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
951 to 1,000 of 1,608 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
So are the background-based feats more akin to what used to be racial traits or feats?

Oh how I wish the people at Paizo would answer this instead of letting the worry grow higher. It doesn't help people that want to like the product but are scared off by the(apparently?) poor wording.

Raphael Bressel wrote:

Everything sounds great except for this.

Quote:
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.
This sounds like the stuff I hated about D&D 4th Edition, and why I was so excited to buy Pathfinder instead.

Having played 5E before I can say this sounds exactly like 5E. I wonder if someone will come along to say it's not going to be the same, but when the playtest rolls around...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
john mclaughlin 11 wrote:
NO

"A man that eloquent has to be saved!" -George C Scott, Patton


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Samy wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Samy wrote:
how many people do play 1e *will* affect me when I'm looking for group.
The internet exists. You'll be fine.
Don't patronize me. The situation on the Internet isn't good enough now, and it's only going to get worse.

Yeah, I do wish people would stop trying to shut down those for whom this announcement is basically "switch systems or stop playing". It might not be the case for everyone, but looking for players on the internet is not an option for me and neither is sticking with 1E, as it's a group decision.

Also, (in regard to the 'my books are invalidated' or similar) a big part of why I enjoy Pathfinder is the ongoing support. I love getting new hardcovers, new adventures and new player companions full of options - irrespective of their utility. It's not entirely rational, but I'm more excited to run my upcoming Carrion Crown game because I just received the first installment of War for the Crown.

That ongoing support (for 1E) is going to cease and I think people disappointed about that should be allowed to say they're disappointed. Maybe it's not technically "invalidated" or "redundant" or whatever, but who cares? It's an expression of sentiment not a legal claim.

(FWIW, I don't think Paizo owe me continued support - so I don't agree with those who express this feeling as 'betrayal' or some kind of attack from paizo. It's nonetheless sad though - we don't play PF very much and I had hoped to run a vigilante one day. I suspect that day has been pushed back quite some way now and is going to depend on it coming out in PF2 at a convenient time for my group's switching campaigns).

I agree fully. Online Pathfinder isn't an option for me and playing the game is solely dependent on my group - who have been chomping at the bit to get a 2e of Pathfinder...primarily because they don't like complexity in their tabletops and have been trying to switch to 5e.

Unfortunately, I am the polar opposite of my group and love the complexity of Pathfinder. Worse off, Vigilante is possibly my favorite class (specifically the Magical Child archetype, as while it may be suboptimal, it is a lot of fun and flavorful) is unlikely to be re-released for YEARS after 2e releases. Goodness knows if Magical Child will even return.
While I really hope I like 2e (though from what I've seen from the podcast/blog posts, I've been growing increasingly doubtful), even if it is the best system ever printed I'll be waiting nearly a decade before I can actually play the class that I want to...and even then its a coin flip if I'll be able to ever play an official release of my favorite Archetype again.
Paizo hadn't really been instilling a lot of confidence about 2e, as the Blog Posts, F&Q, and Announcement has been worded in such ways that there is a LOT up for interpretation.

Just a note for any developers who may accidentally skim over this post, while there isn't enough information about 2e available for us at the moment, I would highly recommend against using Skill Proficiency as a term. Regardless of how it is implemented, it conjures the image of DnD 5e in the minds of the masses. A different term might be better in order to help disassociate 2e from DnD 5e, which might make it easier to stomach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gosh.

Fwiw, colour me cautiously optimistic. Complex simulationism is much of what appeals to me about PF, and 5e-style streamlining and simplifying, or potentially smoothing out the levelling, sound like they might make PF2.0 less appealing, but I've been happy enough with Paizo design decisions generally to be open to seeing how they play out in practice, and considering how much effort I have put into tweaking and houseruling every system I've ever played with to fit my preferences, my various groups' preferences and the needs of the game of the moment, the prospect of getting to do more of that seems entirely reasonable.

I have always thought the platonic ideal of the D&D-genre campaign has the same shape as the anime Gurren Lagann: a quarter of the campaign wandering around doing low level things, a quarter becoming more influential and significant, a quarter being a serious mover and shaker in your setting, and a quarter being off-the-scale epic in ways that are admittedly extremely hard to make work but can be fun even when they are utterly demented. One of the things I most hope for from PF2.0, in time, is a new approach to that last quarter - mythic just did not do it for me - and pretty much the only thing that would seriously turn me off it would be for it to have as much of the "20 levels of E6" feel as 5e can have. Building monsters and characters on incompatible underlying mechanics would be pretty unappealing to me also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, if PF2 tanks, my group will just switch to savage worlds. But I'm hoping it won't, and will give it a chance by participating in the play test. Until we get the rules, we are just guessing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:


And you wouldn't have to, because the CRB works fine as it is. But if you WANT to, you CAN. With the Unchanied books solution Paizo would offer a choice, depending on your tastes and visions of what the game should be, instead of what they are doing now.

No, the CRB doesn’t work fine. It works but with lots of effort, particularly compared to the more traditional PH/DMG pairing of its parent game. For many of us, I’m sure it works as well as it does because we’re bringing lots of previous experience and we’re already familiar with the content lost to crunching it all into one volume.

I’d consider a PF 2e with a better and more user-friendly rulebook.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously this is (and is going to stay) a very contentious topic, but for my part, I largely gave up on Pathfinder 1E years ago. So I'll definitely be trying the 2E playtest, and if I end up liking the final product, I might even find my way back to PFS.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chillblame wrote:
Well, if PF2 tanks, my group will just switch to savage worlds. But I'm hoping it won't, and will give it a chance by participating in the play test. Until we get the rules, we are just guessing.

I hope, if it tanks, we'll get P1 back.

I do not want it to tank though. I want it to be something I enjoy. I just doubt it will be so far.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Dragonborn3 wrote:
I hope, if it tanks, we'll get P1 back.

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

Even the most unmitigated disaster that the RPG world has seen (4e) went on to 5e, not back to 3e. It doesn't work like that. Companies don't backpedal.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
I hope, if it tanks, we'll get P1 back.

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

Even the most unmitigated disaster that the RPG world has seen (4e) went on to 5e, not back to 3e. It doesn't work like that. Companies don't backpedal.

White Wolf did, they are currently publishing both New and Old World of Darkness games

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kyubey_ wrote:
Quote:
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.

This has me the most worried. Why are feat chain locked off because certain background was selected? Why can my character grow naturally and pick feats that make sense.

Lets say Power Attack is locked away for nomad background, why can't soldier learn to power attack? Why can my arcane warrior/gish learn power attack? Especially this is a background thing.

I think the blog has been somewhat misleading on that front, based on reading comments like these, and I can see why looking back on that wording now. To my knowledge, though the design space is of course still there, there isn't anything in the playtest document that specifically requires a particular background in order to take it. Now there are some things where having a background can give you a nice kickstart towards getting there sooner, but that's a different situation!
So are the background-based feats more akin to what used to be racial traits or feats? I'm going to be honest, while the intent may have been to simplify stuff, creating all these lists of feats is going to be really hard to parse properly. Harder than it is currently I'm not sure about, but it's still going to be a bit of a mess if people are looking for an effect they want instead of looking for what options they have available to them in their current class/background/ancestry.

When you say racial traits, do you mean the racial abilities that were called racial traits or do you mean the race-based traits that were called race traits? Either way, a background is not really the same as either; a better analogy that someone on this thread made when comparing (was it QuidEst?) is that backgrounds are a little package of cool things, kind of like the two traits from the APG's trait system.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If it helps them stay excited about their jobs I'm all for it.

And at least if I have all my Pathfinder Classic books if it's not for me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark, to put it mildly the “streamlined” is what has me worried. I don’t want an over simplified game that tries to occupy the design space fifth edition is occupying.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My thoughts:
I have probably spent near a car's worth on money on Pathfinder over the past 10 years. I don't have a complete collection, but I'd say I'm pretty close. Mind, the past few years I've cut back on what I subscribed to. Still, Pathfinder 1E is my go-to choice for running games, a familiar and heavily-invested game.

I have full faith in Paizo to produce interesting new products, as is evidenced by my Starfinder charter superscriber tag.

I enjoy reading through rules systems, and enjoy trying new systems, and even sometimes adapting what I find into Pathfinder. A also enjoy customizing character creation rules for the campaigns I do run.

I find Pathfinder a challenge to run at high levels. Mostly because of stacking modifiers and actual action economy more than option paralysis or martial caster disparity.

I expect I'll preorder the playtest.

I do not expect to be switching over to PF 2E, but may collect at least the initial outlays.

I may just find a way to turn my "almost complete" collection of PF1E into a "complete" collection.

I have several like minded players I run for who will likely at least ride out the remainder of the campaigns I'm running and that will keep me going for a few years at least. Likely these folks will help me ride out 1E for another decade or so.

So, not bitter, not "betrayed" but not ready to move on completely either, and that's ok by me.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Mark, to put it mildly the “streamlined” is what has me worried. I don’t want an over simplified game that tries to occupy the design space fifth edition is occupying.

A broad depth of character-building options is critically important to us. Obviously the playtest isn't going to have everything that makes it into the core book, and the core book isn't going to have everything yet either, but we plan to give you the full support you've come to expect from Pathfinder.

Just because something is made simpler, doesn't mean it necessarily must sacrifice depth of expression or customization options to do so. It's certainly much easier as a trade-off, but if you work hard enough at a design, you can open up a wide variety of options (including brand new ones that wouldn't have been possible before) while at the same time simplifying the confusing parts.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Keith McVay wrote:

One thing I will say is that 5E got it right in the amount of products it releases, which are minimal.

- 3 Core Books
- An adventure HC or 2 a year
- One crunch/fluff combo book about a specific topic

So in 4 years they have (I think)

- 3 Core Books
- 8 Adventures
- 3 Fluff/Crunch Niche Books (Volo, Mordenkainen and Xanathar)

I don't think people want non-stop books of feats and mediocre classes. Sales of 5E seem to indicate this and my personal buying preferences align with this philosophy.

Amen and agreeed! I bought the first few APs which were great but i stopped buying cause I already had enough to use in my lifetime so a slower release schedule fits my buying habits than the book of the month club Paizo release trend.


chillblame wrote:
Well, if PF2 tanks, my group will just switch to savage worlds. But I'm hoping it won't, and will give it a chance by participating in the play test. Until we get the rules, we are just guessing.

I really want the Paizo devs to be looking at that game far more than 5e.

There is a lot to learn from that dev team on designing a system to last (15 years now) that iterates very incrementally and is very comprehensive with extensive 3rd party support.


Mark Seifter wrote:
When you say racial traits, do you mean the racial abilities that were called racial traits or do you mean the race-based traits that were called race traits? Either way, a background is not really the same as either; a better analogy that someone on this thread made when comparing (was it QuidEst?) is that backgrounds are a little package of cool things, kind of like the two traits from the APG's trait system.

Seifter-senpai noticed me!

Given that I often use traits to customize my class skills, flexible selection of skill specializations will help cover some of the aspects of traits too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's like D&D all over again!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well as someone who has asked for a second edition for several years now, I'm absolutely excited about these news and the playtest to come. SO at the moment, my only question would be what that will mean for the setting of Pathfinder. I'm much more of a setting guy than a rules guy, and while I wouldn't mind paying (a lot) for a new rules edition, I'd probably be much more averse to pay a lot of money for the same (but updated) setting books, if there's no change at all. So in the end, if I start playing 2nd ed. will depend mostly on how you handle the setting.

Still, can't wait to see the new rules edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
chillblame wrote:
Well, if PF2 tanks, my group will just switch to savage worlds. But I'm hoping it won't, and will give it a chance by participating in the play test. Until we get the rules, we are just guessing.

I really want the Paizo devs to be looking at that game far more than 5e.

There is a lot to learn from that dev team on designing a system to last (15 years now) that iterates very incrementally and is very comprehensive with extensive 3rd party support.

Savage Worlds is indeed pretty great.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Here's what would make me more interested in 2e:

* More modular classes. If I really don't like a particular class ability, the possibility to swap it out and get something in return, without needing to wait for a fixed archetype that gives one rigid option. If I otherwise like Druid, but really dislike Wild Shape because it's mechanically cumbersome, then let me swap out Wild Shape and pick up a second animal companion, or extra spells, or even something from other classes like a domain or divine bond.

* Subrace/heritage system directly baked into core rather than an afterthought. CRB should give at least three races two options (like two types of humans, two types of dwarves, two types of elves) to show commitment to this concept.

* More modular races. Alternate racial traits was one of the best concepts in Pathfinder, but they were almost completely forgotten after Advanced Race Guide. They should be introduced in core and extensively cultivated afterwards, like Traits show up all over the place in 1e.

* More unified and seamless system between PCs and monster stats. 3.0 Savage Species did an amazing job showing how tough monsters could be treated as equivalent to class levels. Bake that into the core assumptions of the game and make it gel from the start. If I want to play a dryad wizard, how many class levels must I give up in order to be balanced with the rest of the party with core races? No lame "lesser" race options like in Starfinder where the PC version of the race is nothing like the monster version. (Unless, of course, the monster level can be levelled up like in Savage Species.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joseph Davis wrote:
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?

Yes. (The benefit is called the Paizo Advantage these days, BTW.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ralphrius wrote:
Some of the stuff I'm seeing sounds good, some of the stuff I'm seeing sounds... less good. The new action economy sounds like you can do a lot of fun stuff with it, but getting rid of skill ranks feels like a shame.

What has led you to the conclusion that skill ranks are going away?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyubey_ wrote:
Quote:
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.
This has me the most worried. Why are feat chain locked off because certain background was selected? Why can my character grow naturally and pick feats that make sense.

We said that something opened up. What has led you to the conclusion that something else has closed?


If anything additional character options that are related to class make me more interested in multi-classing to see whats possible when I mix things up.

EDIT: Related to this. Am I the only one that when their character levels up, and earns a feat, the first thing I do is immediately search for feats that involve either my class or my class features as a prerequisite? The most interesting option to me is taking something that helps me build even more on what I started. Of course I want to power up my cool class stuff. When I do that type of search in PF2E, I want that list to be enormous.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Alynthar42 wrote:
So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.

Seriously—where are you getting all these restrictions from? Is it just because we used the word "proficiency?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alynthar42 wrote:
So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.
Seriously—where are you getting all these restrictions from? Is it just because we used the word "proficiency?"

you could show us a character sheet. Be a nice way to close a few misconceptions (and open a hundred other ones)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is kinda what some of the verbiage when combined with ‘simplification’ sounds a bit like. I think there is at least a decent set worried about it becoming fifth ed 2.0. Which is a fine enough game for what it is, but not what they play this one for. Now it might not be that, but there are plenty of things that kinda sound like going that way.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want a new edition. I came to Paizo because I didn't want a new edition. And now I'm leaving for the next haven wherein 3.5 can Thrive. So, who wants to soak up all that 3rd edition money Paizo is throwing away? Who will step up and carry the torch, start a new company, set up a new organized play league, make more adventure paths, and keep the new content coming out fresh and relevant to the times? Don't let it end like this. Not again. Someone. Please.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alynthar42 wrote:
So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.
Seriously—where are you getting all these restrictions from? Is it just because we used the word "proficiency?"

I think I can answer this one? The playtest demo game by the Glass Cannon Podcast talked about skills being divided up into untrained, trained, and expert. Trained was described as level + ability mod, and expert as level + ability mod + 1. Untrained was, at least at level 1, ability mod - 1. Or that's at least what the notes from two sources say, if I recall correctly. I can go check.

From that, I would be surprised to learn that skill ranks were something you assigned every level.

EDIT:
"Every character has Perception. Every (many?) skills are either trained, untrained or expert depending on your class, such as perception, which automatically adds a modifier equal to the levels you have in those classes. If you are untrained, you take a -1"


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alynthar42 wrote:
So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.
Seriously—where are you getting all these restrictions from? Is it just because we used the word "proficiency?"

I think there’s a lot of reading a word common to the 5E ruleset and assuming it’s the same concept.

(Not specifically speaking to Alynthar42 here - just a general observation. It will presumably die down somewhat once we see what the words actually mean in PF2).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Cerushad wrote:
And now I'm leaving for the next haven wherein 3.5 can Thrive.

Yeah I've been googling third party adventure paths a lot today...sadly I found out pretty much all of them have significantly less inspiring art than Pathfinder...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alynthar42 wrote:
So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.
Seriously—where are you getting all these restrictions from? Is it just because we used the word "proficiency?"

I think because "Proficiency" in relation to skills is so closely associated with DnD 5e these days, its going to be a massive uphill battle to get people to get on board with it. From what I can gather, the 5e Proficiency is kinda reviled by a lot of people, so seeing it pop up so frequently implies the worst. Definitely not the best choice of words, especially when the playerbase is feeling so many conflicting emotions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Please tell me we can still roll for stats and don't just get them based entirely on ancestry, background, or class. Don't give me another game with that stupid 'Standard Array' mechanic. By the Rough Beast I hate that in 5e!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

As for that skill simplification debate, let me point out that "Proficiency" was also the word used in 2e for a bare-bones "on/off, you have it or you don't, no gradation" skill system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:


First, grognards are also being swallowed by 5e. There is no lack of podcasts and youtube series of people playing 5e with grey beards that starting to play the game when Dave Arneson's name was still printed in the books.

Second, "win the 3e grognards or win the 5e players" is a false dichotomy. It states that those two are the only kind of players out there, which is false, just like 5e showed. There is a different kind of player: new players. DnD managed to blow the sales ranks, while ADDING new players.

Darn straight. 5e brought me back to D&D after the 4e debacle, but it didn’t slow down my PF playing at all. Still playing weekly and online. Playing 5e weekly as well. New stuff, when it’s good, is good.

Silver Crusade

Since we don't know anything about the rules yet, we can only speculate.

And with most forms of speculation, it's generally safer to assume the worse/scarier option so we can give feedback on what we don't want.

That said, it would be interesting if by picking a certain class or a background, you were given a headstart in that chain. So like let's say you're a fighter, you get access to higher level fighter feats, but that doesn't deny your bard friend from taking fighter feats, he'll just qualify as a lower level fighter.

Or any other form of headstart mechanic that I haven't thought of yet. Maybe that already is the current system used for 2E.


Sooner or later they'll come out with Pathfinder 5th edition and then it'll be almost EXACTLY like D&D.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

21 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalaran wrote:
While I am certainly not excited for this, I do understand that Paizo needs to make money. It's less expensive for them to rewrite the old books and sell them as version 2.0 than it is to pay creators to come up with new material.

First, it wouldn't actually cost any less. Manuscripts pay by the word.

Second, we have no interest in doing that. It be a terrible business plan. And it wouldn't make anyone here happy. Paizo is full of creative people. If we told them that we want them to spend the next ten years recycling everything from the previous ten years, I think they would all quit in 5 minutes. I know I would.


So true.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
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 reading through this, I think the "feat chains" in question might be more akin to the class-based Talents that each class in Star Wars Saga Edition received, and not the "feat chains" we're used to seeing in Pathfinder.

That would make the more like chained Rogue Talents, which might be cool.

-Skeld


This is great news to hear. In my opinion, Pathfinder really needed to revamp the game in the wake of 5e. While I did enjoy 3.5/PFRPG, the system was quite complex and became very cumbersome the higher in level you got. It was hard to get new players interested in the system at times and constant scanning of your character sheet to find if a conditional bonus applied to your roll was a bit too much at times -- especially as you leveled up.

While I have enjoyed 5e, WotC's near complete lack of support for their own products is quite frustrating. Paizo is definitely the industry leader in supporting their own products with a myriad of adventures and other supplements.

I greatly welcome this change and hope it takes some of the good elements of 5e and tweaks them with Paizo's magical touch that just seems to make good things even better.

(The only negative to me about this announcement is that I was hoping they were going to introduce a 2nd edition ruleset when they released Starfinder. I loved the idea of Starfinder but I just had no further interest in supporting/buying any products that were based off of the 3.5 Edition ruleset.

Can't wait to hear more about this new edition and I look forward to resuming campaigns in the Golarion setting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If they become the stripped down game 5e is a lot of the appeal will vanish for many players. I seriously hope they don’t try to occupy the same design space as 5e.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

When you say racial traits, do you mean the racial abilities that were called racial traits or do you mean the race-based traits that were called race traits? Either way, a background is not really the same as either; a better analogy that someone on this thread made when comparing (was it QuidEst?) is that backgrounds are a little package of cool things, kind of like the two traits from the...

Just getting rid of the whole "do you mean racial traits or racial traits" thing is worth a 2E.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Quote:
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 reading through this, I think the "feat chains" in question might be more akin to the class-based Talents that each class in Star Wars Saga Edition received, and not the "feat chains" we're used to seeing in Pathfinder.

That would make the more like chained Rogue Talents, which might be cool.

-Skeld

Most classes have that already though, so if that were the case it would be needlessly confusing for no purpose apart from confusing people.


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

If there's a 'compression' of classes/archetypes into a more easily digested whole (such as Brawler/Swashbuckler/Gunslinger/etc into Fighter) that might make things a bit more palatable for folks while preserving and learning from the lessons of the past.

A concern point would be when the character development phase becomes 'One must have the One True Build to be Successful' and that is a community killer, no matter what community it is.

Another concern point is an invalidation of previous material.

IF Paizo can publish an easy-to-use backwards and forwards compatibility guide between 1.0 and 2.0, that will help restore some faith from the community AND build bridges to the past material that has been released.

Such would be a monumental undertaking, but if the groundwork is laid *now*, then the rails are in place.

There is going to be a delicate balancing act going on here, one hopes, and the dev team on the tightrope will get the respect they will have earned by the time it is done.

I'm reserving judgement on the rules until I see them, I'm worried about my beloved tengu, and I could give two rat's butts about goblins (but I've already determined I'm playing a goblin paladin for the playtest).

May everyone have wisdom and patience in the weeks, months, and years ahead.


Intrigued.

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
Please tell me we can still roll for stats and don't just get them based entirely on ancestry, background, or class. Don't give me another game with that stupid 'Standard Array' mechanic. By the Rough Beast I hate that in 5e!

Rolling your stats is an optional rule in the Playtest book. Because we want to get the playtest results from a more stable dataset, we prefer people use the default ability system for characters they'll be giving playtest feedback on, but we did want to show how it could work.

951 to 1,000 of 1,608 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 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