| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was running a long and boring X-ray experiment this afternoon so I had a chance to write up some Twitch stream stuff here is the top 5 update section
Top 5 Updates coming in update 1.5
Jason’s note on updates: They are managing the playtest as a process so they don’t want to update too much too quickly so Paizo is aware of problems and are taking them seriously even if they don’t implement large updates every two weeks. “Updates are concise, straightforward and focused on things they want data for”
5. Update on updates. Removed redundant rules changes so that even with new rules update 1.5 is fewer pages than 1.4
4. Adjustments to a few encounters to Doomsday Dawn part 6 and 7 to make them slightly less difficult
3. DC for treat wounds is now determined by the highest level patient. Not the level of the doctor. Likely not a final version since treat wounds is a work in progress and they are looking to gather more data on it.
2. Death and Dying update: Death save is a flat check instead of a fort save based on monster level. DC of the check is based on your dying condition. They might go back to the monster based one and just include a death DC on the stat block so consider this kind of an A B test of this system.
1. They have done a “tuning pass” on the majority of damage dealing spells and increased the damage of most of them. Also they acknowledge and agree that spells need buffing but so far the easiest to implement in an update is damage dealing spells. Scaling is not affected
Examples:
Burning Hands
Did 2d6 now does 3d6
Chain lighting
Was 7d12 now is 9d12
Meteor Swarm
Did 3d10 Bludgeoning and 14d6 Fire
Now 4d10 Bludgeoning and 19d6 Fire
Fireball… also buffed but I missed it
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
More good changes with this update.
I'm impressed with how much progress we've seen in these updates so far; by and large, almost all of the changes each time seem to be solid improvements on what came before.
Keep up the good work Paizo!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Q&A Session
(my personal summary, and I am not a stenographer so not direct quotes unless in quotations)
Q: Playtest schedule is aggressive what should we do about playtest fatigue?
A: We have playtesting goals and need rigorous testing so it's going to be less fun than normal gameplay. If you don't have time to finish all of doomsday dawn stick to 1, 4, & 7. It's perfectly acceptable if playtesting isn't for you and you want to drop out of the playtest.
"ultimately telling us where it's wrong will help us to make it right"
Right now the resonance test is really critical. We don't know what direction to go with this system so we need more data, specifically playtest feedback
Slightly off topic but Jason has a big whiteboard with a lot of things that they want to look into more.
Q: Is it okay to share the updated rulebook pdf?
A: As an employee I cannot condone that but I also don't feel the need to report it to anyone... .. ... so ... ... that is what it is. Let's move on.
Q: My animal companion keeps dying!
A: Yah we know, we are investigating that but need more survey data. We are looking into how the math in the game overall is tuned but I don't want to say anything more about that right now.
Q: What about high level play?
A: We are getting some more data on high level play now. Early indications of data put it right where we thought it would be but we need more data. We really want to get high level play right in PF2 since PF1 ends up being rocket tag.
Q: Any thoughts on Magic Potency? (as in magic in general not just potency runes)
A: Yes we are aware. We are starting with the update 1.5 by testing the damage dealing spell buff.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
More Questions
Q: Monster DCs, how they relate to players, the tuning might be off.
A: Yes we are aware that there is a math problem in the game. A significant element is that we assumed a a higher degree of optimization than is probably reasonable.
A solution to this is unlikely to show up in the playtest since it would be such a large overhaul but basically they are aware of the problem and plan on having a solution for the final version at least which they will talk about but probably after the playtest.
Q: What about monster creation rules?
A: Home-made monsters are not great for play testing. We have the rules and we will publish them. I can make a monster in 10 minutes. Similar to both the Starfinder and Unchained versions. Basic stats are easy and it all comes down to designing cool abilities. We will show if off "soon"
Q: Will there be combat style archetypes in the playtest?
A: No. We know that people want it but won't put it in the play test.
"we need to get the core tuned right before we get too far out int he reeds tinkering with the edges"
(so it sounds like they might make it into the final book just not in the playtest)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excited to see the new Blast spell numbers. It's important to remember 3 things:
1- Blasting spells in PF1 were considered very weak without a lot of cheese combos.
2- Enemy health has increased dramatically compared to PF1 and the gap grows every single level.
3- Blast spells in low level slots were still decent up til a certain point, so you could load on up a lot of them.
Blast spells on the initial playtest rulebook were roughly the same damage as PF1 ones (at max heightening), something very slightly better. Several of them also did less damage than the already weak PF1 counterparts. I don't need to repeat how bad they currently are given the above nerfs. So not only were they expected to keep up with the increased HP and less slots, but get another nudge to make them more attractive than in the previosu edition.
Considered all the nerfs to spellcasting, I would say some blast spells could comfortably deal TWICE OR MORE their PF1 damage (like new burning hands) before they become really worthwhile options to use max level spell slots in. Granted, the weakening of other spells that compete with blasts is indirectly making blasts seem less horrible in a vacuum. (But clearly bad in actual practice regardless). Alternatively, being able to cast a few more of them or power them up with class features could also alleviate the issue in the context of a full adventuring day.
EDIT: I realize boosting them too much will create a "Rocket Tag" effect. But that is the consequence of having so few slots. If something can only be used once or twice a day, people expect it to be REALLY GOOD. Expectations lower when its more abundant, like the old Spell Points. Also they should be compared with how Martial damage has changed for new edition, and let me tell you that it's probably improved, not weakened along with spells.
NOTE: I don't consider the crit damage from blasts to be worth balancing around, as you're never expected to land a crit with it in an important fight (Requires a Nat 1 from the boss). This double damage feature is mostly "for memes" when fighting enemies below party level to see cool impressive numbers and make the Spellcaster feel good (Even if it didn't make a difference).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they actually keep the updates to Doomsday Dawn Separate from the update document. As someone playing and not running it I am trying to avoid spoilers and i hope the document does not spoil anything for those later 2 parts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are all very promising! I'm especially looking forward to flat checks when dying (I didn't like assigning a level to Golarion for falling damage), and the magic update. I understand updating all the spells is a huge project and it makes sense to start with the damage spells.
Thank you for the heads up <3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they actually keep the updates to Doomsday Dawn Separate from the update document. As someone playing and not running it I am trying to avoid spoilers and i hope the document does not spoil anything for those later 2 parts.
Agreed. I've brought this up a few times now and I would love Doomsday Dawn updates to be their own document. I should be able to just hand the errata file to my players.
Director of Game Design
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they actually keep the updates to Doomsday Dawn Separate from the update document. As someone playing and not running it I am trying to avoid spoilers and i hope the document does not spoil anything for those later 2 parts.Agreed. I've brought this up a few times now and I would love Doomsday Dawn updates to be their own document. I should be able to just hand the errata file to my players.
I added a page break to this one so that you can hold those extra pages back.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
which means data might not be coming because some players are averse to testing the issue.
I've played a few games with an animal companion and it has been reasonably durable. Mostly because it is so ineffective that it really isn't worth killing :-(. It goes down in 1 or 2 blows if the bad guy decides its worth its time (or if there is some incidental damage).
Not sure how that factors into the data.
Note, it was explicitly sent in as a sacrifice against a certain snake in one scenario and against a dragon in another to buy time for buffs. Not sure those really count either
I added a page break to this one so that you can hold those extra pages back.I hope they actually keep the updates to Doomsday Dawn Separate from the update document. As someone playing and not running it I am trying to avoid spoilers and i hope the document does not spoil anything for those later 2 parts.Agreed. I've brought this up a few times now and I would love Doomsday Dawn updates to be their own document. I should be able to just hand the errata file to my players.
Thank you!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for making this thread! As vocal as I am about parts of the system I dislike & wish to see changed by the official release, I have to say I really love many of the new changes in the Playtest and am happy to see these updates constantly push things in the right direction.
Q: Monster DCs, how they relate to players, the tuning might be off.
A: Yes we are aware that there is a math problem in the game. A significant element is that we assumed a a higher degree of optimization than is probably reasonable.
Honestly, I think I prefer knowing that they assumed too much optimization and have to town things down, rather than finding out they assumed too little and optimized players just broke the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am playing a Druid from animal order and I confirm that Animal Companions are easy to die. Reason comes from a low AC at low level with not very much HP. They can get critically hit quite often and sometimes one shot as a result.
Therefore Animal Companions are way better staying behind waiting for opening and coming to deal damage and flank isolated monsters. They are not suited for "tanking" which usualy comes to mind when playing a caster PC.
Slightly more AC feels enough for me to make them viable at both. At the moment, they start at 12 to 14 AC at level 1 (10-25% critical hit chance and 60-75% hit chance against them) and should begin at 14 to 16 AC IMO because level 1 monsters have roughly +5/+7 to attacks. (5-15% critical hit chance and 40-65% chance to hit against them)
By the way, nothing is said in rules about their way to die. Do they die if HP goes to 0 or do they go through dying conditions like PC ? To allow more impersonalisation/roleplay, and because Animal Companion was dying often, we finaly houserulled them to be dying like PC but unable to rise back with PC's hero points.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
With regards to blasting, I feel a little vindicated. My concern almost instantly changed from blasting in specific to spellcasting in general when the actual playtest rules hit, but I'm still happy to see the step in the right direction. I do hope we get a chance to playtest with a more generally improved spell list, because magic is a huge part of the flavor and feel of Pathfinder. I love my spellcasters, I love having a big toolbox full of problem solving tools (both as a player and as a GM; I love that there's usually a spell that's perfectly within the rules that lets me create the situation I want) and it's a huge attraction of the system.
EDIT: I realize boosting them too much will create a "Rocket Tag" effect. But that is the consequence of having so few slots. If something can only be used once or twice a day, people expect it to be REALLY GOOD. Expectations lower when its more abundant, like the old Spell Points. Also they should be compared with how Martial damage has changed for new edition, and let me tell you that it's probably improved, not weakened along with spells.
I would concur; the tighter daily resources are, the higher the expectations are when you use them. I do think there's plenty of room for a balancing point there, but right now both efficacy and frequency of spellcasting could get a shot in the arm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great updates as usual!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This all sounds very good (except the new dying rules, I'm less than enthused there, but some of the alternatives sound good).
In particular, the persistent math issue is by far my largest concern in regards to the new system, and hearing they'll address it is very nice. I honestly don't mind that it probably won't be playtested, since it's the part of the game most susceptible to just, well, looking at the math, and I can manage with things as they are in the meantime.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the updates. I really don't mix well with twitch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same here. I hardly ever get time to spare to watch the streams.
First impression mostly good news.
Death and dying update is a bit concerning.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like a lighter update than some of the recent ones, but that's to be expected with the Resonance Test that just came out.
I'm really really happy to hear about the spell changes. I think blasting might be the place where it needs the least help, but they've finally acknowledged that the nerfing was too severe. I was worried that the reason it was never talked about, was that they were satisfied with where magic was. This eases some concern.
There's a lot more work to do on spells, but as a first step this works. And damage adjustment is the low-hanging fruit of spell fixes, so while I think it's less necessary than duration increases for example, it's a sign of good things.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, we still stick with the Level to everything in 1.5? That's dissappointing. The skill system needs a major rework and the little that has been done so far in that regard can only be consideredas a first tiny step.
Also, no word on reworking the conditions? boy, I hope that's on the agenda for 1.6 at least
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with the conditions?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
short version: they are way too complicated and bring gameplay to a halt everytime one comes up
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a shame - I thought that they were better than ability penalties overall.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, as far as I can see, they are holding to the the "you need to put damage dealing spells in higher spell slots so that they do more damage" idea, only that they are upping the base damage by a bit. That makes blasting still worthless with the too low success chance.
I'm not optimistic that the other spells will get better changes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually reasonably like most of the conditions in PF2. I think a few of them could be more intuitive so you don't need to look them up so much. More importantly, they should probably be at the very back of the book right before the index so they're easier to look up when you need them, which is a lot.
Also, the Hampered and Slowed conditions seriously need to swap names with each other.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually reasonably like most of the conditions in PF2. I think a few of them could be more intuitive so you don't need to look them up so much. More importantly, they should probably be at the very back of the book right before the index so they're easier to look up when you need them, which is a lot.
Also, the Hampered and Slowed conditions seriously need to swap names with each other.
I just think conditions need better organisation.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason is going to need go a lot higher than 19d6 damage to send me to the game store to buy more dice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason is going to need go a lot higher than 19d6 damage to send me to the game store to buy more dice.
Pretty sure I can handle up to about 74d6.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with the conditions?
There are WAY to many conditions, 42 of them. Even if one were to cut out all the non-condition conditions from that list (obvious stuff like dead, or friendly and hostile) that still leaves over 30 different ones.
Since one of the design goals was a simpler game, having so many conditions seems counterproductive.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a shame - I thought that they were better than ability penalties overall.
Eh? That isn't really the problem (or what changing them would involve).
The problem is too many of the conditions are overlapping but slightly different penalties to overlapping areas (AC, saves, attack rolls, checks, etc) and with slightly different but overlapping end states. There's little consistency, just a pile of things that apply -X to various rolls without rhyme or reason.
It's just a jumble of <thing> is -X to (list you need to look up) for somewhere between (a brief moment) to (how does this even stop, anyway?)
----
I thought the optimization comment was a little odd. As the problem isn't the norm of high optimization, but that the monsters (and DCs) are tuned for a level of optimization that isn't even -possible- in this rule set.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a shame - I thought that they were better than ability penalties overall.
Conditions are vastly improved from PF1 where they created a jumble of direct roll penalties and ability penalties causing indirect roll penalties and you couldn't ever get your numbers right.
However, there still are too many of them for comfort, maybe 15-20%? Also, there are inconsistencies, like when you take a -4 conditional penalty to AC for being asleep or unconscious, but not for being paralyzed. Plus a couple of the names are confusing.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, we still stick with the Level to everything in 1.5? That's dissappointing. The skill system needs a major rework and the little that has been done so far in that regard can only be consideredas a first tiny step.
Also, no word on reworking the conditions? boy, I hope that's on the agenda for 1.6 at least
Level to everything isnt going to go away. That would cause a whole system scrap. I'd give that hope up if I were you.
Level to everything isnt really bad.
Level to everything is really entirely that bad.
I respect that it may not be so to you.
But it completely reframes the focus of the mechanics and, to many, crushes the value found in 1E.
People are going away. That is also bad, even for people who do like it the way it is.
As to your first point. It seems you are right. This is known as the sunk cost fallacy. But it seems to be winning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like a lighter update than some of the recent ones, but that's to be expected with the Resonance Test that just came out.
I'm really really happy to hear about the spell changes. I think blasting might be the place where it needs the least help, but they've finally acknowledged that the nerfing was too severe. I was worried that the reason it was never talked about, was that they were satisfied with where magic was. This eases some concern.
There's a lot more work to do on spells, but as a first step this works. And damage adjustment is the low-hanging fruit of spell fixes, so while I think it's less necessary than duration increases for example, it's a sign of good things.
Well, juggling numbers is easy than re-writing a bunch of effects.
I'm not sure what I think of the dying rules... surely a burly person with high fortitude is more likely to recover from death than a spindly wizard, right? I was actually pretty okay with the previous rules...
I'm waiting to see how it's actually written... But I'm also bothered by that. I don't like it being a flat check that doesn't take character options into account.
any info on necromancy?
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level to everything isnt really bad.
Dropping "level to everything" would be a dealbreaker for me. It's one of the best things about the system I feel. Some of the math needs work but I don't want great heroes to ever feel incompetent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there are only two issues with level to everything, and both are easily fixed. Level to AC when paralyzed or helpless and level to skills you never intended to invest in. Remove it for both those cases and add the ability for expert or higher characters to provide temporary training for a specific task and let magic armor grant a portion of your level to ac depending on whether it's light medium or heavy.
Outside of that I'm totally fine with +lvl to most things.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
+level to everything just feels right and is so much simpler than +level to somethings or + a percentage of level to somethings (bab, saves) depending on class or deciding to add +level to something (putting a rank in a skill every level) in 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level to everything isnt really bad.Dropping "level to everything" would be a dealbreaker for me. It's one of the best things about the system I feel. Some of the math needs work but I don't want great heroes to ever feel incompetent.
What RPG would you play then? I'm seriously curious.
I also think that the omission of something as a dealbreaker seems significantly different than something which is fundamental to the math being a dealbreaker. I'm not disputing your personal taste and values. I respect that. But it isn't a symmetrical comparison.
But, most importantly of all, do you have anything to offer in way of trying to express an understand of why people so strongly dislike it and getting them to help support the game?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker either way and here's why.
To paraphrase Mark Seifter*, he said something along the lines of, "We tried to make it easy to add/remove things like +lvl to suit your preference. This change would have been very difficult to make in Pathfinder First Edition but we think we made it simple to houserule things like this in the playtest."
*I think it was in the Q&A section of the Mirrored Moon Twitch stream in which he said he was surprised we weren't all murderhobos.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker either way and here's why.
To paraphrase Mark Seifter*, he said something along the lines of, "We tried to make it easy to add/remove things like +lvl to suit your preference. This change would have been very difficult to make in Pathfinder First Edition but we think we made it simple to houserule things like this in the playtest."
I'm all about house rules.
I house rule 1E. There are things in 2E I would houserule right away.Show me some houserules for 2E without +level that really work. And by "really work" I mean: The system is strongly better than most games on the market and a good choice over the others.
There are a few good threads with a solid math analysis of why the system doesn't really work with out. (And, really, if it was that easy, I'm sure they would be looking for a compromise rather than steadfastly not acknowledging it)
I fooled around with it early on. Because there ARE several things I see that are cool new ideas. But, the claim in that quote notwithstanding, I could retool cool ideas into 1E and have a much better game than trying to prop up current-iteration 2E with +level stripped out. (Again, this becomes a conversation that happened in the 4E rollout as well)
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
level to skills you never intended to invest in.
And this right here is the part where I abandonded all hope for the playtest. Expecting your character to be good at everything, not having any weaknesses is just not a gaming style I feel comfortable with and would definately hate to see at my table. It's this entitlement that the Paladin shouldn't suck at sneaking in relation to the Rogue that leads to a mindset that gives us Lvl to ALL skills, even to those that make no sense to have in the first place.
1.2 broadened the field a little bit, opened the gap, but 1.2 just wasn't enough to make the difference big enough, since it kept the horrible level to skills in the system| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the answer to "the Paladin can do everything the rogue can do, just with a lower number" is *not* dropping level to everything, but the application of more aggressive proficiency gating.
So your level 10 Paladin with 14 dex and splint mail having a +5 to stealth just means "they will not auto-fail routine stealth checks". If some bit of sneaking is legitimately tricky, demand expert or higher proficiency to roll.
I'm vastly happier with level to everything, with more checks gated by proficiency than any other suggestion I have heard.