Axebeak

MMCJawa's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 7,068 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,068 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0

Great for your group, but given the state of Pathfinder at present, it would probably not go well for the company. 5E is drawing existing PF 1E players away, along with the normal attrition that all games have with their player bases.

As I see it, Paizo can:

Go with a significantly new edition and gamble it will bring in enough players to counteract those turned off. If you win the gamble, you'll do great. IF not, well...things go poorly

Do nothing at all, or just offer a mild update of the system. Consign your company to a massive downsizing that the company may never recover from.

I just don't see option 2 as viable. Option 1 is risky of course and who knows if it will work, but risk is better than nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

a modest edition change has it's own problems for Pathfinder. For starters, you will get a large chunk of players who will get angry that they will be "expected" to buy an update all over again that just tweaks the rules. Especially given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Spell points are going to be very different after the next update, as they are getting changed into Focus points that also manage item use, and getting buffed as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
-Active items do not cost Resonance and have daily charges, but can be overused with Focus to gain additional uses or effects

Noooo! One of my favorite concepts behind Resonance was killing the idea of having 20 separate pools of stuff to track for items.

Technically we get a reduction of pools though, since spell points are now combined with resonance for Focus. "Resonance" as it will exist is just the flat ten slots you get for magical items. You won't really have to track Resonance than.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is a summary of the stream in the magic items section of the playtest forums.

At least a couple of the issues brought up in the last few posts were dealt with. For instance, apparently survey results implicate that tying damage to level, rather than weapon, was very unpopular. They also acknowledge that the survey shows alchemist (and ranger) as the two least popular classes, and with the former definitely needing fixing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Glad someone posted this. I watched it last night but had other things going on, so didn't feel comfortable posting a summary that might be wrong. Surprised so few replies, as, at least as described, this seems to resolve a significant issue for 2E.

Kind of surprised not more replies though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ClanPsi wrote:

Many Dwarves live in mountains. Mountains are cold. Why don't those Dwarves get cold resistance, but sissy Elves do? Pretty f*cked up. I suggest:

1) Replace Arctic Elves with Aquatic Elves and/or Desert Elves. Take away the resistance and give the former a swim speed or ability to breathe water, and/or the later fire resistance.

2) Replace Desert Dwarf (What Dwarf has ever lived in a desert? O_o) with Arctic/Mountain Dwarf. Give them cold resistance.

Snowcaster elves and Pahmet Dwarves are things in the Golarion setting...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

embedding more skill uses in different degrees of proficiency is a good idea, although I don't think I would want to get rid of skill feats entirely. I like that there is some modification and customization of what exactly you can do with skills.

I think a good way of resolving the "locking" of certain combat styles, etc is to have combat archetypes. I don't think they should be mandatory (it might be your concept fits perfectly well within an existing class), but having some general archetypes like "Archer", or "duelist", that would allow you to expand on certain combat styles, would be pretty good.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tridus wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I think the important thing to consider is that this forum probably isn't a representative cross section of the game buying public. Hell, forums in generally are pretty much dying off, as discussion spaces have moved into sites like facebook and Reddit.

This is true. Those other sites aren't a representative cross section either. Nor are the surveys.

The issue with a voluntary playtest like this is self selection bias. You aren't testing against the game buying public, you're testing against the group that will play in a playtest and then submit feedback. That group will skew certain ways naturally, and the people who have been with Paizo a long time and are most invested in Pathfinder are going to be over represented because they're the most invested in being involved.

The thing is... while that might not be a huge group market wise, it's also your core audience. Losing them costs you your most diehard fans, and those are the ones that evangelize and push the game on their friends to try out. They're worth more than someone who plays PFS once a year at the local con and otherwise doesn't know the game exists.

In my own playtest group, we had 7 people and currently have 5. I know that two are submitting surveys, I know one is not, and I'm not sure about the other two. The thing there is that the split of who is and who isn't doing surveys itself skews the survey results because one type of personality is more represented in the results than the other.

Quote:
There was basically NO POSSIBLE WAY a new edition could go forward without alienating some existing set of Pathfinder players. We just don't know how significant that set is.
Absolutely. We have no way to draw informed conclusions.

Statistically, there are ways to control for this in the surveys, since not only will they have a general "sense" of responses but they will also have data on the number of surveys. If the general "done with playtest because I don't like the current version of PF2" is something of an issue, than they should be able to tell by the drop off of the surveys and the correlation of positive ratings with the number of respondants. It's also why there are less open ended questions and more rating on a scale, because those are far easier to do stats on to control for bias and sample size issues.

I was going to do a huge post on this last week, as I get teaching surveys every week, and a lot of what I observe in there is relevant for this discussion, but sadly I ran out of time and forgot (and I have a practical to go set up now, so it's not happening this morning either!)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well....I think we really won't know anything until a year or two after the game is released (especially since I do expect a lot more revision).

I think the important thing to consider is that this forum probably isn't a representative cross section of the game buying public. Hell, forums in generally are pretty much dying off, as discussion spaces have moved into sites like facebook and Reddit.

There was basically NO POSSIBLE WAY a new edition could go forward without alienating some existing set of Pathfinder players. We just don't know how significant that set is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon Onozuka wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
IIRC one of the bits of lore about Elves is that they very quickly adapt to/are changed by their environment. Like it's been 3000ish years since the Elves came back from space and already some of them have gills and are living underwater.
Then why aren't elves the dominant and most widespread race in Golarion? Like, I thought the whole point of humans was that they were adaptable/skilled and thus were able to settle all across various biomes despite being shorter lived, less magical, and not as strong as some other races.

I always figured it was reproductive rate. If Elves are elephants, than humans are rabbits.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My biggest thing really comes down to feeling that the heritages were quickly thrown together using all the heritage feats, rather than designed the heritages around broader concept from scratch. I am also not sure it's completely fufilling the demands for more ancestry feats to provide flavor to races. Yeah, you get an extra "feat" basically, but you get stuck taking a heritage and a regular. You can't take two heritages, or two regular feats, so options are still limited.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

as a Golarion lore junky these seem a bit...odd. When I heard heritages, I sort of assumed more of a subrace or something equivalent. And some of them work that way. For instance I love the flavor of most of the gnome subraces (Bleachling, Fell, etc).

But others...Unburdened dwarves as a distinct heritage? Keen-eared Elf? Huh? I mean the environmental variants make sense at least, since we have desert dwelling and snow dwelling elf ethnicities.

I mean I would rather we have heritages, and just have some of these more generic things be either general ancestry feats, or feats you can only select at first level. It's and improvement but still rubs me the wrong way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

In my spell review thread someone mentioned that they think classes like the Magus will just use the common arcane list when they come out, because it would be just much more easy to manage spell lists if they are universal.

I think that is overall a bad idea, because unique spell lists are part of what makes new classes unique and interesting. Hence, I also liked the six level spell lists, because you could do interesting things with it. The only problem was DC scaling, but since that has been taking care of with the level bonus system, I don't see why we really needed all caster classes to be nine (or ten, optionally) level casters.

Would this really work? My understanding is that, even if you invest spells in higher slots, lower level spells are intended to not be as good as higher level spells. So I would imagine the damage output and such would start falling off compared to a full caster.

That might be fine in some classes, but maybe not in others.

The system seems to have other ways to potentially deal with casters that weren't full casters, like giving them less spell slots and more cantrip like abilities (like the bard), or maybe pushing spell point style casting. I dunno...I see the potential for a great degree of flexibility in how they design casters in the new system without creating brand new spell lists, although IF they do so remain to be seen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Folks, maybe it would be best to ask James Jacobs what he means by his comment? Rather than trying to interpret his remarks as suggesting there is some sort of division or friction within Paizo?

(for what it's worth I think Anguish's interpretation is more correct...not mechanically identical but the same sort of story).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pjrogers wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Now we are getting into semantics and interpretation. Thats just pointless back and forth in my book.

On the back of the playtest rulebook, it says "JOIN THE EVOLUTION!," and the first line of the playtest webpage, reads "Welcome to the next Evolution of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!"

Paizo is claiming that PF2e is an evolutionary development, so I think that judging the accuracy of this claim is anything but "pointless."

As a biologist, I am just interpreting this more as a punctuated equilibrium model of evolution :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wonder if one of the human ancestries will be Azlanti? There is already precedence for Azlanti to be a bit different stats wise than regular humans, so it would be an obvious choice as one of the four human heritages. Hopefully they are putting off Aasimar and Tiefling to later books, not because I hate them, but because they really need a lot more specific feat support than I think they will have room for.

Also really hope there is some sort of ancestry feat that grants you two heritages. It would be great if you could be a snowcaster half-elf for instance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zman0 wrote:

IMO general feats are about where they need to be and should have roughly equal power to each other. Class feats on the other hand need to escalate in power proportionally corresponding to their level. IMO a General Feats should be roughly equivalent to a low level class feat, and should not equal a mid to higher level feat.

Essentially general feats can’t be equally powered compared to class feats because class feats are a moving target with a wide and escalating range of power.

I wouldn’t mind general feats, especially the ability to pick up expert in weapons proficiency making the fighter version expert or upgrade expert to master.

This is sort of my feeling. General feats I think should be weaker, because they are open to everyone and shouldn't be the feats that define a character. Class feats, should be stronger. I wouldn't mind more general feats relating to combat. I think there are some basic options at the moment that are a bit too class locked that don't really need to be. and giving straight out better versions of certain general feats would also be fine for class feats, including perhaps working i some sort of automatic scaling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the thing is, the forum in and of itself is such a small sample size that it's hard to extrapolate anything towards the greater gaming community.

You are right, we don't have the numbers...the closest we can get are things looking at current sales numbers, which obviously can only tell us if a new edition was needed or not, not whether PF2E is going in the direction it needs to, in order to be successful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Christmas movie is a tradition in our household as well, but this year it's likely to be Aquaman (I am stoked on the Spiderverse movie but there is zero chance my parents will ever see a animated movie)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am not sure if general feats need to be stronger exactly, but I do think that currently there is a lot that is class locked that should be general, including the combat options. I have no problem if specific classes get super duper versions of more generic feats, but right now I think there is too much forcing to pick up multiclass archetypes to improve combat. It also creates a weird situation where everytime in the future that Paizo may decide to invent a class that thematically makes sense to be good in certain combat styles, they have to go ahead and replicate existing feats. I fear this will lead to a lot of wasted space and blandish class options.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:

Of course, I have an opinion of my own.

I want ancestry feats to become backgrounds. No, I do not mean an overlap with the Background feature of Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Instead, I want ancestry feats to be absorbed into the backgrounds. Any ancestry feat that is genetic will be automatically given by the ancestry and any ancestry feat that is cultural would become a background. For example, we currently have Weapon Familiarity under Dwarf ancestry.

WEAPON FAMILIARITY (DWARF) FEAT 1
Dwarf
Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hardhitting weapons, and you prefer them to more elegant arms.
You are trained with the battleaxe, pick, and warhammer. In addition, you gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of proficiencies, you treat martial dwarf weapons as simple weapons and exotic dwarf weapons as martial weapons.

It would become:

DWARVEN WARRIOR BACKGROUND
Prerequisite You must have dwarf ancestry.
As a warrior in your dwarven clan, you gained an affinity for hardhitting weapons from your kin.
Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Strength or Constitution, and one is a free ability boost.
You are trained with the battleaxe, pick, and warhammer. In addition, you gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of proficiencies, you treat martial dwarf weapons as simple weapons and exotic dwarf weapons as martial weapons.
You’re trained in the Warfare Lore skill.

Class feats would claim the name feat. Characters would receive a feat at 1st level and every even level.

Skill and general feats would be merged and renamed lesson. Characters would receive a lesson at every odd level, including 1st level.

Feats would be stronger in combat than lessons that apply to combat. But lessons would have more uses out of combat. The ancestry feat part of a background could be pretty weak, more like a Pathfinder 1st Edition trait, because other parts of the background could make up for it.

While I have my own issues with ancestry feats, I don't much care for this solution. I would rather keep a "job" separate from a race. After all, this sort of system would necessitate having to create a "warrior" version for all the core races, than a scholar, than a merchant, and so forth. I'd rather characters just pick up those options if they want them for the build via a feat.

My own personal stake on all these names is that its mostly a semantic issue that I don't really have a strong opinion on. If renaming things differently allows less confusion over the power level of a skill feat vs a class feat, by all means go ahead. If new players find using feat for everything more helpful, than that is okay too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Presumably the longer it goes the more straw polls will deliver positive results.

Given the math background of some of the devs, I would assume they are well aware of statistical methods of taking in account varying sample size. If there is a significant drop off and the drop off is correlated with negative reports, that is meaningful data after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Paladin flavoring here is perhaps my least favorite class re-envisioning. When I think Paladin I think "divine champion of law and goodness" not, "dude that wears heavy armor". I get their is a mechanical niche for the defense focused heavy armor warrior, but you don't really need to shove the existing paladin into that niche. The ranger also seems a bit off target for me as well.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like the suggestion for a feat for alchemists that allows them to use Int rather than Wis for healing. Makes sense for the class


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the current "furor" of design goals. Also my understanding is that current WotC staff and Paizo folks are on pretty good relationships. Don't mistake tensions in a fanbase with tensions between creative folks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Basically the devs stated that revising the resonance rules in the ways they are considering would result in a complete rewrite of the magic item chapter (plus other stuff like alchemist and such). Hence why they are updating that PFS scenario for now to allow testing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

A general mission statement does not make detailed design goals. A valid question would be "Why were spells so heavily nerfed in all respects (duration, effect, range, targets)?".

While there are enough forum members who will posit their individual opinion with great abandon about this (myself included), this does not equal an official statement by the developers in that regard. We don't know why they went this far, we don't know if a step back from this is even negotiable or if their decision is already cast in iron. All in all, we need more detailed information, on this topic and on many other topics of contention. In the absence of developer feedback, rampant speculation and discontent both grow unchecked.

I just wanted to chime in quickly (my apologies if this was mentioned already...haven't read read every reply yet), but I believe they have mentioned that for the playtest they often went with the more extreme/radical interpretation of a ruleset, because it is often easier to dial something back. They already mentioned (I think on a twitch stream?) that some of the stuff they considered to be "radical" has barely been commented on or that people thought they didn't go far enough.

Basically, I suspect they nerfed spells as hard as they did to see what the reception would be during the playtest, and that they will likely dial some of this back.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Charles Scholz wrote:

I wonder how much of the movie will be set in the present (1990's) and how much will be flashbacks to what happened to her before she crashed into Blockbuster?

Also, since the Skrulls are now part of the MCU, does that mean we will be seeing references to the FF, as they were first defeated by them in FF# 2 way back in 1962.

I doubt we'll see much more than hints of the FF for awhile, since all this has been planned for years and shoehorning them into the Infinity War plot at this stage would likely be awkward.

It would be cool if they could retcon them in as the first Super-heroes, missing for years. Kind of like they're doing with Captain Marvel. Off in space or chasing through other dimensions or some such. The FF really shouldn't be newbies. And cosmic explorers is their best role, so it would be great to see some of that.

IIRC, until everything is COMPLETELY wrapped up, Disney and Fox have to continuing operating as distinct entities, so I don't think 2019 will see much in the way of Fox owned entities showing up on in the MCU.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As much as I see the point about Daemon, I would rather keep the name than anything else. Daemons are one of the best developed evil outsider groups in pathfinder, and feel far more Paizo-infused than either demons or devils, which sort of follow the same template as what DnD does.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the inherent issue of a "slight retool", is that its not going to provide you with a lot of new design space, and you will have a large segment of the population that even then won't want to move on or buy into a slightly tweaked system.

I don't like everything in the new edition, but I do see it changing quite a bit prior to release.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:

I liked Paizo's decision-making better when they said they weren't trying to compete with WotC/D&D. They made decisions that made sense for them and their fanbase. Things seem like they took a turn they tried to spin-off an MMO. Maybe Paizo is becoming a victim of their own success.

-Skeld

I think this is a bit unfair though. I don't think it's so much trying to compete with WotC as trying to SURVIVE WotC. 5E is pulling Pathfinder Players who are bored/dislike the system away, and at least some of the current folks who still love the system don't buy paizo products or at least not at a sustainable level. Something had to be done, and a slight retool of Pathfinder for a second edition was probably not sustainable.

And Adventurers League certainly seems to be a powerful recruiting tool. PFS is nonexistent where I live, but I can check out the former at multiple game shops in my area.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think more ancestry feats are needed at first level (at least two), but otherwise I don't think number of feats are an issue. Make feats more impactful and give more options.

Also, I like the separation of feats into groups. If it was just any feat, I think there would be a lot more pressure from optimization for say, a fighter to just take combat related things. This way every character is going to get SOME more skill related things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Worlds Okayest DM wrote:

I'd agree with #1;

#2 Mostly agree. I don't think Starfinder really has anything to do with why they are releasing Pathfinder 2E. It's pretty clear from the release schedule of books that this was something in the pipeline long before they got the sale numbers for Starfinder (and Starfinder seems to be doing okay enough to get an increased AP release schedule, and to continue churning out material for.). I do think they need to release a new edition though, and they didn't have a choice. That's partly because folks were getting bored with the system for one reason and another, and drifting away (while at the same time not really getting newer players, who were enamored by the more visible and easier to learn 5E.

For the rest of part 2, I would say that Stars is not a comparable situation, for a lot of reasons. Other edition wars are more applicable. I also am not really sure the overall tone is negative per se, but rather that coverage of the new edition seems sparse in general. Some of those forums were pretty much negative before 2E was announced and it doesn't surprise me they were negative now. I'd be more concerned, not so much about the existing fanbase leaving Pathfiner (I would argue some of those have already done so, or at least are not buying Paizo products much), as I would of Paizo simply having difficulty breaking through the 5E wall to catch new players.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On the other hand, as far as Starfinder is concerned, aren't they increasing AP support for the line. That seems to suggest that it is doing okay for itself, at least in the context of the existing release schedule.

I think if Starfinder ended up being a failure, the hardcover schedule and AP schedule would be reduced.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Starfox wrote:
kpulv wrote:
Also I really really really implore you to remove flavor text from mechanical text. Put flavor at the end after all of the mechanical text. Fireball is short on flavor text thankfully, but my players and I pretty much have to train ourselves to ignore the first one or two sentences of every description in the book because it's not useful information.
I agree with this, except I'd prefer the description to come first, in italics.

YES...use italics for flavor text! This would help a ton I think


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

hhhhmm

If a concern is that wands of Cure Light Wounds are used to the exclusion of other healing sources at higher levels, how about just use resonance for each usage of a wand? Get rid of tracking individual charges at all, but make wand use directly spend resonance. Have each use of a wand cost the same, regardless of the level of heal. That means more expensive wands will be worth upgrading to, because then each R point spent will result in more healing.

I also think consumables should cost RP only to make, not to use once made. I would think these above things would do a lot of make resonance better


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I personally would prefer (hardcover wise) one "DM friendly" and one "player friendly" hardcover a year, at least once the initial "required" books are out.

Alternatively, now that setting material is being integrated into the rules material, there is a potential to merge material in such a way that you have a busy release schedule, while also having less bloat. Just look at books like Planar Adventures, that includes a lot of setting material, while also having monsters/DM material, new races, and other player material. Something like that could probably maintain a high publication rate without leading to option overload.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I see post after post in the feedback about people having total party kills.

I'm wondering how many of the party deaths are from people making PF1 assumptions in their PF2 game.
When I ran part 1 of Doomsday Dawn, I lost count of how many times the players started to move their character's mini, then stopped and said, "Oh, wait... is that gonna incur an attack of opportunity?"
So, basically, they were doing or not doing things based on their perception of what would or wouldn't happen, because of what they were used to from the old rules.
I wonder if a fresh, clean slate of rules understanding would provide different outcomes?

Yeah, anecdotally I have observed it on both sides of the GM screen. The difficulty level of PF2 is different from PF1, as is the difference between optimized vs unoptimized...I think at least some GMs, probably haven't accounted for that with tactics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I enjoyed reading this, and hope that you plan on using this data for the general surveys that should be coming out in a couple of weeks.

Does really seem like healing is one of the biggest issues to crop up in the playtest, not matter the personal preference for 2E.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My sense is that they are trying to fill the niche of a complex, option rich game that is also fairly easy to play/learn, in order to cater to 5E folks who maybe have grown bored with the system/release schedule, as well as maintain a certain segment of the current PF player base.

also to make a game that will be easy to use with adventure paths as well.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So Monica's mom (who is stated to be a single mother) is in this. Given this is set in the 90's, that should put Maria Rambeau's daughter at JUST the right age to join the current day MCU :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like the new system for the most part, but there are a few weird things I have seen that make me concerned

With Fuzzy-Wuzzy's caveat on haven't had a chance to personally playtest (although a close friend is currently doing so):

1: Make Ancestries stronger. I like the idea of ancestries, but they just feel far too threadbare early on, and also don't seem all that balanced. Building in more biological distinctions would be useful and more flavorful, and give a reason to pick a certain race over others

2: Remove Resonance from consumables. I am fine if a character has to spend resonance to activate certain magical abilities, or create potions and what not. But IMHO resonance on things like potions, scrolls, etc should be spent during production, not in usage.

3. Monster combat/skills seem a bit strong, and a common complaint I have heard and believe is that combat is a bit too swingy. So reduce that. On a related note, not including monster building guidelines is going to severely hamper GMs, especially for a system as radically revised as this.

4. Sorcerer. I like the idea of choosing your own spell list, but I am not actually certain all spell lists work well with the sorceror chassis. I am also concerned about them not being able to heighten the way a wizard can. I get option paralysis, but there has to be some other option. On a related note, Ranger still feels a bit bland, and the Paladin is probably the most radically reinvented class, which is going to cause some hard feelings.

5. Skills. Signature Skills seems to be a solution to something that was never a huge problem. If you are concerned about new players not investing skills that are most suited in to the class, a sentence in the class description mentioning what skills are most relevant for the classes features can probably solve that. I also feel that the skill system locking features behind proficiency is underwhelming. While I like the current level system as it makes it plausible for high level parties to all contribute to the same sort of tactics, there needs to be more explicit locking of usages behind levels. As is most things are locked behind feats, and tasks that you are incapable of performing untrained seem to mostly be skill uses related to magic use. A wizard can just about attempt anything a fighter can do untrained but not vice versa.

BONUS: still not sure how I feel about class specific combat feats. I get that this improves niche differentiation, and that some of the old PF1 feats no longer need to exist at all with the new system. But I feel like this is going to require a lot of reinventing the wheel each time a new martial class is created, which will require variations of those feats, and lead to a waste of space. I am not sure what the best way of dealing with this actually is...It would probably require hefty redesign of the more combat oriented classes, given how much of there class feats are old variations of combat feats.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Still not seeing any issue with uncommon spells.

IF a player wants teleport and the GM is okay with it, he doesn't need to create weird sidequests to find a specific spell. He can just drop it as loot via a spellbook over the course of the adventure. Martials frequently get their equipment upgrades in a similar fashion. Wizards and other casters will now have a lot more to look forward to when looting enemies for finding lost treasure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I dunno, on the teleport issue: It seems as if "making it uncommon" is basically equivalent to the GM having to constantly work up methods to make it not work when its inconvenient.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To be fair, I think a lot of this is future proofing for classes to be added later.

A design problem for building specialized classes that used concepts from the druid is that the druid was a very capable spellcaster, shapeshifter, and companion class, all at the same time with minimal investment. That made it tricky to say, create a specialized classes around The Hunter or shapeshifting while still being relevant.

I know people were predicting before the rules release that the new system would allow you to build EVERYTHING with only minimal need for new classes, but I would say it's the reverse. We are probably going to get more narrowly designed classes, and classes with more of a jack of all trades approaches are going to be less powerful.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

eh...I would rather just have it be a free action, than to start going down the pathway of creating an entirely new type of action that doesn't slot into the three actions and a reaction system. Cleaning up actions is one of the best things about PF 2E.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

What are your group's specific concerns, if you don't mind me asking.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.

I would bet it's almost entirely a symptom of how much you have played a system. If you started out in 1E and played through 2E (which is really only a modest change from 1E), you were probably getting tired of the mechanics or had run into the shortcomings of the system by the time 3E came out.

Someone who had just started with 2E (especially if they started later in the production cycle) probably hadn't gotten tired of the system, and were still in the phase where the idea of adopting a brand new different system would just induce groans.

I mean I think you are seeing a little bit of that here in the forums, either consciously and subconsciously from some folks.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seems worries about Hero Points are a bit overblown. A GM has absolutely no need for hero points if he wants to screw over players.

1 to 50 of 7,068 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>