Pathfinder a la Mode

we need strictly defined keywords and a separation between RAW and fluff.

Make the rules too jargony and divorce the flavour and the rules too much and you'll end up with a sterile game that feels more like a board game than the Pathfinder we've all come to know and love (well. Assuming people posting here actually enjoy the game. I know not all posters do).

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

we need strictly defined keywords and a separation between RAW and fluff.

Make the rules too jargony and divorce the flavour and the rules too much and you'll end up with a sterile game that feels more like a board game than the Pathfinder we've all come to know and love (well. Assuming people posting here actually enjoy the game. I know not all posters do).

That's certainly true. I hate it when fluff and mechanics are so divorced that the rulebooks feel like legal text devoid of life and meaning and context.

Fluff makes the world come alive, and provides immediate context to the rules at hand.

My absolute favorite rulebooks ever printed were the Planescape books, all written from the perspective of someone living in the actual campaign setting. Absolutely full of flavor and life that the rules felt real and alive.

Snipping again. I know this style frustrates some people so let me know if you want me to stick to direct quotations.

I don't think that is a valid flaw. It was pretty easy to surmise that the reason you don't like it sounding like 4E is because you don't like 4E. Putting aside the fact I don't think anything revealed so far resembles 4E in the slightest and you haven't (as far as I've seen) elaborated on any of the similarities past declaring they are there, merely stating you don't like 4E isn't useful criticism. Why don't you like it? Because it isn't 3.5? That isn't enough to make it worthwhile feedback.

I don't like 4E. So lets say that at level 1 everyone has class options that make it so they always use special attacks. That would be like 4E. Now merely saying "it's like 4E and I don't like 4E" doesn't really get to the root of why I wouldn't want that. Instead I would give my reason, that is, when from the very beginning of the game the basic ways of interacting are completely overshadowed by non limited abilities it removes all common connection with those basic rules and actually goes against the idea of those powers informing the flavour of the character. A Wizard that can use magic all day everyday doesn't give the class its defining drawbacks. A fighter that never makes a basic attack never feels like their capabilities are fundamentally different from that Wizard.

If I can't convert my group over there's a good chance they'll stop playing Pathfinder altogether (and perhaps tabletop RPGs altogether). So I'm not sorry if my agenda of ensuring my group can keep enjoying the game we've grown accustomed to is getting on your nerves.

Why wouldn't they just keep playing PF1?

I didn’t like 4e because as you advanced the character, it was no longer able to do what it did at a lower level. I don’t see any signs of that happening here.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

If I can't convert my group over there's a good chance they'll stop playing Pathfinder altogether (and perhaps tabletop RPGs altogether). So I'm not sorry if my agenda of ensuring my group can keep enjoying the game we've grown accustomed to is getting on your nerves.

Why wouldn't they just keep playing PF1?

Oh I must have glossed over that. Yeah that seems super reactionary. I mean you didn't give up tabletop gaming when 4e came out, why would you give it up if something like 4e comes out. The existence of something you don't like within a hobby doesn't invalidate the entire hobby.

So lets say that at level 1 everyone has class options that make it so they always use special attacks. That would be like 4E. Now merely saying "it's like 4E and I don't like 4E" doesn't really get to the root of why I wouldn't want that. Instead I would give my reason, that is, when from the very beginning of the game the basic ways of interacting are completely overshadowed by non limited abilities it removes all common connection with those basic rules and actually goes against the idea of those powers informing the flavour of the character. A Wizard that can use magic all day everyday doesn't give the class its defining drawbacks. A fighter that never makes a basic attack never feels like their capabilities are fundamentally different from that Wizard.

I'll say it again: Pathfinder 2nd edition being too dissimilar to 1st edition and too similar to 4th edition will stop my group from playing it.

If Paizo want feedback as to what will make people play the game or stop people from playing the game, this is valid feedback.

Until we get the full rules text I can't say "elements X, Y and Z are disliked for reasons A, B and C. Furthermore elements S, T, U, V, X, Y and Z are too sufficiently different from Pathfinder 1st ed that when taken in their totality make this feel like a game wholly unconnected with 1st edition beyond a very thin coat of paint." Until then, I'll certainly continue to point out the similarities that I see with D&D 4th ed. Because every single similarity is yet another nail in the coffin of getting my group to move over to 2nd edition.

Why wouldn't they just keep playing PF1?

We exclusively play the Paizo adventure paths. We have also started every single adventure path and they've finished a fairly decent chunk of them (quite possibly most of them and at least some of them more than once due to the size of the group allowing for multiple playthroughs with different players). While converting the 2nd edition Adventure Paths is certainly possible, I anticipate we'll do it for 1 adventure path and then it will be stopped due to too much effort. As it is the group's getting older and it's getting more difficult to get together (only a couple more sessions before Strange Aeons is over if we can ever get to play). Any additional barriers will be just more reasons to stop playing tabletops altogether (I saw it happen with my 4th ed group).

John Lynch 106 wrote:

If I can't convert my group over there's a good chance they'll stop playing Pathfinder altogether (and perhaps tabletop RPGs altogether). So I'm not sorry if my agenda of ensuring my group can keep enjoying the game we've grown accustomed to is getting on your nerves.

Why wouldn't they just keep playing PF1?

This is an important question. I have some friends who still have an active on-going 1e game. It's been running for nearly fourty years. New editions haven't stopped them from playing it.

My 2e group played from 1990 until 2011, which was well into 4e. New editions didn't stop us from playing the game we loved. And while I've since moved on to Pathfinder and then on to 5e, some of my old group still plays 2e to this day.

Why would a yet another new edition stop you from playing any edition whatsoever? Why would it make you quit the entire hobby altogether?

"Wizards, meanwhile, can get the ability to counterspell with their reaction, canceling out enemy magic before it can even take effect."

Can you explain a little more about this? Will wizards have a counterspell pool, just make a flat check, have to sacrifice a spell, or have a tiered counterspell (e.g., drop the DCs of the spell or sacrifice a spell to completely counter it)?

I've always wanted to build an Anti-mage who walks around removing magic from the world an this sounds like I might be able to do it. Love it!

I don't think you need to have a comprehensive break down of all difference you dislike. I do think that "this is like 4e with out stating why it is at all similar and why I don't like that element of 4e design" is totally unhelpful to discussion or the developers. It isn't valid feedback because it isn't actually helping get to the root of the problem one iota. Especially when everything you have said "is like 4e" seems unlike 4e to me.

I'll agree with other folks...today's blog is a tad underwhelming, since it mostly talked about things that had already been previously mentioned, other than a few feats and some info on crafting.

Overall thoughts: "modes" isn't really new to the game, but something they are simply codifying the terminology of within the system, and presumably bringing in a lot more downtime mechanics into Core. I don't really see much parallels between that and 4E, and talking about modes is about as disruptive to game atmosphere to me as talking about leveling up.

Crafting sounds cool, although I think some people are going to be disappointed when they realize how many items might need knowledge of a spell to cast.

Finally, I don't really see much 4E concerns in this (seems every thread points to 4E and 5E). IMHO, 4E's main issue was that it felt that most classes got homogenized. So far we haven't seen that, and if anything it sounds like most classes are even further specialized, with AOO's being more a fighter thing now.

I think the reason for this slightly lacklustre blog is that there is going to be some mention of class abilities linking to the various modes in the next class feature and they didn't want people getting upset about the idea because of it. Turns out modes are just a rules term for the ways in which near everybody divided the focus of their games anyway.

Better yet, if you pick up the Magical Crafter skill feat, your dwarven fighter could even make magic weapons! This feat is available to anyone who is an expert crafter, making the creation of magic items available to all.

Really like seeing that. So you truly can now be the 'Bruenor Battlehammer' and craft the magical warhammer.

I don't think you need to have a comprehensive break down of all difference you dislike. I do think that "this is like 4e with out stating why it is at all similar and why I don't like that element of 4e design" is totally unhelpful to discussion or the developers. It isn't valid feedback because it isn't actually helping get to the root of the problem one iota. Especially when everything you have said "is like 4e" seems unlike 4e to me.

Storm's Retribution sounds like a spell. It seems to operate like a spell (doesn't deal weapon damage). Has a damage + affect format (much like most non-striker 4th ed powers), but it is gained in a way that appears to not be from the Vancian method (it's called out as a feat). Storm's Retribution, based on the information we have (which I acknowledge is quite incomplete) sounds a lot like a 4th ed power.

For a while now I can't help but think of "class power" and "utility power/skill power" when I hear about skill feats and class feats. Storm's Retribution only further emphasises the similarities. I'm not the only one to notice this "spell that is not a spell" doesn't seem very Pathfindery. Furthermore now that durations don't scale the developers/designers are tweaking and manipulating the spell durations to essentially make them last "until the end of the encounter" (another rules element that is shared by D&D 4th ed). Sure they're technically not for the "end of the encounter" because they have a duration of "1 minute" or "10 rounds" or any other stand in. But the end result is effectively the same.

Many here also agree there's a lot we're getting that's not very Pathfindery, they're just happening to celebrate that rather than disliking it.

Although I suspect short of finding a power in a 4th ed book with the same name and same rules text I'm not going to convince you of any similarity. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

There are also a lot of things reminiscent of 5E, as other posters would point out.

Taking the 3.5 engine and evolving it to a new system entirely is going to involve aspects seeming similar to other evolutions of the system. I think the only way for that not to happen would be to start from scratch with an entirely different game non D20 game engine entirely

Could the 4e comparisons be its own thread instead of this thread?

As to the blog, any chance that at some point we can get a "prepared fighter" who can quickly retrain feats/weapon proficiencies to adapt a fighting style to a threat expected soon? Not meant to be as good specialist of the same level mind you, but still decent in their own right.

On a similar train of thought, will retraining be defined for new class retraining options as new classes are introduced, or will synergies between classes be up to the GM? In PF1 for example, while shifter and druid seem similar thematically, nothing indicates whether the classes have retraining synergy (unless I am mistaken).

Finally: I do have a strong and vested interest in making sure Pathfinder 2nd edition doesn't have too much 4th ed in it. There's a very decent chance my group won't convert to the new edition if it is too similar to 4th ed (Starfinder itself veered a bit too close to 4th ed for some of their comfort and that has minimal similarities between it and 4th ed). If I can't convert my group over there's a good chance they'll stop playing Pathfinder altogether (and perhaps tabletop RPGs altogether). So I'm not sorry if my agenda of ensuring my group can keep enjoying the game we've grown accustomed to is getting on your nerves.

Why would they quit entirely? There is 10 years of material for Pathfinder 1.0. There are quite a few modules and some 20+ Adventure Paths that you undoubtedly haven't gone completely through by now. And there will be third-party producers who will still put out adventure paths and the like for the old Pathfinder because content creators will know people might not want to convert or don't themselves want to convert an in-pipeline product to the new edition.

That said, I'll likely give 2nd edition to my friend who was into 4th ed. and ask him to compare the two. And if worse comes to worse? I'll incorporate some of the better parts of 2nd edition to old Pathfinder and play Pathfinder 1.5 or the like.

It’s almost like they’re making a whole new edition...

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Finally: I do have a strong and vested interest in making sure Pathfinder 2nd edition doesn't have too much 4th ed in it. There's a very decent chance my group won't convert to the new edition if it is too similar to 4th ed (Starfinder itself veered a bit too close to 4th ed for some of their comfort and that has minimal similarities between it and 4th ed). If I can't convert my group over there's a good chance they'll stop playing Pathfinder altogether (and perhaps tabletop RPGs altogether). So I'm not sorry if my agenda of ensuring my group can keep enjoying the game we've grown accustomed to is getting on your nerves.

Why would they quit entirely? There is 10 years of material for Pathfinder 1.0. There are quite a few modules and some 20+ Adventure Paths that you undoubtedly haven't gone completely through by now.

In addition, every AP has a decent amount of re-playability, so make some fresh characters and go back and play those old APs! Even though some things are the same, it'll be a completely new experience.

Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think you need to have a comprehensive break down of all difference you dislike. I do think that "this is like 4e with out stating why it is at all similar and why I don't like that element of 4e design" is totally unhelpful to discussion or the developers. It isn't valid feedback because it isn't actually helping get to the root of the problem one iota. Especially when everything you have said "is like 4e" seems unlike 4e to me.

Storm's Retribution sounds like a spell. It seems to operate like a spell (doesn't deal weapon damage). Has a damage + affect format (much like most non-striker 4th ed powers), but it is gained in a way that appears to not be from the Vancian method (it's called out as a feat). Storm's Retribution, based on the information we have (which I acknowledge is quite incomplete) sounds a lot like a 4th ed power.

You take a Feat, and it gives you an ability. I’m not really seeing how that makes it Fourth Edition-ish over any other system.

Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think you need to have a comprehensive break down of all difference you dislike. I do think that "this is like 4e with out stating why it is at all similar and why I don't like that element of 4e design" is totally unhelpful to discussion or the developers. It isn't valid feedback because it isn't actually helping get to the root of the problem one iota. Especially when everything you have said "is like 4e" seems unlike 4e to me.

Storm's Retribution sounds like a spell. It seems to operate like a spell (doesn't deal weapon damage). Has a damage + affect format (much like most non-striker 4th ed powers), but it is gained in a way that appears to not be from the Vancian method (it's called out as a feat). Storm's Retribution, based on the information we have (which I acknowledge is quite incomplete) sounds a lot like a 4th ed power.

For a while now I can't help but think of "class power" and "utility power/skill power" when I hear about skill feats and class feats. Storm's Retribution only further emphasises the similarities. I'm not the only one to notice this "spell that is not a spell" doesn't seem very Pathfindery. Furthermore now that durations don't scale the developers/designers are tweaking and manipulating the spell durations to essentially make them last "until the end of the encounter" (another rules element that is shared by D&D 4th ed). Sure they're technically not for the "end of the encounter" because they have a duration of "1 minute" or "10 rounds" or any other stand in. But the end result is effectively the same.

Many here also agree there's a lot we're getting that's not very Pathfindery, they're just happening to celebrate that rather than disliking it.

Although I suspect short of finding a power in a 4th ed book with the same name and same rules text I'm not going to convince you of any similarity. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

Do you remember Domain powers in 1E Pathfinder?

Storm's Retribution sounds like a spell. It seems to operate like a spell (doesn't deal weapon damage). Has a damage + affect format (much like most non-striker 4th ed powers), but it is gained in a way that appears to not be from the Vancian method (it's called out as a feat). Storm's Retribution, based on the information we have (which I acknowledge is quite incomplete) sounds a lot like a 4th ed power.

None of that sounds any different to me than something like Channel. Channel Energy seems to operate like a spell (doesn't deal weapon damage). It has damage and (with feats) affect. Is gained in a way that is not from the Vancian method (its a class feature.) None of the things you described are intrinsically 4e like, or more like 4e than many PF1E abilities we have. The only difference is it comes from a "feat" rather than a class feature, but feat has changed definition and class feats are just class features you get to pick and choose.

Spells that are not spells have been around forever. You can find them by looking for the (Su) or (Ex) after an ability name.

I'm not sure whether this is "too 4E" or not, but Storm's retribution is the part that irked me the most when I read this blog.

Especially the condition "when critically hit"... this part is too "gamist" for me and doesn't really fit in "my" take on Pathfinder (of course, ymmv): what's the difference between a critical hit with low damage and a normal hit with high damage from an in-world point of view? why would one let the druid use this power and not the other?

I would have no problem with a power allowing the storm druid to "call to the elemental powers of storms to avenge him/her N times per day" and thus letting him/her use a reaction *when hit* to call a tempest that inflicts 3d12 lightning damage to his/her opponent, but I can't fathom why the "critically hit" condition would matter except from a purely technical point of view.

I guess that I can perhaps see the similarity with 4E on this particular point in the fact that this tidbit of rule seems to be designed with the "mathematically consistent rules first, add fluff later" philosophy advertised when the 4E was hyped.

On crafting again, I have always loved crafting in games, whether it's tabletop RPGs or video games. But in 3.0/3.5 and P1e, it just was too unrealistic and time consuming to be a crafter and adventurer. The only one you could get away with it was being an Alchemist with the Master Alchemist feat.

Hopefully in P2e taking the crafting skill is a worthwhile endeavor for an adventuring PC, and where it doesn't take them many months, or even years to make equipment.

There are quite a few modules and some 20+ Adventure Paths that you undoubtedly haven't gone completely through by now.

Replying again because you appear to have missed it: we've played almost all of them.

By the end of the year Strange Aeons will be completed and War of the Crown will be a descent chunk of the way through if not finished. Ironfang Invasion and Ruins of Azlant would likely be completed by the end of next year.

While there's certainly Rise of the Runelords and Return of the Runelords. There isn't as much of the Adventure Paths left as you might expect. As for third party APs, we've never been particularly attracted to them. We might go to them. Maybe. Or we might go to a different game altogether. I don't like the chances of either of those options though.

None of that sounds any different to me than something like Channel.

Shielding Word Cleric Utility 10

You invoke a prayer that instantly defends one of your allies.
Encounter ✦ Divine
Immediate Interrupt Ranged 5
Trigger: An ally in range is hit by an attack
Effect: The ally gains a +4 power bonus to AC until the end
of your next turn.

Deific Vengeance Paladin Attack 27

You invoke an ancient prayer that unleashes your deity’s ire upon
a nearby enemy that has just attacked you.
Encounter ✦ Divine, Implement
Immediate Reaction Ranged 20
Trigger: A creature within range attacks you
Target: The attacking creature
Attack: Charisma + 2 vs. Fortitude
Hit: 4d10 + Charisma modifier damage, and the target is
weakened until the end of your next turn.

Channel Energy (Su): Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.

A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric casts spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channeled energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect. A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.

If Storm's Retribution truly sounds more like Channel Energy than the 4th ed powers I posted, so be it. But it doesn't to me.

Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think you need to have a comprehensive break down of all difference you dislike. I do think that "this is like 4e with out stating why it is at all similar and why I don't like that element of 4e design" is totally unhelpful to discussion or the developers. It isn't valid feedback because it isn't actually helping get to the root of the problem one iota. Especially when everything you have said "is like 4e" seems unlike 4e to me.

Storm's Retribution sounds like a spell. It seems to operate like a spell (doesn't deal weapon damage). Has a damage + affect format (much like most non-striker 4th ed powers), but it is gained in a way that appears to not be from the Vancian method (it's called out as a feat). Storm's Retribution, based on the information we have (which I acknowledge is quite incomplete) sounds a lot like a 4th ed power.

If it has a limited number of uses a day, how does it differ from a Paladin's Smite ability or a Cleric's Channel Positive/Negative Energy ability? Or any of a number of Rogue abilities? Or Bardic abilities? Or Barbarian abilities? Or... you catch my drift?

I absolutely refused to get into 4th edition when it came out. I refused to buy the books. I refused to read them. What I had heard was enough to turn me off of it so I clung to 3rd edition (and preferred 3rd to 3.5 and regretted turning in my old books). My getting into Pathfinder itself was a matter of convenience as I had a new player and I didn't want to explain my hybrid 2nd/3rd edition rules as Pathfinder had everything all together.

Well right now I'm finishing up Rise of the Runelords and one turn for fighting Karzoug took over two hours. Six seconds of combat... was hours in playing. Admittedly we play over Skype and players more easily get distracted but even so it takes forever for players to figure things out, look up stuff, and the like. I am dealing with "okay, you did your standard action and your swift action, is there anything you want to do with your Move action?" and other related stuff. That Pathfinder 2 simplifies this? It's a godsend!

It's enough of one that I'm holding off on running my next campaign until it's out! (Given we meet online every three to four weeks that's not a huge delay, we still have to finish off Karzoug and given I just blocked off one of the huge damage-dealers behind a Wall of Force and have another spell to do that AGAIN just to keep the swashbuckler away from Karzoug... it might be two more games (and two more months) before we end it.) And hey, we can always play more of the We Be Goblins modules in the meantime.

-----------

As for Goblins as PCs? Apparently there's a number of folk who like goblins. I think it's a bit silly and they should just have Tieflings and Aasamar as core races (especially due to Nualla and the like) instead... but given that Goblins will toss their own out of the tribe and are chaotic enough not to notice or care if someone left, it's far more likely for a neutral or even good-aligned goblin to escape its tribe than the multitude of Drizzt clones out there.

BTW, Paizo, are you going to include some basic Ancestry Feats for those races that can take class levels? How are you going to handle monsters and classes anyway? I know that in my tabletop group I have an Aasamar player and while we're not very far into the campaign (and due to scheduling issues haven't played in nearly a year *sigh*) I'd hate to have to have her redesign her character because the new rules don't work with her.

I hope there is a bit of fluff to the Storm Retribution power to justify why it only procs on crits from an in world perspective. If not I won't bat an eye and merely describe it along the lines of "the power of the tempest that thrives barely contained within you resonates with the powerful blow, expanding and extending beyond you."

If it has a limited number of uses a day, how does it differ from a Paladin's Smite ability or a Cleric's Channel Positive/Negative Energy ability? Or any of a number of Rogue abilities? Or Bardic abilities? Or Barbarian abilities? Or... you catch my drift?

Sure. If Storm's retribution is an N/times per day ability than it will more closely resemble a 3.5e power rather than a 4th ed power. However given it has a condition to trigger (much like the ones I posted above) and the underwhelming nature of the damage, I expect we'll find out it's an at-will or once per encounter "ability" (it'd be pretty lousy as a daily ability).

But I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong.

It’s almost like they’re making a whole new edition...

You don't need to do a knock down rebuild when you make a new edition. See AD&D 2e vs AD&D 1e and Pathfinder 1e vs D&D 3.5e. Some of the most successful editions have been iterative changes rather than the drastic changes that we see in WotC's last two editions.

Could the 4e comparisons be its own thread instead of this thread?

Seconded. The endless battle about whether PF2 resembles 4e or 5e is not only tedious, it's severely off-topic.

Regarding the Druid’s lightning ability- it seems like Pathfinder 2 might have an interesting “negation by reciprocation” design pattern. Fighter has an option to deal with flanking- instead of negating flanking, it boosts their DPR by a similar amount. Druid has an option for dealing with crits- instead of negating them, it deals about as much back as a nasty crit deals over a regular attack, and moving them back has a chance to also cancel out the action they saved by doing two attacks worth of damage with one attack.

I think that’s interesting. Rather than give fairly boring immunities or “X times per day, negate this thing”, you get something that gives you the same advantage that they got.

Good point. Quick Reversal and Storm Retribution are really defensive abilities, expressed as counter-attacks. They will cause attackers to think twice, because giving your opponent an extra attack is tactically unsound. This is another way PF2 moves away from the PF1 "5-ft step and full attack" syndrome.

These reaction-based defenses are really interesting, much more than a flat immunity like Uncanny Dodge, for example.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think you need to have a comprehensive break down of all difference you dislike. I do think that "this is like 4e with out stating why it is at all similar and why I don't like that element of 4e design" is totally unhelpful to discussion or the developers. It isn't valid feedback because it isn't actually helping get to the root of the problem one iota. Especially when everything you have said "is like 4e" seems unlike 4e to me.

Storm's Retribution sounds like a spell. It seems to operate like a spell (doesn't deal weapon damage). Has a damage + affect format (much like most non-striker 4th ed powers), but it is gained in a way that appears to not be from the Vancian method (it's called out as a feat). Storm's Retribution, based on the information we have (which I acknowledge is quite incomplete) sounds a lot like a 4th ed power.

For a while now I can't help but think of "class power" and "utility power/skill power" when I hear about skill feats and class feats. Storm's Retribution only further emphasises the similarities. I'm not the only one to notice this "spell that is not a spell" doesn't seem very Pathfindery. Furthermore now that durations don't scale the developers/designers are tweaking and manipulating the spell durations to essentially make them last "until the end of the encounter" (another rules element that is shared by D&D 4th ed). Sure they're technically not for the "end of the encounter" because they have a duration of "1 minute" or "10 rounds" or any other stand in. But the end result is effectively the same.

Many here also agree there's a lot we're getting that's not very Pathfindery, they're just happening to celebrate that rather than disliking it.

Although I suspect short of finding a power in a 4th ed book with the same name and same rules text I'm not going to convince you of any similarity. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

Do you remember Domain powers in 1E Pathfinder?...

Exactly this. It’s not really disimilar to many cleric and Druid domain powers, especially inquisition powers.The fact that it’s tied to a storm theme almost guarantees that. It just shows if you want to see something you’ll see it even if PF1 had very similar abilities.

I really like the idea of the storm druid being able to strike back with lightning against a crit every time, all day long. That's just so thematic. The druid is just filled to the brim with storm energy, and if you hit him/her hard enough, that energy pours out uncontrolled, like a storm, and strikes back. It's beautiful.

If that was limited to a per day use, it would just be another annoying thing to track for the sake of having to track things.

I really hope it's an always active effect. It just sounds so awesome.

You take a Feat, and it gives you an ability. I’m not really seeing how that makes it Fourth Edition-ish over any other system.

To be fair, using this type of logic I could argue that Fourth Edition isn’t any more Fourth Edition-ish than any other system.

By the way, it’s not just posters on the Paizo forums that have pointed out the 4e feel of the PF2 teasers. I’ve seen numerous other comments on EN World, Reddit, and discussions st my local game store. Now not all of us think this is a bad thing like John Lynch does. However, seems kind of silly to say that all of these other people shouldn’t be getting a 4e vibe just because you personally aren’t seeing it.

I am not a Paizo developer nor a Paizo document layout person, but if possible and when applicable, could the Skills each be broken out into subsections on how they work under each Mode? That organizational style in the book would seem a good way to help speed up play for players & GMs, old & new alike, until they've built up familiarity with the new rules.

I’ve seen numerous other comments on EN World, Reddit, and discussions st my local game store.

Just to be clear: I have not posted on En World and Reddit, nor have I visited Insight's local game store and discussed my views on the new edition.

I could happily display Channel Energy to look like a 4E power without changing any of its mechanics. You'll have to pardon my lack of formatting prowess.

Channel Energy Cleric Utility 1
"You release a burst of holy energy"
Uses 3 + Charisma Modifier Daily
Standard Action Range 30ft Burst
Effect: Pick one type of target (Living/Undead.) All living targets heal for 1d6 points of damage. Undead targets take 1d6 damage. Targets that take damage from Channel may make a Will save for half damage.

There done. As for Storms Retribution being restricted by uses or not. That doesn't really tie into the Pathfinder vs 4e feel unless it specifically has a usage limitation of At Will, Encounter or Daily like 4e powers. From what we know (i.e nothing on this front) it is only limited by the conditions in which it can occur, which isn't really any different than something like Riposte.

EDIT: Actually I would prefer Channel Energy and things like it to be formatted like that. Takes way less space, doesn't reiterate redundant lines (like how every class DC is mathed out the same way but is written out in full each time) and I can quickly pull out the relevant parts of it. Mechanically the same, formatically superior.

I'm not sure whether this is "too 4E" or not, but Storm's retribution is the part that irked me the most when I read this blog.

Especially the condition "when critically hit"... this part is too "gamist" for me and doesn't really fit in "my" take on Pathfinder (of course, ymmv): what's the difference between a critical hit with low damage and a normal hit with high damage from an in-world point of view? why would one let the druid use this power and not the other?

I would have no problem with a power allowing the storm druid to "call to the elemental powers of storms to avenge him/her N times per day" and thus letting him/her use a reaction *when hit* to call a tempest that inflicts 3d12 lightning damage to his/her opponent, but I can't fathom why the "critically hit" condition would matter except from a purely technical point of view.

I guess that I can perhaps see the similarity with 4E on this particular point in the fact that this tidbit of rule seems to be designed with the "mathematically consistent rules first, add fluff later" philosophy advertised when the 4E was hyped.

As compared to numerous abilities, SLA, feats and magic items in PF that did different things on crits? Why are you making a distinction here, just go look at weapon/armor enchants as well as martial feat chains from PF1.

I could happily display Channel Energy to look like a 4E power without changing any of its mechanics. You'll have to pardon my lack of formatting prowess.

Channel Energy Cleric Utility 1
"You release a burst of holy energy"
Uses 3 + Charisma Modifier Daily
Standard Action Range 30ft Burst
Effect: Pick one type of target (Living/Undead.) All living targets heal for 1d6 points of damage. Undead targets take 1d6 damage. Targets that take damage from Channel may make a Will save for half damage.

There done. As for Storms Retribution being restricted by uses or not. That doesn't really tie into the Pathfinder vs 4e feel unless it specifically has a usage limitation of At Will, Encounter or Daily like 4e powers. From what we know (i.e nothing on this front) it is only limited by the conditions in which it can occur, which isn't really any different than something like Riposte.

To me, formatting, key words/language, and other aspects of the way the game is presented, plus rigorously balanced options tied to a refined action economy are 90% of what makes 4e, 4e. So these previews, combined with Paizo saying that they are modernizing the presentation and formatting and providing numerous options balanced for a streamlined action economy (I mean, the martial powers are even named, evocative proper names and all). Well...

I will admit that this blog post did ring my "hmmm 4e" bell.

.. each character gets 3 actions on their turn. While everyone has access to a list of basic actions, like stride (which lets you move your speed), step (which lets you move just 5 feet, but without provoking any reactions), and strike (which lets you make an attack)

Is there a slide action too?

It is interesting though, in 2016 I do recall seeing an uptick in in-person PFS players using the term "slide" for 5ft stepping, and when I asked them about it, they did mention that they were trying Pathfinder out because they didn't like how 5e didn't have enough by way of class powers and utility powers for them.

So they'd certainly be excited by a level 1 druid having a 2d12 lightning reaction.

Presumably this triggers anytime an enemy beats your AC by 10, so you'd want to play an unarmored druid?

Malk_Content wrote:

I could happily display Channel Energy to look like a 4E power without changing any of its mechanics. You'll have to pardon my lack of formatting prowess.

Channel Energy Cleric Utility 1
"You release a burst of holy energy"
Uses 3 + Charisma Modifier Daily
Standard Action Range 30ft Burst
Effect: Pick one type of target (Living/Undead.) All living targets heal for 1d6 points of damage. Undead targets take 1d6 damage. Targets that take damage from Channel may make a Will save for half damage.

There done. As for Storms Retribution being restricted by uses or not. That doesn't really tie into the Pathfinder vs 4e feel unless it specifically has a usage limitation of At Will, Encounter or Daily like 4e powers. From what we know (i.e nothing on this front) it is only limited by the conditions in which it can occur, which isn't really any different than something like Riposte.

To me, formatting, key words/language, and other aspects of the way the game is presented, plus rigorously balanced options tied to a refined action economy are 90% of what makes 4e, 4e. So these previews, combined with Paizo saying that they are modernizing the presentation and formatting and providing numerous options balanced for a streamlined action economy (I mean, the martial powers are even named, evocative proper names and all). Well...

We don't even know if that's how it'll be laid out. Even then if the biggest complaint is "the formatting is clean and clear and the rules terminology are rigorously defined" I think we will be fine.

Even then if the biggest complaint is "the formatting is clean and clear and the rules terminology are rigorously defined" I think we will be fine.

Agreed. And that is what a 4e fan like me is really hoping for anyways. Well... and the ability to talk about a 4e-like system online or at my local game store without inviting unwanted derision. And to be honest, pretty much any of the improvements Paizo has promised or design goals they have hinted at with PF2 moves it a step closer to 4e in my book. But maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part.

All things aside, I like the idea between the Druid of the Storm's mentioned feat, but critting is super different in PF2. I imagine if something hit you and got a crit it was either lucky(just like in Pathfinder) or you really shouldn't be fighting it at all(not like Pathfinder). Does the damage you do with the feat grow as you level? Does the distance?

The bit about Intimidating Strike not being something to use on a Barbarian is maybe a little tip to how Fage works.

Magical Crafter is okay, especially since Resounance is a thing so less people will want to use consumable magic items. No need to craft something you won't use, right? Still it is a step up from it's predecessor.

[2] Also, goblins as a core race make no sense to me - especially not pathfinder goblins. Paizo went out of their way to make goblins chaotic, murderous, insane little bastards (which was fantastic), and now all of a sudden, we're supposed to believe that they've become civilized enough to interact with the other core races on an equal and worldwide accepted level...I'm just not buying it.

I agree with this 100%

Tangent101 wrote:

If it has a limited number of uses a day, how does it differ from a Paladin's Smite ability or a Cleric's Channel Positive/Negative Energy ability? Or any of a number of Rogue abilities? Or Bardic abilities? Or Barbarian abilities? Or... you catch my drift?

Sure. If Storm's retribution is an N/times per day ability than it will more closely resemble a 3.5e power rather than a 4th ed power. However given it has a condition to trigger (much like the ones I posted above) and the underwhelming nature of the damage, I expect we'll find out it's an at-will or once per encounter "ability" (it'd be pretty lousy as a daily ability).

But I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong.

Rysky wrote:

It’s almost like they’re making a whole new edition...

You don't need to do a knock down rebuild when you make a new edition. See AD&D 2e vs AD&D 1e and Pathfinder 1e vs D&D 3.5e. Some of the most successful editions have been iterative changes rather than the drastic changes that we see in WotC's last two editions.

“more closely resemble a 3.5e power rather than a 4th ed power.” how?

I don’t consider Pathfinder a new edition of 3rd, I consider it an update. 3rd > 3.5 > Pathfinder

“more closely resemble a 3.5e power rather than a 4th ed power.” how?

I don’t consider Pathfinder a new edition of 3rd, I consider it an update. 3rd > 3.5 > Pathfinder

I don't know what the query is here. At-Will ability that does 3d12 + push effect vs an ability to use a spell like ability N times per day. One of those sounds like 3.5e, the other one sounds remarkably less so.

Rysky wrote:

“more closely resemble a 3.5e power rather than a 4th ed power.” how?

I don’t consider Pathfinder a new edition of 3rd, I consider it an update. 3rd > 3.5 > Pathfinder

I don't know what the query is here. At-Will ability that does 3d12 + push effect vs an ability to use a spell like ability N times per day. One of those sounds like 3.5e, the other one sounds remarkably less so.

Oh wow did a dev comment and state they buffed Storms Retribution to be an At-Will power? That is a really big buff over a Reaction with a certain trigger condition.

Honestly my biggest concern with Storm's Retribution is that It doesn't seem (at first glance) to be very good. Since ideally as a druid, you do not want to be critically hit very often. So if this is the same cost as different reaction, I'd think quite a few of those might be better.

I found this really great 4E power called Awesome Blow. Id has damage and a push effect and you can do it at will. Oops my mistake I was looking at the PFSRD not the 4eSRD.

Honestly my biggest concern with Storm's Retribution is that It doesn't seem (at first glance) to be very good. Since ideally as a druid, you do not want to be critically hit very often. So if this is the same cost as different reaction, I'd think quite a few of those might be better.

I think the balancing point on this is "negating" a crit by dealing something like bonus crit damage back (for, say, a +2 warhammer), and possibly undoing their advantage in action economy from a crit.

If you're already planning on a melee Druid, then this seems like a sensible thing to take for wading into combat as a giant air elemental. If you're planning on turning into a bird and casting crowd control spells and Flame Strike from 100ft up, this is probably not a good choice.

I dunno. Everything I'm hearing sounds like Piazo's pulling the WotC mistake of 3.5 -> 4e bit...reinventing the wheel of Pathfinder so much that it isn't the same system (a la Starfinder ISN'T compatible with Pathfinder, no matter what Piazo says, lol).

I like Pathfinder in its current form. Can't stand Starfinder, and if Starfinder is indicative of where Pathfinder 2e is going, then I can only hope that a 3pp picks up the gauntlet then same way Piazo did when WotC rolled a Nat 1 with 4e, lol...

Rysky wrote:

“more closely resemble a 3.5e power rather than a 4th ed power.” how?

I don’t consider Pathfinder a new edition of 3rd, I consider it an update. 3rd > 3.5 > Pathfinder

I don't know what the query is here. At-Will ability that does 3d12 + push effect vs an ability to use a spell like ability N times per day. One of those sounds like 3.5e, the other one sounds remarkably less so.

Storm Retribution is in a paragraph talking about reactions. Everything else in that paragraph is clearly a reaction. Based on that, I would expect Storm Retribution to also be a reaction.

It doesn't sound like it will be limited number of times per day or encounter. It is limited to once per round by default, but it has already been stated that the fighter has a way to get more than one reaction per round. Other classes may also be able to do that. Hopefully it would never come up since taking multiple critical hits in the same round does not sound good.

It may be limited in that it requires a spell slot or something. At this point, we don't know. I would expect that Counterspelling (the Wizard reaction listed) still requires spell slots, which is why Storm Retribution may as well. On the other hand, given how the target just got hurt badly it may not require any other resources.

It sounds like a new thing to me.