Gambler

Hythlodeus's page

962 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 962 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
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:
Richard Crawford wrote:

One of the advantages of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is that there are whole sections that you can conditionally skip reading. For a new player, this is invaluable.

Not playing a caster? Don't worry about chapter 10. Not the GM? Ignore chapters 12 through 15. Starting at level one? Ignore chapter 11.

Isn't this true for PF2 as well? Non casters don't need to read spells, and 1st level characters needn't read the Advancement or Treasure chapters.

Certainly none of my players so far have read the entire book AFAIK. Or even most of it.

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


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:


That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?

Ongoing support. A game without support is dead


Douglas Muir 406 wrote:


Of course, none of this will stop people from sighing wistfully about Second Darkness.

Doug M.

Well, "Pathfinder" 2 stopped me from doing that. Even Second Darkness doesn't deserve to be wasted by the PF2 treatment


10 people marked this as a favorite.

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:


Accept that a dwarf in heavy armor is slow to the point of utter tactical uselessness without the feature. Even the most incompetent general would just out-maneuver them. Other species don't have this problem.

this quote somehow reminds me of the game Thud . I agree it is hard to win, playing the Troll side, but not impossible


ChibiNyan wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I'd say it is still mostly INT.

CHA has it's uses in that Spell Point/Resonance/whatever it is called now pool and STR as stated above still increases your damage somewhat.
INT is now the only ability score that doesn't do anything useful, especially with the way the Skill system "works" now.
So...expect a lot of really stupid characters in your games now
At least better than in PF1 since it won't go down to 8 this time.

If you use point buy in PF1, sure.


IIRC it wasn't even a Wizard/Fighter combo but a flat Wizard with INT as obvious dump stat and STR as main stat. the general swinginess of the new system and the wizard critting more often (and hitting slightly more often) than the Barbarian (sheer luck, I guess) made him dealing a little more damage over those two sessions than the Barbarian as a result. I'm not sure the effect would have been the same without maxing STR, though.

(And yes, +1/level is obviously also a huge factor here, but just mentioning that there is a problem with +1/level usually leads to Jason closing the thread, so for the sake of keeping the thread alive, just pretend +1/level is a gift from the gods and nothing better could ever happen to not only RPGs but to gaming in general)


PhoenixSunrise wrote:
casters who won't even use it for damage

won't they? because one of my playtest players built a wizard with high STR just to see if he could outperform the barbarian character in melee combat. (based on that players theory that PF2 barbarians are seriously underperforming)* and, well, they were about the same level without the wizard's spells

*that was between the 1.3 and 1.4 updates, so the new 1.6 classes might differ, we haven't had the chance to playtest since that update came out


I'd say it is still mostly INT.
CHA has it's uses in that Spell Point/Resonance/whatever it is called now pool and STR as stated above still increases your damage somewhat.
INT is now the only ability score that doesn't do anything useful, especially with the way the Skill system "works" now.
So...expect a lot of really stupid characters in your games now


thank you


Meraki wrote:

I like this because it provides more minor benefits rather than one or two major ones, though it is more complex than the existing system. Personally, I'd like to leave ability scores out of background altogether. I really liked PF1 traits because they were (mostly) smaller benefits, so you could pick one that actually fit your character without feeling mechanically disadvantaged.

My concern with the current system is that I feel it nudges people too strongly toward backgrounds that "fit" their class, and the nature of the math in the system means you can't really make up for that elsewhere until higher levels when your ability scores increase.

Backgrounds in PF2 are probably the only thing I like in that system, because it is very easy as a GM to make ones for your own campaigns without much thiniking on the mechanical side, but I have to agree that leaving Ability Modifiers out of the equation might be preferable


Oooh, shiney!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andostre wrote:
Plenty of people convert 3.5 (and older!) games to PF. I'm not that up on PF2 news, but is it really going to be that difficult to convert mechanics from PF1 to PF2?

maybe not, but why would one do it? for all intents and purposes PF2 is the inferior product to PF1 and the more pressing question is how difficult it will be to convert PF2 material back to PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I asked for nothing


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm almost entirely certain the falchion became a 2h weapon because someone at WotC thought "A scimitar compares to a longsword by trading a die of damage for a higher crit range, we need something similarly analogous for the greatsword... what can I call that."

Since PF2 has neither "crit ranges" nor "3.5 compatibility" we could always fix this, but we'd need another word for "giant scimitar."

Kreigsmesser. The word they're looking for is Kriegsmesser.

Or just Messer. True, it's not as specific, since a Messer could also be a one-handed weapon, but it's at least more correct than Falchion.

breithauptclan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm almost entirely certain the falchion became a 2h weapon because someone at WotC thought "A scimitar compares to a longsword by trading a die of damage for a higher crit range, we need something similarly analogous for the greatsword... what can I call that."

Since PF2 has neither "crit ranges" nor "3.5 compatibility" we could always fix this, but we'd need another word for "giant scimitar."

Nodachi?
Nodachi's are Japanese Greatswords. Since the Katana is an uncommon version of a Longsword (unless you're playing in a Japanese inspired location, in which case the Longsword is the uncommon one), it makes more sense for the Nodachi to just be the same thing for the Greatsword.

A Messer is just a knife. You use it to spread butter on bread. Unless it is a Jagdmesser, because then you use it primarily to cut sausages and bacon.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
PF2 wasn't meant to be competition for PF1

mission accomplished


11 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Yeesh, I feel kinda bad for any Paizo employees reading this thread/checking that poll.

Paizo's success was built on people not wanting a radical edition change. Presenting those same people a radical edition change and expecting a different result than last time? yeah, that was not gonna happen and that should have been clear from the start.

Maybe they will learn something useful from this, but probably not.
I think, what I am trying to say is: they dug that specific hole themselves and should have known better from their own history. my sypmathy for their situation has limits


Favourite Update:

Whichever gave us a slightly better Skill system, because for a brief moment I thought that Paizo is actually moving in the right direction with this, even though it was just a tiny step.
Runner up: Resonance. The removal of Resonance was the most positive thing that happened in the Playtest

What Update did I hate?:

Does the original Playtest Document count as an update? If not, then probably the Ancestry one, because, while a small improvement, it was even smaller than the Skill Update and disappointingly fixed not much and even that only half heartedly.

What Update do I which to have seen?:

Too many to count


4 people marked this as a favorite.

to be honest, the longer we playtest, the longer it seems this all is just a very elaborate prank from Paizo. At least thats my last hope


9 people marked this as a favorite.

another bunch of cosmetic changes, I see. Nothing too inspired and a few of them heading in the wrong direction


2 people marked this as a favorite.

hmmmm, let's see...

LOVE:
.) Backgrounds (easy to create new ones for homebrew campaigns, since the all follow the same model. I really like that)
.) Action Economy (at least on paper. in theory it makes the game easier and faster, in praxis, of course, battles are at least twice as long and since Run-Hit-Hit and Hit-Hit-Hit are often the best options, fights get really boring real quick)
.) Ancestries/Heritage (at least the concept. it's a nice idea to be able to make my dwarves dwarfier as they level up. unfortunately they're not dwarfy at all for the first 13 levels as it is right now, but that's fine tuning that might even happen in the final product)

HATE:
.) Monsters/NPCs build differently to the PCs to a level that the GM has no idea how and where those numbers come from (especially odd since Goblins are a CRB ancestry now, but work very, very different compared to their Bestiary cousins who might as well be a totaly different creature)
.) +Level shennanigans (makes way more problems that it solves if it solves any problems at all. video gamey and not what I want to see in TTRPGs at all)
.) Skill system in general (even if +Level is eliminated, the proficiencies and +/-10 make the skill system inferior to the 3.x engine)

HOUSERULE:
.) Exploration mode will be eliminated
.) If you're from a region that might be considered "exotic", wepons from these region do not count as "exotic" weapon to you, but weapons that might be exotic and strange FOR you count instead
.) NPCs are always build with PC creation rules, monsters analogue to the rules of PF1


-"This is our new game, how dou you like it?"

-"Honestly, it wasn't much fun and I have problems with this, this and that!"

-"Well,...we haven't made it for you, then!"

That dialogue is a very strange way to deal with feedback


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Voted. Certainly not switching unless they suprise me and turn 180° in the opposite direction with almost everything from the Playtest. It simply isn't Pathfinder anymore


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Really, I'm just not sure at all that these things (tight math aside, anyway) are nearly as set in stone as you seem to think they are.
At this point, where I've personally stopped participating in the playtest, for me it's about how optimistic I am about the general direction. Again, I can totally still be wrong. But from what I've seen, the indicators point in a different direction than they do for you.

I'm not necessarily arguing the final game will be to your liking, I'm just saying that evidence suggests that Paizo is willing to change things and, indeed, has made it clear that they are flatly going to do so in the case of spell power level.

Will the final version of spells be powerful enough for you? I have no idea. Heck, I dunno if it will be the right power level for me, either. Will the final game be to your liking in other ways? Again, no idea, though I suspect it will be at least as close to my desires as PF1 is.

But evidence suggests that they are willing to change things, which was my primary point of disagreement with you there (as you said they weren't).

Fair enough. I got kind of a different impression from the last weeks, but explaining that would go into my personal paranoia, which helps nobody. We'll just have to wait it out.
Yeah, they are changing things, and this upcoming Paladin sounds quite substantial (hoping for some Smite action), but the changes so far, are not very big, or daring (except for Resonance, I guess), nothing underlying (chassis, systems, etc); fixing things like spell damage is easy, just like monster math.

as long as they don't fix fundamental flaws of the chassis, like the +level/everything - and they explicitly stated that they don't intend to do that - PF2 will stay a problematic system tht is simply not a worthy successor of what came before. I mean, they can fix a lot of things, untested by us, and publish the book, but if the fundemental flaws are not tackled, then I agree with magnuskn, that PF1 remains the superior product when it comes to at least my desires of what a Fantasy RPG should look - and feel - like


6 people marked this as a favorite.

mostly good changes that improve a very flawed system


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

Here is a fun question. Lets say that instead of a fantasy game, Pathfinder 2E was a superhero game, and high level heroes are basically on par with Superman or Thor or *insert favorite walking battleship here*.

Would the +level to everything thing still be inappropriate? If yes, then what would you replace it with, because 30 goons with handguns should not be a mortal threat to Clark Kent, God of Thunder.

yes it would be and I don't know, I use a completely different system for my superhero roleplay, one that is better suited for that genre


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Azmodael wrote:
I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.
Depends on what immersion you are looking for. I don't consider a game where minor foes remain threats against people who can travel to different planes and challenge ancient dragons to be very immersive. High fantasy, high power heroes are not threatened by minor foes. That's just below their pay grade.

Yeah, what kind of stories let the underdogs win? That never happend in fiction or myths


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(

Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.

For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.

On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.

It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.

By completely eliminating the ability to tell the other type of story.

Well you really can't tell both in the same system.

In PF1 you absolutely could. I know, because I did.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

at least the Goblin NPC could resemble the Goblin PC in some form, that would be a great start. But that is another failure of PF2 altogether and a very different topic.

And PF1 didn't have +1/Level and the deadliness of Goblins and Ancient Red Dragons worked just fine. If PF2 isn't capable of providing that, that's just one more reason to rethink the basics this game is built upon


1 person marked this as a favorite.
scoutmaster wrote:
currently this game is fun to play.

good for you. I sadly can't say that this is true for me.


Megistone wrote:

But you say [...] that it would be ok to you adding 1/2 level to AC.

Why is 1/2 level ok but not full level?

where did you get that from? if you get, let's say, a +2 or +1 dodge bonus to AC in level 4 and a +5 or +3 in level 7, and so forth, depending on class, which is what I suggested, how do you come to the conclusion that this means 1/2 level to AC? preferably, I wouldn't have a +anything at all, but if people want something that acknowledges their dodging got better, seemingly random numbers in strategic levels is a better option than the dull +level to AC (or fractals of those)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
scoutmaster wrote:
giving up level + will create a different game. All will need to be changed. For what?

for a game that looks like it might be fun to play?


Matthew Downie wrote:


Hythlodeus wrote:
Is there any class in PF were AC levels up with the character? Why would it? It is ARMOR class
It's called that, but it also represents ability to dodge. Why should my ability to hit enemies get better with level but not my ability to dodge enemies? That's stupid.

adding higher dodge bonuses to the AC as the characters progress, like every couple of levels or so, is a good idea to reflect that, I agree with that. That would have been a sensible choice, very unlike a general +1/level to everything. that's just needless overkill


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
]I don't know. Obviously "everything", since I replied to a post that suggested that "everything" is based around +1/level. "Everything" seems like a very high percentage to me, opinions on that may vary, of course.
Everything involving a d20, maybe?

so...everything except damage rolls? still sounds like a high percentage

Matthew Downie wrote:
In PF1, a Core Rogue got 2/3 BAB. This is a confusing concept, makes any level where it doesn't go up underwhelming, made multiclassing harder since you lose the fractional BAB, and made it possible for a Rogue to fall behind a pure martial, so that a character who started out perfectly functional eventually got to the point where they could hardly hit anything. +1 BAB/level for everyone fixes that.

if that were so, there still would be other ways to fix it. like, changing the BAB progression for Rogues. but in my experience even Core Rogues have no problems at high levels. Their BAB was on the lower side, but it was still managable to hit enemies and effectivley deal a ton of damage when sneak attacking. but that's just my experience, VMMV

Matthew Downie wrote:


In PF1, that same Rogue got +1/3 Fort Save and Will Save per level. This leads to a character who needs a Cloak of Resistance to live, but still falls further and further behind at higher levels until they get annihilated randomly by a Demilich. +1 Saves/level for everyone fixes that.

yeah, all classes have one or two weak saves. I fail to see the problem here. especially since gear exists to counter that weknesses

Matthew Downie wrote:


In PF1, that same Rogue didn't get better AC as they levelled up. They were massively gear dependent. +1 AC/level for everyone fixes that.

Is there any class in PF were AC levels up with the character? Why would it? It is ARMOR class, why would the gear I wear be affected by my level, or does the Full Plate get experience points too?

Matthew Downie wrote:


I think it's only +1 to all skills as you level up that I dislike.

It certainly is the biggest offender, but levelling up BAB and AC of opponents at the same time is almost equally as stupid as a concept


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

In fact, if you pop over to the "top three positives/top three negatives" thread, you will see that more than one person has listed +1/level in their top three positives of PF2e.

how reliable is that thread to mirror the larger group of gamers? does it include people too frustrated with the PF2 playtest to post on a regular basis anymore? or those so frustrated that they dropped out completely? what about those that would love to post in the thread, but can't find three positive things to post? because I know I love maybe three for ideas of PF2 as iodeas, but find the implementations of those ideas lacking enough that I wouldn't exactly describe my current feeling towards them as 'positive' but as 'meh' at best.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
What's the percentage Hythlodeus? Can you link the data?

I don't know. Obviously "everything", since I replied to a post that suggested that "everything" is based around +1/level. "Everything" seems like a very high percentage to me, opinions on that may vary, of course.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:

I doubt this can even be done with the current system. Everything is based around high bonuses and skill checks based on level be it yours or the opposition. Removing the +level would mean remaking the whole chart of dcs, remaking every enemy in the game... Maybe even the items so the dcs scale differently.

then for the love of whatever is holy, do this. remake it. start over.

if a huge percentage of the game depends on an idea as bad as +1/level, chances are the game turns out to be not very good either. getting rid of it while also reworking the monster building 'rules' (whatever they are, because most monsters don't make much sense anyway as it is now) is the best thing that could happen for PF2


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wulfhelm II. wrote:
Alexander's Einstein

like, Albert Einsteins little brother?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Voss wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.
did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

It's an issue that the rules allow it. Yes a GM can say, "No, don't do this," but it's a good idea to remove rules exploits.

but if there's a flaw in the 20th store of building, one seldom wrecks the whole building and builds a new one that's just 19 stores high.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Voss wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.
did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Voss wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.
did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Voss wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
level to skills you never intended to invest in.

And this right here is the part where I abandonded all hope for the playtest. Expecting your character to be good at everything, not having any weaknesses is just not a gaming style I feel comfortable with and would definately hate to see at my table. It's this entitlement that the Paladin shouldn't suck at sneaking in relation to the Rogue that leads to a mindset that gives us Lvl to ALL skills, even to those that make no sense to have in the first place.

1.2 broadened the field a little bit, opened the gap, but 1.2 just wasn't enough to make the difference big enough, since it kept the horrible level to skills in the system

I'm sure glad mythological heroes weren't cripplingly bad at the vast majority of things they'd encounter, otherwise we wouldn't have myths.

Not having level to skills makes that happen. It leads to "mythological hero" level power in very few aspects, and the inability to jump over a 10 foot pit, or drown in a pond, in the rest.

meh, mythological heroes would find ways around that. could they not think out of the box or cast fly or something? to me, that is to a certain degree what the game is about, to find solutions, to overcome hurdles by being creative, not by not thinking at all, because the math of the game is fixed in a way that no character can suck

edit: Oops, saw Jason's comment just yet. good to know this will be worked on, sad to see it will not be removed. moving on


13 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
level to skills you never intended to invest in.

And this right here is the part where I abandonded all hope for the playtest. Expecting your character to be good at everything, not having any weaknesses is just not a gaming style I feel comfortable with and would definately hate to see at my table. It's this entitlement that the Paladin shouldn't suck at sneaking in relation to the Rogue that leads to a mindset that gives us Lvl to ALL skills, even to those that make no sense to have in the first place.

1.2 broadened the field a little bit, opened the gap, but 1.2 just wasn't enough to make the difference big enough, since it kept the horrible level to skills in the system


5 people marked this as a favorite.

short version: they are way too complicated and bring gameplay to a halt everytime one comes up


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So, we still stick with the Level to everything in 1.5? That's dissappointing. The skill system needs a major rework and the little that has been done so far in that regard can only be consideredas a first tiny step.

Also, no word on reworking the conditions? boy, I hope that's on the agenda for 1.6 at least


24 people marked this as a favorite.
PsychicPixel wrote:

Too many people, I believe, in these threads are trying to equate the Pathfinder Playtest to Pathfinder 1e.

We, on this forum, are here because Paizo has allowed us to assist them in their endeavors in creating a new edition of Pathfinder. All of us obviously care deeply about the Pathfinder system and are excited to see the changes that Paizo has in mind.

This means all of us get very passionate and zealous about the new rules and how we would like to see them changed. Which in the grand scheme is great and I'm sure Paizo appreciates heavily the time and effort each of us are making.

However, I have seen a lot of comparisons made throughout the threads between this new system and 1e. Which makes it difficult to look at what ideas really can improve the Playtest and what is more about just wanting to continue making content for 1e.

I have no problems with people wanting more things for 1e. I think it's great that people are still having ideas for it and fully encourage people to explore those ideas. Perhaps even make some kick-ass third-party products.

But this specific forum, these threads under the banner "Pathfinder Playtest" are here to test, discuss, and improve what will be the Second Edition of Pathfinder. So please stop comparing the two and instead focus on what you'd like to see adjusted about this new system. Create threads about what new feats you would like to see, how you would like to see a new class implemented, perhaps an observation about a rules weakness/strength, or even just a thread asking for clarification. These are the kinds of things that will help shape this new system we are all here to support.

Thank you and have fun Playtesting

Don't worry. The game itself does a really good job reminding everyody that it is not really Pathfinder. I'm sure nobody forgets that, despite the misleadinding Pathfinder 2 title


meh... I was about to answer to the OP until I realized: those APs would be for PF2, so I don't care enough anyway


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


So for folks who have the PF1 CRB, was its layout actually any better? Can you point to how?

yes, yes it was. the reason for that was probably redundancy of information and a more thoughtful, intuitive placing of information. In PF2 no information in the book is redundant, everything is there ONCE, but you have to know exactly where and what you are searching for and even then the information you are looking for is probably somewhere else. the index is sadly no help in that regard. the structure of the PF2 playtest rules is so far removed from what is expected at that point from similar CRBs that most things are placed akwardly counterintuitive.

Look at the "Conditions" for example. Explanations for them are needed in a lot of places in the book, they are needed near the spells that give different conditions (because no explanation is given there), iirc there are Feats that change conditions, but there's no explanation there, and so forth. Instead, they can be found somewhere near the end of the book just right after the Downtime rules for no reason. The CRB of PF1 at least gave little explanations of what a specific condition meant somewhere near effects, spells or whatever that causes them pop up, so that readers could understand how that specific thing was doing before searching that stuff for the next 10 minutes.

Redundancy in that case was good, the Playtest document doesn't provide that and it is hard as hell to navigate it to find what one is looking for.

1 to 50 of 962 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>