| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fantastic news. Thank you, Paizo!
Aaron Shanks just posted an update on the Pathfinder 2 errata on the Starfinder errata thread:
I hope you're right. That would be fine.
Where was the release publicly announced? It was commented on in a stream, but I don’t recall an official announcement. You don't consider a comment from the lead designer on their main GenCon announcement stream to be "public" or "official?" I do. Please just let people civilly express a little disappointment and suggest a bit more communication without harassment. It's just constructive feedback because we love the game.
It's so strange to me that requesting some simple communication from a company when it misses it's own publicly announced timelines (by a lot) is viewed by some as an unrealistic and inappropriate request.
It's been radio silence since they announced it would be released right after GenCon. I understand there's a pandemic going on and some staff turnover, but the lack of communication and updates doesn't feel good. Even a "hey guys, we're still working on it to make sure we get it right" would go a long way for me. With the Humble Bundle recently selling out hard copies of the CRB, I figured there would be pressure to do a second printing of the CRB and this would drive the need to get the errata done sooner rather than later and out the door. Just a little surprised it's taking so long.
*) I talked to redrazors, the guy behind Pathbuilder. He was planning to support proficiency without level, but all the other variants he basically dismissed as obscure house rules. FYI, support for the free archetype variant is in the most recent release of Pathbuilder.
Hoping for some clarification on how many free hands Battle Medicine requires.
The other day, I asked Jason Buhlman on Twitter when the devs were going to clarify a couple of the issues that seemed to be causing some confusion on these boards (shield scaling and how many hands Battle Medicine requires). Jason was kind enough to reply, "Noted, we will take a look." I believe the devs do pay attention to what is being discussed here and are pretty proactive (perhaps often behind the scenes) in trying to address problematic issues. In any case, I was impressed that the lead game designer responded to my inquiry.
The most recent ICv2 report states that PF2 sales are "strong," "better than expected," and second only to D&D. Seems like a good sign, although the report only covers through the end of August.
That's what our 5E group did.
I just wish I understood a little better why Paizo made Battle Medicine the way they did.To give nonmagical healers a way to restore health in a combat situation. I don't mean the reason why it exists. I mean the execution why. For example, why include training in Medicine as a prerequisite or Manipulate as a trait if this is just someone shouting "get up you big baby" or some unexplained form of mysticism? Not a big deal, I'd just like to better understand their thought process on the way they executed it.
Treat Wounds kind of trades one absurdity (a bag full of CLW wands) with another absurdity (healing wounds in just minutes with mundane techniques). My hope is that the GMG has some alternative healing rules.
This is my favorite action reference sheet.
They really need to make all of this more clear in the GameMastery Guide.
Lack of clarity on this issue brought my game to a screeching halt tonight. I have a player with a wizard PC who is very invested in his moth familiar (he added speech). He wanted to send it out to do some scouting nearby and return with information on enemy activity. We read the familiar rules together, and I just had no idea how to respond to his request. There was no guidance in the CRB about anything other than combat. It doesn't even say how intelligent they are. I finally decided to let the familiar scout ahead a bit (GM fiat) but then he started asking me what the familiar saw and how much detail the familiar could understand and convey back to him. Again, there was no guidance in the CRB on this. I was totally winging it (which is usually fine) but it made me uneasy because I knew I was setting a precedent for our campaign and the ability to scout ahead and report back will have a pretty big impact. I have to admit that I got a bit frustrated because I felt that Paizo was leaving me to make these big decisions without any guidelines and without understanding the full impact of what I was trying to rule on the fly. I really hope there is some additional information and guidelines on how to run familiars (particularly in exploration mode) in the Gamemastery Guide. I don't need a rule for everything, but I do need some idea of what is intended in terms of familiar capability (especially outside of combat) and intelligence. In general, I have been amazed at how much more helpful the PF2 rules have been than the 5e rules in providing clarity and guidance. I just feel like the ball got dropped a bit with the familiar rules. Hope to see some clarifications soon as it really disrupted our game.
On the Paizo Friday stream I asked if the GMG would explain how to better address using these rules in common situations such as ambushes and breaking down doors. Logan Bonner said “yes” and it specifically addresses transitioning from exploration mode to encounter mode. I’m looking forward to more clarity from Paizo on these issues (cuz, dang, this thread is getting long).
Will there be additional guidance and examples on how to apply the stealth, perception, detection, ready action, and initiative rules (moving from exploration to encounter mode) in situations such as an ambush, breaking down a door, etc.? These rules are scattered all over the CRB and there aren't many examples on how to apply them to common situations.
Would buy.
During the Paizo Friday Twitch stream, the devs promised an update addressing key critical issues (not every little error/typo) in the first printing of the CRB "soon."
It would really help if one of the devs explained this a bit better and provided some examples of how to apply the relevant rules (which are scattered all over the CRB).
For avoiding notice on the move versus ambush, there is this action:I think it’s fair to say Wait in Ambush is an exploration activity which grants a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus to stealth rolls. This is available to both PCs and NPCs and means using your terrain creatively gives you substantial bonuses which I think is a good thing to encourage in my games (others may disagree for their games). Good idea. I think there should be a difference when you are not moving and have taken up excellent cover/position.
The roll is the same, but it's not a stealth vs. perception "contested roll." It's stealth vs. a static perception DC for each PC.
I pieced this understanding together after reading all the material in the CRB on stealth, hidden, visible, perception, initiative, etc. This info is scattered everywhere. What finally put things into place for me was the PF2 designers explaining how this works during the Paizo Friday Q&A stream on Twitch. They discussed a similar scenario (sorry I don't have the time codes). What is important to remember is that rolling stealth for initiative and comparing this stealth roll against perception DCs are two different things. One is to see who acts first and the other is to see who can see whom when the action begins. The only exploration activity that seems to affect this type of scenario is scouting. If someone in the party is scouting, all PCs get a +1 to their initiative roll--which could definitely help in an ambush situation. It's actually a fairly simple and elegant system; it's just not explained very clearly in the CRB.
My understanding is that that everyone would roll for initiative when the encounter occurs. Goblins would likely use stealth to roll if they are trying to hide. The goblins would also use their stealth roll vs. the PC's perception DC (not their perception roll for initiative). If a goblin wins initiative and beats a PC's perception DC, he is hidden to that character (and the PC would be flatfooted to him). The PC could use a Seek action to try and find that hidden goblin. If a goblin wins initiative but fails to be beat a PC's perception DC, the goblin goes first but isn't hidden to that character. I don't think it's that hard once you understand it, but it isn't presented in a simple-to-understand way in the CRB and the information to put it all together is scattered in several sections. Could have been written more clearly and examples (such as this scenario) would have been useful.
I created this quick reference sheet summarizing all of the PF2 weapon and armor traits and thought others may also get some value from it. This information is not on the Paizo GM's Screen but comes up frequently in play.
Will Paizo issue errata/FAQ in a timely manner on these release issues/questions? Or will they follow their policy of not issuing corrections until the next printing of a book? What did they do with the first printing of the PF1 CRB? Just curious.
Me too. Just canceled my 2nd (backup) CRB from Amazon. I will order a future printing with errata.
The color version hurts the eyes and is difficult to read due to color contrast. The printer-friendly version looks much better.
Based on my experience, Amazon tries to provide release date delivery.
The guy's overall opinion on PF2 was: "A super huge shout-out to Paizo and all its employees. You guys rock. 2E looks fkn awesome. I hope people got hyped from this thread and some pre-orders went down, because these books are pretty damn awesome, and 2E looks great."
I don't know. Companies pay people to create online buzz and this guy was doing it for free and being very careful. It was mentioned that several CRB pre-orders had already resulted from what had been posted so far. I am sure Paizo knows what they are doing, however, even if I don't understand it.
CRB Table of Contents can be found here.
...on Reddit.
The biggest positive of PF2 is that is it SO MUCH easier to prep and run. This is a huge deal to me personally because I found GMing PF1 to be a chore (even though my players liked it).
Loved: Many cool character options and fun Adventure Paths. Hated: Complexity of prepping and GMing a game, trap options, optimization and power gaming, rocket tag, and linear fighters/quadratic wizards. Wanted: Nothing, it already has more options than a person could ever use in a lifetime. Will Miss: Flexibility. It looks like PF2, while much easier to run, will not quite have the flexibility of PF1 (such as with multiclassing).
For those of us on the fence about PF2 after playtesting, a blog post highlighting or summarizing the key rules changes between the playtest and the final version would be extremely helpful in assisting us to decide whether or not to remain excited about the launch of PF2.
+1/level became our group's primary reason for abandoning the PF2 playtest and returning to 5E. It doesn't look like Paizo is willing to change this and is determined to have bloated numbers at higher levels, a steep power curve, and narrow bands of level-appropriate opponents. The effect on skill progression creates strange and unbelievable situations. I will take a look at PF2 if they address this, but also will happily continue to play 5E if not.
I agree that the definition of hit points isn't (and has never been) just physical damage. This is why I really don't like the concept of having to "bandage everyone up" with a healer's kit after a fight. If they are real "injuries" or "wounds," just bandaging them up isn't going to somehow heal them instantly the way magic can. For me, the concept of Stamina and Health make so much more sense. I also like the simple 5e "short rest" approach.
I find PF2 *much* faster to prep and *much* easier to run than PF1. This greatly reduces the burden of GMing--which is one of the primary reasons I switched our groups to 5E.
Thanks. Something like this should be in the core book to help speed up character creation.
I agree that +.5 per level would be greatly preferable. It would keep monsters usable for longer, lower the bloated high-level modifiers, prevent level from being such a huge factor compared to other things (such as armor), and mitigate the current problem of everyone becoming a master of every skill so quickly. +1 per level is just too steep. Those who prefer to rapidly have their characters "become gods" and not be threatened by lower-level foes seem to prefer the steeper power curve. Seems like two very different play-style preferences and Paizo likely won't be able to please both camps. 5E went with a flatter power curve for similar reasons. One could argue that 5E clearly did something right based on its popularity or that we already have 5E and need something steeper to differentiate PF.
We almost had a TPK in part 2 but the PCs barely survived. One thing we did have was a lot of camping in the dungeon to recover from the previous one or two rooms in order to press on--even though the party had a cleric. It seems like spells kept running out and no one wanted to press forward without enough spells.
What makes PF2 "special" or at least different than 5e and PF1 in my mind is: 1. Richer character, monster, trap, and tactical combat options than 5e.
I believe the game still needs a lot of work but also has a lot of promise. For me, a PF1.1 wasn't going to bring me back from 5e.
On the other side of the equation, it's now a lot easier to just destroy the doors! Much easier than trying to lockpick them imo. My players decided it was much easier just to smash all the chests open rather than bothering to deal with their locks.
Tried to look up the "sweep" trait and couldn't find anything. PCs got a "minor healing potion." Tried looking up that phrase, nothing. Tried looking up "potions" (which I thought for sure would be in the index) but nada.
One of the best parts of 5e is the starting equipment packages for each class. It really helps speed up character creation. Would love to see something like this in PF2.
IMO, it makes level far too important and limits the number of challenges that can be used to a narrow level-appropriate band. It makes things like armor differences become mostly insignificant. It also bloats the numbers at high level and diminishes the importance of the d20 roll. I am hoping they will dial it back to something like level/2 to widen the band of appropriate challenges, monsters, etc. and reduce the modifier bloat.
Surprising or ambushing unaware opponents could use some additional explanation and examples in the rules. It's not very clear. |