Pappy's page

I am terribly disappointed to report that our playtest is over. While we enjoyed some of the features of the new edition, (scaling cantrips, and bulk - much to my surprise), the decision to abandon was unanimous.

We adopted the revised action econony from Unchained in our weekly Pathfinder game soon after that resource was released. So the action econony was not a new feature for us.

I look forward to seeing the finalized rules, but I must confess that we did not enjoy our experience with this new (unfinished) version. Perhaps that will change once feedback is considered and the new version finalized.

We are a group of mature gamers with decades of experience playing different role playing games. I am more than a little crestfallen that the playtest wasn't a fun experience. Maybe we just aren't up to the playtesting task? It felt like work and we puzzled over some of the design decisions.

Tonight I had a lengthy heart to heart with my group and we decided to continue with classic Pathfinder (with our house rules to correct issues as we see them). We considered switching to a different ruleset or genre, but will hold off on that for now.

Just pull the complete text of the resonance and magic item rules out of the document file you sent to the book printer weeks ago, and throw it online so we can get a better handle on this. You can do it right now, just make it a bonus blog. Since the conversational blog presentation style has obviously completely failed in this instance to properly convey what you want to convey, let the actual rules text from the book do it for you.

You don't have to actually show any more items. Just put the actual rules for items and resonance.

While I urge Paizo to take your suggestion, we are stuck in teaser trailer mode for another month or so

Unfortunate. No one else in my gaming group has remained interested in the conversational blog reveals. Perhaps they had the right idea.

I have this image of the legendary cat fall skill feat on a full plate fighter, dropping from the heavens into the middle of a battle, his halfling rogue ally saying, "Standby for Titanfall!"

Haha!

I'm not clear as to why skill ranks are still being used instead of moving completely to a skill feat system. I like the concept of skill feats adding depth to the broader 17 skill categories.

Pappy wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Side note, I know this is how you guys build monsters but outside of maybe the Multiattack and Resistance/Weakness, I wonder how GM's will be able to build/alter monsters. Say giving them Class levels or Templates.

Friday Blog maybe?

As a GM who loves to modify monsters with class levels, I am anxious to have more details on this topic. Will monster advancement and class levels still be an option?

Mark's previously said that adding Class Levels to monsters will be doable in PF2, yeah.

Which really only makes sense since everything has a level now and the PC rules can be used for adversaries.

No idea on templates or how those will work.

Glad to hear it! Thanks.

Side note, I know this is how you guys build monsters but outside of maybe the Multiattack and Resistance/Weakness, I wonder how GM's will be able to build/alter monsters. Say giving them Class levels or Templates.

Friday Blog maybe?

As a GM who loves to modify monsters with class levels, I am anxious to have more details on this topic. Will monster advancement and class levels still be an option?

I like that they are addressing niche abilities that didn't fit challenge rating. This is good news. Thanks Mark.

I have some players who will be ecstatic about upgrading specific armor.

One action heal spell is a great idea. Especially with the option to augment and broaden effect. This is promising. Our healer player is going to love this.

Pappy wrote:

Just caught up with posts on the thread. I'm saddened to hear that archetypes are rumoured to be generic rather than class specific. Archetypes are incredibly popular at our table as a way to further refine character class to fit player concept. Disappointing.

Don’t worry! The archetype system still supports single-class archetypes. They’ve clarified that.

I'm very relieved to hear that! Thank you for the quick clarification.

Just caught up with posts on the thread. I'm saddened to hear that archetypes are rumoured to be generic rather than class specific. Archetypes are incredibly popular at our table as a way to further refine character class to fit player concept. Disappointing.

* I really think there should be a word that means this, but all I can think of is orthogonally or perpendicularly, neither of which is quite right.

How about 'rookian movement' to borrow from a chess piece? ;)

I really like the new art.

Pappy wrote:

Thanks. Sounds cool.

EDIT

I hope this is a net new feature, adding anothe

I think it's supposed to be a temporal/causal progression.

Like
- you were born a dwarf.
- you trained to be a blacksmith as soon as you could work the bellows
- then you were ordained (or w/e) as a Cleric of Torag

the first step being Ancestry, the second being Background, and the third being Class.

I like the concept. It formalizes something that I have been asking players to do as part of character background (for future roleplaying ideas and hooks that I can draw from).

Pappy wrote:

This may have been stated already, but are ancestry backgrounds essentially an ancestral archetype? I hope to still see something akin to archetypes for the classes as well as this ancestral background feature. Archetypes have been fun.

Backgrounds in the Playtest Rulebook aren't directly tied to your race. The ones listed here are suggestions.

Thanks. More options are always welcome!

Pappy wrote:

This may have been stated already, but are ancestry backgrounds essentially an ancestral archetype? I hope to still see something akin to archetypes for the classes as well as this ancestral background feature. Archetypes have been fun.

I believe backgrounds are a separate component of character creation, representing what you did prior to your adventuring life and giving commensurate bonuses. So your Dwarf could be a scout and your Elf could be a blacksmith if you really wanted, it's just that Dwarven smiths are much more common than Elven ones because of cultural forces (Dwarves see this as a more noble calling.)

Thanks. Sounds cool.

This may have been stated already, but are ancestry backgrounds essentially an ancestral archetype? I hope to still see something akin to archetypes for the classes as well as this ancestral background feature. Archetypes have been fun.

Literally on Page 2 of "We Be Goblins" features the licktoads song threatening to turn babies into jam.

Literally Page 2.

Anyone else read this in Jeremy Clarkson's voice?

Pappy wrote:

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

and my group who have all ben gaming since the early or mid 80's have all liked it, i do not see pro or anti goblin preference to be an issue with how long people have been gaming

I hear you. And this will always be the limitation of anecdotal "my gaming group" stories. Even players with similiar experience will see things differently.

Pathfinder goblins have a very distinct character. Acknowledging how this character may be an issue as a common player option is not archaic. It respects a mythos that was purposely created.

Those holding with these beliefs do not seem willing to let them go. Those who are arguing against them are getting frustrated that their arguments do not seem to be accepted.

Friend, your post appears to fall clearly on one side of the AT versus TO spectrum to which you refer. I don't think its on the side that you think it is.

It certainly would solve things if we could just let go of what we consider important, but whose "important" should have prominence? Are those arguing for a big change always right? Maybe. I'm not convinced.

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

A new core race option appears inconsistent with "slower shift" to me. But we will see I suppose.

Pappy wrote:

At first it will be those of us familiar with the brand is what I'm saying.

They are releasing the playtest at GenCon, where thousands of people who are not currently playing will be given a chance to try it. So, no, I don't agree that "those of us familiar with the brand" are going to have any kind of unique access.

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, I hope that you are right and the new edition is wildly successful in drawing in new players. I see this as initially unlikely, but will be glad to be proven incorrect.

Pappy wrote:

Most PF2 players are going to be from PF1. At least for the first few years.

If Paizo believed that, they probably would just tweak PF1.

Do you really believe that Paizo isn't counting on a large influx of new players, attracted by a new game?

Are you saying that this new addition is going to immediately draw in significant numbers of new players? If you are, then I hope that you are right. Such a success will be cheered by both of us.

At first it will be those of us familiar with the brand is what I'm saying.

I could be wrong, but "core" suggests to me that choosing a goblin hero is just as common as halfling, gnome, elf, half-elf, dwarf, human, and half-orc. I mean why not? They are all presented as viable options in the core rulebook.

One of these things is just not like the others in my view. Sorry goblin. I love you, but not as a common option.

I don't recall anyone being bothered by the PC playable goblins in the Advanced Race Guide. So clearly the potential of playing one isn't the issue. Being "core" is significant.

Amen.

We had a great time running the We Be Goblins modules. That said, I'd rather not see goblins as a core race. Especially when we will have to wait for supplements to introduce aasimar and tiefling.

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well, personally i think i will have to house rule the core rule book anyway, so it doesnt annoy me as much as some others here.

But yeah, i do find weird that new GM mostly would take up a system where they need to cut stuff out from the get go, then again, maybe because they are new to PF they wont have as much as those of us here longer against goblins.

Almost everyone who is anti it, is anti it because they have conceptions of it from PF1. For new players and gms, they aren't going to have that issue at all. Unless someone else makes it an issue.

Most PF2 players are going to be from PF1. At least for the first few years.

I've always felt that rogues were a weaker class. This notwithstanding, my favourite past characters were all rogues.

Hopefully the update will keep the general flavour of the class but give us roguish types some more kick than a situational damage boost.

Hard to go back to a grid after playing gridless. Love gridless.

I like it conceptually. Is a combat blog post in the near future? I won't tell anyone.

There is no monster with a "fumble" reaction. There are a few PC (and thus NPC) abilities that trigger on an attack roll critical failure, but those aren't reactions to make the NPC who rolled the critical failure act like a goof; they are reactions where the PC with the reaction does something awesome like make a riposte.

Until some dastardly GM gives a monster some class levels. Who would do such a thing? Me, that's who.

If they do move to subscription, I sure hope saavy users develop a community data pack that converts original Pathfinder rules to the new edition as much as possible. I for one have zero appetite for a monthly fee to use the program.

The realities of book publishing are that we can't do more than give little bits of information here and there at this point. The book isn't done yet.

But we also couldn't sit on the fact that we'd be releasing it any longer. We have to give people a window to preorder it, and we need to give retailers the time to both order stock for themselves, and to ask us questions about the process and playtest rules set at GAMA in a few weeks. So we had to announce the playtest one way or another.

I appreciate your response and I understand completely that difficult decisions are an integral part of all businesses.

Perhaps I was too critical of a post that I read as trivializing those of us who are desperate for clarity and not looking for some kind of guessing contest. This may not have been a charitable interpretation on my part.

It's cool to see all the different speculation, particular those in this thread who were clever enough to predict that "Attack of Opportunity" might have some extra benefits now for fighter and friends, and that someone dedicated to interrupting without that reaction could ready an action. AoOs are pretty nice at interrupting actions nowadays, and they're not the only game in town for these kind of "attack when the enemy does something particular" reactions; they're just the one that's most recognizable. A certain character might hate magic enough to attack whenever someone casts any spell, even one they thought was safe, and another might be so skilled at combat that they get an attack whenever an opponent misses them by 10 or more! The reaction system allows characters to have all sorts of different reactions that surprise and confound their foes!

This was the original text of Mark's message. I'm glad that he felt it necessary to edit it.

I'm not thrilled when someone "in the know" thinks our speculation is somehow cool. The messaging here is that those who guess right are the clever ones and the rest are bumbling about in the dark providing the viewer with some cheap laughs.

We love your work and want very much to see you succeed. Please don't toy with us and our adoration of your product. You have built a great amount of goodwill with your customers, but this goodwill isn't a fixed asset.

Pappy wrote:

You may very well be right that a teaser communication strategy is better than a big data dump. I'm simply not a fan of this strategy when we are dealing with a product that is intended to be tested by a large (and very passionate) customer base.

I don't disagree with you, but given that the actual testing isn't opening till august. The largest issue with the slow roll out till testing is the passionate player base needing to be patient... something, admittedly, I am not good at.

Consider the roll out a necessary evil =/

I don't like it either, but I get that it needs to be a thing.

You have touched on perhaps the biggest frustration that I have. A 5 month information drip schedule seems long to me if the edition is far enough along to have podcasts of players already playing it.

Renraku wrote:

Pappy wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

Pappy wrote:

I'm not sure that having us run in circles speculating what your design may or may not include is a great use of the goodwill of your customers.

Nobody's making anybody run in circles, they're all doing that themselves.

I agree with you. It is a perfectly understandable response. Wouldn't you agree that discussing the actual rules of the playtest be more productive?

Of course that assumes that we have said rules over which to obsess.

I think we would all rather have the rules in hand now, but given that the only other options are giving us a vague heads up with nothing or just dropping it on us like a load of bricks in August... The slow roll out of information is better.

Not to mention, with the slow roll out approach, it enables them to gauge opinions on separate mechanics one at a time so they can take it into consideration accordingly

A valid point for sure. I think that the opinions that you mention on seperate mechanics will be so much better formed if the mechanics are evaluated as part of a total system rather than in isolation.

You may very well be right that a teaser communication strategy is better than a big data dump. I'm simply not a fan of this strategy when we are dealing with a product that is intended to be tested by a large (and very passionate) customer base.

Pappy wrote:

I'm not sure that having us run in circles speculating what your design may or may not include is a great use of the goodwill of your customers.

Nobody's making anybody run in circles, they're all doing that themselves.

I agree with you. It is a perfectly understandable response. Wouldn't you agree that discussing the actual rules of the playtest be more productive?

Of course that assumes that we have said rules over which to obsess.

I'm not sure that having us run in circles speculating what your design may or may not include is a great use of the goodwill of your customers.

If we don't make assumptions based on the few scraps of data we have and post feedback based upon those assumptions, there is literally no point is having the playtest open for comment at this point.

Even if the assumptions are off, having feedback on players concerns and anticipations still provides something for the developers to work with (or ignore if primary systems are already set in stone, even if those systems are massively unpopular).

At some point editing expediency will require that feedback is not incorporated so that a document can go to press.

I'm highly sceptical that our initial responses are weighted as much as the actual playtest feedback. While I feel as strongly about what I like and dislike as many on these forums, I suspect that little will change with the ruleset until after the PDF drops in August.

Waiting is hard! It is too bad we didn't get the full playtest details when the announcement was made. In my view this communication strategy carries more risks than the potential benefits.

True. Not the same game. Not so different that we can't convert over our favourite components from the original I hope.

We adopted the revised action economy from unchained in our group. Overall we enjoyed the system but we ran into some issues:

Some classes rely heavily on swift actions. They are placed at a disadvantage if swift action or minor actions cost one of three actions to use. Our solution was to give everyone a free swift/minor in addition to the three actions.

Casters enjoy a power boost if they do the following: cast a spell (two actions), then use last action to begin casting another spell. Next round complete the spell that was begun the previous round (one action), then cast another spell that same round (two actions). Of course damage between rounds could interrupt, but very often our casters were able to cast three spells in two rounds.

Monks and archers with multiple attacks quickly ramped up their number of attacks with this system. This left the fighters and other non-multi attack classes behind. perhaps eliminating the 0/-5/-10 mechanic would help fix this imbalance.

Just tried it again and it worked this time.

So all is good.

I am planning a new campaign on the E6 rules variant. I found the P6Codex project website, but the download link for the abridged codex isn’t working for me.

Does someone have a copy of this PDF that they can share?

I get the gist of the E6 variant, but would like to have something to pass along to players for whom this will be a new experience.

Thanks!

Thanks for the ideas. I'll have a discussion with the group at next week's game.

I've also read every book that discusses the GM craft that I can find. Sly Flourish's stuff, Gamemastering by Brian Jamison, Kobold Press stuff.

I should also mention that I have reread my favourite fantasy series, watched games being streamed, painted more minis, changed up rules, started new campaigns, tried adventure paths, and other things to try to keep motivated.

But recently those things have lost the effectiveness they once had.

I would like to cycle DMs, but two of the other players already DM Roll20 groups and have often told me that they need my game to decompress (and steal ideas - haha!).

So I will take your suggestion back to the group and appeal to them to give me a break for a while. It will mean no break for them, but since I haven't taken more than a month break in 10 years, perhaps it is time to ask them to step up a bit.