| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. That hobgoblin is a lot less muscular than I would have thought.
I guess it does play up the genetic resemblance with goblins.
I'd still rather have hobgoblin than goblin as a PC race.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well it is an archer after all :-).
No, but it does feel strange, same with Half-Orc always portrayed as beefy muscle thugs.
Despite not actually having stat bonuses to back that up in P1E.
(I actually prefer STR bonus being baked in for Half Orcs, to back up the physical trope, floating bonus lets them do whatever still)
But yeah, Hobgoblin seems undoubtedly stronger contender for new Core Race, and with that art I have to ask
why Pro-Goblin faction would not be satisfied by them? "Oh look! This is our Core-appropriate socially functional Goblin!"
re: his streaming comment, it's not really my thing to spectate that type of thing, but I can see how it can be good for game, in example he discusses he mentions professional writers and actors participating. That really shifts focus onto role-playing, which is sometimes an angle that is down-played to mechanics and "playing the character sheet (numbers)". Yet roleplaying is really the main thing tabletop RPGs have over computer games etc. Face to face in person will always present opportunities for deeper engagement than online RPGs etc.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every ancestry gives you base abilities that all members of your ancestry share like your speed, languages, and a couple other things like that. But they’re not too in-depth on rules content, and each ancestry includes a series of ancestry feats you can choose from. You get one at first level, another at fifth level, and so on.
It looks like ancestry feats are confirmed to be pretty rare and you definitely won't be very (well rounded) dwarfy at 1st and will only have 3 traits by the end of their PFS character arc (without mortgaging their other feats).
I think this points to ancestry feats being of much higher power than the old racial trait it is based on. I almost think the trait needs to have some scaling element to keep you excited as you level.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it seems like Archetypes no longer trade things away? I hope that's not the case for all the archetypes, since some of my favorite PF1 archetypes were ones I chose specifically to get rid of a thing that is normally part and parcel to the class, but doesn't fit my conception of the character (e.g. My Rogue is a gentleman and fights with honor, and I can represent this with the phantom thief archetype that does not get sneak attack.)
So I hope in PF2 we can get Rogues without sneak attack, Paladins and Rangers without spells, Druids without Wild Shape, Witches without Familiars, etc.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I hope that Class Specific Archetypes that trade away Class Features are still a thing as well. Something for melee Alchemists to trade away Bomb enhancement stuff, for example.
That said I very definitely also like the idea of non Class-specific Archetypes that anyone can take. I'd very much like to see Gunslinger and Vigilante as such archetypes rather than Classes, for example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the specific idea of the gunslinger as the bold, mysterious, and resourceful loner that we see in a lot of fiction might merit a class unto itself, it would be definitely better to print a "you can use guns" archetype that can be bolted on to any class rather than the pile of "this one uses guns" archetypes we got in PF1 (Spellslinger, Holy Gun, Picaroon, Steel Hound, etc.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the specific idea of the gunslinger as the bold, mysterious, and resourceful loner that we see in a lot of fiction might merit a class unto itself, it would be definitely better to print a "you can use guns" archetype that can be bolted on to any class rather than the pile of "this one uses guns" archetypes we got in PF1 (Spellslinger, Holy Gun, Picaroon, Steel Hound, etc.)
I dunno, I love Westerns quite a bit, but 'bold mysterious and resourceful loner' seems like a solid description of a well done Fighter or Ranger or Paladin or...y'know, just about any Class. There's a reason that several famous Westerns (most notably The Magnificent Seven and A Fistful Of Dollars) are Samurai Movie remakes/adaptations...the personalities and non weapon-specific skills are interchangeable enough that it still works fine in both settings.
But yeah, whether there's really a Class is secondary to having an archetype for 'uses guns'.
|
While the specific idea of the gunslinger as the bold, mysterious, and resourceful loner that we see in a lot of fiction might merit a class unto itself, it would be definitely better to print a "you can use guns" archetype that can be bolted on to any class rather than the pile of "this one uses guns" archetypes we got in PF1 (Spellslinger, Holy Gun, Picaroon, Steel Hound, etc.)I dunno, I love Westerns quite a bit, but 'bold mysterious and resourceful loner' seems like a solid description of a well done Fighter or Ranger or Paladin or...y'know, just about any Class. There's a reason that several famous Westerns (most notably The Magnificent Seven and A Fistful Of Dollars) are Samurai Movie remakes/adaptations...the personalities and non weapon-specific skills are interchangeable enough that it still works fine in both settings.
But yeah, whether there's really a Class is secondary to having an archetype for 'uses guns'.
I would be just fine if Gunslinger was replaced by a Survivalist class focused on grit and solo tactics, and guns were relegated to an archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making the Samurai and the Gunslinger the same class definitely intrigues me. I never really got the Samurai as an alt-class for the Cavalier since "mounted combat" doesn't really define the Samurai in film at least.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be inclined to think a Survivalist Class has a bit too much overlap with the Ranger, but I'd definitely be cool with something using Grit. Making it a bit modular so you can use either Grit or Panache and have the same class be used for a Swashbuckler seems a solid call, and would just generally allow for a more swashbuckling musketeer kinda thing as well.
That's assuming they keep the idea of a Grit/Panache pool at all in the new edition, of course.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy wow, I would DEFINITELY much rather have that hobgoblin than the regular goblin. Especially since hobs have much more civilization and would integrate better into a party... and could be easily reskinned into an Orc. At the very least, can we have hobs IN ADDITION to goblins? Along with any three out of kobolds, ratfolk, tengu and kitsune. It'd be nice to have 12 races to go with the 12 classes.
I'm glad to hear the Glass Cannon adventure where they converted a PF1 module was done entirely on the fly without notes. That speaks to it probably being even easier to convert a PF1 adventure path or the like when you do have notes. It also explains why there are maybe some discrepancies and things they got wrong, because the game system isn't even settled into final form yet, but when it's all laid out in print in a book that should make things pretty simple.
I'm not especially happy to hear that full-on Vancian casting is still a thing. I was hoping for prepared casters to work like Arcanists. Hopefully it IS actually Arcanist casting, and he was simplifying his description for the sake of the interview...
We now have confirmation that Fireball does 6d6 as a 3rd tier spell, not 10d6 as some people have been posting. And +2d6 per additional spell level instead of only +1d6 like 5E, which I'm glad to hear. Also apparently Lightning Bolt will do more than Fireball, which is good, because the line shape makes it more limited. 6d6 for LB would be good if the spell could still be reflected off walls or forked like in the old days, but since that appears to be forever gone, at least make it better than Fireball.
10th level spells apparently require feats. That should allow Paizo to make them dramatically better than 9th level spells, since that's a pretty steep additional cost at a level when you barely have any feats left to gain. I still am going to grump that Wish is an actual spell though; I'd rather than was put in the Gamemastering chapter and left for things like artifacts, djinn and the like.
Good to hear that spells which make other characters redundant are being scaled back or disappearing. Because as he says, Rogues were particularly subject to spells eating their lunch...
Iconics: I'm fine with the iconics coming back. But as I mentioned above, I want 12 races, not 8. That would give the chance to have 24 iconics, 2 for each class. That would allow each of those 12 races to be represented by both a male and female iconic. It would also allow Paizo to present two different sample builds for each class, which would be helpful to players unsure what to do.
Sounds like they're moving in the direction of Aasimar (and thus Tiefling) being ancestry feats, rather than separate ancestries. Works for me.
Apparently you only get ONE ancestry feat at first level at this time. This is bad juju, no no no no no. Especially given how the ancestries are apparently really skimpy on core features, at least as presented via the blogs so far. It's going to create the situation where you pretty much HAVE to take a heritage feat at 1st level, your only opportunity to get one, rather than a culture feat that might be more interesting to you right now. Let's:
- Allow at least one heritage feat and one culture feat at 1st level, so you can reflect both natural ability and how you grew up.
- Remove the stipulation that you can only take a heritage feat at 1st.
- Make the ancestry feats scale as you level, like new!Power Attack does.
Apparently Jason is thinking of making you waste your Background selection if you want to be something like an Elf raised by Dwarves? Please don't do that. This should just be a choice made at 1st level - ancestry A is my actual birth ancestry and so is where I pick Heritage feats from, ancestry B is the culture I was raised in so where I pick Culture feats from. There, solved. Now an Elf raised by Dwarves can still be a Blacksmith as their Background.
It kind of sounds like everyone will choose an archetype at 1st level, because as he talks about them they add options to the feat selection pool rather than replacing abilities. I have mixed feelings there, I like it and I don't. I'd still like the ability to be a base Fighter or base Wizard. I'd still like the ability swap out my Bomb improvements as an Alchemist for getting better at Mutagens. But it sounds like Archetypes are actually the game feature that is the least codified and settled at this point, so I'm not actually going to worry about it right now. This seems very subject to change and to playtest suggestions.
As GM, I'm glad to hear about the improvements to elementals and vrocks specifically... >:3
Overall, I like most of the information. I have concerns about some of it, as noted above, but this was a great interview and stokes me even more to see the playtest...!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the note about the Elf Fighter armor 'Not gender-specific Armor'.
The non-gender specific armor is a WIN for me, even more so than spindly hobgoblin archers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hobgoblins looks horrible. I mean, I get the idea behind trying to tie gobinoids visually, but egads, spindly goblin looks awful.
Also I'm genuinely curious as to what Jason means with this:
"You end up with some situations where high-level characters actually get worse at things when they go up in level, which is kind of odd and counterintuitive."
I honestly don't know what he's referring to. Aside from that, referring to Skyrim as something to follow is....ugh, just no. Skyrim is an alright game, but an absolutely dreadful RPG (unless you mod the heck out of it).
I've already said my piece about Ancestries, though the tidbit about Backgrounds maybe granting access to other Ancestry Feats is interesting. We'll have to see what they do with that.
The rest is either ok or I couldn't care less about it (like the streaming).
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also I'm genuinely curious as to what Jason means with this:
"You end up with some situations where high-level characters actually get worse at things when they go up in level, which is kind of odd and counterintuitive."
They've said this before. It has to do with the game math where, in PF1, at 1st level as a Fighter your Will Save Bonus is only 2 points worse than your Fort Save Bonus, but that difference rises to 6 points by 20th. Barring the investment of Feats or the like, you have actively gotten worse at making Will Saves vs. level appropriate threats.
This sort of math artifact where you become less successful at some things vs. level appropriate foes as they rise in level is something they dislike and have decided to avoid as much as possible in PF2.
Director of Game Design
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also I'm genuinely curious as to what Jason means with this:"You end up with some situations where high-level characters actually get worse at things when they go up in level, which is kind of odd and counterintuitive."
I honestly don't know what he's referring to. Aside from that, referring to Skyrim as something to follow is....ugh, just no. Skyrim is an alright game, but an absolutely dreadful RPG (unless you mod the heck out of it).
At low levels, your chance of making a Will save, as a fighter, for example, had a much better chance than when you were high level.
As for the Skyrim bit, I was mostly referring to how the game jumps you into the action, not its RP options.
Also I'm genuinely curious as to what Jason means with this:"You end up with some situations where high-level characters actually get worse at things when they go up in level, which is kind of odd and counterintuitive."
I honestly don't know what he's referring to. Aside from that, referring to Skyrim as something to follow is....ugh, just no. Skyrim is an alright game, but an absolutely dreadful RPG (unless you mod the heck out of it).
At low levels, your chance of making a Will save, as a fighter, for example, had a much better chance than when you were high level.
As for the Skyrim bit, I was mostly referring to how the game jumps you into the action, not its RP options.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification, I hadn't really thought about saves.
As for Skyrim, I'll have to disagree. It's got one of the most plodding, boring initial segments I've played in decades. It's like 8 minutes before you even get to character creation, and then even more time before you can actually do anything but follow NPCs around while stuff happens around you for you to gawk at. I mean, it's not as bad as something like MGS4, but it's bad.
Now Fallout 1, that throws you right into the action! Of killing rats! And I hope you read the manual because we won't explain anything! Just the best!
Contributor
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of things here, especially the ancestry feat rates and the archetype design, that I'm disappointed by. Hopefully there'll be an opportunity to really dig into this in the playtest - see how I feel upon seeing the full package, and offer more detailed feedback.
Also really hoping that aasimar, tieflings, and similar ancestries don't get downgraded to an "ancestry archetype"... though having something like that in addition to the ancestries would be nice (similar to the way we have sorcerers and bloodragers in addition to aasimar/tieflings, or like 3.5's heritage feats). And having something like that for dragon blood would absolutely delight me. ^_^
Feat prereqs are a great place to put generic archetypes. It leaves more interesting places for more interesting things.
Speaking of Skyrim, you ever make a total nerd character that goes around reading all the books? I did. Reading books that were clearly meant to be skill books for Unarmed and Unarmored was kind of sad. The things that got cut off in the name of streamlining for a more accessible market. Or maybe just a rushed year of development. Either way, it reminded me of how I had been so excited to wrestle polar bears and punch dragons before it came out. Meh.
Jumping right into that action was about as satisfying as diving head first into a puddle. A stable build of two hundred lore friendly mods later, and the game's turned into a pretty satisfying pool to swim around in.
What's that, voice in my head? Skyrim has little to do with Pathfinder, and I'm off on a tangent again? By the Songbird's sweet dimples, you're right!
Ancestery's future sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to how Paizo defines nature and nurture.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This made me nervous: "If you have to spend a great deal of time creating a character or reading a manual, that’s a time investment that you have to sink in before the fun can begin."
A huge part of the fun for us is the character creation part. We build a party while sitting together and fussing about story and matching abilities to concepts. I do not like games that short the character creation process.
Also: "Goblins have been a part of the Pathfinder schtick since day one, and making them a part of the game in a way that a player can experience the fun and mayhem of being a goblin is important to us, so we’re going to play with that and see how it goes."
Great. Mayhem. Hurray. Reminds me of the playtest where some dude was roleplaying his goblin alchemist really well... and I wanted to punch him in his damn face.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This made me nervous: "If you have to spend a great deal of time creating a character or reading a manual, that’s a time investment that you have to sink in before the fun can begin."
A huge part of the fun for us is the character creation part. We build a party while sitting together and fussing about story and matching abilities to concepts. I do not like games that short the character creation process.
What they're trying to simplify is the process of understanding character creation.
In PF1E, you don't have to learn how to make a character, and advance that character once. You have to learn how to do it every time you pick a new class because different classes have different nomenclature for similar phenomena (ki powers, tricks, talents, rage powers, discoveries etc).
The goal Jason was talking about isn't to give you less options, it's to make sure that if you learn what a "class feat" is, that knowledge applies to every class because they all get a selection of "class feats".
It removes a barrier to entry. But you'll still get to play "optimization solitaire", because even with all good options players are still going to look for them combos to try and "win" Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This made me nervous: "If you have to spend a great deal of time creating a character or reading a manual, that’s a time investment that you have to sink in before the fun can begin."
A huge part of the fun for us is the character creation part. We build a party while sitting together and fussing about story and matching abilities to concepts. I do not like games that short the character creation process.
What they're trying to simplify is the process of understanding character creation.
In PF1E, you don't have to learn how to make a character, and advance that character once. You have to learn how to do it every time you pick a new class because different classes have different nomenclature for similar phenomena (ki powers, tricks, talents, rage powers, discoveries etc).
The goal Jason was talking about isn't to give you less options, it's to make sure that if you learn what a "class feat" is, that knowledge applies to every class because they all get a selection of "class feats".
It removes a barrier to entry. But you'll still get to play "optimization solitaire", because even with all good options players are still going to look for them combos to try and "win" Pathfinder.
When I say nervous, I mean only that. I'm still looking forward to seeing what is done. Worst case, I play PF1 until I'm old. (Assuming I am not already old, in which case I might play PF1 until I'm Venerable.)
I hate starfinder-style character building, but I didn't insult your playstyle. If they switch to something that you apparently like, I will most likely bow out. No reason to accuse you of playing "deoptimization space monkeys."
In honesty, I don't really see a major difference between Starfinder Chargen and Pathfinder Chargen other than "themes don't exist in Pathfinder, but traits do" and "Pathfinder has had like 50 times as many books printed for it."
Sure, you generate stats differently, but you can run into different stat generation methods by moving to a different table a lot of the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I believe the "optimization solitaire" slight was against PF1 chargen (and those who like it). It takes more time than Starfinder. Whether you can house rule it is another matter.
EDIT: Sorry, Dudemeister. I misread your intentions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This made me nervous: "If you have to spend a great deal of time creating a character or reading a manual, that’s a time investment that you have to sink in before the fun can begin."
A huge part of the fun for us is the character creation part. We build a party while sitting together and fussing about story and matching abilities to concepts. I do not like games that short the character creation process.
What they're trying to simplify is the process of understanding character creation.
In PF1E, you don't have to learn how to make a character, and advance that character once. You have to learn how to do it every time you pick a new class because different classes have different nomenclature for similar phenomena (ki powers, tricks, talents, rage powers, discoveries etc).
The goal Jason was talking about isn't to give you less options, it's to make sure that if you learn what a "class feat" is, that knowledge applies to every class because they all get a selection of "class feats".
It removes a barrier to entry. But you'll still get to play "optimization solitaire", because even with all good options players are still going to look for them combos to try and "win" Pathfinder.
When I say nervous, I mean only that. I'm still looking forward to seeing what is done. Worst case, I play PF1 until I'm old. (Assuming I am not already old, in which case I might play PF1 until I'm Venerable.)
I hate starfinder-style character building, but I didn't insult your playstyle. If they switch to something that you apparently like, I will most likely bow out. No reason to accuse you of playing "deoptimization space monkeys."
I apologize if I made it sound like "optimization solitaire" was a bad thing. It's not at all. Character building when you're away from the table is absolutely a valuable part of the game. People like building characters for the sake of seeing if they can, how far they can push the rules, or to see if they can express a creative idea mechanically.
There's no judgement on my part. I enjoy that part of the game too, it's why I prefer Pathfinder to D&D 5e. Building a Strength based on Monk in Pathfinder is a fun activity in and of itself. Trying a Strength monk in 5e is an exercise in frustration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the GM at my table I play optimization solitaire all the time when building enemy or ally NPCs. It's fun, and always has been, even when I was a kid playing AD&D 2E :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the GM at my table I play optimization solitaire all the time when building enemy or ally NPCs. It's fun, and always has been, even when I was a kid playing AD&D 2E :)
I also enjoy doing this. But honestly, it doesn't seem too difficult to port over to a new system. Optimization solitaire is always an option for those so inclined, and shouldn't be a required part of character creation at more than the most basic level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I believe the "optimization solitaire" slight was against PF1 chargen (and those who like it). It takes more time than Starfinder. Whether you can house rule it is another matter.
EDIT: Sorry, Dudemeister. I misread your intentions.
No problem at all. Text based media is difficult to convey tone in after all. Glad we're on the same page.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the GM at my table I play optimization solitaire all the time when building enemy or ally NPCs. It's fun, and always has been, even when I was a kid playing AD&D 2E :)I also enjoy doing this. But honestly, it doesn't seem too difficult to port over to a new system. Optimization solitaire is always an option for those so inclined, and shouldn't be a required part of character creation at more than the most basic level.
True, but I bet a lot of us are here right now to try to influence the direction of PF2. I'll go back to getting my PF fix from Gator Games (never Amazon!) and my posts will dwindle to practically zero after the launch. (I will still love all of you, though!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.
This. I mean they made superb design for Monster Codex and Ironfang Invasion and now this crappy medium sized goblin. I didn't mind goblins in core, not really, until now.
I also really really don't like WAR's style of drawing, and one of the reasons I don't like getting Paizo hardcovers is his art everywhere.
Is "Optimization Solitaire" even going to be a thing when we've got basically one book to work from? Like how deep into this can one get from just the PF1 CRB?
It seems like "character building can get intricate and fascinating" is something we're going to need to wait for a few more books to get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<_< I liked that hobgoblin art. I can't be only one who likes it?
*whistles, looks away nervously and quickly slips away*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually not that big a departure from previous hobgoblin art if you just assume it's a skinny example (which the archery might make a reasonable assumption).
Ah... That new hobgoblin isn't skinny, that's emaciated... It would be one thing if it it was more lithe/athletic but that looks like you took the original and locked him in a cell for weeks without food. Add to that the more 'goblin' big head, the elongation of the arms, the shrinking of the chest, the huge feet, the razor teeth, the long neck... it looks like a stretch armstrong goblin with the limbs pulled out and the head stretch out sideways. IMO, a totally different vibe from the old images.
|
|
I guess the visual of Pathfinder Hobgoblins that got stuck in my head is from Classic Monsters Revisited. I can't find the pictures in that book online, but IMO they look a lot more like this new picture (only much bulkier) than they do like some of the more recent hobgoblin pics I've found (which I agree look more like orcs).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.
Reynolds is doubling down on his art style, the dwarf has hooves! And a triangular head,I think he needs to normalise a bit
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re the hobgoblin art, I like it and I like them giving the "goblin family" more of a coherent Paizo-specific identity. I would like it better if it wasn't emaciated. I mean, it's supposed to be a hobgoblin archer... not a hobgoblin mummy bereft of its wrappings. It should look at least something like an athlete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm happy with making hobgoblins look like goblins, but that one looks dead. Archers have huge shoulders and arms
Information overload! I'n sinking in an intellectual maelstrom...
By the way, I like the new art. Although Wayne Reynolds was already my favorite Western artist anyway...
As the GM at my table I play optimization solitaire all the time when building enemy or ally NPCs. It's fun, and always has been, even when I was a kid playing AD&D 2E :)
With the way he describing PF2 as jump right in, I think PF2 characters are going to start significantly less complex. Maybe lots of options available but you will only being choosing a couple of feats
One from ancestry, one from background, one from class?|
|
With the way he describing PF2 as jump right in, I think PF2 characters are going to start significantly less complex. Maybe lots of options available but you will only being choosing a couple of feats
One from ancestry, one from background, one from class?
We haven't heard anything about Background Feats, but that aside yeah, sounds about right. Though we also know spell casters actually don't get a Class Feat at 1st level.
Choose spells instead of feat, yeah
Well pf1 had monk 1 or 2 monk archetypes with out unarmed I think. I think thier was some that dropped wildshape. But I think rage is pretty well to essential for barbs to lose and I guess I wizard without a spell book would be a sorcerer or witch.
I think the idea of archetypes altering base features is pretty solid. as long as they have enough other things to make them still seem like the class. If not might as well make it a new class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.I also really really don't like WAR's style of drawing, and one of the reasons I don't like getting Paizo hardcovers is his art everywhere.
That’s really unfortunate. I, on the other hand, really like WAR’s art style and one thing that I’m excited about is that he’s the sole artist for the PF2 CRB.