Pathfinder Core Rulebook

4.20/5 (based on 20 ratings)
Pathfinder Core Rulebook

Add Hardcover $59.99

Add PDF $14.99

Facebook Twitter Email

Advance Your Game

This comprehensive 640-page guide to the Pathfinder roleplaying game provides everything you need to set out into a world of limitless fantasy adventure! Choose from ancestries like elf, human, and goblin and classes like alchemist, fighter, and sorcerer to create a hero of your own design, destined to become a legend! The new Pathfinder rules are easier to learn and faster to play, and they offer deeper customization than ever before!

This indispensable volume contains the core rules for players and Game Masters, and is your first step on a heroic new journey!

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook includes:

  • More than 600 pages of game rules, advice, character options, treasure, and more for players and Game Masters!
  • Six heroic player character ancestries, including elf, dwarf, gnome, goblin, halfling, and human, with variant heritages for half-elf and half-orc!
  • More than 30 backgrounds like bartender, soldier, or apprentice to further immerse yourself in your hero's backstory!
  • Twelve character classes, including the alchemist, barbarian, bard, champion, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard!
  • Hundreds and hundreds of spells, class feats, and other exciting abilities to help you customize your character to become the hero YOU envision her to be!
  • Streamlined and revised rules to help ease new players into the game while providing the depth of character options and tactical interest that have defined Pathfinder from the beginning!

ISBN: 978-1-64078-168-9

Online Resources: Rules and mechanics from this book can be accessed for free on Paizo's official online resource: Archives of Nethys. Click here!

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Hardcover:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO2101


See Also:

1 to 5 of 20 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

4.20/5 (based on 20 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

An Endzeitgeist.com review

5/5

The core rules for the second edition of Pathfinder clock in at 642 pages, 1 page front cover, 1 page inside of front cover, 2 pages ToC, ¾ of a page SRD, 2 pages advertisement, 1 page back cover, leaving us with 634 ¼ pages of content, so let’s take a look!

So, Pathfinder Second Edition. I believe I should first specify where I’m coming from: I’m a huge fan of the first edition. Heck, I’ve reviewed literally thousands of PF1-books. I’ve also spent a lot of time with Pathfinder Playtest, and had complaints regarding that book that rendered me rather conflicted about the second edition.

Opening the second edition’s covers, we notice something good from the get-go: The book explains, in a concise and easy to grasp manner, with bolding of key components, the basics of the game. This is very much welcome, and in contrast to PF Playtest, which beat you over the head with complex concepts without explaining key-terms – so we’re off to a promising start. Indeed, the most crucial improvement on a formal level over PF Playtest is easily organization, something I loudly complained about back then – for example, we get tables that list ancestries and classes and their key ability scores, flaws, secondary ability scores, etc. This makes grasping the game easier for newbies. This extends to a step-by-step guide to make characters that is simpler and easier to grasp – the presentation if more concise, and we do get a spread-sheet summary of basics of races and classes, a quick reference, and step-by-step go through the filling out of the character sheet.

This being a review of the core game, I believe it is not helpful to go into the details of every bit of rules-relevant component; instead, I’ll attempt to convey what Pathfinder’s second edition is, and what it isn’t.

To make this abundantly clear from the get-go: Pathfinder’s second edition does not have much in common with the first edition, and it does not attempt to ape D&D 5th edition either. It is a game of its own. Both are mindsets I initially admittedly had – I expected either a further development of the first edition’s rules, or a 5.75 of sorts, similar to what Pathfinder’s first edition did with D&D 3.5 back in the day. If you expect either of these things, you may be somewhat flabbergasted by this game – this is not what Pathfinder second edition is all about.

There are similarities, sure – there still are feats, races are now called ancestries, and the ability score modifiers apply to the same extent as before – Strength 16 means you have a +3 modifier, for example. There are still feats that can only be taken by certain species, and indeed, these are more important now – ancestry feats are an important thing, and in Pathfinder second edition, matter more than for many races in PF1. Indeed, the ancestries have core benefits, the heritages, which actually have a significant impact on the playing experience. So that’s a plus.

While I have commented on the improved organization of the book, there is one aspect where it fails hard from a didactic point of view: It explains its combat actions etc. LONG after the ancestries, backgrounds and classes, which means that many of the rules featured in them will make no sense to you, unless you’ve read that section as well. Why not explain encounter mechanics first, and THEN let the players make informed choices? This is an unnecessary complication, one I believe was made to maintain the ABC of ancestries, background, classes in the beginning, which ultimately is a gimmick, but nothing more. In this way, the book mirrors the organizational shortcomings that annoyed me to bits in 5e.

First, you explain the game. THEN you let folks make characters. Not that hard per se, right?

While we’re on the subject matter of things that I don’t like: The new default speed, unless you’re playing an elf or dwarf, is 25 feet. This may not be an issue for people using and thinking in the imperial system, but I was born and raised with the metric system, which also makes mathematically more sense to me. That being said, I never had issues grasping the basic size relations in RPGs - 30 feet equals 9 meters. 20 feet equals 6 meters. Elegant. Simple.

Even if you think in meters, that’s something you can learn to understand pretty quickly. 25 feet…equals 7.5 meters. Utterly opaque. I am willing to bet that, no matter how much I play the game, I will NEVER have a firm mental grasp of how much 7.5 meters are. Slightly less than 9 meters. By approximately half of a small person, and less than half of an opaque average value for human sizes- …yeah, that doesn’t help me at all. I can have a rough idea, but I’ll never be able to precisely see the distance in my mind’s eye. Why am I harping on this? While I often use battle maps, I can narrate complex tactical situations in mind’s eye theater, and with this…I won’t be able to do that. It might seem petty to you, but it’s a big strike for me as a person. That being said, I will not have this influence the final verdict, because it’s not an issue for people accustomed to the imperial system, and I can’t assume that my problem here is shared with all people accustomed to the metric system. As an aside: The change of default speed also provides a basic form of incompatibility with previously released content – one that can really trip up the GM, so please be aware of that. And yes, I get why. It’s got something to do with the changed 3-action economy and the size of the average flip mat. It still is something that proved to be problematic for me.

Anyhow, some more notes on ancestries, and namely, how they work: There are feats, and heritages. Heritages require that you choose one, and in a way, I don’t get why they’re the way they are. Let’s take the death warden dwarf. That heritage makes successes on saving throws versus necromancy critical successes instead. Umbral gnomes or cavern elves get darkvision as their heritage benefit. Notice something? You do choose, but the choices per se seem like there will be a ton of redundancy in the future. How many races will have a heritage that nets darkvision? How many will have a heritage that transforms a success into a critical success? The answer is, to spoil that for you: A TON. And I’m already bored by seeing them, because, you know, you get ONE heritage. Contrast those with e.g. the Whisper elf, who gets a 60-foot cone instead of a 30-foot cone when using Seek. That is…kinda more interesting. But, again, it is something we’re bound to see from other ancestries. In a way, heritages feel a bit like arbitrarily-restricted ancestry feats. In a way, these heritages don’t feel too tied to the species. Humans, in case you were wondering, still are very potent – their heritages include becoming trained in a skill, or get a bonus general feat. Oh, and a level 1 human feat can net you a 1st level class feat, which is a HUGE advantage for any character. So yeah, humans are very potent.

But I’m getting lost in the details, so let’s once more return to the big picture, shall we? Pathfinder’s second edition

Pathfinder’s second edition is a game that has a very tightly-wound math. This may not be evident at first glance, but upon delving deeper, it becomes readily apparent. This is at once one of the greatest strengths of the system, and one of its greatest weakness – which of the two apply to you and yours ultimately is contingent on personal preference. Let me elaborate: From the very core of the game, we have critical successes and failures contingent on beating or failing to beat a DC by +10 or -10, respectively. This degrees of success or failure paradigm is something I very much enjoy, However, it also makes a few things clear: There is a bounded accuracy paradigm at play here – and this is very prominently by the proficiency system: Untrained characters get +0, trained characters +2, expert +4, master +6, and legendary +8. Additionally, the character’s level is added to all but the untrained proficiency in respective checks. These proficiency ranks feature as a deeply ingrained component of the game in pretty much everything. It should become apparent that, at +8, the proficiency bonus alone can’t elevate a success to a decisive success. That being said, my math tests resulted in a general notion that legendary will make you only fail on 1s on relevant skills. Oh, take 10 is gone, so a degree of reliability is gone – which, I assume, will in the long run help in the regard of making proficiency rank matter more.

This brings me to a core design component I enjoyed in a way, but also somewhat bemoaned: In Pathfinder’s first edition, starting at mid levels, the specialization chasm began, at the very latest, to loom very widely. The rogue would have ridiculous amounts of Stealth, while the other characters wouldn’t; you’d be either excellent at something, or suck to the point where rolling the check was a waste of time. Pathfinder’s second edition gets rid of this issue by emphasizing two things: With a smaller range for the math to work in, ability score modifiers become more important. So does the level. If you’re a level 10 character, the difference between being trained and an expert in something becomes much less important. +2 difference vs. +10 gained by levels. Even a legendary proficiency would offer less of a boost than the full character level. Being trained, however, is very important, because it unlocks the level boost – in the example above, being untrained vs. trained means a difference of a whopping +12. This system allows for the creation of more streamlined adventure writing and means that high-level characters will be more universally useful, instead of being specialists. I don’t yet have enough playing experience to discern whether I prefer this take, or the first edition’s hyper-specialization. That being said, there are more ways to become better than in the Playtest, so there is a bit more difference between being sucky and being good. Still, one can’t expect the same range of different skillsets in Pathfinder 2nd edition.

On the plus-side, this mechanic extends to basically everything, replacing BAB, saves, etc. – which makes explaining the game quicker and provides a sense of unification of previously disparate concepts.  E.g. the highest two proficiency ranks are restricted to the higher levels, while you can potentially start with up to third rank. This means that levels and ability scores are more important than the proficiency, but I do like that you can now be bad at something.

Now, backgrounds deserve some applause, in that they very much matter in contrast to the traits of PF1, and they provide very tangible benefits – but on the other hand, I fail to see the difference between many heritages and backgrounds. It may just be me being somewhat anal-retentive – I think that heritages should reflect biological components, and the other stuff should be ancestry feats and/or backgrounds, but that may be me. That being said, there are MANY more backgrounds than in the playtest, which is a GOOD thing.

Speaking of good things: Beyond feats, there are some serious decisions at first level; this is a huge advantage over 5th edition, where the choices , for many classes, start mattering at 3rd level. So yeah, good thing. Speaking of things that this does well: In contrast to Pathfinder Playtest, each of them comes with a sidebar that lists suitable choices for you – want to play chirurgeon alchemist? Check the sidebar. Want to play an animal rager barbarian? Check the sidebar. This is an excellent way for new players to prevent choice-paralysis. That being said, layout is not 100% as efficient as I’d expect it here – each of the classes has its cool icon, and there is necessarily some overlap between the classes and their presentation; if a class feat exists for two classes, it’ll be there multiple times. That being said, I once again understand the choice, and for a core book, this is smart: Each class chapter contains all the rules for each class, which means you can print out everything for one class, be done.

On the downside, you will be rereading the same paragraph over and over. If I have to read “In addition to the abilities provided by your class at 1st level, you have the benefits of your selected ancestry and background, as described in Chapter 2.” One more time…These feel like filler. On the other hand, the class tables are condensed to a point where they lose any ability to parse them efficiently. They have a whopping 2 (!!) columns: One for the level, and the rest is a frickin’ wall of text. WHY? My eyes glaze over whenever I try reading one of them. How hard would it have been to have a column for ancestry feat, one for skill feats, one for class feats, one for ability boosts and one for class features? Not hard. And it’d allow for swift and simple parsing of information.

On the plus-side: Each class offers a TON of choice, including e.g. monks and wizards. Wizards of different arcane theses (a super-important 1st level choice) will feel radically different from each other. Monks and fighters, on the other hand, do not get such a choice and instead relegate the customization to a combination of fixed class features and class feats – there is a lot of diversity here, but unlike most of the classes, these two do not have the same subclasses. The fighter is pretty novel, in that it clearly has had some fans of a certain OotS-fighter among the design team – the class now clearly rewards playing smart and knowing when to use what class feat. It is no longer a grab bag and a “hit it”-class – meaningful choices abound. This is good.

Not so good: Let’s talk about the druid – it has been nerfed, but the primal list now includes spells such as lightning bolt…and the class has a choice between orders: Shapechanger, blaster, leshy familiar + healing, or animal companion – you must choose one. You can get the stuff later, but you’ll have to spend class feats on those if you don’t get the order. Oh, and the class feat shows up at 2nd level, not at first. So you can quickly, potentially, have more than one order’s abilities, but it’ll cost you. I like the druid class per se, but compared to the ranger, the companion option is much better when taking the entire package into account. Still, less overpowered than in Pathfinder’s 1st edition. The cleric wasn’t changed too much, but THANKFULLY, we can now decide between being an old-school cleric, or being essentially a white mage. This is another decision I very much applaud. While we’re on the subject of divine classes: Paladins are now a subset of the champion class, which is essentially the defensive tank martial. So yeah, we have a functional defense class. As an aside on defense: Shields now actually NEGATE hits. Shields matter. Big time.

Sorcerers have drastically different feeling as well, with the bloodline influencing the magic tradition from which you draw your spells – divine, primal or occult sorcerers? Very much possible. In case you’re new to the tradition concept: Spell-access is now by tradition – arcane, divine, occult, primal. Smart future-proofing. As an aside: if you were like me and hated the Playtest sorcerer, it has grown tremendously – for the first time, they feel like a class of their own, with flexibility being tantamount. No longer late spells gained, and in fact, they get more castings per day and spells. Oh, and the barbarian? We are no longer locked into totems. That’s a very good thing – instead, we choose instincts for the barbarian – a good piece of advice here: Please do read the entire class here. This class, ironically, rewards planning more than others, as there is much building on instincts. Love it to bits.

Part II of my review may be found here!


Absolutely love this system!

5/5

I began tabletop RPG's with 4th Ed D&D. I really enjoyed myself because I didn't know any better. Then one of my buddies introduced me to 1st Ed Pathfinder and I saw all the flaws of 4th Ed, and there were many. I played Pathfinder 1e for a year or so when 5e came out and swept up my group and we never looked back...until 2e launched. I love this system! I really missed the pathfinder world, and I really missed the crunch of pathfinder. 2e does an excellent job of easy play (especially for the dm) without sacrificing the crunch and complexity of that Pathfinder is famous for. I really love this system, and now my group and I are running our first adventure on roll20 and it is awesome. Love this system, love Paizo. 5 stars


A Fantastic System

5/5

I never played the first edition of Pathfinder, I found it too complex for my liking. But after playing Second Edition with my friends, I refuse to go back to playing D&D 5e. I love the system of the entire system, the action economy makes the game interesting and engaging, and I could not be happier with just how much fun we are having.


Ring Side Report-Pathfinder Rulebook, 2nd ed

5/5

Originally posted at www.throatpunchgames.com, a new idea every day!

Product- Pathfinder Core Rulebook

System-Pathfinder

Producer-Paizo

Price- $60 here https://paizo.com/products/btq01y0k?Pathfinder-Core-Rulebook

TL; DR-A solid mix of new good things, but some issues remain. 92%

Basics-It’s here! Pathfinder 2nd ed is out in the wild! Let’s dig into this thing! The basics from my previous review here: Let’s look at the big changes.

Base Mechanic-The d20 system never really changes. It’s still numbers + d20 vs other numbers. Pathfinder 2nd Ed has the player add their ability modifier, their level, AND a modifier to the roll, depending on their level of proficiency. The biggest change from the previous one is that the proficiency levels are now +2, +4, +6, or +8 instead of adding one to 4. Honestly, this feels like a change coming from 4th Edition DnD. I know the heresy of that statement, but I like that mechanic.

Action Economy- Players still have the three actions per turn of the playtest with some spells or actions requiring additional actions to do.

Skills- If you are not trained it's just a d20 + ability modifier. If you are not trained, after about 4th level, it might not be useful to even roll.

Options- This edition is labeled featfinder by its critics, but the designers use the word feat instead of options. I’m ok with featfinder as I LOVE class options.

ITEM LEVELS!!!-Items HAVE LEVELS! I love this as you know exactly what an item should cost, what kind of character should have this, and it means that some things such as alchemical items are going to be useful later as higher level options are available.

Character Advancement- Characters now level at 1000 exp. Monsters of your level give certain amounts of experience, and there are formulas for changing the experience points if you are fighting a creature of a higher or lower amount.

Those are the basics. Let’s look at my thoughts.

Mechanics or Crunch-I really love this system. Long ago, I toyed with the idea of making a 3.5/4e hybrid, and this is almost what I wanted. I get the clean mechanics of the d20, but I add my level so leveling up made things matter. I get the deep CRUNCH of 3.5/Pathfinder, but the ease of a 5e. I get cantrips that I can use all the time and not have a wizard firing crappy crossbows while still feeling like a wizard. But it’s not perfect. Skills are kind of a big deal for me. I think the system kind of forgets about skills if you are untrained. I think a fighter could pick up some basics of magic from traveling with a wizard and I liked how previously untrained actions still added your level, just with a penalty. Now you don’t add your level to untrained actions and that basically means you have silos where no untrained character can go. It’s a design choice that isn’t bad, but not one I love. Also, I really don’t like the new EXP system. Just keep creatures with different exp instead of having some crazy formula to figure out the exp! It feels like a level of simplification that some players demanded but the rest of us hate. But overall, I really do like the simplicity of the system and the variety of options in this book. 4.75/5

Theme or Fluff-Everyone has their own idea of what “fantasy” should be. Pathfinder has a niche of an almost industrial magic world where some elements of science are beginning to poke their timid heads out of the real magic with semi-magic, semi-chemistry potions and simple guns. This new game nails that vibe. Also, this edition fixes a major problem others had before: alchemy. I love the idea of alchemy, but it's always hard to add to a system Lots of RPGs add this in later due to fan demands. But that system feels bolted on and not a core of the world, with alchemy basically being a new magic caster class but with a reskin. In Pathfinder 2e, with item levels, an alchemist makes alchemy items and the items are NOT spells. They are their own special thing. I LOVE THIS! Pathfinder 2nd ed nails the Pathfinder theme even better than the original! 5/5

Execution- PDF? Check! Hyperlinked? NOPE! Come on Paizo! This book is over 600 Pages! Even random websites trading illegal PDFs have their stuff hyperlinked and for this size of document, it’s a major problem. Also, I think 3.5 has the best layout for d20 systems in regard to class advancement and feats. However, in the new system the classes get a table of advancement for each level, but you have to read deep into each specific advancement to know what is really happening. It's less at a glance and results in slower leveling and progression. I LOVE table with the character level, short descriptions of mandatory class options, and saving throw bonuses, and even spells if needed. Now we get too many words that are not helping, and two tables that are seperate for magic and character options. That is two too many! Nice concise tables would help this feel less wordy and less tiring to read. Next, feats for each class need a feat table with short, one sentence descriptions of each class option. This is going to take up space, but the current layout of listing several options and just making players read the possible rule in its entirety is too long and wordy. Even if you keep the full feat description, adding these tables would make skimming for your next class option a breeze, but instead you end up reading lots of class options you do not care about. Reading about options you don’t care about is tiring! The rest of the book is fine, but those class sections could use some serious changes to make the material easier to read! Pathfinder 2nd ed charts its own territory, but it needs to learn from its roots for its readability. 4/5

Summary-My review of this system is not glowing, but I do love it. The mechanics of 2nd edition Pathfinder are a mix of 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4th edition and 5th edition DnD. Since I love all those games, I had no issues with all the best being blended together to make the best of everything. I didn’t get EVERYTHING I wanted, but I got enough. I love the world, and the new mechanics of the new edition really emphasize the world. The low point was the execution of the book. It feels way too wordy and made reading all the different classes a slog. The book isn’t bad by any stretch, but I feel that taking some clues on how other editions of RPGs work and displayed their information would really help here. Now this might seem negative but overall I love this system. It's easy to play, characters are made quickly, and I feel it's going to be a fun system for a long time. Can’t wait to see what story I can tell with this system! 92%


Incredible work

5/5

I am floored by what Paizo has accomplished here. So much of the old guard DNA has finally been filtered out. The sheets and book have never been cleaner or clearer from a graphic design standpoint. This book is simply a joy to read cover to cover. All 600+ pages of it! I wasn't planning on coming back to PF, my RPG interests drift a little more indie these days. But I saw the copy at a brick and mortar store and gave it a look. I bought it on the spot.
Thank you, Paizo. Just thank you. I will be ordering many more P2 books as I go.

PS. More Iron Gods plz ;p


1 to 5 of 20 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
351 to 381 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Plenty


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Thinculous Arclight wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Congratulations.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
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 ...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Dempthal wrote:

... 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)

Yes, talismans are sort of 'scrolls for the fighter' now, but I think in play, they feel very different than a spellcaster using a scroll.

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.

Dempthal wrote:

...

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?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
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"

Dark Archive

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

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

Dark Archive

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)."

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

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

Voluntary Flaws wrote:

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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Page 26 sidebar.

OPTIONAL: VOLUNTARY FLAWS wrote:
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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Diaz Ex Machina wrote:
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.


Zaister wrote:
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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Endzeitgeist wrote:


in dubio pro reo

Roma locuta, causa finita!

Dark Archive

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! :/

351 to 381 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Core Rulebook All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.