Forging the Heroes of Undarin

Monday, October 8, 2018

Greetings from Playtest HQ! The time has come for us to move on from the River Kingdoms, closing out Part 4 of Doomsday Dawn. Now we turn our attention north, to a land ruined by demonic powers. That's right, we're going to the Worldwound in Part 5, The Heroes of Undarin!

Now, I don't want to give away any spoilers, but for those of you who are playing, make sure to touch base with your GM, as they have very special instructions for you as to how you should make your character for this dangerous mission!

As a reminder to all of you playtesters out there, the surveys for all of the previous parts of Doomsday Dawn are still open. Once you and your group have completed playing Part 5, The Heroes of Undarin, make sure to take the following surveys! Your feedback is vital in making sure we get the game right for its final release!

Player Survey | Game Master Survey | Open Survey

If you have completed the Doomsday Dawn surveys, consider giving us your feedback in the general surveys for Ancestries, Classes, Rules, and the Bestiary. These surveys can be found on the Pathfinder Playtest landing page.

Update 1.4 - All About Ancestry

The past two weeks have been a real whirlwind for us in the design pit. In the two weeks since the release of Update 1.3, which brought some pretty big changes to the game, we've been hard at work on Update 1.4. While this one is much more modest in terms of scope, it nevertheless brings a pretty big change to your game: an overhaul of the ancestries!

The one thing we've heard mentioned over and over (as well as in our Ancestry Survey) is that many of you felt like the ancestries weren't quite giving enough at 1st level. We also saw a number of responses saying that taking a feat to be a half-elf or half-orc was too steep a price to pay. This update makes changes to the way that ancestries work, while also giving you some additional high-level ancestry feats to use in your game!

Starting with this update, when you make a character, you select not only an ancestry, but also a heritage from within that ancestry. Your heritage gives you additional physical characteristics based on your lineage, and your choice of heritage is in addition to the ancestry feat that you gain at 1st level. Half-elf and half-orc are now choices within the human heritage list, which means that you can play a character from one of these heritages, and still take a 1st-level feat from either of your parents as well!

So go grab Update 1.4! Those new feats might just give your characters a shot in the arm for the upcoming challenges they must face in the horrible, demon-infested lands to the north!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
201 to 250 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Lyee wrote:

2) ** spoiler omitted **

Just remember your player before the game start that this is a Playtest. Having fun is important, but playtestis is the focus now. So some parts will not be fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
42nfl19 wrote:
I mean isn't the term suppose to bring out negative connotations lore wise?

Disclaimer! Not meant as a derail but as an explanation! I don't intend to post anymore of this on this thread. ;)

It actually is used in neutral tones in places. For instance, "Aasimars are considered blessed in good-aligned societies" and the term is used for them, geniekin and the like.


Data Lore wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
--o Independent Heritages: Dhampire, Planetouched, etc. Would be nice to test out Ancestry independent Heritages in the playtest.
If they do explore such an implementation, they would need to consider the problem of the "half-elf dhampire.' If half-elf is a heritage and dhampire is a heritage, does that mean half-elves may never be dhampires?

Well that is fine with my preference for Half-Elfs and Half-Orcs being real Ancestry of their own...

Regardless I think this does illuminate how these groups are NOT equivalent "halfs" even though that was bandied about in the glee for using the Heritage [Feat/Non-Feat] mechanic for absolutely everything possible - I'm all for systemic design if you have gathered from my comments, but I think FUNDAMENTALISM in that can be damaging itself, and that hinges on not recognizing these nuances but trucking ahead in name of the glorious grand scheme.

Dhampir are not Halfs - For one, their vampire parent is actually a Human (or Demihuman if allowed) with a Vampire template essentially. So Dhampir is essentially a "half-template" in discrete Ancestry/Race form (but Dhampirs don't make Dhampir babies, they aren't "real" race/Ancestry). Plane-touched likewise are not Halfs - For one, Half-Celestials etc are alot higher power creature, Aasimar would be more like in the middle of Half-Celestials and Celestial-Bloodline Sorcerors. But that still leaves them as more of a template-as-discrete-Race(in P1E).

So going on that, I thinks it's clear that it shouldn't be surprising for Half-Elfs and Half-Orcs to be mechanically distinguished in approach from Dhampir and Aasimar, despite the glee in latching on to new universal mechanic. Nothing bad happens if H-E/H-O are just their own Ancestry (even with shared Feat access to some degree), and that actually allows more options. It's already canon that arbitrary Race/Ancestry combinations are not reproductively viable, so it's like H-E and H-O need to not be distinct Ancestry because there will be so many other arbitrary combos like Dwarf-Elf, or Halfling-Goblins (I don't know which of those is more disturbing, honestly).

But considering Dhampir and Plane-Touched AS Heritages, I think it would probably be important to offer base-Ancestry-specific Feats for them, which would be able to consider each one's unique situation - A Dwarf gaining Darkvision isn't gaining anything. These Heritages could go so far as to change base Stat mods, why not? Although, the other approach could be with Dhampir/Plane-Touched as discrete Ancestry, but their Heritages give them different abilities and stats based on Humanoid side of things, possibly including access to those Ancestry Feats (or if not blanket access, a curated list possibly modified versions to be more appropriate). Which would really end up doing away with the current approach, but somehow continuing it in an inverse form, that I feel is alot solider than present approach.


I imagine Dhampir, Aasimar, and Tieflings will all be seperate ancestries so that their heritages can represent the different subtypes available in the Inner Sea.

Otherwise they might be better used much like Half-Elf and Half-Orc were originally intended to be, as options you select in place of either your starting ancestry feat or your heritage. So you can be a Varisian Half-Elven Dhampir, or a Snow Goblin Tiefling, or an Elven Aasimar with Dancing Lights as an Innate Divine Cantrip (via their 1st level Aasimar Ancestry Feat).

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and some posts quoting it. If you have issues with the forum moderation you can send an email to community@paizo.com.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Some of the tone, from the designers, does concern me a bit; sort of a - well, this is what we've decided we are doing, and if you don't like it, what can we say, go play something else.

As someone who is an (amateur) game designer, I have exactly the opposite response.

When Paizo says "this is our vision, this is what we believe in doing, and unfortunately if you don't share that vision this might not be the game for you" I have a massive swell of respect for them.

Obviously if enough people don't share their vision then they need to reevaluate what level of financial success they need from their vision. But I will take a game with a strong vision and direction over a game that compromises itself to what the theoretical playerbase wants every time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

As someone who is an (amateur) game designer, I have exactly the opposite response.

When Paizo says "this is our vision, this is what we believe in doing, and unfortunately if you don't share that vision this might not be the game for you" I have a massive swell of respect for them.

Obviously if enough people don't share their vision then they need to reevaluate what level of financial success they need from their vision. But I will take a game with a strong vision and direction over a game that compromises itself to what the theoretical playerbase wants every time.

I doubt and disagree with all of that. Not sure if PF2 can afford to be that bold.

Also, aside from all that, what is going on in this thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Also, aside from all that, what is going on in this thread?

Something we apparantly aren't allowed to publically discuss here.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there folks,

I moderated a few posts this morning that were detailing this thread and left my post explaining why "I posted on my phone. My apologies.

We have some evolving standards going on here, regarding some of our terminology usage, and this thread is no place to debate them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Regardless I think this does illuminate how these groups are NOT equivalent "halfs"

Bastards of Golarion, page 28-29. "Each of the following entries describes another half-human race."

Aasimars
Changelings
Dhampirs
Fetchlings
Geniekin [Ifrit, oreads, sulis, sylphs, undines]
Gillmen
Skinwalkers
Tieflings


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So I don't know why we're continuing the nomenclature discussion but using "half-" terminology for folks who are not actually half of something always bugged me.

Like Changelings are 50% Hag, sure, but an Aasimar might be 1/256th Angel and their celestial blood might go a dozen generations before it manifests again.

So for accuracy alone, we need another term.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
So for accuracy alone, we need another term.

If it were Starfinder I'd suggest the Hybrid. But that's not very fantasy.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So for accuracy alone, we need another term.
If it were Starfinder I'd suggest the Hybrid. But that's not very fantasy.

Fantasy Age just uses "Blooded" for their catchall term for you half whatevers or planar hybrid (equivalents). Works well enough in my mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

We have some evolving standards going on here, regarding some of our terminology usage, and this thread is no place to debate them.

IS there a place on the threads to debate them [or to ask what the new 'terms' are]? If previously used terms are now off limits, what is the preferred process for us users to find that out and to find out what the new prefered terms are?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I don't know why we're continuing the nomenclature discussion but using "half-" terminology for folks who are not actually half of something always bugged me.

Like Changelings are 50% Hag, sure, but an Aasimar might be 1/256th Angel and their celestial blood might go a dozen generations before it manifests again.

So for accuracy alone, we need another term.

I took a direct quote from a Golarion specific product: they are counted as a 1/2 race. Being a 1/2 has little to do with the exact percentages. For instance Orc Atavism [1/2 orc trait] says "much stronger orc blood than human blood". Or look at the 1/2 elf trait Round Ears "Sometimes half-elves are born with no obvious elven features. Their parents may even be humans with only faint traces of elven blood." 1/2 for races in no way means a 50/50 split in racial backgrounds as for as accuracy goes.


Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am guessing that the term "half-blood" is still acceptable.

And the term "mixed" could be used for fractions of other than exactly half of a particular type of ancestry.

In the Pathfinder D&D 5E and Pathfinder campaigns that my groups recently started, I made two characters who were mechanically half-elves, but neither of them had 50% elven ancestry. One had a human father and a half-elf mother, and the other had a half-elf father and a wood elf mother. Both would deny being "half-elves" if asked in character, for obvious reasons.


graystone wrote:
Being a 1/2 has little to do with the exact percentages.

If something is supposed to indicate "this is not an exact percentage" it is best to not use a precise fraction to describe it.

Like I don't want a half-elf to have any combination of parents other than "an elf and a human" or "two half-elves" if we want to have "your grandparents were 2 humans, an elf, and a half-elf then we should say "elf-kin" or "elf-blooded human" or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If something is supposed to indicate "this is not an exact percentage" it is best to not use a precise fraction to describe it.

That cat is already out of the bag: the lore isn't meant to change and the lore has it that '1/2' means a human plus an undetermined amount of another race. 1/2 is a shorthand and not an exacting percentage: its whatever mix ends up giving you the abilities of that race as presented.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like I don't want a half-elf to have any combination of parents other than "an elf and a human" or "two half-elves" if we want to have "your grandparents were 2 humans, an elf, and a half-elf then we should say "elf-kin" or "elf-blooded human" or something.

In Golarion, those are called humans with distant heritages: humans that manifest traits of their non-human ancestor. Again, it's all about how much influence the blood has on your race and not the exact percentages.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Some of the tone, from the designers, does concern me a bit; sort of a - well, this is what we've decided we are doing, and if you don't like it, what can we say, go play something else.

As someone who is an (amateur) game designer, I have exactly the opposite response.

When Paizo says "this is our vision, this is what we believe in doing, and unfortunately if you don't share that vision this might not be the game for you" I have a massive swell of respect for them.

Obviously if enough people don't share their vision then they need to reevaluate what level of financial success they need from their vision. But I will take a game with a strong vision and direction over a game that compromises itself to what the theoretical playerbase wants every time.

That's a finely principled thing for a 500 copy run that won't sell, but not for an second update to 3.5 D&D, which is how Paizo grew and kept their customer base. Honestly, if that attitude is actually the case (and not just your take on it), a playtest is the worst idea in the world, as it gives people hope for changing the vision where it doesn't work, then yanks the carpet out from under them in the end.

That it's also abandoning a lot of elements of Golarion canon and consistency (particularly in obliterating entire classes, and fundamentally altering how magic, magic items and racial biology works), makes it problematic for people who grew fond of Pathfinder in its own right.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It looks not logical that half-elf and half-orc can't get their language (elven or orcish) now. It should be made available at least to be taken instead the ethnical one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FYI, those *are* at least available "instead of ethnic one" (or regional) because Elven and Orcish are Common access languages for ALL Inner Sea characters... Although personally, that seems a bit odd, but they don't want to be too strict. The Common language table should probably be adjusted to not include Half-Elves and Half-Orc as featured speakers of those languages if not all of them are. (which is reasonable IMHO, to be clear) EDIT: Actually, with removal of automatic Elven language for Half-Elves (and Orcish for Half-Orcs) the Common status of those languages everywhere in Greater Inner Sea seems EVEN more dubious IMHO. Not that there isn't a decent number of countries that should have it as regional language, but not everywhere. Anybody can take it with Multilingual.

Not sure how relevant this is now, but original wording for Half Elves/Orcs language seems ambiguous:
"add Elven to your list of languages" sounds more like it is adding to list of choices (which would be superfluous)
It should just say "you know Elven language", don't refer to any "list" because there is a list of languages in rules that has different function.


So as I mentioned before, Half-elf heritage with the way it is written means that the Half-elf looses access to a method to gain 5ft of speed meaning that it is hard/difficult to get to the needed 40ft of speed to get the new level 9 elf feat. They also loose an easy access to the elf language without having to spend a feat or have more int? So overall:

5ft Speed increase: Lose a method to gain 5ft speed thus it is hard to reach 40ft speed that you could before
Elven language: Have to now spend another feat or have increased int to get
Trained in Diplomacy:You lose out on this "free" training. Have to spend a another method to gain it like a skill point.
Low-light:Earn it with the Heritage

Half-orc heritage is similar also where we lose access to certain things.

The devs have mentioned this is just a start but I hope they don't forget about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if "half-elves can't easily qualify for Elf-Step" is a problem since PF1 Elves had a few things half-elves could not get (notably racial traits), so it's fine if that's repeated again I think.

As for "It's hard to have a Half-Elf/Orc speak Elvish/Orcish" you probably just need to add "Half-Elves have access to Elvish" to the Heritage so they can pick it with their bonus language. I guess an ancestry feat for "you were raised by Elves/Half-Elves" could also work, like how "Kindred Raised" was an alternate racial trait in PF1.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
FYI, those *are* at least available "instead of ethnic one" (or regional) because Elven and Orcish are Common access languages for ALL Inner Sea characters...

Not by RAW as I understand. It is written that you can choose from the list of common languages only if your Intelligence score is

14 or higher:
p. 23 Languages and bonus languages wrote:

This tells you the languages that members of your character’s

ancestry speak at 1st level, as well as a list of additional
languages common among members of that ancestry. If
your character’s Intelligence score is 14 or higher at 1st
level, you can select one of the bonus languages from this
list for your character to speak in addition to her ancestry
language or languages.

In bonus languages for human we also have

Quote:

At 1st level, if your Intelligence score is

14 or higher, you can also select one of
the languages from the list of common
languages on page 40 or from other
languages you have access to.

Note that, dwarves and halflings, for example, are not able to get orcish even with 14 Intelligence as it is not on theri Bonus languages list.

And Multilingual needs Trained in Society. So, normal 10-Int half-orc can not learn its native language :- )


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
That's a finely principled thing for a 500 copy run that won't sell, but not for an second update to 3.5 D&D, which is how Paizo grew and kept their customer base. Honestly, if that attitude is actually the case (and not just your take on it), a playtest is the worst idea in the world, as it gives people hope for changing the vision where it doesn't work, then yanks the carpet out from under them in the end.

There is definitely room between "Paizo completely conforms to your desires" and "Paizo refuses to make any changes at all".

What I have seen to far in the playtest is Paizo making changes to the specifics of the system while keeping their overall vision intact, which is exactly what I would expect out of a playtest. They want the communities help in making their vision the best it can be, not to be told that their vision is bad and they should feel bad.

I think that if you are looking for "a second update to 3.5 D&D", PF2e is never going to be for you. It's been fairly clear from the start of the playtest that's not what 2e is, and the devs have made posts to that effect. You can look way back and see that getting away from the conventions and expectations of 3.5 was one of their original impetuses for doing a second edition.

Also the implication that conforming to your desires is necessary to sell more than 500 copies (or alternatively that one must sacrifice principles to make a successful product) is a little insulting, imo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For humans (which would include half-elves and half-orcs), the automatic languages are Common and "One additional language, selected from those to which you have access." The bonus language for Int 14+ is basically chosen the same way.

So a half-elf or half-orc could select Elven or Orcish as his second language, since both are currently common languages. Or they could take an ethnic/regional human language as their second language. They would not be able to do both unless they have Int 14+.


Noxobar wrote:


And Multilingual needs Trained in Society. So, normal 10-Int half-orc can not learn its native language :- )

Human Ancestry (including Half-Orc) starts with 2 languages.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:
Quandary wrote:
FYI, those *are* at least available "instead of ethnic one" (or regional) because Elven and Orcish are Common access languages for ALL Inner Sea characters...

Not by RAW as I understand. It is written that you can choose from the list of common languages only if your Intelligence score is

14 or higher:
p. 23 Languages and bonus languages wrote:

This tells you the languages that members of your character’s

ancestry speak at 1st level, as well as a list of additional
languages common among members of that ancestry. If
your character’s Intelligence score is 14 or higher at 1st
level, you can select one of the bonus languages from this
list for your character to speak in addition to her ancestry
language or languages.

In bonus languages for human we also have

Quote:

At 1st level, if your Intelligence score is

14 or higher, you can also select one of
the languages from the list of common
languages on page 40 or from other
languages you have access to.

Note that, dwarves and halflings, for example, are not able to get orcish even with 14 Intelligence as it is not on theri Bonus languages list.

And Multilingual needs Trained in Society. So, normal 10-Int half-orc can not learn its native language :- )

What? No. The basic Languages entry on Humans (available to Int 10 Humans) says they get the following:

"One additional language, selected from those to which you have access"

It's pretty clear in context that this is the Common Languages on p. 40 (which includes Elvish and Orcish). Indeed, I can't think of an interpretation of the rules that doesn't let you get Elvish or Orcish as a Human with the text I just quoted...well, except for the one that doesn't let you get any language at all, and that's just clearly wrong on the face of it.

EDIT: Someone posted this answer an hour ago? What? The forums just didn't show the bottom few posts, I guess. Huh. Weird.

Scarab Sages

David knott 242 wrote:
For humans (which would include half-elves and half-orcs), the automatic languages are Common and "One additional language, selected from those to which you have access." The bonus language for Int 14+ is basically chosen the same way.

Not really. The rules on Int 14+ are explicitly written at section Bonus Languages of each ancestry. The "... to which you have access" list is not specified anywhere so as there is no any sign that thay should work the same (if you know the citation, please provide).

David knott 242" wrote:
So a half-elf or half-orc could select Elven or Orcish as his second language, since both are currently common languages.

Could you, please, provide a citation from rulebook that allow you to use common language as your second language?

The problem is that only ethnicities explicitly say that "you gain access to ___ language", nothing else. This makes me convinced that only those languages from ethnicities are available for the second human language.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's pretty clear in context that this is the Common Languages on p. 40

Unfortunately, it is not clear. Could you please provide a citation from the rules to support your statement?


Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The rules for a human with Int 14+ are indeed a more detailed version of the description of the second automatic language for humans:

"At 1st level, if your Intelligence score is 14 or higher, you can also select one of the languages from the list of common languages on page 40 or from other languages you have access to."

If humans did not by default have access to common languages, then what would be the second language of a Taldan human? The only option that works is for the second automatic language to follow the same rules as the human bonus language.

But I will freely admit that it should be clearly stated rather than merely implied that humans by default have access to all common languages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, real talk, how many GMs are going to not let a Half-Orc/Elf take Orcish/Elvish with their 2nd language (after common) if a player asks if they can?

It seems like "one additional language to which you have access" would clearly allow Elvish if the character had an Elf parent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They get the traits. Doesn't getting the elf and orc traits qualify them somewhere in the rules for the languages? Weird that it wouldn't.

Scarab Sages

David knott 242 wrote:

The rules for a human with Int 14+ are indeed a more detailed version of the description of the second automatic language for humans:

"At 1st level, if your Intelligence score is 14 or higher, you can also select one of the languages from the list of common languages on page 40 or from other languages you have access to."

Well, apparently, this rule speaks about the human with int14+. To be strict it even does not say that you get that language, but only can select it from the particular table.

David knott 242 wrote:
If humans did not by default have access to common languages, then what would be the second language of a Taldan human?

Nothing. Yes, it happens.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, real talk, how many GMs are going to not let a Half-Orc/Elf take Orcish/Elvish with their 2nd language (after common) if a player asks if they can?

I know different ones. But the problem is the rules, not the suitable GM.

Data Lore wrote:
Doesn't getting the elf and orc traits qualify them somewhere in the rules for the languages? Weird that it wouldn't.

Traits do not convey any mechanical benefits, only influence on interactions with effects. It is written in the rules. I haven't seen traits in rules for languages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, I don't think the wording around language selection is really ideal, and I think the Halfling example is good, re: Orcish. Now potentially it is fine for Halflings to have lesser access to Orcish, but one would think a Halfling hailing from the Hold of Belkzen would reasonaby have access to Orcish. Yet currently, "Region" ONLY governs access to ethnic Human languages.

That clearly isn't ideal, and points to need for paradigm to shift there. I think, in fact, it's reasonable to remove much of Common languages, or even remove the category completely, and allow each Region to grant access to multiple languages, Human ethnic and non-Human. Orcish would not necessarily be on every Region's list. Or Elven, or Undercommon, etc.

In fact, I think a Common list is better conceived not even being relevant to free character creation languages, but instead relevant for mechanics which grant basic language proficiency. Right now, Multi-lingual is the main route outside of free/14INT, but that need not be the case, there can be "cheaper" budget +1 language options that could draw only from Common list. (The Common list is also relevant to setting DCs to know what language it is, even if you don't understand, etc)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Some of the tone, from the designers, does concern me a bit; sort of a - well, this is what we've decided we are doing, and if you don't like it, what can we say, go play something else.

As someone who is an (amateur) game designer, I have exactly the opposite response.

When Paizo says "this is our vision, this is what we believe in doing, and unfortunately if you don't share that vision this might not be the game for you" I have a massive swell of respect for them.

Obviously if enough people don't share their vision then they need to reevaluate what level of financial success they need from their vision. But I will take a game with a strong vision and direction over a game that compromises itself to what the theoretical playerbase wants every time.

And it's clear that they do want to keep being an industry leader and getting as many people playing the game as possible. They have no intention of sacrificing market share to make the PF2 system; indeed, they feel that this general design is the thing that will keep it on top. We can disagree on whether it will work or not, but I don't see any evidence of Paizo not caring about people's concerns or their interest in buying the books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Getting back to Heritages...

I'm thinking non-standard Heritages should be expanded slightly in power and in penalties. For instance, a Cavern Elf should gain two Advantages and one Disadvantage - Darkvision and Feather Step in underground environments, but also Sensitive to Light.

This would allow for Core Heritages to have an advantage over non-standard Heritages in that they don't have that Disadvantage... even if they lack in one of the bonus Advantages the other Heritages have. (Or you could build each Heritage to have two Advantages and one Disadvantage.)

Next: All Small-sized Races should have a Base Speed of 20. Allow them to have Heritages allowing them to be faster if need be, but the baseline Speed should be 20. This is one thing the original Pathfinder did well, as did DND 3.0 and AD&D for that matter - smaller-sized races were slower than medium-sized races... but also did have a small advantage in armor class to compensate for that speed.

Finally: Humans need real Heritages, not Feats that you handwave into so-called Heritages. Seriously, you could have gone with Arctic Humans and Desert-dwelling Humans if you were having difficulties... and not even gone with Cold Resistance or the like but instead just had them able to Step in Snow of up to 2 feet without a penalty or the like, or better able to handle hot temperatures without heat resistance. Currently, the Human Heritages are just completely lackluster and uninteresting.

There are multiple regional human groups that could have been a baseline for Heritages. Now, I can understand not using them as you didn't want to completely railroad people into Golarion if they so choose not to use it for a campaign setting... but the two "new" Heritages are... showing a lack of imagination and thought.

Again, going with Heritages having two benefits and one disadvantage would work quite well. It would make Heritages into something decent and worthwhile.

More, there is a long history of "Racial Feats" in Pathfinder that you could have used as a baseline for Ancestry Feats rather than having people "build up" their racial background. Elves don't become "more elfy" just because they gain levels. Having to buy into traditional abilities "just because" is just uninteresting, and something numerous people have complained about.

It's not even necessary as those Racial Feats from 1st Edition Pathfinder and the Advanced Race Guide give plenty of Feats that could have been used to differentiate and build upon the Ancestry Feats. You didn't even need use ALL of them, seeing I'm fairly certain you'll be saving some of this for your future 2nd Edition Pathfinder Ancestry Books for people to further differentiate their Ancestries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Voss wrote:
That's a finely principled thing for a 500 copy run that won't sell, but not for an second update to 3.5 D&D, which is how Paizo grew and kept their customer base. Honestly, if that attitude is actually the case (and not just your take on it), a playtest is the worst idea in the world, as it gives people hope for changing the vision where it doesn't work, then yanks the carpet out from under them in the end.

There is definitely room between "Paizo completely conforms to your desires" and "Paizo refuses to make any changes at all".

What I have seen to far in the playtest is Paizo making changes to the specifics of the system while keeping their overall vision intact, which is exactly what I would expect out of a playtest. They want the communities help in making their vision the best it can be, not to be told that their vision is bad and they should feel bad.

I think that if you are looking for "a second update to 3.5 D&D", PF2e is never going to be for you. It's been fairly clear from the start of the playtest that's not what 2e is, and the devs have made posts to that effect. You can look way back and see that getting away from the conventions and expectations of 3.5 was one of their original impetuses for doing a second edition.

Also the implication that conforming to your desires is necessary to sell more than 500 copies (or alternatively that one must sacrifice principles to make a successful product) is a little insulting, imo.

I have no idea what you mean. 'Conforming to my desires' wasn't ever even implied. The choices were 'sticking to their vision' (the premise YOU presented) or responding to feedback with changes.

I didn't get that no update to 3.5 feeling at all. It is a new edition of PF after all.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:

Could you, please, provide a citation from rulebook that allow you to use common language as your second language?

The problem is that only ethnicities explicitly say that "you gain access to ___ language", nothing else. This makes me convinced that only those languages from ethnicities are available for the second human language.

This is intuitively false, but the rules are indeed less than clear on this subject.

Noxobar wrote:

Unfortunately, it is not clear. Could you please provide a citation from the rules to support your statement?

You can read it that way, it's true, and it could use clarification.

Of course, by this logic Taldan characters can't speak a second language at all, since they have access to none, but have to pick one anyway (it's non-optional).

Pregen characters (many of whom are Taldan and have second languages as normal, picked from the Common languages) argue that this interpretation is factually false, but a strict reading of the rules can result in this, it's true.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
And it's clear that they do want to keep being an industry leader and getting as many people playing the game as possible. They have no intention of sacrificing market share to make the PF2 system; indeed, they feel that this general design is the thing that will keep it on top. We can disagree on whether it will work or not, but I don't see any evidence of Paizo not caring about people's concerns or their interest in buying the books.

If I saw Paizo not responding at all to people's concerns I would despair for them, for sure.

Instead, what I am seeing is Paizo responding to concerns while staying true to their vision, which is exactly what I want to see from a game designer.

One of the devs at one point directly responded to a member of the community, outright saying "I see where you are coming from, but unfortunately I don't think PF2e is going to be the game you want it to be".

That's basically what I'm talking about. I have a lot of respect for a game designer that is willing to say that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is a great way to alienate potential customers.

Your vision for your product should not be the end-all-be-all.
That is how businesses fail.

But this isn't a business discussion.

I still find the 1.4 update to be a turn in the right direction without taking a full step towards it.
At least here on the forums the message is clear.
Most people are not down with the Ancestry system spreading out feats over the majority of a career.
It feels off regardless of it being balanced or not.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:
That is a great way to alienate potential customers.

Trying to promise everyone everything they want is a great way to not meet anyone's expectations, though; just ask the developers of No Man's Sky.

If someone wants something that is totally off-base from what you are trying to market, you have to be willing to tell them your product isn't for them. To do otherwise lacks integrity.


Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

One option that Paizo has in their collective back pockets for any game mechanic is to revert to what PF1 did -- but there is no reason to revert to that mechanic during the playtest or test it out because that mechanic may have already seen years of use. As a result, the fate of any new mechanic that they are thinking of completely abandoning is not something that we will find out until next spring at the earliest, when the playtest is concluded and they have decided on the final state of the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
And it's clear that they do want to keep being an industry leader and getting as many people playing the game as possible. They have no intention of sacrificing market share to make the PF2 system; indeed, they feel that this general design is the thing that will keep it on top. We can disagree on whether it will work or not, but I don't see any evidence of Paizo not caring about people's concerns or their interest in buying the books.

If I saw Paizo not responding at all to people's concerns I would despair for them, for sure.

Instead, what I am seeing is Paizo responding to concerns while staying true to their vision, which is exactly what I want to see from a game designer.

One of the devs at one point directly responded to a member of the community, outright saying "I see where you are coming from, but unfortunately I don't think PF2e is going to be the game you want it to be".

That's basically what I'm talking about. I have a lot of respect for a game designer that is willing to say that.

A whole lot of this. I mean, just telling anyone that has problems with the system that it isn't for them would be a poor decision but obviously that's not what's happening here. This game unfortunately won't be for everyone. Can't please everyone.

A lot of the complaints I see are about heavily janky or broken things that people enjoyed from PF1 being polished out. Which is understandable, jank can be fun. But that's what PF1 is for, we shouldn't expect PF2 to start out purposefully having these things. It's meant to be a polish, rebalance, and hefty redesign of the game with a decade of insight and experience and practice between the CRBs of PF1 and PF2. It seems like a lot of people want PF 1.x rather than 2.0, which just isn't the way the game is going to go, and I personally like that. Not everyone will but trying to please both sides (or all sides as there's probably plenty of in between) would just be a bloody MESS.

201 to 250 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Forging the Heroes of Undarin All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.