krazmuze's page

I want it to really dive into the setting lore though, so people can see just how good of a setting it is.

I can see the benefit of that because adventures/setting is something Paizo is also great at, but then we are looking at a much much longer development cycle of going back and forth between the studio and Paizo to make sure they are representing the adventure setting.

My thinking is getting studio like Tactical Adventures that has a good team/turn-based modular engine and dev cycle for cranking out the DLC adventures, and get them to grok PF2e. That can happen a lot faster (start coding mechanics now with ORC remaster printer copies) and it still aligns with their plans to drop a new game possibly with a new system. But that also means they need to understand the things in the video above ( my experience is it takes a few levels of play with 5e players willing to listen to PF2e players before they grok). If all they did was remaster 5e Solasta as PF2e it would be a disaster much like 5e DMs that say lets just shift our lvl10 campaign over to PF2e because we hate WOTC now then cry on reddit how bad PF2e is because they TPK (because the GM never watched a video about how balance is very different)

Then once you get the mechanics exposing people to this team based play then the Golarion adventures can start dropping even if they are a decade old (Owlcat did fine doing that) BG3 would not have existed now if DOS2 had not made turn-based isometrics popular again a decade ago. Larian dropped the DOS setting for the honor of doing D&D BG, but they could have just as well added open world and 3D cinematics to DOS3 and been a huge success.

OTOH our current video game exposure to the adventure settings is a PF1e game and an ARPG. There is no way the ARPG can respect the PF2e mechanics, PF2e mechanics makes for a very poor ARPG (though I am sure there will be people testing it for them telling them how they got PF2e wrong). So players get exposure to the adventure settings, but they may not like the ARPG or PF1e mechanics - and bounce off Paizo. This happens all the time in the D&D forums where they played the game and said no way would they play that with their TTRPG group.

So maybe better to get a game with the ORC mechanics out first, get them playing the TTRPG and exposed to the adventures if they like the mechanics - and then they will demand the PF2e Golarion adventures as CRPG conversion.

arcady

thanks for actually engaging with the topic!

So let me throw some more meat onto this.

SwingRipper is the admin for The Rules Lawyer and he just started his own crunch advice channel, and his video today was how coming to PF2e from other editions is a mindset shift - and video game design needs to understand this for what style of CRPG best fits.

https://youtu.be/_kXgmttzuTI

Intro 00:00
Team Game 00:30
Balance for Difficulty 03:30
Uncommon/Rare don't mean more powerful 06:36
Magic Items are Common 08:00
Resource Management 11:11
Encounter Balance 14:10
Conditions and +1s Matter 18:52

PF2e is a team balanced game across loot, classes, skills, feats which means that a team/turn based CRPG is needed to represent it - this is a genre that does exist. An ARPG is about getting that hacking/slashing your way to OP loot using OP classes and feats - it is actually a bad fit to use Abomination Vaults as the source adventure for that because that adventure was really not designed that way (and it would be a disaster for an ARPG to use PF2e mechanics)

PF2e is also not a fit for cinematic RPG game that has solo protagonist with companions (you are not the Dragonborn with a Lydia to carry your burdens). You need to be able to customize your party and it needs to be turn-based so you can actually use all those team-based skills/feats, but then where does companion content come from in a team based game? You deal with adding content the same way a GM does - you have your core party and use NPCs that come and go - like Wasteland does. Other games will interact with your builds to provide content (and BG3 finally realized this and introduced a new origin character that can be applied to your build)

Solasta is a team/turn based game with a great modular engine with lots of homebrew available and if Tactical Adventures could respect the principles in this video like they respected the 5e rules (even though it is at conflict with their team based design) I think it would be a good PF2e fit. BG3 is actually a better fit for the 5e playstyle because you are that soloist protaganist you are that Mary Sue (as others have also said about PF1e/Owlcat).

So please those of you arguing PF1e/5e is a better game - take your edition warring elsewhere - need I remind you that you are in the PF2e forum. It is OK that other games are different, but lets talk what is needed to represent PF2e here.

Please take your playing kingmaker discussion to the proper forum....does not seem relevant to the topic of what studio would do good for a PF2e team/turn based CRPG

hmm but no auditory trait I think the OGL version of that was VS.

But the con is that it requires a more specific UI to know what action you are spending (which part of the action bar have you spent?).

This is actually an issue with Solasta - it has been so long since I played 5e that the UI leaves me confused why I cannot do something because I do not remember what is a bonus and what is a main and often screw myself of a turn. The worst is when I intend to rearrange the pack and sacrifice my turn to do so (like switch to xbow and load the poison bolts and drop a torch), or wait you get one inventory action a turn so now I wasted a turn as I intended but now I need to scrap that plan as that needs three inventory actions. Very hard to go back to 5e after PF2e (most DMs would just let you do that - loose rules)

DOS was the action dots and you just did different things until it was used up - much like PF2e. It was far more intuitive GUI. If you start new to TTRPG players with the PF2e beginner box, I think you find the same thing they pick it up very easy it just makes sense - because there is a long history of videogames that work the same way - you have an action bar and different things cost different amounts of action. There have been a lot of RPG that are party turn based, it is a lot easier than the TTRPG versions to play a whole party because so much is automated - no need to do math and mess with your sheet distracting you from what you plan to do with the char up next.

krazmuze wrote:

do you think Paizo has enough money to dump on them and willingness to pull their PF1e license if they do not comply?

I am amused by your underlying assumptions in this thread: that Paizo staff are spending time trying to bribe or threaten other companies to force them to convert Paizo's games into other media.

They're still working on remastered classes that won't even come out until next year.

The point is that Paizo does not operate that way so assuming Paizo is going to force PF2e onto Owlcat when they have clearly stated otherwise they will stick with PF1e - I was responding to the comment to just wait Owlcat will do PF2e next. If you want a PF2e CRPG then we need to make it clear that having a PF1e CRPG is not enough because someone at Paizo responsible for biz dev partnerships checks the CRPG box in their biz dev portfolio.

Of course Paizo is not as big and bully as WOTC - who have in fact dropped studios leaving them hanging (in fact the same studio doing the PF2e ARPG they previously had a good gig doing the D&D adventure system digital game (https://www.pcgamer.com/dandd-board-game-tomb-of-annihilation-is-being-pul led-from-steam/). They most certainly not sitting there waiting for people to come to them either so letting it be known that we actually do want another CRPG that is PF2e turn/team based is important. I am actually concerned they think otherwise because when they announced the ARPG they did mention we are expanding the types of games - meaning they think the CRPG box has been checked.

truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.

I made sure to post this in the PF2e forum, so lets not edition war over PF1e please - you have your own place in the Paizo forums. Owlcat has made it clear when they are done with 40k if they comeback to CRPG it will be another PF1e adventure - so PF1e is covered with CRPG. They dislike PF2e because of its focus on team-based combat and prefer the PF1e system mastery where it is about making your build - which is fine because there is a lot of video games like that so they have their audience.

This thread is about what studio is right time, place, talent and respect for wanting to honor PF2e team-based combat now that ORC remaster is coming out. This is not something you always get with TTRPG because there will always be the 5e expat that wants to move into melee multiattack until HP is depleted then rage quit on youtube when they caused a TPK. So it would be nice to be able to try out different team combos and strategies in a CRPG both for the 5e expat that can learn to play and git gud in private as well as the PF2e fan that is not finding that with the rando groups.

BG3/POE/DOS are more typical RPG which is you are a protaganist and you can meet your companions, that is really not the same thing as team based play - because if you want a specific team build you have to live with a specific companion (until they rage quit the party because you said the wrong thing). Or if they do allow custom party then you are giving up a lot of the game designed for companions because they did not design any game for just a custom party. When I played Skryim sure I like Lydia being a tank but it usually led to her foul murder...

willfromamerica wrote:

I forget how many, but BG3 is launching with feats available. There's also the option to do full respecs of your character, and the option to recruit fully customizable hirelings, in addition to the 10 options for companions with a whole story of their own.

I'm someone who hates 5e with a passion and will never DM using the system again if I have the choice, but I think the game looks phenomenal and will be playing the hell out of it.

I may give it a shot. I don't like the 5E system, but with feats in a video game it might be fun.

Please please take that discussion about playing BG3 to off topic discussions or discord chats where it belongs. I want this to be about what it would take to get a turn-based team-based PF2e ORC CRPG happening.

Given BG3 reluctance to go all in on D&D mechanics like Solasta did, I really do not see it happening. Unless you have suggestions of how Paizo will get Larian to sellout BG4 to do a Paizo game I do not see the relevance.

I am suggesting Tactical Adventures the studio because they demonstrated they are willing to respect turn based mechanics of D&D, obviously it is not just a Solasta PF2e DLC level of effort - but rather that you would think they would show the same level of respect to team based turn based mechanics of PF2e.

owlcat has clearly said no....do you think Paizo has enough money to dump on them and willingness to pull their PF1e license if they do not comply? I would rather go with someone that is a true fan of PF2e for the best chance of something good.

Of course using Solasta as an engine itself is not possible, talking about the studio making a new game so obviously they would have to work on the code - all doable to start now with the finished remaster books. They already raise the possibility of new systems for a new game they are not beholden to sticking with D&D as they are in precarious OGL position especially with D&D's VTT wanting to be a similar modular video game. Maybe some of it is easily modified, like leveled proficiency/training is easy code extensions and crits DC+-10 (not that far awaay from brutal critical) and adding four levels of success and roll against DC not against dice. For skill actions they have shove/trip/jump/climb so it would need a lot more work to cover all the possible combat/exploration skill actions since D&D is lacking there. But ABCD feats is easy as they already have feats they just need a way better level up UI for them (there are already user mods that easily add classes/feats). Even BG3 learned something from Solasta how to implement reactions. The biggest hurdle based on their slowness of class releases is eventually getting to all the classes and doing them justice because a lot of the advanced class features are probably tricky. They already modified the bestiary to be more like PF2e because they think mobs being sacks of multiattack HP is boring (much like several 5e 3p already have). They even sort of implemented a bestiary recall knowledge with four levels of info after you fight them, D&D has no room for wasting main/bonus actions on that - not that hard to turn that into a exploration/combat action. They have a crafting system that will need adapted to whatever the remaster version is, but I like that you find the time when you can and its not just forced downtime.

BG3 UI still looks a lot like DOS2, it did not take them a decade to make the D&D mechanical changes. Mostly early access was triple tug of war with those bemoaning the loss of DOS2 mechanics gameplay and the 5e diehards insisting it be true D&D and the BG12 diehards insisting if it was not RtWP they are out and Larian tried to find a happy middle. It was the hundreds of hours of celebrity voiced cinematics for every frakking possibility where that time/money went (seriously longer than Game of Thrones - how many thousands of hours will a 100% run even take?), as well as updating the graphical engine to handle the closeup cinematics - you would not want to do that with the DOS2 gfx. But even Larian took time doing new classes and races, so I would fully expect they are saving more for DLC just like Solasta did. It was funny when someone added a swivel camera mods to the original 'isometric' DOS, it was actually a 3D game done with stage sets and not as 2D drawings like BG1/2

The wizard in my game thought that the listing for material components might be missing (used to old school D&D) and so he made up his own.

Unseen Servant, for example is a small artists doll, one of the jointed ones to practice shapes with.

Sure anyone can make up their own narrative, always enjoyed Liam's wizard on critical role because he dove into the narrative of D*D components. But I will be sad if my grappler cannot shut down the caster BBEG anymore if it is moved solely to RP without mechanics. PF2e already dropped specific material components so that is nothing new in the remaster.

Squiggit wrote:

keftiu wrote:

BG3 is launching with all of the D&D 5e classes except for Artificer (most get 3 subclasses, some get more) and 12 races (with a number of subraces).

Man artificer just gets nothing but Ls

That’s what happens when you get left out of the OGL and tied to a (very, very good!) niche setting.

For sure that will be the first mod if not DLC though. artificer warforged, just snag the existing constructs in the recent antagonist trailer as the body skin.

Strange thread but I'll throw my hat in saying I've played DoS 1 & 2 while also putting lots of hours in the BG3 early access. Lirian is gonna smash it outta the park and release an amazing game with bg3 bc they're good at producing tight, engaging games. DOS2 is in the tier of games where I put things like Sekiro and insomniac's spiderman: lovingly crafted, cohesive experiences. There's no contest between BG3 and Solasta in my eyes, good as Solasta was it's not in that weight class

Not going to disagree, though I am going to play Starfield before touching BG even though it release on PC early I know it cannot possibly finish in a month. Maybe after they get their DLC out will look it next year. Solasta is a quick small indy game I can get in before the big fall games, yet come back to again and replay with the DLC and was just pleased how well they pulled off D&D tactics (for better and worse)

But the only reason this thread veered into BG3 discussion I think is they just did the live stream and seems people are hyped about druid getting their freak on.

The topic of this thread I am trying to get discussed what would be a good studio for a turn-based CRPG that would highlite the strengths of team based tactics of PF2e. That is not feasibly Larian, you are looking at three years more for BG3 DLC, then a decade from now they will do BG4, (DOS2 was started a decade ago their kickstarter had a lot done already). And a decade from now when they are 10x bigger, unless WOTC kills the magic dragon somehow that is not going to be a Paizo partnership game. Lets be realistic here.

To my knowledge bg3 is just 5e's core rulebook stuff for race and class (after looking it up, oathbreaker and gith are also in). Solasta I found to be the most 5/10 game, but I also found it after being tired out of 5e.

Having played PF2e for years now and Solasta being the first time coming back to 5e, I initially also rated it much lower like yourself. But then I realized the frustrations I was having with it was because of coming back to 5e not because of Solasta. Since then after cracking open my 5e books and reading up the wiki on their homebrew version of feats/classes I have admired it for being the best respect of source TTRPG turn based tactics since ToEE decades ago. If there is a place for bioware/skyrim companion/open world, and there is a place for Diablo ARPG, there is also a place for turn based team tactics.

I doubt anyone will ever beat Owlcat for character customization, they clearly are fans of how absurd PF1e builds can get and how wide/deep they pulled from a decade of PF1e, which is why they refuse to do PF2e.

But having played DOS a lot (ditto for POE), much of the story is delivered thru companions - so if you did custom party you have a much less of an experience (NPCs react to your traits you chose is all) unless you are doing multiplayer and doing RP outside the game itself . BG3 being DOS3 has really cranked the companions up a lot. BG was never really about build your own party though - it was about interacting with companions. I am not going to play it expecting it is a great 5e party simulator that will replace a VTT, I am going to play it because it is DOS3+BG3.

That is why I liked Solasta it really was about building a customized party, of course hampered by the lack of a 5e IP license so feats and classes are not truly 5e. There is a mod that adds homebrew classes/feats and multiclass which makes it better. And 5e itself really lacks in the optimal team placed play that PF2e has so I think it would really shine the strength of a party based play game. Wasteland also did a really good job at party gameplay.

The missing components was news to me, but makes sense as VSM is a specific D&D mechanical story of how to activate spells. But looking at a spell Logan showed in Paizo Live it was not clear to me how that spell activation method gets replaced with traits. Muzzling the wizard and binding the hands and stealing their components gets dropped from stories? Also loosing D&D spell schools is ingrained so sad to see those have to go.

Spell Rank is long overdue! But they still have the heighten (#) on the spells so that leaves UI confusion still is that # meaning PL or SR been better if they said # rank on the spell.

I like Off-Guard and Reactive Strike!

Then add to the convo by bring another studio into the discussion that you think can do CRPG justice to PF2e turn based team based combat tactics - which is the strength of PF2e compared to 5e.

We already know Owlcat is a strong nope for PF2e, I also suggested maybe inXile but not sure.

The recent kickstarter was a strong nope as its iconic ARPG, and not at all a character CRPG.

You don't really think they will get Larian do you? Even if they did it will be another six years or more because they keep expanding scope with each game.

Maybe the studio that is current holder of the BG1/BG2 extended editions since they got snubbed by WOTC to do BG3?

Obsidian did Pillars of Eternity, but they seem to be heavy into a skyrim killer open world RPG right now based in their POE world.

Well, I have to point out that Solasta is sadly simply a bad game.

Steam

GOG 4/5

OK we will mark your strong opinion as the vocal minority....

When you go in with the expectation of it being a Turn-Based Tactical RPG based on the SRD 5.1 Ruleset, it meets those expectations which is why I suggested that Paizo should work with them on PF2e they have demonstrated that they are very good at getting tactics.

Yes if you want druid companion bear sex and worry if the game lets your choose your ass pimples or not - BG3 is certainly a more cinematic RP/companion game up there at AAA Skyrim/Bioware levels - but as far as implementing 5e combat tactics go it is clear by reviews Solasta did a much better job. With PF2e optimal play being team based combat tactics it would make a good rewrite for their new game. I would much rather have a game with dozens of 30hr DLC than one with 360hr cinematics, because it fits with the frequency of paizo adventures.

It is as realistic biz sense as small studio Owlcat making a PF1e game. That worked out well for Owlcat they are moving on to do Warhammer 40k which is even bigger than PF1e and have been clear they have zero intentions of doing a PF2e game and would go back to a PF1e game if they did another one. And Paizo has made it clear PF2e is more of a success for them than PF1e, especially after the 5e OGL expats bought all their books. So the market for PF2e is there and the market for small studios following TTRPG mechanics is clearly already there.

I am pointing to Solasta (Tactical Adventures) because they did an OGL version of 5e without any IP license in their own campaign world (so less work for Paizo), they did well enough to put out DLCs and get wide distribution and community modding support- and are already at the point of asking what should be doing next game - so right time right place. They survived early access and actually put out a game, which in itself makes them a success because steam is full of early access unfinished garbage.

Do you know of other small studios with a history of tactical turn based games that is at a similar point in time? As was already pointed out Larian/WOTC deal is an entirely different scale.

InXile Wasteland 2/3 are also good squad turnbased tactics, but dunno if they are into leveraging existing TTRPG fantasy and where they are at in their dev cycle. (EDIT just had a look at their site - they are actually working on a Robots and Rangers TTRPG - as well as redid Bards Tale)

But the work they need to start revamping the mechanical engine is in fact done that is all PC1. Other classes and mechanics came in later DLC so PC1 can start now and PC2 starts after which is the same thing they did in Solasta for 5e. Obviously if you was planning on doing an evil aligned draconic story you would need to wait for the monster book draft to be sent so you could make an illusory wyvern story. But your basic orcs and goblins are straightforward not deOGL and they can get an early heads up.

And absolutely Paizo does partner with digital products before print street date, how do you think Foundry is aligning their premium DLC adventure releases with print? It is only the community effort ones that have to wait until they get their PDF just like we do.

Unlike WOTC Paizo's OGL did not restrict anything mechanical, there was no subsets SRD (other than the WOTC 3.5 ref) - which was the biggest hurdle for Solasta as the 5e SRD is very incomplete. Unlike WOTC Paizo OGL clauses just refer to the cited PF2e books used, with no SRD ref book. ORC like OGL you just needed to follow the Product Identity clause (whatever it is called now) which basically boils down to if its a Proper Name of Golarion and art you cannot use that - and all the community efforts do a good job of figuring out where to rename those lines even when Paizo was not specific on that exclusion list. But those sorts of things are easy to string out during development after the mechanics are done - change a possible 'Scarlet Assassins' feat to a 'Red Killers' feat in your world if that ends up being Paizo specific story material. Even ORC AXE give examples of how to thread things when there is no subset SRD given and it appears story is woven into mechanics. But that type of mechanic is more likely found in the lore books than the core books.

Indeed that is why that time is now. Sure the books are not printed but the rule book is written. As a Paizo partner they might get early access and heads up to start writing the mechanics into the game. ORC is headed to the library of congress which takes a while, but it is finalized. Solasta DLC are wrapped up and TA is talking what their next game should be and should they look at other systems. So there is no better time than now to start talking and work out a calendar of milestones for the next year, and hit early access a year after that. Again they are an Indy studio this is not a massive half decade like Larian or decade like Bethesda. They already have a solid mechanical engine it would be more about modding it into a new ruleset, most of their work would be writing a new story for main and DLC. Very different than with 5e where they had to playtest class and monster mechanics because 5e SRD OGL is extremely limited - so my bet is they could turn around a PF2e ORC game a lot quicker. That is the point of ORC is saving others from figuring out how to de-OGL and de-D&D themselves all the hardwork there is done. They can use their existing Solasta world it does not need to be Golarion.

Paizo is absolutely in a position to partner to see that it happens, hoping it happens is not what they should be doing. Maybe they make the mistake of listening to their 5e players who want them to update to one D&D rules (now called D&D2024 printing) only to find out that their new VTT actually is just a turn-based CRPG with official modules/monsters with a GM multiplayer mod (scriped AI like decades of games or human override) and find themselves competing with Hasbro. So Paizo should be reaching out if they want to influence the market to benefit themselves.

It is a win/win for CRPG and TTRPG if done properly. Many of us started D&D decades ago because of the videogames that adhered fairly closely to the rules, it and not just BG1 - there was a lot of them.

I have played DOS2 and kept up with BG3. DOS2 is responsible for reviving CRPG as a genre. BG3 though in my mind it is DOS3 set in Faerun and pays lip service to 5e mechanics. Playing thru Solasta and reading their forums makes that very clear - there are a lot of BG3 expats there that also realized it is very loose 5e mechanics and more about D&D lore/RP and moved on to Solasta. OF course BG3 will not bomb like past 5e video games, because Larian makes very good video games.

I would just play it knowing that mechanically it is stuck somewhere between 5e and DOS2 mechanics and will not feel as satisfying as either - so ignore that and play that for what it is. It will be a great cinematic open video RPG up there with Skyrim or Bioware with rich companion stories/romance for sure combined with multiplayer mayhem. But do not think Skyrim had something to do with the mechanics of Morrowind nor the homebrew D&D campaign Elder Scrolls came from - they are very far removed from each other.

What I was more referring to was that Solasta has very well done mechanical implementation that would be better migrated to PF2e mechanics- to the point that my frustrations with it are identical to the frustrations I have with 5e TTRPG. T/A being on a smaller indy scale would be more feasible for the 2nd place TTRPG to work with, considering that AAA video game budgets (time/money) are exceeding superhero movie budgets (and even the star studded 5e movie seems will be lucky if it breaks even - as a D&D property it did better at lore than mechanics). Having a dozen 30hr modules on 6mo DLC cycle would be far better than 5yrs of 360hr huge RPG.

I think Paizo is in a position to having a game that promotes their mechanics, much like they had great success with Owlcat but it promoted PF1e mechanics and did more to bounce off TTRPG converts despite it not representing PF2e. Invade a 5e reddit and bring up PF2e and they will nope at you either pointing to that game (or the illusion of choice videos) and will not listen to you when you say neither had anything to do with PF2e actual play. Paizo need the equivalent for PF2e and with ORC they can enable that and not have to do the blockbuster golarian licensed property. Even what T/A did of aligning new rules/classes with new adventures aligns with the way Paizo publishing does things - you want Gunslinger it would be with a season pass of outlaw DLC (no need for it to be Alkenstar it could be the Solasta world)

I was excited for the announced video game RPG until the kickstarter came out and found it was ARPG with Golarion iconics rather than turn based CRPG with PF2e characters and systems. Not for me but seems there is a market for that.

Instead I bought Solasta from Tactical Adventures (GOG summer discounts), and finding that it is a great turn based CRPG- and I am even enjoying it even more than DOS2 or Deadfire because of it close adherence to D20 mechanics (at the level of Temple of Elemental Evil decades ago). It is sticking to its principles of being a true port of a TTRPG, with it's biggest failing it is 5e rather than PF2e - they had to homebrew exploration/crafting system as well as homebrew classes/monsters because of the 5e OGL SRD limitations - so you are not really playing 5e by the book (but that again is how 5e is played anyways). It is not cinematic in scope like Baldur's Gates III but that is a good thing to have a system that lends itself to 30hr modules than 300hrs open ended campaign (might as well play TTRPG if it is that long!). RP cut scenes are mostly automated by personality choices, so there is no protagonist it truly is a party (single/multiplayer). They really leveraged 3D in a way that is too hard to do on TTRPG even with Dwarven Forge terrain. There are lots of community modules, harkens back to Neverwinters nights in that regard (including 2nd/3rd classic and recent 5e module conversions)

But it is full of slogging thru waves of minions intended to wear me down, as the party stands in place and wacks the HP moles - but there is save scumming and strategically placed long rest campfires recognizing the 5e 5m workday that nobody actually plays the adventuring day and they did not actually balance for it. On the flip-side they have lots of options to adjust difficulty (like non-random player favour dice). Then finally you get the legendary boss fight designed as a dark soul wannabe designed to only be beatable with (modded) multiclass party combo that was cherry picked random rolled stats rather than point buy and then you beat it in a few rounds as you learned to exploit the AI mechanics because that is how 5e is actually played.

That is when I sure wish it had the true team based play balanced tactics of PF2e. Combat with leveled proficiency for skills and criticals shifting with strategy would be so much more fun. It is clear Owlcat is too much fans of PF1e to make the PF2e switch, but I really hope with ORC that Paizo is pursing Tactical Adventures and pitch them on the advantage of getting all the game systems and monsters they need with PF2e ORC compared to 5e OGL. I think TA has an excellent modular CRPG engine that would lend itself to lots of modules (harken back to neverwinter nights or goldbox era), and I think it would help capture 5e players that are scared off of PF2e rules if there was a CRPG helping automate their exposure to the system rules leading to them seeking (V)TT play. The timing is also right as they are done with Solasta DLC and looking into the next thing right when ORC is coming out - and I think pitching them that they do not need to do TTRPG game design to complete a CRPG is a win/win (do to limits of 5e SRD OGL vs. PF2e ORC)

Roll For Combat had a stream yesterday that excerpted the first book (Rage of Elements) conforming to remaster rules, and they peeked at the sidebar showing the transition rules that apply to the new book.

Complex hazards with disabling macguffins collected in the adventure if they made the right friends the easier the boss is. And natural hazards like erupting lava pools and falling ceilings so they get worn down and when they get to the boss they got nothing left.

Also bosses composed as parts, its not a giant cyclops zombie; it's a giant cyclops handless zombie, and a giant crawling zombie hand. Get to the hand lackey before the boss can start making two handed attacks/combos.

The rules are clear on this point

Different Party Sizes

It’s best to use the XP increase from more characters to add more enemies or hazards, and the XP decrease from fewer characters to subtract enemies and hazards, rather than making one enemy tougher or weaker. Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.

In practice that means +/-2 lvl is viable rather than the +/-4 theoretical for NPC levels. Scale quantity not level. If it is thematic that there be a solo boss then add lackeys/hazards, do not elite/level it up. Unless you want that likely PK to happen to teach expats that this game is not about your solo DPR 1v1 Leroy - then by all means!

Buried over on reddit is my homebrew quick encounter groups for scalable encounters easily adjustable for party level/size/difficulty and it restricts to +/-2 lvl (otherwise it is not scalable)

Scalable Quick Encounter Groups

Someone did ask later in the thread to give an example of how to rescale for party size, within reason for 4+/-2 PCs it can work to shift NPC levels since they are baselined as +/-2. I think it is better to fit the recommendation of just adjusting qty, by simply break into subgroups to build the encounters (i.e. PC=7 is PC=4 plus PC=3).

The actual rules for party adjustments is very very easy

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=497

Table 10-1 shows the character adjustment as a table of how much to increase the XP budget over the four player baseline for each threat difficulty.

But if you examine the table you notice something very very simple, the character adjustment is nothing but the XP budget divided by 4 in all cases. There is zero need to reference this adjustment table during encounter building, just remember that the budget XP is ratioed against the four player reference.

2 players divided by 4 is 2/4th is 0.50x the baseline XP budget
3 players divided by 4 is 3/4th is 0.75x the baseline XP budget.
4 players divided by 4 is 4/4th is 1.00x the baseline XP budget.
5 players divided by 4 is 5/4th is 1.25x the baseline XP budget.
6 players divided by 4 is 6/4th is 1.50x the baseline XP budget.

While you increase the XP budget for the larger numbers of players - the rewarded XP is always the baseline XP not the budget XP. While you could instead adjust the 1000XP level-up (i.e. 5 PC is 1250XP) you would have to remember to adjust exploration, social, quest XP by that ratio as well.

Now you can also notice a ratio pattern in that same table, so once you learn the ratio pattern you realize you do not even need to ref the table anymore.

Low/Trivial =60/40 = 3/2 = 1.50x
Moderate/Low = 80/60 = 4/3 = 1.33x
Severe/Moderate = 120/80 = 3/2 = 1.50x
Extreme/Severe = 160/120 = 4/3 = 1.33x

And you will see the same ratio 3/2, 4/3 pattern in the Table 10-2 creature XP, so without whipping out a spreadsheet, you realize you just need to ratio the lackey counts (though adjusting boss level is more risky). Once you see the pattern you realize how easy it is to adjust on the fly to changing table circumstances (over/under leveled/skilled/staffed)

If you have a party of three you could do all that math, or just realize from the ratios that the answer is to change the Moderate XP budget to Low XP budget - very easily approximated by taking the NPCs down a level, so the easiest thing to do is give the PCs a free level! Yes in theory they are more powerful with better feats and gear, but this will help them avoid the short-staffed death spiral,

Though if you have a party of five I would not suggest the opposite and make the party under leveled. If they are new and coming from another edition which was about PC power - they will be already be playing under leveled without realizing it. So do not make any adjustments, leave it at party of four balance. When they demonstrate they have learned PF2e is about party power by using skill actions and (de)buff tactics that help their teammates and stop comparing solo DPR numbers, then you can start increasing the XP numbers they are facing.

Now onto the argument that PF2e is not compatible with simulations or narrative games because level makes it gamist, I have to disagree. Balanced encounter math means that the GM can choose the encounter difficulty that fits the story they want to tell, unlike other editions, they can rely on the built encounter to be the difficulty range that it is labeled and with experience they can judge tactics on PC and GM side to shift difficulty steps as necessary. You want a hex crawl with fixed difficulty where the party needs to run away until they or ready (severe/extreme), or a 5e style attrition (low/trivial warmup encounter before the moderate boss) or an MMO (everything is your level +/- the desired over all difficulty). There is even an alternate rule to remove level proficiency if that is getting your way, but it has the downside that encounter balance is less predictable because lackeys will crit more and bosses will crit less.

The GM guide even gives adventure balances that suggest encounter difficulties that might be proper for different narrative styles.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=949

I like to illustrate +1 AC from raise shield action this way, it is a 100% chance that you lowered the difficulty of the boss by a level when triple attacked. Much better than nat20 fishing your last attack only to find out that your nat20 is still a miss! That is when you learn that not only is that +4 extreme boss is not just +4 more attack/AC - that monster tables are unfair (strengthen numbers to offset weaker action economy) and they was more powerful than you even if your level!

Thank you for this thread, this is very helpful already.

One thing which I don't really get yet that well is how the math is so tight, that just going up one or two levels on an encounter can have so severe consequences, when one level up amounts to only 10% better saves and to-hits (looking at the elite template, which add +2 to everything)?

The math is tight because everything is level is added to proficiency. Which means that having an unbalanced encounter of +/-4 levels is going to have an unbalancing math difference of +/-4 to the dice, which is a +/-20% shift in odds

The other key part of the math that interacts with leveled proficiency is the criticals are DC+/-10 and apply to all checks with four levels of success (including skills - and their combat skill actions). So the leveled proficiency means that +/-1 is no longer a meager bonus overwhelmed by the die but instead is a level shift in difficulty that can be felt. But it is not just an odds shift of hit/miss - it is a odds shift in crit/hit/miss/fumble - your odds of crit or fumble get multiplied/divided. Compound this further with crits doing double all damage including bonus damage. That is what makes the extreme boss a TPK - they can serially murder the entire party without any minions in four rounds one by one by doing crit/crit/hit while the party does miss/fumble/fumble (attack fumble is optional card deck but saves and skills do fumble).

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=497

See how the creature level XP aligns with the encounter XP table aligns with the difficulty level? That means that increasing difficulty steps is as simple as level step up in monster or a level step down in PCs. It is extremely easy for the GM to balance the encounters for the described difficulty level to fit their narrative.

monster are created by numbers and do not use PC build rules unlike prior editions. That means that they will conform to their level rating and can reliable be used in encounter building - be their role is the extreme boss because they are +4 or that trivial lackey because they are -4. The same monster in the bestiary itself serves as the normal, boss and lackey version. This does not mean every monster is the same, they have tactical and class and NPC roadmaps that give guidelines how to vary their build within the level so that they have strengths and weaknesses the party can exploit.

You will hear the phrase +1 matters, and a good GM is one who tracks where the bonuses comes from and rewards those who use skill tactics to change the math balance. If you are facing a +4 boss, and can consistently apply a net -4 to the boss, you are knocking it down to a weak solo boss of your level. That boss will no longer crit constantly doing double damage and just does normal damage. Get more levels and came back and trounce it as a lacky it will do no damage because it misses/fumbles all the time.

One thing to note is the elite/weak template is doing +/-2 rather than +/-1 even though it is said to be a level shift. The reason is the PC/NPC numbers by levels are not perfectly linear - it either jumps by one or two and averages 1.5. For PCs this comes from ability boosts at each tier of play, or when they get weapon runes. So the elite/weak is OP to account for these tier jumps. So beware when you use it at lowest levels - you might want to use half elite/weak because full elite/weak is really to much. See Game Mastering > Creature numbers table is probably better way to adjust monsters. https://2e.aonprd.com/GMScreen.aspx

We know that getting Unholy / Holy will be optional.

AFAIK we do not know if Edicts and Anathemas will be. Seeing them appear in Ancestries' descriptions makes me believe they will not be optional.

It is as optional as the "you might" "others probably" RP guidelines ever was in the CRB. It is as optional as leaving the two squares for alignment blank on your character sheet because you are not a cleric with a deity required alignment. It is as optional as D&D5e traits/bonds/flaws which appeared on the sheet but nobody ever used so a decade later they quietly drop it saying people can write their own motivational backstory.

So unless you are arguing that the existence of a thing means it is not optional - it is optional.

tldr; I think the Edicts/Anathemas system will be more like a personal list of roleplaying guidelines and some classes add them and only those added have to be followed or you lose powers.

And this is not any different than what you can do now. Instead of using a two letter alignment code 'LG' then following a god that is 'LG' friendly (and worrying that that code is copyright competitor) then following their edicts/anathema even though you are not a class that requires that, it just lists some suggested edicts/anethema for RP a class A,B or C.

It literally is not any different than the existing 'you might...' 'others probably...' already given for A & C, which exists solely for copy/paste together into an RP guideline. Where is the outrage over that?

Currently a dwarf using the existing RP guidelines....

Dwarves are slow to trust those outside their kin, but this wariness is not without reason. Dwarves have a long history of forced exile from ancestral holds and struggles against the depredations of savage foes, especially giants, goblinoids, orcs, and the horrors that dwell deep below the surface. While trust from a dwarf is hard-won, once gained it is as strong as iron.

If you want to play a character who is as hard as nails, a stubborn and unrelenting adventurer, with a mix of rugged toughness and deep wisdom—or at least dogged conviction—you should play a dwarf.
You might...

Strive to uphold your personal honor, no matter the situation.
Appreciate quality craftsmanship in all forms and insist upon it for all your gear.
Do not waver or back down once you’ve set your mind to something.

others probably...

See as stubborn, though whether they see this as an asset or a detriment changes from one person to the next.
Assume an expert in matters related to stonework, mining, precious metals, and gems.
Recognize the deep connection you have with your family, heritage, and friends.

So what if they rewrite this into edict/anethema so it can be combined with your gods list and class list? This is much todo over what amounts to a grammar change.

Breaking Anathema has consequences for clerics and champions only, not the vast majority of PCs.

IMHO is an advantage to using a unified set of terms to describe "do's and dont's" for roleplaying purposes.

absolutely agreed because with existing printings you can already do that, and nothing has changed here at all - be it alignment, anathema or edicts. Sure if you are a class which requires celibacy the GM can rule if you are sleeping with every bartender around you should either get a different god or lose your class abilities until you repent.

But if I go to the annual solstice event for that god once a year because I took that deity because it seemed popular thing to do with all my fellow elven forest dwellers? Well let me tell you about church camp ... it is fertile ground for a horny lad.

I'm hoping your personal edicts and anathema's interact with new Hero Point rules. The current rules are lacklustre, but I love stuff like WoD tying Willpower to your characters Nature and Demeanour.

D&D2014 had traits bonds and flaws that gave inspiration, but nobody ever used them, not even their official/sponsored streams. D&D2024(AKA Not The One) they are removing it because their survey said those who want to roleplay do not need restricting mechanics for roleplay, they will roleplay regardless.

So in PF2e that is Hero Points you are free to reward roleplay and give those out if they follow their anathema/edicts same as you would now for following their alignment/background or "you might' and 'others might' ancestry/class roleplay hooks that exist now, or you can give out Hero Points for metagame reasons like someone bought pizza for the group. The rules do not need to dictate that either way for that to happen, they just need dictate how Hero Point mechanics work and leave it to GM discretion on reward with recommended rates and suggestions.

It literally calls them out as specifically being "popular". Not biologically essential.

And it sounds like a replacement for the existing "You might..." and "Others probably..." roleplay hooks, they also serve no mechanical benefit.

I think it would help (and Paizo has an opportunity here) to separate species and culture (which are currently conflated as "Ancestry"). There is no reason that the dwarves of the Five King's Mountains would have the same cultural values as dwarves in Osirion or a country in Tian Xia simply by virtue of both being dwarves—unless they shared some fairly recent common history, and I don't think they do in current lore.

That is what Heritage already is, and they certainly could have anathema/edict as well there if they want. Just like champion and champion type adds tenets to an priority list. They could even go so far as add them to backgrounds too, a soldier never leaves anyone behind, a farmer never wastes daylite, etc.

To each their own. Personally, over time I have come to very much like the classic player book | gm book | monster book division, and don't mind magic items largely being the purview of the GM.

I think the bigger issue is what has to get dropped from GMG for page count if its replacement absorbs the shopping pages from the CRB?

The problem is the principals from dnd beyond think they can do the same biz as before. Except with more prolific publishers, who do not dominate the market and who do not lock up rules in exclusive licenses and with fewer apps and people. With their previous biz they did not have to compete with free rules and free tools as their license made those illegal piracy. It is like state owned monopoly company trying to succeed in free market.

Foundry is doing well from selling tools with free systems and rules. People would be ok if they even got charged a 10% or even 20% service fee for the pdfs to unlock tools but $20 is too high. DndB got away with full price digital books because free tools, tools and pdf was illegal.

The value economy is very different for paizo and others and they should have used a different biz model.

If you're talking about "two flaws for a bonus", no reason it would - the republishing is being treated as bigger errata, and that change was errata. "If the GM is chill with it, you're free to lower your ability modifier" will probably stick around, though.

I prefer they errata that errata to be pick any two bonus but if you take an optional flaw you can take another bonus, as that is the only way to make 3 bonus 1 flaw which is what CRB ancestries also use. You cannot shuffle those ancestry bonus/flaws around despite that being the intent of the new rule

Remaster is absolutely doing errata for errata that is not off the table, how many times has alchemist already been errata and its still not there yet and getting another pass with remaster.

In addition, I would really appreciate if we stop discussing other editions. OGL and ORC are important to the remaster, but do we really need to keep comparing 3.5 and PF1 mechanics with PF2?

Since OGL used cites D&D SRD 3.5 in PF1/2 - we do need to discuss why things are changing in ORC for PF2e, which is all about removing legacy things from PF2e. People saying that they (dis)like and have (not) a problem with the changes should not be confused with edition warring - because that is just as much an OGL SRD vs. ORC SRD discussion

It's important to note that one shots are intro adventures designed to showcase the game.

As a result, the higher level danger encounters have some sort of mechanism to overcome potential lethality that a home campaign might not.

EDIT: Which brings up a Remaster concern -- will they still 'fit' after Remaster?

You seem confused on what the Remaster is, it does not change the game math balance like a new edition will, the game math balance is identical.

They are reconcepting things that are OGL terms: replacing alignment with morality traits, replacing ability scores with bonuses - which was already done in beginner box, replacing chromatic/metallic dragons with magic tradition dragons, and errating some classes that are overdue

One shots will be the same one shot difficulty, just referring to a ORC monster instead of an OGL monster

That game balance is very different from other D&D/PF1e editions, because of new math balance design that adds level and critical ranges so that bosses turn into a triple crit fest of double damage. That is what makes a +/-1 step levels in difficulty, which is absolutely not the case in other editions. Changing from 18(+4) strength or +4(18) strength to just +4 strength cannot possibly change the game math balance.

But rolling scores and starting with 3 or 15 bonuses instead of 9 bonuses, is the same as being +/-1 levels. Which means it is in fact a step change in difficulty. That does not mean your group can or cannot take it, even Paizo admits that player team work skills might amount to +/-1 levels same as being off +/-1 players so if that is the case adjust their average skill four player target balance (using solid encounter/npc rebalancing GMG tools) This is absolutely not the case in other editions where +/-1 level or characters is not even noticed especially when you only have 5% or , especially when CR math balance is just a fantasy and there is only only have 5% or .25% odds of crit vs a boss that crits 80% of the time on multiple attacks.

When we started I gave my players the option to use the normal stat generation method or roll 3d6 to get a base and then add boosts normally (max of 18 at level one).

That is not how the PF2e alternate rolling rule works, you do not add boost normally, instead it gives you less AB boosts. What was your total number of start boost. The standard ABCD method usually results in nine boosts less flaws.

If they did normal boosts with rolling they was likely OP boost count.

Half disagree. I do think people way overestimate how bad +3 KAS builds are (feels like some posts act like they're borderline unplayable) but I don't really think it's necessarily a good trade. Trading +1 at your main gimmick for +1 to a secondary thing definitely is a bit of a loss.

Note it is better when that secondary thing at +1 can get your team a +2 (de)buff to take down the boss to your level, it just requires keeping score based on your team and not your DPR. teamwork makes the dreamwork

The idea did cross my mind to create a 'random character generator' for PF2e with options to randomise exactly what krazmuze is suggesting as a coding exercise. And because my friend decided to do that to randomise his character and obviously as a programmer I'd rather spend 10 hours to create a thing from scratch than just do it manually.

I do roll tables in Foundry VTT (used to have them in Fantasy Grounds that did that). Problem is keeping it up to date is painful across PF2e updates and Foundry updates. My macro coding skills are not good enough which is probably the better way to do it.

There are also spreadsheets and websites around that do it none of them do my half random AB pick CD method though just ignore C and D. ABCD character funnels are fun...once.

There is also roll for book then roll the table of contents method but like you said that is just too easy.

Well, sure, but that's not what anyone's talking about here, is it? That has nothing to do with the Remaster.

it goes to the argument that you need 3d6 straight or 4d6 place freely to have a random char thus we need ability scores to preserve the random roll alternate rule. Just make a new alternate rule that says you can randomize ABCD and free.

There are plenty of people on here who make a stand that starting with a +3 in your primary stat is a big problem. And most everyone agrees that starting with +2 or lower in your primary stat is enough to make the character not feel fun to play.

So sure, you can add some randomness to your ability score generation. But in PF2 it comes with a steep cost.

It can be fun to play such a character in a one-shot or something like that. But I wouldn't want to play through a 10-level or 20-level AP like that. Certainly not one like Age of Ashes.

But you can have randomness with ability bonus ABCD CRB generation, you do not need ability scores to do that.

Roll a random Ancestry with random free, Roll a random Background with random free and random choice. If you are feeling frisky and want to have a character funnel Roll a random Class and random Detailed bonuses. It is very likely to be more MAD than SAD. But if you want it very likely to be the +3/+4 prime then pick a Class then pick you bonus Details

All random, all crazy roleplay possibility no min/maxing - but perfectly balanced within the ABCD point buy rules. You can play PFS like this every night and they will be wondering where your creative character stable comes from

Enough pettyness about ability scores/bonuses.

you are distracting the real discussion to be had.

When do we get the first remastered AP. We all know they added ORCs to CPC1 for a reason. We gotta have ORC PCs taking on some evil unholy coastal wizards (but not red ones from thay because copyright)

One of the quirks about +0 as baseline is it feels like a minimum. Duh that mathematically +0 +/-1 is the same as 10 +/-2 leading to +/-1, but studies show numbers like that get processed differently by our feelings.

Since PCs can only take an 8 minimum it is trivial to change the presentation balance so min ability is +0 and you never have any negative feelings because you have a -1. The balance is the same because you change the math on both sides of the screen, of course the GM has to deal with negative feelings of negative numbers but because they already have negative feelings of they are supposed to lose the fight...I think they can handle that.

Art is (obviously) subjective, but I've never cared for the style of Mr. Reynold's work. Going back as far as the 3E days, it struck me as trying too hard to be xXxtreme!1! -- to the point of being comical. Swords that would weight 100lbs, silly pointy bits everywhere, etc. (And yes, I realize this puts me in a tiny minority in the Pathfinder world, but so be it.)

However, I really like the look of the "sketch" covers, to the point where I think they look better than any of his finished work. I like them so much I'm actually tempted to seek out this version of Player Core, when otherwise I'd just buy it in PDF.

Did you get the travel guide? They made his art canon style in certain areas some just like to wear lots of buckles straps and doodads. inception.

I think its funny that artists are seeing more value from unfinished works than finished ones! You can take them to cons, have him hand color and sign for even more value!

A 3 free boost 1 flaw option for ancestries.

That was my instant errata to the errata that had 2 boost 1 optional flaw, since 3 boost 1 flaw matches CRB2.0 net boosts, and if you are going to give free assignment with the errata I do not think that should be less powerful.

I'd honestly prefer they would switch to "squares" so we don't have to think about "wait this giant creature is only this sized?" implications xD

Well okay, that wouldn't change ;P But for real main reason I want to that to change is that they are never going to do monte cook book thing of "include both meters and feet" and I don't understand what feets are in real life so they might as well be squares to me x'D

D&D 4e was squares and it really does help with international, especially for those in US with scientific training who think in meters at work but have to use feet at home. That confusion is why a mars probe died! I like paces, I personally use that when I want to approx a room size IRL.