Halfway to Doomsday

Finally Jason comes out with responses!

I think we need more of this. This is a playtest, and things are fluid. Nothing is perfect or set in stone.

Devs getting on and "defending" choices and decisions in a thoughtful and helpful way will only make this game stronger.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there. Lord knows one of my most difficult tasks with this playtest in the ability to set aside my hard wired knowledge of PF1 from the new rule set. It's very nice indeed to have devs reiterate things to me as a veteran player. I'm mature enough to handle responses and see the error of my ways sometimes.

I hope Jason and other devs up their response rates. It will only make the game better by increasing transparency and engaged dialogue with everyone.

Thanks for the post, Jason.

[...] here are our primary goals for the playtest.

"Goals" - end points, what they are striving to do.

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

This isn't an evolution. It's a completely different game.

Yes, that is a problem for me, the playtest feels more revolutionary, than evolutionary. A similar thing occurred with 4th Ed, to not so hot results (curing the headaches by cutting off the head).

Would you say that the playtest feels more like the gritty reboot of PF rather than the sequel?

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

This isn't an evolution. It's a completely different game.

Yes, that is a problem for me, the playtest feels more revolutionary, than evolutionary. A similar thing occurred with 4th Ed, to not so hot results (curing the headaches by cutting off the head).

Would you say that the playtest feels more like the gritty reboot of PF rather than the sequel?

It feels like nothing before it. Some of it seems totally out of the blue (like this UTEML business).

@Jason: thanks not only for the long blog post, but for the bunch of posts clarifying/answering folks' questions and replying to their comments.

1: I'll echo those who don't - use traits and multiclassing et al as a means to power, but as a way to create interesting characters - being somewhat disappointed at the approach to limit flexibility in an attempt to wrest control over power-focused players. Heck, I don't even really like traits, and I do frown or eye-roll whenever I get suspicious about a character only to find the usual suspects dwelling out in trait-land. So I see that it happens, but you are throwing the baby (me, and those like me) out with the bathwater.

1b: Again, a Dedication feat and its following feats is not a class, so there currently is no multiclassing in the PF1/3.0 sense. Also, it feels ersatz on one level, and then extremely cheesy on the other. It also speaks to the lack of flexibility if you are offering all of this choice and flexibility by having to take a feat to be partly another class. One shouldn't have to, or if you do, take the other class and truly follow that too.

Many posters in this thread have mentioned how versatile we had it in PF1, where different concatenations of classes could perform with synergies, and overcome and outgrow the "roles" version of "bases-covered". The answer to that seems to be "this is the playtest, more options will come" and fans of PF2 seems to think this will come as a plethora of class feats, or general feats or more... feats. I know I've labelled this Featfinder, which is apparently unfair, but I don't want a million feats when character classes, their combinations and their archetypes made more choices and general feats madethem even more. I don't hunt down many interesting feats. I don't invest in traits. I like the class level based abilities, and sprinkle lightly with a few feats.

I've also seen posters in other threads who are in favor of class feats call for multiple iterations of the same ability slightly tweaked, so Bards will two-weapon fight in a Bardy-way, or Paladin's will archerise in a Paladiny-way. All I see at the moment is that the playtest seems to offer very limited and completely arbitrarily chosen options. I don't think a million ways to slightly differently do the same thing is a goal we should have - a general approach to letting all characters be able to generally fight the way they want to should be. New players will not appreciate their class choice has precluded them from fighting the way they want.

2: If feats have different scales of power levels, call them different things, or explicitly state that they have different power levels. I dunno why. But it seems to be very confusing. For PF1 players. And for newer players, why wouldn't you think two things both called feats might be feat-power level? As a category.

3: So currently the game feels a little clunky, like a kit bashed game with some strange hanging on pieces. Cut them back, otherwise it won't be a simple tomlearn or run shstem for new players. Happily all of the changes I've seen have seemed to go in that direction.

4: "Thrive in their defined role" sounds like 1984. What role is appropriate for which class? How are they "defined". Reading this thread it seems the PF1 versatility was legion and roles were for playing. I'd like to see Pathfinder 2 be awesome, not Pathdefinr 2, which probably won't be - for me.

As we look further into the rules and see how everything fits together, has the design team looked into how to do Non-Lethal damage?

Something that goes further than "last hit."

Jason,

I am not trying to beat the horse to death but what made you take the surprise round out? Also, in the bestiary it would be nice if there was a trait that showed what Recall Knowledge skill you would use when identifying certain monsters or perhaps listed in the book similarly to the first edition core rule book.

Kirk

Jason,

I am not trying to beat the horse to death but what made you take the surprise round out? Also, in the bestiary it would be nice if there was a trait that showed what Recall Knowledge skill you would use when identifying certain monsters or perhaps listed in the book similarly to the first edition core rule book.

Kirk

I wholeheartedly support the Recall Knowledge suggestion. It's perhaps my only gripe with the Bestiary.

As for surprise round, I guess the problem was that surprise rounds were a godsend for casters, a ho-hum advantage for ranged sneak attackers and not much for everybody else. And it's not like PF1 casters needed any extra help...

This isn't an evolution. It's a completely different game. Some of it is excellent (action economy; critical success/failure). Some of it is...well, I've said my piece on the other threads so I won't sidetrack this one. But it's not Pathfinder.

The good news is that there are plenty of options in the surveys and the open surveys to say, "ROLL IT BACK! ROLL IT ALL BACK and START OVER!" and if enough people answer this way, then it's highly likely that they will. So be sure to undergo those surveys to tell them how you feel about it.

For me and my group, we're really enjoying the majority of changes we've seen and played, and it fits the level of grit and adventure we wanted, so we're continuing. We're still filling out those surveys, though, even if it's going the way we want.

I welcome the new surveys) Love the way they are made, much better than previous ones.

It would probably help if the publishing cycle isn't as slow as Starfinder's. It's been over a year and the fifth book is releasing this month, with three of those being GM material.

One thing to remember about Starfinder though is that it doesn't have the same model as Pathfinder, in that the APs are full of a lot of world-building stuff that the APs stopped doing. There are whole gazetteers of world guides, etc. in the APs, so it's more than just the hardcovers that provide setting and mechanics material. To be honest, five or six hardcover books a year would be just about right with me (about one every other month).

As we look further into the rules and see how everything fits together, has the design team looked into how to do Non-Lethal damage?

Something that goes further than "last hit."

Personally I cheered that system for non-lethal, because it's stupidly simple to track compared to the PF1 non-lethal system, and doesn't penalize people who don't want to kill a given NPC combatant. There are times you wanna be the murder-hobo, and times you wanna be the good guy, and it keeps people from being forced into murder-hobo out of a sense of self-preservation because it's too hard to use less than lethal force in-game... even if it bears no resemblance to reality (where using less than lethal means can sometimes be a crapshoot and not at all as cut-and-dried as RPGs make it out to be.)

Personally I cheered that system for non-lethal, because it's stupidly simple to track compared to the PF1 non-lethal system

Me too, 5th Ed has something similar, though, I think it should be stated before the attack roll, and the attack made with disadvantage.

My GM hated tracking non-lethal damage when I played my Bludgeoner barbarian.

Marco Massoudi wrote:

I am very sorry to write this, but it's the truth.

Pathfinder 2.0 is trying to keep up with the success of D&D 5e, but it's failing very badly.

I am 43 years old and i can say that i pretty much played all the big Rpgs.

We stopped playing the Playtest after chapter 2, because it wasn't any fun to play at all.

We had all different kinds of players involved, from 17 year olds to 50+, from people that never played before to veterans of two dozen systems and everyone agreed: Pathfinder 1.0 & Starfinder are great, the Pathfinder Playtest isn't.

Your experiences are far from universal. Of the two playtest groups I've participated in (12 4-hour sessions so far), I've watched curmudgeons dead set against a new edition transform into outright fans. Of the nine of us in total, ages 30 to 60, many have been gaming since the red box and we see room for improvement, but are pleased to have a chassis not plagued so heavily with the problems we've been enduring, or house ruling, for the past two decades. As far as solid foundations to build on go, PF2 is proving capable.

THIS. When the rules we've been using for ten years have pages of house rules, it's time to rethink.

When the rules we've been using for ten years have pages of house rules, it's time to rethink.

I manage 3rd Ed/PF1 fine with official variants (such as Unchained RAE, UA Defence bonus, Armour as DR) and less than a page of house-rules.

I do not find 3rd Ed/PF1 needs that much to whip it into shape (a few key things take care of a lot).

So a complaint I'm hearing a lot, both on the forums and from my own group, is about forcing classes into niches, such as making two-weapon fighting available only to Rangers and Fighters. I think the biggest issue I have with this line of complaint is that it seems pretty obvious to me that all options available in this admittedly rather limited playtest book are not the only options that will exist in the new system. Maybe the current class feats will be the only ones represented in the new CRB, but there's nothing stoping Paizo from releasing books that contain a whole pile of additional class feats. That's why I personally love the class feat system as opposed to first edition Archetypes. I compare those two systems because I feel that class feats do a lot of what Archetypes do in the current edition, while 2.0 archetypes fill a similar but markably different role. In any case, I think that, as limited as the options are now, they will not remain so as books continue to be released. The real flexibility of this system is how easy it is to add more stuff to it.

.

Everyone should be able to two-weapon fight. But only some should have absolute mastery with ease: The fighter. However, rogues and rangers should also be able to become masters but not at the same speed as fighters. Just like everyone should be able to pick locks and disarm traps, just not as good or fast as a rogue. Otherwise, why have classes at all.

Baelor the Bard wrote:

So a complaint I'm hearing a lot, both on the forums and from my own group, is about forcing classes into niches, such as making two-weapon fighting available only to Rangers and Fighters. I think the biggest issue I have with this line of complaint is that it seems pretty obvious to me that all options available in this admittedly rather limited playtest book are not the only options that will exist in the new system. Maybe the current class feats will be the only ones represented in the new CRB, but there's nothing stoping Paizo from releasing books that contain a whole pile of additional class feats. That's why I personally love the class feat system as opposed to first edition Archetypes. I compare those two systems because I feel that class feats do a lot of what Archetypes do in the current edition, while 2.0 archetypes fill a similar but markably different role. In any case, I think that, as limited as the options are now, they will not remain so as books continue to be released. The real flexibility of this system is how easy it is to add more stuff to it.

.

Everyone should be able to two-weapon fight. But only some should have absolute mastery with ease: The fighter. However, rogues and rangers should also be able to become masters but not at the same speed as fighters. Just like everyone should be able to pick locks and disarm traps, just not as good or fast as a rogue. Otherwise, why have classes at all.

I agree with this; no need for the wizard to be able to pick up TWF as easily and as well as a fighter.

The Playtest is in essence a complete rewrite. Feats being locked behind class barriers is the most glaring example. Equipment being locked behind "item levels". The introduction of "spell points" (that have nothing to do with spells?). Resonance. Even the terminology is off-putting ("bolstered" and "operate activation action" both spring to mind - and I really, REALLY wish they didn't).

Page 174 of the Playtest Rulebook says, "While characters can use items of any level, Game Masters should keep in mind that allowing characters access to items far above their current level may imbalance the game."

So technically, the equipment is not locked behind item levels. Instead, the property manager is going to give the player a dirty look and ask for a signature to promise not to abuse it before the player can withdraw the item from inventory.

Giving items a level is not the problem. Magic items essentially have a crafting level in Pathfinder 1st Edition that determines the Spellcraft check to create them. But item level is one more concept that adds to the feeling that power in the game is carefully measured and allocated so that no-one can ever abuse it.

I have scars from that attitude. My former workplace has suggestions in place to prevent the abuse of sick leave. My last supervisor took that advice too much to heart and forgot the other half of the regulations, the parts that let people use sick leave for health problems. Mistakes in real life hurt more than mistakes in game play. The years of playing games, fortunately, gave me tactical skill in correcting those mistakes afterwards. Fixing my health will take a few years longer.

The 4th goal from the Paizo blog is, "4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group." This goal spins off corollaries:

4.a. Remove the biggest power imbalances that seriously skewed the game.
4.b. Prevent one class or tool from eating the niche of another established class.

There are a dozen corollaries, but those two I pieced together from Jason Bulmahn's explanations in this comment thread.

Lockdown is an obvious method of power balancing and niche protection. It is also partially ineffective because the balances and the niches shift while the character design stays in place.

Today I am preparing for our second game session of Chapter 2 of Doomsday Dawn, In Pale Mountain's Shadow. I am very worried about niches in this preparation.

Rysky wrote:

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

I'll have my optimism in Paizo slowing down the release schedule and applying more quality control.

Well, in this very thread you can find this:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

We are already putting plans down for books that come after the core.

Note "books" plural.

... were you expecting them to only publish the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary?

It would probably help if the publishing cycle isn't as slow as Starfinder's. It's been over a year and the fifth book is releasing this month, with three of those being GM material.

I count two GM books only, the Alien Archives.

Starfinder's schedule of one new rulebook roughly every 3 months, I think, is actually pretty workable. We don't need monthly Player Componions, especially not like in first edition where the character options were never run by the hardcover rulebook line team for balancing.

To be fair, the 2ed Bestiary has a lot of Nice Things going for it.

I like Weaknesses and feel they were a welcome addition to the constant DR issues I've had in my games since 2003. "But a Vrock is CR9, you're all 9th level, you should have a holy weapon by now, the fact that you don't is your own fault, I guess you're all f$*#ed now then huh?" has never sat well with me.

The little visual tags showing how many actions a Thing takes are nice and fit well with the rest of the 2ed ruleset.

The Bestiary has a nice broad selection of monsters to choose from. I don't feel anything was left behind.

I just wish I had the chance to use some of them. My PCs have a really hard time navigating the playtest book and that means entire sessions have to be dedicated to building characters, characters that shouldn't take more than an hour or two to create.

Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.

I think this is nearly there. There is a wealth of customization available. It is just different than what people are used to from 3.X/PF1. I do think that the way the system handles conditions and bonuses needs some serious work.

Additionally, there is alot obfuscated from novice players. For example, players really should be told how much they need to invest in stats and skills to remain competent as they level. It is not at all obvious that players should min max stats and skills to maintain over a 50% to succeed on level appropriate tasks. That either needs to be changed or plainly stated so players know upfront what they need to do to stay relevant.

Finally, you should consider axeing some stuff that is just too old school. Super strict Vancian casting, for example, is just plain worse than Arcanist style casting (especially considering the low number of spell slots).

Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.

This seems like a very flexible ruleset. I can absolutely see this doing other genres and settings.

Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).

I mentioned this with goal 1 but more needs to be done to clean up all these fidgety modifiers. To an extent, they are needed for itemization and tactical complexity. However, all these fidgety numbers can get in the way as well. Look to something like Shadow of the Demon Lord. It does bonuses/penalties in a truly inspired ways (even folds combat maneuvers into that). While I get that PF2 is meant to be more complex, I would hope that it could look to innovations in modern games to come up with a more elegant and intuitive way to do all these bonuses and penalties.

Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.

A+. People will decry this but I see it as vital. Clear roles (while allowing for some dabbling) is important. I am tired of all these builds that ultimately end up playing the same. I want PCs to feel different and do different things. I want everyone to feel unique and needed.

However, work needs to be done to make stuff outside of the "Core Four" feel good. Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers, for example, all feel a bit "meh."

Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.

I very much agree with this goal. I don't get why folks complain about this. Its important to make folks feel welcome at the table.

1. So far this is the most complex iteration/version of D&D/PF1, to me, byzantine and a very technical read. I would not introduce a new player to this system, as is.
2. I am not sure about that, if that means Golarian, or in general.
3. I would like some examples, I am mostly seeing the Unchained RAE.
4. The "defined role" line seems to contradict some of what was previously stated.
5. Again, not that welcoming to new players, this seems like a game for advanced players.

I'm glad this was posted, i filled out the survey and thought i'd add my own personal opinion. Maybe it'll be useful.

1. Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.

The pathfinder playtest has become simplified, especially regarding problem areas of the previous edition such as for example grappling. I'm actually glad that is the case personally, and as a whole i think its a lot easier to explain the rules for this system compared to 1e which means its barrier for entry is much lower. I would say its a little bit more complex then 5e which admittedly, has a good entry point. The organisation in the rulebook however needs quite a bit of work to really have everything be beginner friendly.

In my eyes though: it came at a large cost however which is the custumization that made pathfinder 1e absolutely fantastic, even when comparing it to 3.5. Hell, it is what first drew me into pathfinder from 3.5 when i noticed small little things that made it feel more rewarding to gain a level with pretty much every single class. I honestly miss those small little custimization options such as for example rogue talents that (for the most part) had minimal effect on combats but would have alternative effects enhancing the overal feel and vibe of a class through sheer custumization that i as a player had full control over. It was glorious!

I also no longer have any option to play (for example) a fighter like a skill monkey, reducing their OPTIONS in combat(But not competence) and trading those in for some extra out of combat utility options in the form of skill viability or minor magic to enhance daily activities. The same is true for most of the minor magic oriented martial characters i've had over the years as most of them don't really care about DC's or higher level magic but instead enjoyed having multiple low level spells to make use of in order to enhance what was already there or even open up an entirely new path.

I also wonder why every caster has to increase their DC's and give up a class feat to do so, i have several styles of casters that aren't too bothered with DC's because they use touch attacks or are primairly buffers/healers that are not bothered by having lower save DC's, but i get it automatically and don't get the choice of a class feat instead which doesn't quite feel great either. The same is true for a variety of other things in the class system that forces you to play a certain way.

Every time i pick up a class presently in the playtest; I just feel shoved into a specific path/role based on the class that i selected which feel very uncomfortable with a restriction that i feel shouldn't be there, especially when comparing to the original system that drew me to pathfinder initially.

I also feel like i have to choose between competence and fun in many cases which isn't a great feeling to have as a player. It isn't very fun to pick up a "will save increase" as a feat for example, despite it being a solid choice to pick from. It just feels like a whole lot of feat taxation for a lot of classes/feat chains that prevents you from picking up interesting or fun options that would allow you to do something new or different.

I think a big portion of it is because there are a variety of types of feats that each are locked to the class, it means the type of feat is ultimately decided by my class which prevents custumization as it no longer is my choice to focus more on my combat prowess, skills or something else entirely. I don't have the option to say that i'd rather not have another class feat and would rather have a skill feat or even a skill increase as all of that is decided by my initial choice.

Multiclassing/archetypes; I have to give up what makes my class unique in order to get the custumization of a secundairy class, the same being true for archetypes. In many cases the initial dedication feat is also very weak compared to a typical class feat. I'd honestly prefer this to be an (additional) alternate path where i would be able to choose between dedicating myself further to an aspect of my class in the form of an archetype or if i wanted to broaden my options by multiclassing. If i wanted to multiclass a spellcaster: i would also prefer the option to say that i don't wish to have higher level spells but instead have two or even three times as many spell slots for my lower level slots as a trade-off.

TLDR: I just like options, in the end its what had me gravite towards pathfinder in the first place... not because it had so much content and therefor options but because i was able to make my own choices as to who my character was and what he would be good at, even if it wasn't fully in line with my class: i had the option to make a character i wanted to play based upon my own preferences.

I also would say that competence requires a lot of investment and is not quite in line with the math currently in the system.

2. Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.

Well as a game master i certainly can, however most of the pathfinder games that have been going on for 2-6 years... my groups wouldn't be able to convert to PF2 because the characters wouldn't be convertable and maintain their vibe, or even feel competent at the things they were ment to be competent at.

3. Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).

Honestly, i'm on board with a large majority of changes that the system has gone through such as (the idea) behind resonance instead of the slot system, (the idea) behind bulk and the three action system all of which i believe are good additions (some better then others and some could use a bit of a tweak). I think we are indeed moving forward in most areas and the core of the rules are superior to the 1st edition.

4. Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.

This seems opposite to my own views of what i would prefer the system to be like by forcing defined roles based upon class choices. I would love a system where everyone feels like they can contribute in a meangful way though by excelling at what they are ment to be good at!

However when i thought about this, i believe the system still requires quite a bit of work as some strengths are vastly superior and more common to others because some options are vastly stronger than others. Some roles/classes such as healers clerics are done better than others.

5. Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.

Admirable goal, but at this point: i believe the system will speak to low fantasy oriented players as in essence, i would argue that is what the system currently caters towards. The crunch is absent and as such, i doubt it'll lure in anyone who is seeking it; namely the old 1e playerbase.

Hmm.. I have seen this, or something like it, in quite a few places. Its interesting because I think we are using the term feat for these options because they are selected and applied to your character in a shared way.

What they do not share is an equal value. A class feat is better than a skill feat. An ancestry feat is not meant to be the same value as the others. I see a lot of comparison between the categories and that alone might be the biggest problem with using the word "feat" for all of them. Useful to learn the system, but the baggage from existing users applying to word to mean "a rule with a specified amount of power and utility" is a barrier to overcome.

Hmm..

I am not sure we have made that clear.

(Normally I would just note this to myself and move on, but I felt like sharing this musing with everyone)

In PF1, the term “Feat” had a very specific purpose. I would often tell new players that “Skills” are abilities that are incremental; they can grow over time. “Feats” though are either “on” or “off”—you either have them or you do not. This comparison worked well early in the game development. For example, Blind Fighting was a ability that was always on; if you had it, it always worked. The lines defining a “Feat” in this fashion started becoming blurred later in development. There is going to be a lot of fall-out over using that particular name for everything in PF2–it has a clearly defining purpose for those of us familiar with PF1.

I understand the goal of trying to simplify my mechanics by using the same phrase. I applaud the change of “Race” to “Ancestry” for this reason. But sometimes, having a separate name for a particular mechanic isn’t all bad. The Ancestry chapter is much different in nature to the Class chapter, as is the Skill chapter... they dont all have to use that same name. Despite their similarities, if the same term is used over and over again, it loses that defining power. And worse, it calls comparison based on nothing more than that common term, despite being designated very differently.

Ya, I would go with Class Feats, General Feats, Ancestral Qualities, and Skill Talents instead of calling everything a "Feat."

In PF1, the term “Feat” had a very specific purpose. I would often tell new players that “Skills” are abilities that are incremental; they can grow over time. “Feats” though are either “on” or “off”—you either have them or you do not. This comparison worked well early in the game development. For example, Blind Fighting was a ability that was always on; if you had it, it always worked. The lines defining a “Feat” in this fashion started becoming blurred later in development. There is going to be a lot of fall-out over using that particular name for everything in PF2–it has a clearly defining purpose for those of us familiar with PF1.

Yes, I am not too keen on everything and its mother being called a feat.

"It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem."

Ya, I would go with Class Feats, Ancestral Qualities and Skill Talents instead of calling everything a "Feat."

Bingo, though I might prefer Traits for ancestry.

I forgot General so I tacked that one on. I don't mind the General and the Class ones both being called feats.

Edit: Hmm, maybe General Talent and Skill Trick?

So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

I'm afraid that - to me - the playtest doesn't feel like Pathfinder. When I first saw that your tagline for it was 'join the evolution' I thought: yes, they've got it; the game needs a few tweaks here and there to improve it, maybe the action economy from Unchained plus the combat stamina rules (not to be confused with the Starfinder stamina rules) to give the martials better options, cut down on feat bloat and feat taxes... essentially, PF1 needed streamlining.

The Playtest is in essence a complete rewrite. Feats being locked behind class barriers is the most glaring example. Equipment being locked behind "item levels". The introduction of "spell points" (that have nothing to do with spells?). Resonance. Even the terminology is off-putting ("bolstered" and "operate activation action" both spring to mind - and I really, REALLY wish they didn't).

This isn't an evolution. It's a completely different game. Some of it is excellent (action economy; critical success/failure). Some of it is...well, I've said my piece on the other threads so I won't sidetrack this one. But it's not Pathfinder.

I agree with this, nearly whole cloth. Having both GM'd and been a player in the playtest, there's just a sense that something is off....the game just doesn't feel like Pathfinder to me or my group(s). We're hoping this changes by the time the final version is released, but are not hopeful, given comments by developers.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

A lof the flexibility you seem to be looking for were some of the things causing us the biggest rules problems in the previous editions.

Customization and power go hand-in-hand. If you give players more options, they can combine them in new and novel ways. It doesn't matter if that's feats, multiclassing, or magic items; give a sufficiently-determined player a big enough toolbox and they will break your game. But that's not necessarily a problem; Pathfinder is not a competitive game, it's a roleplaying game. Having more options to explore is interesting, and given the choice between concept space to explore and balance, I feel balance is by far the less important of the two.

At the end of the day, overpowered stuff is going to pop up no matter how careful you are. Some of the most broken stuff in PF1 were single-class humans with one archetype and some choice feats. That's not to say you give up on balance; it's plain to see you've done a lot of work on that front. But don't foreclose interesting possibilities out of fear of imbalance.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

A lof the flexibility you seem to be looking for were some of the things causing us the biggest rules problems in the previous editions. Traits, multiclassing and alternate racial traits were being used to customize... but they were also the source of some of our biggest power imbalances that seriously skewed the game. They were the features that frequently allowed players to cherry pick their power level.

I'd like to address several of these individually:

Traits: I feel the issue is more one of the content than the rules system itself. Traits were ostensibly supposed to be worth half a feat. In practice, many traits were as strong if not stronger than the best feats out there. Nor was this a case of power creep; Magical Lineage was there from the beginning, and it easily ranks among the most powerful feats in the game. More would join it in the years to come, and in today's...

Your commentary on Multi-classing hits the nail right on the head. Over the years, I’ve played many characters. Rarely were they single-class, coming into a different career path organically as part of their story. In almost sll of those cases though, they were underpowered compared to single class characters, outside of a certain niche or circumstance. I used to wonder why I felt so behind the power curve... until I saw an intereview with one of the architects of 3.5, Sean K Reynolds, the foundation of which became the PF1 we love today. In that interview, he said that all class abilities are balanced against each other to a degree: the class ability that a rogue receives at 5th level would be comparable to that of a ranger of the same level. It was the next part of that interview though that gave me clarity when he said that taking a level of another class later in your character’s career is detrimental: it throws off the balance. If you are a 5th level Fighter and take a level of Rogue, you aren’t going to be as effectively balanced against another 6th level Fighter: you’ve traded a 6th level ability for a sub-standard ability with an effective 1st level power range. And as you continue to play, that gaps increases. While this premise might be debatable, it does show that the original design already hampered multi-classing.

So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

Nice, though I would prefer swapping Talent to class, and Feat to general.

In SWSE you have class Talents, and Feats (classes grant bonus feats from a limited selection, on top of general feats you get for levelling, like the 3rd Ed Fighter).

In the Rules Survey:

Quote:

4. The Playtest puts the decision for where to set DCs in the GM's hands in most circumstances. In 1st edition, the rules explicitly defined a large number of DCs, and the adjustments for specific circumstances. Rate each statement.

However the ratings are not listed above the table. So is Far Left: "I Extremely Agree" and far right: "Extremely disagree"

I believe the design team just fixed this (it's showing up properly when I open the survey now.)

I forgot General so I tacked that one on. I don't mind the General and the Class ones both being called feats.

Edit: Hmm, maybe General Talent and Skill Trick?

So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

What’s the gain?

It seems to me there’s now extra terms to learn that don’t serve any purpose other than to label different abilities your PC has. New players now have to learn all those words for no extra benefit. It seems a long fix to solve the “problem” of people forgetting that ancestry feats aren’t the same power level as skill feats.

The disparity in power level between feats allocated at different phases of character creation is a nonproblem, as far as I can see. It’s useful to bear in mind if you’re finding a particular choice to be amongst weaker options, but it doesn’t actually matter to gameplay, does it?

Great post! Thanks for the info, it's very much appreciated!

I have two quibbles.

1. Quote: "allowing characters to thrive in their defined role."

This is a big red flag for me. It might just be the way it's worded, but I want to sincerely caution you against enforcing "roles" in the sense of Tank, DPS, Healer, but also in the sense of "this is your little niche and no one else is allowed in". If you listen to actual play podcasts and many, many games: people make characters with a person in mind, not a role. Throw away characters are centered around a role, but the ones we really remember are as fluid as we are in real life.

2. I am not seeing enough of the flexibility of PF1e either.

There aren't enough options and points of customization. Class is choosing too much, backgrounds are too static, race feats are underwhelming, and I'm constantly being herded away from making choices that the designers didn't have in mind. This is a very big issue, and I want you to take it seriously. Pathfinder is *all about* customization, and to sacrifice too much of it for achieving balance is not the way to go.

That being said I see many ways you could fix things, reducing multiclass requirements, introducing old-school multiclassing, granting more general feats and giving combat feat pools, beefing up backgrounds to be less bland and anemic, letting people pick their proficiencies...

1. Quote: I guess this is what Jason meant by cherry picking the power level and I can see his point. This is an RPG based on classes and this inevitably means niches by definition. You seemingly want to pick every class ability at no cost putting the class concept ad absurdum. Any classless system may be the best for you.

2. I am not that versed in PF1 but I know 3.5 in and out and started to skim through the PF1 core rule books (which is very similar) and I can assure you, to me character advancement is way more flexible in PF2 in every regard. In PF1 you are stuck with fixed class abilities, in PF2 you can select those class abilities freely amongst class feats. Thus I do not understand where many fierce PF1 defenders see the superior flexibility in PF1 character developement. And multiclassing exessively just to syphon the first level abilities of each class is not really innovative thinking.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Thanks for posting the design goals. Alas all but point 3 if those goals are literally met by D&D 4th ed, D&D 5th ed or any other fantasy tabletop RPG.

Unfortunately I don't see very much of point 3.

The flexibility of background traits have been excised from the game in place of predefined background choices. Archetypes no longer meet their PF1e goal (swap out the non flexible parts of a class) and exist solely to require a feat tax to get certain combat feats/rogue talents.

Multiclassing has been removed from the game in favour of allowing minimal access to certain combat feats/rogue talents/barbarian powers/spells. Alternate racial traits have been removed from the game (along with racial traits themselves) in return for racial powers that are slowly doled out across 20 levels.

I can't really point to any advancement in PF that has made it into the playtest (except those from Unchained). I could point to plenty from other game(s) (automatic universal level based bonus that applies to everything. Class abilities that limit what fighting styles a character can apply based on class gated feats/powers, items having a level that is used to govern how they're handed out, parcel based approach to treasure acquisition in place of WBL). That's not to say these things are bad. Simply that if I was looking at a game's heritage I would struggle to say it's descended from PF1e vs an entirely different game.

John, I have seen you post on here a lot over the past few months and to be honest, I can tell that you care deeply about this game and its future, but I am not sure we are going to able to make you happy.

Yes, our goals are similar to the goals of other games. We share a heritage and that is not too surprising. I am not sure why you seem to think that is a bad thing.

A lof the flexibility you seem to be looking for were some of the things causing us the biggest rules problems in the previous editions. Traits, multiclassing and alternate racial traits were...

that ability to build powerful interesting characters was the fun of PF1, now everyone feels really bad at what they are supposed to do, the amount of misses, by melee specialists, and the amount of times they are crit by random mobs..well they don't feel like PF1 characters did, and the throttling of magic items makes the feel of the setting fundamentally different, now Golarion feels like a low fantasy setting, and 'mage kings' no longer make sense, they simply are not powerful enough...you have taken the need to re-balance casters vs martials, and hammered casters down to where martials were, when, at least for me the opposite was desired, lifting martials up to the high level demigod status that are some of the greatest moments of the system. Not saying I'm not having fun, but it is the fun of the grittier, more deadly game, which wasn't what Golarion was about, it was heroic high fantasy, it no longer feels like that.

Data Lore wrote:

I forgot General so I tacked that one on. I don't mind the General and the Class ones both being called feats.

Edit: Hmm, maybe General Talent and Skill Trick?

So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

What’s the gain?

It seems to me there’s now extra terms to learn that don’t serve any purpose other than to label different abilities your PC has. New players now have to learn all those words for no extra benefit. It seems a long fix to solve the “problem” of people forgetting that ancestry feats aren’t the same power level as skill feats.

The disparity in power level between feats allocated at different phases of character creation is a nonproblem, as far as I can see. It’s useful to bear in mind if you’re finding a particular choice to be amongst weaker options, but it doesn’t actually matter to gameplay, does it?

And you have now completed the cycle of the entire conversation at it went internally. Ultimately, there is no "perfect" answer here. We can call them different things for no real good reason other than differentiation of type, but that comes at the cost of an additional learning step. Or we can make it easier for new folks to grasp, but introduce a hangup that existing players might catch.

The joys of design...

So a complaint I'm hearing a lot, both on the forums and from my own group, is about forcing classes into niches, such as making two-weapon fighting available only to Rangers and Fighters. I think the biggest issue I have with this line of complaint is that it seems pretty obvious to me that all options available in this admittedly rather limited playtest book are not the only options that will exist in the new system. Maybe the current class feats will be the only ones represented in the new CRB, but there's nothing stoping Paizo from releasing books that contain a whole pile of additional class feats. That's why I personally love the class feat system as opposed to first edition Archetypes. I compare those two systems because I feel that class feats do a lot of what Archetypes do in the current edition, while 2.0 archetypes fill a similar but markably different role. In any case, I think that, as limited as the options are now, they will not remain so as books continue to be released. The real flexibility of this system is how easy it is to add more stuff to it.

Classes are niches by definition, classes group certain abilities available to a class. If you want to syphon abilities from other classes, multiclass archetypes are your best friend. In prior editions if you multiclassed fighter and rogue for instance, you were definitely superior to any single class fighter or single class rogue. That's what Jason meant by power cherry picking. I totally prefer the approach to tap into abilities of other classes by multiclass archetypes, but this should happen at a cost. Every single class character should be superior in his class by logic because he dedicated all his time to advance in that class than another character who seeks to diversify and create a jack of all trades.

So instead of, say, playing a Druid who spends some feats on useful Two Handed Weapon stuff as in PF1e, I am playing a partial druid who trades out what should be flavorful class abilities for skill with the weapon.

No, not really. You overlook that in PF2 when you multiclass by multiclass archetypes your druid spell progression still advances with every level. This is not the case when you multiclass in PF1 where your spell progression is on hold when taking some fighter levels for instance.

So this is just another myth, in fact multiclassing chars in PF1 are way more partial class characters than in PF2.
Same is the myth about the superior flexibility in PF1, many mention. In PF1 the classes have level fixed class abilities, where in PF2 you can choose your class abilities amongst several class feats.

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

I forgot General so I tacked that one on. I don't mind the General and the Class ones both being called feats.

Edit: Hmm, maybe General Talent and Skill Trick?

So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

What’s the gain?

It seems to me there’s now extra terms to learn that don’t serve any purpose other than to label different abilities your PC has. New players now have to learn all those words for no extra benefit. It seems a long fix to solve the “problem” of people forgetting that ancestry feats aren’t the same power level as skill feats.

The disparity in power level between feats allocated at different phases of character creation is a nonproblem, as far as I can see. It’s useful to bear in mind if you’re finding a particular choice to be amongst weaker options, but it doesn’t actually matter to gameplay, does it?

And you have now completed the cycle of the entire conversation at it went internally. Ultimately, there is no "perfect" answer here. We can call them different things for no real good reason other than differentiation of type, but that comes at the cost of an additional learning step. Or we can make it easier for new folks to grasp, but introduce a hangup that existing players might catch.

I don't think it has anything to do with hangups or learning steps, and there are good reasons aside from differentiation of type (which is nice, anyway), it can make it less confusing and easier to learn. Different titles can hook in your memory, and it can also be more aesthetically pleasing, something I think the playtest needs.

You seemingly want to pick every class ability at no cost putting the class concept ad absurdum. Any classless system may be the best for you.

Not really, no. Just as when making a paladin I don't want to be told I have to be a "tank", or make a cleric and be told to use all my resources on healing, I don't want to be kept from playing a skillful bard because that's the rogue's schtick.

I agree that some classes shouldn't wholly obsolete others, but having clearly defined roles that are jealously protected is not what I want to see at all.

You overlook that in PF2 when you multiclass by multiclass archetypes your druid spell progression still advances with every level. This is not the case when you multiclass in PF1 where your spell progression is on hold when taking some fighter levels for instance.

So this is just another myth, in fact multiclassing chars in PF1 are way more partial class characters than in PF2.
Same is the myth about the superior flexibility in PF1, many mention. In PF1 the classes have level fixed class abilities, where in PF2 you can choose your class abilities amongst several class feats.

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

I think you misunderstood me. A non-multiclassed druid in PF1e has feats, with which they can select options that will enhance their two handed weapon fighting, at no cost to the rest of their druid kit (except the opportunity cost of perhaps other feats that might enhance something else).

The way it's being described by Jason is that if I want to make PF2e druid who is better than the average druid at two handed weapon fighting, I will need to take an archetype and sacrifice precious Class Feats. This could mean pushing back things like wild shape progression or access to another thematically appropriate archetype.

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.

Belisar wrote:

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.

Okay then, Vic, let numbers speak why it is dishonest in an objective way. The PF1 fighter has "tons of feats", from level 1 to 20 he gains 21 feats. The PF2 fighter, though, gets 31 feats, that's 10 feats in addition to what a PF1 fighter gets. Even if PF1 classes get more fixed abilities, the amount of choices in PF2 is way superior. In fact in PF2 I can decide myself to chose the abilities while PF1 simply lacks this choice. Before this background, yes, claiming that PF1 is more flexible is objectively dishonest.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.

Okay then, Vic, let numbers speak why it is dishonest in an objective way. The PF1 fighter has "tons of feats", from level 1 to 20 he gains 21 feats. The PF2 fighter, though, gets 31 feats, that's 10 feats in addition to what a PF1 fighter gets. Even if PF1 classes get more fixed abilities, the amount of choices in PF2 is way superior. In fact in PF2 I can decide myself to chose the abilities while PF1 simply lacks this choice. Before this background, yes, claiming that PF1 is more flexible is objectively dishonest.

it gets 31 things called feats..a lot of which go on buying back ancestry abilities you used to get baked in, and on the really lackluster general and skill feats, so claiming that a Playtest Feat is the same as a PF1 feat, is to use your own words, 'very dishonest'

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.

Okay then, Vic, let numbers speak why it is dishonest in an objective way. The PF1 fighter has "tons of feats", from level 1 to 20 he gains 21 feats. The PF2 fighter, though, gets 31 feats, that's 10 feats in addition to what a PF1 fighter gets. Even if PF1 classes get more fixed abilities, the amount of choices in PF2 is way superior. In fact in PF2 I can decide myself to chose the abilities while PF1 simply lacks this choice. Before this background, yes, claiming that PF1 is more flexible is objectively dishonest.

Quality of choice is important, not quantity. I do not need 55 illusion of choice, homogenous, micro feats. I do not agree with your insulting and dismissive assertion that dishonesty is involved.

Belisar wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.

Okay then, Vic, let numbers speak why it is dishonest in an objective way. The PF1 fighter has "tons of feats", from level 1 to 20 he gains 21 feats. The PF2 fighter, though, gets 31 feats, that's 10 feats in addition to what a PF1 fighter gets. Even if PF1 classes get more fixed abilities, the amount of choices in PF2 is way superior. In fact in PF2 I can decide myself to chose the abilities while PF1 simply lacks this choice. Before this background, yes, claiming that PF1 is more flexible is objectively dishonest.

it gets 31 things called feats..a lot of which go on buying back ancestry abilities you used to get baked in, and on the really lackluster general and skill feats, so claiming that a Playtest Feat is the same as a PF1 feat, is to use your own words, 'very dishonest'

Yep, the irony drips, drips I tell ya.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.

Okay then, Vic, let numbers speak why it is dishonest in an objective way. The PF1 fighter has "tons of feats", from level 1 to 20 he gains 21 feats. The PF2 fighter, though, gets 31 feats, that's 10 feats in addition to what a PF1 fighter gets. Even if PF1 classes get more fixed abilities, the amount of choices in PF2 is way superior. In fact in PF2 I can decide myself to chose the abilities while PF1 simply lacks this choice. Before this background, yes, claiming that PF1 is more flexible is objectively dishonest.

So number of feats = flexibility? (Neglecting the fact that ancestry feats by and large buy back baseline stuff from PF1e, and general and skill feats are worth far less than PF1e feats. Also neglecting that feats are separated by level and frequently you have no difficult choices, you just take the one out of five that has any impact on your build.)

Your tone is also rather rude, I would dial that back if you want to continue to contribute to a healthy discussion. It's not helpful to call someone dishonest just because they disagree with you.

Belisar wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.

Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.

Okay then, Vic, let numbers speak why it is dishonest in an objective way. The PF1 fighter has "tons of feats", from level 1 to 20 he gains 21 feats. The PF2 fighter, though, gets 31 feats, that's 10 feats in addition to what a PF1 fighter gets. Even if PF1 classes get more fixed abilities, the amount of choices in PF2 is way superior. In fact in PF2 I can decide myself to chose the abilities while PF1 simply lacks this choice. Before this background, yes, claiming that PF1 is more flexible is objectively dishonest.

it gets 31 things called feats..a lot of which go on buying back ancestry abilities you used to get baked in, and on the really lackluster general and skill feats, so claiming that a Playtest Feat is the same as a PF1 feat, is to use your own words, 'very dishonest'

PF1 and PF2 ought to be distinct games, PF2 is not intended to be a mere PF1 clone with some minor tweaks. So comparing PF1 feats with their PF2 "pendants" is comparing lemons to apples.