in◆⃟'s page

Sadly it will probably take forever. Could the community sticky a post with links to confirmations? Or is that a paizo staff only thing? Or do paizo not even want a collected unofficial errata.

As I gather, they hardly want "errata" in the form of text.

Because referring to "a developer said it on a stream" is obviously much clearer, simpler, and more streamlined than "a developer wrote it on a forum post".

Crayon wrote:

Most Move actions, Standard action, etc are treated identically under the rules though which is most definitely not true of PF2 where they're still subdivided up into lots of categories that reflect how they function.

In practice it's no better than PF1 and arguably worse since at least in PF1 almost everything was followed the rules for either standard, move, or full-round.

What categories are you referring to?

Single-action is for moving and doing one-round buffs.

I think focusing too much on a recent trend (like streaming and the success of critical roll) when building a system is objectively a bad idea.

One problem is that the group who does Critical Roll would be able to make a great stream, regardless of which system they used. And if you're in such a group, I envy you.

Just over a decade ago, there was a recent trend of MMORPGs coming out - with millions of players each paying a significant monthly fee. One roleplaying game decided to alter its system to try to appeal to this crowd.

How did that work out?

Ultimately, the number of people who had a problem with advancing in their untrained skills was high-ish (often fueled by comparisons that wouldn't come up in gameplay but you can still imagine and feel to be off), but the number of people who wanted a 5e-style bounded math without level advancement was quite low.

This is one conclusion that can be drawn from that survey question.

However, as I recall the survey question was phrased such that those in favour of a point-based skill system (like in PF1) would have responded that they had a problem with untrained skills advancement.

This may be a result of not asking the right questions on the surveys.

I imagine that a 2e combat pad faces some additional design challenges: at high-level play, the bottom half of a Pathfinder Combat Pad (initiatives from 0 to 15) will be unused. And there will need to be more space at the top for initiatives in excess of 45...

Announced all at once!

Including:

Product List wrote:

## Rulebooks ##

Core Rulebook (also a Deluxe ed.) [640 pp.]

Nothing says "simple and easy to learn" like the largest roleplaying book on my bookshelf.

In PF2, to be a decent Archer you need to be proficient with a bow. Bam, assuming you have the Dex to hit (something also needed in PF1) you are now a decent Archer. Now of course there are feats for certain classes to improve on the style, and other classes will need to invest a little more with multiclass to get that, which isn't great. But the gap between a fearless Archer and an Archer focusing with feats in PF2 is LOADS smaller than a featless Archer versus a focused Archer in PF2.

You need to max out your dex, and you need to keep your bow fully upgraded. Because if you don't, the tight math of PF2 means that you'll fail.

While it does sound possible, the amount of manpower required to maintain such a system compared with the benefit that it would provide makes it sound uneconomical.

And this is before taking into account the players and GMs who would dislike such plot points being shoved down their throats.

MAP is not new. If anything, it's a holdover from Pathfinder (from 3.5, and 3.0)...

You can't really use it as an example of a solution to an issue that it hasn't solved in the past.

in◆⃟ wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents?

By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.

As I stated upthread:

in◆⃟ wrote:

Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

That isn't a problem of keeping things in a comparable scale, that is a problem with the scale chosen. Proficiency can be made more noticable without having to have separate subsystems.

The problem is that the scale required to be significant on a single roll is significantly different than the scale required for the aggregate of multiple rolls.

Different scaling methods are required.

I'm pretty sure the rules say the GM can say when a task is just flat out impossible. You aren't going to jump to the moon with an athletics check, and a level 1 character will never break adamantine manacles.

The rules actually say that jumping more than 8' is flat out impossible. On a critical success of a High Jump check - one of the few listed DCs that exist.

Is "Cat fall" really a "truly mighty feat of skill"?

Calling the ability to ignore falling damage "truly mighty" - at fifteenth level no less - seems almost an insult.

It's situational, is really unlikely to come up outside of contrived circumstances, and is largely negated by even a first-level spell in PF2. Or in Pathfinder. Or in 5e. Or in 3.5e. Or even in 4e (but it's accessed at second level there).

Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents?

By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.

As I stated upthread:

Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

And that kind of interaction is the kind of opening of the design space that unified proficiency allows. Intimidation in PF1 was nonsense, you could bump your Intimidate modifier so high that you could unfailingly demoralize or coerce any monster or character, no matter how stalwart or powerful they were, because the DC that Intimidate is rolled against runs on a completely different track that can never be pumped in the same way.

Unified proficiency avoids interactions like that where an application of something has so much higher of a ceiling than the defense against that thing, like the above where you can make yourself unfailing at intimidation but can never become unfailing at resisting intimidation.

But while it opens the design space of "another way to harm someone in combat", it irreparably closes the design space of "having a skill's modifier being meaningful outside of combat".

This is the issue.

Does the game actually get better with more ways to harm someone in combat?

There seem to be three different statements going on here...

...

in◆⃟ wrote:

There's no such distinction. The difference is in the effect that a skill usage is able to produce in a combat situation.

Look at Pathfinder's usage of skills in-combat - Feint allows you to use Bluff to cause someone to become Flat-footed against your attack. But it requires a standard action. While that's not an insignificant effect, it's also not game-breaking. Even if you have a +150 to bluff.

Intimidate to demoralise too imparts the Shaken condition. Even if you're able to succeed 100% of the time, it's also not game-breaking.

Even most of the skill uses in PF2 don't have game-breaking effects if you can auto-succeed (critical success notwithstanding).

I can see why it's tempting to have a unified system where all the numbers are the same. To be honest it feels lazy. But they don't have the same degree of importance and it's folly to assume that they should.

You can literally scare people to death with a skill feat. A critical success on a normal in combat Intimidate causes the Fleeing condition, taking an opponent out for one round, potentially two.

My point is that this being an option in PF2 is not necessarily a good thing. It limits non-combat uses of the skill. Luckily, PF2 is a new system. This should be open to change if the math doesn't work.

Moreover, imparting the Fleeing condition isn't exactly fun from a gameplay perspective. It causes combat to drag on more than anything else.

I can understand that it feels lazy, but for me it feels like there's an error in the system when taking Iron Will or having a Cloak of Resistance does not make you less likely to be intimidated, only less likely to be frightened by a dragon.

Now this sounds like an issue with PF1. It's not any stretch to believe that this won't be the case in PF2 - I don't believe that Iron Will or a Cloak of Resistance exist in PF2.

Also, should a dragon choose to intimidate you, your cloak and feat won't help.

Not to mention that PF1e Intimidate requires its own way to calculate the DC, but Bluff is an opposed skill check (with a special modifier for the defender) and Diplomacy is against yet another difficulty depending on the target's disposition and Charisma (meaning that the greater their presence, the harder it is to make friends with them). No rhyme or reason.

This seems to be aimed at Pathfinder, rather than the Playtest.

Diplomacy isn't a combat-relevant skill. It doesn't work in-combat (the -10 to use Diplomacy as a full-round action rule from D&D3.5 wasn't brought over to Pathfinder).

The DCs of Intimidate and Bluff are an attempt to compensate for the fact that it's likely that the enemy doesn't have ranks in Sense Motive. Regardless, the end effect of the Intimidate and Bluff checks, while sometimes significant, isn't game-breaking even if it's certain to work.

Fair enough. I accept my superhumanity in a variety of flavors, but I can see how it would be jarring to others.

It is just one of my favorite changes though. AC progression in PF1 irritated the heck out of me (Particularly that leveling up made you better at hitting things but not better at avoiding hits) and having AC and accuracy on the same track in PF2 is just something I didn't even know how much I wanted. XD

The advantage of AC progression being markedly different to attack bonus progression is that it changes the dynamic of the game as levels increase, from one where accuracy is very important (because at low levels, two hits will knock you down), to one where damage becomes important (because at high levels, you can shrug off two hits without issue).

in◆⃟ wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

in◆⃟ wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

The problem is that items have to go to +5 because of legacy reasons related to weapons and armor. And that then has to go to extend to skill boosting items because having the numbers consistent allows for the interaction mentioned earlier.

I would argue that the interaction between skills, attacks and saves, while attractive on the surface, is the cause of a lot of problems and limits a lot of innovation and creativity.

I don't think it limits creativity at all. It opens it up to whole new possibilities.

Off the top of my head you could never have had the following idea in PF1 because skills operate on such a different scaling it would be impossibly strong.

Imaginary Psychic based class

Coercive Manouvre
You may use your Diplomacy skill for trip, bull rush and disarm attempts. If you are expert in Diplomacy you may attempt these actions from 10ft away, Master 15 or Legendary 25.

I understand that this does become an option. But at what cost?

Now skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

But where do you draw that distinction? Is Bluff a social skill or a combat skill? Intimidate? When the system defines your Will, shouldn't you use that one value in and out of combat?

To me, the unified proficiency system is the answer.

There's no such distinction. The difference is in the effect that a skill usage is able to produce in a combat situation.

Look at Pathfinder's usage of skills in-combat - Feint allows you to use Bluff to cause someone to become Flat-footed against your attack. But it requires a standard action. While that's not an insignificant effect, it's also not game-breaking. Even if you have a +150 to bluff.

Intimidate to demoralise too imparts the Shaken condition. Even if you're able to succeed 100% of the time, it's also not game-breaking.

Even most of the skill uses in PF2 don't have game-breaking effects if you can auto-succeed (critical success notwithstanding).

I can see why it's tempting to have a unified system where all the numbers are the same. To be honest it feels lazy. But they don't have the same degree of importance and it's folly to assume that they should.

I wish someone could explain what's going on.

In comparison to the Pathfinder Beta playtest, the designers are disseminating information everywhere except their own website. They will get on Twitch, they will speak on podcasts, they might even engage on Facebook.

But over the past two months, there has been very little feedback from the designers, either on blogs, or on the boards. The most we see is Jason Bulmahn locking threads.

For the record, this time last decade December 2008, on one day, the 20th of December, we got more posts from the designers than we have in the whole month of December 2018 - and half of November 2018.

Search results for comparison

MER-c wrote:

Gut reaction,

A lot of the loudest most toxic people here seem to have gotten what they want and now a great system is just PF1.5 with all of the problems it had before.

Reaction after some caffeine and examination,
The Proficiency change can be dealt with, still sucks.
Reducing the DC table is meh, resonance was an ok idea that didn’t jive with everyone so not surprised, and they didn’t kill +level to proficiency. It’s still PF2, but I’ll need to work on it.
Also flavor, I like flavor.

I think it's a bit unfair to assume that the changes are only due to the loud unhappy posters and not in any way to survey data.

I think it's extremely rude to call those who have been dissatisfied with the system as presented in the playtest as "toxic".

in◆⃟ wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

The problem is that items have to go to +5 because of legacy reasons related to weapons and armor. And that then has to go to extend to skill boosting items because having the numbers consistent allows for the interaction mentioned earlier.

I would argue that the interaction between skills, attacks and saves, while attractive on the surface, is the cause of a lot of problems and limits a lot of innovation and creativity.

I don't think it limits creativity at all. It opens it up to whole new possibilities.

Off the top of my head you could never have had the following idea in PF1 because skills operate on such a different scaling it would be impossibly strong.

Imaginary Psychic based class

Coercive Manouvre
You may use your Diplomacy skill for trip, bull rush and disarm attempts. If you are expert in Diplomacy you may attempt these actions from 10ft away, Master 15 or Legendary 25.

I understand that this does become an option. But at what cost?

Now skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".

On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.

Even a system known for its extremely tight math (D&D 5e) displays this: there are several class features that allow a character to double her "proficiency bonus" to skills (for example, the first-level Rogue's Expertise), and there are Uncommon items that offer +5 modifiers to skill usages (Gloves of Thievery).

The other way of trying to make these modifiers more noticeable is to require a social encounter to be resolved by multiple rolls. There are several examples of this, (Chase rules, Skill Challenges, Social Combat, etc), but they all "feel" like forcing a very "gamist" perspective on what should be a roleplaying effort. So far, none of them have been particularly good.

The problem is that items have to go to +5 because of legacy reasons related to weapons and armor. And that then has to go to extend to skill boosting items because having the numbers consistent allows for the interaction mentioned earlier.

I would argue that the interaction between skills, attacks and saves, while attractive on the surface, is the cause of a lot of problems and limits a lot of innovation and creativity.

Skill gates and feats a +level to proficiency were innovative ways to simplify certain aspects of building and advancing a character, while giving room for future growth and conceptual diversity within the system.

Neither gating, nor +x/level to all numbers are at all innovative.

They have invariably been tried before to a lacklustre result.

Regarding Gating, when it appears, it tends to manifest in a way for a GM to say "no" to a player as a result of something that a player has little chance of improving in the short-term. Look at the outcry when the Technologist feat was printed.

Adding your level to Everything was tried too in several other systems. None of which received universal praise.

So one of the best things about PF2 is that the proficiency system works the same for things like "saves" and "armor class" and "attacks with weapons" as it does for skills.

It would be a shame to break this in the interest of changing how skills work, and giving a fighter a massive advantage in "to hit" compared to everyone else, and giving Paladins a huge advantage in AC would be worse than the current issues with skills.

Also, nothing wrong with monks having a high AC, some of the highest AC characters I saw in PF1 were monks.

Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity?

The DM of wrote:

Why should non-spellcasters have access to spells? Fighters get Legendary weapon proficiency. Wizards don't. Why does a Fighter get to cast anything?

Wizards can hit things with weapons; they're just not as good at it. Fighters can do magic, given the right materials, they're just not as good at it.

Let's say I'm writing an adventure. I want the party to be able to do magic in order to complete the story. Their quest leads them to find a ritual in a book for how to seal the demon, repair the flying castle, cleanse the haunt, that kind of thing.

But as an adventure writer, I can't guarantee that any given group players will have the right kind of caster in the party. Rituals free me up from having to worry about that kind of thing.

As an adventure writer, bemoaning the fact that a caster is required for the plot-specific "ritual" that you're written sounds like something that you could fix by writing it differently.

This reminds me why In houserule spell DCs in 3rd Ed/PF to = 10 + 1/2 hit dice + spellcasting mod.

Another of 3rd Ed's blunders that PF failed to address.

There are good reasons to avoid giving PCs too many daily uses of abilities with DCs that high within the 3e/PF math.

Also keep in mind that while "your game" isn't broken, PF1 by-and-large is. Schrodinger's Wizard is a thing, and it's only a matter of time before that approaches your table and you're forced to step in and "fix" things.

Yes. Schrödinger's wizard is a thing. Specifically a strawman used to unfairly "demonstrate" why a system is broken.

It's not a thing that happens outside theorycraft.
"Stepping in an 'fixing' things" is the job of a GM of a flexible system like Pathfinder.

Bulk makes a lot more sense in a sci-fi setting like Starfinder, when you want to limit what people can carry and manoeuvre with in zero-G environments.

It feels like a strange backport in Pathfinder.

Richard Crawford wrote:

I'm unsure if it's gone too fast. From what I can tell, the Playtest's math is broken, and the designers recognise this.

And when the underlying math of the system needs redoing, it'll change everything else. So what can be gleaned from the rest of the playtesting is probably very little.

This is only about half true, IMO.

The math is broken, and they are aware of it, and it is effecting what rules elements they change in the playtest. As Once and Future Kai notes, they are thus focusing on options rather than fundamental gameplay.

But saying that playtesting is thus useless is untrue. The playtest has established, and established pretty definitively, a variety of things about the player base's preferences from the fact that people want more powerful spells, to several options (ala Bard Muses) being a very popular idea for just about every Class, to Resonance being generally despised, to Trinkets being well liked conceptually even if people think they're kinda weak.

I would argue that 'more powerful spells', 'trinket powerlevel' and even 'item usage limits (resonance)' are all math-related issues.

I would replace every instance of ◆⃟ with something easier to type.

Some people hate the idea that magical weapons are actually magical. They want them to slightly help with accuracy and add eh, a slight bit of damage.

I disagree with your premise. I doubt you'll find any Pathfinder player (or <insert pretty much any other system> player)* who wouldn't like their weapon to have a more interesting effects than "a bit of accuracy and a bit of damage".

That being said, I agree that a weakness of Pathfinder is that the most effective weapon at a given price is almost always the boring +x weapon.

Likewise, the problem with both PF2 magic weapons is that their main reason for existing is to keep damage output in line with designer expectations. This was also tried in D&D4e, and the result was that it simply made the weapon mandatory for your character to remain effective (and not fall back on the treadmill).

Adding 4d12 damage is no more interesting than adding 4 damage and 4 accuracy. They're just numbers. At least in Pathfinder, the +4 weapon now overcomes DR/silver, cold iron and adamantine.

And against a level-equivalent foe, a fighter with a non-magical weapon would most likely fare better in Pathfinder than PF2. This, I believe, is an issue as it makes removing characters' gear even more punitive.

*Magic: the Gathering and other TCGs might be an exception

You are making a lot of points; let's address them. I'll rearrange them to make more logical sense.

Too many people, I believe, in these threads are trying to equate the Pathfinder Playtest to Pathfinder 1e.

However, I have seen a lot of comparisons made throughout the threads between this new system and 1e. Which makes it difficult to look at what ideas really can improve the Playtest and what is more about just wanting to continue making content for 1e.

I have no problems with people wanting more things for 1e. I think it's great that people are still having ideas for it and fully encourage people to explore those ideas. Perhaps even make some kick-ass third-party products.

In August 2019, there will be one product, with the Pathfinder name, that will cease to be supported. There will be another product, with the Pathfinder name, that will replace it.

For a group currently playing Pathfinder that wishes to play a supported system, they will be making comparisons. The biggest question that they will ask themselves is "Is PF2 a suitable replacement for Pathfinder?"

And on a negative response, they will stop paying for PF2. They will either find another system or remain with Pathfinder. (And they will tell their friends...)

Either way, it won't be a benefit to Paizo.

We, on this forum, are here because Paizo has allowed us to assist them in their endeavors in creating a new edition of Pathfinder. All of us obviously care deeply about the Pathfinder system and are excited to see the changes that Paizo has in mind.

This means all of us get very passionate and zealous about the new rules and how we would like to see them changed. Which in the grand scheme is great and I'm sure Paizo appreciates heavily the time and effort each of us are making.

No, we're here because Paizo thinks that by having a Playtest they'll be able to ultimately gain more sales of PF2 - by taking feedback into account and producing a better product, and by the marketing hype that the Playtest causes.

Through this lens, the worst thing that Paizo could do right now is shut down these forums and go through with releasing PF2. It would be a terrible marketing failure.

But this specific forum, these threads under the banner "Pathfinder Playtest" are here to test, discuss, and improve what will be the Second Edition of Pathfinder. So please stop comparing the two and instead focus on what you'd like to see adjusted about this new system.

One system is leaving, another is replacing it. If the new system is unable to satisfactorily replace it, then it is a failure.

To determine this, comparing the two systems is mandatory.

Create threads about what new feats you would like to see, how you would like to see a new class implemented, perhaps an observation about a rules weakness/strength, or even just a thread asking for clarification. These are the kinds of things that will help shape this new system we are all here to support.

Thank you and have fun Playtesting

I would argue that suggesting new content such as feats and classes is actually counterproductive at this stage, as there is no scope in the playtest to add new classes, and I'm unsure that poster-provided feats are actually within scope too.

Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e didn't come from splatbooks or from Alchemist (I'm really curious which Alchemist ability was an at-will gamebreaker, tho).

Imbalance in Pathfinder 1e was inherited from 3/3.5, it existed right there in the Core Rulebook and manifested itself in Cleric, Druid and Wizard being presented as anywhere close to balanced and equally valid choices to Rogue and Monk.

That and core spells such as color spray, sleep and scry+fry combo. Everything that Paizo put out in splatbooks was simply gravy on the top of fundamental problems that came with the 3.5 chassis.

Marvin's post had no complaints about the Core Rulebook being unbalanced. Their complaints were directed at the splatbooks.

Whether the Core Rulebook issues were actually issues is immaterial to this discussion (but has been discussed at length elsewhere).

I might be late to respond, but I think Marvin's points are very salient. And as such, they deserve a response.

I am probably going to be stepping 'in it' when I say this but...

To the people who feel that 1e was perfect...

Noone, not even the designers back when it was released, believed it was perfect.

It wasn't. Not even close, and getting farther from with every new release.

I love Pathfinder. My group and I have been playing it for years, but the shear weight of the materials available was making the system too difficult to manage. Fundamentally, the problem was balance oriented. A lot of the material outside the core books seemed thrown together with little thought to game balance. I found myself approving a few books only, and even then barring a whole lot of material because it was OP'ed for the level. And even then, the barrage of player requests about this, that or other feat or power was non stop.

Bolding has been added for emphasis. I feel exactly the same way. It's actually possible to point to the publication that started this trend.

The Advanced Player's Guide. Specifically the Witch, Alchemist and Oracle.
Giving characters at-will abilities with a save DC of 10+half-character-level+primary modifier was the start of the imbalances of Pathfinder.

But when you're releasing a new system, it stands to reason that existing material should not be automatically included.

I might be the only one who has had this experience, but I doubt it.

My experience with 2e is limited, but from what I van tell going through and making my own material up to run levels between the playtest material, is this new system has some built in checks to help balance that and I think its way overdue.

There are checks built into Pathfinder. They were ignored. Notice how it's almost impossible to get Dex-to-Damage in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder. Notice how it's very difficult to get high-DC at-will abilities in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder.

The checks were there. That they weren't followed is a lesson that hopefully the developers have learnt. And any revision that doesn't carte blanc allow all the existing splatbooks would have the same effect.

Its not the same. It takes a bit of getting used to. It has some rough edges and it needs more material.

But I think it will rock.

And here lies the problem. You're comparing the "bad parts" of Pathfinder (that the splatbooks cause imbalance) with the "good parts" of PF2 (that there are no splatbooks to cause imbalance).

Imagine if you could just cast a nice Dominate Person on a king in his sleep.

You now have a 9th level (PF 1.0) Wizard-king with a sucker on the throne to be the target for non-Red Mantis assassins.

In PF 2.0 they get a save every 6 seconds and it's a 6th level spell.

Which of these options allows you to tell a story where a king has been dominated and needs to be saved?

I think this would play havoc with the difficulties as presented since it will push players who are Legendary at their skill that much closer to hitting 90-100% success chance on even level checks.

I don't feel that this is a bad thing. After all, they're Legendary, right?

One of the most common things that I've been seeing lately on the skill forums is that people are having issues with the modifiers that various skill proficiencies provide. The biggest complaint is that there is barely any difference between someone who is a higher level that is only trained at a skill compared to someone who is much lower level but happens to have their skill at Expert or Master rank.

I was hoping that this can help bring some life to proficiencies beyond the crunchy bits of '+X to Roll and qualify for Skill Feat'. One of the best ways I've seen to do this is through the use of Skill Gating that's detailed in the Game Mastering section of the Rulebook. Below are some examples of this in practice.

Skill Gating, in my opinion, is a horrible way of differentiating levels of training.

As currently written, an optimised character has around a 70% chance of success, a trained but not optimised character has around a 50% chance of success, and an untrained character has around a 30% chance of success. While these differences do become apparent when aggregated over rolling many times, the times when this is happens is typically Combat and Perception - both of which actually have narrower spreads.

Conversely, skill checks are simply not rolled as often. Rather than rolling two, maybe four a minute as would happen in combat, you might roll a skill check four or five times a session if you're lucky.

This causes the problem where 15% of the time, the expert does not succeed and those less invested do.

Gating does seem like an obvious solution - it prevents the situation where the non-expert succeeds. Unfortunately, it replaces these 15% situations with a 30% situation where the party flat out fails for no reason other than a single poor roll.

The best solution I can see is de-unifying the proficiency maths and allowing character to excel at what they're doing.

House rules are good for the game.

But they're bad for the playtest.

The bigger problem is that critically failing an attack becomes much more likely when MAP comes into play. At the moment, your second attack would critically fail 20% of the time and your third attack would critically fail 45% of the time.

And that rate of failure just makes the PC appear incompetent.

They don't want you to be able to auto succeed and get infinite out of combat healing.

Treat wounds has already destroyed one of my games as every encounter ends with people scrambling for 50 minutes to heal everyone to full.

The game worked BEFORE this was added.

I'm genuinely curious as to what sort of game you're running that can be destroyed by this sort of thing. Could you enlighten us?

Excaliburproxy wrote:

You know what also might be cool? Maybe everyone could get a "subclass" or "achetype" automatically at certain levels.

I think I would be alright with something like this if there was also a benefit to doubling-down on your existing class.

...
Just as I wouldn't want to be unable to multiclass, I wouldn't want to be forced into it either.

This is the case for Gestalt For All. If you'd rather not take a second class, you could Gestalt your own class and play a Cleric//Cleric with twice as many spell slots and two domains.

They didn't get sued over P1. The OGL pretty much makes sure that won't happen. Why do you assume that another variant of that system would suddenly get in trouble?

I'm not a lawyer, but D&D 4e wasn't OGL. If PF2 looks to much like it, I'm sure Hasbro could take them to court on the grounds that they hired their developers and copied their system.

I'm sure that this is a risk.

At the least it could be very costly.

I think that this is extremely concerning, especially as the PF1 comparison isn't limited to the core rulebook.

If it's this unwieldy now, how will it be when thirty splatbooks are out?

As for 2017 "Pathfinder vs. 5E". pffff It is a blowout. And there is no shame in that. Pathfinder is on a freaking (almost) twenty year old chasis. 5E is new. 5E is great. 5E is reflective of modern gaming.
You really don't need to quantify it. It is just true.

PF is still *my* favorite. But 5E is great. Awesomeness coming to the end of a life cycle isn't a criticism.

What's wrong with a twenty year old chassis?

The computer I'm typing this on is using a forty-year-old architecture. The OS I'm using is based on a twenty-seven year old architecture. And it's connecting using a thirty-five year old protocol.

Ed Reppert wrote:

How does one tell, after the fact (i.e. when finding bodies after the fight is over and the winners have left the area) that burns are "magical"?

I would say by making some lore rolls. Arcane and Healing are the two that stand out the most.

For example, a fire inspector, after a fire, can tell you if an accelerant was used, or if it was an electrical short, or a bunch of things based upon the patterns of the fire... particularly at the source of the fire.

So an expert would likely be able to tell if a fire was started by an alchemist, a magician, or a torch.

Boojum

And what are the DCs of these checks?

What chance does my character (with +11 to the relevant skill) have?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable linking/bringing discussions from other discussion sites into our forums like this. Because reddit is an entire other discussion, anything quoted is from community members over there and can lead to cross site drama when people realize their offhand reddit comments are being analyzed on another site. It's different in linking an article and discussing it because of the conversational nature the referenced material is in flux.

I think if y'all want to keep discussing it, be sure to make this thread about your own thoughts and discussions on the topic.
In the future, I think it would go over better to have the premise be "Inspired by this thread, here are my thoughts."

With all due respect, if this is the case, why are the Designers of PF2 literally posting how they themselves are doing much of their discussions on other sites?