Overall I found the Playtest rules a big improvement on PF1 and it got rid of a lot of my issues with PF1, I'll pre-order as soon as PDF and GenCon collections are confirmed. Anything I don't enjoy I can house rule any way (planning PF2 for my homebrew game).
I do think Paizo might benefit from getting some preview documentation out though so people like OP can view how things changed. Although we're still four months out so plenty of time for PF Friday etc. to show the game off.
Mark Seifter wrote:
A little off topic so apologies, but if there is to be another GM-focused book please consider adding some of the information in the PFS GM 101 and 102 free PDF's.Some of that information might even be best suited for CRB (or as a free download talked about in the CRB) as it gives so much good and basic advice for being a GM. Some of that I wish I had when I started to GM as a guideline for how to handle situations or keep the game engaging.
The speed issue has bothered me as a dwarf as well.
I've been playing Doomsday Dawn as a Dwarven fighter, started during v1.3 and updated to v1.4 last session.
The reasons for it being a heritage was because people who didn't need to use it could avoid choosing it. However if you want to be a melee person in heavy armour you "HAVE" to choose that heritage option.
This to me doesn't add to a level of character design choice but rather forces dwarven armour users into a "mandatory" heritage selection.
I personally feel this should be a base ability of all dwarves as it was before, so there is more freedom of choice on which heritage to choose.
(quote marks on my hyperbolic terms)
I really love the sound of some of these ideas.
The idea that the group can stop for 10mins and perform some actions to get back into fighting condition (with everyone contributing) would be an interesting change.
Makes me think of Darkest Dungeon (video game) where when you camp for the night you can choose what skill everyone in your party uses during the rest period.
I'm one of those who really hates wand spam.
The game's I've run as a GM have mostly fallen into the same pattern, the players beat an encounter then stand around for x rounds whilst people spam wands so they can enter the next fight with full HP.
This allows the cleric or other casters to then save more of their spell slots for buffs, adding to power levels in every fight etc.
I don't want to have the situation where players are forced to stop adventuring after every fight in order to recover fully, but at the same time I want to stimulate that old school fear and decisions of if the group should push on or should they charge right at that giant rather than employ ranged weapons as long as they can.
I like the new healing skill use because although it in theory grants them full healing, there is a time investment involved, you also (in theory) can't just sit in the centre of a room for 10mins during the assault on the BBEG's base.
I understand why CLW spam happens, and I allow it because it's only fair in the systems rules. However it doesn't mean I enjoy it being and if Paizo can find a way to remove it or tone it back without crippling adventure times I would be more than happy to embrace that.
However that healing does come at a invested time of 10 minutes. This means you need to find somewhere safe to sit and rest for a while, it also makes it harder during time sensitive missions.
I'm one of those against the CLW spam because it's always felt so cheesy and immersion breaking for me. I understand why it's done but I would rather it went away.
I'll be interested to see if this new system fixes that or not, depending how viable it is to buy potions and chug them we could just move over to that system of healing everyone to max after every fight.
Tank McDoomulus wrote:
3.) When did cantrips become so powerful and why is magic missile so powerful?? You use vebral, somatic and material and you get 3 missiles at 4th level??? Nonsense.
I'd imagine because playing Evocation in PF1 was boring.
I'm running a PF1 campaign right now with a player who wanted to play a wizard specialised in Evocation spells to see "if it's really that bad" we're now at mid levels (13th) and he feels useless in most combat scenarios.
Sure he can get a big damage spell off for 40-80 damage (maybe AoE) but when the Paladin and Slayer are doing 100-200 per round it makes his spells seem meaningless. He's already agreed he would have been more use being a CC or buff bases wizard again.
I think buffing Evocation spells to actually do damage is one of the things Paizo got very right with the Playtest. Wizards should be allowed to throw out a spell and not feel like they only tickled an enemy.
With my best ability of not trying to come off as rude or attacking them, how well versed was your GM with the rules?
Most of the "I don't want to look it up" rules I know myself with just one read through of the book, or at least the knowledge of where to find them fast should I need to confirm them.
The monsters feeling bland I can kind of understand, but I would hope they all have enough special abilities to make use of to make the combat more interesting.
I like the changes in choice and picking some more speciality to the characters.
I am not sure how I feel about the heavy focus on variant/sub-races. Looking at Elf for example you really only have one option if you want to be a "normal" elf.
I feel human is perfect, that choice of a half-X or skills or feats.
I support this request as well.
I read other threads about it before reaching the sections of the book where temperatures came up and kind of waved it off as a non-issue.
However on actually getting to those sections a while later I did find it very difficult to understand instantly.
If I remember correctly the page already has some information within brackets following the temperatures, so it might not read well if you used them. Maybe a simple xF/xC if that's not too ugly for print?
Pretty much every game I've run my players eventually end up disappointed they had to give up that interesting item they found for a +bonus item in that slot.
I *REALLY* like how the new attribute buff items work, you can only have one and you have to choose a +2 or instant 18.
Thanks for the Signature Skill changes (removal) this is exactly what my group wanted and everyone seems really happy with that system now.
Curious though with the rebalance of numbers of skills.
Filled it out but for me it was done more on a GM view (as I've not been a player in a number of years)
I don't 100% like resonance but I am 100% behind some of what it wants to achieve.
I personally can't stand the situation where combat ends and the first thing the group does is start spamming cure light wounds wands and chugging potions.
Now, for resonance itself (not played yet, only read the books) I wasn't super against the idea of it for attuning items and use for item activations.
For scrolls and potions it felt very out of place. Especially scrolls because I've always seen them in my mind as magically infused as part of the scribing, or a formula which becomes magical on reading, not something which required someone to infuse with magic during the casting.
I want Paizo to kill off low level item spam, and I hope they can find a way to do it without the gamey feeling system of resonance.
Running a bit behind in the schedule of what's being played due to RL events hitting my group hard right now.
Just wondering what changes other made for 6 player groups?
A1. Made the Sewer Ooze Elite (costs 10 XP, had 10 XP to spend)
This actually came up in my campaign recently, the parties slayer had one cursed potion and five normal ones. I just rolled a percentile every time he drank a potion to see if it was the cursed one.
Couple of other posts about this but they're more mixed into other discussions so wanted something more focused.
It seems during the shuffling around of spells that Finger of Death and Wail of Banshee got bumped out of the arcane lists. This means Necromancers now lose access to two of the most iconic necromancy spells.
I'm not against other classes getting access to these spells but I feel there should be a way for the Necromancer specialist at least to gain access to them.
Personally I am okay with a few more secret rolls, because no matter how good a roleplayer you are knowing you've rolled <5 on a d20 makes you act or think differently about a situation.
I've seen it many times when someone rolls low and suddenly someone else rolls the same check without their character having any reason to if they trusted their allies abilities.
On the other hand, the kinds of players who do the above will also just roll on everything someone else does (that they're skilled at) if dice are hidden.
Considering the rules say you can show or hide as many rolls as you want as a GM I think each group will continue to go as they have previously, although it might empower some GM's to to take rolls back from players who demand open rolls because the rules don't state it's hidden.
I have to agree with the people saying about too much cross referencing.
I've been reading the book page by page and it seems almost everything I read is telling me to flip all over the book to understand it.
I would say personally I am not a fan of the coloured page backgrounds as well, this makes it very printer unfriendly and I just feel text on white (Crimson Throne Hardback) was a cleaner look.
And they are trying to make right by us, despite that they were not responsible for this mess. Amazon screwed everyone over.
Yeah, I mean I am super annoyed and bummed out, especially with it looking like September deliveries for the UK, however I can't be mad at Paizo because they've been so communicative and honest about it.I'm also thinking I can use that $15 to pick up some flip-mat PDF's or the Fantasy Grounds modules for Doomsday Dawn (if sold via Paizo) so that's made me happier.
My biggest gripe now is if Amazon will still hold that charge for shipping, as for me as a UK customer I had to pay almost the cost of the books again in shipping as I wanted a guaranteed delivery. As others have said I have Prime so I could have ordered via Amazon themselves and not paid a penny in shipping so... yeah, give me my money back Amazon! (and don't charge my Paizo friends either).
Vic Wertz wrote:
Damn, that's way later than I was imagining. Was hoping to have the copy to read on my travels later this month.
Thanks for the information, I really appreciate the transparency you're showing in regards to this.
I'm disappointed to not be getting the physical book for the weekend like I hoped but glad to see Paizo on the case and the $15 is appreciated.
I do hope that Amazon gives back a bit of the shipping cost as well though, as like mentioned by others I ordered via Paizo to make sure I got something and UK shipping is harsh.
Vic I noticed in the orders your checked you didn't list the UK, are you able to check any UK orders to give us a rough ETA? As the EU countries listed have a few days difference in them.
Thanks for all the work resolving this, I hope you have a wonderful launch day regardless of these issues.
Running an adventure which has a Trench Mist and number of Juju Zombies in the same room.
If the Trench Mist moves over the Juju Zombies in order to engulf the PC's would it also have to engulf the Juju Zombies and thus deal damage to them on their turns?
If it does deal damage would be be both the damage of the acid and then healing from negative energy damage?
I've hit Google, Reddit and the forums with this but I'll be honest and say even with the debates and FAQ I don't fully understand what's actually considered an ability based check.
Concerning planar travel and strongly aligned planes.
So what will this actually make a difference to?Base ability checks - Yes
Skills using Int/Wis/Cha?
Spell caster checks using on Int/Wis/Cha?
I've seen the argument for "d20 + ability + other" is an ability based check but "d20 + other + ability" isn't an ability based check.
Only FAQ information I could find close to this. Which leads me to think all skills using an ability are an ability based check?
Appreciate the help and clarification to come.
I so hope it fixes this. I liked the idea of the trait system a lot but it just became another "choose best min/max options" over RP or thematic choices.
I think I am far too cynical and spend too much time on forums (not these ones though) to believe an official statement will ever end a debate like this.
Even well into the release of 2E the debate will be had by people because there are groups who just want different things from their Paladins. Which is fine and can be solved around home games, but people will have to accept the choices Paizo make will be law in society gaming.
From what I've heard/read from Paizo it sounds like they're all remaining if their classes are* but they might have their looks changed a little.
Like Hask having two weapons, Valerous a shield.
* The recent Know Direction Erik made it sound like they want to bring every class over but some will have more focused intensive play testing (Gunslinger) however they're also not interested in just preprinting the same books updated.
Ryan Freire wrote:
People should probably start acting a bit more grown up then.I've read a whole bunch of threads and posts of what I would consider stuff to annoy me but have just scrolled past and joined the conversation where I can say something more interesting or positive.
I could actually see and enjoy Paladin as a bolt on or unlock kind of deal for all classes.
However I think after listening to most of the Know Direction interview with Erik they're not going to take away the base options we have now, Paladin will be a full class because they don't want to screw up that for people.
I think here though matching up the publication date and timeline will be pretty simple. 1E modules will be on Inner Sea World Guild timeline, 2E modules will be CRB/Inner Sea 2.0 timeline.
For me the move to this kind of system is one of the things which draws me more towards it.
I've long hated the 3.X / Pathfinder skill system because of how quickly it breaks and how little the characters base power has to do with that.
From what I have heard/read so far this seems close to Star Wars Saga style skills which I was really okay with (I've not read 5E rules for skills but probably should).
The biggest issue I had with the Saga system was the lack of ways to pick up skills outside your class, meaning making that Fighter who was well versed in Arcane knowledge (their father was a wizard, they sucked at magic)becomes hard if there is no way to make that skill trained/specialised etc.
Goblin playable race is so far the only thing I don't really like from what I've heard of the new edition.
I love the Pathfinder goblins but I love them as the wacky evil enemies they are, but making them a player race in the core book means they're now something which has to be considered normal citizens in the world. There are enough not evil goblins to be considered a common race for heroes.
I feel these civilised goblins will have to have a lot of changes to be something players can actually make heroes with.
I'll have to wait until I see the information in the book for final judgement, hoping with it being at UK Games Expo I can get a sneak peak (like they did with Starfinder) at the ancestry pages.
If it's how I'm expecting it to work I am fine with that.
3 actions, you just say what you want to do with them, they get done. No more tracking "you used you move action to do X so you can't do Y unless you expend your standard, oh sorry I didn't know you had the thing to make that a swift, so that next thing was a free action, so now this is your standard action?"
I know that's a little dramatic but at higher level play with groups who are not flawless in the rules that can be how it goes. A system when you just say what you to and mark off action uses is fine by me.
Information-based indicates that the rules are more for those trying to get the rules rather than something written as fiction or to solely entertain. In otherwords, just as it says, information based. Facts and Rules.
I really hope this breaks away from some of the RAW/RAI arguments especially around spells.One of my biggest gripes with pathfinder has been how the spells often seem long winded and open to different interpretations rather than just saying "It does X, Y and Z it can't do A, B and C"
I'm not convinced most RPG players are big enough history buffs to even realize it's incorrect.
I fall under this.
I'd never heard of brigandine before this thread, If you asked me what it was I wouldn't have known. However ask me what Studded Leather was and I could tell you.
Damn the conflict of emotions right now.
As a GM and someone who over the last year has come to despise elements of the Pathfinder rules I am hyped for a cleaner, smoother game system.
The other side of me is pained that I dropped a lot of money on Frog God books over the last year and now might have to do additional work to use the content from them.
I'm also interested to see how Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds do with this, considering they've just in the last year go their licences and started rolling out items those items are now in effect going to be less desired over time.
Will pick up the free PDF copies of things and run this for my RP group at the end of the year, I have hopes for the new system and will give it a go before I lose all hope.
A few questions regarding knowledge and how others handle it.
I've read other threads and got bits of information here and there but figured starting a thread to get some feedback on my specifics would be beneficial.
Rakshasa DC10+CR(10) for a DC 20 Knowledge Planes check.
Does the group get five bits of separate knowledge or would PC1 and PC2 have some cross overs in what they know?
I've previously been giving out separate information (so five as per above example) but have noticed recently that now my group is basically walking into encounters and knowing everything about a given monster.
For the Rakshasa in the example above they would know:-
So this is pretty much everything special about a Rakshasa, leaving little mystery about such a creature. Now it's not that I want my players to be clueless and get killed or not have fun, but it feels like nothing is new and exciting (even ToH stuff) because the group will just know everything.
In searching I've seen some people talk about lower rolls counting as assists (to represent shared knowledge) and speaking with my group about this limiting it to not one per success was seen as a nerf to their characters.
Should "defences" be lumped together or should each defence be a separate bit of useful information?
Example something has Immune: Fire; Resist: Cold 10, Acid 10.
Currently my group does rolls, counts up number of pieces of useful information then says what areas they want to know "defences, attacks, special abilities" etc.
If they've got three bits of information and a creature has DR, SR, Immunities & Special attacks which one gets left out.
If you haven't before then give this link a read.
Otherwise you can make encounters a bit more challenging by playing with the terrain in which they fight. Hamper their movement (difficault terrain), limit their sight (fog/mist), strong winds to mess with spells/ranged attacks.
Add some spell like abilities or a caster who's there just to CC/debuff/dispell them. In my current Crimson Throne game there were some low level cultists (clerics) who the players came to hate because they each cast spiritual weapon, then hold person before attacking.
If the enemy knows of your PC's have them factor in some defences vs their most common attacks.