sadly, I have to agree with the OP. The last AP that was up to the earlier standards was Strange Aeons. Every AP since then has been a little bit dissapointing. Return of the Runelords has potential and an interesting premise but it doesn't really live up to it.
Backgrounds are probably the one good thing in PF2, so backrounds earned by playing an AP is an awesome idea. I just hope those Backgrounds can easily be adapted into PF1 traits (and it also would be nice if you go down that path, that the old APs are not forgotten when it comes to those Backgrounds)
James Jacobs wrote:
^THIS might be the best thing I read on this boards for almost a year
James Jacobs wrote:
well, PF2 is still young, I can accept that. Maybe in a month or two?
James Jacobs wrote:
In the same way you can run a 1st edition D&D adventure in Pathfinder 1st edition. I know. I've done that a LOT. It's actually kind of fun revisiting older adventures and converting...
Yeah, I've done that too, back when I had way more time on my hands and were not forced by society to work. Maybe I'll do it again when I'm retired in a couple of decades. In the meantime, I'm happy about any short cut I get.
James Jacobs wrote:
Please give the new rules a chance.
As I said, the Backgrounds look fun.But seriously, I might give the new CRB a chance if I stumble across a free copy of it and maybe the Dwarves feel even dwarfier as was promised, but I just have that feeling it still resembles the playtest version of it and that system just was not fun enough to consider changing from PF1 to a new system.
I'd prefer 1E conversions over D&D5E conversions.
I second that! (since PF1 is the game we're VERY invested (and proud) of, and it's the game we're going to be focusing on playing. It's the game we know, the game we love, and the game we want to spend most of our time supporting. at least when it comes to my gaming groups. other milages may vary)
neither.ideally, I'd prefer a PF1 version but since that ship has sailed, I'm kinda ambivalent to the question. SD would benefit from an update, storywise, but I'd have to convert that updated content back to PF1 anyway.
Maybe after PF2 bombed and Paizo returned to the 3.x ways
I don't think anyone believes this will be the best roleplaying game ever. personally I'm just glad that at the moment the game doesn't look as bad as it looked a week ago
Playtest rulebook pdf wrote:
We’re attempting bold strides in this new edition of the game, but it’s far from finalized. This is where you come in—this book is only a playtest of the final version of the game, which we’ll release in August 2019. Over the next few months, we hope you’ll help us refine the game to make it even better.
refine /rɪˈfʌɪn/ verb make minor changes so as to improve or clarify
if what they were trying to say was "well, major stuff can change of course!", REFINE was a very poor choice of words.
that said, I'm glad major changes happened. Now all I have to do is get that good news that the playtest wasn't at all was the final product will be to my group somehow, so that we might give PF2 another chance
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
"Does a 17 hit?"
in any way faster?
And even those that are core races, depending on the story the GM wants to tell, might not always be playable. I can certainly see not allowing Goblin characters for reasons just like I would not allow Elves if I ever GM Second Darkness
Then why are the loudest and most toxic posters on this forum the ones that are complaining about the changes right now? the ones that made feedback during the playtest on these boards hell for everyone that disagreed with them; the very same people that whine in this very thread the loudest.
I know, but being a nice GM, that I usually am, if my bard wants to sing and the effect doesn't matter in that situation anyway, I let him sing. I'd probably rule it like "Well, you have used up 3 rounds of your performance in the last fight, so in case another fight begins, you will have x rounds left. in the meantime you continue singing with no effect but the effect will start immediatly with a new encounter."
It's not strictly a by-the-rules approach, but if the player decides to continue to shred the same accords on his ukulele for the whole time Roguey McRogueface does his thing the time for going straight into his magic song again would be reduced. It is not a complete illogical train of thought and for me, outside of combat, story and fun trumps a strict ruleset anyway.
Dire Ursus wrote:
GM:Now that the fight is over, you have time to notice the unusual interior of that room. You see a delicately ornated mantlepiece in the east (continues to describe the room in detail)Bard:I'll continue my performance just in case we're getting attacked again while Roguey McRogueface searches around.
Are you trying to tell me that scenario wasn't possible in PF1?
I actually don't think that exploration mode will make it into the final product. it adds nothing to the game, takes most of the RP elements out of it and I highly doubt most groups that finished DD used that mode till the end of the playtest. I suspect most of them ditched it after chapter 2 if not earlier. Luckily, even if it would make it into the final product it is so easy to be simply ignored
while I agree, the thing is: I KNOW why the Dwarves don't feel dwarfy and therefore it is easier for me to come up with my tables own version of Dwarves and Dwarf-related feats within an otherwise working system than changing a system that doesn't work but get the Dwarves right. Or, as presented in the playtest, a system that doesn't work AND sucks at getting Dwarves right.Of course, I'd prefer a system that works AND provides us with dwarfy Dwarves, but the dwarfiness of Dwarves is, for me at least, easier to fix if necessary
probably exactly the same I felt in PF1 whenever I used a waepon I hadn't invested in the proficiency for it. maybe even better, because I don't have a -4 malus and in PF2 it is still ridiculously easy to roll a crit
as long as you can be untrained, it effectivly is. and I'm pretty sure not every character starts being trained in every weapon group.Saves are uneffected though, and as such less diverse than in PF1. that's unfortunate, but someting I can actually live with
Well, to be fair, the Paladin not working like a Paladin or the Dwarf not being nearly dwarfy enough to be considered a Dwarf or some spells being nerfed into uselessness are very, very minor things compared to the +level mechanic that was the broken backbone of the PFPlaytest system. Those things can easily be rewritten or adapted or houseruled if necessary (although I'd prefer to not have to do that extra work myself of course).
getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Thank Cthulhu, they came to their senses
Dante Doom wrote:
that's awesome. A huge, HUGE, step in the right direction.
Now, let's make the NPC/monster building rules similar enough to PC building rules, so that it is not longer completely immersion breaking, fix a couple of classes, fix the ancestries, rework most of the spells, throw item levels in the trash bin and we MIGHT have a system that sounds fun to play.
But the Proficiency rework alone is worth butting heads with a lot of...erm..not so nice people in a lot of threads over the last few months. There is progress made right here and with the exception of monster building rules all the important changes that still need to be made are minor compared to fixing the +Lvl to untrained stuff madness
Gee, I wonder how the hobby survived that long if GMing was that hard for all these decades. Only a handful of geniuses mastered that art and I guess they must have found a way to GM on all tables worldwide at almost the same time./s
I agree that there are two different problems that are phrased as "+Level", one, the most severe one, imo, is the +Level to skills, the other one is the lack of variety that occurs when every class progresses at the exact same rate in saves and BAB.
right here, Darksol. while I agree it is possible, it feels, looks and reads wrong and is the most inelegant solution a RPG system can provide.(why on Earth my response to that post shows up as being postet right bfore that post, only the Gods of Forum Software will understand, though)
idk. maybe the 3 action economy, but that's an Unchained thing anyway. I had hopes for the Ancestry/Heritage feats, but those need a lot of fixing. Other than that, I'll stay with the houserules I always use and hope some other company will pick up the 3.5 legacy
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You realize, of course, we agree on this, right? that was my whole point
And there were a lot of percieved problems with PF that I never ran into. different tables, different games.And if your fine with your shiney new game, more power to you, I hope you enjoy it.
I don't think there is anything in this statement that I don't disagree vehemently with. This perception is so far removed from my gaming experiences or thos I play with, so far removed from any reality I know, that I honestly don't believe we're playing the same games here.
Because, since every character can now sneak and use his Knowledges and is basically feeling the same, the ability to cast spells was the only thing to make some classes stand out. And the Gods forbid that some classes provide variety and difference. So rituals are a way to let characters, whose players willingly chose to create as martials and not as spellcasters, to perform magic, because somehow it is unfair that they can't.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
because it is still a better game than anything presented in this playtest
Skills only if you had a minmax playstyle focussing on a handful of skills. the other skills, really did not. your character could totally suck at a skill even at high levels if you chose to create him that way. a choice, now taken away from the player. Likewise BAB was +Level only for selected classes, while other classes had fractals of that. That brought variety to the table, variety is a thing that doesn't exist in PF2 where every character feels more or less the same, because the numbers on the sheet don't allow for mechanical differences
Saves, and DCs went up with +Level/2 in PF1.
Again, depending on the class and with variety that isn't there in PF2
In order to keep pace with the opposition, you were expected to keep your armor class above like 17+Level by relentlessly upgrading your magic gear in PF1.
idk. Over the course of 18 levels I changed armor maybe twice and added Bracers of Armor once, IIRC. Mostly because my character found the loot, not because I actively needed it. I might have been behind a little of what's expected AC wise, but then I chose not to update my armor every given chance and again, that's a choice taken away from me.Not that it matters anyway. +Level to both BAB AND AC cancel each other out and all that is left is unnecessary number bloat just for the sake of a fake feeling of progression.
If they are smart, they should concentrate on making PF2 a buyable product before announcing APs for that system. And I doubt, considering the current state PF2 is in, that we will see an AP announcement for PF2 in 2019.
If I have to have only one plea than that's to rethink what your definition of the word "edition" is.
the second edition of a novel usually doesn't change the plot and structure, even if it is a revised edition. The second edition of Moby Dick didn't add sharks with laserguns, made Moby Dick lose his ancestral ability to swim and changed the point of view to one of a seagull passing by Ahab's ship.
PF2 is not a new edition. It is not Pathfinder at all. It is a new, different game. If you want to produce and sell a new game, that's totally fine, just don't call it a Pathfinder Second Edition just as I don't call a novel about a seagull watching a whaling ship catain in a three way fight with a stranded whale and sharks with laserguns "Moby Dick".
Dread Moores wrote:
If these potential "two guys in the basement" can continue to produce APs and modules with the same amount of maps, artwork, editing, proofing, and layout without ever needing to involve any other art, editing, or layout staff...
tbf, artwork and maps are edition independant unless PF2 chnges lore to a degree that the people depicted in the artwork would have to change their look drastically.Editing, proofing and layout are, I guess, were the cost factor comes in, still I fail to see how it is economical more sound to alienate over a third of the customers than to use the additional ressources necessary to provide PF1 versions of the content
Emotionally, I'd like to continue receiving PF1E adventures.
See, this is what I don't get about Paizo's decison to discontinue PF1. Small, 3rd parties manage to publish their adventures simultanously for different systems without problems. You can buy the same adventure in either PF1 or 5Ed and even more obsure systems. And those 3rd party publishers are basically, at least in my mind, one guy who writes those module at weekends in his basement.
Paizo can probably afford at least two guys in their basements to write on their holidays too and yet it is seemingly out of the question to write future APs and modules not only for the 17% who are determined to switch to PF2 as soon as possible but for the 35% who intend to stick with PF1 too.
Everybody would win. Those, who like the playtest, those who found their home in 3.x 18 years ago and all those inbetween who are undecided at the moment
Captain Morgan wrote:
idk, the information is all over the place in this one and always where you expect it last. 80% of the character creation proces is scrolling to different parts of the book, somtimes in the middle, sometimes right before the end, back to first 50 pages or so, back to the middle part and so on and one still has no idea how the character works
Ongoing support. A game without support is dead
It means choices and options, it means freedom for all the participants in telling the stories we cooperatively want to tell and it means being the true inheritor of the 3.x system that we fell in love with 18 years ago. All of this, paired with quality Adventure Paths as support.
Aside from the APs, PF2 sadly will be nothing of this. It will just be another TTRPG
Frozen Yakman wrote:
this quote somehow reminds me of the game Thud . I agree it is hard to win, playing the Troll side, but not impossible
If you use point buy in PF1, sure.