All About Actions

wands took 2 actions to activate in Unchained I think. I bet will be the same.

That's assuming Wands stay as "spell batteries". It might not be the case.

What if a Wand is more like an Extra prepared spell.

If Preparing Spells and Spell Slots are seperate things like in 5E. A Wand could serve as an extra prepared spell and run off your spell slots.

So that Wand of Healing would have a limited use in that it is still burning your Cleric's spell slots, but gives the benefit of him not having to prepare a Heal spell.

How are wands going to work since most spells cost 2 actions?

Will wands be a single action to use or will they take multiple?

Since spells taking 2 actions is rationalized as "the verbal component is one action and the somatic component is a separate action" wands will likely take 2 actions- 1 for waving your magic wand and one for saying the magic word.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

wands took 2 actions to activate in Unchained I think. I bet will be the same.

That's assuming Wands stay as "spell batteries". It might not be the case.

What if a Wand is more like an Extra prepared spell.

If Preparing Spells and Spell Slots are seperate things like in 5E. A Wand could serve as an extra prepared spell and run off your spell slots.

So that Wand of Healing would have a limited use in that it is still burning your Cleric's spell slots, but gives the benefit of him not having to prepare a Heal spell.

I don't think that's a good idea, like at all. As someone who usually has the "healer" role thrust upon me, being able to have a source of healing that doesn't eat away at all of my available spells is a godsend, and making wands run off of "spell slots" (which I seriously hope not, because I'd rather have P2e's spell casting not be a direct rip from 5e's) would just make wands considerably weaker.

Greylurker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

wands took 2 actions to activate in Unchained I think. I bet will be the same.

That's assuming Wands stay as "spell batteries". It might not be the case.

What if a Wand is more like an Extra prepared spell.

If Preparing Spells and Spell Slots are seperate things like in 5E. A Wand could serve as an extra prepared spell and run off your spell slots.

So that Wand of Healing would have a limited use in that it is still burning your Cleric's spell slots, but gives the benefit of him not having to prepare a Heal spell.

I don't think that's a good idea, like at all. As someone who usually has the "healer" role thrust upon me, being able to have a source of healing that doesn't eat away at all of my available spells is a godsend, and making wands run off of "spell slots" (which I seriously hope not, because I'd rather have P2e's spell casting not be a direct rip from 5e's) would just make wands considerably weaker.

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

wands took 2 actions to activate in Unchained I think. I bet will be the same.

That's assuming Wands stay as "spell batteries". It might not be the case.

What if a Wand is more like an Extra prepared spell.

If Preparing Spells and Spell Slots are seperate things like in 5E. A Wand could serve as an extra prepared spell and run off your spell slots.

So that Wand of Healing would have a limited use in that it is still burning your Cleric's spell slots, but gives the benefit of him not having to prepare a Heal spell.

I don't think that's a good idea, like at all. As someone who usually has the "healer" role thrust upon me, being able to have a source of healing that doesn't eat away at all of my available spells is a godsend, and making wands run off of "spell slots" (which I seriously hope not, because I'd rather have P2e's spell casting not be a direct rip from 5e's) would just make wands considerably weaker.

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

Could you link where you read this? This the first I'm hearing of any changes to the wand mechanics - which isn't inherently a bad thing, but I think the specific concept of them leeching off of the user's spell casting doesn't seem like a good idea at all, especially since it would mean that non-spellcasters wouldn't be able to use wands anymore.

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

wands took 2 actions to activate in Unchained I think. I bet will be the same.

That's assuming Wands stay as "spell batteries". It might not be the case.

What if a Wand is more like an Extra prepared spell.

If Preparing Spells and Spell Slots are seperate things like in 5E. A Wand could serve as an extra prepared spell and run off your spell slots.

So that Wand of Healing would have a limited use in that it is still burning your Cleric's spell slots, but gives the benefit of him not having to prepare a Heal spell.

I don't think that's a good idea, like at all. As someone who usually has the "healer" role thrust upon me, being able to have a source of healing that doesn't eat away at all of my available spells is a godsend, and making wands run off of "spell slots" (which I seriously hope not, because I'd rather have P2e's spell casting not be a direct rip from 5e's) would just make wands considerably weaker.

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

The minute I find out an adventure is about managing healing I walk away and don't come back.

I wonder if demoralize will be one or two actions. At one action it becomes a pretty good option in many circumstances, at two it's still useable but considerably more niche. And I suspect the answer will also heavy depend on how easy it is to succeed now, I assume it's more difficult in a way similar to Starfinder.

For those decrying iterative penalties, I'm going to point something out to you: the new crit system.

You get a critical hit if you hit AC+10. Your third iterative is at a -10 penalty. Essentially, this translates to "if you can crit it on the first attack, you can hit it on the last." Given that it would absolutely suck if things other than really tanky bosses were uncrittable, it stands to reason that your martial weapony types can hit most things on the third attack. It might be lower chance, maybe only on a 17 or higher or so, but it will be doable. What this also translates to is that chances are, your first attack is usually going to hit.

Essentially, what iteratives do is allow this new setup where your first attack will usually hit, and be able to crit on a high die roll, without allowing the pumping of to-hit bonuses to turn into massive, consistent critical chains on 10 or higher against every monster for three consecutive attacks. Instead your ability to both hit and crit decreases as you attack, in exchange for having very consistent hitting power on your first attack. Meanwhile, you're still capable of hitting on a good roll on the third, but relying on that good roll, making it a tactical choice whether you want to chance the die roll, ready against enemy action, make a tactical withdrawal to reduce the counterattacks (especially if, say, you're faster than the enemy, and can force them to burn two actions moving towards you), tactically reposition, chug a potion, raise a shield, etc.

As opposed to PF1, particularly in the early game, where against a lot of enemies you're probably swinging 50/50 with only one, maybe two attacks.

your ability to both hit and crit decreases as you attack

just what I always wanted

thflame wrote:

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

wands took 2 actions to activate in Unchained I think. I bet will be the same.

That's assuming Wands stay as "spell batteries". It might not be the case.

What if a Wand is more like an Extra prepared spell.

If Preparing Spells and Spell Slots are seperate things like in 5E. A Wand could serve as an extra prepared spell and run off your spell slots.

So that Wand of Healing would have a limited use in that it is still burning your Cleric's spell slots, but gives the benefit of him not having to prepare a Heal spell.

I don't think that's a good idea, like at all. As someone who usually has the "healer" role thrust upon me, being able to have a source of healing that doesn't eat away at all of my available spells is a godsend, and making wands run off of "spell slots" (which I seriously hope not, because I'd rather have P2e's spell casting not be a direct rip from 5e's) would just make wands considerably weaker.

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

Could you link where you read this? This the first I'm hearing of any changes to the wand mechanics - which isn't inherently a bad thing, but I think the specific concept of them leeching off of the user's spell casting doesn't seem like a good idea at all, especially since it would mean that non-spellcasters wouldn't be able to use wands anymore.

Know the Direction podcast.

To be honest, what they say is that you still might use healing items, but you should try to get the best one you can, instead of carrying a whole lot of cheap happysticks that you spend like candy.

I wonder if demoralize will be one or two actions. At one action it becomes a pretty good option in many circumstances, at two it's still useable but considerably more niche. And I suspect the answer will also heavy depend on how easy it is to succeed now, I assume it's more difficult in a way similar to Starfinder.

It was one in Unchained, if I'm remembering well.

Know the Direction podcast.

To be honest, what they say is that you still might use healing items, but you should try to get the best one you can, instead of carrying a whole lot of cheap happysticks that you spend like candy.

Ah, I see. I don't have the time to listen to the podcast right now (I still have to listen to part 2 of the glass cannon podcast) but it might just mean that wands have less charges now?

FedoraFerret wrote:

your ability to both hit and crit decreases as you attack

just what I always wanted

Lol right?! We could just do away with iterative attack penalties, odd modifiers, and excessive math and just make iterative attacks hit on d20 rolls of 11 (second attack) and 16 (third attack) and call it a day. What it translates to is a 50% chance hit and a 25% chance hit respectfully.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Know the Direction podcast.

To be honest, what they say is that you still might use healing items, but you should try to get the best one you can, instead of carrying a whole lot of cheap happysticks that you spend like candy.

Ah, I see. I don't have the time to listen to the podcast right now (I still have to listen to part 2 of the glass cannon podcast) but it might just mean that wands have less charges now?

Here there is a briefing:

Know direction
By the sound of it, no. It sounded like if YOU had to spent some resource to get healed (??), so you would like to maximize how much you heal. But was not really explained.

For those decrying iterative penalties, I'm going to point something out to you: the new crit system.

You get a critical hit if you hit AC+10. Your third iterative is at a -10 penalty. Essentially, this translates to "if you can crit it on the first attack, you can hit it on the last." Given that it would absolutely suck if things other than really tanky bosses were uncrittable, it stands to reason that your martial weapony types can hit most things on the third attack. It might be lower chance, maybe only on a 17 or higher or so, but it will be doable. What this also translates to is that chances are, your first attack is usually going to hit.

Essentially, what iteratives do is allow this new setup where your first attack will usually hit, and be able to crit on a high die roll, without allowing the pumping of to-hit bonuses to turn into massive, consistent critical chains on 10 or higher against every monster for three consecutive attacks. Instead your ability to both hit and crit decreases as you attack, in exchange for having very consistent hitting power on your first attack. Meanwhile, you're still capable of hitting on a good roll on the third, but relying on that good roll, making it a tactical choice whether you want to chance the die roll, ready against enemy action, make a tactical withdrawal to reduce the counterattacks (especially if, say, you're faster than the enemy, and can force them to burn two actions moving towards you), tactically reposition, chug a potion, raise a shield, etc.

As opposed to PF1, particularly in the early game, where against a lot of enemies you're probably swinging 50/50 with only one, maybe two attacks.

Are we to assume then that the system expects primarily martial characters to on average hit and crit on the first attack against target of similar power levels? If so, then that makes sense, and for me, would justify having those penalties. We'll have to wait and see some concrete numbers to verify that, though.

Friendly Rogue wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Know the Direction podcast.

To be honest, what they say is that you still might use healing items, but you should try to get the best one you can, instead of carrying a whole lot of cheap happysticks that you spend like candy.

Ah, I see. I don't have the time to listen to the podcast right now (I still have to listen to part 2 of the glass cannon podcast) but it might just mean that wands have less charges now?

Here there is a briefing:

Know direction
By the sound of it, no. It sounded like if YOU had to spent some resource to get healed (??), so you would like to maximize how much you heal. But was not really explained.

I guess we'll just have to see how it works out come August.

Are we to assume then that the system expects primarily martial characters to on average hit and crit on the first attack against target of similar power levels? If so, then that makes sense, and for me, would justify having those penalties. We'll have to wait and see some concrete numbers to verify that,...

Well since everyone else is making baseless speculation on the math and value of actions, I figured I'd make mine under the assumption that Paizo are good game designers, because otherwise this is all just pointless and we shouldn't be paying attention at all.

My thinking is that, since they've mentioned mooks will be fairly hittable on the third iterative, you'll likely see your bog standard goblin with an AC of, say, ballpark of 11, and your average low level fighter will have ballpark of a +6 or 7 on their first attack. So you're around 75% to hit and 25% to crit on the first attack, 25% to hit on the third, which is still a reasonable number. Meanwhile, when you meet the goblins' bugbear boss, she might have around a 16 AC, which means you're still gonna have an average chance of hitting on your first attack, but critting is pretty unlikely, and your third attack is better suited to something more tactical than just mindlessly swinging at the bad guy more, which makes sense, because this is a boss, not a mook.

I like the sound of this system a lot. I can see being able to do a lot with it.

Jason how does each attack action get affected by 2 weapon fighting? Is it one attack with one weapon each action and you have to trade out between the different hand? I.e. 3 actions 2 weapon fighting 1st left 2nd right 3rd left. Or do you get extra attacks from the off hand?

What if two weapon fighting had something like: When using light weapons you reduce the penalty for multiple attacks to -2 for the second attack and -4 for the third attack.

Effectively TWFing is essentially trading a two-handed weapon's damage dice for a higher chance to hit with iterative attacks. A full plate wearing fighter is unlikely to bother with two weapon fighting (he's a full BAB character with a high strength score giving him a high to hit bonus meaning that the penalty for subsequent attacks isn't as much of a disadvantage). But a lightly armored Ranger (who has lowered strength in order to increase Dex for AC and Wisdom for spells) is more likely to go with TWFing to help equalise them to the fighter while a rogue is definitely going to go TWFing.

NOTE: All numbers are placeholders to demonstrate the general concept and assume that iteratives still have a -5/-10.

Is there a feat, like combat reflexes, that adds to the number of reactions one can take? Or will it always be just one (at least in the CRB?)

So far, this looks good though.

Hopefully they keep it at one. When fighting humanoid foes tripping was always the ideal maneuver thanks to AoO abuse (especially in a party that has optimised to take advantage of a trip master). I could see combat reflexes increasing the situation in which an AoO could be taken though which still makes it desirable but by no means optimal.

I was excited by this idea yesterday, but, “move once, draw your sword, and attack,” and, “move away, draw a potion, and drink it,” seem like the definition of 'action' is going to be pretty pedantic. Three actions is still better than two, and I'm still watching with interest, but this post has made me more trepidatious, rather than less.

This seems straight from Pathfinder 1st ed. move action to move (provokes an AoO), move action to retrieve a stowed item (provokes an AoO), standard action to drink a potion (provokes an AoO). The only difference is in 1st ed it takes 2 rounds to complete whereas in 2nd edition it can be done in 1 round.

Tripping was only favored because the game didn't have a better mechanic for a martial character to control the field and protect his allies.

3E had the feat Standstill that forced a reflex save (dc =10+ damage roll [the damage wasn't applied, just rolled to set the dc]) but in PF it's trip or nothing.

brad2411 wrote:

I like the sound of this system a lot. I can see being able to do a lot with it.

Jason how does each attack action get affected by 2 weapon fighting? Is it one attack with one weapon each action and you have to trade out between the different hand? I.e. 3 actions 2 weapon fighting 1st left 2nd right 3rd left. Or do you get extra attacks from the off hand?

What if two weapon fighting had something like: When using light weapons you reduce the penalty for multiple attacks to -2 for the second attack and -4 for the third attack.

Effectively TWFing is essentially trading a two-handed weapon's damage dice for a higher chance to hit with iterative attacks. A full plate wearing fighter is unlikely to bother with two weapon fighting (he's a full BAB character with a high strength score giving him a high to hit bonus meaning that the penalty for subsequent attacks isn't as much of a disadvantage). But a lightly armored Ranger (who has lowered strength in order to increase Dex for AC and Wisdom for spells) is more likely to go with TWFing to help equalise them to the fighter while a rogue is definitely going to go TWFing.

I think that is an interesting way to do it. Don't know if it fits the idea of TWF but it is better then not really having it like star finder. I think it would be better if they got more damage for a hit then easier to hit. TWF was always more damage but less chance of a hit.

Edit: the idea of reducing the penalty for attacking with 2 or more weapon is actually a feat in Starfinder (multi weapon fighting)

This alone will be the reason I will not buy 2nd ed. There may or may not be other reasons as well, but this is extremely restrictive. I don't think vanilla PF action economy needs more than a few minor tweaks. 1) Either completely integrate swift and immediate actions, where using one on your turn eats both until your next turn begins, or completely separate them so that you can do both in a round (in either case, action economy is guaranteed to refresh when your turn begins), 2) allow multiple attacks after moving more than 5 ft, and 3) Allow attack-move-attack without taking 5 feats for the privilege.

I like playing RPGs that give me meaningful options. If I wanted to play an RPG that takes them away, I could crack open my D&D 5e books.

This alone will be the reason I will not buy 2nd ed. There may or may not be other reasons as well, but this is extremely restrictive. I don't think vanilla PF action economy needs more than a few minor tweaks. 1) Either completely integrate swift and immediate actions, where using one on your turn eats both until your next turn begins, or completely separate them so that you can do both in a round (in either case, action economy is guaranteed to refresh when your turn begins), 2) allow multiple attacks after moving more than 5 ft, and 3) Allow attack-move-attack without taking 5 feats for the privilege.

I like playing RPGs that give me meaningful options. If I wanted to play an RPG that takes them away, I could crack open my D&D 5e books.

With the new system you can move and attack 2x and you could attack move your speed and then attack again. You get 3 actions. Moving is an action and attacking is an action.

Tripping was only favored because the game didn't have a better mechanic for a martial character to control the field and protect his allies.

3E had the feat Standstill that forced a reflex save (dc =10+ damage roll [the damage wasn't applied, just rolled to set the dc]) but in PF it's trip or nothing.

I'll just leave this here... (From the pathfinder CRB)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/stand-still-combat-final/

Friendly Rogue wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Know the Direction podcast.

To be honest, what they say is that you still might use healing items, but you should try to get the best one you can, instead of carrying a whole lot of cheap happysticks that you spend like candy.

Ah, I see. I don't have the time to listen to the podcast right now (I still have to listen to part 2 of the glass cannon podcast) but it might just mean that wands have less charges now?

Here there is a briefing:

Know direction
By the sound of it, no. It sounded like if YOU had to spent some resource to get healed (??), so you would like to maximize how much you heal. But was not really explained.

To me they almost seemed to imply there was an additional cost to healing magic, so you would want to use the most powerful heals you could instead of lots of little ones.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Tripping was only favored because the game didn't have a better mechanic for a martial character to control the field and protect his allies.

3E had the feat Standstill that forced a reflex save (dc =10+ damage roll [the damage wasn't applied, just rolled to set the dc]) but in PF it's trip or nothing.

I'll just leave this here... (From the pathfinder CRB)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/stand-still-combat-final/

That's a Combat Maneuver. Just as hard to pull off as Trip [more difficult actually, because you can't use all the trip bonuses that can be stacked.]

Compare to 3E's Stand Still

Granted back then we had Knock Down, which allowed a trip from dealing damage as a 'superior option', but many GM's didn't allow that one because it came from the 'Divine' section of the SRD, despite being a general feat [and also a general use feat from Sword and Fist in 3.0]

A major concern I have is maintaining my substantial investment in 1st edition material. This new system appears to make conversion from 1st to 2nd edition much harder than, dare I say, D&D 5e. I very much have loved Paizo and the ability to buy PDFs, rather than paper books. I use PDFs exclusively and doing electronic searches with them saves me a lot of time -- and they are much easier to carry around. WoTC do not seem to offer PDFs -- so I very much want to stay with Paizo. I think Paizo should be working very hard to help us use 1st edition material with 2nd edition -- it's only the right thing to do!

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

That would be terrible, because they make somewhat expedient adventuring possible in the first place for all low-level characters and higher level parties without a dedicated healer.

Will there be "reaction" casting time spells?

Feather fall is a reaction according to Enworld/one of the podcasts.

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

It's no more punitive than PF 1st edition. Except instead of having to wait for level 6 and spending "3 actions" to get 2 attacks, you can do it from level 1 for 3 attacks.

I am not excited at all by this. I know I'll get thrashed by saying so, but I think the game is perfect as it is now.

This is purely and simply a consumering scam to get more of our money. I bought almost all of the hardcovers for "PF1", do you think I'll do it again? Sure as hell not!

I won't jump on that bandwagon.

Everything they publish is a "scam" designed to part you with your money. If you have no interest in a particular product that Paizo offers, than so be it. But that is no more a "scam" than producing yet another hardcover with yet another class in it, collection of feats and collection of spells.

Personally speaking: Paizo hasn't gotten a cent from me for Pathfinder since Occult Adventures (with the exception of adventures). I have no interest in buying Ultimate Wilderness, Ultimate Intrigue, Advanced <insert word here> Tactics softcover or anything else of that nature. I've reached my fill of Pathfinder 1st edition material.

A 2nd edition on the other hand? I'll be the first to lineup for that. Calling it a scam is unnecessarily inflammatory. You can be upset with Paizo without accusing them of conducting immoral/illegal activities.

the idea of reducing the penalty for attacking with 2 or more weapon is actually a feat in Starfinder (multi weapon fighting)

There you go. It'd make sense to port over (some version) of that to Pathfinder to replace Improved TWF and to give the Ranger a bonus TWFing feat to select.

Tripping was only favored because the game didn't have a better mechanic for a martial character to control the field and protect his allies.

That might have been your group's primary use for it, but get a tripping character and pair it with a few monks/rogues/rangers and you get quite a lot of extra damage. Not necessarily a bad thing, but given the amount that needed to be invested in a particular maneuver it made investing in more than one maneuver unlikely (a fighter might be able to feasibly afford to do it and the maneuver master monk maybe?) which meant because it was the "superior" maneuver most of the other maneuvers got very little playtime at the table.

I wonder if you'll have to raise you shield every round or just once

You could probably just lower it or keep it up without costing an action. Probably.

The PF1e community is an adamantine staple. We'll be running the system for at least another decade, just like I still see people playing Basic. Your edition is forever yours.

My concern with 3 actions is NPCs/monsters with 3 attacks. Even with increased HP from Race & Class, Orcs now have 3 attacks. And we play a game that depends on the (wicked) 20-sided die.

I can't imagine my 3rd "move" ever not being "raise shield/Defend".

Ruleswise, the 3 actions favor Martials, which I like. Plus AoOs need to be just for Fighters. Make the class relevant.

Wonder how things like Haste are going to fit into the new action economy system?

Wonder how things like Haste are going to fit into the new action economy system?

Quite easily! ;)

given the amount that needed to be invested in a particular maneuver it made investing in more than one maneuver unlikely (a fighter might be able to feasibly afford to do it and the maneuver master monk maybe?) which meant because it was the "superior" maneuver most of the other maneuvers got very little playtime at the table.

This is a wholistic problem with PF1's Combat Maneuvers. They require massive specialization just to reach 'decent.'

Hopefully PF2 will do better with Combat Maneuvers.

That would be terrible, because they make somewhat expedient adventuring possible in the first place for all low-level characters and higher level parties without a dedicated healer.

I believe the goal is to make it so the optimal solution for out of combat healing is not "buy many copies of the least expensive wand". Perhaps the cheapest wand will be fine for low level groups but more experience groups will want the more powerful (and thus spendier) wand.

Wonder how things like Haste are going to fit into the new action economy system?

Maybe the way they fit into the Pathfinder Unchained version of this system? It had Haste granting an extra action that could only be used to attack.

I wonder if you'll have to raise you shield every round or just once

The play test makes clear that you need to do it every round if you want the shield bonus.

thflame wrote:

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

That would be terrible, because they make somewhat expedient adventuring possible in the first place for all low-level characters and higher level parties without a dedicated healer.

Under the current system- you can’t say that there isn’t something else to enable that without seeing more of the new.

Well that's my hope anyways.

I think Mark Seifter was talking about his PF 1st ed experiences, not his playtest experiences.

So we get a bad mechanic 10 levels eaelier...yay? For the record, diminishing attack modifiers were bad 18 years ago with 3.0 and continued to stink in 3.5 and in PF.

I regularly see full BAB characters hit with their third iterative in Pathfinder. I don't see that as "bad".

In fact most of my issues have with PF has already been fixed by 5e

Unless you've been pining for Paizo to secretly support D&D 5th edition, I don't understand wanting PF 2nd edition to essentially be a slightly altered take on D&D 5th edition.

Its exceedingly punitive to weapon-based classes for zero reason. Not to mention the extra book keeping, because a lot of people roll all at once to save time and now you must color code which dice go with which modufier. Its needless and dumb because it lacks narrative, is extra punitive to a subset of characters, requires more unnecessary book keeping, and consumes time.

The above posts all express to one degree or another a desire for Pathfinder 2nd edition to largely disassociate itself of PF 1st edition and take a much more radical approach. For most people who dislike Pathfinder 1st edition, I expect they'll also dislike Pathfinder 2nd edition.

Paizo is seemingly willing to break compatibility with PF 1st edition, but their first showcasing of the rule system has them run a PF 1st edition adventure to demonstrate how easy it is to run PF 2nd ed with PF 1st ed material. Regardless of what Paizo is saying, they'll be sticking somewhat close to PF 1st ed (although perhaps not as close as CRB 1st ed is with 3.5e). Paizo has shown it can create a very successful business with an iterative approach to design rather than making extreme changes with every new edition as WotC prefers to do.

If it's a more extreme iteration you want than D&D 5th edition might be a better game for you (which coincidentally has many of the things people above are requesting).

Also: Hi Diffan! Haven't seen you since the WotC shut down their 4th ed/5th ed message boards!

Each class having "class Feats" could amount to how the Fighter Gets Combat Feats now. If you break the Feats into Combat, Arcane, Divine, Scoundrel, etc.... groups, and then each class gains bonus feats from a specific group, you have what they are talking about.

I expect we'll have much more normalised classes.

Rogues won't get rogue tricks anymore. They'll get bonus rogue feats. This likely means that each class will mostly get extra class features at the same rate as other classes. With there being ten levels of spells hopefully it means 10th level casters lose a class feature at level 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 when compared with martials. This would be aimed at lessening the LFQW problem.

We'll also likely see the "power" each class gets a new "thing" being roughly the same as well (so a 5th level rogue feat is the same relative power as a 5th level fighter feat) which helps in making archetypes balanced despite not being class specific.

Unfortunately this makes everything much more homegenised (ala 4th ed). Fortunately, if Paizo does it right (and they've done a pretty good job with Starfinder IMO) it means that each class will still feel distinct enough from the other classes.

In the podcast, they showed that combat maneuvers are now just Skill Check vs. 10 + Resistance (either a skill bonus or save bonus), no attack of opportunity or any other "gate" to be able to use it. Trained in Athletics? You're good at grappling people, done. I'm not sure how many maneuvers are tied to what skills, but that's the basic system they seem to be using.

I like that in theory. But I'm afraid it means all classes will be full BAB. If I'm right about how each class will progress with it's class features, then it seems like we're essentially moving into the 4th ed universal class template (except spellcasters because in PF spellcasters are always special) with everyone having different "powers" (only this time they're called class feats) that ultimately do very similar things (maybe not in the CRB, but wait until PF 2nd ed has been supported for 2 or 3 years and you'll start to run into the homegenisation that 4th ed had).

I believe the goal is to make it so the optimal solution for out of combat healing is not "buy many copies of the least expensive wand". Perhaps the cheapest wand will be fine for low level groups but more experience groups will want the more powerful (and thus spendier) wand.

Maybe we'll see healing dealt with in a similar fashion to 4th ed healing surges? We know stamina and resolve aren't in the game and we know the 1st level "healing" spell doesn't rely on any "healing surge" mechanic to offer healing. Or perhaps we'll just see wands removed from the game entirely with nothing to replace it? (this seems like we'd just go back to healer bots though).

But with the end of new P1 content on the horizon (could have just slowed releases, didn't have to kill it) there's little option but to go forward or stagnate. Still, it's an incredibly disappointing move.

The group I play with is pretty hardcore (I'm involved in 3 out of 10 PF games currently being run) and even we have only used half of the Occult Adventures classes and very little to nothing of player content that has come out since Occult Adventures. Throw in 3PP (which we currently don't incorporate into our games) and I reckon there'd be years upon years worth of player content that could fuel countless games. I have trouble understanding how any other group could have exhausted all existing Pathfinder content that they would stagnate very quickly without continued support from Paizo.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I wonder why nothing came up about high BAB characters being able to take more actions per round. It would make sense and would eventually let you get your 4 Iterative Attacks in (although requiring Epic levels for less than full BAB characters to get this).

From the Podcast it would appear all attacks are resolved as Character Level + Modifier.

I *really* hope that's not the case. Rogues, Fighters and Clerics all having the same BAB just makes the classes that much more similar. Too many similarities and you end up with classes essentially being the same.

People drift away from games that are not getting new content.

The release cycle maintains buzz. New material keeps the game fresh.

Other than the APs (and I'll be surprised if a dedicated GM can't convert PF 2nd ed adventures to PF 1st ed and then post the conversion notes online) my group hasn't been very interested in PF's new material and our group has 10 games going with 8 people that I know of with additional people whom I don't know the names of (and may not know them either).

Stagnant games dwindle.

But don't die. There are still people out there playing and publishing material for OD&D.

Casters enjoy a power boost if they do the following: cast a spell (two actions), then use last action to begin casting another spell. Next round complete the spell that was begun the previous round (one action), then cast another spell that same round (two actions).

Is it an explicit part of the rules to allow this? Or is this a reasonable extrapolation/houserule by your group? (I never played with the 3 actions from PF Unchained because it seemed like too many classes wouldn't map to it easily without heavy rewrites/houserules).

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

What's more important? Having a particular word on your character sheet under the section labeled "class"? Or being able to recreate the character with the existing mechanics available in the game?

Then again, I started playing with 4th ed and am a big fan of eating sacred cow burgers.

Because bardic music is the core of what the Bard is and has been?

AD&D 2e: No actions in combat are required for inspire courage (one of the effects of bardic music).

With 5 different representations of bardic music, no representation requires the same resource investment as a standard attack action. I see no reason to assume PF 2nd ed will represent it this way.

Martials seem to be specifically disincentivized from actually taking advantage of their new ability to take three attacks from level 1 except against the most trivial opponents. Taking that third attack is statistically suicidal, and even the second one is kinda iffy.

What if (perhaps not at 1st level, but certainly by 10th level) monster's AC scaled in such a way as to ensure a 60% chance of hitting for the fighter's second attack? That means they're first attack has an 85% chance of hitting (essentially a guaranteed hit) and their third attack has a 35% chance of hitting (not an automatic choice every single round, but worth doing if you have nothing better to do on your turn). It would also mean 10th level rogues have a 55% chance of hitting with their primary with a flank.

I agree that metamagic has been too expensive for me to consider as an option. Costing a feat *plus* higher level hasn't felt worth it to me. One or the other, and I think I might have picked up a few metamagic feats here or there, but both was just too expensive and I pretty much never used metamagic myself.

(May have been different for others.)

Problem my group had with metamagic feats in APG and UM was that most of them were either ridiculously good or ridiculously bad (we banned the ridiculously good ones). Overall the CRB ones got varying uses. one "cleric" (I beleive Oracle) and wizard used them regularly whereas my shaman tends to eschew them while another player mostly takes the Quicken Spell feat with their Oracle and leaves the rest behind.

In PF1, if you take a 5 foot step, you can't move with your move action. It penalizes you for being in a disadvantageous situation (as it should).

In the new rules you are peanlised by taking a 5 ft step in losing an action which could have otherwise been an attack or an entire 30 feet of movement. It's a different kind of penalty (perhaps a reduced penalty) but it is still a penalty nonetheless.

I still remember my initial reaction to Consolidated Skills: "Neat idea, but it clearly needs a complete reworking of the game to be of any practical use." Sure enough, it looks like that section just might have been a preview of things to come.

I'm in the same boat. There was a lot I liked about PF Unchained but just couldn't imagine trying to rewrite PF to cohesively integrate them into the game. I'm happy to pay Paizo to do it for me though. Now I'm just wondering how much will be integrated. Looks like they've integrated a version of limited magic and the revised action economy as a minimum. I'm interested how much skills will be simplified (I'm expecting something like Starfinder).

I believe the goal is to make it so the optimal solution for out of combat healing is not "buy many copies of the least expensive wand". Perhaps the cheapest wand will be fine for low level groups but more experience groups will want the more powerful (and thus spendier) wand.

As long as they don't take out wands as a relatively cheap method for low-level / high level without a healer parties to get healing, it's okay.

Under the current system- you can’t say that there isn’t something else to enable that without seeing more of the new.

Sure, we could get hit point recovery between short rest periods, like Starfinder. I'd be for that and it would obviate the need for lots of cheap wands.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I believe the goal is to make it so the optimal solution for out of combat healing is not "buy many copies of the least expensive wand". Perhaps the cheapest wand will be fine for low level groups but more experience groups will want the more powerful (and thus spendier) wand.

As long as they don't take out wands as a relatively cheap method for low-level / high level without a healer parties to get healing, it's okay.

RDM42 wrote:

Under the current system- you can’t say that there isn’t something else to enable that without seeing more of the new.

Sure, we could get hit point recovery between short rest periods, like Starfinder. I'd be for that and it would obviate the need for lots of cheap wands.

It also seems there are more player choices for actively reducing incoming damage (shields and the shield spell shown so far) and given the Envoy in SF I imagine Paizo might sprinkle healing abilities among different classes without there needing to be a dedicated healer.

Also if they are reworking the crafting rules (touched on minorly) I don't think its a big stretch to think that perhaps people will be able to produce their own potions more readily than 3.5s rules.

but 3e/PF means different colored d20s and I have to match them up every turn. It just takes longer for zero gain.

Can't say I've ever really had that problem. I write the colour on order somewhere on my character sheet (P/G/B/P) and I'm good to go.

I'm going to be more blunt than my last posting. I am very much hoping Paizo is NOT deliberately designing 2nd edition to be incompatible with 1st edition in an attempt to force all of us to buy all new materials after we've just spent a lot of money on 1st edition.

In Frisco, TX we are having a much harder time getting players than D&D 5e. Our venue is local comic book stores -- three of which are telling me D&D 5e is more popular and I can see that in the difference in the greater number of tables being run for D&D 5e.

From what Paizo has in 2nd edition so far, there does not appear to be a good path for adapting 1st edition to it. I very much prefer Paizo over WoTC. Please make an effort to design into 2nd edition something that allows us to easily use 1st edition material and is able to compete with D&D 5e. Right now, it looks like it is easier to use 1st edition with D&D 5e than 2nd edition.

I'm going to be more blunt than my last posting. I am very much hoping Paizo is NOT deliberately designing 2nd edition to be incompatible with 1st edition in an attempt to force all of us to buy all new materials after we've just spent a lot of money on 1st edition.

In Frisco, TX we are having a much harder time getting players than D&D 5e. Our venue is local comic book stores -- three of which are telling me D&D 5e is more popular and I can see that in the difference in the greater number of tables being run for D&D 5e.

From what Paizo has in 2nd edition so far, there does not appear to be a good path for adapting 1st edition to it. I very much prefer Paizo over WoTC. Please make an effort to design into 2nd edition something that allows us to easily use 1st edition material and is able to compete with D&D 5e. Right now, it looks like it is easier to use 1st edition with D&D 5e than 2nd edition.

So no significant changes whatsoever?

EDIT: Just so I seem less snarky. Even something like SF which doesn't deviate much from Pathfinder requires significant effort to convert Pathfinder material and even with actual developers working helping out the results are problematic (Starfarer's Companion Spellcasters anyone?) So even very minor things cause drastic differences.

They can make a game no easily compatible with 1e even if that isn't their goal. IN all likely hood they are just trying to make a better game. If it was just about money, it would probably just be easier to produce more and more content for 1E rather than build a whole new game.

thflame wrote:

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

wands took 2 actions to activate in Unchained I think. I bet will be the same.

That's assuming Wands stay as "spell batteries". It might not be the case.

What if a Wand is more like an Extra prepared spell.

If Preparing Spells and Spell Slots are seperate things like in 5E. A Wand could serve as an extra prepared spell and run off your spell slots.

So that Wand of Healing would have a limited use in that it is still burning your Cleric's spell slots, but gives the benefit of him not having to prepare a Heal spell.

I don't think that's a good idea, like at all. As someone who usually has the "healer" role thrust upon me, being able to have a source of healing that doesn't eat away at all of my available spells is a godsend, and making wands run off of "spell slots" (which I seriously hope not, because I'd rather have P2e's spell casting not be a direct rip from 5e's) would just make wands considerably weaker.

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

The minute I find out an adventure is about managing healing I walk away and don't come back.

Oh I totally agree

all adventures should just be the DM saying, "there is a monster, and if you roll a 2+ on a d20 it is dead and you get all of its treasure."

Assuming Paizo truly has a desire to break with 1st edition entirely to try to create a better game system in 2nd edition ...

1. Another question I have is whether Paizo should have D&D 5e compatibility in 2nd editon? If they did, it would make it easier to pull D&D 5e players over to Pathfinder. Honestly, we're seeing a lot more of these locally in the venues where we play -- it would be nice to be able to pull them into our games (and Paizo might do well to sell D&D 5e DMs and players Paizo materials).

2. If neither pulling over D&D 5e players nor 1st edition compatibility is a Paizo goal, why not go all out and replace the d20 with something like a d60 (which can be found online)?

Assuming Paizo truly has a desire to break with 1st edition entirely to try to create a better game system in 2nd edition ...

1. Another question I have is whether Paizo should have D&D 5e compatibility in 2nd editon? If they did, it would make it easier to pull D&D 5e players over to Pathfinder. Honestly, we're seeing a lot more of these locally in the venues where we play -- it would be nice to be able to pull them into our games (and Paizo might do well to sell D&D 5e DMs and players Paizo materials).

2. If neither pulling over D&D 5e players nor 1st edition compatibility is a Paizo goal, why not go all out and replace the d20 with something like a d60 (which can be found online)?

Is a d60 beneficial to their design goals? Probably not. It also would put the game into a specialist category, whereby you can't just try it with your usual kit. A D20 comes in every dice box.

Assuming Paizo truly has a desire to break with 1st edition entirely to try to create a better game system in 2nd edition ...

1. Another question I have is whether Paizo should have D&D 5e compatibility in 2nd editon? If they did, it would make it easier to pull D&D 5e players over to Pathfinder. Honestly, we're seeing a lot more of these locally in the venues where we play -- it would be nice to be able to pull them into our games (and Paizo might do well to sell D&D 5e DMs and players Paizo materials).

2. If neither pulling over D&D 5e players nor 1st edition compatibility is a Paizo goal, why not go all out and replace the d20 with something like a d60 (which can be found online)?

For one thing, Paizo isn't trying to break away from P1e entirely - the Glass Cannon podcast explicitly emphasizes how converting things from P1e to P2e is relatively straight forward, considering they did on-the-fly conversions of their first Pathfinder module.

Secondly, I have never heard of a d60 up until now, and frankly basing a game system on an extremely uncommon, practically unheard of die would be so outlandish and ridiculous that it's almost like asking to get shot in the foot. Paizo isn't trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

EDIT: I made a false statement here and assumed that Crypt of the Everflame was before the Pathfinder rulesystem was officially out, so ignore that bit.

1. Another question I have is whether Paizo should have D&D 5e compatibility in 2nd editon? If they did, it would make it easier to pull D&D 5e players over to Pathfinder. Honestly, we're seeing a lot more of these locally in the venues where we play -- it would be nice to be able to pull them into our games (and Paizo might do well to sell D&D 5e DMs and players Paizo materials).

No, because they're making their own game, not a 5e supplement. Paizo isn't a de facto subsidiary of WotC anymore.

2. If neither pulling over D&D 5e players nor 1st edition compatibility is a Paizo goal, why not go all out and replace the d20 with something like a d60 (which can be found online)?

Aside from the fact that the d20 is basic, fairly standard, and has a pretty reliable curve (each result on the d20, and therefore each +1 or -1 to a given stat or DC, is worth 5% probability), it's still Pathfinder. It's just a different Pathfinder. The game can be recognizable without being the same.

Assuming Paizo truly has a desire to break with 1st edition entirely to try to create a better game system in 2nd edition ...

1. Another question I have is whether Paizo should have D&D 5e compatibility in 2nd editon? If they did, it would make it easier to pull D&D 5e players over to Pathfinder. Honestly, we're seeing a lot more of these locally in the venues where we play -- it would be nice to be able to pull them into our games (and Paizo might do well to sell D&D 5e DMs and players Paizo materials).

2. If neither pulling over D&D 5e players nor 1st edition compatibility is a Paizo goal, why not go all out and replace the d20 with something like a d60 (which can be found online)?

Taking #2 further ... An issue in our campaign is that some characters have a +20 or +17, for example, for skill checks. Similarly, we have high bonuses to attack. This turns those die rolls into almost sure success -- except when rolling a 1.

What might be better is turn those bonuses , themselves, into die rolls. Also, it might be good to have characters up to and including, say, level 9 roll a d20 as we do now -- but when characters reach level 10, maybe they start using a d40 for some things like to attack and saves -- rather than having enormous bonuses. At level 15, maybe this becomes a d60.

This type of system says that even very experienced characters can screw up some of the time -- takes away almost guaranteed success.

Mark Young 800 wrote:

Assuming Paizo truly has a desire to break with 1st edition entirely to try to create a better game system in 2nd edition ...

1. Another question I have is whether Paizo should have D&D 5e compatibility in 2nd editon? If they did, it would make it easier to pull D&D 5e players over to Pathfinder. Honestly, we're seeing a lot more of these locally in the venues where we play -- it would be nice to be able to pull them into our games (and Paizo might do well to sell D&D 5e DMs and players Paizo materials).

2. If neither pulling over D&D 5e players nor 1st edition compatibility is a Paizo goal, why not go all out and replace the d20 with something like a d60 (which can be found online)?

Taking #2 further ... An issue in our campaign is that some characters have a +20 or +17, for example, for skill checks. Similarly, we have high bonuses to attack. This turns those die rolls into almost sure success -- except when rolling a 1.

What might be better is turn those bonuses , themselves, into die rolls. Also, it might be good to have characters up to and including, say, level 9 roll a d20 as we do now -- but when characters reach level 10, maybe they start using a d40 for some things like to attack and saves -- rather than having enormous bonuses. At level 15, maybe this becomes a d60.

This type of system says that even very experienced characters can screw up some of the time -- takes away almost guaranteed success.

Very off-topic, but Dungeon-Crawl-Classics RPG works like this. And it is a d20 system game.