The Pathfinder Playtest officially launches on August 2, 2018!

In 2008, Paizo launched an unprecedented public playtest aimed at updating the third edition rules to make them more fun, easier to learn, and better able to support thrilling fantasy adventures. More than 40,000 gamers just like you joined in the fun by playtesting the new Pathfinder RPG rules and providing feedback, and the rest is gaming history. Now, 10 years later, it's time to put the lessons of the last decade to use and evolve the game once again. It's time for Pathfinder Second Edition!

Pathfinder Playtest Features
The new Pathfinder Playtest rules are the first step in the evolution to the new edition. We have incorporated the best innovations and lessons of the last 10 years to move the game forward in new and exciting ways. As we count down the days to the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook release, we'll be revealing more information on the following topics (and more!) on the Paizo blog:

10th-Level Spells and 4 Spell Lists
Alchemists in Core
Archetypes and Multiclassing
Class Changes
Classic Monsters and Magic
Clean, Modular Information-Based Design
Combat Maneuvers that Rock
Designed for All Levels of Play
Easier to Play
Goblin Player Characters
Golarion-Infused
Heroic Storytelling
Innovative Initiative
More Customization
New Background System
Pathfinder Society
Production Values
Race Changes and Feats
Rebalanced Magic Items
Simplified Actions
Streamlined Proficiencies
Support
True to Pathfinder
Wayne Reynolds Art

Pathfinder Playtest Products
All Pathfinder Playtest products will be released as FREE downloads exclusively at paizo.com on August 2, 2018. On the same day, we'll release limited-edition print versions of the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, Pathfinder Playtest Adventure, and Pathfinder Playtest Flip-Mat Multi-Pack for players and Game Masters seeking the ultimate playtest experience. These print editions will be available for preorder from local retailers now and paizo.com between March 20 and May 1. We'll also have copies at the Paizo booth during Gen Con 2018 in Indianapolis on August 2–5.

Paizo will not reprint the Playtest Rulebook or Pathfinder Adventure, so players must preorder to ensure they do not miss these items. We have created a preorder form you can print out and take to your local retailer, or you can preorder print editions from paizo.com between March 20 and May 1.

So Pathfinder is spawned from 3.5ed, so I assume 2nd ed will be built on that chassis? Cleaned up, but still following the D20 model. Interesting.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Cautiously optimistic. PF is kinda overbloated with a lot of useless rules right now, but the main reason I love Pathfinder and loathe 5E is the complexity and build game..

 jmurph wrote:
So Pathfinder is spawned from 3.5ed, so I assume 2nd ed will be built on that chassis? Cleaned up, but still following the D20 model. Interesting.

 Red Harvest wrote:

Offering to sell a premium LE Playtest book is a bit audacious.

 skyth wrote:
This about sums up what's wrong with 2E (Well, at least part of it...)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html

 skyth wrote:
More of a case of the cleric being mandatory.

 Lance845 wrote:
So druid paladins and rangers cant heal anymore? Thats not what i saw in the test docs. Also they added alchemists. Which im pretty sure can make potions. On the fly even!

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
More of a case of the cleric being mandatory.

Yeah. A level/class based game ala DnD.

Pathfinder is tied to it's dnd roots. and dnd has always required the trinity (tank/healer/dps) to some degree because it's always been built around classes that fulfill those roles in a game whos every mechanic and progression is more about winning fights then anything else.

 Genoside07 wrote:
4th edition D&D is not a bad system, just really different. The biggest problem was 3.5 just needed some simple repairs not to be completely
thrown out and replaced. The customers didn't ask for this and that's why Pathfinder took off because most where happy with the current edition.
The other thing was 4th edition was giving players things they did not ask for or felt that was not needed.. That caused the big rift between players
that enjoyed the different system.

I have not followed the new pathfinder that close, but from what I am hearing I hope the publishers listen to what their customers want
instead of doing something they didn't ask for.. The sad thing is if Piazo does mess it up, I think players will move on to other games and
It will be very difficult to get them back with all the other games out there competing for peoples attention.

There has been way to many games over the years that came out with a new edition and really damaged their fan base. (I am looking at you 4th edition D&D; Age of Sigmar; Epic 40k)
Maybe we are about to see another.

 Lance845 wrote:


I disagree with your take on 4th. And not because I am one of those people who loved 3.5 or pathfinder.

DnD has a problem, in my opinion, in that it's VERY "gamey" as a RPG. By that I mean it doesn't do a great job of having it's rules facilitate the players taking on a role within a world. It facilitates the players playing a game. Between loosing health not having any impact until you hit 0 (whether it's 4 dmg or 100 it has no impact on you), that it's every mechanic and progression is focused on combat, and how much of an impact loot has on players and their progress, to the majority of the exp points coming from monsters slain instead of story or personal goal progression.

DnD has always been more game than role playing.

4th took that gak to another level. It was even less role playing then dnd has traditionally been and it took the people who played dnd who enjoyed the role play aspects and shook them a bit. They didn't like how much MORE gamey it became. As gamey as 3.5 and pathfinder are 4th is so shallowly and transparently just a game that it turned away a lot of people.

5th has some of 4ths innovations in concept if not in iteration but they are layered and hidden under more role play elements like the backgrounds, bonds, etc etc... which makes it all more palatable. It's STILL a REALLY gamey set of mechanics with all the same problems level/class systems have in that regard. But at this point thats what people play dnd for. But clearly they want the trappings of the rp around the game. The game just isn't enough.


If PF2 is Pazios 4th, its because it got even more gamey. They created different "modes" of defined game play depending on what you are doing with abilities and feats set up like talents and powers. The RP trappings are falling away.

 Myrthe wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I disagree with your take on 4th. And not because I am one of those people who loved 3.5 or pathfinder.

DnD has a problem, in my opinion, in that it's VERY "gamey" as a RPG. By that I mean it doesn't do a great job of having it's rules facilitate the players taking on a role within a world. It facilitates the players playing a game. Between loosing health not having any impact until you hit 0 (whether it's 4 dmg or 100 it has no impact on you), that it's every mechanic and progression is focused on combat, and how much of an impact loot has on players and their progress, to the majority of the exp points coming from monsters slain instead of story or personal goal progression.

DnD has always been more game than role playing.

4th took that gak to another level. It was even less role playing then dnd has traditionally been and it took the people who played dnd who enjoyed the role play aspects and shook them a bit. They didn't like how much MORE gamey it became. As gamey as 3.5 and pathfinder are 4th is so shallowly and transparently just a game that it turned away a lot of people.

5th has some of 4ths innovations in concept if not in iteration but they are layered and hidden under more role play elements like the backgrounds, bonds, etc etc... which makes it all more palatable. It's STILL a REALLY gamey set of mechanics with all the same problems level/class systems have in that regard. But at this point thats what people play dnd for. But clearly they want the trappings of the rp around the game. The game just isn't enough.


If PF2 is Pazios 4th, its because it got even more gamey. They created different "modes" of defined game play depending on what you are doing with abilities and feats set up like talents and powers. The RP trappings are falling away.

That's an interesting assessment and, in my experience, is spot on. My D&D group has been just going through the motions and, sadly, looks like it will disband due to a lack of interest in simply rolling dice in a combat situation. I think we morphed into that D&D game player away from role players and it became ingrained to our detriment.

Can you recommend another fantasy system that is a good balance of RPG and Game ? Maybe trying something entirely new would rejuvenate us and bring back the RPG Mojo.

 Red Harvest wrote:
You could play Amber Diceless RPG. Maybe Blue Rose RPG ( joking here.) The other side of level/class is skill bundle, like Runequest ( or Mythras)

If you want, try one of the 'retro-clones' of D&D. Swords and Wizardry for example . Rolling dice is generally to be avoided, because bad things will happen. This guy has a link to a big list of free retro-clones. http://www.tenkarstavern.com/

I agree that the endless dice rolling in combat is a killjoy. My group is starting into that rut as our characters approach 10th level. I find it tedious. However, it is as much a product of the DM and the adventure as it is the game.

Edit to add the link. Oops.

 Red Harvest wrote:
I think the assumption is that monsters 'level up' as players do (increased CR.) so should other things. Not a good assumption. Some things should get easier for PCs as the PCs increase in level

Buhlman et al do not appear to have a strong grasp of the underlying math of the game. Given that the game has a lot of math, this is not a good thing.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Myrthe wrote:
...

Well I would steer clear of anything that is level/class based.

The very moment you have levels and classes you have a standardized progression built around some kind of class function and those class functions are almost always combat. It also tends to put players into a box that is more about what your character can do instead of who your character is.

Consider meeting someone who has never heard of Superman. You try to tell them about him. Do you start with him being a kind charitable person raised with a work ethic and such? Or do you give them a physical description and then tell them he can fly, and has super strength, and is really fast and has heat vision etc etc...

One is a list of powers. One is a description of a person.

Level/class games are about defining your character by their abilities.



Point buy systems on the other hand let players spend an allotment of character creation points to define all kinds of aspects about their character. They generally include some kind of perks and/or drawbacks (drawbacks giving extra points for downsides) along with stats and skills to flesh out a character. Some characters might have more stats but less skills while others are more skillful with less natural aptitude. Variety. It's good. And those perks and drawbacks help define WHO they are instead of just what they can do.

Experience points are generally given for hitting milestones instead of killing things and are then a currency spent to progress whatever the player whats to advance.


As for games to play...

Genesys is Fantasy Flights generic setting neutral RPG system that they used for their starwars games. It's basically point buy with some interesting quirks and some neat narrative elements that come from the dice roles. Their first setting book of Torrinith which is the fantasy setting of the Runewars games. Obviously feel free to take the rules and just make your own game.

My personal favorite is the Unisystem by Eden studios. You can get the pdfs for their games from drivethrough RPG. They don't REALLY have a generic fantasy game but they do have a generic zombie game called All Flesh Must Be Eaten which has a large number of supplements that provide a framework for running all kinds of settings including a fantasy one (Dungeons and zombies). It's pretty basic and will take some work on your part to flesh it out.

I am in the middle of writing up a second edition of my unisystem DnD. Il post up the rules when I am done for sure. But I would definitely recommend looking into the basic mechanics (which are pretty simple and straight forward) and easy to play. In particular, a big boon over dnd is that combat is a contested action. By that i mean instead of you attacking and just trying to hit a target number (and thus when you get attacked you don't get to choose to do anything, they just need to hit YOUR target number) it's instead interactive.

I choose to attack you. You choose to parry. We each roll a d10 and add stat plus skill and ties go to the defender. You get to decide what you are going to do to try to defend yourself instead of being a passive agent and waiting to find out what happens to you.

 Red Harvest wrote:
lue Rose, the setting, is a bit too bounded for my taste. The generic True20 system on which Blue Rose is built is an interesting one. However, It works for others. That's a good thing, really, finding a RPG that one enjoys playing.

I really like the way D&D 5e handles the DC mechanic. It is a lot easier to ignore them most of the time and just get on with actual role-playing. Still, a matter of taste. I think the assumption is that monsters 'level up' as players do (increased CR.) so should other things. Not a good assumption. Some things should get easier for PCs as the PCs increase in level

Buhlman et al do not appear to have a strong grasp of the underlying math of the game. Given that the game has a lot of math, this is not a good thing.

Sometimes 'It's done when it's done' is the only answer - but Paizo really does not want an Osbourne situation on their hands - where sales of the current edition drop because a new edition is in the works.

Missing that deadline means the dropped sales can continue indefinitely.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Paizo really does not want an Osbourne situation on their hands - where sales of the current edition drop because a new edition is in the works.

 skyth wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Paizo really does not want an Osbourne situation on their hands - where sales of the current edition drop because a new edition is in the works.

With the way the new edition is, they might see a sales jump while people get the old 1st edition stuff before it goes away for good...I know the pending 2nd edition has been motivating me to want to get more of the 1st edition stuff.

And both Paizo and WotC seem to have made the mistake of taking a vocal minority as a majority - largely because that vocal minority agrees with something that they wanted to do

Voss wrote:

And both Paizo and WotC seem to have made the mistake of taking a vocal minority as a majority - largely because that vocal minority agrees with something that they wanted to do

I'm not sure that's entirely true. A lot of reactions on their own message boards are largely along the lines of 'What?' and a lot of breakdown of the math that doesn't work.

And various rants against several of the subsystems and changes.

But I could be missing it, as some people have complained that the devs are mostly talking to other sites and not providing the same information on their own site and messageboards.

However, the impression I've gotten so far though is that a lot of the really strange stuff (like resonance and arcane dying rules and the really boring math that yields little but iterative failure) is coming from inside Paizo. And they're trying to shift around to soften the blow but still hold on to as much of these crazy ideas as their fanbase will swallow.

Which, for the portion of the fanbase that followed them from WotC in wake of the 4e Apocalypse, is 'not very much at all.'

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

You should not have to build your species one level at a time. Darkvision should be something you are born with, not something you develop when you have a feat slot available.

 Red Harvest wrote:
It is a relict of the original game. Or relic. Originally, those abilities meant very little. A % bonus to experience points if the prime ability was over a certain number. A +1 to hit points if the CON was 15+, -1 hp if 6 or less. Dexterity 12+ gave +1 to missile fire, 9 or less gave-1 to missile fire. CHA determined the number of hirelings a PC could have, and their loyalty, but these were in range bands. It wasn't until the Greyhawk supplement ruined everything released that ability scores mattered much at all, and then only STR and CON. Also, we did use ability checks. Roll under your ability score to succeed. They were a thing, BITD. Amusingly enough, the DM rolled the ability scores for the PCs. Or was supposed to do so. I think that this rule was near universally ignored.

The THAC0. Interesting blog post here http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-did-armor-class-descend-from-9-to-2.html. And do note that modifiers never changed the AC-- it was always 2-9-- modifiers were added/subtracted to the die roll. So Chainmail +1 was AC5, but subtracted 1 from any to hit roll. ( made for easy math 20-5+1 =16 needed to hit. )

Voss wrote:
Surprisingly this question came up in one of the recent surveys they did, so it is something that occurred to them. The survey question wasn't phrased very well (a problem that dogs a lot of their surveys, as it garbles what little data they're getting), but was basically 'keep it for clarity, keep it for legacy, don't keep it and don't care.'


---

At the moment the answer is partly a legacy thing, a sacred cow that they keep around so old fans don't leave. The other seems to be part of the way they want progression to happen. Once you hit 18/+4 in a stat, it doesn't increase by 2/+1, but by 1/+0.5 (but you don't use the fraction).

So effectively your primary stat only advances at 10th and 20th level (because to keep up with the system math, you absolutely must start at 18 to keep up with monsters ACs and DCs), and you don't bother raising any other stats that high- just spread advances out to raise everything else to 18 as much as possible, especially Dex, Wis and Con (Str, Int and Cha are effectively dump stats, unless your class uses them)

 Lance845 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Surprisingly this question came up in one of the recent surveys they did, so it is something that occurred to them. The survey question wasn't phrased very well (a problem that dogs a lot of their surveys, as it garbles what little data they're getting), but was basically 'keep it for clarity, keep it for legacy, don't keep it and don't care.'


---

At the moment the answer is partly a legacy thing, a sacred cow that they keep around so old fans don't leave. The other seems to be part of the way they want progression to happen. Once you hit 18/+4 in a stat, it doesn't increase by 2/+1, but by 1/+0.5 (but you don't use the fraction).

So effectively your primary stat only advances at 10th and 20th level (because to keep up with the system math, you absolutely must start at 18 to keep up with monsters ACs and DCs), and you don't bother raising any other stats that high- just spread advances out to raise everything else to 18 as much as possible, especially Dex, Wis and Con (Str, Int and Cha are effectively dump stats, unless your class uses them)

Everything you just said is a game design issue. Min Maxing for role playing is counter to role playing (see the gamey bit I said at the end of the last page/top of this one). .5 increases that do nothing are pointless. Just say the limit a stat can increase to is 5.

Roll a d4 6 times to get your attributes and then apply racial modifiers. Or roll 2 or 3d4 and take the highest 6 times. You could get a 0 stat because of a racial penalty (except i think those are gone in PF2) but negatives are gone, because they only ever went into dump stats anyway who gives a gak?)

Functionally it does the same thing but gives players a hard cap so they need to spread their stat gains around and all those stat gains actually do something.

 Lance845 wrote:
You know what has struck me as a really bizzare mechanic recently? Why the feth do you have 1 number for your attribute and 1 number for your attribute modifier.

Having a 16 in dex never matters. It's the +3 that does everything. So why don't you just have a 3 in dex instead?

It's like THACO. You do all this math in reverse to get to what should just be a linear simple equation. So why the feth do you calculate out your attributes, to then calculate a modifier to then apply the modifier to everything mechanically? Shouldn't it just get simplified to having a attribute that just does the stuff?

 Lance845 wrote:
Those updates dont actually answer the issues and in some ways make them even worse.

Look at the dc by difficulty/level chart. Thats insanity.

A lock should be as difficult as a lock is to pick. It shouldnt get a higher dc because you raised a level. What kind of bs is it that the world levels up with the player but only to that specific player? if im level 3 and your level 5 and we both try to pick the same lock the dc for you is ACTUALLY higher.

Theres that super gamey bs.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Surprisingly this question came up in one of the recent surveys they did, so it is something that occurred to them. The survey question wasn't phrased very well (a problem that dogs a lot of their surveys, as it garbles what little data they're getting), but was basically 'keep it for clarity, keep it for legacy, don't keep it and don't care.'


---

At the moment the answer is partly a legacy thing, a sacred cow that they keep around so old fans don't leave. The other seems to be part of the way they want progression to happen. Once you hit 18/+4 in a stat, it doesn't increase by 2/+1, but by 1/+0.5 (but you don't use the fraction).

So effectively your primary stat only advances at 10th and 20th level (because to keep up with the system math, you absolutely must start at 18 to keep up with monsters ACs and DCs), and you don't bother raising any other stats that high- just spread advances out to raise everything else to 18 as much as possible, especially Dex, Wis and Con (Str, Int and Cha are effectively dump stats, unless your class uses them)

Everything you just said is a game design issue. Min Maxing for role playing is counter to role playing (see the gamey bit I said at the end of the last page/top of this one). .5 increases that do nothing are pointless. Just say the limit a stat can increase to is 5.

Roll a d4 6 times to get your attributes and then apply racial modifiers. Or roll 2 or 3d4 and take the highest 6 times. You could get a 0 stat because of a racial penalty (except i think those are gone in PF2) but negatives are gone, because they only ever went into dump stats anyway who gives a gak?)

Functionally it does the same thing but gives players a hard cap so they need to spread their stat gains around and all those stat gains actually do something.

LoL! I might just try that with my next set of characters. Now how would we round out the probabilities to match 4d6 dropping the lowest....

Voss wrote:
Eh. I'm actually in the camp that role playing is entirely separate from stats and min/maxing. You can role play a min/maxed, 'flawed' or normal character just fine. (I actually find people who ham it up and go on and about flaws and 'tragic backstories' fairly intolerable at the table). It's fairly system independent thing to me- role playing is really up to the people at the table, not the system.

But I do think this system is overturned when it comes to numbers. You're severely punished for diversifying, and to be even moderately effective at the overturned monsters (and DCsfor skill checks) you absolutely must chase the highest numbers, have the best gear (and weapons absolutely must be upgraded first due to the damage multipliers) and dumpster dive for any other possible bonuses just to maintain a ~55% success rate.

It's overkill, especially for mundane skills. How often do they think people fail at their jobs, day to day? I suspect most work places would outright fire people who failed at 5-10% of their tasks every day, let alone 40-50% that their math generates.

 John Prins wrote:

It's funny given how Pathfinder was predicated on NOT re-inventing the wheel from D&D3.0/3.5. Now they're trying to substantially diverge in several ways (Perception not being a skill is my least favorite) rather than maintain backwards compatibility.

Of course everyone at the table is welcome to just play their character however they see fit. But the mechanics of the game should work WITH that not be an entirely separate entity. The average human attribute in dnd is 10 (+0). When do you EVER feel like thats true in DnD?

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, i get that its SUPPOSED to be that way. But when are you interacting with the norms? Never. Never in any way where your attributes and their attributes matter. By lvl 5 the world stops being populated by them. By level 10 the world stops being populated with heroic 1rst level equivalent people. By level 15 the world is all legendary people.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, i get that its SUPPOSED to be that way. But when are you interacting with the norms? Never. Never in any way where your attributes and their attributes matter. By lvl 5 the world stops being populated by them. By level 10 the world stops being populated with heroic 1rst level equivalent people. By level 15 the world is all legendary people.

Voss wrote:
A farmer never needs 10 hit dice for any reason.

 skyth wrote:
Having norms (Even in a combat situation) lets the PC's feel powerful. It's not fun if all you do is run on a treadmill.

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Having norms (Even in a combat situation) lets the PC's feel powerful. It's not fun if all you do is run on a treadmill.

Feeling powerful because the numbers are inherently in your favor is not fun. Go play any video game on god mode. Its fun, briefly, to smash everything and anything. But ultimately its boring because there is no risk and no consequence.

A game where you are the underdog, where you are in fact less powerful, and the battle is uphill, is incredibly rewarding and super fun for everyone when they win despite their reletive humanity.

Games like darksould are good specifically for this reason. While games like skyrim reach a tipping point where you become so powerful that nothing is a threat and all the sense of achievement from those early difficult fights are drained from the game play experience.

 reds8n wrote:
https://taking10.blogspot.com/2018/10/my-final-thoughts-on-pathfinder-2nd.html?fbclid=IwAR1-XGTyBlHXpNnqbxLUMLLnwpVEX6s7wDpniTOI8HtwEeLj4LlTq6FhXew


..yyeesshh..

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Having norms (Even in a combat situation) lets the PC's feel powerful. It's not fun if all you do is run on a treadmill.

Feeling powerful because the numbers are inherently in your favor is not fun. Go play any video game on god mode. Its fun, briefly, to smash everything and anything. But ultimately its boring because there is no risk and no consequence.

A game where you are the underdog, where you are in fact less powerful, and the battle is uphill, is incredibly rewarding and super fun for everyone when they win despite their reletive humanity.

Games like darksould are good specifically for this reason. While games like skyrim reach a tipping point where you become so powerful that nothing is a threat and all the sense of achievement from those early difficult fights are drained from the game play experience.

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Having norms (Even in a combat situation) lets the PC's feel powerful. It's not fun if all you do is run on a treadmill.

Feeling powerful because the numbers are inherently in your favor is not fun. Go play any video game on god mode. Its fun, briefly, to smash everything and anything. But ultimately its boring because there is no risk and no consequence.

A game where you are the underdog, where you are in fact less powerful, and the battle is uphill, is incredibly rewarding and super fun for everyone when they win despite their reletive humanity.

Games like darksould are good specifically for this reason. While games like skyrim reach a tipping point where you become so powerful that nothing is a threat and all the sense of achievement from those early difficult fights are drained from the game play experience.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Having norms (Even in a combat situation) lets the PC's feel powerful. It's not fun if all you do is run on a treadmill.

Feeling powerful because the numbers are inherently in your favor is not fun. Go play any video game on god mode. Its fun, briefly, to smash everything and anything. But ultimately its boring because there is no risk and no consequence.

A game where you are the underdog, where you are in fact less powerful, and the battle is uphill, is incredibly rewarding and super fun for everyone when they win despite their reletive humanity.

Games like darksould are good specifically for this reason. While games like skyrim reach a tipping point where you become so powerful that nothing is a threat and all the sense of achievement from those early difficult fights are drained from the game play experience.

I pretty much disagree with your entire statement.

Sometimes having the odds in your favor is fun - not as a steady diet, but to let the players see how far that they have come.

And it is so much fun when the PCs are overwhelmed at each turn, and the GM decides 'it doesn't count as an adventure unless a PC dies!' (This is heavy, heavy sarcasm, in case you missed it. I had a GM like that, and pull him out as a horrible example when I get the chance.)

To repeat the most important matter - not every conflict is combat, not every encounter is about conflict.

Really, it sounds like you bought into the idiocy that led to D&D 4e.


Don't bother to talk to the guards at the gate! It's not fun!

Don't traipse through the faerie gates! D&D is a game about COMBAT!

(Both examples from WotC's own literature.)

There is a reason why 4e failed, both as a game and as a business plan.

Limiting the game to a single style of play was a big part of that poor decision making.

Some people do like talking to the guards at the gate, or do want to traipse through the faerie gate.

Take a look at Pathfinder Adventure Paths - there are plenty of examples of NPCs with NPC classes, and even *gasp!* a mix of PC and NPC classes.

And nearly every one of those NPCs use the standard 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 or 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 arrays.

Some of the encounters are easy - as the PCs slaughter their way through mooks.

Some encounters are hard - and unless the PCs are clever, can end with a well fed monster and dead PCs.

A lot of the encounters average out to the standard CR for the adventure - one above or below, but averaging properly.

And one of my favorite Adventure Paths does allow the PCs to traipse through a faerie gate and interact with the little people.

In my own game, over the past month, there was an encounter where, if the PCs stood their ground they would have been slaughtered.

There was an encounter where two of the characters split off from the rest of the party, and could handle the battle on their lonesome.

There have been times when the PCs outwitted the NPCs and times when the NPCs outwitted the PCs.

There was an lingering encounter with a CR1 that could have killed the entire party, if given enough time. (Putrefy Food & Drink is a 0 level spell. And they were on a long voyage, little by little their food and water was being destroyed by what is technically a minor haunt.)

They had to accept a gift that effectively exiled them from their nation for a year - refusing the gift would have counted as les majesty against a bloodthirsty queen.

The Dreamer's in his Chamber,
The King is on his Throne.
The Queen is in the abattoir,
And dances all alone....

The Auld Grump

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Having norms (Even in a combat situation) lets the PC's feel powerful. It's not fun if all you do is run on a treadmill.

Feeling powerful because the numbers are inherently in your favor is not fun. Go play any video game on god mode. Its fun, briefly, to smash everything and anything. But ultimately its boring because there is no risk and no consequence.

A game where you are the underdog, where you are in fact less powerful, and the battle is uphill, is incredibly rewarding and super fun for everyone when they win despite their reletive humanity.

Games like darksould are good specifically for this reason. While games like skyrim reach a tipping point where you become so powerful that nothing is a threat and all the sense of achievement from those early difficult fights are drained from the game play experience.

I pretty much disagree with your entire statement.

Sometimes having the odds in your favor is fun - not as a steady diet, but to let the players see how far that they have come.

And it is so much fun when the PCs are overwhelmed at each turn, and the GM decides 'it doesn't count as an adventure unless a PC dies!' (This is heavy, heavy sarcasm, in case you missed it. I had a GM like that, and pull him out as a horrible example when I get the chance.)

To repeat the most important matter - not every conflict is combat, not every encounter is about conflict.

Really, it sounds like you bought into the idiocy that led to D&D 4e.


Don't bother to talk to the guards at the gate! It's not fun!

Don't traipse through the faerie gates! D&D is a game about COMBAT!

(Both examples from WotC's own literature.)

There is a reason why 4e failed, both as a game and as a business plan.

Limiting the game to a single style of play was a big part of that poor decision making.

Some people do like talking to the guards at the gate, or do want to traipse through the faerie gate.

Take a look at Pathfinder Adventure Paths - there are plenty of examples of NPCs with NPC classes, and even *gasp!* a mix of PC and NPC classes.

And nearly every one of those NPCs use the standard 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 or 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 arrays.

Some of the encounters are easy - as the PCs slaughter their way through mooks.

Some encounters are hard - and unless the PCs are clever, can end with a well fed monster and dead PCs.

A lot of the encounters average out to the standard CR for the adventure - one above or below, but averaging properly.

And one of my favorite Adventure Paths does allow the PCs to traipse through a faerie gate and interact with the little people.

In my own game, over the past month, there was an encounter where, if the PCs stood their ground they would have been slaughtered.

There was an encounter where two of the characters split off from the rest of the party, and could handle the battle on their lonesome.

There have been times when the PCs outwitted the NPCs and times when the NPCs outwitted the PCs.

There was an lingering encounter with a CR1 that could have killed the entire party, if given enough time. (Putrefy Food & Drink is a 0 level spell. And they were on a long voyage, little by little their food and water was being destroyed by what is technically a minor haunt.)

They had to accept a gift that effectively exiled them from their nation for a year - refusing the gift would have counted as les majesty against a bloodthirsty queen.

The Dreamer's in his Chamber,
The King is on his Throne.
The Queen is in the abattoir,
And dances all alone....

The Auld Grump

Difficult doesnt mean murderous with no chance and challenge does not mean combat.

Lets try not putting words in my mouth everybody.

I never said the players should be pitted against unfair challenges. I said they should be challenged. The pit falls of lvl class systems is the players ultimately outgrow challenges. They simply stop being human at some point. And that means the games challenges need to grow with them. Sometimes that means bigger threats. Larger dragons. New types of giant etc etc... Some times it means more of a weaker thing. But thats not good. Lets take the 200 orks. The orks win not because its a good tough fight, but because of action economy. 200 chances to hit will out do 5. Some times its preconstructing a scenerio specificly to feth with them (tuckers kobolds - an amusing read, but not something that entertained the party. It made them miserable).

A human fighting an ork should always be a human fighting an ork. An exceedly skilled human fighting a moderately skilled ork should be exactly that. But levels dont emulate that. Levels, and hit dice, literally take a person who could take a couple sword swings and makes them capable of taking dozens.

Saying the game should stay challenging does not mean i am saying the players should be placed in situations they cannot win. The GM should ALWAYS make the scenerio something the players are capable of dealing with. But CAPABLE should still pose a risk. Be it loosing out on a deal in some rp. Getting manipulated. Or a fight.

D20 litterally grows players to a point where they fight and kill godzilla (the tarask) and gods and can level to a point where either of these battles are laughable. Thats a problem.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Difficult doesnt mean murderous with no chance and challenge does not mean combat.

Lets try not putting words in my mouth everybody.

I never said the players should be pitted against unfair challenges. I said they should be challenged. The pit falls of lvl class systems is the players ultimately outgrow challenges. They simply stop being human at some point. And that means the games challenges need to grow with them. Sometimes that means bigger threats. Larger dragons. New types of giant etc etc... Some times it means more of a weaker thing. But thats not good. Lets take the 200 orks. The orks win not because its a good tough fight, but because of action economy. 200 chances to hit will out do 5. Some times its preconstructing a scenerio specificly to feth with them (tuckers kobolds - an amusing read, but not something that entertained the party. It made them miserable).

A human fighting an ork should always be a human fighting an ork. An exceedly skilled human fighting a moderately skilled ork should be exactly that. But levels dont emulate that. Levels, and hit dice, literally take a person who could take a couple sword swings and makes them capable of taking dozens.

Saying the game should stay challenging does not mean i am saying the players should be placed in situations they cannot win. The GM should ALWAYS make the scenerio something the players are capable of dealing with. But CAPABLE should still pose a risk. Be it loosing out on a deal in some rp. Getting manipulated. Or a fight.

D20 litterally grows players to a point where they fight and kill godzilla (the tarask) and gods and can level to a point where either of these battles are laughable. Thats a problem.

If that was not the case, then I seriously suggest that you re read your own danged post - I really did not need to add words to your mouth. I merely paraphrased what you, yourself, said.

You stated that no one used standard stats - when most people, including publishers, do.

Which, in simple terms, means that you are just plain good old fashioned wrong.

And - this important - your statements are only true IN YOUR OPINION.

You are stating your opinions as facts - and they are demonstrably not facts.

People DO use NPC stats and classes. The world is filled with people that are not a substantial challenge for the PCs, as well as creatures that can eat those same PCs for dinner, and still have room for Jell-O.

Having a 20th level party does not mean that you need 20th level janitors to clean up the mess after a 20th level kegger.

People DO have encounters that are easy for a competent character to beat, as well as encounters that are impossible to beat without the luck of the very gods.

In particular - levels in Pathfinder end at 20 - and most games never go that far.

A 20th level character, all by his lonesome, is nothing but a snack for the Tarasque. (A snaque?)

The Tarasque is generally a plot device, not an encounter - it showing up means that the PCs failed.

Certainly that is the case in Pathfinder.

If the characters are fighting a god, the god wins. Most gods do not even have stats in Pathfinder, and when they do, it comes with a healthy dose of Mythic abilities.

Your description of D&D pretty much nails you down to first and second edition D&D - where these encounters were possible, in the hands of an inept GM.

In forty years of D&D, I have never used the Tarasque as anything other than a plot device.

The characters in my game have never battled gods.

I have taken down high level characters with goblins - 1d6 of damage at a time.

I have had a party executed for murdering an innocent orc during a peace treaty, and had the mommy orc telling the young orcs that daddy wouldn't be coming home.

Your statements are just plain not true for a decent GM - and never have been.

Hit Points do not represent the blows that hit - Gary Gygax based his combat on the old Errol Flynn movies - where there is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, dodges, parries, and ripostes - until the hero lands the one fatal blow that ends the battle.

Everything else is the above mentioned to-ing and fro-ing.

With that conceit, the only blow that does physical damage is the final one.

If you do find these a problem... then the problem most likely lies with you. Either run the game it is supposed to be run, or find another game - it is entirely possible that D20/Pathfinder is just not the game for you - so stick with Runequest or any other non level based system.

Even in Runequest, as the character becomes better with his shield, combat takes longer and longer, as most blows fail to land.

Most often, when you find yourself the only person holding your opinion - it means that you are wrong.

I am pretty sure that is the case for your argument.

The Auld Grump

MegaDombro wrote:
Its sad to see 4th ed DnD so panned on message boards. Most well thought out and balanced DnD edition by miles.

For Piazo games, Starfinder is poorly designed and balanced. Is Pathfinder 2.0 along the same mode (having launched near to each other)?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


On the Paizo forums, it looks like the game designers have at least noticed the negative response, but I don't know if there is much of anything that they can do about it, other than to scrap and restart - an expensive proposition in regards to time.

 Red Harvest wrote:
The designers have been responding to some of the criticisms, especially about Heritage feats and Resonance. They just can't seem to let Resonance go. They just set up a mini play-test for some changes to resonance.

The plan is to release PF2 in 2019, I'm guessing at GenCon. This means the book needs to go to the printers several months beforehand. Will Paizo get this all sorted out in time?

4e was a fine miniatures skirmish game, with a litttle RPG action thrown in.

 skyth wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


On the Paizo forums, it looks like the game designers have at least noticed the negative response, but I don't know if there is much of anything that they can do about it, other than to scrap and restart - an expensive proposition in regards to time.

I haven't seen that. Though they have been closing a lot of threads

MegaDombro wrote:
NOPE!!!!

Well, we are posting our opinions about DnD editions in a forum about Pathfinder, so last post then I am out.

No DnD system has an RP mechanics. 4ed is just as light as the rest. The Skill Challenge was a neat idea, but a admittedly poor.

 skyth wrote:
Does 4th edition have craft/profession skills? Does it have diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills? Does it have an equivalent of the leadership feat?

All of those help with roleplaying and most have been around since 1st edition AD&D. (leadership goes back to BECMI. I believe the social skills were introduced in 2nd ed AD&D. Might be wrong there).

 skyth wrote:
What about craft/profession or leadership?

Characters with the Enchant Magic Item ritual or the Alchemist feat may craft items of the associated type of their level or lower, although the cost to do so is equal to the normal cost to buy the item. The advantage of the feat/ritual is in flexibility, as you can craft things on-the-fly instead of needing to plan ahead.

For example: You could buy a Flameburst Crossbow +2 for 3,400 gold. But then you end up in a Lava Golem's lair and feel all kinds of silly when you could use Enchant Magic Item before entering the lair to make a Frost Crossbow +2, pay the same gold, and be ready to tackle your enemy's weakness.

These can be improved by things such as the Mark of Making Dragonmark feat or the Master Crafter feat (and I believe the Artificer class also gains some benefit, which you could gain access to after chargen with a multiclass feat).

D&D 4e doesn't really have rules for "repair," but magic items don't really break except for story reasons, anyway, and by the time a character has any real skill at anything in 4e, nonmagical items are practically worthless to them. If a crafter-type character (esp. an Artificer) wants to repair a mundane item, I'd say let them do it, without even a roll1. If there's a broken magical item, fixing it ought to be a quest.2

As Exo Waltz points out, there are a few Martial Practices (DDI categorizes them as rituals) which can be used for crafting/repair:

Forge Armor: Creates a Magic Armor with no special enchantments, at the normal cost for the appropriate +N Magic Armor. If the enhancement bonus is high enough, the armor can be masterwork.
Forge Weapon: Creates a Magic Weapon with no special enchantments, at the normal cost for the appropriate +N Magic Weapon. By increasing the cost, the weapon can be silvered.
Master Artisan: Create mundane items, at the normal cost for the item.
Temporary Fix: Repair items as with Make Whole at the cost of a healing surge, but the item returns to its damaged state after 24 hours.

That said, I wouldn't let them repair stuff in the middle of an encounter. Have them repair stuff during a rest or downtime.
There is the Make Whole ritual, which can repair any item which fits within a 10ft cube, although you must pay 20% of the item's cost to use the ritual.

In Summary

REPAIR: The Make Whole ritual can permanently repair an item (costing 20% of the item's value), and the Temporary Fix martial practice can temporarily repair an item (costing 1 healing surge).

CREATE MUNDANE: The Master Artisan martial practice can create mundane items (costing the item's value).

CREATE MAGIC: The Enchant Magic Item ritual, Forge Armor martial practice, and Forge Weapon martial practice can create magic items (costing the item's value). Enchant Magic Item may also resize magic armor (for free), or upgrade an existing magic item (costing the difference between the upgraded and original item's value).

CREATE ALCHEMICAL: The Alchemist feat can create alchemical items (costing the item's value).

IMPROVE CRAFTING: Some feats will improve a character's crafting abilities, such as Mark of Making (Enchant/Alchemist as though you're +2 levels), Master Mixer (Alchemist as though you're +3 levels), Creation Mastery (Enchant/Alchemist as though you're +2 levels, cast rituals faster), Dungeon Enchanter (Enchant faster), Pupil of the All-Father (Enchant as though you're +4 levels, 1/day Make Whole for free if cost <100). There are probably others.

 skyth wrote:
I meant normal crafting/profession.

So no game mechanic that automatically attracts followers.

Is there rules for stronghold creation?

 Lance845 wrote:

No mechanical entity attracts followers, and shouldn't. It's not a video game. If you want people to follow you you should role play the actions needed to get that going and make the appropriate social checks to gauge success.

Same goes for a "stronghold". Find someone willing to sell land and buy it. Spend money to build it. Why would/should there be specific rules for something that doesn't need it?

 Paradigm wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

No mechanical entity attracts followers, and shouldn't. It's not a video game. If you want people to follow you you should role play the actions needed to get that going and make the appropriate social checks to gauge success.

Same goes for a "stronghold". Find someone willing to sell land and buy it. Spend money to build it. Why would/should there be specific rules for something that doesn't need it?

I think this sums up the whole debate for me. Yes, the focus on any D&D Players Handbook or DMG is going to be on resolving combat because that's the most complex element of the game to resolve.

Outside of that, the existing skills and minimal dice rolling can act in support of roleplaying that's in no way dependant on the system. I think you can view good roleplaying as entirely independent of system: a good character is a good character in D&D, Pathfinder, One-Page RPG, any other system you care to mention. And as long as those systems provide a resolution mechanic for non-combat situations (even one as simple as 'roll D20, add skill') you've got all you need.

So you have a player who wants to craft a set of armour? Yes, you could have lengthy rules explaining how to go about that or you can just have the Blacksmith's Tools skill and as the DM, set the required number of successes/material cost/time to complete the process.

Likewise, you want a player that wants to inspire a town's militia to fight back against an approaching wave of Orcs, that player gives their rousing speech in character and rather than needing a complex leadership system, you ask for a Charisma check with a DC based on the quality of what they said, the disposition of the targets ect. You don't need complex mechanics to encourage roleplaying, and you don't need to 'gamify' those things to have a good time or make them worthwhile.

Just because combat is a big chunk of the rules doesn't mean it has to be an equally dominant part of the game, and neither does it mean that there's any more value to a combat encounter just because it has more rules than, say, a tense negotiation or sneaky infiltration.

MegaDombro wrote:
NOPE!!!!

Well, we are posting our opinions about DnD editions in a forum about Pathfinder, so last post then I am out.

No DnD system has an RP mechanics. 4ed is just as light as the rest. The Skill Challenge was a neat idea, but a admittedly poor.

Its combat mechanics were flawed at launch (still best DnD combat imo) and improved with revision over time. Honestly, every other DnD has got marketable worse with more splat books.

Did you ever play a high level campaign? The HP bloat? Slog out with boring at wills? Encounters never lasted through parties onslaught of Encounters/Dailys. No high paragon or epic player ever used an at will in either of the 2 campaigns we ran in 4th edition 1-30.

Scott_Rouse wrote:"4e is broken as a game and as a business and needs to go away"
Scott Rouse - D&D Brand Manager

 Red Harvest wrote:


The plan is to release PF2 in 2019, I'm guessing at GenCon. This means the book needs to go to the printers several months beforehand. Will Paizo get this all sorted out in time?

4e was a fine miniatures skirmish game, with a litttle RPG action thrown in.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, I like for example some special rules for a stronghold that give the players a bonus for having it.

I also like having a price written down somewhere that someone has thought about for me, since I find the money side of the game kinda boring. So I like being able to look up gold piece prices for stuff. (This is one area Pathfinder does a lot better than 5e- the way they do magic items in 5e is unsatisfying for players who want to buy a particular magic item. I run a game for a bunch of kids and they are very interested in finding or getting specific magic items or potions, and it is frustrating that there is no pricing guideline really outside some really broad brackets.

I know some people say "oh, but you should not be able to buy magic items" which is a totally fair way to play, and I have done that in 3.5, but it is also fair to have a market in magic items existing in your setting particularly in big cities and a proper price list is important for that.)

And I find it fun to have some tables and stuff to roll on for the kind of followers you get, I like that sort of thing. So if someone provides me with some ready made ones, I am quite happy. I like these gamey aspects, and I tend to find players like them too as long as they do not take up too much time.

I am very much looking forward to getting my Strongholds and Followers PDF from MCDM when it is finished. My players recently took over an abandoned ring fort and are excited to upgrade it and customise it, and I am excited to have some mechanics to tie to that that a professional game designer has spent time thinking about.

So I think it is totally cool to leave stronghold building and so on out, but I also think it is cool to have the option of some rules if you feel like it.

 skyth wrote:
The mechanics make the RP better. The problem of RP without mechanics is the player with a high charisma can dump his character's charisma and not have any real penalty.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, I like for example some special rules for a stronghold that give the players a bonus for having it.

Explain this. Besides the natural benefits to having a base of operations, especially if they have a steward that is at all competent, what exactly do you think players should get for owning property?

Example, my players were doing the 5e starter box adventure. I threw in some extra prisoners in a place in the adventure and one was a gnome merchant. One player tried to talk him into joining them and it ended up turning into a business arrangement. The gnome takes 80% of all their loot and sells their loot (I am giving them an extra 5-10% mark up on selling prices without them having to do the bargaining) while he gets them supplies for a little under market price. He managed to rent out a small building in the local town and he is hunting for leads for work so they get the quests they missed from the guide. Arguably, they have a "stronghold" because they are now all part owners in a heroes for hire style business that has a store front. But what they really gained was the gnome whos doing all the wheeling and dealing for them for a % of gross profits.

I didn't need extra rules for that. They roleplayed a conversation with a guy and came to a deal. The rest is just playing the NPC correctly.

 skyth wrote:
The mechanics make the RP better. The problem of RP without mechanics is the player with a high charisma can dump his character's charisma and not have any real penalty.

 skyth wrote:
The mechanics make the RP better. The problem of RP without mechanics is the player with a high charisma can dump his character's charisma and not have any real penalty.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, I like for example some special rules for a stronghold that give the players a bonus for having it.

Explain this. Besides the natural benefits to having a base of operations, especially if they have a steward that is at all competent, what exactly do you think players should get for owning property?

 Paradigm wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The mechanics make the RP better. The problem of RP without mechanics is the player with a high charisma can dump his character's charisma and not have any real penalty.

Only if you assume people aren't playing to their stats. If you have a crappy number in a particular area, that should define how you play as much as your strong stats. If you've got -3 Intelligence, you should be acting like you're thick as 2 short planks. If you have dreadful charisma, that character should be tactless or shy or awkward. If you have low Dexterity, you're clumsy. So on and so forth.

As I see it, you shouldn't be playing your Intelligence -3 character character as Sherlock Holmes crossed with Pythagoras right up until you're called on to make an Investigation or Medicine check ect, you should be playing to that stat the whole time. Otherwise, it's incredibly inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense.

This is why the idea of a 'dump stat' bugs me. It's not just putting a low score in a stat then making sure you never use it for anything mechanical, it's choosing something your character is genuinely worse at and you should be playing up to that, otherwise what's the point? Of course, that doesn't necessarily mesh with the idea of optimising your character or how you play, but that's something I'm generally against anyway.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, Lance, your post comes across as weirdly intense, almost agressive, but I think stuff like an extra use of a normally limited use power that recharges when they go back to their stronghold is a good example of a bonus I might consider giving.

 Lance845 wrote:
LotR is the entire foundation for the genre of game. The player party is the fellowship of the ring. The whole point was collaborative story telling. Getting everyone together and going on your own adventures. Thats the reason I chose LotR as my example.

 Lance845 wrote:
LotR is the entire foundation for the genre of game. The player party is the fellowship of the ring. The whole point was collaborative story telling. Getting everyone together and going on your own adventures. Thats the reason I chose LotR as my example.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Remember boys and girls, the more you speak in absolutes, the greater the odds of being completely and utterly wrong.

Gygax was pretty clear, in his editorials, that he really did not like Tolkien's Middle Earth - even before the legal hassles with the Tolkien estate.

He cited much greater influence from the old Errol Flynn movies, and books such as Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser as well as Conan and Averoigne - pulp fantasy, not the carefully crafted world building of Tolkien.

Many of the people contributing to the early The Dragon Magazines were influenced by Middle Earth, but claiming Middle Earth as the sole creation font for D&D... is stretching the facts beyond their elastic limit.

The Auld Grump - heck, Gygax lifted an entire passage from Three Hearts and Three Lions when describing trolls... which were nothing like the stony trolls of Middle Earth,

 Da Boss wrote:
Red Harvest: I was lucky enough to get to see a complete set of Kriegspiel in Potsdam Palace in Berlin. Super interesting, especially the custom table.

 Red Harvest wrote:

Ah, whatever happened to the PF2 playtest talk? There is a new rules update, https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/paizo-images/image/download/PZO2100UE-1.5.zip

Still having trouble writing a coherent death/dying sub-system. Are the designers doing this to avoid any comparison to the 5e death saving throw sub-system?

 Red Harvest wrote:
Nonetheless, Pulp fantasy/high fantasy of the 40' and 50's is the foundation for the genre, if you judge it by the games that compose the genre, and the settings that they present.

 Red Harvest wrote:

@Lance: Greek Mythology. The Argonauts.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yes I suppose we should stay a little more OT.

Weird. My friends that play PF seem content enough with the new edition, but what I am reading from you guys seems like a frightful mess of poor design.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
Nonetheless, Pulp fantasy/high fantasy of the 40' and 50's is the foundation for the genre, if you judge it by the games that compose the genre, and the settings that they present.

You are both correct, and incorrect.

Tolkien's writings were THE foundation for modern classical Fantasy(magic, mythical races like elves/dwarves/etc, all in a pseudo medieval setting), which is where the stuff from the 40s and 50s came from. Which is where DnD came from as you mentioned.

So yeah, Tolkien's writings weren't responsible for DnD directly. However they were responsible for the genre as a whole existing in the first place, since he was the one who really brought a coherent mythology into the public perception that had previously only really existed in obscure medieval poetry and myths. Without him, we wouldn't have anything resembling the Sci-fi and Fantasy nerd-dom that exists today.

 skyth wrote:
I've said it before. PF2 may be a perfectly good game. It is not Pathfinder though...

Method of Use held, 1 hand; Bulk L
Activation [Action] Operate Activation

 Red Harvest wrote:

Some instinct of mine tells me that Paizo should stop trying to make high level play. Set 12th level as the highest level for characters, and scale accordingly.

 Da Boss wrote:
There are plenty of games which use systems like that, Gurps is one example. It can be pretty cool to get points to invest at the end of every session.

 Elemental wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
There are plenty of games which use systems like that, Gurps is one example. It can be pretty cool to get points to invest at the end of every session.

The downside is that it makes min-maxing easier, and makes balance harder. The advantage of a level system is that everyone is theoretically at the same degree of power (in practice, this often falls down), and you can't rush powerful abilities (say one wizard having a versatile suite of 3-5th level spells, and the other one rushing Gate or Shapechange). To use a very extreme and very silly example in GURPS, the ability to destroy every living thing in the universe* can cost you 53pts and the cost of the alcohol you used to get the GM drunk before they approved character sheets.

Some games do a hybrid system, like Savage Worlds or the old 40K RPG's--you can spend your XP on whatever, and gaining a rank / tier / level when you've spent X total experience simply opens up new options.


* http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=239055&postcount=216

 Da Boss wrote:
Dungeons and Dragons (which Pathfinder is basically just a set of unimaginative house rules for)

 skyth wrote:
If you make Pathfinder a level-less point buy system, it won't be Pathfinder any more...

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
If you make Pathfinder a level-less point buy system, it won't be Pathfinder any more...

If the only thing that makes it pathfinder is that core system then pathfinder is a shallow pile of garbage to begin with and deserves to be scrapped for something new.

On the other hand what makes Pathfinder, Pathfinder is the setting, the character, and all the flavor it brings to the table then it doesn't matter how you change the mechanics if they reflect pathfinder well then it will be pathfinder.

Voss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
If you make Pathfinder a level-less point buy system, it won't be Pathfinder any more...

If the only thing that makes it pathfinder is that core system then pathfinder is a shallow pile of garbage to begin with and deserves to be scrapped for something new.

On the other hand what makes Pathfinder, Pathfinder is the setting, the character, and all the flavor it brings to the table then it doesn't matter how you change the mechanics if they reflect pathfinder well then it will be pathfinder.

The setting is just the personal setting of one of the Paizo staff (done for 3e, not PF), and is _mostly_ historical expies of real world countries at various periods jammed together in an incoherent fashion. Anachronisms abound, and are even more absurd than obsidian wielding Lizardmen with space lasers vs Renaissance Empire. The stuff that isn't just Egypt, Romania, or Revolutionary France heavily fetishizes slavery, racism and pretty brutal non-consensual S&M, which contrasts very oddly with the standards of language and behavior they enforce on their message boards and express through their policies and decisions. You can't (and shouldn't) talk about Romani the way the designers talk about Varisians (that they're nigh-universally criminals and prostitutes), even though they're the same people with a fantasy name scribbled in.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't disagree that pazio appears to lack the mechanical and creative chops as is. They are a company. Game developers are surprisingly abundant. Hire some developers to take it in a new direction.

Voss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't disagree that pazio appears to lack the mechanical and creative chops as is. They are a company. Game developers are surprisingly abundant. Hire some developers to take it in a new direction.

In reality developers are rather thin on the ground. Lots of amateurs who say they can, until they realize how badly it pays (and that they aren't that talented).

Moreover, the RPG industry is very, very cliquish with a high degree of nepotism. Folks generally don't get hired unless they have a buddy that already works there. Or do a lot of freelancing for peanuts.

For example, Mearls got his WotC spot because of Monte Cook. Jeremy Crawford got his spot because he games with Chris Perkins.

squidhills wrote:
So they are launching in August? Is that enough time to completely re-work the beta test game from the ground up and turn it into something enjoyable?

Voss wrote:

For the 1.5 update, Increasing damage numbers (for spells) is... a little baffling. They should have a good idea of how many rounds they want a combat to last, and any decent math person or program will take your average and extreme damage values vs PC and Monster hit points and give you solid numbers. And if its too long or too short based on what they're aiming for, THEY can change the numbers, since they make all of them up.

From the start of the Playtest it was really, painfully obvious that they'd increased hit point bloat, even beyond 3rd edition norms (where it first started to become a problem). Going from 1d6+ con mod to 1d12+con mod based on class to just 6, 8, 10 or 12 + con mod is a huge jump. (A level 10 fighter with a 14 con goes from an average of 75 hp to 120 hp, with no other factors, and PF2 has other factors)

The paladin Seelah ran up to face the newly arisen serpentfolk skeleton. It had already knocked out the rogue Merisiel, who was bleeding out on the ground in front of it. Navigating the narrow confines of the top of the step pyramid where the skeleton had been buried, Seelah stepped past the fighter Valeros and was met with a nasty surprise. The skeleton was also a trained fighter, capable of attacking Seelah when she moved within his reach.

“What’s your AC?” Paizo’s organized play lead developer John Compton asked me. “18,” I reported. “You don’t have your shield up?” I sighed. “No, I was hoping to attack and then heal Merisiel.” “Well that’s going to be a critical hit,” he said. When the dice were rolled, Seelah was in just as bad shape as Merisiel. Luckily it was about to be the cleric Kyra’s turn. Standing in place, she was able to devote all her focus to healing everyone in the fight and getting us back in the action while also dealing some holy damage to the monster.

The combat was my first look at the final rules set of Pathfinder Second Edition, which will be officially released on Aug. 1 at GenCon in Indianapolis. While I was dubious about Second Edition going into the demo, I found the new rules produced a highly dynamic and fast-moving battle even at level 1.

The session pit our six-person party, comprised of some of Pathfinder’s iconic characters, against a group of venomous snakes and the skeleton. Looking over our character sheets before we rolled initiative I found many familiar elements had been changed. For instance, the paladin healing ability Lay on Hands is now a spell that is cast by expending focus, which is recovered by taking 10 minutes to rest and recharge between fights. When another player asked what a focus power was, I explained to them it was like the encounter powers from 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, which can be used again after five minutes of rest. My friend nodded but Compton winced.

“I think one of the reasons you saw me wince was it can be both a complement but kind of a backhand,” he said in an interview following the demo. “They can say you’re just redesigning 4th Edition or you just remade 5th Edition. We learned a lot from what those games did, and you will see these connections, but there’s so much in there that is new as well. The combination is something completely different to be excited about.”

I didn’t mean it as an insult. As maligned as 4th Edition often is, I think it really succeeded at some things like encouraging adventurers to face multiple fights in a row and not requiring every party to have a healer whose whole job is to keep everyone from dying. Both of those problems have also been addressed in second edition.

“The healing has been rebalanced including between encounter healing,” Compton said. “You can spend 10 minutes and use the treat wounds action to recover hit points without casting spells. You can do this enough that you can get by without some sort of significant healing force.”

In combat, every player character and monster has three actions per turn, which can be used to move, attack, cast spells, or use skills. If you attack more than once, you’re hitting at a -5 and then -10 penalty. When I first read these rules in the Pathfinder Second Edition Playtest, a trial run of the new game released last year, I thought that it would just worse the game’s existing problem with fights taking too long and involving too much math. But at level 1, those penalties proved so bad that it was often better for players to find better ways to use their actions like getting into a flanking position to give an ally a bonus to hit. Compton said the system also reduces the spike in complexity that comes from higher level play.

“By and large you won’t be doing dramatically more attacks at a higher level,” he said. “That was one of the things about first edition. We’d go from ‘It’s my turn, I roll my d20, I miss I’m done’ to at level 20 ‘I’m going to roll dice for a day and I’m going to tell you at some point what I did.’”

The three actions also expands the versatility of spells. For one action, a cleric can cast a healing spell to cure damage on someone next to you, two actions lets you heal someone across the fight, and three lets you really unleash by healing everyone in the area and also damaging any undead. Similarly my paladin could use Lay on Hands as a single action which would leave me free to also move and attack. But that’s still trading off with things like raising your shield, which gives you a bonus to your AC until your next turn which I really could have used when fighting that skeleton.

Most creatures in Pathfinder’s first edition can attack when you move through spaces they threaten, but that abilities is now mostly reserved for fighters. That meant we could walk around the snakes with relative impunity to get into better combat position, but the skeleton punished me for the same tactic. I’m still not sure how I feel about this. Opportunity attacks can definitely lock fights down and force players to resort to standing in one place and swinging at the enemy rather than taking actions that could be more fun, but I also enjoy the tactics required to navigate a crowded field of monsters. Luckily not only fighters have the ability to hurt monsters outside of their turn. In another similarity to 4th Edition, my paladin could attack enemies that hit her allies while also providing them with a holy shield that reduced some of the damage they took.

The fact that the skeleton’s critical hit could have been mitigated by my shield is indicative of another rules change. Critical hits, which do significantly more damage than regular ones, have traditionally just been triggered by rolling exceptionally high on a die, but now you have a critical success any time you roll 10 more than your opponent’s defense score. That means big spikes in damage are a lot more common when fighting lower level opponents. On the other hand, you can also critically succeed when defending, with a good enough saving throw allowing you to ignore all of a negative effect instead of just taking half damage. I found the change built tension and excitement throughout the playtest and I’m particularly curious to see how it works at higher levels.

Lucky for me and Merisiel, it’s now easier to get back into the fight after being knocked out. Like with 4th and 5th Edition D&D, Pathfinder Second Edition has done away with negative hit points so unconscious characters who receive any magical healing can jump back in. But Pathfinder has also learned from a problem those games had where it was often efficient for healers to devote the minimum amount of resources to healing rather than trying to ensure that their allies stayed up. Now every time a character goes down they gain a dying token and if they get three of them within the encounter they’re gone for good.

As much fun as the fight was, Compton said what he’s most excited for people to experience about Second Edition is the different modes of play. A version of the exploration system that Paizo invented for their popular Kingmaker adventure has been integrated into the base game to allow players to select a job they are doing rather than being forced to meticulously search a dungeon for traps five-foot-square by five-foot-square. There’s also a formalized downtime system when characters can make money, recover from injuries, research spells, and craft items. He’s particularly excited about being able to use downtime as an alternate reward for successful adventures in the Pathfinder Society, Paizo’s organized play program.

“Second Edition has been an opportunity for us to take all the lessons we learned in First Edition,” he said. “Pretty much the whole team came up through the company playing Pathfinder Society. We saw the wonderful things that did work, and we lived through all the things that did not. This has been a good chance to change up some of those. It’s a chance to start back from level one and create cool new storylines that not only appeal to our experienced players but are things that new players can jump in on.”

I’ll be back sharing more thoughts and my experiences with Pathfinder Second Edition following GenCon.

Still, I may actually check this system out if the actual changes are interesting enough.

Lance845 wrote:It might factor into cleaves and power attacks. Instead of loose x bab to gain x damage it might be spend 2 actions for +dx damage or 3 actions for +dy damage.

You then have the choice of risking degrading chances to hit with more damage potential or a single swing with bonus damage potential up front.

Voss wrote:Playtest version of power attack was simply two actions for +1 damage die, +2 dice at 10th or 14th level. Mathematically, people worked it out, and it wasn't a good option, even assuming you were using a weapon with good damage dice.
The one nice thing is apparently the rules will all be up (barring possibly setting specific stuff) as a web version on August 1st. So it should be easy to dig in and see if the system is any good.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't like requiring a grid. Theater of the mind. The less materials i need at the table to play the better.

What is Pathfinder all about?
At its heart, Pathfinder Second Edition is the same type of game as first edition. You take on the role of a sword & sorcery adventurer of your own design, going on daring adventures for a chance at fame and fortune. One player takes on the role of Game Master, helping to adjudicate the actions of player characters, nonplayer characters, and monsters, weaving all of them together to form a compelling story—one that everyone at the table helped to create!

Of course, as a game, Pathfinder is a lot more than just telling stories. It is a system of rules that defines how the world works, and for Second Edition we wanted to make sure that this game “engine” was easy to understand and interpret, both for players and Game Masters! And while we made sure that creating and advancing your character was a clean and intuitive as it could be, we also ensured that the game allowed your choices—your vision for your character—to truly matter. The decisions you make in Pathfinder define your character, expressed not just in the story but in the rules as well.

Core Mechanic
Pathfinder is a narrative roleplaying game, meaning that you describe what your character is attempting to do while the Game Master describes how the story and world unfolds around you. Whenever there is doubt or uncertainty in actions, you will be called upon to make a check, which requires you to roll a d20 and add a modifier based on your character’s proficiency at that particular challenge. These checks come in many forms, from swinging a sword to climbing a cliff to dodging a roaring fireball. The result of your check, as interpreted by the GM, determines whether or not you succeed at your task, and might even decide whether or not your character survives!

In Pathfinder Second Edition, proficiency determines nearly every important statistic used by your character during play. How skilled are you with a longbow? How good are you at Stealth? What is your aptitude for casting illusion magic? All of these statistics, and many more, are defined by your proficiency in the statistic.

Proficiency is gained through the choices you make in building your character. If you are untrained, you get no bonus at all, but you can still add a modifier from a relevant ability score to represent your raw talent. If you are trained, you add your level plus 2, along with any other relevant modifiers. If you are an expert, you add 4 instead. Masters add 6, and characters with legendary proficiency add 8. This basic formula applies to nearly everything in Pathfinder Second Edition, making it easy for you to see where you stand and understand what your chances are at overcoming the challenges the game puts in front of you.

Facing Danger
The world of Pathfinder is a dangerous place. Vampires lurk in forgotten tombs, trolls prowl in the mountains, and deadly dragons await atop mounds of priceless treasure. These threats—and many more—await your character as they explore the story, and more often than not, such encounters will end with a thrilling combat.

Combat in Pathfinder is much more structured than the freeform narrative play of the rest of the game. During combat, participants take turns, during which the number of things that can be accomplished is limited. On your turn, your character will get to take three actions. Many of these will be what are called basic actions, like moving, drawing a weapon, opening a door, or making an attack. Some might be special actions that only your character can take, based on the choices you made during character creation. Casting spells, performing amazing martial stunts, or utilizing special class features like rage are all examples of special actions.

Just because your turn is over does not mean that you do not have an opportunity to participate in the combat. Some characters can take special reactions that allow them to interrupt the flow of play on other characters’ turns. You might dodge an incoming attack, block with your shield, or even attempt to counter an enemy’s spell. Each character can only take one reaction between turns though, so you have to make it count!

Combat continues until one side is defeated, gives up, or retreats, but these deadly encounters are just one way that you might resolve conflict. You might use skills or magic to sneak past foes, or you could try to talk your way out of a fight, relying on guile and charm to win the day. Ultimately, the way you approach danger in Pathfinder is up to you, and your chance at success depends on the choices you make for your character!

Creating Your Story
Pathfinder Second Edition empowers you to tell your own story, no matter what side of the table you occupy. Players have a wide variety of choices in making their character, giving them the tools to bring their idea to life. Your choice of ancestry, background, and class define the major parts of your character, but they are just the beginning. Your choice of skills, feats, and gear say a lot about the player character you are portraying and as you gain power, the new choices you get to make speak to your hero’s journey. You can come up with a plan for your character’s growth, or you can let their adventures influence your decisions. It’s up to you!

Taking on the role of Game Master brings a whole different kind of flexibility to your role at the table. As GM, you get to shape the overall narrative, defining the actions of villains, monsters, and all of the nonplayer characters that make up the world. You provide the adversaries that the PCs must face if they hope to succeed, and your narrative forms the backdrop that allows the characters to grow and triumph. Pathfinder provides a wide range of tools to help you in this vital task, from guidelines on how to build balanced encounters to narrative advice, and guidance on how to create a welcoming play environment. Within the pages of the Core Rulebook you will also find a wealth of treasure to award to your PCs when they succeed and a bunch of devious traps to guard the treasure. Most importantly, the Bestiary contains over 400 monsters waiting to face off against your PCs, from shambling undead to fiendish demons.
What's Next
In the coming weeks, we are going to be looking at various aspects of Pathfinder Second Edition to give you a better idea about how each part of the game works. Next week, we are going to go over the steps you take when making and leveling up a character, but make sure to come back every week as we take a deep look at the new combat system, explore creating your own adventures, and provide a bunch of tips and tricks for using Pathfinder to tell your stories!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

 Lance845 wrote:
Cool. So a nightmare system I will never use that directly counters the point of these types of games.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, thats... not a lvl3 creature. Unless maybe the intention is to simply have all encounters have fewer opponents. Maybe if that was the only opponent in the combat for a party of 4, but a single Gorilla would be weird. Thats the kind of thing you'd fight 4-5 of at once.

MegaDombro wrote:
Our group is thinking about trying Pathfinder 2.0. How can any system make combat more "meh" then 5th edition DnD, with its absolute complete lack of combat options?

You draw upon magic from esoteric knowledge. You can cast occult spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you can supply material, somatic, and verbal components when casting spells (see Casting Spells on page 302). Because you’re a bard, you can usually play an instrument for spells requiring somatic or material components, as long as it takes at least one of your hands to do so. If you use an instrument, you don’t need a spell component pouch or another hand free. You can usually also play an instrument for spells requiring verbal components, instead of speaking.