Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previews


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

15 people marked this as a favorite.

So many red flags on this stream.

Top 5:

5. Stances: no more Open trait on stances (still 1/r)
4. More class options. Rangers get early level “ranger edges” (flurry, precision, stalker). Rogues get “techniques” (finesse, brute attack, feint)
3. Monks get more Ki powers, buff on Ki strike, everybody was kung fu fighting, more flexibility on abilities.
2. ALCHEMIST. Lots of stuff. Big deals include: removal of resonance alchemy, replaced with infused reagents similar to resonance playtest version. ALCHEMISTS GET RESEARCH FIELDS like bomber, chirurgeon, mutagenist (lower level mutagens will be a thing), poisoner.
1. PALADIN. Removed from the game. That's what Stephen (senior designer) said, I swear to Asmodeus.

Spoiler:
He was kidding, paladin will be Any Good rather than Lawful Good, but with slightly different codes (Defender LG, Redeemer NG, Liberator CG). Don't smite the messenger.

Someone read my alchemist rants <3 happy me.
This thread is still being edited and added to at the time of posting.

Also notes:
Some more minor updates COULD happen but will not follow a schedule and will not be of this magnitude.

"X Form" spells that use bestiary stats cannot be a thing because bestiary uses different creation rules that are not fitting for the PCs and would end up in cherry-picking monsters (Personal note: 3.5 Hydra form wizard with shared spell familiar anyone?)

1e to 2e conversion was talked about mostly in monster terms but republishing old adventures in 2e won't likely sell much.

Once the playtest ends in December, some information blogs on final 2e will come out - the proper form of this is still in the works.

LV12 bunnies issue: On one side, a GM creating an adventure will set a DC to challenge a party if the situation demands it. On the other, a GM creating a world will set level challenges regardless on when players meet them. Meeting the two is the issue and they need to work on conveying that idea. The chat demands a shrubbery to climb.

I tried to ask about mandatory item bonuses (working the question in a little less loaded way) but it wasn't picked up. There's a bit more discussion I didn't jot down, so feel free to check the stream if you want more details!

STREAM ENDED AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE ADDITIONS


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, sucks to the LG purists (which I'm not). Good for the Alchemist and others, more choices is usually better than less choices (especially when they are all viable in some way).

And no idea what will happen with stances (I ain't a game rules analyst).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like all classes are getting some sort of subclass option now. Which is probably good overall for build diversity plus it leaves a space for PF1 style archetypes in the form of new subclass options. I wonder if they are Bard, Druid, or Wizard style in terms of flexibility. Probably dependent upon what the survey data said was most popular.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Bummer about Paladin.


I mean, I still think the Guardian is a good heavy armor class that shouldn't be limited to LG, but it's still a massive step up over the Chaos Knight.

Paizo Employee Designer

21 people marked this as a favorite.

The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others. But that is not feasible for an update that you guys apply throughout the book.


Ty for the input Mark :) I remember that being in the Class survey, glad it went through!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others. But that is not feasible for an update that you guys apply throughout the book.

Is the plan to have the same class chassis or will they have their own unique structures (either "subclass", unique class, something else)?


Saedar wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others. But that is not feasible for an update that you guys apply throughout the book.
Is the plan to have the same class chassis or will they have their own unique structures (either "subclass", unique class, something else)?

From what I recall, the survey asked for opinions on renaming the class Champion and making Paladin a subclass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others. But that is not feasible for an update that you guys apply throughout the book.

As long as the non-LG ones aren't called "Paladin" I'm happy.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others. But that is not feasible for an update that you guys apply throughout the book.
As long as the non-LG ones aren't called "Paladin" I'm happy.

We heard you and others with similar thoughts, here and on the surveys, and that's why we're working on the name change in the long term. Adding the other alignments was super popular, but many of the minority who were worried about that change seemed more OK if the others aren't named "paladin."


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course though, whatever they do decide to do with paladin alignment-wise, that doesn't really matter if the class chassis itself isn't getting an overhaul.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am more than happy to dance on the grave of a core class being restricted to a single alignment. I still wish it could be all alignments (restricted by deity like cleric), but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.


Charon Onozuka wrote:

I am more than happy to dance on the grave of a core class being restricted to a single alignment. I still wish it could be all alignments (restricted by deity like cleric), but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.

Tbh if it's the way it was in the resonance test, it's just loose spell slots for your morning prep and some leftover for casual casting. Not a fan myself either, but at least it's not extra to track when you think about it that way.

Archive, with all classes getting changes, I'm willing to wait and see for what gets done.

Paizo Employee Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

I am more than happy to dance on the grave of a core class being restricted to a single alignment. I still wish it could be all alignments (restricted by deity like cleric), but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.

The class redesign allows for the possibility of any alignment/cause to be added, but the three presented here are the ones Stephen mentioned (just like we can add more muses, druid orders, etc). So the idea is to design the framework to be flexible enough to cover for the future.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

That all sounds really excellent. I'm very pleased and enthused. :)

If the Bulk numbers get fixed and Skill Feats improve (plus the math change already promised), the game's getting very close to perfect for me...

Charon Onozuka wrote:
That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.

Eh. Alchemists don't get Spells or Spell Points, so I'm fine with them having their own pool. I agree that too many pools is an issue, but as long as no specific character winds up with more than a few, I can work with it.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I’m happy (and would be perfectly fine) with Paladins of any Good. Maybe later stuff for certain leanings but I don’t really see a need for the differentiation between LG and NG and CG when it comes to Paladins.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like another round of great updates. My players are going to love the specific class changes. Can't wait to show update 1.6 to my Alchemist player.

Only disappointment is the lack of attention to exploration mode. I'd really like to know what changes are cooking there...if any. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the livestream, on setting DCs: "Don't try to climb a bush."


Rysky wrote:
I don’t really see a need for the differentiation between LG and NG and CG when it comes to Paladins.

I hope to someday discover the difference between NG and CG in terms of "how they behave in isolated incidents", so perhaps this is an opportunity. My hope is that the CG Paladin analogue is *really* chaotic since the NG option will be available for people who don't want to sign up for that much chaos.

I mean literally the only core deity who would allow CG clerics (and hence champions) but not NG ones is Calistria; Desna and Cayden will let you be NG.

However, I do look forward to more deities getting written up so now I can play an NG champion of Ng.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

CLASS PATHS CONFIRMED.

... or at the very least something that sounds a lot like them. ;) Heck, I even the language is reminiscent to what I hand in mind.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

That all sounds really excellent. I'm very pleased and enthused. :)

If the Bulk numbers get fixed and Skill Feats improve (plus the math change already promised), the game's getting very close to perfect for me...

Charon Onozuka wrote:
That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.
Eh. Alchemists don't get Spells or Spell Points, so I'm fine with them having their own pool. I agree that too many pools is an issue, but as long as no specific character winds up with more than a few, I can work with it.

Agreed on all points.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:

I am more than happy to dance on the grave of a core class being restricted to a single alignment. I still wish it could be all alignments (restricted by deity like cleric), but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.

The class redesign allows for the possibility of any alignment/cause to be added, but the three presented here are the ones Stephen mentioned (just like we can add more muses, druid orders, etc). So the idea is to design the framework to be flexible enough to cover for the future.

I appreciate what you tried to do, but am heartbroken beyond words. Thanks for trying to stand with us. With that I think though it's time for this old gamer to pack up my minis, roll up my board, and roll off into the sunset.

It is clear that my time has ended.

Until one day down the road. Be well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I'd definitely rather the base chassis of the Paladin (or the Insert-Name-Here for whatever the overall class ends up being called) come out usable with all nine alignments and including a "Fury Totem" equivalent option for players interested in playing a Paladin WITHOUT the mandatory threat of class feature loss, but expanding it even just this far is at least a step in the right direction.

I was always going to be patient as long as it took (even decades, if necessary), but now I have faith that I'll see a Paladin/differently-named-Paladin I can play in a realistic span of time. Thank you very much!

I'll keep this down to one video, but after all this time, I assuredly will be celebrating this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm... I'm less opposed to NG/CG Champions per se, than questioning over-all benefit of tying ever possible Alignment Champions to same base chassis. I don't even know where to start with True Neutral Champion (that isn't Druidic,).

On the Objective vs Level-Scaled DCs, I don't expect the former to be 100% fleshed out in next update, as it's ultimately about a bunch of details which would be excessive for playtest update, but mainly a shift in emphasis which conceptually strengthens their role and establishes more confidence for final product.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Super positive on all of this. Especially the Alchemist and Paladin news, and the overall implication that every class will have paths or subclasses like I've been advocating all this time. :) Thank you.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So are they going to stop taking feedback from the playtest after the end of December? Most groups won't finish by then. Mine certainly won't unless we skip adventures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

Well, with those people I can agree on "I'd rather the class be destroyed than people let non-LG people call themselves 'Paladins'" at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

Yup.

I'm super upset, but I planned on this being a possibility. So I've got something up my sleeve. It just means it's time for us to look elsewhere.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

Ignoring temporary shared usage of Paladin term for playtest editing reasons, it's clear from Mark Seifter's post that the term Paladin will remain LG exclusive, simply sharing a chassis with other Alignment Champions. Which is the current state of affairs in 1st Ed. with non-LG Paladin archetypes & alt-classes sharing it's chassis. So I fail to see a fundamental shift, this is just following the same 2nd Ed. playbook for recasting archetypes as exclusive class options. Which isn't really even a conceptual recasting, just one of presentation/layout.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

Whatever they supply, the paladin itself is pretty much killed off. It does not any longer exist in a meaningful form. It’s pretty clear here that there isn’t any real chance of the old paladin remaining at this point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

I suspected that Paizo was going to do this eventually months ago so I started working on an OGL game/setting built off of the Pathfinder 1 chassis with a few other Paladin purists.

So I'll at least have that to distract me.

Elysia Paladins will *always* be Lawful Good. That will never change. So at least there is that.

The thing is - I can't play a game that isn't respecting that legacy. I left 5e for the same reason. So I leave 2e as well for it.

I'm sure the devs are working hard and for a subset of players this is great, even for a majority maybe, but for me it's not.

I lost this one though, and can do so with grace. There's lots of alternative games out there. We'll be ok.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

Whatever they supply, the paladin itself is pretty much killed off. It does not any longer exist in a meaningful form. It’s pretty clear here that there isn’t any real chance of the old paladin remaining at this point.

That's how I feel too. It'll be ok. We'll find other games to play. No worries


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:


Whatever they supply, the paladin itself is pretty much killed off. It does not any longer exist in a meaningful form. It’s pretty clear here that there isn’t any real chance of the old paladin remaining at this point.

Even if the Playtest Paladin was restricted to LG, it wasn't going to be the same paladin as PF1. None of the classes are. Things were going to be different. I still don't understand if there is only one character build in the game that is a paladin and it is LG, it isn't worth testing that out and seeing if it feels lacking? There are other characters that are similar in build in PF 1, and it didn't make people feel like the paladin was dead.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no idea what the objection is here. The Paladin remains LG only, and you basically have other new classes (or perhaps archetypes would be more accurate) which offer a similar mechanical role to people who want to be a different alignment. The Paladin remains its own thing.

Like, why didn't you abandon ship when the Warpriest came out?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With the idea of different paladin orders existing in the world, I think paladin being "any good", or heck, even "any law" in the case of the Hell Knights, makes more sense than every paladin being Lawful good, since "order A" would have different creeds and oaths from "order B".

Edges and techniques are something I really look forward to. All the game needs now to have me on board I think are better skills/skillfeats to boost martial narrative options.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it. Not just a paladin with the numbers filed off and a different word pasted on the placard.

And the very next post there are people attacking the idea of even the paladin subclass existing as just lawful good.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are worried about the paladin changes, I'd suggest testing them out and providing feedback via the playtest surveys. As far as I know, there's still almost two months left to fight that battle if it means so much to you.

I'm introducing a couple of new people to RPGs soon, and I'm interested in seeing how the changes to character creation works with total newbies. The original idea of Ancestry --> Background --> Class now has a few extra hitches to it, so it's now Ancestry --> Heritage --> Background --> Class --> Path. I'm looking forward to seeing if those extra options are still intuitive or too much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it.

I feel like the PF2 Paladin was always kinda the Warpriest since the PF2 Paladin was required to be devoted to a single deity, something which defined the PF1 Warpriest but certainly not the PF1 Paladin.

Not a single Paladin I saw at a PF1 table was an advocate for or representative of a single god. We had atheist Paladins, polytheist Paladins, animist Paladins, pantheist Paladins, Paladins of pantheons, Paladins of weirdly diverse groups of deities, Paladins of concepts or philosophies, Paladins who viewed the gods as good examples but fundamentally as no better or more worthy of worship than anybody else, Paladins who are shopping for the right philosophy or deity, Paladins who believe everything at once, etc. If you wanted to be the fightery guy for a single god or goddess, you went Warpriest since that's what that class was for.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:

The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it. Not just a paladin with the numbers filed off and a different word pasted on the placard.

But I mean, wasn't that the Antipaladin/Gray Paladin/Tyrant in Pathfinder 1E? tweaks of the Paladin chassis?

I agree that the Paladin should be LG only, but it seems like a subclass option, if the other variants are sufficiently different, is a good middle ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it’s pretty clear from this that the battle has been decided and only the details remain. I mean, it’s not going to make me leave or anything, but it is sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I seriously doubt they are going to be significantly different.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it. Not just a paladin with the numbers filed off and a different word pasted on the placard.

But I mean, wasn't that the Antipaladin/Gray Paladin/Tyrant in Pathfinder 1E? tweaks of the Paladin chassis?

I agree that the Paladin should be LG only, but it seems like a subclass option, if the other variants are sufficiently different, is a good middle ground.

To some of us this was really important. The Paladin meant something and represented it. This change, if just switching out the name is, to us blasphemous.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it.
I feel like the PF2 Paladin was always kinda the Warpriest since the PF2 Paladin was required to be devoted to a single deity, something which defined the PF1 Warpriest but certainly not the PF1 Paladin.

PF1 Paladin's shift to CHA casting was also major change if one was going to get upset about such things. Classic D&D Paladin Code was always compatible with "Ex-Warpriest" Code violation section, so it's hard to seriously maintain hard distinction between them.

I am hoping non-Deific option remains for Paladin, even if that means missing out on Domain/Deity specific powers as cost for having 'purer' LG Code (even if personally I like the Domain/Deity specific stuff, it's not only possible concept).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it. Not just a paladin with the numbers filed off and a different word pasted on the placard.

But I mean, wasn't that the Antipaladin/Gray Paladin/Tyrant in Pathfinder 1E? tweaks of the Paladin chassis?

I agree that the Paladin should be LG only, but it seems like a subclass option, if the other variants are sufficiently different, is a good middle ground.

To some of us this was really important. The Paladin meant something and represented it. This change, if just switching out the name is, to us blasphemous.

I mean, if you care that much, just house rule it. The rpg police won't bash down your door if you make Paladin LG only at your table. Just like they won't destroy mine when I allow LN ones.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know it's probably not going to help mend any hurt feelings on the matter, but there is some legacy significance to the possible change. It's not too unlike the old BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia paladin/knight/avenger model, which were basically alignment-based subclasses.

It definitely stinks for anybody whose love of the game is tied to the idea of exclusively-lawful good paladins that have no alternate-alignment equivalents, but on the other hand those alternate classes/subclasses have eventually cropped up in every single edition of D&D and Pathfinder. The demand has definitely been there for a long time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

1 to 50 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previews All Messageboards