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


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

14 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

Then why are the loudest and most toxic posters on this forum the ones that are complaining about the changes right now? the ones that made feedback during the playtest on these boards hell for everyone that disagreed with them; the very same people that whine in this very thread the loudest.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
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.

Yeah, this was never clear before the playtest started, and it wasn't really until rather late in the game (like less than a month ago) that I saw any statement clearly pointing out that the playtest is not PF2 Beta and was never meant to be. I know my entire group assumed that it was, and were therefore very dismayed to see such a drastically different game with many glaring flaws. Several bought the Deluxe Edition of the playtest book, and wouldn't have if they knew the actual nature of the test. In fact several felt betrayed, and still do even after it's been explained to them that their assumptions of what the Playtest was were not in line with it's intent. That in fact the Playtest was a lot of highly experimental ideas that they wanted to test out, and not showing what the final game is going to be, but with more polish. We spend all day Saturdays playing pathfinder. So there's a lot of emotional investment in the game, because it's a major part of our lives. The fact that this group moved to Pathfinder due to unhappiness with D&D 4th Ed probably made this worse. It felt like the same thing happening again.

The highly experimental aspects of the game were seen as what "Paizo wants." So they were very upset that: "Paizo wants magic to be terrible." Some even personalizing it to: "Paizo hates casters." Or saw Resonance as "Paizo wants to punish magic and discourage it's use." Yes these are views that were repeatedly stated during our playtesting, several members of our group really enjoy playing magical characters, and found them to be nerfed into having all fun and sense of wonder crushed out of it. And ironically, their reactions were a mirror of the view of a few posters up thread, in that they blamed it on Paizo giving in to jerks on the forums who hate magic, and ruining it for everyone else. There are clearly multiple camps wanting mutually exclusive things from the playtest, and regardless of the final project one or more of them will feel like they were ignored in favor of another.

I've tried to avoid falling into these traps, stay objective and try to keep others objective as well. I certainly failed. I hated resonance with a passion, because the concept broke verisimilitude, several of the problems it was supposed to address never were problems for us, and it didn't really address them directly but was instead a Rube Goldberg device of rules. I lost some faith in Paizo's judgement for even thinking such an obviously (in my mind) horrible system was even worth testing. What was learned? That a system they knew would be unpopular, was unpopular? And the casting nerfs were painful, and I don't even play casters. I've never actually played a full caster class, but I saw this as incredibly heavy-handed. The long time before these concerns were even mentioned just made if feel like either they were in fact working as intended, or that what I want from the game was so out of line with the feedback Paizo was getting, that I was in danger of 'losing' my game, as it became something completely different than what I enjoy, and that we'd be stuck with an unsupported game. Learning about the true nature of the playtest has helped regain some perspective about things. I think if it was more clear from the beginning that the playtest was a lot of experimental ideas that were not reflective of the direction of the final product, a lot of the upset, could have been reduced.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
Untrained: You get NOTHING, not even your level, you will suck hard my friend!

This has been one of my big requests since before the playtest was revealed. I've been told repeatedly by plenty of people on these forums how wrong I was to want this. I expect to see a lot of gnashing teeth now that Paizo has done this.

Overall this is a very good move.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
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.

That was how I took Jason’s comments (fwiw). I don’t think it was explicit, but my impression was that there’d be more ways to gain training. They’d commented to me directly before the change about the problems inherent in removing the +1/level from untrained - it’s hard to imagine they subsequently just shrugged and went “screw it, let’s do it anyway”.

Quote:

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?".

Which member of the Paizo management team do you think is that silly?

They may make a mistake in gauging the mood of the market from time to time, but it’s still the same people responding to the market now by making PF2 who responded to 4E by making PF - that was hardly the obvious path to riches at the time. I think we can rule out this arm of your hypothetical without too much risk.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:


Yeah, this was never clear before the playtest started, and it wasn't really until rather late in the game (like less than a month ago) that I saw any statement clearly pointing out that the playtest is not PF2 Beta and was never meant to be. I know my entire group assumed that it was, and were therefore very dismayed to see such...

https://imgur.com/XCtPPeJ

This was page four of the playtest book. The book that also said playtest on the front.

I know that when I got my hands on a copy, I stood up in front of my group before we played and explained that this wasn't going to be a normal game of Pathfinder, that it was a playtest. The rules weren't going to look anything like this when it released, so it was important to note things they liked and didn't like.

I don't understand how this wasn't clear.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ruzza wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:


Yeah, this was never clear before the playtest started, and it wasn't really until rather late in the game (like less than a month ago) that I saw any statement clearly pointing out that the playtest is not PF2 Beta and was never meant to be. I know my entire group assumed that it was, and were therefore very dismayed to see such...

https://imgur.com/XCtPPeJ

This was page four of the playtest book. The book that also said playtest on the front.

I know that when I got my hands on a copy, I stood up in front of my group before we played and explained that this wasn't going to be a normal game of Pathfinder, that it was a playtest. The rules weren't going to look anything like this when it released, so it was important to note things they liked and didn't like.

I don't understand how this wasn't clear.

A lot of the hype in the blogs was “come and see the second edition of pathfinder!” not “come and see a bunch of subsystems we think will be controversial.” I think that’s the disconnect many felt.

If you didn’t play close attention, I think it was reasonable (after two years of internal playtesting) to take Paizo’s release of the playtest book as “this is what we think the game should be, any minor problem we may have missed?”

I think Paizo’s approach was better than releasing a “beta release PF2” but I can understand why people didn’t realise what they were getting.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
I don't understand how this wasn't clear.
Playtest rulebook pdf wrote:
We’re attempting bold strides in this new edition of the game, but it’s far from finalized. This is where you come in—this book is only a playtest of the final version of the game, which we’ll release in August 2019. Over the next few months, we hope you’ll help us refine the game to make it even better.

That bit I highlighted. Easy to read that as "this is very close to what we'll release next year, but we'll listen to your input for some minor tweaks" and not realise that the "far from finalized" part means they're actually OK with making major changes to stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:


Yeah, this was never clear before the playtest started, and it wasn't really until rather late in the game (like less than a month ago) that I saw any statement clearly pointing out that the playtest is not PF2 Beta and was never meant to be. I know my entire group assumed that it was, and were therefore very dismayed to see such...

https://imgur.com/XCtPPeJ

This was page four of the playtest book. The book that also said playtest on the front.

I know that when I got my hands on a copy, I stood up in front of my group before we played and explained that this wasn't going to be a normal game of Pathfinder, that it was a playtest. The rules weren't going to look anything like this when it released, so it was important to note things they liked and didn't like.

I don't understand how this wasn't clear.

It could have something to do with the name.

And the "join the evolution " tagline.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:


Yeah, this was never clear before the playtest started, and it wasn't really until rather late in the game (like less than a month ago) that I saw any statement clearly pointing out that the playtest is not PF2 Beta and was never meant to be. I know my entire group assumed that it was, and were therefore very dismayed to see such...

https://imgur.com/XCtPPeJ

This was page four of the playtest book. The book that also said playtest on the front.

I know that when I got my hands on a copy, I stood up in front of my group before we played and explained that this wasn't going to be a normal game of Pathfinder, that it was a playtest. The rules weren't going to look anything like this when it released, so it was important to note things they liked and didn't like.

I don't understand how this wasn't clear.

Everything stated there is perfectly consistent with the idea that this is just a rough draft of the final game. It reads as standard boilerplate of "This isn't the final game, things may change." that would be in any non-final release. That could have easily have gone with the Beta of PF1, which was pretty close to the final. It certainly had nothing close to major subsystems being removed entirely or the basic math being highly modified. Nothing in this statement calls out that this is in fact a collection of wild ideas in search of feedback, that major subsystems aren't necessarily even expected to make it to the final release, and that this is more in line with an "Alpha" release than a "Beta". No, I don't think it was clear at all.

Maybe me and my group were in the minority in having different expectations to what the test was. But I don't think so.


Did we all have different definitions or were working under different assumptions of how playtests worked?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ruzza wrote:
Did we all have different definitions or were working under different assumptions of how playtests worked?

Many probably assumed it’d be the same as the PF1 playtest (which was by design much less revolutionary).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Playtest rulebook pdf wrote:
We’re attempting bold strides in this new edition of the game, but it’s far from finalized. This is where you come in—this book is only a playtest of the final version of the game, which we’ll release in August 2019. Over the next few months, we hope you’ll help us refine the game to make it even better.

refine /rɪˈfʌɪn/ verb make minor changes so as to improve or clarify

if what they were trying to say was "well, major stuff can change of course!", REFINE was a very poor choice of words.

that said, I'm glad major changes happened. Now all I have to do is get that good news that the playtest wasn't at all was the final product will be to my group somehow, so that we might give PF2 another chance


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Did we all have different definitions or were working under different assumptions of how playtests worked?

Very likely. They've done playtests in the past, and they've always been close to the final release, and less of a "Lets throw it at the wall and see what sticks." approach, which this playtest seems to have been. So there's also expectations based on previous experience. I'm not saying that this was a bad approach. I'm sure they learned quite a bit about their audience and what we want. It should be . But I don't think the approach was adequately explained ahead of time, and it led to frustrations and alienation of some players, which could have possibly been avoided with better communication of the goals.

This quite possibly was a better approach than just releasing a rough draft, as Steve Geddes suggested above. But I do think a rough draft should be tested as well. But there really isn't time for that with the release schedule. There seems to have been a tendency to over-correct for problems and create new ones. Also with how dramatic the basic math changes are, that really seems worthy of a test, even if it's a less formal and shorter one than this was.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

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.

It continues to be amazing how history repeats itself.

These same comments were made when WotC started previewing 5E. It was just going back to 3.75. It was a betrayal of their 4E fans. The 3X fans would stay angry and never come back and the 4E fans would get alienated and leave, thus 5E would fail.

In fairness, the 4E fanbase saying this was overwhelmed by the roaring excitement of the marketplace overall. Whereas, right now, the news doesn't have a big reception outside of people who were still positive on +level to everything. So the relative volumes are different. But the tunes being sung are exactly the same.

And it is funny how in the thread you can see the complaints of those who were unhappy before described as "toxic" in the same post that the new change is described as "sucks".

The classic "I'm angry and upset, everyone should hear my rage and wake up, but when you were angry and upset, you were just toxic".

I still have no idea what 2E *WILL* be. So I can't say any great praise about it. For example, I think we can assume that everyone will be trained in unarmored defense. Which means naked and no-magic 10th level wizards can dance around a squad of greatsword wielding orcs. That is still a game that is not going to appeal to me. But, of course, if that wizard puts on a set of simple leather armor, in which he is untrained, his AC will DROP about 8 points. Which makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly something in that will change. Which isn't to say "here is an error, Paizo must speak up about it" It is to say that this is one of MANY MANY implications of this change and I'm pleasantly shocked to hear the Paizo made the tough choice to dive into the heavy rework. But it is a heavy rework with a lot of implications.

So, all that said, we have no idea what the future holds. Pathfinder 2E will get a lot of attention when it is released. 5E has taken a lot of the shine off the game's current market, but the brand name is still well known. If *that* game is great ("great" in this context == appeals to a hell of a lot of people, even if Bryon and Gorbacz both hate it) then it will do well. If it doesn't appeal to the masses, then it will sink like so many other RPGs before it.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks I don't think it is contentious to remind ourselves that there is a genuinely held philosophical divide here!

PCs in an old school Batman mold. By default at least competent at every task they face, brilliant at many and as they progress become brilliant at everything they haven't become super human at.

So in the *normal* course of events there is no task that the PCs cannot individually manage, no failing that handicaps the rest of the party.

Vs

What I would call the traditional D&D paradigm of PCs who are very good at some things and lousy at others.

Where players had to choose where to focus and there was never enough resource to excel at everything.

The playtest was very much the former.

The changes make a modest step towards the latter.

Even now using one skill choice on getting trained means after a few levels the Ezren style wizard has become a formidable athlete or acrobat when compared anyone who isn't an adventurer.

IMHO In the case of ppl who made a foreseeable degree of inquiry about the playtest they were taking part in Paizo was clear the design choice was to test the most extreme versions of ideas. Which kept me sane playing a wizard where everything seemed to have save bonuses higher than my DC for instance :-)

I am still very much hoping that next years rather scary looking foreign exchange prospects still permit me to make the trip across the pond to welcome in the new edition, warts & all, in person!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what if the fighter hits easily on the first attack?

The same Fighter has 2 other attacks that previously were not relevant but now they are.

This is how it should have been in the first place


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am still very curious about how devistating only being trained at defenses will be vs legendary proficiency. I think it is going to position casters in a space where most creature will be critically failing against spells targeting a trained save, if legendary casting proficiency is automatic. Legendary vs trained looks like a flat +6, but being level 18+ with a wisdom of 8 or 10 or even 14 vs a cater with +6 attribute is going to be a big problem. I am worried that the new math spread will essentialize making all characters expert at every defense by a certain level and might actually result in less diversity of playable concepts at higher levels because letting any defense fall behind is death. The inability to boost defenses at the rate attacks can destroy parties is the root of rocket tag power creep. Matching focused legendary attack vs mediocre trained or expert defense is the new instant win strategy, rather than significant boost that it was in the playtest. At the very least, situational/tactical bonuses need to creep up now as well or else combats are going to feel divorced from their environment because how a character is built will trump anything the character can do. This is why PF1 at high level is not fun for me, and why I begrudgingly got on board with the proficiency system of PF playtest, but now think it looks like a very breakable system that will not survive the likely option bloat that is soon to come. These changes essential the need for PF playtest +1 bonuses to be +2 bonuses in PF2, which is going to get wonky with a +\- 10 crit system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

So what if the fighter hits easily on the first attack?

The same Fighter has 2 other attacks that previously were not relevant but now they are.

This is how it should have been in the first place

In the games I run second attacks and sometimes even third managed to be relevant just fine without jacking the primary attack past 80%. I've seen how 95% hits play out in PF1 (Though to be fair some of my experience has been with characters whose accuracy is so jacked their SECOND attack has like 90% hit), and I'm not a fan. But I have high hopes Paizo will find ways to mitigate past issues.

YMMV.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who had no hope or enthusiasm for this product, I will say that the announced made me at least want to give it a try. There's still a bunch of things that I don't like, but PF2e at least feels like a game I might want to play and support.

It'll mostly depend on how Paizo approaches feat, spells and class abilities. So far, nearly all of them feel... Lackluster. Boring and/or weak. The prime example being Paladins losing Smite Evil.

My only concern is that high accuracy combined with the +10/-10 rule could be too much. I don't think I want every character to get 1~2 critical every turn... Forcing the devs do artificially inflate the hp of monsters and NPCs, making it all pointless anyway.

And, of course, I'll certainly keep a close eye on Paizo's errata policies. If they keep their old "nerf stuff from the old books to make stuff from the new release seem better", I'll most definetely not discontinue any support for the company, but also encourage other players to do the same.

I can't say I'll definetely join the PF2e fold, but I can say I'll at least check the CRB and play a few games.

On a separate, but equally importany note, I will add that calling dissatisfied players "toxic" is not only rude, but incredibly hypocritical, considering the way many of the advocates of previous versions of the playtest document address anyone who dares to disagree with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
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

Indeed, with untrained giving nothing, there needs to be significantly more access to trained skills. Enough that people can choose to master those things they feel define their character and also be trained in the basic adventuring skills which they would need or have picked up in the course of their heroic saga.

Since in the playtest I saw a number of characters who were untrained in all but about 4-5 skills, and without any scaling for untrained that person is almost wholly incompetent now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I am still very curious about how devistating only being trained at defenses will be vs legendary proficiency. I think it is going to position casters in a space where most creature will be critically failing against spells targeting a trained save, if legendary casting proficiency is automatic.

That's right

It is far from a simple tweak to the math. It has a lot of serious implications. I'm certain they are thinking it through. But that is easy to say. How they are changing it is another matter altogether.
Suddenly we know a lot less than we don't know.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Some notes about people saying we are "Calling anyone dissatisfied with the system toxic":

First of all, that's not true. Most of the people here who have mentioned toxic people never said that everyone dissatisfied with the system was toxic. They may have said some of the loudest naysayers of the system were toxic, and frankly that's true. We're talking about the people who go and complain about +/level and/or diss various other parts of the system unproductively in any thread where they can attach the slightest bit of relevance to it and even some where they can't. People who were more civil about their objections are NOT toxic, and in fact I have had enjoyable and productive discussion with some of them in a few threads around here.

And this isn't to say there isn't toxicity to be had on both sides. I've seen one or two toxic pro-PF2 posters, but that isn't the objection being raised here so there's little else to say there.

But there IS a telling difference between the sides here in an overall sense.

The general attitude among people who DIDN'T want these changes is "I really have concerns about where this is headed but I trust/will still support Paizo", with one or two stronger reactions.

Among people who DID want these changes, there is definitely plenty of positivity but several cases of "This still isn't enough to make me happy, I have to have more if I'm going to buy this". Which is a valid viewpoint of course, you shouldn't buy a system you don't like. But I felt it worth pointing out the attitude of most people disappointed in these changes vs. the attitude of a lot of people who have been demanding these changes and raising a great fuss.

Again, I want to emphasize for anyone who did like these changes, I'm NOT saying everyone is doing that. Or even a majority. I have seen more "Positive with no caveat" comments here than "Positive but I have to have more" comments here.

I do wish to note that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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

Indeed, with untrained giving nothing, there needs to be significantly more access to trained skills. Enough that people can choose to master those things they feel define their character and also be trained in the basic adventuring skills which they would need or have picked up in the course of their heroic saga.

Since in the playtest I saw a number of characters who were untrained in all but about 4-5 skills, and without any scaling for untrained that person is almost wholly incompetent now.

This would be a really strange move.

It is a very big deal that they have announced this change. The change, certainly, is intended to accomplish something. To make another change that immediately counteracts the change would be pointless.

Ultimately, I believe they must make a game which include the playspace of characters who actually face challenges. If the game presumes that every clanky dwarf can sneak past guards and swim upstream, then it is conceding that there are much better games out there for a lot of people. However, if it presumes that some characters can and some character can not sneak past the guards and swim upstream, then it doesn't matter to the balance in any given case if one character can or can't. So you can just declare that ever character is trained in ever skill. And now you clanky dwarf is also sneaky and great at swimming, whereas my group still gets the fun of solving the problem rather than having the system hand it to us.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

For quite a while, folks had been wondering exactly how much change could come as a result of the playtest. Some even claimed the whole thing was just for show. The multiple, massive updates provided an answer: The new game will be very different from the playtest rules, and this fresh news should put that subject to rest.

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.

This was expected, and it's a vital change. The playtest book is a pretty austere, unenjoyable read. That's one of the things that made it clear the book was far from final.

Dante Doom wrote:

4- Chapter 1 Rework

Chapter 1 has been completely redone.
The large number of page references was taken out and in place we have a "little adventure" guiding new players in the basics of the game.

I didn't read chapter 1 very much, so this doesn't really matter to me. Critical to a newcomer to the game, for sure.

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)

Great. I really disliked that table, it looked like a blot over an otherwise elegant design.

Dante Doom wrote:

2- Resonance

Completly gone... Yeah that's righ... No more resonance 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)

Too bad the Focus idea didn't work, I thought it had potential. I remember my initial reaction to Resonance was that it was a fine idea, but it shouldn't go so far as to nerf consumables. Then I was disappointed that it didn't eliminate charges and uses per day. At the end, it looks like there will be a blanket limitation on wearables and nothing else. A decent compromise.

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

This is big, and I wonder what corrective measures are going to be taken to avoid PF1's absurd number spreads at high level. A number of interesting ideas have been suggested for this in this thread. One thing I worry about is, will Athletics and Acrobatics become mandatory training for all? Being essentially helpless against grappling would mean being unfit for adventure, whatever the class - unless magic makes the issue moot, in which case we get back to PF1's badly unbalanced high-level play.

On the +level issue, it looks like we had two camps, who did their best to project extreme views. The camp who was loudly complaining is now rejoicing, and the opposite camp underwent a nearly symmetric mood change (I did note the nuances mentioned by Edge93, but still, it's mostly strong initial reactions). I'd rather wait until we see the whole picture. I fully trust the devs didn't just forget about the issues they told us they wanted to solve. They're just going with different solutions towards the same goal.

By the way, I think it is grossly unfair to accuse Paizo of ignoring the playtest surveys in favor of the loud protesters on the forum. The survey results represent hundreds of hours of work just to review them, there's no way that work gets thrown away. The most likely explanation is that the surveys indicated a split in opinions, neither camp winning by a strong enough margin. I'd make a guess that if 20% of the fan base is in strong opposition, a compromise is justified. After all, the goal is to have as many happy players as humanly possible. The process to get there is rocky, but the prize is worth it. Once again, I want to commend Paizo for the dedication and courage it takes to undertake such an extensive test effort.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh

Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Ultimately, I believe they must make a game which include the playspace of characters who actually face challenges. If the game presumes that every clanky dwarf can sneak past guards and swim upstream, then it is conceding that there are much better games out there for a lot of people. However, if it presumes that some characters can and some character can not sneak past the guards and swim upstream, then it doesn't matter to the balance in any given case if one character can or can't. So you can just declare that ever character is trained in ever skill. And now you clanky dwarf is also sneaky and great at swimming, whereas my group still gets the fun of solving the problem rather than having the system hand it to us.

It feels like you're ignoring that these things are ultimately adjudicated by dice, so it's less "you can sneak despite your low dex mod and loud armor" it's "you have a possibility of being sneaky, but are hindered by those things." We have now replaced "you have a (potentially small) chance of sneaking, swimming, etc. because you are a hero who does this sort of thing" with "you have literally no chance of succeeding at anything you are untrained in, so do not try." Which I feel is a big loss.

For me, "comparing the relative risk of approaches and working to mitigate failure modes" is much more engaging problem solving than "well, we can't do these six things because someone in the party is untrained at each of them, so what's left?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I am still very curious about how devistating only being trained at defenses will be vs legendary proficiency. I think it is going to position casters in a space where most creature will be critically failing against spells targeting a trained save, if legendary casting proficiency is automatic. Legendary vs trained looks like a flat +6, but being level 18+ with a wisdom of 8 or 10 or even 14 vs a cater with +6 attribute is going to be a big problem.

The creatures aren't going to have proficiencies, they're just going to have save bonuses in line with their CR, and those save bonuses by CR are going to make certain assumptions about PC builds to achieve an acceptable range of failure/success probabilities for those monsters.

How PC save proficiencies interact with monster DCs is the more relevant question.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Ultimately, I believe they must make a game which include the playspace of characters who actually face challenges. If the game presumes that every clanky dwarf can sneak past guards and swim upstream, then it is conceding that there are much better games out there for a lot of people. However, if it presumes that some characters can and some character can not sneak past the guards and swim upstream, then it doesn't matter to the balance in any given case if one character can or can't. So you can just declare that ever character is trained in ever skill. And now you clanky dwarf is also sneaky and great at swimming, whereas my group still gets the fun of solving the problem rather than having the system hand it to us.

It feels like you're ignoring that these things are ultimately adjudicated by dice, so it's less "you can sneak despite your low dex mod and loud armor" it's "you have a possibility of being sneaky, but are hindered by those things." We have now replaced "you have a (potentially) small chance of sneaking, swimming, etc. because you are a hero who does this sort of thing" with "you have literally no chance of succeeding at anything you are untrained in, so do not try." Which I feel is a big loss.

For me, "comparing the relative risk of approaches and working to mitigate failure modes" is much more engaging problem solving than "well, we can't do these six things because someone in the party is untrained at each of them, so what's left?"

I'm ignoring nothing. When you say the lanky dwarf should have any chance *at all* of sneaking then you are getting the narrative completely wrong, IMO and for my personal taste.

I'm not just speculating here. I've been playing since the 80s and primarily version of 3X since the initial 3.0 release. The party *does* sneak past things because they use magic, or skilled distractions or other creative solutions that use the vast range of talents and resources at their disposal. If you say "we can;'t do these six things because someone is untrained" and yet you have a party of D&D characters to try to solve it, then you have not given it any serious consideration. "Because you are hero who does this sort of thing" simply doesn't exist in any of the great stories I've ever enjoyed. Clanky dwarves flat out don't sneak. When they do it isn't a new option, it is just being wrong. There is less than no fun in that. You may as well just skip the encounter and declare success.

BUT... that is all just your taste vs. my taste. And the BIG point that you seem to be missing is that this is not about your taste vs my taste.
You seem quite content to have the game poke a huge chunk of the fanbase in the eye so long as they cater expressly to you. That is a recipe for disaster. I want 2E to be as popular as 1E was at its height. It needs to be different than 1E for that to happen. And it needs to appeal to a lot of people, regardless of whether that includes me and regardless of whether than includes you. I would like for it to include us both.

Did you like 1E? If yes, then I think there is room for you to like a *popular* 2E. If no, then please tell me what hugely popular game you suggest we look at as an example?

Ultimately, I want a big tent and you seem to be clearing rejecting any growth in the tent.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh
Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

In fairness, they have been silent for quite a while.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh
Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.
In fairness, they have been silent for quite a while.

Of course, it reached the point where previous version advocates were harassing people they disagreed with in private messages with personal attacks.

How could anyone tolerate such a toxic one sided environment?
Of course they left the aggressive echo chamber.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

These things are all relative I guess. Simulation in a world like our own one but with magic vs a world governed by magical thinking.

How do we keep it exciting while keeping it real?

Do we view our playing experience as sub optimal (with apologies to Sir Terry) if the million to one shot does not happen 9 times out of 10. Or 8 or 7 etc. Or 1 time in 20?

The PCs are at the end of the day adventurers so need certain competencies but do we really say that if you want to try something there is a decent chance you can succeed regardless of context? Or do we accept that like character death sometimes failure is an unavoidable consequence of choices?

For me a lvl 20 barbarian cannot fly by flapping their arms even if that spoils the otherwise brilliant infil plan! Rules that permit this kind of thing are not to my taste at all!

On a less extreme note: If you never bother to lean how to swim then starting to learn mid ocean is too late.

From personal experience I know just how damnably close I was to not be able to help an increasingly distressed swimmer get to safety despite knowing how to swim. I was very glad my parents made sure I knew how but definitely wished that day I had spent much more time keeping in practice. Thank God I was not wearing chainmail.

I hope that getting the balance right is something we will be congratulating the developers on in August.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh
Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.
In fairness, they have been silent for quite a while.

Of course, it reached the point where previous version advocates were harassing people they disagreed with in private messages with personal attacks.

How could anyone tolerate such a toxic one sided environment?
Of course they left the aggressive echo chamber.

You're right I received a few of those myself from a couple of the ones who we haven't seen in a while :P. Perhaps there's something else going on.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

Yeah, weird how after months of being bullied, they somehow decided to not longer show up

/s


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

Part of the whole reason I LOVE removing +lvl for untrained is that it forces everyone to contend with the idea that DCs don't arbitrarily scale with PC level. An untrained skill gives you only +mod, so the d20 roll provides the bulk of the final number.

This still allows anyone, of any level, to attempt low DC skill checks. These could be climbing a tree, swimming in still water, swimming in armor, making common knowledge checks, sneaking past an unattentive town guard, bluffing a dumb ogre, entertaining a non-discerning audience, etc. with DCs anywhere from 5 to 15.

That the specialized and trained people are making checks with DCs 20 points higher actually means something. There's a point of reference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

Yeah, weird how after months of being bullied, they somehow decided to not longer show up

/s

That wasn't really what was happening based on some private messages I received from them but hey I just ignored them. Hopefully if they were receiving similar ones, they did the same.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I one of those vocal people being silent now? I don't know.

I do know that while I'm glad to see some changes being tossed out(Yeah for the Resonance gutting) that's still not enough for me to make the jump from PF1 to PF2.

I have my houserules set up, my games are in mid book 1-early book 2, my players have voiced their complaints/concerns, and those that have settled into Non Core PF2 classes/abilities really don't want to lose those.

I hope people actually HAVE fun with it and most my complaints have been about PF2 not ending up as PF1 due to the community, but as two of my players put it; "If we're going to switch systems, might as well do something that isn't pathfinder".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

Part of the whole reason I LOVE removing +lvl for untrained is that it forces everyone to contend with the idea that DCs don't arbitrarily scale with PC level. An untrained skill gives you only +mod, so the d20 roll provides the bulk of the final number.

This still allows anyone, of any level, to attempt low DC skill checks. These could be climbing a tree, swimming in still water, swimming in armor, making common knowledge checks, sneaking past an unattentive town guard, bluffing a dumb ogre, entertaining a non-discerning audience, etc. with DCs anywhere from 5 to 15.

That the specialized and trained people are making checks with DCs 20 points higher actually means something. There's a point of reference.

I was initially on the other side, but this is an interesting point. It really does force the game to provide fixed concrete DCs for various tasks, and that’s something the game really needs (IMO).

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

15 people marked this as a favorite.

There’s a bunch of flags in here. I’m supposed to be on vacation and I’m not particularly inclined to dig through them at the moment. In the words of Bill and Ted, be excellent to one another.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

31 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks...

The bickering over gross speculation here is a bit much.

I wanted to say this before returning to my vacation. The changes that were mentioned are only a small peek into the overall system. I was hesitant to say anything, but in the spirit of the holidays, I felt like sharing some of the exciting news. Context is key here though, and I cant give you the whole picture yet.

Finally, let me put one spurious idea to rest. Every change we made was based on survey data first! Message boards are good for anecdotal stories and individual bugs, but when it came to analyzing out larger system questions, we used the surveys almost exclusively.

Have a happy holiday everyone.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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

Indeed, with untrained giving nothing, there needs to be significantly more access to trained skills. Enough that people can choose to master those things they feel define their character and also be trained in the basic adventuring skills which they would need or have picked up in the course of their heroic saga.

Since in the playtest I saw a number of characters who were untrained in all but about 4-5 skills, and without any scaling for untrained that person is almost wholly incompetent now.

I'll be honest, that's pretty much a list of every character I've played or seen thus far, with the one exception of the Bard/Rogue/Sorcerer with 16 Int who only has one untrained skill.

That's a high bar to reach.

I can see some of the points with DCs, but I'd really not be happy to return to "I'm literally useless here since I didn't build my character preemptively to help with things like this, you solve the problem without me".


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


I can see some of the points with DCs, but I'd really not be happy to return to "I'm literally useless here since I didn't build my character preemptively to help with things like this, you solve the problem without me".

In my personal opinion, I would MUCH rather this happen than what I've already seen in the playtest where everyone dogpiles on every check because the specialist only has a 10 or 20% higher chance of success on any given task.

I like having a diverse group with varied talents and specializations, and for the most part the playtest delivers on that, but it rankles when people *regularly* beat the person who has made the task their shtick even though the novice at it has put literally zero character resources into the task. Sure, this is true only for basic untrained uses of the skill, but now it's solved completely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Presumably, the philosophy of how one creates a character will change as the system changes.

If you’re going to very high levels in your campaign, the incentive to throw resources at lifting an untrained skill to a trained skill (or in obtaining a magical solution to the problem) is now much more significant. On the other side of the coin, trying to achieve legendary status in several skills now comes at a steeper price.

I suspect the endpoints won’t be functionally far apart if you want to be mildly competent at most “common adventuring skills”. This change gives the option of remaining bad at something at higher levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I would like to see is if a skill bonus at odd levels could be used to get trained with 2 skills or increase your proficiency past trained with 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


I can see some of the points with DCs, but I'd really not be happy to return to "I'm literally useless here since I didn't build my character preemptively to help with things like this, you solve the problem without me".

In my personal opinion, I would MUCH rather this happen than what I've already seen in the playtest where everyone dogpiles on every check because the specialist only has a 10 or 20% higher chance of success on any given task.

I like having a diverse group with varied talents and specializations, and for the most part the playtest delivers on that, but it rankles when people *regularly* beat the person who has made the task their shtick even though the novice at it has put literally zero character resources into the task. Sure, this is true only for basic untrained uses of the skill, but now it's solved completely.

Sure, I'd be for more focus on specialization, but to me that would have been solved with leaving Untrained at level-2.

Right now, I anticipate it being as PF1 in "oh, no one went completely out of their bailiwick to learn Nature? Okay, we have no idea about anything that's going on, so let's go back to plan A: break down the front door".


BryonD wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I am still very curious about how devistating only being trained at defenses will be vs legendary proficiency. I think it is going to position casters in a space where most creature will be critically failing against spells targeting a trained save, if legendary casting proficiency is automatic.

That's right

It is far from a simple tweak to the math. It has a lot of serious implications. I'm certain they are thinking it through. But that is easy to say. How they are changing it is another matter altogether.
Suddenly we know a lot less than we don't know.

That's a fair concern. It does assume that monsters will start to work on the same system as players, and I'm not sure we can expect that change. I'd prefer targeting a weak defense to be advantageous, but that isn't reflected in the announced changes.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:


Right now, I anticipate it being as PF1 in "oh, no one went completely out of their bailiwick to learn Nature? Okay, we have no idea about anything that's going on, so let's go back to plan A: break down the front door".

Your opinion is perfectly valid, but I want to stress that this exact scenario is not only acceptable to me, but is *crucial*.

I strongly believe groups with different compositions and skillsets should solve problems differently. It is antithetical to my enjoyment of the game if every group is assumed to, for example, be adept in wilderness lore and every scenario assumes not only that competence but success at the relevent roll.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Right now, I anticipate it being as PF1 in "oh, no one went completely out of their bailiwick to learn Nature? Okay, we have no idea about anything that's going on, so let's go back to plan A: break down the front door".

Your opinion is perfectly valid, but I want to stress that this exact scenario is not only acceptable to me, but is *crucial*.

I strongly believe groups with different compositions and skillsets should solve problems differently. It is antithetical to my enjoyment of the game if every group is assumed to, for example, be adept in wilderness lore and every scenario assumes not only that competence but success at the relevent roll.

I would be in the same school of thought.

I really hope we don’t end up so that being an adventurer means never having to say Sorry.....


WatersLethe wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Right now, I anticipate it being as PF1 in "oh, no one went completely out of their bailiwick to learn Nature? Okay, we have no idea about anything that's going on, so let's go back to plan A: break down the front door".

Your opinion is perfectly valid, but I want to stress that this exact scenario is not only acceptable to me, but is *crucial*.

I strongly believe groups with different compositions and skillsets should solve problems differently. It is antithetical to my enjoyment of the game if every group is assumed to, for example, be adept in wilderness lore and every scenario assumes not only that competence but success at the relevent roll.

That's great...up until a large portion of options are gated off by the entire party needing to be able to make a particular skill. Stealth is out, Bluff may or may not be out depending on the situation, and Acrobatics/Athletics is generally out.

It's basically either everyone accepts the skill tax, or you're left with very few options (or use magic to solve everything, as in PF1).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Right now, I anticipate it being as PF1 in "oh, no one went completely out of their bailiwick to learn Nature? Okay, we have no idea about anything that's going on, so let's go back to plan A: break down the front door".

Your opinion is perfectly valid, but I want to stress that this exact scenario is not only acceptable to me, but is *crucial*.

I strongly believe groups with different compositions and skillsets should solve problems differently. It is antithetical to my enjoyment of the game if every group is assumed to, for example, be adept in wilderness lore and every scenario assumes not only that competence but success at the relevent roll.

Not that it matters now on the broader scale with +level being removed for untrained, but how I intended to handle things like "The party should go through this differently depending on whether or not they have a specialist in x", is to use skill gating.

And depending on the final product I may or may yet do that.

Just putting this in to say I do agree with the idea of needing specialists to do certain things certain ways, but I far preferred skill gating for this over removing level from untrained.

151 to 200 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