Post Gen Con Update


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

78 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there all,

First off, welcome to the playtest! I meant to have a post up right during launch, but time ran out and there were just too many other things to do. Sorry about that.

Second, the team and I are all recovering from what was an amazing experience at Gen Con. The number of excited fans and playtesters was truly staggering. We have already started collecting valuable feedback and we are looking forward to hearing from all of you about your experiences with the game. Unfortunately, I think most of the team is taking the day to rest up a bit. The show was exhausting and we got to recover some HP before we dive back into the fray.

Third, I want to assure everyone that we are hearing your feedback here on these boards. It is early days, as was expected, there are a lot of passionate debates going on here, and at a pace that we can hardly keep up with. Once we are all back together we will be working hard to get caught up. Your patience in this is appreciated.

Fourth, I am seeing a lot of great commentary here, catching things we missed, pointing out places where we might have made a mistake, and generally giving opinions on the game. That is great. What is not so great is the amount of bickering, name calling, hyperbole, and disrespect I am seeing. Lets all try and remember that we are all hear for the same cause, to make the best version of Pathfinder that we can. We need your help. We want your thoughts. We can't get your feedback if you are driving others away and otherwise being unfriendly toward your fellow playtesters. If you can't be civil, this playtest and this game are probably not for you.

Fifth, there are a few pieces of early errata that we need to get up immediately.

  • All PCs are trained in being unarmored.
  • Both Alchemists and Druids should be trained in 3 skills (+ Int Mod) each (instead of 2 and 4 respectively).
  • Alchemists can use Quick Alchemy for any alchemical item in their formula book.
There are a few more coming as well, but they are not as critical to this part of the playtest. These errata and all others will soon find a home on pathfinderplaytest.com as a simple PDF. When that goes live, we will make an announcement.

Finally, the playtest surveys for Part 1 of Doomsday Dawn are now live. As a note, please make sure that you have completed your play through of part 1 before taking the surveys. The player and GM surveys both have four pages of questions but should only take about 10 minutes each to complete. Please make sure you go all the way to the very end before leaving the site. You can find links to the Doomsday Dawn Part 1 surveys on pathfinderplaytest.com, as well as surveys for the first three PFS scenarios as well.

Please, if you have played these games, take the surveys. They are really going to help us get a better understanding of our game.

Thank again for all of you help in playtesting this game. The team and I look forward to working with all of you to make this the best version of Pathfinder ever!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Will the surveys be available for us to take after the targeted play window? My group will only be meeting every other week starting next weekend, so the timing will be close.

Paizo Employee Senior Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
Will the surveys be available for us to take after the targeted play window? My group will only be meeting every other week starting next weekend, so the timing will be close.

Yes. The surveys will stay up after the playtest window. No worries there.


Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!

Thank you for the response, happy to start my Doomsday Dawn playtest tonight.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, 1000 years of bad karma for you if you take the surveys without playtesting!

Paizo Employee Senior Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!

We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Question should it not be quick AND advanced alchemy can make any formula in your book? Because this just makes it even weirder that you can do more in the heat of combat for item creation than you can when you are making your items for the day. I can't make a mutagen during downtime but I can while fighting an ork?

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

20 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!
We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)

Although apparently, I make dream visits now. I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

Not sure what to make about that...


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!
We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)

Although apparently, I make dream visits now. I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

Not sure what to make about that...

You have obtained master rank in occultism.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!
We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)

Although apparently, I make dream visits now. I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

Not sure what to make about that...

Efficient!

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!
We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)

Well, I'm just gonna have to eat AAAALLLLLLL these fresh baked chocolate chip cookies myself then. Such a shame. But I guess if you don't want them badly enough to come over...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Although apparently, I make dream visits now. I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

Not sure what to make about that...

See also this.


I'm happy to see Gen-Con Flu hasn't dented your sense of humor, fellas.


Can alchemists still use Advanced Alchemy only for common formulas?

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Can alchemists still use Advanced Alchemy only for common formulas?

I am going to have to get back to you on that, check with design intent when I am back in the office tomorrow.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Also reminding everybody to get rid of the damned rat!
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vab7?Dire-Rat-in-Lost-Star-A10#11


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

Thanks for the quick turnaround! Hopefully you can get some recovery time from Gen Con before jumping straight into things!

Super glad you all are active, but I would much rather have well-rested devs at their full strength than once suffering from who knows how many stacks of Enfeebled, Sluggish, Fatigued and Stupefied. :D


Super excited that run this with my 1 group after we wrap up our SF campaign. Glad to see the Errata as I know a lot of people were confused and afraid to make assumptions/house rules for the playtest. If I had to pick one thing I'm sad about, it's that ratfolk isn't in the playtest so I can't remake my little wizard. But I know that day will come in the future so the group will just have to wait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad to hear folks are taking some time to recover!
I do have a question that's been nagging me for some time though: there's mentions of an errata document (which i certainly approve of for the shrot-term!), but will we be seeing a playtest CRB v2 or the like at some point goign forward, for things like showcasing new layouts/formatting (since those are a major complaint as I've seen and personally experienced), or to playtest features that were announced but not available in the initial playtest doc, such as the expanded multiclassing options?
It's a major worry of mine, and I'd hate to see the playtest segment end in november before the new content springs fully formed and un-playtested in the final print some months later (and largely unable to be fixed without invalidating any initial purchases)!

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

9 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

I'm glad to hear folks are taking some time to recover!

I do have a question that's been nagging me for some time though: there's mentions of an errata document (which i certainly approve of for the shrot-term!), but will we be seeing a playtest CRB v2 or the like at some point goign forward, for things like showcasing new layouts/formatting (since those are a major complaint as I've seen and personally experienced), or to playtest features that were announced but not available in the initial playtest doc, such as the expanded multiclassing options?
It's a major worry of mine, and I'd hate to see the playtest segment end in november before the new content springs fully formed and un-playtested in the final print some months later (and largely unable to be fixed without invalidating any initial purchases)!

I dont think there is any possibility of us doing a revised version of the rulebook in the time frame that we have, but we will be taking comments and feedback about the design of the book to heart when creating the final version.

As for additional rules content, that is a bit more complicated. I am hoping to put out a document or two with a handful of elements that just did not quite make the cut (he says, eyeing the multiclassing archetypes), but other content will be created from your responses to the playtest. That material will likely go straight into the final version of the book. If there are problems from there, they will be handled with errata and faqs as normal.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

<Walks up to Gen Con gaming table> "I already killed you. Why aren't you dead?!" --Jason "Tatterman" Bulmahn


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
There are a few more coming as well, but they are not as critical to this part of the playtest. These errata and all others will soon find a home on pathfinderplaytest.com as a simple PDF. When that goes live, we will make an announcement.

I'm assuming this means there won't be any updates to the exisitng PDF materials.

Will all play test errata exist in one single document or will there be separate errata documents for each published work?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

I'm glad to hear folks are taking some time to recover!

I do have a question that's been nagging me for some time though: there's mentions of an errata document (which i certainly approve of for the shrot-term!), but will we be seeing a playtest CRB v2 or the like at some point goign forward, for things like showcasing new layouts/formatting (since those are a major complaint as I've seen and personally experienced), or to playtest features that were announced but not available in the initial playtest doc, such as the expanded multiclassing options?
It's a major worry of mine, and I'd hate to see the playtest segment end in november before the new content springs fully formed and un-playtested in the final print some months later (and largely unable to be fixed without invalidating any initial purchases)!

I dont think there is any possibility of us doing a revised version of the rulebook in the time frame that we have, but we will be taking comments and feedback about the design of the book to heart when creating the final version.

As for additional rules content, that is a bit more complicated. I am hoping to put out a document or two with a handful of elements that just did not quite make the cut (he says, eyeing the multiclassing archetypes), but other content will be created from your responses to the playtest. That material will likely go straight into the final version of the book. If there are problems from there, they will be handled with errata and faqs as normal.

(bolded for emphasis) that's disappointing to hear, honestly, but I understand you guys are both a business and on a schedule, so it's not exactly feasible to come out with "taking your suggestions into account, here's the modified version of X, play with this for a while and see if there's any unforseen problems we missed in the initial fix etc etc", as nice as it would be (and would prevent so much patchwork in the future, like the old "rogue can't sneak attack in the dark/low light for some reason" problem requiring taking more precious feats to cover back in 1e).

I do hope we can at least get the occasional update/article on what's been changed and what direction is being taken with those suggestions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!
We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)

Although apparently, I make dream visits now. I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

Not sure what to make about that...

That you are a witch? :D

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am hoping to put out a document or two with a handful of elements that just did not quite make the cut (he says, eyeing the multiclassing archetypes)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(thumbs up.emoji)


Will we be able to get copies of the Iconics that you featured in the playtest games?


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am hoping to put out a document or two with a handful of elements that just did not quite make the cut (he says, eyeing the multiclassing archetypes),

...ohh, pretty, pretty please! I promise to spell your name correctly from now on, if that will help. ;-)


Maxim Nikolaev wrote:

Also reminding everybody to get rid of the damned rat!

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vab7?Dire-Rat-in-Lost-Star-A10#11

I'm still mad it's called a Dire Rat in the module and a Giant Rat in the Bestiary.

All joking aside, with or without the rat, that last encounter is a painful one to be sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidknightDiamond wrote:
Maxim Nikolaev wrote:

Also reminding everybody to get rid of the damned rat!

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vab7?Dire-Rat-in-Lost-Star-A10#11

I'm still mad it's called a Dire Rat in the module and a Giant Rat in the Bestiary.

All joking aside, with or without the rat, that last encounter is a painful one to be sure.

I really don't get this. My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can Alchemists make Alchemical items other than by using the Advanced Alchemy and Quick Alchemy features?

Are Alchemical items values supposed to be in sp instead of gp?

Should the bomb additives affect bombs made with Advanced Alchemy as well as those made with Quick Alchemy?

Does the damage bonus from handwraps of mighty fists stack with the increased damage dice of Bestial Mutagen?

Does the feral Mutagen feat add the damage dice from the fangs and claws to the value in Bestial Mutagen or change the type of dice being multiplied?

Do Alchemists ever get more than trained with Alchemical Bombs or light armor? If not, are empowering bombs supposed to make them more accurate? Or is the fact that they target TAC supposed to bridge the accuracy gap?

Will there be more elixirs in the final version of the game? There's a weird number of feats focused on elixirs given that they have relatively weak effects.

Are there any Alchemical items that have batches smaller than 4?

Alchemists really can't qualify for Remarkable Resonance with their intelligence instead of charisma given that the class is based around resonance?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know what the intended rules should be, but is there any chance of getting clarification on the “punch a dying character to heal them” problem?

The last point under Getting Knocked Out (pg 295).
- If the attack was nonlethal, you do not gain the dying condition or increase your dying condition and you return to 1 Hit Point (though you remain unconscious).

Then the first sentence under Taking Damage While Unconscious (pg 295)
If you take damage while already unconscious, apply the same effects as if you had been knocked out by that damage.

If you are at Dying 1, 2, or 3 and are punched by nonlethal damage you apply the effect as if you were knocked unconscious by that nonlethal damage (as per Taking Damage While Unconscious). That nonlethal damage does not increase your Dying condition and returns you to 1 Hit Point but Unconscious (as per Getting Knocked Out).


Virellius wrote:
My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.

If the party had 4 members, they would need to dish out 10 damage each. So the rolled really well and/or critted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ablifco wrote:


Can Alchemists make Alchemical items other than by using the Advanced Alchemy and Quick Alchemy features?
Ablifco wrote:


Are there any Alchemical items that have batches smaller than 4?

All Consumable items have a batch size of 4. But remember you can make less to save money, you just don't save time.

Ablifco wrote:


Alchemists really can't qualify for Remarkable Resonance with their intelligence instead of charisma given that the class is based around resonance?

Sounds to me like it would become a mandatory feat, which is a A Bad Thing.


DerCed wrote:
Virellius wrote:
My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.
If the party had 4 members, they would need to dish out 10 damage each. So the rolled really well and/or critted?

Well, my level 1 glaive fighter rolled a 29 damage crit on an AoO today. So that can happen. Now, that was against goblin AC, but still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there going to be additional rules/errata on grappling that just wasn't included in the playtest book? There's currently no way to move, drag, or reposition anyone that's grappled (Let alone pin, throw, or choke them (there's a monk feat for that one though), but I'm not trying to go crazy here), and while I know grappling is usually a pretty annoying subsystem, the rules for it are currently really clean, just lacking in options I think most people would expect to be able to do when they have grabbed someone.

I made a thread about this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vae6?Grappling-and-moving#1), but got no responses, so I doubt grapple rules are too important to too many people, haha.

Thanks. Really looking forward to the complete PF2E!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DerCed wrote:
Virellius wrote:
My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.
If the party had 4 members, they would need to dish out 10 damage each. So the rolled really well and/or critted?

This, and my party didn't know he was the boss either but he had had time to prepare for them because they rolled really badly on breaking down the door. All in all, it only took them about 2-3 rounds to kill him, but it was rough and two of them ended up at 0.

It all very simply depending on how the dice were falling and what actions were taken in what order, etc.

Scarab Sages

AndIMustMask wrote:

I'm glad to hear folks are taking some time to recover!

I do have a question that's been nagging me for some time though: there's mentions of an errata document (which i certainly approve of for the shrot-term!), but will we be seeing a playtest CRB v2 or the like at some point goign forward, for things like showcasing new layouts/formatting (since those are a major complaint as I've seen and personally experienced), or to playtest features that were announced but not available in the initial playtest doc, such as the expanded multiclassing options?
It's a major worry of mine, and I'd hate to see the playtest segment end in november before the new content springs fully formed and un-playtested in the final print some months later (and largely unable to be fixed without invalidating any initial purchases)!

Is a handful of complaints worth completely changing the format of the CRB? The vast majority like the format. If they change it, then a different handful of players will start whining about that format. See where I am going with this?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have specific questions about parts of the rules, please put them in the proper subforum instead of here (I know, it's done in the hope of Jason answering them, but it's not very fruitful for the overall playtest to have such things scattered all about).

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
Ablifco wrote:


Alchemists really can't qualify for Remarkable Resonance with their intelligence instead of charisma given that the class is based around resonance?
Sounds to me like it would become a mandatory feat, which is a A Bad Thing.

Cha 12 giving an actual bonus to Alchemists is actually really cool. It avoids punishing people who want to make a somewhat charming and gives Goblin Alchemists a legitimate advantage.

If Alchemist really needs the bonus Resonance to function, then the solution is not to change the Feat's prerequisites, it's to give Alchemists more Resonance (or more items per Resonance spent).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Ablifco wrote:


Alchemists really can't qualify for Remarkable Resonance with their intelligence instead of charisma given that the class is based around resonance?
Sounds to me like it would become a mandatory feat, which is a A Bad Thing.

Cha 12 giving an actual bonus to Alchemists is actually really cool. It avoids punishing people who want to make a somewhat charming and gives Goblin Alchemists a legitimate advantage.

If Alchemist really needs the bonus Resonance to function, then the solution is not to change the Feat's prerequisites, it's to give Alchemists more Resonance (or more items per Resonance spent).

Since alchemists aren't magic, why do the elixirs work like magic items? Why do you have to spend points from a secondary pool to make your normal class feature work (in opposite to spellcasters and spell slots)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a complaint in regards to the way the surveys are set up. You are supposed to have read them in advance so you can take additional notes, but you need to basically check the data entry of the survey for those questions. Which leads to you being spoiled because you are asked if you did this or that during your play. So I went through the surveys and extracted the non-spoiler you-need-to-know-in-advance questions. Here are they below:

----------------------------------- Player -----------------------------------

13. How many silver pieces did you have left over after creating your character (round down)?

14. How long did it take to create your character in minutes?

15. How many times was your character reduced to 0 Hit Points during this adventure?

17. How many times did your character reach 0 Resonance Points remaining during this adventure? (Enter 0 if you started each day with 0 resonance.)

18. How many times did your character critically fail the check while overspending Resonance Points during play of this adventure?

19. How many times did you run out of spell slots during the play of this adventure? (Leave blank if you had none.)

20. How many times did you run out of Spell Points during the play of this adventure? (Leave blank if you had none.)

21. How many Hero Points did you use during this adventure?

34. How many times did your group rest during this adventure?

------------------------------------- GM -------------------------------------

12. How long did it take for you to prepare to run this part of the adventure?

13. How many individual sessions did it take for your group to complete this part of the adventure?

14. How many Hero Points, in total, did you give out during this part of the adventure?

15. How many times was a player character reduced to 0 Hit Points during this part of the adventure?

16. How many player characters were killed during this part of the adventure?

28. How many times did your group rest for the night during this adventure?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I dont think there is any possibility of us doing a revised version of the rulebook in the time frame that we have, but we will be taking comments and feedback about the design of the book to heart when creating the final version.

So, no second round of playtest based on the feedback that has been given? This gives much more credit to the feeling that this rules are actually very close to what we are getting on the final release, with no real intention of making any sweeping changes between here and the official release.

I'm very disappointed, even if not really surprised.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As a note in response to Eldritchweaver, we put together a survey tracking PDF for GMs and Plsyers as part of the Day 1 Download package. It includes a spoiler free list of a few things to track. It focuses on those things that would be challenging to remember without notes, covering almost all of the points you have listed above.

As another aside, please do not post additional rules questions in this thread. Create new threads in the appropriate forums please.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that because we don't have time for a months-long playtest of the final draft that there won't be substantive changes to the rules based on player feedback.

What sort of "sweeping changes" are you personally looking for that you doubt there will be time to implement?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

I can't speak for Dekalinder, but I'd rather see resonance removed and HP/healing run on the Starfinder Stamina/Hit Points/Resolve mechanic with 10 minute rests. Is that too sweeping a change if resonance playtests poorly?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that because we don't have time for a months-long playtest of the final draft that there won't be substantive changes to the rules based on player feedback.

What sort of "sweeping changes" are you personally looking for that you doubt there will be time to implement?

For me that's ancestries.

Other stuff need some fixes/changes, but Ancestries are by far the weakest link for me atm.

All races bar none require a lot more "innate" things given from the start (to make you feel like you're actually that race) and Ancestral feats similar to 1st edition Race requirement feats be written for the actual advancement.

As an example, the Elves (which imo are one of the best written ancestries so far), could start with sleep immunity, weapon familiarity, and keen senses, at level 1.And then from level 5+ start picking up stuff like being even better at forests, or elven archery feats, or nature themed innates, and etc.

As it is now, it feels more like you make a generic blob with movement and vision, and slowly transform into an actual race at like level 9+


Arutema wrote:
I can't speak for Dekalinder, but I'd rather see resonance removed and HP/healing run on the Starfinder Stamina/Hit Points/Resolve mechanic with 10 minute rests. Is that too sweeping a change if resonance playtests poorly?

Those two are changes I would live with (I actually advocate for the second), but I think there is more than enough time to implement them.

What we can't do is playtest the changes, but that is a necessity. Otherwise, we would need time to playtest the changes of the changes, and also whatever changes the changes of changes playtest would bring, entering a loophole that will stagnant PF2 forever.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I think Deka misunderstood Jason.

They're gonna release Errata, FAQs, and Overhauls as they come up, they're just not gonna print an entire new Playtest Rulebook.

Edit: ah, what I get for opening this page but waiting a bit before posting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'd like to see
- resonance ditched
- substantial rework of class and general feats, where among others changes a large amount of the former should be included in the latter category
- rework of the whole ancestry concept of feat progression
- alternate multiclass option to VMC
- substantial increase to the amount of narrative agency that the spells and skills/class option (both casters and martials) provide
- rebalancing of the math to have a larger scissor between "best at something" and "just passable"
- more steamlining of the action system, where lots of lesser action tax should be removed, like drawing a weapon or changing grip

I personally believe that some of this changes are incisive enaugh that they should merit a second round of playtest if implemented to smooth out the inevitable kinks that would come out. I sincerely hope that the stance on an updated playtest rulebook is going to change.

Liberty's Edge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a whole list of changes (mostly involving Ancestries and Skills, the freasoning behind which are mostly found here for those interested) I'd really like to see, but I don't think Erik meant we should all post a wishlist here.

I personally have absolute faith that the people at Paizo will be able to make all the changes I want to see in the game in the time allotted (most are actually not hard changes to make mechanically, when you get right down to it).

My questions (and occasional worries) are about whether they'll come to the same conclusions I do on what changes are useful and necessary, not whether they are capable of doing so.

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Post Gen Con Update All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.