Pathfinder Second Edition


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 196 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Grey Star wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players.

You have a very reductive conception of the market. The past decade has seen the hobby evolve. Try to take a look at all the games Powered by the Apocalypse edited recently, it will be a good start.

I've only been blogging about Pathfinder and D&D. So, everything I say is in that context. I have on rare occassion played others, like Middle Earth.

I don't really have time for anything else. I'm perfectly happy with the experience I've had with Pathfinder.


WOTC doesn't need Paizo and Paizo doesn't need WOTC. And everybody is better for it I think.

And it's not just those two in the RPG industry anymore and that's good too. Aside from all the d20 games there's DungeonWorld type 2d6 games now. There's Genesys type games that use different dice symbols etc.

In all this variety I do think Pathfinder and D&D have the most overlap as they are both fulfill the desire for high adventure in generically Tolkinesqe fantasy settings.

But from what I can see 5E prioritizes GM ease of use while both editions of PF prioritize player customizability and options.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brock Landers wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
PF2E seems easier to finely tune, but harder to create new systems for.
I think I see what you're talking about with the PF2 maths, new systems being hard to work in, as for finely tune, do not see that, PF2 seems balanced on the edge of a knife, so far, deviate and all is lost.

I think they've made the numbers easy to understand. xp is easy to adjust, and uniform throughout. Bound Accuracy seems incredibly easy to apply, given that everyone scales AC, Saves,Attacks and Skills in the same way. The reduction of bonus types means making something more available is unlikely to severely throw things out of whack.

Now doing something, for example, like fundamentally altering how magic items work will be a heck of a lot harder than in 5e, thats for sure. But with item availability and Resonance being two knobs that can be tweaked for very different feels seems very easy. The new Rarity system feeds into this quite nicely, and seems to be a way to include guidance on some of these tweaks right in the book (I would love for sidebars on tweaking ALL the various subsystems with clear guidance that such tweaks are covered by RAW but that's me being hopeful.)

Wayfinders

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Grey Star wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players.

You have a very reductive conception of the market. The past decade has seen the hobby evolve. Try to take a look at all the games Powered by the Apocalypse edited recently, it will be a good start.

I've only been blogging about Pathfinder and D&D. So, everything I say is in that context. I have on rare occassion played others, like Middle Earth.

I don't really have time for anything else. I'm perfectly happy with the experience I've had with Pathfinder.

If you can admit your experience of the market is thin, can you stop talking about the market like you know everything better than everyone?


Brock Landers wrote:
Azih wrote:
WOTC doesn't need Paizo and Paizo doesn't need WOTC. And everybody is better for it I think.
I don't, I think it is mindful to be aware of the other and what they are doing.

I'm speaking more in terms of supporting each other's products or working off the same rules etc.


Brock Landers wrote:
Azih wrote:
Brock Landers wrote:
Azih wrote:
WOTC doesn't need Paizo and Paizo doesn't need WOTC. And everybody is better for it I think.
I don't, I think it is mindful to be aware of the other and what they are doing.
I'm speaking more in terms of supporting each other's products or working off the same rules etc.
Ah, no, I think it would be a grave mistake for PF2 to be some 5th Ed compatible product, they got to stand out on their own, at this point.

It would be nice if they could. I'm just not sure if they can. Some people (on YouTube, for example) doubt Paizo can break the name recognition advantage WotC has with D&D. Some claim that D&D's market is continuing to expand with brand new players to RPG. D&D is apparently their first stop. Everyone has heard about D&D. I haven't been able to verify these claims.

But, also, with the ability adjustments, skills, feats, etc. PF2 appears to me to be getting more complex than PF1.

I've heard a number of people and people on YouTube claim that 5e's simplicity is its major advantage; I had assumed that was for both players and GMs, but I am still learning more about the situation. I suppose you could have complex character creation, while at the same time make it simpler for the GM.

Some players have told me they were overwhelmed by PF1's rules for character creatiion, so maybe that should be considered for PF2.

PF1 designers might need an extra nudge to simplify in PF2. Though, I know another, older PF1 player who very much dislikes all the simplification. Guess that means he's not in the PF2 market, unless PF2 allowed optionally adding a level of complexity satisfying to die hard PF1 fans?

Here's another odd thought. Since the beginning, everyone has started at 1st level (unless your group just decided to start at a higher level) -- but what if in PF2 particularly gifted individuals started at higher levels right from the beginning? What if something about your ability score gave you the chance to do that? That your character basically started directly at the higher level without advancing through earlier levels.

What about psionics? Anything going to be about that in the PF2 core rules?


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Grey Star wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players.

You have a very reductive conception of the market. The past decade has seen the hobby evolve. Try to take a look at all the games Powered by the Apocalypse edited recently, it will be a good start.

I've only been blogging about Pathfinder and D&D. So, everything I say is in that context. I have on rare occassion played others, like Middle Earth.

I don't really have time for anything else. I'm perfectly happy with the experience I've had with Pathfinder.

PF2 is looking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more like my kind of game than either PF1 or 5e. 5e I've been running because it's easy but I'm really happy to have a game coming out that, at least from what we know, apparently satisfies a large part of the hole I've had when looking at games.


Looking at the 2e character sheet, a lot of the design decisions paizo has been blogging about piecemeal starts to come together.

There's a LOT less numbers to track in a 2e playtest character rather than a 1e character as everything is a function of Level + Proficiency.

Untrained in anything? Use Level -2. Trained in it? use Level. Don't need to worry about tracking BAB, three different saves, twenty individual skills etc. It's all keyed off of level and the level of training.

The amount of bonus stacking has gone down drastically as well.


Elleth wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Grey Star wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players.

You have a very reductive conception of the market. The past decade has seen the hobby evolve. Try to take a look at all the games Powered by the Apocalypse edited recently, it will be a good start.

I've only been blogging about Pathfinder and D&D. So, everything I say is in that context. I have on rare occassion played others, like Middle Earth.

I don't really have time for anything else. I'm perfectly happy with the experience I've had with Pathfinder.

PF2 is looking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more like my kind of game than either PF1 or 5e. 5e I've been running because it's easy but I'm really happy to have a game coming out that, at least from what we know, apparently satisfies a large part of the hole I've had when looking at games.

What hole? It would be useful for everyone to know that. What exactly makes PF2 better than PF1 or 5e?


Azih wrote:

Looking at the 2e character sheet, a lot of the design decisions paizo has been blogging about piecemeal starts to come together.

There's a LOT less numbers to track in a 2e playtest character rather than a 1e character as everything is a function of Level + Proficiency.

Untrained in anything? Use Level -2. Trained in it? use Level. Don't need to worry about tracking BAB, three different saves, twenty individual skills etc. It's all keyed off of level and the level of training.

The amount of bonus stacking has gone down drastically as well.

Ok. Yes, I agree. That is a very positive innovation in PF2.


Azih wrote:
Brock Landers wrote:
Azih wrote:
WOTC doesn't need Paizo and Paizo doesn't need WOTC. And everybody is better for it I think.
I don't, I think it is mindful to be aware of the other and what they are doing.
I'm speaking more in terms of supporting each other's products or working off the same rules etc.

Alright, sounds okay with me. A challenge for Pathfinder is to attract new players just like 5e has. If PF2 accomplishes that, great!

I personally can't wait for the core rules play test PDF. I'd love to take a look at it. Right now, I've just seen bits and pieces.


For me support for 5E is too sparse.

My only real complaint about PF1 is that it's too fiddly. Too many subsystems required learning a whole new mechanic/terminology. I would have liked intrigue, kingdom building, business running and library researching to all share the same base structure. It felt to me like expanding PF1 often involved inventing a whole new subsystem.

Im hoping PF2 is more streamlined than PF1 and that there's way more support material than 5E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Grey Star wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Also, I think there are two types of players in this market: 3.5e and 5e players.

You have a very reductive conception of the market. The past decade has seen the hobby evolve. Try to take a look at all the games Powered by the Apocalypse edited recently, it will be a good start.

I've only been blogging about Pathfinder and D&D. So, everything I say is in that context. I have on rare occassion played others, like Middle Earth.

I don't really have time for anything else. I'm perfectly happy with the experience I've had with Pathfinder.

PF2 is looking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more like my kind of game than either PF1 or 5e. 5e I've been running because it's easy but I'm really happy to have a game coming out that, at least from what we know, apparently satisfies a large part of the hole I've had when looking at games.
What hole? It would be useful for everyone to know that. What exactly makes PF2 better than PF1 or 5e?

I feel very much the same as Elleth. I'm also DMing 5e over PF1 right now, but neither game's offering me exactly what I'm looking for. With PF1, the DMs burden is too high for me, and while it has a kind of depth, it's depth seems to be more in at-home build choices than at-the-table tactical choices, and it bothers me that the combat is so stationary. (I'll admit I'm not fully immersed in the system, so you can correct me if I'm wrong.)

For me, the big hole in 5e is that most combats come down to martial characters just walking up and attacking and casters always casting the same good spells, to the point where I have to bring narrative elements into every combat to keep it from being boring.

I once tried to run a old-school dungeon crawl in 5e and it began to feel like a grind almost immediately. Pretty soon the party ditched the dungeon just to hang out in town and get into shenanigans which, I think, is what 5e is genuinely good for.

PF2 has me optimistic right now because the pregens at 1st level are already offering up some interesting opportunities for turn-by-turn valuation, and that's something I'm starved for.


IconicCatparent wrote:
PF2 has me optimistic right now because the pregens at 1st level are already offering up some interesting opportunities for turn-by-turn valuation, and that's something I'm starved for.

When I playtested PF 2E, there was lots of movement and interesting choices every round, and this was with level 1 characters. Monsters were more interesting as well, even at level 1. I can only imagine how great it might be with higher level characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think tighter math in 2e should prevent 3.Pathfinder's rocket tag problem. I have to think high level play is something Paizo will really really really want to playtest as much as possible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the wise and powerful wrote:
What hole? It would be useful for everyone to know that. What exactly makes PF2 better than PF1 or 5e?

Ah, sorry about that. Sure thing!

Complexity of outcome combined with streamlining (I realise PF2 has some things that go against this but still) and standardisation are the big bits for me.

5e is too simple and fixed in terms of options for me, and I don't like the particular flavour that creeps over into things (e.g. how spells work and the flavour of their components, fixed training and other cultural things in the race entries, etc.), some things feel arbitrary (the flavour restrictions (e.g. only associate with fire, lightning, acid, poison, cold) associated with draconic sorc kind of got me, esp as there weren't that many sorc options off the bat) and the class design, though really well balanced, is infuriatingly opaque in what's going on behind the scenes. It's incredibly hard to make a classes in 5e because of all the black box balancing (though races at least are easy to do) and I have a similar opinion of the spells (not helped by the mentality that some spells, due to being iconic or popular like fireball, are flat out better than others). I guess I also just don't like the feel of it as what I personally see as pandering to the greatest hits. What I do like about 5e is the streamlining, the ease of going "sure, that happens" and running it, and how good it is at pulling new players into the game.

Pathfinder 1 I like the feel of from what I've seen and briefly played, but I find the idea of actually learning and running a game of it daunting. It's kind of like how I've memorised a massive amount of Shadowrun 5 rules (I ended up as the table rulebook for a bit) but I'd feel out of my depth running it. While I'd happy touch it as a player, as a GM I'd feel out of my depth in Pathfinder 1, as I'd worry about knowing all the separate sub systems and so on. I guess part of me doesn't like the idea of running something I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of. I'm also not a fan of 3.X holdovers like swift/move/standard/full round actions, caster level, and BAB. They just feel sort of inelegant to me, and not at all intuitive. The bonus tallying, magic item spam, and reported power of spells are all things I'm not super keen on either.

PF2 seems to satisfy the best of both for me. It feels slick but modular. Importantly, it also feels consistent so far (and for me, intuitive). I also like that it's tactically flexible (new action system, variable spell uses, metamagic using actions on changing spells for free, weapons playing differently, dynamic shields). While combat has never been my favourite bit, the level of tactics we've seen makes me quite happy.

Some things I was iffy on at first:
Level to things
Four degrees of success
Resonance

But the former isn't actually a huge problem in my eyes, just weird and not what I was expecting. Four degrees feels like it might at least play interesting, and both four degrees and resonance give me good toolboxes to play with when it comes to designing items, spells and environmental hazards.

I also personally just like some other stuff like actually functional alchemy system, potentially useful poisons (hoping this carries through), and any skill for initiative.

Overall I think it's promising to fill the following niche for me:
-Enough crunch and solidity of rules
-Freedom and flexibility in character building
-Tactical scope
-Consistency and standardisation
-Simplicity of running and learning


Thought of something needed in PF2 that was lacking in PF1.

We need a chapter dedicated to summarizing all those formulas for things like casting defensively, overcoming spell resistance, flanking, charging, attacking invisibile opponents, combat manuvers, etc.

Nice to have in one place with the details in the other chapters. I'm finding that when one of these comes up usually more follow closely behind. It would be very valuable to have a nice cheat sheet in the rule book in a chapter, inside the front cover, or inside the back cover.

Otherwise, I find myself constantly navigating through the book to find all the details, and it also would make it much easier to memorize these formulas if they were in one place.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Thought of something needed in PF2 that was lacking in PF1.

We need a chapter dedicated to summarizing all those formulas for things like casting defensively, overcoming spell resistance, flanking, charging, attacking invisibile opponents, combat manuvers, etc.

Nice to have in one place with the details in the other chapters. I'm finding that when one of these comes up usually more follow closely behind. It would be very valuable to have a nice cheat sheet in the rule book in a chapter, inside the front cover, or inside the back cover.

Otherwise, I find myself constantly navigating through the book to find all the details, and it also would make it much easier to memorize these formulas if they were in one place.

Even better would be to cross reference with each formula which page number it came from.


Brock Landers wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

For me support for 5E is too sparse.

My only real complaint about PF1 is that it's too fiddly.

Totally agree with both of those statements, that is why PF/3rd Ed (pretty much any edition) is the secret sauce for 5th Ed.

5th Ed is designed with hacking the crap out if it, in mind.

5th edition being sparse is one of its biggest selling points. Our group switched to 5th edition because PF was getting too big, bloated, and unbalanced (or full of trap options). Just reading these forums is daunting at times because off the many references of I have no idea about.

I am back because I am interested in PF2. I thought PF1 was the best when it had fewer options (core + APG minus the summoner), so playing a core rule book only game appeals to me (and hopefully my group). PF1 was what our group played after 4th edition launched (we tried it, i liked it, rest of my group hated it). We had lots of fun for a few years but grew tired of it (+ real life stuff). 5th edition brought my group back to D&D. Perhaps PF2 will bring them back to Pathfinder? I am keeping an open mind about it.

My second last comment is that I feel many people are getting a bit over hyped. 4th edition was over hyped and let a lot of people down. A whole new edition can be risky, and I feel PF2 is a new game, not just a tweak of PF1. I hope it works out, but I, like many others, anxiously await the playtest rules.

My last comment, even if PF2 has issues, there is time to fix it with a proper playtest.

Good luck Paizo!


Kerobelis wrote:
Brock Landers wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

For me support for 5E is too sparse.

My only real complaint about PF1 is that it's too fiddly.

Totally agree with both of those statements, that is why PF/3rd Ed (pretty much any edition) is the secret sauce for 5th Ed.

5th Ed is designed with hacking the crap out if it, in mind.

5th edition being sparse is one of its biggest selling points. Our group switched to 5th edition because PF was getting too big, bloated, and unbalanced (or full of trap options). Just reading these forums is daunting at times because off the many references of I have no idea about.

I meant campaign setting books and adventures. 5E is too complicated for my tastes from a rules sense, but I’ve resigned myself to always play games with too many rules.

I really like frequent expansions to the campaign world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Elleth wrote:
5e is too simple and fixed in terms of options for me, and I don't like the particular flavour that creeps over into things (e.g. how spells work and the flavour of their components, fixed training and other cultural things in the race entries, etc.),
How do spells work and their flavour of their components differ from PF?

OK, so I can't really speak for PF1 as I haven't really paid it much and this is about something I find more appealing in PF2 than in 5e, but sure. Components irk me for a couple of reasons. Verbal and Somatic because there isn't always an obvious rhyme or reason as to why they're being used (e.g. while it's fair for a mind control spell to involve shouting and waving hands for a balance reason, I think most spells could get by without one mechanically speaking) and sometimes even flavourwise they can feel spotty IMO (I actually quite like the psychic spells in Xanathar's Guide to Everything because they only use Somatic, which I think is cool). Material components have both of these issues worse I think because they are either effectively throwing cash at a spell to make it work, buying a permanent material component for the spell (which I wouldn't mind, but sometimes they fall thematically flat for me like Mordekainen's Sword requiring a miniature sword to summon a bigger ghost sword), or they have written components that aren't actually needed but are slipped in there as either tenuous connections (e.g. grasshopper leg for jump, honeycomb+snake tongue for suggestion), legacy reasons, or bad jokes (Suggestion again). I can't really take Grease seriously as a spell when, in addition to the name it explicitly calls for pork rind in its entry, I can't say I'm a fan of the classic guano in fireball, and they certainly aren't calling for wool in minor illusion for balance reasons. Tasha's hideous laughter is the worst for me, with "feathers and tiny tarts" PF2 has chucked out fixed named components. Now Sorcs use their magic blood, clerics their religious totems, wizards their magic sticks, and so on. Paying with cash for spells (but maybe not rituals, which I'm fine with) is gone. The 5e way might work in something whimsical and light, but that's just not the sort of stories I want to run. Making it even better for me is that thanks to the new action and spells systems, components carry weight. The new magic missile, if weak, is more or less everything I didn't know I wanted in spell design. Heal manages to be even better.

I personally also dislike legacy names like Mordekainen, Tasha, Otiluke, Rary, Tenser appearing in spells available in the main player spell lists. IMO it makes a wizard feel uninnovative and it feels out of place with a sorcerer. Pathfinder lacks this as the default for obvious reasons.

Mechanically I have two issues. The first is that flavour text gets mixed up with the mechanical text (PF2 still does this, though at least with spells some of it is separated into overall summary, success on save, crit success, fail, crit fail etc.) and the second is the black box balance I mentioned earlier. It's also hard to get a ballpark for balance sometimes if you're doing something new, esp as classic choices can be stronger for (IIRC) fan appeal reasons (fireball is notoriously powerful for its level, while Wish is placed at the same level as Weird). In PF2 the relatively unbounded spells are in a new feat gated category (so Wish isn't a no brainer regardless of theme) and the four degrees means that most of the spells shown have multiple modules I can pluck out and run off with for re-purposing. On top of that there are a couple of minor quibbles I have in 5e that seem to have been mostly addressed (e.g. spells you need to point and shoot require dex to aim, and the offputting (IMO with regards to seeing them as an interesting method of debuffing) mechanic of a nasty spell that asks for a save every turn and ends on a success doesn't seem to be as necessary, thanks to some conditions having specific ways to end them (fear ticks down, sickened lets you choose when to make saves to end it at the cost of actions).

Brock Landers wrote:


What fixed training and cultural things do you not like?

Just interested.

Sure thing!

While variant human (normal human isn't painful, just very boring) and halfling I personally like the design of, I have some issues with the design of elves, half-elves, and dwarves. Half-elves because they get a fixed charisma bonus as their strongest which is related to neither of their progenitor races, which is implied in the adjacent fluff to be the result of half-elves having to "get along" with both races, which feels off if you want to play a socially incompetent orphan or something. Elves I think are alright overall (if a bit cluttered), but I dislike that every type of PHB elf is automatically trained in elfy weapons, which I tried to justify by associating them with predatory and martial urges. Dwarves are the worst for me, so let's split up their pre-subrace stuff.

Blatantly biological:

  • +2 con
  • Speed 25 ft.
  • Darkvision 60 ft.
  • Advantage on saving throws against poison, resistant to poison damage.

Presumably cultural:

  • Proficient with handaxe, battleaxe, light hammer, warhammer.
  • Proficient in brewer's tools, smith's tools, or mason's tools.
  • Knows dwarvish.

Unclear in context:

  • Speed not reduced by heavy armour.
  • Automatic double proficiency on intelligence (history) checks regarding the origins of stonework

While these sorts of things probably work pretty well in a traditional Tolkien-inspired setting, they aren't a good fit for me and the sort of settings I run.

Kerobelis wrote:

My second last comment is that I feel many people are getting a bit over hyped. 4th edition was over hyped and let a lot of people down. A whole new edition can be risky, and I feel PF2 is a new game, not just a tweak of PF1. I hope it works out, but I, like many others, anxiously await the playtest rules.

My last comment, even if PF2 has issues, there is time to fix it with a proper playtest.

I agree there's a lot of hype. Personally I wasn't expecting to care, but the stuff previewed so far has been enough to my tastes that I'm fairly hyped now and I think it's likely I'll enjoy PF2, though I'm going to read the rules properly before jumping in. I realised that half the ideas I was ballparking for a hypothetical system were here and so I'm glad I can use my time more productively.

While I've never played 4e (and I know it's more a comment on how controversial it is), some of the things in it actually interested me and a little part of me is happy when people bring up that mechanic X is pretty close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's more like they're getting rid of the five foot step and completely changing the flow of combat. That's the one thing I won't ever get over.


Brother Fen wrote:
It's more like they're getting rid of the five foot step and completely changing the flow of combat. That's the one thing I won't ever get over.

There is still 5' step, it's just not called that (it's called stride?). So in terms of actions, it works out exactly like PF1, you can step back and cast spells or shoot arrows.

Please keep in mind most enemies don't have attacks of opportunity, especially at levels 1-5.

At level 1, the game feels almost identical to Pathfinder 1, but with a more elegant and interesting action system.


Azih wrote:
I think tighter math in 2e should prevent 3.Pathfinder's rocket tag problem. I have to think high level play is something Paizo will really really really want to playtest as much as possible.

I concur. Ideally there is fairly extensive playtest feedback from the "wider audience" at 20th level. Not one or two fights, but at least an entire chapter of the playtest adventure/campaign.

(I'd prefer the last 2 or 3 chapters of the 7 occur at 20th, but this is probably not going to be the case.)

Liberty's Edge

I believe they've said the last chapter is around 17th level rather than 20th. That still qualifies as high level play, IMO.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I believe they've said the last chapter is around 17th level rather than 20th. That still qualifies as high level play, IMO.

High level, sure. But not capstone. Paizo has shied away almost universally from 20th level campaigns/adventure paths over the entire lifespan of Pathfinder with few exceptions.

This is something that could and should change when entering into an overhauled Nouveau Pathfinder. If we're in for more of the same "Rare" or "Unique" campaigns/adventure paths featuring the shiniest of shinies and whistliest of bell whistles i.e., adventuring as usual just with a different game system ... meh.


I like to think if they had gotten mythic levels right (which I think most people report they didn't and my experience it really did make it considerably harder to run not impossible but harder.) we might have seen more max level adventures. Since it was somewhat unpopular and didn't work however we had to go without. I guess writing high level adventures is a bit harder too. (Its a lot easier when you know what your party's capabilities)

Liberty's Edge

The Mad Comrade wrote:

High level, sure. But not capstone. Paizo has shied away almost universally from 20th level campaigns/adventure paths over the entire lifespan of Pathfinder with few exceptions.

This is something that could and should change when entering into an overhauled Nouveau Pathfinder. If we're in for more of the same "Rare" or "Unique" campaigns/adventure paths featuring the shiniest of shinies and whistliest of bell whistles i.e., adventuring as usual just with a different game system ... meh.

I believe this is their intent, they just didn't quite manage to get 20th level play specifically into the playtest.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

High level, sure. But not capstone. Paizo has shied away almost universally from 20th level campaigns/adventure paths over the entire lifespan of Pathfinder with few exceptions.

This is something that could and should change when entering into an overhauled Nouveau Pathfinder. If we're in for more of the same "Rare" or "Unique" campaigns/adventure paths featuring the shiniest of shinies and whistliest of bell whistles i.e., adventuring as usual just with a different game system ... meh.

I believe this is their intent, they just didn't quite manage to get 20th level play specifically into the playtest.

I believe that they absolutely could have if they wanted to. I believe that the still could if they want to.


I think they should. I like max level play.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
I believe that they absolutely could have if they wanted to.

They certainly could have if that was their sole priority. With lots of conflicting priorities they had to make decisions, and something had to give.

The Mad Comrade wrote:
I believe that the still could if they want to.

I...uh...how?

The adventures in the playtest have been written and are done with. They can, and I'm sure will, look at playtest feedback from people who do stuff at 20th separate from Doomsday Dawn but they can't really add to Doomsday Dawn at this point.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:
I believe that they absolutely could have if they wanted to.
They certainly could have if that was their sole priority. With lots of conflicting priorities they had to make decisions, and something had to give.

I say this because I believe it to be highly likely that many of the desired data points could be gathered equally as well at 20th level as at lower levels of play.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:
I believe that the still could if they want to.

I...uh...how?

The adventures in the playtest have been written and are done with. They can, and I'm sure will, look at playtest feedback from people who do stuff at 20th separate from Doomsday Dawn but they can't really add to Doomsday Dawn at this point.

I wasn't clear on this statement. I had not meant to state that doing so as a retrofit to Doomsday Dawn is possible at this late date.

IF the desire is to gather playtest data on 20th level play, they (a) could make the desire known, and/or (b) have a few different contributors put together several one-shot "PFS scenarios" specifically for this purpose.

Thusfar neither currently appears to be the case. If I understand the playtest correctly, Doomsday Dawn and the 2 or 3 PFS playtest scenarios comprise all of the playtest materials and window, resulting in no data being collected on 20th level Nouveau Pathfinder play.

Should this hold true my guess is that we'll largely be playing at 20th level only in exceptional circumstances. To me this defeats one of the purposes of Nouveau Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Thought of something needed in PF2 that was lacking in PF1.

We need a chapter dedicated to summarizing all those formulas for things like casting defensively, overcoming spell resistance, flanking, charging, attacking invisibile opponents, combat manuvers, etc.

Nice to have in one place with the details in the other chapters. I'm finding that when one of these comes up usually more follow closely behind. It would be very valuable to have a nice cheat sheet in the rule book in a chapter, inside the front cover, or inside the back cover.

Otherwise, I find myself constantly navigating through the book to find all the details, and it also would make it much easier to memorize these formulas if they were in one place.

Even better would be to cross reference with each formula which page number it came from.

One of the benefits of PF2 is I don't think this will be as needed. We had loads of different formulas in PF1 because Skills scaled differently to attacks, spell level different to saves etc. With everything working off the same fundamental maths we don't need formulas to effectively convert between them. Its either D20 + Level +Stat +Proficiency + Item if you are actively rolling or 10 + Level +Stat+Proficiency+Item if you are passively checking it.


Brock Landers wrote:
Elleth wrote:

(I actually quite like the psychic spells in Xanathar's Guide to Everything because they only use Somatic, which I think is cool).

Half-elves because they get a fixed charisma bonus as their strongest which is related to neither of their progenitor races, which is implied in the adjacent fluff to be the result of half-elves having to "get along" with both races, which feels off if you want to play a socially incompetent orphan or something.

Thanks for your reply, I can definitely see where you're coming from on a few issues.

Not sure about Psychic spells, but I know that Psionic spells require no components, at all, in 5th Ed. They do have a section in the DMG for designing new spells, it's pretty good, I find, but, yes, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are both +2 dice higher, this was intentional.

I agree with you about Half-Elves, they should get +1 to Dex, and +1 to two other scores of their choice.
At one point during the playtest, your class gave you a choice of an ability score to increase (Fighter could choose Str, Dex, or Con), they dropped it in the final product...lame (I simply ported it back in).

No problem!

And I was mostly speaking about stuff like Psychic Scream, which is one of the only 9th level spells in the game I think is cool. That class thing is interesting and it's one of the things I like that they're adding in here in PF2.


Brock Landers wrote:


Ha, yeah, I just checked it out (I found XGtE to be disappointing, and misleading!), and psychic scream is Somatic, shouldn't it be Verbal?!

Yeah, Background and Class increasing ability scores is really cool in PF2. Backgrounds increasing a score might be something else to try out in 5th Ed (best part is the ease of hacking and mangling).

I think it's somatic only so people can do the whole Professor X pressing their temples style thing.

I kind of like the character creation method we've seen so far in PF2. Although rolling is fun, I think I prefer the idea of letting your character capabilities to be entirely based off what you decided to do rather than having high or low stats.

5e is alright for hacking and mangling, but I need a bit more crunch and systems to play with, which PF2 is shaping up to have.

Also, my 5e game has already exceeded what the system is designed to cope for by a massive margin:
My players are currently surrounded by an army approx 3000 skeletons strong, lots of them are armed with WW1 era weaponry, including machine guns. Making it worse, there is something very nasty up in the cloud cover above. It looks like the party barbarian is going to call out the leader in single combat, a lich gish cyclops with a prideful streak a mile wide and the ability to route several nasty unique spells directly into peoples heads via telepathy. To make it a fair fight the barbarian is likely to turn himself into a kaiju. The other players are trying to work out how they can best deal with the army, and their main advantage right now is that they are on grounds possessed by a haunted angel. Also the monk is nigh impossible to pin down.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
...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).

Yeah, because making three-four attack rolls and rolling over two dozen damage dice (a common occurrence in high level Starfinder play) goes a long way towards really speeding up play. *rolls eyes*


It's better for them to test at level 17 than level 20. After all, there are still 3 levels of play from 17-20, level 20 is probably only a session or two, and rare that anyone gets there.

I'm not sure level 20 is entirely balanced either, or even meant to be.

Also, I have this feeling for the Doomsday Dawn story, we're meant to lose at level 17 with a EL 21+ encounter. They might want to see how many groups TPK. Might be harder to make the encounter at level 20.

151 to 196 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pathfinder Second Edition All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion