First Look at the Pathfinder Playtest

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Welcome to the next evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!

Just shy of 10 years ago, on March 18th, 2008, we asked you to take a bold step with us and download the Alpha Playtest PDF for Pathfinder First Edition. Over the past decade, we've learned a lot about the game and the people who play it. We've talked with you on forums, we've gamed with you at conventions, and we've watched you play online and in person at countless venues. We went from updating mechanics to inventing new ones, adding a breadth of options to the game and making the system truly our own. We've made mistakes, and we've had huge triumphs. Now it is time to take all of that knowledge and make the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game even better.

By now, you've probably read all about the upcoming launch of the Playtest version of the game set to release on August 2nd, 2018 (but just in case you haven't, click here). In the weeks and months leading up to that release, we are going give you an in-depth look at this game, previewing all 12 of the classes and examining many of the most fundamental changes to the game. Of course, that is a long time to wait to get a complete picture, so I wanted to take this opportunity to give you insight into the game, how it works, and why we made the changes that we made. We will be covering these in much more detail later, but we thought it might be useful to give a general overview right now.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

New, but the Same

Our first goal was to make Pathfinder Second Edition feel just like the game you know and love. That means that as a player, you need to be able to make the choices that allow you to build the character you want to play. Similarly, as a Game Master, you need to have the tools and the support to tell the story you want to tell. The rules that make up the game have to fundamentally still fill the same role they did before, even if some of the mechanics behind them are different.

Building a Character

It's worth taking a moment to talk about how characters are built, because we spent a lot of time making this process smoother and more intuitive. You start by selecting your ancestry (which used to be called race), figuring out where you came from and what sorts of basic statistics you have. Next you decide on your background, representing how you were raised and what you did before taking up the life of an adventurer. Finally, you select your class, the profession you have dedicated yourself to as an intrepid explorer. Each one of these choices is very important, modifying your starting ability scores, giving you starting proficiencies and class skills, and opening up entire feat chains tailored to your character.

After making the big choices that define your character, you have a variety of smaller choices to make, including assigning skill proficiencies, picking an ancestry feat, buying gear, and deciding on the options presented by your class. Finally, after deciding on all of your choices, the only thing left to do is figure out all of your bonuses, which are now determined by one unified system of proficiency, based on your character's level.

As you go on grand adventures with your character, you will gain experience and eventually level up. Pathfinder characters have exciting and important choices to make every time they gain a level, from selecting new class feats to adding new spells to their repertoires.

Playing the Game

We've made a number of changes to the way the game is played, to clean up the overall flow of play and to add some interesting choices in every part of the story. First up, we have broken play up into three distinct components. Encounter mode is what happens when you are in a fight, measuring time in seconds, each one of which can mean life or death. Exploration mode is measured in minutes and hours, representing travel and investigation, finding traps, decoding ancient runes, or even mingling at the queen's coronation ball. Of all the modes of play, exploration is the most flexible, allowing for easy storytelling and a quick moving narrative. Finally, the downtime mode happens when your characters are back in town, or relative safety, allowing them to retrain abilities, practice a trade, lead an organization, craft items, or recuperate from wounds. Downtime is measured in days, generally allowing time to flow by in an instant.

Most of the game happens in exploration or encounter mode, with the two types of play flowing easily from one to the other. In fact, exploration mode can have a big impact on how combat begins, determining what you roll for your initiative. In a group of four exploring a dungeon, two characters might have their weapons ready, keeping an eye out for danger. Another might be skulking ahead, keeping to the shadows, while the fourth is looking for magic. If combat begins, the first two begin with their weapons drawn, ready for a fight, and they roll Perception for their initiative. The skulking character rolls Stealth for initiative, giving them a chance to hide before the fight even begins. The final adventurer rolls Perception for initiative, but also gains some insight as to whether or not there is magic in the room.

After initiative is sorted out and it's your turn to act, you get to take three actions on your turn, in any combination. Gone are different types of actions, which can slow down play and add confusion at the table. Instead, most things, like moving, attacking, or drawing a weapon, take just one action, meaning that you can attack more than once in a single turn! Each attack after the first takes a penalty, but you still have a chance to score a hit. In Pathfinder Second Edition, most spells take two actions to cast, but there are some that take only one. Magic missile, for example, can be cast using from one to three actions, giving you an additional missile for each action you spend on casting it!

Between turns, each character also has one reaction they can take to interrupt other actions. The fighter, for example, has the ability to take an attack of opportunity if a foe tries to move past or its defenses are down. Many classes and monsters have different things they can do with their reactions, making each combat a little bit less predictable and a lot more exciting. Cast a fire spell near a red dragon, for example, and you might just find it takes control of your magic, roasting you and your friends instead of the intended target!

Monsters and Treasure

The changes to the game are happening on both sides of the GM screen. Monsters, traps, and magic items have all gotten significant revisions.

First off, monsters are a lot easier to design. We've moved away from strict monster construction formulas based off type and Hit Dice. Instead, we start by deciding on the creature's rough level and role in the game, then select statistics that make it a balanced and appropriate part of the game. Two 7th-level creatures might have different statistics, allowing them to play differently at the table, despite both being appropriate challenges for characters of that level.

This also makes it easier for us to present monsters, giving us more space to include special abilities and actions that really make a monster unique. Take the fearsome tyrannosaurus, for example; if this terrifying dinosaur gets you in its jaws, it can take an action to fling you up to 20 feet through the air, dealing tremendous damage to you in the process!

Hazards are now a more important part of the game, from rangers creating snares to traps that you have to actively fight against if you want to survive. Poisons, curses, and diseases are a far more serious problem to deal with, having varied effects that can cause serious penalties, or even death.

Of all of the systems that Game Masters interact with, magic items are one of the most important, so we spent extra time ensuring that they are interesting and fun. First and foremost, we have taken significant steps to allow characters to carry the items they want, instead of the items that they feel they must have to succeed. Good armor and a powerful weapon are still critical to the game, but you no longer have to carry a host of other smaller trinkets to boost up your saving throws or ability scores. Instead, you find and make the magic items that grant you cool new things to do during play, giving you the edge against all of the monsters intent on making you into their next meal.

We can't wait until you find your first +1 longsword to see what it can do!

What's Next?

There are a lot of things we are excited to show off, so many in fact that we have to pace ourselves. First off, if you want to hear the game in action right now, we've recorded a special podcast with the folks from the Glass Cannon Network, converting the original Pathfinder First Edition Module, Crypt of the Everflame, to the new edition. Head on over to their site and listen to the first part of this adventure now!

Stop by tomorrow for the first blog taking an in-depth look at Pathfinder Second Edition, starting off with the new system for taking actions, then visit us again on Friday for an exploration of the Glass Cannon game, exploring some of its spoilers in detail!

We Need You!

All of us at Paizo want to take a moment to thank you, the fans, players, and game masters that have made this exciting journey a possibility. It's been a wild ride for the past decade, and speaking personally, I could not be more excited for where we are heading. But, as I am sure you've heard a number of times already, we cannot make this game without you, without your feedback and passion for the game. Thank you for coming with us on this adventure, thank you for contributing to our community, and thank you for playing Pathfinder.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
751 to 800 of 1,608 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

TheRavyn wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
TheRavyn wrote:
Kudos to Paizo for the upcoming new edition. Can't wait to see it! Imo, PF1E had reached the "bloated" phase of its life cycle some years back, and its time for a good cleansing! Especially happy to hear the increased presence of Golarion, it's my favorite currently published setting.
Ok - I have to ask - what's your favorite not-currently-published setting? :)
That would be Judges' Guild's "Wilderlands of High Fantasy". Love those maps :)

Indeed.

I love what NG did with the box set. One of my favorite RPG products ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Tarondor wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Tarondor wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Will the Cure spells be moved to Necromancy?
OHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASE...!
Oh dear Lord, why?
Well, Necromancy is the school of magic for both death AND life, so having cure spells being necromancy (instead of a healing subschool of conjuration) isn't that farfetched

No, it's not far-fetched, just unnecessary.

I -could- wear lederhosen to work today, but it doesn't mean I should.

I don't know, I've seen some people pull of lederhosen in my day.

In all seriousness, though, I don't think a change is unnecessary per-se. In my opinion, changing the cure spells to necromancy would help reinforce the idea that necromancy is not an inherently bad school of magic and has practical uses for those not in the business of overthrowing kingdoms with armies of the dead (IE, a necromancer wizard who works as a mortician, using magic to perform autopsies).

It doesn't need to happen, of course, but an argument could be made for changing it, especially since (at least in my opinion) the Conjuration school is somewhat cluttered with subschools of magic.

It's certainly nothing I'm too upset with either way, just curious. However, I like the flavor of necromancy as "all evil" or "mostly evil.".

Kinda like lederhosen.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

Change is good.

"Progress is impossible without change,
and those who cannot change their minds
cannot change anything."
—George Bernard Shaw

Change can be good.

Simply being change does not make a thing good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how all the "No new editions ever no matter what" people were not weeded out by 3.5 coming 3 years after 3rd edition. Are we just selecting for people who already convinced themselves "no, 3.5 was fine" since this is a Pathfinder board?

No there were people who were pissed off and angry about the 3.5 update too. mean I wasnt one of them but there were people who were just as heated as people here are about PF2.

I empathized a little bit back then, I don't empathize now.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I joined D&D after 3.5 was released. I'm sure there were plenty of others like me who refused to change editions and had not experienced the 3.5 update firsthand.

Dark Archive

Grandlounge wrote:

I have a single request for this game.

Remove the rules that says you can only draw a weapon as part of a move if you have 1 bab. It is a rule that applies to 2/3s of classes for a single level than ever comes up agian. It is not actually a big deal but it adds a needless complication to low levels and adds nothing to the fun or immersion of the game. It has been a naging example of dated design for me.

You kind of get your wish. After listening to the Podcast and reading the posts there are just actions (no longer move/standard/swift/etc.) and you get 3 per turn. Drawing a weapon is simply an action, so if you need to draw your weapon then 1 of the 3 actions that turn is taken up. That is how they were playing the playtest during the Podcast.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how all the "No new editions ever no matter what" people were not weeded out by 3.5 coming 3 years after 3rd edition. Are we just selecting for people who already convinced themselves "no, 3.5 was fine" since this is a Pathfinder board?

No there were people who were pissed off and angry about the 3.5 update too. mean I wasnt one of them but there were people who were just as heated as people here are about PF2.

I empathized a little bit back then, I don't empathize now.

I mean, IMO, 3.5 arriving 3 years after 3rd edition was completely unacceptable, "asking everyone to buy all the same books again", "invalidating one's collection", and all the other things that people are complaining about in this thread. I never bought a single 3.5e book, and I've never played it as a result. I liked 4th edition- it was fun to play even though I could not run it to save my life, and I stopped because the company killed it and not for any other reason. I came to Pathfinder because it was recognizable as a game I knew how to run and it was extremely well-supported.

I just figure that releasing a new edition eleven years after an extremely well-supported game is a whole different kettle of fish. I figure releasing a new edition because you want to is always going to be better than releasing a new edition because economic realities force you to (as the 2e into 3e transition worked).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how all the "No new editions ever no matter what" people were not weeded out by 3.5 coming 3 years after 3rd edition. Are we just selecting for people who already convinced themselves "no, 3.5 was fine" since this is a Pathfinder board?

Hey, if the difference between PF and PF2 is not bigger than between 3.0 and 3.5, I'll happily convert to Paizo's greedy money grab any time of the day. Nothing in the blog or FAQ points to that being true, however. It seems to be more like a 3.5 to 5.0 transition

Also, I managed to GM 3.5 for many years with the 3.0 Core books and a conversion guide only, there was no need to buy the books again


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Hades NO.

I might be game with this if Paizo hadn't been cranking out expensive hardcover books to do with new classes and themes of play over the past 2 years.

I get that they may feel that they've peaked for sales on this edition and need a new one to stay financially viable - but they'll be doing it without me or my subscription.

I have enough materials (and adventure paths) to last me until the end of my natural life (particularly at the pace we've been playing over the past year) - so I am not going to spend the better part of another $10,000 on a new edition of game materials.

That's why I quit D&D and won't even look back at Wizards of the Coast.

Sorry to sound sour - but I've long said that the one thing that'd turn me away from Paizo is for them to (a) sell me a ton of rules materials and then (b) try to revise it all and re-sell it to me.

No thank you.

Scarab Sages

Mark Seifter wrote:
Anguish wrote:


To me, part of the fun of the (existing) game is knowing that if I can do X points of damage to ability Y, that will impede my opponents ability to do certain things or resist certain things. Combining multiple tactics to get a job done, mathematically. Having a variety of different ability scores for...
Tactical options like that are some of my favorite to figure out too. I can definitely say that I enjoy solving those sort of in-game tactical puzzles, and my playtest games so far have scratched that itch more often than many of my games from PF1. This is partially because in PF1, I could build a character where the correct tactical option on almost every turn was to do my most powerful combo shtick that ends the fight, whereas the playtests encourage me to blend out-of-game character growth strategy with in-game tactical choices to get the best combination of effects.

This is really, really good to hear!


Well.. for me... considering I said "all of this sounds good to me".. I probably won't be on the wrong side of it.. I will enjoy it. YMMV..

Malefactor wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
All of this sounds good to me. I love evolution.
Perhaps, but I fear we may be on the wrong side of it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how all the "No new editions ever no matter what" people were not weeded out by 3.5 coming 3 years after 3rd edition. Are we just selecting for people who already convinced themselves "no, 3.5 was fine" since this is a Pathfinder board?

3 to 3.5 was improving and fixing what was already there. It was still the same game just a bit better.

3.5 to 4 was throw out the game, make a new game that is totally unrelated and slap the D&D name on it, then insult the old game and everyone who enjoyed it.

3.5 to Pathfinder was further fixes and improvements, which is why my group went with Pathfinder.

if PF1 to PF2 is about the same as 3->3.5 or 3.5->PF that's fine with me. My existing books and 3PP PDFs will still work with a bit of tinkering.

The Podcast suggests that is the way they are going so I'm in the maybe camp. If Conversion of older material is not possible however then that's it for me. Full stop, I'll stick with what I have. The rest of you can go one without me.

Dark Archive

Tarondor wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Tarondor wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Tarondor wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Will the Cure spells be moved to Necromancy?
OHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASE...!
Oh dear Lord, why?
Well, Necromancy is the school of magic for both death AND life, so having cure spells being necromancy (instead of a healing subschool of conjuration) isn't that farfetched

No, it's not far-fetched, just unnecessary.

I -could- wear lederhosen to work today, but it doesn't mean I should.

I don't know, I've seen some people pull of lederhosen in my day.

In all seriousness, though, I don't think a change is unnecessary per-se. In my opinion, changing the cure spells to necromancy would help reinforce the idea that necromancy is not an inherently bad school of magic and has practical uses for those not in the business of overthrowing kingdoms with armies of the dead (IE, a necromancer wizard who works as a mortician, using magic to perform autopsies).

It doesn't need to happen, of course, but an argument could be made for changing it, especially since (at least in my opinion) the Conjuration school is somewhat cluttered with subschools of magic.

It's certainly nothing I'm too upset with either way, just curious. However, I like the flavor of necromancy as "all evil" or "mostly evil.".

Kinda like lederhosen.

I agree it would be an improvement. Clear delineation of what the schools do can only be an improvement. Necromancy being the school of life and death (not inherently evil) makes sense for the cure spells. I never liked how the cure spells were Conjuration, what exactly are we conjuring?

Inflict is already necromancy and it is the mirror image of cure. Seems from a magical sense that one would learn both cure and inflict at the same time as it is just a matter of whether you are tapping into positive or negative energy.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
I'm still saying that what worries me the most is how much of what I have today for PF1E will be useful in PF2E - setting and rules wise...

If you listen to the Glass Cannon podcast that went live today of Jason and Erik playing Crypt of the Everflame, I think you can get a good feel for how well the playtest mechanics fit into older content. That adventure is easier to convert because at the time it came out Pathfinder didn't have much more than the Core Rulebook, so most everything in it has a playtest analog. The setting and most of the character actions the players assumed they could take were all covered in the playtest rules. Some of the specific mechanics are different, but it sounds like they're playing Pathfinder.

As for deep continuity, as mentioned in the FAQ, we won't be changing any of the core assumptions of the setting, or jumping forward decades or anything. Some rulers might change here and there as makes sense, and some borders may shift from the default First Edition map, but the history of the world isn't getting retconned or anything like that.

So no complete and total change of the entire face of Faerun from 4E then?

I was ready to try out 4E until they destroyed Faerun.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I heard a lot that I liked in the podcast playthrough.

Little things like a cleric's channel both healing and harming undead make the rules easier to understand and explain.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DaveMage wrote:
TheRavyn wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
TheRavyn wrote:
Kudos to Paizo for the upcoming new edition. Can't wait to see it! Imo, PF1E had reached the "bloated" phase of its life cycle some years back, and its time for a good cleansing! Especially happy to hear the increased presence of Golarion, it's my favorite currently published setting.
Ok - I have to ask - what's your favorite not-currently-published setting? :)
That would be Judges' Guild's "Wilderlands of High Fantasy". Love those maps :)

Indeed.

I love what NG did with the box set. One of my favorite RPG products ever.

I was debating whether or not to sell that box set to Noble Knight Games. It was sitting up on a shelf and hadnt seen much use. Then I opened up the box and went through the materials and was like NOPE keeping this bad boy. It's a REALLY well put together set. Not flashy but very solid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone that played a DnD 2e game last week.. I am not sure how it is all worthless because of a new edition........

Chad Nedzlek wrote:

I'm so sad about this. I've mostly just been sitting here in shock for a couple hours, feeling a sense of loss. I've spend literally thousands of dollars on Pathfinder. Much of which I haven't really gotten a chance to use. And now I never will. The same thing happened with 4th edition. I bought a bunch of stuff that was all suddenly worthless.

I'm not made of money, and spending new money on top of old to get back things I already paid for once leaves a sad taste in my mouth. I feel especially upset about more recent purchases. They are essentially wasted money that I didn't know were wasted at the time. It's hard enough finding a group willing to play current RPG lines... The idea that I'll just be able to keep playing Pathfinder in whatever edition I want isn't a reality for me. No one wants to play the obsolete thing.

So, I guess, good bye and good luck. Maybe fresh players with fresh money will enjoy this, but it won't be me.

Scarab Sages

Mark Moreland wrote:
Subparhiggins wrote:

Is the lore for Golarion going to be kept relatively consistent for a seamless transition with PF2E? I admit I was disappointed with other games when they decided to axe half the pantheon, etc, and erase entire species from existence.

Edit: Also is the timeline going to be continuous? Or will there be any time skippage backward or forward involved?

FAQ wrote:

Will world-shattering events change the basic assumptions of the setting?

People familiar with Andoran, Cheliax, Osirion, Qadira, Taldor, and all the rest will still recognize these nations in their Second Edition iterations. No global cataclysm will alter the fundamental assumptions of the setting, and we aren't planning on killing off your favorite deity. However, some plot points from past Adventure Paths will become part of the setting's core assumption, like new rulers in Korvosa and Taldor, and a shifting political landscape in northwestern Cheliax. The forthcoming Return of the Runelords Adventure Path and the as-yet-unannounced final First Edition Adventure Path will plant new seeds for the setting going forward; any significant changes to the setting will happen "on screen" so players can participate in them at the table.

Will the timeline of the Pathfinder campaign setting be advanced?

Since the setting's earliest days, we have been advancing the in-game year with each real-world year. This isn't changing, so at the 2019 launch of Second Edition, the in-world year will be 4719 Absalom Reckoning.

This FAQ answer, though, really didn't answer the question. I'm assuming though, that some cannon outcome of the War of Crowns AP and the next two after and possibly some stuff from older APs will make it into the new Golarion. Perhaps the outcome of Wrath of the Righteous as well.

I think that's what the question is really asking, not whether the year technically advances. My experience is, despite the year advancing, Golarion has remained very static over the last 10 years. Something I didn't really like. I wanted the setting to advance with each AP.


That sounds like a new Goblin ethnicity or culture. I can dig that.

Mark Moreland wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Is making Goblins a playable race not changing the core assumptions of the setting? Since being a playable race right out the core rulebook would indicate they have gone from crazed pyro's people tend to kill on sight to being if not welcomed at least tolerated.
The plan is to address this in the course of play in an upcoming adventure so that it is part of the evolving narrative rather than simply tacked on all of a sudden with no context. The setting has always had dozens of races living alongside the predominately human population of Golarion. We're just adding a few more goblins into the mix. As to whether that change makes the entire setting somehow different, that's something everyone is going to have to decide for themselves.


Tarondor wrote:
DM Alistair wrote:
"It doesn't feel like D&D!" What is D&D? Original was literally "dungeon crawl and try to rob monsters of loot," Basic much the same. But the game evolved and began to be more narrative-focused as the years went on because more people joined in and became invested in the game.

This is an untruth I never get tired of shooting down. Sure, there were a lot of dungeon crawls, but I played in plenty of intense role-playing sessions with world-spanning political intrigue and small character moments in OD&D. We were not just banging rocks together and had in fact read actual literature and knew how it worked.

DM Alistair wrote:
Saying 4e (or 5e in some people's cases) isn't D&D just makes no sense because 3e certainly does NOT feel like Original or Basic or Advanced D&D! And I remember the massive RAGE people had at it because of that!

I don't. Every D&D gamer I knew loved 3e when it came out. Most of us had grown tired of 2e and many had moved on to other systems. I recall no edition wars when 3e debuted.

Also, 4e never felt like D&D to me. 5e does, but I like Pathfinder (and Paizo) better.

DM Alistair wrote:
Change is not bad! I certainly wish more people had given 4e an actual chance because it was good! And 5e is just crushing it sales wise and play wise (look at the number of games people are looking for it/running it on Roll20 or in numerous gamefinder forums across the net)!

Nothing untrue about what you're saying here. But many (I suspect nearly all) Pathfinder players -are- Pathfinder players because they enjoy the less-streamlined and more complex rules. Those who don't are 5e players for the most part. I don't care if Pathfinder is the biggest. I just want it to be the game I like to play.

DM Alistair wrote:
Pathfinder needs to innovate or it will die.

Agreed! I'm looking forward to it!

DM Alistair wrote:
Like others have said, the massive rules bloat can make making a character daunting and the massive
...

may I say I am new to pathfinder and I prefer pathfinder not because it is more complex I like it more because it has more variety in classes and variants to it then 5e

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
xorial wrote:
First things first. If I can play the character I want then the MAGUS needs to be in the core book.
Once more of the rules have been revealed, you'll have to remind me to show you the magus build I whipped up using the current playtest rules only. I'll mention the key reason my build can even get started since that's something already revealed in the blog and the podcast: Turns out that having three actions assigned however you want can give you a nice spell combat style cast+attack without need for an explicit class feature allowing it like in PF1!

I was really hoping that a lot of the new rules would negate the need for 40+ different classes.

Sounds like this might be more true than not!

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Keith McVay wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Keith McVay wrote:
Its to sell people a whole new set of books they already own.
That would defeat the purpose of a new edition, which is to be different enough to be worth the expenditure and development time and money.

So, they don't want people to buy a whole new set of: Core Rulebook, Bestiaries, Advanced Guides, etc? If you say so, man.

We disagree that those books will be the same as what is already owned.

Maybe the real Second Edition was inside us all along...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was excited when I first heard that Pathfinder was a thing after D&D had introduced 4th edition. I bought in and played the game and was not disappointed. Entrusting my play experience to the folks at Paizo was a great decision for me. I'll continue through this and I'm sure I'll come out better than before. I'm super excited to see what they have up their sleeves. Bring it on!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

As someone that played a DnD 2e game last week.. I am not sure how it is all worthless because of a new edition........

Chad Nedzlek wrote:

I'm so sad about this. I've mostly just been sitting here in shock for a couple hours, feeling a sense of loss. I've spend literally thousands of dollars on Pathfinder. Much of which I haven't really gotten a chance to use. And now I never will. The same thing happened with 4th edition. I bought a bunch of stuff that was all suddenly worthless.

I'm not made of money, and spending new money on top of old to get back things I already paid for once leaves a sad taste in my mouth. I feel especially upset about more recent purchases. They are essentially wasted money that I didn't know were wasted at the time. It's hard enough finding a group willing to play current RPG lines... The idea that I'll just be able to keep playing Pathfinder in whatever edition I want isn't a reality for me. No one wants to play the obsolete thing.

So, I guess, good bye and good luck. Maybe fresh players with fresh money will enjoy this, but it won't be me.

It's not. It's hyperbole. No game is worthless as long as you have players for it. There are new games that people wont play because people love older versions of the game. There are older games that people wont play because ongoing support and new and shiny are important to them. It all depends on the gamers in question.

But Im absolutely certain there will be people playing PF 1e years from now. The same way that there are people still playing 1e/2e/3e D&D today.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope Paizo doesn’t reprint any Golarion lore. I already have two campaign setting guides.

Scarab Sages

Erik Mona wrote:
Subparhiggins wrote:

Is the lore for Golarion going to be kept relatively consistent for a seamless transition with PF2E? I admit I was disappointed with other games when they decided to axe half the pantheon, etc, and erase entire species from existence.

Edit: Also is the timeline going to be continuous? Or will there be any time skippage backward or forward involved?

I suspect someone else has answered this, but we have always assumed that Golarion's timeline moves forward on a 1:1 basis with time in the real world, and when we revise the campaign for Pathfinder Second Edition we'll update the current year to 4719, which is a 12-year shift from the first Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer and Pathfinder #1 back in 2007.

Usually this doesn't really impact books or adventures, so we don't make a big deal of it, but it's been a part of the setting from the very beginning.

In updating the base presentation of the setting to 4719, we'll also codify the resolution of certain Adventure Paths with important international implications. War for the Crown will bring us a new monarch in Taldor. Return of the Runelords will shake things up in Varisia. The one after that will have its own implications. While we're at it, we'll update the world to a new situation in the Worldwound, for example.

But we're not killing off any gods or anything. All oracles in the campaign setting don't suddenly turn into clerics or evaporate into smoke or something.

We're not jumping forward to a time when EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT(tm).

Well this answers the question! Shoulda just read another 200 posts!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to throw in my two cents into this major news…..YES!!!!!!!!!! All of the changes honestly feel like it’s addressing issues I’ve been having with Pathfinder for a while now. I still own my physical Beta Copy and have been running games with Pathfinder since then both in person and on Roll20. I couldn’t even begin to think about how many hours I’ve put into either prepping games, playing games, or researching Pathfinder stuff. I think most people agree that recently Pathfinder has been showing more issues with the newer books.

All the stuff that’s been hinted at so far just seem like natural improvements on the current system. My hope that 2nd Edition finds itself between Pathfinder 1st Edition and D&D 5th Edition; more options than 5th but smoother all around than Pathfinder 1st Edition.

Thanks for taking the risk with this Paizo Staff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

As someone that played a DnD 2e game last week.. I am not sure how it is all worthless because of a new edition........

Chad Nedzlek wrote:

I'm so sad about this. I've mostly just been sitting here in shock for a couple hours, feeling a sense of loss. I've spend literally thousands of dollars on Pathfinder. Much of which I haven't really gotten a chance to use. And now I never will. The same thing happened with 4th edition. I bought a bunch of stuff that was all suddenly worthless.

I'm not made of money, and spending new money on top of old to get back things I already paid for once leaves a sad taste in my mouth. I feel especially upset about more recent purchases. They are essentially wasted money that I didn't know were wasted at the time. It's hard enough finding a group willing to play current RPG lines... The idea that I'll just be able to keep playing Pathfinder in whatever edition I want isn't a reality for me. No one wants to play the obsolete thing.

So, I guess, good bye and good luck. Maybe fresh players with fresh money will enjoy this, but it won't be me.

It's not. It's hyperbole. No game is worthless as long as you have players for it. There are new games that people wont play because people love older versions of the game. There are older games that people wont play because ongoing support and new and shiny are important to them. It all depends on the gamers in question.

But Im absolutely certain there will be people playing PF 1e years from now. The same way that there are people still playing 1e/2e/3e D&D today.

About a month ago someone was asking rules questions for 3.0 on reddit, not even 3.5, 3.0!

I for one am happy that PF is getting "finalized" as it were, it's already bloated too much, and without new content coming all the time maybe I can finally get to learn and use all the options and monsters already there. There's literally thousands of things I've not used or seen used yet, and it will be years before I do.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Just listening to Glass Cannon: that initiative system is really slow and boring.

It’s also going to create weird play. Characters in explore mode will always do what supports there best initiative check, the rogue will always stealth, the ranger will always look for tracks... even if they’re just walking down the road to meet a friend, for fear of being caught out in combat.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

PLEASE USE POCKET EDITION SIZE!

Seriously, not only is it good for the environment, but it also cuts down on the weight of carrying books around and should have been an innovation from the start and please do not forget this lesson!


12 people marked this as a favorite.
outshyn wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

...a huge deal has been made of how goblins are going to be a playable race in the new 2.0 Pathfinder.

This is a race that in-canon is terrified of written words and by nature is disruptive and doesn't work well together save with others of their race.

Yeah, and a lot of that is Paizo's own doing. They took "normal" goblins from D&D 3.5 and made them into pyromaniac bobble-headed balls of chaos and destruction. This will be my first house-rule in Pathfinder 2 -- no, you cannot play a goblin. Yes, I understand that they are a core race. You still can't play them.

Every now & then I run monster campaigns where players get to try out goblins, kobolds, and other low-race-point monster races. I will shunt my goblin-loving players into those games and keep goblins away from my main game.

Tengu, kitsune, and all the other races that you can play in Pathfinder Society would be a much better baseline. Also nezumi/ratfolk. These are sentient races that have been shown to function in society. Much better options.

I know I'm biased, but I don't get most of the concerns about the disruptiveness of goblins becoming core PC race.

Sure, I hated kender (still do) and the players who use a CN alignment to be completely random and/or completely disruptive. But adventurers are exceptional members of their own races and communities, and I expect Paizo will take a similar tack with goblins as PCs. Non-good non-lawful half-orc NPCs/opponents haven't broken my setting immersion for half-orc PCs. Heck, many opponents the PCs will face are non-good non-lawful humans.

Hopefully, Paizo will make clear in the iconic alchemist's bio how he or she contributes to an adventuring party without being disruptive. And they will include several hooks for building non-disruptive goblin PCs.

Edit:

David knott 242 wrote:
I would imagine that Goblin player characters are the result of a whole generation of adventurers wiping out whole tribes of adult goblins and taking their babies to the local orphanage to be raised by humans. These orphans, when they grow up, are about as socially accepted as half-orcs.

What the setting might need is perhaps the son/daughter of one of the goblin hero-gods who became a non-evil demi-power. Can we name the deity something like Mi'kaz?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Keith McVay wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Keith McVay wrote:
Its to sell people a whole new set of books they already own.
That would defeat the purpose of a new edition, which is to be different enough to be worth the expenditure and development time and money.

So, they don't want people to buy a whole new set of: Core Rulebook, Bestiaries, Advanced Guides, etc? If you say so, man.

We disagree that those books will be the same as what is already owned.
Maybe the real Second Edition was inside us all along...

I've always said we already are in a new edition. It just didn't have the official reprinting and rebranding. Now we're going to another new edition. I don't like it, but I accept it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:


You can preorder print editions from paizo.com between March 20 and May 1.

Mr. Wertz, quick question (and if It's already been asked/answered I'm sorry, there's a lot of posts to dig through): Will pre-orders on Paizo benefit from the Pathfinder Advantage if we're a subscriber?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:

Just listening to Glass Cannon: that initiative system is really slow and boring.

It’s also going to create weird play. Characters in explore mode will always do what supports there best initiative check, the rogue will always stealth, the ranger will always look for tracks... even if they’re just walking down the road to meet a friend, for fear of being caught out in combat.

That just sounds like bad players.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

Just listening to Glass Cannon: that initiative system is really slow and boring.

It’s also going to create weird play. Characters in explore mode will always do what supports there best initiative check, the rogue will always stealth, the ranger will always look for tracks... even if they’re just walking down the road to meet a friend, for fear of being caught out in combat.

That just sounds like bad players.

Improved Initiative is one of the most popular feats for a reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

YAY! New edition means new brewing opportunities!

Dark Archive

Anyone got a link to the thread Mark Seifter mentioned that summarizes the information from the Glass Cannon podcast?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Would I trade one of my three actions (drawing my weapon) for, say, +4 initiative? Probably.

That said, specific skills don’t always work. If you don’t have tracks to follow, you can’t roll survival. But yeah, casters are really gonna be trying to shoehorn relevant skills in.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Craig Tierney wrote:
Anyone got a link to the thread Mark Seifter mentioned that summarizes the information from the Glass Cannon podcast?

Do you mean this one?

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

17 people marked this as a favorite.

I removed some posts and replies containing inappropriate language. Additionally, if you want to discuss how the shift from using "race" to "ancestry" is "too politically correct" you'll need to take it off of paizo.com. We will not be hosting discussion of that on our forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:

Just listening to Glass Cannon: that initiative system is really slow and boring.

It’s also going to create weird play. Characters in explore mode will always do what supports there best initiative check, the rogue will always stealth, the ranger will always look for tracks... even if they’re just walking down the road to meet a friend, for fear of being caught out in combat.

Glad you brought this up. Reading the blog description of the initiative system already sounded wonky and weird. That you've listened to actual gamers trying it, and that it was slow, boring, and also pointed to doing something narratively ridiculous just to get the most sure bet to act high in initiative, fleshes out some of the amorphous concerns I had about how weird it sounded. Maybe this will be one of the things that the playtest squashes?


I'd like to say I'm "excited", but the more accurate term would be "nervous." There's certainly room for improvement in Pathfinder, but I've been through so many different game remakes that I know its a crap-shoot on the consumer side.

AD&D 1e to 2e - A Tweak, Okay.
AD&D 2e to 3e - Applause.
AD&D 3e to 3.5e - A Tweak, Okay.
AD&D 3.5e to 4e - Condemnation.
AD&D 3.5 to PF1 - A Tweak, Okay.
AD&D 5e - Unnecessary thanks to PF1.

I would like to see them embrace creating more optional rules. In the "old days" we made lots of house rules. These days we still want to make house rules, but since games pretty much require a person to use a computer to make a character, you can't always "codify" what you want to do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
RickDias wrote:
I'd love to hear from Paizo staff, in brief (I understand you're very busy, so a simple "yes, do-able!" suffices) about whether PF2E on day 1 supports/will support character concepts such as...

yes indeed: how close to Pathfinder 3.0 do I need to wait till I can play a Shifter equivalent class in PF2.0 ... ?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Craig Tierney wrote:
Anyone got a link to the thread Mark Seifter mentioned that summarizes the information from the Glass Cannon podcast?

Do you mean this one?

Yes, thank you.

For others interested, the thread David Knott linked to links to a google doc which suggest instead going to this post which is a post in the Pathfinder reddit page for the podcast, with a more full breakdown.


MendedWall12 wrote:


Glad you brought this up. Reading the blog description of initiative system already sounded wonky and weird. That you've listened to actual gamers trying it, and that it was slow, boring, and also pointed to doing something narratively ridiculous just to get the most sure bet to act high in initiative, fleshes out some of the amorphous concerns I had about how weird it sounded. Maybe this will be one of the things that the playtest squashes?

It MIGHT be one of those 'more extreme' rule versions that were mentioned upthread by Paizo stuff, that's only included in the Playtest to get removed anyway and replaced with the rule versions they always intended to include but had to show the worse version first so that the final version doesn't look so bad.

(I mean, I'm glad they admitted that, but that doesn't make the move look better)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


PLEASE USE POCKET EDITION SIZE!

Seconded. They're easy to read, easier to carry, and look just fine on a bookshelf.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Edited wrong quote out. - In response to the comment of slow Initiative and people always being in stealth or looking for tracks.

To me the gm should be looking at situational awareness. If you are on general travel a gm should ask why would you do this? But, if they are in a dungeon or have recently been attacked absolutely makes sense. Otherwise it is meta gaming. I think the mechanic is quite clever and gives more complexity and variation and choices to the game.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:


Glad you brought this up. Reading the blog description of initiative system already sounded wonky and weird. That you've listened to actual gamers trying it, and that it was slow, boring, and also pointed to doing something narratively ridiculous just to get the most sure bet to act high in initiative, fleshes out some of the amorphous concerns I had about how weird it sounded. Maybe this will be one of the things that the playtest squashes?

It MIGHT be one of those 'more extreme' rule versions that were mentioned upthread by Paizo stuff, that's only included in the Playtest to get removed anyway and replaced with the rule versions they always intended to include but had to show the worse version first so that the final version doesn't look so bad.

(I mean, I'm glad they admitted that, but that doesn't make the move look better)

That's a rather unfair paraphrase of what they said.

What they have said they are doing is in places they have chosen the more unusual of the options they are considering, because they want to see what we think.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For initiative, it looks like you need to spend most of your exploration time doing things that you are good at in order to get a decent initiative. If you want to avoid being caught flat footed, you need to restrict your practice of things you are lousy at to downtime when you are in a safe place.

751 to 800 of 1,608 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: First Look at the Pathfinder Playtest All Messageboards