So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without an XXXXXX class option?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
Risky, do you work at Paizo?
ITd also explain why they get all bound up when people express doubt that pf2 is going to be much of a success

Or maybe it’s because I don’t want a company I buy entertaining products from to go out of business and a bunch of creators I look up to and respect for what they do to lose their livelihoods?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look, PF2 is looking to streamline and clean up a LOT of the previous D20 rules, which BTW, are going to turn 20 years old soon. It's outdated in several departments, so yes, I approve Paizo's initiative to upgrade the rules from an aging system to a new one, and they seem to keep it together and try to recycle all possible options so that players won't be left out.

They're not removing gnomes, for instance :P but they are converting half-elves and half-orcs into human bloodlines instead of races, like subraces.

What I kinda don't like about PF2 is that they're essentially hitting the RESET button on everything. They're not going to convert every single PF1 rulebook under 2 years and then start from there for new materials; they're gonna go back all the way from your standard Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide and Monster Manual 1 and work their way back up.

If they are leaving things unwrapped in PF1, but will eventually wrap them up in PF2, I'd be fine with it, but it won't happen. They won't take all races, classes, feats, items, spells and monsters from all previous rulebooks, convert them to PF2 as soon as possible and then start from there to add new stuff.

It's like if they climbed a mountain at a certain altitude, going back down to get new gear and climbing it again instead of calling a chopper to bring the new gear at their level. Please note that they didn't reach the summit yet ^^;


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Too bad the new system isn't very good


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
ITd also explain why they get all bound up when people express doubt that pf2 is going to be much of a success

Then we might as well assume you were sent here by WOTC, right?

Melkiador wrote:
They are both streamlined/simplified mid-fantasy RPGs[...]At least PF1 had the advantage of being more complex with more options to distinguish itself.

PF2 is still significantly more complex and mechanically involved than 5e. It seems really bizarre to make this assertion that because they both tried to streamline some stuff they're essentially the same, nevermind the radical differences in the granularity and direction of that simplification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, by pf1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Nah, by pf1.

One should never feel obligated to speak on behalf of abstractions, particularly ones that you have no actual stake in.


In before "old therefore bad--" Er, nevermind.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Missed this:

Ryan Freire wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
Risky, do you work at Paizo?
ITd also explain why they get all bound up when people express doubt that pf2 is going to be much of a success

I don't think we need to resort to sock puppet theories when confronted with differing opinions. We all (hopefully, otherwise why post?) have a vested interest in Paizo producing awesome stuff, and we don't have to collect a paycheck from Paizo to demonstrate said interest. That's some nice common ground to start from.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Too bad the new system isn't very good

I haven’t been keeping track of it for months now, but do we even know what the new system is going to be like? It’s possible they actually fixed some of the things you didn’t like from the play test.

My main concern for myself is that everything being a “feat” is very boring and it’s basically the same thing that killed 4E. I like that 2 classes in PF1 can have radically different chassis. Relatedly, I hate archetypes and “multiclassing” being feat based.

My worry for Paizo is that it doesn’t even matter if it’s good or not. To not hemorrhage players to 5E, it would need to be drastically better than 5E or operate in a different niche. Such is the power of the 5E brand recognition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I share the "'everything is a feat' stinks" concern.

In my case, I liked that new Pathfinder content introduced rules for doing new things. I disliked that many such rules were implemented as feats that competed within the same pool of feat slots each character got. Give my characters new ways to use the abilities they already have and make those abilities more meaningful in the process. "Here are some rules for assessing the general threat level of an enemy while fighting them. Got Combat Expertise? You get a bonus to your check." Stuff like that.

Yay for new things (or at least new rules for things) characters can do! Boo for having to give up existing options to do those things.

Maybe New 'n' Pathy! does a better job. Maybe it doesn't. I guess we'll find out!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Too bad the new system isn't very good

I haven’t been keeping track of it for months now, but do we even know what the new system is going to be like? It’s possible they actually fixed some of the things you didn’t like from the play test.

My main concern for myself is that everything being a “feat” is very boring and it’s basically the same thing that killed 4E. I like that 2 classes in PF1 can have radically different chassis. Relatedly, I hate archetypes and “multiclassing” being feat based.

My worry for Paizo is that it doesn’t even matter if it’s good or not. To not hemorrhage players to 5E, it would need to be drastically better than 5E or operate in a different niche. And it doesn’t seem to be doing either.

What are the odds that its going to be RADICALLY different from playtest?

I mean, once you see a beta playtest version the whole "maybe it will be different" just comes across as grasping at straws. The design philosophy is pretty obvious. Its also a pretty bad one that IMO is not likely to be as well received as they're going to need.


Well, I already heard that some ideas got thrown out whole, like that wonky item attunement mechanic. So, there’s always hope until you see something official to the contrary. And there were parts of the playtest I liked. The stat generation wasnt as good as Starfinder but it was better than PF1 and the action economy system seemed rather fun to work with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
Risky, do you work at Paizo?
ITd also explain why they get all bound up when people express doubt that pf2 is going to be much of a success
Or maybe it’s because I don’t want a company I buy entertaining products from to go out of business and a bunch of creators I look up to and respect for what they do to lose their livelihoods?

Ah, I understand how some comments may strike close to home if you are friends with people in the industry. But make no mistake: many 1E fans like myself are not hoping for Paizo staff to lose their job. Quite the opposite. We are voicing our opinions on something we feel passionate about in the hopes to steer their efforts towards something we want to keep emptying our wallets into. That's quite different. I completely respect that something new is coming out, but endeavors like the Kingmaker remake with the 1E add-on are exactly what will bring onboard hardcore 1E town criers... ;)

As I said before, I have a stack of APs at home that will take our group to 2032 and beyond at our 'once a week' rate of gaming... so anything going forward that will supplement already published APs or remake the old 3.5 APs into 1E rules will earn my moolah. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

{. . .}

What are the odds that its going to be RADICALLY different from playtest?

I mean, once you see a beta playtest version the whole "maybe it will be different" just comes across as grasping at straws. {. . .}

Well, remember that the production Medium from Occult Adventures was quite different from the Playtest version. Not saying that this was a good thing(*), but it demonstrates that this can happen.

(*)Where is our Harrowed Medium anyway?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Too bad the new system isn't very good

Well, that is your opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

My opinion is that the new system is far superior and fixes a lot of problems that have been underlying in Pathfinder First Edition and going back to D&D Third Edition for close to 20 years. Yes, obviously it is not as rich yet in choices as Pathfinder First Edition after 10 years of expansions, with only a Core Rulebook, but it will be fleshed out, of that I am certain.

I am baffled by the negativity of some people who seemingly want the new system to fail commercially, just so they can then say "told ya so".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
I am baffled by the negativity of some people who seemingly want the new system to fail commercially, just so they can then say "told ya so".

I get the feeling that it's because of how poorly D&D 4E got received... which was why so many players jumped off the boat and joined Pathfinder. They didn't like 4E's system (me included) and preferred the old one, so seeing that Pathfinder will be changing systems soon too doesn't please those who joined them in the first place.

Pathfinder is now known to be a "better version of D&D 3.5", so many people want PF2 to flop as hard as D&D 4E, so Paizo can backtrack, keep the D20 system and make it "3.75".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^I thought Pathfinder 1st Edition was already D&D 3.75 (to follow D&D 3.5, so that would mean that what we really wanted for a new edition would be D&D 3.875; after that, 3.9375, then 3.96875, etc. -- just don't hit 4.00000.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

5E was really a move back closer to 3E, because of the 4E flop. If Paizo can survive that long, I assume we will see a similar trajectory, with PF3 being a move back closer to PF1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Quote:
Also, there is just not a lot going on tactically in 5e. I felt really restrained I'm the 5e game coming from PF.
From PF1 maybe, 2 is ...meh

PF2 has more tactical complexity than PF1, with more types of reactions, more round-to-round options, less incentive to plant your feet and full attack, tighter math encouraging getting into (and out of) flanking positions, adjustable-on-the-fly action costs for certain spells, fluctuating cost-benefits of additional attacks based on feat choices and combat conditions, and higher flexibility in types of attacks thanks to a lower reliance on static bonuses to one weapon type.

It honestly seems like you have a bee in your bonnet about PF2, and your credibility in discussion about it is plummeting with every post. Calling out people for being Paizo puppets because they think PF2 is good isn't productive either.

That all being said, we all have our opinions about PF2 vs PF1, but this thread isn't really for that.


Melkiador wrote:
5E was really a move back closer to 3E, because of the 4E flop. If Paizo can survive that long, I assume we will see a similar trajectory, with PF3 being a move back closer to PF1.

Here's the thing though: PF2 doesn't look terrible... at all.

They took some complicated rules and simplified them. They nerfed some abilities, but didn't outright remove them. So the rogue's Sneak Attack and the alchemist's Bombs are weaker and deal 1 die of damage per 3 levels (versus 1 die/2 levels), but these classes still have them... and they're usable like you did back in PF1. I will command them for streamlining attack routines to 3 attacks maximum, regardless of how many strikes you want to do. In fact, they managed to reduce stat blocks to a few lines, similar to miniatures' cards.

Most of what you knew in PF1 will go into PF2. Even the iconic characters remain the same, thus with the same classes and races, in addition of the overall story going forward. It's just that they made the rules easier to learn and to use, because they were too complex for newcomers.

That being said, it is just sad that they won't offer PF1 players support to convert to PF2. I kinda wished that they took all 6 Bestiaries, cram them into 1 book called Bestiary PF2 1 and then start from there.

Same with races and classes. "Oh you want to play an Occultist, Kineticist or Vigilante in PF2? Well, too bad, they might not come." This is what happened in 4E, this is what WotC had to do in 5E... and this is what might happen for PF2.

Back on topic, when it comes to class options, I would have loved them to rectify archetypes that don't seem as good as they looked when first released.


JiCi wrote:
Here's the thing though: PF2 doesn't look terrible... at all.

Subjective. Pretty much every individual thing* you've mentioned does, in fact, seem terrible to some non-negligible subset of current Pathfinder players. That's the curse of producing content for the entertainment industry.

*Okay, excluding the iconics. Though I've seen one poster already who thought they shouldn't port because reasons, that appears to be a very niche opinion.


Melkiador wrote:
5E was really a move back closer to 3E

Not sure I agree. 5e is more like a move back toward OD&D in terms of a lot of its themes, just done in a way using more modern design principles.

In a lot of ways 4e and 3e are much closer together than 5e and 3e are.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

(*)Where is our Harrowed Medium anyway?

You're right. Where the hell is it?


Squiggit wrote:
You're right. Where the hell is it?

Last I heard the last time Mark brought it up he was told to stop bringing it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^That's not a good sign . . . .

By the way, in case anyone's interested, Kirthfinder is a 3rd party (as far as I know entirely non-commercial) shot at a Pathfinder 1st-Edition-ish system, that has potential to scratch some of the Pathfinder 1st Edition itches. The latest version I know if is here, which is from a while ago -- if anybody knows of a newer version, let me know.

Liberty's Edge

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

Back on topic, I wish there had been a way to build a sor/wiz familiar so that it made RP sense, if you always intend to pick up Improved Familiar and an elemental familiar as soon as you hit level 4, then something to build up to it during levels 1-3.

It sucks that you have to run 3 levels carrying a weasel, knowing all the while that you're going to ditch it for an elemental at level 4. It makes no RP sense.

I always wanted a tiny elemental option so you could do an elemental familiar from the beginning.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:

Back on topic, I wish there had been a way to build a sor/wiz familiar so that it made RP sense, if you always intend to pick up Improved Familiar and an elemental familiar as soon as you hit level 4, then something to build up to it during levels 1-3.

It sucks that you have to run 3 levels carrying a weasel, knowing all the while that you're going to ditch it for an elemental at level 4. It makes no RP sense.

I always wanted a tiny elemental option so you could do an elemental familiar from the beginning.

An option might be to allow some weaker form of elemental creature template, for the 1st level wizard, that later 'evolves' somehow into a full-fledged elemental. (or use the fiendish or celestial templates for the critter for a wizard who is intending on having an imp or cassisian, at higher levels, and saying that it took time to fully manifest the outsider soul in this plane or some such babble)

It would be particularly thematic to start with an elemental-template fiery hawk that bursts into flames at the appropriate time in it's life-cycle and is 'reborn' as a small fire elemental. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oddly enough the Kineticist is the class that gets the ability to manifest a fire weasel or lightning hedgehog as a familiar as long as they concentrate which turns into a real elemental or wysp when you take the higher level talent. Elemental Whispers is a 1st level utility talent, so you just have to go 1 level without your water badger.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Thanks for the wonderful ideas guys. Still, I wish there had been a proper way to fill in those few early levels for a character intent on Improved Familiar.


Samy wrote:

Back on topic, I wish there had been a way to build a sor/wiz familiar so that it made RP sense, if you always intend to pick up Improved Familiar and an elemental familiar as soon as you hit level 4, then something to build up to it during levels 1-3.

It sucks that you have to run 3 levels carrying a weasel, knowing all the while that you're going to ditch it for an elemental at level 4. It makes no RP sense.

I always wanted a tiny elemental option so you could do an elemental familiar from the beginning.

i like how the Pact Wizard [FF] archetype handles it; could probably do a modified version for an elemental at 4th level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny thing, as of the Plane-Hopper's Handbook there's an elemental familiar archetype which works from 1st level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I did not know this! Thank you!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

And there is also the Spark of the Uncanny feat (in Wilderness Origins), which gives a normal familiar the ability to speak. It can be freely exchanged for Improved Familiar at 5th level, thereby providing an explicit mechanism for upgrading a standard familiar into an improved familiar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
You're right. Where the hell is it?
Last I heard the last time Mark brought it up he was told to stop bringing it up.

Wow. Hope that's just gossip. That would be a cue to find another place to work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Funny thing, as of the Plane-Hopper's Handbook there's an elemental familiar archetype which works from 1st level.

LOL. I knew about this one. My witch in the Reign of Winter adventure path had a positive energy elemental familiar until a Hero Lab update took away the option. Now i have to make do with a Fire elemental.

Only (not really) downside is while my witch is staring into the fire to relearn spells the barbarian in our party is either throwing more wood on the "campfire" OR thinks the "campfire" is giving away our position and tries to put it out.
The way i role play the situation was inspired by my dog, Xena;
  • barbarian with wood "Oh! It's the big hairy man with more wood to eat! Yea!"
  • barbarian trying to stomp out the "campfire" "Oh! It's playtime! You can't catch me! Heehee!"
    so now my familiar spends a lot of time with barbarian rather than me, the witch.


  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Was reminded of something I've been thinking about off and on for a long time: a Magus archetype designed for 2H weapons. This would essentially amount to trading out spell combat for something that doesn't need an empty hand to do.

    Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    JiCi wrote:


    [...]
    - No scalable magic items from Unchained... [...]

    You may want to check out Chronicle of Legends, which will be available soon and has both scaling legacy gear and item sets that scale gear up as you collect more pieces of the set.

    TheMonkeyFish wrote:


    Probably the only time you'll see a +2/+2/-2 Stat block on Kobolds are in the new Pathfinder 2E. Unfortunately, 2E Already has +2 Dex/+2 Cha/-2 Str (GOBLINS!),

    This is incorrect. Goblins do not have a Strength penalty, they have a Wisdom penalty.

    Ryan Freire wrote:
    Rysky wrote:

    They don’t have to compete with 5e.

    Wasn’t fun for you doesn’t translate into bad game that everybody hates.

    Yeah they do. The idea that they don't have to compete with other roleplaying games also with a fantasy setting is terminally naive. Even gamers only have so much free time, only so much disposable income, and if the people willing to GM in the area swap to 5e, thats what gets played.

    Pathfinder's goal has never really been to compete with Dungeons and Dragons directly. That's a a pipe dream; anyone who wanted to compete with D&D directly needed to start building their brand 35 years ago. Despite that, there are more successful TTRPGs on the market today than there have ever been. I, personally, have groups for Cypher System, PF2, PF1, 5E, and Invisible Sun, and if I weren't a full-time game developer with a packed freelance schedule, I'd probably have regular Starfinder and Star Wars games as well.

    The new edition of Pathfinder is more aimed at people who want a fantasy game with significantly more crunch and customization than 5E offers, which is a niche plenty deep enough to support a company of Paizo's size.

    I'd also note that despite some vocal doomsaying, the new edition has been consistently very well received by most of the fans, conventions, and other relevant parties that have interacted with it, and that was before all of the updates and extra materials that we added between the playtest and now, which made the new system even more robust and exciting.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    Was reminded of something I've been thinking about off and on for a long time: a Magus archetype designed for 2H weapons. This would essentially amount to trading out spell combat for something that doesn't need an empty hand to do.

    makes a note


    Michael Sayre wrote:
    I'd also note that despite some vocal doomsaying, the new edition has been consistently very well received by most of the fans, conventions, and other relevant parties that have interacted with it, and that was before all of the updates and extra materials that we added between the playtest and now, which made the new system even more robust and exciting.

    Translation to folks who didn't like the playtest version: "LOL SUX 2BU"

    Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    blahpers wrote:
    Michael Sayre wrote:
    I'd also note that despite some vocal doomsaying, the new edition has been consistently very well received by most of the fans, conventions, and other relevant parties that have interacted with it, and that was before all of the updates and extra materials that we added between the playtest and now, which made the new system even more robust and exciting.
    Translation to folks who didn't like the playtest version: "LOL SUX 2BU"

    Not at all, as the design team has made significant improvements and refined or removed controversial experimental mechanics. They've also reworked the math underpinning the whole dynamic between PCs and monsters, changed the way that proficiency bonuses scale, etc.


    I still hold out some hope that the game will be "good". But I just don't see why to bother considering it, when I already have good games in this genre, including PF1. I suppose the hardcore gamers, like the people at those cons, burn through content so fast they will be happy for anything new. But the kind of people I've played with don't play at that kind of speed. And none of them are interested in PF2.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Patience. I didn't think much of the playtest version, but I for one am going to wait to actually see what they've come up with before condemning it. Waiting months is frustrating but deciding on it sight unseen is just dumb.


    blahpers wrote:
    Michael Sayre wrote:
    I'd also note that despite some vocal doomsaying, the new edition has been consistently very well received by most of the fans, conventions, and other relevant parties that have interacted with it, and that was before all of the updates and extra materials that we added between the playtest and now, which made the new system even more robust and exciting.
    Translation to folks who didn't like the playtest version: "LOL SUX 2BU"

    I guess we'll see in a year or two.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Never got a large amount of Inevitable and Aeon monsters for the game. They sure went crazy on those Psychopomps, though.

    Never got enough material for the Gunslinger.

    Never got up to Bestiary 10.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I feel like "printing in China no longer saves money" is more of a concern for Paizo than "some forumites are still unhappy" by a considerable margin.


    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I feel like "printing in China no longer saves money" is more of a concern for Paizo than "some forumites are still unhappy" by a considerable margin.

    I guess we'll see in a year or two


    Michael Sayre wrote:
    blahpers wrote:
    Michael Sayre wrote:
    I'd also note that despite some vocal doomsaying, the new edition has been consistently very well received by most of the fans, conventions, and other relevant parties that have interacted with it, and that was before all of the updates and extra materials that we added between the playtest and now, which made the new system even more robust and exciting.
    Translation to folks who didn't like the playtest version: "LOL SUX 2BU"
    Not at all, as the design team has made significant improvements and refined or removed controversial experimental mechanics. They've also reworked the math underpinning the whole dynamic between PCs and monsters, changed the way that proficiency bonuses scale, etc.

    That's good to hear, and I really hope the result is an awesome game. But "well, despite your opinions most people liked it even before we made any changes" isn't exactly going to help disgruntled playtesters, er, regruntle. On the contrary, it's a good way to discourage at least some of them from ever looking at the finished product.


    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I feel like "printing in China no longer saves money" is more of a concern for Paizo than "some forumites are still unhappy" by a considerable margin.

    In their defense, some forumites will always be unhappy. That's entertainment.


    blahpers wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I feel like "printing in China no longer saves money" is more of a concern for Paizo than "some forumites are still unhappy" by a considerable margin.
    In their defense, some forumites will always be unhappy. That's entertainment.

    I appreciate that im going to get painted with this brush but tbh i was pretty open to 2.0 and pretty happy with the product prior to 2.0 as well, if generally disappointed that things organized play removed generally did more to increase the gap between martials and casters than fix it.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Not really a class option but I kinda wish they had explored more design space in terms of racial features and racial attributes. My eyes glazed over trying to count all the various dex/cha offerings the game has while combos like str/int have.. 4 options total? yet for some reason Paizo decided to errata away one of those even

    I feel like the game could have used slightly more adventurous design with racial features too. I remember being kind of underwhelmed reading through Blood of the Coven when most of the Changeling heritage features were just situational skill bonuses or incredibly minor perks that might not even come up at all across a whole campaign.

    And I get that you don't want to go overboard with those sorts of things but sometimes the end results are so safe and so conservative that they just end up being really boring. Maybe it would be okay if ever racial trait was like that, but some races really do have awesome boons and so these much more minor pickings on the other side always feel kinda bad.

    It's not really a matter of power, either, just it dampens the mood a bit when I see an option and end up spending more time trying to remember any time in my history playing Pathfinder I was in a position to leverage that ability than actually thinking about stuff I want to do with it.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Ryan Freire wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I feel like "printing in China no longer saves money" is more of a concern for Paizo than "some forumites are still unhappy" by a considerable margin.
    I guess we'll see in a year or two

    *Adds Ryan Freire to his deliciously long 'will come back to you in 2 years' list*

    151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without an XXXXXX class option? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.