I think I also prefer Starfinder's Hitpoints / StaminaPoints/ ResolvePoints to Playtest's HitPoints/ TreatWounds/ Hero Points.
But more broadly, I find myself asking : Why isn't there more Starfinder in this ? If you took Starfinder, added 3-Action economy, sprinkled with some of Playtest's other ideas, trimmed here, expanded there, you'd have a pretty great system, I think. Starfinder seems to solve a lot of the traditional 3.x problems without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Some comments from 1 or more of the design team, seem convinced that the type of stories you tell in Fantasy & Science Fantasy are different enough that the same mechanics often can't work & I....I just don't see it myself.
I even think they should have considered Starfinder's route of making all spellcasters spontaneous & finding other ways to differentiate the spellcasting classes. Although I accept that might be a bridge too far for some people.
Thanks for doing this. I've enjoyed the 1st episode, about to listem to the 2nd.
For me it's Armour, especially heavy Armour.
I know this might be controversial but for me, unarmoured or lightly armoured characters should NEVER be able to equal heavily armoured characters in AC (given the same level of investment).
Instead, the lightly armoured characters should make up the difference elsewhere.
But at the very least, medium & heavy armour shouldn't be activly worse than light/ unarmoured.
They have done so well with all the cool weapon qualities that really make weapons visceral & meaty - let armour be the same, not just a series of punishments for using it.
Count me in for 'make snares good'.
Also PF2 is using them as part of a 'degrees of success' system, so for save or die spells & the like, they actually smooth out the spikiness, allowing for more inbetween results between the previous extremes.
I find the Condition cards in PF1 & Starfinder are very useful, easy to make your own if you want to save money.
I think some people are being a bit harsh on Colette here.
Now, I don't think this kind of playstyle should be the main determining factor in the game design but it at least deserves a place in the discussions.
I think it will probably take until the 1st player-focused hardback in the real release for Characters to start to really have the versitility of PF1 characters but it's a decent goal.
And I don't see any reason to label people a 'dick GM' - their players are presumably more or less down with this style of game or they wouldn't be playing.
They've said that the hard limit is the 575 pages of the original core-rulebook.I hope it comes in a bit shorter - personally still prefer physical books for main rulebooks & not a fan of the unliftable tome of doom. That's why it was great when they released the pocket editions.
That said, there's alot to pack in that core rulebook, 450-500 pages would suit me fine.
I actually like this section - it gives some extra ideas for a player to create their character.
So while I'd be happy to see the ethnicities expanded to include non-humans & maybe seperated from specific ancestries to be more general (ie a Taldan halfling sahres most of the cultural touchstones of a Taldan human)I am in favour of it & I do think the 'Ancestries chapter is the right place for it.
'Sword & Sorcery' is only a narrow, well-defined genre to a niche audience of Fantasy Literature fans.
PF2 may or may not end up being to a given person's taste but I don't think this throw-away phrase is telling us anything about any change of direction or tone for the game.
A common problem.
The spell roll is actually explained much better in the glossary section on pg 423; but that page isn't referenced in the index & they don't bother to explain there that the spell DC is just the same modifier but with a flat value of 10 in place of the roll.
Obviously they are very happy with the consistant way that attacks & DCs are calculated throughout the game but that's no excuse for not spelling things out explicitly & in a sensible place.
They should explain Ranged & Melee Touch Attacks, Spell Rolls & Spell DCs all together, at the start of the 'spells' chapter and point out the differences between them.
You shouldn't give new players a bunch of general rules spread throughout the book & leave them to piece together what they actually need to do at the table from the general rules - you should give them the specific rules in the correct chapter & let them see the underlying similarity in their own time as they learn.
Agreed! This works perfectly & keeps the stat-block self-contained.
If it were a choice between the orignal or the new suggestion in the blog, I prefer the original: I really hate when a stat-block doesn't contain all the info but assumes that you know where to look for the missing information.
Why are we still using aligment ?
Because it's a really useful tool for character & NPC building, a very intuitive & elegant 1st approximation/ rule of thumb for quickly fleshing out a character's motivation.
Just asking a player why they chose their alignment for their character often results in lots of great info.
I really think the anti-alignment sentiment some people have is just an inability to deal with ambiguity.
And I would defend Alignment as mechanics as well, as long as it doesn't become too overbearing. It's good to have limits sometimes. It helps to give classes & creatures an identity instead of just a bland anything can be anything mush.
Anyway, that was my 'in defence of alignment'
I look at it like this - this book has evolved from what was probably just a document with a few long lists of feats, spells, etc in it. Where we are now is really just a stage on the road to a fully polished book. The devs are getting loads of feedback about layout & I've read many a well-laid out Paizo book, so I'd be surprised if they didn't come up with something pretty useable by the end.
I much prefer the PF1 sheets. Because you had enough space to actually summarise the rules for your abilities. It's like the new sheet is designed to provide an overview of your character's whole career with little detail, where old one was to provide a snapshot of your character at current level.
@Micheal Smith - I tried to reply to you some days ago but the website problems ate my response. Hopefully I have better luck this time !
I agree with you the sub-chapter markers from the Starfinder CRB are definitely worth bringing over.
It's not that I'm opposed to the traits & the little box is a good way of presenting them. It's just that there are too many overall in my opinion & some of them are used to tag extra rules onto a statblock, which means that if you don't lookup/ know by heart what they mean, then the statblock doesn't give you all the info you need to use it (I'm using statblock here to mean feats, items etc).
@Pedro Sampaio - I agree with most of what you say too. I get what they're trying to do with the exploration mode - they're trying to tell a GM who only has the CRB & no experience how they can run the non-combat parts of the game. And it's probably better than previous attempts at teaching them this. It just feels a little too rigid & codified.
There's been loads of feedback on this stuff already but it does seem to get lumped together, when really I think these are seperate issues.
1) Layout: This is just where things are located, how they're referenced & organised.
2) Graphic Design: I actually think this is a big step forward, even in it's rough state. It's finally incorporating some of the Beginner's Box presentation.
3) Tone/Language: This is my biggest worry for the book & in fact for the whole PF2 project.
I think you're completely right, Tamago.
The aim should be for these types of rules blocks to be free-standing as much as possible.
When it's the other way round & it's a way for more general rules & spells to refer back to the rule block, it's much better.
And if they're going to use traits to parachute in rules, they need to be a lot less than the 150-170 they have now.
Yeah, 'adventurer's kit' etc definitely need to be in the final CRB, with the total cost & bulk pre-calculated.
'Overall, I'm pretty happy with the playtest. This is the direction I want to see Paizo go. It's still going to have more rules than D&D, but to some degree, Pathfinder needed to be slimmed down to grab other players as well. '
Agreed with the overall impression. There are many, many things to be fixed & tweaked but this is the basis of a good system, in my opinion.
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)
Yes. It has it's problems but many more merits.
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
Never tried 4th.
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)
Class balance, options & ease of use. High level play is not a big concern.
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
It's perhaps the most important thing in PF2
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
Only a little. There's a balance to be struck here.
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
Of course, I view this as the 1st proposal for PF2
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)
I'd like to see the weaker feats of all types (Ancestry, General & Class) brought up to scratch, a somewhat wider range of feats, a simpler version of Resonance if it's to survive, a 'free' signiture skill for all classes. Beyond that, I haven't even finished absorbing the Playtest rules yet.
As far as I can tell, nowhere is it actually spelled out how to calculate spell DCs.
10 + Character Level + Int Modifier
I get this from :
- page 8 'Your Difficulty Class'
What confuses me, is you normally add proficiency level as well.
The Wizard, on pg 135, in the sidebar has 'Spells' - Trained in Arcane Spell rolls and DCs & in attack rolls for Arcane spells.
So this is +0 for trained. But can the wizrd ever be more than trained in Arcane spell rolls & DCs ?
And if so, does he do it by adding ranks to the 'Arcana' skill ?
And if so, would the formula be ? :
10 + Character Level + Arcana Proficiency + Int Modifier
They could really do with explaining spell DC calculation at the beginning of the spells chapter, with a specific example.
Thanks Mach5RR, I should have picked up that extra text on the Goblin trait, I think that does settle it.I'm glad to think that martial goblins can just use them anyway, otherwise it seems they're getting poor value from that Ancestry Feat. Good point about the Weapon Frenzy, might be worth thinking about after level 1.
So, my Hardcover Rulebook & Softcover Doomsday Dawn arrived today in the UK & I finally had the chance to sit down, have a skim & make a character.
For all the rough edges & niggles, I think the presentation, overall, is significantly easier to use & learn.
I'm basing this mainly off the Class Descriptions, Skill Descriptions & Weapons section.
In the PF1 CRB, which I have grown to like & navigate fairly comfortably over time, you are still mostly faced with dense walls of text with little formatting.
The action formatting for skills is also much more user-freindly IMO & better for reference.
Overall, I like the new format, it brings some of that beginner box clarity that I hoped we would see more of in the Starfinder CRB. Overall, I liked Starfinder but I was disappointed in how it was much closer in presentation to PF1 with regards to big wall of text entries.
I admit 'Anathema' is a bit unfriendly for non-europeans. It does have the advantage of being quite flavourful, in my opinion. And it is still in use in English today, though it's 'Uncommon'.
I think they should swap 'Somatic' which means absolutlely nothing to anyone outside of D&D for 'Gesture', which is instantly self-explanatory.
Thanks, I agree we seem to need a little more info to settle the matter. I think you're right that strict RAW, I would probably need to take it, just seems that being a fighter, he's getting a lot less value from that Ancestry Feat than a class that didn't already have martial weapon proficiencies.Think it's one a dev might have to weigh in on, except they've got enough on their plates right now, I imgine.
Yes, it's from the 'Uncommon Martial Melee Weapons' catagory.
My point is just that I don't need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) to be trained in it, because as a Martial weapon, I'm already expert from fighter.
So the only reason I need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin)(If indeed I do need it), is because it's an Uncommon weapon.
If so, it's not the end of the world, just pondering what RAI is.
It will take me a while to absorb the document, my system mastery is not as high as some people.
Pg 10 : The uncommon rarity indicates an element available
Pg 31 : WEAPON FAMILIARITY (GOBLIN) FEAT 1
Pg 86 : Fighter Weapon proficiencies - Expert in all simple and martial weapons. Trained in all exotic weapons.
I'm building a Level 1 Goblin Dex Fighter.
You'll never get anything official, for the reasons the other posters have stated.
Most intersting thing here is the Adoptive Ancestry general feat; this seems to be the answer to 'what if I'm a dwarf raised by elves' or 'what if I'm a goblin adopted by gnomes'.
This now seems to have filtered through to UK retail - I just caved & ordered it from Chaos Cards (Not ordered from them before). I'm not a collector - I always aim to use every book I buy.
I don't have an immediate opportunity to use this but it strikes me as one that I will regret not picking up for years if I don't.
Obviously it's not going to replicate COC in Pathfinder, because the assumptions of the systems are too different - but what I think it will do is make a unique take on both Pathfinder & Cthulu Mythos that isn't offered by either of them alone.
The Armageddon Orb & Spinning Blade Pillar are really cool - I like the rules presented here.
I wish they would de-emphasise the keywords attached to actions & emphasise the base action.
Instead of saying:
"That creature can use the Grab Edge reaction to avoid falling."
I wish it was more like:
"That creature can use a Reaction (grab edge) to avoid falling."
Or something like that.
This.At the risk of banging on about it - I understand the designers want to add some keywords to things so they can target them with other rules later.
Like you could see a 'smooth operator' feat that would target operate actions or something.
But PLEASE don't bury us under so many clunky keywords attached to every little thing, it feels almost like reading computer code at points.
Fair enough, I suppose. I do agree the Playtest has plenty of terminology problems.Etching doesn't seem like one to me - I can actually picture the character sitting by the campfire carving the magic rune into their weapon & when they're done - the rune glows on the new weapon & falls away on the old.
It doesn't get on my nerves like all these action operation activation things.
You deserve a rolleyes for that.I mean Etching in the context they've just presented. It's blatantly obvious I did.
Edit, but leaving my original comment so as to not confuse:
No matter what angle I squint at it, Resonance just squats over the things it touches, adding an extra layer to items that already have enough layers. It's just not simplifying anything. I would prefer item slots.
Runes are cool, potencies & properties are cool, terminology remains pretty horrible & clunky overall (but this last can be easily revised for final release).