Joe Mucchiello's page

If I wanted to, say, create an archetype that was all about fighting with a two handed weapon effectively, I could do so in a way that it packages all the pieces you would need to build that character in one tidy place, one that could then be taken by everyone. The old system allowed us to do this.. kinda, but it was all over the place, and was easily seen as bloat, especially as the years went on.

But that would be cool. A two-handed weapon archetype that any class (yes any class) could take (along with bowmen archetypes, sword and board archetypes, one-handed archetypes, etc) would be higher in flexibility and customization and allow you to fix the stuff that "all over the place". This was a paladin would be a warrior for a patron god. If that god likes backstabbing dagger wielders, he isn't locked into heavy armor, sword, and shield native to the current class. The ranger becomes an outdoorsman. Whether that involves bows or dual-wielding or just a big ol' greataxe is up to the player, not the class designer.

Adding or subtracting 10 is "all that math"?

Far more annoying to me is telling the players the DC for everything. Because it matters.

Isn't spell DC and spell rolls enough?

I so wish the Arcana Evolved (Monte Cook) spell system were still being used in a supported FRPG.

I greatly dislike how they’ve taken away some of the most unique parts of pathfinder that can’t be replicated in other systems. The cool rope trick escape, simulacrums, clones, planar binding pacts with devils are all some of the most unique aspects of PF1E and they’ve removed them. Why it bring other classes up instead of tear the most fun part of casters(at least for me), the mad scientists can do lots of cool magical things.

All the things you list were in AD&D1 since 1978.

But, I agree, these are the things we look for in Fantasy RPGs.

To answer your question, bringing fighters up gets you grief from the "That's unrealistic" "that's too cartoonish/comic bookish" folks who make up a large portion of the audience.

It should be in big bold letters set outside the normal text flow on the ability scores page, flashing red and blue if possible.

First, yes, you can select any skill with any class. But only signature skills for that class can be advanced to master or legendary using your skill increases.

Feats that give you a feat? So you can take a feat you normally do not have access to. Why is that a bad thing?

Advancing skills? First, read about proficiency levels on page 8. Being master or legendary in a skill is used as prereqs for some high level feats.

That was most of the questions. Now, there are a hundred threads on the layout of the book.

I've read a lot of them. This is consensus "Best practice" I have come to think they should employ:
-------------
All ancestor, class, and skill feats should be listed with the ancestor, class, or skill. No flipping around. In ancestories, heritage feats should be listed separately from other ancestor feats.

All class powers, that aren't spells, should be in a section called powers. Or listed with the class.

Spells (and powers) should be listed by level, then name alphabetically. Uncommon and rare should be text (and Paizo already said they would not use color again). All the traits for an object should just be line of text in the listing, not the running list of text in a weird sidebar box. And among the traits should be the spell lists the spell can be found within.

Spell name -> level 3
Traits: Arcane, Divine, Enchantment, Mental, Primal
casting: A> somatic A> verbal
etc.

I'm not understanding niche protection on Perception. All adventures need it.

You can use the weapon you love at level 1. You take a -2 untrained penalty for it. But you can use it.

The feat over rides the general rule.

Does it say that in the book?

Because they didn't like the choice of backgrounds in the playtest adventure.

It seems silly that one day you just get dark vision.

Why do you people keep saying this? Darkvision would be a heritage feat. You either have it at 1st level or you NEVER get it.

Let me demonstrate with goblins.

So, goblins have two Heritage feats. One gives them sharp pointy teeth, the other one makes their skin thick.

This means, when you meet a goblin in the wild, it will either have sharp teeth, fire retardant skin, or neither. You will never find one with both features. That is some weird genetics.

Some gnomes have keen sense of smell and other just pretend.
Elves ditto but for hearing.
Halfling ditto for eyesight.

And where is the general feat that allows you to take another heretage feat at first level.

So really, why are powers granted by feats located in the spells list, but feats aren't? Why separate them? Or why include powers in a spells list? Rituals have their own section, why not powers?

Or why not just shove everything into one big list? Class and Race descriptions drop to 3 and 1 page each. The feats section go away. And then you have 150 pages of nothing but similarly formatted chaos.

Sorting the spells by level, then name, since spells no longer have different levels for different caster types, would make it much easier to generate a character.

Removing the powers and sorting them by class, level and name would be a godsend.

Skill and general feats should be ordered by type (trait, sorry) then level, then name.

And finally race feats should have heritage feats in a separate section so you don't miss any of them. And at 5th level, you know to just ignore those feats.

I know everyone thought 3e D&D's sorting of spells by name was a great idea. But it actually wasn't. It makes it harder to understand what goes with what power level. If level were the first sort criteria, it would make the book less intimidating.

"Now pick spells?"
"I have to read that 86 page spells chapter?"
"No, you only have to look at the 8 pages of 1st level spells and 4 pages of cantrips."
"Oh, that's much better."

Also, I may be the only one but I liked hybrid (4th spell level) casters, why was paladin and rangers spells removed, or did I miss something.

Paladins and Rangers can archetype into cleric or druid to get access to spells. The benefit of it being that way is people who want to play non-caster paladins and rangers can do so.

Joe Mucchiello wrote:

You had the training but the training had no game effect until "now".

Because magic? Someone is coming along and removing mental blocks from all characters that hit 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th levels?

If you had the training...well, that's the whole of the thing.

You've never been trained at something that you still sucked at. And then after years of practice started actually being good at? Play a musical instrument. You are trained. You know every fingering. Every trill, every glissando, everything there is to know about the instrument. You are trained. You also still suck. You need 10,000 hours of work at something to become good at it. Practice after training is necessary to ___excel__ at the skill.

Let's put it this way. Do you want to be a foxhole with someone who just finished basic training? Or the guy who has spent a month under fire in that foxhole? Both of them are trained. One month does not make you an expert by any stretch of the imagination. They are both just trained.

You talk about mental blocks as a joke. But there really is a difference between training and doing. And after 4 levels of doing, you finally understand how to put the training to practical effect and gain a mechanical advantage with the skill/effect/whatever.

Yes, it does make sense.

How about weapons? Can they become dented and broken?

The shield thing may be realistic but are fighters supposed to carry a dozen shields with them into a dungeon?

I can just seen the fighter with his pack mule covered in shields. In the middle of combat he shouts, "Squire, hand me your shield and go back to the mule for another. And don't forget to avoid the pit trap this time!!"

This is not really an issue. Just plan your 4 free boost around the boost. Wizards will want Int. Sorcerers will want Cha. Rogues will want Dex. It's not really a big deal.

What decides whether a spell is an uncommon spell, or a common spell of a slightly higher level? I cannot quite parse the rhyme and reason here.

That is too f---ing subtle. The red and the orange are hard to distinguish in low light, such as one finds in a poorly lit basement play area. Certainly not colorblind friendly.

Actually, if they adopted the magic system from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, I'd be all over 2e. It also has 10th level spells, and a single spell list.

But.. I really dont want to spoil too much right now folks. Have a little patience. There is a lot here to cover and we are going to be doing blogs two to three times per week, along with recorded play sessions to give you a sense of what the playtest book will contain.

IMHO, this is a misstep. On the day of the announcement of 2e, the playtest PDF should have been made available. It boggles my mind that the playtest, starting in August of 2018 can result in any significant changes to the product released in August of 2019.

I understand Paizo wants to minimized the lame duck window when people will avoid the older edition. So a one-year window was picked. But really, other than some of the nitty-gritty details of the various classes, nothing monumental can be changed if the majority of folks just absolutely hate some of the subsystems. August to May, allowing time for final layouts and printing, is not a lot of time for playtesting an entire RPG.

The playtest material should be out ASAP. People hate uncertainty. They want to decide yay or nay. Trickling out the changes for four months will get people analyzing the blog's summary of the changes and not the actual changes. Each small thing released is another point where someone can make that yay or nay decision permanently.

Consider, the playtest page was up for a few hours and some folks thought PF2 was going to be a D&D5 off-shoot rather than a PF1 off-shoot. That's because the playtest page contains a summary of changes and not the actual changes. Nothing can describe the changes better than the playtest document itself.

Good luck.