Mekkis's page

Avoiders of Aristocracy,

Congratulations on the unionisation!

As our founding documents say:

We the People of Andoran, in Order to form a more perfect Union....

May your negotiations be productive and in the best interest of all involved.

Mekkis wrote:

Pathfinder, with it's inherent imbalance, requires a social contract between the GM and the players - the GM to use levers to maintain balance between PCs and their challenges, and the players to show a certain amount of maturity to ensure that they do not exceed the expected power levels of each other (and of the challenges the GM provides).

Thank you; that cogently expresses much of what about I valued about PF1 that feels not to be so present in PF2. Except that the buy-in I look for from my players isn't "keeping their power levels similar and appropriate" but "getting into the wider range of roleplaying options available with more randomised power levels."

That's basically a byproduct of the system's imbalance: when players realise that they shouldn't min-max everything, it opens up many combinations where suboptimal choices (both in character building, and roleplaying) are enabled by the presence of powerful options.

So what was supposed to be wrong with an iteration?

As I see it, the answer is twofold:

The game needed to evolve to speak to the desires of the current crowd of gamers.

Pathfinder, with it's inherent imbalance, requires a social contract between the GM and the players - the GM to use levers to maintain balance between PCs and their challenges, and the players to show a certain amount of maturity to ensure that they do not exceed the expected power levels of each other (and of the challenges the GM provides).

The current crowd of gamers has been brought up without this kind of contract, or framework. And expecting them to grow into this is a Hard Problem.

Secondly, Paizo's business model of writing Adventure Paths and Organised Play content is dependent of them developing against a homogenous set of expectations. The very unbalance that encouraged hardcore players to invest hundreds or thousands of hours into Pathfinder, makes developing this content increasingly difficult.

Pathfinder 2 solves both these issues: making it easy to develop for, and less onerous for players.

Richard Crawford wrote:

I want no errata.

Because I want a perfect product with no errors.

But, given the choice between a product with unfixed errors and a product with errata, I'll take the latter everyday of the week.

Paizo does not have a good reputation for their handling of errata in the past, and with PF2, it seems to be getting worse.

At least with Pathfinder, developer's rulings ended up split between the faq and the errata documents.

Now, we need to refer to random comments that they're making on whatever podcast or promotional video that they have appeared on.

Where do you get the “seems to be getting worse” from?

When was the first errata for the first printing or the 1E core rulebook released?

Was it within 2 months of release?

It was within two WEEKS of release! The Thursday before Gencon!

And the second printing was in November.

It seems the problem is some errata have already been acknowledged which has given people arguably unrealistic expectations

Of the points that were mentioned I believe most were things that seem like they could have been design choices until confirmed as errata (wizard feat, sorcerer saves and unarmed proficiency). There were questions and doubt but no certainty

They are primarily working on the GMG and then getting classes ready for the APG playtest right now

But where has it been acknowledged? As far as I can tell, not having spent hours watching every twitch stream and podcast (but rather using these board's rather convenient RSS feeds - you can get it to flag every post by a developer!), they're only as part of off-hand remarks on videos.

I think the question is currently meaningless.

If you compare a PF1 CRB-only character creation to PF2 CRB-only character creation, there isn't a significant difference. Point-buy versus ability boosts... you still do the mental gymnastics to get things where you want them. Otherwise it's really just picking some stuff off a menu.

If you're building a caster, you've "got to" read the whole spells section, with either edition.

As again in a decade, when there are choices. 'Cuz right now, once you have a vague idea what you want to do, the two (or three) feat choices you get at any given level are easy to figure out which one(s) to not take because they have nothing to do with what you're building. Later, there'll be much more to choose from, and the granularity will be much finer, so taking time will make sense. Right now you could almost build a character by throwing darts.

I have found that the amount of busywork required to make qualitative assessments is considerably worse in PF2 than in Pathfinder.

Part of this is because classes don't have a "feat tree" that exists in Pathfinder. Part of this is because some class feats refer to focus spells that require referring to somewhere half a book away.

This is further exacerbated by having feat chains that are heavily siloed - so if you want to take a certain sixth-level feat at sixth-level, you'll need to take the prerequisites. So now you need to understand what the sixth-level feats do before you make your choice at first level.

The fact that character options have all been significantly underpowered makes the whole process feel unfulfilling. The very fact that

Right now you could almost build a character by throwing darts.

doesn't bode well for character creation.

Will you be publishing your answers in a written form as an FAQ (or even better, Actual Errata)?

The claim that "the GM has too much power" is very different to the talk of an "adversarial GM vs Player Relationship".

In every RPG I've played, Rule Zero exists. The GM can make rulings and change things if they need to. You can't have much more power than that.

And overuse of Rule Zero can create an "adversarial GM vs Player Relationship".

However, there is a difference between "The Fly DC to hover in place is DC15" (but the GM can invoke Rule Zero) and "The DC is usually a standard-difficulty DC of a level equal to the highest-level target of your composition, but the GM can assign a different DC based on the circumstances".

In the first case, the player is expected to know the odds; in the second case, the player has several unknowns to deal with. This introduces uncertainty and makes the character's effectiveness completely beholden to the GM, causing their achievements to feel artificial, their failures to be blameable on their GM, and overall a lack of real agency in the game.

If a player wants an uncommon or rare item or spell, the GM effectively has two choices: to allow it (perhaps with a sidequest), or to prohibit it.

By requiring the GM to make rulings in this situation, the GM is no longer able to remain impartial to the player. This is the source of the adversary.

Crayon wrote:

Most Move actions, Standard action, etc are treated identically under the rules though which is most definitely not true of PF2 where they're still subdivided up into lots of categories that reflect how they function.

In practice it's no better than PF1 and arguably worse since at least in PF1 almost everything was followed the rules for either standard, move, or full-round.

What categories are you referring to?

Single-action is for moving and doing one-round buffs.

Conditions with direct analogues between PF2 and 4e:
Blinded
Deafened
Concealed -> Concealment
Controlled -> Dominated
Dying
Flat-Footed -> "You grant Combat Advantage"
Immobilized
Invisible
Persistent Damage -> Ongoing Damage
Petrified
Prone
Restrained
Slowed
Stunned
Unconscious

It's a full round casting, that means you can't move, but at the end of your turn it goes off, if they aren't already in AoO range, they don't get one.

Incorrect. It's a one-round casting. It means you start casting it during your turn (and you can't move), and it goes off at the beginning of the next turn. Smart foes (yes, they exist) may simply delay/ready to wake each other up as it takes effect.

I think focusing too much on a recent trend (like streaming and the success of critical roll) when building a system is objectively a bad idea.

One problem is that the group who does Critical Roll would be able to make a great stream, regardless of which system they used. And if you're in such a group, I envy you.

Just over a decade ago, there was a recent trend of MMORPGs coming out - with millions of players each paying a significant monthly fee. One roleplaying game decided to alter its system to try to appeal to this crowd.

How did that work out?

Announced all at once!

Including:

Product List wrote:

## Rulebooks ##

Core Rulebook (also a Deluxe ed.) [640 pp.]

Nothing says "simple and easy to learn" like the largest roleplaying book on my bookshelf.

Your base attack is actually closer to +13 than +20 (I don’t remember horizon walker BAB in 3.5 but I didn’t...

Divine Power
Evocation
Level: Clr 4, War 4
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level

Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (which may give you additional attacks), you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level.

One of the fun facts about Divine Power. It doesn't matter if you tank your BAB.

High ground can come from anything from Air Walk, to some form of flight, to riding on a mule.

in◆⃟ wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents?

By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.

As I stated upthread:

in◆⃟ wrote:

Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

That isn't a problem of keeping things in a comparable scale, that is a problem with the scale chosen. Proficiency can be made more noticable without having to have separate subsystems.

The problem is that the scale required to be significant on a single roll is significantly different than the scale required for the aggregate of multiple rolls.

Different scaling methods are required.

In terms of "how many different near-optimal choices are there at any given time", it's pretty hard to argue PF1e is deeper than the playtest. That number hovered very near to "one" at all times past character creation in PF1e.

One of the strengths of the Pathfinder system is that it's flexible enough that it's not required for players to make "near-optimal" choices at every turn.

The wriggle room that exists means that concepts that are definitely "suboptimal" (like most multiclassing choices), or are obviously "non-optimal" (I have a PFS character who, even at 6th level, hasn't rolled a die) are still viable.

Especially in a group of mature players who don't try to squeeze every last bit of optimisation out of a system.

Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents?

By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.

As I stated upthread:

Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

Another big change that I'd make (in addition to those proposed upthread), is to reprice magic items.

Basically, a lot of magic items, even those in the core rulebook, are grossly overpriced.

What I'd do is set price benchmarks, and then rate every other item against them.

To pick a random Core Rulebook item, the Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location has a list price of 35000gp. However, when compared against a +4 weapon (36000gp), a +6 stat-booster (36000gp), or even a +5 armour (25000gp), it's unusable. If a PC picks it up, they'll sell it.

The Core Rulebook, p549, explains that:

The easiest way to come up with a price

is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced,
using that price as a guide.

This guide should be reapplied to all items.

Alright, usual caveat of "You're at 20th level, Anything can (and should have already) happen".

Furthermore, assuming that this is asking for a single character, PHB/DMG only.

Compounded by the unspoken request to avoid Stupid Exploits or loopholes that any sane GM would veto (Simulacrum, Polymorph Any Object, etc).

As this is 3.5e, I'd start by ditching Fighter and going with Cleric:

Specifically, Cleric 14/Loremaster 3/Horizon Walker 1/Bard 1/Dragon Disciple 2

You have access to True Seeing, which will get around displacement/darkness etc.

Choosing Luck Domain opens up Moment of Prescience, and gives you a free reroll.

Feats:
Endurance
Metamagic or item creation feat 1
Metamagic or item creation feat 2
Metamagic or item creation feat 3
Skill Focus (Knowledge whatever)
Weapon Focus (weapon of choice)

Spells in effect:
Divine Power
Righteous Might
Aid
Divine Favour
Heroism, Greater (from a scroll)
Blink (from a scroll)
Haste (from a scroll)

BAB +20
Ability +16 (18 + 2 racial + 5 advancement + 6 enhancement {free} + 5 inherent +4 size +2 Dragon Disciple [42])
Enhancement +9 (+5 plus Double Bane - you can get this for only 50000gp by casting Greater Magic Weapon)
Size -1
Luck +3
Morale +4 (Heroism)
Insight +1 (Horizon Walker)
Competence +1 (Pale Green ioun stone)
Weapon Focus +1
Untyped +1 (Loremaster Secret)
Blink +2
Haste +1
High Ground +1

For a total of +59. Your first attack hits on a 1.

Moment of Prescience (Luck Domain) adds a +20 insight bonus (+24 with Strand of Prayer Beads) for a single attack.

I haven't actually crunched the numbers on the cost of the items required for this, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.

What is surprising is that this character actually seems viable to play from levels 1-20, without really appearing overpowered. There might be an XP penalty for multiclassing for some levels.

The magnitude of the modifier isn't what's important. The difference between modifier and DC is more important.

I don't care if I have +100 vs DC110 as opposed to +10 vs DC20. And if a modifier that I keep investing in remains at +10 vs DC20 for levels 1-10, it's not advancing.

Likewise, if a modifier that I keep investing in grows to +100 vs DC110 by level 10, it's still not advancing. It's just inflating.

Big numbers alone don't excite me.

And that kind of interaction is the kind of opening of the design space that unified proficiency allows. Intimidation in PF1 was nonsense, you could bump your Intimidate modifier so high that you could unfailingly demoralize or coerce any monster or character, no matter how stalwart or powerful they were, because the DC that Intimidate is rolled against runs on a completely different track that can never be pumped in the same way.

Unified proficiency avoids interactions like that where an application of something has so much higher of a ceiling than the defense against that thing, like the above where you can make yourself unfailing at intimidation but can never become unfailing at resisting intimidation.

But while it opens the design space of "another way to harm someone in combat", it irreparably closes the design space of "having a skill's modifier being meaningful outside of combat".

This is the issue.

Does the game actually get better with more ways to harm someone in combat?

Please stop using a dollar sign to mean gp.

It's just wrong.

I honestly don’t think the superhero feel of PF1 is marketable anymore. Even during PF1 hey day, most campaigns only ran from levels 1-10 ish. In my own experience, which certainly does not speak for everyone, It seems a general consensus that play after those levels isn’t appealing.

The number of people I've seen discussing how awesome their characters' capabilities will be at high levels seems to run counter to the lack of appeal of playing at high levels.

The biggest barrier to high-level play is the ability to keep a group together for the amount of time required to get the characters to those levels. And any 20-level system will have that issue.

Once that barrier is removed, high level play becomes in much more demand. Take a look at the PFS forums to see how much people have demanded more high-level content.

While admittedly it is difficult to create content for higher levels due to the range of differing powerlevels on a per-group basis, I don't feel that this contributes to the lack of appeal.

There is certainly a valid argument that it was because the system became too broken after that point, which I think PF2 fixes, but there was also the argument of verisimilitude and how ridiculous a world is where PCs become superheroes. So while PF2 fixes the balance issues, it exacerbates the problem of verisimilitude by having Higher level PCs and monsters be vastly more powerful than their low level counter parts. Also, the +10/-10 crit system requires precise math tweaking and the 3-action system requires excessive damage dice (through the use of

Magic weapons or arbitrary monster damage bumps) due to lack of extra attacks.

Prior to 5e, that’s all the mainstream in the d20 system (d&d and pathfinder) knew so it was just accepted. Sure there were fringe systems, like castles and crusaders, that somewhat achieved a more balanced d20 world, but they didn’t quite nail it. However, 5e finally created a world that could tell believable stories which fit closer to fantasy literature / films. A big part of its success involved removing number inflation.

Others have stated PF2 doesn’t want to compete directly with 5e. I just don’t think that’s a route they can take (unless of course there is some copyright law against removing number bloat). Telling a super hero story in a fantasy setting is such a niche market.

Explicit inflation (where everything explicitly increases as a result of level) such as what is found in PF2 and in D&D4e is one kind of "advancement". Not only does it break verisimilitude, but it can easily disempower players from making meaningful choices. This has been discussed at length.

in◆⃟ wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

in◆⃟ wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

The problem is that items have to go to +5 because of legacy reasons related to weapons and armor. And that then has to go to extend to skill boosting items because having the numbers consistent allows for the interaction mentioned earlier.

I would argue that the interaction between skills, attacks and saves, while attractive on the surface, is the cause of a lot of problems and limits a lot of innovation and creativity.

I don't think it limits creativity at all. It opens it up to whole new possibilities.

Off the top of my head you could never have had the following idea in PF1 because skills operate on such a different scaling it would be impossibly strong.

Imaginary Psychic based class

Coercive Manouvre
You may use your Diplomacy skill for trip, bull rush and disarm attempts. If you are expert in Diplomacy you may attempt these actions from 10ft away, Master 15 or Legendary 25.

I understand that this does become an option. But at what cost?

Now skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

But where do you draw that distinction? Is Bluff a social skill or a combat skill? Intimidate? When the system defines your Will, shouldn't you use that one value in and out of combat?

To me, the unified proficiency system is the answer.

There's no such distinction. The difference is in the effect that a skill usage is able to produce in a combat situation.

Look at Pathfinder's usage of skills in-combat - Feint allows you to use Bluff to cause someone to become Flat-footed against your attack. But it requires a standard action. While that's not an insignificant effect, it's also not game-breaking. Even if you have a +150 to bluff.

Intimidate to demoralise too imparts the Shaken condition. Even if you're able to succeed 100% of the time, it's also not game-breaking.

Even most of the skill uses in PF2 don't have game-breaking effects if you can auto-succeed (critical success notwithstanding).

I can see why it's tempting to have a unified system where all the numbers are the same. To be honest it feels lazy. But they don't have the same degree of importance and it's folly to assume that they should.

I wish someone could explain what's going on.

In comparison to the Pathfinder Beta playtest, the designers are disseminating information everywhere except their own website. They will get on Twitch, they will speak on podcasts, they might even engage on Facebook.

But over the past two months, there has been very little feedback from the designers, either on blogs, or on the boards. The most we see is Jason Bulmahn locking threads.

For the record, this time last decade December 2008, on one day, the 20th of December, we got more posts from the designers than we have in the whole month of December 2018 - and half of November 2018.

Search results for comparison

MER-c wrote:

Gut reaction,

A lot of the loudest most toxic people here seem to have gotten what they want and now a great system is just PF1.5 with all of the problems it had before.

Reaction after some caffeine and examination,
The Proficiency change can be dealt with, still sucks.
Reducing the DC table is meh, resonance was an ok idea that didn’t jive with everyone so not surprised, and they didn’t kill +level to proficiency. It’s still PF2, but I’ll need to work on it.
Also flavor, I like flavor.

I think it's a bit unfair to assume that the changes are only due to the loud unhappy posters and not in any way to survey data.

I think it's extremely rude to call those who have been dissatisfied with the system as presented in the playtest as "toxic".

in◆⃟ wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

The problem is that items have to go to +5 because of legacy reasons related to weapons and armor. And that then has to go to extend to skill boosting items because having the numbers consistent allows for the interaction mentioned earlier.

I would argue that the interaction between skills, attacks and saves, while attractive on the surface, is the cause of a lot of problems and limits a lot of innovation and creativity.

I don't think it limits creativity at all. It opens it up to whole new possibilities.

Off the top of my head you could never have had the following idea in PF1 because skills operate on such a different scaling it would be impossibly strong.

Imaginary Psychic based class

Coercive Manouvre
You may use your Diplomacy skill for trip, bull rush and disarm attempts. If you are expert in Diplomacy you may attempt these actions from 10ft away, Master 15 or Legendary 25.

I understand that this does become an option. But at what cost?

Now skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

Even a system known for its extremely tight math (D&D 5e) displays this: there are several class features that allow a character to double her "proficiency bonus" to skills (for example, the first-level Rogue's Expertise), and there are Uncommon items that offer +5 modifiers to skill usages (Gloves of Thievery).

The other way of trying to make these modifiers more noticeable is to require a social encounter to be resolved by multiple rolls. There are several examples of this, (Chase rules, Skill Challenges, Social Combat, etc), but they all "feel" like forcing a very "gamist" perspective on what should be a roleplaying effort. So far, none of them have been particularly good.

The problem is that items have to go to +5 because of legacy reasons related to weapons and armor. And that then has to go to extend to skill boosting items because having the numbers consistent allows for the interaction mentioned earlier.

I would argue that the interaction between skills, attacks and saves, while attractive on the surface, is the cause of a lot of problems and limits a lot of innovation and creativity.

One of the reasons that there hasn't been any real outcry over Starfinder is because it wasn't designed to replace Pathfinder. It's not replacing anything. People who dislike it can simply stay away.

To a player who is invested in Pathfinder - especially in organised play - PF2 can represent a significant step back.

Skill gates and feats a +level to proficiency were innovative ways to simplify certain aspects of building and advancing a character, while giving room for future growth and conceptual diversity within the system.

Neither gating, nor +x/level to all numbers are at all innovative.

They have invariably been tried before to a lacklustre result.

Regarding Gating, when it appears, it tends to manifest in a way for a GM to say "no" to a player as a result of something that a player has little chance of improving in the short-term. Look at the outcry when the Technologist feat was printed.

Adding your level to Everything was tried too in several other systems. None of which received universal praise.

So one of the best things about PF2 is that the proficiency system works the same for things like "saves" and "armor class" and "attacks with weapons" as it does for skills.

It would be a shame to break this in the interest of changing how skills work, and giving a fighter a massive advantage in "to hit" compared to everyone else, and giving Paladins a huge advantage in AC would be worse than the current issues with skills.

Also, nothing wrong with monks having a high AC, some of the highest AC characters I saw in PF1 were monks.

Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity?

A 10th level character should be about an equivalent match to a level 10 Young Red Dragon. And at level 14 that character should be able to walk all over that young red dragon but they should be equivalent to a 14th level adult red dragon. Otherwise frankly either the creature's or the player's levels are mislabeled.

Now yeah, Fighters should be above 50% to-hit on most foes because few foes should have defense to match the Fighter's offense. But I fully expect that to be the case once the monster math is polished.

You can have an equivalent match without a 50%. Even taking your example, a Paizo-published level 10 NPC fighter has a +18 to-hit (not including an additional +3 from mounted charge). A Young Red Dragon has AC22.

The fighter hits on a 4 - and this is with NPC wealth.

+1/level is a symptom, not the underlying problem

The have been countless threads on this forum about issues with the +1/level system. And every time it comes up, well-meaning people suggest replacing it with +1/2 levels, or removing it entirely. I don't believe that this will achieve anything meaningful.

The underlying problems will still be there. What +1/level has done is replace advancement with inflation. Removing it doesn't solve the lack of meaningful advancement, it simply removes inflationary advancement.

Back in March, I outlined that clear and meaningful advancement is one of the most important things I'm looking for in PF2. Unfortunately, meaningful advancement is only achieved when a character comparatively improves when compared to the challenges they're expected to face.

The concept of "level-appropriate challenges" breaks immersion pretty hard. The inclusion of table 10-02 is the kind of thing that already raised red flags. A good fighter should be able to hit most of the time. A good diplomat should be able to convince an adversary most of the time. A conman should be able to pull off a scam more times than not.

A second, equally concerning factor is the tight equivalency between all the relevant rolls. Your attack bonus, skill bonus, armour class, saving throws, and perception modifier are so tightly coupled that it is believed that the system will break down if a character ends up Really Good at one thing. This is at odds with many of the published literature, where we do see characters Really Good at such a thing.

Pathfinder has solved this problem by making it possible for a character to be Very Good at certain aspects without causing the system to break down. Admittedly, maybe it's too easy to get too good at too many things (especially with more non-core options being printed), but by and large it succeeds.

There needs to be a method to allow advancement in some aspects to exceed increased DCs. Adding +x to both is nothing but inflation.

The DM of wrote:

Why should non-spellcasters have access to spells? Fighters get Legendary weapon proficiency. Wizards don't. Why does a Fighter get to cast anything?

Wizards can hit things with weapons; they're just not as good at it. Fighters can do magic, given the right materials, they're just not as good at it.

Let's say I'm writing an adventure. I want the party to be able to do magic in order to complete the story. Their quest leads them to find a ritual in a book for how to seal the demon, repair the flying castle, cleanse the haunt, that kind of thing.

But as an adventure writer, I can't guarantee that any given group players will have the right kind of caster in the party. Rituals free me up from having to worry about that kind of thing.

As an adventure writer, bemoaning the fact that a caster is required for the plot-specific "ritual" that you're written sounds like something that you could fix by writing it differently.

Aenigma wrote:

75%? I'm so surprised at seeing so many people like the new way of building monsters. I have always thought monsters should have statistics more like PCs as they used to. But to my surprise people don't seem to prefer this nice old way.

They're too restrictive. All fey have d6 hit dice, good R and W saves and 6+ skill ranks per level. All of them. All animals have the same base - mammals, reptiles, fish. All aberrations. You should not be able to look at an aberration of all things, decide it's got roughly so many hit points, d8, so x number of levels and then know it's BAB, saves and number of skill ranks.

They don't offer any diversity for statistics within the creature types

That is Trivially fixable. The change of type-based hit die to something role-based could be done in two paragraphs.

It's not a very good case for overhauling everything.

Also keep in mind that while "your game" isn't broken, PF1 by-and-large is. Schrodinger's Wizard is a thing, and it's only a matter of time before that approaches your table and you're forced to step in and "fix" things.

Yes. Schrödinger's wizard is a thing. Specifically a strawman used to unfairly "demonstrate" why a system is broken.

It's not a thing that happens outside theorycraft.
"Stepping in an 'fixing' things" is the job of a GM of a flexible system like Pathfinder.

Aenigma wrote:

Mark, can I ask you a question? I wonder, why did Paizo decide to make the 10th level spell list? When I first heard that there will be 10th level spells in Second Edition, I was really happy, because I thought that means we will have epic rules included in the core rules. But later I found out the 10th levels spells are not that powerful. Many of them were originally 9th level spells and some of them even got nurfed. I'm confused. Why did Paizo separate them from 9th level spell lists and create a 10th level spell list instead? I mean, I think just deleting 10th level spell list and putting all the 10th level spells into 9th level spell list would be a good idea.

It's simple actually, Wish was freaking broken, such that I have actually not met a DM yet who hasn't banned it and other spells that are now 10th level. This makes sure they don't appear until the very highest levels, where they belong.

Wish isn't broken; it's literally the opposite (as it requires the GM to approve its use on a case-by-case basis). I have never banned Wish in any of my campaigns. At a 9th level spell, available at level 17 (maybe a couple of levels earlier as loot), it already doesn't appear until high-level play.

Since May, when I made this post, I've been trying to work out what could be changed from Pathfinder that could not be considered "worse" by any current Pathfinder player.

As far as I can tell, I've arrived at some changes:

• Remove some unnecessary rules, like the +1 BAB requirement to draw a weapon while moving.
  
• Remove or reword horribly misunderstood and unclear rules, like the "bless counters and dispels bane" and other "counters and dispels" clauses that never come up in matter of course.
  
• Reword the counterspell rules in general - in particular, remove the "same target" requirement that makes counterspelling personal-range spells impossible.
  
• Increase skill points for the sorcerer, fighter and cleric.
  
• Change the sorcerer's spell access - possibly by removing their one-level penalty compared to the wizard, and definitely by making their bloodline spells available as soon as the slots were unlocked.
  
• Possibly replace Arcane Spell Failure with a straight proficiency requirement.
  
• Add sidebar notes to commonly abused spells like Simulacrum to curb the theorycrafted abuses that arise.
  

I've actually started trying to build a system like this; watch the Homebrew section in the coming few weeks.

The problem with PF1/D&D 3.x is that it has skill points. And you never have enough of them.

Why? Because to stay on the treadmill, you have to put ALL YOUR POINTS into the skills you want to be relevant in. Just relevant, not good. 'Good' requires investing feats. Or being a caster, but that is a problem they are getting at.

However, that means that all your skill points are spoken for, and even putting so much as 1 skill point into a knowledge skill for flavour (mostly being able to roll for more then a 10 and actually know something that isn't 'common knowledge') is basically 'gimping' you character elsewhere. /hyperbole.

But Pathfinder skills barely have any "treadmill" to stay on. After spending far too long looking at the tables in the Core Rulebook, I've noticed that there are very few skill uses that have any form of per-level scaling: I can even list them.

• Acrobatics to avoid AoO (enemy's CMD)
  
• Bluff to Feint (enemy's BAB or Sense Motive)
  
• Bluff to lie (opposed by Sense Motive)
  
• Disguise (opposed by Perception)
  
• Escape Artist to escape a grapple (enemy's CMD)
  
• Handle animal to rear a wild animal (animal's HD)
  
• Intimidate (opponent's HD)
  
• Linguistics to create a forgery (opposed by linguistics of opponent)
  
• Perception to detect a pickpocket (opposed by opponent's Sleight of Hand)
  
• Perception to see someone hiding (opposed by opponent's Stealth)
  
• Use Magic Device to use a scroll (DC based on scroll CL)
  

This isn't much. And everything on this list is based on an active opponent - you know - the time it makes sense for a check to scale.

As far as I can tell, the only treadmill-like table I have seen in Pathfinder is the scaling in PFS specials, and Table 4-1 from Ultimate Intrigue (which is again effectively pitting skills against active opponents - and yet I haven't seen it in play...)

PF2, however, is scaling DCs in nonsensical ways - not only is table 10-02 presented with a tacit expectation for it to be universally applied (as it has been in the published adventures) - powers such as Lingering Performance and Heal are also based directly from that table.

I would replace every instance of ◆⃟ with something easier to type.

Some people hate the idea that magical weapons are actually magical. They want them to slightly help with accuracy and add eh, a slight bit of damage.

I disagree with your premise. I doubt you'll find any Pathfinder player (or <insert pretty much any other system> player)* who wouldn't like their weapon to have a more interesting effects than "a bit of accuracy and a bit of damage".

That being said, I agree that a weakness of Pathfinder is that the most effective weapon at a given price is almost always the boring +x weapon.

Likewise, the problem with both PF2 magic weapons is that their main reason for existing is to keep damage output in line with designer expectations. This was also tried in D&D4e, and the result was that it simply made the weapon mandatory for your character to remain effective (and not fall back on the treadmill).

Adding 4d12 damage is no more interesting than adding 4 damage and 4 accuracy. They're just numbers. At least in Pathfinder, the +4 weapon now overcomes DR/silver, cold iron and adamantine.

And against a level-equivalent foe, a fighter with a non-magical weapon would most likely fare better in Pathfinder than PF2. This, I believe, is an issue as it makes removing characters' gear even more punitive.

*Magic: the Gathering and other TCGs might be an exception

You are making a lot of points; let's address them. I'll rearrange them to make more logical sense.

Too many people, I believe, in these threads are trying to equate the Pathfinder Playtest to Pathfinder 1e.

However, I have seen a lot of comparisons made throughout the threads between this new system and 1e. Which makes it difficult to look at what ideas really can improve the Playtest and what is more about just wanting to continue making content for 1e.

I have no problems with people wanting more things for 1e. I think it's great that people are still having ideas for it and fully encourage people to explore those ideas. Perhaps even make some kick-ass third-party products.

In August 2019, there will be one product, with the Pathfinder name, that will cease to be supported. There will be another product, with the Pathfinder name, that will replace it.

For a group currently playing Pathfinder that wishes to play a supported system, they will be making comparisons. The biggest question that they will ask themselves is "Is PF2 a suitable replacement for Pathfinder?"

And on a negative response, they will stop paying for PF2. They will either find another system or remain with Pathfinder. (And they will tell their friends...)

Either way, it won't be a benefit to Paizo.

We, on this forum, are here because Paizo has allowed us to assist them in their endeavors in creating a new edition of Pathfinder. All of us obviously care deeply about the Pathfinder system and are excited to see the changes that Paizo has in mind.

This means all of us get very passionate and zealous about the new rules and how we would like to see them changed. Which in the grand scheme is great and I'm sure Paizo appreciates heavily the time and effort each of us are making.

No, we're here because Paizo thinks that by having a Playtest they'll be able to ultimately gain more sales of PF2 - by taking feedback into account and producing a better product, and by the marketing hype that the Playtest causes.

Through this lens, the worst thing that Paizo could do right now is shut down these forums and go through with releasing PF2. It would be a terrible marketing failure.

But this specific forum, these threads under the banner "Pathfinder Playtest" are here to test, discuss, and improve what will be the Second Edition of Pathfinder. So please stop comparing the two and instead focus on what you'd like to see adjusted about this new system.

One system is leaving, another is replacing it. If the new system is unable to satisfactorily replace it, then it is a failure.

To determine this, comparing the two systems is mandatory.

Create threads about what new feats you would like to see, how you would like to see a new class implemented, perhaps an observation about a rules weakness/strength, or even just a thread asking for clarification. These are the kinds of things that will help shape this new system we are all here to support.

Thank you and have fun Playtesting

I would argue that suggesting new content such as feats and classes is actually counterproductive at this stage, as there is no scope in the playtest to add new classes, and I'm unsure that poster-provided feats are actually within scope too.

I might be late to respond, but I think Marvin's points are very salient. And as such, they deserve a response.

I am probably going to be stepping 'in it' when I say this but...

To the people who feel that 1e was perfect...

Noone, not even the designers back when it was released, believed it was perfect.

It wasn't. Not even close, and getting farther from with every new release.

I love Pathfinder. My group and I have been playing it for years, but the shear weight of the materials available was making the system too difficult to manage. Fundamentally, the problem was balance oriented. A lot of the material outside the core books seemed thrown together with little thought to game balance. I found myself approving a few books only, and even then barring a whole lot of material because it was OP'ed for the level. And even then, the barrage of player requests about this, that or other feat or power was non stop.

Bolding has been added for emphasis. I feel exactly the same way. It's actually possible to point to the publication that started this trend.

The Advanced Player's Guide. Specifically the Witch, Alchemist and Oracle.
Giving characters at-will abilities with a save DC of 10+half-character-level+primary modifier was the start of the imbalances of Pathfinder.

But when you're releasing a new system, it stands to reason that existing material should not be automatically included.

I might be the only one who has had this experience, but I doubt it.

My experience with 2e is limited, but from what I van tell going through and making my own material up to run levels between the playtest material, is this new system has some built in checks to help balance that and I think its way overdue.

There are checks built into Pathfinder. They were ignored. Notice how it's almost impossible to get Dex-to-Damage in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder. Notice how it's very difficult to get high-DC at-will abilities in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder.

The checks were there. That they weren't followed is a lesson that hopefully the developers have learnt. And any revision that doesn't carte blanc allow all the existing splatbooks would have the same effect.

Its not the same. It takes a bit of getting used to. It has some rough edges and it needs more material.

But I think it will rock.

And here lies the problem. You're comparing the "bad parts" of Pathfinder (that the splatbooks cause imbalance) with the "good parts" of PF2 (that there are no splatbooks to cause imbalance).

The problem with wands of Cure Light Wounds that I heard from Slyme and the developers is that they don't like the players using the 1st-level wands instead of the 4th-level wands. A wand of Cure Light Wounds cost 15 gp per charge and healed 1d8+1 hit points for an average cost of 2.7 gp per hp. A wand of Cure Critical Wounds cost 420 gp per charge and headed 4d8+7 hit points per charge, for an average cost of 16.8 gp per hp. That is about six times as expensive, so players prefer the cheaper wand of CLW. Changing the price of those wands to the same cost per hit point healed would remove the incentive to buy the low-level wand.

But what is the underlying issue with using lower-level wands here? Is it that they're not spending enough money on out-of-combat healing and this is causing wealth imbalance? If this is the case, there are other ways of resolving the wealth imbalance.

Is it because in-universe wand-makers aren't selling enough high-level wands? If this is the case, there's a case for making the higher-level wands more attractive.

Is it because their idea of "levelled items" breaks down when people have no impetus to buy the "high-level" version of a category of items? This might be cause for rethinking the idea of levelled items, perhaps.

I'm currently earning about eighty times as much money as I was fifteen years ago. I still drink the same water and beer, and (most days), eat the same types of food. I pay nowhere near eighty times as much for transport as I used to. And my medical expenses have hardly changed at all.

pogie wrote:

CLW wand spam is a problem that seems to exist nearly exclusively in the minds of the devs. I have never once heard a complaint about it from players or GMs.

Contrast that to the amount of complaints that’s are voiced in opposition to resonance, the system devised to fix this supposed problem.

Don't blame the devs. They heard more complaints over more years.

For example, a quick web search brought up a thread from 2013: Hating on the Wand of CLW.

Have you actually read that thread? Almost all of it is one person disliking it and everyone disagreeing.

Regarding the OP:

Am I the only one who sees the only actual problem with wands of CLW spam is the fact that no one buys higher tier wands, not actually the use of wands to heal?

[...]

Would it not have been easier to fix this 'problem' by simply adjusting the price of healing wands? Make CLW more expensive, or make CMW and CCW less expensive? Maybe even make a completely new healing item that scales with the users level or something?

Why would you make the wands more expensive? What are you trying to achieve here?

Is it that characters are getting too wealthy and that they should be spending more on consumables?

Is it that there are items in the Core Rulebook that are never bought? Reading the Magic Items section, there are many items that fit that criteria.

Temperature is something that due to the two systems in place, really needs to be expressed in both Celsius and Fahrenheit. I've recently been travelling in North America, and I still can't easily tell whether setting a thermostat to 68 is reasonable. And I get blank looks when I remark how tomorrow's going to be 15.

A clause that comes up in any scenario using the Environment rules:

"Fortunately the weather is not as cold now, but during the night the temperature still drops below 40 degrees Fahrenheit for 4 hours (1 a.m. to 5 a.m.)."

Players have a really hard time relating to what "40 degrees Fahrenheit" actually means.

I really don't like how these negative conditions don't stack.

If an enemy is prone, surprised and flanked, it stands to reason that they'd be easier to hit - and easier to crit - than were they just surprised.

This not only rewards players for cooperating to impose different conditions, but also improves realism when it comes to an assassin being much more likely to crit their victim after they've sneaked into their room while the victim is sleeping.

Imagine if you could just cast a nice Dominate Person on a king in his sleep.

You now have a 9th level (PF 1.0) Wizard-king with a sucker on the throne to be the target for non-Red Mantis assassins.

In PF 2.0 they get a save every 6 seconds and it's a 6th level spell.

Which of these options allows you to tell a story where a king has been dominated and needs to be saved?

The argument of paladins being of alignment extremes is tempting in its simplicity. On the surface, it seems logical.

But the fact of the matter is, a chaotic-evil antipaladin-blackguard-whatever is such an unplayable concept that I doubt it's worth the time to develop it or the pagecount to print it.