Carousing Champion

Titus Au Parthicus's page

60 posts. Organized Play character for Arklore.



Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, in the Pathfinder playtest, Druids were allowed to use scimitars as trained weapons upfront along with simple weapons. In Pathfinder 2E, I noticed that they are only trained in simple weapons. Is this deliberate or is this an editing error?

Silver Crusade

22 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

There is always risk in an new endeavor, and that is true for PF2

I do not think any of us know completely for sure why Paizo is taking such a completely different approach to Pathfinder and I did read all the playtest FAQs. It would be helpful if Paizo could share a bit more with us as to the "why" this is happening, and to "what" endstate and direction they are hoping to achieve.

Is there something more to the situation that can be said that would help us?

In my profession for nearly 30 years, the best results always occurred when everyone understood the mission/purpose and the commanders intent of what they were doing. If the two things I just stated where understood and things went to hell in a hand basket at 0200 in complete chaos, everyone still understood what needed to happen to get the job done. Call it a shared vision if you will.

I feel like we are a bit in the dark on this. Right now, I am playtesting and commenting on things and posting potential solutions but without knowing what the intent, vision and endstate is, it is very hard to be as effective as possible.

I love PF1, and if folks have read any of my posts you will know that there are some things I like about PF2, but I am not sold or on board yet with PF2. IF what I am asking above can be answered, it would be helpful to me in assisting more with the playtest and would dispel a lot of rumors, myths, hand wringing and get more of us on board and focussed on what the future holds.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Gamers/Friends/Paizo

I appreciate the hard work and investment that has been spent into PF2E, however
I am still trying to figure out what the big selling point for PF2E will be over PF1E.

I like the action economy, but other than that, I am not sure what PF2E really does so much better that makes me want to love it and buy it over PF1E.

It feels a bit like to me when Coca-Cola changed its recipe to New Coke. A lot of consumers asked "why", Coca-Cola said"trust us, this is way better than the current recipe" only to learn after 3-6 months that consumers hated it and came out with Classic Coke, which was the old original recipe they were previously using.

Did anyone at Paizo "Red Team" PF2E with an outside group and use design methodology to make sure that the problems with PF1E were properly identified and challenged so that real viable options, to include the creation of PF2E was the best option to fix the perceived problems.

After making characters and playtesting the first three Doomsday Dawn Scenarios I honestly feel PF2E presents more problems than in it "fixes".

PF2E is a good game, but it is not a great game like PF1E.

I spent a lot of money on PF1E books, hero lab, time, and while nobody says I have to convert to PF2E if you want me to convert, PF2E has to be a superior product to PF1E.

I just do not see where that much was really needing to fixed or where PF2E is going to pull in thousands of new players.

Is it too late to hope that PF1E gets rebranded Pathfinder Classic?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I did my first playtest today as a Paladin.

Thee are my my observations and opinions. Before I say anything, I respect and admire the creative team at Paizo and Pathfinder I know you all got to be thick skinned when you take something you invested three years in and just sort of lay it out there for critical comment. My initial graduate papers were peer reviewed and contained so much red ink on them, I had to struggle at first to find the white spots on the paper, so I total emphasize with you guys.

I made several characters for this scenario and it took me 3 hours for the first and then about an hour and a half for the other three once I learned the new character building system.

During the adventure as a Paladin, I was knocked down three times to zero hit points. Critical success on the monsters is dangerous and was achieved several times. Our party had a Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer and a Rogue. During the whole scenario, none of us were able to achieve a critical success at any time.

The party was in a near total party kill scenario three times. If not for Hero Points, it would have been TPK at the Paharasma fountain, the goblin cave and against the Drakus (hobgoblin/bugbear changing blood sucking thing). We ran out of healing after each of those major fights and had to retreat back into town to rest, heal and recuperate.

I used the Athletics skill to force open the door in the final encounter. ONe of the things that did not make sense was why is there an armor check penalty to force open a door? IN the minds of the GM and the whole party, this is just a strength, mass and a bit of knowledge on where to slam into the door and bust it open. Armor should not be a detractor and perhaps the additional bulk actually a benefit. Having forced doors open in real life wearing real body armor that extra 35 pounds came in handy actually. My recommendation is minimally remove the armor check penalty.

I did not run out of resonance points or spell slots but I ran out of spell points three times three times.

I used my Hero Point and each of us did as we each were at one time or another in a various stage of dying.

I do like the action economy, but it is not perfect. Combat encounter time was the same, but as we learned with each encounter it did speed up.

Shields, I get the concept now and its cool, but the amount of damage a shield can absorb verse the cost in giving up retributive strike or another action needs to be critically looked at. I had my shield raised and blocked a hit, absorbing 5 damage and still took 10 damage. My recommendation is increase the number of dents a shield can take as the about of damage it can absorb. I would recommend Caesar's Gallic Wars for some historical examples.

I like what can be done with Sorcerer and Paladin Classes. Lots of freedom to be creative and hopefully more so in the 2E final version and follow on publications.

Spell Casting, based on my initial concerns in reading the rule book and this scenario, it really feels nerfed. The Alchemist would have been severely handicap and our Sorcerer was limited in effectiveness. Worse, in my opinion, he clearly felt of little over all use to the party as was reduced to holding up the light source and casting cantrips only to very limited use.

Concentration checks, while I suspect they were removed to make things simple, I think they have a place in the game. I want to say either the cleric or the sorcerer was casting a spell and got hit, and lost the spell.

Based on three near TPK situations, it is very easy to die in 2E. With spell casters nerfed and missile combat I feel needing to be better worked out I am wondering at this point how you do not have to rest after every or every other fight if you only have one cleric in the party.

Potions, I do not get why it takes a resonance point to consume one. If I misread the rules, I apologize , but in my mind, a potion is a total self contained, idiot/infantry proof item that by design anyone can and should be able to use. The resonance in my mind is in the bottle/vial when it was crafted and why you pay out the nose for such items. I recommend not charging resonance for potions and potentially looking at financial cost or bulk as a way to avoid somebody from buying them by the case load like cheep beer on a Friday night.

That all said, I am not sure at this point if the 1.0 vs. the 2.0 game mechanics is any simpler. Both require a person to read and study and friendly folks at your table to help you sort it out.

While I do like the direction of the Paladin and Sorcerer classes, I do feel that the what you can do to diversify and make your character unique is presently more limited. The options and the ability to make a tailored fit character does not seem to be there. I hope I am wrong, but right now, I am not seeing it.

PnP play under 1.0 seems to work great, I have loved it, and it is how I do 75% of my Pathfinder RPG pursuits. With the Action Economy, I am not sure how this translates and I have not seen many folks post on this as a concern.

I spent a lot of money on Pathfinder 1.0 books and products. I do love 1.0 and I am still scratching my head while a lot of things could not have been addressed in organized play supplement or even a updated core rule book. I cannot help feel like that we might...might...be throwing out the baby with the bathwater and while we have new game with mechanics will we be crating as many if not not more problems down the road.

I'm a casual player, I have only a handful of characters that I have invested a lot into creatively let along almost all of the books in one or more formats. I've played RPGs since I was 10 and luckily with with one of my best friends and groomsman to this very day. I don't always get a lot of time to play when I have to balance a job, my spouse and her career, and three kids. Gear, equipment, even boons, I am not attached too, but to say that there is currently not a place for those characters or some established conversion rule for them in 2.0 and that for organized play I have to start over, that the story cannot continue or carry over into the 2E world, no matter how great we make 2E, may be the single largest reason that when 2E becomes the only officially supported and updated version of Pathfinder, I stay with 1.0 and ride it out in to the sunset.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Hi all I got a question in regards armor and weapons in regards to Pathfinder RPG and what we know from current historical archeological finds.

Looking at the Core, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Equipment rule books there is a discrepancy in the books vs. documented archeological finds.

As an example, a chain shirt is listed as weighing 25 pounds in the Core Rulebook.

Historically accurately recreated chain mail shirts with 6mm or 8mm diameter rings, 1mm thick, 4 in 1 pattern weigh in at about 12-15. ( yes, I actually own one and it really will stop a blade or arrow, but that is a whole different topic :) )

Based on the item description, what is accounting for the additional weight? Even if you toss in the weight of a complimentary infantry helmet and a leather/padded subarmalis you still don't get to 25 pounds.

I was thinking perhaps that the extra weight might be to account for just the affect on wearing armor, but should not the Armor Check Penalty, Max Dexterity, and and adjusted movement rates already address that?

Thanks and looking forward to anyone's comments and feedback.