Developer
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great podcast. I highly recommend everyone listen to it. It was super enjoyable and the spirit of game has remained the same. It should be noted that Jason Bulmahn GM'd a game made for the Pathfinder we know and love without spending any time prepping the scenario to use in Pathfinder 2!
Seriously check it out. It's really cool!
But what if you wanted to play Crypt of the Everflame and haven't already? Or just want to see a list of the information we can extract from this first playtest? Well, in my fervor, I compiled something of a list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I learn, the less I care for the new edition.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Kitsune! It was a blast to play, and as the event unfolded I was almost certain someone would comb through it for all the little rules details before the end of the first day, and you are the winner!
Thanks for listening so attentively!
Yours,
Grellun the Green
One thing I noticed about the 3 Action version of Channel Energy. You only get your Caster Modifier for healing and damage if you use that one. No dice.
|
Developer
|
One thing I noticed about the 3 Action version of Channel Energy. You only get your Caster Modifier for healing and damage if you use that one. No dice.
I have a feeling this will only apply to level 1. Much like the 1d4 heal for lay on hands, I could see "half level d6" abilities rounding down like this at level 1. But I could be wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m... not thrilled. It sounds a lot like this is more SF than PF. I am especially not a fan of how skill checks are sounding. But, as playtestjng hasn’t even begun, I will hold out hope that this does end up being “PF, shinier than ever!” and not “fantasy SF.”
One thing I noticed about the 3 Action version of Channel Energy. You only get your Caster Modifier for healing and damage if you use that one. No dice.I have a feeling this will only apply to level 1. Much like the 1d4 heal for lay on hands, I could see "half level d6" abilities rounding down like this at level 1. But I could be wrong.
Well your Caster Modifier scales with level so it's not going be stuck at 3 or 4 for your entire career.
Now the Conditions and weaknesses seem to number based. So Hindered 5 means -5' of movement. The Skeletons had a Vulnerability against Energy of 2 so they took 2 extra damage when the Cleric did the 3 Action Boom. His Allies healed 4 and the Skeletons took 4+2=6. Also I think they were not allowed a save when the 3action channel was used.
I'm interested in the new action economy its kind of reminding me of the optional one in unchained.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bulk system from Starfinder is one thing I really haven't been sold on while playing it. I hope 2E's is different. The biggest problem is that it severely nerfs the ability of characters to lift non-gear objects, and it weirdly doesn't take into account creature size.
The other day, a large character wanted to pick up an unconscious humanoid ally. As written, he couldn't lift a 180+ pound medium creature, because he couldn't willingly carry more than 18 bulk. I hand-waved it, but it's weird that something so basic is impossible.
A trained soldier, with the highest possible strength, can't carry his ally who is half his size.
The bulk system from Starfinder is one thing I really haven't been sold on while playing it. I hope 2E's is different. The biggest problem is that it severely nerfs the ability of characters to lift non-gear objects, and it weirdly doesn't take into account creature size.
The other day, a large character wanted to pick up an unconscious humanoid ally. As written, he couldn't lift a 180+ pound medium creature, because he couldn't willingly carry more than 18 bulk. I hand-waved it, but it's weird that something so basic is impossible.
A trained soldier, with the highest possible strength, can't carry his ally who is half his size.
Its a good point make sure if its an issue in the play test to let em know!
Its a good point make sure if its an issue in the play test to let em know!The bulk system from Starfinder is one thing I really haven't been sold on while playing it. I hope 2E's is different. The biggest problem is that it severely nerfs the ability of characters to lift non-gear objects, and it weirdly doesn't take into account creature size.
The other day, a large character wanted to pick up an unconscious humanoid ally. As written, he couldn't lift a 180+ pound medium creature, because he couldn't willingly carry more than 18 bulk. I hand-waved it, but it's weird that something so basic is impossible.
A trained soldier, with the highest possible strength, can't carry his ally who is half his size.
Of course, and I intend to take as active a part in the playtest as I can. I'm cautiously optimistic. I just hope the game I want to play is close to the game Paizo wants to make.
I'm going to listen to the podcast later, but for now I just want to warn peoples that stuff you see or hear in a live game doesn't necessarily reflect on the rules as written.
I've seen lots of shows make mistakes like using 3.5e-only rules that were dropped/changed in PF 1e. I can totally see the same thing happening with 2e.
For example, the list mentions +2 bonus for flanking. That's an established PF 1e rule, and might not actually be in the actual 2e document they're playing with (I'm not saying it isn't, just an illustration).
I like shields as something you actively block with. Feels like something interesting rather then a simple AC bonus
Great podcast. I highly recommend everyone listen to it. It was super enjoyable and the spirit of game has remained the same. It should be noted that Jason Bulmahn GM'd a game made for the Pathfinder we know and love without spending any time prepping the scenario to use in Pathfinder 2!
Thank you so much for this! The action economy is filling me with a lot of hope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a note, the Friday blog will be all about this podcast, adding some clarifications and behind the screen spoilers!
Good, looking forward to this. But, please don't go to far down the D&D 4/5ed mentality. That is what led me to Pathfinder in the first place. Some of the proficiency ideas I completely can't stand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really liked the podcast, it has me optimistic but any real opinions will have to wait until I see the Character sheets and playtest rules.
Thank you KitsuneWarlock for the compiling.
So this makes me wonder: Does this mean metamagic feats like Silent and Still Spell exist? If they do exist, how does that work with the new action economy for spellcasting? Is there a limiter to how many spells could be Silent and/or Still in a given round? As the determining factor of how many spells you can cast in a round is now based on Verbal (one action) and Somatic (one action) components.
I know none here except those actually behind 2e could answer these questions, but I felt like throwing this out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm liking how characters are rolling against a DC instead of opposed skill check. the d20 vs d20 always felt to swingy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like shields as something you actively block with. Feels like something interesting rather then a simple AC bonus
I'd prefer them to be a bit of both. Realism wise (yeah, yeah, I know) a shield is really helpful just from it's presence. So maybe a small static bonus just for having it out, plus having cool actions you can take with it?
Since there's so much we don't know, I'm withholding judgement, though. If they evened out one-handed vs two-handed weapons a bit, maybe it works fine as-is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the doc! I'll check it out. (I don't do podcasts.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the doc! I'll check it out. (I don't do podcasts.)
Me either, but they do seem to be a rather influential growing media trend that is attached in many different ways to this TTRPG hobby of mine... Not sure how I feel about that. It kind of makes me feel old. :P
I like shields as something you actively block with. Feels like something interesting rather then a simple AC bonusI'd prefer them to be a bit of both. Realism wise (yeah, yeah, I know) a shield is really helpful just from it's presence. So maybe a small static bonus just for having it out, plus having cool actions you can take with it?
Since there's so much we don't know, I'm withholding judgement, though. If they evened out one-handed vs two-handed weapons a bit, maybe it works fine as-is.
Oh it is still a thing in 2e. The fighter's shield in the podcast had a +2 shield bonus in addition to the reaction benefit.
So far I think I like most of what's going on. Theres some simplification similar to D&D 5e but seems to have a lot of options in combat and creation the thing I found lacking in 5e. My only worry was skills being binary in the sense that you had the bonus or your don't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of crits being "beat the DC by 10" rather than on a dice roll of 20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of crits being "beat the DC by 10" rather than on a dice roll of 20.
I'm terrible at math, but in just imagining a few numbers in my head, I'm thinking you're going to be rolling pretty darn high to beat most target's AC numbers by 10. In fact, in some situations you could roll a 20 and still not have beat the target's AC number by 10... which would be really terrible, from my point of view. For maxed out martial characters that might allow them to crit more often than normal, but for even a 3/4 martial class, that could actually shrink the number of times you crit. I think the keen, improved critical, and weapons that crit at a lower range was supposed to address some that mechanically.
Now if it's a situation where if you beat the DC by 10, OR if you roll a 20 you crit, I could get behind that.
I think the whole doing double damage if your attack is over 10 of the creatures AC is good, but only if hitting a 20 on the die has some sort of other effect, perhaps a critical effect found on the 1e Crit Cards (which I love using), or something like a crit table to roll on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh it is still a thing in 2e. The fighter's shield in the podcast had a +2 shield bonus in addition to the reaction benefit.I like shields as something you actively block with. Feels like something interesting rather then a simple AC bonusI'd prefer them to be a bit of both. Realism wise (yeah, yeah, I know) a shield is really helpful just from it's presence. So maybe a small static bonus just for having it out, plus having cool actions you can take with it?
Since there's so much we don't know, I'm withholding judgement, though. If they evened out one-handed vs two-handed weapons a bit, maybe it works fine as-is.
Yeah, only when taking the 'Raise Shield' action or whatever it's called. I'm saying that I would like just having it on your arm to be a benefit.
Unrelated item: the spellcasting modifier leads me to predict Starfinder style weapon specialization will be a thing in P2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of crits being "beat the DC by 10" rather than on a dice roll of 20.I'm terrible at math, but in just imagining a few numbers in my head, I'm thinking you're going to be rolling pretty darn high to beat most target's AC numbers by 10. In fact, in some situations you could roll a 20 and still not have beat the target's AC number by 10... which would be really terrible, from my point of view. For maxed out martial characters that might allow them to crit more often than normal, but for even a 3/4 martial class, that could actually shrink the number of times you crit. I think the keen, improved critical, and weapons that crit at a lower range was supposed to address some that mechanically.
Now if it's a situation where if you beat the DC by 10, OR if you roll a 20 you crit, I could get behind that.
I remember using a house rule in 3.0, where a natural 20 counted as 30, and natural 1 counted as -10. If you could still hit with -10 + bonus, you hit anyways, if you still missed with 30 + bonus, you missed. This could help with the "hit by more than 10".
BTW, I think I remember in the last days of ADnD 2e, with Skills and Powers and Combat and Tactics out there, there was an option for great masters to make crits when they hit by 10+. It was a bit of a carnage.
Has anyone else caught the references in this podcast to skill unlocks (mentioned as something these 1st level characters did not have yet) and to Consolidated Skills from Pathfinder Unchained (as "Society" is one of those skills)?
Also, with the rule that an attack roll exceeding AC by 10 is a critical hit, no character will ever give up on trying to improve AC.
Finally, it sounds like the new game still has touch AC, and the combat maneuver system is clearly new (skill check vs. "save DC" or passive save value) and not based on the Starfinder system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of crits being "beat the DC by 10" rather than on a dice roll of 20.I'm terrible at math, but in just imagining a few numbers in my head, I'm thinking you're going to be rolling pretty darn high to beat most target's AC numbers by 10. In fact, in some situations you could roll a 20 and still not have beat the target's AC number by 10... which would be really terrible, from my point of view. For maxed out martial characters that might allow them to crit more often than normal, but for even a 3/4 martial class, that could actually shrink the number of times you crit. I think the keen, improved critical, and weapons that crit at a lower range was supposed to address some that mechanically.
Now if it's a situation where if you beat the DC by 10, OR if you roll a 20 you crit, I could get behind that.
What I'm getting from this is that they've stripped weapon profiles down to just the damage value and possible a special reaction.
No more crit range or crit multiplier.
Essentially, this is reading more and more like D&D 5.0
They dumbed everything down for the new player while removing the depth that keeps players around for the long haul.
Maybe, but then again enough people complained that everyone kept using the same weapons for the crit multiplier, they even invented a class to fix the problem, it didn't.
Edit: Oops, wrong thread. But keeping placeholder here.
I really like the idea of crits being "beat the DC by 10" rather than on a dice roll of 20.I'm terrible at math, but in just imagining a few numbers in my head, I'm thinking you're going to be rolling pretty darn high to beat most target's AC numbers by 10. In fact, in some situations you could roll a 20 and still not have beat the target's AC number by 10... which would be really terrible, from my point of view. For maxed out martial characters that might allow them to crit more often than normal, but for even a 3/4 martial class, that could actually shrink the number of times you crit. I think the keen, improved critical, and weapons that crit at a lower range was supposed to address some that mechanically.
Now if it's a situation where if you beat the DC by 10, OR if you roll a 20 you crit, I could get behind that.
I think it's a good thing that you can lop off the heads of a horde of goblins pretty easily but will have an extremely hard time (or for it to even be impossible!) to 1-round the Antipaladin Big Bad with a lucky crit. Frankly it's pretty anticlimactic from both sides of the table for the big bad to go down before he gets to do any of his Cool Stuff just because the Greataxe-wielding Barbarian happened to roll a 20.
Thanks for the doc, Kitsune ! =D
I really like the idea of crits being "beat the DC by 10" rather than on a dice roll of 20.I'm terrible at math, but in just imagining a few numbers in my head, I'm thinking you're going to be rolling pretty darn high to beat most target's AC numbers by 10. In fact, in some situations you could roll a 20 and still not have beat the target's AC number by 10... which would be really terrible, from my point of view. For maxed out martial characters that might allow them to crit more often than normal, but for even a 3/4 martial class, that could actually shrink the number of times you crit. I think the keen, improved critical, and weapons that crit at a lower range was supposed to address some that mechanically.
Now if it's a situation where if you beat the DC by 10, OR if you roll a 20 you crit, I could get behind that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard them rolling a 20 and the DM said that was a crit'.
A question I have after listening to the podcast; do monsters also suffer a penalty on successive attack actions? My impression is that they do not.
Monsters have several separate attacks (typically claw/claw/bite) but only did one with each attack. But at one point, a skeleton did three claw attacks. That seems to imply they attack much as PCs do, and then it would make sense for successive attacks to take a penalty.
Other side of the coin; would a character with two weapons be able to attack with different weapons to avoid the repeated attack penalties?
Minor threadnap; if we want to discuss this in depth, lets take it to a new thread.
I'm liking how characters are rolling against a DC instead of opposed skill check. the d20 vs d20 always felt to swingy.
My opinion is the exact opposite; opposed rolls are LESS swingy, as they give a pyramid probability distribution. Small differences in the bonus make a big impact in a pyramid distribution, making results more predictable. At the same time it is possible for a low bonus to beat a large bonus, but the chance is very small. In this way we get rid of the odd effects of having a hard end value. The difference between being hit on a 20 and being hit on a 18-20 is only 2 points of AC, but you take three times as much damage. That kind of thing never happens with opposed rolls.
The only benefit I can see with *not* using opposed rolls is simplicity. I admit this is quite a big benefit.
I really like the idea of crits being "beat the DC by 10" rather than on a dice roll of 20.
While I agree in general, I do see a problem; "Armor Class is King" becomes even more true.
Edit: Thinking about it, its more of the opposite; low AC is a very great limitation. Currently, some creatures (notably animals) have such a low AC that it really doesn't matter - they are hit more or less automatically anyway. Wit this, these creatures would stand a VERY good chance of being critted on every attack. This is unlikely to apply to PCs (with the exception of some mages who deliberately ditch defenses to rely on invisibility or the like), and the low AC of animals is an intentional weakness. Perhaps this is not a problem at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Equipment Quality thing is an interesting tidbit. Could bonuses to hit and damage be dependant entierly on weapon Quality instead of magic, with magic being about adding other things like flame or shock.
Likewise would Armor AC bonus be based on Quality, not magic.
If so that caps the bonuses at +3 rather than +5