Zonto's page

My group hasn't run the playtest game yet, but just from reading the book I have a few concerns. My primary one is that it seems to me like characters don't get enough feats early on, particularly ancestry and class feats.

Most classes seem to get about one class feat per "bucket" of feats.. meaning they are likely going to pick a single path (eg. dragon totem barbarian), and spend every feat in that tree, and not have any free feats to pick any of the cool stuff.

Ancestry feats are similar; you get one at 1st level, which seems like half (or less) of a PF1 race.

We'll play the playtest adventure/rules as written, but if these progressions stick through to the published 2nd Edition, my gut is that we'll houserule additional feats, especially at early levels.

This is all very awesome.

Aroden was a goblin paladin!

Zonto wrote:

It's really interesting coming to a comments section hours late... the tone shift between page 1 and 15 sure is a thing.

I don't understand the flames around goblins being a PC race. Sure they're generally evil, but goblin PCs existed in 1E too. They're just a race of chaotic goofy monsters.

If you don't want to play a goblin, don't play a goblin. If someone else wants to play a goblin, why not? As long is everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone else having fun means you aren't having fun, maybe some introspection is in order.

Sigh.

Only on why im sitting on the table with said player.

If you were right, then PFS wouldnt ban evil PCs, afterall they are having fun, it is everyones elses problem that they arent clearly. Actually they wouldnt ban anything.

A disruptive player is a problem.

A disruptive player is absolutely a problem, I agree with you there 100%. However, I don't think playing a goblin means a player is disruptive.

Sure, the disruptive player may be attracted to the zany antics of the goblin, but without a goblin, that player is just going to be a CN halfling rogue or whatever and spend their time stealing from the party.

If you have disruptive players at the table, maybe have a conversation with them, or as a group.

It's really interesting coming to a comments section hours late... the tone shift between page 1 and 15 sure is a thing.

I don't understand the flames around goblins being a PC race. Sure they're generally evil, but goblin PCs existed in 1E too. They're just a race of chaotic goofy monsters.

If you don't want to play a goblin, don't play a goblin. If someone else wants to play a goblin, why not? As long is everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone else having fun means you aren't having fun, maybe some introspection is in order.

Sigh.

Liking what I'm reading of the Rogue so far. Seems characters no longer start combat flat-footed, which, sure.

I wonder what Acrobatics vs. Athletics is? Presumably Strength-based skills (Climb+Swim) are moving to Athletics? Does that mean Jump will move under Athletics from Acrobatics and be Strength-based again?

Curious! And excited for the playtest!

I think this system sounds good. Looking forward to trying it out in action.

I like the flatter spread in numbers, and the tier/deed aspect seems like a good way of ensuring the trained characters have an advantage over those who don't, without just giving them enormous numerical bonuses.

This system seems like it will scale to high level much better than the old one.

I'm all for some sort of healing surge type of mechanic. It would lighten the burden on the cleric, and reduce the reliance on the CLW wand. Now, how to make it work effectively fairly... I leave to the designers!

You make some good points in this post, and I think the amount of information we've been given is just enough to be dangerous with regards to speculation.

I'm curious to see what the full rules are, but given what we do know, I think applying Resonance to consumable items seems like it might not be a great idea, and that having a limited pool will mean most players will just save the points and not want to spend them. I'm happy to be proven wrong though!

Resonance seems like a weird system to me. I guess I can see where it's coming from, but Pathfinder characters want to kill monsters and take their stuff. Now they just can't use as much of it?

I suppose this fixes the "CLW Wand Issue" but it seems like a pretty heavy-handed bandaid.

I guess we'll see what the full rules are eventually, but this doesn't sit right with me from what's been described so far.

I'd put ease of 1st-ed conversion as a nice to have. Good to be able to do this easily if possible, but I wouldn't like to see them sacrifice innovation/design of 2E for it.

In the Know Direction podcast/interview (https://youtu.be/EKRZ1yHiUDY), they confirm that spells go from level 1 to level 10, plus cantrips. So this looks like a slightly expanded spell system.

My hope is that there will be close to zero compatibility with first edition, and any compatibility that there is would be by accident. I'm hoping they are making something completely fresh.

I like the unified feel of this, but I dislike the massive gap that will appear at high level, which is one of the big reasons I stopped GMing OG Pathfinder in the first place.

IF these values are correct (which they very well may not be - we'll see), it's fine at low level, but at high level starts to fall apart. A character (maybe a bard?) at 20th level with an 8 Wisdom who is untrained in Perception would have a -2. An Expert in Stealth (rogue) with 20 Dex would have a +26. This means the bard has a d20-2 to hit a DC 36 to spot the rogue, while the rogue is rolling d20+26 vs. DC 8 to be sneaky. The rogue could take actions totalling a -20 penalty and still only fail on a 1.

This is an extreme case for sure, but the disparity in values leads to dice being meaningless and flat bonuses being the whole game, which I very much disliked about OG Pathfinder.

Who knows, maybe this system works entirely differently from my understanding, and it's still just a playtest, so things may definitely change, but I'm skeptical for now.

Hmm. Interesting. Though, using some new developer instead of partnering again with Obsidian (who excels at making this type of game) doesn't inspire my confidence off the bat.

That said, I'm still curious to see how this shakes out.

Why do we need another thread about this?

I do not believe that you get extra attacks from the tentacle or vestigial limbs. It says they don't grant extra attacks, so I'm really not sure where all the arguments that they grant extra attacks are coming from. I agree with Cheapy (and SKR and JJ). They can be used as a part of your normal attack sequence, but do not grant you any extra attacks.

If a player in my campaign misses a session, it's because they were busy with something else that they couldn't move, or something came up, etc. It isn't because they just didn't feel like coming. Thus, I give full XP to absent players. I don't want to make them feel punished because their schedule got messed up.