I don't even see a "Weapon Finesse"-style "Dex to damage" under Rogues. What am I missing?
But that doesn't sound too bad. The couple of points that you lose out on from not specializing in Strength doesn't seem like it makes a big difference, other than a little bit of flavor: trading a little more defense for raw power, but both can strike pretty accurately. Cool.
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
Question: Is there a way to get Dex to unarmed damage?
By the rules, yes, I'd say so. The engine alone is rebuilt to do what it originally wanted to do, and seeks to address the inherent (and ancient) flaws of the old 3.x engine. This is just based on the playtest; the final version looks to be even better, but I'll know more tomorrow.
Keeping in mind, the answer to your question and will always be purely subjective.
Hm. Well, I suppose I'll have to see how it plays out!
If only the PDFs would drop early! Siiiiiiiiigh. Two more days? I don't think I have enough HP to survive the deprivation....
Monks don't get Legendary in unarmed, one of their signature specialties, but Fighters do?
I'm okay with some of it, but Perception is an issue for me, too. Monks, for example, are often noted for their keen insight, and their ability to see things that others cannot. I want my Monk to be able to have Legendary Perception. Heightened senses and keen perception in general are, to me, one of the most important abilities to have. One of my favorites. Is there no way for my Monk to ever have Legendary Perception?
Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Long time to wait! I suppose I can get a good enough feel for it to just wing it until then, but I am really looking forward to having something to tinker with!
Blizzard Games is a great example of this exact thing. They had a record year...then fired 800 people, have all but completely sold their souls to the Chinese market and laws, tanked Heroes of the Storm (which was my favorite MMO), started focusing heavily on the mobile market (including an outsourced-to-China "Diablo" game that's just a reskin of an existing game), and basically forgot who they used to be. The company's nearly as bad as EA now. Hearthstone has some of the greediest lootbox-style mechanics ever seen in a game. "Sense of pride and accomplishment" indeed.
I never play human characters, either, and the idea of being limited in what classes I can take, and to what levels I can advance them, in comparison to the humans was frustrating. Or yeah, not being able to roll well enough to play a certain class is, while when I was a kid it was thrilling, now just an exercise in frustration and false exclusiveness.
Of the many overarching assumptions 3E changed, more freedom and flexibility was one of the best.
And I want to point out that I'm fine with max. HPs, I just still might want to house-rule them in my games. I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks. This expression comes from an Undermountain campaign years and years ago; one PC was an elven fighter with vastly superior stats (Str 18/96, Dex 18, Con 17, etcetera), while others had 14s or 15s in their prime attributes. It wasn't really fun to play in that particular campaign.
I remember those days, as well. I started GMing at the tender age of...ten? With AD&D 2E, I think. I do remember the days of rolling my character's attributes, and HP, and I definitely don't miss it. I very much like the way that PF2E does it, myself. Rolling a 1 sucked. I know we were often allowed by one GM to reroll 1s, but then I would get a 2 or 3, and it just wasn't very fun. The rolls I want to matter are the ones taken for in-game actions, rather than vital character attributes.
Even so, I do hope they have an option for you. The default assumption they're running with is much more to my taste, but it wouldn't take much word count to give you an optional rule you're looking for, I think.
That's not possible. It wouldn't even exist unless a PC was there looking for it, by those rules and the logical extension thereof. Unless the GM is literally rolling for every single possible item ahead of time, regardless of whether any PC ever even visits that shop, its existence remains in a state of flux even by PF1 rules until looked for by a PC.
So, the concept I threw together here is actually one that has interested me for a while. I'd like to make a warrior of some kind that only uses a shield—sometimes offensively, but really focuses on defense, being a bastion that doesn't break.
What's the closest we can get to that in 2E, do you think? Even a warrior with the shield who can also heal her allies would be cool.
Sometimes, I still hear the sounds. The fires, the shouting, the grunts and the laughter and the hooves. I remember when they came for us. Our little farming village wasn't prepared. Our warriors were too few. We had pitchforks, they had spears. We had slings, they had crossbows. We had swords, they had those terrible, terrible teeth. They burned and tore and shattered everything I ever knew.
I saw something gleaming in the bloodstained grass. A shield, the only one we had. I picked it up, struggling under the weight of it. I watched as my people fell to the blades of the enemy. I watched as some fell on their own swords instead of being captured and dragged away. I watched as weapons drank life after life in the hands of the ruthless.
I raised my shield and I screamed.
Ten years later, and I still hear it. I hear it when I find a town under siege. When brigands raid in the night. When some spell goes awry and the dead rise. The only thing that quiets it is when I raise my shield. In honor of my people's memory. In defense of others. When I hear the clang of metal on metal, when I push back the monsters, then I push back the nightmares.
I swore that day that I would never pick up a weapon. I would stand as a shield between the defenseless and the wicked. Those behind me would not fall as long as I could lift my shield-arm. And I have not stopped protecting those who cannot protect themselves since that day.
So you think you can break me? I stand here still in defiance of your cruel might. I will not fall here today. They will not be yours to claim. Begone, for today you have met an impassable wall! You are but a droplet hurtling itself against the cliffs. I have weathered tidal waves. Begone, fiend, for my shield is unbroken.
I am unbroken.
This is more or less just a repeat of your previous couple points but again I don't really get this one. A new player is less likely to make a broken character under the naive assumption the designers presented reasonable options for them to take and the game is less likely to collapse under heavy optimization, but that's not "little reward for system mastery"... that's just a system that's better balanced.
This is a big one for me. "System mastery" should never be a thing. New groups shouldn't go to a book, pick stuff that looks cool and fun, only to find out that they made such a suboptimal choice the game is breaking around them. The idea of min-maxing every last +1 and that the game SHOULD have trap choices is, to me, so adversarial, and so antithetical to what I enjoy when playing with the rules, that if it disappeared entirely tomorrow the RPG world would be better for it.
Wow. Almost literally every single item you mention and every detail is the opposite of how I feel, and in fact all of these things are why I'm excited for 2E. You'll definitely be better off with 1E, and thankfully so, because if 2E was that much like 1E, I wouldn't be playing it.
Sounds cool! Also, if you're the same Fobok on RPOL, then you're the one who was interested in my game. :)
Norrath could be a very fun game world, with both familiar races (elves, dwarves, halflings) and some funky additions of their own (iksar, erudites, etc.).
Trolls and Ogres are another! I also liked how the races in EQRPG were very powerful. But I love the flavor and the abilities of the Iksar, and so I definitely have considered running stuff in that setting.
One thing the EQRPG did that won't be done here, though I am hoping someone comes up with rules for it, is that it used a magic points system. But I don't think that's absolutely necessary.
About the only quibble I've got with the setting is how many of it's evil gods are gods of stuff that nobody would worship, like fear or hate or disease. (Nobody names a day or month or planet after a Greek or Roman or Norse god of those things! Give me sun gods or war gods or love gods or gods of fate. Some of those can be evil, not gods of bad childish sith lord 'these feelings are bad' reductionist psychology!)
Maybe not, but seeing what some folks "worship" (both literally and figuratively) in our world, I'm not so sure it's that unbelievable. However, this is an easy thing to fix, I think.
One huge bonus to off-line play is having a GM who can skip you past the boring parts and zip right to the fun bits!
Absolutely! Though one thing I am looking forward to doing is making the exploration parts fun and engaging, both mechanically and narratively. My Breath of the Wild-inspired game very much has exploration and survival stuff as a focus, and I think it'll work out very well.
Chrono Trigger (the greatest CRPG of all time!) does this a lot, and yes. I love love LOVE things that are engaging and dynamic in terms of environments and layered rules and setpieces. So, goblin archers standing atop a crumbling cliff that you can collapse with some well-placed shots. Part of the floor having given way to lava, and the smoke elementals keep weaving in and out of the noxious fumes. Giant spiders keep dropping down from the ceilings and stringing webs across the room, restricting movement—or you can cut the creatures struggling in their webs free (accidentally or intentionally!), introducing more chaos into the fight! Heck, you could roll on a small random table to see just WHAT you let free!
This game can't come out soon enough. Wish they could bump up the release date! I want to get into a PBP, and I want to start mine!
Cori Marie wrote:
I would love to! What time is the stream? What is your stream called? Though I fear taking away subs from others, but I do greatly appreciate it.
Cori Marie wrote:
And if you do want a sub, and can't afford it, I do try to give some away during Oblivion Oath, and I'll try to give some away during these too!
Having just conquered homelessness and finally gotten into a place again, money is needless to say tight! So I am very interested in this. So it's on Twitch?
I think the game will work just fine for less combat-heavy games. The one I'm setting up now is very Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild-inspired, in that a lot of it is going to be exploration, survival, and uncovering ruins and things (all of which I'll give XP for, in addition to combat), that kind of thing.
But I like high fantasy, so I wouldn't want to really get rid of it. What you do is take inspiration from bigtime mythological stories and other media. If the PCs are now like gods, cool, get them involved directly in the machinations of the gods as peers, rather than mere uppity mortals who challenge them. Have them take on more abstract challenges. Starvation, wars over resources, plagues, natural disasters (on a vast scale). Have them go to other realms and do the things high-level PCs do. They can still face challenges that you can't just beat up and still need strategy to overcome, such as a league of gods, social upheaval, or that kind of thing.
Even at lower levels, I don't tend to run games that are one fight after another. Not that there's anything wrong with such a game, but what I enjoy most is immersion in a high fantasy world, so I really strive to help bring it to life through exploration, interaction, and so on.
Wish I could get an advance copy to write a review or something! I'm impatient. I'm getting my game forum setup on RPOL, and I have lots of ideas for an exploration-and-survival-heavy game with underlying mystery and grand adventure seeds (a la Breath of the Wild). But not having the rules makes it tough to do more than put concepts together.
This is gonna be one long brainstorm!
That was going to be my response. I'm not interested in any of the PF1 rules. I don't play it currently because, although the Paizo folks seem like real class acts and they put high quality production values into their games, the rules in PF1 are not something I enjoy playing with. PF2 looks a heck of a lot more my speed and I'm very, very excited about it. I've even begun setting my "Breath of the Wild"-inspired game over on RPOL in anticipation of the rules coming out.
"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
The idea that "fail forward" inherently removes character agency is, I think, a completely backward way to look at it. Rather, the concept lends itself more readily to embodying player agency than anything. It's a way of saying "This action matters." Pass or fail, you're doing it because it has some kind of meaning to your part in the story. After all, if it didn't, you wouldn't be doing it. And "matters" doesn't even have to mean dice rolling. Your character may choose to give the last bit of water in their canteen to the haggard wanderer in the desert, only to find out that the wanderer was the son of a powerful lord having escaped his captors, and gain an ally in the region—and an enemy in those who kidnapped the prince.
If the action matters, then the agency is in simply undertaking it, in being the reason that it matters. Nowhere in any great story do you see the heroes thwarted with no chance of learning from the event. In fiction, there is no such thing as a binary pass/fail upon which the entire narrative hinges. Failure often has more interesting consequences than successs. Frodo is captured in Mordor because they failed to sneak past Shelob. He's stabbed on Weathertop because they failed to avoid the Ringwraiths. And Sauron is defeated ultimately because he failed to account for someone thinking differently than him, that his enemies would only seek to destroy the Ring and not use it (thus falling prey to it). There are many, many thousands of examples of this.
The concept of still gaining something, or being able to progress in some way, to change the game state and the story, that's what "failing forward" means. It doesn't mean "you just unlock the door anyway." If it wasn't important to have a chance of failure, you'd not bother rolling. Maybe you trigger a trap that looses an avalanche of rocks that damage the party but also the door, allowing the stronger characters to force it open. Maybe you alert the orcs on the other side, who open the door, but now you're in a fight you might have avoided.
There are a lot of ways to do this, and not every single action ever needs to have such dramatic potential. But the idea that it removes player agency is, to me, strange, when "nothing happens" is the most agency-robbing result possible.
Jesikah, Elven Monk out in search of wisdom and growth, trying to make the world a better place by her journeys.
Alyssah, her sister, a Druid who seeks a true connection with the primal wilds (and has a love for dinosaurs!).
Seryna, an Elven Champion who adventures with bright steel and a brighter heart and smile.
And a few others, mostly Elves, like a Sorcerer, maybe a Rogue or two!
Evan Tarlton wrote:
I'm looking forward to trying a couple different non-Golarion campaign settings. Forgotten Realms is one, but also Norrath of EverQuest. The EQRPG did some fun stuff with D20 back in the day, and the setting is amazing. Cabilis and the Iksar alone are going to be worth converting (the very first Ancestry I'm going to homebrew and share on the forums is the Iksar!).
I want to do a very Breath of the Wild-inspired open-world kind of game. Lots of survival, exploration, and noncombat adventuring. Ancient mysteries to uncover, new vistas to find, all of which I plan to grant XP in the form of quest-style rewards. That's the cool part about it being standardized to 1000 XP. It makes this sort of thing easy.
I'm looking forward to creating monsters of all stripes, because I love to do that. Customizing foes is so much fun to tinker with; being able to build NPCs and stuff the same way, if I choose, is so great. I can't wait.
I'm looking forward to skills mattering now. To having stuff to do besides hit things or blast things. To finding a way to immerse my group and I in a fantasy setting and really breathe life into it, but by blending rules with narrative much more seamlessly than before.
Most of all, I'm looking forward to playing Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
This is pretty much why I have grown to like a lot of the narrative-based games of recent years. It changes the dynamic. Binary pass/fail isn't as interesting to me as, say, FFG's Star Wars games, where you can fail but with some advantage, or succeed but with a complication, and the narrative that unfolds as a result makes the character's actions matter just that much more. It's a way of saying, "Your character has chosen to undertake this action, so it has meaning, whether you succeed or fail."
Looks good. I can't wait to really put all the exploration rules to the test. I've got a Breath of the Wild-inspired game I'd like to run, and I enjoy even whole sessions of non-combat, just exploring remote locations and ancient ruins, dealing with traps and environmental hazards, and taking in the scenery.
Looks amazing! I can't wait to create a character. As Elves and Monks are my favorite, I shall be creating Jesikah, an Elf Monk, who has completed her training and now journeys the world in search of wisdom, growth, and making the world a better place through her own self-improvement and discovery.
While I have many characters I want to play, this is my favorite and the one I'm looking forward to playing most!
I think just using level as your differentiator is a better way to go here, with the appropriate social contract with your playgroup, of course. That way, no one is going to feel like one option is always better, and that you'll always be inferior, even at the same level, to the character with the more powerful ancestry.
That all it is? Nice. I'm still going to see if someone can grab me a copy at GenCon, but I do all my playing online anymore, so I am very interested in knowing it's such a good price point!
Ah, well, you never can tell. The joke didn't come across very well in the written medium, especially in the history of many forum debates about this very thing. I'm familiar with Drizzt, but if that was a joke, well, there are a lot of people who legitimately feel that Rangers can be boiled down to just those components, and (obviously) I disagree strongly. If it was meant to be purely sarcasm, then please ignore my reply to it.
I think that's one of the big parts of the issue, really. The Ranger (and the Rogue, to a lesser extent) need something to set them apart. Otherwise, we end up in "Why isn't this just a Fighter with a focus on two-weapon fighting and wilderness skills?" territory. Ideally, to me, the Ranger should be as different from a Fighter as is, say, a Monk. Which means lots of esoteric abilities and strengths not purely combat-aligned, but then again, I'm also of the opinion that Fighters should get access to lots of skills (and probably be called "Warrior" or something to represent a more holistic approach, like many historical warriors who were skilled combatants but possessed broad skill sets).
I think it's possible to create a separate niche for Rangers and Rogues with Fighters, but it definitely needs something strong to ground its core identity as anything different. Even just being a scout isn't much of a niche; a high-perception Monk or Rogue or even a mage of some kind with access to lots of sensory magics could easily fulfill that role. Rangers need something strong.
Ranger is a person with bow (or twin scimitars) and a pet. That's the Core Identity of the class. Anything beyond that is projecting your personal preferences that aren't shared by people who associate the D&D range with the above archetype.
There's nothing at all remotely "this is classic Ranger" about that. A Fighter could easily have a bow (and should) or twin scimitars, and why not a pet? "Rangers tend to be experts in ranged weaponry, graceful dual-wielding, hunting and wilderness skills, and the innate ability to bond with wild beasts" is a little more Ranger-ish, but just "two weapons/bow and pet" doesn't scream any kind of unique core identity to me.
I like the idea of Rangers gaining access to spells or just getting more Monk-like mystical abilities tied to the wilderness, personally.
How is any of that different from PF1? Because from what I've read, the same thing applies to both (and I don't agree with it in either case).
Yeah, I'm pretty excited, as long as they follow through on some of the promise of the new ideas. Skills having more epic high-level abilities associated with them (feats as in "actions of incredible skill" as well as the game mechanic feats) would be a good one. But every single design goal was, I think, a good one, and even if they didn't quite pull it off in some cases, that's just a matter of numbers tweaks.
I wouldn't touch 3.x/D20/PF with a ten-foot pole, at this point. Too much work to try to make an extremely broken engine work properly. There are better options for my time. Fantasy Craft, maybe, or, if PF2E continues on the way it seems to be going, that'll definitely be my fantasy game of choice.
Maybe this won't be too hard a thing to come up with some fan rules for? I'd be very curious to see how an Arcanist-style system would work with spontaneous and learned casters, and I'd enjoy using such a system should you decide to homebrew some rules for it. I'm not really big on Vancian casting, either.