I like the idea, even if those feel like different classes despite the "vaguely anime" theme.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Problem here is that it probably needs to have some capacity for combat as its primary shtick. The game is largely combat driven, so what would a non-caster Ritualist bring to the turn-based combat space?
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
The problem with "blue mage" type things is the same as "druids can only change form into something they've encountered". Some people will runs it super restrictively and others much more loosely, intersecting at the road called PFS.
The above games are amateurs for heaps of dice. I have 180d6 bricks worth of dice for Mythender alone. It. Is. Glorious.
I think there's a mix here. I build characters to learn the rules. Just how I do.
However, if someone chooses to not read the rules (especially in a test document) and doesn't follow the prescribed char creation process, I don't think they have any business saying the process is written poorly or whatever. You chose to not follow the process and chose to not know the rules. /shrug
Isabelle Lee wrote:
Also unrelated to this 5e talk I just realized, HOW defensively oriented are champions/paladins supposed to be? I'd think they would carry equal proficiency with defense and murder seeing how their most common class feature is the ability to SMITE(!) people.
Champions are heavily defense-focus, or were in the playtest. They were still able to throw down, though.
This is just my opinion, and I know that I am in the extreme minority, but I wouldn’t mind getting rid of multi classing all together. I know that this will most likely never happen and people enjoy that sort of thing but I don’t. To each their own.
It is worth noting (repeat of someone above) that multiclass archetypes in PF2 are kind of a build-your-own-class system. You never leave your original class, but can pick up features from others.
Example: In PF2, the Paladin (mechanically speaking) is the LG Champion. BUT, with multiclass archetypes, you can be a Fighter who picks up Cleric Dedication and then call yourself Paladin. Two ways to get to the same concept, with slight differences.
As an aside, this is also a useful way to get to the Anti-Paladin concept.
This conversation has made me realize why I really cared about XP values in high school/college. The GM I played with was incredibly toxic and manipulative and XP was a way for me to make sure I wasn't being "cheated". Since cutting that group of people out of my life and embracing more indie-ish RPGs, hard XP counters just mean so much less to me.
Multiclass Archetypes but for Ancestries. I like it.
Ed Reppert wrote:
So, slight matter of design philosophy here and the role that the rules play in a given narrative. Should the rules exist to represent the world or should they exist to represent the world from the player perspective.
Neither are wrong but, similarly, neither are absolute.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to shame anyone about going with Amazon. Just want to make sure that everyone is aware of Things™.
If you can afford it, you should avoid buying off of Amazon. They offer super deep discounts, which are nice, but that means that Paizo (or whatever other publisher) is going to see much lower returns on their product. Amazon can do this because they makes enough money from other ventures to eat the deficit.
When able, you should generally try to buy directly from the publisher to offer them the highest amount of support dollars.
If I'm off-base here, I'd love for someone from Paizo to set me straight.
For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.
It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.
I also like that it is a little bit less male-gazey.
Separately, I LOVE Harsk's new look.
Historically, they haven't released digital versions of their maps freely. Outside of that, you should be golden.
You can check out d20pfsrd.com for a taste of what the PF2 PRD might look like. It is an unofficial/fan-driven resource, but complies with Paizo's community use policy.
All of PF2 game content will be available, free of charge, on Archives of Nethys at-launch. Presumably, they will be keeping that updated as new content comes out.
I'm not quite as sure how they will handle setting content, since PF2 assumes Golarion by default in the game mechanics. I know they combined a couple of their lines into one. If they follow a pattern similar to PF1, you should be able to pick up what you want, as you want it. Their APs are going to be monthly and are usually very high quality. Outside of that, someone else may have more info.
Bardic Dave wrote:
More that the return on investment may not be worth the effort of doing so. Without knowing the specific numbers around DM Guild's profits, how they relate to how D&D sells in-general, and how those might translate over to Pathfinder's typical profits, it is incredibly hard to say anything concrete.
TTRPGs are already barely profitable for the vast majority of companies, if not outright losses. PF Guild (or whatever) would have to identify that threshold and be sure they could cross it reliably.
Core Rulebook (as we maybe understand it) Justification: PCs are built using an entirely different system than NPCs. Sure. You CAN build NPCs like PCs, but that isn't the default assumption.
Also: Paizo has established that their setting is woven into the core rules for PF2. On Golarion, Clerics (or Paladins, etc.) are tied to the whims of their deities and anathema represent that contract mechanically. If you don't play in Golarion, go nuts, but that is homebrew or a future supplement, at best.
There's nothing inherently wrong with systems enforcing RP restrictions. There are many successful indie games that do just that and is one of the things I'm most excited about in PF2.
To a point you made above, I don't know that Paizo or most of the posters here expect that a deity is looking for reasons to strip their priests of power. Some might. Others may be more interested in giving their followers some leeway, as long as they don't stray too far, because mortals are primarily how they interact with the world.
Pathfinder Way wrote:
Could Paizo open up the World of Golarion intellectual property for self-publishing via a dedicated venue at DriveThruRPG, à la DMs Guild?
Could they? Yeah. Probably. Would they? Doubt it. There isn't much financial incentive to do so and allowing second-party authors who are not under direct contract likely weakens their IP protections legally-speaking.
Feels like the John McClane approach to self-care: rub some dirt on and punch terrorists. I'm pretty solidly down with this, since I like to run a more pulpy style of game.
Exactly this. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean it is bad that other people do. Let people like the things they like without attacking them as "whiny nerds crying".
Also: For something that everyone is expected to know, just don't call for a roll. If there's no interesting/meaningful cost for failure and the information is so common that everyone has some general idea, then why roll?
Save rolls for the lore about specific dragon types and their weaknesses.
I'd like to see an advantages/disadvantages system where you could do something like my character has only one eye, so he has a -2 to perception checks based on seeing. His empty eye socket unnerves people so that they are anxious to be rid of him. He gets a +2 to Diplomacy attempts involving haggling.
Things like this are kind of problematic in that they treat real life disabilities like a mechanical carrot. That's why I really dislike rules that mechanically incentivize disability. If you want to have a blind character, cool. Let's RP that. I don't think it should give a bonus.
Good catch on the saves thing. I was typing this pretty stream of consciousness while working.
I'll mull over the refined pact stuff a bit and see what might sing a little better.
Will 1-6 casters, like the War Priest and Magus return? Multiclassing really did not feel like them, to much of what made them interesting was missing (though Eldritch Knight was mostly covered), for instance the Fervor/Arcane Points mechanics, the more focused spell lists, the reduction in casting (really made a War Priest 'feel' more like the ADnD Cleric bought forwards and updated, rather than the Divine Mage that full 1-9 feels like) Given that War Priest is turning up as a Path name I am not hopeful that the partial casters will return, but some of my favourite classes are in that category, and without being able to change it day to day Spell Powers don't have that vibe, while 1-9 is to much emphasis on magic.
At launch? Seems like no. Later on? Who knows?
I think a good mental position to take is that while you won't be able to perfectly duplicate all character builds like they were in PF1, you will likely now be able to build new things that weren't even remotely possible before.
It is a new game with a new system. If what you want is PF1, keep playing PF1. If you want to keep playing the new APs? Take a little extra time to adapt them, where possible.
So, even though the overall quality was pretty inconsistent, I loved a lot of the late 3.5e content from Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle.
One of my favorite parts was pact magic. For some reason, I got the desire to homebrew some PF2 pact magic last night and ended up burning through a lot of my morning at work. Oops.
Here is a very early/poorly balanced attempt at doing Pact Magic. Linky.
If anyone has thoughts or feedback, I'd love to read them. Likewise, if anyone else loves some of those later systems, let's hype about them a bit and what might work in PF2!
Captain Morgan wrote:
But what happens when you boop a troll snoot?
Mark Seifter wrote:
The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others. But that is not feasible for an update that you guys apply throughout the book.
Is the plan to have the same class chassis or will they have their own unique structures (either "subclass", unique class, something else)?
Matthew Downie wrote:
If you want examples of how stories can work in these kinds of settings, you should check out Eberron. Magic is near-universal and the stories still are able to happen. I actually loved the setting when I was still playing 3.5.
KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:
Will there be an electronic (PDF or HTML) version for purchase. I will definitely buy that!
In addition to what MaxAstro said, you can also find most of their content for free through SRD/PRD sources. I believe they are actually partnering with Archives of Nethys as the go-to online resource for PF2.
The design of 2E seems hellbent on stripping fun out of the game.
That is a hyperbolic statement. The design isn't hellbent on anything. You are projecting your own preferences as a sweeping generalization.
I'm having quite a bit of fun. The design doesn't seem anti-fun, just unpolished in some places. You can insist all day that you have some special knowledge of the game design or developers' intents but that doesn't make it true.
Druids are my favorite class. I play a Druid primarily because wildshaping is fun and cool not because of how op or not it is. When I play a Druid I want to be wildshaped the whole day if possible, not because it’s mechanically great, because it’s fun. The design of 2E seems hellbent on stripping fun out of the game.
That's pretty hyperbolic. Fun is entirely subjective. As I said, I really enjoyed the druid.
My group just finished Doomsday Dawn Part 2 and I was running a wild shaping druid. Had a lot of fun and largely kept up with the barbarian on damage.
I certainly would like longer duration forms because, like someone who posted above, I don't actually care about the spellcasting aspect of the class so much and want to spend most/all of my time as a bear. Unfun, though? Nah.