Know Direction's Massive Interview with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner - Lots of New Info!


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Since there isn't a CLW wand anymore are healing and HP going to get a fundamental rework beyond less but stronger? You never read Gandalf "spending 49 charges" to heal Aragon after a battle with some Orcs, but you never read about him needing them either.

There *are* wands of heal, there are just diminishing returns on buying the cheapest one possible and spamming it.

Scarab Sages

The spells I'd need to see to judge - the 5E system was weird but with different numbers being average it kinda worked.

Logan Bonner commented that math streamlining meant that some things which "looked good" on paper (e.g. "half your level", etc.) don't really hold up at higher levels. Now higher level is closer to the lower levee experience in that while one character may be way better at something, another character can still at least try it. Things that feel like you should be able to do are things you actually can attempt."
-THIS Concerns me, I don't really like low level play and love mid level play (PFS Junkie). I don't think the game really starts until level 3-4, and making the rest of the game feel like those "low levels" is gonna make me VERY nervous.

The stuff on Ancestry and Terminology sound awesome - I've wanted to do an Aquatic Elf for a while but a regular Elf just has so many more racial options that an amphibious spell/item does the same thing but better for a few gold. I've also never been shy about saying that terminology was one of, if not the, biggest problem with Pathfinder (Hell, I still run into "what is a straight line" arguments)


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:

The spells I'd need to see to judge - the 5E system was weird but with different numbers being average it kinda worked.

Logan Bonner commented that math streamlining meant that some things which "looked good" on paper (e.g. "half your level", etc.) don't really hold up at higher levels. Now higher level is closer to the lower levee experience in that while one character may be way better at something, another character can still at least try it. Things that feel like you should be able to do are things you actually can attempt."
-THIS Concerns me, I don't really like low level play and love mid level play (PFS Junkie). I don't think the game really starts until level 3-4, and making the rest of the game feel like those "low levels" is gonna make me VERY nervous.

The stuff on Ancestry and Terminology sound awesome - I've wanted to do an Aquatic Elf for a while but a regular Elf just has so many more racial options that an amphibious spell/item does the same thing but better for a few gold. I've also never been shy about saying that terminology was one of, if not the, biggest problem with Pathfinder (Hell, I still run into "what is a straight line" arguments)

I've had issues in high level 3.X games where the numbers just become too cumbersome to use and certainly ridiculous feats are possible. I don't know if that's the sort being addressed by this comment, but it is something I hope PF2 addresses (signs point to no on a numbers squish). I don't expect mid level play to feel like low level, but high level play will hopefully be a bit more mid level.


Logan Bonner wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Since there isn't a CLW wand anymore are healing and HP going to get a fundamental rework beyond less but stronger? You never read Gandalf "spending 49 charges" to heal Aragon after a battle with some Orcs, but you never read about him needing them either.
There *are* wands of heal, there are just diminishing returns on buying the cheapest one possible and spamming it.

Speaking of wands of heal, I hope wands and potions are no longer capped, that wands now work like dorges at the very least.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Since there isn't a CLW wand anymore are healing and HP going to get a fundamental rework beyond less but stronger? You never read Gandalf "spending 49 charges" to heal Aragon after a battle with some Orcs, but you never read about him needing them either.
There *are* wands of heal, there are just diminishing returns on buying the cheapest one possible and spamming it.
Speaking of wands of heal, I hope wands and potions are no longer capped, that wands now work like dorges at the very least.

If potions aren’t capped, they’re very easy to spill.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matrix Dragon wrote:
shaventalz wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Can someone explain what they think they meant with the revisiting Ancestry comment? I'm a little confused by that one!

I haven't listened to the interview itself (and won't, because length), but the bullet points linked earlier almost make it look like a separate advancement track. Almost a second "racial class" type of thing in addition to the "real" class.

I am all for auto-progression of racial abilities. Currently a lot of the most flavorful stuff for Kitsune and Aasimar are hidden behind racial feats that you have to give up actual combat ability to get.

Agreed! I love the idea of introducing more racial abilities into the game as well. They talk about dwarves "becoming more dwarfy", and that makes me hopeful that we'll get some meaningful racial abilities for every race now! And, since Ancestry can refer to you being not just a dwarf, but also a Chelaxian, it opens up opportunities for tying characters more deeply to a region.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
I think part of the use of “ancestry” is also that they could choose to release heritages as separate ancestries, or work under one ancestry.
There is actually something called a "heritage feat" among ancestry feats that you pick up at 1st level. You'll have to wait for more info on those until we blog about races!

Now that's interesting. And I believe it tells us more about how ancestries work in the playtest than we had heard before (ancestry feats, including several options at 1st level instead of a preset package)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...what are we without the sky?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Malwing wrote:
No zero level spells is interesting.

I thought Cantrips were still a thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Malwing wrote:
No zero level spells is interesting.
I thought Cantrips were still a thing?

They are! But cantrips are no longer 0th level spells. I suspect that it means your cantrips will get some scaling in order to stay relevant as a fallback option.

Silver Crusade

Rysky wrote:
Malwing wrote:
No zero level spells is interesting.
I thought Cantrips were still a thing?

On the podcast Logan said something to the effect of (paraphrasing): spell levels 1-10, no 0-level spells. Cantrips are still a thing.

It was brief and he did not elaborate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Two shields is a viable build... (Mona)

Take my money!

The using an action to shield actually seems good to me. If it takes an action you can put more power into it.


Pretty happy with what I've seen there.
Two comments:
1) Prepared and Spontaneous casters. Great! I love that, and the lack of Vancian magic was one of the biggest reasons why I don't play 5e. Good call!
2) Spells not auto-scaling with level is also a great idea. The Vancian system isn't broken: Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard is the problem. I guess their idea is to eliminate the second one while keeping the first. Good call!
I've commented the alignment stuff elsewhere.

Also:

Knight Magenta wrote:
Quote:
Two shields is a viable build... (Mona)

Take my money!

The using an action to shield actually seems good to me. If it takes an action you can put more power into it.

This gives me hope. Shields have been underrated in D&D for far too long. I hope that changes ^^

Silver Crusade

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

Oooo, interesting....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So do NPC classes(Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, etc.) still exist or are they incorporated a different way?

Liberty's Edge

I think that we are getting 3 feat progressions: ancestry, skill and class. Archetypes would replace the feats gained at specific levels, and may have prerequisites. Maybe "regular" feats can be taken instead of some or all of the others.


Dragon78 wrote:
So do NPC classes(Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, etc.) still exist or are they incorporated a different way?

It doesn't look good.

There are only 4 spell lists. They are probably:

Arcane
Divine
Nature
Alchemist?

So, no spell list for the Adept. If no Adept, probably no other NPC classes too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just wanted to say thanks Erik Mona and Logan Bonner. Thanks for the great interview! Making me excited for the new version.


scary harpy wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
So do NPC classes(Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, etc.) still exist or are they incorporated a different way?

It doesn't look good.

There are only 4 spell lists. They are probably:

Arcane
Divine
Nature
Alchemist?

So, no spell list for the Adept. If no Adept, probably no other NPC classes too.

Adept could use something like " Nature spells up to lvl 4". Or maybe "nature spells+ alchemy"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

NPCs don’t use PC rules, they just have the stats and abilities they need. So NPC classes aren’t necessary.


I feel like it's not necessary to include "NPC classes" in a playtest document anyway.


Xenocrat wrote:
NPCs don’t use PC rules, they just have the stats and abilities they need. So NPC classes aren’t necessary.

they said NPCs can use PC rules if we want


Greylurker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
NPCs don’t use PC rules, they just have the stats and abilities they need. So NPC classes aren’t necessary.
they said NPCs can use PC rules if we want

I feel like that means "if you want to have an NPC who is a full on wizard, so if they accompany the PCs into a dungeon and need to serve as a replacement character, go for it".

For these purposes we don't need Adepts or Experts.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
NPCs don’t use PC rules, they just have the stats and abilities they need. So NPC classes aren’t necessary.
they said NPCs can use PC rules if we want

I feel like that means "if you want to have an NPC who is a full on wizard, so if they accompany the PCs into a dungeon and need to serve as a replacement character, go for it".

For these purposes we don't need Adepts or Experts.

You can use PC rules for bad guys too, and it works just fine if you want to put the time into it. But even then, your PCs probably don't often beat up a bunch of random no-combat-threat bookbinders, and if they do, they can use the monster rules for a really weak leveled foe.


Good job on the Wands thing. It can make the game get too easy sometimes. Seriously, the PFS and APs do not assume godlike stats with infinite regeneration... How are your characters needing so much help to manage?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
NPCs don’t use PC rules, they just have the stats and abilities they need. So NPC classes aren’t necessary.
they said NPCs can use PC rules if we want

I feel like that means "if you want to have an NPC who is a full on wizard, so if they accompany the PCs into a dungeon and need to serve as a replacement character, go for it".

For these purposes we don't need Adepts or Experts.

You can use PC rules for bad guys too, and it works just fine if you want to put the time into it. But even then, your PCs probably don't often beat up a bunch of random no-combat-threat bookbinders, and if they do, they can use the monster rules for a really weak leveled foe.

Neat!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
You can use PC rules for bad guys too, and it works just fine if you want to put the time into it. But even then, your PCs probably don't often beat up a bunch of random no-combat-threat bookbinders, and if they do, they can use the monster rules for a really weak leveled foe.

Can you tell us if NPC classes still exist?


I wonder if scrolls, potions, wands, and staves will continue to be just spells in a cam or if we could have both spells in a cam and, for instance, a wand or staff they gives bonuses when casting abjuration spells. Or ray spells. Or necromancy. Or cold spells and whatnot.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I wonder if NPC style class are going to be like the simple class templates (or whatever their actual name was) in the Monster Codex?


scrolls will certainly be a spell in a can. Potion probably too, but there is more room there for potions that do not mimic a spell (like, say, a Love Filter). Also, Alchemist is a core class, and it's not based in spells, but in alchemy stuff, so probably there's going to be a bunch of new, powerful alchemy effects in potions that will not be directly tied to spells in a can.

Wands and Staffs, however, might not exist anylonger as they do now, as batteries of spells. The fact that Erik Mona hates the happysticks of cure light wounds maybe means the whole wands will change (for example, a Wand of Healing might mean your cure spells get maximized, or whatever)


scary harpy wrote:

There are only 4 spell lists. They are probably:

Arcane
Divine
Nature
Alchemist?

My guess: Sorc/Wiz, Cleric, Druid, Bard. Ranger and Paladin get other magical abilities instead of spells (for instance, Paladin might get a class feat that grants wings limited times per day), and Alchemist doesn't count because it's a "formulae list", not a "spell list".


What if being a aristocrat, commoner, expert, etc. is character background thing or template like mechanic.


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

Big time thanks to the Know Direction folks! This was an ULTRA informative interview.

Liberty's Edge

Derklord wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

There are only 4 spell lists. They are probably:

Arcane
Divine
Nature
Alchemist?

My guess: Sorc/Wiz, Cleric, Druid, Bard. Ranger and Paladin get other magical abilities instead of spells (for instance, Paladin might get a class feat that grants wings limited times per day), and Alchemist doesn't count because it's a "formulae list", not a "spell list".

Paladins and Rangers could use Cleric and Druid lists, up to level 4.

I think that someone who played at GaryCon said the Alchemist isn't a caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great interview. It made me much more comfortable with the switch from 1e to 2e. These two points were the biggest for me:

They intend to make PF2 Characters extremely customize-able and crunchy, not a dumbed down system at all for PCs. I know it'll take a few years to build up to all the classes and races in 1e, but I'm willing to collect the 2e books until they reach the critical mass of class and race variety that my group likes. My group can keep enjoying 1e until 2e catches up.

Simple Monster Creation aimed at hitting similar stat ranges as PCs, unlike Starfinder's different balance for NPCs / Enemies. As our group's GM, this is huge for me. Anything that makes customizing monsters or building unique monsters easier is good news in my book

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Know Direction's Massive Interview with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner - Lots of New Info! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion