All About Actions

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

One of the most important aspects of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is combat. Monsters and villains are a very real threat that adventurers have to deal with on a daily basis, and quiet negotiation is rarely the answer. When talking fails, swords are drawn and combat is joined. In Pathfinder First Edition, combat could become rather bogged down just by the weight of options available. Time and time again, we heard new players talk about the complexity of the action system, how it made the game slow down as players looked to eke the most out of their turns.

Basically, the previous system was a barrier, and so it should come as no surprise that we are looking at ways that we can simplify it to make the game run more smoothly and intuitively. The hard part was making sure that the versatility of the old system was still present, while cleaning up the overall experience. We want your turn in combat to be exciting and full of interesting choices. We want you to be elated by coming up with just the right combination of actions to win the day. We just don't want those choices to be hedged in by a number of complex categories.

Seven Types

Before I explain the new way of doing things, it might be good to look back to find some perspective. The previous edition of Pathfinder featured seven distinct action types: free, full-round, immediate, move, standard, swift, and a nebulously defined “other” category. These helped to curb what a character could do and encouraged varied tactics to get the most out of your round. In particular, the immediate action was of interest because it was something you could do outside your turn.

This approach has served us well over the years, but we have long looked for better ways to accomplish some of the same goals with a more intuitive system.

Three Actions

It's your turn. You get to take three actions. That's it. You want to move three times? Done. Instead you want to move once, draw your sword, and attack? No problem. How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack). With only a few notable exceptions, most things in the game now take one action to accomplish. Opening a door, drawing a weapon, reloading a crossbow, moving up to your speed, raising your shield, taking a guarded step, swinging your greataxe—all of these and much more take just one action to perform.

There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon. Conversely, most of the spells in the game take two actions to cast, although some can be cast quickly, such as a heal spell that targets yourself. Many of the classes can teach you specific activities that take two more actions to perform. The fighter, for example, has a feat that you can select called Sudden Charge, which costs two actions but lets you to move twice your speed and attack once, allowing fighters to get right into the fray!

One Reaction

One aspect of Pathfinder First Edition that was important to us was the ability to occasionally, if the circumstances were right, act outside your turn. While this was most often a simple attack of opportunity, we saw this as a way to add a whole new dimension to the game.

So now, all characters get one reaction they can take when the conditions are right.

Reactions always come with a trigger that must occur before the reaction can be taken. Let's say you're playing a paladin with a shield and you have spent an action to defend yourself with that shield. Not only does this boost your Armor Class; it also allows you to take a special reaction if you are hit by an attack. This shield block reduces the damage taken by an amount up to the shield's hardness!

Not everybody will have a reaction they can use during combat, but you can always ready an action that allows you prepare a special action that you can take later if the conditions you specify are met. You might ready an action to attack the first orc that walks around the corner, allowing you to make a strike if that happens before your next turn.

Finally, some monsters have reactions they can take as well. While some have simple reactions that allow them to attack those who drop their guard while adjacent to them, others have wildly different abilities. An earth elemental, for example, can spend its reaction after being hit to crumble into a pile of rocks, burrowing down into the ground for safety.

The New System in Practice

The three-action-and-a-reaction system really has done a lot for gameplay around the office. Turns are quite a bit more dynamic. The breadth of options now compete with each other, not based upon what action type they are, but instead on their merits in the current combat situation. Concentrating on a spell might be vital, but not if you need to move away, draw a potion, and drink it. Maybe you could wait to drink it until your next turn to keep the spell going, or maybe you could not move and hope the monster does not eat you.

Most importantly, taking your turn in Pathfinder is now filled with a wide variety of possibilities, allowing you to get the most out of your time in the spotlight, while still keeping the game moving and engaging.

Well, that about wraps up our in-depth look at the new action system for Pathfinder. Come back on Friday for a blog post looking into all of the spoilers from the first part of the Glass Cannon Network's podcast of their playtest of the game. In addition, if you want to see the game yourself, and maybe even get a chance to play, stop by Gary Con this weekend, where we will be running a number of Pathfinder charity games, raising money for the Wounded Warrior Project!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
551 to 600 of 759 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm guessing you are just being facetious now Mark. Sorry if I'm wrong.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SquishyPoetFromBeyondTheStars wrote:
I would really hope that at the very least something relatively basic like taking an AoO would be available to everyone either automatically or as a universal feat that can be taken. otherwise I feel like your setting a precedent where we get nickle and dimed for wanting to build something "less traditional". And if that's the case then we're back where we started with characters needed to spend a ton of feats to just one thing kinda well.

While I agree, that AoO should be an option available to everyone, at some point in their career, if not at level 1;

I expect that each class will have a thematic option from level 1, with further options unlocked through levelling, which make more sense as reactions, than just 'poke them with a stick'.
Such as a caster being able to throw up a low level protective spell, or the Rogue having an opportunistic Steal ability, both of which would have cost a feat, talent, arcana, etc.

BBEG: "You think me beaten? I will DESTROY you...uhhh...where..."
Rogue: <holds up scroll>"You looking for this?"


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Young 800 wrote:
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.

The fact that it is actually possible to get good at what you do rather than be beholden to the dice forever is one of the reasons why pathfinder is better than 5e.


Terquem wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


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."

Do you know who Healing as a Management Intensive Resource hurts the most?

I will give you a hint: it's not the characters managing spell slots.


People who hate the -0/-5/-10 attack progression may try making a second attack in the same round use up 2 actions. Max 2 attacks in a round if you spend all 3 actions, but no attack penalty. Results should be similar.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
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.

This sounds like healing surges. I hated those in 4E.


Starfox wrote:
People who hate the -0/-5/-10 attack progression may try making a second attack in the same round use up 2 actions. Max 2 attacks in a round if you spend all 3 actions, but no attack penalty. Results should be similar.

Or for roughly the same effect, Aim as one action giving a +5 bonus to your next attack roll, thus Attack Aim Attack allows you to make two attacks with no iterative penalty.

Starfox wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
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.
This sounds like healing surges. I hated those in 4E.

I'm not sure how using Intimidate to Demoralize someone as one action has anything to do with healing surges...?

Dark Archive

Starfinder Superscriber

Will guns be in the core rulebook?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DragoDorn wrote:
Will guns be in the core rulebook?

Already confirmed "No". They said on podcast they are trying to re-do guns since the devs don't like how they turned out in PF1e.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:
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.

The fact that it is actually possible to get good at what you do rather than be beholden to the dice forever is one of the reasons why pathfinder is better than 5e.

THIS...1000x THIS. I hated bounded accuracy in 5e.


BTW, I want to add that the rule books created by Paizo such as the Ultimate, Adventures, an Book of the Damned books are the best I have ever seen in an RPG system. I will adapt these books to whatever system I play in the future -- be that 2nd edition or D&D 5e, whichever is the easiest conversion. I'd really resist buying all new books for 2nd edition, unless it is just over-the-top so much better than 1st edition.

I have to restate that I would like to see a strong commitment from Paizo to help me maintain my 1st edition investment into 2nd edition -- because the release of 2nd edition will make it that much harder to find 1st edition players!


Mark Young 800 wrote:

BTW, I want to add that the rule books created by Paizo such as the Ultimate and Adventure books are the best I have ever seen in an RPG system. I will adapt theses books to whatever system I play in the future -- be that 2nd edition or D&D 5e, whichever is the easiest conversion. I'd really resist buying all new books for 2nd edition, unless it is just over-the-top so much better than 1st edition.

I have to restate that I would like to see a strong commitment from Paizo to help me maintain my 1st edition investment into 2nd edition -- because the release of 2nd edition will make it that much harder to find 1st edition players!

As people have pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, the playtest adventure is actually a converted PF1e adventure. A lot of things in their playtest are apparently being converted on the fly. It doesn't sound like it will be too incredibly difficult to convert stuff. The only sticking points would be having to use the new versions of classes / class and racial features / feats etc where a PF2e version of that item exists... and that's something that comes pretty easily after a bit of time getting to know and internalize a system.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
As people have pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, the playtest adventure is actually a converted PF1e adventure. A lot of things in their playtest are apparently being converted on the fly. It doesn't sound like it will be too incredibly difficult to convert stuff.

Just to be clear: the demo adventure shown in the GlassCannon podcast is being converted on the fly from a PF1 adventure (Crypt of the Everflame).

The playtest adventure(s) are being written specifically to have players check out various options and changes from the PF2 rules.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
As people have pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, the playtest adventure is actually a converted PF1e adventure. A lot of things in their playtest are apparently being converted on the fly. It doesn't sound like it will be too incredibly difficult to convert stuff.

Just to be clear: the demo adventure shown in the GlassCannon podcast is being converted on the fly from a PF1 adventure (Crypt of the Everflame).

The playtest adventure(s) are being written specifically to have players check out various options and changes from the PF2 rules.

Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Which direction are you concerned about?

PF1 adventures being converted to PF2 rules
or
PF2 adventures being converted to PF1 rules


Mark Young 800 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
As people have pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, the playtest adventure is actually a converted PF1e adventure. A lot of things in their playtest are apparently being converted on the fly. It doesn't sound like it will be too incredibly difficult to convert stuff.

Just to be clear: the demo adventure shown in the GlassCannon podcast is being converted on the fly from a PF1 adventure (Crypt of the Everflame).

The playtest adventure(s) are being written specifically to have players check out various options and changes from the PF2 rules.

Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Jason was converting the entire thing on the fly, the entire point is to prove that it's fairly quick and easy to convert things. Probably the most difficult thing is going to be unique monsters and non-core classes, and those are things that should be handled off-table during regular prep anyway.


Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Sense I get is that a conversion will be pretty much entirely a matter of adjusting the loot and converting stat blocks. For bestiary monsters, it will help to just use the version of the same monster in a PF2 bestiary, but people with class levels you will have to rebuild yourself.


The FAQ explicitly mentions that aside from pre-converting stat blocks before the game, the demo adventure was largely converted on the fly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One minor thing I would like to see in PF2e is changing the ability scores that spellcasters are based on to reflect the flavor of those abilities and the type of magic in question. Please don't just continue sticking to the old ability scores when they don't make sense, just because "that's what someone at TSR/WotC arbitrarily decided way back when and tradition."

What do I mean? Well...

Intelligence should be the ability score for "hermetic" or "rule" magic. An Int-based caster is able to alter reality because you have studied and understand the laws that underpin it. Wizards continue to fit this very well, as do Alchemists.

Wisdom should be the ability score for "channeled" or "instinctive" magic. A Wis-based caster is able to intuitively channel power from the natural or world or abstract universal sources, or unleash power inborn to them. This is the kind of magic used by Druids, and is what Sorcerers and Oracles should have always been based on instead of Cha.

Charisma should be the ability score for "pact" or "evoked" magic. A Cha-based caster bargains with mighty beings such as gods and archfiends for their power, imposes their will on a myriad of lesser spirits to force or persuade them to enact magical effects on their behalf, or is able to "describe an alternate reality" so convincingly that it becomes true. This is what Clerics always should have been, and remains appropriate to Bards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

One minor thing I would like to see in PF2e is changing the ability scores that spellcasters are based on to reflect the flavor of those abilities and the type of magic in question. Please don't just continue sticking to the old ability scores when they don't make sense, just because "that's what someone at TSR/WotC arbitrarily decided way back when and tradition."

What do I mean? Well...

Intelligence should be the ability score for "hermetic" or "rule" magic. An Int-based caster is able to alter reality because you have studied and understand the laws that underpin it. Wizards continue to fit this very well, as do Alchemists.

Wisdom should be the ability score for "channeled" or "instinctive" magic. A Wis-based caster is able to intuitively channel power from the natural or world or abstract universal sources, or unleash power inborn to them. This is the kind of magic used by Druids, and is what Sorcerers and Oracles should have always been based on instead of Cha.

Charisma should be the ability score for "pact" or "evoked" magic. A Cha-based caster bargains with mighty beings such as gods and archfiends for their power, imposes their will on a myriad of lesser spirits to force or persuade them to enact magical effects on their behalf, or is able to "describe an alternate reality" so convincingly that it becomes true. This is what Clerics always should have been, and remains appropriate to Bards.

I've always seen Wisdom as the "In-tune with the universe" stat Faith, meditative zen stuff a general belief that everything is connected and the cosmos will sort things out.

Charisma to me was the Faith in Myself. My Gut tells me this and I'm gonna believe it, cause it's ME. I can work Magic because It's ME, and I've got no time to doubt that I can do it. Guts and Glory, Over the Top, I will make it work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

One minor thing I would like to see in PF2e is changing the ability scores that spellcasters are based on to reflect the flavor of those abilities and the type of magic in question. Please don't just continue sticking to the old ability scores when they don't make sense, just because "that's what someone at TSR/WotC arbitrarily decided way back when and tradition."

What do I mean? Well...

Intelligence should be the ability score for "hermetic" or "rule" magic. An Int-based caster is able to alter reality because you have studied and understand the laws that underpin it. Wizards continue to fit this very well, as do Alchemists.

Wisdom should be the ability score for "channeled" or "instinctive" magic. A Wis-based caster is able to intuitively channel power from the natural or world or abstract universal sources, or unleash power inborn to them. This is the kind of magic used by Druids, and is what Sorcerers and Oracles should have always been based on instead of Cha.

Charisma should be the ability score for "pact" or "evoked" magic. A Cha-based caster bargains with mighty beings such as gods and archfiends for their power, imposes their will on a myriad of lesser spirits to force or persuade them to enact magical effects on their behalf, or is able to "describe an alternate reality" so convincingly that it becomes true. This is what Clerics always should have been, and remains appropriate to Bards.

I disagree; I think that the casting stats tied to classes are fine the way they are, at least based off of my interpretations.

Intelligence: Like you said, Intelligence is just fine the way it is, but I would also like to add that, as far as fluff is concerned, Witches should be classified as a Charisma based caster with how you describe it (which is actually possible with the Seducer archetype), but that with Intelligence, it better fits the concept of someone who would've been a Wizard, but for one reason or another had to instead rely on making a pact with a patron and become a Witch.

Wisdom: Much like how one's wisdom stat dictates a lot of their skills and abilities regarding sense and spacial awareness, utilizing wisdom as a casting stat should reflect the caster's ability to view the world/universe around them and draw their spellcasting from that. For Druids/Rangers, that would be the result of them looking beyond themselves and deeply attuning themselves to the magical powers of nature, whereas with Clerics and other similar classes, it reflects their willingness to look beyond their own station and form a connection with a divine power.

Charisma: (I would like to preface this by retorting your statement about how the casting stats were "arbitrarily decided way back when"; the Sorcerer wasn't released until 3e around 2000, 3 years before 3.5, and as far as I'm aware the only Charisma-based caster before that was the Bard.) Charisma as a casting stat should be an indicator of one's force of personality. Much like how those with high charisma are able to exert their influence on their fellow people, charisma-based casters are able to exert themselves into their casting, whether their power is fueled by foreign, eldritch blood like Sorcerers, or because they're sexy as hell they're able to manipulate the mystical powers of magic as Bards, or even had divine influence thrust onto them forcibly and now act as a direct conduit of divinity as Oracles.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Which direction are you concerned about?

PF1 adventures being converted to PF2 rules
or
PF2 adventures being converted to PF1 rules

I'm not Mark Young 800, but Yes on both.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Which direction are you concerned about?

PF1 adventures being converted to PF2 rules
or
PF2 adventures being converted to PF1 rules

I'm not Mark Young 800, but Yes on both.

P1e adventures being ported into P2e is, as the glass cannon podcast has demonstrated, really straight forward.

P2e adventures being ported into P1e will require more work and finagling, but is possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't it just be a matter of finding the equivalent stat block and adjusting numbers/loot? PF2 seems unlikely to contain creatures that haven't been done or at least approximated by PF1. Unless there's a wild difference in CR theres 6+ books worth of enemies you can just slot in. One of those has to be close enough to not have to do anything else.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Which direction are you concerned about?

PF1 adventures being converted to PF2 rules
or
PF2 adventures being converted to PF1 rules

I'm not Mark Young 800, but Yes on both.

I was thinking mostly about PF1 to PF2, but in the long term seems PF2 to PF1 will also be needed -- in that some will want to play PF1 and others PF2.

GMs will want to be able to make the most of their PFRPG purchases, whether PF1 or PF2.

Might be nice if Paizo could provide stat block coversions, etc. where possible from each PF1 book to PF2 for a nominal price. Anything to make this easier. What if the PDF for each of these PF1 to PF2 conversion guides was something like $3 or $4?

A GM might prefer using a single set of books for both PF1 and PF2. For example, I've got Bestiary 1 through 6. I'd probably rather consult those for both editions of the game and a conversion guide for each book providing just the new PF2 stat block for each monster and any other changes to each monster.

Or give PF1 owners a 50% price break or so on PDF files for books they own that have been modified and republished for PF2. Surely, for many books only some moderate editing will be needed to do the conversion -- and it should be done to support their current PF1 customers.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Which direction are you concerned about?

PF1 adventures being converted to PF2 rules
or
PF2 adventures being converted to PF1 rules

I'm not Mark Young 800, but Yes on both.

I was thinking mostly about PF1 to PF2, but in the long term seems PF2 to PF1 will also be needed -- in that some will want to play PF1 and others PF2.

GMs will want to be able to make the most of their PFRPG purchases, whether PF1 or PF2.

Might be nice if Paizo could provide stat block coversions, etc. where possible from each PF1 book to PF2 for a nominal price. Anything to make this easier. What if the PDF for each of these PF1 to PF2 conversion guides was something like $3 or $4?

A GM might prefer using a single set of books for both PF1 and PF2. For example, I've got Bestiary 1 through 6. I'd probably rather consult those for both editions of the game and a conversion guide for each book providing just the new PF2 stat block for each monster and any other changes to each monster.

Or give PF1 owners a 50% price break or so on PDF files for books they own that have been modified and republished for PF2. Surely, for many books only some moderate editing will be needed to do the conversion -- and it should be done to support their current PF1 customers.

So, after further thought, to be fair Paizo to your existing customers, convert the PF1 Adventures, Bestiaries, Ultimate, and other rule books to PF2. I am guessing that while game mechanics changed that a lot of the basic descriptions won't. CHARGE US ONLY FOR THE VALUE YOU ADD -- DON'T CHARGE US FOR THE PARTS THAT DON'T CHANGE. GIVE US A PRICE BREAK FOR THESE BOOKS WE ALREAY OWN IN PF1. BE FAIR TO US AND DON'T MAKE US BUY THE WHOLE THING OVER AGAIN. Expand the new books if you want.

Your video shows on the fly conversions, so doing some moderate editing on the PF1 books to create PF2 books should not be so hard. An advantage to doing that is that it become much easier for us to find things when running both PF1 and PF2 campaigns.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Which direction are you concerned about?

PF1 adventures being converted to PF2 rules
or
PF2 adventures being converted to PF1 rules

I'm not Mark Young 800, but Yes on both.

I was thinking mostly about PF1 to PF2, but in the long term seems PF2 to PF1 will also be needed -- in that some will want to play PF1 and others PF2.

GMs will want to be able to make the most of their PFRPG purchases, whether PF1 or PF2.

Might be nice if Paizo could provide stat block coversions, etc. where possible from each PF1 book to PF2 for a nominal price. Anything to make this easier. What if the PDF for each of these PF1 to PF2 conversion guides was something like $3 or $4?

A GM might prefer using a single set of books for both PF1 and PF2. For example, I've got Bestiary 1 through 6. I'd probably rather consult those for both editions of the game and a conversion guide for each book providing just the new PF2 stat block for each monster and any other changes to each monster.

Or give PF1 owners a 50% price break or so on PDF files for books they own that have been modified and republished for PF2. Surely, for many books only some moderate editing will be needed to do the conversion -- and it should be done to support their current PF1 customers.

So, after further thought, to be fair Paizo to your existing customers, convert the PF1 Adventures, Bestiaries, Ultimate, and other rule books to PF2. I am guessing that while game mechanics changed that a lot of the basic descriptions won't. CHARGE US ONLY FOR THE VALUE YOU ADD -- DON'T CHARGE US FOR THE PARTS THAT DON'T CHANGE. GIVE US A PRICE BREAK FOR THESE BOOKS WE ALREAY OWN IN PF1. BE FAIR TO...

You guys have some really weird expectations.

A, they're not just going to do light reskins of old books with the new rules and nothing changed. No game publisher does this and neither would Paizo. There will be updates of old content but some stuff won't transition and other stuff will be entirely new, descriptions will be rewritten, stuff will be expanded, etc. It probably won't even be named the same. Whatever replaces "Advanced Player's Guide" will probably look very little like the PF1e version, just like WotC's own Arcane Power looked nothing like Complete Arcane looked nothing like Tome and Blood looked nothing like Complete Wizard's Handbook.

B, following in that they're going to be new books with mostly new content, Paizo isn't going to give you the new books for just a few dollars. Again, no game publisher EVER does this - not WotC, not White Wolf, not Steve Jackson, not anyone. What kind of bizarre entitlement fantasy do people have to be living in to think shouting for this sort of thing is anywhere near appropriate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Yes, but that just one adventure. What about doing that sort of thing continually for an adventure path? What about other adventures? Other types of adventures? Other levels of adventure? Complex monsters?

Which direction are you concerned about?

PF1 adventures being converted to PF2 rules
or
PF2 adventures being converted to PF1 rules

I'm not Mark Young 800, but Yes on both.

I was thinking mostly about PF1 to PF2, but in the long term seems PF2 to PF1 will also be needed -- in that some will want to play PF1 and others PF2.

GMs will want to be able to make the most of their PFRPG purchases, whether PF1 or PF2.

Might be nice if Paizo could provide stat block coversions, etc. where possible from each PF1 book to PF2 for a nominal price. Anything to make this easier. What if the PDF for each of these PF1 to PF2 conversion guides was something like $3 or $4?

A GM might prefer using a single set of books for both PF1 and PF2. For example, I've got Bestiary 1 through 6. I'd probably rather consult those for both editions of the game and a conversion guide for each book providing just the new PF2 stat block for each monster and any other changes to each monster.

Or give PF1 owners a 50% price break or so on PDF files for books they own that have been modified and republished for PF2. Surely, for many books only some moderate editing will be needed to do the conversion -- and it should be done to support their current PF1 customers.

So, after further thought, to be fair Paizo to your existing customers, convert the PF1 Adventures, Bestiaries, Ultimate, and other rule books to PF2. I am guessing that while game mechanics changed that a lot of the basic descriptions won't. CHARGE US ONLY FOR THE VALUE YOU ADD -- DON'T CHARGE US FOR THE PARTS THAT DON'T CHANGE. GIVE US A PRICE BREAK FOR
...

The entitlement fantasy probably comes from the same delusional space that made people think a 2nd edition would never happen. Despite numerous refusals to say that by the devs. Despite the fact that now is precisely when they said they might possibly be looking at a 2nd edition, and have been saying so for years.


On the new action economy. While I am pretty excited how will it look and the plethora of different actions, be aware that increased number of different actions is equally daunting for some players as is fiddling with modifiers (for some I know even more so). So while an experienced player like me who build characters with a ton of options including spells, modifiers and swift/immediate action options, there are those who just want to full attack every round with static modifiers.


Don't like it. I wish the option to move and attack more then once was a martial only option built into those classes specifically, but otherwise don't touch the action system. Fat chance of that happening, this is by far the most liked change by most poster‘s opinions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Diffan wrote:

"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.

Heya John Lynch, good to see you buddy! I think PF1 was very punitive to Martial characters, especially in the mid- to late levels of the game. I mean it's why there's a billion Martial/Caster discrepancy threads out there lol.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Phantasmist wrote:
Don't like it. I wish the option to move and attack more then once was a martial only option built into those classes specifically, but otherwise don't touch the action system. Fat chance of that happening, this is by far the most liked change by most poster‘s opinions.

While it won't be going as far as you want, we've already seen that Martials will be very much getting improved action efficiency in the move and hit things front. One of the very few abilities we know about so far is the improved charge.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Might be nice if Paizo could provide stat block coversions, etc. where possible from each PF1 book to PF2 for a nominal price. Anything to make this easier. What if the PDF for each of these PF1 to PF2 conversion guides was something like $3 or $4?

A GM might prefer using a single set of books for both PF1 and PF2. For example, I've got Bestiary 1 through 6. I'd probably rather consult those for both editions of the game and a conversion guide for each book providing just the new PF2 stat block for each monster and any other changes to each monster.

Or give PF1 owners a 50% price break or so on PDF files for books they own that have been modified and republished for PF2. Surely, for many books only some moderate editing will be needed to do the conversion -- and it should be done to support their current PF1 customers.

.....

So, after further thought, to be fair Paizo to your existing customers, convert the PF1 Adventures, Bestiaries, Ultimate, and other rule books to PF2. I am guessing that while game mechanics changed that a lot of the basic descriptions won't. CHARGE US ONLY FOR THE VALUE YOU ADD -- DON'T CHARGE US FOR THE PARTS THAT DON'T CHANGE. GIVE US A PRICE BREAK FOR THESE BOOKS WE ALREAY OWN IN PF1. BE TO US AND DON'T MAKE US BUY THE WHOLE THING OVER AGAIN. Expand the new books if you want.

Your video shows on the fly conversions, so doing some moderate editing on the PF1 books to create PF2 books should not be so hard. An advantage to doing that is that it become much easier for us to find things when running both PF1 and PF2 campaigns.

Making a PDF (to Paizo's standards) is not a quick and easy process. It still requires editing, layout, proofreading, etc., just like a real print book. One that is mostly statblocks is even more prone to errors: a +1 being read as a +7, for example.

Keep in mind that the free PDF Player's Guide for War for the Crown, not a crunch-heavy product, was supposed to be released mid-February and is still not out. There's no way Paizo has the time and money to pay someone to convert statblocks in old adventures, bestiaries, etc.

When Paizo released PfRPG, they did not release PDFs to convert their old products from 3.5 to P1e. But you know what did happen? Individual GMs who were converting older adventures to the new rules did post free conversions on the boards. I would expect the same thing to happen in this instance. People have converted RotRL to 4e and 5e; I will be shocked if no one decides to convert it to P2e as well.


Something that has been said above I do not understand, and would like someone willing to try, to explain it to me

What is meant by "get good at something you do, rather than be beholden to the dice"?


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Terquem wrote:

Something that has been said above I do not understand, and would like someone willing to try, to explain it to me

What is meant by "get good at something you do, rather than be beholden to the dice"?

I believe it has to do with investing in a skill to the point that, when a difficult DC is 25, you have a +24, so even if you roll a 1, you succeed. Think of the old 2e thief with his percentages choosing to put everything into (for example) Hide in Shadows. He might not be the best around at climbing walls or picking locks, but he feels confident in his ability to skulk around without being seen because he has his percentage up to 98%.


There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product.

We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.

The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.

A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...

Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.

When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.

Liberty's Edge

Terquem wrote:

Something that has been said above I do not understand, and would like someone willing to try, to explain it to me

What is meant by "get good at something you do, rather than be beholden to the dice"?

The smaller your bonus is, the more important the d20 is to your checks. The bigger your bonus is, the less you have to rely on the d20 rolling high to succeed. In a game like 5e, where the numbers are smaller from level 1 to 20, the d20 is a very important part of your roll: no matter what level you are, you usually need the die to roll well to succeed. In games like PF1, however, at high levels your bonus can get so high that you don't have to worry about the die roll at all: you're almost guaranteed success. That's what people are talking about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

Something that has been said above I do not understand, and would like someone willing to try, to explain it to me

What is meant by "get good at something you do, rather than be beholden to the dice"?

In 5E the highest proficiency plus attribute modifier (without magic) is +11, so to hit a DC 30 (godlike) check, you need a 19 or 20 on the dice even at 20th level. In PF it’s possible to push that bonus a lot higher such that success or failure isn’t purely on the luck of the dice, but actually be of sufficient skill to make the dice matter less. Basically, in D&D 5E, the dice might be kind and let you do godlike things, but in PF you can make a character who actually is capable of doing godlike things without luck.


I sort of get it, but I sort of don't.

If a player believes that in order to "enjoy" the game their die rolling should have less impact on outcome (say, only failing on the roll of a 1 or 2, most of the time) does the same player feel the game is still enjoyable if the monsters have the same advantages, only failing to hit, or otherwise affect the player character if they roll a 1 or a 2?

If this is the case, how is it any different if the rolls for both monsters and PC are the same, regardless of what those numbers are?

It has been my experience (perhaps you think I am being deliberately obtuse) that what this statement really means is, "I want to only fail if I roll a 1, while I want the monster to only succeed if you roll a 20"

I get that players want their characters to be "good" at what they want them to be "good" at, but if there is little to practically no chance for failure, then what's the challenge of playing the game at all? Why not just write a novel about your character?


Chemlak wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Something that has been said above I do not understand, and would like someone willing to try, to explain it to me

What is meant by "get good at something you do, rather than be beholden to the dice"?

In 5E the highest proficiency plus attribute modifier (without magic) is +11, so to hit a DC 30 (godlike) check, you need a 19 or 20 on the dice even at 20th level. In PF it’s possible to push that bonus a lot higher such that success or failure isn’t purely on the luck of the dice, but actually be of sufficient skill to make the dice matter less. Basically, in D&D 5E, the dice might be kind and let you do godlike things, but in PF you can make a character who actually is capable of doing godlike things without luck.

It's this type of argument that boggles my mind. Why do you need to compare the sad situation of only having a +11 to a roll to facing a target of 30+?

In any game, if your bonus is +x, and the target is x+xn so that you need to roll consistently numbers that are difficult, the game will, in the long run, not be fun. So why would any DM make that the default?

Why not find out what the players think is a good "feeling" challenge, rolling 12+ to succeed, 14+, 8+, 6+ some value that all the players agree feels "right" and apply that to both characters and foes equally, so there is some sort of fairness involved.

This argument of "It's only fun for me if I succeed on rolls of 4+, but you only succeed against my character if you roll 16+" seems strange to me


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

This argument of "It's only fun for me if I succeed on rolls of 4+, but you only succeed against my character if you roll 16+" seems strange to me

It isn't that people only find it fun if they are amazing and others aren't. Its that they want their character choices to feel like they've had an impact on what that character can do. If you've invested everything you can but thats only made you 15% better it doesn't feel all that great.

If you take the route of standardizing results as you suggest, then what is the point of making character choices at all?


Terquem wrote:
It has been my experience (perhaps you think I am being deliberately obtuse) that what this statement really means is, "I want to only fail if I roll a 1, while I want the monster to only succeed if you roll a 20"

I may not be understanding you correctly but I don't believe what your saying is necessarily true. This is because in PF your PC is not the only character that gets those bonuses. It scales on both sides, PC vs NPCs, Monsters vs PCs. Sure you may have a +25 to your Stealth but I have run creatures who had a +25 perception ultimately cancelling those bonuses out.

Edit: So I don't see how that is people saying I want to always succeed above 1 on the die and opponents to only succeed on a roll of a 20.

As for static DC's like knowledge checks and the like, in a home game, as a GM feel free to adjust those as they see fit. I play a lot of PFS so that is not possible. I have always looked at it as the skills you choose to improve upon is your hard earned training and studying. GM: "Make a Knowledge: Religion DC 30." Cleric: "Sure I get a +20 because I invested my time and energy into it." Fighter: "I dabbled in a little research when I was younger (took a rank) so I can try the check as well wit a +4." In the end those bonus are what differentiates characters and show what your character has worked hard to achieve.


Malk_Content wrote:
Terquem wrote:

This argument of "It's only fun for me if I succeed on rolls of 4+, but you only succeed against my character if you roll 16+" seems strange to me

It isn't that people only find it fun if they are amazing and others aren't. Its that they want their character choices to feel like they've had an impact on what that character can do. If you've invested everything you can but thats only made you 15% better it doesn't feel all that great.

If you take the route of standardizing results as you suggest, then what is the point of making character choices at all?

I don't think we have the same idea of what "making character choices" means.


Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
Terquem wrote:
It has been my experience (perhaps you think I am being deliberately obtuse) that what this statement really means is, "I want to only fail if I roll a 1, while I want the monster to only succeed if you roll a 20"

I may not be understanding you correctly but I don't believe what your saying is necessarily true. This is because in PF your PC is not the only character that gets those bonuses. It scales on both sides, PC vs NPCs, Monsters vs PCs. Sure you may have a +25 to your Stealth but I have run creatures who had a +25 perception ultimately cancelling those bonuses out.

As for static DC's like knowledge checks and the like, in a home game, as a GM feel free to adjust those as they see fit. I play a lot of PFS so that is not possible. I have always looked at it as the skills you choose to improve upon is your hard earned training and studying. GM: "Make a Knowledge: Religion DC 30." Cleric: "Sure I get a +20 because I invested my time and energy into it." Fighter: "I dabbled in a little research when I was younger (took a rank) so I can try the check as well." In the end those bonus are what differentiates characters and show what your character has worked hard to achieve.

What I am saying is 100% true, because it is my experience with this situation. However, you go on to clearly state support for what I am saying, bonuses that drive success rolls down to "not rolling a 1" which are countered by challenges that drive that "1" up to some higher number that "feels" like a challenge, are part of the game.

What feels "fun" for one player might not be "fun" for other players, but saying "I want my character to be good at something" really doesn't translate, in my mind well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
Terquem wrote:
It has been my experience (perhaps you think I am being deliberately obtuse) that what this statement really means is, "I want to only fail if I roll a 1, while I want the monster to only succeed if you roll a 20"

I may not be understanding you correctly but I don't believe what your saying is necessarily true. This is because in PF your PC is not the only character that gets those bonuses. It scales on both sides, PC vs NPCs, Monsters vs PCs. Sure you may have a +25 to your Stealth but I have run creatures who had a +25 perception ultimately cancelling those bonuses out.

The problem is, when your monsters have +25 perception, the chance to sneak past them for people who is not heavily invested is zero. I'm not talking about the clunky fighter in full plate with no ranks on stealth. I'm talking about people who have cared to put resources on it, just that they are not specialists. At level 10, a rogue with 10 ranks, class skill, +7 Dex, a +5 elven cloak, and some racial/trait/feat bonus can have about +25-30. Someone which does not have Dex as primary or stealth as class skill, but has spent 10 ranks, will have just +10. That 15-20 point gap means that if the specialist has a challenge doing it, non-specialist can't even try.

At lower levels, with the skill gap being closer, that's not true. At lvl 1 the guy with 1 rank has +1, and the specialist rogue has maybe +8 or so. The specialist is better, but the non-specialist can at least try (the guy in clunky armor will fail regardless).

If you reach higher levels, it's even worse. In my last Strange Aeon game, we had a Mindchemist which could roll Knowledge (planes) (and pretty much every other knowledge) and pass DCs of 45 to 50. The wizard, which had max ranks, class skill and huge int, could not compete. The magus, which had max ranks, class skill, and very good int (but not absolutely maxed like the others), didn't even bother to roll. That's an issue. We are not talking here about the diffeernce between the absolute best and someone who doesn't care. We are talking about the absolute best and somone who cared and in fact spent points on it. But because the gap between "elite" and "very good" is just soooo big, "very good" is not good enough.

Liberty's Edge

gustavo iglesias wrote:
If you reach higher levels, it's even worse. In my last Strange Aeon game, we had a Mindchemist which could roll Knowledge (planes) (and pretty much every other knowledge) and pass DCs of 45 to 50. The wizard, which had max ranks, class skill and huge int, could not compete. The magus, which had max ranks, class skill, and very good int (but not absolutely maxed like the others), didn't even bother to roll. That's an issue. We are not talking here...

Reminds me of my Questioner Investigator in a homebrew campaign. We had to point out to our GM that DC35-40 knowledge checks shouldn't be half as common as he was making them, and it became a choice between giving my knowledge checks I had a chance of failing, or giving the other PCs knowledge checks they had a chance of succeeding on.

I don't like bounded stats, and I'm not sure I like the automatic skill scaling either - but I also don't like the absurd statistical rift you get, even between two specialists.


I don't believe it is good for me to have these kinds of discussions with other people. I obviously do not understand this game as it is played. I am a relic.


The Dandy Lion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If you reach higher levels, it's even worse. In my last Strange Aeon game, we had a Mindchemist which could roll Knowledge (planes) (and pretty much every other knowledge) and pass DCs of 45 to 50. The wizard, which had max ranks, class skill and huge int, could not compete. The magus, which had max ranks, class skill, and very good int (but not absolutely maxed like the others), didn't even bother to roll. That's an issue. We are not talking here...

Reminds me of my Questioner Investigator in a homebrew campaign. We had to point out to our GM that DC35-40 knowledge checks shouldn't be half as common as he was making them, and it became a choice between giving my knowledge checks I had a chance of failing, or giving the other PCs knowledge checks they had a chance of succeeding on.

I don't like bounded stats, and I'm not sure I like the automatic skill scaling either - but I also don't like the absurd statistical rift you get, even between two specialists.

I follow the rule that Knowledge checks to know about a monster (normally 5, 10 or 15 +CR) gives you additional info by every 5 points (normal DC gives you a read of the ecology stuff -like, this monster is an outsider from Hell that likes to eat babies-, and every 5 points you ask for stuff like "is he resistant to fire" or whatever). It's not that the MAgus could not pass a check. He could. The thing is, it was pointless. Anything he could learn, was vastly surpassed by both the wizard and specially the Mindchemist.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Something that has been said above I do not understand, and would like someone willing to try, to explain it to me

What is meant by "get good at something you do, rather than be beholden to the dice"?

In 5E the highest proficiency plus attribute modifier (without magic) is +11, so to hit a DC 30 (godlike) check, you need a 19 or 20 on the dice even at 20th level. In PF it’s possible to push that bonus a lot higher such that success or failure isn’t purely on the luck of the dice, but actually be of sufficient skill to make the dice matter less. Basically, in D&D 5E, the dice might be kind and let you do godlike things, but in PF you can make a character who actually is capable of doing godlike things without luck.

It's this type of argument that boggles my mind. Why do you need to compare the sad situation of only having a +11 to a roll to facing a target of 30+?

In any game, if your bonus is +x, and the target is x+xn so that you need to roll consistently numbers that are difficult, the game will, in the long run, not be fun. So why would any DM make that the default?

Why not find out what the players think is a good "feeling" challenge, rolling 12+ to succeed, 14+, 8+, 6+ some value that all the players agree feels "right" and apply that to both characters and foes equally, so there is some sort of fairness involved.

This argument of "It's only fun for me if I succeed on rolls of 4+, but you only succeed against my character if you roll 16+" seems strange to me

That’s sort of my point. In 5E, the BEST PC has +11 on a check. The GM can throw challenges with DC 30 at that character. Sure, most will be DC 15-20, but the highest DC in the game is 30, and no matter what the player does, he cannot be skilled enough to hit that DC except through pure luck. In PF, I can build a character who is able to hit DC 30 (arbitrarily choosing that same DC) on a 10, or a 5 or even a 1. I can make meaningful choices which directly improve my chances of hitting a skill DC, and I’m not capped by some idea that a 20th level character can only have a bonus in a proficient skill that’s 4 points higher than a 1st level character.


There is some granularity possible between "skills go from +0 to +11 max" and "skills go from +0 to +45".

Things do not need to be black or white. Grey is a nice color.


Well, it seems like skills can scale as full level, unlike 5e’s small proficiency bonus. That means that, at the very least (assuming ability scores still improve), a 20th level character can automatically succeed at something a first level character couldn’t achieve on a nat 20. I think that’s a pretty big difference in design philosophy,

551 to 600 of 759 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: All About Actions All Messageboards