This is all up to you and your GM to provide that. Some GMs prefer railroady adventures, because it's easier to run and, to be honest, some of them do not want to spend hours of their week to craft and build that's out of the book just because one of his players want to do something way off the scope of the adventure. Still, there are some of us (GMs) that gives the players the ability to go full creative with the narrative. I GMed Curse of the Crimson Throne to two different and distinct groups and the adventure came out DRASTICALLY different for both of them, even though I was using an adventure path. By the end of book two, both groups had a total different mindset of Korvosa, it's rulers, it's political biased system, it's flaws and it's economy. One groups became the rebels and formed a resistance within the city sewers, denying any help from important NPCs. They figured things out and I had to adapt a lot. I allowed them to do so, because I saw reason on that. The other group played by the rules while working with the NPCs to change what was wrong with the city. Both groups handled most situations in a very different way and approach. By the end of the adventure path, both groups had different outcomes for their characters. What happened in our game sessions was cannon for both groups, even if they don't know each other. They changed Golarion, but just because I allowed them to do so. Of course, it does require more working and writing. The fifth book didn't work at all for one group so I never ran it. I had to adapt and learn with them, which made me step up in my GM skills and waste way more time than intended preparing the sessions, but it was all worth it.
It's worth noting that, even though I am a fan of Amazon for a lot of things, you generally do not get Paizo products anywhere close to release date. They are supplied by a supplier themselves and there is usually a significant delay (for Paizo books) for when they get books from the actual release date. In general if you want free shipping and sometimes a better price break then Amazon will work for you but if you want it at or near the release date not so much.Has that changed? I ordered the playtest from Amazon and it was delivered on the release date. I had the same experience. I ordered the playtest books from the Brazilian Amazon and I received them two days after the release. Considering how long it would take if I ordered directly from Paizo, I thought it was kinda impressive.
I pre-ordered the Core Rulebook, Bestiary, Lost Omens and GM screen. Paizo is giving $10 off shipping on orders over $100, and since I have the Adventure Path subscription I am getting 15% off all four items. I don't know if that is better than Amazon, but it was enough to make me stick with the manufacturer. Amazon is worth for those who live abroad. It's hard to beat their shipping costs and delivery times. I'd subscribe in no time if they confirm the free pdfs, that would cover Paizo's shipping costs.
The rules may provide us a lot of flavor to work with, but the fact is their job is first and... I don't like the perspective of "if you don't like a CLASS FEATURE, change it as GM to suit what you believe it's the best", specially when we're talking about the Core Rulebook only. I understand when subsystems (like hero points) are left behind to suit table preferences, but not class features. Still, I'm a Paizo fan and I'm sure they'll deliver the best game they could've made.
What's so game/immersion breaking of spending 10 minutes to perform a prayer that lets a holy warrior heal the wounded person in front of them? Haven't seen the episode yet, but it seems like something that is quite flavorful if played up for flavor When that process can be repeated as long as you like during the day, it's almost easier to assume that everybody will have full HP for most fights and so HP becomes a battle resource - as long as you can rest between the fights, it won't matter that much. Some parties won't have that healing capability, which makes it harder to design encounters and campaigns. Besides that, the Champion becomes an Oprah for healing - YOU GET HEALING, let me pray, NOW YOU GET THE HEALING, let me pray, EVERYONE GETS HEALED, let me pray once more. I'm not sure about you guys, but I don't find it interesting as a story teller. The Stamina / HP of Starfinder would be a better approach imho. I'm a huge fan of giving everyone things to do in their 10 minutes break - I really am. Maybe throughout the levels we'll see more uses of focus points and healing won't matter anymore, but the LOH spam wasn't interesting to watch.
Take Ironfang Invasion as an example. It's all about exploration in wilderness for it's first two books and still you wouldn't make random encounters at every player's step. My problem is not being fully healed at every encounter (even though I consider that a design problem), but the way you make it. It was silly with CLW wands and it's also silly praying for half hour.
I'm not sure how I feel about healing so easily with treat wounds and Lay on Hands on a 10-minutes regular basis, seems powerful at first levels but I'm waiting to see the scale of it. I feel like 5e's style is way more elegant, spending hit dices for that. A limited resource makes hit points valuable and you still don't need a dedicated healer for that. To be honest, HP should be a daily resource, the same way slots are. One of the 1e problems with encounter design was the assumption that everyone would be full HP at all encounters, everytime, because of CLW wands. I thought the designers would try to stay away from that for 2e.
Sorcerer will always be tricky and I'm yet to see a proper use for them besides being the spontaneous arcane caster with scales. Having different spell list is a great move, but the class needs polishing, specially with Quick Preparation around. IMHO, Wizards should be the methodic ones. It's all about studying formulas and magical components. Once you figure it out how the spell works, you can study them over and over again, so it becomes easier for you. You learned it. Sorcerers should be diverse and wild. Indomitable. The same fire ball from Wizard? No sir, the Sorcerer has no formula for that. He just releases it the best way he can. It's magic is unstable, savage, wild like the nature. I'd love that approach. The bloodlines should shape the sorcerer (sometimes even against his will) and bring more with them. Two sorcerers of different bloodlines should share only the class name, but play in two different styles. Sorcerers should be as diverse as the fighter (sword and shield, two-handed swords, two-weapon fightning, bow, crossbow, lance, mounted combat, etc), but with magical approach. I'm all for a 12 HP Fiend Bloodline with some sort of "burn" mechanic attached to it. You can push yourself harder, but at some risk, your magic can consume your own body. I'm all for 6 HP Arcane Bloodline sorcerer that has the "gift" of magic and tries to understand it the best way he can to avoid collateral damage. I'm all for 8 HP Fey bloodline sorcerer that cannot hide it's "feyish" appearance and uses it to be as pretty as exotic, making it good for social interactions, making it sort of a skill-oriented bloodline. I believe it would be fun enough to play any of those bloodlines and it would make the class way different from Wizards. But... ship has already sailed and I'm pretty sure Paizo wouldn't take a step so far away.
My problem is not moving on from what we had. I do find it silly that elves takes so much time to grow up, but it made sense with the whole Forlorn thing - the idea of seeing your friends grow up, marry, have children and die at the same time the elf is still a child, physically and emotionally. I'm just trying to understand if: 1) Elves at 20's are now adults, physically and emotionally (they weren't in 1e). 2) If they start adventuring later (90+ years), which is plausible, what do they do in their 70 years before adventuring? Do they try to learn new skills and takes longer than the other races? It just looks dumb for an elf to take years to learn how to swim, for example. If they take the same amount of time to learn new skills as the other races, it should be reflected in game statistics IMO. 3) If they're mature enough at 20's, it only makes sense to see them as children in the Elvish point-of-view. To other races, they're full grown up adults and not really different from their 110 years old counterparts. I'm just trying to understand what's the tea with Elvish ages now and I apologize if my posts sounds sarcastic or something, it's not my intention.
I agree. If Elves mature as quickly as humans, Forlorn makes no sense to me, since nothing will stop them adventuring in their 20's.
Oh, silly me. Not scenario, but setting, Golarion as a whole. I don't know, I'm just in love with the new kobolds and have so many good ideas for them. I'll probably make an important and silly Kobold as my first villain.
Since Kobolds can be diverse among themselves, what about two free ability boosts as Humans? I'm all for Kobold-only feats to make them look adorable and plushie until they start to burn everything around them as sorcerers or pierce someone's eyes with their spears.
As a brazilian, I can relate to what you're feeling. What I did in the playtest was pre-ordering the books at Amazon.com.br and they arrived way earlier than I expected - around 2~ days after the official release. Although I can't find any 2e books at Amazon at the moment, I believe it's just a matter of time before pre-order starts. Amazon might be your best bet if you want the books to arrive as soon as possible. I'm considering Paizo's subscription, though - if they provide the free pdf with it (they haven't decided on that yet), I can wait longer for the books to arrive while I can read the pdf on day one.
I believe Jason just "rolled with it", aka, GM fiat. People were desperate and willing to hear the charismatic goblin, maybe? Which is something I'm looking for and I believe it's an improvement of 1e. Unless the GM is trying to ruin the fun, the same set of rules to both players and GM doesn't make sense nowadays and leads to a broken set of rules.
You can't compare anything to Critical Role at the moment, because they're made by professionals. Matthew Mercer is a hella of storyteller, he's engaging, he knows how to keep everyone entertained (audience included) and he also has amazing players, willing to make it happen. The system itself is not the problem, but what kind of players you'll bring with it and what kind of people you want to watch it. I have two players that are Pathfinder experts. They'd be BORING to watch, despite their system knowledge. They're that kinda of player that you're describing a room and they're already "I'm using that power that let me sense anything within 60ft even if it's invisible and ethereal and..." you know? That thing doesn't work in entertainment so well, but it would work with a more mechanical-oriented viewer. If I'm there for the plot, I'd be bored as hell if someone interrupt a room description to remind the GM about their super power that don't let his character be surprised. Even though the GM has the final word, you're still playing with the same sets of rules as your players. If I cast two spells on the same round against those players, they'll surely ask if one of them was quicken, interrupting the flow again. Some will find pleasure in a more tactical game - some won't. It seems like people are staying with Critical Role for the story, not the mechanics.
The thing I don't like is Droogami, she looks so much like a plush toy now, rather than a fierce animal ...Have you seen a snow leopard? The cow level is a lie
I feel your pain. I'm about to finish Curse of the Crimson Throne as GM (lvl 16) and the system is taking the best of me. I dont even have fun anymore. Most of the encounters are not challenging as written, so I try to step up and making them more fun, but everything seems to be rocket taggish. I don't find fun in 2 hours combat. To prepare a 4 hours session, I have to spend at least twice the amount of time. I love how you can do anything with Pathfinder. I hate how you can do anything with Pathfinder.
In my experience, having a huge range of options, including those who are not that great is a recipe for narrowing the best choices and leaving someone behind. I'm yet to see a wizard without color spray and grease at first level if they know what they're doing - which shouldn't be required to play the game (or a wizard) at all. To be honest, I do prefer a system where everyone can contribute somehow without reading a list of 1k feats or spells to be effective.
Yeah, on Spell Roll vs Skill, I think the main reason for that is the Sorcerer, who can definitely be really good at Spell Rolls with arcane spells and be Untrained in Arcane. Which is, imho, thematically interesting. I know how to use spells, but I don't really know (or care about) how they work. I know my limitations and I know what can I do. Talent, not science, is what defines a Sorcerer.
People always forget that most aspects that seems off (tight math, +1/level, "defined roles") is ignored by most, specially those new to RPGs. Most people will just pick what suits them, not what mathematically is a better choice, with a few exceptions. It's a game about playing the character you want, after all. For those people, 1E is a nightmare. There's a huge discrepancy between a well-optimized character and what a "fun concept" character can do in battle, even at low levels. That leads to frustration and GM adaptation. I'm not a fan of defined roles as well. I like to tell my player that wants to play an archer that fighters, rangers, rogues, paladins, bards or even druids are good choices, each one with a bonus. Fighter will hit easier and harder, but druids and bards will also have spells. Rangers will be close to the fighter, but they can track targets easier and might get an animal companion. Rogues can hit harder with sneak attack, have more skills, are nimble and stealthy as heck. Paladins will be a little behind the fighter and rogue damage-wise, but you can also have divine powers to compensate that. That's the power of choice. 2e is trying to achiev that removing the whole feat taxes that are not interesting at all. In 1e, some builds requires you to be human just because of that sweet extra feat at 1st level. Is that a choice? It's a sweet spot that different feats have different power level as well. If everything was just "feat", people would always decide on those feats that give more combat power. You won't feel guilty to get a skill feat that seems fun because you're giving up combat power in 2e. At first I didn't find any necessity of an exploration mode - until I realised it's aimed to new GMs, to give them a guideline of how much a character can walk while detecting magic, while being perceptive and so on. It's there to guide those who are new. Bulk instead of weight is a nice addition as well. Of course, everything can be improved, we can run the playtest for another year and we would still find things to get improved and the tight schedule doesn't help. I wish I could have more time to playtest the system without sacrificing my regular 1e sessions. We tried to keep it up, but my group is in the climax of CoCT, so they weren't that interested in the playtest. What I don't expect is that 2e will please everyone in every aspect - that would be impossible. Some will prefer 1e the same way people prefer and play 3.5. And that's fine. Both versions can co-exist.
I can't even find Pathfinder players (I do have a policy to never mix experienced players with newbies, because experienced players usually steal newbies niches and spotlight) In my experience, mixing a group of newcomers with experienced players makes the gap unbearable. The experienced players will build their characters the best they can - it's not a flaw, but it sometimes takes the spotlight of newcomers. Try to compare the first time wizard, who haven't take a look at metamagic yet to a sorcerer with lesser rods, higher DC, more slots (which is class design, no complaints here), higher overall damage, fireball oriented, better crowd controls, persistent spell, loads of summons, just because the sorcerer player had more game knowledge - it gets frustrating. The Wizard will always feel behind and telling them "welp, you're good with illusions!" doesn't make it better.
Yet, besides all the "flaws" you mentioned, 5e managed to be the most successful RPG ever. And that's huge. It might not be for you, I get that... But people play it, enjoy it, stream it. It's the most played game on roll20. Can you say the same about 1E at the moment? I can't even find Pathfinder players (I do have a policy to never mix experienced players with newbies, because experienced players usually steal newbies niches and spotlight), it's been years since I've met a new Pathfinder GM, most of them just give up. I see Pathfinder disappearing day after day. I've lost a bunch of players to 5e (they even try to persuade me to GM 5e for them), besides not having a proper SRD, besides not having an official PDF support, besides charging again for material you're already bought (Beyond). Besides all it's flaws, people moved on. I don't see the point of "why not just play 5e". I'm a Paizo enthusiast, I want them to be on top. I want to see Pathfinder everywhere. Paizo is miles ahead of Hasbro. It might not be the same game - but new players are way more receptive to playtest than 1E. It's easier to teach, to just jump on and play. I agree that the rules presentation is horrible at the moment and they need to make spells more interesting. The nerf hammer was just too much - but I do believe Paizo is working on that, the same way they're trying to fix Resonance, which was highly unpopular.
Let's face it: introducing someone to 5e will just make them to stay there. Unless someone really enjoy more complexity (which, in my experience, most don't), people will stick with 5e. It's the trend. People are talking about 5e, streaming 5e, podcasting 5e, it's the best seller fantasy RPG. It has D&D in it's name. Tabletop RPG isn't a niche anymore. Either you make it easier for people to get on (and GM it) or your product will disappear.
I know that most folks here came from 3.5 and PF1E was a breeze to get into. I didn't. That's why I'd like to share my 2 cents. Pathfinder was my first step into roleplaying and GM experience. I didn't know much and some friends recommended Pathfinder to have a "true" D&D Experience, since 4E was far away from it or so I heard. And that's what I did. I brought the Core Rulebook and I was at the same time thrilled and overwhelmed. If I'm suppose to be the GM and know all the rules, how the heck would I remember that many feats and spells? The skills dcs? Of course, GM screen does help, but I didn't want to book flip every time a new rule come up. That kept me away from GMing Pathfinder until I felt comfortable to do so (1 year or so after buying the book), so I started to attend events as GM and eventually I got experienced and confident enough to get people together and start one of the adventure paths. While it was easy enough at the beginning, the high-level play almost drove me insane with so many stuff to keep track on. I was GMing for 5 experienced players, so there was so many ways to break narrative that most of my job was to work around the adventure path to keep it interesting while nerfing/baning some stuff. For each 4 hour session, I had to spend 6~8 hours preparing myself while praying they wouldn't teleport somewhere I haven't read and familiarized before. Eventually, the challenges offered by the books were just trivial for them. That's how I learned that CR is most of the time broken at high levels. I could see an APL 13 group trivialize a CR17 encounter. The rocket tag effect was just unappealing. I don't even want to start talking about planar binding and summons breaking the action economy. And that's the Core only. Years later, I decided to start a second group with newbies. Some of them had 5e experience, but none of them had Pathfinder experience. We created the characters together, I explained to them how feats worked, how the unchained version of rogue was way better, how much mandatory some feats are (one of them wanted to play a Legolas-like Elf Archer and didn't understand the penalty at firing into someone engaged in melee with a friend) and even though we managed to create and set up everything, it took us 6 hours to do so. At the end of the day I was exhausted and we didn't spend any time actually playing the game. Is that how it's suppose to work? Spend a really good amount of time just trying to teach the system to new people that watched Stranger Things and want to try the game? It may have worked in the past, but to be honest, it doesn't work at all with younger audience. I'm 27 right now and I can't find people at my age eager to join Pathfinder from zero. It just takes too much to learn, the ceiling is too high and teaching it can be painful. It drives people who just want to play the avarage-wizard sterotype away. For years, I wished for a new Core Rulebook mixing the contents of Strategy Guide and the Core Rulebook, to make it more appealing. That's why I'm all for a second edition and I really like I'm seeing. Tt might be "too restrictive" for some, but I welcome those changes from a player and GM perspective. The Game is easier to just jump and enjoy, the three actions work as a charm, bonus are easier to track. They still have to address some spells and conditions, but I trust Paizo is doing their best to deliver the best game they can. Starfinder is the perfect example of a high quality material they can give us. Pathfinder 1E creates a wonderful experience. You can really do anything and everything. The more you know, more you'll enjoy theorycraft and building unique characters, but it fails horribly to bring new people to the hobby who just want to tell stories about elves and dwarves. It's just too much. Mixing experienced players with newbies is the recipe of disaster. You might not remember how it was to learn Pathfinder because it just feels natural now, but trust me, it is painful. It drives people away. I took it as a personal challenge back then, but I wouldn't do it again.
Last time I decided to invite new people to Pathfinder, I promised we would use only the Core rules, to make it simple. We wasted 4 hours to create the characters. People weren't so intested in playing after that. We played two sessions and the group dismissed after that. I invited the same people to play 5e and we were already playing after one hour character creation. For most "modern" groups, Pathfinder is just too much. I didn't know anyone interested in GMing it for a while. I understand when people complain about customization and the things that changed, I really do. I was expecting a Pathfinder 1.5 as well - a mix of Core Rulebook with less feat taxes + character creation of Strategy Guide - not an overhaul of the system. Still, it would be hard to market it as a new product. To be honest, I welcome the changes, if it means more people are playing the game. At the moment, I see 1 Pathfinder group for each 8~9 5e groups. Pathfinder groups are falling apart and the sales reflect that. Paizo, as a company, needed to do something in response. It's good to see the goals and I'm optmistic about it. I believe they'll deliver a good game - different, but good.
IMHO, magic items should be magical and rare. If everyone is wearing the same cloak, well, how really special are they? Characters should be powerful even with no magic items. Magic items should be a plus - a hat of disguise, a deck of illusions, a druid's vestiment. Something that is useful and not really mandatory. It's nice to have, but you won't lose too much for not having it. At the moment, my players see magic items as loot/gold only. "Oh, another +1 weapon? Nice, that's worth 1k gold". It's always better to sell anything because the +2 attribute upgrade is a must. Not really interesting from the GM perspective, to be honest.
Treat wounds allows a more diverse party without a cleric. A Bard, a Druid or even the Fighter can take the role of a healer now, just need to invest some WIS and take the skill as at least trained. Which is way better than having someone to play the Cleric just for having more than 15min adventure time. Like ENHenry said, Time is the resource here. If you're in a dungeon and would like to spend two hours to be full HP, well, a patrol will find you eventually. The BBEG won't let the group patch up for two hours straight. Maybe the GM will roll random encounter chance once or twice per hour while the party is resting. Or maybe you won't even be able to rest, because there are loads and loads of zombies nearby. Said that, I feel like treat wounds now totally outshines the resting 8 hours HP recovery.
I've been running Curse of The Crimson Throne for a while now and I do identify myself in your post, OP. I find it hard to challenge my players after the 9th level (they're 13 now, starting book 5). Of course, I do not want at any way to TPK them, but it does require a lot of prep time to make encounters balanced and interesting for them. The group is pretty much min/maxed. I had to improve myself as a GM to keep the challenge up, learn how exp really worked (the math behind it, to keep the encounters balanced as intended) and so on, but, at the moment, I fail to make a sense or urgency that doesn't seem fake to them. They tend to not take risks and since teleportation is a reality, it's hard to avoid the 15 minute adventure day. They won't take unnecessary risks and how could I blame them? Like I said, I had to improve myself and it was worth it, I learned A LOT - but most of my free time now is to prepare the next session for them. We play weekly, for around 4 to 5 hours each saturday. It takes at least that amount of time of my week to prepare myself in advance and even GMing for almost two years now, we still have to look for rules online every now and then. Time that most of weeks I don't have, because I study and I have a full-time job. One of my players decide to transform himself in an Air Elemental and use whirlwind - it took more than 30 minutes trying to figure it how exactly it worked, since I was unfamiliar with it. Not really fun, to be honest. I recently finished Princes of Apocalypse (5e module) as a player and even high level combats wouldn't take as long as it takes in PF1E now. I've got the same problem as everyone else with 5e: lack of significant choices. That's why I'm excited about 2E, to be the middle-term of PF1E and D&D5e. To provide more customization while cutting-off the annoying feat taxes and streamlined rules. It's not perfect, but I'm optimistic. I know Paizo is trying their best. I love Pathfinder, love Golarion and I love Paizo as well. I love how deep and complex the system is, but it has been too much for me. I see why people avoid GMing or even playing it. It just takes too much time to learn, teach and fails to bring more people to the hobby and play 'on the fly'. There's an abysm between those who dominate the system and the newbies. I know that I can post on forums and ask for advice. I've done that before. But how many people would just give up and play something else? Why would they stick with us? How many people can even spare time to read here and learn more each day? It's a hobby. After a long week, some of us just want to hear a good story, roll some dices and have fun. Imagine if I tell someone that they're required to read a 500 pages book to make a character and play what they've seen in "Stranger Things"? They'd call me crazy. I think I might be as well.
Please, don't. That way, some players will be confused about how many dices would they roll. If it hits 5 enemies, two of them succeded, two of them failed and one critically failed. How many dices do they roll? Three for the first two, six for the other two who failed and twelve for one of them? Seems over complicated. I like the idea of rolling once and halving/doubling, which is the way we do with 1e and it's easier because it's basic math. EDIT: grammar. |
