Top 5 things to expect for the final edition. Paizo Stream 21 / 12 / 18


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me in on the caution side of things. Particularly with the proficiency part. I suspect that unless it’s changed rogue dedication will now be mandatory.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

Man, I hate to say this but I'm not actually too thrilled about all this.

The no level to Untrained is really a bummer to me and seems like it could ruin the awesome nuanced system of how you are in a skill that skill gating provided. However this will probably be super-easy to houserule out if I don't like it in play so I can't be too upset. Hopefully most classes will at least get some more trained skills so we aren't back to PF1's your-superhuman-still-sucks-at-a-whole-lot-of-things.

I'm not a fan of doubling the proficiency bump either, again I would have much rather seen more non-number perks and abilities gained by advancing skills, that's way more exciting to me than any number hike. This one I expect will be harder to tweak if it doesn't play well to me as the DC tables will likely be balanced around that.

Between that and what sounds like only 1 DC per level of task it sounds like we might end up back a little too close to the PF1 levels of hard to challenge specialists. That said I expect 1 DC per level will be much easier to work with so that's cool.

But that variance between Trained and Legendary, let alone Untrained and Legendary, it just feels like we will be right back to "You can't challenge the specialist without leaving everyone else out". Again, I'd much rather have seen expansion on the more nuanced system we were teased with the Playtest rather than just bigger number difference.

Resonance, I mean I wasn't expecting too much different but I was of the unpopular opinion that Resonance was awesome and just needed a few tweaks to be excellent, certainly a huge improvement on item charges per day. But yeah, after all the complaints people had I figured we would end up with something flung far away. So sorry to hear it but no surprise. I'll look at what Paizo is doing for magic items before I decide if I need to try to work a form of Resonance back .

Edge has pretty much summed up my feelings on this. I don't want to feel penalised for going for legendary in a skill, with this change it seems becoming legendary requires you to pick three other skills you will never get to use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I might be OK with the +2 for each skill rank, on the assumption that we're just blanket not have items that give flat boosts to rolls. Putting more of it into that character investing into the skill sounds fair, and if they do something like give all martials more trained skills/skill increases/skill feats and the Rogue even more, then it could lead to martial characters having more narrative control, with spells acting more as a flexible way to fill in the gaps of a party. This seems like a fair trade for spells being more relevant in combat itself. Every class wants to do combat and do things outside of combat too.

The untrained thing is just... iunno. I don't want the PF1 situation again, and I really liked the idea of using training to gate whether something can be attempted. "Does this require specialized training" seems like an easier thing to say yes or no to than figuring out an appropriate DC, and it moved skills away from just giving you a % better chance to do the thing you want.

It's hard to form an opinion because we're not gonna playtest it before it comes out So maybe there's some other stuff that is being factored in that makes all this make perfect sense, but without all those extra details it's like... isn't this exactly the problem they set out to fix in the first place? It's hard to convince us that was a thing that needed fixing and then convince us that not fixing it is OK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1st thanks to Dante for posting this.

As for the changes, I can get on board with most of them. Slightly iffy on the skill change {though I do believe one was needed}, however if there is a smoother way to gain prof as you go up in levels then I can think it can really work. Plus, at the very least, with the change in math, and the difference between untrained and trained, it gives Int something to do.

I'm also for the changes in Resonance. While I personally did not find it as cumbersome as others {though I can see there point}, my major problem was it did cause problems at lower level and did not achieve anything at higher ones. {as in, at lower levels, when you needed a bit more one time use items, it become problematic in running out, but at higher levels, you had so much that, unless your goal was to run out, you were almost never going to run out of resonance.). However, given from what I have piece together from the rest of the forum, resonance is going to have an overhaul, not a full cut, which, if the end product does achieve the original goals, without being as intrusive, I can go for it. Plus, despite the problems, the one thing I really did like about it was it tired {with mixed results} to make Charisma a non-dump stat. {personal belief, no stat should be a dump stat.)

Also, eager to see the changes in magic. {While I hope the power of magic does not go back to PF1 levels, I do agree it does need a boost from what it is right now.)


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

Wow - the design team just gave me everything on my Christmas wish at a single stroke!

Fantastic to see levels of proficiency make a real difference again and my wizard can choose to suck at wielding weapons!

Love that magic is getting a buff.

Glad that potency isn't the only thing driving damage

Suddenly very keen again


Really hope the buff magic just by increasing it's power at lower levels, at higher levels casters are really fine.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

All the changes are a step in the right direction. I would prefer if they eliminated the 1 Prof. per LvL entirely, but as it stands right now its better then it was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the most part this sounds good, but the devil is most certainly in the details. The exact numbers are certainly going to need to be tested quite a bit to make sure they work well. I do share the concerns of others about removing level from Untrained, and the possibility of optimized characters possibly being too good. But I do like actually being able to be good at something as opposed as merely competent when fully optimized. The playtest did too much to keep PCs from being overpowered, that they couldn't really rise above mostly adequate. There is also a big concern about how this will interact with the +/- 10 crits, or if that is still around.

But I'll dance on resonance's grave, and the conditions really did need to be cut down, hopefully there are fewer of them to have to remember, and they're more intuitive. And spells certainly needed improvement. Hopefully duration is being looked at, that was probably the biggest problem with it.

My biggest concern remains that there apparently isn't going to be a playtest of these changes. The math in particular is going to be completely different, so how does that play? I'd feel better if there was a PF2 Beta coming, basically what so many expected the Playtest to be, and it wasn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Feels like more thrashing about to me.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:

Untrained: You get NOTHING, not even your level, you will suck hard my friend!
Trained: LVL + 2
Expert: LVL + 4
Master: LVL + 6
Legendary: LVL + 8

that's awesome. A huge, HUGE, step in the right direction.

Now, let's make the NPC/monster building rules similar enough to PC building rules, so that it is not longer completely immersion breaking, fix a couple of classes, fix the ancestries, rework most of the spells, throw item levels in the trash bin and we MIGHT have a system that sounds fun to play.

But the Proficiency rework alone is worth butting heads with a lot of...erm..not so nice people in a lot of threads over the last few months. There is progress made right here and with the exception of monster building rules all the important changes that still need to be made are minor compared to fixing the +Lvl to untrained stuff madness


7 people marked this as a favorite.

For change 1 to work, There is going to need to be a skill feat available by level 10 that lets all untrained skills be treated as trained. They are also going to need to scale back on Legendary proficiencies, especially for monsters and NPCs.

Master proficiency is going to need to be the ceiling for most things in the world, with legendary proficiencies being the thing that requires dedicated focus to get, and should mean that other things lag behind at expert. Legendary armor proficiency just became a pretty big deal. It will probably mean that most creatures are not going to be able to hit you on anything less than an 17-20 depending on how focused you are also with items and a shield. Even the super focused fighter is probably going to end up with a 50% chance to hit the paladin at best. Clearly no character should be able to get legendary armor and legendary weapon proficiency without seriously sacrificing other major elements of character development.

Casters probably should have to invest character feats into getting to legendary now as well or else investing in saves up to master is going to be almost mandatory for every character. Casters are already going to have the max attribute bonus to their spell DCs which means they should be able to get a 2-4 bonus over other characters just by attribute, add a +2 to a + 6 more when casters get legendary casting, and dominating the weak save of opponents is going to be incredibly easy.

Overall, this is pretty alarming to me. The untrained thing will probably be handled by the fact that characters will probably have to chose not to become trained in every major resource by the time some characters are qualifying for legendary proficiency, and magic items should scale back skill bonuses to +2 or +3. But I am failing to see how any character could have athletics be an untrained skill and not be killed by the first grappling monster that they encounter by level 5. Which means that no one is actually going to be bad a climbing or swimming. I guess maybe they will have to make it where you can chose to use a saving throw in place of a skill for many defenses.

In many ways, this feels like an attempt to over balance the game back towards the things people were complaining the most about, which is understandable, but it feels like it has the potential to destroy high level play again in exchange for making it easier for low level characters to feel like the could be bad at something that they were never going to actually use in the first place. IE: I want to play a character that is bad at making arcane checks. I choose not to roll an arcane check for anything I don't think my character would have a reasonable chance of knowing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

Untrained: You get NOTHING, not even your level, you will suck hard my friend!
Trained: LVL + 2
Expert: LVL + 4
Master: LVL + 6
Legendary: LVL + 8

that's awesome. A huge, HUGE, step in the right direction.

Now, let's make the NPC/monster building rules similar enough to PC building rules, so that it is not longer completely immersion breaking, fix a couple of classes, fix the ancestries, rework most of the spells, throw item levels in the trash bin and we MIGHT have a system that sounds fun to play.

But the Proficiency rework alone is worth butting heads with a lot of...erm..not so nice people in a lot of threads over the last few months. There is progress made right here

This is a secondary concern I have about these changes. That the people complaining loudest about + level to proficiency system and wanting to be able to be bad 1 skill, were actually upset about enough other changes to the game that, making this change would not bring them back, but would alienate the people drawn to the game by the promise of balanced high-level play.

A lot will ride on how easy it is be at least trained in every possible proficiency you will use more than once in a character's life time, probably by level 7-10, and how much you are sacrificing to do so. Maybe that will be an elegant way to handle it, because 99% of characters will see that there are easy options for basic competency and the consequences for choosing not to over optimize and leave your character helpless in many common situations will be obvious default options, while extreme specialization may give characters 1 trick they can do, at the consequence of being actually useless in many other situations, and much easier to kill.

That might satisfy both groups. But if a level 15+ character is expected to be facing at least one legendary attack that has the possibility of killing them outright against each defense they have, at least once in the campaign, being stuck at trained in AC, Fort, Ref, Will, Perception, Athletics, or acrobatics, is facing at least one critical fail in that defense, if not many. I guess the expectation could be shifting towards the assumption that your characters are going to be dying frequently at high level and that is just another condition to pay your way out of, but personally, that pretty much kills high level play for me as well, and isn't usually factored in to the story telling of adventure writers very well.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, I do love the idea of Wizards having to have a thesis.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


This is a secondary concern I have about these changes. That the people complaining loudest about + level to proficiency system and wanting to be able to be bad 1 skill, were actually upset about enough other changes to the game

Well, to be fair, the Paladin not working like a Paladin or the Dwarf not being nearly dwarfy enough to be considered a Dwarf or some spells being nerfed into uselessness are very, very minor things compared to the +level mechanic that was the broken backbone of the PFPlaytest system. Those things can easily be rewritten or adapted or houseruled if necessary (although I'd prefer to not have to do that extra work myself of course).

getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:


getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.

Is this getting rid of + level to proficiency? It sounds like it is just making it possible to be completely incompetent in most skills. It isn't touching +level for anything that should effect combat, since all of that stuff is trained minimum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:


getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.
Is this getting rid of + level to proficiency? It sounds like it is just making it possible to be completely incompetent in most skills. It isn't touching +level for anything that should effect combat, since all of that stuff is trained minimum.

as long as you can be untrained, it effectivly is. and I'm pretty sure not every character starts being trained in every weapon group.

Saves are uneffected though, and as such less diverse than in PF1. that's unfortunate, but someting I can actually live with


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing about mandatory items or the disaster that is potency (extra damage dice) tied to weapon. I hope they finally realize that having the illusion of choosing an item is not good for the system.


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

I wonder how people will feel about Untrained proficiency the first time they attempt to use a weapon they are Untrained in.

At moderate levels the gap is much bigger than the difference in PF1 between fighter and wizard weapon proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

I wonder how people will feel about Untrained proficiency the first time they attempt to use a weapon they are Untrained in.

At moderate levels the gap is much bigger than the difference in PF1 between fighter and wizard weapon proficiency.

probably exactly the same I felt in PF1 whenever I used a waepon I hadn't invested in the proficiency for it. maybe even better, because I don't have a -4 malus and in PF2 it is still ridiculously easy to roll a crit


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

I think people are freaking out a little over the numbers here. Let's take, say, a Level 20 Fighter, going up against a level appropriate challenge- the Jabberwock, for example. He's legendary in his weapon type, giving him a +28 off the bat- add maybe his strength (let's say he boosted his strength every chance he got, giving us a 22 in Str at level 20, so a +6). That means he's got a 34 to hit, before we start taking weapons and junk into account. The AC of a Jabberwock, which is CR 23, is a 49. This means the fighter still needs to roll a 15 or higher to hit the darn thing.

Taking items into account, of course there'll be ways to boost that higher and reduce the roll stuff you need to make- like a +5 magic weapon, or a belt of giant strength- but even these two together would still bring your to-hit up to a +41. This is, naturally, a MASSIVE number, but remember- this is at level 20, with a level 20 item, with legendary proficiency and stat boosting items; and you STILL only have a 60% chance of hitting a reasonable challenge. Hell, you even have reasonable hopes of critting this thing now- all you gotta do is roll an 18, which, I remind you, is pretty hard to do!

TL;DR I think it makes sense to me that a legendary hero can hope of going to to toe with a legendary threat, whereas some trembling peasant with a pitchfork can only get a +2 to try hit this titanic creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is properly the first announced change I'm not really on board with, I really am going to miss +level to untrained skills. Now of course it's hard to know how they will be changing the amount of skills you get over your adventuring career, but I do feel like big changes are needed for that to balance this new proficiency system.
Depending on how well that is executed I do feel like a house-rule to change untrained proficiency to -2 but getting +level is going to make the game more enjoyable for me. I have previously stated that it was quite easy to house-rule +level to untrained away, so I can't complain that now I am the one forced to use house-rules if I want the system to behave how I like it.
Most classes seems to only be able to perform the skills they start with for the rest of their days now unless some serious changes are coming, because I really can't imagine it being worthwhile to use skill increase to get more trained skills now that the numbers have increased.

I do like that proficiency levels matters more now and hope the math doesn't feel broken because of it, previously I had wanted legendary to scale to +5, so it being 6 points better than trained is pretty close to that. Lately I had gone away from wishing for a numerical bonus and rather for the "bonus" to come free skill feats and unique uses gated by proficiency, but I think I'm fine with it. I do wonder how they are going to adjust weapon and armor proficiencies for the different classes, I liked that the fighter was more accurate than the others but having a +2 over them seems like it's too much, so the best solution is likely to keep all martial on the same proficiency level over their adventuring career. So it seems a bit funny to me that most opponents to the previous proficiency system complained that it made character feel to similar, while this change might actually make this even more the case than it was previously.

The changes to the DC table seems good. I assume having task being "easy" or "impossible" will now be done by adjusting the level, this seems like a nice change to keep the game simple.

I'm sad that they couldn't get resonance or focus to work in a satisfying way, resonance might have been a broken system but focus (just for items, not as a replacement for Spell Points) seemed like it had some very good potential to me.

More options is something we knew were coming, but I am obviously in favor of this. Better spellcasting also seems good (but hopefully not by too much).

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

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Among other things, I hope the Quiet Allies feat lets nearby allies act as trained in Stealth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Unicore wrote:
This is a secondary concern I have about these changes. That the people complaining loudest about + level to proficiency system and wanting to be able to be bad 1 skill, were actually upset about enough other changes to the game

Well, to be fair, the Paladin not working like a Paladin or the Dwarf not being nearly dwarfy enough to be considered a Dwarf or some spells being nerfed into uselessness are very, very minor things compared to the +level mechanic that was the broken backbone of the PFPlaytest system. Those things can easily be rewritten or adapted or houseruled if necessary (although I'd prefer to not have to do that extra work myself of course).

getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.

Though I love to perform lengthy mathematical analyses on +1 per level and other core topics about Pathfinder 2nd Edition, the little details are what bothered my playtest players. Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail? Why does the smooth three-action economy feel so clunky? What is up with the 42 different basic conditions and how can I tell them apart? Why doesn't my dwarf feel dwarfy? Thus, my one complaint in Hear our Plea(s) was about action economy taxes.

For example, when the 7th-level monk barkeep dwarf was fighting against 3rd-level ghasts, she had to roll saves against their Stench ability, their paralysis ability, and their ghast fever. Every hit by a ghast meant two saving throws (the stench thankfully was once and done), which she could fail on only a 1 or 2. Eventually she failed the ghast fever and that was more a relief than a dismay, because it meant that she could stop rolling against it. Ghast fever takes a day to manifest symptoms. In some ways that is part of the +1 per level problem, because her high Fortitude save compared to the level of the ghasts is why she successfully saved so often, but mostly it is a little annoyance. Couldn't the designers add a critical success mechanic that bolsters her against the paralysis for 1 minute, so that the character can stop with the same saving throw over and over again?

The misuse of "bolstered" as short for "bolstered against" and meaning "can't happen anymore" is another little thing that annoys me.

I can correct the problems with +1 per level by careful encounter design. But if the dwarf ancestry is nothing more than short-legged human with darkvision and bad charisma, then I cannot fill in the missing flavor. And a solid foundation of ancestry and background can round out a character much better than being allowed to be bad at a skill.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping the new proficiencies will mean low level play will feel less random and punishing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Unicore wrote:
This is a secondary concern I have about these changes. That the people complaining loudest about + level to proficiency system and wanting to be able to be bad 1 skill, were actually upset about enough other changes to the game

Well, to be fair, the Paladin not working like a Paladin or the Dwarf not being nearly dwarfy enough to be considered a Dwarf or some spells being nerfed into uselessness are very, very minor things compared to the +level mechanic that was the broken backbone of the PFPlaytest system. Those things can easily be rewritten or adapted or houseruled if necessary (although I'd prefer to not have to do that extra work myself of course).

getting rid of +lvl was important. homogenize building rules for PCs and NPCs still is. The rest of my complaints are relativley minor, compared to the important stuff.

Though I love to perform lengthy mathematical analyses on +1 per level and other core topics about Pathfinder 2nd Edition, the little details are what bothered my playtest players. Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail? Why does the smooth three-action economy feel so clunky? What is up with the 42 different basic conditions and how can I tell them apart? Why doesn't my dwarf feel dwarfy? Thus, my one complaint in Hear our Plea(s) was about action economy taxes.

For example, when the 7th-level monk barkeep dwarf was fighting against 3rd-level ghasts, she had to roll saves against their Stench ability, their paralysis ability, and their ghast fever. Every hit by a ghast meant two saving throws (the stench thankfully was once and done), which she could fail on only a 1 or 2. Eventually she failed the ghast fever and that was more a relief than a dismay, because it meant that she could stop rolling against it. Ghast fever takes a day to...

while I agree, the thing is: I KNOW why the Dwarves don't feel dwarfy and therefore it is easier for me to come up with my tables own version of Dwarves and Dwarf-related feats within an otherwise working system than changing a system that doesn't work but get the Dwarves right. Or, as presented in the playtest, a system that doesn't work AND sucks at getting Dwarves right.

Of course, I'd prefer a system that works AND provides us with dwarfy Dwarves, but the dwarfiness of Dwarves is, for me at least, easier to fix if necessary


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

I think people are freaking out a little over the numbers here. Let's take, say, a Level 20 Fighter, going up against a level appropriate challenge- the Jabberwock, for example. He's legendary in his weapon type, giving him a +28 off the bat- add maybe his strength (let's say he boosted his strength every chance he got, giving us a 22 in Str at level 20, so a +6). That means he's got a 34 to hit, before we start taking weapons and junk into account. The AC of a Jabberwock, which is CR 23, is a 49. This means the fighter still needs to roll a 15 or higher to hit the darn thing.

Taking items into account, of course there'll be ways to boost that higher and reduce the roll stuff you need to make- like a +5 magic weapon, or a belt of giant strength- but even these two together would still bring your to-hit up to a +41. This is, naturally, a MASSIVE number, but remember- this is at level 20, with a level 20 item, with legendary proficiency and stat boosting items; and you STILL only have a 60% chance of hitting a reasonable challenge. Hell, you even have reasonable hopes of critting this thing now- all you gotta do is roll an 18, which, I remind you, is pretty hard to do!

TL;DR I think it makes sense to me that a legendary hero can hope of going to to toe with a legendary threat, whereas some trembling peasant with a pitchfork can only get a +2 to try hit this titanic creature.

Except for the part where they are reworking the math and they themselves said with the new math the Fighter will have a 95% chance to land their first hit. Meaning if the Fighter's got a +34 to hit at level 20, a typical opponent won't have more than 36 AC. And possibly less, since nat 1 always fails so you can't get above 95% success rate.


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

My one fear is actually about potency- I really enjoyed the new potency system. Is there any indication of what they're going to do with it? I would be severely disappointed if they brought damage down for martials, as would my players, who all thoroughly enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

I think people are freaking out a little over the numbers here. Let's take, say, a Level 20 Fighter, going up against a level appropriate challenge- the Jabberwock, for example. He's legendary in his weapon type, giving him a +28 off the bat- add maybe his strength (let's say he boosted his strength every chance he got, giving us a 22 in Str at level 20, so a +6). That means he's got a 34 to hit, before we start taking weapons and junk into account. The AC of a Jabberwock, which is CR 23, is a 49. This means the fighter still needs to roll a 15 or higher to hit the darn thing.

Taking items into account, of course there'll be ways to boost that higher and reduce the roll stuff you need to make- like a +5 magic weapon, or a belt of giant strength- but even these two together would still bring your to-hit up to a +41. This is, naturally, a MASSIVE number, but remember- this is at level 20, with a level 20 item, with legendary proficiency and stat boosting items; and you STILL only have a 60% chance of hitting a reasonable challenge. Hell, you even have reasonable hopes of critting this thing now- all you gotta do is roll an 18, which, I remind you, is pretty hard to do!

TL;DR I think it makes sense to me that a legendary hero can hope of going to to toe with a legendary threat, whereas some trembling peasant with a pitchfork can only get a +2 to try hit this titanic creature.

Except for the part where they are reworking the math and they themselves said with the new math the Fighter will have a 95% chance to land their first hit. Meaning if the Fighter's got a +34 to hit at level 20, a typical opponent won't have more than 36 AC. And possibly less, since nat 1 always fails so you can't get above 95% success rate.

The quote was "average" foe. Yeah, it's likely that mooks will be easy to hit with a +40, but again: Level 20, the highest level possible. I'd be pretty ticked off if I wasn't hitting most of my hits against foes that shouldn't be particularly challenging. I'm talking about BIG enemies, ones that SHOULDN'T go down in a few hits. Hence the choice of Jabberwock ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty much loving everything I heard.
This does address a ton of issues I had and am now cautiously optimistic about PF2e.
I probably would have left untrained with at least +1/X per level of some sort.

I'm still worried about monster creation rules, though.
If that isn't sufficiently in-line with character creation, then my co-GM won't be on board.


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

I'm sure Paizo know what they are doing. But these seem like huge changes and I'm worried that we won't even have a chance to playtest them. The proficiency changes in particular are obviously not just made in a vacuum, many things need to change from the playtest to make that work: The entire DC chart, all of the class' proficiency scalings, how skills work like intimidation. if legendary in intimidation makes it so you can always critical your demoralize check and make creatures run away that essentially breaks combat encounters.

I'm not saying these change are bad if Paizo figures out how to balance them with the rest of the rules. But it's worrying that we won't have any chances to give feedback on them before the full release since it seems like a lot.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:


Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail?

I actually don't think that exploration mode will make it into the final product. it adds nothing to the game, takes most of the RP elements out of it and I highly doubt most groups that finished DD used that mode till the end of the playtest. I suspect most of them ditched it after chapter 2 if not earlier. Luckily, even if it would make it into the final product it is so easy to be simply ignored


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I wasn't so sure about resonance, and I didn't like how focus merged with the spell point system, I really enjoyed the boosting mechanic that focus allowed for. I was hoping to see it return with a tweak that divorced it from spell points. It was a really fun tool for my alchemist


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:


Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail?
I actually don't think that exploration mode will make it into the final product. it adds nothing to the game, takes most of the RP elements out of it and I highly doubt most groups that finished DD used that mode till the end of the playtest. I suspect most of them ditched it after chapter 2 if not earlier. Luckily, even if it would make it into the final product it is so easy to be simply ignored

That's a whole lot of assumptions and objectively wrong. Exploration mode was great for my group. It fixes something we had a problem with in PF1. The ONLY objectively best thing you should do when exploring an area is just take 20 in every single inch of every room. It came to a point where I as GM just assumed that the group found every single thing in every room. Traps, Hidden doors, hidden items because they had such high perception. Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. Shield users can block, stealth characters can sneak, magic users can use cantrips. And perception is not automatic. All that seeking does is let you make 1 roll. It's a great system in many ways. It could use some work for sure but it's 100x better than just taking 20 in every single room like in PF1.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Very happy about these changes. Particularly the untrained proficiency bonus. The only missing piece to that is adding the ability for an expert in a skill to provide temporary training so that party members can get +lvl to key skills.

This will make specialists feel better about deeply focusing on a skill, especially if Legendary skill users can provide better training than Experts. People can actually feel like they're contributing to the group in their specialization, rather than everyone dropping minimal skill increases across the skill list.

It also allows a party of knights to say "Hey, we really do have no clue how to sneak, so our odd party composition requires us to handle this stealth encounter in a new way and we're not exactly like every other group and if we did want to stealth maybe we should have hired someone good at that"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

I think people are freaking out a little over the numbers here. Let's take, say, a Level 20 Fighter, going up against a level appropriate challenge- the Jabberwock, for example. He's legendary in his weapon type, giving him a +28 off the bat- add maybe his strength (let's say he boosted his strength every chance he got, giving us a 22 in Str at level 20, so a +6). That means he's got a 34 to hit, before we start taking weapons and junk into account. The AC of a Jabberwock, which is CR 23, is a 49. This means the fighter still needs to roll a 15 or higher to hit the darn thing.

Taking items into account, of course there'll be ways to boost that higher and reduce the roll stuff you need to make- like a +5 magic weapon, or a belt of giant strength- but even these two together would still bring your to-hit up to a +41. This is, naturally, a MASSIVE number, but remember- this is at level 20, with a level 20 item, with legendary proficiency and stat boosting items; and you STILL only have a 60% chance of hitting a reasonable challenge. Hell, you even have reasonable hopes of critting this thing now- all you gotta do is roll an 18, which, I remind you, is pretty hard to do!

TL;DR I think it makes sense to me that a legendary hero can hope of going to to toe with a legendary threat, whereas some trembling peasant with a pitchfork can only get a +2 to try hit this titanic creature.

Except for the part where they are reworking the math and they themselves said with the new math the Fighter will have a 95% chance to land their first hit. Meaning if the Fighter's got a +34 to hit at level 20, a typical opponent won't have more than 36 AC. And possibly less, since nat 1 always fails so you can't get above 95% success rate.
The quote was "average" foe. Yeah, it's likely that mooks will be easy to hit with a +40, but again: Level 20, the highest level possible. I'd be pretty ticked off if I wasn't hitting most of my hits against foes that...

I'd be onboard with this. If it weren't for the fact that the Jabberwock is LEVEL 23. He shouldn't just be a challenge to the Fighter, he should be a challenge to the Fighter and his whole party.

If the Fighter can reliably take on a level 23 creature then either the Fighter isn't truly level 20 or the Jabberwock isn't truly level 23, regardless of what the paper says.

Now that said there is more to a fight than accuracy and AC, so monsters definitely could have ways to be a threat despite getting hit easily, but my PF1 experience has just burned into me that unless you inflate HP stupidly, if they get hit easily then no matter how much of a threat they are if they aren't strong enough to risk a TPK they will go down extremely quick.

Again, I'm doing my best to trust Paizo will make everything work but as others have said, taken in a vacuum these changes are definitely a concern.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail?
I actually don't think that exploration mode will make it into the final product. it adds nothing to the game, takes most of the RP elements out of it and I highly doubt most groups that finished DD used that mode till the end of the playtest. I suspect most of them ditched it after chapter 2 if not earlier. Luckily, even if it would make it into the final product it is so easy to be simply ignored
That's a whole lot of assumptions and objectively wrong. Exploration mode was great for my group. It fixes something we had a problem with in PF1. The ONLY objectively best thing you should do when exploring an area is just take 20 in every single inch of every room. It came to a point where I as GM just assumed that the group found every single thing in every room. Traps, Hidden doors, hidden items because they had such high perception. Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. Shield users can block, stealth characters can sneak, magic users can use cantrips. And perception is not automatic. All that seeking does is let you make 1 roll. It's a great system in many ways. It could use some work for sure but it's 100x better than just taking 20 in every single room like in PF1.

I didn't see that level of possibility in the Exploration Mode description on pages 316 and 317.

EXPLORATION TACTICS
While you are traveling and exploring, tell the GM what
you’d generally like to do. The GM will determine which
exploration tactic applies and describe the result. It isn’t
necessary to go into extreme detail, such as “Using my
silver baton, I nudge the door forward so I can check
the hinges for devious traps.” Instead, “I’m searching the
area for hazards” is sufficient. Use the list of common
tactics that follows as inspiration. If you come up with
your own idea, the GM will adjudicate your idea using
these as a baseline.

The examples given are about doing one thing to the exclusion of obvious secondary activities. No, you cannot stealthily scout the castle perimeter in exploration mode because you cannot move, sneak, and look around all at the same time. Yes, you can stealthily scout the castle in encounter mode, because those are separate actions. And many activities, such as casting cantrips, are fatiguing.

Could Dire Ursus please describe in more detail about flavorful, flexible exploration so that it can be incorporated into the Pathfinder 2nd Edition rulebook?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:


[...]Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. [...]

GM:Now that the fight is over, you have time to notice the unusual interior of that room. You see a delicately ornated mantlepiece in the east (continues to describe the room in detail)

Bard:I'll continue my performance just in case we're getting attacked again while Roguey McRogueface searches around.

Are you trying to tell me that scenario wasn't possible in PF1?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Could Dire Ursus please describe in more detail about flavorful, flexible exploration so that it can be incorporated into the Pathfinder 2nd Edition rulebook?

I'm not really sure what you took from my comment.. I never said you could do multiple things all at the same time. But to be fair there is no rules against switching your tactic anytime you want. For instance I remember reading either in the book or from a dev post on here that players can have their own custom exploration tactic. Such as "I'm going to be sneaking but whenever I come to a door I will search the door before entering" and that's completely fine and fair. If you are attacked while searching the door then you won't be able to roll stealth for initiative but you will get a chance to detect traps and such on doors.

So for your example of scouting the castle. Anytime you want while stealthing around the perimeter you are allowed to stop and take a look around.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Could Dire Ursus please describe in more detail about flavorful, flexible exploration so that it can be incorporated into the Pathfinder 2nd Edition rulebook?

I'm not really sure what you took from my comment.. I never said you could do multiple things all at the same time. But to be fair there is no rules against switching your tactic anytime you want. For instance I remember reading either in the book or from a dev post on here that players can have their own custom exploration tactic. Such as "I'm going to be sneaking but whenever I come to a door I will search the door before entering" and that's completely fine and fair. If you are attacked while searching the door then you won't be able to roll stealth for initiative but you will get a chance to detect traps and such on doors.

So for your example of scouting the castle. Anytime you want while stealthing around the perimeter you are allowed to stop and take a look around.

The thing both of my groups felt about exploration mode was that it was either completely ignorable when you can do the same stuff you could do without it, or badly restrictive when you can't. There was never a single moment when we felt Exploration Mode was adding something to the table, it was either taking freedom away or doing nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
I just... I've been really excited about the Playtest since the get-go and have loved the great majority of what Paizo has done. I've been all over these forums trying to support a lot of things about PF2 and explain the good I see in them. But these stream notes, if accurate, really do have me feeling a bit let down from my expectations. Some of this, particularly the proficiency and success rate changes, the knee-jerk reaction is for it to feel like giving in to people complaining on the forums. But I do trust Paizo knows what they are doing, and I expect they are making their decisions fro more reliable sources than the forums. And of course I intend to buy the CRB when it comes and give it a good thorough look and check before I decide what exactly to do with it.

Just wanted to comment on this specifically. I don't think it's related to complaining on the forums alone. They collected piles of survey data. They did a survey specifically about magic, so when they say "magic is getting buffed across the board", it's more likely that the survey data told them they wildly overnerfed it rather than the surveys telling them it was great and the forums telling them something else.

I hope after all this process we can give them more credit than "the forum & facebook group didn't like it, so we need to scrap everything."

We may now resume our regularly scheduled discussion. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:


[...]Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. [...]

GM:Now that the fight is over, you have time to notice the unusual interior of that room. You see a delicately ornated mantlepiece in the east (continues to describe the room in detail)

Bard:I'll continue my performance just in case we're getting attacked again while Roguey McRogueface searches around.

Are you trying to tell me that scenario wasn't possible in PF1?

Well no because bard performances were limited per day so no one would do that. The two tactics I would see happen in pf1 were either take 20 to search around. Or readying an attack against any enemies that they come in contact with. I usually wouldn't allow people to "ready" attacks since I would argue that's what initiative is, but there really isn't any rules against doing such RAW.

Exploration is a sparsely written about, and contentious topic in PF1. I doubt that any 2 GMs run it the same way. Some run it round by round, some just handwave everything outside of combat and loosely keep track of time. I'd like for there to be official guidelines to how exploration should actually work in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
Among other things, I hope the Quiet Allies feat lets nearby allies act as trained in Stealth.

That's a good idea, yeah. Another, more general option is to add a "group skill use" mechanic, which would apply to every skill that needs it. So if you have a case where the entire group needs to do something (sneak, climb, win a dance competition) and not the entire group is trained, you could do something like let the experts help the untrained people.

Say, helping someone in this case makes them trained and lowers your proficiency a tier, so a master stealth character can assist two people, making them trained, and himself also acts as trained for this roll (because he can't devote his full attention to it).

That could apply any time the entire group needs to do something where they need more than one person to succeed in order to pass the check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
I just... I've been really excited about the Playtest since the get-go and have loved the great majority of what Paizo has done. I've been all over these forums trying to support a lot of things about PF2 and explain the good I see in them. But these stream notes, if accurate, really do have me feeling a bit let down from my expectations. Some of this, particularly the proficiency and success rate changes, the knee-jerk reaction is for it to feel like giving in to people complaining on the forums. But I do trust Paizo knows what they are doing, and I expect they are making their decisions fro more reliable sources than the forums. And of course I intend to buy the CRB when it comes and give it a good thorough look and check before I decide what exactly to do with it.

Just wanted to comment on this specifically. I don't think it's related to complaining on the forums alone. They collected piles of survey data. They did a survey specifically about magic, so when they say "magic is getting buffed across the board", it's more likely that the survey data told them they wildly overnerfed it rather than the surveys telling them it was great and the forums telling them something else.

I hope after all this process we can give them more credit than "the forum & facebook group didn't like it, so we need to scrap everything."

We may now resume our regularly scheduled discussion. :)

Indeed. Forgive me, my intention was not to imply that Paizo WAS making changes just based on forum complaints. I'm quite sure, as I said, that they are going off of plenty of other data to be sure. I merely meant that there was a mild knee-jerk reaction to think that at first with some of the changes, not that that was my actual thoughtful conclusion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, agreeing with Edge. Level being an accurate measurement of power both ways has been such a boon for me as a GM. It is hard to imagine how that stays intact. Not impossible mind you, but hard to imagine.

Unicore: they have actually mentioned the whole defenses thing in a previous podcast. They are aware that if characters lose +level to untrained skills then those skills can't be used for any sort of defense. How implementing that will look I'm not sure.

I think Unicore is right. For all people complained about desert natives knowing how to swim, I seriously doubt that issue comes up in actual play. Where as a I see a lot more people being unhappy when they get dropped into a body of water and are absolutely helpless.

On the flipside, this change is pretty nice for monsters, which IMO have more reason to be incompetent at certain things. Making a creature untrained in perception makes them quite easy to sneak up on, as some things should be. Or easier to lie to.

I do suspect that we won't see a lot +6 swings to saves, personally. Even if they change nothing else, a couple general feats can get you to expert which drops that to +4. That's still pretty huge, though, especially with crit mechanics.

This may also make some interesting interactions with heavy armor. Those number bumps can do a lot to make the downsides of heavy armor sting less. If you make those proficiency bumps also decrease those penalties, even better.

Also, for those of you who didn't watch, potency will still be a thing but some of that damage is being shifted over to inherent bonuses. Which seems like a good compromise.

Other good news: the DOOOOOMED condition sounds awesome. Giving players the perception of being trapped under the guillotine while they are still going to definitely win is one of the best lines you can walk as a GM, and DOOOOOMED seems great to make that happen.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll point out that you can still "take 20" while exploring, it just involves physically rolling the die over and over until a 20 comes up.

I like these changes. They bring me hope that this game will feel like "better Pathfinder" and not "Pathfinder for people who hate Pathfinder."

For those lamenting things like "group Stealth is now impossible!" well, it never was very possible even with the +level added untrained. Consider a group trying to stealth - one guy makes the check on a 3, clunky plate guy needs a a 13, and two other characters need 8s. Having a 10 point spread between best and worst was entirely possible in the old playtest system. The chance of the entire party making the check is .9*.65*.65*.4 = 15% - so not really a plan that works. Heck, even if you whole party are Ninjapants with a 90% success rate the chance of 4 characters doing it is only about 66%.

This problem crops up when you place any obstacle in an adventure that requires everyone to pass a check to succeed, whether it be stealth, climbing a cliff, or swimming across water. This is why better adventure design rewards letting a party specialist make one roll for the entire group, and also allows failing forward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:


[...]Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. [...]

GM:Now that the fight is over, you have time to notice the unusual interior of that room. You see a delicately ornated mantlepiece in the east (continues to describe the room in detail)

Bard:I'll continue my performance just in case we're getting attacked again while Roguey McRogueface searches around.

Are you trying to tell me that scenario wasn't possible in PF1?

Actually, it wasn't possible in PF1 for a reason not related to exploration mode: the bard had limited rounds of bard song and five minutes would use them all up.

As for continuing a performance in case the party gets attacked, that seems marginal since starting a performance takes just one round. On the other hand, playing Inspire Competence continuously to aid Roguey McRogueface's searches makes sense.

dmerceless wrote:
The thing both of my groups felt about exploration mode was that it was either completely ignorable when you can do the same stuff you could do without it, or badly restrictive when you can't. There was never a single moment when we felt Exploration Mode was adding something to the table, it was either taking freedom away or doing nothing.

That would have been my player's attitude except that they cut the Gordian Knot and said, "We will tell you what we are doing and you the GM figure out how it fits the rules."

In PF1 we usually used a turnless encounter mode for exploration mode. The players would take actions but not bother doing it in turn order. After everything was done, I would tell them how many minutes had passed or if they were interrupted before finishing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm definitely with some of the above comments, specialists being able to temp bump proficiency for others would solve a lot of my concerns there. So long as it isn't something that requires a feat. The specialist shouldn't have to spend resources to cover for areas where their allies didn't spend resources IMO.

My other big concern was just that it could hinder the current situations where you can do things like roll a skill against another skill DC, but most of those currently go against Perception DC which is trained minimum.

The other thing was like someone mentioned rolling to escape a Grapple, I don't think absolutely no chance if you are untrained is good. But Paizo already showed they can handle this kind of thing when they tweaked the spells that involved skill checks against spell DC when the Untrained penalty got bumped the first time. So as long as we don't end up with a situation where, say, it will almost always be best to roll a save instead of a skill check even if you are practiced in that skill (Which I don't think will happen), I think we may be fine on that front.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Other good news: the DOOOOOMED condition sounds awesome. Giving players the perception of being trapped under the guillotine while they are still going to definitely win is one of the best lines you can walk as a GM, and DOOOOOMED seems great to make that happen.

I loved that idea too. It's not uninteractive like save or die, where you just die for failing a roll and can't do anything. When you are affected by DOOOOOMED you know you can die at any moment, which creates tension, but you are also aware of it and can actively work to... you know... not die.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd even go with untrained is 1/2 level (which, actually, though, harkens back to 3.5... so maybe not). But level -4 even better.
I wanted a bigger difference for master and legend, which it looks like we got. But untrained got too much of a change, imo.


Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I'd even go with untrained is 1/2 level (which, actually, though, harkens back to 3.5... so maybe not). But level -4 even better.

I wanted a bigger difference for master and legend, which it looks like we got. But untrained got too much of a change, imo.

Will be interesting to see if they change their minds on that again before release, yeah. It's a pretty big swing.

The good news is that if you're playing in a home game, this is extremely easy to house rule. The rules are IMO pretty elegant on this and easy to tinker with.

51 to 100 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Top 5 things to expect for the final edition. Paizo Stream 21 / 12 / 18 All Messageboards