting their feet wet on all fronts. So here are some comments and tidbits on characters and gameplay from those sessions. 1. Human Alchemist – played by PF1 player that had never played an alchemist previously but had one in his party for years. He found PF2’s alchemist very flavorful, was glad that alchemy was its own thing rather than “spells in a bottle” and was loving it when he made the clutch move of taking out the BBEG with his alchemical lightning and narrowly avoiding a TPK/capture event.
The Rule of Cool - things that were very popular with players & the GM
The What Now? Effect – things that weren’t viewed as bad but did cause a pause or discussion as it produced an unexpected/unusual effect
Gifts for the GM – things that I appreciated from the other side of the screen
All in all, PF2 has been met with tremendously positive feedback by my players, both new and old. The game is easier to teach and runs faster. I also continue to find that its internal consistency and flexibility make it far easier to create new/missing game mechanics. Creating/adapting game mechanics is my least favorite part of GM duties but unlike with PF1 or other RPGs, I’m much less fearful that I can create something that is tremendously unbalanced or broken. And once I have the Gamemastery Guide, which I now consider to be PF2’s 3rd core rulebook in my hands, I expect to have more tools to tinker with and more examples of how to adapt prior subsystems to my PF2 campaigns.
As a huge Calvin & Hobbes fan back in the day, I can't tell you how much I loved this! Great work as always.
Threadcrap much? 1. The point was abandoning a RPG system over a single character builder seems excessive. 2. I stated that HLO needs work but is steadily receiving improvements & fixes. 3. The D&D Beyond comparison was flawed for reasons I laid out. 4. I’m able to use HLO for my campaigns and players using 1 license and a $48 outlay of cash ($35 CRB + $13 Bestiary). No one needs to spend $100+, let alone do it per year. 5. And all of this optional. As in want, not need. Play what you like, buy the character builder you want. Or don’t. 6. Assuming that HLO will be 100% at feature parity at this point shows an ignorance of software development effort and costs, a level of ignorance equal to expecting the PF2 CRB to have equivalent options to PF1’s 10 year run in a single book, or both. (Note: I don’t think this was the OP’s expectation, FYI). If it’s your expectation, Hsui, good luck. I’m always open to better tools. If something better than HLO unseats it as my character builder of choice, Lone Wolf had me for a customer for a long time. Right now, however, HLO is the best option available for my needs, warts and all. That doesn’t make me a “Kickstarter-like supporter”.
Yes, I would agree that it is. They don't like the interface. Personal taste. Fair enough. They balked at the cost. There have been significant bugs and glitches in the software. There have not been enough system upgrades. They don't like being tethered to the Internet. They don't want to pay additional money for additional packages. There was not support for Age of Ashes at launch. You seem to be expecting Lone Wolf's small team (which just went through some painful restructuring) to have the same resources as Curse - which was bought by Fandom and according to public Internet sources has 300+ employees. Lone Wolf doesn't have a staff close to that size. And then this week we get great new that Age of Ashes package is available, but it is only the first 3 adventures For now. AND it will cost each of them $9.99. Is there really enough AP-specific mechanical content their that ALL of your players need/want the add-on? And if so, that's $10 for 6 APs worth of content. There are no clear alternatives out there for iPad/MacOS. So, this is actually a positive for HLO for your group but it's presented as a negative. Ok... Respectfully, you seem to be applying some pretty unrealistic expectations to Lone Wolf and Hero Lab Online. The amount of content that Lone Wolf had to digest and encode for PF2's launch was MASSIVE. For comparison's sake: D&D 5e's PHB launched August 2014. D&D Beyond was announced in March 2017 and launched in August 2017. Curse also had revenue streams prior to the D&D Beyond partnership with WotC and independent of tabletop RPGs. Lone Wolf's entire existence is effectively predicated on RPG/wargame support. PF2 launched August 2019. PF2 HLO content for Core Rulebook also launched August 2019. Lone Wolf also coded the PF2 Playtest into HLO a year prior when the playtest launched. Ultimately, you seem to want hold HLO to a standard that even D&D Beyond didn't meet initially. The fact that Lone Wolf was able to have the content of a 600+ book ready at launch with a team their size is amazing. Does HLO need improving? It sure does. But improvements do continue to happen. And they are still releasing content that is timed to, or very close to, when those products are released by Paizo. And while I applaud your enthusiasm for PF2, it's not like Paizo drops an entire AP in the same month, so I can't see how you're faulting Lone Wolf for releasing AP packages and then ding them for "only the first 3". I suppose that they could have waited until all 6 are released but then the complaint would have been nothing was available. And are you really playing through the AP so quickly that you're into Book 4? By all means, dive in and play the game, but developing content takes time. Paizo doesn't always have an AP's pawn set available until well after that AP's installments are out and they're publishing a different AP. Many of the issues that you raise have been addressed by Lone Wolf as to why the architectural changes are necessary or have been acknowledged that alternatives are being reviewed/considered but announcements aren't being made until viability is assessed. (Check out LW's forums for more details.) Pricing is being looked at, Lone Wolf has talked about "family licenses" and things of that nature. They also view HLO as being in a beta-style-state and aren't charging for server access yet. And while I haven't looked at in over a year, D&D Beyond's pricing was a turnoff for me. A quick stop at D&D Beyond today greeted me with a $300+ Sourcebook bundle, a $630+ Legendary bundle, and a $364 Adventure bundle. Granted that's a lot of content, but it ain't cheap. Especially, if I also want a physical book copy. And I'm SoL if I want a PDF... For that matter, although I purchased a 5e PHB, I decided the game wasn't for me - but that was based on 5e limitations/weaknesses, not D&D Beyond weaknesses. These reasons included: 1. Lack of mechanical variety within classes.
(If 5e is your jam, have a blast. PF2 is mine.) I too, like my electronic tools. I like HLO well enough but I recognize that it's early in its lifecycle and refinement will take time. But I would never drop PF2 if HLO didn't exist or I decided it wasn't for me. So, to answer the question in the title of your thread: Only if you let it.
I strongly recommend Basics4Gamers Pathfinder (2e) Basics series. The videos on Perception and Concealment and the Basics of Stealth are great videos with examples to reinforce the new rules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFR-7N_nOS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xm_1IBdU6A
How? The GMG is going to have tons of mechanics. They're completely different writing teams between world lore and mechanics, from everything I've seen.The thing I think you're forgetting is how little of the Lost Omens World Guide was mechanics. Let's chalk it up to miscommunication via written forum vs. spoken word. You're arguing a point that I'm not refuting nor particularly interested in. The point of my OP was that PF2 continues to surprise and delight me and kudos to Paizo for creating an elegant new edition. ANYTHING after that was commentary along the lines of "and I feel this way despite any personal preference I might have towards the Gamemaster Guide being core, critical content that I would have liked to have sooner". If my saying "Despite any minor criticisms I may have over prioritizing Lost Omens content over the GG (for reasons that could be valid, invalid, avoidable or unavoidable - it doesn't matter), PF2 is a home run in my book" doesn't drive home the point I was trying to make, then I cede the hill to you. Enjoy your Pathfinder, folks. I'm certainly enjoying mine.
The thing I think you're forgetting is how little of the Lost Omens World Guide was mechanics. No, I'm not forgetting that. You're reinforcing my point. Regardless, the game is great, which was the point of my post. If February is the absolute earliest a GG could hit the street, I'll live. Is it ideal? No. Far from it. Could it have been handled differently? Perhaps. Again, that wasn't the point. Despite any minor criticisms I may have over prioritizing Lost Omens content over the GG (for reasons that could be valid, invalid, avoidable or unavoidable - it doesn't matter), PF2 is a home run in my book.
While my intake of PF2 via reading, GM prep, and at the table continues to progress, I wanted to shout out to Paizo that PF2 is amazing, thus far. I really appreciate the approach the design team took with this game. I appreciate the ability to walk the tightrope of preserving the core experience while taking the opportunity to innovate and clean up problematic areas. As my experience with the game and the new rules continues to grow, the word I keep coming back to is “elegant”. This game is easier to prep, easier to run, more thematically consistent with itself, easier to teach, faster to run, more dynamic tactically, and – in my experience, anyway – consistently facilitates the creation of interesting characters. While a core rulebook can’t possibly contain the breadth of character options that a decade-long edition can, I definitely feel that PF2’s CRB supports a range of character options that is orders of magnitude greater & meaningful than PF1’s CRB did. For the most part, I’ve been persuaded by some of the design or production choices I was less excited about. Although I think the exclusion of NPC creation in the core rulebook was a misstep (and would have been a better section than the Setting gazetteer chapter), Paizo at least provided those creation rules for free. I was never a fan of NPCs using different rules than PCs prior to Starfinder but now I am. I like PF2’s take even better. Combat level/power separated from social/skill level of ability? 'Bout damn time. NPCs that are a social challenge/obstacle without having to also be a combat threat? Thank you! As for the launch, the only real criticisms I have is that the Gamemastery Guide should have been called out more explicitly as the 3rd pillar of the core trinity (Core, Bestiary, Gamemastery Guide) rather than the GM customization book. NPC creation, chases, hazards, etc. are all core GM content, IMO. While I understand the desire & need to get updated setting info out early, I think the GG should have taken higher priority than the two Lost Omens books released to date. Having to wait until February to get the GG is taking FOREVER. I don't run my games in Golarion but even if I did, the need for the GG would far outweigh the importance of the content in the Lost Omens books. I know that min-maxing builds was part of the appeal of PF1 for some people. While I don’t begrudge anyone their desire for fun, I am glad to see that PF2 really wasn’t built with min-maxing in mind. At least, that appears to be the case for me. Balance and meaningful choices are much more consistent across the board and kudos for reworking the underlying math to make that design philosophy possible. Thanks, Paizo, for this awesome game.
And as the preview on Paizo's Facebook indicates, there will be rules for gestalt PCs in this book.Waste of space, if you ask me... Although, I'd never use it, I don't begrudge fans that like the concept getting it. However, it should really live in a book like PF Unchained!, IMO. Player options tend to take up lots of page count and anything that takes away tools from one of the likely rare GM-focused books will disappoint. In other words, I don't want chases, hexploration, or any of the subsystems given short shrift and reduced page count so gestalt could make it in.
Since NPCs are decoupled from PC classes (if desired) in PF2, wouldn't it also be possible for the "Social Level" of NPC rulers be higher while "Combat Level" stays in a lower range? So the new king/queen might only be 18 years old (and a low-level combatant) but could still be a ruler with an iron spine (and higher Diplomacy, Deception, and Intimidate skills) by virtue of their education/training?
Honestly, the Cult of Cinders stuff is worth mining for inspiration but not much else. It is pretty bare-bones and specific to that AP/story. You could do a lot worse than picking up the the PDF for PF1's Ultimate Campaign. The building system would easily serve the base-building aspect and the event tables would be easily adapted. Whether you want to adapt the Labor, Capital, & Influence mechanics is up to you but it shouldn't be too difficult. The Downtime rules that exist in the PF2CRB had their origins in the the Downtime systems from Ultimate Campaign.
Some people can't "win" unless someone else is "losing".
Wow. I was completely down for Oracle and Witch when the APG was announced but was kind of scratching my head wondering why Investigator & Swashbuckler made the cut. Not anymore. These classes look AMAZING and really show off PF2's design changes over PF1. Investigator feels much more distinct and unique. I totally disagree that Rogue rackets could have handled things as well as an independent class. Swashbuckler looks incredible! I'm really liking the way curses are a price paid for power expended vs. PF1's "suck is always on" mode. I was also thrilled to see that the Witch can handle arcane, primal, or occult depending on the type of witch you want to build. Not crazy about the familiar requirement but I knew that wasn't going anywhere. Obviously, I've only had time to do a cursory read, but dang these look really promising!
Will NPCs be built differently but still be considered as belonging to a PC class ala Starfinder?Hellknight Hill confirms that, yes. Actually, it doesn't, sadly. I had a chance to look at Hellknight Hill and NPCs are listed as follows: AL ancestry occupation. That is NG human blacksmith. No reference to level or class is given. Gah! PF2 is great but this is seriously frustrating. I have no idea how to go about converting NPCs in my campaigns without doing the equivalent of throwing darts blindfolded. Are NPCs all pathetic ala 2e D&D? Are NPCs built-using PC rules vastly overpowered? I feel like any conversion I'm attempting now is a waste of time and I'll have to redo it all post-Gamemastery Guide, anyway. I still can't believe NPC creation didn't make it into at least the Bestiary.
I built all of these NPCs in Hero Lab Online. As for sharing, I'll have to test out how copy-friendly the output with the Paizo forums. I'm prepping for games this weekend and if it requires significant re-formatting to make it legible, that would eat into valuable - and limited - prep time.
I didn’t get to test drive PF2 in play this weekend as I’d hoped, but I did get to spend a large portion of the weekend converting close to 30 NPCs over to PF2 using the character creation rules. Major Impressions:
The class chassis are more flexible. It is easier and more intuitive to create different builds using the same class. The general “pick a feat” structure is superior to PF1s archetype “packaged features”. BTW, PF1’s archetypes were hands-down one of my favorite features of that edition. The idea that all PF2 NPCs follow the Starfinder model of NPCs “belonging” to a character class took some getting used to after years of having dedicated NPC classes. However, that hill was easily climbed once I realized that it opened up some different NPC interpretations. So far, the PF2 interpretations have turned out better than the original PF1. Characters are also more well-rounded with respect to skills, in general. The streamlined skill list combined with somewhat broader skills plus greater access to skills for all classes means that you can build an educated fighter, social characters of any class, and other builds that previously required significant trade-offs to achieve in PF1. The combination of armor training, unarmored defense, and level proficiency actually result in a feeling of a greater verisimilitude. Specifically, one can reasonably expect PCs and NPCs to dress appropriately to circumstances if desired. No longer does the heavy-armor warrior have to rely on heavy armor in every circumstance. Getting caught outside of one’s armor, while less effective and undesirable, isn’t a death sentence. The range between unarmored to heavily armored is lower but still has mechanical benefits. However, GMs don’t have to through reasonable plot constraints out the window for fear of nerfing a heavy armor character. Sorry, you’re a guest not a guard, so no, you can’t wear your full plate armor to the royal wedding… Surprising specific character concepts that PF2 core allowed me to build:
Mage Guard of Tinel – the warriors of the god of magic, as presented in the Book of the Righteous, the Mage Guard are ‘holy warriors’, i.e. paladins of different alignments. They protect Tinel’s temples and libraries but also hunt spellcasters seeking forbidden knowledge. While I could have built this character as a champion, one of the original concepts of the 3.5 class was that a Mage Guard got a familiar rather than paladin’s steed. They are also known for fighting sword-and-board. Using fighter with wizard dedication, I got an arcane-fighting sword-and-board warrior with a familiar to act as scout before wading in to give the shield bash. PC Conversion, multi- to single-class – I helped my son convert his PF1 cleric/ranger to a warpriest cleric. The only reason he multi-classed the original character was because his PF1 cleric had so few skills and he wanted to be effective in the wilderness as well as better represent the goddess of athletics. His PF2 build is a straight-up warpriest cleric, complete with trained ranks in Athletics and Survival. No multi-classing necessary. Haunted Girl – one of the upcoming NPCs in one of my campaigns was giving me problems on how to represent the character mechanically. Conceptually, she is haunted/can see/hear spirits in her home that no one else can detect. I hadn’t statted her up yet as I wasn’t sure which class would work best. For PF1, Spiritualist didn’t quite nail it but was the front-runner. Medium and Sorcerer were possibilities. Witch was out since I didn’t want her to be reliant on a familiar. My initial PF2 build was a undead blooded sorcerer, which I felt was adequate. However, a spirit instinct barbarian won out as the barbarian rage nicely depicts her fear and frustration of abilities she doesn’t understand. And I can still multiclass with sorcerer later, if desired. Mercenary turned Priest – one of the adventures I’m using has a village priest who used to be an adventurer. She’s also an elf. In the original PF1 build, she’s a cleric 6 with few stats to represent her backstory and thus, she was in my ‘rebuild someday’ queue. In PF2, she’s a ranger with the cleric dedication with plenty of elven flavor. The ranger class and elven ancestry better represent her background and the cleric dedication are more in line with a small village priestess than a level 6 cleric. All in all, I'm loving how flexible PF2 is while being easier to use. I don't know if class builds were as big a part of the "better representing the stories we want to tell" design goal as game math & mechanics were, but they're certainly helping me better realize the vision for my game world.
I'm still making my way through reading the PF2 core rulebook and Bestiary. Between readings, I'm building characters in Hero Lab Online to get a better feel for how characters are built and grow, and the potential impact of game mechanics in realizing character concepts. So far, it's been great and characters seem to be much better realized in PF2 than in PF1. I'm hoping to get to kick the tires in actual play this weekend. Thus far, PF2 is shaping up to be a home run! One thing that is bugging me, however, is the lack of NPC-building rules. I came around to the NPCs-by-different rules camp after seeing Starfinder's implementation in action. Starfinder placed them in the first Alien Archive. The lack of NPC creation rules in neither the core rulebook nor the bestiary seems like a significant miss in an otherwise excellent launch. Given PF2's rebuild-from-the-ground-up design approach, although I can use PC rules for creating NPCs, I feel like PF1 creation assumptions don't hold and I've got tons of questions. What's a "representative" level spread for a village, town, or city? Are 0-level NPCs the lions share? If so, what does that even look like? Will NPCs be built differently but still be considered as belonging to a PC class ala Starfinder? Do crafting level/feat requirements apply to NPCs or just PCs? Etc. I feel like I'm swinging blindly trying to convert existing NPCs over to something I can use in PF2.
Coinage besides gold isn't useless? That's great. Perspective of both players and GM. Consistency/immersion improvements? Also great. Loving the system and it's a long, long overdue change.
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters. I love the new arcane, divine, primal, and occult classifications. Sorry, but I sincerely hope we don't get a psychic/psionic outlier. Occult fits much more thematically for my campaigns and Golarion lore.
Definitely psyched for this one!
Really glad to see Near Space as a Q1 2020 release, like the Deck of Many Worlds concept, and praying that the starship book is a summer 2020 release!
Comparing like to like (i.e. the CRB and Bestiary 1 of each), I don't think there is even a question. I haven't had a chance to try the game out an the gaming table, yet, but based on everything I've seen thus far, PF2 is unequivocally a better game than PF1. And I was a "PF1 Forever!" diehard. Organization, presentation, consistency of the rules and how they are presented are far superior to PF1. Class structure is pretty damn brilliant. I couldn't understand the changes to archetypes given how popular they were in PF1. Now that I have the PF2 CRB, I get it. Build Your Class how you want it is now done on a Class Feat by Class Feat basis instead of swapping out sets of abilities feats like PF1 did. Class customization is baked into each class. Trap options seem to have been eliminated and obvious "must haves" are rare or non-existent. Variety of builds is greater in that regard, as there are few/no obvious go-to choices. Similarly, skills are simplified yet make more sense and seem to do more. Proficiency isn't just a bonus, it also indicates ability so character progression feels more organic than PF1s, "I took a skill and am now as good at it as someone who's had it for years/levels" or PF1s front-loaded multi-class dips. Degrees of success & failure are great. Paizo managed to pull off "easier to learn" while still providing more mechanical depth. Obviously, by more, I don't mean volume but rather options. I can also see how PF2s design achieves the oft-cited goal of "opening design space". PF2 supplements won't be going the route of new feat with simple math bonus or super-situational restriction. Finally, and this will obviously be vetted during actual play, PF2 appears to be much more of a "yes/try it" system and not a "no, you can't" like PF1 could be when you didn't have a specific feat. Will every PF1 concept or build port over intact? No. Just like every other RPG edition change that I've seen in 30 years. Will you be able to better realize certain fantasy archetypes, concepts, and adaptations than you could in PF1? Absolutely, yes. If you're still on the fence then at a minimum, I think it's worth a PDF purchase.
PF2 class design. With class feats now a thing, make-your-own archetype is essentially baked into each class. Rather than PF1s "every 'insert class name' gets these class features" and "swap these features for Archetype's new features", class feats allow for player-driven control. It is far, far easier to make characters of the same class operate and feel distinct in PF2 than it was in PF1. This wasn't something that really 'clicked' for me until I saw the class progression tables in the CRB. Looking at the Playtest, I had some misgivings that archetypes as I understood them in PF1 were gone. Seeing the finished PF2 CRB, class table consistency of presentation & language makes it easier for players to learn while simultaneously expanding customization options. That's pretty damn impressive to me. There are a ton of close seconds for favorite thing in PF2, thus far, but class design really stands out. Other contenders:
1) We'll get to settlement stat blocks eventually but as of the time of workng on this adventure we hadn't figured out how to do them in 2nd edition. Later volumes will have some settlement stat block experiments, but until the Game Mastery Guide is done we won't have a final look for them.Wait, what? I thought we already have complete rules regarding settlement stat blocks. I thing the rules presented in GameMastery Guide seem decent and perfect enough to be used in Second Edition without further change. Settlement stat blocks are a must-have. They don't have to follow PF1's settlement stat blocks 100% if improvements can be made but a return to the days of 'winging it' would be a huge loss.
Landscape for the win.
Mark Seifter said so about the GMG having the item quality rules variant in there. Either in place of magic pluses or in parallel. WTF?!? Item quality was one of the best ideas from the playtest! If they're being exiled to the GMG, I hope it's in the form of "replacing magical bonuses" rather than stacking with them. This is the first solid hit to my PF2 hype excitement that has been steadily building for weeks. Glad we'll be getting some form of it, at least, but damn, this one stings.
I know we don't get Monster-building rules in Bestiary 1, I know we can build NPCs using PC rules, and I know we're getting streamlined NPC rules in PF2. But does anyone know if NPC-building rules - meaning the new, streamlined system - will be in the PF2 CRB? Also, has there been any mention as to the form it may take? I was always a proponent of building NPCs via PC-building rules but Starfinder's NPC rules made me a convert. Based on Starfinder, I sort of assumed we'd see something similar but the Pathfinder Society teases about NPC faction leaders only cite alignment, race, and gender. For example, Calisro Benarry (N female half-orc) instead of Aibretta Fulson (CN female human mechanic).
Per the title. Pretty please. |
