It doesn't make a huge amount of sense when you consider the main consideration in all weapons damage is how big they are, that sets the base. Technically there are differences but from dagger to great sword is basically a scale of knives - with size being the damage differentiator. I reckon a large great sword is as different size wise from a medium great sword as a short sword is the other way, yet only one way makes a damage difference.
Nice write up and covers most what I think too, apart from three things:
I don't mind it doesn't 'feel' like PF1, I'm not hardcore on pathfinder anymore and like the game for what it is.
I love resonance because I don't like the mass of potions and and in 1E, in fact I never have magic stores in my games. Resonance is a good solution to crafting and using crazy amounts of one shot items.
And 'sleep is still a very powerful spell for example, perhaps more powerful now than ever before' what? Sleep has been totally nerfed, it is now weak in combat, imo (and Paizo's opinion!)
But great write up, i especially want to emphasise the emphasis ;) needed about DCs. A DC is set in the world is just that Pc's are more likely to encounter higher DCs in the place they adventure at higher levels. A great way to emphasise this is to put high level DCs in low level adventures. Put that DC 33 climb wizards tower in a level 1 adventure, they'll probably never get up it, but you never know the genius on players! And if they do they'll get a great sense of achievement...
...before the wizard turns them all into toads!
This seems a good way to reduce LFQW, with Fighters still just basically getting more feats. The spells are not so amazing now, and layering is harder. Sleep is non combat, fly only 1 PC and short duration etc etc. Seems like a good thing to me, spells are still cool but they're not the answer to every higher level question.
When I ordered mine it says, as it always does for cheapest shipping possible from Paizo, shipping time 11-40 business days. So as long as I get mine by mid September Paizo is covered from 40 working days after Aug 2nd. What did your shipping estimate say when you ordered it, is the UK normally substantially faster than NZ? Or did you pay extra for expedited shipping, if that was available?
I'm wondering if this lack of ways to break out of the standard tropes is on purpose, to narrow the focus of the playtest, it makes it easier to test narrow rules. The problem is tho, pathfinder has so long been about options (millions of them when you add in third party) that players will focus on what they've lost rather than trialling the chassis. If this is the case Paizo would do well to explicitly state this, in HUGE letters, somewhere.
They mentioned that about multi classing, only core four given, but I think it applies throughout the rules
I'll be impressed if my NZ order arrives on or around 13 August as mentioned by Vic, if shipped just now! That's expedited shipping speed, normally 100USD! Expedited to NZ says 2-3 days, but it never is always closer to a week - don't trust those Amazon estimates IME.
But I was happy with the cost of the shipping when I ordered, very reasonable. And I don't feel I'm getting the books 'late' anything in Aug is actually within Paizo's shipping estimate when I was ordering - 11 to 40 BUSINESS days. I ordered not expecting it to be shipped early to make release date, that was mentioned much later, so I'm fine with what Paizo has done. And I get $15 bonus.
Living on the other side of the Pacific makes one very chilled about delays, C'est La Vie, not worth getting wound up over. Life's to short to stress the small stuff etc. I'd be dead of a heart attack if I got riled after every shipping to NZ delay :-)
Thanks for keeping us in the loop Paizo, and I feel for you being on the receiving end of negativity from Amazon's error.
Vic Wertz wrote:
We will make them available shortly after the Gen Con floor opens for early access to VIGs—9 AM Eastern, 6 AM Pacific.
6AM Pacific is 11AM NZ, on August the 1st! I get them a day earlier than most of you mwahahahaaa. :-D
yeah that's the option I would take, magic is every where and you use it to do legendary things. Means magic free zones are a real problem for all classes! But by that level I'll probably not care, it's just going for the awesome. When I want to play a gritty more realistic game, pathfinder would never be my choice anyway
The amount of flexibility and choice touched on in the previews, even with the base classes and one book, appears amazing. That's what's impressing me the most about the playtest so far. Not great for those that have analysis paralysis with character creation and levelling, then pathfinder has never been the game for those players.
Thanks for the transcription, some pretty interesting stuff. I play 5e where wizards can easily start with armour proficiency, but it's normally not worth it. When it came out there was rage and theorising builds, but not seen at all in actual play by me. Can be fun for a Dwarven wizard but not really op
As the GM at my table I play optimization solitaire all the time when building enemy or ally NPCs. It's fun, and always has been, even when I was a kid playing AD&D 2E :)
With the way he describing PF2 as jump right in, I think PF2 characters are going to start significantly less complex. Maybe lots of options available but you will only being choosing a couple of featsOne from ancestry, one from background, one from class?
I don't disagree with changing it, as I have DnD for DnD - I'm just saying I can;t see it changing, thus my 'good luck'
"AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.
Gary Gygax thought it was too late to change in 1978, good luck with getting it changed forty years later! :-)
I think you'll find that Amazon have sold all their standard Hardcovers and only have, Deluxe and soft cover atm. It's the same on the .com site. That could change tho.
EDIT: Misread, sorry! On .com it only shows soft and deluxe, maybe .uk is out of softcover allocation and .com hardcover? Basically I don;t know. I do know that some limited pre-orders from Amazon have been disappointed in the past, but hopefully Amazon have sorted those issues.
Yeah those other saves very rarely come up. I'm not sure but if the difference between what is a good save for your class and a bad save is closer than PF1 going 4e style won't be necessary I think. If there is still a huge gap then sure
I hope that the designers don't restrict themselves to arbitrary rules like one physical one mental bonus for the sake of symmetry. It opens up a much larger design space if you can go for any two that seem right. With the other floating bonus, you can cover what you want on an individual basis. Although I guess having three mental bonuses is not great for any class with the way spells etc work, but three physical makes that race default for basic warrior types. So maybe no two physical bonus races? Dunno.
How many more times will incantations be linked in this thread? Find out next time! :D
To prove my old school credentials shall I start linking ritual rules that were available in TSR era rules? They've been around for a long time, just not in core rules and available to all classes - 4E was the first mainstream 'DnD family' game for that.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Very good point
Those are the healing numbers, and damage numbers for the three action versus undead, there is also these numbers for damage
1 or 2 action damage versus undead
the first level, three action radius heal does modifier healing /damage. When you heighten the level it says you add 1d8 to that per heightened level. Think of the first level radius version doing 0d8+ mod if you like
The Heal spell looks complex and confusing, so much so the Blog writer got it wrong as far as I can tell.
"Heightened (+1) Increase the amount of healing or damage by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you're using the one- or two-action version to heal the living."
So if healing using the radius 3 action version OR doing damage add 1d8, if you are healing using the touch or ranged (1, 2 action) then add another 2d8
This gives these variations as a level 2 spell
None of those is "So a 2nd-level heal spell heals or damages one target for 2d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier"
Yeah me too, and if only one can change - INT for Gnomes, there is just so much previous on that it needs to stay the same. Tinker gnomes. Illusionist gnomes. etc etc
Yeah DM's have never selected the clerics spells. Of note, depending on your interpretation, clerics had spell books in the original OD&D.
"BOOKS OF SPELLS:
Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level. ..."
This wasn't specifically applying to Magic Users, just flat out stated