So far, I hate 2E, it's the worst of D&D's 4E with 5E gimping. Sure, there was a lot of rules bloat in 1E but you don't have to use everything, if you keep it simple and gradually integrate. However, 2E and D&D 5E will get right back to rules creep because of eonomics, selling one-shot modules and adventure paths don't pay the bills, sourcebooks in which everyone in the group "must own" does.
5e seems to be doing OK so far with a limited release schedule. Paizo likely could too though I think it's unlikely that they'll actually do so.
I do think Paizo would like to put some brakes on the supplement treadmill as well - that business model's pretty much dead as it is and beyond a certain point you're just competing against your own product which means greater overhead/production costs for the same income.
Personally, I don't really care for either game - too modular for my tastes, but there's no point dwelling on that. Just play something you do like instead.
The lack of compatibility between PF2 and its predecessor was both explicitly mentioned by the developers in the lead-up to the playtest well over a year ago and, frankly, was obvious anyway.
The utility of this guide then is primarily for people who don't frequent the Paizo website - ie. not any of us.
Play from the SRD = $0.
Most Move actions, Standard action, etc are treated identically under the rules though which is most definitely not true of PF2 where they're still subdivided up into lots of categories that reflect how they function.
In practice it's no better than PF1 and arguably worse since at least in PF1 almost everything was followed the rules for either standard, move, or full-round.
Been a while since I’ve been on these boards, and a whole new edition of Pathfinder is upon us. I was wondering what some of the changes are between first and second edition. I remember a friend of mine showing me stuff from the playtest, and tbh, I really didn’t like what I saw. But now that the full version is out (or at least, I think it is), what are the major (and any minor) changes between editions?
A lot. Probably be easier to list the similarities.
Both use d20 for their core mechanic
One mustn't underestimate the importance of inertia.
People tend to keep doing what they're doing unless some new force is introduced into their system.
Anyway, I don't think complexity is necessarily THE driving factor, but I do think it's an important one and more likely to dissuade 5e players from trying PF2 than it is to act as a draw.
I'm also not sure 4e was much less complex than 3.5 it just had its complexity in different places than previous editions (and places I'd much rather remain simple and highly abstracted). As for the rest, lots of gamers do freeform RP either instead of, or in addition to, more conventional RPGs.
An anecdote: I was a playtester for Ars Magica 5th Edition and thus learned about Dies Irae and the end of that game-line about a year before the general public and almost instantly things changed.
My saga was largely unaffected and continued until pretty recently, but lot of the mental energy that I had previously devoted to that game and its content was left without an outlet - my interest in new books decreased, I didn't visit the forums as frequently as I used to, and I started looking at other games again - something I hadn't done with any seriousness in almost a decade.
In the end, I spent most of the time and money I put toward gaming getting reacquainted with old friends like Call of Cthulhu and GURPS, but I could just as easily have picked a new system in that turmoil. It didn't matter that I could (and in fact did) just keep playing 5e because playing the game is just one way that I engaged with it.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
The scimitar thing really never made much sense. But really the entire idea of the D&D druid didn't really make much sense when you think about it. Scimitars are nothing like sickles other than both have curved blades, but that was enough to make it the iconic weapon for them. The absurdity of the no metal armor, even though all other metal is fine, just not if it gives an armor bonus has already been discussed. The fey cold iron thing doesn't hold up considering cold iron is a different material than standard iron in Pathfinder, and there is no exception for things like copper where they have no issues at all. The no metal at all version is even more absurd. But even the concept of them being fantasy environmentalists was more or less invented out of whole cloth with some highly romanticized ideas of historical druids for inspiration. Historically they revered nature, as they were animists, but there was none of the "I need to protect the forest from being cut down, even though I use wood all the time." that has come in through D&D. I suspect that came from the times, and the new-age revival that was going on with ties to the growing environmentalism movement. Basically, I blame hippies. So with a mixed up origin like that, it's no surprise that they don't really hold up to scrutiny. But also because it really has little connection to it's inspiration, the grandfathered ideas about what a druid is, are basically all it has.
Well, I mean the scimitar *does* still have a crescent-shaped blade which gives the moon symbolism that's appropriate to both versions of the druid.
I'm guessing very few.
It's all well and good to talk about character customization, 'depth' and so on, but in my experience most groups tend to gravitate towards simpler systems as their players increase in age and experience within the hobby.
It is debatable whether PF2 is more or less complicated than PF1, but it is definitely more complicated than D&D 5e so I just can't see many groups making the change particularly as 5e is at least as ubiquitous as Pathfinder these days if not more so...
New Iconics? I thought there was only one (Fumbrus)
Unknown and probably unknowable.
PF2's mechanics doesn't really seem to have any more in common with D&D 4e than they do with 5e so I don't think there's any direct connection there.
Ultimately though, to what extent, if any, PF2 borrows from 4e is purely an academic matter and the system needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
The only thing it really seems to be actively emulating from 4e is that game's emphasis on tactical movement and combat which, for me, is reason enough to avoid it, but ultimately it will depend on what aspects of 4e you liked or loathed.
This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.
The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.
An interesting position.
How do you feel the PF1 versions of the core and its SRD compare to each other in that respect?
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Agreed. I was recommending perusal of the SRD to get a sense of whether or not PF2 is a system you actually want to learn which I think it should prove adequate for.
As for actually learning the rules from an SRD, it would admittedly be a challenge (at best) due to the layout if nothing else
I'd wait on the SRD before deciding, it's only a few more weeks. That said, we've already made our decision to pass based on the playtest and previews.
Alternately, take a look at the playtest files if you can find them anywhere (I'm told Paizo pulled them from this site). Certain things have no doubt changed in the final draft, but it will give you an idea of the new core mechanics and the general direction the game is headed.
I know it's a joke, but that's what my group and I recently decided to do. We passed originally due to some annoying bits, but with some judicious application of houserules I do think it'll be a better fit for us than PF2...
Magic isn't beholden mortal reckoning (which would likely vary by region anyway) so with month I would presume we're talking about a standard lunar month of 28 days (or whatever the equivalent is on Golarion). Essentially this is the same as Year or Day though the question of whether we're talking about a 'full X' or merely 'until the next X' will likely have to be resolved elsewhere.
My own preference (as a GM) is for strong guidelines that I can then use to make informed decisions as befits the situation. For this reason, I tend to favour lighter systems than PF2 looks to be.
You realize all of this is pointless without some objective measure of whether a given character is 'playable' or not.
Having myself participated in many session with characters that the denizens of this board would decry as non-viable, I really do think some people have very odd standards on this...
Controversial. I'm not sure PF2 solved any of those...
They're all Ability+Skill+d20 at their core they're just adapted to different rates of scaling DCs.
Pass/Fail is easier to adjudicate, more balances, and easier to use in play than the graded model PF2 utilizes.
As for Skill Feats, we've had Feat taxes in 3e and 4e as well. Doing away with the awful things was one of 5e's greatest triumphs.
My limited understanding is that both methods are used in qigong. Colloquially, they're referred to as Buddhist and Taoist breathing and have very different purposes in the meditations, but I can't expound further than that as my personal experiences were both very limited and happened over a decade ago...
I guess I just expected blog to preview something that hasn't been, I dunno, previewed multiple times in the past...
I'm not quite sure why it's a bad thing for a high level character to pick up a feat and gain a bunch of cool benefits. They're quite literally 'legendary' after all.
'Cool' is very subjective and PF2 characters are already cluttered up with large numbers of highly situational abilities that might come up once or twice per campaign if you're lucky.
Sounds like a concept that would work fine with at least 4 existing classes (Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and Sorcerer)
More like 40ish, but that's nipicking.
Even at it's most charitable, however, that seems more like an argument for reigning in the number of Feats - or better yet, omitting them from the game altogether - than for adding even more redundant classes to a game that arguably has too many already.
With the benefit of retrospect, a lot of my complaints with the art have come down to pose and positioning and probably results in the pictures having to be dynamic and exciting, but without anything to give them context.
I may not know why Kyra's standing with her legs spread so wide or why Amiri's making that duck-face, but while they do look a bit weird at times, it's ultimately preferable to the characters looking as though they were posing for DMV photos (Harsk does come close, but it kinda works for a dwarf)
Won't be making the switch myself, but depending on how frequently you conduct sessions, 3 months seems like the ideal amount of time for you to wrap up the main storyline of your current campaign in time to start fresh in August
I can kinda see it with Halfling if you were making them tunnel-dwellers like hobbits - where a lack of collarbones would aid them in wriggling through tight spaces, but in most of the other cases they probably oughtn't to have arms growing out of their necks - it is also possible they're wearing some sort of shoulder-pads under their clothes, I suppose...
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
The old kobolds had an awkward gangly appearance that I found endearing while the new ones look more muscular and imposing to me...
Glad to hear that they've settled the ear thing (for now, at least). Lini does look pretty similar to her previous iteration. She does look a bit taller than before, but that could just be an optical illusion from her being slimmer now.
Droogami's paws almost looks to be plantigrade, however, which is a bit strange.
IIRC, 'The Hobbit' described Dain's army as being armed primarily with axes and mattocks.
Possibly also a nod to the race's origins in Norse mythology.
As far as my own critique goes, this new Harsk seems to lack kneecaps. The expression is interesting too my first thought was some kind of mind-control, but maybe just Dwarven stoicism?