| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Mar 2018 : 17:03:02
So they announced that Paizo will be releasing a playtest in August for a public playtest for the 2nd edition of Pathfinder, a system that apparently won't be compatible with the current system.
Here's the link on ENworld:
Pathfinder 2e |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Renin |
Posted - 16 Jan 2020 : 15:12:59
A new hobgoblin nation was formed, occupying the mountains near Molthune and Nimrathas. Instead of being continual oppressors, they are now working on diplomatic and trade ties(from Ironfang invasion).
It's a place where events matter, days and years progress, and no baby was thrown out with the bath water with the edition changes.
Good, continued quality which always leads trying to meet fan desire, while being very open with their plans. It's why they get my money and Wotc doesn't. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 15 Jan 2020 : 14:27:24
The Whispering Tyrant was my favorite "Villain" when I was into Golarion. Cool! |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 15 Jan 2020 : 13:30:22
Don't forget the Runelords are back and have established New Thassilon in Varisia. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 15 Jan 2020 : 03:49:20
Thank you, Arivia and Keftiu! |
| keftiu |
Posted - 15 Jan 2020 : 02:48:40
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I'm running this now and really enjoying it. It's fresh and simple to play, but it requires reading a lot of the core rulebook to really get before you can appreciate it. It is obviously much more rules heavy than 5e, but it's faster and clearer than 3e/PF1e. One thing to note is that we STILL don't have all of the rules: the GameMastery Guide coming out in a few months is going to have the rules for NPCs and monster creation. It's difficult to do more than reflavour published things until then.
Has there been any major changes to the setting (for example, like 4e did with Forgotten Realms), or are things pretty much the same? I am only somewhat familiar with Pathfinder (I started to get into it, playing a couple times, and reading some of the novels, but then that novel line went on hiatus, too), but I just want to know if there are major changes I should be aware of.
Every adventure path is assumed to have happened and ended with the PCs triumphant. This means the Worldwound is closed, Nocticula has been redeemed, Casandalee is a goddess now, Korvosa is independent, and a few other things. It also had the colonial regime of Sargava overthrown by a revolution, and now Vidrian is a new nation in its place run by native Mwangi.
Oh, and Tar-Baphon is free. He destroyed Lastwall. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 15 Jan 2020 : 02:44:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I'm running this now and really enjoying it. It's fresh and simple to play, but it requires reading a lot of the core rulebook to really get before you can appreciate it. It is obviously much more rules heavy than 5e, but it's faster and clearer than 3e/PF1e. One thing to note is that we STILL don't have all of the rules: the GameMastery Guide coming out in a few months is going to have the rules for NPCs and monster creation. It's difficult to do more than reflavour published things until then.
Has there been any major changes to the setting (for example, like 4e did with Forgotten Realms), or are things pretty much the same? I am only somewhat familiar with Pathfinder (I started to get into it, playing a couple times, and reading some of the novels, but then that novel line went on hiatus, too), but I just want to know if there are major changes I should be aware of.
I've ordered the new setting book, but it's not arrived yet. I saw something about the Worldwound being closed, though.
Right! So the way continuity works in the official Pathfinder setting of Golarion is that they only update it when they release new versions of the core setting guide. Every year they produce two six-month adventure series (called adventure paths or APs) that often end with big repercussions (like the Worldwound being closed at the end of the Wrath of the Righteous AP) but those don't get folded in and made canon for other products until the next time the setting as a whole is updated. Because this is the first time the setting has been updated in eight years, there were about sixteen APs worth of changes to include. So there are new nations, changes in leadership, a couple deity changes, returned evils and so on.
Now, these changes are regional, only affecting part of the world. There's nothing like say the Time of Troubles or the Spellplague going on. Pathfinder 2e has a bunch of rules changes, but they're largely evolutionary and additive in terms of how the setting is perceived. Has the Pathfinder setting changed in a bunch of ways? Yes, but they're all following ideas that had been previously developed and created for the setting. I think I'd compare it to the 2e-3e change to the Realms, some new stuff, some old stuff getting resolved, some things got discarded. Similarly, if you want to just play 2e using the 1e setting, you'd be perfectly fine. You might need to improvise some rules until they get things updated to 2e, but using say the 1e setting book you have will work great.
This brings me to another big change with 2e, which is that none of the game lines are setting-neutral any more. 1e had kind of a Chinese Wall between the core rulebook line and the rest of the products, so most of the Pathfinder rulebooks were written to be setting agnostic. They eventually got rid of this policy by the end of 1e, and now all rulebooks are written with Golarion as the default setting. The 2e core rulebook has a setting chapter on Golarion, there's more specific setting detail about Golarion written through say the ancestry (race) descriptions, and so on. (This doesn't mean the rulebooks don't support creating your own setting, adventures, or ideas however!)
You might think this makes adapting 2e for say the Realms a lot harder, but they made one big change that makes it a lot, lot easier. Everything is now explicitly tagged with a rarity trait (common, uncommon, rare, or unique) that describes how available it is in your game, and it is made very clear that GMs and players should change the rarity of game items to fit their setting and playstyle. (Common options are always available, uncommon options are sometimes available depending upon the part of the setting or context you're in, rare options require GM consent, and unique options can only be introduced by the GM.) A good example is the goblin ancestry, which is now straight up in the Core Rulebook and accessible for all players. They count as common. This makes sense for Golarion, it's a prominent mascot race for Paizo and they did a lot of work to make goblins more acceptable in many civilizations. It doesn't make a lot of sense in the Realms, where we don't have a lot of civilized goblins in the same way. We've had goblin PC stats in pretty much every edition, but they're always tagged with "ask your DM." So for the 2e game I'm running in Westgate I changed goblins to rare, requiring a player to discuss including them with me before using that ancestry. And we have a goblin, but I was able to talk through goblins in the Realms with the player first and put us both on the same page. It's really that simple. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Jan 2020 : 01:37:02
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I'm running this now and really enjoying it. It's fresh and simple to play, but it requires reading a lot of the core rulebook to really get before you can appreciate it. It is obviously much more rules heavy than 5e, but it's faster and clearer than 3e/PF1e. One thing to note is that we STILL don't have all of the rules: the GameMastery Guide coming out in a few months is going to have the rules for NPCs and monster creation. It's difficult to do more than reflavour published things until then.
Has there been any major changes to the setting (for example, like 4e did with Forgotten Realms), or are things pretty much the same? I am only somewhat familiar with Pathfinder (I started to get into it, playing a couple times, and reading some of the novels, but then that novel line went on hiatus, too), but I just want to know if there are major changes I should be aware of.
I've ordered the new setting book, but it's not arrived yet. I saw something about the Worldwound being closed, though. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 15 Jan 2020 : 01:04:47
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I'm running this now and really enjoying it. It's fresh and simple to play, but it requires reading a lot of the core rulebook to really get before you can appreciate it. It is obviously much more rules heavy than 5e, but it's faster and clearer than 3e/PF1e. One thing to note is that we STILL don't have all of the rules: the GameMastery Guide coming out in a few months is going to have the rules for NPCs and monster creation. It's difficult to do more than reflavour published things until then.
Has there been any major changes to the setting (for example, like 4e did with Forgotten Realms), or are things pretty much the same? I am only somewhat familiar with Pathfinder (I started to get into it, playing a couple times, and reading some of the novels, but then that novel line went on hiatus, too), but I just want to know if there are major changes I should be aware of. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 14 Jan 2020 : 23:37:27
I'm running this now and really enjoying it. It's fresh and simple to play, but it requires reading a lot of the core rulebook to really get before you can appreciate it. It is obviously much more rules heavy than 5e, but it's faster and clearer than 3e/PF1e. One thing to note is that we STILL don't have all of the rules: the GameMastery Guide coming out in a few months is going to have the rules for NPCs and monster creation. It's difficult to do more than reflavour published things until then. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 20 Sep 2019 : 17:19:24
One thing I have noticed that is a good idea that could do with further development. They have replaced move action s and standard actions and come up with a single action. You get 3 single actions in a round and presumably can use them to move and attack as you wish.
Of course they still kept free actions which is horribly open to abuse and really poorly defined and then you have one reaction a round (a missed opportunity for obvious stat increase there).
Skills are not different at all really, some consolidation of actions into other skills but another missed opportunity of simplification (not to the degree of 5e though).
Still need to figure out magic, but I suspect it is the same as before. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Aug 2018 : 13:31:41
Well the Playtest is out, free on PDF and the hard copy is around $35.00 USD. Anyone have a look at it yet? |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 19:22:29
So is this playtest going to explain (or at least show) the changes they mention? |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 11:03:37
In nearly all systems I roll one at a time, because the result of the first attack can have immediate effect (crit? then the next attacks will have to find new targets) on the battlefield.
The 5 ft step is back in the form of a Step action, which is a slight movement that prevents reactions from triggering.
This nicely replaces the withdraw action as well, as a combatant can step out of reach with his first action, and use the following two actions that round to move away or around.
Movement and AoO's are also overhauled quite a bit with humans base speed being 25ft (elves get 30 while dwarves, halflings and gnomes get 20ft), making combat strides in melee a lot easier to perform and more of a gamble: its probably better to take the risk of the reaction of your goblin archer foe and reach and engage the bugbear then to stick to the archer and let the bugbear outflank your party.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 May 2018 : 22:47:26
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But.....then they drop a big bad dumb decision here - attack penalties. *ugh* Seriously I was HOPING we were done with these. Nothing bogs down combat more than rolling 3 d20's then trying to figure out which one the -2 , -4 , -6 etc applies to. It's dumb, overly penalizing to weapon-based classes, and has zero narrative reasoning behind it. This decision seriously makes me even consider playing the game it's THAT bad.
-Do people not roll one action/attack/whatever at a time? I've never once in my life made multiple action/attack/whatever rolls at the same time. It seems so counter-intuitive for the exact reason you just mentioned.
For me I roll all at once because its easier but it also requires 4-7 different colored d20's. I personally don't like that, especially because I then have to mix/match the modifiers to the rolls per die. It's not terrible, but certainly annoying and I'd like to try to lessen annoying things.
Also I worry if they're going to keep the dumb 5-ft. step / full-attack matrix. A 1e Pathfinder Wizard can Gate in an entire Angelic host in 6 seconds but a highly trained Fighter can't get two attacks if he moves more than 5 ft??? *sigh* |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 16 Apr 2018 : 21:29:58
I am just waiting for them to get their novels back on track. Of course, the same can be said for FR, so... |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Apr 2018 : 02:41:58
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But.....then they drop a big bad dumb decision here - attack penalties. *ugh* Seriously I was HOPING we were done with these. Nothing bogs down combat more than rolling 3 d20's then trying to figure out which one the -2 , -4 , -6 etc applies to. It's dumb, overly penalizing to weapon-based classes, and has zero narrative reasoning behind it. This decision seriously makes me even consider playing the game it's THAT bad.
-Do people not roll one action/attack/whatever at a time? I've never once in my life made multiple action/attack/whatever rolls at the same time. It seems so counter-intuitive for the exact reason you just mentioned.
People do it all the time. They usually designate by color of dice (i.e. blue is the first, red the second, purple the third, etc...), write it down somewhere and just stick to it. Its a big time saver. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 15 Apr 2018 : 21:06:50
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But.....then they drop a big bad dumb decision here - attack penalties. *ugh* Seriously I was HOPING we were done with these. Nothing bogs down combat more than rolling 3 d20's then trying to figure out which one the -2 , -4 , -6 etc applies to. It's dumb, overly penalizing to weapon-based classes, and has zero narrative reasoning behind it. This decision seriously makes me even consider playing the game it's THAT bad.
-Do people not roll one action/attack/whatever at a time? I've never once in my life made multiple action/attack/whatever rolls at the same time. It seems so counter-intuitive for the exact reason you just mentioned. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Apr 2018 : 06:33:57
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I do have to ask one question based on what you just stated "The reason why 5E is beating the crap out of Paizo in sales"..... is it? I mean I like 5e over pathfinder now, but 5e isn't releasing anything. In essence, I've just stopped spending. I buy a few things on dmsguild every once in a while, and about every 4 months WotC releases something for me to buy.... but I used to buy at least 3 products a month (between game books and novels), and was getting both dragon and dungeon magazine. They quit producing dragon and dungeon magazine, so that's out too. For the last year, I've actually found myself researching things from previous editions more than anything.
ICv2 sales - as of Fall 2017 - put WotC as #1, StarFinder at #2, Pathfinder at #3.
Amazon best sellers list the top 7 products as D&D 5e books and supplements and 8 of the top 10. Pathfinder comes in at #24.
Now of course these aren't great definitive numbers but its about the best objectionable data we can go by without either company saying "We're #1!" |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 12 Apr 2018 : 02:31:43
I do have to ask one question based on what you just stated "The reason why 5E is beating the crap out of Paizo in sales"..... is it? I mean I like 5e over pathfinder now, but 5e isn't releasing anything. In essence, I've just stopped spending. I buy a few things on dmsguild every once in a while, and about every 4 months WotC releases something for me to buy.... but I used to buy at least 3 products a month (between game books and novels), and was getting both dragon and dungeon magazine. They quit producing dragon and dungeon magazine, so that's out too. For the last year, I've actually found myself researching things from previous editions more than anything. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Apr 2018 : 02:12:59
Concepts that I've read and liked:
"In a group of four exploring a dungeon, two characters might have their weapons ready, keeping an eye out for danger. Another might be skulking ahead, keeping to the shadows, while the fourth is looking for magic. If combat begins, the first two begin with their weapons drawn, ready for a fight, and they roll Perception for their initiative. The skulking character rolls Stealth for initiative, giving them a chance to hide before the fight even begins. The final adventurer rolls Perception for initiative, but also gains some insight as to whether or not there is magic in the room."
Pretty cool. Makes certain skills applicable to other aspects of the game. Stealth giving someone a jump in on the action vs. just perceiving a threat right before it occurs is pretty cool. Or using a spell like Detect Magic to sense magical effects or things in a room before the fight (like traps?). Anyways, I think this is a fun idea.
"Gone are different types of actions, which can slow down play and add confusion at the table. Instead, most things, like moving, attacking, or drawing a weapon, take just one action, meaning that you can attack more than once in a single turn! Each attack after the first takes a penalty, but you still have a chance to score a hit. In Pathfinder Second Edition, most spells take two actions to cast, but there are some that take only one. Magic missile, for example, can be cast using from one to three actions, giving you an additional missile for each action you spend on casting it!"
Breaking away from 7 different action types to just 3 is a huge leap forward. No one wants to eek out EVERY single action on their (and others) turns and it slows down play considerably. Keeping things neat and clean is certainly the way to go!
But.....then they drop a big bad dumb decision here - attack penalties. *ugh* Seriously I was HOPING we were done with these. Nothing bogs down combat more than rolling 3 d20's then trying to figure out which one the -2 , -4 , -6 etc applies to. It's dumb, overly penalizing to weapon-based classes, and has zero narrative reasoning behind it. This decision seriously makes me even consider playing the game it's THAT bad.
Next there's multiple action-casting. Like the description says, most spells take components and somatic/verbal aspects to cast which implies that you spend an action using that and then another to cast a spell. You use up your move (ala Full-Round Action) and you get an additional effect. Pretty nifty and makes hiding behind cover or being stationary a more appealing tactic.
In another blog (All about Actions) they talk about using your Reaction to raise your shield (getting your should bonus to AC, etc) because you raised it and having so many of them per round/encounter to do. Which, while tactically intriguing, is ultimately just cutting into things warriors previously just assumed were things they could do.
The Fighter preview is even more disappointing.
First up - AoOs (attacks of opportunity) is a class feature they get because they're warriors, which other classes don't get this until later or at all. Not only is this "meh" but it's made with a -2 penalty. *sigh* So they're going to punish Fighters at doing what they're naturally designed to do? Ok - dumb.
Weapon Mastery at 3rd level with a weapon group. Ok what we learned from 3e/PF is that while a step up from specific weapon specialization, whole weapon groups still isn't the answer. This was fixed with 4th Edition -sorta- AND 5th Edition. Maybe their designers should try playing them and see what I mean. Weapon "Properties" are far more important than the type of weapon used. But maybe I'm just over pessimistic and they'll group things more easier (Bludgeoning, Piercing, slashing instead of a HUGE list of weapons under "heavy blades").
"As mentioned in the blog last week, the real meat behind the classes is in their feats and (as of this post), the fighter has the largest selection of feats out of all the classes in the game! Let's take a look at some."
-AH yes, FEATS is the answer! (not). I'm going to assume they're keeping Exception-based design (meaning you can do stuff but at such a ridiculous penalty that it's basically moronic to attempt) and Feats make it easier to do. So more design flaws of 3.5/PF leaking into the system that I don't really know where to begin.
Feats suggested:
"Sudden Charge. You can pick up this feat at 1st level. When you spend two actions on it, this feat allows you to move up to twice your speed and deliver a single strike. There's no need to move in a straight line and no AC penalty—you just move and attack! This feat lets the fighter jump right into the thick of things and make an immediate impact."
You know, Fighters in 4th Edition AND 5th Edition can effectively do this without any widgets. Hells ANY class can do this in 4e/5e without a feat. Why is this a "good" feature?
"Next let's take a look at Power Attack. This feat allows you to spend two actions to make a single strike that deals an extra die of damage. Instead of trading accuracy for damage (as it used to work), you now trade out an action you could have used for a far less accurate attack to get more power on a roll that is more likely to hit."
Why would ANYONE attempt a second attack (at a penalty) when you can make the first one (with a good bonus) do more damage?
"We've talked before about how fun and tactical shields are in the game. To recap, you take an action to raise your shield and get its Armor Class and touch Armor Class bonuses, and then you can block incoming damage with a reaction while the shield is raised. At 6th level, fighters can take the feat Shield Warden, which allows them to use their shield to block the damage taken by an adjacent ally. At 8th, they can even get an extra reaction each turn, just to use shield block one additional time. (And yes, they can spend this extra reaction on another use of Shield Warden.) At 14th level, a fighter can use their shield to protect themself from dragon's breath and fireballs, gaining their shield's bonus to Reflex saves."
Again, all of this is done without special effects in other editions. Why is drawing a weapon and attacking a person in a turn 1 action and simply moving your arm 6" a whole different action? Maybe a class or 3 in Physiology is in order??
I'm just woefully unimpressed and completely flabbergasted about why they think these are good? The reason why 5E is beating the crap out of Paizo in sales is because 5E provides a great system without dumb penalties, without constant shifting of mechanics, because the math is light and simple, and because concepts are reinforced instead of requiring system mastery to fully explore.
I'm still going to try it and read it but I don't see how any of this is even goign to come close to what other system already provide? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Apr 2018 : 01:36:19
Some previews of their design process:
Playtest Design
Alchemist Class Preview
Fighter Class Preview
Rogue Class Preview
I've only read the overall playtest and Fighter reviews and.....*sigh* I'm just not impressed at all.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Apr 2018 : 01:31:05
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Vitality/Wounds the worst, but only because Star Wars tied Force abilities to Vitality, basically hamstringing Force users. Yeah, they can't be gods and goddesses while everyone else are just basic archetypes, but it limits players way too much, especially at lower levels. I had to basically homebrew divorcing the Force from vitality (and Force powers tied to skill points) in order to make lower levels of the system workable.
Hmm, my experience with Star Wars (both d20 and Saga) are limited and when we played I was a Soldier class in the Knights of the Old Republic era so I don't remember how much of the Force worked. That being said I doubt they'd tie spells or spellcasting into using Vitality/Wounds for their system, it's too "un-D&D like" to gain any sort of traction. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 13 Mar 2018 : 23:05:43
-Vitality/Wounds the worst, but only because Star Wars tied Force abilities to Vitality, basically hamstringing Force users. Yeah, they can't be gods and goddesses while everyone else are just basic archetypes, but it limits players way too much, especially at lower levels. I had to basically homebrew divorcing the Force from vitality (and Force powers tied to skill points) in order to make lower levels of the system workable. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Mar 2018 : 13:47:03
Hm, I'm not sure fans of Pathfinder would be cool with a higher level ceiling to achieve to. Looking at the common PF player, one who's accustomed to the levels of power and crazy manipulation of cosmic forces, I feel that it would just be another bench mark for those to aspire to vs. plain ol 20th level with some Epic levels thrown in. Me personally, I'm fine with that idea! I wish they continued 4th Edition's trend of Tiers from 1-10 (heroic) / 11-20 (paragon) / 21-30 (Epic) and it was awesome.
I'm not too up to date with the Mythic parts of Pathfinder. My only character in PF (rogue/stalker/shadow dancer) has 1 level of Mythic in which he has some nifty abilities but we haven't delved too deeply into that part. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 13 Mar 2018 : 12:05:08
Diffan,
I'd throw in a few other things which kind of "ding" with yours.
The trope of level 20 being the ultimate level should be thrown out. Make the ultimate level 40, but then NEVER present an NPC who is higher than say 33 or 34 and describe these individuals as pretty much awe inducing. Beings like the crème de la crème of fiendish powers and lesser deities should fall out in the upper levels of these ranges for rough scale, but they shouldn't be created with these rules.
Keep the Pathfinder concept of Mythic leveling, but work on the concept more.
I agree on the multiple upper level spells thing. The spell progression should roughly follow 5e's spell progression up to level 20, and from 20 to 30 is when those multiples of high level spells should happen. The introduction of some kind of Epic/High Magic should be hinted at in the early release, with notes that this will be developed later to DM's and some general notes on the concept. Players shouldn't need this necessarily at the outset, and this allows some playtime beyond the beta for feedback. For that matter, they should follow 5e's standard for multi-classing to a degree when it comes to spellcasting. Basically, you don't get spell slots from multiple classes, but rather a set of spell slots to share between classes, and you instead prepare spells from available classes. However, where 5e fails is they don't allow you to truly "theurge" where you'd have spells prepared from multiple spellcaster classes both advancing (and you don't need them both to go to max spell level, but one should be capable of it, and then you should be able to get another class to 5th or 6th level). Also, multi-classing shouldn't matter whether you're doing wizard/cleric, wizard/sorcerer, cleric/druid, etc.... especially if you're still getting the same number of spell slots. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Mar 2018 : 04:55:06
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
I did like Saga Edition's Condition Track. You could die and still have over half of your Hit Points. All it took was a couple of big hits. Some of the builds on the Saga Boards on the WotC Forums were crazy.
Funny thing, after looking at 5E and Pathfinder and hearing about the new Edition of Pathfinder, I have decided to go OLD SCHOOL. Back to 0e(Swords and Wizardry) or 1e(AD&D). I have the OGB and FR 1 through FR6(And the Volo Guides). TBH what more do I need.
In my attempt to learn more about D&D of days gone by I picked up the DMG, Monster Manual, and PHB for 1st edition. Lets just say that I was mostly confused in reading it, especially the combat section, initiative, etc. and how the to-hit tables worked.
I have some 1e adventures (Horror on the Hill, White Mountain, Sinister secrets of Saltmarsh series, Four from Cormyr, etc) and they look fun so I think I'm just going to convert it to 5th Edition lol |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 13 Mar 2018 : 02:19:15
I did like Saga Edition's Condition Track. You could die and still have over half of your Hit Points. All it took was a couple of big hits. Some of the builds on the Saga Boards on the WotC Forums were crazy.
Funny thing, after looking at 5E and Pathfinder and hearing about the new Edition of Pathfinder, I have decided to go OLD SCHOOL. Back to 0e(Swords and Wizardry) or 1e(AD&D). I have the OGB and FR 1 through FR6(And the Volo Guides). TBH what more do I need. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Mar 2018 : 01:01:56
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It looks like they may be playing with some concepts I myself have toyed with over the years; the biggest - how to eliminate 'power creep' and still keep leveling fun. They mentioned playing with HP, which I always found to be the fundamental problem that leads to power-creep. Instead of making people have 'more health' (which is REALLY stupid past a certain point), they should just be harder and harder to damage. It also makes Criticals so much more important, since they can bypass all the level-spawned 'protections'. I'll have to see what they do before I decided if they are 'getting it right' (I am hoping some company someday creates what I picture as the 'perfect set of rules' - the ones I could create but am too lazy to).  
Well that would lead one to believe that HP = Meat and no version of D&D has this ever been the case. The HP inflation is meant to describe someone's ability to turn serious blows into minimal ones. Further it's far more about the description of the loss of HP that's important vs. the meta of the concept. If I have 87 hp and the DM describes a sword blow I take that deals 11 damage as a stab through my bicep....well now that pretty much ruins verisimilitude.
If they go "any" route, I really hope it's the Wound/Vitality system in Unearthed Arcana/Star Wars: Saga. It keeps vitality important but doesn't undercut how dangerous critical hits are.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
What's interesting is their approach - whereas I felt that WotC was trying to make D&D more 'gamey' (and they went WAY overboard with 4e in that regard), Paizo is focusing more on Roleplaying, saying they are creating a lot of rules for 'downtime' - something which D&D players have mostly always been told to just ignore. As a person who original came from C&S (Chivalry & Sorcery) - a system who's 'downtime' was just as important - if not more-so - than your playing time - I think this might be a very good thing, and it will also keep WotC on their toes (if they start losing players to a more 'fluffy' approach).
Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 123 - Chapter 2: Downtime Revisited (detailes in about 10 pages of stuff you can do in your down time).
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT:
Oh, and for GODS SAKES - I truly hope they call in Monte Cook as a consultant. I know he left the 4e design team about halfway through, and I can't help but feel its because they would only implement some of his ideas. Best thing I ever bought from his company - The Book of Experimental Might - HE is a guy who COULD create a perfect set of rules. He separated the spells into 20 levels, rather than the usual 9 levels - the spell levels and class levels ARE THE SAME! What? It only took someone 50 years to figure out how stupid it was to have wizards of one level gaining new spells of a completely different level? It makes EVERYTHING so much easier!
I like Monte, as he's been very influential in the gaming community but as a game designer.....eh I dunno. He was one of the chief engineers of "trap options" as a positive thing in D&D, forcing System Mastery for those who put more time in. Maybe he's changed quite a bit since then, I haven't played much of his homebrew setting/rules but in regards to 3rd Edition, there's a LOT wrong with that design direction.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It seems there are some old D&D 'tropes' that just refuse to die. Like Charisma - they've respun it into a stat called 'presence' (or whatever) in other games, so it isn't even really Char. any more, but heaven-forfend someone touches the 'six sacred cows' of attributes. Just call it 'Presence' already! ('Inner Strength' might be closer, and some ki/Chi using games come close to simulating it). Charisma is just a very small outward manifestation of whats really going on there. Its the person who enters the room and has their own 'social gravity' (like Ed Greenwood). Edit: Its the stat that would be used to see if someone has the 'force of personality' to ascend to godhood - think of it like 'power level' in an anime).
And can we finally get a willpower stat, because then psionics becomes so much easier to incorporate?
Toying with "sacred cows" is something that should not be taken lightly. Speaking as someone who LOVES (seriously, I get delight in watching it) the slaughtering of Sacred Cows, I hope Pathfinder 2.0 makes decisions wisely. 4th Edition slaughtered a...LOT....of sacred Cows and it's one of the many reasons people outright rejected it. I love that it's different, I love that it's a different take and something unlike what's come before (mostly because i don't buy re-hashed stuff simply because it's newer) but Pathfinder doesn't want to alienate too many fans in this regard.
Here's what I'd love to see for a 2.0
• Better balance across all levels. Do we 'really' need spellcasters with four to five 9th level spells a day? No, no we don't.
• Remove Iterative Attack penalties. For one, it's dumb on a narrative level. Two, it's punitive to weapon-based classes. Three, it causes unnecessary math and/or requires multiple die OR takes longer to compute the math at the table. No No NO. IF they want to penalize multiple attacks per turn, simply make the second or third attack be a static number you have to match on the d20. SO for example a Fighter makes his 1st attack with a +7 to the d20 roll. His second attack he needs to roll above an 11 on the d20 (no need to compare attack to AC) and the third attack he needs to roll a 16 or better. OR just make all attacks the same and apply one penalty (i'd say -2) across the board. So the same Fighter gets a +7 to his attack, if he multi-attacks he'll make those attacks a +5/+5/+5. Done.
• Retool saves so that one failed save doesn't = boredom for the rest of the battle. I don't know how many times a player fails a save and then basically tunes out because on his turn, he's (insert status effect here) and goes back to his phone. It's boring.
• Make at-will/Cantrips scale with level.
• Make Fighters ACTUALLY useful. PF had taken good strides with the Fighter but it wasn't till about four dozen options that it sort of comes close to casters and that still falls short at 12th + level. In 4e and 5e Fighters actually feel like they're awesome again.
• And for God's SAKES give Rogues and Monks full BAB. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Mar 2018 : 12:06:37
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It seems there are some old D&D 'tropes' that just refuse to die. Like Charisma - they've respun it into a stat called 'presence' (or whatever) in other games, so it isn't even really Char. any more, but heaven-forfend someone touches the 'six sacred cows' of attributes. Just call it 'Presence' already! ('Inner Strength' might be closer, and some ki/Chi using games come close to simulating it). Charisma is just a very small outward manifestation of whats really going on there. Its the person who enters the room and has their own 'social gravity' (like Ed Greenwood). Edit: Its the stat that would be used to see if someone has the 'force of personality' to ascend to godhood - think of it like 'power level' in an anime).
And can we finally get a willpower stat, because then psionics becomes so much easier to incorporate?
I've always felt that the Will save should be based off Charisma (Force of personality) instead of Wisdom (Able to make good judgements). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 11 Mar 2018 : 23:26:18
It looks like they may be playing with some concepts I myself have toyed with over the years; the biggest - how to eliminate 'power creep' and still keep leveling fun. They mentioned playing with HP, which I always found to be the fundamental problem that leads to power-creep. Instead of making people have 'more health' (which is REALLY stupid past a certain point), they should just be harder and harder to damage. It also makes Criticals so much more important, since they can bypass all the level-spawned 'protections'. I'll have to see what they do before I decided if they are 'getting it right' (I am hoping some company someday creates what I picture as the 'perfect set of rules' - the ones I could create but am too lazy to).
What's interesting is their approach - whereas I felt that WotC was trying to make D&D more 'gamey' (and they went WAY overboard with 4e in that regard), Paizo is focusing more on Roleplaying, saying they are creating a lot of rules for 'downtime' - something which D&D players have mostly always been told to just ignore. As a person who original came from C&S (Chivalry & Sorcery) - a system who's 'downtime' was just as important - if not more-so - than your playing time - I think this might be a very good thing, and it will also keep WotC on their toes (if they start losing players to a more 'fluffy' approach).
EDIT:
Oh, and for GODS SAKES - I truly hope they call in Monte Cook as a consultant. I know he left the 4e design team about halfway through, and I can't help but feel its because they would only implement some of his ideas. Best thing I ever bought from his company - The Book of Experimental Might - HE is a guy who COULD create a perfect set of rules. He separated the spells into 20 levels, rather than the usual 9 levels - the spell levels and class levels ARE THE SAME! What? It only took someone 50 years to figure out how stupid it was to have wizards of one level gaining new spells of a completely different level? It makes EVERYTHING so much easier!
It seems there are some old D&D 'tropes' that just refuse to die. Like Charisma - they've respun it into a stat called 'presence' (or whatever) in other games, so it isn't even really Char. any more, but heaven-forfend someone touches the 'six sacred cows' of attributes. Just call it 'Presence' already! ('Inner Strength' might be closer, and some ki/Chi using games come close to simulating it). Charisma is just a very small outward manifestation of whats really going on there. Its the person who enters the room and has their own 'social gravity' (like Ed Greenwood). Edit: Its the stat that would be used to see if someone has the 'force of personality' to ascend to godhood - think of it like 'power level' in an anime).
And can we finally get a willpower stat, because then psionics becomes so much easier to incorporate? |
|
|
