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


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
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.

The take 20 rule was put in specifically to NOT make people sit there and roll until they get a 20. That is a pointless waste of table time. It's just a shortcut and should be included.

Take 10 is a bit different since it negated the chance for failure on routine stuff.

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

Agreed. :)

Quote:
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%.

Yes, this is a great point. My DM actually uses a group system for this, where we need majority success rather than total success. So with 5 people in our party, 3 need to succeed for the group to succeed. That makes group stealth actually possible with my comically inept at it Cleric and also negates this "if you do enough rolls someone will inevitably fail thus everyone does" math issue.

Quote:
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.

Also agreed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:


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.

I know, but being a nice GM, that I usually am, if my bard wants to sing and the effect doesn't matter in that situation anyway, I let him sing. I'd probably rule it like "Well, you have used up 3 rounds of your performance in the last fight, so in case another fight begins, you will have x rounds left. in the meantime you continue singing with no effect but the effect will start immediatly with a new encounter."

It's not strictly a by-the-rules approach, but if the player decides to continue to shred the same accords on his ukulele for the whole time Roguey McRogueface does his thing the time for going straight into his magic song again would be reduced. It is not a complete illogical train of thought and for me, outside of combat, story and fun trumps a strict ruleset anyway.


The whole "untrained will be easy to house rule" thing is a fair point. It was valid for folks who complained about the playtest version of untrained and it will probably be just as valid in the new system.

In the 95% chance to hit thing: I'd personally rather you got there through a variety of factors. Circling over to the conditional/circumstance threads gives some good ideas on how. For specific changes to our current system, I'd like it if the fighter got there because the cleric gave a +2 spell bonus from a buff, flanking and prone stacked, the enemy was demoralized or feinted on, and the fighter had a specific feat that let them capitalize even more.

If all of those things can stack up, then hell yeah the fighter shouldn't be able to miss.


Edge93 wrote:
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.

Yep, that's cool. :) I recognize that there's some stuff here that you're not a fan of, and hopefully the final product is to your liking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if skill boosting magic items will mirror the ability score bonus one by boosting your proficiency one step. So that a magic item makes someone able to perform the skill if incompetent with it, gives a small boon to most characters and nothing for those already legendary with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The whole "untrained will be easy to house rule" thing is a fair point. It was valid for folks who complained about the playtest version of untrained and it will probably be just as valid in the new system.

I will most likely just House Rule "Untrained is Level-4" back in the game and never look back. Easy enough so it is not a huge issue, and at the very least this seems unlikely to break anything.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The whole "untrained will be easy to house rule" thing is a fair point. It was valid for folks who complained about the playtest version of untrained and it will probably be just as valid in the new system.
I will most likely just House Rule "Untrained is Level-4" back in the game and never look back. Easy enough so it is not a huge issue, and at the very least this seems unlikely to break anything.

Wouldn't you go for Untrained = -2 +level, or do you think it should be -4 to make the difference between untrained and trained bigger than it currently is?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I have been watching the playtest mostly.

The fact that radical changes were rigorously tested by the player base with solicited feedback, and then that feedback was actually analyzed and applied, which caused some of those changes to be rescinded and others revised, means they are trying to make a game the most amount of players can agree on. This is absolutely awesome.

I think a solid next-best move would be to relegate some of the removed changes into optional rules. That way they still exist but wouldn't be a primary part of the game's subscription.

Cheers!


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
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

PF1 Wizard at 10th level, non-proficient with weapon

+5 level (called BAB) -4 non-proficiency = +1

PF1 Rogue at 7th level, non-proficient with weapon
+5 level (called BAB) -4 non-proficiency =+1

PF2 anyone non-proficient with weapon, any level
+0 level = +0

So the PF1 wizard is ahead at 10th level and above, the rogue at 7th level and above, fighter at 5th level and above.

The crit failure chance will be huge, and it may not be possible to get a critical success if the AC is high enough — you need to make the DC for a natural 20 to be a critical success. Otherwise it is just a normal success.

At moderate and high levels, non-proficiency with a weapon is going to be a lot worse than in PF1.


kitmehsu wrote:
I wonder if skill boosting magic items will mirror the ability score bonus one by boosting your proficiency one step. So that a magic item makes someone able to perform the skill if incompetent with it, gives a small boon to most characters and nothing for those already legendary with it.

Oh, I like that a lot! Elegant and useful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kitmehsu wrote:
I wonder if skill boosting magic items will mirror the ability score bonus one by boosting your proficiency one step. So that a magic item makes someone able to perform the skill if incompetent with it, gives a small boon to most characters and nothing for those already legendary with it.

It is an interesting idea. We can probably infer item quality won't work the same, because legendary item granting another +8 seems like insanity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:

5- Add more flavor

The final book all abilities will have more flavor. Like how the wizard will have a "Thesis" that he get to chose the name and everything.

Expected, but still love to hear it. Hoping the wizard's change will come with specialty schools actually feeling like specialists. (Specialty Wizard during char creation for Part 7, "I kinda regret not going Universalist.")

Dante Doom wrote:

3- GM Resources

DC table was simplified (just one line for level and another for DC's). Conditions were reviewed. Some were split, some grouped.
There is a new condtion called "Doomed". It lowers the death threshold by the amount (Ex Doomed 2 you will be DEAD if you get do Dying 2)

I actually kinda like the DC table easily being able to scan left to right for difficulty within a level. So not sure I'm enthusiastic about this change. Conditions were never an issue in my group due to my custom char sheet handling it for everyone, but it'll be interesting to see how they turn out.

Dante Doom wrote:

2- Ressonance

Completly gone... Yeah that's righ... No more ressonance whatsoever! Even the Focus rework didn't did well.
(Some items will be changed to reflect this, like wands not beeing a spell in a branch)

None? Here's hoping whatever replacement for resonance is still better than the old body slots. My players were so happy to hear they could easily have all 5 variations of the rings of energy resistance on a character without running into slot issues or crippling their use of other magic items. Also hoping that there will still be a way for Charisma to be a useful stat for all characters, because I do not want to go back to the idea that everyone who isn't a face/CHA-caster leaves Charisma at the lowest value possible with no effect.

Also, long overdue with the wands change. I've always said I'd rather just remove them completely rather than leave them as multi-use scrolls. If they can't carve out a unique niche for themselves, then they shouldn't exist.

Dante Doom wrote:

1- Proficiency rework (HUGE)

The data showed that proficiency was a cool system, but the difference between levels was very low.
Ok so now we have:

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

Cautious about this. Hopefully it means that items bonuses will be less of a thing and proficiency will take over that niche. Also slightly concerned about how it'll work with the +/-10 critical system, since I actually like that system better than nat 1's or 20's.

I'm also very concerned about this talk of 95% success rates. While success rates seem a bit low at the moment, I dislike anything becoming next to guaranteed by default, especially with time-sensitive checks or in combat. I don't think this should be easily possible without taking advantage of situational modifiers like conditions, flanking, etc. or else all of those situational modifiers become meaningless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the new skill system is a step in the right direction.

I see a lot of people wanting Untrained to get 1/2 level at least, but why not just reduce all other tiers by 1/2 level instead?

The issue I have/had with +level to everything is that level eclipses all choices your character makes.

While I think the new system is an improvement, I think I would prefer this:

Untrained: +0
Trained: 1/2 level + 3
Expert: 1/2 level + 6
Master: 1/2 level + 9
Legendary: 1/2 level + 12

This would make the difference between Untrained and Legendary +22, which is just beyond a d20 roll. To be fair, I fully expect a Legendary character (someone who does stuff worthy of Legends) to be on a completely different level than the untrained guy.

As for the issues with untrained characters being totally incompetent, I like the suggested mechanic of letting Experts, Masters, and Legendary specialists "give" a proficiency Tier to someone who is lesser trained than themselves as part of an "Aid Another" action.

Someone earlier brought up an issue of Untrained PCs not knowing stuff about the world like a deity's domains, or the nature of a lich's phylactery. You don't roll Lore checks for stuff your character knows and stuff they can't possibly know. If at any time information has been revealed to a character, they shouldn't need to roll a Lore check for that information.

For example, knowing the domains for the party cleric's deity sound pretty reasonable for the party to know after their first adventure together. Knowing how a phylactery works should be learned after facing your first lich, or after asking the local expert about liches before you go face your first lich.


Nettah wrote:
Wouldn't you go for Untrained = -2 +level, or do you think it should be -4 to make the difference between untrained and trained bigger than it currently is?

A -4 has the advantage of being continuous with PF1 as the penalty for using a weapon without proficiency, but I could go with -2. My reason for wanting to keep automatic scaling on untrained things is to avoid discouraging people from attempting things they have not invested in. If the -10/+10 thing stays, I suspect nobody is going to even attempt untrained skill checks past a certain point if they are only adding attribute mods because that will have a very high chance of a critical failure.

thflame wrote:
I see a lot of people wanting Untrained to get 1/2 level at least, but why not just reduce all other tiers by 1/2 level instead?

Because I very much want to maintain numerical continuity with PF1, in which a fighter adds their level to all their attack rolls in the form of BAB and someone who has max ranks in a skill adds their level to those skill checks in the form of "your skill rank investment is capped by your level."

Having a 10th level fighter add a +5 instead of a +10 or having a 12th level craft specialist add +6 instead of +12 is just going to feel wrong to me. Sure, you will be adding a proficiency bonus in PF2 but that, to me, just replaces things like Skill Focus, Weapon Training, Weapon Focus, Trapfinding, Monster Lore, Inspiration, Social Grace, etc. which are no longer available.

Paizo Employee Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Few quick notes (won't be online much, as Linda and I are currently visiting her parents for the holidays):

*Yes, the numbers from items will go a bit lower as Captain Morgan and others guessed in this thread, as many of you suggested after the difference between buying the skill item or not at high levels was vastly outweighing everything else. This means the +8 for legendary is going to look even bigger compared to the item bonus.

*Even using all the playtest math, a top-tier fighter at very high levels would often generate an 80-85% hit rate (this does include some simple things the fighter can definitely create himself, like flat-footed; there are a *lot* of ways a fighter can do that in the playtest alone) so shifting a few points in the fighter's favor here is not an enormous shift on its face, but the real meaty math change is in the details along the way across various levels and a more satisfying progression for that fighter, rather than the highest-level aspirations (plus more more crits are always great, and the second and third attacks really do appreciate the leg up from the added accuracy)

*While the new table only has one progression to make it easier to read, you can use easy-to-remember adjustments (+ or - 2, 5, or 10) to actually generate seven values per level. This was based on combination of your feedback, survey feedback, some discussions Stephen had with the Facebook group about how people used the numbers in PF1, and some rules alchemy by Jason, but it's basically meant to be expressive enough to give you lots of value while also easy to use with all the best parts people liked about the DC manipulation/setting process in PF1.

Happy holidays everyone!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting.

This is a major fundamental change in the engine. So it will have impacts throughout the game.

It is very reassuring to see that they decided to take this big step.

But now I have no idea what to expect. The game will be substantially different. I kinda wonder if we will get further real previews. But I don't expect it (And certainly don't mean to imply anything like entitlement)

So, we will see. There is significant hope. But it is kinda odd to be the most in the dark we have been at this point in the process.

But hurray for inclusion of more play styles.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Happy holidays everyone!

And to you as well!

I'm very happy with these revisions. This playtest process has been fascinating. I appreciate the developers working so hard and trying to make a great product by considering such disparate opinions and viewpoints. I look forward to checking out the final version next year.

Thank you Dante for posting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thflame wrote:
I see a lot of people wanting Untrained to get 1/2 level at least, but why not just reduce all other tiers by 1/2 level instead?

Because I very much want to maintain numerical continuity with PF1, in which a fighter adds their level to all their attack rolls in the form of BAB and someone who has max ranks in a skill adds their level to those skill checks in the form of "your skill rank investment is capped by your level."

Having a 10th level fighter add a +5 instead of a +10 or having a 12th level craft specialist add +6 instead of +12 is just going to feel wrong to me. Sure, you will be adding a proficiency bonus in PF2 but that, to me, just replaces things like Skill Focus, Weapon Training, Weapon Focus, Trapfinding, etc. which are no longer available.

No offense, but there are a LOT of things that no longer maintain "numerical continuity".

I mean, the whole world switching to the new silver standard is, IMO, a much more difficult thing to rationalize than the numerical representation of how good a specialist is. (Not saying that switching to the silver standard is bad.)

I mean, if you don't like the idea of a fighter's BAB going from 1 x level to 0.5 x level, then why are you okay with wizards going from 0.5 x level to 1 x level, or rogues going from 0.75 x level to 1 x level? That sounds odd to me.

Not to mention that with a +2 or a +3 per proficiency level, (with 1/2 level) the fighter would end up at approximately the same bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Happy holidays everyone!

Thanks Mark for every post you helped us here in the forum!

Definitely grab these holiday to enjoy your family and friends!
If this playtest was hard for us can't even imagine how much you guys have been working

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ronnam wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Happy holidays everyone!

And to you as well!

I'm very happy with these revisions. This playtest process has been fascinating. I appreciate the developers working so hard and trying to make a great product by considering such disparate opinions and viewpoints. I look forward to checking out the final version next year.

Thank you Dante for posting.

As I said in the holiday blog, the playtest process has been hugely fascinating and enlightening (while also incredibly stressful and all-devouring, just a whirlwind of emotions). But the important thing is we are making a game for all of you and your preferences you've let us know in various ways throughout the years and throughout the playtest, and with that as our prime directive, I think you guys are going to dig it!


Mark Seifter wrote:

Few quick notes (won't be online much, as Linda and I are currently visiting her parents for the holidays):

*Yes, the numbers from items will go a bit lower as Captain Morgan and others guessed in this thread, as many of you suggested after the difference between buying the skill item or not at high levels was vastly outweighing everything else. This means the +8 for legendary is going to look even bigger compared to the item bonus.

*Even using all the playtest math, a top-tier fighter at very high levels would often generate an 80-85% hit rate (this does include some simple things the fighter can definitely create himself, like flat-footed; there are a *lot* of ways a fighter can do that in the playtest alone) so shifting a few points in the fighter's favor here is not an enormous shift on its face, but the real meaty math change is in the details along the way across various levels and a more satisfying progression for that fighter, rather than the highest-level aspirations (plus more more crits are always great, and the second and third attacks really do appreciate the leg up from the added accuracy)

*While the new table only has one progression to make it easier to read, you can use easy-to-remember adjustments (+ or - 2, 5, or 10) to actually generate seven values per level. This was based on combination of your feedback, survey feedback, some discussions Stephen had with the Facebook group about how people used the numbers in PF1, and some rules alchemy by Jason, but it's basically meant to be expressive enough to give you lots of value while also easy to use with all the best parts people liked about the DC manipulation/setting process in PF1.

Happy holidays everyone!

Happy Holidays to you and the Paizo staff!

I'm glad to hear the math is shifting away from item bonuses, especially for skills. I do hope item quality is still a thing, especially for weapons and armor. I'm guessing from various comments you've made that they probably have a +1, +2, or +3 spread.

That might also align with getting only 3 additional die from potency and 2 from inherent ability. If we are looking at weapon quality determining to hit while potency runes only add damage dice I will be a happy camper indeed. :)

I'm also glad to hear the fighter math isn't shifting quite as much as it sounded. And the difficulty's being based on level +/- X as Edge predicted is also reassuring. That could make it line up nicely with the encounter table as well, which I'm sure can have some fun interactions.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Changes #2 through #5 all seem quite reasonable to me, and I'm on board with them.

I'm mostly on board with #1 as well, given Mark's explanation (and suspected something like that even before I read his post)...but, like others, I find the removal of being able to accomplish anything at all Untrained at higher levels to be worrisome.

There are certainly potential fixes for this issue (getting additional Trained Skills at certain levels on top of Skill Ups, for example, would help a lot), but until I see such fixes and/or the finished product I remain somewhat concerned about what happens with Untrained Skills.

This is probably somewhat irrational, given the demonstrated abilities of the folks at Paizo (which indicate they'll probably have something to fix this), but it's an emotional reaction rather than a strictly rational one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Would you look at that, good changes this late in the game.

Hoping their changes to the magic system will also make spells worth taking instead of the crap they were.

Who knows, maybe the release version will actually be decent after all.

Hearing that spells will be getting buffed was a great decision by Paizo. Well played Paizo, well played.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Does anyone know if these or any other changes will be implemented before the final product? My group will be finishing up Doomsday Dawn tonight (finally), and my wife plans to GM the PF2 society scenarios next month. Just wondering if we should hold off knowing there are official rules updates coming or maybe just add this stuff on the fly to try it out?


Another big list of great changes. It's pretty encouraging seeing positive changes at this stage as one of my major PF1 concerns was things being hit with an errata and rendered pointless. These changes make the game seem like it's headed in a healthier direction.

This does stitch up most of my player side concerns, though I'll need to wait and see what the spell changes look like. It'll be hard to hit a sweet spot with spells. I am still concerned a about the tactical and DM side of things, mostly revolving around the lack of variety in player defenses and the excessive use of monster abilities that produce wasted turns for players.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple folks have asked whether eliminating resonance means item slots are coming back. My impression from the stream is that, no, we won't be returning to item slots. The key quote:

Jason wrote:
the only thing we're keeping is a limit on the total number of magic items, permanent magic items, your character can wear. Other than that you can use whatever magic items you have . . . You wanna chug a bunch of potions, chug a bunch of potions.

So it sounds like we'll see something like the 10-item limit from the resonance/focus test (aka, what they're keeping), but nothing like the consumable throttle or turbo-boost-effect functions of resonance/focus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In general it sounds as if the changes are going to make a number of people I know move away from the statement "They (Piazo) are making it very easy for me to not buy the game (PF 2)" and might make them take another look at the rules.

But it really depends on what the final rules are going to be.

The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group, so I really have trouble trusting that the new un-play testing version is going to be much better."

But in general most hope that PF 2.0 is a good game and makes the industry step up to a higher publishing bar for their products.

MDC


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group,

This was never true and they didn't claim it. Paizo was very upfront that this was a playtest, which is why when they had trouble deciding to keep it safe or push the envelope they opted to do the latter. A more extreme change can always be tested and walked back. A safer change needs less testing.

Jason and company have said "folks, this is a playtest" a lot. They probably thought these changes had the potential to be great, but testing them didn't always bear that out. This isn't a surprise. They knew resonance would be controversial going in for example.


soulhunter80 wrote:
Does anyone know if these or any other changes will be implemented before the final product? My group will be finishing up Doomsday Dawn tonight (finally), and my wife plans to GM the PF2 society scenarios next month. Just wondering if we should hold off knowing there are official rules updates coming or maybe just add this stuff on the fly to try it out?

There are no more updates coming for the playtest. Anything being talked about now is for the final version of the rules.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group,

This was never true and they didn't claim it. Paizo was very upfront that this was a playtest, which is why when they had trouble deciding to keep it safe or push the envelope they opted to do the latter. A more extreme change can always be tested and walked back. A safer change needs less testing.

Jason and company have said "folks, this is a playtest" a lot. They probably thought these changes had the potential to be great, but testing them didn't always bear that out. This isn't a surprise. They knew resonance would be controversial going in for example.

The problem here is that they weren't effective at communicating that. The playtest rules themselves at no point explain that it's a bunch of experiments that might not look like PF2 at all. Indeed, people thought they were playtesting PF2 similar to doing a beta test of a new video game, where while stuff might change, the fundamentals are largely already locked in.

We had this exact issue in my group, and it came up in other places as well. First hand, I know someone turned off PF2 because they thought that's what they were playing. I knew otherwise, but only because I read it on this forum. The other person in question doesn't read forums and had no way whatsoever to learn that without me mentioning it.

That's an issue they will have to overcome in the final product. Of course, if it turns out great, people will hear about it from their friends anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Magic getting a buff, let alone a strong one, is the last thing PF needs but it's probably also the least surprising bit of news in this thread. Unfortunately, it probably also means that balancing things will be as problematic as it can get in PF1. However, I remain hopeful that if there is a way to walk the knife's edge that Paizo will find it.

Thematically, I liked Resonance but I'm also not surprised to see it go by the wayside. I know it had its problems but a lot of the resistance towards this system seemed to stem solely from the idea of limiting the amount of magic items a character could employ at all.

Overall, I think most of the changes cited sound positive and trust Paizo to make a good game. However, if the vocal crew pushing for more power creep get their way AND we don't get the system modularity that was cited I just don't know if it will become the fantasy rpg that displaces PF1 for my campaigns. If I can emulate Witcher & Dragon Age-style stories & heroics, I'm golden. If it only supports the demigod 0-to-mythic hero then high-level play will likely remain closed off.

Here's hoping that PF2 "high level play" doesn't start at level 12.


soulhunter80 wrote:
Does anyone know if these or any other changes will be implemented before the final product? My group will be finishing up Doomsday Dawn tonight (finally), and my wife plans to GM the PF2 society scenarios next month. Just wondering if we should hold off knowing there are official rules updates coming or maybe just add this stuff on the fly to try it out?

Highly doubtful. Some of these changes affect too many things and would require reprinting half the Playtest to implement prior to release. That just isn't practical to do at this point, and it'd be a far better use of their time to just focus on the final edition while giving us occasional teasers about what is going on.


Wow, pretty massive changes.
I like the direction this is taking!
I am happy they are not completely removing resonance, replacing it with a (hopefully) simpler and less annoying mechanic. I am also happy that they want to resolve the proficiency scaling problems with skills, that was quite a sore spot.
Keep up the good work!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Happy holidays everyone!

And to you as well!

I'm very happy with these revisions. This playtest process has been fascinating. I appreciate the developers working so hard and trying to make a great product by considering such disparate opinions and viewpoints. I look forward to checking out the final version next year.

Thank you Dante for posting.

As I said in the holiday blog, the playtest process has been hugely fascinating and enlightening (while also incredibly stressful and all-devouring, just a whirlwind of emotions). But the important thing is we are making a game for all of you and your preferences you've let us know in various ways throughout the years and throughout the playtest, and with that as our prime directive, I think you guys are going to dig it!

Thank you for your hard work! It's shaping up nice!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm on board with removing Ressonance and the differences between Trained and higher profs, the no +level to Untrained is disappointing. We're back in the "your party can't Stealth because there's that one person who didn't pick Trained" territory. Unless all PCs will have enough proficiencies at level 1 to make sure every PC can get Trained in basic adventuring skills, it will be a wasted opportunity to dodge one of core issues of PF1 and 5E.

What you call a core issue I find a core strength and feature. That being said, I'm already not in favor of so much with PF2 that these change won't be enough to bring me back into the fold. I hope that Paizo doesn't wind up squarely in the middle of PF1 rules and the PF2 playtest rules, and in trying to please everyone, they in fact please no one. I'd rather a strong game that lots of people like, even if it's one I don't like than a game which has too small of a player base because it's not satisfying to either camp of fans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


In general it sounds as if the changes are going to make a number of people I know move away from the statement "They (Piazo) are making it very easy for me to not buy the game (PF 2)" and might make them take another look at the rules.

But it really depends on what the final rules are going to be.

The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group, so I really have trouble trusting that the new un-play testing version is going to be much better."

But in general most hope that PF 2.0 is a good game and makes the industry step up to a higher publishing bar for their products.

MDC

They can't unring the bell. There is a hill to climb. And, the new game must be good. Right now we know more of what it is not than what it is.

So I'm not assuming anything here.

But I do strongly suspect that Pathfinder 2E, *any* Pathfinder 2E will get a close look from a lot of the fanbase when it is released. If it is a game that resonates well with the market (no pun intended) then it will do well. It may take off like a rocket and it may need to build momentum to overcome some established expectations.

So I think the long run will fall almost entirely on the quality of the product. We have moved from something that was driving a lot of people away to an unknown. That is positive and reason for hope.


Dante Doom wrote:
OP

5, 4 - Okay, I guess.

3 - Slightly better in that less stuff for abuse. Might be even better if they use this simpler table to create actual definitive DCs for every skill (or at least super solid examples to prevent too much deviation).

2 - Now how will Paizo deal with dump stats I really wonder. Or did they give up fixing it?

1 - The higher tiers do have more oomph, but as others, Untrained's return to the dust means that the inability to participate in certain group checks will return once again. And as I enjoyed the old versions' vision for high-levels as Renaissance Men (idiom; not having to do anything with gender, just in case), I'd rather have it at least half level.

NielsenE wrote:
The other aspect in regards to 1 and 3, is that you'll now be able to get ahead of the DC curve in your specialty -- ie at level 20 a fully specialized person should have a 95% of succeeding at a level appropriate task. Rather than the treadmill-like progression staying stay at 60% for an optimized task.

Now this is what I call splendid news!

dmerceless wrote:
more info

1, 3, 5, 6 - Okay, I guess (shameless repeat).

2 - Good to hear that you only need Trained to participate. But how will they take care of "skill taxes" (like Stealth) any random party member is required to take in place of conceptual skills at level 1?

4 - Shame. Only one side of the heroic population completely reliant on magic equipment (= money) to stay relevant is very bad. At least they claim it will matter less in the long run, so we'll see about that.

Mark Seifter wrote:
more official explanations

Good insight overall. Plus, the less reliance on external tools the better.


Lucas Yew wrote:


NielsenE wrote:
The other aspect in regards to 1 and 3, is that you'll now be able to get ahead of the DC curve in your specialty -- ie at level 20 a fully specialized person should have a 95% of succeeding at a level appropriate task. Rather than the treadmill-like progression staying stay at 60% for an optimized task.
Now this is what I call splendid news!

I meant to comment this earlier but I still don't quite get how this is news. Full specialization at 20th level (Legendary, +7 stat, +5 item) was already giving an 85% success rate, 95% if it was one of the skills that has a number-boosting feat. Far and away from 60%.

Of course if your stat was only +5 then it was only 75% which I do suppose is a bit low but still far from 60%. If they're trying to make it to where you can get 85% or so on an optimized skill that isn't your one top stat I think I'm onboard with that.


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

Posters: *complain endlessly about +level to things and resonance*
Paizo: *changes them*
Posters: *the Pikachu meme*

Jokes aside, though, feel like if +level to untrained is being taken away, there should be some way to boost numbers, maybe with a hero point? Otherwise you're getting back into PF1 levels of "don't bother" at the upper end. Someone mentioned a character with high proficiency being able to make others temporarily count as trained, and I like that kind of idea. If the untrained proficiency change was made in regards to increasing possible design space, great. If it was made in regards to a vocal group complaining, I'm less sure I applaud it.

For resonance, I have mixed feelings. I like what they were trying to do, but understand if they ultimately felt there was little point in limiting magic item use once they made Treat Wounds a thing. Nonetheless, it'd be nice to see something in the system that prevents Charisma from being the dump stat of choice.

For potency and damage, yeah... I ran some numbers after my most recent post in my Finesse Striker for All thread, and potency becomes so overbearingly powerful by end game that a Finesse-Striking character full attacking with an Elven Curve Blade (including Forceful) will still deal less damage than the raw dice (no attribute mod) on a full attack from a +5 Greatsword (37.95 vs 42.75, for those curious). So if some decoupling or increased relevance in attribute is forthcoming, I'm eager for details, because as it stands d8 one-handers and d12 two-handers overshadow everything else for basically any purpose.

I'm still going to see what the final system result looks like, but I'd say I'm in the same relative boat as Edge93 and Captain Morgan in terms of being concerned but hopeful that Paizo will do things right. I have a reasonable degree of faith that things will be functional after some analysis of the final product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like if we drop +Level from Untrained, are we going to have like 15th level people who are untrained in religion who thus don't know stuff like "Butterflies are a Desna thing" or "a lich doesn't stay dead unless you destroy its phylactery"?

Or am I just going to have to skip rolling for stuff like that because obviously everyone at that level should know this.

The holy symbols of the core pantheon are probably common knowledge (like most people can recognise at least some symbols of the major religions irl) the phylactory thing tho.. Unless you have fought a lich before why would you know that without studying up?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:

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."

No, that's *exactly* what happened here. The people who spent months of their lives playtesting the numbers and gameplay were ignored for the people who never wanted to try it because 'the feel' was wrong. Look at the time on the posts: critical at the beginning by the people who always come to the playtest forums, and later it's positive, from the people who only came back when they got what they wanted.

I'm profoundly disappointed in Paizo. I actually thought you wanted a playtest, that you wanted people to stress-test your unfinished ideas, instead of just being a teaser trailer for the final release. I thought the things you SAID you wanted, you actually wanted. But it turns out you were just trying to tell us what you thought we wanted to hear, and the only thing you want from a RPG is 'selling the most books'.

So goodbye.

Exo-Guardians

Gut reaction,
A lot of the loudest most toxic people here seem to have gotten what they want and now a great system is just PF1.5 with all of the problems it had before.

Reaction after some caffeine and examination,
The Proficiency change can be dealt with, still sucks.
Reducing the DC table is meh, resonance was an ok idea that didn’t jive with everyone so not surprised, and they didn’t kill +level to proficiency. It’s still PF2, but I’ll need to work on it.
Also flavor, I like flavor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:

Gut reaction,

A lot of the loudest most toxic people here seem to have gotten what they want and now a great system is just PF1.5 with all of the problems it had before.

Reaction after some caffeine and examination,
The Proficiency change can be dealt with, still sucks.
Reducing the DC table is meh, resonance was an ok idea that didn’t jive with everyone so not surprised, and they didn’t kill +level to proficiency. It’s still PF2, but I’ll need to work on it.
Also flavor, I like flavor.

This pretty accurately mimics my gut and delayed reactions.

It's still frustrating because there is the potential that I will have to personally adjust things to get back to the Playtest's type of math, and it's a lot harder to dial numbers back if they are imbalanced and you want them balanced than it is to bump numbers up if they are balanced and you want them imbalanced.

So yeah, a main part of my trepidation is that after PF2 offered a system in the Playtest that requires SO MUCH LESS work on my part the final version may give me back some of that workload and that feels a bit of a slap.

But again, it's entirely possible the final product won't have these problems. But from everything said here it seems like they will.

I really should find time to listen to this stream so I can get it from the dev's mouth to make sure I have my thoughts straight.

But in any case, I fully intend to get PF2, the question is how much work it will take for me to get it to function as I would like.

As a note on the proficiency, it sounds like Expert in things may be easy to get at high levels. If this is so, and if the current methods of getting Expert outside of your class (Multiclassing, General Feats, and Ancestry feats) can instead allow you to reach Master, THEN I would be okay with the proficiency gap, as it is raising the average along with the ceiling. But at the same time that is the very beginning of power creep, so...

Also it would work weird with saves since Master/Legendary and Evasion/Improved-type abilities are mostly tied together.

Pardon if I get rambly, it's tricky to express my concerns without sounding like I don't trust Paizo at all, but I do indeed have my concerns.


I completely understand where EberronHoward and MER-c are coming from particularly on the “cough” nay-sayers jumping out of the woodworks thing. I don’t know maybe I’m petty at times.

After a day of letting the shell shock wear off I’m closer to how Edge93 and Captain Morgan feel. Here’s to hoping it all works out.

Edit: lol, typed this during Edge’s post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:

Gut reaction,

A lot of the loudest most toxic people here seem to have gotten what they want and now a great system is just PF1.5 with all of the problems it had before.

Reaction after some caffeine and examination,
The Proficiency change can be dealt with, still sucks.
Reducing the DC table is meh, resonance was an ok idea that didn’t jive with everyone so not surprised, and they didn’t kill +level to proficiency. It’s still PF2, but I’ll need to work on it.
Also flavor, I like flavor.

I think it's a bit unfair to assume that the changes are only due to the loud unhappy posters and not in any way to survey data.

After seeing the twitch stream and thinking about the untrained issue myself I think it can be assumed you get more trained skills or ways to let you be "trained" for certain checks, otherwise people not using most skills would be an even bigger problem than in 1e. So until I see how it shapes out myself I am going to stay optimistic and count on some kind of system that let's high-level characters get proficiency bonus to a lot more skills than are currently trained for most.

Without seeing the rules I think I could also assume with 95% assurance that house-rulling untrained to be -2 + level won't break anything in the game (and personally I would rather deal with the oddness of good performances coming from the untrained barbarian or a monster, than make a number of skill completely unusable for certain players). So if the untrained is not done satisfactorily I will likely just house-rule it back to the playtest way.

I think simplifying the DC table is a sound move and then either make easy or harder task adjust the DC by a set amount or by a certain level range.
I do hope that they hold back with increasing spells power, so it doesn't break the martial/caster balance but if the blast spells are any indications it should be fine I think.
I did think resonance was an okay system, and that focus for items showed great promise, but alas not everything can be the way I prefer it.

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
MER-c wrote:

Gut reaction,

A lot of the loudest most toxic people here seem to have gotten what they want and now a great system is just PF1.5 with all of the problems it had before.

Reaction after some caffeine and examination,
The Proficiency change can be dealt with, still sucks.
Reducing the DC table is meh, resonance was an ok idea that didn’t jive with everyone so not surprised, and they didn’t kill +level to proficiency. It’s still PF2, but I’ll need to work on it.
Also flavor, I like flavor.

I think it's a bit unfair to assume that the changes are only due to the loud unhappy posters and not in any way to survey data.

I think it's extremely rude to call those who have been dissatisfied with the system as presented in the playtest as "toxic".

Silver Crusade

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

Now if PF2 hands out Trained like candy and it's getting to Master/Legendary where Rogues and Rangers will go ahead of Clerics and Fighters, I'm fine. That's a perfectly fine way of building a system which satisfies the "Having a character who terribly sucks at walking and chewing gum at the same time is a virtue I cherish" people and the "I want an adventurer who can adventure without making herself look like an idiot" folks at the same time.

But if it doesn't and we're looking at management stepping in and going "OH MY GOSH HAVE YOU READ THE FORUM THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SPENT 300 USD LAST WEEK AND THEY'RE SAYING YOU'RE MURDERING THEIR PUPPY, CAN YOU REVERT SOME OF THE CHANGES SO THAT WE GET THEM BACK?". In that case, the game will end up with JoelF847 being right - the half-dialed back changes won't be enough for me, the puppy got kicked hard enough already for conservatives never to look back at a company that betrayed their brittle feelings, and in the end WotC will just open a can of beer and smile while Paizo will rebrand itself into a Starfinder company. Not that I mind, Starfinder is a great game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly was happy to hear the proficiency change though I did take a healthy sip of skepticism as well, I’m glad that your character has to invest to be good in something, what I now fear however is how several changes will influence the whole framework, the playtest has always had tight math so I imagine this could be a sizeable overhaul, I have had a lot of issues with the playtest but I find myself sharing @Gorbacz feeling of worry that such a big overhaul can be completed on time.

In short whatever misgivings I’ve had with the system I want the final product to do well, I’m just gonna be patient before I outright make predictions on how it will turn out since the final product may look nothing like what we have now save for some core mechanics (3 actions and so on).


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

Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh

101 to 150 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