As someone who intends to run a campaign in her own setting as opposed to Lost Omens, and also wants to convert Eberron to PF2 at some ponit, I had a similar concern (in my case itwas with goblins - for how much I adore them, I don't want them to be Like That in every campaign, but a number of their ancestry feats and heritage options are rather idiosyncratic to LO goblins).
Less of a typo per se, and more of an inconsistency:
On the Sorcerer's "what you get" sidebar (not sure how to call it, but it's the sidebar which lists your initial proficiencies, health per level, signature skills etc., on page 127), the Skills section says "Trained in a number of skills equal to 5 + your Intelligence modifier".
For every other class, the word "plus" is used instead of the plus sign.
The art in rulebook looks WayneReynoldsy which we do not like. Art in DD looks like standard mish-mash from APs which is ok for me.
Honestly, I really enjoy Wayne's art in the rulebook - it's very distinctly Pathfinder, and despite being deliberately sketchy (apart from the cover and reused artwork), it really brings the rulebook together.
Conversely I'm not a massive fan of the DD artwork - I haven't looked through the full book yet admittedly, but to me, the book ends up feeling a lot less...cohesive, and a little more forgettable.
This is by no means intended to disrespect the actual artists behind it all though - Wayne Reynolds or not, individually the pieces look great and it's never bad to see a variety of illustrators, but personally I prefer the more uniform look of the rulebook.
Ultimately this is a highly subjective matter though, and I wouldn't say that either current-day or older Pathfinder stuff looks 'dated' - especially since it's not like art has an expiration date, and doesn't age the same way video game graphics or (especially 3D) animation might.
So the beginning of each class' chapter has two sections, called Playing a [Class] (focusing on the mechanical side of what you do during each of the possible modes of play) and Roleplaying a [Class] (how you do things roleplay/fluff-wise).
Except for Wizard, where the first section is called Adventuring as a Wizard.
It's just so jarring and aesthetically displeasing, to have one (1) class break up the pattern like that.
This rather uncalled-for pattern break aside, I really like those sections as they talk about what you do from both a rollplaying perspective and a roleplaying perspective - a great way to introduce someone to a class. And the descriptions of how others might view a certain class are also a really nice touch (showing the good and the bad, too). So big props there!
So right now, the spell lists section of the playtest is...uh, a mess, the way it's formatted.
It *very* much reminds me of the D&D 5e's PHB spell list section, in a bad way - not meant as an affront on 5e, but they're kind of chaotically listed across the pages in tight, irregular columns. On top of that, they lack the short descriptions that PF1's CRB spell list had - which were a great way to quickly get the idea of a spell across, particularly while just looking at what your class has to offer - all the PF2 lists give you is the name (and whether the spell is uncommon and/or heightenable), so there's much worse 'discoverability' in that regard, where you see a neat name and/or a description that captures your interest and makes you flip over to the actual spell's description to find out more.
Heck, while scrolling I'll often time lose track of which list I'm actually looking at because the name of the spell list is on another page or some such. Again, the PF1 rulebook didn't have this issue because each section was clearly labeled as "X-th level Class spells", and it was just generally structured in a more 'natural' ways, compared to the thin columns of the PF2 rulebook.
It's especially disappointing since on the whole I find the Playtest to be decently organized (though I know that's a somewhat contentious issue, with people holding some very polarizing opinions on the matter), with some outlier sections, this being one of them.
I'm no graphic designer, but I genuinely believe there is a better way to structure the spell lists in the rulebook than what exists currently. Whether that's straight up tables, the PF1 list approach, or something else entirely, anything would be better than what's in there right now in my eyes.
Joe Mucchiello wrote:
Actually, do we even know if you lose access to a feat if you lose the prereqs for it? Maybe that's not a rule any more.
Considering what I mentioned earlier, and the fact that I don't recall seeing a rule that mentions losing a feat (barring retraining during downtime), I don't think so.
If nothing else, there should be a list of common/recommended/suggested Lore skills and/or better guidelines as to what counts as a "narrow topic" for the purposes of the skill. How not to go too broad, or too narrow. Right now it's very unclear and easy to misjudge unless you stick to the pre-existing Background Lore skills.
I know that Advanced Alchemy (Alchemist's starting class feature) can give you the Alchemical Crafting feat and explicitly mentions it can do so even if you don't meet the prerequisites (in this case, being Trained in Crafting), so I'm assuming that other instances of gaining a bonus feat would follow the same logic.
It should probably be clarified somewhere, though.
Ranger's pack, cleric's pack, wizard's pack etc. - where did those go?
They provided a nice and easy way to start off with thematically appropriate and useful equipment quickly, without having to go through the whole adventuring gear list and handpick all the items.
Their lack both makes character creation ever so slightly more overwhelming than it needs to (for newer players anyway), and slows it down somewhat.
They don't necessarily need to come back in the exact same way they did in PF1 - 5e has a set of more class-agnostic packs (explorer's pack, diplomat's pack, scholar's pack, priest's pack etc.), and some classes get to pick between two, plus you can buy them straight-up like you would any other item.
One could even tie them to the backgrounds rather than class, potentially.
I don't know, anything would be better than nothing. Handpicking your starting gear can be fun, but the option to just go with a predefined set (and get a nice discount too) just kind of stings not to have.
It looks like putting the word red or the word green in the thread title changes the colour of the text to red or green respectively. I hadn't seen that before.
For what purpose, even?
Either way, this might be beyond the scope of this topic, but I do think that the rarities should be denoted in a more obvious way - perhaps not as obvious as "literally stating the default rarity in the item block" (although I can see how some people would be happy with just doing things that way), but something that isn't as easy to miss, mistake or be unable to tell apart because of disability or some other issue.
For instance, the shape of the level number box could change depending on rarity (and have the color remain black) - circle for common, triangle for uncommon, square for rare and pentagon for unique?
So over and over, both Paizo directly and the Playtest books themselves talk about the importance of playtesting and giving Paizo feedback on what we feel needs to change, and that they are open to said change, and that is great in theory, but how will that look in practice? I feel like it's something worth knowing now that we are in the Playtest period proper.
What's the scope of changes we can expect? Is it just small stuff like fixing typos & grammar errors, changes to the layout of the books, minor design/balance changes?
Moreover, how often can such changes be expected to happen, and how exactly will they look like?
(Of course people who bought the physical rulebooks are probably a little screwed no matter how it's handled, though.)
I'm personally very excited for PF2 (and like what it offers so far, but I am not a Pathfinder 1e veteran by any measure), and I get that Paizo wants the new edition to be good, and so does pretty much everyone on these boards (or so I hope, anyway) - but I would be a little bummed out if the results of the feedback don't end up seeing the light of day till the actual Core Rulebook release next August.
The way I see (which may or may not line up with how Paizo intended it) is that magic items are less innately magical and more as conduits for a person's innate magic (resonance), producing magical effects.
From that angle, it would make sense that sorcerers (and to a lesser and more thematically awkward extent, bards), filled with that inner magic of theirs, would be better at using them than the likes of wizards or clerics, who instead either manipulate the magic around them via gruelingly-studied techniques, or channeling magic from some external source (a deity, a natural force etc.).
That kind of description/explanation might not be as satisfactory for you as it is for me, though.
This is why I'm personally a fan of the D&D 4e/5e naming of Warlock over Witch.
The Witch/Warlock (in D&D 4e/5e terms) concept of "you made a deal with some supernatural being or force which now bestows its power onto you" is very distinct and common in fiction (everybody is at least tangentially familiar with the likes of Faust or some other Faust-like figure of myth/folklore) and mechanically they could very easily be the "prepared sorcerer", with patron choice dictating the spell list and other thematically-appropriate boons (and drawbacks, if that's the route they want to pursue), that if there is one class which I myself would love to see, it's that.
I'm personally not a massive fan of the Oracle thematically, at least not enough that it would require a class wholly of its own, but I guess I'm not going to be able to stop the wave of pro-Oracle supporters - but I really do feel as though as "Divinely Cursed" archetype (or set of archetypes, even) would suit the role better, but I know that Paizo is not keen on "demoting" old PF1 classes to mere archetypes in PF2, so I'm probably in the minority here.
There's also the fact that the name of "Oracle" just doesn't sit well with me - when I hear 'oracle' I think more of someone who can see into the future, a prophet if you will, rather than someone was unwillingly cursed but also granted divine power in the process.
Ultimately though, I do think that with the way PF2's looking, with the much-increased modularity of the system, there's not going to be nearly as much of a need for extra classes as there was in the first edition, but there definitely still are some holes (both mechanical and thematic) in the now 12-strong core class selection that would be nice to see filled following the CRB release. Again, in my eyes Witch is the biggest one, but pretty much everyone has a different idea on the matter it seems.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
To be fair, even if you weren't limited to the "+physical +mental -something" formula of PF ability boosts, what two stats (both being either physical or mental) would even fit a goblin in that case? Dex is the obvious choice as far as physical stats go, yes, but it's not like either Str or Con actually fit the portrayal of a goblin...
Goblins being an oddball, I generally like the idea behind the stat boosts always being split between the physical and mental stats - mostly so that you are given stats which can support a martial character as well as a spellcaster of some kind, instead of being pushed too hard towards one or the other. Especially important for the core races.
Pretty bland blog but I guess after bard they didn't want to get everyone all riled up before the weekend.
The Playtest blogs follow a rather consistent "more ...controversial stuff on Monday, more lowkey stuff on Friday" schedule.(Mondays usually being class previews, which we're on the tail end of, with only Druid left.)
The rarity 'mechanic' seems like one of the better low-key additions to the system that quite elegantly solves multiple issues at once - preventing overloading newer players (myself included) with tons of options, making more powerful options limited but in an organic "you gotta work for it" way, plus the worldbuilding implications.
How well it actually accomplishes all these in practice remains to be seen, and it's certainly not the single best or most major change between the editions (though nothing really is, to be fair, apart from maybe the action economy), but so far, it looks really nice, especially for how simple it is.
There is still a chance for Druid being a half-caster! (...Probably not, though.)What about Paladin, though?
Not something anybody expected I'd imagine, and while most won't find it all too interesting eiter, I think it's something that will be very useful to have in the long run, once post-release sourcebooks and people's own homebrew settings start rolling in, and some need to filter out the esoteric content in a meaningful way arises. My (as yet non-PF) group definitely falls in the "PF is too overwhelming content-wise" category (myself included to a large degree) so this is definitely a great framework to have.
Good on you for this one!
Agreed. I'm personally of the opinion that core classes should allow for a wide variety of characters that still fit a common theme (mechanical and aesthetic), and singling out Paladin as this one "very narrow and specific class" as opposed to "all the other, more generic classes" just feels really odd to say the least.
Nobody argues that Wizard should be just like Gandalf and nothing else, or that all Barbarians are slightly different takes on Conan. So why should all Paladins be based solely on Arthurian knights and nothing else?
Again, alignment arguments aside, there should be more than one way to make/play/build a Paladin, and more than one source of inspiration, if the class is to warrant its spot on the list of core classes.
All this said, more focus on the Law side of things would be interesting to see. If we're sticking to Paladins being LG-only (by default at least), then I feel as though the Law-Chaos part of it should be expanded upon in the mechanics and feat(ure)s, and not just the aspect of "well you must strive not to break the law, ever".
There's a lot of relatively unexplored room on the Law-Chaos axis when it comes to Paladins, and I feel like having more mechanics that play off that would be a great way to make and highlight characters which are more Law-focused as opposed to Good-focused, or some that strive for a balance of both.
Again I know this is supposed to be an alignment discussion-free thread, but I do feel as though there is room to make the LG-restricted Paladin more interesting if it's to stay (which it is), and it's worth discussing how that can be accomplished.
Personally I'll take an overt amount of positivity and happiness over too much cynicism and unhappiness any day of the week, but I do think that excitement and hopefulness shouldn't completely drown out genuine and critical discussion.
The problem is that right now it's kind of difficult to have said genuine and critical discussion without having the full playtest rulebook to argue over, only bits from blogs, interviews, podcasts and people's experiences from cons and such - which are good, but still only at best good for speculation.
I too would like to "examine the whole", if I had the whole to actually examine.
On a tangentially related note: this isn't Paizo's first such public playtest (though it's certainly their most ambitious one), if I remember right?
Re: No spellcasting.
Honestly, as far as spellcasting classes go, thematically I feel like the Ranger is the one that
b) is the most easily replaced with more thematically (and mechanically) apt alternatives - be it animal companions, traps/snares, or all the other survivalist-ish stuff that rangers get/got throughout the editions (whether it's favored terrain/enemy, or natural explorer) that is ultimately non-magical in nature.
Again I fully realize I might be biased (but so is pretty much everyone else in these discussions, one way or the other), but I'm really not attached to the idea of rangers/hunters/slayers/woodsmen using magic (either within the context of D&D-heritage RPGs, or in fantasy fiction at large), and I'm fully convinced that you can absolutely make the class feel distinct and strong, without resorting to giving it magic.
That being said, I do hope that the option for spellcasting arises quickly after or even during the Playtest (though that doesn't seem all too likely), but I'm totally okay with spell-less being the de facto default, and what we get to play with during the Playtest, starting next month.
I for one am excited about a by-default spell-less ranger (and traps/snares!) - not only because my first (and so far, only) PF1 character is a trapper, but also because magic never felt 'core' to me to the Ranger at all (indeed I would say it almost runs counter to it), and snares sound pretty fun as well, although I do hope they're not clunky enough (be it in actual effect, difficulty of application, or cost) as to not be worth it.
(I'm coming over from D&D 5e and have been lowkey following PF for a while, have mercy on me and my newbies's PoV.)
We shall see how it all plays out in practice, though, but personally I am looking forward to the ranger, and hopeful.
This is maybe a little unrelated to the ongoing discussion, but do we know how Paizo plans to handle Paladin post-Playtest, beyond the somewhat vague statement of "we want only the LG Paladin in the Playtest but we're open to Paladins of other alignments for later down the line"?
I feel like knowing what their plan for the class is (whether it's leaving it as-is, making alternate classes/archetypes for other alignments a'la Anti-Paladin, making the base class more generic or modular, or something else entirely) would be very helpful to have...
A friend of mine pointed out that there isn't a section for fluff character info (backstory and appearance), but in all fairness it seems like a reasonable thing to leave out of a playtest-focused sheet.
It looks a little...busy though, although I might be biased because I really like the look of the PF1 (and D&D 5e) sheet, so layout-wise it looks kind of...awkward.
I might be coming into this thread with a bit of an ignorant/naive mindset - but really, even though some people expressed how the inaccurate weapon names break their immersion and is being made into a great issue - how many tables out there will actually get into a discussion over the names?
The D&D bloodline of TTRPGs never prided itself on any sort of historical accuracy - it is first and foremost a fantasy RPG after all. Words which have specific meanings in the real world (whether it's "longsword", "paladin", "druid" or "bard"), have different meanings in the gaming space, and they come frontload certain info into your mind as soon as you hear it and know what to expect of it if you're even remotely accustomed to roleplaying games (tabletop or otherwise), even if they don't quite match up with what the dictionary definition or a Wikipedia article on their real-world counterparts might tell you about them.
So really, while some cleanup for the sake of historic accuracy might seem nice/easy to do, going against established genre tropes and naming conventions for the sake of appeasing the vocal minority of history buffs is probably not high on Paizo's priority list - and again, it's really not going to impact that many people's sense of immersion out there, despite what some people visiting this thread might suggest.
I mean, ultimately nothing stops you from trying to push this to Paizo when the Playtest rolls around - but again, I don't imagine there being a huge push for this kind of naming overhaul, because it really isn't some huge flaw that ruins games and turns people off Pathfinder or other D&D-lineage games.