New Edition the Hard Way

Monday, October 7, 2019

This article by Jason Bulmahn, Director of Game Design, was published in the July edition of Meeple monthly. We are pleased to share it with you today.

Pathfinder Second Edition Core Rulebook.

Pathfinder is a game with a legacy. Drawing from a heritage stretching back to Gary’s table, when envisioning a new edition, it is tempting to simply iterate on what has come before. After all, that was the strategy that built Pathfinder into an incredibly successful Roleplaying Game.

That was not the route we decided to take.

Simply iterating on the same game engine was not enough. The 3.5 engine has had its day, and as a team we decided that it was time to modernize, to create a version of Pathfinder that was more than just tinkering around the edges. The game needed to evolve to speak to the desires of the current crowd of gamers. It needed to an engine tune up that made it easier for novices to grasp, while still providing a rich depth of option. What it needed was elegance in its design.

The first steps were taken shortly after the first edition of Pathfinder made their way to the printer. The work that was left undone, due the necessity of compatibility, would become the basis for what the new game needed to be. The math engine caused problems with high level play that led to an unsatisfactory game experience. Imbalances in fundamental class design created imbalances that left some players feeling unable to contribute. A bloat of rules options without any checks in the system created a game that was unwieldy to run.

But in spite of all that, the game itself was still a success, due in large part to the world it created, and the investment it fostered in players and game masters alike. We knew, from the outset, that the story of the game had to remain the same, even if the rules that made it manifest needed to change. Achieving that goal meant that we needed to do a lot more than simply clean up the game. We needed to start over.

Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition. That was one of the first choices we made. Everything was up for examination, from the fundamental math formulas behind the game to the individual statistics for longswords. And while that made for a lot of additional work, it also meant that we could look at each rule cleanly, unburdened by the conventions of the past. In the end, many things work similarly to how they did in first edition (a longsword still does 1d8 damage), but we were able to innovate where the game called for innovation. Take the action system for example. In first edition, when it was your turn to act in combat, you had a complicated menu of options, between move actions, standard actions, free actions, swift actions, and on and on. In second edition, we simplified that to just three actions, removing all the types and making your turn a more dynamic part of the game. The narrative is still fundamentally the same, but how you take part in the game is much simpler to teach and easy to use.

Next, we knew that if we were going to take a fresh look at the game, we needed a playtest that would allow us to gather meaningful data about the core of the game’s engine. In the past, our playtests had focused on the experience of the rules, relying mostly on player and game master anecdotes to gather information. While this gave us insight, it was impossible to apply any measure of statistical rigor to the data. For second edition we decided to create an environment that allowed us to gather better data about our game. To start, we needed to standardize the feedback by getting a massive number of players to experience the same adventure. We wrote Doomsday Dawn, a seven part mini-campaign, with the express goal of testing targeted parts of the Pathfinder game engine. There was a part filled with undead to stress test the player’s healing capabilities. There was a tests focused on the various skill disciplines in the game. And perhaps most importantly, there was a test designed to push the characters beyond their limits, to test the rules for death and dying in the game.

While this sort of hardcore testing gave us invaluable information about how our game assumptions were playing out, it was a grueling test for some groups of players. After all, playing the same type of encounter over and over to determine the breaking point is not exactly the most fun way to play the game. Their sacrifices, though, led to some of the most in-depth analysis we have ever seen on an RPG. It led us to fully understand the spots where our assumptions and biases were leading the game astray, allowing us to course correct. Some systems were entirely abandoned (like resonance, a system for balancing magic item use), while others were refined into rules to meet player desire (like the new system for focus spells, allowing casters to utilize their signature spells all day long). The playtest was one of the hardest we have ever run, but it was also the most rewarding.

The second edition of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been in the works for years, but now on the eve of its release, all of that work is about to pay off. The new version of the game is simple to run and easier for new players to learn, but it keeps all of the features that players have come to appreciate from Pathfinder: deep character customization, a rich world narrative, and all the tools to tell the type of stories that you want to tell. Speaking for the team, we can’t wait to share those stories with you.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Aaron Shanks
PR Manager

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cylerist wrote:

"Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition."

This quote worries me. So you decided nothing was worth keeping from PF1. Really?
Nothing for nothing but it sounds like change for change sake and I don't care for that as a basis for redoing rules.

Well, both editions have the "move your speed action" but they are worded differently (thus, for example, eliminating the "what exactly does 'move' mean" issue of PF1).


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
By less onerous, I think you meant

Stop with the telling other people they don't know what they think.

Quote:
more shallow and less interesting. It's too easy to be the best you can be. Maybe an hour tops to build an optimal character. There's no challenge or fun in that. Minimum investment for optimization needs to be at least 6 hours to really make it fun to create a character. Levelling needs to be 30 to 60 minutes.

How about starting that with "I think" or "In my experience" or "My preferred style of play."

You've told someone else that they don't know their own mind, and that what they really believe is what you believe.

That's hostile and rude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lyoto Machida wrote:

I have some initial thoughts, I can't criticize the relative lack of options in 2e because it doesn't have nearly as much material as 1e, but here's some other initial thoughts.

I like how fast paced and dynamic combat is in 2e, feels like there's a lot more combinations of actions that are possible and it makes for interesting fights. I like how weapons feels different and I like how each class appears to have several play styles within itself.

What I don't like how important level is in 2E though. If something is one level higher than you, it's really noticeable like when fighting skeletal champions at level one. Maybe this changes at higher levels, when more spells and equipment are available, but it seems like if you aren't built optimally, you'll get crit to death really fast.

I hope I can get to play at higher levels soon, so I can have a better informed opinion.

it does depend a lot on the specific creature and how well prepped the party is- my group of five level five players just took down a Level 9 Blue Dragon, and only one party member was dropped at all before being picked up by an ally. Granted, it certainly could have turned against them harder, but the encounter chart of what each thing is supposed to be holds up super well.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cylerist wrote:

"Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition."

This quote worries me. So you decided nothing was worth keeping from PF1. Really?
Nothing for nothing but it sounds like change for change sake and I don't care for that as a basis for redoing rules.

More like they actually built things from the ground up, instead of doing haphazard copy and paste.

The fact that *lots* of things still are quite similar to the way PF1 did it means PF1 was a good game and lots of good stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cylerist wrote:

"Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition."

This quote worries me. So you decided nothing was worth keeping from PF1. Really?
Nothing for nothing but it sounds like change for change sake and I don't care for that as a basis for redoing rules.

It's better than the occasionally half copied 3.5 rules that show up in Pathfinder, or rules that rely on another rule that wasn't imported.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Some rough spots?

Sure.

But it is, on the whole, an improvement. I am LOVING 2nd edition thus far, provided I bring a bit of GM sandpaper with me.

But since I have yet to find a game system where I DIDN'T have to do that?

I'd say it's a good move- and I was QUITE fond of PF1 and didn't anticipate switching editions (I'm an old, crabby guy, largely stuck in my ways).


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I've started up pathfinder 2nd edition with a few groups, with a few fellow 1e veterans and a few newcomers in each, and the difference is immediately noticable and EVERYONE is having a good time! The new system is significantly easier to teach and pick up on, and our one true newcomer to tabletop as a whole has learned the system almost immediately, and everyone's really having a good time trying to figure out their best move on a given turn and put themselves in an optimal situation, since critical hits are on a sliding scale based on how well they can put enemies at a disadvantage. And I'm falling in love with the Golarion setting a lot as i start getting more into the adventure paths, currently running both Rise of the Runelords and Age of Ashes. Really glad to be playing!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Vein wrote:
I'm playing Age of Ashes with my long time group and we LOVE 2nd Edition Pathfinder. I've been playing PF since it was released way back in 2009, and had played 3.5 for years before that and I'm so happy to see a new take on the rules. I know there's a lot of negativity around new editions and people complain a lot, but just know at least one group of long-time players are totally down for second edition and everything to come with it!

Your group is not alone, we are loving it as well! :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I need to stop making excuses and sit down with the rulebook.

Yep, just bought mine a week or so ago. Weirdly Pathfinder 2 was thrown haphazardly on a table in a bunch of random piles of Bestiary/Core

Rulebook/occasional AoA AP/Fall of Plaguestone. The corners of some almost looked damaged and curled.

Starfinder however had a magazine shelf section to itself and was all spread out and well presented.

It made the act of buying the Second Edition somewhat underwhelming, like buying a Prime Minister's (or President's for you 'Muricans) memoirs the day it released from the 50% off bin. Except this cost $104. Shoulda bought it online...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say the presentation isn't grabbing me as a "thing". And it is jarring to find rules elements in the class section - for some reason the Barbarian section suddenly has a break-out box with rules for Flourish/Instinct/Open/Rage. But they aren't all unique to Barbarians. And there is Flourish again under Paladin. Sure, it's handy, but a waste of wordcount. Do they appear again in a discrete rules section? I kinda hope they do...but I'm not there yet.

And again, for presentation, the whole "class goes for pages and pages coz feats" is really like the 4e books. And I liked 4e as a ruleset, so this is no "4e clone you suxxorz"' complaint. One of the very few things I actually didn't like was the "playbook chapter" per class form of presentation.

Finally, as "streamlined" as this attempts to be...it really totally isn't. These rules are arcane. Convoluted. Likely simpler, but not easy by any means for beginners to read. I'm still hoping that it

a) get's easier [almost a lock] and b) is still as if not more fun than PF1. Still sad about archetypes and multiclassing but I need to move on...


18 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Minimum investment for optimization needs to be at least 6 hours to really make it fun to create a character. Levelling needs to be 30 to 60 minutes.

Ah, you kids!

BITD we'd spend 6 hours just blowing luck into the dice before each and every roll. And then another 6 hours after we rolled arguing about whether the one that fell off the table counted, eventually coming to blows and expelling at least one person from the group forever.

Oh, and there was none of this "looking through PDFs on your laptop" nonsense, with search functions and whatnot, because PDFs didn't exist, nor laptops. No, every search was done by hand on an actual book, made from dead trees, and every paper cut was a badge of honor---and there were plenty of them, because in those days the pages were razor-sharp so as not to coddle us. Collector's editions featured actual razors on the edges of each page.

The books and dice had to be purchased in person, no online ordering or delivery, no you walked to the gaming store barefoot in the snow and it was uphill both ways. And we liked it that way. You know why? Because we had values in those days.

Kids today just don't understand that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cylerist wrote:

"Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition."

This quote worries me. So you decided nothing was worth keeping from PF1. Really?
Nothing for nothing but it sounds like change for change sake and I don't care for that as a basis for redoing rules.

I think the key word is "directly", as in without considering its real worth.

Which is not at all the same as being considered unworthy.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
I have to say the presentation isn't grabbing me as a "thing". And it is jarring to find rules elements in the class section - for some reason the Barbarian section suddenly has a break-out box with rules for Flourish/Instinct/Open/Rage. But they aren't all unique to Barbarians. And there is Flourish again under Paladin. Sure, it's handy, but a waste of wordcount. Do they appear again in a discrete rules section? I kinda hope they do...but I'm not there yet.

They're dealt with again later, yes. I think this is pretty good, since it allows new players an easier time making a functional character. Things to help first time players are worth a bit of word count.

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
And again, for presentation, the whole "class goes for pages and pages coz feats" is really like the 4e books. And I liked 4e as a ruleset, so this is no "4e clone you suxxorz"' complaint. One of the very few things I actually didn't like was the "playbook chapter" per class form of presentation.

It makes it a lot easier on new people making their first character. Which is, as I mention above, kind of absurdly important.

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Finally, as "streamlined" as this attempts to be...it really totally isn't. These rules are arcane. Convoluted. Likely simpler, but not easy by any means for beginners to read. I'm still hoping that it

There's a lot of evidence that they read much more easily to new people than they do to those familiar with PF1. Still not the simplest rules ever, but then that's not what they were going for (look how much complaining there is even over this degree of simplification).

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
a) get's easier [almost a lock] and b) is still as if not more fun than PF1. Still sad about archetypes and multiclassing but I need to move on...

Archetypes in the PF1 style still exist as 'Class Archetypes'. There aren't any featured in the core rulebook, but the rules for them are there, meaning their eventual presence is a sure thing.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm also one of those people who enjoys spending time outside of the game tweaking concepts, and getting off-the-wall ideas to work mechanically. I've put in hundreds of hours pouring over PF1 options. I own almost every hero lab data package. I spend extra hours helping other people in my group polish their characters. Suffice to say, I'm a fan of PF1 and character optimization.

However, I don't know anyone else who comes close to my passion for that work. I don't even know any friends of friends who would even vaguely be interested in that. I've gone online to find new groups, and none of them have been interested in lengthy character building.

That all being said:

1. Pathfinder 2E has loads of out of game optimization, tweaking, and theorycrafting.

2. House rules, which are encouraged by the new system's design, allow for a vast array of new avenues of charop. Double class feats makes the system sing.

3. The other players now feel empowered by the system to make decisions based on roleplay, and they're more energized about character building.

4. Players who I outdid in character optimization are now challenging me with their tactical in-combat ability, proving the system unlocks more avenues for players to shine in their unique ways.

5. Just wait for class archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean I've spent a fair amount of time trying to feel out a concept into the space it needs to exist, well into multiple hours range, but because I chose to do it.

And I felt like I not only got a reward in terms of power/versatility of those characters, but also a much more fleshed out concept than just "person who is THE BEST at X".

This whole "YOU NEED TO SPEND A MINIMUM OF 6 HOURS!" reminds me of Zoolander "THREE TIMES BIGGER"


Also, PF2 has just released. There's barely enough stuff out to have 6 hours worth of reading for a given character concept, even if you are brand new to the system (maybe there is if you're new and you want to plan all 20 levels right away). I think you'll have plenty of toys to play with in character creation, but they have to be released first. PF1 certainly was not the charop playground it is on day 1 of the CRB release (well, maybe it was, just because you could easily pull 3.5 options into it, but it wasn't that way in its own right).

---

The other responders in thread saying they're the only one in their group who like chargen make me glad one of my players likes it as much as I do. The two of us can nerd out over silly builds together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have not had many, if any, players who particularly appreciate spending 6 hours or more on the mechanical side of character creation. Usually they seem to prefer something close to a 50/50 split between the mechanical and backstory creation, usually over the course of 1-2 hours at most. 2E is pretty good for that, and it doesn't punish players who build their characters on a level-per-level basis.


Henro wrote:
I have not had many, if any, players who particularly appreciate spending 6 hours or more on the mechanical side of character creation. Usually they seem to prefer something close to a 50/50 split between the mechanical and backstory creation, usually over the course of 1-2 hours at most. 2E is pretty good for that, and it doesn't punish players who build their characters on a level-per-level basis.

It is also super good for being able to blend those two sided of character creation together. Backgrounds being as flexible as they are plus the skill feats give you a lot of room to have the interesting choice not make your character worse at its job.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't played yet, but I'm liking what I see. There seems to be a bunch of subtle, crunchy optimization choices still embedded in the system to make things interesting. I've been doing a deep dive on poisons, for example; I suspect, but am having some trouble fully analyzing, that keeping access to a poison at +2 character level in pathfinder society on a rogue may actually be a strong move. The hypothesis is that the most likely failure states occur in boss fight situations where strong consumable use can turn the tide, and that the highly nonlinear effect of a level gap in the PF2 ruleset is magnified by persistent afflictions such that an above character level poison is potentially extremely strong.

First question is how much damage you can actually potentially expect from a poison vs different fort saves. Getting the distribution of results from that is actually quite difficult, due to the multi round nature and the way the crit rules work. I ended up writing a program to build out a table of the distribution of average damage by poison by fort save to help get a feel for how effective these are, really. It's validated some initial suspicions, provided some new insights, and highlighted some particularly strong choices. However, I feel that I need to spend more time cross referencing fort saves from the beastiary and examining the effects of frightened 1 and similar potential status afflictions on expected damage output by save before I have a good handle on this.

Having a feel for the rough baseline of expected outcomes is only the beginning, however. There's also a bunch of practical concerns revolving around poison use that will need actual play experience to evaluate. How often will it be possible to set up situations where non injectable poisons can be used? How often will combat end before the poison can get it's full effect? How problematic will the addition economy of the application requirements be, with or without the relevant rogue feats?

Regardless, the answer to the effectiveness level is fairly non obvious, and I'm enjoying the theorycrafting analysis immensely and looking forward to putting it into practice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

I have to say the presentation isn't grabbing me as a "thing". And it is jarring to find rules elements in the class section - for some reason the Barbarian section suddenly has a break-out box with rules for Flourish/Instinct/Open/Rage. But they aren't all unique to Barbarians. And there is Flourish again under Paladin. Sure, it's handy, but a waste of wordcount. Do they appear again in a discrete rules section? I kinda hope they do...but I'm not there yet.

And again, for presentation, the whole "class goes for pages and pages coz feats" is really like the 4e books. And I liked 4e as a ruleset, so this is no "4e clone you suxxorz"' complaint. One of the very few things I actually didn't like was the "playbook chapter" per class form of presentation.

The CRB is running double duty: it is trying to ease new players into the game (lessen the "barrier to entry") and it is a reference work. The glossdex is excellent and I think addresses your concern.

Had they gone the other route -- have a word's definition in only one place, have all class feats grouped together for conceptual congruity's sake, but still only available to certain classes -- then the complaint would have been "There's too much page flipping." I rather like the route they took with this edition.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 is just flat out a great game. My experiences has shown me that the people who complain about it not having options and not being as deep as PF1 have not played PF2. Their complaints reek of an opinion rooted in fiction instead of fact.

I run two monthly events and the players have embraced PF2 wholeheartedly. The fence sitters played one session and came back for a second. After that they went and bought CRBs. The local game stores have sold out their initial orders and gone back for more. I can't schedule PF1 sessions because the last time I tried nobody wanted to play them. The PF2 tables were full and overflowing.

The nice thing is that PF1 is still there. Those who want to play can play it. Nobody is preventing them from playing it. So really, these arguments are kind of silly. Just play what you want to play and have fun.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
The nice thing is that PF1 is still there. Those who want to play can play it. Nobody is preventing them from playing it. So really, these arguments are kind of silly. Just play what you want to play and have fun.

All true! But my understanding is that sherlock1701's stated goal on the PF2 forums is to complain so much and so loudly that Paizo itself goes back to PF1. So the fact that they can still play PF1 (and presumably do) isn't going to deter them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, sherlock.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That, or that PF3 will be more like PF1, which means we're in for a decade of constructive criticism.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quote:
Simply iterating on the same game engine was not enough. The 3.5 engine has had its day, and as a team we decided that it was time to modernize, to create a version of Pathfinder that was more than just tinkering around the edges.

This line of thinking is why Pathfinder 2e is the first time I've revisited anything d20-based in nearly a decade. The 3.5e engine left a bad taste in my mouth, despite extensive play. The 4e engine was my favorite iteration, but I often felt like a minority in that regard; I gave Pathfinder 2e a try based on comparisons made between the two.

Pathfinder 2e gave me everything I missed about 4e, but nothing I didn't:

- Classes that feel diverse and highly customizable instead of homogenous
- Intuitive systems built on solid underlying math that won't require volumes worth of splat to fix
- More prewritten content than I know what to do with instead of the usual impractical bloat
- Thriving organized play instead of what seemed to be a barely extant community
- Engagement with the player-base instead of spitting products out from some corporate bunker

I wouldn't have ended up trying and loving Pathfinder 2e if the developers hadn't committed to giving the game a fresh identity. I'm really happy they did it "the hard way" despite the associated risks and gargantuan effort.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


I find myself appreciating rules I used to just hate dealing with, so the fact that literally every rule was examined is basically a bonafide truth.

THIS. Its not like us GMs never had to deal with “vague, imprecise, and precise” concepts before. Now figuring it out has been done for us vs at the game table.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been using the Pathbuilder2E app. Makes a first level character in about less than 10 minutes.
And the editable PDF it exports... just great.
(At this point in time, the PDF doesn't come fully filled out. I had to go and check boxes for proficiencies. But once they're checked, the number values change to reflect it).

I am running Plaguestone. My group loves it.
And I'm playing in a PF2 Strange Aeons (we changed over mid-campaign).
So far it's a really exciting system.
Can't wait for more setting books and adventures.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhiani32 wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


I find myself appreciating rules I used to just hate dealing with, so the fact that literally every rule was examined is basically a bonafide truth.

THIS. Its not like us GMs never had to deal with “vague, imprecise, and precise” concepts before. Now figuring it out has been done for us vs at the game table.

Exactly.

It also makes interacting with the new rules for visibility even easier to manage.

The parts of the game that really just need to be there to enable the GM to run the fun parts of the game area already done, and done well.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
We knew, from the outset, that the story of the game had to remain the same, even if the rules that made it manifest needed to change.

Unfortunately I do not find that this is true, and it's the primary reason I won't be playing Second Edition. The story of my Druid using Goodberries to help feed the survivors of Phaendar simply does not work with the new version of the spell. That story is gone, and any changes made to "make it work" create a new story. This is true for numerous changes made throughout the system, to the point where I don't consider the Campaign Setting in the editions to be the same. Things just feel too different. I've mostly moved to more narrative systems, so a game that is constantly telling me how I should play in a setting I have no investment in just really doesn't interest me.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
We knew, from the outset, that the story of the game had to remain the same, even if the rules that made it manifest needed to change.

Unfortunately I do not find that this is true, and it's the primary reason I won't be playing Second Edition. The story of my Druid using Goodberries to help feed the survivors of Phaendar simply does not work with the new version of the spell. That story is gone, and any changes made to "make it work" create a new story. This is true for numerous changes made throughout the system, to the point where I don't consider the Campaign Setting in the editions to be the same. Things just feel too different. I've mostly moved to more narrative systems, so a game that is constantly telling me how I should play in a setting I have no investment in just really doesn't interest me.

Yeah, if your stories hinge on single specific spells being cast at the exact right level with no substitutes accepted (such as a custom spell or ritual), then edition changes are not for you.


Corrik wrote:
Quote:
We knew, from the outset, that the story of the game had to remain the same, even if the rules that made it manifest needed to change.

Unfortunately I do not find that this is true, and it's the primary reason I won't be playing Second Edition. The story of my Druid using Goodberries to help feed the survivors of Phaendar simply does not work with the new version of the spell. That story is gone, and any changes made to "make it work" create a new story. This is true for numerous changes made throughout the system, to the point where I don't consider the Campaign Setting in the editions to be the same. Things just feel too different. I've mostly moved to more narrative systems, so a game that is constantly telling me how I should play in a setting I have no investment in just really doesn't interest me.

I actually changed my homebrew setting to fall more in line with the new rules; specifically, I advanced the timeline and added some events to explain why magic is different now (wizards have more limited spell lists; ranges of spells have changed radically, people cast their cantrips more often now, etc. etc.) and even changed the setting some thematically to reflect reduced character strength in general (the world has become more threatening/dark).

I think it is silly that Paizo isn't doing the same with the new edition, but at the same time, I don't really care because I don't care about Golarion nor does anyone I play with really. Only crunch for me. Fluff be damned.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Yeah, if your stories hinge on single specific spells being cast at the exact right level with no substitutes accepted (such as a custom spell or ritual), then edition changes are not for you.

My stories hinge on continuity. Changing details around willy nilly is no different than creating an entirely new story. P1E Goodberry creates 2d4 berries that each count as a meal and last 1 day/lv. Each casting only took 6 seconds so was easily a part of my morning preparations. P2e Goodberry takes 1 hour to cast and creates 1 berry that only lasts a day. This is a directly observable and measurable change and one that actively interferes with the events of the story as it unfolded. I could accept if something changed about the magic of the world to cause the spell to work differently than it did 10 years ago. I can not accept that Goodberry "always worked this way, it doesn't matter, figure it out", which is the general assumption of the current setting. If things are going to change so much that it requires all that effort, then I don't want to have to deal with the bugbears of D20 rolling and Vancian magic. Now if they had a different dice system and had given Words of Power a new go, maybe I would consider it worth my time. But as it stands, I do not find the system or the setting to be doing things for me. I find a pile of things I need to do for it.

Quote:
I actually changed my homebrew setting to fall more in line with the new rules

None of my homebrew settings use the Pathfinder system so that isn't really an option for me.


Corrik wrote:
Quote:
I actually changed my homebrew setting to fall more in line with the new rules
None of my homebrew settings use the Pathfinder system so that isn't really an option for me.

If making a whole new setting is too much work, you can always just modify Golarion to suite your needs. In my setting, I changed which gods had primacy currently. You can always employ a good old fashioned "Sundering" or some such shenanigans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could also run a final hurrah of a PF1 game involving high level play and gods at war, then have the aftermath be PF2. Maybe a nature god took a hit, thus the slowing of goodberry, but a martial god did well, giving the people more combat prowess. Dont make it a chore, make a story out of it

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: New Edition the Hard Way All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.