What Possibility Has You Excited for the New Edition


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'm just glad that they are finally updating their D20 system which at its core is almost 20 years old O_O It's also pretty impressive that they managed to keep it going for this long.

Also, it's not as jarring as any new edition I've seen in the past. They will simply refine the rules to make it easier to grasp, but we're not talking about a HUGE overhaul/reboot.


JiCi wrote:

I'm just glad that they are finally updating their D20 system which at its core is almost 20 years old O_O It's also pretty impressive that they managed to keep it going for this long.

Also, it's not as jarring as any new edition I've seen in the past. They will simply refine the rules to make it easier to grasp, but we're not talking about a HUGE overhaul/reboot.

Yes, I was hoping PF1 had addressed more inherent problems with 3rd Ed (which they seem to now be addressing), they didn't change enough.

Liberty's Edge

In the original Pathfinder First Edition playtest they actually started out departing somewhat further from 3.5 than they eventually did, but most players wanted something closer to 3.5, and so they obliged.

But yeah, I think the player base is collectively ready for a somewhat larger change now.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

In the original Pathfinder First Edition playtest they actually started out departing somewhat further from 3.5 than they eventually did, but most players wanted something closer to 3.5, and so they obliged.

But yeah, I think the player base is collectively ready for a somewhat larger change now.

Yeah, I can see that, especially as there was another game at the time that seriously departed (starring Leo and Jack), like in 2nd Ed AD&D they kept THACO for compatibility with 1st Ed, rather than use the d20 ability scores/BAB system that debuted in 1992's 4th Ed Gammaworld.


Bluenose wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
My wife likes playing the weaknesses of her character. For example, her dwarf gunslinger with obsession over high technology is supposed to be a nerd. She has high Intelligence, high Wisdom, low Charisma, and never invested in Diplomacy. Because she is a major decision maker for the party, she sometimes had to be diplomatic, and the failed Diplomacy rolls seem to delight my wife. They meant her dwarf stayed in characcter.
Repeatedly having to engage in things which use Diplomacy would seem like a very obvious reason why you'd get better at it simply from practice, especially since this is an intelligent character able to learn.

My wife reports that her dwarf gunslinger did put one rank into Diplomacy, at 7th level, to reflect this on-the-job training. She also confirms that she does delight in the failed Diplomacy rolls.

My wife has been playing Dungeons & Dragons since 1978, when her older brothers brought the game home from college. Her experience, often playing in three separate weekly games, made her a grandmaster player. She frequently becomes the de facto leader of the party due to her skill. Handicapping her characters is a deliberate scheme to give the other PCs more glory, whether they like it or not, without leaning on her PC.

The main diplomatic characteer is the strix skald who has a -2 racial penalty to Charisma like a dwarf, but overcame it by maxing out her Diplomacy ranks. She is the party face. Thus, the dwarf is justifed in delegating all diplomacy to her, except that the player of the strix skald has health problems and sometimes has to miss game sessions. The backup diplomat is the NPC bloodrager with Cha 18. But as an NPC, she bows out of party decisions including decision-making negotiations. The other two party members are a magus played as a brooding loner and a fighter who is willing to try, except that the player often runs roughshod over the wishes of the other players (and me, the GM) and barely invested in Diplomacy, either.

PF2 appears to be simplifying the skill system. As a GM, I appreciate such simplifications because constructing NPCs will be easier. However, I still want a system where a character can be bad at skills. The high-Charisma PCs need to bluff the the bad guy's minions who are terrible at Sense Motive. The party needs to be able to climb the cliff that their opponents assumed as unclimbable because they could not climb it. The rogue needs to sneak past high-level guards who fail their Perception rolls.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I have to say I like most of it with my problems being: math seems way TOO tight. Next to no difference between unskilled and legendary.

To be fair, we don't know for sure what the math will look like. Untrained to Legendary is only +5, but ability scores seem to at least have a range of 8-26, which can be another +9 difference. Spells, conditions, and items may drive it further apart.

There's also the new crit mechanics, which makes any bonuses or penalties count more. Hopefully the finished product leaves plenty of room for our numbers to FEEL different, even if they don't look as different on the page.

One of the things I like about the tight math is what it does for the playstyles of martials and casters. If a wizard can hit an enemy on an 11 or better, they're only critting on a 20, but the fighter with ~ +5 in proficiency bonuses over the wizard both hits 75% of the time to the wizard's 50% and also crits 30% of the time to the wizard's 5%. This means that martial characters are significantly better with all weapons automatically without needing a math framework that distorts the system to the point that classes get effectively worse at certain things as they level.

In the current edition, a level 1 elf wizard with a longbow is only 5% or so less likely to hit an enemy than a fighter with a longbow, but by late levels the difference is so significant that the elf just shouldn't ever use the bow. Tightening the framework means that the fighter can consistently hit harder and better, while an elven arcane archer type can fire arrows and cast spells with a reasonable degree of effectiveness if they want without the magic part of their build being primarily dedicated to accuracy boosting spells. Similarly, a fighter's poor Ref and Will mean that in the latter half of the game it's almost impossible for him to make those saving throws without dumping significant resources into boosting the saves. Tighter math means that a fighter and wizard both attempting a Will save can have reasonable chances of success, but the wizard is far more likely to critically succeed on the save. That means that the wizard's superior defenses have significant and relevant benefits without distorting the math to the point that the fighter just auto-fails without significant investment. You get a situation where everyone is heroic but their strengths and weaknesses are still pertinent and impactful.
Which is something I'm really excited about with the new system.


With the exception of Goblins as a core race, instead of say Aasimars and Tieflings, I have really liked everything I've read. Looks like all the classes and races will be very customizable.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The new action economy is by far the thing I am most looking forward to. Having to know all of the previous types of actions was a huge pain; simplifying this system should make combat go much smoother.


Fumarole wrote:
The new action economy is by far the thing I am most looking forward to. Having to know all of the previous types of actions was a huge pain; simplifying this system should make combat go much smoother.

Total, you're probably aware, but you can check out the Revised Action Economy from Unchained (in the PFSRD), as that's where it originates.


Mathmuse wrote:
However, I still want a system where a character can be bad at skills

You can always put a "+2" next to the diplomacy skill, even if you're meant to get +level to all skills. After all it's a roleplaying game and it's not important if the rules actually support the type of character you just want to play. Just pretend they do! That will be equally satisfying as a ruleset that actually supports the game you're trying to run. Right?

/s


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:

And that level bonus is an irritant to. The 20th lever wizard is now an expert climber because ....

No reason. Just because. The high level barbarian who has never shown th slightest inkling of attempting to stealth nonetheless will have a good stealth bonus. Etcetera. Just feels rather “gamey” to me.

It might help if you think about what leveling up is supposed to represent, and how practice in one skill can translate to another. A real world example might be surgeons practicing coin tricks to help improve their general hand dexterity. And the higher your level, the sharper your body and mind become. It's not just your hit points increasing.

A 20th level Barbarian may not have specifically learned stealth, but they have gained an incredible level of efficiency in how they move their body to swing a sword, as represented by BAB in 1e. They have a ton of worldly experience in and out of battle which is likely to make them more observant of their environment. They have also mastered the art of tapping into primal rage in a way that lets them flood their body with adrenaline at will and not even leave them fatigued! Is it crazy to think they might be able to apply some of these talents to being able to precisely move their body to make their armor jingle less, spot twigs they might step on, and even control their breathing such that enemies don't notice it?

As for the climbing wizard, a lot of what makes climbing difficult is stamina. Holding your body up on a rock wall can get painful. But a PF1 level 20 wizard has a higher threshold for punishment (HP), more raw gumption (Will save), and has had to undergo a degree of physical conditioning just by virtue of getting attacked and the general exertion of adventuring. Their body has also increased in it's capacity to store up magic (spell slots). I can get behind the idea of them being too tough and stubborn to let go of a grip despite the screaming muscles.

(Also, this line of thinking is making me warm up to the idea of proficiency to AC. When you think about it, it was kind of weird that a fighter never inherently got better at blocking or avoiding attacks physical blows. They mostly relied on their equipment to do it for them, or in some cases could use their meager +1 stat bumps to pump dexterity. And the occasional feat like dodge. You learn to throw out at least 4 times as many attacks per second, but you don't get any better at parrying? Not only will PF2e fighters have their ability scores increase scale better, but even with the same Dexterity scores a naked 20th level Fighter will be harder to hit than a naked 1st level Fighter. I can dig that.)

Also, what Deadmanwalking has said a couple of times about Trained Only. Maybe the 20th level Barbarian has enough muscle control to outdo the 5th level Rogue at sneaking up on a sleeping ogre. But the Rogue's higher rank in proficiency + skill feats might mean they can vanish while a crowd of people are staring at them, or use camouflage to approach an awake ogre looking in their direction across an open field. Lots of stuff will hinge on how cool stuff like that is.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To answer the original question:

Chaotic Good Goblin Paladins!


Mathmuse wrote:
However, I still want a system where a character can be bad at skills.

Sounds like there'd be scope for some sort of "Incompetent at <Skill X>" feat/trait/status, roll 2d20 and use the worse one for your skill check (attack roll, I suppose, with weapons, and perhaps extend it to saves through something like a Cowardly keyword that makes you less likely to pass checks against Fear). Though I suppose the adaptations to the way the skill system works might anyway mean someone lacking proficiency would get very little out of Diplomacy/Skill X anyway, no matter how high their numbers are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

And that level bonus is an irritant to. The 20th lever wizard is now an expert climber because ....

No reason. Just because. The high level barbarian who has never shown th slightest inkling of attempting to stealth nonetheless will have a good stealth bonus. Etcetera. Just feels rather “gamey” to me.

It might help if you think about what leveling up is supposed to represent, and how practice in one skill can translate to another. A real world example might be surgeons practicing coin tricks to help improve their general hand dexterity. And the higher your level, the sharper your body and mind become. It's not just your hit points increasing.

A 20th level Barbarian may not have specifically learned stealth, but they have gained an incredible level of efficiency in how they move their body to swing a sword, as represented by BAB in 1e. They have a ton of worldly experience in and out of battle which is likely to make them more observant of their environment. They have also mastered the art of tapping into primal rage in a way that lets them flood their body with adrenaline at will and not even leave them fatigued! Is it crazy to think they might be able to apply some of these talents to being able to precisely move their body to make their armor jingle less, spot twigs they might step on, and even control their breathing such that enemies don't notice it?

As for the climbing wizard, a lot of what makes climbing difficult is stamina. Holding your body up on a rock wall can get painful. But a PF1 level 20 wizard has a higher threshold for punishment (HP), more raw gumption (Will save), and has had to undergo a degree of physical conditioning just by virtue of getting attacked and the general exertion of adventuring. Their body has also increased in it's capacity to store up magic (spell slots). I can get behind the idea of them being too tough and stubborn to let go of a grip despite the screaming muscles.

(Also, this line of thinking is making me warm up to...

That is indeed an attempt to justify it ... it’s still rather immersion breaking. Unskilled should be unskilled.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Getting back on topic, exciting opportunities for me include:
- We may get to play a credible spell duel.
- I'll certainly try a fighter and look forward to adjusting tactics and switching weapons to adapt to combat circumstances. At the very least, I want to test defensive tactics, as they were both boring and suboptimal in PF1 and it looks like they become valid in PF2.
- I've always wanted to portray a poisoner rogue, inspired by Jack Vance's master venefice.
- I also would like to create a priest that departs from the classic warrior cleric stereotype in multiple ways. The customization potential for the PF2 cleric is promising in that regard.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
However, I still want a system where a character can be bad at skills

You can always put a "+2" next to the diplomacy skill, even if you're meant to get +level to all skills. After all it's a roleplaying game and it's not important if the rules actually support the type of character you just want to play. Just pretend they do! That will be equally satisfying as a ruleset that actually supports the game you're trying to run. Right?

/s

Oberoni.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
However, I still want a system where a character can be bad at skills

You can always put a "+2" next to the diplomacy skill, even if you're meant to get +level to all skills. After all it's a roleplaying game and it's not important if the rules actually support the type of character you just want to play. Just pretend they do! That will be equally satisfying as a ruleset that actually supports the game you're trying to run. Right?

/s

Oberoni.

Didn't that end up being a travesty of a mockery of a sham-type deal, like a fallacy of a fallacy of a fallacy-type deal?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what? As a GM, I'm excited for untrained not being woefully incompetent anymore. It lets me design some hazardous set pieces like a flooding cavern or platforming without having to worry about having half the party auto-fail the checks.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
What are you excited about?

I'm not sure anything so far has make me excited. I have some curiosity but not excitement.


I'm excited simply for a new edition. I happen to think the new game will be just as confusing (high level play will suck and take forever with too much math) and the power level will still be ridiculously slanted toward magical superiority (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) as the current edition. BUT it will be NEW and that's good enough for me

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Albatoonoe wrote:
You know what? As a GM, I'm excited for untrained not being woefully incompetent anymore. It lets me design some hazardous set pieces like a flooding cavern or platforming without having to worry about having half the party auto-fail the checks.

Good one.


Alchemist and their transformative elixirs!
Elixirs of Youth!
Elixirs of Sex Shifting!
Elixirs of Race (ancestry) Shifting!
Elixirs are free (paid with Resonance)!
Elixirs are awesome!
Also Bestial mutages!

I think you can guess what class I'm going to be playing at launch ^_^.

(None of this has been confirmed BTW, I am just being optimistic.)

(EDIT: I am the party's vending machine and proud. XD)

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / What Possibility Has You Excited for the New Edition All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion