On 2.0


Prerelease Discussion


I'm hoping you'll eventually answer these:

1) Why aren't Orcs and Hobgoblins also PCs?

2) Why aren't more classes part of Core? Folks really seem to like the Inquisitor (especially as a detective type), and other classes (even hybrids) could be nice for flavor.

Dark Archive

Flagged to be moved, since this is the PaizoCon forum, and you want the Playtest forum.


Alanya wrote:
Flagged to be moved, since this is the PaizoCon forum, and you want the Playtest forum.

Thanks, sorry!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Moved.

One answer to your second question (and a little bit to your first) is that there's only so much room in the Core Rulebook.


Vic Wertz wrote:

Moved.

One answer to your second question (and a little bit to your first) is that there's only so much room in the Core Rulebook.

I feel reassured by this. Thank you.


Vic Wertz wrote:

Moved.

One answer to your second question (and a little bit to your first) is that there's only so much room in the Core Rulebook.

Thanks! Well, I kind of figured that, but some folks will only use/allow what's in Core, so what gets put in there becomes really important.

Even if there's an Advanced 2.0 that has non-Core classes and ancestry that's perfectly valid for games, they could not be allowed because they aren't Core.


The Inquisitor, as the Cavalier, I think, has the downside that Teamwork Feats would also have to be introduced, which takes even more extra space. Did we hear anything about those yet?


I'm pretty sure things like Witch, Magus, Inquisitor, etc will enter the game as soon as year 1, with the first big book (Advanced Player Guide, or whatever is called this time).

Other classes, like gunslinger, will be added once they are fine-tuned for the new system. More experimental classes, or classes that overlap with other classes, like hybrid, might or might not appear. There's a chance that, for example, "slayer", do not happen, and they use that dessign space for something different we have no idea about yet.


Indagare wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

Moved.

One answer to your second question (and a little bit to your first) is that there's only so much room in the Core Rulebook.

Thanks! Well, I kind of figured that, but some folks will only use/allow what's in Core, so what gets put in there becomes really important.

Even if there's an Advanced 2.0 that has non-Core classes and ancestry that's perfectly valid for games, they could not be allowed because they aren't Core.

Well, we will always incur into that problem, no matter what edition. As said, there's no room, and I guess not only in the book, but in time to playtest things. If there's even more than 12 classes in the first book then there'll be less time to playtest each of them.

Not the topic, but I do think they should go with three basic books (Player, DM, and Monster) instead of two (Core Rulebook and Bestiary), it's just too much stuff in the Core Rulebook, it should be two books. I'm sure people have already complained about this, the Core ends up deteriorating faster than the other books due to its bulk.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My guess on that first question is that those are typically "evil" races that a heroic character would not normally be. Playing the bad boy ancestry (race) was a thing back before PF was published, with all those wacky "good" Drow running about.


Goblins are getting something new to justify them.

Some classes may be invalid given the new mechanics which may negate the need for certain things. Spell Combat might become completely unnecessary if spellcasting and the action system are fixed etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
My guess on that first question is that those are typically "evil" races that a heroic character would not normally be. Playing the bad boy ancestry (race) was a thing back before PF was published, with all those wacky "good" Drow running about.

Yeah, but it's something that always ends up bothering me. I mean, individuals are, well, individual and saying 'every one of [X] is ALWAYS EVIL' just never made sense. Plus it leads to justified genocide which is never a good thing. I have zero tolerance for 'good' people that think killing baby orcs/goblins/etc. is somehow a 'good' act.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / On 2.0 All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion