| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way to blow things out of proportion.
No really.
The gunslinger may not be included in the new second edition, but there are a whole host of reasons for Paizo to produce a second edition, probably none of which are "let's get rid of the gunslinger". However, when reviewing classes that should be included in the new edition core, they probably thought "Gunslinger, not yet" or "Gunslinger, lets just fix guns so anyone can use them instead".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be frank, I could care less about gunslingers.
What I care about are combat actions and action economy. Paizo has already committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained.
I don't usually use words like Hate, Loathe, or Despise, but I really cannot think of more appropriate terms to describe my feelings towards the Revised Action Economy rules.
What does everyone else think about this change?
I don't care for the revised action economy rules either, though I like the action economy rules for Starfinder. I think the big thing would be reducing the number of attacks that can be made it a round (for speed of play).
I hadn't heard that their plan was to go with revised action economy rules. I wont say I hate it, but I am....disappointed if this is true.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I care about are combat actions and action economy. Paizo has already committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained.
No, they haven't. What they have said, is that new action economy rules will be used, and the tidbits they listed sound very similar to the system from Unchained, bu nowhere have they "committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained". I'm reasonably certain that the final system will have evolved from the one in Unchained.
What I care about are combat actions and action economy. Paizo has already committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained.No, they haven't. What they have said, is that new action economy rules will be used, and the tidbits they listed sound very similar to the system from Unchained, bu nowhere have they "committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained". I'm reasonably certain that the final system will have evolved from the one in Unchained.
Let me rephrase that then.
They have already committed to using an action economy system that is radically departs from the currently used system and is substantively closer to the Revised Action Economy system introduced in Unchained.
Sematically the same statement, but much less room for nitpicks saying "You're wrong, it's not exactly the same."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting rid of the Gunslinger is probably for the best, they could get rid of rogues, too and nobody would notice.
I really hope they clean up some of the stupid feat tax prerequisites, make it easier to choose between Dex and Str, and for the love of all that is either arcane or holy, can we please be able to freaking MOVE?!
Thank you, that is a much better statement, and I'm looking forward to the new system. Also, I don't think it's that radical at all, at least that was my experience testing it.
Thank you, that is a much better statement, and I'm looking forward to the new system. Also, I don't think it's that radical at all, at least that was my experience testing it.
My group tried the new rules when first published. They broke all three of the characters I was playing at the time.
Magus, Paladin and Warpriest.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, the system, as printed in Unchained, works less than ideal with classes that rely heavily on swift actions. With classes that are redesigned with this system in mind from the beginning, I expect it to work much better.
To be frank, I could care less about gunslingers.
What I care about are combat actions and action economy. Paizo has already committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained.
I don't usually use words like Hate, Loathe, or Despise, but I really cannot think of more appropriate terms to describe my feelings towards the Revised Action Economy rules.
What does everyone else think about this change?
If the game is designed around the revised action economy rules, it should be fine. Chop and swapping them into the game as is, though? Not so great.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
*publishes broken Desna-worshipper-only gunslinger prestige class*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing that stuck out to me was that they're going to actively design it to make your life more difficult if you don't want to play on Golarion.
That sentence seems like a gross misrepresentation of something that needs more explanation.
So a whole new edition to get rid of the gunslinger class. :(
Sounds expensive for a "minor" change
Well it MAY be that it's an archetype for fighter now. Like many people have said that many classes could be an archetype for fighter.
Fighter, lose some feats and gain these "deeds" and your WT is in guns and now we have the gunslinger.
Bloodrager, take barb reduce HD and add some spells, similar to the rogue that gained casting by reducing skill points.
We don't know if PF2 archetypes are the same as current or if they'll be bigger things to reduce the need for some classes.
We'll see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be frank, I could care less about gunslingers.
Agreed. (I never cared for "All about this weapon platform!" as a concept justifying a class' existence anyway. They should be archetypes of existing classes.)
...Where might one see a list of exactly which classes are mentioned as being in the new CRB?
What I care about are combat actions and action economy. Paizo has already committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained. I don't usually use words like Hate, Loathe, or Despise, but I really cannot think of more appropriate terms to describe my feelings towards the Revised Action Economy rules.
What does everyone else think about this change?
On a brief glance, I think I can warm up to it -- anything is good that reduces the amount of stress in a GM's life when he has to say "No" to a stubborn player insisting that his character can do umpittytwelve things in ten seconds because half of them are gray areas and rider-effects.
I still see Swift, Move, and Standard actions, ....What am I missing that's triggering you?
Simple Actions
The following are some of the more common actions. To take any of them, you need to commit only 1 act (though some can be taken as free actions under special circumstances).Attack (Attack): You make one or more attacks against a single foe within your melee reach (if making a melee attack) or range (if making a ranged attack).
Bull Rush (Attack): ...
Bull Rush is a (regular) attack-action now, not a stupid standard action anymore...?
Oh, *hell* yes! Gimmegimmegimme!
I wuv you, I hug you, I squeeze you, you are muh favorite....
As long as they don't include the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic from 5e I won't have a lot to complain about. Half the reason I still prefer Pathfinder is because that mechanic is absent.
The main thing that stuck out to me was that they're going to actively design it to make your life more difficult if you don't want to play on Golarion.
I'm going to need you to expand on this, because nothing I've read so far supports that. And that's not to say it's not potentially true, simply that I haven't read everything.
That being said, seeing how they've done Pathfinder 1E and Starfinder, I find it hard to believe that the mechanics will be so tied to lore that you can't easily separate them.
In before "Will this fix Caster/Martial disparity?" questions show up.
In my opinion, it will probably be even worse, since there are now 10 levels of spells instead of 9, and nothing of note is brought up for Martials outside of "Combat Maneuvers that Rock," which is extremely vague and overhyped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In before "Will this fix Caster/Martial disparity?" questions show up.
In my opinion, it will probably be even worse, since there are now 10 levels of spells instead of 9, and nothing of note is brought up for Martials outside of "Combat Maneuvers that Rock," which is extremely vague and overhyped.
We haven't seen what levels the new spells are. The amount of spell levels you have is completely detached from how powerful your spells are; if you made a game where wizards had twenty levels of spells, but none of them were as world effecting as Pathfinder's sixth level spells, there would be far less disparity between martials and casters. (Though, while I'd like to see some problem spells and hard to adjicate spells removed, I do hope that they give martials more impact rather than giving casters less. I like Starfinder, but it's a different game. I also like being able to attain godlike power as a PC.)
The main thing that stuck out to me was that they're going to actively design it to make your life more difficult if you don't want to play on Golarion.
What Coidzor's talking about, is that they said there would be more off the Golarian setting in the rulebook. I'm of two minds about this; on one hand my least favorite chapter of the Starfinder book is the one about the Pact Worlds. It really doesn't strike me as something that should be in a rulebook. On the other, I just ignore that chapter when I'm not playing a game in the Pact Worlds. It's superfluous, but it doesn't 'make my life more difficult.'
Bull Rush (Attack): ...Bull Rush is a (regular) attack-action now, not a stupid standard action anymore...?
Oh, *hell* yes! Gimmegimmegimme!
I wuv you, I hug you, I squeeze you, you are muh favorite....
Shield Slam???
Deal damage and get a free bull rush every time you shield bash your opponent.
We haven't seen what levels the new spells are. The amount of spell levels you have is completely detached from how powerful your spells are; if you made a game where wizards had twenty levels of spells, but none of them were as world effecting as Pathfinder's sixth level spells, there would be far less disparity between martials and casters. (Though, while I'd like to see some problem spells and hard to adjicate spells removed, I do hope that they give martials more impact rather than giving casters less. I like Starfinder, but it's a different game. I also like being able to attain godlike power as a PC.In before "Will this fix Caster/Martial disparity?" questions show up.
In my opinion, it will probably be even worse, since there are now 10 levels of spells instead of 9, and nothing of note is brought up for Martials outside of "Combat Maneuvers that Rock," which is extremely vague and overhyped.
Obviously, but I'm aware of several developers and Paizo employees who are of the belief that the Caster/Martial Disparity doesn't exist, and as such the odds that those problem spells are nerfed, removed, changed, whatever, is unlikely to occur, and we'll just get more of the same.
Now, whether Martials will be more prone to have nice things in relation to Casters is a whole other story, but if their design principles for 2.0 is similar to 1.0, the #1 mottos of "Martials can't have nice things" and "Dex to Damage without restrictions breaks games more than Full Spellcasters" will still be prevalent and as such, we will not see much change in 2.0 on those subjects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We haven't seen what levels the new spells are. The amount of spell levels you have is completely detached from how powerful your spells are; if you made a game where wizards had twenty levels of spells, but none of them were as world effecting as Pathfinder's sixth level spells, there would be far less disparity between martials and casters. (Though, while I'd like to see some problem spells and hard to adjicate spells removed, I do hope that they give martials more impact rather than giving casters less. I like Starfinder, but it's a different game. I also like being able to attain godlike power as a PC.In before "Will this fix Caster/Martial disparity?" questions show up.
In my opinion, it will probably be even worse, since there are now 10 levels of spells instead of 9, and nothing of note is brought up for Martials outside of "Combat Maneuvers that Rock," which is extremely vague and overhyped.
Obviously, but I'm aware of several developers and Paizo employees who are of the belief that the Caster/Martial Disparity doesn't exist, and as such the odds that those problem spells are nerfed, removed, changed, whatever, is unlikely to occur, and we'll just get more of the same.
Now, whether Martials will be more prone to have nice things in relation to Casters is a whole other story, but if their design principles for 2.0 is similar to 1.0, the #1 mottos of "Martials can't have nice things" and "Dex to Damage without restrictions breaks games more than Full Spellcasters" will still be prevalent and as such, we will not see much change in 2.0 on those subjects.
The FAQ specifically calls out the disparity as one of the things they hope to address.
Shield Slam???
Deal damage and get a free bull rush every time you shield bash your opponent.
Well, some people want their character to be able to knock someone flying backwards easily and consistently, even if their character doesn't use a shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, but I'm aware of several developers and Paizo employees who are of the belief that the Caster/Martial Disparity doesn't exist, and as such the odds that those problem spells are nerfed, removed, changed, whatever, is unlikely to occur, and we'll just get more of the same.
This is the team that made Starfinder, where basically all of the problem spells were removed, caster scaling was driven into the dust, magical buff-stacking was massively curtailed, and relatively inexpensive tech items gave everyone abilities that used to be exclusive to magic.
I'd say that despite some previous statements, they know how to make a game where the C/MD is much less severe than Pathfinder 1E. It remains to be seen how much of this design they apply to 2E.
My guess is that PF2 will be using the resolve rules from Starfinder. That means everyone has a pool much like the monk's Ki pool, but common toall characters. This might not work well with the regenerating grit/panache of the gunslinger/swashbuckler. We'll see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In before "Will this fix Caster/Martial disparity?" questions show up.
In my opinion, it will probably be even worse, since there are now 10 levels of spells instead of 9, and nothing of note is brought up for Martials outside of "Combat Maneuvers that Rock," which is extremely vague and overhyped.
My friend pointed out a rather clever way that 10th level spells could help. (Speculation incoming.)
As it stands, casters get their "capstone" at 17th or 18th level in the form of the most powerful magic. Every other class gets theirs at 20th level.
Now, suppose one of your steps in high level balance is dealing with that little issue. But you can't just delay 9th level spells, and people will get pretty annoyed if you take away the coolest things like Wish, Miracle, or Create Demiplane. Solution: take all the really powerful top-level spells and make them 10th level, accessible at 20th level as a capstone.
Added bonus- some of those 8th level spells were pretty broken (Polymorph Any Object), and could probably get bumped up.
After all, do we really expect that 10th level spells are going to be more powerful than Miracle, or other big-ticket 9th level spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...we have 10 levels of spells now, they just 0 to 9.
have they said anything about a new super-tier of magic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, that is a much better statement, and I'm looking forward to the new system. Also, I don't think it's that radical at all, at least that was my experience testing it.My group tried the new rules when first published. They broke all three of the characters I was playing at the time.
Magus, Paladin and Warpriest.
That's because those characters revolve around swift actions, and were not designed for the Revised Action Economy. If you had played with a Fighter, a Ranger and a Druid, you would not have any problem.
Suposedly, PF2 classes would be built with PF2 action economy in mind, so this will not be a problem
...we have 10 levels of spells now, they just 0 to 9.
have they said anything about a new super-tier of magic?
They didn't say "ten levels of spells", but "10th level spells".
My first hunch is 10th lvl spells will be just Wish and Miracle, just like in Starfinder Wish is in a tier on its own.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be frank, I could care less about gunslingers.
What I care about are combat actions and action economy. Paizo has already committed to using the Revised Action Economy rules introduced in Unchained.
I don't usually use words like Hate, Loathe, or Despise, but I really cannot think of more appropriate terms to describe my feelings towards the Revised Action Economy rules.
What does everyone else think about this change?
i personally like what we have seen of the new action system ,wiil be much easier to teach new players
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
*publishes broken Desna-worshipper-only gunslinger prestige class*
The railgun that supersonically fires star-knives from a drum magazine was a sublime touch.
What Coidzor's talking about, is that they said there would be more off the Golarian setting in the rulebook. I'm of two minds about this; on one hand my least favorite chapter of the Starfinder book is the one about the Pact Worlds. It really doesn't strike me as something that should be in a rulebook. On the other, I just ignore that chapter when I'm not playing a game in the Pact Worlds. It's superfluous, but it doesn't 'make my life more difficult.'
The main thing that stuck out to me was that they're going to actively design it to make your life more difficult if you don't want to play on Golarion.
So what Coidzor is worried about is them dedicating pages within the Core Rule Book to explain the Golarion setting to people who purchase it.
Then I just wont worry about it.
I think it's absolutely necessary to include some amount of setting information, as a GM I don't have the time to come up with a whole setting from scratch. As a player, I want to make characters within the context of the setting. I want some amount of setting with the system when I purchase the book so I can't start imagining things.
And as you said, you can completely ignore the 1 chapter in Starfinder's CRB that talks about the pact worlds and aside from Drift Travel and Abasalom station I really can't think of anything else that's mired in a specific setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally the thing I want to see addressed is the question of Low Magic campaigns. Under PF 1.0 you could run a LM variant, but it was a serious pain to do so with only a handful of references to what it would take and 95% of the work left for DM's to figure it out for themselves. Not to mention a ton of community hate anytime it came up that "that isn't real pathfinder!"
How about a system of rules mechanics that scale a bit better? High Fantasy? YES! Epic / Mythic levels? Certain! Low Magic / Game of Thrones? Yep, got ya covered there too!
There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product. I hope Paizo announces a plan sort of as I've tried to describe below:
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.
The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.
A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...
Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.
When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.
Another way I've tried to explain my concerns:
I've taken back the idea of having books for just stat block conversions. Ultimately, whether people want to admit it or not, material from PF1 will be converted to PF2. So, for example, a red dragon is a red dragon and magic missile is magic missile. The base descriptions, I think, are unlikely to change -- only some of the mechanics. Therefore, just admit it and do this in a way that's a win-win for both Paizo and its current, loyal customer base. Don't screw us. Offer a discount to us on the PF2 books where we have the PF1 version AND don't obscure that by guggling the material around in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade. I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade.
Staff have said it's all completely new material.
They have to pay authors the same rates whether or not anyone has ever used the words "red dragon" before. No discount for reusing "red dragon" in the text.
And a complete new set of illustrations. So artists have to be paid full fees even if there have been illustrations of red dragons before.
And complete new mechanics, so game designers have to be paid their full salary for creating new stat blocks.
And all of that material has to be jigsawed into a page layout and edited many times.
I don't see where you think Paizo is saving money so that they can pass on these savings to us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also makes the assumption that after the core book, we are just going to get "Ultimate Magic 2.0, Advanced Players Guide 2.0" etc." The smarter move would be to release new books around new themes/ideas, and update old material such as existing classes alongside brand new material. Maybe they do a Divine magic focused book, and update Oracle, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Shaman, etc. Or a book themed on war that updates the relevant magical classes. Erik Mona suggested that the release schedule will not be done as a rehash of existing books.
Also, for people worried about the Golarion content, I am extremely skeptical we will get a chapter on Golarion, or at least as lengthy a section as in Starfinder. Starfinder when released had no existing setting material, other than a few bits and bobs from Distant Worlds. Pathfinder in contrast is a pretty fleshed out world already. Rather than getting a gazeteer I sort of expect it will be more along the lines of say, mentioning what nations you can find x race or worshipper in, or building golarion flavor into the existing class and race descriptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh...and assuming prestige classes still exist, I somewhat expect them to be subbing out the generic prestige classes for Golarion focused things like Red Mantis assassins and Hellknights.