So it seems we are getting a new edition of the game, can't wait for august to get here and find out exactly what's changing and what's staying the same.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You won't need to wait that long, Talonhawke! We'll be posting multiple blogs weekly from now until August with previews.
Also, if you want to hear the game in action RIGHT NOW you can listen to a marathon session of "Crypt of the Everflame" that Jason ran for the Glass Cannon Podcast guys (and me!) at the Glass Cannon page!
You won't need to wait that long, Talonhawke! We'll be posting multiple blogs weekly from now until August with previews.
Also, if you want to hear the game in action RIGHT NOW you can listen to a marathon session of "Crypt of the Everflame" that Jason ran for the Glass Cannon Podcast guys (and me!) at the Glass Cannon page!
Sweet
I have so many questions about what this will mean for current edition stuff, and the lore and whatnot.
As it stands I feel like there is so much more to explore with the setting and the rule possibilities that I feel is going to just fall by the wayside in favor of reprinting the 2nd edition versions of everything.
Pathfinder started out as "Let's find a way to improve 3.5 but also continue it past its death."
Don't get me wrong, getting a new edition is great, but calling "Three actions a round with a reaction" is not innovation, that's literally what we had before in the form of swift, standard, move, and immediate with a new label, specifically one directly drawn from 5e.
I mean, we came to Pathfinder because 4th ed didn't give us what we wanted, and while 5e is great and all, I really don't want Pathfinder to just copy it wholesale.
I hope you know what you are doing, Paizo.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As it stands I feel like there is so much more to explore with the setting and the rule possibilities that I feel is going to just fall by the wayside in favor of reprinting the 2nd edition versions of everything.
If all we wanted to do was reprint what we've done before, we wouldn't bother with a new edition!
Don't get me wrong, getting a new edition is great, but calling "Three actions a round with a reaction" is not innovation, that's literally what we had before in the form of swift, standard, move, and immediate with a new label, specifically one directly drawn from 5e.
Trust me on this—it's not the same thing. Actually, no, don't trust me: check out the Glass Cannon Podcast and see... er... hear for yourself!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please Paizo, whatever you do, don't make this a clone of 5th edition. For me, one of the best things about Pathfinder is the amount of customization and complexity it offers.
Simplification isn't always a good thing.
Nope. Now I just need to know when to cancel my AP subscription before they become second edition products.
July 2019 will be the last volume of the last first-edition AP.
How reverse compatible is it going to be with previous pathfinder stuff?
Also, will 3.5 still be easily usable?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How reverse compatible is it going to be with previous pathfinder stuff?
Also, will 3.5 still be easily usable?
It depends on what you mean, especially early on in the life-cycle of the new edition, when we're dealing with 12 classes and 8 ancestries. You won't be able to convert a 15th-level aasimar arcanist, for example.
On the other hand, if you listen to the Glass Cannon Podcast posted to this thread you'll hear Jason Bulmahn run Crypt of the Everflame without too much trouble right out of the book, with some pre-prepared monster stat blocks just off to the side. It was very simple, and as far as the story is concerned you can't really tell much of a difference.
Additional question: Will this new edition advance the timeline of Golarion?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additional question: Will this new edition advance the timeline of Golarion?
To quote the FAQ: Will the timeline of the Pathfinder campaign setting be advanced?
Since the setting's earliest days, we have been advancing the in-game year with each real-world year. This isn't changing, so at the 2019 launch of Second Edition, the in-world year will be 4719 Absalom Reckoning.
HUh... pretty sure that it's a dumb question but...
Are we talking about something similar to "Going from D&D 3E to 3.5E" ?
As long as I don't see a "once per encounter" rule, I'll be fine...
Thank you. I have to admit - I'm pretty damn excited for this.
Additional question: Will this new edition advance the timeline of Golarion?To quote the FAQ: Will the timeline of the Pathfinder campaign setting be advanced?
Since the setting's earliest days, we have been advancing the in-game year with each real-world year. This isn't changing, so at the 2019 launch of Second Edition, the in-world year will be 4719 Absalom Reckoning.
Fair enough, but the details of the timeline stop at 4711. Which is why I ask.
Also, how much are they drawing from Starfinder for this?
I know its a long way off if they do include it, but I would like for Mythic to come to the 2nd edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, but the details of the timeline stop at 4711. Which is why I ask.Additional question: Will this new edition advance the timeline of Golarion?To quote the FAQ: Will the timeline of the Pathfinder campaign setting be advanced?
Since the setting's earliest days, we have been advancing the in-game year with each real-world year. This isn't changing, so at the 2019 launch of Second Edition, the in-world year will be 4719 Absalom Reckoning.
Will world-shattering events change the basic assumptions of the setting?
People familiar with Andoran, Cheliax, Osirion, Qadira, Taldor, and all the rest will still recognize these nations in their Second Edition iterations. No global cataclysm will alter the fundamental assumptions of the setting, and we aren't planning on killing off your favorite deity. However, some plot points from past Adventure Paths will become part of the setting's core assumption, like new rulers in Korvosa and Taldor, and a shifting political landscape in northwestern Cheliax. The forthcoming Return of the Runelords Adventure Path and the as-yet-unannounced final First Edition Adventure Path will plant new seeds for the setting going forward; any significant changes to the setting will happen "on screen" so players can participate in them at the table.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, but the details of the timeline stop at 4711. Which is why I ask.Additional question: Will this new edition advance the timeline of Golarion?To quote the FAQ: Will the timeline of the Pathfinder campaign setting be advanced?
Since the setting's earliest days, we have been advancing the in-game year with each real-world year. This isn't changing, so at the 2019 launch of Second Edition, the in-world year will be 4719 Absalom Reckoning.
I believe you are looking at a book published in 2011. So yes, from there, it'll advance 8 years, about 6.5 of which have already happened (like the stuff Joana quoted above).
I'm guessing this means we're going back to bestiary 1. Can I make a recommendation? Make those annual. I like me some monsters.
I'm guessing this means we're going back to bestiary 1. Can I make a recommendation? Make those annual. I like me some monsters.
That does not add up. It took 10 years to get 6 Bestiaries... Are we really going to wait another 10 years to get everything up to speed?
At this point, re-publish Bestiary 1, give me an "errata" to convert the monsters from all 5 remaining Bestiaries and THEN start with a 7th book with new monsters.
In short, make it like Starfinder where you can recycle Pathfinder material with convertion rules without the need of re-publishing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please Paizo, whatever you do, don't make this a clone of 5th edition. For me, one of the best things about Pathfinder is the amount of customization and complexity it offers.
Simplification isn't always a good thing.
Simplification isn’t a bad thing either, especially from the perspective of the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trust me on this—it's not the same thing. Actually, no, don't trust me: check out the Glass Cannon Podcast and see... er... hear for yourself!
Some thoughts from the two podcast episodes.
1. If Pathfinder is making its own brand, is there some value in straight up taking Intelligence and turning it into Knowledge? So many Intelligence-based checks are already colloquially called "Knowledge checks" by the Pathfinder community.
Such a departure from D&D's tradition would achieve three things, one for newbies, one for GMs, and one for marketing. For newbies, it completely and instantly solves the problem of "what is the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom" which has existed every edition, ever since Gygax chose those unfortunate names.
For GMs, it solves players using Intelligence checks to avoid critical thinking. Without any ability score that represents logic/critical reasoning, players will have to solve puzzles themselves rather than just rolling to bypass those. None of the weird standoffs as players attempt to "skip" those moments with "Intelligence arguments" about how their character is smarter than they are. The character can have more *Knowledge*, and can be more *Observant* (a la Wisdom), but can't be smarter.
From a marketing perspective, it indicates Pathfinder is willing to boldly claim its own brand in any way that would improve the game's clarity, even if it means departing from tradition. We've seen ALL D&D clones mirror the Intelligence/Wisdom divide, but all it does is perpetuate this lack of clarity for reasons entirely bound in tradition. Such a change still keeps all Pathfinder rules compatible with 1e-5e modules, so you don't lose anything, and gain clarity.
2. Initiative with Tactics is quite an innovation. I approve of the idea of innovation.
However, I humbly offer that this procedural method destroys what Initiative does at tables. Initiative is a meme at this point - it unites the attention of players in a moment of tension. Creating a mini-game for the GM to figure out initiative removes this memetic aspect, the increased complexity, slight as it is, doesn't add to the player experience. Few people play RPGs for Initiative. Once the combat starts, after all, initiative isn't particularly meaningful.
To quote Robert Schwalb:
<If determining initiative produces a continuous turn order for the combat—you are locked into the same point in the round for the duration of the scene, initiative only becomes important during the first round of the combat. The whole point to initiative is to determine if the PCs can chip away at their opponents before their opponents get to do the same to them.>
There are changes to initiative which are interesting while preserving the qualities I mention above. I realize that once players get used to the rule, this meme will be preserved, but it means every time a new player comes, it will be suspended.
Also, even slight complexity added to initiative disincentivizes hit-and-run tactics. For folks who view combat as war rather than sport, this gets in their way.
3. Perception as not a skill is excellent. "Roll Perception" is the most-quoted thing in 3.5-forward D&D, and over the course of a campaign this takes so much time. Great.
4. The unification of actions with a price sounds neat. I really hope you have a graphic designer make a very clear infographic to showcase how this works, rather than simply explaining it in words like every other tabletop RPG. Having a clear infographic in Fragged Empire really makes action economy come across as elegant, rather than challenging, to new players. Plus! It allows you to print something and give it to players.
5. Circumstance bonuses are still around, I see. I suppose they do help set up situations tactically that aren't available when you take them out, though I do wish there was something more elegant there. Are advantage/disadvantage intellectual property, or just too much of a copycat? They do create a quicker explanation and are quicker to execute, because they're a keyword that everyone gets, rather than a bonus you may need to explain.
6. At 1:18:08 of podcast episode 1, you have one of the common aspects of tabletop RPGs which is never covered in the ruleset, but honestly should be, even if by one line: your character should know stuff automatically that they would know sensibly. This is similar to what background features grant in 13th Age. Just by *being* from a village or helping wizards out, you should get free info from them. It shouldn't be dependent on checks. Like, the rules should literally say "don't use checks for this", or at least explain this sort of situation in an developer note like "in John's games, he tends to offer such information for free, as the dice don't add any meaningful stakes and in fact distract from what would be sensible in the fiction".
7. I'm not sure why explicit "modes" are necessary for players to "go into". If you want to organize GM advice that way, go for it, right. But the more modes you have which are distinct game moments, the harder it is for players to immerse as roleplayers. They are instead rewarded as "gamers", doing game-designed actions rather than actions which make sense if they were in the situation.
8. Goblins/Alchemists as core expands the scope of the game for sure, and as I understand it this is a big selling point to the game community. I want to comment that this makes it a bit trickier to run medieval and swords & sorcery Pathfinder. It'd be neat if there were a developer's note addressing this, like "verily tis cool if you expand or reduce the options to fit the game that most suits you and your players". Without such notes, players can use the rulebook as a hammer against GMs (and oh have I experienced this before).
9. Wizards seem to really need to read up on their spells to use them, with components even more important than before. I'm wondering if this is critical. It increases the texture of spellcasting (good) but it means if you have a party with a spellcaster, those games will be significantly slower, even more so than spellcasting *already is*.
10. If Light is a cantrip and thus "free", it may be valuable to reduce folks with darkvision. ACKS for example has as a design principle "what if nobody has darkvision", and it *greatly* increases the texture of the game without being harder for newbies (cuz we understand light as important intuitively) or being harder to run. One of the odd aspects of D&D 5e is that so many races have darkvision, so when the GM narrates "oho it is dark" players often say "whatever". This is even true for the podcast - in episode 2, the GM says "it's so dark that you have trouble navigating" and it's only player etiquette that prevents them from dismissing this.
Other benefits: it makes torches matter more, you can hire torchbearers, and of course folks appreciate magic light more.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how familiar is the 'feel' of play going to be?
I'd suggest you listen to the Glass Cannon Podcast and judge for yourself!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These forums are fairly active, may as well journal a few thoughts:
1. Something I noticed trying to make a Starfinder character was the lack of options. Going back to one book of options is not appealing.
2. Goblin player characters? What?
3. I like moving parts in my games, so will have a keen eye on any simplifications.
3.1 No more CMB/CMD? I thought it was a great addition that made low levels more interesting.
4. I'm excited for the encounter / exploration / downtime thing. I hope it is well done, this is something we always had to make up house rules for.
4.1 Perception is not skill, that will be nice!? (listening to the podcast)
5. I think I'll be happy if Automatic Bonus Progression becomes part of the core assumption. The one time I played that was fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additional question: Will this new edition advance the timeline of Golarion?
Better Question: Can Golarion PLEASE NOT be "infused" into the core rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so depressed right now.
not thirlled by this news. I mean I've got new books coming like the Cthulhu for Pathfinder book and now they are good for what a Year? How much effort am I going to need to make to use my brand new book with the sudden rule changes?
Books ain't cheap you know
11. Nerfed Detect Magic is incredible as a tool for GMs. It allows GMs to utilize many tricks that were made unavailable to them with a more powerful Detect Magic.
12. Fifteen gold to start! Promising. Economics remains something which matters, then.
13. The muddy slope in Episode 2 of the podcast is REALLY, REALLY of interest to me, because it speaks to what modules will be about in 2nd Edition. I'm not entirely sure that the slope is invigorating gameplay. It seems to be a skill challenge, right? And the stake referenced is daylight, plus a chance of a condition. It's around like...10 minutes or IRL time, to overcome a muddy slope. I can't help but wonder if incentivizing this sort of play isn't really worthwhile.
I'm talking about adventure design of course, not game design. I think adventures should compel players to think and plan, not rely on chance (and maybe gain a small modifier for all their thinking and planning). In TSR-era adventures, you almost never saw adventurers confronting "sprained ankles", which frankly makes adventures more exciting to me.
To me skill challenges largely exist to "justify" the existence of skills, but I feel this is backwards. Acrobatics just isn't that fun of a minigame (for slopes, it's fun elsewhere) when you *get trained in it* but you still have a 20% chance of landing on your ass, and it's even less fun when you aren't trained in it and you have a 50% chance of landing on your ass. Things like Sense Motive, grappling (with athletics), and Hide in Shadows (going wayyyy back) create intrigue or emergent gameplay. Skill challenges only create emergent results if your players are a good sport and add a ton of their own flavor. They aren't really that compelling by themselves. Sometimes, paired with a puzzle (like a combat-puzzle on ice where you need checks to not fall prone) they can be compelling.
Mud and slopes...it's at best a teaching tool for GMs to learn how skill checks work. It isn't adventuring, to me.
14. Armor affecting movement is good for texture, but I wonder if that texture does in fact again enhance the gameplay experience. When I play games where armor doesn't inhibit movement, I don't find myself missing out on anything, right? Plus, it slows character creation, AND historically most armor wouldn't significantly hinder you in combat. So I'm not sure if it's worth preserving. It seems purely to maintain video game tropes...which are a questionable virtue in tabletop RPGs. If armor encumbrance is compelling of course, or attached to class balance, then lovely! If not...well. I respectfully question their inclusion.
15. Bulk works in Starfinder and works well here too. Lovely way to simplify things.
16. Just general kudos to the GM, haha. He's quite the enjoyable narrator!
17. I'm noticing that while actions are simplified, you still have a lot of options, like grappling, disarming, etc, that seem not to be class abilities, but just general abilities of any old player. Again, I hope this gets graphic designed rather than merely presented as text. That way, the graphic can be printed and held at the table. Newbies always tend to not really get the disarm/grapple options, and never go for them.
18. George Takei reference (episode 2) makes all games better. :thumbs-up:
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mud and slopes...it's at best a teaching tool for GMs to learn how skill checks work. It isn't adventuring, to me.
It might be worth pointing out that Crypt of the Everflame was the very first Pathfinder Module designed for First Edition, and as such, it did have a few "teaching" opportunities planted with that intent. And like you said, that's adventure design, not game design.
Mud and slopes...it's at best a teaching tool for GMs to learn how skill checks work. It isn't adventuring, to me.It might be worth pointing out that Crypt of the Everflame was the very first Pathfinder Module designed for First Edition, and as such, it did have a few "teaching" opportunities planted with that intent. And like you said, that's adventure design, not game design.
The intent is welcome, and I'm chagrined (though relieved) to learn this was a first edition module, not an adventure showcasing the new edition.
I still feel that there are perhaps more invigorating teaching opportunities than a slope, especially as the hobby has matured more. I hope that I am able to convey that respectfully. The excitement and setup of that first adventure can teach GMs a lot of habits, good and bad, and the now common habit of "you didn't see the hole so you fell in" and the "you forgot to check for traps so you get clobbered" memes were born from teaching modules that I rather am put out by.
But your response is a measured lesson for me, too; I should not speak so surely of things without the proper research. o7
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how familiar is the 'feel' of play going to be?
Extremely. I suggest giving the Glass Cannon Podcast playtest episode a listen. It's got some new tactical stuff, but it sounds remarkably like people playing Pathfinder, bad jokes and Monty Python references included.
calling "Three actions a round with a reaction" is not innovation, that's literally what we had before in the form of swift, standard, move, and immediate with a new label, specifically one directly drawn from 5e.
Actually, no, the new action system mentioned is completely different. In PF1e you get the actions you mentioned, and there's a very distinct hierarchy between them. Standards are MORE than the rest. With PF2e the three actions are equal.
The example given was (effectively) casting three magic missile instead of (say) move, move, move. Clearly (formerly standard) actions like casting spells will have to be scaled down in efficacy since you could do three of them a round, but the intent I'm reading is to have all actions equal, and letting players choose how to assemble them in a round instead of micro-managing the different action types.
Better or worse, only the rules will tell, but I couldn't let the "literally" stand. There's enough angst around this (mine included) without inaccuracy and disinformation.
the 3 action thing sounds like an improved version of the one we saw in Unchained.
From what I heard in the podcast (so far, still in the middle of it, they are fighting the illusionary orcs) Spells cost 1 action per Component. So 1 Action to do the Somatic component and a 2nd action for the verbal component
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...the intent I'm reading is to have all actions equal, and letting players choose how to assemble them in a round instead of micro-managing the different action types.
I have to say, when Jason explained the new action economy to me, I didn't expect it to be a very significant improvement. I was really, really wrong. This is probably my favorite change out of everything I've seen. It removes strategic limitations that I didn't realize had even been there. And it simultaneously increases the differentiation between characters, because it lets each character do very different things from one another each round. It pushed the mechanics out of the way, and let me just go about the business of playing my character. Its very simplicity creates more opportunities for strategic complexity while actually speeding up play. It felt freeing, and it felt RIGHT. It just plain makes Pathfinder more fun, and I genuinely can't wait to play more of it.
The writing has been on the wall for a while now on this. Paizo is a company in the business to make money. The livihoods of several dozen people depend on them making a profit. And while paizo doesn't release sales figures some third party companies are talking. They say fifth edition waaaay out sells pathfinder and even old school rules does better than pathfinder so I think if Paizo wants to survive they have to do this. I for one have mixed feelings as I always do when change is announced. What will happen to all my old books? Will they become obsolete? Will they be easy to convert? But I feel the people at Paizo are way more with it so to speak than the leaders of wizards during the scary switch from 3rd to 4th. And if any one can pull this off they can. The truth is in order to grow a game they need new people to join up and asking someone to purchase 28+ hardcover books at $40 a pop is not gonna get a lot of new people coming your way. What I have always liked most about Paizo and pathfinder is the adventure paths and it sounds like we get to keep them. Hopefully after the core rulebook and bestiary they will follow up with a book with the best of the rest of the classes and then they can move forward from their. Looking forward to the new edition :)
good look with it
I look forward to what is created
You waited to long to get into it!
|
I understand why companies have to do this. It's just business. It happened with D&D 3.5 and it was bound to happen to Pathfinder. I actually still play 3.5 every now and then because it is still a great system. Pathfinder improved it a lot through among many things...CMB/CMD. The irony.
I'm at a point with games where I will not go through this again. I'm done with this tweak here...tweak there...viola...now buy new books. Many of the improvements to the current Pathfinder system can already be done through house/alternate rules. Good luck, Paizo!
|
|
Same here. I'm not going through rebuilding an entire library again. If they gotta move on, they gotta move on. But I'm not following. I'm good where I am.
I'll happily still buy Adventure Paths and Modules if they can be run in 1e with fairly little effort, but if not, no skin off my nose, there's 20+ APs to run for 1e, more than a lifetime right there.
With all the info I have gathered on a very busy week, have 45 hours of work, 9 hours of classes plus homework, and 11 shows of Aladdin to preform in, I can say i am hopeful. I will be holding my final thoughts till august (sad that it will be the start of the school year before playtest instead of all summer) when I can get my hands on the rules for a good long read.
If any of the dev's are still reading this I have a very serious request, born of being off in the rules section too long.
While I realize you can't possibly account for every single possible situation that might crop in the playing of the game, can we try use matching language and examples to include as little interpretation needed as possible. It hurts to see the gymnastics often both sides of rules arguments will go to to reach/prove a question.