I don't disagree with changing it, as I have DnD for DnD - I'm just saying I can;t see it changing, thus my 'good luck'
"AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.
Gary Gygax thought it was too late to change in 1978, good luck with getting it changed forty years later! :-)
I think you'll find that Amazon have sold all their standard Hardcovers and only have, Deluxe and soft cover atm. It's the same on the .com site. That could change tho.
EDIT: Misread, sorry! On .com it only shows soft and deluxe, maybe .uk is out of softcover allocation and .com hardcover? Basically I don;t know. I do know that some limited pre-orders from Amazon have been disappointed in the past, but hopefully Amazon have sorted those issues.
Yeah those other saves very rarely come up. I'm not sure but if the difference between what is a good save for your class and a bad save is closer than PF1 going 4e style won't be necessary I think. If there is still a huge gap then sure
I hope that the designers don't restrict themselves to arbitrary rules like one physical one mental bonus for the sake of symmetry. It opens up a much larger design space if you can go for any two that seem right. With the other floating bonus, you can cover what you want on an individual basis. Although I guess having three mental bonuses is not great for any class with the way spells etc work, but three physical makes that race default for basic warrior types. So maybe no two physical bonus races? Dunno.
How many more times will incantations be linked in this thread? Find out next time! :D
To prove my old school credentials shall I start linking ritual rules that were available in TSR era rules? They've been around for a long time, just not in core rules and available to all classes - 4E was the first mainstream 'DnD family' game for that.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Very good point
Those are the healing numbers, and damage numbers for the three action versus undead, there is also these numbers for damage
1 or 2 action damage versus undead
the first level, three action radius heal does modifier healing /damage. When you heighten the level it says you add 1d8 to that per heightened level. Think of the first level radius version doing 0d8+ mod if you like
The Heal spell looks complex and confusing, so much so the Blog writer got it wrong as far as I can tell.
"Heightened (+1) Increase the amount of healing or damage by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you're using the one- or two-action version to heal the living."
So if healing using the radius 3 action version OR doing damage add 1d8, if you are healing using the touch or ranged (1, 2 action) then add another 2d8
This gives these variations as a level 2 spell
None of those is "So a 2nd-level heal spell heals or damages one target for 2d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier"
Yeah me too, and if only one can change - INT for Gnomes, there is just so much previous on that it needs to stay the same. Tinker gnomes. Illusionist gnomes. etc etc
Yeah DM's have never selected the clerics spells. Of note, depending on your interpretation, clerics had spell books in the original OD&D.
"BOOKS OF SPELLS:
Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level. ..."
This wasn't specifically applying to Magic Users, just flat out stated
You've totally got it wrong there, Ken. I think you maybe mixing the OGL with the bastardised GSL issued, eventually, with 4E - the tardiness and restrictiveness being a reason lots of publishers didn't support 4E. The OGL gives you the entire 3E core rules to do with what you want, thus there are dozens of games based on them. Pathfinder is just one.
I like this too, it reminds me of old school DnD. Just make sure the proficiency lists are bigger than what you used to get in 1E!
Lucas Yew wrote:
Thankfully no game I know had ever done this, but (as the OP stated) a lot of GMs have mistaken a plain chart of DCs as how the game works. That's why I love the personally voiced sidebars in 13th Age, replacing thoughts behind the rules. It really helps GMs grok the system. I'd hope the eventual PF2 GMG goes do into this. Or blog posts here!
I'm the opposite I like some untrained/trained skills. Knowledge local is not one of them admittedly. But sword smithing for example? No way anyone could do that untrained, unless you put a -10 modifier or something on it.
Jeez never post from your phone....
It's not a simulationist game tho, but a crunchy game based of good ol' Gary's research of his local library and a few, old inaccurate books. I'm with you on the naming, I care, but not enough that I think it should be forced on everyone else with forty odd years of DnDism and corporate knowledge. Just change it for your game it's mostly fluff (renaming) :)
Please tell me there are multiple exp track options. I never was a fan of the fast xp progression track.
it sepulchre be very easy to cater to your desired rate of advancement, just change the retired do per level from 1000. Level every 500, 600,...2000 xp. Changing it to 2000 means you know it will take twice as fast as normal. An advantage of the new xp system.
What I'd hope to see by the community is lists of feats to take to achieve XYZ character, to make it something easy to follow for those who want the crunch without the research. In fact I'm sure builds like this will come out.
Mark Seifter wrote:
That layout worked fine for the 4E and 13th Age Corebook
gustavo iglesias wrote:
in 5e skills to from +0 to +17, because skill monkey classes can take expertise in skills. But yes from my reading of the blogs and replies, PF2 will be some point in between
Erik Mona wrote:
I'd much prefer, at least the initial bestiary, to be large. And using the space for not only more monsters but more info. If you are pushing for closer this to Golarion, extra fluff would also be appreciated. Tactics, society, where they tie into the Golarion world.
So you really think that in 5e a group of five goblins could take down a single ninth level PC? Because that's not true. A group of twenty five may be a challenge, depending on circumstances - at ninth level a party is looking at a hundred goblins as a theoretically dangerous encounter. But, tbh, most parties would still cream that many. Bounded accuracy extends the range enemies are relevant, but not forever.
The skill check thing is very relevant tho, outside of bards and rogues the d20 is most of the result. Max ability is twenty, so +11 without expertise doubling proficiency bonus. The plus side to this is that DCs don't go so high that you can't give it a try, if proficient. I play 5e but have used 2d10 for skill checks to make the die less important.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Soory, I had to chortle. I made basically the same post about the previews we were getting for 4E, everything unified so DM could call for whatever vs whatever they liked for any situation. Didn't work out that way in game sadly!
Yup I went 5e cos of the grind of math and slow combats. I'd even deleted the Paizo forums from my favourites tab. But this has brought me back in, as I love the options of PF. So watching excitedly, what has been said so far seems like PF2 is more for me (options but simplicity) than it is for hardcore 3.x/PF1 players!
Kain Gallant wrote:
This was my take on it too, no more class features just feats as you level up
Yeah there is already tons of 3P 5E stuff, just not official. I'm M1.9P and Sqn Cdr Flashheart :D
The post was written by ENW's owner, Morrus. Because, bnasically, every time a thread came up about a new 3P 5E product people would go 'oh is there licencing?' and/or 'taht's got to be illegal'. But it is neither, no licencing or any 5E specific OGL nor is it illegal. Big names such as Frog God Games (necromancer Games), Kobold Press, Legendary and Goodman Games have put out 5E stuff.
So hopefully this'll get the 5E treatment as well, but (either way) I'm in with leather bells on!
Has anyone seen or heard what the requirements are for the license for 3pp for 5E?
As I mentioned on the KS comments, there is nothing yet. But you can use the same 'techniques' to make Swords & Wizardry to do 5E stuff. It is not illegal, as long as you used OGL terms and avoid trade dress/marks. For ex the Necro Games 5E stuff uses the term 'tactical advantage' instead of just 'advantage'; and the monster stat blocks have a slight different layout.