Pathfinder Core Rulebook

Plenty

Not trying to be offensive with my query, but is there any new/original in the spell/equipment/items lists?

The rules are available online at Archives of Nethys. You can check them out for yourself.

Well if you want to play the new 4th addition, play 2nd edition. Wow did they change the game. I will stick with 1st addition as it's now referred to, I don't like this one at all. Sorry Paizo.

Congratulations.

Well if you want to play the new 4th addition, play 2nd edition. Wow did they change the game. I will stick with 1st addition as it's now referred to, I don't like this one at all. Sorry Paizo.

I can understand your point of view. I really like PF1. I do think PF@ has made a lot of structural changes that resolve fundamental limitations that PF1 is stuck with. PF2 had a much greater range of character options, but I assume that PF2 will fill in those empty design spaces with time.

Dempthal wrote:

Well if you want to play the new 4th addition, play 2nd edition. Wow did they change the game. I will stick with 1st addition as it's now referred to, I don't like this one at all. Sorry Paizo.

I can understand your point of view. I really like PF1. I do think PF@ has made a lot of structural changes that resolve fundamental limitations that PF1 is stuck with. PF2 had a much greater range of character options, but I assume that PF2 will fill in those empty design spaces with time.

True, but I guess one of the things I am tired of, are that the tabletop game companies are dumbing everything down or trying to make it simpler to reach everyone. But it just hurts those that love what they made to begin with. I just don't like the changes enough to buy it like they did with PF1, those changes I loved. The spells are just too much of a change for me to ever like.

Yes to the making it simpler. But PF2E is not "dumbed down" rules.

Pathfinder (Legacy) isn't going anywhere. There may be no new material from Paizo, but there are so many adventures available to play, if you want to keep playing.

No need to insult the folks putting hard work into the new edition, even if it isn't to your liking.

Just as an aside ... it isn’t an insult for someone to say they don’t like something. It’s too easy these days to automatically take an “I don’t like that” as an insult. It’s
important for civil discourse that we can listen to, and rationally consider, opposing viewpoints without always taking offense.

It seems all too easy lately for folks to hunker down in their echo chamber bunkers and then lash out whenever someone expresses a view they don’t like or agree with.

In the case of PF2E, there are going to be people that don’t like it, and that’s ok. What’s more, they should be able to talk about that, as long as it’s done in a calm and respectful way. Heck, I’ve seen the comparison to 4E *quite* a bit on various forums over the last few days, so It’s seems at least worth discussing.

If they are willing to calmly and rationally say what they don’t like, I think that’s very worthwhile - it allows Paizo to listen to the dissenting comments and perhaps make some changes. Even if not, it’s not productive to jump on folks just because they don’t like the new system.

When you throw out “dumbing down the system” you’re not only insulting the people whi worked on the rules but also the people who play it.

If you want to give criticism then give non-insulting non-vague criticism.

Just as an aside ... it isn’t an insult for someone to say they don’t like something. It’s too easy these days to automatically take an “I don’t like that” as an insult. It’s

important for civil discourse that we can listen to, and rationally consider, opposing viewpoints without always taking offense.

Nobody cares that people don't like it. They care that people say it's dumber than 1E.

Marc Radle wrote:

Just as an aside ... it isn’t an insult for someone to say they don’t like something. It’s too easy these days to automatically take an “I don’t like that” as an insult. It’s

important for civil discourse that we can listen to, and rationally consider, opposing viewpoints without always taking offense.

Nobody cares that people don't like it. They care that people say it's dumber than 1E.

Fair enough, maybe 'dumbed down" was a poor choice of words. I don't want to put words in Dempthal's mouth, but ... perhaps something like "overly-simplified" would have been more appropriate ...

Fair enough, maybe 'dumbed down" was a poor choice of words. I don't want to put words in Dempthal's mouth, but ... perhaps something like "overly-simplified" would have been more appropriate ...

Thank you for your comments. What I meant by dumbed down, was that games are going for classes to be equal. This is the problem I saw with 4th addition. Basically it seemed everyone had a spellbook like a wizard. The class roles were too strongly defined giving to much equality.

I like that some classes are much stronger than others. All the same I like that in life, not all people are equal in all things, we need each other to strengthen each other just as I feel classes need the same. I want diversity. I in no way meant hurt to those that put long hours into this new product. I love PF1. Paizo put in great work. I intend to continue using what they made. I will wait for more books for this edition should they make them. Those that like 2nd edition, enjoy the game.

... was that games are going for classes to be equal. This is the problem I saw with 4th addition. Basically it seemed everyone had a spellbook like a wizard.

...

I can totally see this quote to apply to D&D 4th. But to apply it to PF2e? Where even the Ranger lost his spells? (AFAIK, the ranger doesn't even have focus spells)

I haven't have time to play yet, but from the look of things, different classes in PF2e play very different from each other (unless you play similar roles, I guess).

As I said above, yes, PF2e is simpler (to learn), applying the same mechanics (proficiency, feats,...) to all the classes in the same way. But that doesn't make all the classes be the same, even if they are now more 'balanced' against each other.

...

The class roles were too strongly defined giving to much equality.
...

I don't understand you there. Strongly defined roles would suggest to me that classes are distinct. What do you mean there?

What players complained about in the three sessions we played, is that everybody has cloned ability scores, with an 18 in their main ability and the rest largely the same.
This is something i definetly like better in PF 1e: deciding if i want to lower an ability score below 10 to get more points for other scores.
Also different point buy possibilities and being able to start with scores above 18.

That being said, the barbarian & champion play very differently.
One Player first played a barbarian with the giant two-hand weapon in "Fall of Plaguestone" and dealt the most damage, but went down in EVERY SINGLE FIGHT.
When 3 out of 4 PCs died, he switched to a champion with shield and always raised it with one action and never went down again - 3 AC more and being able to heal himself made the difference.
So these two classes play very different from each other at least.

There is a flaw optional rule you can use when building characters to dump stats.

Most of the criticism I have seen so far, seems to be from people that have not really dug into the new rules and found things like Rysky just commented on. Or they are just taking something they have heard and jumping on the "I don't like it cause its different bandwagon!" I still play PF1, I still play AD&D, so play what you want to, but at least take the time to learn the new rules so you will have educated gripes to make.

well for every "it's too dumbed down" person there are those like me who feel the that its not at all dumbed down. Changed yes, for the better yes, but the wealth of complexity you can craft into the characters remains. I personally really, really love the new rules. It's a very solid breath of fresh air in what was a very stagnant rules system. I loved 3.5 & Pathfinder but after 15 plus years between them its extremely nice to see some innovation into a setting I really love. This was needed and I am glad to see them be brave enough to really take a fresh look at the system and deliver something truly fresh and interesting.

There is a flaw optional rule you can use when building characters to dump stats.

Just wanted to give a quick reference for those considering this. Just a little down the page on the right you will find "Alternative Method: Rolling Ability Scores" and also down a little further "Optional: Voluntary Flaws"

Look, i have been playing various rpgs for 35 years.
I have had the 2E Core Rules before some subscribers and i can read.
I know you can dump stats, but that doesn't give me more points and i still can't raise a score above 18. ;-p

This is something i definetly like better in PF 1e: deciding if i want to lower an ability score below 10 to get more points for other scores.

Look, i have been playing various rpgs for 35 years.

I have had the 2E Core Rules before some subscribers and i can read.
I know you can dump stats, but that doesn't give me more points and i still can't raise a score above 18. ;-p

The Flaw system does indeed give you an extra +2 to one.

Marco Massoudi wrote:

This is something i definetly like better in PF 1e: deciding if i want to lower an ability score below 10 to get more points for other scores.

... that's why I brought it up, and

Marco Massoudi wrote:

Look, i have been playing various rpgs for 35 years.

I have had the 2E Core Rules before some subscribers and i can read.
I know you can dump stats, but that doesn't give me more points and i still can't raise a score above 18. ;-p

The Flaw system does indeed give you an extra +2 to one.

Nope, sadly not.

"Apply the ability boosts your character gains from their ancestry, but your character gets one fewer free ability boost than normal. If your character’s ancestry has any ability flaws, apply those next. Finally, apply one ability boost to one of the ability scores specified in the character’s background (you do not get the other free ability boost)."

That's the steps for applying Ability Boosts and Flaws, not the optional rules for Voluntary Flaws.

Sometimes, it’s fun to play a character with a major flaw even if you’re not playing an ancestry that imposes one. You can elect to take two additional ability flaws when applying the ability boosts and ability flaws from your ancestry.

If you do, you can also apply one additional free ability boost. These ability flaws can be assigned to any ability score you like, but you can’t apply more than one ability flaw to the same ability score during this step unless you apply both of the additional ability flaws to a score that is already receiving an ability boost during this step.

In this case, the first ability flaw cancels the ability boost, and the second ability flaw decreases the score by 2. Likewise, as an exception to the normal rules for ability boosts, you can apply two free ability boosts to an ability score receiving an ability flaw during this step; the first ability boost cancels the ability flaw, and the second ability boost increases the score by 2.

For example, a dwarf normally gets an ability boost to Constitution and Wisdom, along with an ability flaw to Charisma. You could apply one ability flaw each to Intelligence and Strength, or you could apply both ability flaws to Wisdom. You could not apply either additional ability flaw to Charisma, though, because it is already receiving dwarves’ ability flaw during this step.

Page 26 sidebar.

Sometimes, it’s fun to play a character with a major flaw even if you’re not playing an ancestry that imposes one. You can elect to take two additional ability flaws when applying the ability boosts and ability flaws from your ancestry. If you do, you can also apply one additional free ability boost. These ability flaws can be assigned to any ability score you like, but you can’t apply more than one ability flaw to the same ability score during this step unless you apply both of the additional ability flaws to a score that is already receiving an ability boost during this step. In this case, the first ability flaw cancels the ability boost, and the second ability flaw decreases the score by 2. Likewise, as an exception to the normal rules for ability boosts, you can apply two free ability boosts to an ability score receiving an ability flaw during this step; the first ability boost cancels the ability flaw, and the second ability boost increases the score by 2. For example, a dwarf normally gets an ability boost to Constitution and Wisdom, along with an ability flaw to Charisma. You could apply one ability flaw each to Intelligence and Strength, or you could apply both ability flaws to Wisdom. You could not apply either additional ability flaw to Charisma, though, because it is already receiving dwarves’ ability flaw during this step.

Edit: ninjaed by 35 second by Tri :3

But yes, you can not take an ability score above 18. That is by design, and it's a good design.

Rysky wrote:

Marco Massoudi wrote:

This is something i definetly like better in PF 1e: deciding if i want to lower an ability score below 10 to get more points for other scores.

... that's why I brought it up, and

Marco Massoudi wrote:

Look, i have been playing various rpgs for 35 years.

I have had the 2E Core Rules before some subscribers and i can read.
I know you can dump stats, but that doesn't give me more points and i still can't raise a score above 18. ;-p

The Flaw system does indeed give you an extra +2 to one.

Nope, sadly not.

"Apply the ability boosts your character gains from their ancestry, but your character gets one fewer free ability boost than normal. If your character’s ancestry has any ability flaws, apply those next. Finally, apply one ability boost to one of the ability scores specified in the character’s background (you do not get the other free ability boost)."

Maybe you’re both talking about different things.

Those are the ability modifications you get if you use the rolling method, not if you use flaws.

Would it be possible in the future to have a "Lite Version" of the PDF file? Like there was for the 1E CRB?

Would it be possible in the future to have a "Lite Version" of the PDF file? Like there was for the 1E CRB?

The standard PDF is basically the "Lite" version. The first edition Core Rulebook standard PDF is 116 MB, while the lite version is 46 MB. The new Core Rulebook PDF is just 60 MB, but the book is a little bigger than the old one.

The standard PDF is basically the "Lite" version. The first edition Core Rulebook standard PDF is 116 MB, while the lite version is 46 MB. The new Core Rulebook PDF is just 60 MB, but the book is a little bigger than the old one.

Gotcha, thanks for the answer.

Part II of my review:

Speaking of love: The rogue is awesome. They can use their key ability score. Oh, and combat-relevant skill-based tricks. This may well be the best rogue that has ever been; from swashbuckler to street thugs, the new class encompasses a super wide-variety of concepts. And yes, there is a means to get Dex to damage from the get-go. Or play a Strength-based brute. This may be the coolest class herein. While we’re talking scoundrels: The bard is now the designated full-caster for the occult tradition, and as such, most builds of the bard will want to stay out of melee...unless (!!) skilled for melee and/or multiclassed. Multiclassing with Pathfinder’s second edition is a much smoother experience, and tends to generate valid builds. I have tested the system rather extensively, but it is in the nature of the game that some weaknesses may come to light there – for now, multiclassing is much more viable and generally makes the need for e.g. a magus class debatable.

The alchemist, heavily revised during playtest, and traditionally one of my favorite classes, has been improved regarding its balance…for the most part. It’s best to think about them as item-based casters now, which brings me to a pretty hefty problem for them, one that I believe should be rectified sooner, rather than later: Their equipment is heavy. Alchemist’s tools have a Bulk of 2 alone. Formula book? Bulk 1. I am not a fan of this, but yeah. While we’re on the subject of items, the book does feature starting packages by class (YEAH!) and item traits, such as being flexible, or specializations, make them matter more: Leather armor nets resistance to bludgeoning damage, plate for slashing weapons, etc. – and these can scale with magic. Weaponry similarly matters more – agile weapons will, for example, be your go-to weapon for off-hand attacks, as they reduce the penalty for multiple attacks. Deadly weapons increase their damage by the indicated die size on critical hits, etc. – in short: Weapon choice matters more. At this point, I should also mention that I welcome the implementation of a silver standard and less bloated prices – shear off a zero from most PF1 prices, and you’ll have a rough idea. Weapons have changed, btw. – striking runes increase damage dice, potency the to hit – so the system is different from the PF Playtest iteration.

Now, I have, apart from my initial observations regarding proficiencies not really touched upon skills, and this is because they are quite a bit more prescriptive and loose at the same time, if that makes any sense. Each skill lists a variety of different things you can do with, with certain skill uses, somewhat like skill unlocks, being locked behind a minimum proficiency. And then, there are the skill feats – these allow for differentiation between different users of the same skill: You’re trained in Acrobatics? Well, do you want the Cat Fall or the Steady Balance feat? You can take both, but that’ll be an additional feat slot. The skills are also relevant and require some close reading, because combat maneuvers now tend to be executed with skills, and because the skills explicitly note their actions. Skills with the Attack descriptor count as an attack, and thus forcing stuff open or grappling does mean that you incur penalties when attacking after using a skill this way. Grapple is streamlined, simple and based on Athletics, in case you were wondering. Oh, and something I loved: Medicine, Heal’s successor, is now, with the proper skill feats in tow, sufficiently efficient to make a character who invested in it the primary healer. Sans magic. That is great news. As a side-note, because it’s easy to overlook: You can take skill feats instead of general feats!

Ah, feats. As much as I generally like what Pathfinder’s second edition does, I can’t get past the fact that everything is feats now. Ancestry feats, class feats, skill feats, general feats, etc. Yes, PF1’s talent-based classes also had quasi-feats, but there was some psychological trick going on there. If you chose first feats, then talents, it felt like different tasks. Whereas now, you choose feats, and then more feats…and some more feats for good measure. I think this isn’t that clever, as using the same word to denote all of them implies a parity in power between the different groups that simply is not there. That being said, I found myself not minding the flood of feats as much as in PF Playtest, because both feats and classes have changed to allow for more diversification, and feel and play less uniform. PF Playtest had sanded off too much, and now we get more stuff that is not feats. From a design-perspective, this may be the biggest incision in Pathfinder’s second edition – before, you could relatively easily wrap complex changes to the base-engine in one massive package. Eliminate ability x here, grant z and y there. Individually, z and y may have been weaker than x, but with progression gain variance and the like, there was a lot to tinker with, also courtesy to Pathfinder 1st edition’s pretty loose math.

For Pathfinder’s second edition, I predict design to be more limited in scope, and harder to balance as a whole – I firmly believe that it is harder to design class options, etc. for this game, and that it will require deeper understanding, because the modularity is there, but it’s pretty much mostly in the fine-grained aspects of the game. Class hacks will require some serious checking. This tightly-wound math can also be observed in the spellcasting engine.

Pathfinder’s second edition utilizes essentially an “At Higher levels.” Option, here called “Heightened” – save that it works in two distinct ways – there are heightening effects that apply per spell level above the spell’s usual spell level, and thresholds of sort: Say, a fireball increases damage per spell level, but another spell may have a distinct an alternate/modified second use at 3 spellslots higher, but only that means of heightening it. I like this. It provides a lot of design flexibility in that regard. However, it also means that one has to carefully check the existing material, particularly the cantrips, which are now super strong and something you’ll be casting a lot – they scale automatically over the levels. There also are Focus spells, which can’t be prepared per se and instead use a Focus point pool that may be slowly replenished. These Focus Point pools are tracked by source – you can have multiple pools. I’ve already mentioned traditions. Spellcasting ties in with the action economy – as you probably know, you have three actions per round, and each aspect of casting (verbal, somatic, material) translates to one action. However, there are exceptions: Heal, for example, can be cast as one action (range touch), 2 actions (range 30 ft.) or three actions (AoE 30-foot emanation). I really like this. The spell descriptors also allow for pretty simple customization, and the formatting is quick and simple to parse. The game has a concentration-like mechanic akin to 5e, with sustained spells. Some notes: Spells don’t properly specify what material components they use. It’s just a small flavor thing, but having “material” in the component line without an actual, you know, material, makes the spells slightly less magical, slightly more sterile to me. Secondly, unless specified by the spell, touch spells no longer require an attack roll.

Now, I’ve danced around this for the longest time, so let’s come to what indubitably, at least for me, is the most important aspect of the system: The action system. Yes, I like the system of having 3 actions and the reaction. I LOVE how the encounter mode (i.e. combat) now specifies EVERYTHING. Crawl? Check. Interact? Check. Leap? Check. Release, Ready, Seek , Step? All there. The base engine has been improved in a VAST manner. No longer x different actions for x different modifications. Interact. Boom. There. Done. As an aside: Raising a shield costs one of these actions, which is an apt cost for the awesome defensive power this often maligned item-class finally grants.

This system has far-ranging implications:

It makes running combat with exciting terrain etc. easier; it allows for the combination of puzzles, versatile battle-fields, etc. with the game, and from grabbing an edge to Pointing targets out, the system is smooth as silk. I ADORE IT. It’s the best thing about the whole system. What it means? It means that there is no more excuse for boring trade-blows combats; no more excuses for not having tilting arenas, complex rituals, fights atop vast planetariums, etc. This system is both a boon for the GM and an obligation for adventure Writers – if you can’t make combat exciting with this, then you should seriously reconsider. More so than in any other system, this practically demands complex and versatile encounters. I hope we’ll get what this promises. For me, how well this is utilized will make or break the game, because no other game I know manages to blend tactical components with a concise base frame-work that still is wide open as well as this one does. This system will have to account, in a way, for the limitations that have been imposed on the character capability side of things, courtesy of the incisions in skill utility. SO yeah, the base combat action system is a thing of pure beauty. I love it.

There is one rules component that I do NOT like within the core chassis of the game. Dying. In short, Pathfinder second edition is pretty softcore. When reduced below 0 HP, you get dying 1, and then you proceed on this weird recovery roll mini-game, where you can gain or lose up to two steps of dying, plus any incurred from the wounded condition. The rules here are so convoluted and sucky in their presentation that I had to read the rules (which are per se dead simple!) 4 (!!!) frickin’ times to finally grasp it. Sequence of information, explanation – the rules are easy, but how they are explained? Totally bassackwards and as convoluted as can be to me. This is particularly annoying since the “wounded” condition is a per se good idea. It simulates being wounded in a meaningful manner and can generate some tension. The thing is that the presentation of this whole rules-complex feels odd, curiously unrefined in comparison with the rest of the book.

There is another thing I consider a blemish, but to a lesser degree in the overall shape of things.

I HATE that two of the most common things you’ll be doing are called “Strike” and “Stride” – they sound too much alike. What did you do? “I stri.*mumbles/eats chips/drinks Dew, etc..” “What?” “I attack!” – just dumb. Additionally, to me,  “Stride” does not elicit a notion of walking in battle.

Know what “stride” evokes for me?

The image that inevitably pops up in my head, including soundtrack?

Zoolander.

Some model guy or gal, totally over the top and pseudo-aesthetic, striding and strutting along on the catwalk in a hilarious manner. Whenever someone says “I Stride…” I picture them Zoolander-ing towards the enemy, hips swaying, weaponry whipping to-and-fro, potentially including a duck-face.

This, to me, breaks all immersion and heroic momentum. To the point where I will BAN the use of “Stride” as a designation of the movement in combat in my game. I Move. Done. I get why this was done. “Move” can mean more things, but why not “March”? It’s still ridiculous, but at least it’s got the martial component. Unlike “Stride” – which also just now reminded me of an asinine, bubbly poprock-song. Blergh. The justification for using a word exclusively for the action also falls flat when doing a quick search of the book and realizing that there are instances where “Strike”, for example, is used in a capacity where it does not pertain to the action.

Exploration mode’s explanation mode could have been a bit tighter in how it’s explained – but THANKFULLY it’s no longer as annoying as PF Playtest – it’s more free-form, and same goes for Downtime mode.

The second system I like would to highlight as an improvement over PF Playtest would be the magic items – resonance is gone, and while I was one the guys who liked the notion, if not the implementation of resonance – this is, in a way, handled with invest an Item – a limited action, and activation is similarly well covered. Magic items are pretty much what you’d expect. Hero points are now core, and net a reroll, and can automatically make you get back up from dying. Good call. The streamlining and how things work also extends to magic items – once you’ve understood how spells work, you get how items work. You get how everything works. The entry barrier to understand the system is low, to master it? Higher!  (And this is good!) This also extends to GMs – flip open pages 503-504, and there you have the sample DCs by level. The condition list is also comprehensive (though staggered is gone!), and I like the doomed condition, which a clever GM can use to get rid of the dying-rules stuff. The game also provides a massive glossary.

Conclusion:

Editing and formatting are top-notch. Layout adheres to a gorgeous two-column full-color standard and the book features a lot of cool full-color artwork. For the most-part, I love the information presentation, with the asinine class tables text-walls and the dying condition explanation being two of the few examples where the presentation isn’t as good as it should be. Usability and accessibility of the material has improved in HUGE steps. I can’t comment on the physical book, since I don’t own it yet. The book’s pdf-version comes fully bookmarked and with a version where each of the chapters comes as a separate pdf as well. Most importantly: This reads like a GAME. Not like a programming manual. Even with my background in IT, I had no fun with PF Playtest’s book; I very much enjoyed this one. So yeah, on a formal level, this succeeds at things where I had pegged it for abject failure after the Playtest core rules.

Let me reiterate: This work of game designers Logan Bonner, Jason Bulmahn, Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Mark Seifter, with additional writing by James Jacobs, and Adam Daigle, Lyz Liddell and Erik Mona as developers, is more than I had hoped it’d be. MUCH MORE.

Pathfinder Playtest did not work for me; this does.

There are plenty of reasons for that: From the classes feeling less uniform to the presentation being less sterile to a ton of small choices throughout, this is a far superior book, and I certainly wished I had this on my shelf instead of the Playtest manual. ;) That’s a good thing.

That being said, there is one thing you need to know: Pathfinder second edition is very much a game of choices and builds, but compared to Pathfinder’s first edition, the choices happen on the individual level. With the exception of a couple of class feat trees, all relevant choices happen on the small scale. In a way, the design space to make characters seems both more varied in the small tidbits and via multiclassing, but also less open than in Pathfinder’s 1st edition. I could rattle off a whole array of builds I can’t realize with the game, at least not yet. And as a designer, I can see design space as being less open. Take a look at polymorph spells and their options, and you’ll realize what I mean. The math is tight…and some of the leeway that the previous system granted is simply not there anymore. The result is a more streamlined experience, which probably is a good thing for most tables and for organized play in particular. At the same time, it does make me slightly sad.

On the character side, this game does, at least so far, not exactly blow me away. It’s not a train-wreck, and it certainly provides more options than e.g. D&D 5e does, but I’m not sure it will have the same excessive character-building staying power as Pathfinder 1st edition. Particularly regarding the skill-section, which takes a lot of things that were previously widely available and locks them up behind skill feats, which, combined with the limited benefits bestowed by proficiency and the comparable importance of ability score modifiers, makes this part of the system feel the most underwhelming to me. If you expect this grand strength of Pathfinder’s first edition to resurface, you might be disappointed. This is a very different game, and I can see groups playing both systems and telling vastly different stories with them. Do not expect any backwards compatibility regarding the type of story you tell, or their flow.

On the plus-side, the streamlined combat action system and the universally applied chassis that tightly codifies spells and items, and PF2’s tightly-codified encounter mode array also mean that I dare to hope for the most exciting modules ever penned for a d20-based game. Scratch that. I expect to see them. This system leaves no excuse for lazy “you walk into an invisible damage line”-traps, no excuse for boring “fight two orcs in a corridor” standard-BS. I very much want to complete rituals while holding off hordes of foes, seal portals, activate complex mechanisms while in a gigantic clockwork of whirling gears, and I want to interact with a ton of weird features, hazards and traps. PF2’s mighty core encounter engine demands being used. And I really, really want to see it, because, if handled properly, the engine can account for things that no other RPG does this well. In this component, Pathfinder second edition is king.

Pathfinder’s second edition, much to my surprise, turned out to be the game I had hoped for, but did not expect to get. In a way, I am glad that Paizo went through this tome after the disillusioning playtest, and changed language and as much as they did. This is a vastly superior game, and one that makes me confident once more for the future of this new, radically different Pathfinder.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I *still* don’t like the goblin as a core race. I am *still* not sold on the ranger’s viability in long-term play. I’m *still* not happy with the “everything is feats”-angle.

But, in spite of all my complaints and nitpicking, I do consider this to be an exceedingly well-designed, and more importantly, fun, game. It is a different game than I expected, with different strengths and weaknesses. But its massive strengths do shine rather brightly. One could say, it Strides, with swaying hips, into the limelight, and it’s beautiful to look at.

Whether it can retain its longevity will be contingent on how player options evolve, and the quality of the adventures and how well they manage to realize the game’s strengths. The one thing for certain at this point, is that it will evolve in a different manner than Pathfinder’s first edition did.

This is a completely distinct game, and just because you liked Pathfinder’s first edition does not means you’ll like this one – and vice versa: If you hated Pathfinder’s first edition, you might well love the second edition!

Final verdict. Oh, so, this is difficult for me. I can see this system excel, and there are components of it that I indubitably consider superior to all of its competitors. At the same time, it does have a couple of aspects that rub me the wrong way, from the aforementioned to the lack of a global reaction (why not make Aid Another that?), which results in Attack of Opportunity being used to explain reactions. Why is this problematic? Only very few characters have even the option to execute attacks of opportunity anymore, when they previously were globally available! Unless I botched big time, the book does not feature a single reaction that everyone can use, so something had to be chosen…but why this one? Anyways, slinking too far back down into the murk of details.

As a whole, I consider Pathfinder’s second edition to be a success. In some aspects, it shines like a radiant gem, while in others, it has some blemishes, at least to my sensibilities. Still, in many of its components, it is a success, and more of a success than Pathfinder’s first edition core book ever was. So, my final verdict will be 4.5 stars, rounded up due to in dubio pro reo – at least for now, as I watch it Stride boldly forward into a new age… and try not to giggle.

…

Snark aside, great game, I’m looking forward to seeing how Paizo and the 3pps out there will polish and evolve it further down the line. Particularly in the adventure/terrain/hazard-department, I expect great things indeed!

Endzeitgeist out.

in dubio pro reo

Roma locuta, causa finita!

I still haven't got my Deluxe/Special Edition Core Rulebook... I had assumed I had simply pre-ordered mine too late, since I got the SE Bestiary weeks ago. However, it turned out my FLGS has not yet received them at all, even though they have already sold out two batches of "standard" Core Rulebooks. They said they've pre-ordered several copies months ago, but for some reason they haven't arrived? And it's the same thing with Druma, I pre-ordered it months ago and my FLGS has never received any copies of it either! :/

Really dumb question time:

Page 96 Bard: "You can cast occult spells..."
Page 118 Cleric: "You can cast divine spells..."
Page 130 Druid: "You can cast primal spells..."
Page 204 Wizard: "You can cast arcane spells..."

Page 102 Sorcerer: "You can cast spells..." Note no qualifier on this

Nowhere, that I can find, does it say that Sorcerer spells are from the arcane list. While it has to be, someone new to Pathfinder might find this confusing. I did for a minute.

-- david

Page 192, not 102

Before Sorcerer Spellcasting section we have:

Choose a bloodline that gives you your spellcasting talent. The choice determines the type of spells you cast and the spell list you choose from from, additional spells you learn, and additional trained skills.

Page 192, not 102

Before Sorcerer Spellcasting section we have:

Bloodline wrote:

Choose a bloodline that gives you your spellcasting talent. The choice determines the type of spells you cast and the spell list you choose from from, additional spells you learn, and additional trained skills.

Yup, meant 192 (typo).

Dang, glanced right over the Bloodline portion, and didn't read it carefully. The sorcerer gets, access depending on Bloodline, to one of all the spell lists. This is way cool!

Thanks Rysky,

-- david

Np ^w^

Any new updates on ETAs for a CRB v2 Pocket Edition?

We have not announced one yet. (Historically, I think the shortest gap between a hardcover release and its corresponding pocket edition was about a year and a half.)

Hi Vic

Have you made any changes to the policy of updating PDFs and print versions with the latest errata when a printing sells out?

If we make changes in a print edition, we will still update the PDF to match when that print edition is released.

If we make changes in a print edition, we will still update the PDF to match when that print edition is released.

Cheers Vic.

On reflection, the PDF policy has less relevance to me though its probably more widely significant. My real reason for asking was in regard to the policy with hardcopies:

I'm curious if you'll be approaching revisions to the CRB printed version in the same way as PF1. (I recall relatively frequent updates in printings 2 through 4 or 5 and wondered if I should expect similar this time around?)

I usually buy a new copy when the print edition changes and itd be good to know whether I need to keep an eye out for such events.

At some point, we'll likely do a new printing with errata incorporated. No idea when that'll be, though.

No worries, cheers Vic. I'm going to put that down as "same as previous".

I'll keep an eye out. Thanks!

Honestly, I like this approach of having the errata separate. It means errata can be pushed out much faster without having to wait the sometimes literal years between major errata releases due to book printing status, especially for books that don't sell as fast. Reminds me of 3.5.

I would buy an unchanged/1st. printing pocket edition and also a 2nd. printing hardcover.

I've Searched. Going to start going through this post by post.

Herolab Online is not registering the Dwarven Clan Dagger as a simple dagger for trained in purposes.

Has there been documented clarification where I can point their coders to so that a Level 1 Dwarven Wizard who by default can use simple daggers can use their Dwarven Clan Dagger, seeing as they have had it in their hands their entire life and are able to use simple daggers as well, I feel like this should be considered trained in.

Link to clarification from any developer/designer would be much appreciated!

Link to clarification from any developer/designer would be much appreciated!

Link to Official Paizo errata issued Oct 30, 2019

Dwarf

Page 35: Add to the sidebar of ancestry benefits:
CLAN DAGGER
You get one clan dagger (page 280) of your clan for free, as it was given to you at birth. Selling this dagger is a terrible taboo and earns you the disdain of other dwarves

I don't know if that actually answers your question, but it's the latest official comment

Yoshua wrote:

Link to clarification from any developer/designer would be much appreciated!

Link to Official Paizo errata issued Oct 30, 2019

Core Rulebook Errata Round 1

Errata wrote:

Dwarf

Page 35: Add to the sidebar of ancestry benefits:
CLAN DAGGER
You get one clan dagger (page 280) of your clan for free, as it was given to you at birth. Selling this dagger is a terrible taboo and earns you the disdain of other dwarves

I don't know if that actually answers your question, but it's the latest official comment

Doesn't cut it for HeroLab, they know it is in the errata and they give it to you as a dwarf. But unless Paizo specifically says it counts as a simple dagger.

Page 203 on the Core Rule Book for the Wizard Class:
"At 1st level, you gain the listed proficiency ranks in the following statistics. You are untrained in anything not listed unless you gain a better proficiency rank in some other way."

Also on 203:

"Trained in the club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow, and staff Trained in unarmed attacks"

I will take all of this back to HeroLab but I am sure they already know this. Problem is it doesn't say 'Simple Weapons' and lists dagger specifically, because the Dwarven Clan Dagger has the Dwarven tag they aren't listing it as just 'Dagger' You do get trained in it as a simple weapon for other classes, but this is an irritating loop hole that they said they don't have explicit rules for so can't implement until clarified.... Boo.....

I can just add to the roll, but I would really appreciate to have it crystal clear in the text under Dwarves that all Dwarves are trained in the Dwarven Clan Dagger so I can say "Hey, HeroLab, here is your clarification!" Honestly it should be in the text, in my game we will treat it that way but I use HeroLab and would like them to code it that way too....

I've Searched. Going to start going through this post by post...

Please post rules questions in the Rules Discussion forum. Thanks!

Has PF2 Core been reprinted yet, incorporating errata? I want to buy it, but I do want to wait for that to happen.

Related question, for those of you with the PDF, does it say "Second Printing" yet?

Has PF2 Core been reprinted yet, incorporating errata? I want to buy it, but I do want to wait for that to happen.

Related question, for those of you with the PDF, does it say "Second Printing" yet?

As far as I know, nope. You might be waiting a while before they get to that point... I'm not even certain they'd include the first round of errata in a reprinting. Instead, they might opt for the second or third pass through before they adjust all the layouts and art and such.