Lord Mhoram's page

I saw saw the elegant simplicity reading the rules. We haven't had group play since he start of Covid, so it is just going to be the two of us. I was reading (and watching) a lot of stuff about teamwork in the system to try and figure out how to play an effective solo characters - as the team work to buff and debuff wouldn't really be present in what we play. We have done things like that before. This first game is basically us getting used to the system. The "real" game will the Strength of THousands adventure path.

The wife and I play rpgs a lot with just the two of us (I met her decades ago when she was the Champions GM when I moved in the area). We have played D&D 3rd, PF 1 and others together.

Today we did our first PF 2e (revised) today. Just using the beginner box (for reminders). The biggest things we had to remember was the 3 action system and the critical success/ Success/ Failure / Critical Failure structure.

We only played for an hour and a half, got through some roleplaying (which came easy) and one combat. We use the "Solo Heroes" rules by Kevin Crawford, for Labyrinth Lord, but the concepts work with just about any d20 level based game. I'm running a gestalt Monk/Kineticist.

We loved it. But it will take some time to get comfortable with the changes.

This is an older one. Game is Superhero type. The character in question is a brick (strong/tough) Modeled on Doc Ock, but his extra tentacle arms are telekinesis.

Bad guy monologues and draws a very nasty knife. The brick uses his TK picks up a nearby vehicle and hits the guy. The quip is "He brought a knife to a van fight"

So I am finally coming back to Pathfinder, and just starting 2E for the first time. I read up on the remasters, so I just want to make sure I have it all straight before I buy the new books.

Game-mastery Guide
Core Rulebook
Advanced Players Guide
Bestiary 1

are being replaced by the GM Core, Player Core 1 & 2, and Monster Core 1.
Rage of the Elements is written to the remastered rules.

The leaves Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, Book of the Dead, and Dark Archive as pre Remastered books.

Questions
1) Is this correct?
2) are any of the non-remaster books being rewritten to the remastered style?

Quote:

Magnuskn provides a great example, because we don't know the reason the power floor of pure casters was dropped its hard for us to brainstorm viable alternatives, we don't know more than a general mission statement.

But the goal of a playtest is not to get the fanbase to brainstorm alternatives.

Its to provide data and feedback on the systems that have been designed.

The design team then uses that data to make decisions/changes.

I agree, and will add that the systems being tested are not necessarily, the ones intended to be in the final game. They said that Resonance was a difficult topic, and hadn't come up with something all the designers like - so they put it in the playtest for testing. They have also said the monsters are really tough - because they want to see where the system breaks. I expect the limited number of class feats and limited choices there are in a similar situation.

I think people were seeing this more as a preview, and less of a playtest. Testing where the designers were checking where things break to be able to adjust the details to have the best game in the end.

I think we are looking past another major factor when comparing edition changes. This may go a little GNS theory (mostly as descriptors). I state "this is" and "that is" as fact, but it is opinion.

3.x was gamist/sim. The rules in a lot of ways were trying to simulate the world (aside from things like the commoner rail gun). A number of rules were there to reinforce "this is the way the world works, regardless of PC or game". There were very game elements too. But by and large (with ability to adjust for odd rules) you could very much go with "the rules are the physics of the world" and it wasn't too wonky (aside from corner cases). Having PCs, NPCs and Monsters basically build the same way was an aspect of that. AD&D (1st and 2nd) were fairly similar.

4E went full on gamist, and pretty much ignored the Sim aspects. Everything was about balance in combat, daily balance, what was fun (but not real in the game world). 1 monster could be build as a solo, a challenge and a minion - same creature but different rules depending on where the PCs were in their level journey. A difficult door was always PC bonus +10, but that referred to different doors a basic wood door for lower level, and a magically barred portcullis for higher level - but because the DC chart didn't make that distinction clear it was read by many as "same DC for same door". There were states "roles" to fill, which didn't make sense from an in world perspective to many. Personally I think this shift in approach is why a lot of people said "This doesn't feel like D&D" - different assumptions in approach.

5th went back to older approach with "natural language" and how the built the rules.

For 2nd ed pathfinder to succeed, it needs to FEEL like old Pathfinder. There may be a different structure to classes, but if the class feat structure means that when it is played at the table it feels the same, the specifics won't matter as much. The new action economy could feel similar, just different specifics. Hit points and armor class remain.

Two of the complaints I see are that NPCs/Monsters are not built with same system (which I mentioned early) because that breaks the sim view people have "same race, scores but they are built different - they should be the same"; the other being Resonance - I remember someone commenting that "so what changed in the fiction to explain this because old PF didn't do it that way" again - rules support a world approach rather than a game approach.

Personally I think PF2 will feel close enough to D&D/PF1 that it won't be an issue for me. Whether it does for others will decide if it succeeds.

I saw one of the best and most interesting depictions of Vancian Magic in the second Amber series. Spells are something you cast ahead of time but you leave out key words and gestures. Those anchors prevent the spell from being cast but do decay over time which is why you need to "re-memorize" spells. And the hero used Vancian spells to bury his opponent first with a pile of roses, and then a pile of cow manure. It was most amusing. ^_^

If you don't like Vancian magic, just play a Sorcerer. ;)

After I read those, that became the default setting explination for prepared spells in my D&D/PF games forever after. I even used "hanging spells" rather than "Preparing spells" when I talked about it.

Just because they're scantily clad doesn't mean they have to be posed like a Playboy / Playgirl model.

Paging Greg Land.. Paging Greg Land.

Oh you said posed, not traced.

Xenocrat wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

bookrat wrote:

To me, the culture of C/MD was exemplified the strongest when a new ability was released that allowed a PC to dash in a straight line attacking everyone along that line.

Sounds pretty cool, huh? Except it wasn't an ability any martial class could do, because it was a spell. :/

Said spell was not on the wizard spell list.

It was given exclusively to two 3/4 BAB classes, one of which was heavily focused on martial abilities.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the great martial abilities were gated behind a spell.

Bladed Dash is better Spring Attack with no prerequisites. Greater Bladed Dash is better Springing Whirlwind Attack (which doesn't even exist and would cost more than half a dozen feats if it did) with no prerequisites.

The prerequisites are the spellcasting levels...

That is the whole point.

I think what kyrt-rider is saying is that if the game had a "super run past everone and hurt them" ability, that it should be a martial ability of some sort, not a spell. Not even a martial tending spelluser. Just flat out something that martials with no spellpower can do.

Since this was brought up, no, just because people find shirtless heavily muscled guys sexy does not mean those guys are automatically sexualized. It’s how they are presented.

Makes me think of the cinematography of the Transporter. They purposfully used camera angles, filters and lighting that were normally used for women fighting in movies for Statham. A lot of men found some of those fight scenes uncomfortable because they had been .. accustomed.. to having those cues say "This is sexy" only it was being done with a man in the frame instead of a woman.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

This is an example of a character story I would like to see vaible with multiclassing.

Character is a fighter, worships a diety... after a while (and a few levels) trains to be a paladin, and excels as that (for a few levels) and then gets spells as a paladin, and decides to become closer to thier diety and become a cleric.
Great story arc for the character, somewhat untenable without good mutliclassing rules.

Define good multiclassing in this case? I mean, you can absolutely do this.. but your breadth of knowledge results in a reduced depth of knowledge. This is also reflective of the story.

Agreed. This works in 3.x and Pathfinder. It doesn't in 4E D&D, or only with variant multiclassing. I just want to see that same idea in PF2. If the class shifts were from one caster to another, then the utility of the character falls apart (5E does that fairly well). I just want to see it continue to be viable.

As someone who doesn't think of a class as a defining character trait, merely a handy descriptor, and a level as nothing more than a package of skills... yeah, I want really good multiclassing. I loved 3.x multiclassing aside from how it gimped casters. I don't necessarily want it to crush single classing, but I want both to be viable options.

Personally I want to see almost no class abilities, and EVERYTHING be in class feats, so that we can completely customize a character. Have every class ability from every PF1 archtype availble (or it's equivelent) in class feats to mix and match as we like.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".

All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.

I'm really looking forward to the new rules (and don't think of them as Lite at all, rather depth without unnecessary complexity).

However I too hope they keep the 1st Edition PRD, as well as finish updating it with the later books which are still not up on the PRD.

Because I plan to play and run both games.

Pretty much where I am at. With the launch of 2E, I will have a complete game in 1E, that will likely see minimum revision in the future. If they can spend the time to post the full set of rules to the PRD, that will be a great boon to future games.

While I am very interested in PF2, I agree with that sentiment. I will get the last few PF1 books (Paizo and 3PP) that I want, and will have a complete Lord Mhoram's PF1 set to play from. I still play 1st ed AD&D sometimes too. It's nice to have the stuff on hand like that.

Here is my problem with this thread and your approach (which is not exclusive to you btw): You are already comparing mathematical models and making big statements about what needs to be done or needs to be retained, while only having a tiny fraction of the puzzle in front of you.

By anology: someone saw a preview of Starfinder weapons, see the scaling damage and applied it to pathfinder and "a fighter gets 4 attacks with 18d6 damage, that's broken" - becuase they didn't realize that the underlying math and structure between SF and PF were vastly different.

I see the blogs and such as a quick glipse "hey look at the cool thing" then "Hey look at this other cool thing" we won't see how it all works until August, but the glimpses are cool.

So yeah, with not having played it much recently, and the fact it is the ruleset/mechanics that I like, 2E is something I will enjoy reading about, and look at from a "this is a cool piece of game design" - I'll likely never play it - as they are changing the specific thing I came to Pathfinder for.

Time to eat crow. lol.

Based on all the info we are getting, between resonance, class structure, and the flexibility of everything we have seen, I am more excited about PS2 than I was about PF1.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

That happened to me in rolemaster once ( a super swingy system). We got to the BBEG and I open ended twice on the attack roll, then rolled perfectly on a crit, and killed the beasty in 1 round. The GM looked shocked.

Speaking of Rolemaster, randomness, and shocking results... my very first game of Rolemaster was back in high school with some of my more adult friends, and I was playing some kind of lizardman fighter-type.

Everyone told me that combat was nasty, so I followed their lead in trying to avoid it until, one time, it was just absolutely necessary. Played a couple of hours before needing to roll an attack.

My very first attack, with my very first character, I attempted to bite an orc who was grappling me. I rolled open-ended low, and then I rolled open-ended low again. And again; jaws dropped. And then I borrowed someone else's dice, cajoled them, pleaded with them for good luck... and rolled open-ended low again.

Bit my own f&#*ing head clean off.

I eventually became a very great fan of Rolemaster but it was not that night.

:)

And you walked instead of talking to him about it, at least according to your story.

We asked him why, he said "That is the way I want it, I'm the DM" and we asked if we could change his mind he said "no". One player said "I don't like to game if I can't make my own die rolls" Gm said "Tough". So then we walked.

I understand where you come from taht you may not like PF2 because of the mathmatical underpinnings may be changing, and allow for more vairiability in results than you feel comfortable with. That is fine.

However that does not make it a bad option, nor make it feel "not like pathfinder". The tight combat balance you say you use sounda lot more like what I felt D&D 4E was trying for.

And the DMs fun didn't matter to any of you, clearly. Is the DM is only there to make sure YOU have a good time?

He was wanting he story to run exactly the way he wanted to, players be danged. It was a railroad, with no player agency. If that is how he wanted GM, he needed to find players that would have fun with that kind of game. As players, we wouldn't have fun where we never rolled any dice, and all results were hidden from us. It was better to part ways than have that kind of conflict.

So we did worry about his fun - it was obvious that he would not have fun based on what we wanted out of the game, and we wouldn't have fun playing in the game he watned to run. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

If I write and plan an encounter to last a whole night because it's an epic boss fight and the law of averages happens to work against me that night and the fight is over in less than 20 minutes and I have nothing else prepared for that night is the game better?

That happened to me in rolemaster once ( a super swingy system). We got to the BBEG and I open ended twice on the attack roll, then rolled perfectly on a crit, and killed the beasty in 1 round. The GM looked shocked. The players (and characters) rejoiced at the great moment, and the bard in the group wrote a lay aobut the monk taking out the demon with a perfectly placed kick. Fun was had by all.

The next session, the GM who was unhappy about us beating the monster in 1 round (even though all the players had fun) said he would roll all the player rolls behind his screen. We all walked away at that point, because it was obvious his pacing/story was more important than our fun.

It has been stated that one of the boons of the higher rank Acrobatic Proficiency is high/long jumps. I'm hoping we can reach John Carter levels.

And by mid level rather than high. 8th or so. :)

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Garet Jax of the books is an awesome representation of the fighter class... Under level 9.

I can't think of a level 20 fighter in Western Fantasy unless we include mythology or comic books.

Can you come up with anyone equivalent to a D&D/PF level 20 wizard or cleric in Western Fantasy without going to the same sources?

The gang at the end of the Mallorean I could easily see at 20th. The Old Lords in the Covenant Series.

Forgive me if it has already been aswered before (I haven't read all 548 previous post :P )

From what I've read will class progression look like how talent tree worked in D20 Modern, as when you pick a class, at a given level, you have the option to pick a talent (or feat in the case of PF2e) and as you level, you have the option to specialize more into that talent tree, or pick a new one to diversify your options? The same could be said for ancestry, skill and general feats?

Thank you for the callout on D20M. I knew the PF2 system sounded familiar. I loved the flexibility of that system.

WatersLethe wrote:

I've never had a problem with 1 level dips. What's the issue? It's often just another point of customization, and only in certain cases does it add a disproportionate amount of power.

Well, with the caveat that I don't care what other people do at their tables-- it makes a mockery of the very concept of a class system.

I'm of the camp that saw a level in a class as nothing more than a discreet packet of skills and abilities that a character had rather than something defitional (in general). The class / level thing was for balance, but wasn't seen as formal descreet things in the actual fiction of a game world (people don't say I'm a fighter, I'm a cleric - except as a description of profession).

And with no training, his mod should not be higher than the career mountaineer even for those things.

I think comparing the two versions boil down to this:

In PF the mod/roll tells you both what you can try and how well you do it.
In PF2 the mod only tells you how well you attempted something, the profencieny level tells you what you can do. So someone untrained with a high mod isn't actually "better" than a low mod.

Take a character who is a "homeowner" class at high level - but untrained in electrician - he can wire in a lamp, or a doorbell, know how not to overload his eletrical outlets.

A lower level character that is a master at electrician can wire in a new house, build branches, add circuit breakers and do many things the high level "homeowner" cannot do. His mod may be somewhat lower, but he is better at the skill of electrician.

10th level homeowner might have a +10 from level, +1 from ability, and -2 for untrained. +9.
The 5th level eletrician +5 from level, +2 from profeincey and +2 from abiltiy (as it is a focus, higher abiilty score there). for +9.

So 5 levels difference, same mod, and the master can do many many more things than the untrained guy can do.

All adventurers are really good everythings. Complete polymaths.

If true, that is completely awesome and a welcome change.

You seem to be basing the entire game around level 15 and higher. Most of the arguments in favour of these new massive overhauls that you guys give involve high level play (especially in regards to skills and death mechanics), and I don't think I've seen any designer even mention a playtest session lower...

Why that keeps getting mentioned, I think, is that high levels is where the old system breaks down. I expect at lower levels being trained with the ranks mentioned will flow fairly similarly to PF1; when PF1 starts to break down is high levels, they need the fix, so that is what they talk about. "See it works at 18th level".

Keeping the game working after level 15 so all levels of play are enjoyable is a great idea.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

It’s fictionally unsatisfying, it’s just not part of any fantasy story ever.

"I make a mad dash for the doorway as a blast of magical fire scorches the table I was using for cover, trailing blood from the knife wound in my back. I reach for the pouch on my belt where I keep my 'life insurance policy' handy, fish out the little bottle, pull the cork with my teeth, suck down the minty liquid...and nothing happens. No wash of radiant warmth closing the wound, no nothing. Gods, why'd I have to use that Vanish Potion to sneak in here."

Said no fantasy novel ever.

That is failure. success of investing in a one time item does happen in fiction:

I was going run the playtest adventure/campaign. Then a PF1 to try to test the "can covert on the fly while running" concept.

There are features of d20 I dislike, such as classes, but being classless is not enough of a feature on it's own to make me want to use a system.

I enjoy classless games (HERO being a favorite), but the flexibility that kind of thing offers comes with a price. Balance. Classes can be balanced - but the more freedom you have the more chance of broken combos. And when that happens - balance is shifted from being something the games system does to something the GM does.

In HERO the GM being the guiding light of balance in games is pretty much a part of the package. They set point build points, attack and defense guidelines and such. If you play in the system a lot, you get used to "no - that won't work in my game" as a normal part of play - you have to, because the freedom of creation forces the GM to do it.

Given how many heated discussions we have had over "It's in the book so I should be able to play it" and "GM doesn't allow X, he's a horrible GM" that if the main force of balance in Pathfinder moved to the GM there would be rioting in the streets.

I'm happy with Classes and Levels in Pathfinder, it's not just baked into the rules, but the attitude and culture of the players.

The level system should accommodate both styles. Run a low level game if you want a deadly world, run a high level game if you want superheroes.

I'd rather people start their game at level 3 than have the design retool level 1 characters into action heroes.

If all the adventure paths started at 3rd, that would be a great idea.

So, I was thinking of using resonance and attuning as putting a tiny bit of yourself in the magic item (as a story way to make it fit) and I thought of a piece of fiction that could easily fit that paradigm - spending an attunment on a one shot magic item before/as it was used: "Arrow! Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!"

There's a fringe theory that the fourth spell list (after arcane, divine, and nature) is psychic, and they're going to introduce archetypes that give access to that list so that occult classes (or at least the Psychic) can be simulated right away. I'm hopeful but not expecting it.

I am a proponent of that theory. I may be the inventor; at least when I posted that idea, I had not seen it said before; so it could be paralell development.

Our group almost never used consumables, so the one point of this that I would not like won't be an issue at our table.

But so far, this is the biggest change from PF1 for me.

I thought realism was what caused the LF/QW "Oh you can't do magic, then you are limited to what people in the real world can do, mostly" ;)

Assuming these cannot be done with Archetypes and such:

Summoner
Magus
Oracle
Witch
Investigator
Occultist
Psychic
Medium
Shifter

If Prestige Classes can be turned into base classes:
Mystic Theurge

Yes, I like spellcasters, why do you ask?

David knott 242 wrote:

The 4th spell list cannot be psychic or occult because there are no psychic or occult classes in the core rulebook. Bard is far more likely.

That’s certainly a reason why it wouldn’t appear. However if it’s accessible via archetypes rather than via a core class then perhaps not. Time will tell :-)

Yeah, lots of people said the Psychic is a reskinned Sorcerer, maybe now it really is. :)

Fits those kinds of stories best, too. Say the Monk is facing an enemy of a type that has recently been a lot of trouble, but she leveled up and learned a new, relevant aura.

Monster: "Fists break upon my hide as easily as swords, foolish girl!"
Monk: (assumes a new stance) "Last time was different. I've been practicing a new technique especially for this. Now is as good a time as any to use ... the Silver Crescent Style!"
Monster: (exaggerated shock)

That was so perfect that when I saw it in my mind, the voice and the mouth movements didn't match.

Ok... I've been a fair negative nelly about the change but this blog just completely reversed my stance.

The XP is fairly cool, the ability score stuff is fine...

I love the way classes are being handled. Almost all of my house rules for Pathfinder were ways to open up the options for more versitility in class. Owen's RGG Talented line was something I used extensively, and this comes across fairly similar (not quite as flexible, but that is fine). One thing I was worried about was multiclassing - but this structure could make that a breeze.

You have me converted now.

I think PF2 is the right move for the company.
Is it the right move for me as a player? Based on the limited info we have, no.
And that is ok.

I have all my 3.5 material, I have all my PF1 material. I have all my 3PP meterial for both those systems. I have other d20 games with bits I've taken and adapted. But at the center of it all is 3.x core system.

I'm a guy that plays systems. I read lots of games and systems, but only play a few. I played AD&D 1st for 18 years. I played 3.x/PF for nearly 20. I've played HERO for 33 years. I've seen comments are 11 years is good for a game system - heck I've had campaign (same players, same characters) last longer than that.

Am I negative - well aside from the first day of freaking out about the change- not really. I know what I like to play. Am I said direct support for it is going to end - yes. I am sad about that. Am I sad that the game I've played for 20 years (or so) is moving on... sure. But it isn't the end of the world to me. I'll keep playing with what I have.

People like games for different things - it may be setting, it may be adventure support, it may be play at the table, and it may be the system itself. A lot of people came to Pathfinder because it was a continuation of the system of 3.x, and no other reason. Those people are not likely going to embrace PF2.0, and that is fine. Can they post their displeasure, sure. Should they attack Paizo or people in favor of the change - no. But they(we) shouldn't be mocked because we don't like the idea of PF2, because the reason we play PF is the system itself. Change the system, and that reason goes away, and at that point - PF2 is "just another game to look at".

I've been playing a Long time.

When 2nd ed D&D came out, I played first. Until 3rd came along. It because harder and harder to find players (until it got to the point that it was just me and my wife).

There were thing I loved in 3.x- one of the biggest thing was that each level was just a discreet package of skill, feat, or power choices. A class did not define the character. Now spellusing with multiclassing was borked, but it didn't take much to fix that. As the game has moved on (and further editions come out) that concept has been left further and further behind. Lack of that flexibility is part of why I didn't like 4E (among other things) and why I loved both Archtypes and prestige classes.
By indications it seems PF2.0 will move even further away.

I game not for setting, but for system. If the system is changed too much, then it's not the same system. I have a bad feeling that the changes to PF2.0 will change the system far enough that it isn't the system I like (that I have been playing something like 20 years now).

Chances are, if I play, it will be 1E. I have lots of material for it, it could last decades.

Backpack wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I agree that “you’re just a hater” isn’t a useful response to criticism, but you won’t see that from Paizo employees either. That’s inevitably an overly aggressive fan.

Again, I think the key is to refrain from commenting on another poster’s motivations. If everyone followed that rule, I think the place would be much nicer.

No, you're right paizo employees don't say your a hater shut up. They say "this post has been delete blah blah constructive criticism." It's maybe 1/50 where I feel they over step.

I am mostly worried about a significant portion of paizo's fanbase that is already voicing the opinion of "how dare you imply something about this could be bad."

We do not remove posts simply because we disagree with them. We remove posts that cross the line into abusive. And frankly, when Paizo as a company is the sole target of the abuse, we often err on the side of leaving them up. (Again, you will find many examples of this over the last couple days.) When it becomes offensive to individuals, that's when they come down.

Empirical evidence here - I have been whiney, and negative about the new edition, but didn't have any of my posts removed. :)

The primary reaason is the rules system. I'd been playing some minor variation of it since 3.0 came out. Saving throws, crit confirmations, class design, action economy, rolling dice for hit points - and most importantly the way character creation / classes, feats, etc work.
Gameplay at the table varies, but the character creation system is probably the single most important thing about the game to me.

Have no concern for setting (never have used a published setting in my life).

I moved to Pathfinder because it was pretty much the same game system I was playing, with tweaks. I didn't like 4E, although it was well designed. I don't do 5E, even though it is well designed. I like the way the actual mechanics of the system and character generation and advancement work. I love the huge amount of options (I don't think "bloat" actually exists).

Given I actually haven't played PF for almost a year - my tastes right now are runninga little different - but what I love about it is the mechanics, and when I return to playing it, it will be for that reason.

So yeah, with not having played it much recently, and the fact it is the ruleset/mechanics that I like, 2E is something I will enjoy reading about, and look at from a "this is a cool piece of game design" - I'll likely never play it - as they are changing the specific thing I came to Pathfinder for.

Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that

Honestly everything I've seen so far suggests that a LOT of material is being locked behind class gates.

And I am seriously not okay with that.

Not that this is going to be how it works, but the inner game designer wannabe immediatly sees this as a way to do multi-clssing dips. Sorta like Varient multiclassing. Blow 1 feat (or something) get a basic class ability, and access to that class' feat tree.

I wonder if a 3PP will do what Paizo did with 3.5, and keep the current iteration of the rules (3.x based) in print. Wouldn't have to say Pathfinder on it, just use that base set - for those who want to keep the same (basic) ruleset.

It would appeal to a niche of a niche so I don't think it would be a huge seller, but probably pretty robust sales if everyone who likes the system moved to it.

I have been drifting away from Pathfinder recently - most of what I did use was third party material (Spheres, Psionics, New Paths and such). Never used the setting, always used my own.
Spending more time with other hobbies, and been playing a new RPG with a very different feel (Genesys).
I am a little OCD with collecting and such - and 2nd edition makes a great breaking point to stop doing any of that.

I'll likely download the playtest, just because I like reading rules systems, and would like to see the changes... even if I don't plan on playing.

I hope the best for 2nd edition and Paizo, and all the 3PP that I am sure will benefit. But it will be without me. For me, this isn't going out with a bang, but I had drifted away already that this is more a whimper.

Snorter wrote:

Those classes look just what I was looking for.

The White Necromancer is famous on the forums, for those GMs who want to run games where necromancy doesn't have to be evil.

Archer, Theurge and Trickster sound like an attempt to transform some of the core prestige classes into base classes.

If you pull that off successfully, you solve the perennial problem prestige classes have suffered from day one, namely, halting progression in your original class(es), and having lacklustre PrC abilities that don't scale as expected for any given character level.

Excellent!!

If you decide to pick up the book, please consider doing a review :)

Thanks!

I got my book today. Planning on a review. Two classes made me want to start new characters, just to play them. Can't think of higher praise for a class book.