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
1,151 to 1,200 of 1,608 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I haven't been able to get much information on how baked into the new rules Golarion lore will be. That worries me, because 9.5 times out of 10, I have no desire to use Golarion. In order for this to be the game for me, I need to know that I can use it with a homebrew or third party setting with ease.

Also, to be brutally honest, after the Kineticist, Vigilante, and Shifter, it's really hard for me to trust Paizo as game designers anymore. Especially with all the public input you had on the Kineticist and how underpowered it was well before publishing it. I'm kind of skeptical as to holl well you can actually pull off anything you are proposing here, because your recent track record with lesser projects suggests you can't.


Meraki wrote:

Hmmm...

I wasn't in the camp of people clamoring for a second edition, but I wouldn't mind having a few things streamlined either. Some of the changes mentioned so far have me a bit concerned and some sound interesting. (Maybe the initial reluctance is just my freelancer brain going "have to learn a new system now, whaaaaa?")

I wonder if they'll manage to get Stealth and Perception to work coherently this time?

Or whatever they call those abilities.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

My point is that if you play an elf that sails a,ship plundering other ships, you might choose the Ancestry «elf», which will give you elvish stuff that other elves could share, even if they are desert nomads. Things like being graceful. Or you could pick «seafarer», which would give you stuff about the sea. Things you could share with other pirates, smugglers, or sailors, even if they are halflings.

I suspect that "Seafarer" is going to be encompassed by the new background system. I think what it represents is a split between nature and nurture. Ancestry would cover genetic elements (elves are more graceful and get a bonus to Dexterity) vs backgrounds covering cultural elements (dwarves are proficient in warhammers).

The move to Ancestry instead of Race/Species indicates to me that we could have different rules for Chelaxian and Kellid humans, or the bazillion different elf subtypes, instead of having "Human" or "Elf" with a bunch of swappable traits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zion Silvertail wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
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.

If your people are so creative then why do you even need to remake Pathfinder? You ARE going to end up recycling everything. It's inevitable. Another thing. You're trying to make this streamlined. We PCs don't WANT streamlined. We want cash, XP, and death around every corner.

So your two complains,are:

1) Paizo is going to charge people for the same books
2) books are not going to be the same.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

My point is that if you play an elf that sails a,ship plundering other ships, you might choose the Ancestry «elf», which will give you elvish stuff that other elves could share, even if they are desert nomads. Things like being graceful. Or you could pick «seafarer», which would give you stuff about the sea. Things you could share with other pirates, smugglers, or sailors, even if they are halflings.

But there are some things that are very much tied to race.

In PF1, basically all elves have low-light vision, resist Enchantment, and have certain stat adjustments because that's how elves are BUILT. It's inherent to the DNA. That's a different beast than stuff like weapon familiarity, bonuses vs. SR, and keen senses - those could be described as "traditional elven upbringing."

Rather than saying "everyone raised like an elf gains low-light vision and takes a penalty to Con" (the "elven" ancestry), there ought to be two levels. A human with the "viking" ancestry should have noticeable differences from that gnome baby they picked up on a raid and raised as their own.


I think seafarer might be a bsckground, but «born in shackled islands» would be an ancestry, regardless of being Human, elf or half orc. Let's see


Rosita the Riveter wrote:
Okay, I haven't been able to get much information on how baked into the new rules Golarion lore will be. That worries me, because 9.5 times out of 10, I have no desire to use Golarion. In order for this to be the game for me, I need to know that I can use it with a homebrew or third party setting with ease.

I really can't imagine they're going to make it so tied to Golarion it won't be trivial to use in other settings.

Certain other setting might require more or less changes to fit in, but that's always true.

I'm not even sure what kind of thing people are worried about here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
Also, to be brutally honest, after the Kineticist, Vigilante, and Shifter, it's really hard for me to trust Paizo as game designers anymore. Especially with all the public input you had on the Kineticist and how underpowered it was well before publishing it. I'm kind of skeptical as to holl well you can actually pull off anything you are proposing here, because your recent track record with lesser projects suggests you can't.

Point of order.

The Kineticist is complicated not weak and suffers from having "better builds" but as far as utility archers go, they aren't weak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
Also, to be brutally honest, after the Kineticist, Vigilante, and Shifter, it's really hard for me to trust Paizo as game designers anymore. Especially with all the public input you had on the Kineticist and how underpowered it was well before publishing it. I'm kind of skeptical as to holl well you can actually pull off anything you are proposing here, because your recent track record with lesser projects suggests you can't.

Point of order.

The Kineticist is complicated not weak and suffers from having "better builds" but as far as utility archers go, they aren't weak.

That doesn't really mesh with the experiences I've had. It just feels underwhelming.


In my experience, the Kineticist has a higher floor and lower ceiling than most classes. It's easy to make decent, but can't be optimized quite as well as some other classes. The biggest problem is that having 5 elements to start with and a limited number of pages meant that they didn't have a lot of choices for powers in a given element as they leveled. Still doesn't make them a bad class.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

With kineticists I think the best thing when, hopefully not if, they return would be to do fewer elements or give them their own book. Page count hurt a lot of the Occult classes and that's a shame because I'm not afraid to say it was some of, if not THE, best work Paizo has ever done. I love that book to bits, it's the only physical book I own.

Expanding on that, giving classes the page count they need to shine would be really nice to see in this edition.

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo, the new ruleset you’ve proposed (you know, the one nobody’s actually seen more than a side glance of and has yet to be finalized) has ruined my life. My trust in you is void and I shall never game again! Someone please help me to my fainting couch!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*rushes over to Ikos*


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
Paizo, the new ruleset you’ve proposed (you know, the one nobody’s actually seen more than a side glance of and has yet to be finalized) has ruined my life. My trust in you is void and I shall never game again! Someone please help me to my fainting couch!

There's a line for the fainting couch. We shall instead give you... The Comfy Chair! {cue ominous music}


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The hype is so strong that last night I found my wallet flapping around.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
This is not the companies finest hour

I don't know. I don't have the books in front of me yet. What is in them that is so bad?


Any idea what this means for the Pawn line. I don't mind a new book, but I want my 1,000s of pawns to still match up. I am hoping you are just planing on releasing revised versions of the bestiaries.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Can we expect a Beginner Box and if so how soon after release?
Pathfinder Beginner Box was great but I hope the Box for next edition has a more robust Module


kevin_video wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:

But also, I hope PF2E does the following:

1. Jettison any complexity that gets in the way of play.
2. Fix character creation.
3. Fix high-level play: get rid of the buff-stacking and rocket-tag games.
4. Give us a robust conversion document so we can easily convert past content to PF2E.
4b. Make that conversion document robust enough that the community can convert and share past PFS content converted to 2E, and run it for credit. Don't abandon the old content! Crowdsource conversion so your PFS designers aren't trying to tackle it alone.
5. Don't try to make adversaries play by PC rules. There are some things boss monsters need that should never, ever be in PC hands. In particular, absolute immunities (e.g. freedom of movement) and things that affect action economy (haste, dazes, etc.) should be really, really hard for PCs to get.
6. Fix magic items. No magic item should ever be "required" for a PC's "build" to function. Make magic items feel special again. Put control over magic item acquisition back in the GM's hands, not the PCs'.

I'd like to add to this...

7. Make it practically impossible for ridiculous broken power gaming. Too many times have I've seen players become absolutely invincible by level 4 with their 34 AC and assembling of feats that give them six attacks of opportunity before they even have their turn. All because they own all the books and min-max the hell out of their multiple classes. And I especially never again want to see someone be able to have AC 108 by the time they're level 20.

100 is for chumps! We can crank that AC all the way to 150!

Dark Archive

Awesome! Best of luck on the new release! Definitely looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

Personal request: any chance y'all would consider giving gnolls some love as player/core characters in Pathfinder 2.0? :D You did great with them as monsters, but I'd love some more gnoll-friendly player character options! As your resident gnoll cultural representative and aficionado, I'd certainly appreciate the plug! :)

Or even a mammalian furry ancestry in general would be awesome. Y'all did great with the Ysoki and Vesk in Starfinder. I'd love to see something similar in Pathfinder!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:

For Desna's sake, what the hell are you talking about? Damn. How much actual mechanics do you want? And how frickin' early were you expecting it?

But, don't let me stop you. Carry on with your bs passive aggressive crap.

derail/reply:
Well thank you for your permission, I surely needed it to give my views on the company's most recent blunders.

As for the actual mechanics.. enough to allay the many worries floating around that not many people from Paizo are doing anything but deflecting? I've only noticed Mark giving actual, helpful information. It's part of the reason I respect him so much. He listens and answers. Without any of the backlash from the community to get him to do so.

I might be passive aggressive, I admit and recognize that, but some people are actively aggressive.

I will give you this though, nothing in you reply was censored. Nicely done there. Most people getting upset would be using expletives.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Prefab backgrounds...
That was probably my least favorite part of Starfinder and 5e D&D.
Especially the part where if you opted out with Themeless in Starfinder, it felt like you were intentionally given something worse than the other options.

I'm also rather worried about the way that feats have been described here. Each choice opening up entire trees also means that each choice closes off many more. That they were only described as Ancestral Feats and Class Feats is... uh... odd.
I kind of liked having that dimension of growth independent of what I am and what my job is, though I do recognize the balance issues it could and did cause. I'll also admit to enjoying those balance issues on more than one occasion.

A level based universal proficiency bonus brings me back to 5e D&D. I don't hate it, but it just feels... meh? Let's just say that there's a reason I'm playing Pathfinder more often that D&D these days. I can't say I don't like how you're doing it, because I don't know how you're doing it, but I can say it wouldn't be the end of the world if I didn't like it.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
It's not like the sky is falling, or anything.

I'm actually really excited for PF2e, so don't let my griping get you down. I just want it to be as good as it can be, and my ill informed opinion is the only thing my broke ass has to give beyond occasionally buying your books.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gnash-Yathuur Sandstalker wrote:

Awesome! Best of luck on the new release! Definitely looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

Personal request: any chance y'all would consider giving gnolls some love as player/core characters in Pathfinder 2.0? :D You did great with them as monsters, but I'd love some more gnoll-friendly player character options! As your resident gnoll cultural representative and aficionado, I'd certainly appreciate the plug! :)

Or even a mammalian furry ancestry in general would be awesome. Y'all did great with the Ysoki and Vesk in Starfinder. I'd love to see something similar in Pathfinder!

FLUFFIES!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Edit2: Also, rolled stats. Whatever you have in mind for character creation (and from the wording in the blog - that might be misleading - it doesn't look particularily enjoyable), please keep rolling stats an option

A designer has confirmed that rolling stat.s will be an optional rule in the Playtest Rulebook, which I am thankful for.


good!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not what I expected today~
I must say though.. all I hope for is.. some cool mundane items!
Alchemist in the core gives me hope.
I'm hoping they'll have an archetype that isn't all extract like.. Something with interesting "static" choices like FFD20's Chemist.

Well i'm just glad its in core cause thats the only class i love


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Also, don't confuse "simpler" with "stripped down."

This sort of reassurance has been keeping my blood-pressure under control. So thank you.

Occasional clarification of what some of the marketing bullet-point new-feature blurbs actually mean goes a long, long way.

Quote:
If you haven't read the blog about the new action economy, please do. It describes a system that's simpler than we have now, but that is also more flexible than we have now.

Mmmm. See, I trust you, because you've never steered me wrong. But I also see a flip-side of the coin. Take the removal of swift actions as an example. What is a swift action? It's an action you can take in addition to your others, but you're only allowed one of them a round. To a certain degree, if you still do that with the triple-action razor^H^H^H^H^H system, you haven't really simplified the system. You've just renamed some things and rearranged their costs. If only-once-per-round actions are removed, then you've removed something from the design-space.

I remain neutral, having not seen the rules. You say wait, I'll wait. Maybe you're introducing different complexity to avoid "stripped". Or maybe something will be lost. Dunno. We'll see.

Quote:
I can tell you from my own play experience, it allows for more varied play strategies and more interesting player decisions. But it's easier to learn and faster in play. I think it's more fun, and I think most of you will think that too, once you've tried it. THAT is what this is about.

Again, thank you. The goal here is always fun. Your fun might not be my fun, but we'll see on Aug 18th. Until then, thanks for sharing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Take the removal of swift actions as an example. What is a swift action? It's an action you can take in addition to your others, but you're only allowed one of them a round. To a certain degree, if you still do that with the triple-action razor^H^H^H^H^H system, you haven't really simplified the system. You've just renamed some things and rearranged their costs. If only-once-per-round actions are removed, then you've removed something from the design-space.

It has simplified the system because you no longer need to remember which kind of action every action you try to perform is, to see if they are compatibles.

The last campaign I GMed, one player had a Magus, which happened to have a fighting Style. I can't count how many times during the campaign he tried to use an arcana and activate the Style in the same round. We also had an Inquisitor, with the archetype that gives you Slayers' studied combat, and for some of the campaign, a magic weapon with a swift-action activation (a pike that grows in reach, can't remember the name right now), so he had at least 3 sources of swift actions he wanted to use (bane/judgements/study/pike) . He tried, once and again, to make combinations of actions that are not compatible, because you only have a swift action. It goes worse when he started to use Inmediate actions too, which use your next swift. That in addition to Move actions, and Move-equivalent-actions that aren't a move, so you could use a move action and then 5 step, but you could not move and then 5 step, because a move action is not a move. Was it impossible to deal with? No. We played the campaign, and had fun. But three actions system is point-blank easier. You have 3 actions. You want to do 3 things. Done.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Gnash-Yathuur Sandstalker wrote:

Awesome! Best of luck on the new release! Definitely looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

Personal request: any chance y'all would consider giving gnolls some love as player/core characters in Pathfinder 2.0? :D You did great with them as monsters, but I'd love some more gnoll-friendly player character options! As your resident gnoll cultural representative and aficionado, I'd certainly appreciate the plug! :)

Or even a mammalian furry ancestry in general would be awesome. Y'all did great with the Ysoki and Vesk in Starfinder. I'd love to see something similar in Pathfinder!

FLUFFIES!

Look what you've done, Gnashy! Just great. Now she's gonna drag all us 'wampis back into the Build-a-Gnoll Workshop at the mall for a couple hours, minimum.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
It has simplified the system because you no longer need to remember which kind of action every action you try to perform is, to see if they are compatibles.

Well, hopefully not, right? Because ideally richness is a thing. A desirable thing.

And I'm not convinced that what you seem to think is going to happen is actually going to happen. Vic (and others) are sort of hinting that it may not be. I'm honestly hearing more a nomenclature change than anything else. Because it's not stripped down, right?

Take a paladin's current ability to use lay on hands as a swift on themselves. The inclusion of the concept of a swift - an action you can only have one of per round but doesn't interfere with everything else - is an interesting design niche. If you promote that to "an action", well, then the paladin can lay on hands themselves three times in a round. And that may or may not be balanced, compared to other actions. We'll see. But with a swift, you could design that action's benefit knowing nobody could use it twice.

As I say, we'll see. Maybe the loss of swifts (just as an obvious example) will be a shame. Maybe someone will reinvent it by saying "X is an action, but it's um... an action you can only take one of per round" and pretend they didn't just take a step back to having 7 action types. Maybe the loss of a swift won't be a shame because the design-space opened up by allowing a paladin to do it to themselves three times in a round turns out cooler than not being able to. Dunno.


Or maybe they are smart enough to change the abilities as they change the action economy. 3 swift actions to heal yourself might be broken, if you heal 1/2 of your level in d6 each time. It might not, if you heal your level in HP each time (or whatever number is the sweet spot, just spitballing).

In any case, I'm 100% certain that the sentence " you haven't really simplified the system." is untrue. Not having to remember if quick draw is compatible or not with Smite Evil, or if you casted a Litany Spell out of your turn to know if you can lay on hands yourself this turn, is simpler. You may or may not like it more, but not having to remember things is simpler than having to remember things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:


In any case, I'm 100% certain that the sentence " you haven't really simplified the system." is untrue. Not having to remember if quick draw is compatible or not with Smite Evil, or if you casted a Litany Spell out of your turn to know if you can lay on hands yourself this turn, is simpler. You may or may not like it more, but not having to remember things is simpler than having to remember things.

I am minded to wait until I see what other changes there are and how they interact particularly at higher levels before coming to a conclusion like that; I am kind of hoping that the overall complexity of the game will end up redistributed rather than reduced.


I like how the scaling penalties on iteratives seem like they'll work. Trading an attack at -10 for healing myself? Sounds pretty reasonable! And at first level, when my attack modifier is probably something like +5? I'll just be glad to have something to do instead of flail! Spamming an ability like that (even if I had unlimited uses) wouldn't be very effective, though.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Tengu, por favor. Gracias.


Well, well, well... Paizo. Consider me pleasantly surprised!

Reading through this thread has been a lot of fun. Many strong opinions, and rightly so. I'll be awaiting news with great anticipation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hunt, the PugWumpus wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Gnash-Yathuur Sandstalker wrote:

Awesome! Best of luck on the new release! Definitely looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

Personal request: any chance y'all would consider giving gnolls some love as player/core characters in Pathfinder 2.0? :D You did great with them as monsters, but I'd love some more gnoll-friendly player character options! As your resident gnoll cultural representative and aficionado, I'd certainly appreciate the plug! :)

Or even a mammalian furry ancestry in general would be awesome. Y'all did great with the Ysoki and Vesk in Starfinder. I'd love to see something similar in Pathfinder!

FLUFFIES!
Look what you've done, Gnashy! Just great. Now she's gonna drag all us 'wampis back into the Build-a-Gnoll Workshop at the mall for a couple hours, minimum.

Ah man, I'm STILL hocking up fluff from the last time...


I have seen a few comments about "buying" the playtest ?
I assume that's just poor wording ?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that nobody has mentioned that is actually pretty important to me.. Please make it easy to do non-lethal damage, please don't penalize players for trying to do the right/heroic thing. At the very least let it be doable with weapons, I know it may sound silly with magic...but if merciful is a thing then just let it be something anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
nighttree wrote:

I have seen a few comments about "buying" the playtest ?

I assume that's just poor wording ?

The playtest documents will be a free download, or you can buy a printed edition, if you like a hardcopy or want it as a collector's item.


kevin_video wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:

But also, I hope PF2E does the following:

1. Jettison any complexity that gets in the way of play.
2. Fix character creation.
3. Fix high-level play: get rid of the buff-stacking and rocket-tag games.
4. Give us a robust conversion document so we can easily convert past content to PF2E.
4b. Make that conversion document robust enough that the community can convert and share past PFS content converted to 2E, and run it for credit. Don't abandon the old content! Crowdsource conversion so your PFS designers aren't trying to tackle it alone.
5. Don't try to make adversaries play by PC rules. There are some things boss monsters need that should never, ever be in PC hands. In particular, absolute immunities (e.g. freedom of movement) and things that affect action economy (haste, dazes, etc.) should be really, really hard for PCs to get.
6. Fix magic items. No magic item should ever be "required" for a PC's "build" to function. Make magic items feel special again. Put control over magic item acquisition back in the GM's hands, not the PCs'.

I'd like to add to this...

7. Make it practically impossible for ridiculous broken power gaming. Too many times have I've seen players become absolutely invincible by level 4 with their 34 AC and assembling of feats that give them six attacks of opportunity before they even have their turn. All because they own all the books and min-max the hell out of their multiple classes. And I especially never again want to see someone be able to have AC 108 by the time they're level 20.

1) Technically impossible, they might reduce it however.

2) Hope so.
4) that too.
5) Hell no, aside for the "make it harder for the PCs to get their hands on it" in some cases.

3), 6) and 7) those, especially "requiring" to be a walking magic items shop.

8) Unhook Positive and Negative energy from Alignments.
9) Support play past level 20, not necessarily removing the level ceiling, but maybe raising it.


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

I'm pretty happy about this announcement. As background, I've played organized play for all of 3.5, 4E, Pathfinder, 5E, and SF; I've enjoyed them all. These days, when i'm at a con, I play a mix of Pathfinder, 5E, and Starfinder. While I appreciate the greater customization options that PF brings to the table, I find that higher-level play breaks down somewhat. I'm hoping that PF 2.0 can expand the "sweet spot" of the system to all levels of play, and I've got some faith that the PDT can pull it off (with our input during the playtest, of course)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I was in the camp of "No 2e, update through books like unchained". Well, as time has gone on, I have attempted to refine some of my own house rules and integrate such PFU rules and it is hard. So many corner cases. So much problematic legacy design.

I think this for the best. It allows us to shed some of the poor design, whether it was Paizo's doing or not. There were a lot of experiments and underserved corners of the game. Giving it a good ground up redesign will allow them to not only integrate new designs, but ditch some of the vestigial and poor design as well. Pathfinder will be stronger for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:

There should definitely and absolutely be a two-tier hierarchy to races and subraces/ethnicities.

Kellid and Osirian should be subraces of Human, and gold dwarf and shield dwarf should be subraces of dwarf. Putting them all on the same level so that Kellid is a race, Osirian is a race, gold dwarf is a race, shield dwarf is a race, changeling is a race, dhampir is a race and they're all on the same hierarchical level to one another is awful.

Can't you just do this with an "Adjective Noun" form? Like "Kellid Human", or "Aquatic Elf", or "Dread Gnome", or "Exiled Dwarf"? Where you get some traits from the noun and some others from the adjective.


Anguish wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
It has simplified the system because you no longer need to remember which kind of action every action you try to perform is, to see if they are compatibles.

Well, hopefully not, right? Because ideally richness is a thing. A desirable thing.

And I'm not convinced that what you seem to think is going to happen is actually going to happen. Vic (and others) are sort of hinting that it may not be. I'm honestly hearing more a nomenclature change than anything else. Because it's not stripped down, right?

Take a paladin's current ability to use lay on hands as a swift on themselves. The inclusion of the concept of a swift - an action you can only have one of per round but doesn't interfere with everything else - is an interesting design niche. If you promote that to "an action", well, then the paladin can lay on hands themselves three times in a round. And that may or may not be balanced, compared to other actions. We'll see. But with a swift, you could design that action's benefit knowing nobody could use it twice.

As I say, we'll see. Maybe the loss of swifts (just as an obvious example) will be a shame. Maybe someone will reinvent it by saying "X is an action, but it's um... an action you can only take one of per round" and pretend they didn't just take a step back to having 7 action types. Maybe the loss of a swift won't be a shame because the design-space opened up by allowing a paladin to do it to themselves three times in a round turns out cooler than not being able to. Dunno.

Well, having specific things you can only do once per turn isn't really another action type, since you don't have to remember which things are which action types, you only have to remember "I'll Lay on Hands, then I'll Lay on Hands again, wait no I can't cause Lay on Hands says only once per round."

I suspect, if nothing else, you're not going to be able to cast 3 spells in a round.

It may open up a lot of complexity by allowing some characters to use more of their abilities together rather than it always being one or the other - even if some of them you can't do multiple times.


Daniel 005 wrote:
Any idea what this means for the Pawn line. I don't mind a new book, but I want my 1,000s of pawns to still match up. I am hoping you are just planing on releasing revised versions of the bestiaries.

I wouldn't worry about that. D&D/PF has been reusing the same monsters since the Little Brown Book days. There will still be orcs, kobolds, trolls, giants, unicorns, etc. The art will change of course, but the monsters will remain the same.


Yes is finally happening, ten years definitely make a great millstone.

And 10th level spells, I really hope that magic is not too tuned down, I really like that high level casters feel like playing a demigod, so hopping that doesn't change :)

Also, hope that adventure paths go all the way from level 1 to 20, I got a good feeling from Return of the Runelords


Daniel 005 wrote:
Any idea what this means for the Pawn line. I don't mind a new book, but I want my 1,000s of pawns to still match up. I am hoping you are just planing on releasing revised versions of the bestiaries.

I can't imagine that, even if they do make a big shift in the art style (which seems to be something they explicitly aren't doing), that 90%+ of the existing pawns would still be usable. Actually, all new art would probably be an advantage when mixing sets!

As for changing the physical aspects (size, material), I would be very surprised.

I really hope that if there is a new Bestiary Box (which seems highly likely), they do a better job with the selection. Putting two (two!) dire rats in the B1 box is still one of the biggest WTF moments in the pawn line...

1,151 to 1,200 of 1,608 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 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