What I'm Looking For in 2e


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

pjrogers wrote:
However, the solution to this is NOT PF2e.

How does PF2 fail at countering that problem?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
However, the solution to this is NOT PF2e.
How does PF2 fail at countering that problem?

Whether it would fail or succed is irrelevant, because it is not needed as a solution. I think a far less radical approach would be sufficient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Scythia wrote:

You know what would be a cool Thievery feat? At Trained you gain the ability to pickpocket, at Expert you can attempt to pickpocket in combat so long as you're unseen, at Master you can attempt to pickpocket even when the target is on guard, at Legendary you can attempt to pickpocket an item in use.

I think more skill feats ought to have scaling effect based on degree of proficiency (like Catfall).

Stealing a potion or an item before the opponent use it as a reaction would be really fun xD

Except when it becomes common place and keeps happening to the PC's. Then it sucks.

MDC


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Scythia wrote:

You know what would be a cool Thievery feat? At Trained you gain the ability to pickpocket, at Expert you can attempt to pickpocket in combat so long as you're unseen, at Master you can attempt to pickpocket even when the target is on guard, at Legendary you can attempt to pickpocket an item in use.

I think more skill feats ought to have scaling effect based on degree of proficiency (like Catfall).

Stealing a potion or an item before the opponent use it as a reaction would be really fun xD

Except when it becomes common place and keeps happening to the PC's. Then it sucks.

MDC

The list of things PCs can do that suck if they happen to PCs is a mile long, and every charm spell in the game is higher up on the list than this is.

It's the reality of a game like this that a DM will have to have a deft touch when it comes to using some abilities against the PCs regularly. I don't think a legendary ability on one skill is that big of an issue, especially when it lets a PC do something so awesome and memorable.

We do want "awesome and memorable" in the game, after all. This is a case where perfect balance between PCs and NPCs is the enemy of fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

a modest edition change has it's own problems for Pathfinder. For starters, you will get a large chunk of players who will get angry that they will be "expected" to buy an update all over again that just tweaks the rules. Especially given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Stealing a potion or an item before the opponent use it as a reaction would be really fun xD
That's the kind of thing that people tell their friends about years later. This needs to happen!

In D&D 3.5 (and I assume PF1) you could use a disarm action as an attack of opportunity. Since drinking a potion provoked, you could attempt to disarm and steal the potion before they could use it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
For example: The rules that improve Pathfinder Society games - such as applying +1/level to untrained skills and removing spells like Teleport - aren't always suitable to custom-built home games with close friends.

FWIW, I don't think that either of these "improvements" do anything for Pathfinder Society play, and I suspect that the majority of folks with whom I do society play would agree with me.

Yes, very high-powered builds taking advantage of all the feats and archetypes that have been released for PF1e can trivialize some PFS content (particularly earlier scenarios). However, the solution to this is NOT PF2e. To my mind, a far better solution would be an evolutionary PF1.5e that learns from the experience and mistakes of PF1e.

I'm actually thinking more along the lines of freeing up the content creators rather than limiting the players.

Removal of Teleport and other problematic spells is so that the writers don't have to take up space explicitly providing reasons to thwart players from abusing those spells to bypass challenges or end the adventure early.

Adding +1/level to untrained ... Hmm, I think I should phrase this better...

Making it so that characters with no training in a skill still have a marginal chance of success at a level appropriate challenge is so that the content creators can add challenges with obscure success conditions without worrying too much about preventing the players from completing the scenario.

For example, having a door that requires an occultism check to open. That is fine if you have a Bard in the group, or anyone who has taken training in occultism. But any particular group of players may not have that skill among them. If there was no hope of success without training, then the level 15 group of Cleric, Druid, Fighter, and Arcane Sorcerer that don't have occultism trained among them wouldn't have much hope of succeeding at a DC 33 occultism check. At that point the game would get stuck and everyone would think that the adventure was punishingly hard unless you psychically knew before hand what character builds were needed. And no one would have any fun.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

...

I'm actually thinking more along the lines of freeing up the content creators rather than limiting the players.
...

It feels like 80% of PF2E's problems boil down to a mentality of "Ease for Designers>>>Fun for Players".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0

Great for your group, but given the state of Pathfinder at present, it would probably not go well for the company. 5E is drawing existing PF 1E players away, along with the normal attrition that all games have with their player bases.

As I see it, Paizo can:

Go with a significantly new edition and gamble it will bring in enough players to counteract those turned off. If you win the gamble, you'll do great. IF not, well...things go poorly

Do nothing at all, or just offer a mild update of the system. Consign your company to a massive downsizing that the company may never recover from.

I just don't see option 2 as viable. Option 1 is risky of course and who knows if it will work, but risk is better than nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

...

I'm actually thinking more along the lines of freeing up the content creators rather than limiting the players.
...
It feels like 80% of PF2E's problems boil down to a mentality of "Ease for Designers>>>Fun for Players".

Well, remember that a home game's GM is also a content creator. The 'Ease for Designers' mentality applies to them also. Am I not as much of a player of the game when I am creating content for my family to play?

I also don't think that the game designers are deliberately trying to optimize content creation at the expense of player enjoyment. Yes, there are still some things to work out regarding the difficulty tables. Also the Doomsday Dawn campaign was apparently set to be very difficult. Other things like that.

But the core rules seem to be going in the right direction as far as I can see. Including the ease for tuning the rules to your own preferred play style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
I'm actually thinking more along the lines of freeing up the content creators rather than limiting the players.

I think that Paizo is producing quite interesting and challenging content right now. On Saturday, I played Salvation of the Sages at high tier and had a great time.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0

Great for your group, but given the state of Pathfinder at present, it would probably not go well for the company. 5E is drawing existing PF 1E players away, along with the normal attrition that all games have with their player bases.

As I see it, Paizo can:

Go with a significantly new edition and gamble it will bring in enough players to counteract those turned off. If you win the gamble, you'll do great. IF not, well...things go poorly

Do nothing at all, or just offer a mild update of the system. Consign your company to a massive downsizing that the company may never recover from.

I just don't see option 2 as viable. Option 1 is risky of course and who knows if it will work, but risk is better than nothing.

Pretty much. People here act as if Paizo was some charity ran by people who didn't ask themselves the question "is a slightly tweaked PF1 viable economically for us?". Of course they've asked themselves that question and apparently they've arrived at the conclusion that no, a slightly tweaked PF1 is not going to float the boat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

To me, that's exactly what would make it worth it.

Slowly reaching perfection. If you play Pathfinder, you probably like the evolutionary concept anyway, or you'd be playing 3.5 or 3.0

Great for your group, but given the state of Pathfinder at present, it would probably not go well for the company. 5E is drawing existing PF 1E players away, along with the normal attrition that all games have with their player bases.

As I see it, Paizo can:

Go with a significantly new edition and gamble it will bring in enough players to counteract those turned off. If you win the gamble, you'll do great. IF not, well...things go poorly

Do nothing at all, or just offer a mild update of the system. Consign your company to a massive downsizing that the company may never recover from.

I just don't see option 2 as viable. Option 1 is risky of course and who knows if it will work, but risk is better than nothing.

Pretty much. People here act as if Paizo was some charity ran by people who didn't ask themselves the question "is a slightly tweaked PF1 viable economically for us?". Of course they've asked themselves that question and apparently they've arrived at the conclusion that no, a slightly tweaked PF1 is not going to float the boat.

And?

I'm not Paizo, my goals don't have to be aligned with theirs.
They have their priorities, I have mine, both parties are allowed to express themselves.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Compromise is probably a good idea. If Paizo lose a lot of their existing player base not only do they lose whatever those people may spend, they lose those people as promoters and gain some of them as naysayers.

That's on top of the PF2 system looking awful to me at the moment. I get that Gorbacz & friends somehow think it's the bee's knees, but I still think it could do with an overhaul rather than tinkering.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am looking for fun, something maybe macro; I find the entire Playtest, so far, too byzantine, sterile, dull, and lacking any macro/robust excitement. Way too micro and boring.

So many good ideas, but lost in a sea of a system that is lacking, for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:

Compromise is probably a good idea. If Paizo lose a lot of their existing player base not only do they lose whatever those people may spend, they lose those people as promoters and gain some of them as naysayers.

That's on top of the PF2 system looking awful to me at the moment. I get that Gorbacz & friends somehow think it's the bee's knees, but I still think it could do with an overhaul rather than tinkering.

It is the curse of the new edition cycle: those that bash blindly, those that praise blindly, and those that use normal discourse and critique of a new edition/system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Pretty much. People here act as if Paizo was some charity ran by people who didn't ask themselves the question "is a slightly tweaked PF1 viable economically for us?". Of course they've asked themselves that question and apparently they've arrived at the conclusion that no, a slightly tweaked PF1 is not going to float the boat.

A few thoughts on this

1) While this is a reasonable, albeit speculative, hypothesis, I've seen no data that supports it. I'd be happy to be directed to anything that is available.

2) Businesses run by smart, hard-working people make bad decisions all the time. Just because Paizo thinks that it's making the right decision does not mean that it is the correct decision.

3) I think Paizo could have its cake and eat it too. A revised PF1.5e with a strong companion Beginners's Box-type product could be marketed as "Pathfinder Second Edition" so as to appeal to D&D5e types while still keeping its current customer base happy. I've seen no evidence that this approach has been seriously considered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo’s design goals are at odds with each other. Keep existing playerbase who on balance like a deep crunchy game, and attract new or 5e players who enjoy a lighter, easier to teach game. The game they’ve come up with is a mish mash that is unlikely to appeal to either camp.

I too would have liked to see PF 1.5. I don’t think that PF can ever regain the market prominence they had after the 4E attrition. If so it would be a long time from now and require D&D to crap the bed again. I’d love to see Paizo get back to its roots and start to write content for 5E. Is 5E ogl? I’m not sure.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Pretty much. People here act as if Paizo was some charity ran by people who didn't ask themselves the question "is a slightly tweaked PF1 viable economically for us?". Of course they've asked themselves that question and apparently they've arrived at the conclusion that no, a slightly tweaked PF1 is not going to float the boat.

A few thoughts on this

1) While this is a reasonable, albeit speculative, hypothesis, I've seen no data that supports it. I'd be happy to be directed to anything that is available.

2) Businesses run by smart, hard-working people make bad decisions all the time. Just because Paizo thinks that it's making the right decision does not mean that it is the correct decision.

3) I think Paizo could have its cake and eat it too. A revised PF1.5e with a strong companion Beginners's Box-type product could be marketed as "Pathfinder Second Edition" so as to appeal to D&D5e types while still keeping its current customer base happy. I've seen no evidence that this approach has been seriously considered.

What data do you prefer, minutes from Paizo's internal meetings, or a declaration by a company that one of their core products is fading away? Because we won't get either, companies don't do such things.

Sure, the decision to put PF2 out may be a bad one. We'll see in few years, I hope you'll still be around then.

As for revised PF1.5 with Beginner's Box, well, I hope you have some evidence as to how that would be a better move. Especially the "appeal to 5e types" part, where most people leave PF for 5e due to a less complex and bloated ruleset DESPITE the fact that PF has a simplified Beginner's Box.

And besides, also in reply to Pogie's post, I doubt Paizo is going after 5e players. In fact, Vic has stated as much as that they're not going to compete for 5e's base a while back. What I think is that they are going after the big wave of new people coming into the hobby thanks to Critical Role and general mainstreaming of geek culture.

As far as fantasy RPGs go, most of those new players go for 5e, Paizo likely wants a larger share of that than it gets now with the dwindling PF1. Also, they don't even need to overtake 5e as Paizo's financial needs and corporate factors are on a different planet than WotC's.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@The Once and Future Kai: I noticed the weirdness with Exploration Mode as well, but I don't think the whole system needs an overhaul. Honestly I think the main thing it needs is to change "you can't take actions outside of your Tactic" to "you suffer a penalty on actions outside of your Tactic". That way you have an easy answer for the player who wants to sneak and keep watch at the same time: "Sure, which action is your main focus, and which do you want to take a -2 on?"

That makes logical sense to me, too - it's easier to hide from foes you know are there.

@Erpa: Honestly, despite what I thought when this playtest started, "a better version of PF1e" is I think actually not what I want. I'm quite happy with PF2e being a substantially different game, mechanics-wise, because I don't think the problems of 1e can be solved on the same mechanical framework.

Keep up the good discussion, guys, happy to see lots of points of view here. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


Pretty much. People here act as if Paizo was some charity ran by people who didn't ask themselves the question "is a slightly tweaked PF1 viable economically for us?". Of course they've asked themselves that question and apparently they've arrived at the conclusion that no, a slightly tweaked PF1 is not going to float the boat.

Who's acting like that?

When you start a TTRPG following an evolution pattern of improving on a previous edition (a valuable one, the last one sanctioned by Gygax) I don't think it's radical to assume the next edition would be an evolution of that as well.

Competing against 5E is possible by trimming the fat on the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder and improving the following.

I've found in the TTRPG world, a lot of recommendations for games is word of mouth.

You're not going to beat the brand recognition of DnD, but you can attract people that want a different flavor of that.

If the only goal is to try to steal market share that's going to come through in the product.

Now I'm pretty sure Paizo is going to make adjustments so this game does feel like an evolution, but I find that position rooted in a lot of preconceived notions about people giving criticism as opposed to actual evidence. Specifically going for "EVERYONE THINKS ITS A CHARITY!"

No one thinks its a charity. I want them to beat WotC, I believe good criticism and a stronger evolution is the way to do that, not just trying to come up with a variant of a WotC formula (whether you think that's 4E or 5E).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

@The Once and Future Kai: I noticed the weirdness with Exploration Mode as well, but I don't think the whole system needs an overhaul. Honestly I think the main thing it needs is to change "you can't take actions outside of your Tactic" to "you suffer a penalty on actions outside of your Tactic". That way you have an easy answer for the player who wants to sneak and keep watch at the same time: "Sure, which action is your main focus, and which do you want to take a -2 on?"

That makes logical sense to me, too - it's easier to hide from foes you know are there.

I think Exploration Mode suffers from the same problem as Resonance or certain other mechanics. That is, the developers are trying to solve four or five problems with one new mechanic. However, while Resonance (which is an easily tweaked subsystem) has gotten a lot of attention I feel that Exploration Mode (which covers most out of combat play) has been largely overlooked.

I think Mathmuse laid out some of the problems caused by this 'one size fits all' approach quite well.

Quote:
Mathmuse wrote:

The main thing that bothers me about exploration mode as written is it tries to be one size fits all.

Playtest Rulebook, page 290 wrote:
In exploration mode, time is more flexible and the style of play more free-form. Here, minutes or even hours in the game world could pass quickly in the real world. This mode of play is frequently used when traveling, exploring a dungeon, or roleplaying in a town. Developments in exploration mode can lead to encounters, causing play to alternate between encounter mode and exploration mode as the story unfolds. The rules for exploration mode can be found starting on page 316.

1) I need a short non-encounter mode where the PCs are working together but turn order does not matter. For example, the rogue is using Thievery to pick a lock, the ranger trained in Thievery is aiding, and the other PCs are on lookout. That is not encounter mode, but it is less than a minute so we could have handled it in encounter mode if we wanted to roleplay turns where the players just say, "Still on lookout."

2) I need a mode for dungeon exploration. The room has been cleared, so everyone is looting and searching for secret doors. The healer might be tending wounds. Or they are at a crime scene searching for clues. Everyone makes frequent dice rolls about their efforts or discoveries. The enemy could show up any moment, so it would need to smoothly blend into encounter mode. This could take place in 10-minute periods.

3) I need a travel mode that takes place in one-hour or longer periods. The players could be on a well-marked road, simply keeping an eye open for ambushes or a good roadside inn. Or they could be wandering through pathless forest trying to not get turned aside by thick brambles. Crossing rivers or climbing cliffs could switch to short mode #1. And those ambushes will occasionally occur, but so infrequently that we can have a pause before encounter mode. I could say, "Okay, I am rolling for a random encounter. If you were about to be ambushed, what would you be doing right now? Oops, false alarm, the dice said nothing here. But the fighter, you said you had your shield raised and your longsword in hand. You are growing fatigued. Take a rest immediately, or you will be fatigued, heh heh."

4) I need a daily travel mode. I once ran The Hungry Storm where the party lead a caravan over the northern ice cap in a 3-month journey. Most days were uneventful. But I suppose that could be a downtime mode.

There are a few additional issues that have been brought up...

--| Tactics feel artificially restrictive (as you note - I liked your tweak to fix this)
--| Tactics add another layer of complication; why not just say pick which Skill is dominant during Exploration and others take a penalty?
--| Fatiguing Tactics often feel arbitrary
--| Travel rules (especially when mounted) don't make sense

However - my two biggest issues with the Exploration Mode as is are Social Tactics and Four Degrees of Success.

Social Tactics: After removing the layer complication from Tactics, there is no improvement in the social skills over Pathfinder First Edition. I'd hoped that the new edition would try to make social skills dynamic and encourage teamwork. Instead it's the same beat their number with your number to persuade them. I've gotten some flak for constantly bringing up Fate Core's Social Conflict system but - still - something that would enable simple tactics like 'good cop/bad cop' would be very welcomed. It's been 18 years - time for this social skill system to get a meaningful overhaul.

Four Degrees of Success: I love this for Spells and Combats...but I feel that a lot of Skills need to to back to having gradient success Out of Combat. I don't want only limited outcomes from Recall Knowledge or Survive in the Wild. Four outcomes isn't enough...worse, some only have two outcomes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pogie wrote:
I too would have liked to see PF 1.5. I don’t think that PF can ever regain the market prominence they had after the 4E attrition. If so it would be a long time from now and require D&D to crap the bed again. I’d love to see Paizo get back to its roots and start to write content for 5E. Is 5E ogl? I’m not sure.

That would necessitate a substantial downsizing, as you don't need the people that develop game systems and mechanics when all you are making is adventure paths. It's also risky, as Paizo learned when they got largely frozen out of 4e.

A business operating solely on another business allowing it to do so is always in danger. When you're very small, that's the reality, but they're big enough now that I can't see them ever thinking it's a good idea to go backwards.

The big goal at this point has to be to try and convert existing PF players and get them to want to play the new system. If they do, they'll tell their friends and that will prompt new people to try it. They will never get everyone to move (no new version of a system ever has, not even the otherwise hugely successful 5e), but if a majority do , they will have a shot at growing that end of the business again.


Tridus wrote:
pogie wrote:
I too would have liked to see PF 1.5. I don’t think that PF can ever regain the market prominence they had after the 4E attrition. If so it would be a long time from now and require D&D to crap the bed again. I’d love to see Paizo get back to its roots and start to write content for 5E. Is 5E ogl? I’m not sure.

That would necessitate a substantial downsizing, as you don't need the people that develop game systems and mechanics when all you are making is adventure paths. It's also risky, as Paizo learned when they got largely frozen out of 4e.

A business operating solely on another business allowing it to do so is always in danger. When you're very small, that's the reality, but they're big enough now that I can't see them ever thinking it's a good idea to go backwards.

The big goal at this point has to be to try and convert existing PF players and get them to want to play the new system. If they do, they'll tell their friends and that will prompt new people to try it. They will never get everyone to move (no new version of a system ever has, not even the otherwise hugely successful 5e), but if a majority do , they will have a shot at growing that end of the business again.

Personally, and I'm sure I'm in the minority, I think they should adopt even further FOSS style game development.

DnD has had a lot of settings over the years. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Dragon Lance, and Eberron (my absolute favorite).

I think given how many people have provided content over the years from RPG Superstar to just providing free access to certain settings, they should encourage this type of thing for their system as well.

I am not sure if their roots in 3.0-Pathfinder are considered less than, but I personally see them as the true successors of that edition.

I'm sure Hasbro and Co. has done their best to smear that idea, but I 100% know they've innovated enough on that version where I consider them the rightful kings of the edition.

Conquering foreign lands might be appetizing, but I think if they expand their kingdom conceptually as opposed to geographically.

I know that goes further from the concept of introducing Golarion as a base world for Pathfinder 2E, but that's really not that different from Greyhawk and 3.0/3.5 (easily changed or modified).

Is that profitable enough with their current model of "book content is essentially free", not without some other aspect involved I imagine, but more people playing your system means more people playing your game, means more people buying your books, and back in the day we used to switch settings all the time as they had vastly different feels (might start in FR but go to Greyhawk).

I hope they believe that there are people that play their system because of Archetypes, because of cool class concepts like Magus, Witch, and Inquisitor.

That loved combat style changes to Rangers in APG. That loved Hybrid Classes in ACG.

They do more than tell stories, they do make great systems.

They need to make a great system first. The story telling will flourish under that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think there are some benefits to clearly defined tactics; for some tactics it might make sense for more than once skill to be freely available. For example, if you are mainly socializing, you should probably not be taking penalties to any of the major social skills.

It also provides a neat system for other systems to attach to, such as Skill Feats.

But I'll agree that the current implementation feels a bit clunky and could use some streamlining.

I would also be hugely - hugely - in favor of there being a standardized "post combat breather" mechanic, kinda like Darkest Dungeon's mid-dungeon rest mechanic. Roll things like Treat Wounds, identifying items, and repairing dents into that, change some spell durations to "until your next breather", that sort of thing.

But that might be too gamist for the typical player.

EDIT: Actually, rather than "until your next breather", what I might like is something like this:

A party is considered to have Momentum when they are actively pushing deeper into the dungeon and resolving traps and combats. Taking a breather action after a combat does not break Momentum. However, if the party stops to take multiple breather actions or to pursue other activities, they have broken Momentum. Many buff spells have a duration of "until you break Momentum".


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:


Personally, and I'm sure I'm in the minority, I think they should adopt even further FOSS style game development.

What is FOSS, please?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I would also be hugely - hugely - in favor of there being a standardized "post combat breather" mechanic, kinda like Darkest Dungeon's mid-dungeon rest mechanic. Roll things like Treat Wounds, identifying items, and repairing dents into that, change some spell durations to "until your next breather", that sort of thing.

I do love me some Darkest Dungeon, but that approach is contingent on the Stress system in that game, more than it is the HP system.

Your idea is not too dissimilar from the 4E mechanic "Second Wind", but moved to an exploratory tactic.

Now I'm not opposed to some form of this in the form of "momentum", where instead of a "stress" system, you have encouraging people to press on via bonuses, likely in the form of Morale benefits.

That said, layering a new system onto what they have already may be a bit too much at this point.

I do like the idea though, and incentives to continue on would be a good way to make players choose when they want to "breath" so to speak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ericthecleric wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Personally, and I'm sure I'm in the minority, I think they should adopt even further FOSS style game development.
What is FOSS, please?

Free Open Source Software, it's a concept usually applied to where you allow people access to the code of the root software to "add" to the basic concept of the software through their own use of the system.

Basically, they apply FOSS concepts to Pathfinder 2E settings, where Golarion is the "base" software, and other settings are the "additions".

FOSS is also great for general maintenance and security improvement, which might not work as well for a print-like edition, but more and more I like the idea of a "living" game as a TTRPG. Certainly there are members of the community passionate enough to develop that aspect (archives of Nethys comes to mind).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

OK. Thanks for explaining.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But it's already working that way, there are several 3PP settings for Pathfinder.


Gorbacz wrote:
But it's already working that way, there are several 3PP settings for Pathfinder.

Right, 3PP.

Not supported settings, but 3rd party (dependent on the lead of the original).

If there were outlets for these 3rd parties to progress into a more integral part of the game, that would raise the tide of all boats.

Though I suppose it's not that much different.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
a modest edition change has it's own problems for Pathfinder. For starters, you will get a large chunk of players who will get angry that they will be "expected" to buy an update all over again that just tweaks the rules. Especially given that Pathfinder is a slight evolution of 3.5 which is a slight evolution of 3.0.

My sense is that Unchained was that minor edition change presented as optional rulesets. I skipped it and only became familar with it through this playtest. It sounds like others skipped it as well...despite the rules being pretty solid.

I was definitely looking for some signficant changes from Second Edition. Primarily...
--| Improved Player Character Parity (Fewer Trap options, more niche protection)
--| Modularity (Easier to homebrew/add 3PP content)
--| Stronger Tactical Play (Positioning, teamwork,and terrain matter more)
--| Streamlined Rules (Easier to pick up and go. Ease of use.)
--| Faster Individual Turns (No more summoner/high level dual wielder taking 10 min)
--| Out of Combat (More interesting options outside of battle)
--| Modern Standards (First Edition is built on an 18 year old chassis... We're in the golden age of tabletop gaming, in my opinion, and it's time for Pathfinder to adopt some of those modern innovations.)

The playtest accomplishes some of these, in my opinion, but misses the mark on others. But I appreciate that they're trying and things are improving with each update.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
But it's already working that way, there are several 3PP settings for Pathfinder.

Right, 3PP.

Not supported settings, but 3rd party (dependent on the lead of the original).

If there were outlets for these 3rd parties to progress into a more integral part of the game, that would raise the tide of all boats.

Though I suppose it's not that much different.

If you're hoping for multiple settings by Paizo, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Competing setting lines killed TSR and Paizo's founders were in charge of finding out how that happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
If you're hoping for multiple settings by Paizo, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Competing setting lines killed TSR and Paizo's founders were in charge of finding out how that happened.

Uh that's a bit of a dubious claim.

Most would argue the reason TSR failed was because of the following:

- CCG were becoming increasingly popular, Pokemon, Magic, etc. were all competing in the same niche market

- They, like with 3.5, released rules bloat which sold books short term but over all diluted the value of the product

- They were putting out a lot of print work in an effort to generate more sales, and when those books didn't sell they were sitting with stacks of product that had cost them loads of money

I am very familiar with the industry and your claim the "Multiple settings killed TSR" is the first time I've ever even heard the claim made.

Care to provide sources on that?

Regardless, I am not talking about Paizo producing anything, but giving current 3PP devs a look under the hood so to speak, so that they can better support their system.

DnD has made it through years with 6 different prominent settings (Eberron was one of THE most successful settings in DnD period not created in house), to claim it was the "death" of TSR seems like a gross overstatement.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If you're hoping for multiple settings by Paizo, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Competing setting lines killed TSR and Paizo's founders were in charge of finding out how that happened.
Uh that's a bit of a dubious claim.

I hate putting words in others' mouths but I'm pretty sure this claim has been backed up by both Paizo and WotC staff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If you're hoping for multiple settings by Paizo, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Competing setting lines killed TSR and Paizo's founders were in charge of finding out how that happened.
Uh that's a bit of a dubious claim.
I hate putting words in others' mouths but I'm pretty sure this claim has been backed up by both Paizo and WotC staff.

Not to say that isn't true, but most of the immediate research I can find says the exact opposite.

Would you have any resources that say contrary available?

Saying that "3rd party settings were the death of TSR" is BOLD. A company does not fail on one prospect alone.

Now, Supplements, sure. I stated as much, producing side track products that don't sell is a death of any company, but that's not the same as straight up allowing Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms/etc. to produce DnD settings (which is what I'm suggesting).

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If you're hoping for multiple settings by Paizo, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Competing setting lines killed TSR and Paizo's founders were in charge of finding out how that happened.

Uh that's a bit of a dubious claim.

Most would argue the reason TSR failed was because of the following:

- CCG were becoming increasingly popular, Pokemon, Magic, etc. were all competing in the same niche market

- They, like with 3.5, released rules bloat which sold books short term but over all diluted the value of the product

- They were putting out a lot of print work in an effort to generate more sales, and when those books didn't sell they were sitting with stacks of product that had cost them loads of money

I am very familiar with the industry and your claim the "Multiple settings killed TSR" is the first time I've ever even heard the claim made.

Care to provide sources on that?

Regardless, I am not talking about Paizo producing anything, but giving current 3PP devs a look under the hood so to speak, so that they can better support their system.

DnD has made it through years with 6 different prominent settings (Eberron was one of THE most successful settings in DnD period not created in house), to claim it was the "death" of TSR seems like a gross overstatement.

Sure I can. Lisa was hired by WotC to investigate the reasons behind TSR going belly up. If you dig around a bit more you'll find more fascinating stories, but the competing lines part was the core reason.

Also, you're mixing the timeline up. Eberron comes from the times of 3.0/3.5 when the only settings actively put out by WotC were Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Additionally, Eberron was created in-house, Keith Baker was hired by WotC and the entire Eberron product line was 100% WotC product.


Gorbacz wrote:

Sure I can. Lisa was hired by WotC to investigate the reasons behind TSR going belly up. If you dig around a bit more you'll find more fascinating stories, but the competing lines part was the core reason.

Also, you're mixing the timeline up. Eberron comes from the times of 3.0/3.5 when the only settings actively put out by WotC were Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Additionally, Eberron was created in-house, Keith Baker was hired by WotC and the entire Eberron product line was 100% WotC product.

Thanks for the source.

As for the timelines, I am aware during TSR Eberron did not exist, I was merely pointing out that a "3rd party developed setting" is probably one of the best examples of how this can be done right.

I would say however that the reason they went belly up is in part for things that I am not suggesting they produce the books themselves (which as I said, supplements that didn't sell was the problem, not settings themselves). Lisa makes it clear in her post that the problem was unsold product. Now whether you can attribute that to the actual producing of the books or the sanctioning of the settings, I would put it squarely on the former, but perhaps the latter is just a dangerous road to travel.

If they did, they would of course there would need to set a reasonable limit for sanctioned settings if that were the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are various theories about why TSR failed.

There is a good discussion at the Plot Points podcast based on interviews the presenter did with many of the people involved. You can find it here.

Designers and Dragons is not free like the podcast, but is a pretty serious history of RPGs that discusses the issue as well. It's worth a read.

The idea that TSR had too many settings, that they put themselves in competition with themselves by fracturing the player base, was not the only problem (I tend to think TSR's crazy debt arrangement with Random House is a more significant cause), but you can't expect anyone to take seriously your claim that you are "very familiar with the industry" if you have never even heard of a theory that is both extremely common and plausible enough that serious people like Lisa Stevens believe it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, Lisa doesn't have to believe anything, it was her job to find out why TSR died and what WotC should and shouldn't do to avoid the same fate. Multiple lines of settings with boxed sets were one of the first things to get axed once WotC launched 3.0 in 2000. WotC didn't put her on the NDA with that info, so here's a rare lawsuit-proof insight into what really happened behind the scenes of a dying business.

Matter of fact, 3.0 did briefly have DragonLance which was outsourced to a 3PP. But WotC did have the manpower and resources to keep tabs and vet such publishers, at least until a point, because the license got axed in 2007 and the idea wasn't revisited since.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:


MaxAstro wrote:
Some classes feel out of whack with each other
We've noticed that Barbarian and Angelic Sorcerer seem noticeably weaker than their peers (Fighter and Demonic Sorcerer).

I mean, that's what happens when the Fighter's shtick is being good at fighting. No one else is allowed to be an expert at dealing damage. The solution to this, in my opinion, is scrapping the Fighter and replacing it with the Marshal.


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

Honestly yeah, if they were going to do a full "no sacred cows" rebuild of Pathfinder, I would axe Fighter for sure. The existence of that class causes all kinds of problems. It is by far the most poorly defined class, with the most poorly defined role.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
I mean, that's what happens when the Fighter's shtick is being good at fighting. No one else is allowed to be an expert at dealing damage.

Seems silly. The Barbarian should (in my opinion) be better at dealing damage at the cost of having weaker defenses.


Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
you can't expect anyone to take seriously your claim that you are "very familiar with the industry" if you have never even heard of a theory that is both extremely common and plausible enough that serious people like Lisa Stevens believe it.

I think I was just confused by the statement that settings were the reason they failed.

I stated that failures to sell supplements was likely the leading problem. Supporting all those settings by printing books for them and in gracious amounts, certainly.

Apologies for the confusion, but I was more confused by the "yeah settings will never be supported because settings were the death of TSR" which is extremely generalized compared to "Actively producing books for over 10+ settings left a lot of product on the shelves, which directly lead to fission of a player base and decreasing sales"

Regardless, there are a lot of cited reasons for the failure outside Lisa's statement, most of which state a lot of different issues. Even Lisa says in her own post as much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Honestly yeah, if they were going to do a full "no sacred cows" rebuild of Pathfinder, I would axe Fighter for sure. The existence of that class causes all kinds of problems. It is by far the most poorly defined class, with the most poorly defined role.

If they were doing a full "no sacred cows" rebuild, I would just scrap all the existing classes. Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might do a good job of divorcing normal roles from classes and even produce actual balance between martials and casters.

I'd also add 2 new ability scores. Splitting Dexterity into Agility (gross motor skills) and Deftness (fine motor skills) and doing a bit of handwaving to get Dex to attack and damage into Deftness would let you build finesse fighters without making Dex a god-stat. And splitting Wisdom into Awareness and Presence would let you end the confusion of whether force of personality is Wisdom (will saves) or Charisma (sorcerers) by just making it its own stat.


Tridus wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Scythia wrote:

You know what would be a cool Thievery feat? At Trained you gain the ability to pickpocket, at Expert you can attempt to pickpocket in combat so long as you're unseen, at Master you can attempt to pickpocket even when the target is on guard, at Legendary you can attempt to pickpocket an item in use.

I think more skill feats ought to have scaling effect based on degree of proficiency (like Catfall).

Stealing a potion or an item before the opponent use it as a reaction would be really fun xD

Except when it becomes common place and keeps happening to the PC's. Then it sucks.

MDC

The list of things PCs can do that suck if they happen to PCs is a mile long, and every charm spell in the game is higher up on the list than this is.

It's the reality of a game like this that a DM will have to have a deft touch when it comes to using some abilities against the PCs regularly. I don't think a legendary ability on one skill is that big of an issue, especially when it lets a PC do something so awesome and memorable.

We do want "awesome and memorable" in the game, after all. This is a case where perfect balance between PCs and NPCs is the enemy of fun.

I agree but when it becomes so common that enemies at your level or are higher level have an easy time knocking a weapon from your hand it become a problem. (note there are many games that have this issue tied to disarm)

The same issue can occur with stealing items in combat.

The thing I keep in mind as a player is that what I can do often NPC's/Monsters can also do.
Then ask is that a problem now or in the future?
MDC


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Well, Lisa doesn't have to believe anything...

Smart and competent people can look at the same data and draw different conclusions, she isn't infallible.

Despite having all of TSR's old data, WotC follows a very different publication strategy than Paizo in lots of ways. Most obviously they publish way less often. D&D does a few big releases a year rather than Pazio's magazine style of lots of little releases all the time. WotC hasn't abandoned the idea of multiple settings, it has published a well received Ravenloft book as well as more recent Ebberon and Ravnica products despite mostly keeping things in the Forgotten Realms.

Sure, the box set followed by a million splat-books for each of a million settings model is dead, but that isn't the same as the idea of publishing multiple settings being dead. Maybe no one can make money selling a line of "Van Richten's guide to X" (which RPG geek tells me had ten entries by the end), but WotC made plenty of money off Curse of Strahd. No one knows if a Dragonlance book in the same style would be well received or not, or how much expansion Ravenloft can support (sure, CoS was great, but would people buy another big adventure set in Darkon?).

More generally, the danger is spreading yourself too thin, not different settings per se. If Paizo tried to publish ten gothic monster splatbooks for Ustlav adventures like the Van Richten line, they would lose money because that is too much page count to too little interest, even if they are all set in the one world of Golarion.

Paizo has concluded the best strategy is to keep everything on Golarion, WotC is experimenting with things like a big expensive Ravenloft book and a little cheap Ebberon PDF. Who knows how successful either company's strategy will be, but it's not like there is some simple right answer that people like Lisa know, if there were people like Chris Cocks wouldn't disagree with her.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RazarTuk wrote:

If they were doing a full "no sacred cows" rebuild, I would just scrap all the existing classes. Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might do a good job of divorcing normal roles from classes and even produce actual balance between martials and casters.

I'd also add 2 new ability scores. Splitting Dexterity into Agility (gross motor skills) and Deftness (fine motor skills) and doing a bit of handwaving to get Dex to attack and damage into Deftness would let you build finesse fighters without making Dex a god-stat. And splitting Wisdom into Awareness and Presence would let you end the confusion of whether force of personality is Wisdom (will saves) or Charisma (sorcerers) by just making it its own stat.

Hmm... If we were to change the abilities themselves...

Well, I think Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma are fine by themselves, but sometimes my players get confused by "Constitution". If we are trying to name things more closely to what they do, perhaps Endurance instead?

Personally I think force of personality should be in Charisma, so Wisdom could just change to awareness, or maybe Perception.

Someone in another thread was mentioning how weird it was that you still get reflex saves while paralyzed and the reply to that was that reflex is as much luck as anything. We could make that explicit. Agility for AC and ranged attacks, Luck for reflex saves and maybe some other things.

That's a lot of new ability names to remember, though. We should come up with an acronym of some kind, like TEML, to keep track of them...

Spoiler:
...S.P.E.C.I.A.L., perhaps? I couldn't resist. :P But you do make some good points. I'm just overall not sure if there a huge benefit to splitting things more finely... Exalted gets away with nine ability scores, but it also makes social intrigue a core part of the system in a way that Pathfinder doesn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I had to redesign stats and no sacred cows my setup would be

-Prowess
Damage, strength and physical resistance (fortitude, HP...)

-Quickness
Defense, initiative, reflexes

-Dexterity
Hit chance, movement, fine movement

-Logic
Unchanged from Intelligence, basically

-Perception
Sense Motive, Perception, save against illusions

-Spirit
Force of personality, charisma, save against charm & compulsion

Example:

A character with high Dexterity would hit and crit more often but wouldn't deal as much base damage as someone with high Prowess.

A character with high Prowess would have more HP but less AC than a character with high Dexterity.

Both stats are useful for attack and defense, and you never feel that raising the lower one is a waste.

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What I'm Looking For in 2e All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.